You, as we mentioned, have an amazing podcast called Mindscape. It's as I said, one of my favorite podcasts, sort of both for your explanation of physics, which a lot of people love, and when you venture out into things that are beyond your expertise. But it's just a really smart person exploring even questions like, you know, morality, for example.

It was very interesting. I think you did a solo episode and so on. I mean, there's a lot of really interesting conversations that you have. What are some, from memory, amazing conversations that pop to mind that you've had? What did you learn from them? Something that maybe changed your mind or just inspired you or just this whole experience of having conversations, what stands out to you?

It's an unfair question. It's totally unfair, but that's okay. That's all right. You know, it's often the ones, I feel like the ones I do on physics and closely related science or even philosophy ones are like, I know this stuff and I'm helping people learn about it, but I learn more from the ones that have nothing to do with physics or philosophy, right?

So talking to Wynton Marsalis about jazz or talking to a master sommelier about wine, talking to Will Wilkinson about partisan polarization and the urban rural divide, talking to psychologists, like Carol Tavris about cognitive dissonance and how those things work. Scott Derrickson, who is the director of the movie, Dr.

Strange. I had a wonderful conversation with him where we went through the mechanics of making a blockbuster superhero movie, right? And he's also not a naturalist. He's an evangelical Christian. So we talked about the nature of reality there. I want to have a couple more discussions with highly educated theists who know the theology really well, but I haven't quite arranged those yet.

>>LUIS: I would love to hear that. I mean, that's how comfortable are you venturing into questions of religion? >>BEN: Oh, I'm totally comfortable doing it. I did talk with Alan Lightman, who is also an atheist, but he is trying to rescue the sort of spiritual side of things for atheism.

I did talk to very vocal atheists like Alex Rosenberg. So I've talked to some religious believers, but I need to talk to more. >>LUIS: How have you changed through having all these conversations? >>BEN: You know, part of the motivation was I had a long stack of books that I hadn't read and I couldn't find time to read them.

And I figured if I interviewed their authors, it forced me to read them, right? And that has totally worked, by the way. Now I'm annoyed that people write such long books. I think I'm still very much learning how to be a good interviewer. I think that's a skill. I think I have good questions, but there's the give and take that is still, I think I can be better at.

I want to offer something to the conversation, but not too much, right? I've had conversations where I barely talked at all, and I've had conversations where I talked half the time, and I think there's a happy medium in between there. >>LUIS: So I think I remember listening to, without mentioning names, some of your conversations where I wish you would have disagreed more.

As a listener, it's more fun sometimes. >>BEN: Well, that's a very good question because everyone has an attitude toward that. Some people are really there to basically give their point of view and their guest is supposed to respond accordingly. I want to get my view on the record, but I don't want to dwell on it when I'm talking to someone like David Chalmers, who I disagree with a lot.

I want to say, "Here's why I disagree with you, but we're here to listen to you. I have an episode every week, and you're only on once a week." I have an upcoming podcast episode with Philip Goff, who is a much more dedicated panpsychist. There we really get into it.

I probably have disagreed with him more on that episode than I ever have with another podcast guest, but that's what he wanted, so it worked very well. >>LUIS: Yeah, yeah. That kind of debate structure is beautiful when it's done right. When you can detect that the intent is that you have fundamental respect for the person, and that's, for some reason, it's super fun to listen to when two really smart people are just arguing and sometimes lose their shit a little bit, if I may say so.

>>BEN: There's a fine line because I have zero interest in bringing ... Maybe you implied this. I have zero interest in bringing on people for whom I don't have any intellectual respect. I constantly get requests to bring on a flat earther or whatever and really slap them down, or a creationist.

I have zero interest. I'm happy to bring on a religious person, a believer, but I want someone who's smart and can act in good faith and can talk, not a charlatan or a lunatic. I will happily bring on people with whom I disagree, but only people from whom I think the audience can learn something interesting.

>>LUIS: Let me ask. The idea of charlatan is an interesting idea. You might be more educated on this topic than me, but there's folks, for example, who argue various aspects of evolution, try to approach and say that evolution, our current theory of evolution has many holes in it, has many flaws.

They argue that, I think, Cambrian explosion, which is a huge added variability of species, doesn't make sense under our current description of evolution, theory of evolution. If you were to have the conversation with people like that, how do you know that the difference between outside the box thinkers and people who are fundamentally unscientific and even bordering on charlatans?

>>JOE: That's a great question. The further you get away from my expertise, the harder it is for me to really judge exactly those things. Yeah, I don't have a satisfying answer for that one, because I think the example you use of someone who believes in the basic structure of natural selection, but thinks that this particular thing cannot be understood in terms of our current understanding of Darwinism, that's a perfect edge case where it's hard to tell.

I would try to talk to people who I do respect and who do know things. Given that I'm a physicist, I know that physicists will sometimes be too dismissive of alternative points of view. I have to take into account that biologists can also be too dismissive of alternative points of view.

So, yeah, that's a tricky one. >>COREY: Have you gotten heat yet? >>JOE: I get heat all the time. There's always something. It's hilarious, because I try very hard not to have the same topic several times in a row. I did have two climate change episodes, but they were from very different perspectives.

But I like to mix it up. That's the whole point. That's why I'm having fun. Every time I do an episode, someone says, "Oh, the person you should really get on to talk about exactly that is this other person." I'm like, "But I did that now. I don't want to do that anymore." >>COREY: Well, I hope you keep doing it.

You're inspiring millions of people with your books, your podcasts. Sean, it's an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much. >>JOE: Thanks very much, Lex. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you.

>>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you. >>Lex: Thank you.