Revolutionary Ideas in Science, Math, and Society [video] | Hacker News Reader

Revolutionary Ideas in Science, Math, and Society [video]

lexfridman.com

128 pointsespeed57 comments

> Eric Weinstein is a mathematician, economist, physicist, and managing director of Thiel Capital.

Eric tweeted otherwise earlier today [1]:

> Attention: I found out from Wikipedia that as of the 17th, I'm NOT a mathematician anymore despite a PhD, but an economist. I now state that I've never taken a class in economics. In physics I have a semester of mechanics. No E&M/QFT.

> I'm the Impostor your mama warned you about.

[1] https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/110881430478500659...

You cant be sarcastic on the internet without someone taking it seriously.

I think he's saying that he's formally trained as a mathematician, but not so much as an economist or physicist. I suppose he could still be considered a self taught economist / physicist.

He doesn't consider himself a physicist either.[1]

[1] https://youtu.be/2wq9x2QcZN0?t=2025 At 33:45 of the podcast after he gives the kinetic-potential energy analogy to describe his distrust of Pinker's optimism.

it's a well-constructed (i got it) & well-executed joke (it got me).

He has published papers in economics https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-GUI_N...

Can you just... stop being a mathematician like that? I'm not sure it's allowed.

Eric Weinstein is one of those rare people with whom I disagree a lot but to whom I can actually listen without a vein popping out of my temple and my teeth starting to grind. I guess I just appreciate his cerebral conversational style that lets you engage with the ideas.

What parts do you disagree with him on? He is pretty rational, the way he constructs his arguments from from fundamentals leaves really not much up to personal preference or debate.

Mainly that he's a hardcore capitalist to the bone, while I tend more toward favoring a mixed economy and social democracy with an ultimate post-singularity endgame of true socialism. There are some other minor things that he talks about that don't really resonate with me, like conspiracy theories that he propounds under the cover of "emergent behavior," and concerns about AGI which I don't share.

Video begins with this Eric touted as a founder/coiner of "The Intellectual Darkweb" which as far as I can tell is something like a new political brand. I don't think it's appropriate for any political branding to appear as a part an exposition of Science & Math positions (or otherwise) on HN. IE, HN usually isn't a platform for any political position.

Vaguely skipped forward and found speculation about like Tom Lahrer as a marker for intelligence. I like Tom Lahrer but this all seems way outside the concrete AI and compiler articles I come to HN for.

The Intellectual Darkweb absolutely belongs on HN when they're talking about interesting stuff. There are people from the left and right in the IDW - it's quite intellectually diverse.

That said, I don't agree with the premise that because somebody is open about their political beliefs, they can't say or do "anything that good hackers would find interesting." [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't think the claim that the "intellectual darkweb" includes a broad range of political positions holds up to any scrutiny - the many prominent members of the group (Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro) are strongly identified with right wing politics and not one left wing of similar significance appears.

Well, there's also Sam Harris, Brett Weinstein. Both are strongly left wing.

Ahem ... that's not really my understanding what left means. Sam Harris is definitely not left wing (see his discussions with a progressive: Glen Greenwald).

Brett Weinstein seems to be, but he's an exception.

The dark web was assoicated with Alex Jones (now he vanished from their website)

In addition, Peterson, Weinstein, Harris ... etc see themselves as libertarians. Freedom of speech advocates. Yet, they just speak out when somebody of their tribe is restricted (see the Patreon debate or the Evergreen State College issues). If it's about somebody not in their "tribe", e.g. refusing a Pro-Israel Oath they are awfully quiet. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-la...

Real left wing, progressives (Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman) will defend freedom of speech even for people that they don't share a cause of opinions with. For example: Greenwald defended Neo-Nazis as a lawyer on freedom of speech grounds.

Can't take the dark web serious. It's just another tribe pushing their agenda. Sam Harris is pro war against terror and talks about the US foreign politics as a "gentle, benevolent giant". Check what US does in Venezuela right now. And Compare Sam Harris actions to Jeremy who went undercover in Iraq ;) Edits: grammar

I think those are fair criticisms, tho Dave Rubin does defend free speech to the extreme. He calls himself a free speech absolutist. Ben Shapiro is quite a free speech absolutist as well (when he's not accusing people of being anti semitic lol).

I do wish the others would be as rock solid as Rubin and Greenwald tho. I actually consider Greenwald to be part of the the IDW because he asks the questions that you're not supposed to ask, and does real journalism, and defends real free speech.

> Check what US does in Venezuela right now.

As a Venezuelan, I’m curious to know what you mean by this.

Indeed. Its far from being a right wing group.

I'm yet to be convinced that the adjective "intellectual" in "Intellectual DarkWeb" holds up to any scrutiny either. I think history shows we should be suspicious of movements that claim the intellectual high-ground (or moral high-ground) in their name - even when I am sympathetic to their conclusions.

Examples include: The "Brights", the "Rationalist" Societies, "Euthanasia" (translating to 'good death').

The "Intellectual" DarkWeb is populated by many examples fringe figures whose contributions are considered laughable in their own claimed fields, Stephan Molyneux being a complete joke in Philosophical circles but impressing his teenage and tech-trained audience is a prime example. Christina Hoff Sommers is another figure whose brand of feminism seems far more widely supported by people who've never taken the time to read a book by a single other feminist. Sam Harris's forays into Moral Philosophy and Free Will again do not find a sympathetic audience of any significant size among people who actually study these subjects and know much about them. Jordan B Petersen is an unusual case because his noteriety and audience is far more to do with his political statements (attacking trans people, misogynist comments, claims of a conspiracy of Post-Modern Marxists) that are substantially separatable from both his academic work (Maps of Meaning) or his weird self-help manual (even though this shoehorns in his conspiracy theorizing).

Peterson never attacked trans people. This reflects poorly on how much you actually know about him.

Agrees. If you actually watch his interviews his main issue was with the law, not trans people.

That might be a bit more convincing if it was some gigantic tome of a proposal that was only relevant to trans people in some tangental aspect.

Instead, this 1-page bill is entirely about trans people, and adding them to a long list of groups already protected from discrimination by law. It is 1 page long. It adds 4 words to passages of existing law.

Here [1] is the entire text of it, read it for yourself.

Peterson has no comparative problems with the existing law protecting discrimination for the following groups: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability.

He does, however, specifically believe that extending these same protections already offered to everyone else to trans people amounts to a threat to society.

[1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2017_13/F...

You posted a reference to the law. Good start. Now post a reference to what he actually said.

Jordan Peterson rose to prominence by publicly misrepresenting and demonizing Canadian House Bill C-16, a bill which extends human rights protections to Transgender people.

No, he was specifically opposed to compelled speech, not the trans protection piece. Read his interviews.

There is no compelled speech in the bill, see the full text. If you have the misapprehension that there was, would that be something you got from Jordan Peterson?

The name was chosen very carefully for a specific purpose, nothing to do with proclaiming moral high-ground. Eric explains the various meanings in a video he uploaded to his channel [1].

I would argue Molyneux is not remotely part of the IDW. I haven't heard anyone within it say anything remotely positive about him or willing to associate with him. Eric's brother, Bret an evolutionary biologist, regularly mocks Molyneux and explains why his interpretation of evolutionary theory is wrong [2][3][4][5].

Also part of the IDW name originates from Eric's observation that mainstream academics unwilling to either publicly debate his findings or defend theirs. When those findings could potentially decrease the impact of their work or demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor [6]. He's noticed this in other fields too, like biology with Bret's theory on cultural evolution. Only just this year did he get a chance to debate Dawkins.

[1] 'Why the "Intellectual Dark Web" has such a crazy name': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr0OX6ai4Qw

[2] https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1070217128211443712

[3] https://twitter.com/bretweinstein/status/1070127960009564160

[4] https://twitter.com/bretweinstein/status/1103765054191656963

[5] https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1070150469895413760

[6] Eric's talk at Stanford from 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_brHQRMu9k

The idea with periodically detonating thermonuclear weapons on US soil, to remind people how bad things can get, is incredible (from 25:00 onwards).

I recently showed my Russian friend an article in The Economist about the arrest of Michael Calvey [1], which concluded in a pessimistic tone that just about anyone can be arrested and go to jail there. To my surprise he said "well, yes, it's true". I couldn't comprehend why would anyone like to live in such conditions.

But then I realized that an arrest and an unfair sentence in Russia is nothing. Neither is a 10*C global warming, economic meltdown 30x stronger than 2008, neither is twenty 9/11s in a week, when compared to a nuclear wasteland. We're all in more dire circumstances than Mr Calvey is in.

[1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/02/23/the-arrest-of-mi...

On US soil you'd have fallout from the soil getting sucked up into the atmosphere. See...

"Why World War II Matters - Victor Davis Hanson" [video]

https://youtu.be/opDuw4OZ3QI

Harvard Belfer Center: "Nuclear 101: How Nuclear Bombs Work Part 1/2" [video]

https://youtu.be/zVhQOhxb1Mc

It's possible, I actually don't know much about those weapons. Perhaps a better idea is to do it at the sea, with front row seats in Los Angeles, IDK. But that's kind of the point - we should have more collective wisdom about devices that can reign global destruction in a matter of hours, or less.

NB: Updated my comment with video references.

Does Joe Rogan even consider himself a part of the intellectual dark web. He has definitely interviewed guys who spend there time pondering things, but does joe really pursue intellectual thought has a professional interest?

I think Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin are really more facilitators than intellectuals. They are excellent interviewers. They may not contribute evolutionary biological ideas/theories but they're both super important. I get the impression that they would agree that's their role, but of course I'm nobody to speak for them :-)

Dave Rubin is not an excellent interviewer. He's a sycophant more akin to Charlie Rose (also an overrated interviewer). He spends more time talking about the fact that they're having conversations then actually having the conversations.

EW is great, btw.

There is this underlying notion that they are informing and educating the masses, the curious among the masses atleast. I have a feeling there is something wrong with that notion. Can't really put a finger on it...

I think he just has hypocognitive and worldview-comforting conversations with people like Eric inbetween bow hunting trips on tropical islands and floating in an isolation tank.

He's the one that shouts "Intellectual Dark Web, Assemble!"

Did anyone else confuse this podcast interviewee with Eric Weisstein at first glance?

http://www.ericweisstein.com/ http://mathworld.wolfram.com

Not this podcast, but I did a few years ago when I started googling Eric Weinstein's references on guage theory and the Wu-Yang Dictionary. See...

Gauge Theory and Inflation: Enlarging the Wu-Yang Dictionary [video] https://youtu.be/h5gnATQMtPg

All the time!

I like much of what I’ve “seen” from Lex Fridman, but I think the title here is a little misleading. This is a conversation with a guy who works on AI at MIT, but the label made me think it was some project or report from CSAIL, which it does not seem to be (disclosure: I haven’t yet watched the full video, so maybe I’m mistaken.)

I listened to Jordan Peterson and what he was talking about was not particularly radical - instead of a modern, rational, scientific, agnostic view of the world he had more pre-Enlightenment Dark Ages notions about the Bible, the supernatural and such. As premier learning institutions aim to be devoted to rationality, the scientific method etc., it's not a conspiracy keeping him away, he's just preaching things they are not about. I'm sure he could go to some backwoods corner of Arkansas or Kentucky or something where people would be more receptive to these ideas about the supernatural.

It's also putting a number of people into the same boat. People may agree or disagree with Steven Pinker about various topics, but at least he makes rational arguments. Search the New York Times and he is treated as an intellectual worthy of respect, although points may be right or wrong. I don't see him being excluded from anything. If anything, the nurture over nature argument is what is blocked from the establishment discourse.

Have you looked at JP's background or work in any way? He's a clinical psychologist + professor of psychology at a pretty reputable university (U of Toronto) with decades of experience, including an active clinical practice (until 2017 I think.)

I don't claim to have read _everything_ he has written, but claiming that he doesn't base his arguments in a rational, scientific grounding is a real stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst.

I've worked in Clinical Psychology and one of my consultants kept a copy of a demented new-age 'channelling spirits' book "Seth Speaks" by Jane Roberts [1] on her desk and was adamant that I read it.

My point is that "whether someone bases their arguments on rational, scientific grounding" cannot be determined by looking at their qualifications or their employment, especially when they are speaking outside of their field. Jordan Peterson's most famous claims - firstly about a conspiracy of Postmodern Marxism (which is a non-sequitur to anyone who has even a basic understanding of postmodernism or marxism) and the claims underlying his rise to internet fame - fearmongering about C-16 bill including being extremely misleading about the specifics of it - are absolutely not based on "rational, scientific grounding", and his CV doesn't change this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material

"The metaphoric mind is a maverick. It is as wild and unruly as a child. It follows us doggedly and plagues us with its presence as we wander the contrived corridors of rationality. It is a metaphoric link with the unknown called religion that causes us to build cathedrals — and the very cathedrals are built with rational, logical plans. When some personal crisis or the bewildering chaos of everyday life closes in on us, we often rush to worship the rationally-planned cathedral and ignore the religion.

Albert Einstein called the intuitive or metaphoric mind a sacred gift. He added that the rational mind was a faithful servant. It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine."

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/

BTW: Are you trying to associate Professor Peterson's work with the Seth Material?

My point was not a claim that there is no such thing as spirituality or value in intuition, or even past lives, something I don't pretend to know.

My point was: that the terms "rational & scientifically grounded" are features best ascertained by examination of an argument itself, not as traits that become applied to a person as a whole and then inherently imbue each claim that this person then makes from that point onward.

There exist people with almost identical "qualifications and positions" that Jordan B Peterson has who demonstrably make arguments that are not "rational & scientifically grounded", therefore these "qualifications and positions" are at best a poor marker for the properties or qualities we are seeking, and cannot be the quality itself.

Lex seems like a very nice guy, but he is terrible at interviewing guests. Listening is definitely a skill.

He's a mildly-odd high-end AI researcher with a somewhat cynical Russian outlook, I neither expect nor want highly polished interviews from him. In fact, it's exactly because he's somewhat idiosyncratic that he's fascinating to watch have a conversation.

I agree. He interviews a lot of fascinating people with highly-specialized backgrounds. To research their work and understand it enough to have great conversational flow and remain highly insightful would take a lot of time.

But since this isn't his full-time job, I think trading-off asking very good questions for the flow of the dialogue is worth it.

I think Lex is a great interviewer. Eric definitely threw him off a number of times, but I can't fault him.

That was intentional on some level, an embodied metaphor to underscore one of the unifying messages Eric was trying to convey -- be wary of your fixed frames of reference, that's not from where radical leaps come.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com