第 358 期·中文精讀

艾拉:性工作、OnlyFans、色情、陪侍、約會與人類性慾

Aella: Sex Work, OnlyFans, Porn, Escorting, Dating, and Human Sexuality

與 OnlyFans 創作者艾拉聊性工作、色情、陪侍與約會,探討人類性慾的多樣與常見誤解。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

艾拉(Aella)手裡有一份五十多萬人填過的性偏好問卷。同一個人的簡歷上,還寫著 OnlyFans 和陪侍。這兩件事擺在一起,學術心理學界看她的眼神就變得複雜了。

萊克斯·弗裡德曼(Lex Fridman)在第 358 期播客裡把三重身份放在同一張桌子上:性工作者、獨立研究者、推特上最高產的投票發起人之一。她的部落格叫 knowingless.com,域名本身就是一種態度。

開場萊克斯引了凱魯亞克《在路上》裡那段話。他說自己只喜歡瘋子,那些瘋了一樣想活、想說話、想被拯救、同時渴望一切的人,從不打哈欠,從不說平庸的話,像羅馬焰火一樣燒、燒、燒。

然後他問艾拉:這場對話可以往任何方向走,你覺得興奮還是恐懼?

她說興奮更多。來的路上其實有點緊張,怕自己說蠢話,怕被問到一個問題,答得顯得比實際能力差很多。她補了一句:我特別怕被看得蠢。

一個自學者做出了全球規模最大的性偏好資料集之一

艾拉沒有博士學位,沒有實驗室,沒有經費。她的方法樸素得近乎笨拙:設計問卷,發出去,收回來,把原始資料和自己的解讀一起貼到部落格上。

她的樣本動輒幾萬人到幾十萬人。萊克斯在節目裡提過,她手裡那個性偏好調查超過五十萬人參與。對照一下學術心理學常見的情形:樣本三百,結論喊得震天響,媒體報道再放大一輪,標題裡全是「研究發現」。

艾拉說了一句很重的話:很多心理學家做的事,沒那麼難。

難的是讓人相信它難。白大褂、同行評審、機構名頭、術語牆,這些東西疊起來形成一種印象,好像做研究有一個准入門檻。她覺得這個印象讓大量本來能做研究的人自我繳械了。

她的版本是這樣的:你有好奇心,想搞清一件事,去問人,把答案記下來,然後學著怎麼讀那堆資料,你就在做研究了。她強調的姿態是「我們一起來弄明白」。而很多人一碰到統計和實驗設計就預設自己不配,這種自我閹割讓她很難過。

透明是一種風險,白大褂的作用就是擋這個

萊克斯問她,為什麼心理學界會批評她的方法論,明明她的樣本更大、資料更公開、解讀更誠實。

艾拉的回答指向一個更底層的東西:透明本身是危險的。你把方法、資料、推理鏈條全攤開,等於邀請所有人來挑錯。同行評審和機構背書提供的正是那種「你們不用看細節,看這個章就行」的保護層。

她還提了一個更尷尬的事實。心理學有大量研究複製不出來,但很多從業者的處理方式是假裝不知道,繼續借用那套權威。外部的人看到的是穿白大褂、有執照、說著聽不懂的術語的一群人,就預設他們在做科學。

艾拉說自己也在學,邊做邊學,絕對不認為自己已經精通統計。但她的立場很清楚:所有人都有能力上手。這個立場在專業圈裡不太受歡迎,因為它削掉了護城河。

她怕的不是被罵蠢,是沒發現的漏洞被別人先發現

萊克斯問她,把想法公開、招來一片罵聲,最壞的情況是什麼。

她說最壞的不是被罵蠢。最壞的是她發了某個東西,其中有一處她自己沒能保持足夠懷疑的地方,被別人揪出來:你看,這個漏洞你沒看見,我們看見了。

這個恐懼指向的正是她整套方法的核心,她要的是自我懷疑的質量。

她在語言上有個習慣,別人說出「always」這種詞,她立刻會去找反例。萊克斯說「新奇幾乎總伴隨不確定性」,她接了一句:那個「總」很危險。

然後她自己把邏輯補齊。一件事如果真的新穎,說明它在你已有的分佈之外,那你必然不完全理解它,不確定性跟著就來了。但人不會把它體驗成不確定性,人體驗成新鮮感,而新鮮感是吸引人的。所以「我不知道會發生什麼」這件事,在身體裡可能是恐懼,在敘事裡卻成了興奮。

「如果沒嗑藥,我不知道怎麼和人正常對話」

萊克斯提到她發過的一條推:如果不嗑藥,我不知道怎麼跟人面對面進行正常對話。他說那我們就別進行正常對話了,反正「正常」本來就定義不清。

艾拉承認自己吃了少量的促智藥(nootropic),不確定那算不算藥。萊克斯說自己攝入了咖啡因。兩個人都「嗑了」,只是劑量溫和。

這個開場定下了整場對話的調子。它不追求中立,不追求平衡報道式的腔調。兩個人都在拿自己的實際狀態當材料。

艾拉還講了一個細節。她說自己對風險的厭惡非常不均勻。開車這件小事上她小心到近乎誇張,來的路上一路留神,因為路況很差。可換一件事,她又敢把自己完全暴露在一大群可能恨她的人面前。從外面看,這似乎很難理解,但她的解釋是,猴子腦對「很多人同時在罵你」這件事極其敏感,理智上知道沒事,身體不這麼認為。

性衝動是最難向內看的物件

萊克斯說,性驅動了人類文明,但關於它的嚴謹討論少得可憐。而且一碰就帶電:色情是否有害、性別和性取向怎麼對應、某些性偏好本身是否不道德,每個話題都能瞬間點燃。

艾拉把原因指向一個技術性困難:性慾極難被內省。你問自己為什麼想被人喜歡、不安全感藏在哪,多少能摸到幾條線。問自己某個性偏好從哪來,多數時候摸到的是一團黑。

黑箱面前,人會編故事。她舉了一個特別典型的例子。發現自己有某種戀物傾向的人,會回頭翻童年記憶,找到某個對應事件,然後拼出一條因果鏈,哦,原來是因為小時候那件事。

這條鏈讀起來很順。順不等於對。人偏愛連貫敘事,而連貫敘事和真實機制經常是兩回事。

萊克斯在這時給了一句自我界定:你的思維是詩性的,我的思維是「我怎麼設計一個實驗來驗證它」。

艾拉沒有反駁。她說詩性框架不是劣等貨。她認為這類敘事對意義建構極其有用,能把光線打在世界上的角度調一調,讓人更快樂。有時它甚至更接近正確,因為有些問題離我們太遠,哲學是當下唯一能用的語言。

一切都能變得不無聊

萊克斯問她,如果給你一千年,只研究一個主題,性、愛、權力、死亡,選哪個最豐產。

她的回答繞了一圈。她說自己什麼都覺得好玩,隨便坐著都好玩。她提到大衛·福斯特·華萊士(David Foster Wallace)的說法,關鍵能力是「不可無聊」(unborable),任何東西都能變得有趣。

她隨手舉了桌上的玻璃杯。這個杯子存在這件事她剛才忘了,現在想起來覺得太好笑了,也太好玩了。有人做了這個杯子,杯壁的弧度讓光彎曲得很有意思,透過杯裡的水能看見萊克斯手臂的一部分,這太驚人了。

萊克斯追問,那深切的痛苦呢,也算好玩?

她說算。心碎讓她知道自己有能力承受那種強度。她引了王爾德那句「我們都在陰溝裡,但仍有人仰望星空」,然後加了自己的註解:正因為待在陰溝裡,星星才顯得更亮。

萊克斯接上他正在讀的《美麗新世界》。赫胥黎構造的那個社會把人生的起伏抹平了,一部分靠藥物,一部分靠氾濫的性。他覺得人需要對比,需要黑暗,才能有那種對另一個人極其濃烈的感情。

艾拉在這裡做了一個措辭上的修正。她說「好玩」(fun)這個詞太輕了,「愛」更準確。她愛那個杯子,愛杯子裡的水,因為那真的很了不起。

文明由什麼驅動:性、愛、權力、死亡

萊克斯把話題推到最大:人類文明的主驅動是什麼。

這原本是艾拉在推特上發的一個四選項投票。她承認現實塞不進一個投票框,但四個選項確實能裝下這件事的大半。

尼采給的是權力意志。弗洛伊德給的是性。歐內斯特·貝克爾(Ernest Becker)在《死亡否認》裡給的是死亡恐懼。人知道自己會死,這份認知是禮物也是負擔,恐懼太冷太硬,於是所有人都在它上面蓋房子,蓋帝國,蓋宗教,蓋事業,蓋各種讓人暫時忘掉它的事。

萊克斯提到一位剛上過他節目的嘉賓,床頭就放著《死亡否認》。他說這類人的書架上總會出現這本書。

艾拉提了一個乾脆的檢驗:如果死亡恐懼真的定義了文明,那相信死後還有生命的人,和不相信的人之間,應該出現巨大的行為差異。

萊克斯的反問同樣鋒利。按這個邏輯,基督徒也可以反過來說,無神論者發明進化論是為了逃避對地獄的恐懼。

艾拉沒有替這套理論辯護到底。她說這個論證對她沒說服力,但她自己是一個資料點。

她曾經是非常虔誠的基督徒,那段時間完全沒有死亡恐懼。後來信仰崩塌,緊接著的幾年裡,死亡恐懼以一種極其具體、極其沉重的方式壓了下來。她說這兩種狀態的差別大到不需要統計學。

所以她沒有把《死亡否認》當成一個要驗證的假設,她把它當成一段好用的哲學。貝克爾真正說的是,恐懼在極早期的童年就已經埋下,然後人用一整套社會互動、意義系統、自我敘事往上蓋,蓋到你自己都看不見底下那一層。

萊克斯承認,他講的也只是這套哲學的半個版本,壓縮過的、方便攜帶的那種。

恐怖管理理論的實驗,多半複製不出來

這套哲學後來長出了一門實證研究,叫恐怖管理理論(Terror Management Theory)。做法是這樣的:一組人先被提醒死亡,比如聊幾句關於自己終將死去的話題,另一組人不提,然後比較兩組人之後的行為和判斷有什麼不同。

效果據說是真的。只是提醒一下人終有一死,很多東西就變了。

艾拉的反應很直接:這類啟動(priming)研究,大部分複製不出來。

她自己做過一個啟動實驗,結果什麼效應都沒有。萊克斯在旁邊笑,說她對心理學論文有創傷後應激。

她的處理方式值得記一下。她沒有因為複製危機就把整塊領域判死。她的分法有兩層:作為哲學,弗洛伊德談潛意識那套東西是有意思的討論,值得讀;作為科學,它必須過得了複製這一關。兩種評價可以同時成立,不必互相取消。

自由意志是幻覺,自我也是

萊克斯切到另一個方向:你不相信自由意志,可為什麼我感覺自己完全能自由決定任何事。

艾拉的回答是,這是個非常好玩的幻覺。

她順著往下推。如果你認真內觀自己的身份感,會發現問題最後都收斂到「選擇」上。你覺得「是我在思考」,可是「我在思考」到底是個什麼動作?身體裡像是有一個東西對念頭行使了主權,讓這個念頭出現,不讓那個念頭出現。身份感的地基就是這個主權感。

所以當她說自由意志是幻覺,她同時也在說,自我是幻覺,身份是光線的一個把戲。

她補了一句:但這個把戲確實很好玩。

她講了自己的變化。有一段時間她極度熱衷於解構自我,整個人往「無我」那個方向走。現在她是反過來的,她非常享受擁有一個濃厚的自我,ego 拉得很滿。

前後並不矛盾,更像是她把這當成一個可調引數。哪一頭好玩就去哪一頭待著,待膩了再換。

「意識」這個詞被用來指兩個完全不同的東西

萊克斯丟擲了那個老問題:什麼是意識。

艾拉說她覺得討論意識的人經常在混概念,把兩樣東西塞進同一個詞裡,然後為這個混合體吵架。

第一樣東西:我此刻正在直接觀察我的體驗。這件事對她來說是確定的,不需要論證,也不能被反駁。它必然是單數的,你沒法同時觀察兩份體驗。它也必然不可能被複制,因為複製出來的那份不是你在觀察的那份。

第二樣東西:這個東西有沒有內在體驗。這個是可以套到很多人身上的,是可以擴充套件的,而且幾乎是定義上就不確定的。你看不到別人腦袋裡。

她的判斷是,人問「AI 會不會有意識」的時候,用的是第二樣東西的詞,但腦子裡的參照物卻是第一樣東西的體驗。這兩件事不通約。

她舉個例子。夢裡的角色行為可能和真人一模一樣,說話、反應、情緒都對,但這不構成他們有意識的證據。同理,一個系統表現得像是在指涉自己,也不構成它有內在體驗的證據。

萊克斯接了一段推演:如果有一天我們把意識的機制徹底搞清楚了,應該就能測出來。

艾拉的追問是,那你在測什麼?

測跡象是一件事,測機制是另一件事。跡象可以做得非常漂亮,一個模擬裡的居民跑完所有測試,結果全部符合預期,但從外面看,你仍然可以說這只是模擬,不是意識。你也可能反過來,在夢裡跑完所有測試,全部透過,但夢是假的。

她承認自己在這裡訴諸了直覺,她明確說了「我是在訴諸直覺」。這個自覺很重要,她知道自己在做什麼。

五十萬人的問卷裡,女性的夢更鮮豔

話題在這裡拐了個彎,萊克斯問她關於男女做夢差異的那個投票。

她在自己的大樣本調查裡測過這件事,結論是女性的夢明顯比男性更生動,比例差得不少。

這段對話其實很短,但它展示了她的方法論長什麼樣。先有一個在推特上隨手發的投票,發現訊號,然後在大樣本問卷里正式測一遍,看訊號還在不在,強度有多少。投票是探針,問卷是尺子。

萊克斯在這個地方插了一句玩笑。他說自己其實什麼都知道,連她的未來都知道,能贏下所有關於她人生的預測市場。

她把自己全部身家押在了「會上這檔播客」

艾拉在 Manifold 上玩預測市場。有人開了一個盤口:艾拉會不會上萊克斯·弗裡德曼的播客。

她把能投的都投進了「會」。

然後她意識到一個問題:她的下注是公開的,別人能看到她的頭像,這會影響市場。

萊克斯問她這算不算內幕交易。她說在這個平臺上,內幕資訊本來就算資訊的一部分,它就是用來被交易的。她也承認可以開小號、可以說謊、可以故意放煙霧彈。

更好笑的是後面。有人開了另一個盤口:艾拉會不會在推特上發一條把 poll 拼成 pole 的推文。

她決定操縱這個市場。她投了「不會」,打算故意不發。

結果她某天隨手發了一張投票的截圖,發完才想起來自己在盤口裡站的是「不會」。她把自己的市場親手做崩了。

她說這屬於內幕交易的逆向操作。

那個能滿足一切慾望的按鈕,她的答案是絕對不按

萊克斯提出一個思想實驗:有一個按鈕,按下之後你的所有慾望都會被瞬間滿足,滿足的速度快到慾望還沒成形就消失了,於是你進入一種徹底無慾的狀態。

她一秒都沒猶豫:百分之百不按。

理由很乾脆。一切立刻被滿足,一切就立刻不好玩了。第一次可能還行,之後沒有第二次。

萊克斯順著推:那第四天你會幹什麼。

她說第四天她大概會去搞核戰爭,因為這個系統會迅速升級。

然後她把這個思想實驗推得更狠了一點。如果給她的是魔法級別的權力,能修改世界本身,她會做什麼?她第一反應是讓所有人都飄起來,浮在空中。

緊接著她自己就否掉了。讓人飄起來,那個人大機率會很不高興。她會立刻停手,然後老老實實回到正常生活。

她說她幾乎可以肯定,自己第一次目睹別人因她而痛苦的時候就會踩剎車,而這個時刻會來得非常快。

萊克斯說他也是。他想象的版本更接近電子遊戲,裡面所有人都是 NPC,很蠢,可以隨便擺弄。但他也知道,第一次看見真實的痛苦,他就會停。

這段對話裡有一個共同的結論。給她無限權力,她想要的仍然是一種和現在差不多的生活。權力不是目的,權力只是把手邊的事做得更省力,而省力本身不產生意義。

補一次輪胎,會讓整條路都變好看

萊克斯用車打比方。他說自己補過一次胎,蹲在路邊動手弄完,之後對車的感受、對交通便利的感受、對這一切的感受,全都變得更清楚了一點。麻煩事反而讓東西顯形。

然後他替反方說了話。有人會說這是 copium,說你只是在給現狀找補,真按這個邏輯,我們乾脆回到阿米什人的時代算了。

艾拉的回應有兩層。

第一層是語言上的。她說任何在論證裡用 copium 這個詞的人,都很可疑。萊克斯接了一句「很 sus」,兩個人都笑了。這個玩笑背後有個真東西:一個詞如果主要用來給對方的立場貼標籤,而不用來說明任何機制,那它就不是論證。

第二層是實質的。她說人不該把「接受現在」和「改善現在」當成對立的兩件事。她認為這兩件事根本就是一回事的兩面。

她的表述是,我享受這裡有一個問題存在,因為這意味著我可以體驗「努力讓它消失」這個過程,而意義就長在這個過程裡,不長在結果裡。

這套說法裡必須同時裝下兩句話:事情很糟;我們在努力讓它變好。兩句要一起說,少一句就塌。

再疊上一層對未來的樂觀,這套組合就變成了持續的行動力。而且那些糟糕的經歷會讓「好」的圖景變得更清晰、更濃烈。你在陰溝裡待過,星星才亮。

這場對話到這裡其實已經把她的世界觀講完整了。資料是工具,詩是工具,自我是可調引數,意義在過程裡。她既做五十萬人的問卷,也承認有些問題永遠模糊。她既把方法論攤開任人挑錯,也在公開平臺上拿自己的人生下注。

這兩件事在她身上不矛盾。它們都是同一種姿態:把不確定性擺在明面上,然後繼續往前走。

  • 想做研究,不必等許可。挑一個你真好奇的問題,設計一份問卷,問二十個人也行,把答案記下來,再老老實實承認你的樣本有多小。
  • 讀到一個讓你「哦原來如此」的解釋,先停三秒。連貫的敘事和真實的機制經常是兩回事,尤其是那些能一路追到童年的解釋。
  • 看到「研究表明」四個字,先找三樣東西:樣本多大、資料在不在、有沒有人複製過。三樣缺兩樣,就當故事聽。
  • 公開你的方法和資料,代價是會捱罵,收益是你能被真正懂行的人糾錯。捱罵難受,但比在錯誤裡待三年便宜。
  • 給自己留一個可調的自我旋鈕。有時候解構它有用,有時候把 ego 拉滿更有用,別把任何一端當成終點。
  • 手邊出點麻煩,比如補一次胎、修一次漏水,別急著外包。麻煩會讓便利顯形,這個體驗本身有價值。
  • 有人用 copium、sus 這類詞回應你的論證,直接跳過。那不是反駁,那是給立場貼標籤。
  • 如果某天真拿到了很大的權力,先想清楚一件事:你第一次看見別人因你而痛苦時會不會停。會停,說明你還能用這份權力。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
Lex Fridman Podcast #358 – Aella: Sex Work, OnlyFans, Porn, Escorting, Dating, and Human Sexuality Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Ayla, a sex researcher who does some of the largest human sexuality survey studies in the world on everything from fetishes to relationships. She is fearless in pursuing her curiosity on these topics by asking challenging and fascinating questions and looking for answers in a rigorous data-driven way and writing about it on her blog knowingless dot com. She's also a sex worker, including only fans and escorting, and is an exceptionally prolific creator of thought provoking Twitter polls. Ayla and I disagree on a bunch of things, but that just made this conversation even more interesting. I like interesting people in the full range of the meaning that the word interesting implies. I'm currently reading On the Road by Jack Kerouac, and would be remiss if I didn't mention one of my favorite quotes from that book that feels relevant here. The only people for me are the mad ones—the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time—the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow Roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars. In the middle, you see the blue center light pop, and everybody goes. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got House of Macadamias for healthy midday snacks. Why midday snacks? Snacks anytime. Athletic Greens for a delicious daily multivitamin and Inside Tracker for bio monitoring. Choose wisely, my friends. Also, if you want to work with our amazing team, we're always hiring. Go to lexfreeman dot com slash hiring. And now onto the full latteries. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, and maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by probably our most delicious sponsor—the sponsor that has given me a tremendous amount of happiness and joy—simple joy, sitting alone on a couch in a podcast room. Just eating macadamia snacks. They ship delicious, high quality and healthy macadamia nuts directly to your door. Anyway, this thing is delicious. It's healthy, 30 less carbs than almonds. It's the only nut of the many nuts, and I've researched this, but they've also told me. That is rich in omega sevens. Professor Tim Noakes, who I should probably talk to at some point, sings macadamia oil praises. There's so much to say. That's awesome. The thing is, it's just delicious. This portion perfectly. It brings happiness. Get it? Maybe it'll bring you happiness, and we can just telepathically enjoy these nuts together. Go to house of macadamias dot com slash lex to get 20 off your order for every order—not just the first. Our listeners—that's you will also get a four ounce bag of macadamias when you order three or more boxes of any macadamia product. That's house of macadamias dot com slash lex. This show is also brought to you by Athletic Greens and its AG One Drink, which is an all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. It too is freaking delicious and it too is a source of a lot of happiness every day, twice a day. In fact, I'm now religiously bringing in On the Road with me the travel packs because I like to bring the happiness with me. It's actually really stressful for me to travel as it is for a lot of people. This is a recent discovery for me. One of the things that kind of makes it a lot better if I bring little trinkets that remind me of home or little habits that remind me of home or little food items and so on. And Athletic Greens is that I bring element electrolyte and Athletic Greens with me on the road and it just reminds me of home. And Athletic Greens, but that's why I start the day with in terms of breaking my fast and I put in the fridge. It just is delicious. It's refreshing and it's just a great mental boost for me. They'll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at athleticgreens dot com slash lex. This show is also brought to you by Inside Tracker, a service I use to track biological data. It's interesting because this conversation with Ayla is in fact about data—a lot of data, a lot of data from I think she has over 500, 000 people that took a very extensive survey on their sexual preferences and all that kind of stuff. So basically, self-report information about your own understanding of your mind and body and so on. I mean, that's so powerful. That's so so so powerful. Data in general is really powerful for any kind of study, for medical studies, for psychological study, sociological, for any kind of study that includes humans. And it's nice to see Ayla do this gigantic data set. But to figure out what you need for your body, for your life, for your diet, that should not be based. No matter how big the data set is, that should not be based on population data or it should only be in part based on population data. It should be hopefully in large part based on the data that comes from your own body and that's what Inside Tracker is. One of the great folks that are taking a step forward in this thing that's obviously represents the future. Get special savings for limited time when you go to insidetracker dot com slash lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Ayla. I feel like this conversation can go anywhere. Is that exciting or terrifying to you? I think it's more exciting. The uncertainty exciting to you. Yes. In conversations in general, or just this one. I think conversations in general. Like, is anybody like? The certainty is really exciting. Maybe if the certainty is something new. I mean, novelty always comes with uncertainty, right? Almost always. I started trying to think of a counter example. Immediately, you're uncomfortable with generalizations of that kind. Like always, is always a really bold word to use. But if it's truly novel, that means you don't really understand it's outside your distribution. So therefore, it's going to have a bunch of uncertainty. But you don't think of it as uncertainty. You think about is something new, but it actually also attracts you because there's a lot of uncertainty around it. Probably like what is this new thing? Yeah, like annihilating the mystery, like that drive. What about the danger of it? It's like part. I was just thinking of on the drive over because I was like, I'm like a little nervous about doing this podcast. And then I was like feeling into the unpleasantness of it, like the like the fear of what if something goes terribly wrong. And then I was also feeling into like how much that feels like part of why it's exciting, like if I knew that it was going to go great. I don't know. Did you actually imagine all the possible ways it can go wrong? Not like all of them, but I was like, what if I say something really dumb or like you ask me a question and I answer it in a way that makes me sound like a lot less capable than I am. I'm like really afraid of being perceived as stupid or something. I was also thinking about this on the way over like I'm kind of riskaverse in some ways like I don't driving like driving fast in cars because I was driving very carefully here because the roads are bad. Yeah. And then I'm thinking I'm very like pro risk in other ways like being really exposed to like a wide variety of people who might hate you and I think like from the outside that might look fine but I think the monkey brain is really sensitive to lots of people yelling at you. For whatever problems that you seem to have, so that's the big risk you're taking is putting yourself out there as an intellectual like through your writing and then a lot of people yelling at you. Is that is that the worst embarrassment you can? It's pretty bad. Yeah, I think I think the worst embarrassment is if I put something out there that I failed to like be properly skeptical of in myself and then people are like, oh, we caught this thing that you didn't catch. I think that's the biggest terror. Yeah, from looking at your reading and listening to your interviews, you seem to be very defensive and worried about being good scientists. Yeah, definitely. But your like methodology. Yes. And funny enough, you get attacked on that methodology. Even though you know I'm a fan of psychology, of like the academic psychology and it's it's kind of disappointing often how non rigorous their work is, how small the sample size and so on and how big and ambitious over ambitious the the proclamations about results is. Especially with the news reports on it. Now you're both the researcher, the scientist, and the reporter, right? So like that's what you have with the blog. Your sample size is often gigantic. The methodology is right there. The data is right there. You provide the data, and then you're like raw and honest with your interpretation of the data. Like there's of honesty authenticity to it. So I don't it's actually really refreshing. I don't know why people criticize it. I think this is what this is what psychologists are probably terrified about being transparent and. Transparent in that way is because they'll get attacked for their methodology. So they want to cloak it in a. You know sort of layer of authority like I'm from this institution. It was peer reviewed. This kind of all these layers and I'm also not going to share the data with you and I'm also going to pretend like most psychology studies are not replicable. I'm just going to pretend there's authority to it. I think it works on a lot of people like from the outside you're like ah the scientists with the white lab coats with credentials those are the people who are like doing science and like doing science is you know you have like fancy terms that other people are don't really understand and to be fair like I I have a lot to learn I'm still like I'm self teaching I'm like learning through people learning as I go I'm definitely not super knowledgeable about this stuff. But a lot of what those people are doing in science is not that hard. And a lot of people like don't try to learn it because it seems so like elevated and this is one thing that really bothers me. I think like everybody can do science like if you just have this aspect of curiosity and like you just really want to figure something out you can go and start you know asking people questions doing surveys like writing down the answers and then you can go learn how to look at that data in a way that gives you more information about the world like it's very simple and straightforward if you just approach it humbly and earnestly and you're like please let's like let's figure this out together but people like are think self-crippled in this because they view this as like. Religated to the domain of the experts and you know the fancy scientists and I think that makes me feel really sad. You're almost attracted to the questions you're not supposed to ask. Oh yeah, also yes, it might contribute to the controversy. Not exclusively probably, but you're just not limited by. Like part of your curiosity asking questions that seem common sense like some of the most controversial questions are like around sex. It's like everybody thinks and talks and does sex. I mean, it's it's the driver of human civilization and yet there's so little like rigorous discussion about the like the philosophical and the scientific questions around it and it's like it gets really weird. To be able to discuss them, it becomes tricky to discuss them. Yeah, super charged super because everybody has a really strong opinion like whether or not you know pornography is damaging to society or like how sex corresponds to gender or like what kind of sexuality is acceptable like do can you have sexual preferences that in them in themselves are immoral. People get very angry about it. Well, the sad part is they're not just opinionated, but most of us our relationship with sex is. I think I guess I want to say not rigorous. I think it's very difficult to be rigorous about sex. Like I, I would consider sexual urges to be kind of elusive to introspection in a way that's a little bit disproportionate to a lot of other things. Like you could like you know introspect about you know how I want other people to like me and how where my insecurities lie. But sex is one of those black box things. A really common thing is for people to if you have a fetish you sort of check back in your childhood to see an event that corresponds to that fetish and then you like develop a narrative like ah this event in my childhood must have caused this fetish and so I think this causes people to be biased towards like a like a concrete coherent positive way that events happen or that sexual fetishes happen. This is just like one example of like why I think it's really hard to be rigorous with introspection because we can't avoid you just want to tend towards making like coherent narratives which I think is not always the correct way to explain it. The narratives that are connected to childhood and so and so on how they originate. Yeah, you have I mean we'll talk about fetishes because you have a lot of really interesting writing on that. Just actually zooming out, I should mention you tweeted I wrote this down. You tweeted I do not understand how to have normal conversations with people in person if I'm not on drugs. So I guess let's both agree to not have a normal conversation. I guess assuming you're not on drugs now or if you are, you don't have to tell. I feel like a very small amount of fun of it, which is a nuttropic. Don't know if that counts. That drug. Well, I guess I'm on caffeine. Yeah, so we're both. Drugged up. Good enough to have a normal conversation. We don't have to. What is normal anyway? What do you think is the primary driver of human civilization? Is it the desire for sex, love, power, or immortality? Like avoiding the fear of death, constructing illusions that make us forget about our terror over mortality. So sex, love, power, death. This is a Twitter poll. It's four options. This is reality, not everything maps perfectly to a Twitter poll, but in this case because there's four options and it is a small number of characters it does. But I'd like to think I'm more interested. You know what? I think your Twitter polls are fundamentally interesting. There's something about the brevity of a poll limited to a set of choices and having an existential crisis and searching for the answer. That's beautiful. That combination. This one's a big one. Like, what do you think is behind it? Do you believe that there is one primary driver? Like, do you think that it can be understood in the terms of primary drivers? Yeah, I think well, maybe it's an engineering perspective, like trying to reverse engineer the brain. I don't think we're equipped or understand enough about the mind to get there. Yeah, like what's the primary driver of a tree? Yeah, well then it gets the question of what is life? What is a living organism? Like to self replicate, probably. That's a very clean simplification, but I think life is more interesting than than just self replication. Yeah, but it sounds like you there's a curiosity in you that you're trying to like poke at, and I don't understand exactly what that curiosity is. So if I had to dedicate a thousand years to understand one of these topics, which one would be the most fruitful? I guess is the indirect thing I'm asking. No, well fun to me everything is fun, but really, yeah, I mean I'm with David Foster Wallace. The key to life is to make sure that everything is unborable or to be unborable or nothing is boring, everything is fun. Like everything, I could just literally sit. I honestly because I don't think I don't know where you got that glass, but that glass exists and I forgot it exists and it was really fun to me to know that now it's there. What felt really unpleasant things. Like if you're in like deep agony. Yeah, that's fun. Okay, that's fun because it's like I mean, yeah, heartbreak. It's like knowing that I'm capable of that. It like from. You know we're all living in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars. So when you're in that gutter, for some reason the stars look brighter, right? Like so like whenever you're going through a difficult time. Or whenever you see maybe other people being shitty to each other, it makes you like really appreciate when they're not. The contrast makes life kind of amazing. I'm reading a bunch of books. One of them is Brave New World where they remove, you know, where they remove the ups and downs of life. Partially through drugs, but over sexualization and all that kind of stuff, and I feel like you need that contrast. You need the ups and downs of life. The dark, you know, you need the dark to have happiness, have like a deeply intense feeling of affection towards another thing or a human being. Yeah, yeah, so everything's fun, but fun is also a weird word to define because fun I think for a lot of people. Like that's why I talk about love a lot. I think I think love is a better word than fun because fun is like light-hearted. Love is more intense. Like I love that glass and the water that's in it because it's freaking awesome. Like somebody made that glass, right? Like they and like not have many mistakes and like there's and the way bends light in interesting ways and the way water bends light in interesting ways like I can see part of your arm through that water. That's freaking amazing. Everything is amazing. I'm with the Lego movie anyway. If but if like from a scientific perspective, if I were to investigate sex, I don't know why I put love in there. Let's narrow down the Twitter poll. Let's focus on the basics here: sex, power, or death, immortality. If I were to try to like from a neuroscience, neurobiology perspective or reverse engineer through building AI systems that focus on these kinds of dynamics, exploring the gink theoretic aspects of it, exploring. The sort of cognitive modeling aspects of it, which one would get me to a deep understanding of the human condition? That's the question: sex. Okay, Nietzsche is the will to power. Freud and and the bunch is all about sex. And then death. Live just live burley. Brilliant previous guest on this podcast. She just released a video where on her bedside was the book Denial of Death by Ernest Becker, which of course she would have on her bedside. But that the his whole work is that. Everything is motivated by our trying to escape the the cold, harsh reality that we're going to die and we're terrified of it. One of the gifts and burdens. For human beings is that we are cognizant of our own death, and that terrifies us. That's the theory, and because of that, we do everything we can. We build, we build empires to escape the fact that we're mortal. Wouldn't this change quite a bit for religious people then who don't believe that they're going to die? Well, they created religion—the idea there to create myths, religions. You can create religions of all kinds, like. Yeah, but if this is like one of the defining things that define civilization, then we should expect to see like massive differences between people who believe we're going to die and people who don't. Good, I love it. You think it like a like a scientifically here, but and they have actually answers. Like there's a whole terror management theory where they do. Type write psychology type papers, and they do actual experiments. I can mention how their methodology is interesting. They prime with a discussion of death, like they take one certain set of people, they have a conversation with them, another set of people, they mention death to them before the conversation, see how that affects their. The nature of the conversation—it's really interesting because death fundamentally alters the nature of the conversation. Just even priming, like reminding you that you are going to die briefly, changes changes a lot of things. These kinds of priming papers usually not replicated. I just have like I feel like I've heard a bunch of priming ones that. I think you have PTSD over psychology papers is not replicated. I just did one. I just did a primary experiment on my own and found it didn't have any effect. But again, can't you just give me a careless statement summarizing an entire scientific discipline of terror management theory? I don't know. People should like I haven't rigorously looked at how good of it psychologically. I think it is interesting philosophy. The way Freud talked about the subconscious mind philosophically, it's an interesting discussion. Then you have to get rigorous with it for sure. But the idea is that like it's not that religious people get rid of the terror of death. This is just one of the popular ways they create an illusion on top of it. That's that idea like a myth that allows that makes it easier for them to forget. To escape that terror, but everybody else does different different methods like you feel your days with like capitalism has a whole is a whole religion of itself like the rat race for getting more and more material possessions and so on. I mean, couldn't you argue it in the opposite direction? Like, let's say assume that we're Christians here and we're like, ah, the atheist, you know, everybody has terror of hell, and the atheist invent this mythology where you know actually evolution is true in order to escape their terror of hell. So that doesn't feel like a persuasive argument to me. But I used to be very very Christian and I did not have of terror of death and then I lost my faith and then I had a deep terror of death sudden for a few years and it felt very different to me. So for denial of death, I don't know if he says that it's actually possible without really a lot of work to get to the actual terror. Like I think his claims that in early early early childhood development, that's when the terror is real. And then we aggressively construct systems around it of social interaction to to sort of construct illusions at top of it. I'm doing a half as description of this philosophy, but there is like it is interesting to simplify. The human mind into underlying mechanisms that drive it. Yeah, I was going to say your thinking seems kind of poetic, like the way that you are sort of handling these. Yeah, these concepts feel like more like aesthetically driven. I think this theme is going to continue throughout this conversation as we talk about relationships and sex. Yes, for sure. I think so, and I think your thinking. Seems to be very driven by how can I construct an experiment to test this hypothesis. Yeah, something like that. Yeah, but aren't there some things especially that have to do with the human mind? That are really messy, really difficult to understand. There is so many uncertainties and mysteries around that we don't yet have the tools to collect the data. Like one of your favorite tools is the survey, is asking people questions. And then figuring out different ways to indirectly get at the truth because there is flaws to the survey. You kind of learn about those flaws and you get better and better asking the right questions and so on. But that's not that's indirect access to the human mind. But do you think like poetic narratives are? I'm not like saying poetic narratives are bad. Like I think it's like a cool way of like handling concepts, but I'm not sure that they are more rigorous. No, no, no, okay, no, but like they might be the more correct. Like philosophy might be the right way to discuss things that were really far from understanding. Yeah, I mean they might be more useful shorthand. Yeah, like morality, like I don't think morality makes any sense, but it's really useful shorthand to use when handling concepts in a lot of the time. Right, like ethics and morality, you could construct studies to ask different questions. Like you know, just having worked with autonomous vehicles a lot, the the trolley problem gets brought up. And I don't know, you can construct all kinds of interesting surveys about the trolley problem. But does that really get at some deep? Moral calculus that humans do. It's sexy because people like write clickbait articles about it, but does it really get to like what you value more? Five grandmas or like three children, whatever. Like they construct these arguments of like if you could steer a train, if you could steer an autonomous car, which do you choose? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if it's possible with some of those to construct. Like sometimes the fuzzy area, there's some topics that are fuzzy will forever be fuzzy. Given our limited cognitive capabilities, I don't know. There's a way of looking at things where it's like for example the childhood fetish thing that I was talking about like where do your fetishes come from? Like you can develop a narrative for it's like you know I think like this kind of thing is you know you're surrounded by feet when you're a child this causes foot fetishes. And this is like kind of a cool narrative. And I think a lot of people's ideas about philosophy fall the same sort of thing like what is the narrative that is cool. And I think this is useful for meaning making. Like I'm very pro meaning making. Like when you're talking about everything is fun because you know the contrast or whatever. I very much just ascribe to that. I really enjoy that that philosophy. I also find everything to be very delightful. But and this isn't like a question of truth, right? We're not like where is the true delight that we're objectively measuring. Like this is a frame a poetic frame that you're using to like sort of change the way the light hits the world around you, and that's super useful because it like makes you happier. Or something. Yeah, but also gets to the truth or something. Yeah, I guess what is truth. You had another question. What is truth? You've actually to jump back. You don't you believe that free will is an illusion. So why does it feel like I'm free to make any decision I want? It's a cool illusion. I think it's probably like where a sense of identity comes from. Oh, like when when you really meditate on your sense of identity for at least for me, it seems like it comes down to the sense of choice. Like oh, I am doing the thinking. Like what does it mean to do with thinking? It's like something in me has exerted agency over having this thought or not having this thought. Like the sense of self really comes down to choice, and so when I say that like free will is an illusion, I also mean there's something like the self is an illusion, identity is a trick of the light. But it's a really fun one. Yeah, you think a lot about your identity. I have occasionally. Yeah, like you really struggle with it. You're proud of it. I do too. It's not we have different journeys, but so I really take a lot of delight in it. I used to be very into like deconstructing it. Like you, maybe you know I did a bunch of like way too much jealousy for a while, and at that point very no no ego, and now I'm like very ego. I really enjoy having a lot of ego. I actually happen to know like everything about you. Really, yeah, like more than you do. It's interesting. That's fascinating. Wait, could you can you solve my problems? Yes, all of them. I've did thorough research. Okay, what is consciousness then? I actually wrote that as a quote. What is consciousness? To remind myself, so like how does that tie in together with free will and identity and all of that. That's me. What is consciousness? Is like one of the biggest questions ever. I think I do think that people often get confused when talking about consciousness because I think people are referring to two separate concepts and often like combining them into one thing. Like we asked the question, you know, is AI going to be conscious? I think this is kind of the wrong question. Like, ah, like we can identify signs of consciousness, like ah, they seem to refer to themselves, but this is not necessarily proof of consciousness. In the same way that like dream characters acting exactly the way normal human people do in your dream is not evidence that they themselves are conscious. So like signs of consciousness are not proof of consciousness, but there is something that we definitely know, which is like I currently am conscious. I can tell because. Right, like like I'm like just directly observing my experience. Yeah, and so like there's one kind of consciousness which is I am directly observing my experience, and that you cannot replicate it. Like I cannot observe two experiences. It is necessarily singular and it is necessarily certain. Like you can make all the arguments you want. Like I'm still directly observing, it's not a thing that's subject to reason. Whereas our other thing is conscious. This is something that's replicable. Like you can apply it to multiple people. It's something that's not certain. Like almost definitionally not certain. Like we don't actually know if there is you know an internal experience. So my argument is that like when people are talking about other things having experience, they're using a different concept than the thing that they're actually looking at when they look at their own experience. I think they're two different things. Definitionally not possible. No, if you understand the mechanism of consciousness, you'll be able to measure it probably right. Yeah, but what are you measuring? Like I think this is like a subtle difference. Like when you're asking the question, is this other thing conscious? Yeah, the easy thing to measure is like a survey. Does this thing appear conscious? Yeah, and then the hard thing is you understand the actual mechanism of how consciousness arises. In the physics, you do that in a dream, presumably. Like if you had a very good dream or very good simulation. Yeah, but we could then have somebody in a simulation or a dream where they go through and they fully understand. You know they do all the tests and the tests come back exactly they would expect them to. But from the outside we're like, well, this is misleading. They're not actually conscious. Like your dream characters aren't conscious, right? Probably. I don't know. Are you asking? Are you telling? I'm like appealing to an intuition. But it sounds like you're driving towards a narrative. I don't you did a poll about men and women in dreams. Yeah, there was some kind of difference. I couldn't tell what the difference was except that more men than women. Quite a lot more women dream vividly than men. Oh, which I actually found my chaos survey. So I did a survey. Maybe you know that I had people everything you do know yes I'm sorry. So as you clearly know, I'll try not to talk down to this conversation because I'm sorry. And I not only know everything, I know how your future looks like. Really, and every how everything ends. Yeah, so you could probably win all the prediction markets on my life. Yeah, cool. So we should also mention that you have like prediction markets. You have like votes that you what what's the site called again? Manifold manifold, and one of them was will I be on the Lex Friedman podcast? Yeah, and I voted. I invested everything I own into the yes. Is there such thing as insider trading on there? That goes against the terms of the. No, I think insider trading is part of the information. So it's supposed to be. And then I realized it's actually public information that I voted because like I think my face shows up there's like damn it. It's going to influence you could make the fake account or I could be lying right. Yeah, I could be and then dump the stock whatever you know I try to manipulate somebody made a market like is Aila going to post a poll spelled P O L E on her Twitter like a photo and I was like I'm going to manipulate this market so I like fuck around with it and I voted no and then I accidentally posted a photo of a poll without thinking. Oh, but that's like self sabotage. Yeah, I accidentally fucked up my own market. That doesn't. That's like the reverse of insider trading. Yeah, what were we talking about? Oh, the women and the men and the difference—the vivid dreams and the markets. I forget what the market. Oh, because I can I can perfectly predict your future, but then it's not fun. I like the romance of unpredictability, and so I like to even though I know everything, I like to forget everything. Very Buddhist of you. Yeah, the river no no man in the river wants whatever the footsteps. However, that's one of my favorite questions. Is like if you could press a button and then have all of your wants fulfilled anything that you want. So it's like such a rapid degree that you don't really experience the want like as the want arises it then is like completed immediately so that you are completely without want. Like would you would you press that button one hundred percent not? Yeah, I didn't think you would. No, no, no, because immediately everything stops being fun. The first it's only fun the first time. But if you want it to be fun. But like what would be my source of fun? I feel like I would like on day four just to get off. I would need to like do like nuclear war. Because it'll escalate quickly. I feel like if everything is possible, I assume you mean like something that like is not just normal human things. Yeah, magical world. Magical world and you start escalating really quickly. Like I wonder, I'll probably do like I want everybody to just fly into the air and hover in the air. That'd be everybody, and then you're like, "Oh, life is meaningless. Like why does like you? I feel like you get. " No, actually, that would be a really interesting experiment. Like, what are the limits? Like, are we all capable of becoming psychopaths? Essentially, like I like to believe not there's a very hard limits on that. Like in our own mind, like a basic compassion because I love being compassionate towards other human beings. It's one of the things I think about. If you give me power, like a lot of power, like absolute power. I think that's the power you mentioned is the scariest kind of power because it's like it's not even power in this normal world. It's like magical power where you lose. It's a dream world power where you like video game power. You don't even think of it as reality. You could just mess with the world. I feel like that's terrifying. Yeah, you basically be god. God, yeah, but without like. I feel like the idea of God wants like kind of keep things like functioning properly. And then you would probably would if you wanted to keep them functioning properly, then it would. Rapidly, like you would never experience a time where you're like, oh no, that was a mistake, because as soon you like before you even experience that the world would shift to to match it. Oh interesting. No, I think I would actually I take you back. I think I would regret the first time I hurt somebody. See in my visualization was like a video game where everybody's like NPC really dumb. No, I think the first time I I witnessed pain from anybody that's when I would stop and I would probably run into that very quickly. Like even just the hovering make a person hover and they're going to be probably really upset with the hovering right and so I'm going to be like no don't do that anymore. And then I'll probably go to honestly I'll just return back to my normal life. Yeah, that's that's kind of what I feel like like if I had the power to do anything, I think I would probably want to have a life very similar to where I am now. Yeah, yeah, I mean there's it's like with Uber like it would be probably more convenient to do certain things, but even then, like the struggle like I got a flat tire so I have to fix that. I kind of the flat tire makes makes everything more beautiful. Was that cool? I could do like a normal manual thing, but also it makes you like appreciate your car, appreciate transportation, appreciate the convenience of transportation, all of it. I know some people who would like call this a bunch of copium like you're just sort of making do with what you have. Like we wouldn't go back to Amish times or like pre technology because to like in order to make ourselves appreciate things more. And so this seems like a hindsight reasoning, which like I can appreciate that argument, but I don't know. I'm like anyone who uses sorry to interrupt the word copium in their in their argumentation. I think is sus. Is sus? Yeah. Is sus? My entire argument is now. No, I'm just kidding. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, I interrupted rudely the floor thought. But you you so you don't think so in part you disagree with that kind of argument. Yeah, because I I think people have this idea that if you like come to accept or like find meaning in what you have now, this is sort of at odds with trying to improve it. And I don't find this to be the case. I find like the attempt to improve it to also be part of it. Like I enjoy the fact that there's something like problematic going on because now I get the experience of like striving to make it go away and like that in itself is where the meaning lies. It's not just that things are bad, it's that there's things are bad and we're trying to stop it and also. Exactly. If you combine that with a sense of optimism that the future can be better, yeah, that feeds feeds into this productive effort of making things better. And somehow makes the vision of the things that are better more intense, having experienced shitty things. Yeah, so we talked about free will and consciousness and what drives human civilization. Question left unanswered. It's

本集資源與出處