I think Stefan is quite well aware of how this works for people, esp. in terms of the transference relationship, and he tries to keep them in a certain stage of that relationship while e.g. in psychoanalysis the supposed goal is to work through it. Stef does pay lip service to that at the end of his post in this thread, but since he pretty much equates himself with truth and reason (by banning, pyschologizing, dismissing serious critics) this does not work. The only way, imo, to become an 'FDR-graduate' is by becoming a 'FDR-reject'


interesting threads with Aaron:

here

Aaron wrote:

Bockman wrote: Having seen this response, Aaron, I really do have emotional certainty that I find your tone and tactics in posts repugnant and abusive. So, I also won't be responding to you further." Ohh ... Please, feel free not to interact with me. However, if anyone had this interaction with the roles reversed you would be appalled that someone would talk to Stefan so disrespectfully. The hypocrisy that you hold is rancid. No one wants to address the logistics of what happened up there ... so they want to just make passive aggressive morally offended comments to control and manipulate."

&
here

k..Conrad, I will post this for you..
I observed pretty much of the same old, same old. The conversation is about to get interesting and then... many act as they always have, anticipating tone and remaining stuck in the ruts of their reputation. In other words, it's difficult for a conversation to move forward, when everyone presumes to know what the other is about.

But there is no response from anyone to Heiko's mention of Stef's frequent requests for donations or the podcast discussion about buying t-shirts.

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that he's in this for the money.

It's always the same psycho-analytical one-upmanship over there.

Pawn #1: "I'm curious why you're such an asshole."

Pawn #2: "You're not curious enough. What was your father like?"

I love to teach music, and acting. I currently do it for beans, while I make a lot of money owning a pest control business. I love teaching music so much that I am likely going to open a performing arts studio in a couple of years.

I may, or may not make good money from the performing arts studio. However, I will try to make money doing it. I will charge tuition, sell shirts, charge for concerts, etc.

Because of this someone will come up and say "Aaron is doing this all for the money." My reply will be ... If I cared so much about money I would have devoted all of my time and attention into my current pest control business. Instead I spread out my resources so I could do something I loved ... However, that doesn't mean that I give away my time.

Despite my criticism of Stef. I think he believes in what he is doing, and isn't merely trying to make money. He can't be making more than 50K a year, and it seems like a really lame scam if that was his goal. If someone wants to claim that Stefan is in it for the money ... it seems to me that based off of the same evidence that I would be opening up a performing arts studio just for the money. Which I can prove is wrong.

Whether or not I agree that Stef is doing it for the money is irrelevant. I imagine he is doing it to make a living doing something he loves, like you mentioned. The amount we guess he is making is unknown. Based on the fees and dues at minimum it is $65000, most give more than the prescribed amount and some give less. By Stef's account of the number of members who don't rate a "status symbol" it could be twice that. If every unmarked member gave an average of $20 per year it could be double that.
$130k+ per year is a great salary to stay at home, podcast while exercising and doing what most of us do to entertain ourselves is a pretty sweet deal. It's smart, it is in his best interest and it is his choice. Though the amount doesn't really matter (he is not a friend giving advice); he places a value on what he does and charges for it.

I do find it curious that you draw that parallel with Stef and yourself. I doubt you will over charge a few for the same services you provide to many. I don't imagine you bringing your partner to class to make plea to continue class, raise fees or take additional lessons due to your own choice to be the sole provider. I don't imagine you would use your family as a pawn.

If you advised your students that the way to creative freedom was to leave their families, and tarred all families with the same brush, all the while coaching them they can live with less, and then increasing your rates and taking more from those more strapped and alone than ever, I would raise an eyebrow, at the very least.

Aaron, good luck with your performing arts studio. You have a lot to offer other performers. You will be providing goods and services and will be charging for them on a clear tariff.

I expect that your students will practise their new skills elsewhere and will share ideas with other performers.

I doubt that you will expect your students to discard all relationships with people who do not also attend your studio or adhere absolutely to your methods.

If you did, I might assume that you were encouraging them to be more dependent on you and your activities, perhaps in order to become a stronger income stream for you, particularly if you asked them for extra donations at every session.

I think these are some of the many differences between you and Stef.

(I see that ExyPhylo had already covered some of my points while I was drafting my reply. Apologies for repetition.)

I don't think Stef is doing it for the money, in any case not primarily. I think he started out with sincere motives but then his Narcissistic Personality Disorder led him astray and now he is doing it for the admiration, the praise, the being defended and because right now it would be hard for him to go back (for a number of reasons).

In this podcast in which he makes the decision to go full-time I think he does say that he will make more money doing FDR than he has ever earned before, but I don't think that is a primary reason for him. In that podcast his primary reason was 'The world needs to be saved and I'm the only one who can do it' (this may be exaggerated a bit, but not by much)

It seems pretty obvious of course that Stef is not in it just for the money.

But it's also pretty obvious that he's not just a philosopher with no goal but the truth, having a "conversation" with everyone else he can find who's also interested in the truth. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether or not he really does have NPD, but his behavior is indicative of someone who finds it more important to seem right than to actually be right. Ie, to have people praise him for being a brilliant philosopher, to trick himself into thinking he's always right, and to sacrifice truth for the sake of winning a debate. That's the main problem I have with him. What his motives are I'm not sure, and I suspect a lot of it is actually unconscious.

Now the money thing perhaps did corrupt him a bit. I can't say for sure, but maybe it's goes something like; people pay me for what I do=I'm very valuble--> increased sense of self righteousness and sense of "mission to save the world," and narcissism.