Freedomain Radio

• FDR1572 Sunday Show 31 January 2010 - Guest Psychotherapist Daniel Mackler

  Posted: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:10:00 GMT

  Play Now

  Listeners ask Daniel Mackler about his approach to therapy and self-knowledge.

  

Thanks, I missed that show, as most of the shows recently.

A bit offtopic, but ...will Sunday show 24 January 2010 be uploaded?

Stef, I know you and others have both had good experiences of that Daniel Mackler guy and while I didn't at first, I want to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is just me.

I've felt incredibly anxious, frustrated and irritated by the guy.  A part of me is highly critical of him and when the criticisms are challenged they aren't exactly based on anything empirical.  He reminds me of how I feel about some vegans and vegetarians and about highly religious people in my past... but Greg has pointed out that none of the comparisons match up... so it's gotta be just me, especially considering how your experiences have been and how you've highly recommended him. 

It must be a projection of some kind but I was wondering what you think.

Nathan:

so it's gotta be just me, especially considering how your experiences have been and how you've highly recommended him. 

It must be a projection of some kind but I was wondering what you think.

I've heard others speak very critically of this guy too, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to a conclusions that it is you that is off the mark, you might be totally on to something Nate.  Explore those feelings and emotions!

:)

Perhaps it's because he took an opposite approach to his problems with sex.

Stefan Molyneux:

Perhaps it's because he took an opposite approach to his problems with sex.

An opposite approach compared to what or who?  What do you mean?

Nathan:

Stefan Molyneux:

Perhaps it's because he took an opposite approach to his problems with sex.

An opposite approach compared to what or who?  What do you mean?

It's why I get angry at the casual sex podcasts, Nate.

Same coin, different sides.

I intend to review Mackler's material on his website more extensively but, upon a 2nd attempt to listen to this podcast, I did not find Daniel's explanations anymore coherent. I am totally confused as to what his position is on many of the questions raised ie. masturbation.

Also the ease with which he seemed to waffle when questioned about his admittedly "black & white" viewpoints was both interesting (ie. open to criticism) yet perplexing. It was as though he was saying "Yes, I said that, but Psychology is subjective by it's very nature so any opposing view is just as valid."

Anyone else get that sense? Perhaps further review of his essays online will clear up my confusion.

I'm not sure how Daniel's explanations are supposed to be very coherent - isn't that like expecting someone to speak Mandarin without ever having studied or practiced it?

I think he is a great example of the strengths and limitations of self-knowledge without philosophy - just as Ayn Rand, for instance, is an example of philosophy without self-knowledge...

Stefan Molyneux:

I think he is a great example of the strengths and limitations of self-knowledge without philosophy - just as Ayn Rand, for instance, is an example of philosophy without self-knowledge...

This was my exact thought when listening to the interview you did with him, and going through some of his videos. I think it was the first time I truly realized how important and vital philosophy is to psychology - and why oh why the two never seem to mix in the realm of professionals / academia.

Stefan Molyneux:

 

I think he is a great example of the strengths and limitations of self-knowledge without philosophy - just as Ayn Rand, for instance, is an example of philosophy without self-knowledge...

I realized this during the Sunday show. After I started coming at it from that angle, I felt more comfortable having him around. One of the things that _really_ threw me off was that he didn't seem to be approaching self-knowledge in a principled manner - but it took the show to make me realize that.

Charlotte:

Stefan Molyneux:

 

I think he is a great example of the strengths and limitations of self-knowledge without philosophy - just as Ayn Rand, for instance, is an example of philosophy without self-knowledge...

I realized this during the Sunday show. After I started coming at it from that angle, I felt more comfortable having him around. One of the things that _really_ threw me off was that he didn't seem to be approaching self-knowledge in a principled manner - but it took the show to make me realize that.

FWIW, I really admired the way in which you spoke with Mr. Mackler...

I'm a little embarrassed to say that I feel more relaxed about him after finally making it through the show, which was emotionally difficult for me to do.