Life Math Podcast

#5 Matryoshka

June 22, 2021 Iskren Vankov and Iliya Valchanov Season 1 Episode 5
Life Math Podcast
#5 Matryoshka
Show Notes Transcript

A Matryoshka, known in English as a Russian nesting doll, can only fascinate a child or a babushka.

If you haven't seen a matryoshka, it is looks like the same object, inside the same object but smaller, inside the same object and so on. Here's a link to one.

Iskren and Iliya borrow the concept and try to apply it to other fields.

As it can be foreseen, the whole conversation is in this style.

It opens like a matryoshka and closes like one.

Interestingly enough, only one of the hosts is aware of this...

From the episode:
- What is a poset?

3veta
3veta.com is our startup. One platform to unify your client bookings, video calls, payments & more!

Iliya:

So I was walking to the office in order to record the podcast. And I saw this long, long line of police cars, and it was maybe I dont know, 20, 30 police cars. And there were hundreds of police officers on the street.

Iskren:

It's illegal to start a new podcast in 2021, we have enough people. You got to stop

Iliya:

No, you were. You stole my joke.

Iskren:

Transparent jokes.

Intro Music:

Life math Life Math. a podcast indescribably tangled, unnecessarily complex So bad that it's good Life math

Iliya:

Okay. Today I have prepared a topic for you. It's called Matryoshka conversations or Matryoshka style of writing. Let me give you some background on. that. The first time I heard about this concept was from a colleague of mine, when we were writing courses and he was telling me about his style of explaining concepts and he called it Matryoshka style of writing, basically this, Matryoshka for those that don't know is a Russian doll, which you've probably seen before in your life. It Consists of the same doll within the same doll, within the same doll, and many more times. So you have a doll, you open it up and you see the same doll, but smaller inside, then you open the smaller one and then you have an even smaller one. And then you have that many times until in the end you have a solid doll, which can no longer be opened. And it's a very small one. of course. It's a very good doll. All children love it. I can tell that from my time with my niece. yeah, so this is the Matryoshka. So what is the Matryoshka style of writing? It refers to concepts that have many layers, and then you usually start from one layer from the top layer. It's something very, very easy to digest. Very normal. And then you open up and then you stumble upon a problem. And then there's the second layer. So you open it up and then you stumble across another problem and so on and so forth. So what he was saying is that he would always set up problems in this way that he would stumble upon each problem on the next step or the next video, the next lecture. And eventually he would reach, like he would exhaust all important problems let's say. then he would start closing them up and giving some extra information about. Each one of them, how to deal with them and so on. Yeah. So this was what he called Matryoshka style of writing and he was using it not only for bigger concepts, but even for smaller one, when you're describing code, let's say you have some code and you have a function inside a function. It's a very Matryoshka like situation where you would need to explain the outer function and inner function and, how they behave, how they behave together. This is Matryoshka style of writing Iskren, have you ever experienced this maybe in terms of coding?

Iskren:

Yes, but it's not really to actual coding. What I was thinking about while you're giving the explanation was that I have thought about a similar way of perceiving just the creative process in general. And it was while I was writing code, but actual construction didn't have anything to do with the code itself. It was more about. Scoping which we have another episode of all, I believe so. And basically when given large tasks that can span months, then you start unraveling kind of the actual scope of the task. What actually needs to happen. Where will this whole month-long project take you? And initially you're just told, you know, oh, just make X happen, anything. Okay. Just have this one task. Then when you start looking into it in more depth. The scope of this task starts increasing and increasing, and you see Oh, I need to do X. I need to do Y and Z. And to do Y I need to do ABCD, and to do Z, I need to do all the other letters of the alphabet. So you can see how with each new piece of knowledge that you acquire about the task, each new step that you take towards understanding what actually needs to be done, just increase your scope and increases it and increases. it. And at some point it may become overwhelming, maybe you realize that you need to have a hundred things happen before this one task you started from is actually done. And so that's, the first stage of solving the problem. Just understanding it and increasing your scope. Because everything that you realize you have to do just creates more work and more work, but then there's the tipping point, which is the best feeling. The tipping point is when you solve something and it doesn't create. New issues. It doesn't create any new work that has to happen. And that's when the number of sub tasks that you have to complete starts closing up, closing up, closing up the number of tasks reduces, but then you're really closing and closing and closing those Matryoshkas. And eventually you're done with the whole initial task X that we started with. And so this kind of. Diamond shaped figure is what I was thinking about when you're scoping a complex project for yourself, you start from a point and then discover, it just increases, increases, increases. And then you start closing those tiers of complexity until you reach a single point. Again, which is just being done with it. So that sounds kind of like the Matryoshka way of looking at it. You just open, open, open, and then you close, close, close. And in a way, just like the Matryoshkas are all the same. There's the same with the tasks. Theyre just Tasks. They're just This piece of code or that piece of code, they're all similar. And the important factor is where you are in this progression.

Iliya:

Okay. I can relate that to the Matryoshka concept. So I have many different thoughts on that, but the one that I want to go with right now is I've never understood the doll before, but after, while I was hearing you explain it, I realized that. What is a Matryoshka? you don't know until you open it up until the end. Right? So you see a doll, you know, it opens, but you don't know how many times you don't know what happens in last one. And even if you've seen a Matryoshka before, you don't know what this Matryoshka has to offer you. Right. And, it's quite fascinating. So that's why the Matryoshka is so cool because. You never know if somebody stole the ridged one, the core of the Matryoshka maybe that's the one you open you open you open, and then you expect that there is another layer the ridged core, but then it's not there because maybe the problem was less complex than you believed. And then you can solve it in an easier way So what I was thinking. is, We love Matryoshkas all the people, because it has this mystery at each level. And I find this quite cool. Yeah. So maybe we like Matryoshkas because of how they represent in the physical world, a fractal it's a toy that essentially. Captures the concept of fractal, you go one level deeper or one level higher, and it's the same object and you can never escape the same object. You just kind of zoom in and out of the fractal, but its the same thing, and it's always sort of infinite like our actual fractal, but in this physical approximation is the closer you can get to those inside would be closer to an actual fractal. You always end up with the same doll, and you keep opening its the same doll. And. its this Sisyphus labor to reach the end of the fractal. So maybe there's the mystery that you mentioned is just that it's a fractal. as we have established in other conversations, fractals, just keep popping up out of everywhere. And they're fascinating because they don't really make sense in, in math or anywhere else these mysterious objects. It is a fractal cut somewhere. Yeah. Okay. I can't help, but make this analogy with an onion or something like this. So usually when youre thinking about many layers, maybe emotional layers and stuff like this. People like to make this analogy with an onion. So you peel an onion and then you see the same onion inside and then you peel it Again, and peel it again. So it's very similar but the difference is you can never get it back together. So I think it's a very important property of a Matryoshka is. that You can piece it back together so that you're closing it. I think the moment of closing the Matryoshka is basically where learning happens when like everything happens. Right. You start closing it and then you, realize what it was what it represents what was inside. You have time to think about it because it's a bit mechanical as well. And, now. When we talk about conversations, I have this theory that there are certain types of conversations that are Matryoshka conversations. So the person who talks, they can decide to open up several topics simultaneously, like , Matryoshka, they don't need to be like the same topic, but deeper. They could be different topics. Until you reach the final Matryoshka, which is maybe the coolest topic or whatever, the pinnacle of the conversation. And then you can start closing all the other conversations. And, that's what I call Matryoshka conversation.

Iskren:

Yeah. Got you like to tell you about this. You first need to know about that and talk about that. You first need to know about the third thing, and then you go down the rabbit hole and then once we hit. The last thing that you had to know, we start backtracking, oh, now I can tell you about this. And I can tell about that because you know, all of the others just kind of these backtracking conversations, or why did they tell you all of this? Oh yeah, to explain that other thing, it's a context in a way its a context.

Iliya:

true. So what we discussed a moment ago was that. a very important property of a matryoshka is that you have to close it. Right? And in this scenario of the Matryoshka conversations, in order to have a truly complete matryoshka conversation, you have to not only close all the levels, but you have to close them one by one in the reverse order in which you opened them Otherwise you break the fractal, you break the beauty of the conversation that you've created. Have you noticed any such conversations or?

Iskren:

Oh yeah, quite often. I think that's usually the situation, when you meet somebody, you haven't met in a while but like you're really good friends you really like talking to each other and there's just so much to say. also. The topics that you want to talk about. Usually it's some sort of catching up with life. They're always interconnected. There are always connections. And so you start from somewhere and that's a more probably 10-hour conversations. And then you just keep going forward, abandoning the previous conversation for now. You keep going forward and forward going to details of some particular story or something that happened. Oh, but did I tell you about that that? guy And then once you have told the super precise story, you start backtracking back and back and back. until you. Like I'll stay in this particular story because that's one of the many stories of my trip somewhere. So I think this model of speaking, like going deep, deep, deep, and backtracking one by one usually happens when you're just catching up with friends, maybe.

Iliya:

Okay, but I can be the devil's advocate here and tell you that quite often, when people are trying to give context to something, they wouldn't open it up so that they can close later, they will give the context right away. So I feel that in many of the conversations that you're usually having with a friend where you want to give more context, you would give this context in one. Sprint. Let's say you'll be like, okay, you need to know this. And then, you need to know that and you need to know that. And then you. Reach your final point. and thats that, so you don't do it in the Matryoshka style of conversation, where you start the first context, and then you start the second context and then you close them up. But rather they're these small side quests on which you go, you go, you finish the side quest and then it's a branch. You cut it off and it's no longer a part of the conversation. You never go back to it.

Iskren:

So definition you're giving. is that Each topic gives rise to the next topic and is just like align. There's no point at which one topic gives rise to more than one new topic. Like it doesn't branch out. You just go straight, straight, deep. Each topic gives rise to exactly to a new topic and then you have to go back. So you're never done with a topic that you have explored all of its children in this line. Right?

Iliya:

No, but that is not what I'm saying. I see that you understand it in this way, but it's not what I mean. So I believe, okay. I'm going to get to the bottom of the matryoshka faster than that. So my question, my final question, I'm skipping a bit of matryoshkas here is can you intentionally construct each of your conversations? is a matryoshka conversation because I don't think it appears to be linear. You just can open more than one conversation simultaneously. They don't need to be even connected. Maybe I can tell you, do you know that while I was thinking about this, I was happy killing this amazing pasta. And you're like, no, I did not know that. And I'm like, okay, but I'm going to tell you later about, that. so I'm opening this layers Of the story, which may or may not have anything in common with the final goal, but at the end of the day, I've constructed this Matryoshka conversation where one of the layers is less important, but still the whole conversation starts closing up. And then I'm going to tell you what kind of past I ate. So the question is, do you think you can intentionally create Matryoshka conversations With a purpose, right? There is a final goal of this, which I'm having in mind. The final goal is that such a conversation is much more compelling than a normal conversation because you want to close these layers. You want to close the Matryoshka completely before you want to end the conversation.

Iskren:

I guess still the question stands like what is, and what is not a Matryoshka conversation to see if we can always construct a conversation this way. So. If you're saying that it doesn't have to be just a line of topics in each of these two next we can always open branches. So then the defining feature seems to be that we just have to close all topics before we go home. Right? Like there's thewe open topics and topics can sprout other topics. And the point is that we have to go back and I guess you have to close them in order. if. A topic created another. You have to close the later topic first. If That makes sense.

Iliya:

Completely, completely. Just keep in mind if I'm leading the conversation, I can decide to open another topic, which is unrelated. I just want to add another layer to this conversation just to keep it going. for longer.

Iskren:

Yeah. And so, because we don't have the condition, that its just a line. So for example, if one topic creates two others, right? And then these two new topics then create their own bunch of topics down the line. But these two are not ordered relative to each other. We have to close both of them to close their common predecessor. But relative to each other, we don't care. Which one gets closed first. Right They arent unrelated. You know, let's say I was telling you about my time in Rome. And one topic was about something historical. there one topic was also about the pasta I had. So in order to close the Rome topic, we need to close both the pasta and the history, but which one has to be closed of those two, we don't care. Right.

Iliya:

I can go with that. I think when the topics are of less relevance, I can let several topics construct one layer of the Matryoshka.

Iskren:

Well, then I have my definition that I was going towards, it seems that the structure of a Matryoshka conversation is a poset, which is a partial ordered set, meaning they'll have a bunch ofjust imagine all the topics. In this conversation as dots on a piece of paper and then the arrows, there's some arrows between certain dots, the arrows indicate which topic gave rise to which other topic. Right? So an arrow from A to B means that topic, a gave rise to topic B being talked about at all. And the rule that makes it a Matryoshka conversation is that. We have to first create the graphs. We start from a simple single dot, and then we create new arrows and new dots. We create them, we create them and we create them. And then the roof of going backwards. Once we have established all the topics is that we need to close, only topics. That either have no children, they have not sprouted to new topics or all of their children have already been closed. Right? So that's, that's the definition of a Matryoshka conversation. It's a, partial order, set. And the important difference is that it's partially, ordered set and not a fully ordered set. And the difference is that, you know, if I'm telling you about Rome and one subtopic is about the pasta one subtopic is about the history we can close the pasta or the history at different times related to each other. nobody cares. But we have to close both to close the Rome topic, the Italy topic. So that's a partial of it. And if it was a fully ordered set, then the pasta and the history topics would have to be in a definite order. One of them would have to be closed before the other, but this partial ordered set structure, actually. gives you the flexibility to close your Matryoshka in more than one way you can close in several ways you want. But the result is that all subtopics must be discussed before. you close the main topic. So now I know what we're talking about. Its a poset.

Iliya:

Okay. After hearing your definition, I would completely agree with this. So I think you have correctly defined what the Matryoshka conversation is I like this. I would like to have it in diagram form as well. In the show notes, we're going to definitely have this diagram

Iskren:

since I brought. this, Perhaps slightly unnecessary complication. to The conversation of defining it as this rigorous defined mathematical object [the partial, ordered set], we can then add notes about them as objects. Cause they're pretty cool because it's a graph. It's a directed graph, a bunch of points and arrows between them. The point of discussing the structure to this conversation using a well-known mathematical object is they immediately gives me those extra rules that have already thought about in different contexts. And where I'm going with this is that partial, ordered sets is a concept, or it has this very interesting structure and side effects, for example, in how many ways can I complete this partially ordered set into a four order?

Iliya:

but why would you do that?

Iskren:

Okay. So given this structure of the Matryoshka conversation, At the point in which I've stopped opening new topics and we start closing them in how many ways can we do that in how many ways can we close the topics relative to each other in time without breaking the rules?

Iliya:

Okay. I don't know. I think it's a spinoff of this mathematics thing now. Why I don't find it so interesting because I'm leading the conversation. So I'm going to start closing them in the order. I wrote them down to close them. So to me it doesn't matter how many ways there are, because I've chosen my way already. This is first the second one is which I mentioned, but it was not as explicit if at layer of the Matryoshka is not as important. I feel more than okay. With dropping it whatsoever. Not only because it's not so important, but also because I can edit it out as a podcaster. Right. And, to me, this order has much less relevant to the more important topics that I would like to get into.

Iskren:

For example,

Iliya:

Some time ago you gave me this example of the standup comedian, Dave Chappelle, and he's shown on Netflix. You told me that. He was extremely good, mainly because he was cracking these random jokes, but then he was closing them up and they were fitting perfectly.

Iskren:

Yeah. Yeah, I do. And that's his general style and I mean, we're not discovering the wheel here in the sense that Especially in standup comedy, there are those rigid rules, but there's those well-known constructions of how to structure your show. So that it's, interesting. So it's funny, et cetera. And I guess it's just one of the constructions that, people know about. For example, writers, creative writers, podcasters as well, just how to create a good narrative. And one way is to exactly open, open, open, and close, close close and the best part is that something. that he Mentions, Dave Chappelle in this example so they can mention in the very beginning and doesn't quite make too much sense the time, but let you go. And they make so much more sense, at the very end, right? And this is the cool part that you don't close them soon after opening them. But you close them very far in time from when you opened them. And people already forgotten that you say it in the beginning, but when you close it, they remember about you're opening it. And that's like the subtle style of this standup. That's a very good example, actually. Yeah. Cause that's intentional, right? that's a very good example. It's intentional Matryoshka structure. Very good past me.

Iliya:

Okay. So in your initial definition of the poset, what I understood is that. Basically distance is not important at all. You basically have some points and then they branch out and so on and so forth. So is there a way to maybe add this dimension to the definition

Iskren:

Ah, the good old let's quantify? humor.

Iliya:

No, no, no, no. I really want to be extra clear here. So I'm giving the Dave Chappelle example. Because you told me about it. So it's much easier for me to get it in the conversation, but I haven't seen it.

Iskren:

Oh you still haven't seen it. I thought you watched it thats why I bring it up. I see.

Iliya:

No, no, no, no, no. I haven't. I just made a mind note that about it when I was thinking about the Matryoshka conversations and so on. That's why I don't want to get into a standup comedy. Im not too into it, let's say now, but I can imagine how these guys have limited time and they're under extra pressure. That they're closing should be super strong. So they should, I don't know, close all the layers at the very end. Let's say if they have one hour worth of comedy, they will be opening up stuff for 40 minutes, 45 minutes, 50 minutes and theyd close all of them, one by one to concentrate the impact at the end or not necessarily.

Iskren:

Mm. I don't quite agree, actually. So this is actually getting into the structure of exactly narrating and creative writing for anything, including books or movies, or standup. because I think the usual structure for standup comedy would be that because you have to keep those people's attention for let's say an hour and, um, you have to keep opening and closing soon after. Like short-lived jokes, you know, you open and close within a minute or two. And then in the meantime, you open those longer running. So you simultaneously open longer term jokes that you're going to close in half an hour, or an hour, but you have to keep giving like the tiny one or two-minute lived jokes that just keep it going. Whereas in movies with big plot twists and reveals, it's what you're saying. I think. Maybe the typical who-done-it genre in which there's the mystery. And then you have to figure out who killed the old guy. Right. And, usually in those movies, it's a buildup, it's a buildup and you just keep opening, opening, opening new, let's say topics, meaning maybe some clues or some new piece of information about the murder. And then the last 15 minutes, you start closing all of those clues and piece them together. Yeah, maybe I would say that the structure of this poll set for a murder mystery would be what you said, like you open, open, open, and then you close in a very short period of time at the very end for standup. I think it's, two things. One is opening and then closing in a while, but then throughout you have to keep opening and closing right away. Just quick jokes to keep your audience interested.

Iliya:

I completely agree with this. And this is what I meant by there. are these Points that they don't necessarily need going back to because maybe they were closed completely. And this is an example of this. So with this new information, would that change anything to your poset definition or not?

Iskren:

Not really? I think thats a good part about structural definition about math. Yeah. It's such a general framework. Like, all I've basically said is that you can represent these conversations as a bunch of points with arrows, between them and some rules. Like there's no simplicity. It's so general that within this very general framework, you can then define those pieces of extra structures. for example, I can then see that. type-A Matryoshka conversation is one that opens opens, opens topics. Then it doesn't close all of them until some point at which you only close. I can say that another type of Matryoshka conversation could let you keep opening and closing. Now I was actually thinking about it. This would involve some extra flexibility in the model because a post set can only define, like it's a static picture. It doesn't. Tell you about when you opened or closed topics, because in this model, what does open mean? It creates a point with an arrow leading to it and closescrosses it off?

Iliya:

Thisthats the question that I was asking earlier. So would you add some distance to this model in some way?

Iskren:

Yeah. Cause what I was thinking about initially was that you create the graph first, you only open topics and then you close all of them. So then you destroy the graph. But why not make them simultaneously? Yeah. Why not? And then, I mean, it's not time. Really

Iliya:

In the context of the conversation it's obviously time how much time does each point represent is not the point, but it's this small portion of time. I don't know, five minutes on this point, five minutes on this other point and then 10 minutes between points or maybe I have to add another. point there like a minor one so that I can increase the distance to, between the starting topic and then the core of the problem or something like this.

Iskren:

I actually wonder whether Dave Chappelle, standup comedians really think about their work in this very algorithmic way. Okay. I'm going to set up my show. I imagine it has layers. Need the high-frequency layer. So high-frequency short-lived jokes. And then on top of it, I'm going to slap the lower-frequency layer, which is jokes that get closed every 10 minutes. Then on top of it, I'm going to slap the. even lower frequency, which is the joke that I set up in the very beginning and I close at the very end. And then whilst they have this structure for what their graph should look like they just fill in the points with particular jokes. I wonder if they start from there. Or if it just comes natural to them,

Iliya:

that was where I was heading. So earlier I asked you about this, can you construct a Matryoshka conversation? And what I basically meant there is obviously we've established that you can kind of construct these kinds of stories. This is what storytelling is about. That's why I actually started with this side quest about Matryoshka style of writing. I was trying to get you there because writers. Obviously do this a lot. They over think what they're writing. They can spend extra time editing it extra time, making it more Matryoshka-like, making heists and this and that. obviously standup comedians in a way are doing the same thing. But even if not defined in this way its probably what every writer ever is being. taught. And, with me having no prior experience in creative storytelling let's say, I would guess that a writer listening to this podcast is like, oh, these guys you're so dumb. They've never heard about this topic

Iskren:

It's writing school 1 0 1.

Iliya:

Yeah, probably they have a name. And now we're stealing the name from there. So now we're creating this Matryoshka name, but actually it's like, I dont know, John Smith'suh, okay. So I've been trying to make this Matryoshka conversation with no prior idea about. How this conversation is going to go, what are you going to say? Obviously, I had several points in mind. I had the story writing. I have the conversation types I had this construction of Matryoshka in mind. And I also had an example, right. I had the Dave Chappelle example these were my, let's say high points in which, I want to do. Then I had several small ones, but. you're a part of the conversation, obviously. And while I'm leading the conversation, you're the one creating the content for it. Right. So with that in mind, I was thinking, can I lead this conversation in this way? Yes. But then I would kind of stop your stride here and there. And I didn't want to do that. So my question becomes a different one. Can you. Unilaterally construct a Matryoshka conversation. Every time you have a conversation or do you need the buy-in from the person you're talking to in order for you guys to have a Matryoshka conversation?

Iskren:

Well, if the other, you know, taken to the extreme, if the other person is intentionally trying to sabotage the creation of a Matryoshka conversation, I'm sure. they can. as an even more extreme example, they can just refuse to talk to you. That's it? No Matryoshka conversation. So I guess the short answer is that you cant guarantee that you can create one, but you can set it up to be able to, you know, you can lay it out so that the closing of topics can follow the Matryoshka rule. Because for example, if you'd never come back to the initial topics, you just drop them forever. Then it's not a Matryoshka conversation. right? Maybe you wanted to, but time ran out or something happens. So I don't think you can always guarantee, but you want to set yourself up to do it. One clarification to this model I was thinking about is that something seemed to be missing. And I think the point is that somehow points and topics much down the line with much depth in this graph should somehow remind of the much, much earlier. And that's the beauty of it. Right? The point is that you even forget that you have opened some topics initially and you have never fully closed them. And there's some topic, 10 topics later, just very clearly reminds you of this very first topic and each one maybe gives you closure for it in some way. So it's not just about leaving topics hanging and then closing them at the end. It's about tying topics that come an hour later into what was set much, much earlier in an unexpected way.

Iliya:

Okay, now, What would you say about a format of a podcast where all the conversations are Matryoshka conversations.

Iskren:

that, sounds like Episode 1. I mean, as we have established, Dave Chappelle seems to be doing it well, so why can't we like it's a well-established approach to it. so basically your question is how hard is it?

Iliya:

Can We do it. So that's the question.

Iskren:

Ummm, this really tied up to the beginning very well, we can definitely try. We can definitely try and I guess. Okay. So my answer before was take it to the extreme that the other party's malicious, but if the other partys willing to enter Matryoshka conversation, but they don't know where you're going with this, say if I'm leading the topic and I want to create it, I'm setting it up to Matryoshka, but you don't know exactly where I'm going with this. We're willing to. be cooperative, but you dont know. The question is, can I always reliably lead you to, not break the Matryoshkaness in some way? Interesting It requires much prior thought, I think,

Iliya:

well, I disagree because here what we did was, we had this discussion prior to the podcast, which was, let's not, over-plan it let's try and see what's going to happen. I told you I have. Two or three points that I wanted to bring up. Most importantly, I was taking notes of the topics that we were opening so that I can circle back to them reliably. So this was the only restriction from a normal conversation that we had, that I was not noting down what we open to the topic. I can imagine that this is trainable, so I don't need to write them down, but I can remember. them. Anyways. why am I asking this? So would you say I have your buy-in or not really?

Iskren:

Oh, definitely. if we can succeed in basically introducing the component of plot twists, right? Likethat's what happened. after talking about this for an hour now, now I realize that there was a secret plot behind it. To go through this discussion to define what it is to think about it, to think about who does it, how do they do it? When do they do it? So then we can go back to the question or maybe pose the question. Can we do it? But now I understand it much better. So it's kind of a plot twist for me. Speak again in quantifying comedy in humor. I think there's just the way to do plot twists. Right? And obviously everybody wants a good plot twist, right? maybe we can even be more next level and just copy Christopher Nolan. And, maybe Chappelle can be a Matryoshka within itself, but then the arch of a season of episodes can then be Matryoshka somehow making it even more next level.

Iliya:

This is becoming like over-planning it before season, which we're definitely avoiding to close this up. I just want to mention that the pasta one, it was a complete fake I had to, uh, the past the conversations I opened, it was a complete fake, I just wanted to point your attention towards opening a topic so that you can look forward to closing. it. But it was a fake one. I promise I won't do it again. So just for the sake of explanation, finally, I want to close this off with this idea that I had. when I was thinking about this topic overall in the Matryoshka conversations, and I was thinking about what if we make every podcast a Matryoshka conversation. then I was thinking maybe, yeah, but I need the buy-in of the other person probably, or we have to plan out the conversation prior to the conversation, which I did not fancy as an idea. That's why I really wanted to test this out without telling you that we're going to engage in such a conversation. the big reason I won't do that is that I realized that. if We tell our audience in the first episode that we're doing, going to be doing a Matryoshka conversation in every podcast ever they really want to listen to every podcast from beginning to end, no matter if it's a Matryoshka podcast or not.

Iskren:

Oh, yeah. Yeah. That shit sounds really good. And as we said, it's a proven concept,

Iliya:

So I just wanted to say, you don't know if our next conversation is going to open up many topics, but we have to close them later on, but you have to listen to them either way.

Iskren:

Basically we have to prepare a plot twist for each topic at the end. You know, it's kind of like a Matryoshka when someone starts asking you questions in your field of expertise and you're not quite down for it, or youre a software engineer. Can you help me with a simple code please? Yeah, sure. No problem. But then, oh, can I just ask you that thing? And then they just keep digging deeper and deeper opening more and more Matryoshka-like questions or you're a lawyer. Oh, okay. So can you please just very quickly read through my tenancy contract, please? Youre a doctor, I have this weird mole in my No! Enough! Heathe Ledger Joker said- If you're good at something, never do it for free! -And that's how it should be go to 3veta.com And in just five minutes, you have your online meeting space where people who want to utilize your expertise first pay, and then they get to ask you, give it a try. It's 3veta.com.