Comments by "Blue Giant" (@bluegiant13) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

  1. Same here, I even do that eccentric hand gesture, where he separates his hands moving his fingers when indicating something spreading.
    33
  2. JP is a fascinating guy.
    13
  3. Women that have multiple partners lose their value for most men.
    7
  4. Good point!
    2
  5. I think it's fair to say one has succeeded at what he does , if one has been made a reddit group of : )
    2
  6. These people are idiots, they don't understand 1 single thing.
    2
  7. Jordans excitement is overwhelming the guest :p
    2
  8. Sam went really meta at the end regarding conversations about Truth, I think he is correct. The conversation itself is extremely important and I appreciate both JP and SH for their contributions, it really feels like something important is happening here. Respect to all 3 of you, great respect.
    2
  9.  @existentialhangover1124  Japan also has some fucked up societal norms. Don't get me wrong I love Japan but it isn't as glamourous as most people portray it as.
    2
  10. This is one of the best podcasts I heard. So much fresh information
    2
  11. More videos like these please such a wealth of insights. I learned more about my life in 45 minutes than I did my entire life.
    2
  12. But he is freacking smart, you can't deny that. Fluent speak correlate with the verbal flueny subtest of an IQ.
    2
  13. Been waiting for a lecture on the big 5 for a long time.
    1
  14. It's true when you look at it from a down-top perspective, going from the smallest elements i.e. particles, molecules, neurotransmitters, and son. But people like you often tend to forget that forces influence the structure of the brain which is from a top-down perspective. Take a carbon molecule, which diamonds are made of. To actually get a diamond, you don't only need carbon molecules but also the top-down variables need to be in place, like air pressure and temperature. Without the external elements that diamond will not form. Nothing truly starts from the bottom to the up. The individual could be looked at as the reduction of the whole society as the carbon molecule, while totally ignoring the product of all the individuals i.e. society and people in power.
    1
  15. After watching a lot of Jordan Peterson lectures, I started doing that hand gesture, where he separates his hands moving his fingers indicating something which spreads.
    1
  16. A psychologist without any metaphysical background is like a tone deaf musician. I'm so glad Jordan Peterson is not one of them.
    1
  17. They kinda look similar.
    1
  18. davethetrousers, I agree to a certain extent, but the thing about chairs is inane, it might be a good metaphor or an observed pattern, but I don't see how you can relate that to your argument. This is just confirmation bias or magical thinking, the way they are sitting can be explained easier by using Occam's razor and simply state that Sam sits the way he does because he is an experienced meditator, which helps with quieting the body and mind.
    1
  19. 28:00
    1
  20. Can someone spell out what he was referring when he talked about the distribution of inequality in a creative environment, English is not my first language, auditory it sounded like ''Predo effect''.
    1
  21. The first Sam Harris and Peterson podcast on waking up podcast was one of my favourite podcasts of all time. It is so much more intellectually engaging to hear two intelligent individuals disagree on something. I am very very excited for peterson to have same harris back! Can't wait to listen to this.
    1
  22. 19:15
    1
  23. 29
    1
  24. He should learn from Sam Harris his podcasts . . . lol
    1
  25. Weinstein has done a great job.
    1
  26. Christian Deepak Chopra.
    1
  27. 39:00
    1
  28.  @LaughingMan44  Really? I highly doubt that. I don't necessarily identify as red pill, but I do like to stay objective and what you said is reasonably correct.
    1
  29. Notice how Sam often has one eyebrow raised, that is actually a facial expression also observed in behaviourism, it could be translated to an English sentence as: "How about that? hehe" Not making any value judgements regarding this, but I thought it would be interesting to point it out :)
    1
  30. @Renewed I don't disagree that he might appeal to a large audience, but it does not follow from that fact that people smarter than him might not enjoy listening to him. A lot of smart physicists, way smarter than Harris, are great scientists but poor philosophers, which could be a reason as to why a smarter person would enjoy listening to his podcast or material. Not saying this is always the case, just trying to point out that it isn't as black and white as you suggest. And that is ignoring the fact that he sometimes has extremely smart people on his podcasts, smarter than Sam himself e.g. David Deutsche, which could be another reason for a person smarter than Sam listening to his material. Regarding Sam's intelligence, he might be the average person's intellectual but that doesn't dispute the point that he IS smart. I think Sam's IQ is around that of Peterson's, since it is not obviously clear which of the two is smarter. At least the contrast is not stark. Although Sam is more verbally fluent in my opinion. JP's has stated that his verbal IQ was around 150, which is indeed a number that could be seen as the average person's intellectual. But it does not dispute that that number represents the 99th percentile, meaning smarter than 99% of the population, thus Sam or JP being "freacking smart" is a justified statement. They might not be brilliant or geniuses, but they are smart ; - ) Also, I don't dispute that brilliant people are more likely to listen to other brilliant people, I am only disputing the certainty of that being ALWAYS the case. Nor am I saying that you say this or anyone else says this, I am merely sharing my thoughts. I don't claim myself to be smart, all I can say is that I am rational, but I know some extremely smart people that often are open minded to all kinds of perspectives no matter the source, an intellectual curiosity if you will. For example, I know a first order logician and mathematician(IQ 175) that greatly enjoys Sam's philosophical thinking since he himself doesn't study philosophy by vocation, which proves one of my earlier points. Whether my comment proves something or not, I really don't know, I regard psychoanalyzing online comments as pseudoscience, especially comments with not much to go by. Anyway, hope this has clarified why I felt compelled to make that comment, also my intention wasn't to "attack" you personally with that comment, it was a reaction to another comment I read, that claimed Sam is NOT smart, which I disagreed with for the aforementioned reasons. Cheers!
    1
  31. @Renewed, My apologies I didn't read any of your previous comments, as stated my comment was towards another user, but if you did write that, I actually agree with you. Uneven cognitive profiles that are biased towards the verbal aspect of cognition, might make a person seem smarter than he or she actually is, which is the case with Peterson, and even Harris one might argue. Since speaking is something you can observe, compared to a talent in Spatial Cognition which is not as obvious when you are near an individual. Cheers!
    1
  32. @Renewed, Then I must have clicked the 'reply' button without thinking, I wasn't aware YouTube registers that as a reply, I thought only if you see the '@' symbol. Regarding what you said, it is like you can read my mind, I find myself in a similar situation, and I completely agree. JP is a great scientist when it comes to psychology, but in general, he is not as rigorous or scientific as he claims he is. And some of his claims are blatantly absurd like the demi-snake human paintings from around the world represent a DNA helix, he doesn't take Occam's Razor into consideration or values the elegance of simplicity over sophistry, the paintings are better explained that that is simply the way snakes mate.
    1