Random observations, quotes, excerpts, and stuff

Sure, but which curb? The new year caught QuestEon in a sentimental (if not mawkish) mood, the sure side effects of annual reflection combined with a couple of frosty 40s. My thoughts were brought on by two things. First, the surprising veiled condemnation Molyneux presents in his Why We Are Different podcast (FDR 1551).

In that podcast, we learn that those who merely join the FDR forum but are unable to fully commit to FDR teachings (i.e., defoo their families) are prevented from doing so because they are abusive people, which has given them brain damage.

Second, during the course of writing FDR Liberated, I’ve encountered several people who came within a hair’s breadth or actually did sever all ties with their family and friends–only to leave FDR later to rejoin them. Their stories are nearly always instructive and touching. They discovered, once in FDR, that they were kicking the wrong people to the wrong curb, so to speak. In the end, the FDR relationship was making them unhappy and reconciling with former friends and families made them happier.

Of course, my takeway is completely unscientific and my experiences are with a small number of people. However, I have been able to see some of the differences between families and FDR. For example, when families are left behind, they do not make podcasts condeming the defooers. They wait. They keep their faith that the one who left will someday see them clearly again. And they hope.

And the ones who leave do not have to beg for a second chance and a forgiveness that seems to be granted merely by whim, as do those who are asked to leave Molyneux’s “dinner party” (as he calls it). So far, their families seem to accept them back unconditionally and are simply grateful for the opportunity to reunite.

Most important, leaving FDR didn’t seem to dim their passion for liberty or their quest for ethics, it only seemed to strengthen it. It is as if, to them, FDR was a rite of passage. True happiness lay somewhere beyond–after ultimately kicking the final, least satisfying relationship out of their lives, FDR itself.

Here’s looking forward to 2010, a year of better relationships (and, hopefully, much better alcohol).

---

The destructive triangle in your head. You can capture the essence and the danger involved in a Molyneux “convo” in three words: Therapy, Socrates, and Debate. Together, those three words combine to become the destructive triangle in your head.

Let’s start with Therapy. Molyneux says he is not providing therapy in his “convos,” but I think he is. He’s using a confused version of cognitive behavioral therapy. If you want a tiebreaker, find a licensed therapist and play for him or her any of the Podcasts in which Molyneux helps FDR members realize that the bad feeling (whatever it may be at the time) they’re feeling right now is a result of some childhood parental abuse. Ask the therapist this question: “Does it sound to you like this guy is trying to provide therapy?” I’ll go with whatever answer you get back.

On to Socrates. In the past, Molyneux has said he uses the Socratic method when he teaches his followers/students–helping them see the light through precisely chosen questions. That sounds great, but I’ve never heard any of his followers wonder whether Molyneux has any actual skill in this type of thing or even if he knows which questions to ask, which was something that was fairly important to Socrates. That’s a “fail” when teaching philosophy, but a disaster when you’re conducting pseudo-therapy. In a recent interview with crackpot therapist Daniel Mackler, Molyneux says:

…as far as I understand it, the therapeutic relationship is an authority relationship. The therapist is assumed to be an expert, has training, and has a goal in mind which is sort of revealed over time, which he’s leading the person toward, the patient towards, on a long-term basis. It’s a series of questions which, in a sense, the therapist is asking because he believes he already knows the answer.

This probably horrified Mackler, which is saying something. It is the very definition of a bad therapist. Even Socrates would know the therapeutic difference between “How did that make you feel?” and “I’m going to suggest a theory here–and I could be totally wrong–but your parents used guilt to control you every day of your life. Right? Right?”

The third part of the destructive triangle is captured in the word Debate, which you already saw a bit of in the above paragraph. It isn’t enough that Molyneux has already decided your lousy feelings are a result of your lousy parents, or that he’s asking questions not to discover anything about you but to guide you where he’s already decided you need to go, he’s going to push pretty hard for what he believes is true until you’re convinced. Because he’s a debator. Whether you realize it or not, you’re in a debate.

And he plans to win.

Trying to sort out some troubles in your life and planning to Skype with Molyneux? Just think–Therapy. Socrates. Debate. Are you sure?

---

You could have predicted I would write this.

The ad copy for FreeDomain Radio (“The largest and most popular philosophical discussion in the world!“) reads like this:

Powerful ideas for all lovers of personal and political freedom – Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web, and was a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Podcast Awards. Topics range from politics to philosophy to science to economics to relationships to atheism – and how to achieve real freedom in your life today. Passionate, articulate, funny and irreverent, Freedomain Radio shines a bold light on old topics, and invents a few new ones to boot!

You would think a forum like this (the world’s largest, mind you!) would have freewheeling discussions on about every philosophical concept under the sun. And you would be completely wrong. No matter how well behaved you are, if you step outside Molyneux’s narrow view of the universe, prepare to be banned.

Case in point, a very recent thread on Determinism that offers yet another window on the strange nature of the FDR “community.” Determinism, very loosely stated, is the idea that everything that happens is a result of cause and effect and if you knew all of the physical laws operating at any time, then theoretically you could predict what people will do.

And of course there are lots of off-shoots and side theories and what not, but the most important thing to know is that Molyneux has decided that it is all stuff and nonsense and NO MEMBER shall start a determinism conversation with another member on the forum, even if they’re very polite and no animals are harmed.

As far as I know, we didn’t have any defections this time like we did with Allison’s last card, but the thread did inspire two heartfelt, separately posted public apologies from chastised members. (Remember, their “crime” was discussing an idea.)

[Post-publication oopsie! I've been corrected that the determinism thread DID result in a defection from a member named Paul. (Paul, we hardly knew ye!) He asked that his account and all posts get deleted but his last message lives on briefly here. FDR Liberated regrets this error. Well, not really. I was pretending to be a real journalist for a second.]

One of the first interesting things about the thread is a Philosopher King who shows up four posts in. He seems to think, as far as I understand, that determinism is a topic well worth talking about. Actually, what he really seems to be doing (as Liberating Minds administrator Conrad points out) is debating Molyneux by proxy. He’s not really taking on Molyneux but he is challenging Molyneux’s position without invoking Molyneux in any way. Perhaps, in such a restrictive environment, debate-by-proxy is the best one can hope for.

Later, on Page 1, another PK openly wonders if they are discussing a “banned topic,” offering to delete his post if so.

But it isn’t until five posts into Page 2, that an “enforcer” PK shows up, someone who has voluntarily taken on the role (for whatever reason) of ensuring compliance with Molyneux’s wishes. Perhaps it is out of fear, but no one seems to be curious and empathetic about the “enforcer” PK’s motivations.

After that, the thread begins to subside, ending with the determinism-interested PK offering to start an e-mail conversation so they can talk in secret.

The conversation itself was very interesting, but I couldn’t help being more interested to see once again just how “unfree” FreeDomain is when it comes to ideas, forcing some PKs to keep their explorations secret and inspiring other PKs to become self-appointed watchdogs who snarl at anyone who steps out of line.

These are libertarians, right?

Ah, well. See you next time.

Click below to e-mail or DIGG, etc., this article! As always, I welcome your comments!