
Revolutionary Ideas in Science, Math, and Society [video] - espeed
https://lexfridman.com/eric-weinstein/
======
hirundo
> 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...](https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1108814304785006592)

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

~~~
hirundo
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.

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

~~~
petulla
He has published papers in economics
[https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-
GUI_N...](https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-
GUI_NSF_SG_Complete_INET.pdf)

------
brianpgordon
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.

~~~
soheil
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.

~~~
brianpgordon
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.

------
joe_the_user
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.

~~~
freedomben
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
joe_the_user
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.

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

~~~
kgarten
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...](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/)

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

~~~
freedomben
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.

------
YjSe2GMQ
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...](https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/02/23/the-arrest-of-michael-
calvey-in-russia-rattles-foreign-businesses)

~~~
espeed
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](https://youtu.be/opDuw4OZ3QI)

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

[https://youtu.be/zVhQOhxb1Mc](https://youtu.be/zVhQOhxb1Mc)

~~~
YjSe2GMQ
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.

~~~
espeed
NB: Updated my comment with video references.

------
FreedomToCreate
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?

~~~
freedomben
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 :-)

~~~
maroonblazer
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.

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

[http://www.ericweisstein.com/](http://www.ericweisstein.com/)
[http://mathworld.wolfram.com](http://mathworld.wolfram.com)

~~~
espeed
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](https://youtu.be/h5gnATQMtPg)

------
c256
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.)

------
peisistratos
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.

~~~
s3r3nity
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.

~~~
pryce
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material)

~~~
espeed
"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/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/)

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

~~~
pryce
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.

------
bob_theslob646
Lex seems like a very nice guy, but he is terrible at interviewing guests.
Listening is definitely a skill.

~~~
gclawes
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.

~~~
adaptiveValleys
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.

