4 ms·

I'm such a fan after the 33C3 Machine Dreams talk. The podcast host, either he has a way of speaking that seems affectedly slow, or maybe he has a speech imped

I'm such a fan after the 33C3 Machine Dreams talk. The podcast host, either he has a way of speaking that seems affectedly slow, or maybe he has a speech impediment or neurological issue? Ordinarily I would just set the speed of the video up, but Bach's normal speed of speech becomes too fast. A few minutes in, the host seems to adapt to his guests speed a bit, but is there some kind of trend among millennials to do some weird slo-mo lazy talking pace? Bach seems to sense it as well and interrupts him when he starts to wind up his mental drone.

therufa 6y ago
His first language is Russian, but grew up in the US. From first hand experience as a person who grew up in a household with two completely different languages, this seems to come from having trouble of finding the right language to speak in for a little time until I can finally settle in on a language which makes most sense. This or something absolutely different.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  It would be surprising if it were a language issue, given Bach speaks accented english much more rapidly than the host speaking mostly unaccented english. It seems received or an personality/attitude thing, or maybe it's a substance use issue. Anyway, Bach is interesting enough I'm putting up with it, but I rarely feel so irritated and resentful of a person, so if someone else is repelled by it, stick with the podcast as Bach makes it worth while.
  - logarhythmic 6y ago
    It doesn't really bother me, but for what it's worth, the host (Lex Fridman) has stated that it's simply the way he speaks as a result of his brain trying to choose what thread to follow and what to say
    - motohagiography 6y ago
      Lex's comment toward the end that lawyers are the substrate of reality won me over. That's hilarious. Was distracted by his mien, but funny justifies all.
skovorodkin 6y ago
For recording it's much better to speak slowly. You can always speed up slow speech, but doing the opposite (slowing down fast speech) does not bring you a good result yet.
ilaksh 6y ago
Bach is rapidly firing out intriguing statements. Lex is just trying to come up with worthy follow-up questions that also sometimes align with his plan for the podcast. And his default is to speak carefully because he knows that the topics are complex and algorithms are transcribing them etc. So he is starting at a fairly slow normal just for clarity and the high level of Bach's comments requires him to think more. I would bet that you would not be able to do better. Actually I bet that you would pause just as long and then often reply with something barely relevant to what was just said, such as "wow that was deep". Seriously, you think that Bach hasn't spent years preparing that elegant information and philosophy? And Lex was trying to adapt on the fly. But you casually suggest that you could have a rapid-fire intelligent back-and-forth with Joshua Bach as he lays that stuff on you. I would like to see it. Go ahead, record a conversation with Bach on a topic that is slightly different from the existing podcasts/talks.
- keeganpoppen 6y ago
  why does OP's interviewing skill have to do with anything? i actually agree that stilted non-conversational speech like that in interviews and speeches sounds bad (talking in particular about the beginning). no need to say all that live if it's not contingent on the interviewee in any way. just watch the video: he is sitting there staring at a piece of paper reading, and then the first question the interviewer asks is essentially "what are some of the foundational inspirational ideas of your work?", which for anyone who isn't brilliant and hyperrational like the interviewee would be difficult to answer after being warmed up for an hour, much less before even seeing the eyes of the interlocutor. yes, interviews are not the same thing as normal conversation, but i don't think it's that crazy to suggest (like OP) that priming people in a more conversational way can be a nice way to smooth the edges around a conversation that will already be difficult for everyone to grasp (including Bach, who has to articulate all these things). all of this is independent of how good of work lex does as an interviewer, which seems like it's pretty good given his ability to engage with the ideas presented (in this context idea empathy (ie understanding what Bach's saying) > interpersonal/conversational empathy).
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Sounds like I should do a podcast, thank you, I will seriously consider it. I think Bach is one of the funniest and most entertaining people I can remember listening to, as he's one of the few examples I know of who could meet the definition of a stand-up philosopher. My ideal first episode would have Bach and Daniel Dennett together talking about whether or not they have dogs, and what they might perceive that relationship to be like, given their respective views of consciousness and language, and what their dogs might think of them.

therufa 6y ago

His first language is Russian, but grew up in the US. From first hand experience as a person who grew up in a household with two completely different languages, this seems to come from having trouble of finding the right language to speak in for a little time until I can finally settle in on a language which makes most sense. This or something absolutely different.

motohagiography 6y ago
It would be surprising if it were a language issue, given Bach speaks accented english much more rapidly than the host speaking mostly unaccented english. It seems received or an personality/attitude thing, or maybe it's a substance use issue. Anyway, Bach is interesting enough I'm putting up with it, but I rarely feel so irritated and resentful of a person, so if someone else is repelled by it, stick with the podcast as Bach makes it worth while.
- logarhythmic 6y ago
  It doesn't really bother me, but for what it's worth, the host (Lex Fridman) has stated that it's simply the way he speaks as a result of his brain trying to choose what thread to follow and what to say
  - motohagiography 6y ago
    Lex's comment toward the end that lawyers are the substrate of reality won me over. That's hilarious. Was distracted by his mien, but funny justifies all.

skovorodkin 6y ago

For recording it's much better to speak slowly. You can always speed up slow speech, but doing the opposite (slowing down fast speech) does not bring you a good result yet.

ilaksh 6y ago

Bach is rapidly firing out intriguing statements. Lex is just trying to come up with worthy follow-up questions that also sometimes align with his plan for the podcast. And his default is to speak carefully because he knows that the topics are complex and algorithms are transcribing them etc. So he is starting at a fairly slow normal just for clarity and the high level of Bach's comments requires him to think more. I would bet that you would not be able to do better. Actually I bet that you would pause just as long and then often reply with something barely relevant to what was just said, such as "wow that was deep". Seriously, you think that Bach hasn't spent years preparing that elegant information and philosophy? And Lex was trying to adapt on the fly. But you casually suggest that you could have a rapid-fire intelligent back-and-forth with Joshua Bach as he lays that stuff on you. I would like to see it. Go ahead, record a conversation with Bach on a topic that is slightly different from the existing podcasts/talks.

keeganpoppen 6y ago
why does OP's interviewing skill have to do with anything? i actually agree that stilted non-conversational speech like that in interviews and speeches sounds bad (talking in particular about the beginning). no need to say all that live if it's not contingent on the interviewee in any way. just watch the video: he is sitting there staring at a piece of paper reading, and then the first question the interviewer asks is essentially "what are some of the foundational inspirational ideas of your work?", which for anyone who isn't brilliant and hyperrational like the interviewee would be difficult to answer after being warmed up for an hour, much less before even seeing the eyes of the interlocutor. yes, interviews are not the same thing as normal conversation, but i don't think it's that crazy to suggest (like OP) that priming people in a more conversational way can be a nice way to smooth the edges around a conversation that will already be difficult for everyone to grasp (including Bach, who has to articulate all these things). all of this is independent of how good of work lex does as an interviewer, which seems like it's pretty good given his ability to engage with the ideas presented (in this context idea empathy (ie understanding what Bach's saying) > interpersonal/conversational empathy).
motohagiography 6y ago
Sounds like I should do a podcast, thank you, I will seriously consider it. I think Bach is one of the funniest and most entertaining people I can remember listening to, as he's one of the few examples I know of who could meet the definition of a stand-up philosopher. My ideal first episode would have Bach and Daniel Dennett together talking about whether or not they have dogs, and what they might perceive that relationship to be like, given their respective views of consciousness and language, and what their dogs might think of them.