I had no idea psychology was so simple!:P

It’s actually simple chronology in this instance. He certainly didn’t experience things from the future.

OK, so wouldn’t you say then that it’s unnecessary to train psychologists to encourage introspection and avoid affecting patients with their own biases?

I wouldn’t say anything about them. There are probably different therapists with different methods and the method you describe isn’t somehow incompatible with introspection. In any case, Stefan Molyneux isn’t a psychologist nor he claims to be.

Why say “Tom burst into tears while talking about his family” instead of “Tom burst into tears while listening to a long list of reasons why his strongest feelings are wrong”

Nobody said his strongest feelings are “wrong”! That’s not what argument from priority is supposed to do. It’s supposed to put those feelings into perspective and question their priority, not whether they’re right to be felt or wrong. And he, as was ultimately established, WAS talking about his family on an emotional level, which was the whole issue. The feelings he had were fostered by his family environment. It is perfectly fair to say that in retrospect given the outcome.

My sister used to always say “If you don’t believe me, ask me!”, but I think she meant it as a joke.

I can tell you the same thing and you’d be in an even less credible position to judge what’s true there. You’re going against Tom’s testimony and against the evidence that remains true regardless of his testimonies.

“It’s impolite to say so” isn’t really an argument.

But that’s not what my argument was. The argument was that nothing I say to you means anything if you think everything I say is wrong by default because I must be brainwashed. That is in essence a “you’re always wrong because I’m always right” position. So long as you hold it that way there really is no point. That it is insulting is a side remark. It’s certainly not a good way to go about a respectful discussion.

Because the source of emotional sensitivity about the topic goes back into personal history, when else? And what is earlier than childhood and who has most influence on children if not parents. I’m tempted to say “duh”.

I had no idea psychology was so simple!:P

Oh and he didn’t present it as “proof”, but a theory and allowed Tom to reject or confirm it.

OK, so wouldn’t you say then that it’s unnecessary to train psychologists to encourage introspection and avoid affecting patients with their own biases? They can just offer their pet theories and have the patient accept or reject them. That will get right to the core of the problem, probably on the first try! Way faster!:P

His own words were trying to contrast animal rights with other issues. Tom bursting into tears indicated that Tom really just emotionally did not care about those other issues as about animal rights issue. That act was the biggest proof of that. Stef might have tried to bring the animal rights issue into perspective without full awareness of just how painful that issue was to Tom, but after bursting into tears they stayed on that and Stef begun probing for the cause of such a distress over that topic.

And they found it.

Assuming all that makes sense, and is true and legitimate, why lie about it? Why say “Tom burst into tears while talking about his family” instead of “Tom burst into tears while listening to a long list of reasons why his strongest feelings are wrong”

Tom wasn’t drained for his money. He gave his parents a chance by trying to talk and suggesting therapy. They failed to be considerate enough to understand and agree. He defooed thus, and now lives a happier life by his own testimony. He never went to any particular meetings, isn’t even such a big participant on FDR AFAIK. He was hardly swallowed by a cult.

My sister used to always say “If you don’t believe me, ask me!”, but I think she meant it as a joke.

It is also insulting to me. And frankly I’m less and less interested to talk to anyone who makes such insulting claims. You pretty much leave no room for me to say anything convincing to you because you can just dismiss it as me being brainwashed. So there’s no point in conversing further then.

“It’s impolite to say so” isn’t really an argument.

Exactly. So why does Molyneux try to use Tom’s present emotions as proof of his parents’ past abuse?

Because the source of emotional sensitivity about the topic goes back into personal history, when else? And what is earlier than childhood and who has most influence on children if not parents. I’m tempted to say “duh”.

Oh and he didn’t present it as “proof”, but a theory and allowed Tom to reject or confirm it.

Why does he fudge the timing of the expression of these emotions, after the fact, connecting it with his family’s supposed actions when it was his own words which precipitated them?

His own words were trying to contrast animal rights with other issues. Tom bursting into tears indicated that Tom really just emotionally did not care about those other issues as about animal rights issue. That act was the biggest proof of that. Stef might have tried to bring the animal rights issue into perspective without full awareness of just how painful that issue was to Tom, but after bursting into tears they stayed on that and Stef begun probing for the cause of such a distress over that topic.

And they found it.

I don’t care if they feel manipulated or insulted or what. If I want to know if, say, Scientology is manipulative, and I go ask a Scientologist if he feels so, I’m going to get the same answer no matter what the truth is, right?

I don’t know about that. Given the kind of pressure Tom was under after all the media fuss chances are that he would show at least some suspicion that he might have been conned. Combine that with the fact that most of the cult accusations really have very weak evidence (if any) and argumentation behind it (as a completely open and public community, completely transparent etc.) the cult claim is pretty darn hyperbolic and with such weak evidence indeed quite insulting to those who value what FDR provides.

Tom wasn’t drained for his money. He gave his parents a chance by trying to talk and suggesting therapy. They failed to be considerate enough to understand and agree. He defooed thus, and now lives a happier life by his own testimony. He never went to any particular meetings, isn’t even such a big participant on FDR AFAIK. He was hardly swallowed by a cult.

It is also insulting to me. And frankly I’m less and less interested to talk to anyone who makes such insulting claims. You pretty much leave no room for me to say anything convincing to you because you can just dismiss it as me being brainwashed. So there’s no point in conversing further then.

2. One need not be weak-minded to be manipulated, in fact the opposite is true. It is one’s idealism that is subject to manipulation, not lack of intellect.

Idealism != intellect.

You might as well get a better ideal to spend time on too.

Regards

Exactly. So why does Molyneux try to use Tom’s present emotions as proof of his parents’ past abuse? Why does he fudge the timing of the expression of these emotions, after the fact, connecting it with his family’s supposed actions when it was his own words which precipitated them?

“Now, of course, this seems to be an attempt to again put something behind the claim of manipulation, but really, all you’re doing is standing on the side and analyzing and re-analyzing a conversation that had nothing to do with you and making conclusions and accusations. Go ask Tom if he feels manipulated or what. If you wont or can’t then drop it. You’re insulting both Tom and Stefan without much basis.

Claiming manipulation is the easiest thing in the world. You basically just call both of them either liars or weak minded to supposedly gain an instant win for what seems to be a smear position. Well, not everyone buys it.”

1. I don’t care if they feel manipulated or insulted or what. If I want to know if, say, Scientology is manipulative, and I go ask a Scientologist if he feels so, I’m going to get the same answer no matter what the truth is, right? The evidence is in what they say and do when they don’t think critics are listening i.e. the podcast.

2. One need not be weak-minded to be manipulated, in fact the opposite is true. It is one’s idealism that is subject to manipulation, not lack of intellect.

3. Molyneux has lied. (see above)

“Correcting” emotions is not the same thing as questioning their source since what triggers them is not necessarily always what caused them in the first place. The philosophy in Real Time Relationships is that emotions should not be repressed, but faced and explored which isn’t quite the same thing as “emotions are always correct”.

Besides, how can emotions be “correct”. They’re not fact statements, but feelings. Feeling just are, neither correct nor incorrect and you can either face them or run away from them.

As for the argument from priority I’m not sure it was used in this context appropriately or not, but it obviously worked for Tom given his later testimonies. Also, as a human being I think you too would agree human rights take a priority over animal rights given our sentient nature unless you’d shoot a man over an animal.. I talk about animal vs. human rights here: http://www.memeverse.com/2008/10/27/exploring-animal-rights/

All in all I think they succeeded in getting to the bottom of his obsession with animal rights and subsequent actions were justified.

Now, of course, this seems to be an attempt to again put something behind the claim of manipulation, but really, all you’re doing is standing on the side and analyzing and re-analyzing a conversation that had nothing to do with you and making conclusions and accusations. Go ask Tom if he feels manipulated or what. If you wont or can’t then drop it. You’re insulting both Tom and Stefan without much basis.

Claiming manipulation is the easiest thing in the world. You basically just call both of them either liars or weak minded to supposedly gain an instant win for what seems to be a smear position. Well, not everyone buys it.

Regards

Maybe if you re-listen to the podcast, you will note the following:
-Tom calls in because he has so far not been able to make his feelings about animal rights match up with the FDR consensus. This is apparently a problem for him since he ‘loves’ Molyneux and FDR.
-At this point, Molyneux does not make the claim that feelings are always correct, but instead takes up the challenge of correcting them.
-Tom bursts into tears, not while talking about his family as Molyneux says, and not while talking about cruelty to animals as you say, but while listening to a litany of crimes against humanity that must clearly dwarf his petty concerns about animals.
-Molyneux asks Tom to search his memory for instances of animal abuse in his family, which brings up the cat-kicking incident. When Molyneux starts to run with this ball, Tom tries to clarify that it was more like one nudging an underfoot cat aside with one’s foot, but this is ignored.
-’Emotional escalation’ occurs, and all further claims of abuse are made in this context.