Full episode with Ray Dalio (Dec 2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M95m2EFb7IQ
Clips channel (Lex Clips): https://www.youtube.com/lexclips
Main channel (Lex Fridman): https://www.youtube.com/lexfridman
(more links below)



Podcast full episodes playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4

Podcasts clips playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

Podcast website:
https://lexfridman.com/ai

Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
https://apple.co/2lwqZIr

Podcast on Spotify:
https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8

Podcast RSS:
https://lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/

Ray Dalio is the founder, Co-Chairman and Co-Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater Associates, one of the world's largest and most successful investment firms that is famous for the principles of radical truth and transparency that underlie its culture. Ray is one of the wealthiest people in the world, with ideas that extend far beyond the specifics of how he made that wealth. His ideas, applicable to everyone, are brilliantly summarized in his book Principles.

Subscribe to this YouTube channel or connect on:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

The reason my company has been successful in terms of this is because of an idea meritocratic decision making, a process by which you can get the best ideas.

An idea meritocracy is to get the best ideas that are available out there and to work together with other people in the team to achieve that.

So if we can linger on a little bit longer, the idea of an idea meritocracy, it's fascinating, but especially because it seems to be rare, not just in companies, but in society.

So there's a lot of people on Twitter and public discourse and politics and so on that are really stuck in certain sets of ideas, whatever they are.

So when you're confronted with an idea that's different than your own about a particular topic.

What kind of process do you go through mentally?

Are you arguing through the idea with the person?

Sort of present is almost like a debate, or do you sit on it and consider the world sort of empathetically, if this is true, then what does that world look like, does that world make sense, and so on.

So what's the process of considering those conflicting ideas for you?

I'm gonna answer that question, but after saying first, almost implicit in your question is it's not common, okay?

What's common produces only common results, okay?

So don't judge anything that is good based on whether it's common, because it's only gonna give you common results.

If you want unique, you have a unique approach.

Okay, and so that art of thoughtful disagreement is the capacity to hold 2 things in your mind at the same time.

The, gee, I think this makes sense, and then saying, I'm not sure it makes sense, and then try to say, why does it make sense, and then to triangulate with others.

So if I'm having a discussion like that and I work myself through and I'm not sure, then I have to do that in a good way.

So I always give attention, for example, let's start off, what does the other person know relative to what I know?

So if a person has a higher expertise or things, I'm much more inclined to ask questions.

If you wanna learn, you're asking questions, you're not arguing, okay?

You're taking in, you're assessing when it comes into you.

And I try to then do that if the conversation, as we're trying to decide what is true and we're trying to do that together and we see truth different, then I might even call in another really smart, capable person and try to say what is true and how do we explore that together and you go through that same thing.

So I would, I said, I describe it as having open-mindedness and assertiveness at the same time.

That you can simultaneously be open-minded and take in with that curiosity and then also be assertive and say, but that doesn't make sense, why would this be the case?


Speaker 0: The reason my company has been successful in terms of this is because of an idea meritocratic decision making, a process by which you can get the best ideas. You know, what's an idea meritocracy? An idea meritocracy is to get the best ideas that are available out there and to work together with other people in the team to achieve that.

Speaker 1: So if we can linger on a little bit longer, the idea of an idea meritocracy, it's fascinating, but especially because it seems to be rare, not just in companies, but in society. So there's a lot of people on Twitter and public discourse and politics and so on that are really stuck in certain sets of ideas, whatever they are. So when you're confronted with an idea that's different than your own about a particular topic. What kind of process do you go through mentally? Are you arguing through the idea with the person?

Sort of present is almost like a debate, or do you sit on it and consider the world sort of empathetically, if this is true, then what does that world look like, does that world make sense, and so on. So what's the process of considering those conflicting ideas for you?

Speaker 0: I'm gonna answer that question, but after saying first, almost implicit in your question is it's not common, okay? What's common produces only common results, okay? So don't judge anything that is good based on whether it's common, because it's only gonna give you common results. If you want unique, you have a unique approach. Okay, and so that art of thoughtful disagreement is the capacity to hold 2 things in your mind at the same time.

The, gee, I think this makes sense, and then saying, I'm not sure it makes sense, and then try to say, why does it make sense, and then to triangulate with others. So if I'm having a discussion like that and I work myself through and I'm not sure, then I have to do that in a good way. So I always give attention, for example, let's start off, what does the other person know relative to what I know? So if a person has a higher expertise or things, I'm much more inclined to ask questions. I'm always asking questions.

If you wanna learn, you're asking questions, you're not arguing, okay? You're taking in, you're assessing when it comes into you. Does that make sense? Are you learning something? Are you getting epiphanies and so on?

And I try to then do that if the conversation, as we're trying to decide what is true and we're trying to do that together and we see truth different, then I might even call in another really smart, capable person and try to say what is true and how do we explore that together and you go through that same thing. So I would, I said, I describe it as having open-mindedness and assertiveness at the same time. That you can simultaneously be open-minded and take in with that curiosity and then also be assertive and say, but that doesn't make sense, why would this be the case? And

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Ray Dalio: Idea Meritocracy | AI Podcast Clips