Matjaž Leonardis - Science, Identity and Probability

1. 0:00 – 1:36

   Intro

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel0:00

      Hello, and welcome to The Lunar Society. Sorry it's been so long since the Tyler Cowen interview. I want to thank all of you for joining this podcast so early on. I especially want to thank those of you who have been sharing these episodes on Twitter and other platforms. Since this is a new podcast, almost all of the views and listens I get here are because of your retweets and endorsements, so please continue sharing this podcast if you enjoy it. I also want to thank those of you who have bought me books and equipment off my Amazon wishlist. Scott Hamilton bought me the very microphone I'm recording off of. John Beattie donated Nassim Tayeub's new book. Someone else donated Charles Murray's new book. And someone gifted me a $120 Raspberry Pi kit for embedded systems programming. If you're one of the people who anonymously donated, please DM or email me so I have a chance to thank you personally. And to Scott and John, I'm really grateful for your gift. I also want to let you know that I'll be writing daily at dwarkesh.substack.com, so please sign up there to receive my blog via email. The newest post I have out is titled, If Prediction Markets or Policies Were Legal, based on Robin Hanson's idea of a future archaic. In fact, I just interviewed him for a podcast, so expect that in the next week. Okay. Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Matus Leonardus. Matus has co-written a paper with David Deutsch about the problem of Miller theorem, and we get into that, as well as the dangers of the scientific identity, the nature of scientific progress, advice to young people who want to be polymaths. Matus is one such, as you will see. He's a fascinating person that I've had the pleasure of getting to know, and he has a broad range of interesting ideas, which we get into. So, without further ado, here's Matus Leonardus.

2. 1:36 – 3:10

   What is science

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:36

      Okay, Matus, you have co-written a paper with David Deutsch-

   2. MLMatjaž Leonardis1:39

      Mm-hmm.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:39

      ... about, uh, Bayes' theorem. But before we get into that, let's talk about the big picture questions. Science-

   4. MLMatjaž Leonardis1:44

      Mm-hmm.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:44

      Uh, what is it? And is it s- somewhat of a... Is it somewhat of a confusion to even talk about it, uh, distinctly from other disciplines?

   6. MLMatjaž Leonardis1:51

      Um, well, so my view on that subject is that, is that, um, often a, a, a lot of, a lot of talk about science ends up being quite counterproductive. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as science, but I definitely think that, um, um, that sort of, um, that people identify with science too much. Um, they, they, they wonder whether what they are doing is science. Um, they, they think they are scientists and wonder what is it that they should do in their capacity as scientists, um, and I think that often has a counterproductive effect on, on, on basically what they do. Now, one interesting thing to note is that, is that, you know, the, the name scientist is actually, um, uh, an early 19th century invention. Um, it was traced back to, I think, to, um, to, to professors at, I think, Trinity College in Cambridge. Um, and it's... Uh, and you know, people were able to do science before that, um, quite well. Um, and, uh, s- so, so w- one of the problems that I see, I guess, in that, in that respect is just that, uh, people, people perhaps think about, you know, uh, what, what is a scientist and, uh... Sorry. Who is a scientist and what is science a bit too much.

3. 3:10 – 4:28

   Natural philosophers

   1. MLMatjaž Leonardis3:10

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel3:10

      Hmm. But, uh, I don't know the history here. Did people not consider themselves natural philosophers before then?

   3. MLMatjaž Leonardis3:15

      Um, there, uh, there has definitely been sort of names for, for, um, for this role. Um, the, the... So, so, so one way to sort of think about it is that people, uh, peop- people have always thought about the natural world though, right? So people have always, you know, tried to understand, you know, how, um, you know, how, how machines work, how nature works, how sort of everything does. And, and they often did that without, you know, ever becoming conscious of the idea that they were doing anything special or that they are playing a special role by doing so. Um, and, you know, they were, they were able to sort of do it just fine. And one of the things that, uh... You know, at some point that obviously changed. Um, you know, uh, this sort of idea that, that one is engaged in some sort of a special activity when one is trying to understand nature and, uh, you know, there being kind of a special social role for that. Like, all of that obviously had to develop. Uh, but, but it does seem to be the case that you can reach a better understanding of the natural world without it.

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel4:20

      Hmm. Let me ask you this question.

   5. MLMatjaž Leonardis4:21

      And therefore, there is a question... Sorry.

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel4:23

      Sorry, go ahead.

   7. MLMatjaž Leonardis4:24

      Oh, no. A- and therefore there is a question about, you know, whether it is actually helpful.

4. 4:28 – 7:48

   Universities

   1. MLMatjaž Leonardis4:28

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel4:28

      Okay. Well, if the identity of scientist is not that useful, then why do we have universities that we consider to be special places and we employ people with tax dollars to do special things that... I mean, clearly they're not doing construction or, um, you know, building archers or something like that.

   3. MLMatjaž Leonardis4:45

      Mm-hmm. So, so, like, there is an activity, i.e. trying to understand the natural world, that seems to work better when it is supported, uh, sort of both kind of... That it, that it's, that it's institutionally, um, and culturally supported. Um, so, you know, it is useful to have institutions that, you know, kind of keep all the relevant books at the same place and kind of get some of the same people, um, um, you know, at the same place that sort of organize, you know, events and sort of where people can sort of meet each other. Um, and, and I think that that... You know, that, that... So, so I'm not disputing that, um, there is an activity that is sort of worthy, uh, of, of being supported. Um, but, but whether that sort of particular way of looking at that activity is, is the right one, um, is, is less clear.

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel5:36

      Okay. So you do identify there's a special role for universities and they're doing a distinctive, uh, distinctive activity. Well, if it's not science they're doing, how would you describe-

   5. MLMatjaž Leonardis5:45

      Mm-hmm.

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel5:45

      ... what the thing they're doing is?

   7. MLMatjaž Leonardis5:47

      Right. So, so wha- well... Okay, so, so perhaps to illustrate this, right? One, um, needn't, needn't think of this activity in a unified way. So for example, like imagine that we had an institution and in this institution there would be, you know, somebody who was interested in, uh, you know, liquid helium. And, uh, he would be writing about it and talking with all the people that were interested in it. And then you would have another person and that person...... um, would be, you know, interested in, in, you know, the way stars form, and- and their, you know, evolution. And that person would be sort of, you know, again, writing about this, talking with other people about it. And, you know, you could have s- so on for- for just a bunch of other things. Now, you can easily have an institution that would be s- sort of supporting all of these people in that- in that endeavor. Um, but, you know, th- that, you know, th- n- but now for example, if- if one of, if one were to just kind of stop there, right, it's- it's not possible yet at that stage, you know, to sort of say, "Okay, well, while all of these people are- are engaged in this, you know, unified activity, you know, called science," and, "Oh, are some of them really doing it or- or not?" Right? Everybody is just- is just, you know, one e- one person is doing this, one person is doing that, you know, one person is doing the third thing. So perhaps, I mean, an- an interesting, right, uh, comparison might be, um, um, for- for kind of the- the particular view that I have is just, like, you know, um, um, you know, um, l- like- like people have this idea of an entrepreneur, right? Um, well, you know, i- in a certain sense, um, you know, and- and all of these entrepreneurs that are kind of trying to construct different companies, right? But nobody- nobody- nobody is kind of asking the question, "Well, you know, is- is any one of these people actually entrepreneuring," right? Um, that- that is not a conversation that ever arises. So, um, it- it is in that sense that- that I think that, um, that you can have an institution that supports that activity, um, but you don't need to, like, understand it in this particular way that- that science is often understood in.

5. 7:48 – 9:53

   Counterproductive

   1. MLMatjaž Leonardis7:48

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel7:48

      And so what's counterproductive about the current understanding of science and scientists?

   3. MLMatjaž Leonardis7:54

      Right. So- so one problem, um, with this idea is that the p- the idea of sort of science and scientists comes with this idea that there is this particular method. In other words, um, that- that, you know, one- that one is somehow doing something more other than just being engaged, um, you know, with a- with a particular problem or question and pursuing it, you know, wherever it might lead. There- there is this idea that there is a specific method that- that one ought to use to think about this particular question, rather than just, you know, where- where sort of the- the question naturally leads you. And I think that that, um, uh, this attitude or this idea can often stop people from doing sensible things that- that- that, um, would otherwise b- that- that- that- that, you know, that- that would o- that would help with sort of pursuing- pursuing their- their problem, right? So, um, uh, you know, the- the thinking is that y- you need to pursue the various questions with a specific method, as opposed to just where kind of the logic of the problem itself leads you. And I'm not saying that this- that this actually affects everybody or that this is a sort of an across-the-board thing, but it- but it is sort of a- an argument that- that often features. Um, the current conception of this, therefore, you know, as I said sort of before, kind of allows you to make criticism of somebody. You know, you can say, "Well, are they really doing this thing or not?" Uh, which is not a thing you could really do, you know, were- were it just- were people just sort of thinking about specific issues and what they did was understood in that way. Um, and in general, um, I- I do think that, like, making- making, you know, b- becoming conscious of what one is doing, um, and- and, uh, uh, um, you know, kind of being, um, um... and sort of classifying it or telling yourself the story about it, um, is- is one thing that is known, you know, in- in several other fields to sometimes lead to problems, um, you know, hence the term self-consciousness, and, uh, it being sort of productive, uh, it being deemed counterproductive in many areas.

6. 9:53 – 12:33

   Methods

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel9:53

      Hmm. But let me make the counterargument. There is a specific method-

   2. MLMatjaž Leonardis9:55

      Sure.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel9:55

      ... or at least a family of methods, right? We have Popper, we have, you know, um, falsifiability, testability, and, you know, we privilege these over other methods we could be using, like myth-making and so on. So w- what's wrong with somebody understanding their position in an institution as to understand the world through a specific family of methods?

   4. MLMatjaž Leonardis10:14

      Well, um, I would- I would- I would perhaps, uh... funny you mentioned Popper there, because I- I would actually dispute that premise. Um, he wrote this, uh... I mean, th- there is- there is, I think, a very nice set of undergraduate lectures that has been recorded from him, um, where- where he says that he- he was, I think, a professor of scientific method at the London School of Economics or something like that. And he says in that lecture that- that he is, uh, is a professor of a- of a subject that, uh, that he thinks does not exist. Um, um, but his student Feyerabend, uh, I think, uh, actually wrote, uh, a book, Against Method, uh, which is- which is sort of yet another kind of philosopher of science arguing against that idea. Um, and, uh, um, now it- it's, um... It- it is true that- that there are certain, I guess, patterns of thought that are more conducive to under- that seem to at least be more conducive to understanding, um, the natural world than others, um, but I think that the dot is still v- like- like, what- what patterns work, you know, how one thinks about them and so on, all of these things are kind of, um, uh, more of a great mystery than an exact science, to put it- to put it like that.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel11:33

      Hmm. So the- then, um, to- to paraphrase you, let me just see if I'm understanding you correctly. It- it's that scientists should consider those certain methods better than others, but they shouldn't identify themselves with some of them?

   6. MLMatjaž Leonardis11:47

      Um, well, I mean, okay, that... uh, I'm- I'm not sure if that is sort of paraphrasing it exactly as I see it, because it's, um, um, like, the s- it is very unclear if one is ever- is ever using a method, um, because, you know... Like- like, people- people, as I said at the beginning, people have been thinking about the natural world without being conscious of it in- in any way, and- and, you- you know, it is- it is, you know... Like- like, thoughts are constantly arising in the mind, right?... and it's, it's, it, it, it often feels like a bit of a stretch to say that, you know, all these different thoughts one is having, um, are arising as a result of a method, um, as opposed to just, just arising. There, there is a certain level of ambiguity that I think sometimes occurs there.

7. 12:33 – 15:15

   The Enlightenment

   1. MLMatjaž Leonardis12:33

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel12:33

      So people have been trying to solve problems for a long time, but only recently ... well, I, I would argue that only recently, um, uh, for maybe like the past 500 years, they've been very productive in understanding the natural world. And it does seem to be because of a family of methods, right? So doesn't the case of, uh, the success of the Enlightenment lend credence to the idea that, um, certain methods are to be privileged and are more productive?

   3. MLMatjaž Leonardis12:55

      Um, well, um, I, uh, p- p- ... I, I do not exactly have a view on that, on that, on that subject. Um, for example, um, th- there to be honest, I, I, I just sort of don't know. I, I kind of have various passing thoughts, um, on that issue. But, um, I mean, for example, there is this sort of question of ... there is this sort of narrative about, um, the importance of the Enlightenment and, uh, it's, uh, it's, it's not exactly obvious if that, to me, if that, if that narrative is in fact true or if that narrative is more of a fiction. Um, and, um, y- you know, uh, there are, there are strong proponents for one of that positions and there are strong proponents for the other, um, and, uh, what will they have in common, uh, ironically is that I think that they both sort of agree that there was something very important about the Enlightenment. Uh, because there is perhaps yet another third explanation where, you know, it was, it was, you know, it, it, you know, all of this had nothing to do, to do with anything else. Maybe it was just, you know, economic progress that, that allowed for, you know, like, uh, all this thought to be produced at the time. Like, it's very, very difficult to sort of figure out exactly how causality works with, with most of these things. Um, but, but to this idea that it was due to, to, um, a change in method, I mean, like, well, that's ... like, like, a lot of people at the time had that idea, but a lot of people kind of subsequently criticized that idea by, by sort of pointing out, "Well, I don't know, maybe something did change in the way we thought about things, but, but nobody can really understand that change," right? Because a, a huge part of that, um, idea was that, was that, you know, what, what is, is that ... was this idea of reason really, that, that somehow or other reason is the way to, to understand the natural world. And what, for example, Hume and other skeptics subsequently pointed out is just that, well, li- like, like this, like, this can't possibly really work as, as, you know, um, you guys are imagining it. Because for example, I mean, as Hume pointed out, this is kind of the, the famous problem of induction, you know, there is no way to kind of proceed logically i.e. by reason from experience to, you know, the, the, the celebrated, you know, general theories of the Enlightenment such as Newton's theory and suchlike. Um, and, uh, so, so I do not know what, what opinion exactly I have on that issue, uh, but these are some of my thoughts.

8. 15:15 – 22:48

   Popper Miller Theorem

   1. MLMatjaž Leonardis15:15

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel15:15

      Yeah, that was a very interesting answer. Uh, speaking of induction, let's get into the paper you co-wrote with, uh, David-

   3. MLMatjaž Leonardis15:20

      Right.

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel15:20

      ... that's coming out, uh, soon.

   5. MLMatjaž Leonardis15:22

      Mm-hmm.

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel15:22

      Um, so do you, do you wanna describe it?

   7. MLMatjaž Leonardis15:24

      Oh, sure. So we, um, we wrote a paper on something called the Popper-Miller Theorem. Uh, Popper-Miller Theorem was a theorem that Popper, that we previously mentioned in this podcast, and, um, David Miller, um, basically th- they published a short letter in nature in 1983, um, where they presented, um, this, this very kind of short paradox where they basically claimed that, um, that, uh, prob- ... well, the, the, the way they explained it was the idea that probabilistic support is not inductive. Um, that is quite vague, and, and this was conceded by, by many people kind of subsequently. Um, but the basic idea is, is something like, um ... so basically, eh, th- there is this, there is this idea that somehow ... and, and this idea is very much a part of common sense and was a part of various attempts to build an inductive logic at the time, which is simply this idea that, that, that evidence somehow confers support on general theories. Um, and, um, figuring out the right model of that, of that support, um, of how this sort of support works, um, you know, has been kind of one of the challenges that people have basically been trying, trying to figure out, uh, at the time. And one of the ideas was that basically probability is, is what ... you know, probability was considered as one of such possible sort of support measures, and, um, basically, uh, um, what, what their, what their theorem aimed to show was that, was that this, that this probabilistic support, that evidence sort of confers some theories, i.e. you know, uh, a piece of evidence comes in and the probability of a particular theory, you know, increases by 10%, that that 10% increase can't really be understand as in any way being due to that evidence conferring some kind of inductive support on that theory. Um, and the way they made the argument is that they basically said, um ... they, they basically identified two propositions. They said, "Look, this theory relative to this evidence, like, really this first propositions is a kind of a, um, the deductive part of the theory relative to the evidence, and this other part of the theory is, uh, the inductive part, um, of the theory relative to the evidence." And they showed that, um, the evidence always decreases the probability of this inductive part. Now, um, there were sort of two i- ... there was a lot of kind of subsequent commentary on this, on this result, and the main, the main sort of ... the main points that people kind of made were, well, you know, the main points of dispute were, well, in what sense is this proposition that they said was the inductive part, in what sense does it kind of capture, you know, all of a ... uh, you know, all of this theory that goes beyond the evidence as they put it? Um, and then the other issue was, was just, was just, you know, because there is this sort of vague notion, um, of, of, you know, inductive support and what exactly that means, um, and so that was kind of another source of objections. And what ... and I think that the conversation has in many ways sort of moved on from there, um, but we sort of thought that, that, uh, that, that argument is sort of still interesting. We found sort of a couple of other ways of explaining it, um, and, uh, I, I think they, uh, you know, present a kind of a very interesting challenge to this idea, uh--of, of, um, you know, sort of kind of tr- trying to use Bayesian reasoning to, to either build an AGI or, or for various other purposes. And we thought that would be sort of a very interesting thing to present.

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel18:45

      Okay. Did this theorem fit a broader theme in Popper's work?

   9. MLMatjaž Leonardis18:50

      Um, well, it- it- it sort of did, right? So- so the basic idea that- that Popper had, um, um, that I think kind of sort of came out, th- this theorem I think came out of kind of the same way of thinking about this. It was basically just this idea that, that, um ... so he was interested in the idea of logical content of a theory. Uh, there was this idea that just like you could have, you know, this probability measure that you assigned to theories, you can assign a content measure. So the, the idea is that some theories say more than others, um, and, you know, the question was, can you construct a measure of that kind? And one of the interesting observations in, in thinking about that measure is simply the fact that kind of the- the- the constraints or the rules it has to obey are exactly the same as- as the probability calculus basically. The ... so- so in- in a certain sense you can, um, you can always interpret some assignment as, of probabilities, right, as- as really being a kind of a statement of, um, um, as he put it, a degree of logical weakness. So, you know, if I say that one theory is, um, more likely than another theory, um, I, you know, there is a per- there is always this perfectly consistent interpretation where what I'm actually just saying is that, um, um, you know, if I say that this theory is more likely than that theory, I can say this theory says less than this theory. Um, that was kind of the idea of it. And, um, and- and basically, um, what th- the reason therefore he I think kind of became skeptical of these probabilistic approaches to knowledge is simply the fact that, um, is simply the fact that- that as he saw it, um, and I think that there, there are some reasons to- to kind of think that this is in fact how people think, um, is that, is that what people actually want, what they believe in, what they seek are not kind of these sort of tautology-like contentless but likely theories as it were.

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel20:42

       Mm-hmm.

   11. MLMatjaž Leonardis20:42

       But kind of these incredibly informative, um, and- and therefore, um, you know, informative explanatory and therefore kind of less likely theories. Um, and if you want kind of ex- an example of the fact that, that people do seem to think about it that way, right, there is something known as the conjunction fallacy, um, that- that would seem to sort of support that. So, um, there is this famous experiment, I think it was popularized by, uh, Daniel Kahneman in his book, uh, Thinking Fast and Slow, um, which was I think the sort of case of Linda. So, um, the, you know, in this, in this experiment you're told about, um, a woman and you're given a bunch of information that, uh, would kind of, you know, that- that are kind of stereotypically associated with being a feminist. And then the question is, well, is it more likely that Linda is A, a banker, or B, a banker and a feminist? And a lot of people, uh, pick option B even though, um, the probability calculus kind of tells you that- that- that, you know, option A has to be more likely than- than option B. And so the question can be why- why that is. Um, but I think that this tendency that he talked about sort of explains this phenomenon, right? The second fact explains the facts you were initially given, but option A, as I called it, doesn't. Um, and- and I think that this is sort of a part of a general theme where- where people really do, um, you know, sort of look for, and as I said, believe in explanatory general theories not by- by, um, n- not the sort of content, you know, n- n- not kind of the most likely theory. I mean, there are several European languages, I think the- the German, um, German and Slovenian are- are the two that I know where I think that, um, like if you were to translate the- the word for probability into English, it would be something like believability. Um, and, uh, and, uh, I- I think that, you know, if you, if you interpret probability in that way sort of, um, I think that, you know, the- the believability of explanatory theories is always higher than the believability of- of these sort of, uh, um, less likely theories and therefore believability isn't really probability.

9. 22:48 – 25:33

   Why explanatory theories

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel22:48

      Okay. And can you explain why explanatory theories, uh, should be preferred?

   2. MLMatjaž Leonardis22:54

      Um, well I'm- I'm not saying that they should be. I- I- I'm, you know, um, I- I do- I do like explanatory theories. I find them interesting to think about and- and kind of much more fun to engage with. Um, I mean, I can, I can give you his arguments for it. Um, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with them, but, uh-

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel23:12

      Actually, I'm more interested in where you might disagree.

   4. MLMatjaž Leonardis23:15

      Oh, where- where might I disagree. Um, well, um, well, he- he ... there ... so- so for example, he points ... so- so- so the first ... so there is this interesting question, right, of what exactly is the role of this universal theories? Like why- why do we have them? Why do we think about them? Why do we try to improve them and so on. Um, and his argument was that- that- that- that- that people actually ... his argument was actually quite psychological. It was that people seem to have this need for regularity, um, and- and, you know, if you put them in an environment, um, without regularity, uh, people kind of go mad or- or, you know, at least, uh, uh, you know, kind of- kind of- kind of invent regularity out of thin air. Um, and I think that's a very interesting argument. I, you know ... it- it, like there is this interesting question of why, if- if this is true, um, I can't quite exactly see why this need for regularity exists, um, but it is, it is something that- that- that I think, um, is- is, uh, is, uh, is uh, uh, kind of worthy of exploration. On the other hand, I think that another thing that is great about explanatory theories is that, is that they allow, and I think that this was another point that he would make is that, is that they sort of allow for progress, right? Because it's only if you kind of create this universal explanatory theories and you go out there, um, you know, you will eventually find that- that something about it doesn't quite work.... so you will replace it with another, and then another one after that. But what is kind of happening in that process is that your, um, is that your kind of knowledge of the world is increasing, um, in a way it wouldn't if you just accumulated experiences. Um, because, you know, if you were just accumulating experience, you might never go out there and try, you know, things that your universal theory says you should do, uh, and therefore discover that it's false. And another thing that can happen, um, in this process of, of, is that, is that kind of various kinds of truth can accumulate in this, in these general theories that are not present just in the experience alone. Um, and so I, I get, I, I'm not sure if this thing that I just said is his argument for something that, uh, it, it, or, or not. But, but it is, I think, another reason why explanatory theories, um, play such an interesting, uh, role in, in, in life in general.

10. 25:33 – 25:56

    Where you disagree with Popper

    1. MLMatjaž Leonardis25:33

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel25:33

       I completely agree with everything there. But you didn't explain where you disagree with Popper.

    3. MLMatjaž Leonardis25:37

       Well, what I mean, I, I, I said that, that, that, you know, it, it's, it's somewhat unclear to me, um, uh, this, this thing that I mentioned about the need for regularity. Um, I, I'm not sure if it exists. Uh, I, I, it's plausible that it exists. But if it does, I don't, I don't quite understand how it works. Um, so that's, that's kind of that.

11. 25:56 – 29:39

    Advice for Polymaths

    1. MLMatjaž Leonardis25:56

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel25:56

       Okay. Let me ask about being polymathic. So this paper clearly pulls from a lot of disciplines, and I think, uh, a lot of work you do generally does. Um, uh, what advice do you have to a young person who's trying to be a polymath?

    3. MLMatjaž Leonardis26:09

       Mm-hmm. Um, well, uh, f- first of all, the first piece of advice is, is that, is, that I would give is that nev- you should never take advice from me. Uh, the second piece of, uh, the, the second thing I would say though is, um, is, uh, um, it actually relates a, a s- so, so, um, again, this sort of relates to just a particular, um, problem that I think I, I, I think people are naturally interested in everything. Um,-

    4. DPDwarkesh Patel26:36

       Yeah.

    5. MLMatjaž Leonardis26:36

       ... and it is only through, through, um, again, it's actually, it's actually very similar to the thing we talked about at the beginning. I think that, um, I think that the same, the same phenomenon that happens with the way people think about science sort of happens with learning. Um, so, you know, people learn all, all, all their life. Um, you, you and in fact people learn all the time. Like, you interact with information all the time. It changes you, but you never think, you never consciously think of changing yourself by doing that or, um, you know, uh, uh, trying to change. It's only in very special circumstances that, that you kind of try to think of yourself in that way. And I think a lot of what happens when one tries to do that is actually quite counterproductive. Um, like for example, there are a lot of ideas that, that, that if you want to learn something, you can't just do it through osmosis. You have to be very, very systematic about it. Um, and I think that is basically completely false. Um, I think that, um, uh, and again, this sort of leads people in, in the sort of very, very counterproductive direction where they think they need to study the fundamentals of something and then there are... First of all, they think they need to study a subject. Then you think, okay, first I need to study the fundamentals, then the intermediate level, then the advanced levels, and all of these levels are fiction. There, there, there is sort of none, none of that there. And all of these ideas were actually developed, um, to, they, they have always been developed to solve a particular problem or advance a particular need. And, and I think what, what is, what is, you know, um, most imp- if one wants to just have broad interests, I think the most important thing is, is to just, um, you know, pursue whatever you're interested in. Not be afraid or think that you can't understand it. And paradoxically, um, not, not actually trying to achieve any particular change in yourself, uh, but rather just sort of going, going where the story goes.

    6. DPDwarkesh Patel28:24

       Mm-hmm.

    7. MLMatjaž Leonardis28:25

       Um, reading history is perhaps, perhaps sort of helpful because, because, um, um, a lot of books are kind of written with the, with these ideas that I think are misconceptions in mind. Um, but, uh, you know, there is a, there is a substantial, uh, uh... But, but history often, history of things often gets around that because, um, like, you know, as I, as I said, like, every single one, every single thing you see in a textbook wasn't written to be put in a textbook, wasn't developed so that somebody could learn it. It was, it was created by somebody who was trying to do something or understand something, and it was useful in a particular context, and that's why people adopted it, and that's why it eventually ended up in that textbook. But what often happens is that then that context goes away and all that remains is a textbook. And so you are left with all of these irrelevant-seeming information that was actually relevant to somebody at some point, but is no longer relevant to, to anybody that reads it, or at least not immediately relevant, um, to how they approach it. So that are some of my basic thoughts on, like, what I sometimes see kind of go weird. But I think if people, you know... Polymath is not something you learn to be, it's something you unlearn to be as, as some people would put it.

12. 29:39 – 32:01

    Finding Solutions

    1. MLMatjaž Leonardis29:39

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel29:39

       Awesome. That's very liberating advice. But let me ask you this.

    3. MLMatjaž Leonardis29:43

       Mm-hmm.

    4. DPDwarkesh Patel29:43

       Um, should you just, should a young person just be focused on learning what they find interesting? Or as, as you mentioned, like, people are trying to find solutions to the problem and situations they're in. Should they be purposefully trying to identify problem situations in existing knowledge?

    5. MLMatjaž Leonardis29:58

       Yeah. So, so I think that's, uh, when it comes to that, I think my impression at least is that the most important thing is to connect, um, with other people or groups of people that are doing something. Uh, because there you will, um, you know, again, find, find something that you can contribute to, um, as well as, um, you know, sort of get, get support for doing so and, and so on. Um, I think that that, that is sort of very much an unsolved problem as a thing to, to kind of do at scale. Um, as I think we, we, uh, talked about at some point, um-Like, there, there is this idea that you would create a kind of a- a- there's often this idea that- that- that you- that one could easily create kind of list of all unsolved problems in a given field and just put it on the internet. Um, and many people kind of think, "Well, this- this seems so simple. Like, why doesn't an- anybody ever do that?" And I think that is- that it's actually incredibly difficult to do. I think that the kinds of information that you would have to put, um, online is just- it's just incredibly- i- i- i- it's very, very unclear how one does that. And, um, the key- the key thing is that- is that- the key thing to realize is that, well, um, first of all, that- th- there really is no such thing as a- as an unsolved problem, I think, as conventionally understood. There- there are just a bunch of people and, you know, like, one can form a view that- that creating something would be valuable to them. Um, it often won't be valuable to everybody. It will only be valuable to a subsection of those people. Um, and those people might not actually know in advance that that's what they would want. And for that reason, it's actually quite difficult to sort of put, um, you know, the- that seems to be a kind- that- that's- that is kind of the diff- it- it's a difficult thing to kind of put online, um, for that reason. Um, and, uh, yeah. Oh, interesting.

13. 32:01 – 33:15

    Connecting to People

    1. MLMatjaž Leonardis32:01

       So, but if you're- uh, but if you're a young person who needs to connect to people to, um, who are solving the right problems or about to solve the right problems, but you yourself don't know what the right problems are because you haven't connected to them yet, I mean, how do you solve that circle? Right. So I think that that- that- that is sort of quite a challenge. And as I said, I- I think I'm terrible at this. Uh, there are people who I think are- are sort of... Because I- I think, you know, it is very much the case, as you sort of said, that- that- that the whole thing has a bit of a sort of chicken and egg problem to it, right? Because the whole idea is, well, you can't really contribute anything valuable because you don't know anything about, you know, what these people's lives are like, what you can contribute to it. And on the other hand, it's kind of difficult to join a conversation because you don't have anything yet to contribute to it, right? And so the- the- there are these sort of all kinds of idiosyncratic ways that- that I think this- this sort of happens and gets solved, uh, but- but there isn't anything as... It's not an impossible problem to solve, but- but it does require, I think, quite a bit of an experimentation. Um, I don't think I'm- I'm the best person at this by- by any stretch, uh, but these are, I guess, are just some general thoughts in that.

14. 33:15 – 33:53

    Connecting to Mentors

    1. MLMatjaž Leonardis33:15

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel33:15

       Okay. So then young people connecting to mentors who are solving the right problems, is this very hard? Is this impossible almost?

    3. MLMatjaž Leonardis33:22

       Um, uh, I- I actually... No, I don't think- I don't think so at all. I think that the- the main problem is just that- that it is somewhat idiosyncratic, right? So- so you- you cannot just sort of give- give a- give a- give a universal answer. Um, but I think that the w- it's definitely not the case that- that the world is hostile to it. I think people are very sympathetic to attempts to do that, um, um, you know. And- and, you know, a- as I'm- as- as basically you illustrate, I think, uh, uh, a lot of- a lot of that is very, very possible.

15. 33:53 – 34:32

    Conclusion

    1. MLMatjaž Leonardis33:53

       And, uh...

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel33:53

       Oh, there's tremendous goodwill for young people out there.

    3. MLMatjaž Leonardis33:56

       So- so that's...

    4. DPDwarkesh Patel33:57

       Yeah.

    5. MLMatjaž Leonardis33:57

       Yeah, I- I have the sort of the same impression. And, uh, so- so- so yeah, I don't want to... Like, I think- I think one- one of the worst things, perhaps- perhaps the reason I sort of bring this up is just because, um, I think people often just lack awareness of this. Uh, they- they- they kind of lack the awareness of the fact that that is kind of the main challenge. Uh, or at least a thing that- a thing that one ought to do. Um, and, uh, yeah, I guess for that- for that reason, I- I think it is sort of worth mentioning.

    6. DPDwarkesh Patel34:24

       On that hopeful and optis- optimistic note, Amosgus, thank you for being on the show. This is very fascinating.

    7. MLMatjaž Leonardis34:29

       Thanks. Thanks for having me. It's been a pleasure.

Episode duration: 34:32