- 1 year ago
I would really appreciate your feedback on this!
In this conversation, I try to resolve a conflict with a listener. We discuss the nature of virtue and its relationship to action. Our discussion, rooted in the concept of Universal Preferable Behavior (UPB), examines whether virtue is defined by positive actions or the absence of negative ones.
FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
In this conversation, I try to resolve a conflict with a listener. We discuss the nature of virtue and its relationship to action. Our discussion, rooted in the concept of Universal Preferable Behavior (UPB), examines whether virtue is defined by positive actions or the absence of negative ones.
FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00So I think this is interesting. I had a conflict with a listener, somebody who called into the show, which to me was odd, but interesting to go through. And since I rarely have conflicts with listeners, I thought this would be interesting for other people. And of course, I have his permission to share this audio.
00:16So the conflict began on a show that occurred on the 7th of August, 2025, the show number 6053, and it's PMS Girlfriend, Twitter slash X, Space.
00:35And this person called in and was asking me if virtue was a positive action or simply the avoidance of a negative action.
00:46And so on, right? And so we had a conversation, I'll play it for you now, where I got impatient and frustrated with the conversation.
00:58And I think you'll sort of see why. So here's the conversation we had initially.
01:06So I'm just curious, since UPB is inherently like a non-action because of the coma test, is virtue an action?
01:16Or can it just be like an observation of the characteristic?
01:22Well, have you ever dieted?
01:26Yeah.
01:27Tell me about that.
01:30Well, you got to make a plan, a shopping plan, come up with recipes, find things you like, stick with it, and track your progress.
01:39And what did you have to give up?
01:42Still did, I guess.
01:44Was that hard?
01:46Moderately.
01:47Okay. And how much weight did you lose?
01:5020 pounds.
01:51And did you, when did you lose it and have you kept it off?
01:55Yeah, I kept it off. It's probably been three or four years now.
01:58Well, congratulations. I think you're in like 5% of people who lose weight and keep it off.
02:02So, good for you. Congratulations.
02:03Now, would you say that a diet is an action or a non-action?
02:09In other words, other diets where you say, look, I just have to cut out X, Y, and Z, and I'm good to go.
02:16I would say it's an action.
02:20Okay. Other diets where you simply don't eat some stuff.
02:23Like, let's say, chips, cookies, chocolates, candy, whatever, right?
02:28If you cut out all of those things, you will lose weight, right?
02:32Yes, but you still have to eat things.
02:36So, you can't just not eat.
02:38Okay, bro, come on.
02:39Like, we're smart people here.
02:40Do you really think that I'm suggesting that people don't eat?
02:44No, but there's still an action required of eating the correctness.
02:46No, but the action is the same.
02:49You're doing everything except eating candies, cookies, chocolate, and chips.
02:55Okay.
02:55So, you have to replace those with some other foods, correct?
02:58No, not necessarily.
03:00Not if you're gaining weight a lot and you are cutting back your calories to lose weight.
03:06Okay.
03:09So, are there diets where it is a non-action that is the success of the diet?
03:20I would still kind of, I still think you have to, you have to be acting in some way.
03:26You can't just be not eating.
03:28What do you mean not eating?
03:31Well, because I mean, if you have a diet, even if you're cutting out a bunch of bad things,
03:34you have to be eating other things.
03:37So, there is an act of eating.
03:38What the hell are you talking about?
03:39Whoa, whoa.
03:40When have I ever, hang on, when have I ever suggested that you don't eat anything?
03:43I just said you cut out the bad food.
03:45What's with the F-bomb?
03:47My apologies.
03:49I'm just not sure why we're circling because I've never introduced saying you cut out the
03:53bad food and all foods.
03:56Right?
03:56So, that's a straw man, right?
03:58So, what I'm saying is that there are diets where you cut out food that is bad for you
04:05and retain everything else that you were eating before.
04:08All right.
04:11So, that's the interaction that we had, and I'm sure you can understand why it was frustrating
04:17for me.
04:17Perhaps you can understand why it was frustrating for him.
04:20So, I said, can a diet include not eating things?
04:23In other words, it's a non-action, and he wouldn't concede that point and said that human beings
04:27have to eat something.
04:30And this seemed to me so obtuse that this is not debating or arguing in good faith.
04:35So, what happened was, and I haven't looked this up because I don't have a transcript,
04:39but on the Sunday show, I mentioned that I was impatient.
04:45I dropped a muttered F-bomb, but the conversation actually got better and productive after that.
04:50He seemed a bit startled by it, but it did sort of get him out of his circular thinking,
04:55and we had a productive discussion after that.
04:57So, I was still wrong to F-bomb, but it had some productive elements to it.
05:01So, then he messaged me, and he said,
05:08Today on Locals, this was the freedomain.locals.com, he said,
05:12Today on Locals, you completely mischaracterized our interaction on X on Wednesday.
05:17Your F-bomb didn't startle me.
05:18I didn't let out some big gasp, and I was listening perfectly.
05:22You just didn't like my answer.
05:24I had another listener on X even message me saying,
05:26You were treating me unfairly.
05:30Now, that to me is an annoying message to receive.
05:36Completely mischaracterized, right?
05:39Our interaction.
05:39Now, if I'm telling you this is what I thought of the interaction,
05:43I'm telling you what I thought.
05:44But it's kind of weird to tell me whether what I thought is what I thought or not.
05:54Your F-bomb didn't startle me.
05:55He said, I didn't let out some big gasp, and I was listening perfectly.
05:58You just didn't like my answer.
06:00Right.
06:00So, that wasn't the case at all.
06:03And to say I was listening perfectly is a bit of a stretch.
06:08I'm not sure what it means to listen perfectly, and so on.
06:14And then I just didn't like my answer.
06:16That's psychologizing and saying he's perfectly in the right,
06:19and I'm perfectly in the wrong, and so on, right?
06:21So, then I wrote him back, and I said,
06:22How do you know my experience was false?
06:26Right?
06:27How do you know my experience was false?
06:29And he said, Because it doesn't align with the recording of the conversation.
06:34Even your own AI and Grok agrees to valid argument,
06:38not something that would warrant a,
06:39What the fuck are you talking about, in my humble opinion?
06:42And he tried to send me a file, but of course it was all blocked for security reasons.
06:47So, there's a Grok argument.
06:54He said, In a debate about virtue and deciding if a virtue has to be an action or can be a non-action,
06:59would it be a valid argument to say that if virtue is an action,
07:01a diet by emission of sugar, for example, wouldn't be a virtue,
07:05but the virtue would rather be eating all the other non-sugary things,
07:09even if it was all the same food as before?
07:13Just give me a one-to-two-sentence answer with a definitive yes or no.
07:17But that wasn't, that wasn't the issue.
07:20I wasn't, that wasn't the argument.
07:22The argument, or the frustrating point for me,
07:24was me saying that a diet can include eating less.
07:27And he said, Well, but you still have to eat food.
07:30That is not what he characterized.
07:32So, that seems not accurate.
07:35And I said, Okay, so your perception is that you are 100% right,
07:41and I am 100% wrong, correct?
07:44And he replied, Nope, open to the possibility.
07:46I'm missing something, misinterpreting some other miscommunication on my part.
07:49And I said, But that's not what you said, bro.
07:51And I quoted today on Locals.
07:52You completely mischaracterized their interaction on X.
07:55On Wednesday, your F-bomb didn't startle me.
07:57I didn't let out some big gasp, and I was listening perfectly.
08:00Anyway, so I quoted him, and I said,
08:02I asked you, How do you know my experience was false?
08:04You replied that I was wrong regarding the recording.
08:06So, now I'm totally confused, right?
08:08So, if somebody comes at me and says, I'm totally wrong,
08:10and then I say, So, you're saying I'm totally wrong,
08:12and say, No, no, no, I'm open to me being wrong.
08:13Well, it's very confusing, right?
08:17So, he said, Right.
08:18So, it would come down to,
08:20Do you think responding to my argument with,
08:22What the fuck are you talking about is valid?
08:23My opinion was, No, that's in the recording,
08:25but out for debate, I think.
08:26And I said, But I apologize for that.
08:28But I did notice that we didn't have the same conflict after that.
08:31That was my point.
08:32My swearing was not responding to your argument.
08:34I responded to tons,
08:35I responded to tons of arguments without swearing.
08:37It was frustrating that you're not listening,
08:38into tangents, ha ha, but you're occurring again now.
08:40And I wasn't swearing at you, of course.
08:43And he wrote, Fair enough.
08:44I definitely wasn't trying to frustrate you.
08:47Maybe I need to work on my questions slash arguments.
08:49The disconnect for me was that,
08:50If it's a valid argument about virtue,
08:52and it's frustrating,
08:52then it must be the way I am delivering it.
08:55I was on the call with you, he said,
08:57Earbuds in, eyes closed,
08:58listening as intently to every word as I possibly can.
09:02And then I wrote,
09:03I think a day later,
09:04I said,
09:06No, sorry,
09:07a couple of hours later,
09:08I said,
09:08So I listened to the convo again.
09:09I kept saying that dieting means reducing food intake.
09:11And you kept saying,
09:12Well, you have to eat something.
09:13Total straw man.
09:17I said,
09:17Yeah, but,
09:18the first time you asked,
09:19I wasn't suggesting you were saying to eat no food.
09:21Me saying,
09:22But you still have to eat things,
09:24or can't eat nothing,
09:25meant that a diet by omission of some items
09:27still requires consistent positive virtue
09:29of going to the store,
09:29buying non-sugary items,
09:31or making smaller meals,
09:33setting a timer on when you can eat,
09:34tracking your calories,
09:35weighing yourself, etc.
09:37That's where the virtue would be,
09:38not simply not eating some things,
09:40even if it meant the success of the diet,
09:41and even if the action is the same as you suggest.
09:44I think the response your AI gave summed it up perfectly.
09:47Even if it's a shitty argument,
09:49it wasn't for lack of listening.
09:51And I said,
09:52Okay, well, let's try this a different way.
09:54A friend of mine lost weight
09:55by simply stopping drinking cans of pop.
09:57I just cut out eating dessert.
09:59I stopped buying chips and dip.
10:00So I stopped eating them at home.
10:02Of course,
10:02I'm perfectly aware that some diets require extra work.
10:04I said that later in the conversation.
10:06I've been working out for over 40 years.
10:08You should give me the respect of knowing that much.
10:10If dieting is troubling for you,
10:12how about this?
10:12Is quitting smoking an action
10:14or stopping an action?
10:18He said,
10:19Non-action,
10:20so therefore virtuous.
10:21And I said,
10:21I'm not rehashing the debate here.
10:23It's just annoying to be treated
10:24as if I don't understand anything
10:25about dieting and calories
10:26and human consumption.
10:27If I didn't understand calories and eating,
10:29there'd be no point
10:30talking to me about abstract morality.
10:31Right?
10:33So,
10:34I'm trying to give him another analogy,
10:36quitting smoking,
10:36right?
10:37Quitting smoking is like quitting dessert
10:39or not drinking pop.
10:41You're just not doing things.
10:45He said,
10:45That was definitely not my intent.
10:47I know you're on top of your health
10:48and fitness and stuff.
10:49I'm just trying to get a definite answer.
10:51So stopping smoking is virtuous.
10:54So then why would you be loftily informing me
10:56that people need to eat something?
10:58He said,
10:59I just answered that.
11:00I said,
11:00What that meant was that
11:01the act of eating something
11:02is the virtue.
11:04Come on,
11:04I know you know people have to eat to live.
11:07I said,
11:07Were you clear in your communication
11:09or did you just say
11:10people need to eat something?
11:11I was not,
11:12he said,
11:13hence why I said
11:14I need to work on my delivery.
11:18And I said,
11:19No,
11:19at 2 p.m.
11:20you said
11:20you were listening perfectly
11:21but I just didn't like your delivery.
11:28He said,
11:29The disconnect for me,
11:30he replied,
11:31he quoted,
11:31The disconnect for me was that
11:32if it's a valid argument about virtue
11:33and it's frustrating
11:34then it must be the way I'm delivering it.
11:36Right,
11:36so if you're going to come on strong
11:38and say,
11:38Steph,
11:38you misinterpreted,
11:39you don't understand,
11:40I was communicating perfectly,
11:42you just didn't like my answer,
11:43then it's kind of confusing
11:44when you say,
11:45Well,
11:45no,
11:45no,
11:45no,
11:45I need to work on my delivery,
11:47right?
11:48So then I said,
11:49Well,
11:49now you're saying
11:50that your delivery was faulty.
11:51You also got a friend,
11:52an AI,
11:52to say that you were not at all at fault
11:54or had no errors
11:55in your communication.
11:56He said,
11:57I was listening perfectly
11:58and my delivery was at fault,
12:00not seeing the contradiction there.
12:02And I said,
12:03At 2 p.m.
12:04you claimed
12:04that I just did not like your answer.
12:07And he said,
12:08You didn't like it
12:09because my delivery was poor.
12:11And I replied,
12:12Now you're saying
12:13that your answer
12:14was badly communicated.
12:15Do you see the difference?
12:16And I said,
12:17Lord above,
12:17let's just talk it out.
12:18So then we had,
12:20I said,
12:21It'll be a good show
12:22on conflict resolution.
12:23So,
12:25then we tried to resolve,
12:26we tried to resolve the conflict.
12:29And here's the conversation
12:30that we had.
12:33And you can listen to it
12:34and let me know what you think.
12:36Thanks.
12:37All right.
12:38Can you hear me?
12:39I can't hear me.
12:40Yeah,
12:41yeah,
12:41yeah.
12:41Okay.
12:41Okay.
12:42So,
12:42yeah,
12:43let's,
12:44let's hash this out.
12:45I'm annoyed.
12:47You're annoyed,
12:48I guess,
12:48or at least I'm annoyed.
12:50And let's,
12:51let's sort it out.
12:52I'll record this.
12:53So you can stay anonymous.
12:54We'll just put this out
12:56as a show on conflict resolution,
12:58if that's all right.
12:59Yeah,
12:59I like it.
13:00Okay.
13:01Okay.
13:02So what's it Wednesday?
13:04Was it Friday,
13:04Wednesday last week?
13:06Yeah,
13:06Wednesday.
13:07Yep.
13:08Wednesday.
13:09Okay.
13:09So Wednesday,
13:10you and I had a conversation
13:14wherein you were asking
13:16about UPB
13:17and
13:18negative action,
13:21right?
13:22Right.
13:23Okay.
13:23Non-action,
13:24I guess non-action.
13:25Non-action.
13:26Okay.
13:28And
13:29let me just see here.
13:34I'm just looking for
13:35a transcript.
13:36I listened to it today
13:37again,
13:38because you,
13:39you were bothered
13:42by something I said
13:43on Sunday
13:43where you seemed
13:44a bit startled
13:45by my swearing,
13:46but after that
13:47I felt the conversation
13:48got more productive
13:48and it was just something
13:49I noticed.
13:50You know,
13:50I'm still sorry for swearing,
13:52but that bothered you,
13:53right?
13:54Well,
13:54just to clarify a little bit,
13:56you were discussing
13:57people not listening
13:58on calls
13:59and then you brought up
14:00my call as an example
14:01saying,
14:02well,
14:03I had a guy
14:03not listening
14:04and then I,
14:05he was startled
14:06by an F-bomb
14:06but then after that
14:07he seemed to listen better.
14:09Uh-huh.
14:09Um,
14:10so I just took an issue
14:11with that
14:11just being that
14:12I was listening
14:14in my perspective
14:15as closely as I could
14:16and I don't think
14:19that was an accurate
14:20representation
14:20of the conversation.
14:22Well,
14:22and what was inaccurate?
14:24What was what?
14:25What was inaccurate?
14:27Oh,
14:28that I wasn't listening.
14:30But how can you tell?
14:33How can I tell
14:33if I'm listening?
14:34Yeah,
14:34how can you tell
14:35if you're listening?
14:35Well,
14:37I have my attention
14:38and focus
14:39on the words
14:40that the other person
14:41is speaking.
14:42Okay,
14:42you don't need to give me
14:43a definition
14:43of what listening is,
14:44bro.
14:45You keep treating me
14:46like I'm an idiot.
14:48What do you think
14:49my real question is?
14:50Do you think
14:50my real question
14:51is asking you
14:52to give me a definition
14:54of what it means
14:54to listen?
14:59Um,
14:59no,
15:00but I think
15:00that's how I know
15:01I'm listening.
15:02No,
15:02how do you know
15:03that you're listening?
15:05Right?
15:07So,
15:07how do you know
15:08that you're listening
15:09and understanding
15:10what the other person
15:12is saying?
15:13I can listen
15:15to a conversation
15:16in Japanese.
15:18Right?
15:19That doesn't mean
15:20that I understand
15:21what they're saying,
15:23right?
15:23I didn't claim
15:24to understand.
15:25I said I claimed
15:25to listen.
15:27Well,
15:28but if you listen
15:29and don't understand,
15:30does the other person
15:31feel listened to?
15:33See,
15:33listening is
15:34dependent on
15:35the other person.
15:36That's what
15:36I'm trying
15:37to get across.
15:38If I am talking
15:39and you are not
15:42understanding
15:42what I'm saying,
15:43but you assume
15:45that you understand
15:45what I'm saying,
15:46then I don't feel
15:47listened to,
15:48right?
15:48If I speak to you
15:49in a language
15:49you don't understand
15:50and you kind of
15:51nod and go along,
15:52then I don't feel
15:54listened to.
15:54So,
15:55my point is that
15:56if you say
15:57I was listening,
15:58then
15:59how do you know
16:01that you're listening
16:02in a way
16:03that the other
16:03person feels
16:04heard?
16:07Well,
16:08I would assume
16:08one way would be
16:09to respond
16:10to the questions
16:11and respond
16:11to what they're
16:12asking and saying.
16:14Well,
16:15respond how?
16:18Because if you
16:19respond as if
16:20you understand
16:21what the other
16:22person is saying,
16:23but you don't
16:24understand what
16:24the other person
16:25is saying,
16:26are you really
16:26listening?
16:31Okay.
16:33I think
16:35yes.
16:37So,
16:38listening is
16:38entirely on
16:39your side
16:39and it's
16:40not on
16:41the other
16:41person's side.
16:43So,
16:43you get to
16:44decide
16:44whether you're
16:45listening to
16:45someone,
16:46the other
16:47person has
16:48no say
16:48on whether
16:49they feel
16:49listened to.
16:53I do,
16:54I do think
16:54it's an
16:54objective
16:55to the
16:55listener
16:56because
16:56you can
16:57be not
16:57understood.
16:57Sorry,
16:58you think
16:59it's what?
17:00It is
17:00objective
17:01to the
17:01listener.
17:01So,
17:02it is
17:02by the
17:03perspective
17:04of the
17:04listener,
17:05yes.
17:08So,
17:08whether you're
17:10listening is
17:12not your
17:13decision,
17:13it's whether
17:14the person
17:14who's talking
17:15feels heard
17:17or feels
17:19understood.
17:21I think
17:22the opposite
17:23is that
17:23it would be
17:24whether or
17:25not you're
17:26understanding
17:26what's being
17:27said.
17:28You can
17:28still be
17:29listening
17:29internally
17:30regardless
17:33of whether
17:34or not
17:34it was
17:35understood.
17:37I mean,
17:38that's an
17:38interesting
17:39question.
17:39So,
17:40by listening,
17:40you simply
17:41mean hearing
17:42sounds?
17:46I think
17:47it goes a
17:47little deeper
17:47than that,
17:48but that is
17:49part of it.
17:49Okay,
17:50so it goes
17:50deeper than
17:51that.
17:51So,
17:51if I tell
17:55you to
17:55drive north
17:56and you
17:57drive south,
17:58have you
17:59been listening?
18:00I could
18:04have been.
18:06Go on.
18:08I could
18:09have been
18:10holding the
18:10map upside
18:11down,
18:11and I
18:12listened to
18:12you perfectly,
18:12and I
18:13knew I
18:13had to
18:13go north,
18:14but I
18:14just
18:14turned
18:14because I
18:15had the
18:15map upside
18:16down.
18:16So,
18:17there's
18:17layers,
18:18other
18:18factors that
18:20come into
18:20play here.
18:20Okay,
18:21fantastic.
18:21So,
18:22if I say
18:23go north
18:23and you
18:24drive south,
18:25and then I
18:25say,
18:26no,
18:26no,
18:26no,
18:26hang on,
18:27you're
18:27driving south,
18:28not north,
18:28and you
18:30continue
18:30driving south,
18:31are you
18:32listening?
18:36Um,
18:38I guess
18:41no.
18:43Right,
18:43no,
18:44and that
18:44was the
18:44conflict that
18:45we had
18:46on Wednesday.
18:47was that,
18:51so,
18:52just for
18:52those who
18:52don't know,
18:53I won't
18:53go over
18:54the whole
18:54transcript,
18:54people can
18:55listen to
18:55it and
18:55tell me
18:56if I've
18:56mischaracterized
18:56anything,
18:58but you
18:59asked me
19:00about positive
19:00versus negative
19:01ethics,
19:02and I gave
19:02you the
19:03example of
19:03a diet,
19:04and I
19:04said,
19:05if you're
19:05dieting,
19:06and I
19:06didn't say
19:07100% of
19:08the time,
19:08because we
19:08talked about
19:09other kinds
19:09of diets,
19:10but some
19:10diets,
19:11you just
19:11take away
19:12food,
19:12like a
19:13friend of
19:13mine lost
19:13a lot of
19:14weight because
19:14he just
19:14stopped drinking
19:15soda,
19:16right,
19:16and I
19:19myself,
19:20I don't
19:20even buy
19:21chips and
19:22dip,
19:23I don't
19:23buy cookies,
19:25so I
19:25don't have
19:26them at
19:26home,
19:27I don't
19:27eat them,
19:28so that's
19:29a non-action,
19:30and that's
19:31what I was
19:31talking about,
19:33you remember
19:33that,
19:33right?
19:35Yep.
19:35Okay,
19:36so when I
19:37said some
19:38dieting involves
19:40a non-action,
19:42you said,
19:44well,
19:44you have to
19:44eat something.
19:45Well,
19:46no,
19:46at first
19:46I didn't
19:47agree,
19:47I said
19:47yes,
19:48but you
19:48still have
19:49to eat
19:49something.
19:51Okay,
19:51so when
19:52I say
19:53dieting involves
19:55eating less,
19:56and you
19:57say,
19:58well,
19:58you have
19:58to eat
19:58something,
20:01is that
20:02good listening?
20:07I don't
20:08think it's
20:08bad listening.
20:09It's terrible
20:10listening,
20:11objectively,
20:13factually,
20:13because it's
20:15a straw
20:15man.
20:18So,
20:18if I
20:19say to
20:20diet,
20:21an example
20:22of dieting
20:22is to
20:23eat less,
20:24and you
20:24say,
20:25well,
20:25you have
20:25to eat
20:25something,
20:26that's a
20:27straw man,
20:27right?
20:28Well,
20:29and I
20:29think we
20:30went into
20:31this a little
20:32deeper,
20:32and I
20:33didn't explain
20:33it well
20:34enough what I
20:34meant,
20:35and maybe
20:35if I had,
20:36you would have
20:37felt more
20:37listened to,
20:38but what I
20:39meant by
20:39that was
20:39that if
20:40you take
20:41a diet by
20:42omission and
20:43remove items,
20:44there's still a
20:44positive action
20:45of eating
20:46something.
20:47So,
20:47when I said
20:47you have to
20:48eat something,
20:48obviously,
20:49I didn't mean
20:50that you can't
20:51just not eat,
20:52period.
20:52Like,
20:52that wasn't
20:53the intent.
20:54And I
20:54apologize.
20:55So,
20:55help me
20:55understand,
20:56when I say
20:56dieting means
20:57eating less,
20:58and you say,
20:59well,
20:59you have to
20:59eat something,
21:01I'm talking
21:01about dieting,
21:02not eating.
21:05So,
21:06okay,
21:06so what I
21:07mean was
21:07that you
21:08still have
21:08to eat
21:09something,
21:09meaning you
21:10still have
21:10to go to
21:10the store,
21:11you still
21:11have to
21:11buy things,
21:12you still
21:12have to
21:13make your
21:14meals,
21:15there's still
21:15something
21:16involved.
21:17Okay,
21:17so your
21:18contribution
21:18to the
21:19conversation
21:19was to
21:20tell me
21:20that human
21:21beings do
21:21require
21:22calories.
21:23No,
21:24what?
21:24No,
21:25my contribution
21:26was saying
21:26that the
21:27positive virtue
21:28of a diet,
21:28even if you're
21:29excluding items,
21:30is the act
21:30of going to
21:30the store
21:31and buying
21:31the items
21:31and cooking
21:32them.
21:33No,
21:33that's not
21:34a diet,
21:34because you're
21:35doing that
21:35anyway.
21:36Let's say
21:37that you
21:37eat 3,000
21:38calories,
21:39hang on,
21:39hang on,
21:40so let's
21:40say you
21:40eat 3,000
21:41calories,
21:42and then
21:44you decide
21:44to cut it
21:44down to
21:462,000
21:47calories,
21:47right?
21:49Okay.
21:49And you
21:50do that
21:51by cutting
21:51out the
21:52junk food
21:52that you
21:52eat,
21:53right?
21:53Now,
21:54you don't
21:54have to
21:54go and
21:56buy it,
21:57you don't
21:57have to
21:58store it,
21:58you don't
21:58have to
21:59open it,
21:59you don't
21:59have to
22:00eat it,
22:00you don't
22:00have to
22:01throw out
22:01the wrapper,
22:02you probably
22:02poop a
22:02whole lot
22:03less,
22:03whatever,
22:03right?
22:04So,
22:04it's less
22:05action if
22:06you're
22:06dieting,
22:06right?
22:08Okay,
22:08so is that
22:09virtuous?
22:09That's the
22:10question.
22:10No,
22:11no,
22:11we weren't,
22:12I was trying
22:13to establish
22:14an analogy.
22:16So,
22:16if you
22:17tell me
22:17when I
22:18say dieting
22:19means eating
22:19less,
22:20and then
22:20you keep
22:21repeating,
22:22well,
22:22you do
22:22have to
22:23eat,
22:24you know?
22:24I said it,
22:25I repeated it
22:26once,
22:26I said it
22:27once and
22:27then I
22:27repeated
22:27myself once
22:28one other
22:29time.
22:29Right.
22:30So,
22:31it wasn't
22:31like I was
22:31going on
22:32and on
22:32and on
22:33here,
22:33like we
22:33were in
22:34a little
22:34bit of
22:34a circle
22:34momentarily
22:35and,
22:36you know,
22:36I wasn't
22:38in a circle.
22:39I was,
22:39well,
22:39you said we
22:40were in a
22:40circle,
22:41but.
22:41Okay,
22:41so do you
22:43think it's
22:43helpful to
22:44say to
22:45someone who
22:46has exercised
22:48and I've
22:48successfully,
22:49I lost
22:49about 30,
22:5040 pounds
22:50or whatever,
22:51like 15
22:52years ago
22:52or so,
22:53and I've
22:54kept it
22:54off and
22:55you said
22:55that you
22:56had dieted
22:57and kept
22:57off 20
22:58pounds,
22:58which again
22:58was great.
23:00So,
23:00do you
23:01think it's
23:01helpful to
23:03say to
23:04someone who's
23:05pretty expert
23:06at dieting
23:07that you
23:08still need
23:09to eat
23:09some food?
23:11No,
23:12and I
23:12apologize for
23:13that.
23:13I was
23:14assuming
23:16the intent
23:17of what I
23:18meant was
23:19there,
23:19and it
23:19wasn't,
23:20so I
23:20apologize.
23:20And I'm
23:21sorry,
23:21I'm not
23:21sure what
23:21you mean
23:22by that.
23:22I appreciate
23:23the apology,
23:24and you
23:24didn't
23:24apologize
23:24during the
23:25show.
23:25I
23:25apologized
23:26three times
23:27during the
23:27show.
23:27You did
23:28not
23:28apologize
23:28then,
23:29and you
23:29did not
23:30apologize
23:30later,
23:31until just
23:31now,
23:32right?
23:33Okay.
23:34No,
23:34is that,
23:35you say
23:35like,
23:35okay,
23:36like I'm
23:36forcing you
23:36to say
23:37something,
23:38right?
23:41Like,
23:41I apologized
23:42three times,
23:43over the
23:43course of
23:44the show,
23:44you didn't
23:44apologize
23:45during the
23:47show,
23:47and you
23:48came at me,
23:49you know,
23:49kind of hard
23:49this afternoon
23:50over text,
23:51right?
23:51at the time,
23:54I didn't
23:54think I
23:55had done
23:55anything
23:55wrong.
23:57Looking
23:57back,
23:58I see
23:58now that
23:58it wasn't
23:59clear,
23:59because you
24:00thought I
24:00was talking
24:00about just
24:01getting
24:02calories,
24:02and that
24:03it was
24:03beyond that.
24:04no,
24:04it's not
24:05bro,
24:05it's not
24:06I thought
24:06that's
24:07what you
24:07said.
24:09Like,
24:10if I
24:10say go
24:10north,
24:11and then
24:11later you
24:12said,
24:13well,
24:13I thought
24:16you meant
24:17go north,
24:17but that's
24:18what I
24:18said,
24:19and what
24:19you said
24:20was,
24:21but people
24:21still need
24:21to eat,
24:22or people
24:22still need
24:22food.
24:23okay,
24:27I'm not
24:27understanding
24:28that,
24:28I'm sorry.
24:29Okay,
24:30well,
24:30let me
24:30just,
24:31so let
24:31me
24:31just sort
24:31of read
24:32back to
24:32you what
24:33you texted
24:34me,
24:34right?
24:37So,
24:38you said,
24:39today on
24:39Locals,
24:40I think
24:40this was,
24:40was this,
24:41oh yeah,
24:41this was
24:42today,
24:42you said,
24:42today on
24:42Locals,
24:43you completely
24:43mischaracterized
24:44our interaction
24:45on X on
24:46Wednesday.
24:48Right,
24:48so that's
24:48coming at me
24:49pretty hard,
24:49right?
24:51Right.
24:52Okay.
24:53Your F-bomb
24:53didn't startle
24:54me,
24:55I didn't let
24:55out some
24:56big gasp,
24:56and I was
24:56listening perfectly,
24:58you just
24:59didn't like
24:59my answer.
25:00I had another
25:01listener on X
25:02even message me
25:03saying you were
25:03treating me
25:04unfairly,
25:05right?
25:06Right.
25:07So,
25:07you're saying
25:08that I'm lying
25:09or completely
25:09misunderstanding
25:10or mischaracterizing
25:11our interaction,
25:13that I'm wrong
25:14about it,
25:15startling you,
25:16and you were
25:16listening perfectly,
25:18I just didn't
25:19like your answer.
25:20And that another
25:21listener said,
25:22oh,
25:23Steph was
25:23treating you
25:25unfairly,
25:25right?
25:27Right.
25:28So,
25:28that's coming
25:29at me pretty
25:29hard.
25:32Is that
25:32fair to say?
25:33Yeah,
25:34I agreed to
25:34that already,
25:34yep.
25:35Okay,
25:35all right.
25:36And then I
25:37replied quite
25:38calmly,
25:38right?
25:39I said,
25:39how do you
25:40know my
25:40experience was
25:41false?
25:44Which is an
25:44important
25:45question,
25:46right?
25:46So,
25:49I had a
25:49particular
25:49experience
25:50of that
25:51conversation
25:52and you
25:52had a
25:53particular
25:53experience
25:54of that
25:54conversation.
25:55Now,
25:56if you
25:56message me
25:57and you
25:58tell me,
25:58Steph,
25:59your
26:00experience
26:01of the
26:01conversation
26:02is false,
26:05that's
26:06kind of a
26:06hell of a
26:08thing to
26:08say to
26:09someone,
26:09isn't it?
26:10Like,
26:11if I say,
26:11I don't
26:12like the
26:12taste of
26:13this
26:13cheesecake,
26:13would you
26:14ever tell
26:14me that
26:14I'm wrong?
26:16So,
26:18that was
26:18my
26:18experience.
26:19Now,
26:19you and
26:19I had a
26:20different
26:20experience,
26:21which is
26:21fine.
26:22I mean,
26:22we're
26:22different
26:23people.
26:23We're
26:24on different
26:24sides of
26:24the
26:25conversation.
26:25We don't
26:26get to
26:26see body
26:27language.
26:28We don't
26:29get to
26:29see our
26:30facial cues
26:31or anything
26:32like that,
26:32right?
26:33So,
26:34when you're
26:34coming at
26:35me hard,
26:35saying,
26:36Steph,
26:36you're wrong
26:36and unjust
26:37and unfair
26:37and everyone
26:37agrees and
26:38blah,
26:38blah,
26:38blah,
26:39and I
26:40say,
26:40well,
26:40how do
26:40you know
26:40my
26:41experience
26:41was
26:41false?
26:43Because I
26:43was telling
26:43people
26:44today,
26:44I
26:45wouldn't
26:45call you
26:45a bad
26:45guy.
26:46I did
26:47experience
26:47you as
26:47not
26:47listening.
26:50And so,
26:52when I
26:52had that
26:53experience
26:53in the
26:57conversation,
26:58and then
26:59you tell
26:59me,
26:59Steph,
27:00your
27:00experience
27:00is wrong,
27:02which means
27:03either I'm
27:04completely crazy
27:04or I'm
27:05lying,
27:05right?
27:06So,
27:06how do
27:07you know
27:07my
27:07experience
27:07was
27:07false?
27:08I mean,
27:08that's an
27:08important
27:09question,
27:09right?
27:10Would
27:10you say?
27:11Yep.
27:12Okay,
27:13so then
27:13you texted
27:15me and
27:15said,
27:16because it
27:16doesn't
27:17align with
27:17the recording
27:18of the
27:18conversation,
27:20and I'm
27:21not sure
27:22exactly what
27:22that means,
27:23because the
27:23recording of
27:24the conversation
27:24is not
27:26my experience
27:27of the
27:27conversation,
27:28right?
27:31Right.
27:32Do you
27:32understand the
27:32difference?
27:34Yes,
27:35I do.
27:35I mean,
27:35if I say
27:36I like
27:36jazz,
27:38and then
27:39you say,
27:39well,
27:39that doesn't
27:40align with
27:41the recording
27:41of the
27:41jazz,
27:42that
27:42doesn't
27:43make
27:43much
27:43sense,
27:43right?
27:45Right.
27:46And then
27:46you went
27:47to even
27:48your own
27:48AI and
27:49Grok
27:49agrees it's
27:50a valid
27:50concept,
27:51not something
27:52that would
27:53warrant a
27:53what the
27:54fuck are
27:54you talking
27:55about?
27:56I mean,
27:56I think
27:57what I said
27:58was like,
27:58what the
27:59fuck are
27:59we?
27:59And then
28:00I said,
28:00what the
28:00heck are
28:01we?
28:01I corrected
28:01myself and
28:02I apologize
28:02for the
28:03swearing or
28:03something,
28:03but I didn't
28:04swear at
28:04you.
28:05Well,
28:06you said,
28:06what the
28:06fuck are
28:07you talking
28:07about?
28:08Straight up.
28:08I don't
28:10think I
28:10did.
28:11I listened
28:11to it again
28:12just this
28:12afternoon.
28:13I was like,
28:13what the
28:13fuck are you?
28:14I listened to it
28:15a few times.
28:15Okay,
28:16that's fine.
28:16Okay,
28:16so let's say I
28:17said,
28:17what the fuck
28:18are you talking
28:18about?
28:19And then I
28:19corrected myself
28:20and said,
28:20what the heck?
28:21And then you
28:21said,
28:21what's with the
28:22F-bombs?
28:22And I said,
28:22sorry.
28:23And we
28:23moved on,
28:24right?
28:24So that's
28:24not a big
28:25deal,
28:26right?
28:26I mean,
28:26we're big
28:27boys,
28:28so we can
28:28handle some
28:29salty language.
28:30Now,
28:31so then you
28:33sent me this
28:34thing,
28:35which was,
28:37was this my
28:38AI or
28:38Grok?
28:39The first
28:40one was your
28:41AI,
28:41and the second
28:42one was
28:42Grok.
28:43All right.
28:44Fireblock for
28:45security reasons.
28:47I don't know
28:47what that means.
28:48Anyway,
28:49so you said,
28:50in a debate
28:50about virtue and
28:51deciding if a
28:52virtue has to be
28:52an action or
28:53can be a
28:53non-action,
28:54would be a
28:54valid argument
28:55to say that
28:55if virtue is
28:55an action,
28:56a diet by
28:57omission of
28:57sugar,
28:57for example,
28:58wouldn't be a
28:58virtue,
28:59but the virtue
28:59would rather be
29:01eating all the
29:02other non-sugary
29:02things,
29:03even if it was
29:03all the same
29:04food as before,
29:04just give me a
29:05one to two
29:05sentence answer
29:06with a definitive
29:06yes or no.
29:08And the AI
29:09said,
29:09yes,
29:09the argument is
29:10valid.
29:10If virtue is
29:11defined as an
29:12action,
29:12a diet emitting
29:13sugar would not
29:14itself be a
29:15virtue,
29:16but actively
29:16choosing non-sugary
29:17foods could be
29:18considered the
29:18virtuous action.
29:19So I was
29:22talking about a
29:23diet as removing
29:24things from what
29:25you're eating,
29:25right?
29:26So when I,
29:26I stopped eating
29:27candy bars when I
29:29dieted,
29:30right?
29:30So that's a
29:31non-action,
29:31right?
29:33My friend lost
29:34weight by stopping
29:35a soda,
29:36so that's a
29:36non-action,
29:37right?
29:39Mm-hmm.
29:39Okay,
29:40good.
29:41So again,
29:42I'm not really
29:42sure what the
29:44purpose of that is.
29:44So then I said,
29:45okay,
29:45so your perception
29:46is that you're
29:46100% right and
29:47I'm 100% wrong,
29:49correct?
29:49Because that's
29:50what you said.
29:52You completely
29:53mischaracterized
29:54Steph,
29:54our interaction
29:55on X,
29:56and I was
29:57listening perfectly,
29:58you just didn't
29:59like my answer,
30:00and another
30:02listener on X
30:02messaged me,
30:03and AI said
30:04that I'm in
30:05the right,
30:05so this was
30:07100%,
30:07and I just
30:08wanted to
30:09double-check
30:09on that,
30:09right?
30:10Because when
30:10people come
30:10at me,
30:11that's fine,
30:11I could make
30:13mistakes,
30:13I could be
30:13rude and
30:14stuff like
30:14that.
30:15So you
30:17had come at
30:17me with,
30:18Steph,
30:18you're 100%
30:19wrong and
30:20I'm 100%
30:21right.
30:22That's how
30:22you were
30:24writing,
30:24right?
30:24I mean,
30:25you weren't
30:25self-critical
30:25at all,
30:26right?
30:27That's right.
30:29Okay.
30:29So then I
30:30said,
30:30okay,
30:30so your
30:31perception is
30:31that you're
30:31100% right
30:32and I'm
30:32100% wrong,
30:33correct?
30:33And then
30:34you wrote,
30:34nope,
30:35open to the
30:35possibility I'm
30:36missing something,
30:37misinterpreting,
30:38or some other
30:39miscommunication on
30:40our parts.
30:41So that was the
30:42first time I'd
30:43heard any
30:43self-criticism
30:44from you at
30:45all,
30:46or even
30:46potential,
30:47right?
30:47So is
30:49that fair?
30:50Is that
30:50right?
30:51Is that
30:51just to
30:52me?
30:56Is it
30:56right to
30:56come at me
30:57saying,
30:57Steph,
30:58you mischaracterized
31:00everything,
31:00everyone thinks
31:01you're unfair,
31:01your own AI
31:02disagrees with
31:03you?
31:03everyone.
31:04Well,
31:04everyone being
31:06two AIs and
31:07some listener
31:08on X,
31:08right?
31:09So three
31:10entities,
31:10yes.
31:11Okay.
31:11Well,
31:12everyone you
31:12consulted,
31:13right?
31:15Um,
31:16I didn't
31:17consult the
31:17person,
31:18but yeah,
31:19yes,
31:19the two AIs,
31:20yes.
31:20Okay.
31:21So,
31:21um,
31:22is it
31:22fair to
31:24say,
31:25um,
31:26Steph,
31:26you're 100%
31:28wrong,
31:28I'm 100%
31:29in the
31:30right,
31:30and repeat
31:32that a
31:32couple of
31:33times,
31:33and then
31:34when I
31:34say,
31:35oh,
31:36so I'm
31:36100%
31:37wrong,
31:37and you're
31:37100%
31:38in the
31:38right,
31:38say,
31:39no,
31:39no,
31:39no,
31:39I could
31:40be wrong.
31:44Um,
31:45I mean,
31:46okay,
31:47I was,
31:47I was wrong
31:48about that.
31:48I'm sorry.
31:49I should have
31:49been more
31:50open to the
31:51fact that
31:51you weren't
31:53completely off
31:53and that I
31:54was missing
31:54something from
31:55the get-go.
31:57Well,
31:57that's kind
31:58of rude,
31:58isn't it?
31:59To say
31:59to someone,
32:00you're 100%
32:01wrong,
32:02you completely
32:02mischaracterized
32:03our interaction,
32:05Grok says
32:05so,
32:06your AI
32:06says so,
32:07someone on
32:07X messaged
32:08me to say
32:08how unfair
32:09you were.
32:11I was
32:12listening perfectly,
32:13Steph,
32:13you just
32:14didn't like
32:14my answer.
32:15I mean,
32:16that's really
32:16aggressive,
32:17right?
32:18Yeah,
32:19I agree to
32:20that.
32:20And you
32:20were wrong!
32:23Okay.
32:24That's the
32:24point.
32:25Don't come
32:25off like an
32:26asshole if
32:27you could be
32:28wrong.
32:32Yeah,
32:32that's good
32:33advice.
32:38And then,
32:39so I said,
32:42that's not
32:42what you
32:42said.
32:42So you
32:43said,
32:43no,
32:43I'm open
32:43to the
32:44possibility
32:44of missing
32:44something,
32:45misinterpreting
32:45or some
32:46other
32:46miscommunication
32:46on my
32:47part.
32:47And I
32:47said,
32:48but that's
32:48not what
32:48you said
32:48to me.
32:56And you
32:57said,
32:57I just
32:58didn't like
32:59your answer
33:00rather than
33:01you were,
33:03you know,
33:03kind of
33:04loftily informing
33:04me that
33:05people need
33:05to eat.
33:06which is
33:09kind of
33:09annoying,
33:09right?
33:11I mean,
33:12if you're
33:13an expert
33:13mathematician
33:14and I
33:15call you
33:16out publicly
33:17and I
33:17say,
33:18hey,
33:18man,
33:19remember
33:19that two
33:20and two
33:20make four,
33:21right?
33:22Would that
33:23be annoying?
33:26Yeah,
33:27probably.
33:27What do
33:28you mean
33:28probably?
33:28Come on,
33:29man,
33:29be honest,
33:30it would
33:30be annoying,
33:31wouldn't it?
33:31I mean,
33:32I'm sure
33:32there's stuff
33:32that you're
33:33a complete
33:33expert in
33:34and you
33:35wouldn't
33:35like to
33:35be publicly
33:36lectured
33:36about
33:37blindingly
33:38obvious
33:38things like
33:39human beings
33:39require
33:40calories.
33:41I don't
33:42think
33:42necessarily
33:43that saying
33:43something
33:44simple is
33:44automatically
33:45annoying.
33:46I wasn't
33:47a lecture
33:47to be
33:47two plus
33:48two equals
33:48four is
33:48one sentence.
33:49I don't
33:50know if
33:50that's
33:50just about
33:51to be
33:51annoyed
33:51at.
33:52Well,
33:53no,
33:53that's
33:53why I
33:54thought
33:54we'd
33:54had a
33:54miscommunication
33:55so I
33:55took another
33:56run at it
33:57and then
33:57you just
33:57said it
33:57again.
33:58And then
33:58I was
33:58like,
33:59what the
33:59hell is
33:59going on?
34:00Why is
34:00this guy
34:00telling me
34:01that human
34:01beings need
34:02calories?
34:05Right.
34:05I literally
34:06couldn't be
34:07alive if I
34:08didn't know
34:08that.
34:09Which is
34:10kind of
34:10why I
34:11would have
34:12hoped that
34:12you knew
34:12that I
34:13would have
34:13known that
34:13and that
34:14I wasn't
34:14just talking
34:15about
34:15sustenance
34:16to live.
34:17Well,
34:17of course,
34:18and that's
34:19why I
34:19patiently
34:20explained it
34:21again.
34:22I'm like,
34:22oh,
34:22he must
34:22have
34:22misunderstood
34:23something
34:23because I'm
34:24talking about
34:24diets that
34:26take away
34:27food.
34:27Of course,
34:27I do
34:28understand
34:28that some
34:28diets require
34:29you add
34:30food like
34:30protein and
34:31so on if
34:31you want to
34:31work out.
34:32I get all
34:32of that.
34:33So I
34:33explained it
34:33again and
34:34then you
34:34just said,
34:35no,
34:35but people
34:35need to
34:35eat something.
34:36You said
34:36it again.
34:37So do you
34:38understand what
34:38I had meant
34:39to say now?
34:41So if I
34:42understand it
34:43correctly,
34:43you had
34:43meant to
34:44say that
34:46a diet
34:47is not
34:49a non-action
34:50because you
34:53substitute
34:54other foods
34:55and you
34:57were using
34:58the term
34:58diet in
34:59the sense
34:59of human
35:01beings are
35:02omnivores.
35:02We have
35:03diets that
35:04include fruits
35:04and vegetables
35:05and meats
35:05and stuff
35:05and so
35:07to have a
35:08diet is
35:08to eat
35:08something
35:09whereas I
35:11was using
35:11the term
35:11diet and
35:12I thought
35:12quite clearly
35:13to mean
35:13a reduction
35:14in the
35:15food that
35:16you eat.
35:17that's
35:18not exactly
35:19what I
35:20was trying
35:21to get
35:21at.
35:23Was it
35:24the bit
35:25about
35:25if you
35:26don't
35:28eat a
35:28candy
35:28bar
35:28maybe
35:29you
35:29eat
35:29a
35:29banana
35:30so
35:30it's
35:30still
35:30in
35:30action?
35:32That's
35:32sort of
35:33along the
35:33lines
35:33of yes
35:34but what
35:35I'm
35:36saying
35:36is that
35:36a diet
35:37if you're
35:38removing
35:38things
35:39there is
35:41still
35:41an action
35:42associated
35:43with it
35:44even if
35:44you stop
35:45buying
35:45some
35:45things
35:45there is
35:47an action
35:47of buying
35:47because the
35:48food is
35:48not the
35:49same food
35:49every week
35:50that just
35:50kind of
35:50recycles
35:51and I
35:51want to be
35:52obvious here
35:52but you
35:53still have
35:53to go to
35:53the store
35:54and continually
35:54buy the
35:55items
35:55and stay
35:56on top
35:57of the
35:58diet.
36:00So my
36:01point is
36:01I understand
36:02that but
36:03that's if
36:03you're doing
36:05some I
36:05don't know
36:05special
36:06carnivore
36:07diet and
36:07you're only
36:08eating meat
36:08and you're
36:09changing
36:09everything
36:09but and
36:10that's why
36:11I said
36:11this is a
36:12diet where
36:13you just
36:13take away
36:13things.
36:14I don't
36:15think that
36:15changes
36:16anything even
36:16if you're
36:17continuing
36:17everything else
36:18except you're
36:18not eating
36:19M&M's I
36:21think there
36:21is still a
36:22positive action
36:23involved in
36:24that.
36:26Okay so my
36:27friend who
36:28stopped drinking
36:29he stopped
36:30going out to
36:30buy sodas
36:31taking them
36:31home unpacking
36:32them put them
36:33in the fridge
36:33and throwing
36:34out the
36:34bottles so he
36:35reduced actions
36:36from something
36:38to zero
36:39and that's an
36:40action.
36:41So I
36:44no it
36:44is not.
36:46So that's
36:46what I'm
36:46talking about.
36:48Right but
36:49he's still
36:49he's still
36:51participating
36:51in positive
36:53actions.
36:55I guess I
36:56mean I
36:57just it's a
36:57distinction I
36:58understand it.
36:59I understand
36:59I'm happy to
37:00be schooled.
37:02So let's
37:02let's do
37:03another one
37:03that may be
37:04a bit easier.
37:05So if
37:06if Bob
37:07is a guy
37:08Bob's a
37:08chain smoker
37:09right he
37:09smokes four
37:10packs a
37:10day or
37:10something like
37:11that and
37:11then he
37:12quit smoking
37:14right.
37:15Right.
37:15That's a
37:16non-action.
37:16Yes.
37:17Okay so
37:17so that's
37:18a non-action
37:19right.
37:20Right.
37:20So so
37:22sorry it's
37:23Bob acting
37:24in not
37:25smoking.
37:27No.
37:29So how
37:30is that
37:30different from
37:31Bob not
37:32buying soda.
37:35Well okay
37:37so they are
37:37both non-actions
37:38but the
37:40question was
37:41is a non-action
37:42virtuous.
37:42no no no
37:44we still
37:44no we
37:45just because
37:45we didn't
37:45get to
37:46virtue we
37:46were just
37:46doing the
37:47diet
37:47analogy so
37:48we don't
37:48have to
37:49get to
37:49virtue when
37:50we were
37:50trying to
37:50get the
37:51diet
37:51analogy
37:51right.
37:52So so
37:53if Bob
37:54if Bob
37:55not buying
37:55soda is
37:56a non-action
37:57then that's
37:59what I was
37:59talking about.
38:01Okay.
38:06So can we
38:07so I was
38:07skipping over
38:08that I was
38:09a little bit
38:09skipping over
38:10the diet part
38:10and going
38:11straight to
38:11the to
38:12the root
38:12of the
38:12question my
38:14original
38:14question and
38:16that yes
38:16well but you
38:17weren't telling
38:18me that you
38:19weren't saying
38:19Steph I'm
38:20going to jump
38:20out of the
38:21diet thing
38:21because I'm
38:21going to talk
38:22about the
38:22virtue thing
38:23but I'm
38:24going to
38:24pretend that
38:25I'm talking
38:25about the
38:25diet thing
38:26because you
38:27weren't talking
38:27about virtue
38:28you were
38:28talking about
38:29eating
38:31but so
38:34you were
38:35using you
38:35were using
38:36my analogy
38:37but trying
38:37to jump
38:39to virtue
38:41while still
38:41talking about
38:42human beings
38:43need to eat
38:43something I
38:43mean do you
38:44understand that's
38:45that's pretty
38:45hard to follow
38:46right I do
38:48see yes I do
38:49see how that
38:50was not well
38:51delivered and
38:52hard to follow
38:53and not
38:53listening
38:54I'm still
38:58going to push
38:58back on that I
38:59think I was
39:00listening but
39:01no no because
39:02when I'm trying
39:03to explain
39:04something and
39:04you're going
39:05off on some
39:05other complete
39:06tangent without
39:07telling me you're
39:07not listening to
39:08me because
39:12now your
39:12preference or
39:13what you want
39:14to talk about
39:14has taken over
39:15the conversation
39:16and you haven't
39:17communicated that
39:18to me so
39:19you're kind of
39:19hijacking the
39:20conversation to
39:21go on to the
39:21ethics thing I
39:23think or based
39:24on I don't know
39:24exactly how but
39:25somehow by saying
39:27human beings
39:27require calories
39:28we were now
39:29talking about
39:29ethics I'd
39:30honestly have no
39:30idea how that
39:31works but but
39:32that's what you
39:32were saying but
39:33if if you're
39:34listening you
39:35respond to what
39:36the person says
39:36if you go off
39:37on some
39:38tangent then
39:39you're not
39:39listening anymore
39:40right and I
39:41did say yes to
39:42the first time
39:42you asked and
39:43I thought that
39:44sorry I don't
39:46know I asked
39:46what sorry you
39:47said yes to the
39:47first time I
39:47asked what you
39:49said can a
39:50diet is a diet
39:51a non-action and
39:52I said yeah but
39:53because I was
39:54trying to get to
39:55the my original
39:56question we kind
39:56of went off that
39:57we actually went
39:57off a little bit
39:58about the dieting
39:59and I was trying
40:00to pull it back a
40:00little bit
40:01so that means
40:04you're not
40:04listening you're
40:05asking me a
40:06question I
40:08spend about a
40:08minute giving
40:09you an analogy
40:10so listening is
40:15trusting that the
40:17guy who solved the
40:18entire problem of
40:19secular ethics might
40:21have something useful
40:22to say also you
40:23do understand I'm
40:24not just talking to
40:25you right it's a
40:29live show it goes
40:30out to a
40:34mainstream
40:35non-technical
40:35audience right
40:36so I can't just
40:39talk to you I
40:41have to frame it
40:42in a way that
40:43people who haven't
40:44read UPB can
40:45follow and
40:46understand because
40:47otherwise I would
40:48say pay for a
40:49private call we'll
40:50hash it out and
40:51then I don't have
40:51to worry or take
40:54into account the
40:55general audience
40:56right yep so
40:59I need to find a
41:00way to translate
41:00the question of
41:02positive or
41:02negative ethics
41:03into a context
41:05that people as a
41:07whole can
41:07understand because
41:08you're calling into
41:09a public show it's
41:10not a private
41:11conversation right
41:12right
41:13all right so
41:24let's see what
41:25else did you say
41:26here
41:26okay I kept
41:33saying that
41:33dieting means
41:34reducing food
41:35intake and you
41:35kept saying well
41:36you have to eat
41:37something which is
41:39annoying right and
41:40you were trying to
41:41get to you were
41:42trying to get to
41:43some ethics thing
41:44and I was trying to
41:45explain it to both
41:46you and the general
41:47audience in terms that
41:48would make sense and
41:49we did get to the
41:49ethics thing right
41:50yeah mostly
41:53what do you mean
41:55mostly well I
41:58didn't get a well
41:59we didn't end up
42:00getting a definitive
42:00answer on is a
42:02non-action
42:03virtuous or
42:05whether or not the
42:06man in the coma is
42:07a virtuous I
42:09didn't really get a
42:09definitive answer on
42:10either I said he's
42:11not evil right
42:13that's it if we can
42:13get human beings to
42:14not we have a
42:15hundred year we
42:15sorry go ahead
42:16listening to me
42:17maybe you're not
42:18listening to me
42:18that's not what I
42:19didn't ask if he was
42:20evil well that is
42:25the answer he is
42:26not virtuous but
42:27he's not evil
42:28okay thank you I
42:30didn't get the first
42:31part there well but
42:32that's what I said
42:33I mean the coma
42:36test is if you have
42:38a virtue that
42:39requires someone in
42:40a that that
42:41condemns someone in
42:42a coma it can't be
42:43a real virtue
42:44clearly a person in
42:45a coma can't be
42:46virtuous but he
42:47can't be evil
42:48right okay
42:49yes I agree
42:50okay so when I
42:51when I say if we
42:52can so a non
42:53action is neither
42:55good nor evil
42:56because that's what
42:57the coma test is
42:58right right and
43:00so if we can just
43:01get people to stop
43:02being evil then at
43:03some point we can
43:05get them to start
43:06focusing on being
43:08good right so I
43:11mean it was a
43:11pretty good answer
43:13for you know a
43:1410 minute
43:14conversation with a
43:16couple of and
43:16that's why I put the
43:17analogy in of like
43:18people bleeding out
43:19and you don't want
43:19they don't need to
43:20run a marathon we
43:20just need to stop
43:21the bleeding right
43:21right
43:23okay so so now
43:28you replied to me
43:29when I said dieting
43:33means reducing food
43:34intake you kept
43:34saying well you
43:35have to eat
43:35something which is
43:36incomprehensible and
43:37annoying right and
43:39I so then you said
43:40well I said yeah but
43:41the first time you
43:42asked I wasn't
43:43suggesting you were
43:43saying to eat no
43:44food me saying but
43:45you still have to eat
43:46things can't eat
43:47nothing meant that a
43:48diet by omission of
43:49some items still
43:50requires consistent
43:51positive virtue of
43:52going to the store
43:53buying non-sugary
43:54items or making
43:55smaller meals setting
43:55a timer on when you
43:56can eat tracking your
43:57calories weighing
43:58yourself etc that's
44:00where the virtue would
44:01be not simply by not
44:03eating some things even
44:04it meant the success of
44:05the diet and even if
44:06the action is the same
44:07as you suggest I think
44:08the response for your
44:09AI gave something up
44:10perfectly even if it is
44:11a shitty argument it
44:12wasn't for lack of
44:13listening okay so I
44:16think earlier you were
44:17saying that you had
44:18shifted it to some
44:19sort of you were
44:20trying to wrestle the
44:21dieting analogy to get
44:23back to virtue mostly
44:26yeah yes I would say
44:28yes without telling me
44:29that well I asked the
44:32question at the beginning
44:32of the call but yes
44:33come on come on come
44:35on man come on let's
44:37let's be friendly about
44:38this right so this is
44:40this is a bad habit you
44:41have I'll just be
44:42straight up with you
44:42you can take the
44:43coaching or not it's
44:44no matter to me but
44:46when you again
44:48annoyingly tell me
44:50well I did ask the
44:51question at the
44:52beginning of the
44:52conversation that's
44:55really provocative
44:56because you're telling
45:00me something that I
45:02already know but it
45:05wasn't like I just
45:06sprung that out of
45:08like I just took a
45:09left turn into this
45:11virtue discussion that
45:12came out of nowhere it
45:13was established wasn't
45:14it but why on earth
45:15would you think that I'm
45:16saying it came out of
45:17nowhere do you think
45:19that I don't know that
45:20you asked a question
45:21about virtue because you
45:23said that I didn't tell
45:24you about I didn't tell
45:24you about it you
45:25didn't tell me that you
45:27were changing the
45:28context from the
45:30analogy of dieting back
45:32to virtue directly and
45:34you should have told me
45:35that because when we're
45:35talking about dieting and
45:37you're trying to side
45:38wedge in some ethical
45:39discussion without telling
45:40me it's confusing
45:42I can I understand
45:46that okay and that's
45:48what I mean by not
45:50listening you're now
45:50running your own agenda
45:51and it gets confusing
45:53and then you know so by
45:55telling me well stuff
45:56people need to eat and
45:57then saying well you know
45:58I did ask this question
45:59about ethics I'm just
46:01telling you man that's
46:02kind of it's really
46:03provocative because when
46:05you tell people things
46:07they already know in a
46:08very superior tone it's
46:11just provocative that's
46:12all okay I mean is
46:15that is that bad
46:16product provocative or
46:17well listen it's fine to
46:21be provocative if there's
46:23a point but it's kind of
46:26insulting to say to
46:27people well people need
46:28to eat you know and well
46:29I did ask a question at
46:30the beginning of the
46:31conversation right it's
46:34treating people like
46:34they're idiots and
46:37now if I was an idiot
46:39you wouldn't be calling
46:40me up asking me complex
46:41questions about virtue
46:42right for sure I mean
46:46this was this ever a
46:46thing that happened to
46:47you when you were
46:47younger were you ever
46:48treated as incompetent or
46:50dumb or anything like
46:53that I can't imagine
46:54this habit comes out of
46:55nowhere I'm not sure if
46:58it comes from my
46:59experience necessarily but
47:01because it's a pretty
47:03finely tuned instinct that
47:06that you have here and
47:08I mean obviously I
47:10don't know the origin
47:10of it but all right
47:14so I'm a lot I will
47:15I will think about that
47:17and see if I can
47:18improve that okay so
47:21of the things that you
47:22said at the beginning
47:23that I completely
47:25mischaracterized our
47:28interaction you don't get
47:29to say that to me and I
47:33don't get to say that to
47:34you
47:36because if I have an
47:38experience of something
47:39you don't get to tell me
47:41I'm wrong
47:41and this is just this is
47:44just relationship stuff
47:46that's really really
47:47important
47:47so if you said Steph I
47:51was really frustrated by
47:52a conversation do I get
47:54to tell you that you're
47:54wrong
47:55no
47:57right
47:59if I say I didn't feel
48:02listened to you can you
48:03tell me that I'm wrong
48:04no
48:07but you did right
48:09repeatedly tell me that I
48:11was wrong mischaracterized
48:12things and
48:12and that you 100% right and
48:14I was 100% wrong
48:15so don't do that to people
48:18and I say this with
48:20affection right you're a
48:21very smart guy and all of
48:22that so and I appreciate the
48:24conversation but seriously
48:25man you cannot do that to
48:27people because quality
48:28people just won't want to
48:30spend time with you
48:31because nobody nobody's
48:34going to want to be told
48:35oh I love this song no you
48:37don't
48:37you're lying
48:38could you imagine saying
48:41that to someone
48:41no
48:43what so if I say look this
48:45was my experience
48:46of the call
48:48how could you how can you
48:52how can you tell me that I'm
48:54wrong
48:54you can tell me that you had a
48:57different experience we can
48:58talk about it that's fine
48:59but yeah don't come in all
49:01hot and telling me that I'm
49:02mischaracterizing things and I
49:04don't understand and I'm
49:05wrong and I was mean and
49:06like that's not good
49:08I mean you can ask me you can
49:11say hey you know I was kind
49:13of surprised you had this
49:14experience of the call tell me
49:16more you know then then you
49:17have a good conversation but
49:19when you come in hot and you
49:21know Steph you were unjust and
49:22mischaracterized anything I
49:23listened perfectly you just
49:24didn't like my answer then
49:26you're telling me what my
49:27experience is and what I want
49:32to tell you to do is to get
49:34lost don't come in and tell me
49:37what my experience is and isn't
49:40you dictatorial son of a bitch
49:41not that I'm calling you a
49:43dictatorial son of a bitch but
49:44that's my impulse yeah in the
49:47same way that if you said I was
49:49really sad last night and I said
49:50no you're not you're just lying
49:53about that wouldn't you tell me
49:55to get lost I mean isn't it
49:59slightly different well I guess
50:01until the beginning of the call I
50:02would have not have said that
50:04listening was necessarily on your
50:06end so if I'm listening to me when
50:09you say I'm not listening I would
50:11say how do you know how do you know
50:12that I'm not listening but I guess
50:14I understand now that it's because I
50:15wasn't responding correctly or in
50:17line with the conversation so well
50:20no because I kept repeating what I
50:22was saying and you kept repeating
50:24what you're saying without
50:25rebutting that's not listening
50:26well I was thinking it was a
50:29rebuttal because what I was saying
50:31was not what was going across
50:33right and the way that you
50:36communicated it was if I say well
50:39dieting involves cutting back on
50:42your eating and you say well you
50:43still have to eat that's a
50:46non-sequitur right
50:47yes it is okay and so you
50:54communicated poorly and so did I
50:56because I swore and I apologize for
50:58that so I'm but it's funny because
51:00you know this is the interesting
51:01question about this kind of stuff
51:04which is that I think you came in
51:07hot because I apologized and this is
51:10always the challenge with apologizing
51:11is that sometimes when you apologize
51:15people get aggressive I don't know
51:19if you've ever noticed that in life
51:20as a whole but it certainly was the
51:24case in my family that if you
51:25apologized oh yeah remember you
51:27apologized for that last thing but
51:28you're so certain about this now so
51:30I've sort of noticed that I mean
51:32when I apologize as some people you
51:37know take it with good grace and
51:38appreciative and a lot of people will
51:40apologize back right so if I say you
51:44know I'm sorry I swore and you can
51:46say like I'm sorry if I was
51:47frustrating or I'm sorry if this
51:48conversation was frustrating you and
51:50that's just kind of a polite thing if
51:51that makes sense
51:52yeah and I was trying to say was I
51:55when I said what's with the f-bomb am
51:57I being it am I being inappropriate am
51:59I being off here and I got cut off so I
52:02was trying to get to the bottom of why
52:04you were frustrated
52:04uh briefly but um well but but you
52:10didn't right because then today uh you
52:13you came in very aggressively calling
52:14me bad and wrong
52:15well yes because that was for the
52:21the second that was the second call I
52:23was already passed with the Wednesday
52:24call this was now Sunday when you were
52:27saying that I wasn't listening right
52:29and does that does that give you the
52:33right to call me bad and wrong
52:34no no no no I'm just saying that
52:36no no but you did but you did right I
52:40did yeah so the fact that I did not
52:42experience you as listening to me and I
52:43didn't feel feel listened to in that
52:46moment
52:47which you've now admitted was not ideal
52:51listening so let's say that I say I
52:58wasn't being listened to and I have I
53:01had good reason for that right I mean
53:02not 100% right about everything but I
53:04had good reason to feel not listened to
53:06does that give you the right to get
53:08aggressive and call me bad and wrong
53:10no it doesn't
53:13unjust treating you unfairly I just don't
53:17like your answer you were listening
53:19perfectly
53:20oh dude that's really aggressive stuff
53:22and if you have people like you say oh you
53:26did something that was unpleasant to me and
53:29I apologize three times over the course of
53:31that call and then you come in hot I don't
53:36want to have anything to do with the
53:37conversations I'm just telling you that
53:39because when I do something wrong I
53:43apologize when you do something wrong you
53:46don't even notice it you just come in
53:47aggressive right
53:48yeah
53:50so that's asymmetrical and that means as
53:54well usually it means that if I apologize
53:58you view it as a status thing like I've
54:02apologized like you know the the king
54:04doesn't apologize to the slave but the
54:07slave better grovel before the king right
54:09that was I mean I could be honest with
54:11you that is not part of it at all like you
54:14apologizing was not part of the secondary
54:16message because that was about the
54:19statement about the call not about the
54:21it was nothing to do with the apology
54:23well
54:24I would see you're very sure of things but
54:29you've been wrong about a bunch of
54:30things in this call but you're now
54:32equally sure of that and I wouldn't be
54:34so sure of that
54:35I wouldn't be so sure that the fact that
54:38I apologize didn't make you feel kind of
54:39punchy and superior
54:40it could it's possible right I'm not
54:46saying it is
54:47it's possible and it certainly would
54:50accord with a bunch of people's
54:52thoughts and feelings of experience and
54:55experiences of conflict right whoever
54:56blinks first whoever apologizes first is
54:59in the lessor or subjugated position or
55:02subordinate position we could say
55:03I do I could see that possibility yes
55:08okay I'm I'm it's and that didn't put
55:11forward as a certainty but I think it's
55:13a it's definitely a possibility
55:15all right I don't feel at all satisfied
55:24but the conversation I think you're
55:26still very cagey and and hedging and
55:28all of that but you know it's kind of
55:30late here so I think we'll have to call
55:31it a night all right sounds good
55:34all right bye
55:35you
55:40you
55:44you
55:44you
Comments