Anna Riedl is a cognitive scientist, currently finishing her MSc in cognitive science in Vienna. She is also founder of Effective Altruism Austria, and co-organiser of the Rationality Vienna Meetup. In this conversation, we talk about cognitive science, rationality, effective altruism, visualisation in science communication, and much more.
BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).
Timestamps
00:04: Studying as a firstgen
07:35: Anna's MSc in cognitive science
20:01: What real-world problem is Anna trying to solve?
26:46: When are you qualified to give a talk on a topic?
35:20: Depth vs. breadth and fun vs. precision in science communication
43:21: Visualisation in science (communication)
Podcast links
Website: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcast
Guest's links
Website: https://www.riedlanna.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AnnaLeptikon
Ben's links
Website: www.bjks.page/
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJ
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bjks_tweets
References
Borner, K. (2015). Atlas of knowledge: anyone can map. MIT Press.
Burton, R. A. (2009). On being certain: Believing you are right even when you're not. Macmillan.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science.
Marr, D., & Poggio, T. (1977). From understanding computation to understanding neural circuitry. Neurosciences Research Program Bulletin.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information.
Links discussed
3blue1brown's YouTube channel with maths visualisations: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw
Anna's interview on Future Fossils: https://shows.acast.com/futurefossils/episodes/166
Anna's map of cognitive science: https://www.riedlanna.com/cognitivesciencemap.html
Anna's prints (on T-shirt, blanket, shower curtain, etc.) of the map of cognitive science: https://www.redbubble.com/de/shop/ap/64207253
Marie and Otto Neurath's Isotype collection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotype_(picture_language)
Medium article about Marie Neurath: https://medium.com/nightingale/the-missing-legacy-of-marie-neurath-f9800733d1fc
-
[This is an automated transcript with many errors]
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: [00:00:00] One thing I thought I wanted to ask earlier, maybe we can just do it now, is you, uh, something you tweeted. See, when was that? In April.
Anna Riedl: Oh,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: wow. Um, I have it open here. Yeah. So the, you tweeted who had big successes in science academia while starting their PhD with. 30 plus. I'm assuming that means years old, not just, yo, I could take some inspiration to still starting that direction as a hashtag first gen.
Anna Riedl: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I'm curious, what was the, I guess in some sense the motivation seems kind of obvious behind this, but could you maybe elaborate on that a bit, like why you tweeted that? Mm-hmm.
Anna Riedl: So first of all, it's just in general, very interesting to just find good role models in science. Um, and then just hear, yeah, just like in general, what, what role models do other people have?
Even just how do they interpret the question, what makes success in science? Um, because someone even asked, oh, [00:01:00] um, I started after 30, but I don't know whether I count as success. And I was like, yeah, that's exactly why I asked. Right. What do you define as success? And if the person says, I'm, I'm very happy with my career, then you can of course frame that as success.
Um, so I'm just in general, just very curious about humans. And then of course, the personal question is, I'm, I'm steering towards the 30 and I, uh, haven't yet decided whether I. I want to do a PhD soon or at all. Probably I will do one, but it's also, it's just really threatening and yeah, I'm, I'm definitely first generation academic.
I didn't grow up with anyone in my surrounding having a degree. And one of the reasons why then just studying took me quite a while. I mean, I also did many, many things on the side, um, really like already working and as you said, like a lot of science communication as well. But it really took me so, so long partially.
Because I felt like I was not allowed to, like, I felt like, um, others can do that. Allowed to [00:02:00] what? I can't do it. Like really going into like, doing a PhD. Like for me it was like, okay, this is like a huge thing. Um, just having the degree that officially permits to do that. It's not enough. There's like a lot of other things, and so I felt like there were a lot of invisible beliefs that I I that really also were holding me back to just finish everything up sooner.
Because if I could go back, then I would just like speed up the, both the undergraduate and the graduate degree to just do it right, because by now I feel like I could, but. Yeah. So, um, I was wondering whether I was already kind of too late to, to even still consider this as a, as a, yeah. A meaningful route or whether, whether it doesn't really matter.
So just trying to get some insight into that.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. It's weird. These kind of expectations between people who. Come from an academic background or not? I mean, for example, in my case, I mean I guess I'm second generation, I think, I'm not sure any of my grandparents finished or even started high [00:03:00] school.
I think my English granddad might have, I'm not sure. Uh, but you know, my German grandparents left school at like 12 or something. Um, and my mom somehow then managed to get a PhD from a foreign country, which is quite the achievement I guess. But that's the weird thing. So like, you know, I grew up in a household where both my parents studied and my mom had a PhD and, but the weird thing is like, it was never a thing.
I don't, my mom never put her doctorate into her like name or anything, like a passport or anything. It's just like, there's this book in our house that has my mom's name on it.
Anna Riedl: Yes.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And says, you know, PhD or whatever, and. So like in, in a sense, like it doesn't, you know, I grew up in a, in an academic household, but it didn't feel like it.
But, um, I think more, it's nonetheless the expectations are probably very different because to me it's very normal. Yes. To me, like doing a PhD is just like, I mean, I always say slightly, almost intentionally confrontational to, to say like, you know, you get a PhD by doing your job for three years. Mm-hmm.
And then you have a PhD. Mm-hmm. Yes. Like it's just a job. Right. But I totally [00:04:00] understand how. It can seem like this very fancy, weird, sometimes even bad thing, uh, if, if you're not from that kind of background.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. So, um, I think there were a lot of implicit beliefs that I just had by not having that as a normal thing, uh, in my surrounding.
And I mean, in my case, my family literally brought me to my, to my undergraduate, first undergraduate year and they were like. Yeah, I mean, good luck. We really support you, but we have no idea, no idea about any of that. So, uh, please go do this. No idea how any of this works. And I couldn't, like, there were just no people to ask questions.
And actually this is a good way to also make the transition. I think that's one of the reasons why I do really care about science communication and also just teaching people that it's not. Uh, this complete different realm that you can't enter, but it's very, it's very intertwined with everyday life.
It's not something mystical. I, for, for example, I've, I've mentored, um, a girl [00:05:00] before to write this kind of research project for, for, is it high school? Yeah, I think so. Where she was like, I don't know what to research, like to do like for this project is like, it's like, so. Difficult and, and abstract. You like have to do like some math or like, uh, and then I was like, well, what are you interested in?
Right? Like, write down.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah.
Anna Riedl: On one side, what are you interested in everyday life? And then on the other hand, what are your favorite subjects? And then we just connect them and then we will make up a topic. And so for example. Is she using TikTok? Okay. Why? Why are certain things, what, what is a good property to make things viral on TikTok?
What does viral mean? You could, you could look at this from so many, like, you can can, can look at it from psychology, you can look at it from maybe, I don't know, graph theory. There's like so many options and then you have something you're really, really excited about, but you can make it science, right?
And um, I think this is really at the core of why I find. Science communication is so exciting because [00:06:00]for me growing up, it felt like there's this secret world where scientists do their things. But I think that, yeah, I mean, of course it is actually a job where people are like distant from other, like people in what they do, but also it, everything, it is just very, you can direct it to everyday things.
Um, and the individual things, like the individual tasks you do as a scientist, they're not. Magical. You're not like, I don't know, shooting around lasers or interacting with floating interfaces in the air. Like it's not, it's not mystical in any way. And it's actually fun. Uh, and I wish someone had told me that earlier, really?
Um, that you just have to put in the work, but you can totally enter even if you're, if you feel like an outsider in the beginning.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, it's, yeah. I mean, in some sense, right, being a scientist is. Just the, the natural curiosities that everyone has. The kind of questions you go like, why is that? And then you just for some reason spend three years on that question, [00:07:00] or 10 years on that question, or however long.
Yes. It's just actually trying to find an answer and not just leaving the question kind of hanging.
Anna Riedl: Yes.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, yeah. It is so weird. And I think maybe, you know, as I said earlier, just like me knowing like, okay, my, you know, my mom did this thing and you know, most of my friends' parents did something like that.
You know, it's not like you're like told anything per se, like how it works or, yeah, I had like no contact or anything. I didn't really know anyone at universities either, that kind of thing. But it's just this thing of like, okay, can't, like my mom did it, like it can't be that difficult.
Anna Riedl: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Right. Can you, what is your masters exactly?
Because I looked it up and it seems to be, uh, a bit of an unusual one, right? It's not the kind of standard you're in one place or are you in one place for two years? It seemed like it was like several universities and
Anna Riedl: yes, it's the, yeah. Joint, uh, program or the middle European, uh, interdisciplinary master's program in cognitive science.
So it's Mike Cozi, uh, [00:08:00] cognitive science, uh, program and yeah, I think it's four universities that. Built it together. Um, and, and you have one mandatory Erasmus semester at one of the other universities. Yeah, I find it quite rewarding, so yeah, I can recommend it. It's, uh, in, in Vienna it's at the Phil philosophy faculty, but there's a lot of freedom in the curriculum where you can really choose from basically any other university in, in Vienna.
From the technical to the biological medic, medical one to the, the economics one. And yeah, if you, if you can justify how it is related to, to cognitive science. And then they also worked with many, many labs. So part of the first semester was really actually practically doing a lot of lab visits, and they really tried to give us a good perspective how broad cognitive science is it by showing all the things that are somehow related to this topic.
So I think, um, it's, I'm really glad I took it.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. Are you, you still doing it or you're finished or what's
Anna Riedl: the
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: status? [00:09:00]
Anna Riedl: I'm currently finishing up my master thesis, so end of the month I hope to be done.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. And you're still doing interviews? That's brave.
Anna Riedl: Oh my.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Well, I don't know, may, maybe you are organized, but I spent the last month of my thesis usually frantically doing my master thesis.
Afraid of not getting finished. Um, I don't know. I had very hard deadlines. I dunno what I think it's different.
Anna Riedl: We
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: don't have
Anna Riedl: any hard deadline.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Ah, okay. No, I had like, this is your day and if you don't finish then you, but can you talk about your master project or is that. Uh, I dunno, secret, ongoing, whatever.
Yes,
Anna Riedl: I, I can, uh, it's a theoretical work on, uh, basically bounded rationality. So historically there has been the great rationality debate in the cognitive sciences, uh, between. Different, different kinds of, uh, research traditions and currently you would say one is the kind of the axiomatic approach and one the ecological.
And I [00:10:00] felt like you can really revisit this conflict with newer concepts from artificial intelligence and just really go down on the formal level and look at the assumptions and then just kind of those, the conflict and learn a lot from it. Um, and I think it also has practical implications.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Can you elaborate a bit on what it means to tackle this from ai?
Anna Riedl: So. One easy concept. You can, for example, introduce. So, okay, so big topic, right? Behavioral economics. You have all those topics with heuristics and biases. Um, and then one approach you can take is just really looking, for example, at computational complexity, but also computational rationality where you really.
Factor into the optimal, the optimal solution, the cost of computation and the opportunity, cost of action or not, not acting yet into any computation you take, basically. Um, and then you already lower the bound of, of what rationality even means. 'cause in the cogniti of science, [00:11:00] you have like this normative idea.
You also have an economics of what rationality means. And by factoring in. So like our understanding of computational constraints, you can already, um, look at the whole topic from a resource rational, um, yeah. Perspective where, where some of the so-called or quote unquote biases already become optimal just by factoring in that you have to speed, accuracy trade off.
So that would be one part where you can just basically bring, bring them closer together. But that's of course not all. Um, the other thing. The other question or the other perspective I'm taking is from the, uh, approach by looking at the different approaches from a, from the ion level approach, um, like the levels of MAR analysis where there were some debates, whether you can use that to reduce one to the other.
Um, so some claim that before then another side side said, okay, this is impossible. And I do agree that you cannot reduce one side. To the other level, because [00:12:00] that's literally what the levels say, right? You, you have to have both understandings. And one is not only the other, uh, but it's literally a different level of analysis.
I mean, it's a philosophical, philosophical debate we could have now, but yeah. So I'm just basically arguing through all of this and then, um, saying what this means for, for, just for practical implications, for rationality enhancement.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Uh, okay. Uh, British theoretical means you are doing. Formal models or you are doing
Anna Riedl: No, I'm doing and
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: more general language discussion, kind of
Anna Riedl: I'm writing it, yes.
It's philosophical
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: words.
Anna Riedl: Um, yeah. Yeah. Like, um, uh, um. Yeah, but it, it's actually really hard. Um, I think in, at the beginning I was like, yeah, I really don't wanna do something empirical. Uh, lemme get, go take the easier way. But actually writing how's that going is really hard. Um, because you have to really understood everything before you can even start writing.
So I think it's very demanding. Um, you have to be very [00:13:00] precise in, in your own understanding. So, yeah. Um, and I think I, I also think there is already. There is really a lot of data in behavioral economics, right? The, the heuristics and bias tradition was went for quite a long while and is still continuing.
They're continuously gathering a lot of data. We have a lot of papers on that. Uh, and I think just putting an publishing one more result in that perspective doesn't really add. But I think, um, really conceptually adding a lot of things together can really help to. Just have more meaningful conversations across disciplines.
And that's really what cognitive science is for me. A really just interdisciplinary dialogue where you're like, okay, wow. Okay. Rationale seems to be a topic in economics, in ai, in philosophy, in psychology. Uh, but they sometimes seem to, uh, have some misunderstandings and also like, of course, meaningful conflict, but part of it is really a language [00:14:00] problem, like using.
The same terms to mean different things or the other way around. So I, I do think conceptual research can really add Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, definitely. I mean, it's just about you saying the, the writing is hard. Um, I. I think when you, when you do empirical work, you always go, oh God, I wish I was doing something theoretical because I didn't have to collect all the state and deal with all of that stuff.
But I think at least the writing is pretty easy then, because you have your results and your methods and that's just the big block of what you're writing about. And then you, the rest is then almost usually fairly easy to write. Yes. Because you just have this clear core. In the middle, whereas I guess to some extent, how, how are you dealing with that problem?
Because it seems to me like when you're doing something that's purely words, stupid as it sounds, but the kind of thing you're doing. One problem I have with these kind of things sometimes is that you can basically change everything all the time. Like you can, you know, with an experiment, at some point you have [00:15:00] your experiment and you have your data, and then you have a clear structure where.
It seems to me in your case, you could very easily rethink the entire thing from the ground all the time and just end up running in circles.
Anna Riedl: Yes. That is a beautiful analysis that you did of my first month trying to start on this project. Um, and then I had a very, or still have a very supportive supervisor.
That forced me to commit at some point and really say, be very clear, uh, with my sentences of this is out of scope of this work, which I really have to learn, uh, to say, okay, what are the questions I'm actually asking? What are the questions I'm not asking? Yeah. Because you can always go deeper and deeper and deeper and you can always reframe the question and.
Uh, yeah, but I also think just taking time to really have to insight what I'm even talking about that was just not trivial because I think. The same as in with, with, uh, [00:16:00] empirical science over time, you can't predict where exactly will come out. Um, and I felt the same with, with, um, with theoretical work as well because I was just reading up very broadly and in the beginning I just didn't know what exactly I wanted to argue.
And it had to just really form over time. So I, I mean there's this book called On Being Certain where, uh, a neuroscientist writes about is
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: that by.
Anna Riedl: Uh, I actually don't.
Sounds
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: familiar, but I haven't read it.
Anna Riedl: Uh, yeah. But his main points are really that, like, you have this feeling of knowing, right? So when you're, like, you, you're walking to the, to the house of a friend.
Then when you, when you're like, oh, I'm not sure whether I, I remember it, but then when you see it, you're like, ah, that's it. Um, and exactly like this, I. In the end, you have a feeling like, oh, I think there is something, but you can't get fully articulating it. At least that's how it was for me in the, in the, the theoretical work.
And I really felt like, man, those pieces, they should fit better together. Why, why, why doesn't it fit? And then I just, yeah, marched on and read, [00:17:00] read everything that's out there. And then over time, the points I exactly wanted to make, uh, became clearer.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, it sounds it's, I mean,
Anna Riedl: it's a, what
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: it sounds like a lot of work.
I mean, obviously everything is,
Anna Riedl: but,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: um,
Anna Riedl: yeah. Um, so, so my supervisor, uh, has by now said this is better than many PhD thesis scene. Um, so I think I really didn't do a good job on, uh, stopping, like on the optimal stopping problem. Uh, so I really went overboard with, with putting effort into it because I just really care about the topic.
It's, it's. Very rewarding. I have a lot of insights. I think it's an important topic and yeah, I'm, I'm looking forward to publishing it at some point.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, I mean, I'd be happy to read it. It sounds interesting and it's also a lot of the things you mentioned are not exactly what, I mean, some of the things you mentioned are some things that some people in our lab have talked about.
I mean, there's a PhD student who just started to talk quite a bit about. [00:18:00] Yeah. Incorporating the costs of action into these kind of things and how that affects things and um, yeah, I mean it sounds interesting.
Anna Riedl: It is. Love it. Right? And when I wake up, this is where my mind goes.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But you've really like found this one thing.
'cause I think I'm often much more like I, I find something interesting for relatively short time and lots of different things. I don't, I mean, I feel like I might maybe through my PhD I'm actually kind of narrowing down now and there is something I'm. Starting to get, I think maybe long-term interested in.
Mm-hmm. But it seems like you found that a lot earlier, right? I mean, even before your thesis, you were doing the, the map of cognitive science, and it sounds like all of that leads into a similar direction.
Anna Riedl: I think I have a very broad interest there and. So, yeah, making this map, for example, was very rewarding.
And reading just really up on the history of cognitive science and all the main publications, because I think you have to really digest all those different views on similar questions. [00:19:00] And in the end, they will to some point also inform what you're currently doing because you can just already say, Hey, right, someone has done this before.
And then refer to them and. Especially the different paradigms. Um, they're very important to understand deeply what they mean. But yeah, I think rationality is really. Like in the, in the term that's used in cognitive science. It is what I'm most interested in because I mean, it's two rationality. There has like two parts, right?
It's epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality. So in the end it has two questions. What you mean by
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: those two terms
Anna Riedl: Exactly. That's what, what's what to say, which are, sorry, what is true and what to do. And I feel like, okay, sorry. But like if you've answered those two, then you're done. So, um, how would you want to answer anything else?
Approaching this with a formal approach and computational approach, um, just gives a lot of answers to, to those topics. So,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah.[00:20:00]
So I found on your website something, uh oh. I mean, I found it. It's like on the first page. Yes. Uh, I didn't have to look too long for this, but I thought, uh, it's kind of, yeah. Maybe I'll just read the quote and then ask my question. So you say in new website, kind of, I guess as an about you kind of statement, I care about ideas being applied in the real world, solving problems and benefiting humanity.
I often play the role of being an interface between the two worlds. And then underneath that you have a quote by John Rich, which is, if everybody contemplates the infinite instead of fixing the drains, many of us will die of cholera. So, uh, the kind of question I have is, what is your. Um, fixing the, the drains or cholera that you are trying to prevent or solve in this case.
Mm-hmm.
Anna Riedl: So are you aware with the effective altruism community.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Wow. I listened to your interview with Yes.
Anna Riedl: Future Muscles. Yes. It's my [00:21:00] time to say this again. So, um, I've, I've been, um, kind of oriented towards just yeah. Solving problems, uh, in the world quite early. And then when I got in touch with. Just like my scientific education.
I also heard about this movement called Effective Altruist Movement that tries to really use a very scientific mindset towards questions of how can we do good? And the NCE for me, really is that in other movements, you often have a commitment to a specific cause, like you say from from the get go. Okay, we are here to fight climate change.
But the effective altruism community tries to basically, yeah, collect people together that all want to do good and that all are very critical thinkers. And then think about what are actually the most important problems to fix because there are infinite, many problems in the world and uh, having kind of triage and figuring out how to prioritize your action seems really important.
So I'm actually applying [00:22:00] the topic of rationality to the topic of applied ethics. There. And I found my space there in founding the Austrian community and basically educating people about those ideas. Um, in the beginning I was really open to going quickly into, yeah, more, more practical roles there, but I felt like this is really quite neglected and many people haven't even heard about this approach.
And I feel quite confident that I did change many. Many careers by just educating people that you can take this approach of thinking very critically about where you prioritize your Yeah, just like your time and energy. Um, if you want to take action in the world.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So it's. I mean, yeah, we don't have to go into like a, you know, again, explaining what, what the whole thing is in more detail.
I think, uh, as I mentioned, you did an interview on future fossils, which I'll put in the description, um, a link, uh, where you explained that quite a bit. But is it fair? So you are, you are more interested in, so what exactly is it applying? The, [00:23:00] the stuff you learn from rationality to figure out what the best approach is in terms of help, like actually working on the framework of effective altruism.
Is, is that kind of what you mean?
Anna Riedl: Oh no. Um. I, I mean, I've thought a lot about that as well. Um, but I mean, I'm really just educating people in the thinking tools of effective altruism, which being very Okay, quantified in your approach to taking action to contribute the world. Um, a very. Quantified strategic approach, really thinking backwards.
What are the things we care about? Okay. What are, like, size wise, numerical? What are the biggest things that are currently either risks or problems towards, uh, the things we care about. So, for example, if you just look at, so there's this, uh, metric you use in health economics. It's called the dalis, where you try to bring together two negative measures of health in one number.
So it's the, um, disability adjusted life years. It brings together how much, um, life years are lost [00:24:00]because of a disease, but also years lived with disability or loss of quality of life. And by calculating this, you can now make the size. Of the burden of different diseases comparable globally. And then you get an idea, okay, let's say we care about how healthy humanity is, then you can get an idea what are actually the biggest Yeah.
Health concerns we currently have. And then you really take this global perspective that you notice that many of the, yeah, many of the things that are quite large are quite surprising because you didn't even have them, uh, represented as a problem because they're either not so fancy to talk about. Or they're just in the background, but they're never interesting enough to have them inmed, right?
Like availability, um, heuristic and so forth. Um, so taking um, steps like that, um, is very uncommon when you think about doing good. Like really first thinking about how, how big are actually problems? Then how, how tractable are they? Like where are actually re resources [00:25:00] currently, especially needed to really ask yourself, where am I doing a difference?
Because many things. Even if you go down the path and do your job well, um, they have kind of a limited space in, in the beginning. Like you will not actually make a difference. So for example, I mean you can, of course you can debate it and, and, uh, yeah, there are certainly edge cases and you, yeah. But for example, uh, if you become a doctor, which is like one career that people associate very strongly with helping others, there is usually a fixed amount of students per year.
If you don't do it, someone else will take it. So the difference you make is only how much better you do it than someone else? I, I, I think, I think it, it is more a thought experiment. You really guide your intuition. I still think you can actually have a lot of impact by studying medicine. And then for example, doing amazing research or actually just being a right.
I think it's very important. I don't wanna downplay this at all. It's more like a thought experiment, that there are tools, like just asking yourself what is actually neglected, whereas no one even Yeah. [00:26:00] Fixing the drains. Um, and this is exactly, these are. Are just examples from a huge array of tools that the effective altruism framework really provides in thinking.
And I think there are many activists that feel like, okay, I could do more, but I don't even know how to ask the question. And I think there's also many people that are very strategic, but they feel very alienated by the people that are. Doing activism because they're not bringing those tools and this mindset together.
Um, so yeah, I think that was really where I felt like, um, that's my, my niche. Uh, and yeah, that's what I did over the last years. Um, just really doing a lot of, um, yeah, outreach workshops, lectures on these topics.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So how. I'm curious like how you got started doing these kind of lectures and public talks and that kind of thing because, uh, you know, so I mean, maybe this is just a completely naive thought I had or just incorrect thought I had, but when I, you know, [00:27:00] first saw that you gave these talks, somehow I assumed like, oh, okay, she's done a PhD and now she's kind of through that like opening up, uh, not opening up, but like, um, yeah, doing this kind of public science work.
And somehow I was surprised. Then I feel like if, if I. I feel like I would've felt like I was just not qualified, like in my, you must have started in your bachelor's or master's or whatever, right? Um, was that, I mean, yeah. You must have started like doing these kind of public things fairly early after starting your degree, right?
Anna Riedl: Um, yes. Actually, I, I think I already gave talks during my undergraduate. Really? Not, not for, not for money, right? Most of it was really pro bono and just. People were interested. And I'm like, of course, sure, I will do it. Because I felt like that's where created create value when there's demand. But it all started with just really attending meetups, uh, where there were other people, um, curious about similar things.
And then, right, you bring up, oh, I've studied this. They're like, oh, of course, then please tell us about it. [00:28:00] This is now actually the main point I want to make. Yes, I think it is more common to do more public speaking about science when you have a PhD, but I don't think it makes you necessarily better at it.
So there's, there's two parts of it. So, um, one is. If you are actually less far away education wise, you might be better at delivering that content. So I think, for example, let's say only the, the world best experts about a difficult topic are allowed to talk about it, but I think their knowledge does not represent their skill to deliver that knowledge.
I think some ca some are very, very good at really crossing those huge, huge gaps, but some are not. And then. If I'm a beginner and I've not even had any undergraduate training in physics, then I really don't care about any super minute difficulties we have at the edge of science. I, it just doesn't matter to me, but an [00:29:00] undergraduate, uh, student that has just finished their, their course and then summarizes this in a one hour lecture.
This is just so valuable. And as a beginner, that's way more what I need than the, the, the best expert of the world, if, right. I think it's two different questions. How much you really know in like, in a global comparison about a topic, uh, versus in a comparative, um, kind of perspective. And I think comparatively you are very, very early an expert.
To to other people, right? So coming from, as I said, this non-academic background, I very early on knew way more about psychology than any of the people that I interacted with before. And there is so much valuable knowledge in just like academic textbooks. And you can just literally sit down, summarize a textbook, find a good narrative to tell it.
And this will create a lot of value for many, many people. And I think way more people should do it. Uh, right. There are many public, uh, that there [00:30:00] are many public options to, to talk about things like that. And especially when you read it and you yourself think, wow, this is so cool. I wish I had you known that earlier.
Then why don't you tell the other people, right? No one is holding you back. Um, and that's the other point I want to make. Um, so especially coming from Germany, uh, I think there's this mindset of, at some point someone will tell you, you are now qualified to do this, and you get the certificate, but no one will ever say, Hey, you're an expert.
Now no one will explicitly come to you and say this, and no, you don't need any permission. To, to just talk about things you're excited about and in the end. A, a university degree means you've read a lot of textbooks and you, you right, you just dive into the research other people have done, and after a certain point, you know it, and you wouldn't even officially need the degree.
And of course, then you can do the same for other topics as well. You can read, you can now start [00:31:00]reading hundreds of books on a topic, and no one will come to you. You are now an expert. You have to know it yourself. Uh, but when you, you notice that others know substantially less about a topic. Talk about it, teach them, and I think they're, especially online.
Uh, I don't think most of the people that do, I don't know, lectures on Skillshare about a weird, uh, craftmanship thing you can do. I, I don't think they have a, an academic degree in that. Okay. That was me rambling.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: That was perfect. Yeah. I mean, I, I also, I think, I'm not sure. No, I mean, I completely agree that.
You don't need the world's best performer and something to explain how it works. I mean, usually that's not, you know, they're so great at doing the thing that often explaining it is not, they're just not trained in doing it. So I know that they're just, they're fairly complimentary skills. And I mean, I mean like one example might be that I think I'm probably very good at explaining to people how to get started with taking photos.[00:32:00]
Not because I am, uh, the world's best photographer, anything, but because yeah, I'm still close enough to knowing what it's like to not know anything exactly. Um, that you, you really understand the problems and. Yeah, I mean, like with example, with photography, I like some people, because I do take quite a bit of, quite a few photos, sometimes people do ask me like, you know, because they're interested in doing it, it's just take your, like, just take a camera, like whatever, and just, you know, take a hundred photos, just do that.
Like that. That's how you, that's literally, you don't need to look up like all these fancy things and watch 20 videos about how to do something. Just go out, go, does I like, do I like this? No. Is there anything I like about this? Okay. Then try and replicate that in a new photo E.
Anna Riedl: Exactly. Right. And if you wear now the, I don't know, the best expert on.
Uh, lighting in photography, then you would say, okay, so you need this light and this light and it has to be this angle. Yeah, yeah. And really be careful with this setting. And then people are like, oh my God, okay. I [00:33:00] don't think this would even be fun to do. Um, so I think for example, in, in, actually I think
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: it's completely counterproductive.
Yeah.
Anna Riedl: Yeah, exactly. And um, so again, coming back to the topic of rationality, then you also have the idea of, okay, there's, for example. The normative idea, like the ideal behavior. And then there's the descriptive behavior. Uh, the, yeah, the, the descriptive behavior, like how people actually behave. And then the gap is the prescriptive path.
Kind of what do you need to get there because only describing the optimal or the normative model. Will not suddenly make you behave in that way. You need different ways that bring you there. And I think, for example, yeah, I mean the classical quote is just, if you want, um, pe uh, how, how it, if you want people to cross the river or so, no wait.
If you want people to get good at building boats, don't teach them how to build boats, but make them crave for the sea or for, for the other side of the ocean.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Anna Riedl: And I know, yeah, I. I always felt very confident when I, when I noticed [00:34:00] Okay. I learned something that was very new to me. It's probably new to other people, just like pay it forward.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, I think it's, um, yeah, I mean like, I think like whenever you do something you just have to start off and go, well, if I could do a good job. Yeah. Yeah. Um,
Anna Riedl: and really the whole topic of, of kind of waiting for permission. No, you,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. Yeah. I, I agree. I mean, it's like with this podcast, right? Like, I mean, if I listened to the first three episodes, I wish I'd done a lot of things very differently.
Anna Riedl: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Starting over with the fact that my first interview is in a terrible room for recording, so there's a lot of echo on my part.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. But you learn it by, you literally learn by doing.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: My off, Ben, you, I mean, in my case also, you publish this thing, get very embarrassed and go, oh God, I can't do that again.
So, um, you know, that's how, it's not perfect yet, but, you know, getting a bit better, I hope. Yes. Um, so. Yeah, it's weird. It's, it's, maybe it's similar to like a bit of an analogy to what we talked about when you go to university or [00:35:00] whether you think you can go to university or whatever, it's often just doing it without thinking too much about whether you can do it or whatever.
But just saying like, okay, I'll try this thing and then I'll see whether it works out or not.
Anna Riedl: Yes.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And uh, often it doesn't. Sometimes it does.
Anna Riedl: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, you mentioned earlier like with, well, like we, we just talked briefly about this kind of the difference between having lots of breadth of knowledge and like very precise knowledge, but going really deep in it.
Anna Riedl: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: How do you think about that when it comes to science communication? 'cause I mean, this is maybe a similar question to what I just asked, but. I mean, I dunno whether you would call yourself a journalist in that sense, but the problem, like for example with like science journalism a lot is that, you know, most writers don't really know the topic they're writing about because they can't, right.
Because they have to know, like, especially if you're like a science writer for a major, uh, newspaper or whatever. I mean, they might have, you know, you might be focused on [00:36:00] psychology or whatever, but you know, this is the broad, a very broad topic still. So within, I dunno, do you try and like really just focus on the one niche of.
Rationality, et cetera. Or do you not care and you're just, you know, say like, well, I know more than someone who knows nothing, so I'm gonna do it. Or how do you think about this kind of question of breadth versus depth?
Anna Riedl: Hmm. So I don't think knowing more than someone who knows nothing qualifies you to talk to everyone.
Uh, but to those that know less, so I think the answer is very audience specific. So depending on who you talk to, uh, you have to of course be calibrated, uh, whether this is really ridiculous what you're saying or whether this is actually adding value. Um, and I don't think there's a general answer. I think the same is, for example, also true with popular science books.
I think coming back from [00:37:00] actually having read academic work on the same topic, you could turn around and say, many popular science books are playing wrong in what they're saying, but I think that's not their job. Their job is to popularize the topic and bring you from a certain step. In your education to another step.
And of course once you know the details, you could turn around and then it's kind of wrong. But that was not what it's meant to be. So I, I hear this a lot, for example, with Richard Dawkins, so many people who are actually in, uh, genetics or whatever, they're like, no, he's like really, really wrong about those things.
But I think. He, his main job was to explain how evolution can work without assuming there is a God. And first you have to get, for example, all those concepts out. And with that, he did a great job. And then you can start from a more naturalist perspective to go deeper. And of course, once you know the details.
The idea is how he wrote them might no [00:38:00] longer be precise. And you can't, you can't always be precise depending on who you're talking to. You have to decide what you're leaving out. And I think also in my introduction to effective altruism, I say a lot of things that are not true if you look at them from a different perspective.
But that's not. Like, what does that even mean? So when, when you create an educational product, which is a, a lecture, that's what a lecture is, then you think about a certain transformation, which is a certain step where people are to where they will be afterwards and it's not something else suddenly. So, um.
Regarding depth and breadth, uh, breadth. That's, that's what I'm asking myself, right? So who am I talking to? Do I know more than them? Because otherwise, of course, I wouldn't do it because that would just be embarrassing for myself. Um, and you asked another question, I think.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Did I, um, uh, maybe I can just comment briefly on what you said.
Uh, maybe will question will pop up then, but the, I think that's actually what you said is, you know, also [00:39:00] still the case when you're giving lectures to, for example, undergraduates or whatever. I mean, if I remember that the, the teachers that really had an impact on me through the lectures during my undergraduate, but not necessarily the people who said.
I mean, I just, I don't even know exactly whether they said the most correct things or whatever. It's just the people just made it interesting.
Anna Riedl: Yes.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Who made it seem relevant and fun and cool. And then, you know, as, I mean of course you can't like tell complete bullshit while doing that. Um, there's a certain limit, it has to be roughly right, but there's a few, the few people who I thought made it so interesting that I then.
Was, was willing to put in the energy myself to actually find out what, what's true in this field and whatnot. And I think, yeah, so even, yeah, I wonder like how far that goes, um, whether you are, you know, when you're giving a talk at a conference or whatever, whether that still applies. But I think in undergrad it definitely still applies.
It's almost more important to be, to make the topic interesting than to. Be correct all the time about everything.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. I mean, even as a [00:40:00] scientist, even after your PhD, you don't know whether you're correct. There's probably also people with PhDs who think you're wrong because just people disagree about topics.
Um, so when would you ever start talking to anyone about anything? So that's certainly thing. And then I do think you have partially just a trade off about, uh, between how fun is it and how precise is it? And you can of course make it a hundred percent precise and. No one will listen, then the value of education might still be zero.
Uh, and that you can just Right is, uh, I'm, I'm not saying make it completely wrong and only entertaining, that's not what I'm saying. But find a, it's just always about finding a balance between different things. And you can always add, oh, there's special cases here, and another here, and another here. Or you first create a, a general picture that makes sense.
And if the people like the general picture, they come, can come back and then add more. And if you, if you just, yeah. Go, uh, uh, an [00:41:00] educational journey like this, you will will notice it yourself. And of course, often big picture statements are not actually true, but they were still in the context. They were communicated.
They were just the right thing to do.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, I think, yeah, I mean, that's a really hard thing to do, right? To know or I, or maybe it's just ignored often because I think a lot of people, especially scientists. Think you have to be correct. That's, that's what it's about. Um, whereas, I mean, it's not, it's not a, it's not a unimportant topic or aspect.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. But that's a super important, I, I, I really care about, so like, one part of rationality is epistemic rationality. So I'm really into epistemology and any abstraction you do is a reduction and. Every reduction means you're missing something else that is also in there. And now I can come back to the, to the map of cognitive sciences that I did like with just this information to design poster about just like different subjects and disciplines in cognitive science and the main publications.
And you could always add more publications that were [00:42:00] important, but you have to make decisions and you have to leave things out. It's always a question of, yeah, well, what is relevant to communicate now? And you just cannot communicate the whole picture because then suddenly you're back to the only thing that represents reality accurately is reality.
So then you can go to wittstein and cannot talk about anything anymore. Right? So.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, that would be boring. Not talking about anything.
Anna Riedl: No, it's a very good psycho technology that humanity developed. Writing is also really nice.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. You're in favor of writing. Okay.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. I mean, you're not like the ancient groups.
It's like, it's like talking, just, you don't have to constantly do it and it's kind of fixed on, on a page or a screen and it's there scalable if you were talking, but you're not, and then you can scale it. Exactly. It's amazing. I'm really glad we have this.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, yeah. Let's keep it.
Anna Riedl: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, yeah, to be fair, I don't think my podcast has the power right now to get rid of writing.
Um, I, I'm not, I'm not quite sure. [00:43:00] Uh, I could, if I wanted to, um, yeah,
Anna Riedl: that would be a weird species, but, yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Well, isn't that just most species?
Anna Riedl: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Not being able to talk, I mean, yeah,
Anna Riedl: true. Good point.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: That's, that's basically all, I mean, I guess with gradations, but.
Anna Riedl: And actually we could now sh uh, shift to the topic of Right.
When we talk about science communication, then I think visualization is also very important question. Um, and that's another thing I, I just comes together with my, my interest in science communication is just how do you visually transport certain concepts and yeah. As I've said, I've made this poster that just tries to summarize a lot because it really came up because, um, I was basically done with the degree, but I really felt like I'm not done with cognitive science yet.
I wouldn't feel comfortable saying I've studied this. Um, and then I just started to dive really, really deep and I wanted to again, create a kind of information product for [00:44:00] others as well and made this map so that also people could really see this external representation of my knowledge. To then tell me what I was missing.
Right. Maybe there was something
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: mm-hmm.
Anna Riedl: Completely important that wasn't on my mental map, and therefore not on my designed map. So I think there is quite some function in that.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, I, I am, uh, yeah, I think visualization's also important and often overlooked because I guess by scientists in some sense.
You know, you just, you have your bar plots and that's the standard. So that's what we use and that's it. But. I mean, I mean if, I mean, if you love visualizations, then I'm sure you've watched the videos by Three Blue, one Brown multiple times. Yes. And they're amazing. Um, you know, it's the kind of thing that just makes everything so much clearer.
And also actually, it, it works for me as a kind of, yeah. Like a tool in that when I think about these things, I actually, you know, imagine these things in this way, which before I didn't, uh, when I tried to learn some maths or whatever,
Anna Riedl: [00:45:00] yes. And that actually makes a lot of sense. So, um, there's this paper called, um, wire diagram is sometimes worth 10,000 words, um, by Herbert Simon and another author, I don't remember.
Um, and
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: someone else,
Anna Riedl: um Okay. By Herbert Simon. Um, um, so the point they're making there is, so the, the right kind of a program that describes a lever and a string. And so you, on one hand you have it as a code written, and on the other hand you have it as a diagram. And the point is that information theoretical, they're the same, right?
There's the same information in both, but when reading just a co code, you wouldn't have any sense of how things are really connected, like how, what could you move that it does something else, and so forth, right? You would have to really translate it into the visual. Representation. And this of course makes sense because, um, that's what we have interacted with.
We have some intuitive physics. We, we have a rough understanding of the mechanics. Um, and [00:46:00]there is a lot of understanding built into our, yeah, just like perceptual system really. And that's really what diagrams do, right? So you, if, if you have, for example, you illustrate a big global system, then you would first gather data.
You have a lot of numbers that represent the size of the things. And then when you visualize them, you represented it in such a way as if it was an object. You can interact, um, in a, in a more intuitive manner. Again, and this makes really. Big things graspable, intuitively for for humans, and I think that's just really amazing.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Do you, I mean, you already mentioned that paper by her at Simon, and I'm, you know, I always put the stuff we talk about in the description. Do you have anything else? Uh, like in terms of like visualization or, um, yeah, like visual science communication, let's say. Any kind of, I don't know, books or papers you've read that you found particularly useful.
Um. [00:47:00] Um, oh no. Yeah, just whether anything comes up.
Anna Riedl: Mm-hmm. Um, definitely. I mean, my cogno science map, people should look at it. It's super cool.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: That's gonna be in the description.
Anna Riedl: You can even, but now you can print it on a blanket and then you can sleep under it. So that's possible. Is
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Have you done that yourself?
Anna Riedl: No, but I, I've put it online on Red Bubble, so it is possible.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Right,
Anna Riedl: right.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Only that. Or did you go the full, like mugs, pins,
Anna Riedl: everything you can get it on everything. Everything. You
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: did
Anna Riedl: everything. I think it's not beautiful enough, but it's informative enough. Shower
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: curtain.
Anna Riedl: Yes. Um, but yeah, other things you can, um, look at.
Um, so I think historically the work by Marie and Rad is very interesting because they, they developed those isotopes of visual, um, communication and their, um, their goal was really partially political in nature because they said. Like a whole nation is quite complicated in how it functions. And then of course, this information is mostly available to very highly educated people.[00:48:00]
And making it more vis visual makes it more like, actually it's super important for a democracy because in a democracy you want everyone to be informed as good as possible. So using those tools is, is kind of powerful. Um, and I've seen a very good. Post about the work by Marie Norad on on Medium. I can, I can send you that.
I think her work was very impressive. Yeah, that'd
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: be
Anna Riedl: great. And, um, there is great work by Katie Burner. I don't actually know how to pronounce her name. Um, she has, um, a couple of books. Um, I think one is, I think called Maps of Knowledge. And, um, she really tries to basically do science of Science where she.
Really summarizes whole fields of knowledge and works together with other people doing that. Um, and, and publishing that as books. Um, I think she calls it just like, I think one book is, or one of her courses is called Everyone Can Map. And I think that's just so, so powerful to really try to understand, um, this big picture views of, of human [00:49:00] knowledge.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah,
Anna Riedl: kind of. Yeah, I'll definitely, there. There's this, uh, this idea of, uh, Nasim Tale called the Anti Library. So he says you should have a really, really big library with lots of topics in it that you ha you don't know much about, to just really be reminded how little you actually know. Um, so instead of only having books about the topics, you already know, right?
Also just put all the things in so that you have a good understanding of how little you know. And I think just like having those maps of knowledge, uh, is also, um, really fun.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I think I've accidentally been. For most of my life, cultivating an inter-library by buying more books than I read and just having an entire bookshelf of books I haven't read yet and that I dunno anything about.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. Okay.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, I did, I didn't know I was doing that, but I guess I was.
Anna Riedl: Yeah. Yeah. Now you have a fancy term to argue while you're
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. When I go like, God, I wasted so much money on these books I'll never read. Also lots of, 'cause I'll never get around to it.
Anna Riedl: There was a beautiful.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: No, I was building an anti library.
Yeah.
Anna Riedl: [00:50:00] Yes.