Questions For Darrell, #QFD 001: The Cascade Failure of Certainty

Greetings, viewers! This is the first installment of Questions For Darrell.
This episode is an exploration of humility, curiosity and flexibility, guided by a discussion about the personal beliefs that were changed due to new evidence and ideas being discovered.

MP3 Audio:

“What conclusions did you once hold as firm, unyielding and did not audit or question?”

Thank you so much for joining us again, Darrell, for our inaugural episode of Questions For Darrell. Today we’ll be having a comfortable and hopefully thoughtful discussion, by asking each other questions. If anyone watching or listening to this have a Question For Darrell (or Morgan or Katie), please contact us through our websites, Facebook, YouTube, or just Tweet #QFD @wikiworldorder.

Darrell Becker looks through the intellectual lenses of the Trivium method of critical thinking, Voluntary Communication (a.k.a. Non-Violent Communication, NVC), the Non-Aggression Principle, among others, in hopes of creating internal and interpersonal emotional and intellectual equilibrium. He is also a licensed acupuncturist living on the Big Island of Hawaii, and working on his book with the working title, “The Language of Choice”. You can find all of Darrell’s valuable work for free at!

Morgan Lesko has both been and activist and writing computer code most his life, and has been trying to study and find solutions in our crazy world quite seriously since 9/11. You can find his studies, efforts, and creations at

Katie Stone is also a long-time drug policy reform activist who is wrapping up a masters in Transformative Leadership at the California Institute for Integral Studies. She is also starting her own social business to educate the new cannabis industry on ways to improve their environmental (and financial) bottom line- you can find that at

Last month, the three of us had a nice discussion about what we saw and felt in the days following election season’s finale. It was a delightful way to more frequently have the kind of conversations for which we sometimes schedule cross-continental time. It was also very therapeutic for us to work through some thoughts with your good company, so thank you again for collaborating, and thank you for tuning in!

One powerful idea we discussed was to share humility with more people while we are trying to build bridges of mutual understanding and empathy. One strategy you suggested was to internally acknowledge (or openly share) examples of things you’ve changed your mind about. It’s a reminder that “being wrong” about something means you’re winning the learning game. We all do it, we’re all uncertain, so let’s just try to have fun figuring it out together.

So we’ll start there with you, Darrell, with your more precise words… “What conclusions did you once hold as firm, unyielding and did not audit or question?”

Questions for Darrell:

  • “What conclusions did you once hold as firm, unyielding and did not audit or question?”
    • Voting
    • Democracy
    • Representative Governments
    • Accuracy of the Orthodox Medical Science Claims and Conclusions
    • Vaccines
    • 9/11/01 Events
    • Historical Accuracy in Texts
    • Peer Review of Science
    • Double-Blind Studies as compared with Clinical Anecdotal Data
    • Accuracy of Any Science Claims
    • Consensus of the “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Scientist’s Opinions and Data
    • Bitcoin Viability and Value
    • Economics as an Unimportant Subject

Questions for Morgan:

  • “What conclusions did you once hold as firm, unyielding and did not audit or question?”
    • Fitting in is worth it
    • Citizens can always use the governmental structures for good
    • Mainstream media is generally most accurate
    • Marijuana will give you man-boobies, D.A.R.E.
    • Only hippies and potheads want to end the drug war
    • Governments almost never intentionally hurt their citizens
    • There is no god, by anyone’s definition
    • NIST is one of the most trustworthy scientific institutions
    • “Climate change” consensus is logical (summary of position)
    • Free markets are scary
    • Governments are necessary

Questions for Katie:

  • “What conclusions did you once hold as firm, unyielding and did not audit or question?”
    • The god of abraham exists!
    • No gods exist.
    • Science is god.
    • Western, allopathic medicine is the end-all, be-all, and all of it’s teachings are true.
    • The government wants to actually help people.
    • Vegetables!!!
    • Technology will save us.

Other Show Notes and Sources:

Free intro/outro music from

Valiant Interviews 0045 – Non-Violent Communication Is an Inside Job – Interview with Darrell Becker

by Valiant Growth, December 9, 2016,

Direct download: 0045__Non-Violent_Communication_Is_an_Inside_Job_Interview_with_Darrell_Becker.mp3

Darrell Becker is a frequent guest of many podcasts that I like, often talking about the Trivium method, the Non-Aggression Principles and Non-Violent Communication. In this episode we talk about the basic ideas of Non-Violent Communication, work through real world examples of using it, and other related questions such as that of enemy imagery.

My episode on the key ideas of NVC is at

Read the book at or get a free audio course version at (if not already a member)

Another interview with Darrel that you might want to listen to is his intro to NVC and the Trivium method on Nick Hazelton’s Anarcho Yakitalism Podcast and his series with Bret Veinotte at the School Sucks podcast.

You can find more of him at

Post-Election Connection with Darrell Becker (Voluntary Visions)



Darrell Becker, Morgan Lesko, and Katie Stone try to start figuring out how to building bridges of empathy in this moment. No matter the outcome of the 2016’s America’s Next Top President, this country was always going to need the skills sets which Darrell Becker explores and teaches at Given Trump’s victory, which seems to have surprised most of the world, our culture could benefit from building some of the most beautiful bridges of connection in human history.


Here are some of the topics Morgan hopes to discuss:

  1. Brief description of Darrell’s work. Morgan explains why he so wanted to talk with Darrell in this moment.
  2. How was the country and/or world mentally prepared for various possible election results?
  3. How do you think the public response to the election results is playing out?
  4. Thus far, what responses do you find most surprising, saddening, and/or inspiring?
  5. What are other possible strategies individual people can take while processing and responding to this election?
  6. Can we fantasize about any “learning moments” various political actors could hypothetically have in the next chapter of the story?


Darrell plans to add some possibly helpful methods to the discussion:

  1. Begin with seeing all people as individuals, and try to limit looking at people in groups, which can tend to promote engaging in fallacies such as the hasty generalization, appeals to popularity, and collectivization in general.
  2. Promote inner curiosity and engage in the “discovery process”, similar to the beginning of a court case: attempt to discover specific motives for one’s own self, and specific people. Consider avoiding the assumption or claim that there are any general motives for groups of people. Groups are abstractions, composed of tangible individuals who have individual motives. For a list of abstract qualities used as motives: Look at claims, concerns and supportive evidence with a curious and open mind, attempting to see the situations and conclusions and evidence from multiple vantage points, rather than the false dichotomy of Right/Wrong.
  3. Notice levels of internal flexibility regarding conclusions and beliefs, and the amounts of apparent flexibility of other folks regarding conclusions and beliefs. When a claim is made (which can be called a belief by some people), look to see your own and the other person’s flexibility regarding the claim, conclusion or belief. This is similar to this quote: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle “….or without rejecting it.” – Darrell Becker
  4. Humility levels can be noticed, inside one’s self, and this can be apparent in others as a well. Do you have the capacity to build your self esteem by working to constantly refine a working idea of what things might indeed be true, or do you build your self esteem by holding firmly (see flexibility) to conclusions that you WISH to be true, evidence be damned? After assessing yourself, see if you can determine the levels of flexibility of specific people you are discussing things with. This relates to the first question in this flow chart:
    If a person truly wishes to maintain a conclusion, and doesn’t see any possibility or internal willingness to change that conclusion, this person may wish to have a lecture or sermon that helps to reinforce their beliefs. They may not be ready for an open-minded, curious, flexible and humble exploration of their beliefs, and knowing and respecting this as their preference can help promote interpersonal harmony.
    I can provide examples of questions to ask one’s self and others to determine these qualities. Questions to ask one’s self include “Am I willing to say that I might be wrong about this belief I hold? Am I willing to say I’m wrong about this conclusion or belief? Is the other person willing or able to say they could be wrong about a belief? Have they ever said they were wrong about ANY belief or conclusion?” This can be a point of connection, a way to make a bridge to them, by showing humility: “I used to conclude that _________ , and then I came upon evidence that showed I mislead myself. I now conclude _________. I realize I could still be wrong on this, but so far the research I’ve done has shown me practical applications of this belief to be __________.” Also: “Have you (the person you are talking to) ever held a strong belief, found new evidence, and changed that belief, realizing you were incorrect regarding your interpretation of the supportive evidence, as well as finding new evidence that changed your belief?”
  5. Beware the fallacy of guilt by association.


More Show Notes:


Darrell Becker, of Voluntary Visions, looks through the intellectual lenses of the Trivium method of critical thinking, Voluntary Communication (incorporating his own styles of Non-Violent Communication), the Non-Aggression Principle, as well as other lenses, so as to create internal and interpersonal emotional and intellectual equilibrium.

Darrell Becker, MSOM, L.Ac. is a licensed acupuncturist living on the Big Island of Hawaii. He has been a professor of western and eastern medical classes at the Hawaii College of Oriental Medicine from 2012 to 2014. Darrell has appeared on numerous podcasts and radio shows where he is often discussing the issues of parenting, communication skills and tactics that can be used to create intellectual and empathetic equilibrium, or balance within and between individuals. He is presently working to refine these concepts into his upcoming book, covering the subjects of his research, using the working title of “The Language of Choice”, a compendium of internal and interpersonal communication methods aimed at generating greater degrees and quantities of cognitive and empathetic freedom.

Morgan Lesko, of Wiki World Order, is a lifelong activist who has been studying and trying to learn how we will outgrow the corporate-industrial complex for ten years, after observing the physics of 9/11. He discovered NVC while participating in Occupy Sacramento, and soon found Darrell’s work and offered to be his webmaster.

Morgan also created Don’t Fallacy Me, a free, collaborative, multiplayer mind game! It provides an example, and the player selects the clearest logical fallacy. Over 140,000 logical fallacies have already been correctly identified by game players.

He will also soon be launching a new web application, Open Police Complaints, to create a world with universal, real-time access to police complaints data. This open data will no longer be controlled by government agencies. Instead, it will be publicly shared by the complainants themselves, who will be able to control who has access to their private information.

Katie Stone, of Green B, is completing her masters degree in Transformative Leadership at The California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, interns with The Drug Policy Alliance, and serves as a board member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Katie is working hard to discover, flavor, and share new stories of our world… so we can live there as soon as possible.

With 6 years of experience in the cannabis industry, and nearly 10 years of experience in drug policy reform, Katie founded Green B to ensure cannabis based businesses are prepared for the realities of a modern and legitimate global market. A longtime cannabis activist, and advocate of environmental justice within the cannabis industry, Katie most recently worked as an intern with The Arcview Group where she lead the firms first sustainability audit and launched their Environmental Steward Sponsorship.


LUA Radio 10.27: Scientific Consensus, Part 2 w/ Dr. Stephanie Murphy and Darrell Becker


by Liberty Under Attack, October 27, 2016

Direct download: LUA-102716-1.mp3

On tonight’s broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio, we present part 2 of our scientific consensus series (or, science more generally).

Darrell Becker and Dr. Stephanie Murphy join me as we discuss the notion of scientific consensus, concerns with scientific research today, the fascinating human mind when it comes to placebo (and nocebo effects), Stephanie’s experience getting her Ph.D, and much more. The show was almost entirely off-the-cuff, as the outline wasn’t even touched upon. It was a fantastic discussion.

If you enjoyed this broadcast and appreciate the work we do, please consider contributing financially. You can make a one-time PayPal donation by clicking the image above, you can contribute via Patreon using the image below, or you can use the buttons on the sidebar to toss us some Bitcoin, sign up for a monthly contribution, gift us something off of our Amazon wishlist, or support us through our various affiliate links, such as Audible.

Show Notes:

Check out Part 1 of this series

Check out Darrell’s website

Check out Stephanie’s website

Purchase the Direct Action Series

LUA Radio 9.22: “Scientific Consensus” with Darrell Becker (Part 1)



Re-posted from:

by Liberty Under Attack, September 22, 2016

Direct download: LUA-092216.mp3

In this broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio, we were joined by Darrell Becker, once again, to cover a number of important, interesting subjects.

We discussed the notion of “scientific consensus,” the inaccuracy of scientific research, and the ramifications dissenters face for questioning the mainstream narrative. We also examined the soul-crushing environment “salaried professionals” spend an awful lot of time in.

We also discussed the prevalence of the logical fallacy known as “appeal to authority” throughout, as well as having the humility to admit that a mistake was made when coming to an incorrect conclusion.

Three videos were also played.

1) Astroturf and the Manipulation of Media Messages

2) Is Most Published Research Wrong?

3) What Doctors Don’t Know About the Drugs They Prescribe

Show Notes:

Check out Darrell’s website

Check out Richard Grove’s presentation, The Philosophic Corruption of Reality/Evil Begins with Irrationality

Thunderbolts Project (Electric Universe)

Retraction Watch

Disciplined Minds Book


Meta-Cognition Broadcast on the Anarcho-Yakitalist Podcast

Buy the FULL, ad-free Direct Action Series for $10: Email me, or message me on Fascistbook.

Buy an LUA voluntaryist koozie



LUA Radio 9.22: “Scientific Consensus” with Darrell Becker