I can’t listen to Sam Harris at 1x speed. But at 2x speed, he is enjoyable and not sleep inducing.
Peterson has said that he’s refined his beliefs based on the Harris disagreements. They’ve done several live events and I hope to hear the audio. Peterson gives me a headache but he has good intentions. I think he just does nonsensical reasoning to justify beliefs
The Sam Harris podcast on race was very interesting
HA! 
I’d like to debate Dawkins, the guy is not only an a-hole, but just plain wrong. I find it hilarious “Mr. Evolution” doesn’t grasp that religiosity clearly has a biological basis. It manifested across time and geography, in every society, cause it’s just a cultural construct? The icing on the cake was when the atheists became religious-postmodernists. It’s in our blood, can’t run away from biology.
Something that I don’t like about Sam Harris is his crybaby attitude towards practically most things in life. If you listen to 3+ of his podcasts he’s always and I mean always nagging about something and the list of things he doesn’t like is practically endless. I guess he has a perfectionist character trait or something which makes me question the effects of his meditation practice.
Also, Peterson, Harris, and Taleb keep using the straw man argument, attacking people at their weakest, which may make sense from their motivation in building a cult of followers but don’t add that much intellect beyond a certain point.
How is Taleb’s argument a straw man? What people don’t grasp are the ramifications of his simple point. In the example about the “trend” analyzed amounting to an insignificant blip and mis-applying basic statistics to a tailed event he’s not just making a simple tweak to the discussion. The bigger picture is that the discussion is flawed, the thinking behind it is flawed and ultimately our understanding of events like world peace are flawed owing to that single “benign” human trait. The frustration with this understanding of non-linear events is that these benign “straw men” have extreme impacts that only show up occasionally but we are conditioned to shrug them off and go back to our nonsensical analysis between tail events. Taleb’s point is massively important and simple but easily shrugged off or over simplified during lull’s. His books are definitely one of the most broadly misunderstood I’ve encountered which is amazing when you consider how simultaneously simplistic they are.
I dislike Taleb less than I used to, I used to instinctively dislike him just cause you guys worshiped. But I’ve moved beyond that.
But my central complaint remains—Taleb takes things which are true, and deliberately complicates them, so people will be confused, then brags about how smart he is. I take things which are true, and make them as simple as possible, and people are confused anyhow, and then I brag about how smart I am.
My way is more honorable.
But the difference is, Taleb is a real person who is demonstrably successful, and you are an anonymous nobody who is readily dismissed.
Well, I’m a real person, and successful also, so that didn’t make any sense. I’m not concerned with “being dismissed,” that’s the nature of the dummy population—they are incapable of understanding. But the point is, Taleb actively works to make sure they don’t understand.
Not that you would understand…
But here, you make statements about your greatness which, by definition, can’t be verified in this domain due to your anonymity on this forum, so it actually makes complete sense.
Anybody can make statements about trading profits that can’t be validated. The lack of logic and load of hatred in your posts, disguised as an organized argument drizzled with a tiresome air of superiority, does, however, probably validate certain aspects of your real personality.
Yawn, you’re rambling off topic.
Regarding your tangent —25yrs ago I looked at this problem and reasoned the correct move is to always believe “internet people” are who they say. This is actually the correct move, if you think thru it logically, not subjective. Otherwise you are lost in nonsense discussions, like this, into perpetuity. Also because, liars believe everyone else is lying…I don’t have that problem.
FIFY, but it was work. What a mess! 
I listened to the #67 Waking Up podcast between Peterson and Harris to see where the argument went. I realized Peterson sounds like Yoda. Here, I did my best to paraphrase:
(for funniest results use Peterson and Harrison’s usual voices, lol)
Peterson: The evolutionary narrative of mankind, religious landscape, it is.
Harris: But Jordan, what if you are raised emersed in a culture with completely destructive superstitions and not know it.
Peterson: Press the boundaries of what is true, you must.
Peterson is correct—religion exists, and it does because it serves an evolutionary purpose. Nothing can be done about that, and so that’s the end of the conversation. Shrug, I don’t understand what else there is to say on the topic.
Well yes, I would agree. Religion exist and continues to have utility in capturing the lessons of human heritage in a way science cannot. I think the topic up for debate is does it do more harm than good now that we have methods of explaining reality that are more …uh…lets say “dependable”? Harris brings up the dark side of superstition and supernatural belief citing human sacrifice, superstition based murder, and in general massive misunderstanding when it comes to nature/ medicine/ etc.
I mean sure, you can take religious text from a modern point of view and read into the symbolic lessons rather than take them literally. In this way (in theory) you can extract the wisdom of human heritage without the ridiculous externalities that the fundamentalists get hung up on. However, if you are going to take the liberty of “interpreting the symbolism” then, IMAO, what is the point? Aren’t you just projecting what you want to see into it?
Do you really have so much time to spend time on this website crossing off words of someone who is a far better writer than you?
Such a low life Chinaman.
Nice one Atush.
religion is great when it is convenient.
Which one (ones) did you listen too? I listened to #134 with that kid from Columbia, but it was more like a conversation than a debate and pretty non challenging ideas for a open minded reasonable person to digest. Then I listened to the debate with Ezra Klien (#123). This followed a beef between these two over Harris’s discussion on The Bell Curve and data in it stating blacks to have lower IQs. I found this episode much more challenging to form an opinion. I of course agree with Harris that political correctness cannot come to threaten empirically based scientific data making certain topic taboo and scientists afraid to present findings. However, I also agree with Klien that it is irresponsible to not face the reality of the way data like this has been used in the history of racism. Did you listen to this one? What opinion did you form?
I want to check out the episode with Murray (author of The Bell Curve) himself next (#71)
ohhhhh…lol
There is a cheesy term for the “influential thinkers” I was awkwardly referring to. Its called the INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB. nice 
Someone even made a website, although the idea of the group was initially coined by Eric Weinstein.
intellectualdark.website/
Her body of work will not soon be forgotten…
Let Eric tell you about it himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=480&v=cr0OX6ai4Qw
Whatever the label of the phenomenon, I do believe it is one of the positives of this era. It has the feeling of an “antidote” IMAO.
KMD is my hero. for real