I'd love nothing more, in fact I'd pay to see Gad Saad have Sam Harris on again to talk about Trump. Unless Gad was referring to someone else with TDS.
Gives you an idea how stupid Gad's common sense is: If some hypothesis fails in the replication process, then science is working just fine in the social sciences. Failure of hypothesis is actually quite common in all domains of science. If it wasn't the case, replication would be a waste of valuable time and resources so no one would do it. and there is nothing "unscientific " about Critical theory, considering how statistically supported it is. Once again, as if it isn't obvious to anyone with any basic knowledge in cognitive psychology, a psychologist extolling the virtues of common sense is either an incompetent psychologist or a fraud ( I suspect the later)
He said it the way Gad says it himself - I paid attn to that after seeing your comment. And I listened to it on a Crossroads w/ Joshua Phillips interview.
What an incredible interview. Roger is a genius. Thank you RD for interviewing Gad.
Gad's the smart one!
Lovely Professor really enjoy his work.
Brilliant.
Thanks for hosting such a thoughtful conversation; you two riffed well.
I'd love nothing more, in fact I'd pay to see Gad Saad have Sam Harris on again to talk about Trump. Unless Gad was referring to someone else with TDS.
Sam Harris is an intellectual moron
@@charlesbaha5298 Harris will never be in the same room as the gadfather. He has chosen to embrace that parasites in his brain.
@@charlesbaha5298 ...one with a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA? Or you just don't like him?
@@dash4800 He HAS been in the same room and talking to Sam Harris.
@@Dievas99 when? The only talk I have found between them was before Trump was elected. Since then Harris has gone full retard against Gad.
Gives you an idea how stupid Gad's common sense is:
If some hypothesis fails in the replication process, then science is working just fine in the social sciences.
Failure of hypothesis is actually quite common in all domains of science. If it wasn't the case, replication would be a waste of valuable time and resources so no one would do it.
and there is nothing "unscientific " about Critical theory, considering how statistically supported it is.
Once again, as if it isn't obvious to anyone with any basic knowledge in cognitive psychology, a psychologist extolling the virtues of common sense is either an incompetent psychologist or a fraud ( I suspect the later)
Supported by WHAT? How did they do the hypothesis testing?
What kind of dbag can't be bothered to pronounce his guest's name properly?
He said it the way Gad says it himself - I paid attn to that after seeing your comment. And I listened to it on a Crossroads w/ Joshua Phillips interview.