QUESTION: I’m filled with thoughts but often find my mind blank when engaging with people who are fluent in small talk. What is the truth about people who love small talk? (Your reveal about shy people was legendary and extremely helpful)
ANSWER:
Small talk is important but shallow conversations can be dangerous. Inflexible mindsets and simplistic solutions hinder critical thinking. Beware of persuasive tricks and aim for meaningful discussions.
2023, Stefan Molyneux
www.freedomain.com
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free! Get access to the audiobook for my new book 'Peaceful Parenting,' StefBOT-AI, private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series! See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022
Generated Shownotes
0:03:32 The Balance Between Small Talk and Depth of Conversation
0:08:57 The Danger of Shallow Slogans and Vanity Advertising
0:10:22 Complexity vs Simplicity: The Temptation of Violence
0:12:30 Small Talk and Shallow Solutions Enable Evil
However, in today's society, there seems to be a certain narrow-mindedness and hostility towards deeper conversations. This may be influenced by what is referred to as woke culture. Some individuals aggressively enforce a shallow and rigid mindset, labeling certain topics as inappropriate without providing valid reasons. The term "inappropriate" is subjective and undefined, often used as a tactic to discourage discussion rather than promote understanding. These individuals exert influence through tactics such as cold glances, withdrawal, and eye-rolling to discourage engagement with certain topics.
The main speaker reflects on their experience in lower social classes and notes that this rigidity stems from a lack of flexibility and curiosity. These individuals are referred to as the "period people," who rigidly adhere to certain beliefs without questioning them. The speaker criticizes the use of slogans that pass for wisdom and virtue but lack depth or knowledge. These slogans are employed to feign wisdom and exert control over people's thoughts and actions. Instead, the speaker emphasizes the importance of seeking complexity and engaging in philosophical inquiry to avoid the simplicity and brutality of violence. They advocate for critical thinking and question the effectiveness of central planning, emphasizing the preservation of property rights.
To highlight the absurdity of simplistic solutions, the speaker draws a comparison to protecting women from rape by forcing them into marriages. They argue that shallow-minded individuals prefer simplicity, and those in power exploit this preference by promoting slogans that foster impatience, aggression, and a likelihood of advocating violence. The speaker suggests that competition and voluntarism can provide checks and balances to prevent the misuse of power over children's minds.
If we continue to engage in shallow conversations, we cannot guarantee the absence of society-destroying propaganda machines. Shallow-minded individuals, addicted to small talk, strive to keep others in the shallow end because they have abandoned challenging virtue for simplistic slogans and shouting. This kills their conscience, although it cannot truly be eradicated, only entombed. They do not want others to ask foundational questions as it would expose their corruption and pretense of knowledge and virtue.
The speaker argues that individuals who claim to care about helping the poor by giving them money and believing everything will be perfect are being naive. Such simplistic thinking tempts people to resort to violence. The use of violence becomes necessary for those who enforce their beliefs because, without it, people might question their ignorance and lack of genuine concern for the poor. These individuals only care about appearing to care, while they are willing to sacrifice the poor and the future for their own image.
Similarly, those who advocate for government funding of the arts because they care about it fail to realize that it can limit critical art that challenges the government. Simple answers and solutions often justify violence and fail to address complex social issues. Shallow individuals engaged in small talk are typically plagued by a guilty conscience as they pretend to promote virtue while serving evil purposes. Their conscience is worse than that of an active evildoer because they deceive themselves and others.
The speaker highlights the danger of sophistic individuals who use persuasive tricks, as they can cause disastrous effects in collaboration with the state. Those who advocate for simplistic and coercive solutions instead of wise and curious exploration contribute to the terrible things happening in the world. They go to great lengths to ensure their deception remains hidden and strive to keep conversations shallow and full of small talk. However, it is crucial to recognize that small talk can pave the way for significant evils.
Chapters
0:00:03 The Truth About Small Talk and Reading Social Cues0:03:32 The Balance Between Small Talk and Depth of Conversation
0:08:57 The Danger of Shallow Slogans and Vanity Advertising
0:10:22 Complexity vs Simplicity: The Temptation of Violence
0:12:30 Small Talk and Shallow Solutions Enable Evil
Long Summary
In this part of the conversation, we delve into the topic of small talk and its significance in social interactions. Small talk serves as a social lubricant, allowing individuals to acknowledge each other's presence and display basic social skills. It is crucial to have a decent understanding of small talk as it helps in reading social cues and navigating social situations. While it is important to adjust behavior based on the comfort level of others, being overly obsessed with social conventions can hinder genuine social interactions. Nevertheless, being able to read the room and understand social cues is important, especially as women tend to value social status and the ability to read these cues. While small talk is a valuable skill, it should not be the only skill one possesses. It is essential to balance fine motor skills with broader skills.However, in today's society, there seems to be a certain narrow-mindedness and hostility towards deeper conversations. This may be influenced by what is referred to as woke culture. Some individuals aggressively enforce a shallow and rigid mindset, labeling certain topics as inappropriate without providing valid reasons. The term "inappropriate" is subjective and undefined, often used as a tactic to discourage discussion rather than promote understanding. These individuals exert influence through tactics such as cold glances, withdrawal, and eye-rolling to discourage engagement with certain topics.
The main speaker reflects on their experience in lower social classes and notes that this rigidity stems from a lack of flexibility and curiosity. These individuals are referred to as the "period people," who rigidly adhere to certain beliefs without questioning them. The speaker criticizes the use of slogans that pass for wisdom and virtue but lack depth or knowledge. These slogans are employed to feign wisdom and exert control over people's thoughts and actions. Instead, the speaker emphasizes the importance of seeking complexity and engaging in philosophical inquiry to avoid the simplicity and brutality of violence. They advocate for critical thinking and question the effectiveness of central planning, emphasizing the preservation of property rights.
To highlight the absurdity of simplistic solutions, the speaker draws a comparison to protecting women from rape by forcing them into marriages. They argue that shallow-minded individuals prefer simplicity, and those in power exploit this preference by promoting slogans that foster impatience, aggression, and a likelihood of advocating violence. The speaker suggests that competition and voluntarism can provide checks and balances to prevent the misuse of power over children's minds.
If we continue to engage in shallow conversations, we cannot guarantee the absence of society-destroying propaganda machines. Shallow-minded individuals, addicted to small talk, strive to keep others in the shallow end because they have abandoned challenging virtue for simplistic slogans and shouting. This kills their conscience, although it cannot truly be eradicated, only entombed. They do not want others to ask foundational questions as it would expose their corruption and pretense of knowledge and virtue.
The speaker argues that individuals who claim to care about helping the poor by giving them money and believing everything will be perfect are being naive. Such simplistic thinking tempts people to resort to violence. The use of violence becomes necessary for those who enforce their beliefs because, without it, people might question their ignorance and lack of genuine concern for the poor. These individuals only care about appearing to care, while they are willing to sacrifice the poor and the future for their own image.
Similarly, those who advocate for government funding of the arts because they care about it fail to realize that it can limit critical art that challenges the government. Simple answers and solutions often justify violence and fail to address complex social issues. Shallow individuals engaged in small talk are typically plagued by a guilty conscience as they pretend to promote virtue while serving evil purposes. Their conscience is worse than that of an active evildoer because they deceive themselves and others.
The speaker highlights the danger of sophistic individuals who use persuasive tricks, as they can cause disastrous effects in collaboration with the state. Those who advocate for simplistic and coercive solutions instead of wise and curious exploration contribute to the terrible things happening in the world. They go to great lengths to ensure their deception remains hidden and strive to keep conversations shallow and full of small talk. However, it is crucial to recognize that small talk can pave the way for significant evils.
Brief Summary
In this part of the conversation, we discuss the significance of small talk and the dangers of shallow conversations. Small talk serves as a social lubricant but should not be the only skill we possess. Some individuals enforce a narrow-minded and rigid mindset, discouraging deeper discussions. This rigidity stems from a lack of curiosity and flexibility. Shallow slogans and simplistic solutions can justify violence and hinder critical thinking. The use of persuasive tricks by sophistic individuals can have disastrous effects. It is important to recognize the potential dangers of shallow conversations and strive for genuine and meaningful discussions.Tags
small talk, shallow conversations, social lubricant, narrow-mindedness, rigidity, lack of curiosity, flexibility, shallow slogans, simplistic solutions, violence, critical thinking, persuasive tricksTranscript
[0:01] Hey everybody, Stephen Molyneux from Freedom Inn, hope you're doing well.
The Truth About Small Talk and Reading Social Cues
[0:03] All right, an interestingly deep question for y'all, which sounds shallow. So here we go.
Somebody says, I'm filled with thoughts, but often find my mind blank when engaging with people who are fluent in small talk.
What is the truth about people who love small talk? Your reveal about shy people was legendary, then extremely helpful, right?
Small talk.
Now small talk is a kind of social lubricant, you know, the small pleasantries that people, exchange back and forth to just acknowledge each other's presence and to show some sort of basic social skills and empathy.
It's a good thing to be decent at small talk. I don't think it's something you want to become a real expert at, but it's a good thing to be decent at small talk.
Okay, you can get by, you can do it on a sort of as-needed basis.
That's a fine thing, not a bad thing at all.
Remember, and this is particularly true for men, but also to some degree for women, are you relatively decent at, you know, what's called reading the room?
Can you read the room?
That's important, because if you don't get social cues very well, then you're less likely to be successful.
[1:21] Right? There's this joke, it's been around forever in comedy circles, where some bad thing happens and some bad sort of social war of it. And somebody makes a joke about it and then they say, too soon, too soon, yeah, it's too soon, right?
Is it too soon, right, because comedy is tragedy plus time. So can you read the room?
Are you good at reading social cues? Do you know if somebody's bored with what you're saying?
Do you know if somebody's actually finding you funny? Do you know if somebody's interested in what you're saying?
So are you good at reading the room? Do you know how to act appropriately in social situations?
Now, this doesn't mean being a slave to social situations. It doesn't mean having no identity.
It doesn't mean having no integrity. It's just, can you read particular social cues?
So for instance, somebody who's bad at reading social cues would be the petty criminal who decides to fight the cop.
I think that's not good at reading about legal cues, but also to some degree social cues.
Are you decent at reading social cues?
If somebody is acutely uncomfortable, then are you able to adjust your behavior?
[2:33] To act in recognition of that. It doesn't mean necessarily to make them feel better or anything like that, but just are you able to adjust your behavior in reaction to someone who's acutely uncomfortable?
So there's another real cliche in comedies, which is somebody gets kind of obsessed with doing something themselves.
They're obsessed with cleaning something under their nails and they really get into it.
Then other people look at them like, whoa, what are you doing? That kind of thing.
This is used a number of times in the 80s movie, The Breakfast Club, where the goth girl, the emo girl is biting at her nails or her cuticles or something, and everyone's looking at her like with that, what are you doing?
And that's an example of not reading social cues.
You get so into what you're doing that other people look at you like you've sprouted a second how to get an advertising head or something like that.
And that's an example of not reading social cues very well, And that's the problem.
The Balance Between Small Talk and Depth of Conversation
[3:32] You really should be, a lot of people feel like, oh, I'm not gonna be a slave to convention, I'm not gonna read social cues. And it's like, okay, well, that's fine.
You can do that, but it's gonna harm your dating prospects.
In particular, women tend to be a little bit more concerned about social status and reading the room and reading social cues and so on.
Reading social cues doesn't mean that you're a slave.
If somebody's uncomfortable, reading the social cue simply means noticing that they're uncomfortable.
And whether you deal with that or not, but at least noticing it.
Maybe you'll take some steps to make them more comfortable, maybe you'll drop the topic, or maybe, you know, if you are engaged in some sort of hostile debate, maybe you'll press your advantage and really push verbally hard down on where they're the least comfortable.
Like it could be any number of things, but you've got to at least know what's going on.
[4:22] What you do with it is a different matter, but you have to at least be able to read the room.
So, being able to do small talk is fine.
Now, you want to be able to do small talk, you don't want to be only able to do small talk.
Does that make sense?
You want to have fine motor skills, but you don't want to only have fine motor skills.
Like you want to be able to thread a needle, I suppose, but you also want to be able to lift heavy weights and run away from a bear, right? You need your big, big ass.
[4:54] Skills as well as just sort of fine motor skills. So you don't want to be a slave to social convention in this way.
There is a certain kind of small-minded, narrow-minded, rigid personality structure that is quite hostile towards anything of depth.
I mean I think we, it's almost the default position these days to be hostile and frightened and aggressive towards anything of any depth.
I don't, this is an old Seinfeld joke, I don't really think we're supposed to be talking about this.
You know that kind of stuff, right? Keep it shallow, keep it goofy, keep it nonsensical and so on.
As sort of woke culture has expanded, or woke anti-culture has expanded, this has become more and more common.
[5:38] So there are people who are desperate to keep topics relentlessly shallow, inconsequential and unimportant.
And they do that with quite an aggressive rigidity. And this is where the word inappropriate comes from, this is inappropriate to talk about.
Well of course the question is always well appropriate to what, who defines it, what does it mean relative to, whatever else is going on.
So it's never defined, it's just a generic negative term that is supposed to make you feel bad and thus train you into not talking about particular topics rather than give you, a reason for not talking about particular topics.
So yeah inappropriate, getting cold angry glances shot at you, people withdrawing, people rolling their eyes, these are all designed to program you into avoiding particular topics.
Now, I was thinking about this just over the last couple of days, sort of what is it that characterizes some of the worst aspects of the lower classes that I kind of crawled my way out of, and one of them is this intense rigidity, with regards to thoughts and ideas.
There's no flexibility, there's no curiosity, and I've referred to them as the period people.
You know, it's just this way, period.
You know, hate has no home here. It's like, what does that even mean?
Does that mean you hate people?
[6:53] Hate? What if they hate evil? It doesn't mean anything. It's just, well, when people say, hate has no home here, what they mean is that they are giving themselves license to hate people. Which is, I mean, it's kind of ironic, right? Intolerance has no home here! It's like, well then aren't you intolerant? And what if somebody's intolerant of intolerance?
Right? I mean, does that mean that... Anyway, so it's all just a bunch of nonsense. Has no home here means... has no home here is one of these threats of ostracism. It's designed, to kick into your unconscious and provoke the torture circuits that are stimulated by threats or enactments of ostracism. So that's what that sort of... hate has no home here means that you're going to threaten you with ostracism if you do something that I define as hate. We're allowed to hate the hateful even if the hateful are hating the hateful and the evil and anyway it's all a bunch of Pavlovian programmable brain vacuum nonsense but there are this rigidity and these slogans, right?
And these slogans pass for wisdom, these slogans pass for knowledge, these slogans pass for virtue but the slogans are stupid.
The slogans are stupid and you know, no human being is illegal, right?
It's just a stupid statement.
It's a stupid statement because of course there are tons of people who are illegal.
[8:22] Try not paying your taxes and see if you end up becoming illegal, right?
Try not paying for government schools. Anyway, so it's all, but these are just slogans, right?
Now when people pretend that they have wisdom because they have slogans, then they have, to skate on the shallowest of shallow surfaces of things because any depth reveals their pretense of wisdom.
Depth, any curiosity. This is back to the ancient battle between Socrates and the Sophists. The Sophists are those who pretend to have knowledge that they don't in fact.
And this is sort of the MPC thing, right? You get programmed with a bunch of slogans.
The Danger of Shallow Slogans and Vanity Advertising
[8:57] And you can see them, like people proudly display them on their lawns and so on, and we've sort of mentioned them here. Well, just a bunch of slogans. There's no depth, there's no knowledge. Like, you know, all of the people who say, well, you can't know anything for certain, man. Oh, really? Are you certain of that? You know, it's just, well, it's just stupid, stupid stuff. People are given slogans and they grab onto those slogans as a form of vanity advertising to pretend that they're deep and knowledgeable when they are, when they're not deep and knowledgeable and quite the opposite, right?
To give people slogans and have them pretend to be virtuous is one of the surest methods of advancing power and control over people.
The reason being that the way that you avoid the simplicity and stupidity of violence is with the depth and curiosity of philosophy.
That there aren't simple answers, that it's very complex because when there are simple answers, violence is very tempting. When there are complex answers, violence becomes less tempting, right? So idiots will say, well, we got a bunch of rich people, there's a couple of poor people, we'll just take money from the rich people, give it to the poor people and everyone will be fine, right? That's a stupid solution to a challenging problem.
And if you can get people to believe that, then the use of violence and the use of slogans, The use of violence and the boiling down of things to one variable simplicity idiot formulas, are very intertwined.
Complexity vs Simplicity: The Temptation of Violence
[10:22] Complexity is freedom. Simplicity often is brutality.
Now it's sort of like how should goods be allocated in society?
Well of course the stupid answer is to say, you know, that the wisest people should sit and distribute resources according to what's best for the economy.
Some sort of central planning nonsense, right? We say, well, how are they going to know?
And how can they be so wise? And how do they get chosen? And what happens if they're bad?
You know, there's just so many questions that...
[10:55] How do we protect our property? Well the government, but the government can only protect your property by taking it ahead of time so that's not really much of an answer now is it right?
It's like saying well we protect women from being raped by forcing them to marry men and then making no, there's no possibility of raping within a marriage.
So we're protecting women from rape, this would be the dumb argument right?
Women are getting raped, well we'll force women to marry men and then define marriage as that in which you cannot rape your wife and look at that, no rape, right?
It's all this sort of stuff, right? Rather than dealing with root causes you jiggle with the facts and think that you're a genius.
So you want to keep things complex, shallow people want to keep things simple.
Shallow people want to keep things simple. And those in power want to hand people slogans because by pretending that things are simple, They make people vain and impatient and aggressive and they both emotionally and from a sort of consequentialist standpoint raise the likelihood of advocating violence.
You know, if the government is just great at educating kids and kids need to be educated then of course we have to government educate children, right? That's the argument.
As opposed to, well, the greatest power any human beings have is over the mindset of children And how are people never, like how are you going to guarantee without competition and voluntarism that people will never use that power to ill?
[12:21] You can't guarantee that. And therefore you are setting yourself up for society destroying propaganda machines, right? Mills.
Small Talk and Shallow Solutions Enable Evil
[12:30] So shallow people, small talk addicted people, people who will try and punish you for veering, out of the shallow end of the conversation pool, well, the reason they want to keep you, in the shallow end, is the dead bodies of their former conscience is buried in the deep end.
[12:48] When you trade out your conscience for slogans, when you trade out challenging virtue for simplistic shouting, you kill your conscience.
I mean, you can't really kill it dead, but you entomb it for sure.
And in the same way that a guy who's killed a bunch of people and buried them in his backyard doesn't want you rooting around his backyard, people who have traded in their conscience for empty stupid sloganeering, don't want you asking any foundational questions because that will reveal their own corruption and their own pretense of knowledge and virtue, right? So the people who say I care about the poor and we should just give the poor money and then they won't be poor and everything will be great, well that's, it's dumb. And, because it's dumb it tempts people to violence. The reason for that, well if, If it's so simple you might as well just use coercion to achieve it, that's number one.
And number two, they need it enacted through violence because otherwise people will start asking uncomfortable questions, reveal their own appalling lack of ignorance or thought, or care about the actual subject, their lack of caring about the poor.
They only care about people perceiving that they care about the poor, they don't actually care about the poor and they're perfectly willing to sacrifice the poor and the future, the poor in order to pretend to...
[14:08] To believe that they care and so I care about the arts so the government should fund the arts. It's like well the arts is very powerful ways of programming people and will the government fund art that is critical of the government?
Well probably not and therefore you're losing a pretty powerful way of pushing back against expansions of government power which is terrible and so on right?
So again simple answers provoke violence or justify violence because if it's that simple, just get it done with a gun. And also because complex questions that are allowed in the vicinity unravel the vanity and narcissistic ignorance of people masquerading as deep, rich, wise and tender-hearted virtues. So yeah, shallow people in that sense, the people who are constantly promoting small talk. And it doesn't just necessarily mean about sports and the weather, although that's certainly part of it, but it also has to do with stupid.
[15:06] Solutions to complex social problems, like take money from the rich and give them to, the poor. Well isn't that the use of coercion?
Well, a lot of rich people get their money from coercion as well, well do two wrongs justify a right?
And all this kind of stuff, right? So yeah, it's really bad.
For the most part, and I've only penetrated this a couple of times, so this is not exactly scientific, but for the most part, when people are relentlessly addicted to small talk, it's because they have a really bad conscience.
They have a really bad conscience because they're pretending to promote virtue while, being in the service of evil, for the most part, right?
[15:42] By promoting simple, coercive solutions to complex social problems, they're pretending, to be virtuous while actually serving evil. Well that's going to give you a very, very, very bad conscience.
In fact it's going to give you in some ways a worse conscience than actively doing evil.
A thief has a better conscience than a sophist because the thief is not lying to himself, or to others about what he's doing.
I mean, a sophist is more of a con man, but a con man can only target people who voluntarily walk into his trap, but the sophist can, in conjunction with the state, produce absolutely, completely disastrous effects that affect hundreds of millions or billions of people in a pretty permanent and escalating kind of way.
So the sophist is more dangerous than the thief in many ways, and those who advocate stupid, coercive slogans in the place of sophisticated and curious wisdom are, I mean, doing really, really terrible things in the world.
And because they never want that revealed to themselves, least of all, they never want, you to find the bodies in the deep end. They got to keep you shallow.
They got to keep small talk.
Small talk births very, very big evils.
Freedomain.com/donate. Thank you so much for your time, attention, and your support.
Talk to you soon. Bye.
