Cómo ser más sabio, con Sergio Parra | A1

0:01Hello , Sergio . How are you ? Well , very

0:06good , here I am waiting to see what

0:08questions you ask me . I feel like I'm

0:12in an exam . No , no , man , you've already

0:14told me before ,

0:18but 10 seconds before , because I

0:19haven't had time to prepare anything ,

0:23but they're very easy , I mean , you told

0:26me yourself , I mean , well , well ,

0:29it was time to have a conversation to

0:31close the series a bit because as you

0:33know in my news , well , I read your book

0:35Sapienciology

0:37and the truth is that I loved it to the

0:39point that it's the only book , well ,

0:40there have been a few before , but that

0:42I've dedicated a series to in the

0:44newsletter . It's a book about wisdom ,

0:48and I would like , kind of as a closing

0:50to the series and taking advantage of

0:52the fact that I'm going to launch the

0:53latest edition , to have a conversation

0:55with you about some ideas , for you to

0:57tell us a bit more about the dirty

0:59laundry and the less pretty side of how

1:00the book was born and the good stuff

1:02too , but what's not seen .

1:05Okay ?

1:05So the first question , which is a bit

1:08of a must , is how the book penciology

1:10came to be . Well , the story is quite

1:15trivial because I felt indebted to the

1:17paying subscribers of the

1:19newsletterciology , basically because I

1:21don't offer much more than what I offer

1:23to the free version . It's something I

1:28have to correct , but since there were

1:30many people who had been supporting it

1:32for many months and even people who had

1:34paid for a year , well , I wanted to give

1:36them a gift . At first , it was basically

1:40taking what I considered to be the most

1:42interesting articles or posts from the

1:44newsletter and maybe adding a coda or

1:46expanding on a topic , turning it into a

1:48book and giving it away without further

1:50ado . But little by little , as I kept

1:57writing and adding things , I realized

1:59that I could even generate an

2:01interesting , interconnected structure .

2:07As I was doing all that , the image of

2:09the octopus also emerged , which was

2:11something I hadn't prepared for . And

2:15little by little I realized that the

2:17book was becoming , without me intending

2:19to , probably my best book . In the sense

2:26that I had been able to synthesize many

2:28years of reading and reflection in an

2:30elegant , simple way and , above all ,

2:32without being too dogmatic . Sometimes I

2:39am because I believe that it is

2:41inevitable from time to time to take

2:43some kind of direction and then people

2:45decide , right ?, whether to go down that

2:47path . But in general there are many

2:49open questions . Hm . There are many

2:52contradictions , in fact . I take away my

2:56reason and the idea is basically to

2:58stir up the hornet's nest , let's say ,

3:00so that people , as is typical , people

3:02get out of their framework and dare to

3:05explore other paths , even if they later

3:07return to their refuge .

3:11All in all . I mean , what I really liked

3:15is that it has very different ,

3:17counterintuitive ideas , and that it's a

3:18bit like walking with a friend who

3:20tells you : " Well , this is how I see it "

3:22, but suddenly your friend changes his

3:24mind and shows you the perspective of

3:26another author and you don't really

3:27know what that friend thinks , but you

3:29say : " Wow , he's helping me understand

3:31the world a little better " although ,

3:33even if you don't end up with a clearer

3:35idea of what the world is like , you do

3:37understand those contradictions and

3:38deviations a little more . The book was

3:43born , right ?, from notebooks that you

3:45had , that over the years you've been

3:46jotting down ideas

3:48and now it's evolving into a collection

3:50of books , right ? I mean , tell us a

3:52little bit more about how those notes

3:54... you have a series of notebooks ,

3:56right ?, where you only write down the

3:57super important and relevant things ,

4:00right ?

4:01For decades , right ? And then you turned

4:03them into this book and there will be

4:04more books , right ?

4:06Yes . Well , this basically came about as

4:09a result of a radio program . I listened

4:12to a late-night radio program . I heard

4:15a caller who really liked writing down

4:17in a notebook , by hand , all the things

4:19he read that he found interesting or

4:22any kind of conclusion , outline , etc.

4:24And I basically heard this when I was

4:2613 , something like that . Okay .

4:30And I thought it was a good idea . I

4:34grabbed a nice notebook that I had at

4:36home and started the adventure . Well ,

4:39it wasn't very pretty . Now , really ,

4:41after all that , when moles were born ,

4:43they became fashionable in Spain and

4:45such , that's when I started with them .

4:47Compared to moles , of course , they were

4:49almost children's notebooks . Um , but

4:52anyway , I started doing it . I remember

4:55that the first thing I wrote in that

4:59notebook was a poem by Bodeler , The

5:02Flowers of Evil .

5:04And so you can see , it was already very

5:06deep . When I was 13 or 14 years old , I

5:09was like a cursed person . Anyway , I put

5:13on a lot of posturing . And the thing is

5:17that I liked the feeling and for some

5:19strange reason I've never stopped doing

5:21it . Let me tell you , I started when I

5:25was 14 , and now I'm 46 , so I've been

5:28writing these notebooks for 30 years . I

5:32have almost 20 notebooks

5:39and the thing is to always write by

5:41hand because I understand that I've

5:43read some things about it , that

5:44learning , reflection and everything , in

5:47short , cognition in general is not

5:48something that is limited to the brain ,

5:51but that the rest of the body is also

5:53involved . So , there are studies that

5:59talk about kinetics , hand movement ,

6:01body position , all of which influence

6:03how you assimilate knowledge and how

6:05you relate to it . And I once read a

6:09book called The Hand , I don't remember

6:11the author ,

6:16where he established a hypothesis ,

6:18sometimes a bit risky , that the

6:20movement of the hand when speaking ,

6:22when writing , etc. , was deeply

6:23connected to cognition and that for

6:26that reason we should make a great

6:28defense , right ?, of handwriting . And

6:33well , it's also a way of doing

6:35cross-stitch . It relaxes me to be there

6:38, writing down all my notes ,

6:40reflections and so on . And so , as you

6:47rightly say , the first volume of

6:49Sapienciology starts from , well ,

6:51basically a compilation of the ones

6:53from the last notebooks that I have

6:55written , um , which are surely the most

6:58interesting ; but , uh , if we go back ,

7:00well , I also have , I think , gems that

7:02are worth rescuing and that I also plan

7:05to publish soon , right ? Due to the

7:12success , not so much in terms of money

7:14or volume of wisdom , but rather the

7:16feedback I've received , the fact that

7:18you yourself , damn it , have given me

7:20your space to talk about this seems

7:22like an honor to me . Well , due to this

7:28good feedback , I've decided to write a

7:30second part , a third part , and it's

7:32likely that more will appear in the

7:34future . And well , I'm going to try to

7:37give it , I don't know , create a kind of

7:39library , all with the same

7:41nineteenth-century look , like a book

7:43found in the attic , right ?

7:46And what was the last note you wrote in

7:47your notebooks ? Do you remember or ?

7:52Well , let's see . Oh , I don't have it

7:55here , but anyway , I have something here

7:57that might be in rough form , huh ? I

8:01mean , I haven't cleaned it up yet .

8:03First you write it on the computer and

8:05then it

8:06depends . Sometimes they're voice notes ,

8:09okay ?

8:10Sometimes they're things you write on

8:12the computer , sometimes they're pages

8:14of a book that I take a picture of . Oh ,

8:17or

8:17you tear them out , right ? Rumor has it

8:20too .

8:20Rumor has it . And it's also true that

8:22sometimes I tear pages out of books ,

8:24basically because I can't keep all the

8:26books I read .

8:27We're talking about thousands and

8:28thousands . No , no , they don't fit in

8:30the house . They don't fit , especially ,

8:32well , they would fit , maybe if I saw a

8:34kind of book cave , but when it comes to

8:36making a ... I've moved many times , every

8:38time there's a move it's horrible ,

8:40horrible . So I kind of let go of

8:42ballast with each move and in order not

8:44to have to let go of so much ballast ,

8:46well I get to the point and tear out

8:48pages and classify them and that's it .

8:50But I don't do it so much because now I

8:52read much more on e-books ,

8:54okay ? I'm not that sacrilegious . Well ,

8:57basically what I've pointed out are

9:03five points about political

9:04epistemology , okay ?

9:06That must be taken into account when ,

9:10let's say , dealing with any political

9:12issue , right ? First point , how group

9:16loyalties distort political cognition .

9:19How do political tribes coordinate to

9:21promote , protect , and rationalize

9:23shared narratives ? In what ways are

9:26political thinking and communication

9:28biased ? The sources of political

9:31ignorance and misperceptions . And

9:35finally , why are many influential

9:37analyses of our political and epistemic

9:39problems in terms of disinformation or

9:41fake news confusing or objectionable ? I

9:45mean , in this case it's a note that

9:47even serves as an index for you , it's

9:49not so much the content , but how you

9:50would structure a field , right ?

9:52Approaching it

9:54is almost like a kind of yes , an index

9:56to keep in mind when addressing any

9:58political epistemological issue . I

10:01think that , if you take these points

10:03into account , especially the last one

10:05which is perhaps the most

10:06counterintuitive , especially now that

10:08we are living in a time of much talk

10:10about hoaxes and the mud machine and

10:12such , it seems much more interesting to

10:14me . Although this misinformation

10:17clearly exists and information is

10:19necessary , I believe that it is not as

10:21exaggerated as it is sold and that the

10:23relationship with information is much

10:25more bilateral . In other words , it is

10:30not so much the misinformer who is

10:32interested in misinforming us , as we

10:34also long to be misinformed or seek out

10:36sources of misinformation that are

10:38aligned with our prejudices .

10:42You are not manipulated , you manipulate

10:44others so that they manipulate you ,

10:46right ?

10:48Mythical , mythical when you wrote an

10:50edition in Kazen about that and we have

10:52the joke , right ? Okay , now I am going

10:55to ask you to describe in one sentence ,

10:58it is a complex , complicated book , with

11:00nine dimensions or nine , eight legs and

11:02one head , right ? Because the symbol is

11:05the octopus of wisdom . How would you

11:07describe this book in one sentence ? You

11:11are dumber than you think and you will

11:12never be much smarter .

11:15Okay . And in parentheses , it

11:18is better if you do not aspire to do so

11:20.

11:21Okay . Okay . I mean , that would be like

11:24the book is about . That's the theme .

11:27It's

11:27a book about wisdom and how to achieve

11:29it , but at the same time it's a warning

11:31that you probably won't achieve it as

11:33you think you will and it's

11:34counterproductive for you to achieve it

11:36.

11:38Okay ? You as an individual , uh , I mean ,

11:40not as a network , which is another

11:42topic that we can talk about later if

11:44you want .

11:44I mean , do you think that wisdom is not

11:46something desirable in an individual ?

11:48No.

11:49Why ?

11:52Because we live in a very deep-rooted

11:54myth , which is a topic that I develop

11:56in more depth in the last chapter , I

11:58think , of the book , which is Olos . Uh ,

12:03there's a very persistent myth about

12:06the individual , about the genius , about

12:08the inventor . Uh , when you track , for

12:11example , the eponyms , right ?, the

12:12innovations and so on , well , we're

12:14always talking about Darwin's theory ,

12:17Darwinism , the I don't know what , the I

12:19don't know how much . We are always

12:21obsessed with who invented the

12:22telephone , for example , who did what ,

12:24who conquered such and such . And I have

12:28an increasingly systemic view of all

12:30these issues and more of the network .

12:34In fact , I think that in the book

12:36itself I also point out that our brain

12:38has been growing thanks to evolution ,

12:40because a bigger brain is a smarter

12:42brain , so that is an adaptive advantage

12:45, right ? But there came a time in

12:47evolution where , in addition to the

12:49circumstance , the birth canal in women ,

12:51because they are viviparous , is

12:53narrower ; so , when it comes to having a

12:55child , the child is born half-formed ,

12:57because otherwise , the head would not

12:59fit . That is why we are the species

13:01most dependent on our parents . Well ,

13:03most species can be quite

13:05self-sufficient because they are born

13:07full-form . We are born half-formed

13:08because if we were born full-form we

13:10would not fit through the birth canal .

13:13Our brain is too big and we have made

13:15that concession of being born

13:16half-formed . Okay , so the other

13:22concession that we've had to admit at

13:24an adaptive level , given that our brain

13:26can't be much bigger , in fact , in order

13:29to calculate well , possibilities ,

13:31rationalize and so on , it would have to

13:33be in a much larger brain . The other

13:38concession , as I say , is that our brain

13:43has become smaller as we have enlarged

13:45the social brain , which is that kind of

13:47brain that connects us with each other .

13:53So I argue , like many other authors ,

13:55that we are an eminently social species

14:02and that our great advantage lies

14:08precisely in that . So it is more

14:13adaptive to know how to creatively copy

14:15others and pay attention to how others

14:17look at you and judge you and somehow

14:25adapt , right ?, to the codes , to the

14:27shared norms and so on . That is much

14:30more functional than not being a single

14:32guy going against everything . Or that

14:37phrase that also sums it up : it is

14:39better to be right than to be wrong

14:41alone , right ? The opposite . It's better

14:45to be wrong with the majority than to

14:47be

14:47right alone , right ? That's just

14:49guessing , right ? Why ? Because most of

14:53the time the majority is right or at

14:55least if they're not right they're in a

14:57group , so they support each other and

14:58mistakes are more easily corrected . So

15:04I'm a big fan of this idea and I'm

15:06becoming more so every time . In fact ,

15:08even after making these last trips to

15:11China , on which you were able to

15:12accompany me ,

15:14yes , well ,

15:17I've delved deeply into Chinese culture

15:19, Chinese philosophy and they are much

15:21more collectivist than we are and I

15:23find it fascinating how they , simply by

15:26cultural inertia , are much more aligned

15:28with this new way that I have of seeing

15:30things . I used to be much more in favor

15:36of , well , praising or encouraging

15:38individual genius and now I'm much more

15:41in favor of making the networks that

15:43connect us smarter and in that way

15:45favoring the social brain , as I say .

15:51And so , I mean , do you think that after

15:53reading your book , the individual won't

15:56be wiser and , simply , how will the

15:57ideas impact him ? Because you've said

16:01that seeking wisdom is useless , but we

16:03read a book about wisdom and how , I

16:05mean , how those pieces fit together ,

16:07right ? Which is a contradiction or a

16:10paradox

16:11that there are many in your book , but

16:12yes , I qualify , I'm not saying that

16:14wisdom is useful to us ,

16:16okay ?

16:16And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be

16:18more intelligent , obviously , if we add

16:19intelligence to the network , it's

16:21important , right ?

16:22How ? IQ is important .

16:25IQ is important , right ? But it's not

16:27that important . That's the question . I

16:29mean , given the choice ,

16:31I prefer a more intelligent , more

16:33connected community of fools than a

16:35community of very intelligent people ,

16:38but disconnected from each other , given

16:40the choice . Obviously we can have the

16:43best of both worlds , but let's say that

16:46the society we live in is a society

16:48that rewards individual genius much

16:50more than networked intelligence .

16:53That's what I mean . I mean , I think

16:54that , to compensate , we should focus

16:56more on the network and not so much on

16:59the social brain , more on the idea of ,

17:01uh , well , discarding these myths that

17:03we have about parents , for example , who

17:05tell their children : " You always do

17:07what your friends do . " I mean , one day

17:10your friends jump off a cliff , you will

17:12do it too . " The answer should be yes .

17:14If my friends throw themselves off the

17:16cliff , I'm going to throw myself with

17:18them , because adaptively it's the best

17:20thing I can do . That idea that you have

17:22to be responsible for yourself and make

17:25an effort is , I see it a lot like

17:26Munchausen's man in that mythical scene

17:28who tries to get out of the well by

17:30pulling his own hair , right ? Or

17:33Sisyphus's stone . And deep down , no

17:37matter how hard you try , you can get

17:39very far , but you're always pulled back

17:42by your biological and genetic

17:44predispositions , your social brain , the

17:46idea that mirrors don't really exist .

17:50When you look in the mirror to see if

17:52your clothes look good or bad , that

17:54mirror is fictional . That mirror

17:56doesn't exist , it's fake . You're really

17:59looking into the eyes of others . Then ,

18:02if you want , you can have the mirror at

18:04home to coordinate the looks and

18:06comments of others based on what's in

18:07the mirror . But the mirror isn't the

18:10important thing , is not relevant , it is

18:12a secondary effect , the mirror of

18:14mirrors that you find in the eyes of

18:16others . Having said all this , obviously

18:24, hm , it is important to be wise , it is

18:26important to be intelligent , it is

18:28important to be autonomous , it is

18:30important to be free ; but what I am

18:32trying to do with this book is , uh ,

18:34also show you that these goals ,

18:36although very laudable , are very

18:38difficult and you are fighting against

18:40yourself because you are continually

18:42influenced by the memesphere , by others

18:44, by the context , and sometimes it is

18:46like fighting against reality itself .

18:53That is to say , if the context in which

18:55you live does not encourage you to seek

18:58that wisdom or that intelligence . And

19:00when I speak of contexts , I am not only

19:02talking about your environment , I am

19:04also talking about your genetic context

19:06, which is part of the context .

19:08Everything is context , right ?

19:10Everything is because even the

19:12environment is co-created with biology ,

19:14there is no fine line that you can

19:16divide both states , right ? Well , in the

19:24end the question is that , hm , well , I

19:26do not think that it is too risky , too ,

19:29I don't know , too Yes , risky . Trying to

19:36control all those factors yourself , the

19:38context . In the end , you end up being

19:41what you end up being largely because

19:43of how things lead you , right ? How

19:45things push you towards them . That

19:47doesn't mean that we shouldn't also

19:49maintain certain myths . I mean , just as

19:53I respect a person who believes in God

19:56or I respect a person who thinks that ,

19:58well , socialism is fine , well , I don't

20:00get into whether God exists or

20:02socialism doesn't work or not , I don't

20:05care . I mean that I respect beliefs or

20:09symbolic beliefs because I think they

20:10are important for moving forward , for

20:12coordinating among ourselves , for doing

20:14things and such . I think that the

20:19individual is a very powerful symbolic

20:21belief that is useful ; surely , in the

20:23narrative it is useful , like Dumbo's

20:26feather , in the sense that it pushes us

20:28, well , maybe to try much harder , to

20:30get the best out of ourselves , but deep

20:33down , deep down , deep down , the truth

20:35is that it is not really like that ; it

20:37is much more collectivist , much more

20:40social brain . So , in the book I also

20:45talk a lot about symbolic beliefs ,

20:47epistemic beliefs that sometimes one

20:49thing is one thing , another thing is

20:51another thing and other times they are

20:53mixed . And you also have to know how to

20:56differentiate between both beliefs ,

20:58sometimes even mix them . I don't know

21:01if what I've said is very clear , but

21:03more or less

21:04another idea of the book is that many

21:07times what is rational or true is not

21:09the most useful , right ? Rational

21:11analysis , stopping , thinking about it

21:13... and that sometimes the best thing is

21:15that : letting yourself be carried away

21:16by beliefs that are neither true , nor

21:18proven , nor are they the result of

21:20reflection ; that are simply , well , a

21:22belief that has arisen from a group

21:23that no one has stopped to think about ,

21:25and they are all flat-earthers , right ?

21:28Well , when I talk about epistemic

21:31beliefs , I basically think that they

21:33are beliefs that work in standardized

21:35and controlled environments . Read the

21:37cockpit of an airplane , a laboratory , a

21:40review by a Court of Justice , review of

21:42papers , double blind or triple blind .

21:47That is to say , there are environments

21:49where , since we have already created a

21:51kind of chess game with predefined ,

21:53fixed rules , a closed environment and

21:55we have agreed that those are the rules

21:58and no others , then we can operate

22:00epistemically at the highest level ,

22:02because , uh , whoever breaks the rules

22:04is expelled from the game , but that is

22:061 % of life . The remaining 99 % is poker ,

22:12as I also say in the book , it is an

22:14unstructured game where the rules , some

22:16rules are fixed , but others are not .

22:20Others are interpretable , others are

22:22made up as we go along . Um , so , since

22:2799 % of the time we are living through

22:29symbolic beliefs , I , given the choice

22:32again , if your job as a citizen is not

22:34to be in a closed , standard place , in a

22:36position of power where there are a

22:39series of rules , in short , places like

22:41what I said before , the one that comes

22:43from the plane when piloting the plane ,

22:46etc. , etc. , or driving a car , if you're

22:48not there in those moments , the rest of

22:51the time I invite you , uh , as a human

22:53being that you are , that is to say , as

22:55a hairless monkey that you are , to

22:58behave in a totally irrational way , in

23:00the sense of , uh , embracing any type of

23:02narrative and story that you like . That

23:08is to say , when I eat I'm not thinking

23:10that I'm eating because that's how

23:11calories are used for this or that .

23:14When I hug a person , I'm not thinking

23:15that I'm hugging emptiness because in

23:17reality an electromagnetic repulsion

23:19makes it so that I never really touch

23:20anything or that I'm floating in the

23:22air or that this is the Matrix or I

23:23don't know what . It's all a story that

23:25I'm telling myself to keep going and be

23:27happy . Well , since we're telling

23:30ourselves those stories , let's go

23:32further and tell all kinds of nice

23:33stories to feel really , really

23:35comfortable inside Plato's cave . It's

23:39another idea that he also slipped into

23:41the book , that these are heroic ,

23:43Herculean stories of people who leave

23:45the cave of Plato and they face the

23:47truth , right ? Like wow , our heroes , the

23:50neo from Matrix , right ? I think these

23:54are great stories when you're a

23:56teenager because you think you can do

23:57anything and that you're going to solve

23:59all the world's problems . But when you

24:03realize how complex it all is , you say ,

24:05" No , look , if you want , I can go out

24:08of the cave from time to time , okay ? "

24:10And since the light outside is so

24:12strong and it's cold , I'll stay there

24:14for a while . I put on my sunglasses so

24:19as not to hurt my eyes ; but then I go

24:21back to the cave with my peers and see

24:23the shadows projected on the wall ,

24:25because that's what we're designed for ,

24:27not anything else . We can create

24:32cultural technologies to cognitively

24:34externalize our brains and so on , which

24:37can go beyond that . Science itself is a

24:42cultural technology that has allowed us

24:44to go beyond our limitations , but it's

24:46science that has achieved it . No

24:49scientist has achieved it . No scientist

24:52has achieved anything , because what a

24:54scientist does is conform to the rules

24:56of science and operate under those

24:58rules . And that's why science only grew

25:02at the time when coffee shops were born

25:04, that is to say , the coordination , the

25:07communication of the difference between

25:09alchemy and chemistry at that time was

25:11zero on an epistemic level . The only

25:15difference is that alchemy was closed

25:17and hidden knowledge written in

25:19grimoires and was not shared with

25:20anyone or confronted with anyone . And

25:25chemistry , however , was open and shared

25:27knowledge , where people could criticize

25:30and falsify any claim that was made ,

25:32and that made knowledge grow ; not

25:34because there was a scientific genius ,

25:36I repeat , but because we had endowed

25:38the network that connected scientists

25:41with more intelligence , right ?, in short

25:43. I mean , there are several things here

25:45. There is an idea in the book that I

25:47find super useful , which is about the

25:49brush , about choosing what type of

25:51brush to use . And I think it's related

25:53to this , right ? Many times , the most

25:56useful thing to do to live like a

25:58hairless monkey is to use a broad brush

26:00and say , “ Look , to turn on the water

26:02to drink , I just turn on the tap . ” I

26:05don’t have to understand how pipes

26:07work , or the composition of water , or

26:10the pressure , or anything . But for

26:12certain topics , well , we may be

26:14interested , as individuals , in

26:16specializing . But , in the end , what

26:18you’re saying , right ? That’s

26:20irrelevant , that it’s the sum of

26:22individuals and that each one goes

26:23their own way and that half , or much

26:25more than half , make mistakes and that

26:27we correct each other with mechanisms

26:29like science , which allows us to

26:31progress a little , right ? Which is a

26:33bit what makes society wiser , so to

26:35speak . I mean , you would say that

26:37wisdom is almost a quality that you

26:39would like to see in society or not

26:41even that .

26:43I would like to see it in individuals

26:45and in society , obviously , but if

26:47we’re choosing ceteris paribus , as

26:49they say , I prefer to see it in society

26:51,

26:52right ? So , of course , we can say that

26:56in another way , a little more to shock

26:59those who are listening to us now , and

27:01that is , I have more faith in a world

27:03where citizens do not think for

27:05themselves . I mean , given the choice , I

27:10prefer that people do not think for

27:12themselves , that they let themselves be

27:14guided by the community and by shared

27:16norms and by inherited culture , because

27:18they have overcome the law of time ,

27:20right ? They have adapted to situations

27:23and there will be many mistakes ,

27:25obviously , and many mistakes are made ,

27:27but ceteris paribus , I insist , all

27:29things being equal , you will surely

27:31make many more mistakes if you think

27:34for yourself . In other words , stop

27:36thinking so much .

27:37In short , there is a very idea of

27:39infinite learning that is almost a

27:41pillar that is a bit like the classic

27:43Lindy , right ? In the end , these are

27:46ideas that have stood the test of time

27:48and that not only are they all , but

27:49they are more likely to contain more

27:51truth than if I were to create a theory

27:53from scratch without knowing anything ,

27:55right ? Because time has acted as a

27:58filter and has burdened other ideas .

28:00Well , time , society . Another idea that

28:03we talked about in China , which I have

28:05yet to read and understand , is the idea

28:07that we don't think only with the brain

28:09, that we don't even think alone as

28:11individuals , right ? Which is this idea

28:14of the extended mind , distributed

28:16cognition , I mean , you call it many

28:18things . Explain this idea to us a

28:22little bit and where do you recommend a

28:24book , an article , an author or a school

28:27to me and others who want to delve

28:28deeper into it ? Yes , well , this

28:34extended mind is a fairly new idea , but

28:36well , deep down it's already been

28:39explained in other words from other

28:41philosophical positions , which is

28:43basically normal . Also , intuitively , as

28:51in the past , emotions resided in the

28:53heart , because it's the organ that is

28:55most moved or changed depending on the

28:57critical situation or the emotions that

29:00a person experiences . The same happens

29:04with the brain . Well , we are very

29:06brain-centric in the sense that , since

29:08it seems that when we think about

29:10synapses and so on , and well , we have

29:12inherited that knowledge as well , it is

29:14like we are obsessed with the brain ,

29:16the size of the brain . In fact , the

29:20current major language models ,

29:22artificial intelligences , have some

29:24paradigms based on neuromorphic

29:26paradigms or something like that , which

29:29is basically trying to imitate the

29:31design of the brain in a much simpler

29:33way , obviously , in order to obtain

29:35cognition , right ?, that occurs in the

29:37brain . So , what the philosophy of the

29:43extended mind says is that although a

29:45large part of cognition occurs inside

29:47our brains , well ,

29:49that is only a part , we do not know how

29:52much , I do not know if it is half , 20 % ,

29:54I do not know what , but the point is

29:57that there is increasing evidence , at

29:59the moment very anecdotal , let's say .

30:06There is still a lack of an

30:07all-encompassing theory , but there is

30:09growing evidence that there is

30:11bilateral communication between , for

30:13example , the brain and our stomach , and

30:15that much of the serotonin secreted in

30:17the brain is also secreted in the

30:19stomach , where we also have

30:21microorganisms ; we have microbes that

30:23have something to say about what we are

30:25thinking , what we feel and so on . That

30:32is also why there is quite intense or

30:34profound communication between food and

30:36our thoughts , our mood and hunger .

30:41Anyway , there are many studies in that

30:43sense . Well , what the extended mind

30:45says is that we have to go further ,

30:48that it is not only the stomach , but

30:50also , as I was saying at the beginning ,

30:52body movement , the hands , our entire

30:54body itself . It is not only a tool for

31:00bioperception or the way of registering

31:02inputs , let's say , but it is also a way

31:05of molding that knowledge that is being

31:07registered , of filtering it and

31:09communicating it bilaterally , as I

31:11insisted , with the brain . Which means

31:18that in the end , what distributed

31:19cognition or the extended mind says is

31:21that it seems like we are thinking with

31:24our whole body , right ? And it is what

31:28under another paradigm is called the

31:33olobiont , right ? Which is the idea that

31:36we are a community of creatures , right ?

31:42In fact , they say , well , it has been

31:44shown that our genome is formed much

31:47more by exogenous creatures , microbes

31:49and so on , than by our own genome . It

31:52is mixed , interrelated with ours . So ,

31:54we are a community of thinking beings

31:56who all have something to say when it

31:58comes to making decisions or at least

32:00influence each other in some way , right

32:03? So , what the extended mind says is

32:06that we do not only think with our

32:08brain and our body , but also , since we

32:10are continuously ... we are a social

32:12community , a social brain , and we are

32:14continuously , from the time we are 3

32:16years old , what is called the

32:18sociometric indicator of our brain is

32:20already activated . That is to say , we

32:23are constantly calibrating who we are

32:25based on how others value us , because

32:27we are nothing in nothing , we are

32:29something in relation to someone , right

32:31? In relation to our community , our

32:34peers , our peers . That is why what our

32:37colleagues think is so important . That

32:42is why we end up forming groups , clans

32:44and even in large cities there are

32:47neighborhoods , blocks of buildings ,

32:49each with its own rules , its own

32:51reputation , etc. , etc. In fact , that

32:53also explains why advertising in

32:56general has a much more descriptive

32:58than prescriptive capacity , because

33:03why is Hitler more of a cool hunter

33:05than a manipulator , right ? Also ,

33:09to give another example ,

33:10to give another example like that . But

33:12yes , well , it is a bit like what I was

33:14saying in the article that in Kaicen ,

33:16right ? That deep down , the capacity of

33:18great charismatic leaders like Hitler

33:23or great advertisers , like Brad Pitt or

33:25whoever makes an ad and says , " Well ,

33:27buy this car . " Is quite limited ,

33:32because deep down , when we compare

33:34ourselves to others or when we try to

33:36understand who we are in this world or

33:39what role to play in this world , where

33:41we can become strong or gain reputation

33:43and so on , we are not comparing

33:45ourselves to Brad Pitt or Nicole Kitman

33:52or whoever . We compare ourselves to our

33:55friends , our male friends , and ,

33:57depending on their opinions , depending

33:59on how they are , we instinctively adopt

34:04a role and , well , we are , as a woman ,

34:06the funny one in the group , we are the

34:08most intellectual or we are a little

34:10bit smarter than him , a little bit less

34:13smart or yes , or what , for example ,

34:15Nicolás Kristaquis says in his book ,

34:17um , I don't remember the name of the

34:19book , well , his main book , uh , is

34:21called Contagion ... no , it's not

34:23Contagion . Well , this book talks about

34:27how your body weight is largely

34:29determined by the body weight of the

34:31people you know , but not all of them . I

34:37mean , it depends on the person you know

34:39. I think your partner barely

34:40influences you , your friends influence

34:42you more , but at work your boss

34:44influences you , but I don't know what

34:46else . Well , there are like a series of

34:48nodes there and then , on top of that ,

34:50you are influenced by people you don't

34:52know , that you've never met . Why ?

34:56Because those in turn influence your

34:58friends who in turn influence you . So ,

35:01those are like different percentages of

35:03influence . In the end , what Kristaquis

35:05does is create a kind of retin

35:07influence , right ? Where you basically

35:09do what I said before , look at yourself

35:11in the mirror of other people's eyes .

35:15So , I insist , although information is

35:18important or relevant , what others tell

35:21you , what a leader says , what Brad Pitt

35:24says , etc. , etc. , etc. , and sometimes

35:26it works . When Tom Cruz , for example ,

35:31put on Rivan Wfer glasses in Risky

35:33Business , those glasses sold like crazy

35:36. But , for example , when ET ate some

35:41chocolates in the movie , those

35:43chocolates didn't sell very well . That

35:50is to say , product placement in films

35:52sometimes works and sometimes it

35:54doesn't , because the network of

35:56contagion doesn't start with Brad Pitt ,

35:58or ET , or Cruz , but rather it must

36:00first spread to a group of people who

36:02have a lot of influence in the

36:04community and they decide , for some

36:06unknown reason , to adopt that fashion

36:08or that role or that way of dressing ,

36:10whatever it may be , and that in turn

36:12spreads to another subgroup . Then there

36:19are the cool hunters , who are the ones

36:21who notice what is about to become

36:23fashionable

36:25and start to reinforce it . Aditler was

36:27that . I mean , deep down he was a guy

36:29who kept an eye on Bizor and said , " Hey

36:32, I can see that the German city is in

36:34the mood for trouble , so I'm going to

36:36give it to them . " So , obviously , he

36:41also encouraged this or perhaps fed

36:44back , right ? But who is really to blame

36:47? So , where do we draw the line ?

36:51Okay , so that's another key idea of the

36:53book , or the patterns that you've

36:55detected in the book , for me , which is

36:57that it helps you first question

36:58causality . We tend to , " Hey , is this

37:01the cause or is the thought here ? Is it

37:03in the brain or is it somewhere ? " I

37:05mean , we tend to point to and look for

37:07specific places when the world is much

37:09more like what you were saying , right ?

37:11Networks , nodes , interconnections ,

37:13everything has an influence . We even

37:17have this idea of assigning percentages

37:19to things as if they could be measured

37:20and not interfere with each other , as

37:22if the cause could be measured , you

37:24know ? Otherwise , it's really clear

37:28that in the end , that's kind of the

37:29goal of trying to understand the world

37:31better , right ? We get closer and closer

37:36and we start to realize , and I think

37:37that's another idea of the book , that

37:39categories depend a lot on the brush

37:41that we use and that they're not so

37:43firm or they're not walls . You talk a

37:46lot about the metaphor of pores , right ?

37:49That everything is much more ... Yes ,

37:51connected is the word and it's more of

37:53a whole , but at the same time if we

37:55look very small , well , they are

37:57microorganisms . Well , it depends a bit

38:02on the brush or the lens that we want

38:03to use or the depth with which we look

38:05at something , well , we will say that we

38:07do think with the brain , we will say

38:09that we don't even think as individuals

38:11, right ? If not as a society , which was

38:14also an idea of the mind creates

38:16societies , which I heard you say on a

38:18podcast . I think so ,

38:19yes , yes . Well , they are membranes , a

38:22bit following the theme of the extended

38:24mind , which I haven't taken away in the

38:26end . Well , it's basically like I was

38:31saying , we are walking communities that

38:33look at other walking communities that

38:35are other individuals , so to speak , we

38:37mutually condition and determine each

38:39other , and so on , but the extended mind

38:42goes much further . Well , this is the

38:46olobiont , but it goes to the ecobiont .

38:49That is to say , it also has to do with

38:51all of ecology in the broad sense of

38:53the word . All the planetary conditions

39:05that we can imagine influence us to a

39:07level that we do not currently have the

39:09tools to discern . There is a very

39:13well-known experiment that I believe

39:19Sapolski , Robert Sapolski , addresses in

39:21his latest book on free will or in his

39:24previous one , I am not quite sure . Well

39:28, basically what he says is that if you

39:31introduce two cloned rats , that is ,

39:33genetically identical rats , into two

39:35perfectly identical rooms , that is , the

39:37same temperature , same lighting , same

39:39air pressure , that is , you control all

39:42the conditions that you can control in

39:44the rooms and you control everything

39:46that you can control about the biology

39:48of those rats . You introduce them both

39:52into two different rooms and after a

39:55short time they start to be different ,

39:57but even at a genetic and epigenetic

39:59level they begin to see behavioral

40:01modifications , biological modifications

40:04, etc. , etc. , etc. That is to say ,

40:06there is something inside those rooms

40:08that we cannot see that is influencing

40:10the system . Imagine if that happens in

40:14a closed environment like a room , what

40:16would happen if we tried to analyze the

40:18world ? It is something unfathomable . So

40:20, what the extended mind says is when

40:23we think , we are thinking in terms of

40:25the entire system , everything ,

40:27everything that surrounds us . With

40:30which , and this is also a bit of a

40:32knock against these people , right ?

40:37These people who appear on YouTube

40:39saying : " Well , in 5 years , artificial

40:40intelligence will already be , uh ,

40:42intelligence , general artificial

40:44intelligence or superhuman in

40:45everything , I don't know what , I don't

40:47know how much . " According to the thesis

40:49of the extended mind , this is

40:51impossible because , well , impossible ,

40:53right ? I mean , I mean , if it happens ,

40:55it will be because of endypia , but the

40:57path we are following is exactly the

40:59opposite of what should be followed .

41:01Why ? Because it's a brain-centric path ,

41:03it's the path of the brain in the vat ,

41:06the typical Futurama thing , right ? You

41:08take a brain , put it in a vat , and

41:10expect it to think exactly the same as

41:12it did before , right ? Well , if you take

41:14away its body , which also starts with

41:16the body , and you take away its entire

41:18ecosystem and put it in a vat , that

41:19brain can't be thinking the same way ,

41:21not even remotely about anything . Well ,

41:23the same thing happens with artificial

41:25intelligence . It has no body , it's not

41:27in the real world , it just has basic

41:30training and that's it , and a series of

41:32very basic inputs that it receives from

41:34the interactions it has with its users .

41:38So , expecting a brain or cognition

41:40similar to the human to emerge from

41:42there , I'm not saying better or worse ,

41:45because a calculator is better than us ,

41:47for example , when it comes to

41:49calculating numbers , but expecting a

41:51general intelligence similar to ours

41:53seems unscientific to me . So it could

41:56happen , I'm not saying it won't , it

41:59could happen tomorrow , but it will

42:01happen by chance and it's not going to

42:03happen when the experts are saying , not

42:05in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years .

42:07Nobody knows . That's impossible .

42:10Because I insist , the paradigm on which

42:12our idea of cognition has been built ,

42:15and also the world of artificial

42:17intelligence , is mechanistic and false .

42:20Yes , we don't even understand , right ?,

42:22cognition and all the factors that

42:24influence it .

42:25Of course .

42:27Uh , we haven't made any progress on the

42:29questions I had prepared , but we're

42:31going to try , I'm going to ask you a

42:33double question and try to answer

42:34quickly , although it's not easy . Uh ,

42:38you're proposing nine dimensions , right

42:40? Hence the octopus with its eight

42:42tentacles on its head . Uh , imagine that

42:44you have to amputate one of the octopus

42:46' legs . Or , and this is the second

42:49question , uh , imagine what it would be ,

42:51well , for you the head would be the

42:53olos , right ? That connects all the legs

42:56a bit , but what other dimension would

42:58you also save ? I mean , if you had to

43:00eliminate one of the dimensions of

43:02wisdom from the book , which one would

43:04it be ? And if you had to stick with

43:07only one in order to get as close as

43:09possible to wisdom , which one would it

43:11be ? And it's not worth mentioning the

43:14second one . I

43:15mean , I can't say the second one

43:17anymore . No ,

43:18no , because if not , I imagine it was

43:20you , I mean , it's at least the most

43:22reasonable answer that I would give .

43:26Okay , well , look , I would stick with

43:28the one called " Em " which is laughter ,

43:31humor , it

43:35seems fundamental to me because in the

43:37end we've come here to spend a little

43:39time and I think it's interesting to

43:41have a good time , have a bad time , but

43:43above all not take too many things

43:45seriously . It's also a bit of the

43:50philosophy that I try to convey in the

43:51book . Given that we can't reach those

43:54ends that we've set for ourselves

43:56because they're born a bit from our

43:58naive idea when we were teenagers that

43:59we're going to know everything . Above

44:03all , let's give a hard time to what

44:05people say . I remember myself cursing

44:08religion and you're heaping this on me ,

44:10he has no idea about anything . Ha , and

44:15well , anyway , I don't want to go on ,

44:17otherwise we won't be able to ask all

44:19the questions . But anyway , I would save

44:23that , I would save the laughter ,

44:25because it is a great solvent of

44:27self-importance and it is a great

44:29solvent of that almost Herculean , or

44:31magical or heroic idea , right ?, of how

44:34we face the world . We have to do it in

44:39a much more relaxed way and , if I had

44:41to remove one , I suppose I would remove

44:43Politeella and politics , because I

44:45think that , linking it with the fact

44:50that I told you before that , well , it's

44:53better that we don't think too much ,

44:55that we externalize , I think we are so

44:57politicized and , in fact , there are

44:59many studies that suggest that when you

45:01think about politics you become

45:03[ __ ] ; I mean , he can be very clever

45:05, but as soon as you talk about

45:07politics , you become an idiot in

45:08general because the brain is so big

45:11that you can't help it . So , what I

45:13would say is , look , let's stop talking

45:15about politics , let's not do anything ,

45:17let's just get carried away and that's

45:20it .

45:20Okay , okay . Good choice . I mean , do you

45:23think something would come up and we

45:25would manage ? No , we can manage by

45:27laughing .

45:28I think so . Yeah , man , the important

45:30thing is

45:31whether you live in a society as

45:33complex and dense as ours , right ? But

45:35anyway , my thesis would also be to go

45:37back to tribalism . That is to say , we

45:39separate ourselves into groups that ,

45:41let's say , are adapted to our brains ,

45:44which are between 150 according to

45:46Robin Dumbar , which is the number ,

45:49okay ? But we can reach up to 5,000 , 5

45:52or 10,000 , there is still a certain

45:54relationship to living in a city with

45:5625 or 32 million inhabitants like the

45:58cities that you and I have visited in

46:00China . Well , in the end , what you do is

46:02that these are people who are there but

46:04as if it were a theater . I mean , they

46:06are not pixels , they do not understand

46:08anything or know anything .

46:09NPCs , NPCs .

46:11Exactly . All NPCs . So , uh , I think we

46:16should go back to those medieval

46:18privileges where we were small groups

46:20and each one with our own rules and our

46:21own stories and that all that arises

46:23from self-organization without thinking

46:25too much . Well , it's a crime that you

46:33tell me that it is the least important

46:35part and I asked you about that , but

46:36Lucas , who is a subscriber to Infinite

46:38Learning membership , shared with me

46:40that if the vote is a bit like what we

46:42vote , right ? Imagine someone who has a

46:46certain liberal tendency or thinking

46:48and votes for less regulation , less

46:50government , and fewer taxes . If that's

46:57what I vote for , I'm middle class and

46:58it ends up hurting me . I mean , the

47:01question I would say is , okay , in the

47:03end , can votes go against those who

47:07vote for them ? I mean , the answer is

47:10yes , but they go against us more than

47:12we think .

47:15Well , I'm anti-democratic .

47:17Okay .

47:17Oh , I'll say this from the outset . I

47:20mean , I don't think democracy is the

47:22best system to govern us . When someone

47:26tells me , " No , but it's a bad system ,

47:28but it's the least bad one we know , " I

47:30mean , what do you mean ? I mean , are you

47:34telling me that you know all the

47:35possible systems in the universe to

47:37govern us or are you telling me about

47:39the systems that we've already used ,

47:41which are a few and also , well , of the

47:43ones we've

47:46already used , for you , democracy is the

47:49best or not even ,

47:51uh , of the ones we've used , it's not

47:53the best either . For me , democracy ,

47:55okay ? What would be

47:56the best one for you , of those that we

47:58have used historically , right ? For the

48:01record or for those that are used ,

48:03maybe you are pro-Chinese Communist

48:04Party .

48:06Well , look , I don't know how to tell

48:08you , I mean , it's hard for me to choose

48:10a model because they are models that

48:12work , right ? In a specific context

48:15and in our context , they might not make

48:17sense . It's like what I told you before

48:19, that self-organization would work if

48:21we lived in small communities . Sure ,

48:23but it would work in cities . Yes .

48:25So it's complicated , right ? But for

48:27example , to say , you know that I liked

48:29to say things that would upset people ,

48:32like , " bombshell , " I would

48:33say , "

48:34bombshell , bombshell , drop the

48:36bombshell ,

48:36bombshell . " In the absolute monarchy ,

48:41to say , "

48:42well , I'm going to explain it , I'm

48:44going to try to explain it . "

48:46Please explain your answer , because

48:47people will be ... Yes , if they've made

48:49it this far , they'll be tearing their

48:51hair out . Exactly . Let's see , I think

48:53that in the end , what should concern us

48:56most is not so much our system of

48:58government , how we relate it to each

49:00other , but how we keep power on a short

49:02leash . I mean , I think power is crucial

49:08in this sense , because when there's too

49:10much power , the incentives for things

49:12to work properly are usually not

49:14aligned with the common good or with

49:15the people who don't hold that power .

49:22Unless we happen to have come across a

49:24political caste that is very interested

49:26for some reason that we don't know ,

49:28because we're not going to help you and

49:30you're going to end up being super

49:32happy , but in general , it's something

49:34that they sell us so that they can

49:35accumulate more power . It's something

49:38natural and it doesn't respond to the

49:40character of the people , it responds to

49:42the character of the system itself , the

49:44architecture of incentives itself . Any

49:46person , no matter how saintly they may

49:48be , once they are inserted into those

49:50dynamics , will rarely fail to fall into

49:53them , right ? And we have seen many

49:56examples of political parties or

49:57politicians that we thought were

49:59irreproachable and then they are not .

50:01Even if there is an irreproachable

50:03person , they are not a drop in the

50:05ocean . I mean , they cannot do much more

50:07, right ? So , since for me the most

50:13important thing is power , I believe

50:15that there is nothing more dangerous

50:17than democracy , because democracy

50:19legitimizes absolute power , or at least

50:22great power , in the sense that when our

50:24president , or whoever , decides to do

50:33something or says something , we say : "

50:35Well , it is for the common good and

50:37also what they are saying is legitimate

50:39because we voted for them . " It is not

50:43something that has come out of nowhere

50:45or from a small or epistocratic group

50:47or , in the end , it is something that

50:49arises legitimately from the people ,

50:51right ? Democracy , power of the people ,

50:54as clear as water . But that's not true .

50:58What happens is that when we give power

51:01to a group of people , those people , so

51:03to speak , can do pretty much whatever

51:05they want .

51:06Yes , and then they are thrown out or

51:08not after 4 years , and they come back ,

51:10and others come back and insert

51:12themselves into that DNK of perverse

51:14incentives and try to stay there , to

51:16thrive as much as possible , like : How

51:18do we do it so that it's not noticeable

51:20that we're not really fixing anything

51:22or that we're not really here so much

51:24to fix the problem , but to perpetuate

51:26it so that we can continue being here ?

51:29To say something , right ? So , what

51:33happened with absolute monarchies is

51:35that , well , although power was quite

51:37concentrated , it was not legitimate or

51:39in general it was not legitimate . As

51:44soon as people saw that the king was

51:46getting too weak , they would go there ,

51:48burn down his castle or cut off his

51:51head and the famous tithe was because ,

51:53because taxes were 10 % , around 10 % . If

51:57one day the king said , well , I'm going

51:59to raise your taxes to 20 % , well , we'd

52:02give you a castle .

52:05Here , however , they put taxes at 45 % .

52:08We say , well , but it's for hospitals

52:10and roads . I mean , we justify it , you

52:13know ? We don't go any further . It's

52:14like , well , obviously , how can it be

52:17something bad for us if it's democratic

52:19, right ? So , I think that the absolute

52:24monarchy , although it seems like a step

52:26backward , is a way of containing power ,

52:28a way of keeping an eye on it . And also

52:32, although there is an absolute monarch

52:34, the absolute monarch doesn't meddle

52:36too much in people's personal affairs .

52:38There's a kind of order from top to

52:40bottom , a bit like what happens in

52:42China , if you notice , because in China

52:44there's a kind of autocracy , a series

52:47of rules that , if you break them , you

52:49go to jail . Like , don't mess with the

52:51party , right ? But then when it comes

52:54down to it , on a day-to-day basis , at

52:56street level , China is almost

52:58anarcho-capitalist . We've messed around

53:02in the streets of China , let alone the

53:04ones we've messed around with , but so

53:05far nothing has happened to us .

53:07So far , right ? And well , we've seen

53:10people messing around , riding their

53:12motorbikes over the pavement . I've seen

53:14people on motorbikes yelling at the

53:15police , " Move over , damn it , I'm in the

53:17way , right ? " And nothing happens . I

53:20mean , it's not like the typical Western

53:23dictatorship that we have in our heads .

53:25It's like a kind of dual power . There's

53:29power concentrated from the top down ,

53:31almost epistocratic , because to be a

53:34member of the Chinese party , you have

53:36to have very high grades in university ,

53:38otherwise you don't get in . And there

53:42are also 100 million people , so they

53:44have their debates among themselves and

53:46such , and then they have one-on-one

53:48debates with parties that are not legal

53:50or cannot be voted for , but they try to

53:52adapt to the needs of each regional

53:54party and such . In other words , it is a

53:57fairly flexible epistocracy , right ? But

54:01then , as I insist , at street level ,

54:03especially in these anarcho-capitalist

54:06experiments that are also working , such

54:08as Sensen or Hangu or Chengdu or

54:10Chonching , people can set up a company

54:15in 5 minutes . For example , if you

54:20decide to sell something , there are no

54:23overly coercive rules or regulations .

54:27As I said before , you can ride a

54:29motorcycle , carry four people on it ,

54:31without a helmet or a license , and go

54:33on the pavement , and nothing happens .

54:37And it is as if there is a lot of trust

54:39in self-regulation , in the fact that

54:41people , as we said before , thanks to

54:43the social brain , are able to contain

54:45each other . This might work much better

54:50in a collectivist society like China ,

54:52or in a more Protestant society , like

54:55the United States , for example , where

54:57the individual is so important , then it

54:59might not work as well . But it does

55:06give us a clue that we can actually

55:08coexist with a dual system , or a dual

55:10model in which an absolutist king

55:12coexists with self-regulated privileges

55:22, or a self-regulated community , or a

55:24community where there is quite a lot of

55:26freedom to the point that if the

55:28central power is too strong or too

55:30intense , people rebel because they do

55:32not consider it legitimate . In other

55:38words , you believe a little more in

55:39countervailing powers , and not

55:41countervailing powers as we understand

55:42them in our democracy , but rather

55:44countervailing powers in which the

55:45people themselves act as a

55:46counterbalance , right ? And there are

55:48mechanisms to perhaps choose power , but

55:51even if it's not by voting , but okay ,

55:53if you go too far , right ?, of the king ,

55:55if you go too far , we'll burn your

55:57house down or even decapitate you and

56:00take you to the guillotine , whatever . I

56:02insist that this works better in small

56:04communities , only the checks and

56:06balances that exist at an institutional

56:08level that we can't vote for , that are

56:09there . I don't know , I don't even know

56:11how those checks and balances work or

56:13what accounts those checks and balances

56:15require , I don't know anything about

56:17any of this . So , uh , we live in a

56:18democracy , but from my point of view ,

56:20how can democracy support me if I don't

56:22even know what I'm voting for ? I mean ,

56:24I don't know what I'm voting for , I

56:26don't know who to vote for . I'm a

56:28person who reads a lot and today I

56:30assure you that I don't know what I

56:31should vote for . And I'm surprised by

56:33the people who do . I mean , unless you

56:38embrace pure symbolic cognition , if you

56:41really want to be epistemically upright

56:43. As of today , I don't know what's good

56:47for us . I don't know . I have no idea .

56:49Therefore , since I don't know , I doubt

56:51that anyone knows . And since I doubt

56:52that anyone knows , I have much more

56:54faith in distributed cognition . And now

56:56, if you like , I will introduce the

57:01concept of liquid democracy , which is

57:03not the democracy that we know , a

57:05representative democracy . Okay , first ,

57:08to answer Lucas , since we've gone off

57:10on a tangent , we could say that , I mean

57:12, I imagine he says it because he's

57:14Argentine and , well , Argentine , now my

57:17law is governing and perhaps there are

57:19certain people in the middle class who

57:21have been harmed , even voters of my law

57:24, right ? And so I would answer him and

57:27let's see , let's see how you value my

57:29answer , which is that we don't even

57:31vote for specific measures , we vote for

57:33representatives . So , my law because it

57:38has decided to implement certain

57:39liberal policies , but you could have

57:41voted for a representative who uses the

57:43flag of liberalism and who could have

57:45doubled the weight of the State and

57:47taken the bank and run it away . In

57:52other words , we do not really vote for

57:54measures , but rather we vote for

57:56representatives and therefore it is

57:58most likely that , given that

57:59representatives have so much power , we

58:01cannot even control whether it harms or

58:03benefits us .

58:04Of course .

58:05How do you rate my answer ? No , it seems

58:07correct to me and in fact , well , to

58:09elaborate a little on the question and

58:11what you were saying , I , for example ,

58:13consider myself a libertarian , but not

58:15so much because I trust in the

58:19epistemological support of

58:21libertarianism , which I have my

58:22reservations about ,

58:24okay ?

58:24But because I do not trust that anyone

58:26knows how to fix anything . In other

58:29words , since electing leaders or

58:31experts does not ultimately fix the

58:33problem , on the contrary , it is

58:35dangerous because once again we are

58:37legitimizing power . So I have a lot of

58:40faith that people will do what they

58:42want , not because they think this is

58:43going to solve the problem , but because

58:45the other thing isn't going to solve it

58:47and at least we are free to make

58:48mistakes on our own , you know ? Um , we

58:51are not under the mandate , right ? But

58:57it is true that libertarianism can be

59:02given a new patina . Hm . If we take into

59:07account how Darwinian evolution works

59:09in the sense of multilevel selection ,

59:11group selection , in short , if you

59:14incorporate all this into the

59:15epistemology of libertarianism or

59:17laissez-faire , right ? Um , I think it's

59:25interesting because we can have the

59:27best of both worlds if we create

59:29counterweights , um , but not coercive

59:31ones . I mean , I don't know if you're

59:36familiar with libertarian paternalism ,

59:38nudges , I don't know if you've read

59:40anything about all this .

59:43Yeah , well , nudges , I think it's

59:46Richard .

59:47Yes . Uh , and then it's also an idea

59:50that we've talked about a lot in

59:51Chinese .

59:52Exactly . We've talked quite a bit , too .

59:54Yes ,

59:55about pongoncitos . Um , yes . Well , the

1:00:00Nobel Prize winner in Economics , well ,

1:00:02what he says is : " Well , since we don't

1:00:05really know what's right and imposing

1:00:07it on people , on everyone equally ,

1:00:09since everyone has their own lifestyle ,

1:00:11their own worldview and such , is

1:00:13clearly immoral , so we're simply going

1:00:16to create contextual situations that

1:00:18favor decision-making towards what we

1:00:23believe will favor the most people

1:00:24possible . " But if someone doesn't want

1:00:26to do it , that's okay . It's just going

1:00:28to cost them a little more , a little

1:00:30more effort , right ? Or they're going to

1:00:32have to make an extra cognitive effort

1:00:33to deviate from the norm , but they're

1:00:35not going to be punished for it ,

1:00:37because perhaps we're wrong and it's

1:00:38worth having some diversity and , right

1:00:40?, not having so much path dependency ,

1:00:42in the sense that people , well , go

1:00:44exploring , right ? Like someone who

1:00:45designs a garden , right ? And in the end

1:00:47, what is sometimes more efficient is ,

1:00:49well , let's see where people go and

1:00:51then we build the path there . We build

1:00:52the gravel path based on how people

1:00:54move through the garden and not so much

1:00:56making the gravel path and forcing

1:00:58people to go that way , right ? Well , uh ,

1:01:02the little pushes . Well , the

1:01:04paradigmatic example is , uh , an

1:01:06experiment that was done in Germany , in

1:01:08German public urinals , where , uh ,

1:01:11people often urinate outside the urinal

1:01:14and pee all over the floor , the walls

1:01:17and so on , so they said : " Well , no

1:01:18matter how much we say , let's put up

1:01:20signs saying ' don't do this ' , ' keep

1:01:23everything ' , ' keep it clean as you

1:01:24would like to see it ' , that doesn't

1:01:27work . " I mean , I have no doubt that

1:01:29someone who pees outside the toilet , or

1:01:32outside the urinal , sees the sign and

1:01:34says , " Oh , please , yes , I'm going to

1:01:37aim it right . " Either you put a camera

1:01:43on and appear on prime time TV or

1:01:44you're not going to change your

1:01:46behavior , right ? Either you know that

1:01:49when you go out , someone might tell on

1:01:51you and blow your head off or you're

1:01:53not going to change your behavior . What

1:01:55they say , what libertarian paternity

1:01:57says is , well , let's change the context

1:01:59a little bit . For example , let's draw a

1:02:02fly in the center of the urinal so that

1:02:04people play at hitting it with the

1:02:06stream of urine and that way many

1:02:07people will be less like me outside ,

1:02:09right ? Or the fact of running on the

1:02:12highway , uh , people are really fast and

1:02:14look , we put up speed limit signs that

1:02:17indicate a radar is coming and

1:02:18sometimes there are small brakes , uh ,

1:02:20but in the end many people keep running

1:02:23, okay ? Why don't we change the solid

1:02:26and dashed lines on the highway and do

1:02:28a design trick on them ? I don't

1:02:31remember the details very well now ,

1:02:33which makes it so that when you're

1:02:35going 80 , for example , based on what

1:02:37you perceive from the movement of the

1:02:39lines , it looks like you're going 120.

1:02:41In other words , even though the

1:02:43odometer says you're going 80 , visually

1:02:45you realize that you're going really

1:02:47fast and you should go a little slower

1:02:49and you discourage people from going so

1:02:52fast . Or for example , the GPS . Nowadays

1:02:55, the GPS often tells you , " There's a

1:02:57traffic jam here on this route . " Take

1:03:00this alternative route . But what

1:03:03happens if all the GPSs say the same

1:03:05thing ? You move a traffic jam to

1:03:08another route and there's another

1:03:09traffic jam . So , what libertarian

1:03:13paternalism says is , you do whatever

1:03:15you want . If you don't want to listen

1:03:17to the GPS , don't listen to it , but

1:03:19let's hack the GPS so that only half of

1:03:21the people tell it the truth and the

1:03:23other half lie to it . It tells them

1:03:25there's no traffic jam when they know

1:03:26there is so that they go that way and

1:03:28don't jam up another route . That's kind

1:03:31of the design of libertarian

1:03:32paternalism and it's what I think

1:03:34libertarianism lacks . Libertarianism is

1:03:37all well and good , but in complex

1:03:39societies I seriously doubt its

1:03:41effectiveness if we don't have small ,

1:03:44non-invasive and simply contextual

1:03:46correctors .

1:03:48Yes . I mean , that the default options

1:03:50are the ones we think are best , right ?

1:03:52There's also this example of organs .

1:03:55When you die , instead of the default

1:03:57being not to donate your organs , the

1:03:58default option is yes and donations

1:04:00increase much more , right ? That would

1:04:03be a nudge of , hey , you don't want to

1:04:05donate your organs , great , but you're

1:04:06going to have to make the effort . On

1:04:08the other hand , the opposite is true ,

1:04:10what you're saying is if you want to

1:04:11donate them , you have to make the

1:04:13effort . So , the default option , as

1:04:16we've talked about during this podcast ,

1:04:18since we don't think most of the time

1:04:20and we just choose the default route

1:04:22and follow what the majority does , well

1:04:24, we end up with that default option

1:04:25and it's the one we think is best . That

1:04:29would be a bit , right ?

1:04:30Exactly . Or pension plans , for example ,

1:04:33the fact that you capitalize your

1:04:35salary , well , a part of your salary

1:04:38automatically goes into a bank account

1:04:40to be capitalized in some way , for

1:04:42example , or to save , etc. , etc. I

1:04:45was going to tell you that if you want ,

1:04:47we can go a little deeper into the fact

1:04:49that you just finished the second book ,

1:04:51right ?, of wisdomology that is about

1:04:53politics and we delve into the idea of

1:04:55liquid democracy . So , what does this

1:04:57democracy consist of , and also how is

1:04:59it different and why do you think it is

1:05:01better than the current representative

1:05:03democracy ?

1:05:06Well , I believe there are two features

1:05:08that make liquid democracy infinitely

1:05:10better than traditional democracy , and

1:05:12that is that one is the biological

1:05:14feature ,

1:05:16okay ? And the other is the , um , we

1:05:20could say computer 3.0 or , well ,

1:05:22cybernetic feature .

1:05:26Okay ?

1:05:26The biological feature is that I think

1:05:28liquid democracy has better understood

1:05:30human nature , which is something that

1:05:32we have only known for a very short

1:05:34time .

1:05:35Okay . First , what is liquid democracy ?

1:05:37I mean , how would you define it ? Yes ,

1:05:39okay . Liquid democracy basically

1:05:42consists of asking citizens about all

1:05:44kinds of things ,

1:05:46okay ? For example , should we close or

1:05:48keep nuclear power plants open , let's

1:05:50imagine , right ? So , you can easily vote

1:05:54on that question using , for example ,

1:05:56your mobile phone or online on a

1:05:58platform . You vote on that and you can

1:06:03change your vote as many times as you

1:06:05deem appropriate until the voting count

1:06:07reaches zero . Like , you have , well ,

1:06:09they give you , for example , a week to

1:06:11vote , right ? Or a month to vote . During

1:06:13that time , you can even get information

1:06:15, you inform yourself , you try to vote

1:06:17and maybe you vote and over time you

1:06:18say , " Oh , well , I've had second

1:06:20thoughts because I've been talking to a

1:06:22colleague , I'm going to change my vote .

1:06:24" You change it again . And that way , you

1:06:27can also avoid , for example , vote

1:06:29capture , because imagine if a political

1:06:32party pays 100,000 people to vote for

1:06:34one thing and locks them up in a room

1:06:36for 2 hours to see how they actually

1:06:39vote . The moment you release these

1:06:42people , they can change their vote . I

1:06:44mean , in the end , uh , it's like they

1:06:46should ... the circumstance should arise

1:06:48that you lock up a lot of people a

1:06:50minute or an hour before the end of the

1:06:52voting period , which would be unusual

1:06:54because , statistically , you would see

1:06:56that there are suddenly a lot of votes

1:06:58at the last second , with little time

1:07:00left ; I mean , it's hard to hack the

1:07:02system , right ? Um , and then , on the

1:07:06other hand , what allows or the great

1:07:08advantage of liquid democracy , in

1:07:10addition to being able to vote easily ,

1:07:12is that you can delegate your vote in

1:07:14the sense that imagine that you don't

1:07:16know much about energy , you don't know

1:07:18much about nuclear power plants , you

1:07:20don't really know much about what's

1:07:22good for Spain , uh , but you know

1:07:24Nuclear Operator , you watch him

1:07:25sometimes on YouTube and you really

1:07:27like the way he talks and you respect

1:07:29what he says and you like it . So you

1:07:33delegate your vote , you give it to him .

1:07:35So , when Nuclear Operator votes , his

1:07:37vote will be worth two , his and mine .

1:07:40And so on . That is to say , maybe he

1:07:43receives , well , 13 votes from other

1:07:45people and all his vote will be worth

1:07:4713 times more ; and then there will be

1:07:49other disseminators who will attract

1:07:51the attention of other people and , at

1:07:53the end of all this framework and

1:07:55magnum mar , well , a kind of magic

1:07:57happens that we do not quite understand

1:07:59, but that we have seen reflected , for

1:08:02example , in communities like Wikipedia ,

1:08:04right ? Something that you say

1:08:06theoretically , right ? I think that if

1:08:09without paying anyone , people in their

1:08:11free time , but watching each other

1:08:13thanks to the law of lainus , and

1:08:15together we can write a much larger

1:08:20encyclopedia , much more up-to-date and

1:08:23with a quota of errors similar to the

1:08:25great encyclopedias of the world . Hey ,

1:08:28this is possible , we can do this . Sure ,

1:08:30you put this on a plan and nobody

1:08:32believes it , it is impossible . How are

1:08:34we going to do it ? People will

1:08:35immediately enter , troll the entries ?

1:08:38Or it will be chaos or it will not make

1:08:40sense and yet it works . And Wikipedia

1:08:43is just one example . There are a lot of

1:08:47decentralized communities that , thanks

1:08:49to a lot of filters and so on , manage

1:08:51to get the best out of the wisdom of

1:08:53the crowd , right ? Or distributed

1:08:57cognition . So , this is what

1:09:00operationally underlies liquid

1:09:02democracy . There are many variants of

1:09:04liquid democracy and there are many

1:09:06more details that can be developed . Uh ,

1:09:07I'm simplifying it a lot .

1:09:09For that , the second book .

1:09:11Exactly . And then there are political

1:09:14parties that include it in their

1:09:15program . Liquid democracy is not

1:09:18something that I made up . In

1:09:19Barcelona , for example , there is the

1:09:22Pirate Party that includes liquid

1:09:24democracy in its program . Um , so why do

1:09:27I think it's better on an

1:09:28epistemological level ? First , because

1:09:31it truly understands human nature . It

1:09:34doesn't understand , as we said at the

1:09:36beginning , that we are wise beings or

1:09:38that we can be rational beings or that

1:09:40we can aspire to know everything and

1:09:42that we are informed people , we can

1:09:43potentially learn about everything and

1:09:45have an opinion . understands that since

1:09:49we are not , we must operate as a swarm ,

1:09:51we must operate as a distributed

1:09:53community , right ? Commonally speaking .

1:09:58So , well , that , uh , that distribution

1:10:00occurs based on checks and balances of ,

1:10:03uh , the reputation of the people who

1:10:09talk to us or communicate with us or

1:10:11relate to us or with other communities .

1:10:14I mean , I think it has a much more

1:10:16accurate view of how human beings and

1:10:18human nature work than representative

1:10:20democracy . And then , on the other hand ,

1:10:25it takes advantage of something that I

1:10:27find surprising that we are not yet

1:10:29using , which is the power of the

1:10:31internet , the power of computing , the

1:10:33fact that it is very easy now to

1:10:35connect with each other and create , uh ,

1:10:37that is , to form all kinds of

1:10:39coalitions and common projects .

1:10:43Kickstarter , for example , is an example

1:10:46of that . So , liquid democracy takes

1:10:49advantage of this , uh , blockchain , for

1:10:52example , the technology that allows us

1:10:54to reliably verify that the vote is

1:10:57correct . I mean , blockchain seems much

1:11:00more secure to me than current systems

1:11:02for knowing if votes are falsified or

1:11:05not , right ? Or the counting , that is , a

1:11:07person there counting votes , a human

1:11:08being counting votes , there are some

1:11:10papers and another one gives them to

1:11:12him and he counts them too , and I , but

1:11:13this seems absurd . To me it seems much

1:11:15more reliable . Blockchain , you know .

1:11:19And well , smart contracts , in short ,

1:11:21DAO , etc. , etc. I mean , there are many

1:11:24emerging technologies that I think can

1:11:26provide an answer to current democracy ,

1:11:29which sounds very nice on paper , but

1:11:31then it has nothing to do with , first

1:11:34of all , our nature and secondly , our

1:11:36technology .

1:11:38Yes . I mean , that we have to keep going

1:11:41to vote . It seems to me , it seems to me

1:11:43, that it makes no sense whatsoever ,

1:11:44given what you say : that there are more

1:11:47than enough means . But hey , you see how

1:11:49the State makes applications related to

1:11:51technology and you say almost , that it

1:11:53is , that it is , that it is the best

1:11:55option we have ; it is almost the best

1:11:57to count by hand . Well , to close , we

1:12:00have not touched on many of the topics

1:12:02I wanted to , but hey , we will surely

1:12:04have more talks in the future . Well , I

1:12:06wanted to ask you a couple of questions

1:12:07. The first is , how do you learn on a

1:12:09daily basis ? Right now , well ,

1:12:16basically , I do not have a rule , a

1:12:18fixed guide , it is a bit of a whim . I

1:12:22basically learn based on what I feel

1:12:24like . I mean , I do not create many

1:12:26curricula . In fact , I am a very bad

1:12:29student . I have never been a brilliant

1:12:32student because when they force me to

1:12:34learn something or force me to delve

1:12:36into something or think about something

1:12:38, if I do not feel like it , I do not

1:12:40learn it . I mean , I am a perfect

1:12:44student , capable of memorizing and then

1:12:46forgetting everything I have memorized

1:12:48in a sense . I do not learn anything . I

1:12:51don't think I ever learned anything at

1:12:53school , and the little I did learn I

1:12:55had to erase because it was false . In

1:13:00other words , my way of learning is

1:13:02through my playful spirit , which is to

1:13:04pick at things based on my tastes , my

1:13:06preferences , my obsessions , whatever .

1:13:12And I keep picking at them and

1:13:14acquiring mostly superficial knowledge .

1:13:16And then I try to connect all this . I'm

1:13:19not saying that this is the best way to

1:13:21learn because we need people who delve

1:13:23into topics , who go much deeper , but

1:13:25hey , it's necessary for there to be

1:13:27both types of people in the world ,

1:13:29right ? Foxes and

1:13:35hedgehogs , right ? Highly specialized

1:13:37people and people who are very , well ,

1:13:40very omnivorous , right ? And who keep

1:13:43picking at things and establishing

1:13:45lines or transcending disciplines ,

1:13:47right ? Or achieving that consilience ,

1:13:50right ?, as Edward or Wilson were talking

1:13:53about .

1:13:54Okay , but you are a , let's use the word

1:13:56polymath or generalist with quite a lot

1:13:59of depth in certain topics . I mean ,

1:14:01you've written many books on specific

1:14:03topics , I think you've done , I think

1:14:05you've done some guides or some books

1:14:07on chemistry fiction , right ? Maybe .

1:14:10Written like that , I

1:14:11mean , you have a very peculiar profile

1:14:13because it's very broad , but also quite

1:14:16deep . You're not publishing papers , of

1:14:19course ,

1:14:21but you do go into depth on certain

1:14:22topics that are quite admirable .

1:14:25There are some topics that do

1:14:27particularly interest me and I delve

1:14:29into them more , but they are few topics

1:14:31and in most things I'm completely

1:14:33illiterate , I mean , I have no idea

1:14:35about anything . Everything , yes . What

1:14:40would you say this question is , a bit

1:14:42like , what would you say are those

1:14:44topics that you have , more like , this

1:14:46topic has obsessed me and I've been

1:14:48delving into it for several years ? Uh ,

1:14:53surely the topic that has most obsessed

1:14:55me for the last 10 years , apart from

1:14:57what I've told you about the social

1:14:59brain ,

1:15:01the extended mind and so on , which I'm

1:15:04also preparing a book about , um , would

1:15:06be morality . It's a topic that I find

1:15:11fascinating , fascinating , because it

1:15:13has so many layers , it's all so

1:15:15counterintuitive , it's all so difficult

1:15:17that I find it very interesting and

1:15:19above all , reaching conclusions that

1:15:21you know I like to reach , the kind that

1:15:24make you say to yourself , " Ana , you're

1:15:26freaking out . " Uh , for example , that I

1:15:32think most of the bad things in the

1:15:34world have been done by good people . Or

1:15:38the name of good , right ?

1:15:39Or the name of good .

1:15:42Yeah ,

1:15:43I find these types of ideas fascinating

1:15:44and I'm totally obsessed with it .

1:15:48Absolutely . I mean , it's a topic that

1:15:50interests me ; I'm far from having gone

1:15:52as deep into it as you have , but well ,

1:15:54also with Pablo Malo , whose book I've

1:15:56read and some authors like that , I

1:15:57think these are ideas that also help

1:16:00you understand yourself better . And I

1:16:03think that simply recognizing that you

1:16:05are capable of doing evil also makes

1:16:06you a little wiser . I think that

1:16:10already makes you a little wiser

1:16:11because the most dangerous people are

1:16:13those who believe that they are good ,

1:16:14that they are good . Yes . Well , if it

1:16:19doesn't make you wiser , at least it

1:16:21makes you a little more tolerant .

1:16:23Yes . Well ,

1:16:25I think that it is enough , like , well ,

1:16:27to accept a certain plurality of moral

1:16:29visions , I think that is the least that

1:16:32we should aspire to as a society .

1:16:35Well , yes . And to close , Sergio , what

1:16:37three books and what three films would

1:16:39you say have most influenced your way

1:16:41of seeing the world ?

1:16:44Easy , huh ?

1:16:45Yes , yes . Oh my goodness . Well , let's

1:16:48start with cinema .

1:16:49Okay . You are a great film buff , not

1:16:52many people know about that .

1:16:53Yes . I

1:16:54mean , you watch a lot of films , and

1:16:56we've talked about this a lot in China .

1:16:58Yes . No , not so much now . I've

1:17:02abandoned that aspect a little bit

1:17:04because all my attention is now

1:17:05captured by YouTube , but I have been a

1:17:07big movie buff . In my house , it was a

1:17:10religion to watch a movie every day .

1:17:12Otherwise , you wouldn't go to bed . And

1:17:16well , surely a movie that influenced me

1:17:19a lot in my adolescence and influenced

1:17:21a lot of people was Fight Club . It was

1:17:25a pretty terrible time where , well ,

1:17:27let's talk about this because this is

1:17:29for another podcast . Um , Fight Club

1:17:36influenced me a lot . Then I was also

1:17:39influenced a lot by Some Good Men , a

1:17:42movie that I recommended to you , by the

1:17:44way , I think I recommended it to you . I

1:17:46have it written down , but I haven't

1:17:47seen it yet .

1:17:48It talks a lot about power .

1:17:51To what extent should we give unlimited

1:17:53power to the military structure ? Given

1:17:57that they are the ones who really know

1:17:59the ins and outs of the problems and

1:18:01are the only ones who can solve them at

1:18:03a geostrategic level and so on , right ?

1:18:05And how that can be controlled . Okay ,

1:18:07the script is by Aaron Sorkin , who I

1:18:09think is the best TV series writer

1:18:12today . Incredible , incredible . With Don

1:18:15Cruz , Demy Moore , Jack Nicholson

1:18:17playing a soldier , you can imagine ,

1:18:19it's amazing .

1:18:20Okay .

1:18:25And it also influenced me a lot and in

1:18:27fact I watch 12 Angry Men quite

1:18:29regularly .

1:18:34Okay . I haven't seen that either . I'm

1:18:36quite ignorant about cinema , but that's

1:18:38also why I'm asking you . Well , this is

1:18:42very much about distributed cognition

1:18:44in the sense that you really see how

1:18:46everything happens in a room .

1:18:49It's the aftermath of a trial that you

1:18:51haven't seen ,

1:18:54a group of jurors are gathered to issue

1:18:56a verdict and the entire film is the

1:18:58discussion about whether the black man

1:19:00who has been tried has been guilty or

1:19:05innocent .

1:19:07Okay ? So , in the first round of voting

1:19:10everyone says he's clearly guilty

1:19:12except for one man who says he's not

1:19:14sure and little by little he's going to

1:19:16use all his rhetoric to convince

1:19:18everyone . Okay , first he finds the weak

1:19:21point in each of them to convince them

1:19:24that he is wrong . Of course , in the end

1:19:27one wonders , so who has won ? Truth or

1:19:31rhetoric ? This is very interesting .

1:19:35Yes . I mean , it applies to almost

1:19:38everything these days .

1:19:43And as for movies , as for books , well ,

1:19:46a book that moved me at the time and

1:19:48that was my great introduction to

1:19:50science essays was The World of Demons ,

1:19:52by Carl Sagan . It is a book that I

1:19:58believe is essential to be the first

1:20:00step on the ladder of epistemology , how

1:20:06science works , and so on . Then ,

1:20:08obviously , this book has to be

1:20:10surpassed . I think that now , seen from

1:20:13a distance , it is a simple book with

1:20:18many buts , okay ? But , uh , because , for

1:20:22example , it doesn't take into account

1:20:25functional or symbolic beliefs , the

1:20:27importance of religion , the importance

1:20:30of false beliefs , but which help us

1:20:32coordinate socially , etc. , etc. , etc.

1:20:35It's like ,

1:20:37what book would you say would

1:20:38complement this book well , that would

1:20:40add a little weight and complement

1:20:42those weaknesses that you mentioned ?

1:20:46Well , a good book about this is Bad

1:20:49Beliefs by Neil Levy ,

1:20:53okay ?

1:20:57And then another book that I found

1:20:59fascinating , I can never remember the

1:21:01title , that I mentioned to you when we

1:21:03were in China , is the one about not

1:21:05planning greatness .

1:21:09Ah , the Greatness Plan . Yes , yes , I've

1:21:14read it and it's very good and , I mean ,

1:21:16I went through it in the infinite

1:21:18library where I do extensive summaries

1:21:20of ideas and it seemed like a book , I

1:21:22mean , it's the usual . It takes an idea

1:21:28that is widespread and that you believe

1:21:30to be the case , and questions it with

1:21:32so much evidence and from so many

1:21:33disciplines that you say : " [ __ ] , maybe

1:21:35I shouldn't be so sure that , well ,

1:21:37that's it , I have to set goals for

1:21:38everything , that society is driven by

1:21:40goals , that we really plan and move

1:21:42forward with projections and plans and

1:21:44it's all a bit more random , right ? " In

1:21:47fact , it has a chapter on artificial

1:21:49intelligence ,

1:21:50right ? That goes into detail about

1:21:52precisely what I was telling you before

1:21:54, that we are in the wrong paradigm .

1:21:58And well , if you're very familiar with

1:22:00this one , I can tell you A Theory of

1:22:02Everyone by Michael — his last name is

1:22:04Indian , I mean , I can't say it , I can't

1:22:06even remember — which is a good book

1:22:08about network intelligence , communities

1:22:11, and how we're not really individuals

1:22:13living on Earth , but rather a big brain

1:22:15and that's how we should see ourselves .

1:22:20Okay ? Good recommendations and quite

1:22:24unknown , which is also a bit of what I

1:22:26like about the book ; That doesn't seem

1:22:28to be the case , at least it has given

1:22:30me a little bit of all the references

1:22:31that I was drinking from and has given

1:22:33me a lot of new references that I will

1:22:35probably have to spend years delving

1:22:37into . So that's it , that's it for the

1:22:43interview . Well , call it X , call it Y.

1:22:46Thanks for your time , Sergio . Thanks to

1:22:49you for interviewing me .

1:22:50And when I release the second or third

1:22:52book , how many books do you have

1:22:54planned out of curiosity ?

1:22:56Sure . I'm going to release this second

1:22:58book on political sapitology , as I was

1:23:00saying , and the third is going to be on

1:23:02morality .

1:23:03These will definitely come out , and

1:23:05then I have other books out there that

1:23:07are too many to list .

1:23:08And there are some that you feel like ,

1:23:10apart from those two , that you say , " I

1:23:12want to address this idea in a book . "

1:23:16You know , about that penciology or in

1:23:18general ,

1:23:19right ? About that penciology .

1:23:21Probably everything that has to do with

1:23:24sex ,

1:23:25okay ? It seems like a great topic to me

1:23:27and we can continue to expand on it .

1:23:29Not only sex understood as something

1:23:32reproductive , but also how men and

1:23:34women relate to each other , to what

1:23:36extent there is a biological component ,

1:23:39a cultural component , etc. , etc. , etc.

1:23:42Okay , well , waiting for the other three

1:23:44books at least . Well , thank you .

1:23:49Thank you , staff . M.