Freedomain Radio

Today I listened to FDR1102 (lack of feedback for PA and EA) which brought my desire up to give you more feedback.

During my listening to your podcasts (the first 130, then economics, then family over four months) I developed unconsciously something like a Stef-cult. It went like this: He knows right from wrong, he defends his ground, he even ends listener conversations that are going nowhere, he detects Swiss, the good Cop, fog, he has mastered all those things that hamper me, my development and my happiness. He is a half-god, has power in abundance, gives away as he pleases and has no needs on his own. He does not need anybody, except his wife, but can I really believe this?

Approaching the busy Master and wanting some part of his time is almost a sacrilege and only to be done on the knees with pounding heart. Getting a personal response from him is a sign of honour and never to be deleted from the inbox.

I am less worth than he is. No, even stronger: He is worthy, I am not.

What got me out of it? An incomplete list.

a) Your recurring request for donations and the personal way you did it. You explained how it feels for you to get donations, how it motivates you.

b) Your discussion with a listener in a podcast about buying a t-shirt later or now, where you discuss your side of the equation.

c) Your joy in the chatroom about my donation just before x-mas (happy paypal to me!)

d) The discussion in FDR1102, where you discuss the lack of feedback on the then new books EA and PA with a group of listeners.

It all helped me to experience you as a person with needs and feelings and your dependence on the listeners and the community. I began to see that I can contribute something, that I have a function, that I am important.

I am not clear why it went that way. I believe I mixed you up with my real father (sadistically crushing enthusiasm) and also with my ideal father (gives from his abundance what I need), which made me anxious and reverent towards you. I think I am not the only one with this problem. Good fathers are hard to come by and so it might be that my psycho-dynamic happens to many other men (and women?) too. Could it be a part of the explanation of the reccurring cult accusation?

When I first started listening to Stef a couple of years ago I went through something very similar to what you describe.  I recognized it because it had happened to me a couple of times before with other people who I had idealized.  I think there is something about my childhood that makes me prone to do that.  I think that when I felt the empathy from Stef that I never got as a child, I sort of reverted to a child for a bit, and it was a bit disorienting.  I think the accusations of FDR being a cult are driven by emotional reactions like this, and not by any rational evaluation.

I think that your post is very honest and helpful, thank you so much!

I certainly do understand the problems - and benefits - of idealization, since I went through it myself with a few thinkers, from Rand to Nietzsche to Aristotle, and I have found that when you come across a thinker who seems to have a good deal of honesty and integrity, it makes sense to become less critical of every premise as time goes along - this is just a natural principle of efficiency, and is completely rational in my opinion. I do not repeatedly test every food I eat for a potential allergic reaction...

This means that we all go through a phase of openness and idealization when discovering consistent and moral new thinkers. For instance, in my opinion, Rand was much more right than wrong in her philosophy, but it took me a long time to figure out and begin to correct the flaws I found in her principles (namely, ethics and politics). We all grew up having our rational faculties variously undermined and opposed, and it takes a long time to learn how to think, and then be able to apply that individuated thinking to philosophers who are largely correct.

I have always tried to oppose and undermine the problem of idealization by making a good deal of fun of myself, singing silly songs, mocking my own habits and so on. Furthermore, I have always referred to FDR as a conversation, as an interaction, and to remember to express my own vulnerabilities and insecurities whenever they arise.

There is no doubt that I appear as a father figure to some, and that really cannot be controlled or eliminated -- at least without eliminating a lot of the good things that come with idealization, such as the elevation of expectations, goals and motivations.

In any fundamental instruction, there is an element of re-parenting, or re-education if you like, since the principles that we talk about here should really be first communicated to children by parents and teachers. I went through it -- I distinctly remember my mother complaining that I had substituted Ayn Rand for her as a 'mother' (which I don't think was really true) -- and I don't think it is an unhealthy part of the process, as long as the idealization is overtime transferred from me to truth and reason - to yourself - as a whole.

 I think it would be useful to share this.

When I started to come to FDR I wanted to get stef. I wanted to prove or discover the flaw in his thinking or maybe find out how he was really corrupt as all the others before him. I did the same with my father for years. My father is a certifiable as*%$le. I think my skepticism has been as useful as some idealization can be; as long as we don´t let it burry our reasoning.

By the way, so far, Stef has turned out to be alright.

Thank you for your reply and sharing, Stef. I completely agree with your thoughts and found your post enriching.

*Begin of joke*

Of course, I left the idealization phase completely since yesterday morning. Uhm, can I queue up for a lock of your hair?" />

Quote from Donator Status Information:

Philosopher King:   Access to all Premium FDR media, and all Premium message boards (and perhaps, a lock of Stef's hair )

*End of joke*

Victor:

I wanted to prove or discover the flaw in his thinking or maybe find out how he was really corrupt as all the others before him.

I think your sharing is valuable. I also think that your strategy is legitimate, too.

My experiences with earlier thinkers were quite different. I idealized them, absorbed their ideas, and it was just great. After a while the idealiziation faded and I could differentiate and put in relation their achievements. I loved my English teacher, who introduced me to psychology, then Karl Popper, Carl Rogers, Eugene Gendlin, my therapy instructor. With the latter the personal relationship turned into a catastrophe, the others were too distant or dead. Now the experience with Stef is really uplifting. You can actually chat with him!

It is interesting why we took so different routes to demanding thinkers even if our fathers have a certain moral characteristic in common. Maybe you childhood was more openly aggressive? My father was very cunning in hiding his aggression and did only hit me once. I still have problems being skeptical of people.

Stefan Molyneux:

Furthermore, I have always referred to FDR as a conversation, as an interaction, and to remember to express my own vulnerabilities and insecurities whenever they arise.

I told someone once about freedomain radio and after hearing the name he responded directly with: radio? I realised then that the name can hide the interactive side of it a bit, since radio is a 1 to many broadcast medium. Could it be that the idea for FDR was already brewing in your head, before internet took such a big flight and the envisioned media then was radio?

Thanks for posting this, Heiko.  Your experience mirrors my own as well, though I was not nearly as honest or conscious of it at the time.  I found myself agreeing with so much, and part of me was clamoring that I was being brainwashed!  Fortunately, I was able to talk to the friend who introduced me to FDR; he referenced a handful of podcasts that helped me understand what I was experiencing.