 Ennu. Hi. Can you hear me, Europe? Yeah, I can. Okay. Wanted to ask you something about something in psychology that I've observed. I think one of the most important issues to kind of, for people to deal with psychological problems principle that's covered fairly well in objectivism, which is to check whether your emotions are rational and not just blindly accept that your emotional response is true. And one of the things that I think goes on and notices when psychologists help people with things that occurred in their childhood, I kind of feel like anybody could develop a comp, anybody could claim a complex by things that happened in childhood. It's not saying that, you know, there aren't real bad things that happen in childhood, but like when people talk about their parents and their relationship with their parents, that's a very complicated relationship. And I think parents have a very hard job and they're not gonna do everything right, you know? And a child can always, and an adult who's revisiting childhood can always kind of zero in on the bad and create a complex from that. And, you know, what I don't hear a lot of, psychology seems to get better when somebody's an adult, you know, certainly in cognitive behavioral therapy at teaching a person to check their emotions and teaching all of kind of these fallacies of thinking that result in uncalibrated emotions or irrational emotions, however you wanna put it. But for some reason, when it comes to like a child's thinking or conclusions that a person made in their childhood, they're not as good at teaching the person to check whether, to not just accept that their impressions that they formed in childhood were true. It seems to be that they just kind of reaffirmed, well, this was the case, you had a narcissistic mother and you suffered because of it, but there's never really, you know, there's just kind of this, well, you were a child and this is true. Meanwhile, in childhood, you're more apt to make mistakes in thinking and to over-generalize conclusions because you don't have the experience and you're gonna be wrong more often. So I kind of wanted to just run it by and get, you know, I know it's not your expertise, but do you have any thoughts on why they would treat, why psychology, you know, would treat the child's impressions as sacrosanct and be better at checking adults' emotional impressions on things? Well, Paustin, because I think objectively, it's, the child is not in control of himself quite like an adult is. So it's hard for a child to check himself, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. You want to encourage them to do so, but it's hard to do that because they don't have the full capacity to reason because they find a lobe is not fully developed even biologically, just physically. So children in a sense get a Paust because of their inability really to be fully rational. Adults are fully rational and therefore don't get a Paust. I wouldn't call, I just want to say, I wouldn't call emotions irrational. The emotion is what it is. It's not rational or irrational. The question is, is it based on a rational conclusion or not? Is it based on irrational thoughts, irrational conclusions? That's where you get irrationality, but I wouldn't make the emotion itself. I wouldn't call it rational or irrational. It's the conclusion led to it, rational or irrational. And I think, I'm not sure I agree with you that psychology doesn't view, once you're an adult, doesn't view, well, you came to some wrong conclusions when you were a child and that's causing these wrong emotions or these detached from reality emotions in you as an adult. I think they do do that. I think even Freud talks about that. So it's that we don't necessarily expect children to be able to self-analyze while they're growing up because they don't have the rational capacity to do so. Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean, I'm pretty sure I've observed this, that there is a distinction and they're, you know, I get it from a child's perspective. I mean, I think that should always be the goal, whether it's child psychology or adult psychology, that the point is to get somebody's emotions in line with rationality. Yeah, not capable of rationality, then it's hard to get them in line. But you can get them more in line with rationality as a child. Yes, the parenting, to a large extent, helping the child do that. Yeah. I wonder if Christianity has a role there too because there is to me like a coddling of the so-called inner child, which is almost, which I think is counterproductive, you know, I just think that there's a, I sense that there's a turning of blind eye and just a, let's blame the parent for this or that. And, you know, I mean, maybe that goes to just a general lack of responsibility and psychology does give an out by saying, well, people are traumatized when their children, by their parents to doing that. So they generally is this attitude and I agree with you, of blaming the parents and not holding up people to own up to their own issues and to their own problems. That is true. And I'm sure you write about Christianity, although Christianity also goes the other way denies the child in emotional life and it crams him with duties and responsibilities and prayer and obedience and all of that. So it could go either way. I'll take sure like when I think of Christianity's view and maybe that I don't know, this is my just really like 30,000 foot view. Like if I were to, you know, essentialize what Christianity sees a child as like the cherub, you know, this perfect little innocent thing, which of course doesn't really jive with original sin, but, you know, I pictured the baby Jesus and it's not even true for like a baby, you know, a baby is a human being and still is acting in this raw self-oriented way, not rationally selfish, but, you know, it's doing a disservice even to the baby or to the child to treat it like this innocent, you know, pure being. It's not human. Yes. I mean, Christianity definitely has a role in us ascribing purity to the non-reasoning, but a baby is non-reasoning. He has no capacity to be rational. So in that sense, they are innocent, but in Christianity that means a lot more than it does, you know. So I'm being challenged on the chat by Ashley on my knowledge in psychology. So I better shut up because it's not my field. I'm speculating here more than anything else, but certainly about the state of the science, which I know almost nothing about, other than, you know, from talking to psychologists, what do I know about? It doesn't matter because your knowledge is so wide that there's value to be gained, even if it's not your expertise and almost any question I find. Thank you, I appreciate that. All right, let's run through. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist, broods. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least a hundred. I figure at least a hundred of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to a hundred. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego, it's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your unbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals and show you support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go, easy. Do one or all of those, please.