SGU Episode 896: Difference between revisions
| Line 1,223: | Line 1,223: | ||
[27:12.880 --> 27:14.400] Yeah, there you go, lab-grown meat. | [27:12.880 --> 27:14.400] Yeah, there you go, lab-grown meat. | ||
=== | === do people like you more if you talk more or talk less <small>(27:16)</small> === | ||
* [link_URL TITLE]<ref>[url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]</ref> | * [link_URL TITLE]<ref>[url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]</ref> | ||
[27:14.400 --> 27:21.120] All right, Kara, tell us, do people like you more if you talk more or talk less? | |||
[27:21.120 --> 27:22.480] Let's get into it. | |||
[27:22.480 --> 27:23.480] Let's talk about it. | |||
[27:23.480 --> 27:27.360] When you say you, do you mean someone specifically or people in general? | |||
[27:27.360 --> 27:28.360] People in general. | |||
[27:28.360 --> 27:29.360] Yeah. | |||
[27:29.360 --> 27:33.440] So I guess that is the important question, and that is the question that some researchers | |||
[27:33.440 --> 27:41.120] from a little place called Harvard and the University of Virginia wanted to know. | |||
[27:41.120 --> 27:45.880] So they have a new empirical paper that was published in Personality and Social Psychology | |||
[27:45.880 --> 27:49.600] Bulletin called Speak Up! | |||
[27:49.600 --> 27:53.000] Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations. | |||
[27:53.000 --> 27:57.080] And as the title implies, I probably shouldn't have said that out loud, very often people | |||
[27:57.080 --> 28:02.160] make judgments that are not reflective of reality about how much they should speak based | |||
[28:02.160 --> 28:04.800] on what their outcome goals are. | |||
[28:04.800 --> 28:12.080] So they wanted to know if somebody wants to be liked, how much do they think they should | |||
[28:12.080 --> 28:13.480] talk in a conversation? | |||
[28:13.480 --> 28:19.200] If somebody wants to be or to seem important, how much do they think they should talk in | |||
[28:19.200 --> 28:20.360] a conversation? | |||
[28:20.360 --> 28:25.200] And finally, if somebody just wants to enjoy the conversation, how much do they think they | |||
[28:25.200 --> 28:26.200] should talk? | |||
[28:26.200 --> 28:30.000] And they used a couple of different paradigms to look at this, like most psychology experiments | |||
[28:30.000 --> 28:33.280] they kind of ran it a few different ways to ask different questions. | |||
[28:33.280 --> 28:37.800] So first, I guess I'm curious from all of you, what do you think across those three | |||
[28:37.800 --> 28:38.800] different parameters? | |||
[28:38.800 --> 28:44.080] If somebody wants to be liked, what percentage of time do you think that they will think | |||
[28:44.080 --> 28:45.080] that they should talk? | |||
[28:45.080 --> 28:49.760] Do they think or should they do this in a one on one conversation? | |||
[28:49.760 --> 28:50.760] What's the environment? | |||
[28:50.760 --> 28:51.760] One on one. | |||
[28:51.760 --> 28:52.760] So these are diets. | |||
[28:52.760 --> 28:53.760] Yeah. | |||
[28:53.760 --> 28:57.720] So with a partner, how much and again, not how much should they talk to be liked? | |||
[28:57.720 --> 29:00.720] How much do they think they should talk to be liked? | |||
[29:00.720 --> 29:01.720] 30%. | |||
[29:01.720 --> 29:08.160] Well, no, are minutes, are we measuring, are we, 50% of time, 31% you think 50% you think | |||
[29:08.160 --> 29:16.600] 30% definitely lower than 50% probably 30% for Evan says 30%. | |||
[29:16.600 --> 29:17.600] Okay. | |||
[29:17.600 --> 29:18.600] So it's interesting. | |||
[29:18.600 --> 29:23.480] Evan, you said before you said 30%, you said definitely lower than 50%. | |||
[29:23.480 --> 29:24.800] That's what the researchers thought as well. | |||
[29:24.800 --> 29:30.920] They were like, okay, people whose goal is to be liked very often, and this bears out | |||
[29:30.920 --> 29:34.720] in the literature, very often think they should talk less than half the time. | |||
[29:34.720 --> 29:39.800] Cause it's a, it's a gesture of politeness and courtesy in a, in a cultural sense. | |||
[29:39.800 --> 29:42.720] People love to talk about themselves. | |||
[29:42.720 --> 29:44.360] And they actually have a name for this. | |||
[29:44.360 --> 29:46.160] They call it the reticence bias. | |||
[29:46.160 --> 29:47.160] Reticence. | |||
[29:47.160 --> 29:48.160] Very good. | |||
[29:48.160 --> 29:49.160] Yeah. | |||
[29:49.160 --> 29:53.920] As they say, the reticence bias we suggest is rooted in the fact that people lack confidence | |||
[29:53.920 --> 29:56.000] in their conversational abilities. | |||
[29:56.000 --> 30:00.520] They go on to talk about social anxiety, but they also, um, and that the people are hard | |||
[30:00.520 --> 30:05.160] on themselves and that they don't get a lot of valid external feedback. | |||
[30:05.160 --> 30:10.000] Um, but generally speaking, people think that if they listen more than they talk, they're | |||
[30:10.000 --> 30:11.880] going to be liked more. | |||
[30:11.880 --> 30:13.060] Here's the rub. | |||
[30:13.060 --> 30:15.980] That's not the case. | |||
[30:15.980 --> 30:22.480] So second paradigm do if people's goal is not to be liked, but it's to seem interesting. | |||
[30:22.480 --> 30:23.480] What do you think? | |||
[30:23.480 --> 30:25.560] Well, then I would think talk more, right? | |||
[30:25.560 --> 30:26.560] You would think that, right? | |||
[30:26.560 --> 30:28.280] Then they would want to talk more. | |||
[30:28.280 --> 30:32.000] And that's exactly how it bared out with their, with their study. | |||
[30:32.000 --> 30:37.760] People when told that the goal was to seem interesting, did talk more in the dyad because | |||
[30:37.760 --> 30:40.240] they thought, or they, they selected that option. | |||
[30:40.240 --> 30:44.120] I should talk more in the dyad because that will make me seem more interesting. | |||
[30:44.120 --> 30:50.080] And then finally, if they wanted to just enjoy themselves in the conversation, what do you | |||
[30:50.080 --> 30:51.080] think? | |||
[30:51.080 --> 30:52.080] Don't talk at all. | |||
[30:52.080 --> 30:53.080] Even. | |||
[30:53.080 --> 30:54.080] Even. | |||
[30:54.080 --> 30:55.080] Yeah. | |||
[30:55.080 --> 30:56.080] 50 50. | |||
[30:56.080 --> 30:57.080] So. | |||
[30:57.080 --> 30:58.520] That's the most important question. | |||
[30:58.520 --> 31:06.200] But what if your goal is to get laid, that probably is the most important. | |||
[31:06.200 --> 31:07.560] That is their follow up study. | |||
[31:07.560 --> 31:09.840] Well, you got to do all of them though. | |||
[31:09.840 --> 31:10.840] You got to be liked. | |||
[31:10.840 --> 31:15.480] You got to be interesting thing at all at the same time. | |||
[31:15.480 --> 31:16.480] And enjoy yourself. | |||
[31:16.480 --> 31:17.480] Yeah. | |||
[31:17.480 --> 31:19.400] So actually, interestingly, something will bear out from that. | |||
[31:19.400 --> 31:24.120] So basically they, um, they did a couple of studies where they were forecasting. | |||
[31:24.120 --> 31:27.320] So they, you know, this is very classic psychology study. | |||
[31:27.320 --> 31:32.120] So they used a mechanical Turk and Qualtrics and they asked some questions. | |||
[31:32.120 --> 31:34.880] Let me go to study one. | |||
[31:34.880 --> 31:41.520] And they asked some questions where they imagined having a conversation with different conversational | |||
[31:41.520 --> 31:43.320] prompts. | |||
[31:43.320 --> 31:47.000] And then they were asked, you know, how much should they, how much did they think they | |||
[31:47.000 --> 31:48.000] should talk? | |||
[31:48.000 --> 31:50.240] Because remember, this is not about whether or not they did. | |||
[31:50.240 --> 31:54.360] It's about their self kind of assessment of should they talk more, talk less. | |||
[31:54.360 --> 31:55.840] And those were the outcomes, right? | |||
[31:55.840 --> 32:03.520] I think it was, uh, let's see if the goal was to be liked, people said on average that | |||
[32:03.520 --> 32:12.520] they should speak 43% of the time, whereas their partner should speak 56% of the time. | |||
[32:12.520 --> 32:16.440] If the goal was to be interesting, they said they themselves should speak about 57 and | |||
[32:16.440 --> 32:20.320] a half percent of the time, whereas their partner should speak 42% of the time. | |||
[32:20.320 --> 32:24.740] And if the goal was to enjoy themselves, it was right around 50, 50. | |||
[32:24.740 --> 32:30.960] And then they repeated the study and found very similar outcomes. | |||
[32:30.960 --> 32:35.520] And then they actually kind of forced the hand and made people talk a certain amount | |||
[32:35.520 --> 32:36.520] of time. | |||
[32:36.520 --> 32:37.520] Right? | |||
[32:37.520 --> 32:38.680] Like, of course that would be the followup study. | |||
[32:38.680 --> 32:42.400] It was a little bit arbitrary and a little bit fake because they used like a computer | |||
[32:42.400 --> 32:45.560] would cue them and say, talk now, now you talk, now you talk. | |||
[32:45.560 --> 32:51.120] But it actually measured it out at these certain points, like 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% of | |||
[32:51.120 --> 32:52.120] the time. | |||
[32:52.120 --> 32:53.800] What do you think happened to that? | |||
[32:53.800 --> 32:54.840] It worked. | |||
[32:54.840 --> 32:55.840] What worked? | |||
[32:55.840 --> 33:02.360] They were, they achieved the goal of like, you know, enjoying themselves more or being | |||
[33:02.360 --> 33:03.360] liked more. | |||
[33:03.360 --> 33:04.360] Interesting. | |||
[33:04.360 --> 33:05.360] It worked. | |||
[33:05.360 --> 33:06.360] Yeah. | |||
[33:06.360 --> 33:10.680] So, so basically that the outcomes would have followed the intentions. | |||
[33:10.680 --> 33:14.200] Like if they thought they wanted to be liked and they spoke less than they were liked more. | |||
[33:14.200 --> 33:16.160] No, the opposite. | |||
[33:16.160 --> 33:17.160] They were wrong. | |||
[33:17.160 --> 33:18.160] The opposite happened. | |||
[33:18.160 --> 33:19.160] Yeah. | |||
[33:19.160 --> 33:20.160] Their initial assessment was wrong. | |||
[33:20.160 --> 33:21.160] It's kind of neither. | |||
[33:21.160 --> 33:27.240] It sort of doesn't follow the most clear pattern, but it looks like it's a little bit bimodal. | |||
[33:27.240 --> 33:32.760] The more important outcome that the researchers point to is something that they call, they | |||
[33:32.760 --> 33:34.320] call it halo ignorance. | |||
[33:34.320 --> 33:37.520] And to understand halo ignorance, you have to first understand the halo effect. | |||
==== HALO Effect <small>(33:27)</small> ==== | ==== HALO Effect <small>(33:27)</small> ==== | ||
[33:37.520 --> 33:40.720] Do you guys, have you ever heard of the halo effect in social psychology? | |||
[33:40.720 --> 33:41.720] Okay. | |||
[33:41.720 --> 33:42.720] It's pretty interesting. | |||
[33:42.720 --> 33:49.120] I'm going to describe it because I had experience demonstrating it when I worked on brain games. | |||
[33:49.120 --> 33:54.480] So this was a really fun episode that we did where I got to go to this like fake art gallery | |||
[33:54.480 --> 33:59.760] and I played the gallerist and opposite me was Colin Hanks. | |||
[33:59.760 --> 34:01.200] You guys know Colin Hanks, right? | |||
[34:01.200 --> 34:02.200] Tom Hanks' son. | |||
[34:02.200 --> 34:03.200] Colin. | |||
[34:03.200 --> 34:04.200] Yes. | |||
[34:04.200 --> 34:05.200] Oh, with all the tattoos. | |||
[34:05.200 --> 34:06.200] He was in the offer. | |||
[34:06.200 --> 34:07.200] He was in the offer. | |||
[34:07.200 --> 34:08.200] No, he doesn't have a lot of tattoos. | |||
[34:08.200 --> 34:09.200] Oh, maybe the other son. | |||
[34:09.200 --> 34:12.200] No, he's like a very famous actor who looks a lot like Tom Hanks. | |||
[34:12.200 --> 34:13.200] I see. | |||
[34:13.200 --> 34:14.200] Yeah. | |||
[34:14.200 --> 34:15.200] Yeah. | |||
[34:15.200 --> 34:16.200] And has been in, yeah, he was in band of brothers. | |||
[34:16.200 --> 34:17.200] He was in a ton of stuff. | |||
[34:17.200 --> 34:23.760] So he played himself in one paradigm where he had all, we set the art gallery up with | |||
[34:23.760 --> 34:27.360] a bunch of art and in one paradigm he was like, Hey, I'm Colin Hanks. | |||
[34:27.360 --> 34:29.160] I've decided my hand at art. | |||
[34:29.160 --> 34:32.320] I really interested in you guys as you know, feedback, blah, blah, blah. | |||
[34:32.320 --> 34:36.980] And then we got their, their feedback, not to his face where they talked about whether | |||
[34:36.980 --> 34:39.060] or not they enjoyed his art. | |||
[34:39.060 --> 34:44.100] And then in another paradigm, we dressed him up as this alter ego named Giannis Patch. | |||
[34:44.100 --> 34:48.280] And he had like a soul patch and was dressed really weird and was like super aggressive | |||
[34:48.280 --> 34:51.320] and like not nice to anybody. | |||
[34:51.320 --> 34:54.600] Like he was very holier than thou and just played this awful character that nobody got | |||
[34:54.600 --> 34:55.600] along with. | |||
[34:55.600 --> 34:56.600] And what do you think happened? | |||
[34:56.600 --> 35:01.360] They liked Colin Hanks' art and they hated Giannis Patch's art, even though it was the | |||
[35:01.360 --> 35:02.360] same art. | |||
[35:02.360 --> 35:03.360] Wow. | |||
[35:03.360 --> 35:04.360] Right. | |||
[35:04.360 --> 35:10.840] So the halo effect really is this idea that there are global features that come together. | |||
[35:10.840 --> 35:14.040] So if you like the person, you like the person's art. | |||
[35:14.040 --> 35:16.000] If you dislike the person, you dislike the person's art. | |||
[35:16.000 --> 35:17.960] Those things aren't independent of each other. | |||
[35:17.960 --> 35:21.120] And so what the researchers here are saying is that there's, there's probably something | |||
[35:21.120 --> 35:22.400] called halo ignorance. | |||
[35:22.400 --> 35:24.760] Most people aren't aware of the halo effect. | |||
[35:24.760 --> 35:29.920] And so they don't realize that it's not so simple that I want to be liked, but I want | |||
[35:29.920 --> 35:33.360] to seem, I want to be liked here and I want to seem important here. | |||
[35:33.360 --> 35:35.780] They're not mutually exclusive. | |||
[35:35.780 --> 35:40.600] Generally speaking, if somebody in a conversation has a positive effect on somebody, you're | |||
[35:40.600 --> 35:42.640] going to like them and find them interesting. | |||
[35:42.640 --> 35:47.400] If they have a negative effect, you're going to dislike them and find them disinteresting. | |||
[35:47.400 --> 35:48.400] But most people- | |||
[35:48.400 --> 35:50.400] And your breath smells too. | |||
[35:50.400 --> 35:51.400] Exactly. | |||
[35:51.400 --> 35:52.400] Okay. | |||
[35:52.400 --> 35:58.140] So most people are ignorant of the halo effect, which is probably why they estimate that they | |||
[35:58.140 --> 36:01.860] have to speak differently for different outcomes. | |||
[36:01.860 --> 36:07.740] But the truth of the matter is that basically the big takeaway, because the, the final study | |||
[36:07.740 --> 36:09.860] outcomes are a little all over the place. | |||
[36:09.860 --> 36:10.860] They're not super clean. | |||
[36:10.860 --> 36:14.080] Like the less you talk, the less you're like, the more you talk, the more you're like, it's | |||
[36:14.080 --> 36:15.420] not really that clean. | |||
[36:15.420 --> 36:23.360] It's basically that generally speaking, if you're in the 30% or 40% group, you're kind | |||
[36:23.360 --> 36:26.080] of not liked or interesting. | |||
[36:26.080 --> 36:31.160] Like if you don't talk that much, you don't get this good feedback. | |||
[36:31.160 --> 36:36.880] So most people think I need to be quiet and be a good listener in a dyad and then I'm | |||
[36:36.880 --> 36:38.600] going to be more well liked. | |||
[36:38.600 --> 36:41.660] But the truth is that's, that doesn't bear out. | |||
[36:41.660 --> 36:47.820] If you talk way too much, we start to see diminishing returns, so it's sort of somewhere | |||
[36:47.820 --> 36:48.820] in the middle. | |||
[36:48.820 --> 36:54.560] Kara, the halo effect reminds me of the Oscars because I, right? | |||
[36:54.560 --> 37:00.820] I always had the feeling that like the, the movie that wins like best art direction. | |||
[37:00.820 --> 37:04.800] Was that really the movie that had the best art direction or was that just the favorite | |||
[37:04.800 --> 37:07.360] movie that was nominated for the, for best art? | |||
[37:07.360 --> 37:08.360] Yeah. | |||
[37:08.360 --> 37:09.360] What was it? | |||
[37:09.360 --> 37:13.200] Was it one of the eight movies that got nominated for everything because there's like only certain | |||
[37:13.200 --> 37:15.200] movies that were quote, Oscar worthy. | |||
[37:15.200 --> 37:19.660] Did that movie really have the best editing and costuming and all the other little technical | |||
[37:19.660 --> 37:22.760] things just because it was a popular movie? | |||
[37:22.760 --> 37:23.760] You don't, yeah. | |||
[37:23.760 --> 37:24.760] It just boggles the imagination. | |||
[37:24.760 --> 37:25.760] Completely agree. | |||
[37:25.760 --> 37:26.880] Completely agree. | |||
[37:26.880 --> 37:35.400] I had a friend once who used to call the Oscars rich people prom and nary was their true statement. | |||
[37:35.400 --> 37:42.840] The difference between a person perceived wanting to be liked versus that same person | |||
[37:42.840 --> 37:46.800] perceiving to be either polite or courteous. | |||
[37:46.800 --> 37:50.240] We talking, we're splitting hairs, are they two very different things? | |||
[37:50.240 --> 37:51.240] It wasn't the paradigm. | |||
[37:51.240 --> 37:52.240] So I can't tell you that. | |||
[37:52.240 --> 37:53.240] You know what I mean? | |||
[37:53.240 --> 37:54.840] They did not ask that question. | |||
[37:54.840 --> 37:57.240] They asked three very simple questions. | |||
[37:57.240 --> 37:58.240] Okay. | |||
[37:58.240 --> 38:01.840] Do you want to be like, you know, if you want to be liked, how often will you talk? | |||
[38:01.840 --> 38:03.880] If you want to seem interesting, how often will you talk? | |||
[38:03.880 --> 38:05.720] If you want to enjoy the conversation, how often will you talk? | |||
[38:05.720 --> 38:12.720] But I wonder if a person can confuse the desire to be liked with the desire to be accommodating | |||
[38:12.720 --> 38:17.800] or you know, courteous to the other person by speaking less. | |||
[38:17.800 --> 38:23.520] Is it, you know, can that be, can those two things be confused and therefore that's why | |||
[38:23.520 --> 38:28.080] people would think that, yeah, I should probably talk less, not so much to be liked, but just | |||
[38:28.080 --> 38:29.680] to give for consideration. | |||
[38:29.680 --> 38:30.680] Right. | |||
[38:30.680 --> 38:33.840] But, but you're basically talking about constructs, right? | |||
[38:33.840 --> 38:36.560] Like these aren't, these aren't actual things that exist. | |||
[38:36.560 --> 38:39.880] Being liked is not specifically different from being courteous. | |||
[38:39.880 --> 38:43.920] It's all in how you construct that reality, how you interpret it. | |||
[38:43.920 --> 38:48.240] So if your definition of being liked is that you're very courteous, that's how you're | |||
[38:48.240 --> 38:50.240] going to view that when you do this study. | |||
[38:50.240 --> 38:51.240] Okay. | |||
[38:51.240 --> 38:52.240] All right. | |||
[38:52.240 --> 38:54.600] So you can totally interpret that differently. | |||
[38:54.600 --> 38:56.680] And that's the interesting thing about psychology. | |||
[38:56.680 --> 39:01.480] It's why we have to always operationally define everything because nothing, there's no like | |||
[39:01.480 --> 39:04.960] fundamental truth to the idea of being liked. | |||
[39:04.960 --> 39:05.960] It's how we define it. | |||
[39:05.960 --> 39:06.960] Right. | |||
[39:06.960 --> 39:07.960] Right. | |||
[39:07.960 --> 39:08.960] Yes. | |||
[39:08.960 --> 39:09.960] It does seem nebulous. | |||
[39:09.960 --> 39:10.960] Yeah. | |||
[39:10.960 --> 39:12.440] And there's probably, sorry, there's probably a ton of crossover there. | |||
[39:12.440 --> 39:17.640] If I want to seem likable, I might have different factors that if I were to ask, if I were to | |||
[39:17.640 --> 39:22.400] sit down in a separate study and the researchers were to say, what are the five features of | |||
[39:22.400 --> 39:24.920] likability that are most important? | |||
[39:24.920 --> 39:27.960] My list might be different than your list, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a | |||
[39:27.960 --> 39:30.680] lot of crossover among people. | |||
[39:30.680 --> 39:35.680] And so courteousness is probably one of those things. | |||
[39:35.680 --> 39:37.200] So I wouldn't say it's a conflation. | |||
[39:37.200 --> 39:40.120] I would say it's part of it. | |||
[39:40.120 --> 39:42.880] And the United States, is this a US study? | |||
[39:42.880 --> 39:43.880] Yeah, absolutely. | |||
[39:43.880 --> 39:44.880] This is a US study. | |||
[39:44.880 --> 39:48.640] So we've got to remember that there's always a massive culture bias in these kinds of studies. | |||
[39:48.640 --> 39:53.160] And this really only applies to the group of college students that they were looking | |||
[39:53.160 --> 39:54.160] at. | |||
[39:54.160 --> 39:59.680] But they do, like any good paper, cite the available research literature, show areas | |||
[39:59.680 --> 40:05.120] where this reinforces things that have already been studied and basically move the needle | |||
[40:05.120 --> 40:08.840] that much more because there is a body of literature around this. | |||
[40:08.840 --> 40:14.000] But so the cool thing is basically the big two outcomes here are the reticence bias seems | |||
[40:14.000 --> 40:15.640] to exist. | |||
[40:15.640 --> 40:20.400] People generally think they are reticent to speak because they think that they will be | |||
[40:20.400 --> 40:23.200] liked less when they speak more. | |||
[40:23.200 --> 40:24.600] And that does not bear out. | |||
[40:24.600 --> 40:29.240] The truth is you're actually liked more if you speak more up to a point. | |||
[40:29.240 --> 40:30.320] And yeah, up to a point. | |||
[40:30.320 --> 40:35.920] And then the other one, yeah, they did show that with but it's actually it's not a huge | |||
[40:35.920 --> 40:40.160] effect like you it does start to have diminishing returns at the 70%. | |||
[40:40.160 --> 40:42.000] And they didn't look at anything over 70%. | |||
[40:42.000 --> 40:46.240] They didn't look at the extremes like 90% of the time. | |||
[40:46.240 --> 40:54.800] But interestingly, being interesting plateaus more so basically that are liked and are interesting | |||
[40:54.800 --> 40:59.120] and enjoy themselves less when they don't speak that much. | |||
[40:59.120 --> 41:03.920] It all kind of peaks around the 50% so about when you're even and then you see a diminishing | |||
[41:03.920 --> 41:08.920] return that's the heaviest on enjoyment. | |||
[41:08.920 --> 41:15.920] So basically, you're seeing that there is a sort of bimodal distribution, but the researchers | |||
[41:15.920 --> 41:19.960] make a kind of blanket statement, which I think is kind of a good statement, which is | |||
[41:19.960 --> 41:22.840] that all things being equal, you should talk. | |||
[41:22.840 --> 41:27.560] Because all things being equal, you're actually going to have a better outcome from talking | |||
[41:27.560 --> 41:29.700] more than talking less. | |||
[41:29.700 --> 41:34.440] And that flies in the face of most people's preconceived notions, which is often the case, | |||
[41:34.440 --> 41:37.940] you know, people usually misjudge. | |||
[41:37.940 --> 41:44.120] It's interesting how bad we are at intuitively like thinking about how our behavior affects | |||
[41:44.120 --> 41:48.120] our relationships, you know, people do things that have the opposite effect of what they | |||
[41:48.120 --> 41:49.120] want. | |||
[41:49.120 --> 41:50.120] Absolutely. | |||
[41:50.120 --> 41:51.120] Yeah. | |||
[41:51.120 --> 41:52.120] People shoot themselves in the foot all the time. | |||
[41:52.120 --> 41:57.040] It's also I mean, that's a fundamental part of exactly what Jay mentioned in the ad this | |||
[41:57.040 --> 42:00.020] week of cognitive behavioral therapy. | |||
[42:00.020 --> 42:06.360] It's recognizing these biases and recognizing all of the times that we we act in a way that | |||
[42:06.360 --> 42:11.480] we think is going to achieve a goal when actually it gives us the opposite outcome or an outcome | |||
[42:11.480 --> 42:13.160] that we weren't looking for. | |||
[42:13.160 --> 42:14.160] Right. | |||
[42:14.160 --> 42:17.320] That's why studies like this are important. | |||
[42:17.320 --> 42:18.320] All right. | |||
[42:18.320 --> 42:19.320] Thanks, Kara. | |||
[42:19.320 --> 42:22.400] Well, everyone, we're going to take a quick break from our show to talk about our sponsor | |||
[42:22.400 --> 42:23.880] this week, Wondrium. | |||
[42:23.880 --> 42:26.600] Guys, we talk about therapy a lot on the show. | |||
[42:26.600 --> 42:31.740] And I found a course on Wondrium that is called cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for | |||
[42:31.740 --> 42:33.240] retraining your brain. | |||
[42:33.240 --> 42:37.600] So it goes over the foundations of cognitive behavioral therapy, which, by the way, is | |||
[42:37.600 --> 42:42.820] basically one of if not the best technique that you can learn in therapy to help yourself | |||
[42:42.820 --> 42:46.080] get out of your anxiety and your depression. | |||
[42:46.080 --> 42:48.780] They talk about setting your own goals. | |||
[42:48.780 --> 42:50.800] They talk about dealing with stress. | |||
[42:50.800 --> 42:54.760] They talk about dealing with anxiety and fear, how to treat your depression. | |||
[42:54.760 --> 42:57.800] They have 24 chapters in this course. | |||
[42:57.800 --> 42:59.760] And I really do recommend this course. | |||
[42:59.760 --> 43:03.360] And get this, Wondrium will help you learn about pretty much anything you're curious | |||
[43:03.360 --> 43:08.240] about from history to science to language to travel, even learning how to cook. | |||
[43:08.240 --> 43:13.440] You get unlimited access to thousands of hours of trustworthy audio and video courses, documentaries, | |||
[43:13.440 --> 43:15.520] tutorials and so much more. | |||
[43:15.520 --> 43:19.840] And you can learn wherever and whenever that works for you because of the flexibility of | |||
[43:19.840 --> 43:20.840] the platform. | |||
[43:20.840 --> 43:25.640] We highly recommend signing up for Wondrium and Wondrium is offering our listeners a free | |||
[43:25.640 --> 43:27.820] month of unlimited access. | |||
[43:27.820 --> 43:31.120] Sign up today through our special URL to get this offer. | |||
[43:31.120 --> 43:34.200] Go to Wondrium.com slash skeptics. | |||
[43:34.200 --> 43:42.520] Again, that's W-O-N-D-R-I-U-M.com slash skeptics. | |||
[43:42.520 --> 43:44.720] All right, guys, let's get back to the show. | |||
=== News_Item_3 <small>(43:45)</small> === | === News_Item_3 <small>(43:45)</small> === | ||
Revision as of 23:12, 28 October 2022
|
This transcript is not finished. Please help us finish it! Add a Transcribing template to the top of this transcript before you start so that we don't duplicate your efforts. |
|
This episode needs: transcription, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
This is an outline for a typical episode's transcription. Not all of these segments feature in each episode.
There may also be additional/special segments not listed in this outline.
You can use this outline to help structure the transcription. Click "Edit" above to begin.
| SGU Episode 896 |
|---|
| September 10th 2022 |
 |
depiction of Chicxulub meteor |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
C: Cara Santa Maria |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Quote of the Week |
A good ghost story may hold entertainment and even cultural value, but the popular portrayal of pseudoscientific practices as science may be detracting from efforts to cultivate a scientifically literate public. |
Micheal Knees, American engineering psychologist |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction, another Artemis launch scrubbed
Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
[00:09.840 --> 00:13.440] Hello and welcome to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday,
[00:13.440 --> 00:17.360] September 7th, 2022, and this is your host, Stephen Novella.
[00:17.360 --> 00:19.840] Joining me this week are Bob Novella. Hey, everybody.
[00:19.840 --> 00:21.760] Kara Santamaria. Howdy.
[00:21.760 --> 00:23.280] Jay Novella. Hey, guys.
[00:23.280 --> 00:26.400] And Evan Bernstein. Good evening, everyone.
[00:26.400 --> 00:32.400] So we had this scrubbing of the second launch date for the Artemis 1.
[00:32.400 --> 00:35.120] Why do they keep doing that to us? Frustrating.
[00:35.120 --> 00:39.280] Yeah, so, I mean, the first, you know, this was supposed to fly in 2017.
[00:39.280 --> 00:44.720] This is now a five-year rolling delay in terms of getting this thing off the ground.
[00:44.720 --> 00:49.200] But yeah, so on last Monday or Tuesday, I think it was Monday,
[00:49.200 --> 00:51.120] they were going to try to do a launch.
[00:51.120 --> 00:55.040] They had a temperature problem in the engines,
[00:55.040 --> 00:58.720] and then it turned out they couldn't fix it within the launch window,
[00:58.720 --> 01:01.440] so they had to scrub. Turned out it was a faulty sensor.
[01:01.440 --> 01:04.880] Everything was fine, but whatever, one faulty sensor scrubs a launch.
[01:05.760 --> 01:08.640] So they rescheduled it for Saturday, and then on Saturday,
[01:08.640 --> 01:10.400] they had actually a more serious problem.
[01:10.400 --> 01:12.640] I'm not sure why they didn't have the same problem on Monday.
[01:12.640 --> 01:16.800] They had a hydrogen leak from the liquid hydrogen gassing.
[01:16.800 --> 01:19.120] Now, this is a serious problem because...
[01:19.120 --> 01:21.600] Yeah. You don't f*** around with hydrogen, man.
[01:21.600 --> 01:26.560] If it gets too, if the percentage of hydrogen outside the tank gets too high,
[01:26.560 --> 01:29.520] there's a chance that it could explode, you know, when the ship takes off,
[01:29.520 --> 01:30.880] which would be bad, right?
[01:30.880 --> 01:33.840] You don't want the explosion to be happening outside of the tank.
[01:33.840 --> 01:35.920] Oh, what do they call that? There's a name for that.
[01:35.920 --> 01:37.120] Catastrophic failure?
[01:37.120 --> 01:37.760] No, no, no.
[01:37.760 --> 01:39.280] No, you're right, Bob. There is a name for that.
[01:40.240 --> 01:43.600] And it's hilarious. Explosive disassembly or something.
[01:43.600 --> 01:44.320] Yeah, okay.
[01:44.320 --> 01:46.560] That's so scary.
[01:46.560 --> 01:48.960] Let's disassemble it with explosives, yay.
[01:48.960 --> 01:52.640] So this is interesting. So they had to scrub that because they couldn't fix that in time.
[01:52.640 --> 01:54.160] They tried a couple of things to, like,
[01:54.160 --> 01:57.040] I'll change the temperature to get the seals to work, but it didn't work.
[01:57.040 --> 02:01.200] They could potentially fix this problem on the launch pad,
[02:01.200 --> 02:03.760] but by the time they could do that,
[02:03.760 --> 02:10.640] the batteries that are needed for the abort system to work would have to be recycled.
[02:10.640 --> 02:17.920] So they have to bring the ship back to the building just to swap out the abort batteries.
[02:17.920 --> 02:20.240] But of course, while it's there, they'll fix everything.
[02:20.240 --> 02:21.840] And they got to reset everything.
[02:21.840 --> 02:23.520] It's like outside the window.
[02:23.520 --> 02:26.880] So now it's like you're keeping all these plates spinning, you know?
[02:26.880 --> 02:29.360] And if you don't get it to fly within a certain amount of time,
[02:29.360 --> 02:32.960] you got to bring it back and reset everything, you know, and then try again.
[02:32.960 --> 02:36.800] So now the earliest, they haven't set a new launch date yet as this recording,
[02:36.800 --> 02:38.560] but the earliest would be mid-October.
[02:38.560 --> 02:39.600] It would be like six weeks.
[02:39.600 --> 02:41.360] October 2023.
[02:41.360 --> 02:42.480] Yeah, 2022.
[02:42.480 --> 02:43.680] Oh, okay.
[02:43.680 --> 02:48.160] We did talk about it briefly during the live show, Jane.
[02:48.160 --> 02:51.440] You brought up the fact that you've heard some criticism.
[02:51.440 --> 02:54.160] So I did a deeper dive on it because I've heard some criticism too,
[02:54.160 --> 02:55.520] and I wanted to know where that was.
[02:55.520 --> 02:59.440] The bottom line is that it's just really expensive, you know?
[02:59.440 --> 03:04.160] They're spending, you know, $150 billion to get this thing up.
[03:04.160 --> 03:11.680] It's going to cost a billion dollars or $2 billion a launch just for the launch fees itself.
[03:11.680 --> 03:14.000] If you amortize the development cost,
[03:14.000 --> 03:17.440] it's going to be between four and five billion dollars per launch,
[03:18.400 --> 03:22.720] and they only have the infrastructure to launch one a year.
[03:22.720 --> 03:24.080] That's all we're going to get out of it.
[03:24.080 --> 03:26.080] One launch a year, and at the end of the day,
[03:26.080 --> 03:29.840] it's probably going to be at like four to five billion dollars per launch.
[03:29.840 --> 03:32.160] So that's mainly where the criticism is coming from.
[03:32.160 --> 03:32.880] It's expensive.
[03:33.520 --> 03:37.120] It's not really going to be able to do that many launches.
[03:37.120 --> 03:40.480] But you got to keep in mind that you go back to 2011
[03:40.480 --> 03:42.960] when they canceled the Constellation program,
[03:42.960 --> 03:47.360] which is the predecessor to the Space Launch System, the SLS,
[03:47.360 --> 03:51.280] and also that was the end of the life of the space shuttle.
[03:51.280 --> 03:54.640] So we had no, basically, no rockets to go up.
[03:54.640 --> 04:00.160] So at that time, the Obama administration basically made a bargain with NASA.
[04:00.160 --> 04:06.480] They said, okay, we will fund the SLS program for deep space,
[04:06.480 --> 04:10.800] but you are going to contract out low Earth orbit to private industry.
[04:10.800 --> 04:11.680] So that's what they did.
[04:12.480 --> 04:15.920] And that's where SpaceX comes from and like Blue Origin, all these companies.
[04:15.920 --> 04:17.040] So that worked out really well.
[04:17.040 --> 04:21.120] The low Earth orbit, you know, and SpaceX worked out tremendously well,
[04:21.120 --> 04:25.440] but they're kind of hobbled with this really over budget, delayed,
[04:25.440 --> 04:29.680] really expensive SLS, you know, heavy launch system.
[04:30.400 --> 04:34.400] And, you know, now looking back 11 years later,
[04:34.400 --> 04:37.360] it's like, you know, there's nothing innovative about it.
[04:37.360 --> 04:45.040] It's not reusable, you know, and the SpaceX is basically completely leapfrogged over it.
[04:45.040 --> 04:47.600] So I think that's where a lot of the criticism comes from.
[04:47.600 --> 04:50.560] But still, here we are, you know, it's going to get us to the moon.
[04:50.560 --> 04:53.760] You also have to keep in mind that at the other end of the spectrum,
[04:54.400 --> 04:56.800] the Artemis program, not the SLS,
[04:56.800 --> 05:00.640] but the Artemis program was originally planned for 2028.
[05:00.640 --> 05:04.720] Well, to the moon, right, to be back on the moon in 2028.
[05:04.720 --> 05:08.160] That's Artemis mission, not the SLS system, right?
[05:08.160 --> 05:09.280] So not the rocket.
[05:09.280 --> 05:15.520] But the Artemis mission was moved up from 2028 to 2024 by the Trump administration.
[05:15.520 --> 05:18.400] And then it's now pushed back to 2025.
[05:18.400 --> 05:20.880] That's still three years ahead of schedule.
[05:20.880 --> 05:22.080] Of original schedule, yes.
[05:22.080 --> 05:23.120] Original schedule.
[05:23.120 --> 05:26.320] And nobody ever thought that the 2024 thing was realistic.
[05:26.320 --> 05:28.640] NASA was like, this is just not going to be like, OK, sure, right.
[05:28.640 --> 05:32.560] But they knew politically it sounded good, but never going to happen.
[05:32.560 --> 05:35.120] So, all right, we're still on track to get back to the moon
[05:35.120 --> 05:36.720] by the middle of this decade.
[05:36.720 --> 05:39.360] And hopefully, you know, the SLS will work out.
[05:39.360 --> 05:40.720] Artemis will launch.
[05:40.720 --> 05:43.760] It's obviously I'd rather have them scrub for six weeks
[05:43.760 --> 05:45.200] and have the thing blow up on the pad.
[05:45.200 --> 05:46.800] That would be a disaster.
[05:46.800 --> 05:47.840] My gosh.
[05:47.840 --> 05:51.760] What I do think is that NASA should already be planning
[05:51.760 --> 05:53.760] the successor of the SLS, though.
[05:54.960 --> 05:55.200] Right.
[05:55.200 --> 05:55.920] I mean, they shouldn't.
[05:55.920 --> 05:59.040] Well, the SLS is expensive to fly.
[05:59.040 --> 06:01.600] And it's like, you know, it's not reusable.
[06:01.600 --> 06:03.440] It's not efficient or whatever.
[06:04.000 --> 06:06.000] They should probably just contract out, you know,
[06:06.000 --> 06:09.360] to the private space industry now to develop the next thing
[06:09.360 --> 06:12.320] that's going to be able to get to the moon and to Mars
[06:12.960 --> 06:14.720] and not try to do it themselves.
[06:14.720 --> 06:15.440] You know what I mean?
[06:16.000 --> 06:16.560] Yeah.
[06:16.560 --> 06:19.760] Yeah, I mean, that's a really hard thing to predict, Steve.
[06:19.760 --> 06:22.800] You know, first of all, we don't know how well the SLS is going to work.
[06:22.800 --> 06:26.640] It seems like private industry is going to work out better
[06:26.640 --> 06:28.880] than NASA owning their own rockets at this point.
[06:28.880 --> 06:29.920] Don't you agree?
[06:29.920 --> 06:32.160] I mean, for low Earth orbit, it's worked out really well.
[06:32.800 --> 06:34.720] You know, that was sort of the division of labor.
[06:34.720 --> 06:37.120] They would let private industry handle low Earth orbit
[06:37.120 --> 06:39.040] and then NASA will do deep space, right?
[06:39.040 --> 06:40.720] Go back to the moon and then eventually Mars.
[06:41.280 --> 06:45.360] Orion, which is NASA's capsule, that is the only spaceship
[06:45.360 --> 06:47.760] that can get to the, you know, to the moon now, right?
[06:47.760 --> 06:49.120] That can do deep space missions.
[06:49.120 --> 06:51.680] It's rated for 21 days.
[06:51.680 --> 06:54.240] It's long enough to get to the moon and back, you know what I mean?
[06:54.240 --> 06:56.480] So the Dragon module can't do it?
[06:56.480 --> 06:59.360] Well, according to NASA, it's the only one that's rated for,
[06:59.360 --> 07:00.720] like, moon missions at this point.
[07:00.720 --> 07:05.200] So they would, not that you, you know, I'm sure you could get the Dragon capsule
[07:05.200 --> 07:09.280] or a version of it to the point where it would be rated for deep space,
[07:09.280 --> 07:10.480] but it isn't right now.
[07:11.200 --> 07:15.040] But again, they gave the contract to SpaceX, remember, for the lunar lander
[07:15.040 --> 07:20.240] and Musk wants to convert the Starship into a lunar lander.
[07:20.240 --> 07:22.240] Yeah, that's still on.
[07:22.240 --> 07:23.760] Which is, like, weird in a way.
[07:24.640 --> 07:28.080] Would that ship, Steve, leave from Earth or would it stay?
[07:28.080 --> 07:29.120] Well, it'd have to, right?
[07:29.120 --> 07:31.680] We're not going to build it on Earth, send it to the moon,
[07:31.680 --> 07:34.560] and then it's going to land on, that's the ship that's going to land on the moon.
[07:34.560 --> 07:36.560] But, you know, I think we talked about it at the time,
[07:36.560 --> 07:39.360] it's like, yeah, but it's going all the way to the moon.
[07:39.360 --> 07:41.760] Why don't you just make that your moon ship, you know what I mean?
[07:41.760 --> 07:46.800] Like, why are you going to take the SLS to the moon, then hop on over into the Starship
[07:46.800 --> 07:49.120] to go down, to land down on the moon?
[07:49.120 --> 07:49.680] I don't know.
[07:49.680 --> 07:51.680] I don't know exactly how that's going to work.
[07:51.680 --> 07:56.320] So, okay, so it is that way, that ship is going to basically ferry people
[07:56.320 --> 08:00.400] from low moon orbit to the surface.
[08:00.400 --> 08:01.440] Yes, that's right.
[08:01.440 --> 08:04.480] And it stays out there and they just refuel it and keep reusing it.
[08:04.480 --> 08:05.520] I guess so.
[08:05.520 --> 08:08.560] Steve, I'm hoping that the next thing that will be developed
[08:08.560 --> 08:14.720] will be a deep space nuclear rocket, because they're developing nuclear rockets for cislunar.
[08:14.720 --> 08:17.920] Now, they won't be really rated for beyond cislunar, right?
[08:17.920 --> 08:20.960] They really won't be designed to go beyond the moon.
[08:20.960 --> 08:25.680] But, and this is why NASA is working with them on this, once they have it,
[08:25.680 --> 08:29.040] then the homework, you know, the foundational homework will be done,
[08:29.040 --> 08:32.880] and then NASA could take that and then extend it and then make it,
[08:32.880 --> 08:34.640] you know, for a much deeper space.
[08:34.640 --> 08:36.320] So that's my hope.
[08:36.320 --> 08:40.400] That's my hope. The question is, is it going to be the next gen deep space,
[08:40.400 --> 08:41.920] or is it going to be the one after that?
[08:42.560 --> 08:48.560] Well, maybe just like let private companies handle just the heavy lift rockets
[08:48.560 --> 08:49.600] that get you to the moon.
[08:50.240 --> 08:54.560] And NASA just completely focuses on developing nuclear rockets.
[08:54.560 --> 08:57.120] Yeah, shit man, I'd be, I'm all for that.
[08:57.120 --> 08:58.400] Because that's the next thing we need.
[08:58.400 --> 09:01.680] And chemical rockets are just so inefficient, you know,
[09:01.680 --> 09:04.560] like it's just not the way to get to Mars and back.
[09:04.560 --> 09:11.760] No, anything beyond the moon, and chemical rockets are just going to be marginalized.
[09:11.760 --> 09:14.080] I mean, of course, now I'm thinking much deeper into the future,
[09:14.080 --> 09:16.880] but as we, as the decades and centuries accrue,
[09:17.760 --> 09:21.360] chemical is really going to be just like maybe for Earth launch.
[09:21.360 --> 09:22.160] And that's it.
[09:22.160 --> 09:25.120] Getting out of Earth's gravity well, that's pretty much going to be it.
[09:25.120 --> 09:28.640] Right. But that's, you know, who knows how long that's going to take,
[09:29.600 --> 09:32.880] you know, when chemical no longer has any role in deep space,
[09:32.880 --> 09:35.600] because, you know, long distance rocket equation says,
[09:35.600 --> 09:37.360] screw you chemical rockets.
[09:37.360 --> 09:38.080] Yeah.
[09:38.080 --> 09:38.640] Yeah.
[09:38.640 --> 09:40.720] And then, and then eventually fusion.
[09:40.720 --> 09:44.480] Once we get to fusion, then we're, that's the, that's the game.
[09:44.480 --> 09:45.440] Started man, that's good.
[09:45.440 --> 09:45.920] Yeah.
[09:45.920 --> 09:46.800] And what's interesting is-
[09:46.800 --> 09:49.200] Especially the hydrogen proton proton fusion engine.
[09:49.200 --> 09:54.640] Once we develop fusion engines, that's going to be our engines forever.
[09:54.640 --> 10:00.080] Like there's the probability that anything will replace it is so remote.
[10:00.080 --> 10:05.200] Like we don't know if it will ever happen and if it does, it will be in the distant far future.
[10:05.200 --> 10:05.600] Right.
[10:05.600 --> 10:08.560] So that's the brass ring right there.
[10:08.560 --> 10:11.360] Well, for reaction rockets, yes.
[10:11.360 --> 10:16.080] I think that's going to be it for quite, for potentially centuries.
[10:16.080 --> 10:18.560] And you could do an amazing amount of things-
[10:18.560 --> 10:19.520] I think thousands of years.
[10:19.520 --> 10:21.920] With, with, that's silly.
[10:21.920 --> 10:22.960] Technically centuries too.
[10:22.960 --> 10:23.840] But that's, yeah.
[10:23.840 --> 10:24.960] But that's, yeah.
[10:24.960 --> 10:28.320] I mean, even the best we can do with that type of reaction rocket,
[10:28.320 --> 10:31.120] say a fusion hydrogen proton proton, which is really efficient,
[10:31.120 --> 10:34.960] like say 11%, 11% speed of light exhaust velocity.
[10:34.960 --> 10:40.400] That is, you could still do, you know, 20% the speed of light with that type of rocket.
[10:40.400 --> 10:45.040] And if you don't care about cargo at all, you can get that rocket up to 50% the speed of light.
[10:45.680 --> 10:49.520] But then cargo of course becomes literally a millionth of the payload,
[10:49.520 --> 10:52.720] but still 10%, 20% the speed of light with a super advanced-
[10:52.720 --> 10:58.560] Give it a bob, you add, add a little bit of light sails and then that'll get you.
[10:58.560 --> 10:58.880] Yes.
[10:58.880 --> 10:59.680] That'll get you there.
[10:59.680 --> 11:01.840] So that's going to be light sails and fusion.
[11:01.840 --> 11:02.720] That's going to be space travel.
[11:02.720 --> 11:06.880] That seems to be, I think that's pretty much where we're going for centuries.
[11:06.880 --> 11:10.960] Unless an ASI, artificial super intelligence, rises and then all bets are off.
[11:10.960 --> 11:16.880] But even then, he or she would be constrained to, to the physics, to physics as we know it.
[11:16.880 --> 11:19.280] And even, even, you know, the ASI might say,
[11:19.280 --> 11:22.640] damn man, this is the best I could do, but it's still going to be cool.
[11:22.640 --> 11:24.560] Yeah. It's almost as if we wrote a whole book about it.
[11:24.560 --> 11:24.720] Yeah.
[11:26.560 --> 11:30.560] It's almost as if I just did a deep dive research on it because I talked about it at Dragon Con.
[11:31.200 --> 11:31.680] Dragon Con.
[11:31.680 --> 11:32.480] How was Dragon Con?
[11:33.040 --> 11:33.920] It was great.
[11:33.920 --> 11:39.360] Liz and I went first time in three years and I know you guys were just so wicked jealous.
[11:39.360 --> 11:40.000] It was great.
[11:40.000 --> 11:40.560] Totally.
[11:40.560 --> 11:42.160] It was pretty much as we remember it.
[11:42.160 --> 11:45.840] Amazing costumes, amazing fun, lots of people.
[11:45.840 --> 11:50.160] And pretty much, I was double masked for like four days in a row
[11:50.160 --> 11:55.680] and I took a, took a test today and totally clean, no, totally negative.
[11:55.680 --> 11:59.360] So I think I totally, you know, got away with it totally.
[12:00.400 --> 12:01.040] I did a talk.
[12:01.040 --> 12:04.480] I called the science, I called, I called the science panel guys and I'm like,
[12:04.480 --> 12:07.840] I want to do the future of rockets.
[12:07.840 --> 12:10.880] And they'd made a panel with like five guys and I was one of them.
[12:10.880 --> 12:12.320] And I just went off.
[12:12.320 --> 12:14.480] I did a deep dive for weeks.
[12:14.480 --> 12:17.840] For weeks I did a deep dive just to refresh my memory and all the research that I had
[12:17.840 --> 12:20.880] done for the chapter of the book about future rockets.
[12:20.880 --> 12:21.920] And I got it down, man.
[12:21.920 --> 12:26.880] I made an awesome bullet list of all the top, the top things that I needed to keep straight
[12:26.880 --> 12:27.440] in my head.
[12:27.440 --> 12:29.680] And it was so much fun to research.
[12:29.680 --> 12:34.000] And there was a great panel, great panel, great fellow panelists with me.
[12:34.000 --> 12:36.960] They were all very knowledgeable and it was great.
[12:36.960 --> 12:38.880] But also I did some skeptical stuff.
[12:38.880 --> 12:40.240] I talked about the two books.
[12:40.240 --> 12:45.760] I did a, I did a one man show on stage on the skeptical track and I was like, oh boy,
[12:45.760 --> 12:46.960] this is scary.
[12:46.960 --> 12:47.840] But it was fine.
[12:47.840 --> 12:48.640] It was fine.
[12:48.640 --> 12:52.160] I just, I just went off on the books and then I started talking about rockets again.
[12:52.160 --> 12:52.960] And then that was it.
[12:52.960 --> 12:54.400] I was in my happy place.
[12:54.960 --> 12:56.560] And, uh, totally great.
[12:56.560 --> 13:00.160] Bob, totally utterly, absolutely.
[13:00.160 --> 13:04.560] Indubitably your solo talk was basically like a pared down news item for Bob.
[13:04.560 --> 13:06.080] Yeah, that's basically what it was.
[13:06.880 --> 13:07.520] It was great.
[13:07.520 --> 13:13.760] And, uh, so many, as usual, so many great costumes, the talent on display at Dragon
[13:13.760 --> 13:19.840] Con blows me away every time I go and I'm determined next year to have an awesome homemade
[13:19.840 --> 13:21.520] costume, which I didn't have this year.
[13:22.320 --> 13:22.480] Yeah.
[13:22.480 --> 13:24.240] We haven't been, I've been what, in four years now.
[13:24.240 --> 13:26.480] It'll be, we're definitely going to make a plan to go next year.
[13:27.120 --> 13:27.440] Yeah.
[13:27.440 --> 13:28.800] I mean, we were fine.
[13:28.800 --> 13:30.480] Pandemic willing, but I hopefully will.
[13:30.480 --> 13:30.720] Yeah.
[13:30.720 --> 13:31.200] It's time.
[13:31.200 --> 13:33.360] I mean, as long as things are good, we gotta go.
[13:33.360 --> 13:36.960] We were surrounded at times by thousands of people.
[13:36.960 --> 13:39.840] And at a couple of times I was like, this is uncomfortable.
[13:40.560 --> 13:44.080] But I had my double masks, you know, I held my breath a lot.
[13:44.640 --> 13:46.000] And it, and I'm fine.
[13:46.000 --> 13:48.720] Both Liz and I are both, you know, totally testing negative.
[13:48.720 --> 13:50.400] And it's been many, it's been days.
[13:50.400 --> 13:51.200] So it's doable.
[13:51.200 --> 13:53.760] Just, you know, you just, you know, you could take it easy.
[13:53.760 --> 13:57.840] You don't have to go into the big shoulder to shoulder crowds, um, you know?
[13:57.840 --> 13:58.320] And, uh, it's totally doable.
[13:58.320 --> 14:00.400] How about the, uh, the merch room?
[14:00.400 --> 14:00.800] Oh yeah.
[14:00.800 --> 14:02.640] That was, that was, you know, it was Christmas.
[14:02.640 --> 14:04.080] I'm, I'm walking towards it.
[14:04.080 --> 14:04.240] Yeah.
[14:04.240 --> 14:04.720] But how was it?
[14:04.720 --> 14:06.320] Was there a shoulder to shoulder in there?
[14:06.320 --> 14:07.200] No, no.
[14:07.200 --> 14:10.400] The first day, the first day it opened where I was like waiting for it.
[14:10.400 --> 14:13.360] And it was, it was, there's four floors, as you know.
[14:13.360 --> 14:17.680] And, uh, it was not shoulder to shoulder craziness at that, that the first few hours that I was
[14:17.680 --> 14:18.400] there.
[14:18.400 --> 14:20.080] And, uh, so that's, so that was fine too.
[14:20.080 --> 14:21.680] I was worried about that as well.
[14:21.680 --> 14:26.160] By the way, one last detail I've got to mention about the Orion capsule is that it's not just
[14:26.160 --> 14:27.920] that it's rated for 21 days.
[14:27.920 --> 14:32.800] When you come back from the moon, you reenter the atmosphere much faster than when you,
[14:32.800 --> 14:35.520] than when you're just coming down from low earth orbit.
[14:35.520 --> 14:39.360] And so the capsule has to be rated for high speed reentry.
[14:39.360 --> 14:39.680] Yeah.
[14:39.680 --> 14:43.360] And I think the, the Orion capsule is the only one that could do that.
[14:43.360 --> 14:48.400] So like the dragon capsule would really need to be redesigned or refitted to be a high
[14:48.400 --> 14:49.360] speed reentry.
[14:49.360 --> 14:51.520] That's yeah, that's, yeah, that's major.
[14:51.520 --> 14:53.200] You're not going to just slap on duct tape.
[14:53.200 --> 14:56.160] That's like a major event, major redesign.
[14:56.160 --> 14:56.960] I'm sure they could.
[14:56.960 --> 14:57.360] Yeah.
[14:57.360 --> 14:57.520] Yeah.
[14:57.520 --> 14:58.880] But I'm sure they could do it if they wanted to.
[14:58.880 --> 15:02.480] All right, Bob, um, you're going to start us off with a quickie.
[15:02.480 --> 15:05.200] You're going to tell us about Frank Drake.
[15:05.200 --> 15:06.320] Thank you, Steve.
Quickie with Bob: Frank Drake (15:00)
- Frank Drake passes away [link_URL TITLE][1]
[15:06.320 --> 15:08.800] Hello and welcome to your Quickie with Bob.
[15:08.800 --> 15:12.800] No need to gird your loins for this one, Kara, but you may need a hanky.
[15:12.800 --> 15:17.600] We lost astrophysicist Frank Drake this past September 2nd, 2022.
[15:17.600 --> 15:18.880] He was 92.
[15:18.880 --> 15:19.680] Good run.
[15:19.680 --> 15:20.400] Nice run.
[15:20.400 --> 15:20.880] Good run.
[15:20.880 --> 15:24.960] We always say that when you're like, you know, in the eighties or nineties, but 92 is great.
[15:24.960 --> 15:30.240] I would, I would pay a good chunk of money right now if you can guarantee me, um, 92.
[15:30.240 --> 15:35.600] So he is most famous, of course, for his 1961 Drake equation.
[15:35.600 --> 15:39.920] I would love to have an equation named after me like that, which attempts to determine
[15:39.920 --> 15:44.560] the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy whose signals we could detect.
[15:45.200 --> 15:46.800] We talked about it on the show many times.
[15:46.800 --> 15:49.120] I won't go into any more detail on the equation itself.
[15:49.120 --> 15:51.120] We all know it by heart.
[15:51.120 --> 15:52.080] He did this now.
[15:52.080 --> 15:58.160] He did this after doing the very first modern SETI experiment in 1960 called Project
[15:58.160 --> 16:04.960] OSMA using a radio telescope to examine the stars, Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani, two names
[16:04.960 --> 16:06.560] of stars that I absolutely love.
[16:06.560 --> 16:09.040] I think it's what the Star Trek vibe or whatever.
[16:09.040 --> 16:10.240] I just love those names.
[16:10.240 --> 16:12.320] To me, there's just so science fictiony.
[16:12.320 --> 16:18.080] Now he used a part of the spectrum called the water hole, which is awesome on many levels
[16:18.080 --> 16:20.720] because it's near the hydrogen spectral lines.
[16:20.720 --> 16:21.360] Get it?
[16:21.360 --> 16:26.400] And it's also that, that part of the spectrum, the electromagnetic spectrum that's especially
[16:26.400 --> 16:31.600] quiet, and he reasoned that other intelligences would realize that as well and that it would
[16:31.600 --> 16:35.360] be a really good, efficient frequency to communicate over.
[16:36.000 --> 16:42.480] Now that experiment took two months and $2,000 in new equipment, and he essentially created
[16:42.480 --> 16:47.280] a new field by doing that SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
[16:47.280 --> 16:51.760] From what I could tell, he did come up with that Drake equation to necessarily determine
[16:51.760 --> 16:56.320] the number of aliens that are out there, but as a way to stimulate discussions at the first
[16:56.320 --> 17:02.560] SETI meeting, because he was asked, hey, dude, because he became famous the year after he
[17:02.560 --> 17:02.960] did this.
[17:02.960 --> 17:09.120] He became well known the world over, and he was asked, hey, have this SETI conference,
[17:09.120 --> 17:10.560] the very first SETI conference.
[17:11.360 --> 17:17.280] He then came up with the Drake equation for that to stimulate discussions and thinking.
[17:17.280 --> 17:21.680] Drake's passion for astronomy and the possibility of life out there began when he was eight
[17:21.680 --> 17:26.000] years old, imagining alien Earths scattered across the night sky.
[17:26.000 --> 17:31.680] After his dad told him there were many worlds out there in space, and that was in 1938,
[17:31.680 --> 17:32.160] by the way.
[17:32.160 --> 17:32.960] Good on you, dad.
[17:33.760 --> 17:37.520] Seth Shostak said of him, Drake was never an impatient listener.
[17:37.520 --> 17:40.720] He was, to my mind, one of the last nice guys around.
[17:40.720 --> 17:44.800] He was never moody, never angry, and he didn't show the slightest annoyance if you walked
[17:44.800 --> 17:48.320] into his office and took his attention away from whatever he was doing.
[17:48.320 --> 17:53.920] And I read that over and over, people who had known him, that he was such a great, great
[17:53.920 --> 17:54.480] guy.
[17:54.480 --> 18:00.080] And I'll end with a quote from Nadia Drake, Frank's daughter, a titan in life, dad leaves
[18:00.080 --> 18:01.600] a titanic absence.
[18:02.720 --> 18:04.800] This was your sad quickie with Bob.
[18:04.800 --> 18:05.120] Thank you.
[18:06.000 --> 18:07.920] Yeah, it's always like a bittersweet, right?
[18:07.920 --> 18:14.000] It is sad to lose a giant like Frank Drake, but you're happy that he lived a long life.
[18:14.000 --> 18:16.560] He was relevant to the end.
[18:17.200 --> 18:23.440] Yeah, I mean, for centuries, as we're looking, and I think we'll never stop searching for
[18:23.440 --> 18:29.840] a life out there, his name will, and he will be in the thoughts of all the other big explorers
[18:29.840 --> 18:32.880] that haven't even been born yet that will be looking to the stars.
[18:32.880 --> 18:35.120] Bob, you and I are going to have to come up with our own equation.
[18:35.120 --> 18:36.400] It'll be the novella equation.
[18:36.400 --> 18:37.040] Yes, yes.
[18:37.040 --> 18:40.480] How about the probability that AI will wipe out human civilization?
[18:40.480 --> 18:41.920] Yes, all right.
[18:41.920 --> 18:42.640] Done.
[18:42.640 --> 18:43.440] We will do this.
[18:43.440 --> 18:44.800] That's too good not to happen.
[18:44.800 --> 18:45.040] All right.
[18:45.040 --> 18:45.840] All right.
[18:45.840 --> 18:46.640] Well, we'll work on it.
[18:46.640 --> 18:47.520] We'll come up with some other ideas.
[18:47.520 --> 18:48.880] That's horrible.
[18:48.880 --> 18:49.760] That's horrible.
News Items
S:
B:
C:
J:
E:
(laughs) (laughter) (applause) [inaudible]
follow up on the MOXIE instrument on Mars (18:51)
- [link_URL TITLE][2]
[18:50.720 --> 18:51.440] All right, Jay.
[18:51.440 --> 18:55.520] You actually were kind of an astronomy space theme.
[18:56.480 --> 19:02.320] You're going to tell us, give us a follow up on the MOXIE instrument on Mars.
[19:02.320 --> 19:04.240] Yeah, do you guys remember MOXIE?
[19:04.240 --> 19:05.040] The oxygen thing?
[19:05.040 --> 19:06.640] MOXIE is creating oxygen on Mars right now.
[19:06.640 --> 19:07.040] Yeah.
[19:07.040 --> 19:08.000] Oh, okay.
[19:08.000 --> 19:08.800] Now I remember.
[19:08.800 --> 19:12.160] It's one of my favorite things about Perseverance.
[19:12.160 --> 19:17.760] So just to go through the basics so you guys understand, it's totally worth talking about
[19:17.760 --> 19:19.840] again because it's this fascinating technology.
[19:19.840 --> 19:25.920] It's an instrument about the size of a lunchbox that is connected to the Perseverance rover.
[19:25.920 --> 19:30.240] It happens to live in the front right side of Perseverance.
[19:30.240 --> 19:36.240] And its job is to take in the Martian atmosphere, which is 96% death, right?
[19:36.240 --> 19:38.640] It's 96% carbon dioxide.
[19:38.640 --> 19:41.840] And what it does is it strips the carbon atom away from the oxygen atoms.
[19:41.840 --> 19:43.200] I'll get into more detail about that.
[19:44.240 --> 19:48.640] And they're testing it and it's gone amazingly well.
[19:48.640 --> 19:50.480] So let me get into some details.
[19:50.480 --> 19:56.240] So first of all, MOXIE stands for Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment.
[19:56.880 --> 20:00.320] And it couldn't be, the name is perfect for what this little bugger does.
[20:00.320 --> 20:02.880] So details about how it works.
[20:02.880 --> 20:08.560] So it takes in the Martian air and it filters it to remove any contaminants that happen
[20:08.560 --> 20:11.440] to be in there and dust particles, dirt and all that crap.
[20:11.440 --> 20:15.760] The air is then pressurized and then it's fed into something called the Solid Oxide
[20:15.760 --> 20:16.640] Electrolyzer.
[20:16.640 --> 20:19.280] That totally sounds like, what was that?
[20:19.280 --> 20:20.480] The encabulator, Steve?
[20:21.040 --> 20:22.720] Yeah, the turbo encabulator.
[20:22.720 --> 20:23.220] Yeah.
[20:23.840 --> 20:29.120] So the Solid Oxide Electrolyzer, this is an instrument that electrochemically splits the
[20:29.120 --> 20:33.120] carbon dioxide molecule into oxygen ions and carbon monoxide.
[20:33.680 --> 20:40.880] The oxygen ions are separated from the carbon monoxide and then they combine them to make
[20:40.880 --> 20:43.920] molecular oxygen, which is essentially just oxygen.
[20:43.920 --> 20:47.440] MOXIE then measures how much oxygen it creates, right?
[20:47.440 --> 20:54.000] So as it has created this batch, it measures how much it has just created and it also checks
[20:54.000 --> 20:56.720] its purity before it releases it back into the atmosphere.
[20:56.720 --> 21:00.320] And that's what MOXIE is doing right now, is just spitting this stuff right back out
[21:00.320 --> 21:01.200] into the atmosphere.
[21:01.920 --> 21:04.640] The single unit weighs, how much do you guys think this thing weighs?
[21:04.640 --> 21:05.140] Four pounds?
[21:06.160 --> 21:07.280] 21 kilos.
[21:07.280 --> 21:10.080] Not bad, 37 pounds or 17 kilos.
[21:10.080 --> 21:14.720] And now it does the work of a small tree, if you can believe that.
[21:14.720 --> 21:15.280] The unit was-
[21:15.280 --> 21:15.780] How small?
[21:16.640 --> 21:17.520] I'll get into detail.
[21:17.520 --> 21:21.760] A small tree, meaning I would say anything that's probably below 10 feet, like it's
[21:21.760 --> 21:23.520] a non-mature tree.
[21:24.160 --> 21:29.040] The unit was first turned on in February 2021 and every test they ran worked perfectly.
[21:29.040 --> 21:33.920] They ran seven experimental runs at different conditions, which now that I think about it,
[21:33.920 --> 21:39.360] of course they had to test it under different conditions because Mars can be so variable.
[21:39.360 --> 21:44.160] They first have to warm up MOXIE for a few hours because it's cold.
[21:44.160 --> 21:47.600] And then they run it for about an hour and then they shut it down.
[21:47.600 --> 21:49.680] And that's them just running a cycle test on it.
[21:50.800 --> 21:54.880] And what they do is they run it during the day, then they tested it at night, then they
[21:54.880 --> 22:00.640] tested it in different seasons because the temperature and the air pressure, the density
[22:00.640 --> 22:05.360] and the overall air temperature can vary a lot, like 100 degree shifts in temperature
[22:05.360 --> 22:08.080] depending on the season and time of day and all that.
[22:08.080 --> 22:13.600] So they haven't tested it during dawn and dusk because there are significant temperature
[22:13.600 --> 22:17.200] changes that happen during those times and they just want to like do preliminary testing
[22:17.200 --> 22:19.280] and then they're going to get into the more advanced testing.
[22:19.280 --> 22:25.120] But so far, every scenario that they put it through, it worked fantastically well.
[22:25.120 --> 22:28.880] It produces six grams of oxygen per hour.
[22:29.440 --> 22:32.720] So this is equal to, as I said, a small tree on Earth.
[22:32.720 --> 22:38.320] MOXIE is the first, it's the first thing that we've put on another planet that does what
[22:38.320 --> 22:38.800] guys?
[22:38.800 --> 22:41.280] Creates oxygen.
[22:41.280 --> 22:46.640] Well, more importantly, it's the first thing that ever used local resources and manufactured
[22:46.640 --> 22:48.400] them into something that's usable.
[22:48.400 --> 22:48.880] That's cool.
[22:50.000 --> 22:50.720] Very cool.
[22:50.720 --> 22:53.040] That is like, that is a milestone here.
[22:53.040 --> 22:57.680] It's incredibly useful because it could save, I'm going to start off by saying millions,
[22:57.680 --> 23:01.840] but after hearing Steve talk about how expensive these missions are, it could save billions
[23:01.840 --> 23:07.600] of dollars or more quintillions in cost to ship oxygen to Mars, right?
[23:07.600 --> 23:11.680] Think about it because we'd have to ship frequently ship a lot of oxygen to Mars.
[23:11.680 --> 23:13.600] That stuff is heavy, by the way.
[23:13.600 --> 23:14.880] Sorry, the launch is late, guys.
[23:14.880 --> 23:16.080] Hold your breath for a week.
[23:16.080 --> 23:20.400] The current version of MOXIE was made small deliberately so it could fit on perseverance
[23:20.400 --> 23:26.080] and it wasn't built to run continuously, but in its current form, it has proven to be very
[23:26.080 --> 23:29.840] efficient, which is very important because it won't use a lot of energy and it's reliable.
[23:29.840 --> 23:35.600] The next big test for MOXIE is to run it when the atmosphere is at its densest and they
[23:35.600 --> 23:37.920] plan to run it for as long as possible now.
[23:37.920 --> 23:40.960] They're just going to let that little bugger keep chugging along and just see what happens
[23:40.960 --> 23:43.520] to it because that'll teach us more about what to do.
[23:43.520 --> 23:48.160] Since MOXIE has to be turned on and then it has to be heated up and then they turn it
[23:48.160 --> 23:50.720] off, it goes through something called thermal stress, right?
[23:50.720 --> 23:54.240] Temperature goes up and the metal and parts expand and do what they're going to do and
[23:54.240 --> 23:56.320] then when it cools off, it shrinks back down.
[23:56.320 --> 24:01.600] Now since MOXIE is able to handle thermal stress, the researchers say that a new larger
[24:01.600 --> 24:06.720] system, MOXIE on steroids, would be able to last a very long time since it won't be
[24:06.720 --> 24:12.240] experiencing anywhere near the number of thermal stresses that MOXIE has already proven to
[24:12.240 --> 24:12.960] go through.
[24:12.960 --> 24:18.880] I know they've only tested it seven times, but that's a lot and they could turn on the
[24:18.880 --> 24:23.680] larger version of it and it may never turn off until its end of life cycle.
[24:23.680 --> 24:24.480] It just does what it does.
[24:24.480 --> 24:25.520] Just let it run, yeah.
[24:25.520 --> 24:30.560] Yeah, the larger version of MOXIE could be placed on Mars way before we put humans there.
[24:30.560 --> 24:32.800] It could be producing oxygen for a long time.
[24:32.800 --> 24:35.600] There could be a whole cache of oxygen ready to go.
[24:36.560 --> 24:42.720] The new unit, of course, they want it to run continuously and it could make approximately
[24:43.360 --> 24:46.400] several hundred trees worth of oxygen per day.
[24:46.400 --> 24:47.120] Per day?
[24:47.120 --> 24:47.600] Yes.
[24:47.600 --> 24:48.160] Not bad.
[24:48.160 --> 24:48.640] How many?
[24:48.640 --> 24:49.440] How much is that?
[24:49.440 --> 24:53.920] As a point of reference, Kara, I'm going to tell you a single person needs about seven
[24:53.920 --> 24:56.240] to eight trees worth of oxygen a day.
[24:56.240 --> 24:57.600] Oh, damn.
[24:57.600 --> 24:58.800] That's a lot.
[24:58.800 --> 24:59.040] Yep.
[24:59.600 --> 25:05.120] But, you know, if you do the math, you know, several hundred trees divided by eight turns
[25:05.120 --> 25:09.200] into quite a good crew of people there that the machine could keep alive.
[25:09.200 --> 25:12.240] And who says that they don't put two or three MOXIE machines?
[25:12.240 --> 25:13.840] Yeah, they want some redundancy.
[25:14.720 --> 25:18.160] The great thing about oxygen is what, first, it keeps us alive.
[25:18.720 --> 25:23.040] And the second great thing is that it, of course, can be used as fuel because we need
[25:23.040 --> 25:24.800] fuel to get off the surface of Mars.
[25:24.800 --> 25:29.600] And oxygen is a primary component in fuel, you know, in chemical fuel.
[25:29.600 --> 25:32.560] So thank you, MOXIE, for working.
[25:32.560 --> 25:35.680] So the carbon monoxide is useful, too.
[25:35.680 --> 25:36.000] Oh, yeah.
[25:36.000 --> 25:38.640] Don't discount the carbon monoxide is a high energy molecule.
[25:38.640 --> 25:42.880] And that's feedstock for things like hydrocarbons.
[25:42.880 --> 25:44.640] So all that you need is hydrogen.
[25:44.640 --> 25:49.360] If we could get a source of hydrogen on Mars, then you can combine the hydrogen with the
[25:49.360 --> 25:51.120] carbon monoxide to make methane.
[25:51.120 --> 25:55.120] The hydrogen, obviously, itself could be burned with the oxygen as rocket fuel.
[25:55.920 --> 25:58.000] And there are sources of hydrogen on Mars.
[25:58.000 --> 26:03.360] There are there's a lot of water on Mars and so not all of it is in drinkable form.
[26:03.360 --> 26:09.360] There are like what they call perchlorate brines, which is a lot of hydroxyl groups,
[26:09.360 --> 26:13.920] a lot of a lot of water type, you know, molecular groups in there.
[26:13.920 --> 26:14.880] Water-ish.
[26:14.880 --> 26:18.880] Yeah, well, hydrogen and oxygen, but it's not necessarily drinkable water.
[26:18.880 --> 26:23.840] But you get that you split the hydrogen off, you have pure hydrogen, you have more oxygen,
[26:23.840 --> 26:26.800] you could make fuel, you have oxygen to burn with the fuel.
[26:26.800 --> 26:30.560] We definitely are going to need to be able to make all of our fuel for the return trip
[26:30.560 --> 26:31.600] locally on Mars.
[26:31.600 --> 26:33.280] You can't carry all that crap with you.
[26:33.280 --> 26:36.000] Yeah, rocket equation will kill you if you try to do that.
[26:36.000 --> 26:42.400] So and then if and then if we could find a source of nitrogen on Mars, then we also have
[26:42.400 --> 26:45.600] our fertilizer to grow our own food there.
[26:45.600 --> 26:50.160] And there is nitrogen on Mars already fixed in the form of nitrates.
[26:50.160 --> 26:56.160] So, yeah, the bottom line is pretty much we have everything we need on Mars, you know,
[26:56.160 --> 26:57.840] for food, oxygen and water.
[26:57.840 --> 26:59.600] Except for the hamburger molecules.
[26:59.600 --> 27:05.280] Well, yeah, but you just grow the food and then you raise the animals and slaughter them.
[27:05.280 --> 27:08.080] And then you have your hamburger.
[27:08.080 --> 27:10.080] Thank you, Dr. Strangelove.
[27:10.080 --> 27:12.880] Just make some lab-grown meat, that'd be fine.
[27:12.880 --> 27:14.400] Yeah, there you go, lab-grown meat.
do people like you more if you talk more or talk less (27:16)
- [link_URL TITLE][3]
[27:14.400 --> 27:21.120] All right, Kara, tell us, do people like you more if you talk more or talk less?
[27:21.120 --> 27:22.480] Let's get into it.
[27:22.480 --> 27:23.480] Let's talk about it.
[27:23.480 --> 27:27.360] When you say you, do you mean someone specifically or people in general?
[27:27.360 --> 27:28.360] People in general.
[27:28.360 --> 27:29.360] Yeah.
[27:29.360 --> 27:33.440] So I guess that is the important question, and that is the question that some researchers
[27:33.440 --> 27:41.120] from a little place called Harvard and the University of Virginia wanted to know.
[27:41.120 --> 27:45.880] So they have a new empirical paper that was published in Personality and Social Psychology
[27:45.880 --> 27:49.600] Bulletin called Speak Up!
[27:49.600 --> 27:53.000] Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations.
[27:53.000 --> 27:57.080] And as the title implies, I probably shouldn't have said that out loud, very often people
[27:57.080 --> 28:02.160] make judgments that are not reflective of reality about how much they should speak based
[28:02.160 --> 28:04.800] on what their outcome goals are.
[28:04.800 --> 28:12.080] So they wanted to know if somebody wants to be liked, how much do they think they should
[28:12.080 --> 28:13.480] talk in a conversation?
[28:13.480 --> 28:19.200] If somebody wants to be or to seem important, how much do they think they should talk in
[28:19.200 --> 28:20.360] a conversation?
[28:20.360 --> 28:25.200] And finally, if somebody just wants to enjoy the conversation, how much do they think they
[28:25.200 --> 28:26.200] should talk?
[28:26.200 --> 28:30.000] And they used a couple of different paradigms to look at this, like most psychology experiments
[28:30.000 --> 28:33.280] they kind of ran it a few different ways to ask different questions.
[28:33.280 --> 28:37.800] So first, I guess I'm curious from all of you, what do you think across those three
[28:37.800 --> 28:38.800] different parameters?
[28:38.800 --> 28:44.080] If somebody wants to be liked, what percentage of time do you think that they will think
[28:44.080 --> 28:45.080] that they should talk?
[28:45.080 --> 28:49.760] Do they think or should they do this in a one on one conversation?
[28:49.760 --> 28:50.760] What's the environment?
[28:50.760 --> 28:51.760] One on one.
[28:51.760 --> 28:52.760] So these are diets.
[28:52.760 --> 28:53.760] Yeah.
[28:53.760 --> 28:57.720] So with a partner, how much and again, not how much should they talk to be liked?
[28:57.720 --> 29:00.720] How much do they think they should talk to be liked?
[29:00.720 --> 29:01.720] 30%.
[29:01.720 --> 29:08.160] Well, no, are minutes, are we measuring, are we, 50% of time, 31% you think 50% you think
[29:08.160 --> 29:16.600] 30% definitely lower than 50% probably 30% for Evan says 30%.
[29:16.600 --> 29:17.600] Okay.
[29:17.600 --> 29:18.600] So it's interesting.
[29:18.600 --> 29:23.480] Evan, you said before you said 30%, you said definitely lower than 50%.
[29:23.480 --> 29:24.800] That's what the researchers thought as well.
[29:24.800 --> 29:30.920] They were like, okay, people whose goal is to be liked very often, and this bears out
[29:30.920 --> 29:34.720] in the literature, very often think they should talk less than half the time.
[29:34.720 --> 29:39.800] Cause it's a, it's a gesture of politeness and courtesy in a, in a cultural sense.
[29:39.800 --> 29:42.720] People love to talk about themselves.
[29:42.720 --> 29:44.360] And they actually have a name for this.
[29:44.360 --> 29:46.160] They call it the reticence bias.
[29:46.160 --> 29:47.160] Reticence.
[29:47.160 --> 29:48.160] Very good.
[29:48.160 --> 29:49.160] Yeah.
[29:49.160 --> 29:53.920] As they say, the reticence bias we suggest is rooted in the fact that people lack confidence
[29:53.920 --> 29:56.000] in their conversational abilities.
[29:56.000 --> 30:00.520] They go on to talk about social anxiety, but they also, um, and that the people are hard
[30:00.520 --> 30:05.160] on themselves and that they don't get a lot of valid external feedback.
[30:05.160 --> 30:10.000] Um, but generally speaking, people think that if they listen more than they talk, they're
[30:10.000 --> 30:11.880] going to be liked more.
[30:11.880 --> 30:13.060] Here's the rub.
[30:13.060 --> 30:15.980] That's not the case.
[30:15.980 --> 30:22.480] So second paradigm do if people's goal is not to be liked, but it's to seem interesting.
[30:22.480 --> 30:23.480] What do you think?
[30:23.480 --> 30:25.560] Well, then I would think talk more, right?
[30:25.560 --> 30:26.560] You would think that, right?
[30:26.560 --> 30:28.280] Then they would want to talk more.
[30:28.280 --> 30:32.000] And that's exactly how it bared out with their, with their study.
[30:32.000 --> 30:37.760] People when told that the goal was to seem interesting, did talk more in the dyad because
[30:37.760 --> 30:40.240] they thought, or they, they selected that option.
[30:40.240 --> 30:44.120] I should talk more in the dyad because that will make me seem more interesting.
[30:44.120 --> 30:50.080] And then finally, if they wanted to just enjoy themselves in the conversation, what do you
[30:50.080 --> 30:51.080] think?
[30:51.080 --> 30:52.080] Don't talk at all.
[30:52.080 --> 30:53.080] Even.
[30:53.080 --> 30:54.080] Even.
[30:54.080 --> 30:55.080] Yeah.
[30:55.080 --> 30:56.080] 50 50.
[30:56.080 --> 30:57.080] So.
[30:57.080 --> 30:58.520] That's the most important question.
[30:58.520 --> 31:06.200] But what if your goal is to get laid, that probably is the most important.
[31:06.200 --> 31:07.560] That is their follow up study.
[31:07.560 --> 31:09.840] Well, you got to do all of them though.
[31:09.840 --> 31:10.840] You got to be liked.
[31:10.840 --> 31:15.480] You got to be interesting thing at all at the same time.
[31:15.480 --> 31:16.480] And enjoy yourself.
[31:16.480 --> 31:17.480] Yeah.
[31:17.480 --> 31:19.400] So actually, interestingly, something will bear out from that.
[31:19.400 --> 31:24.120] So basically they, um, they did a couple of studies where they were forecasting.
[31:24.120 --> 31:27.320] So they, you know, this is very classic psychology study.
[31:27.320 --> 31:32.120] So they used a mechanical Turk and Qualtrics and they asked some questions.
[31:32.120 --> 31:34.880] Let me go to study one.
[31:34.880 --> 31:41.520] And they asked some questions where they imagined having a conversation with different conversational
[31:41.520 --> 31:43.320] prompts.
[31:43.320 --> 31:47.000] And then they were asked, you know, how much should they, how much did they think they
[31:47.000 --> 31:48.000] should talk?
[31:48.000 --> 31:50.240] Because remember, this is not about whether or not they did.
[31:50.240 --> 31:54.360] It's about their self kind of assessment of should they talk more, talk less.
[31:54.360 --> 31:55.840] And those were the outcomes, right?
[31:55.840 --> 32:03.520] I think it was, uh, let's see if the goal was to be liked, people said on average that
[32:03.520 --> 32:12.520] they should speak 43% of the time, whereas their partner should speak 56% of the time.
[32:12.520 --> 32:16.440] If the goal was to be interesting, they said they themselves should speak about 57 and
[32:16.440 --> 32:20.320] a half percent of the time, whereas their partner should speak 42% of the time.
[32:20.320 --> 32:24.740] And if the goal was to enjoy themselves, it was right around 50, 50.
[32:24.740 --> 32:30.960] And then they repeated the study and found very similar outcomes.
[32:30.960 --> 32:35.520] And then they actually kind of forced the hand and made people talk a certain amount
[32:35.520 --> 32:36.520] of time.
[32:36.520 --> 32:37.520] Right?
[32:37.520 --> 32:38.680] Like, of course that would be the followup study.
[32:38.680 --> 32:42.400] It was a little bit arbitrary and a little bit fake because they used like a computer
[32:42.400 --> 32:45.560] would cue them and say, talk now, now you talk, now you talk.
[32:45.560 --> 32:51.120] But it actually measured it out at these certain points, like 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% of
[32:51.120 --> 32:52.120] the time.
[32:52.120 --> 32:53.800] What do you think happened to that?
[32:53.800 --> 32:54.840] It worked.
[32:54.840 --> 32:55.840] What worked?
[32:55.840 --> 33:02.360] They were, they achieved the goal of like, you know, enjoying themselves more or being
[33:02.360 --> 33:03.360] liked more.
[33:03.360 --> 33:04.360] Interesting.
[33:04.360 --> 33:05.360] It worked.
[33:05.360 --> 33:06.360] Yeah.
[33:06.360 --> 33:10.680] So, so basically that the outcomes would have followed the intentions.
[33:10.680 --> 33:14.200] Like if they thought they wanted to be liked and they spoke less than they were liked more.
[33:14.200 --> 33:16.160] No, the opposite.
[33:16.160 --> 33:17.160] They were wrong.
[33:17.160 --> 33:18.160] The opposite happened.
[33:18.160 --> 33:19.160] Yeah.
[33:19.160 --> 33:20.160] Their initial assessment was wrong.
[33:20.160 --> 33:21.160] It's kind of neither.
[33:21.160 --> 33:27.240] It sort of doesn't follow the most clear pattern, but it looks like it's a little bit bimodal.
[33:27.240 --> 33:32.760] The more important outcome that the researchers point to is something that they call, they
[33:32.760 --> 33:34.320] call it halo ignorance.
[33:34.320 --> 33:37.520] And to understand halo ignorance, you have to first understand the halo effect.
HALO Effect (33:27)
[33:37.520 --> 33:40.720] Do you guys, have you ever heard of the halo effect in social psychology?
[33:40.720 --> 33:41.720] Okay.
[33:41.720 --> 33:42.720] It's pretty interesting.
[33:42.720 --> 33:49.120] I'm going to describe it because I had experience demonstrating it when I worked on brain games.
[33:49.120 --> 33:54.480] So this was a really fun episode that we did where I got to go to this like fake art gallery
[33:54.480 --> 33:59.760] and I played the gallerist and opposite me was Colin Hanks.
[33:59.760 --> 34:01.200] You guys know Colin Hanks, right?
[34:01.200 --> 34:02.200] Tom Hanks' son.
[34:02.200 --> 34:03.200] Colin.
[34:03.200 --> 34:04.200] Yes.
[34:04.200 --> 34:05.200] Oh, with all the tattoos.
[34:05.200 --> 34:06.200] He was in the offer.
[34:06.200 --> 34:07.200] He was in the offer.
[34:07.200 --> 34:08.200] No, he doesn't have a lot of tattoos.
[34:08.200 --> 34:09.200] Oh, maybe the other son.
[34:09.200 --> 34:12.200] No, he's like a very famous actor who looks a lot like Tom Hanks.
[34:12.200 --> 34:13.200] I see.
[34:13.200 --> 34:14.200] Yeah.
[34:14.200 --> 34:15.200] Yeah.
[34:15.200 --> 34:16.200] And has been in, yeah, he was in band of brothers.
[34:16.200 --> 34:17.200] He was in a ton of stuff.
[34:17.200 --> 34:23.760] So he played himself in one paradigm where he had all, we set the art gallery up with
[34:23.760 --> 34:27.360] a bunch of art and in one paradigm he was like, Hey, I'm Colin Hanks.
[34:27.360 --> 34:29.160] I've decided my hand at art.
[34:29.160 --> 34:32.320] I really interested in you guys as you know, feedback, blah, blah, blah.
[34:32.320 --> 34:36.980] And then we got their, their feedback, not to his face where they talked about whether
[34:36.980 --> 34:39.060] or not they enjoyed his art.
[34:39.060 --> 34:44.100] And then in another paradigm, we dressed him up as this alter ego named Giannis Patch.
[34:44.100 --> 34:48.280] And he had like a soul patch and was dressed really weird and was like super aggressive
[34:48.280 --> 34:51.320] and like not nice to anybody.
[34:51.320 --> 34:54.600] Like he was very holier than thou and just played this awful character that nobody got
[34:54.600 --> 34:55.600] along with.
[34:55.600 --> 34:56.600] And what do you think happened?
[34:56.600 --> 35:01.360] They liked Colin Hanks' art and they hated Giannis Patch's art, even though it was the
[35:01.360 --> 35:02.360] same art.
[35:02.360 --> 35:03.360] Wow.
[35:03.360 --> 35:04.360] Right.
[35:04.360 --> 35:10.840] So the halo effect really is this idea that there are global features that come together.
[35:10.840 --> 35:14.040] So if you like the person, you like the person's art.
[35:14.040 --> 35:16.000] If you dislike the person, you dislike the person's art.
[35:16.000 --> 35:17.960] Those things aren't independent of each other.
[35:17.960 --> 35:21.120] And so what the researchers here are saying is that there's, there's probably something
[35:21.120 --> 35:22.400] called halo ignorance.
[35:22.400 --> 35:24.760] Most people aren't aware of the halo effect.
[35:24.760 --> 35:29.920] And so they don't realize that it's not so simple that I want to be liked, but I want
[35:29.920 --> 35:33.360] to seem, I want to be liked here and I want to seem important here.
[35:33.360 --> 35:35.780] They're not mutually exclusive.
[35:35.780 --> 35:40.600] Generally speaking, if somebody in a conversation has a positive effect on somebody, you're
[35:40.600 --> 35:42.640] going to like them and find them interesting.
[35:42.640 --> 35:47.400] If they have a negative effect, you're going to dislike them and find them disinteresting.
[35:47.400 --> 35:48.400] But most people-
[35:48.400 --> 35:50.400] And your breath smells too.
[35:50.400 --> 35:51.400] Exactly.
[35:51.400 --> 35:52.400] Okay.
[35:52.400 --> 35:58.140] So most people are ignorant of the halo effect, which is probably why they estimate that they
[35:58.140 --> 36:01.860] have to speak differently for different outcomes.
[36:01.860 --> 36:07.740] But the truth of the matter is that basically the big takeaway, because the, the final study
[36:07.740 --> 36:09.860] outcomes are a little all over the place.
[36:09.860 --> 36:10.860] They're not super clean.
[36:10.860 --> 36:14.080] Like the less you talk, the less you're like, the more you talk, the more you're like, it's
[36:14.080 --> 36:15.420] not really that clean.
[36:15.420 --> 36:23.360] It's basically that generally speaking, if you're in the 30% or 40% group, you're kind
[36:23.360 --> 36:26.080] of not liked or interesting.
[36:26.080 --> 36:31.160] Like if you don't talk that much, you don't get this good feedback.
[36:31.160 --> 36:36.880] So most people think I need to be quiet and be a good listener in a dyad and then I'm
[36:36.880 --> 36:38.600] going to be more well liked.
[36:38.600 --> 36:41.660] But the truth is that's, that doesn't bear out.
[36:41.660 --> 36:47.820] If you talk way too much, we start to see diminishing returns, so it's sort of somewhere
[36:47.820 --> 36:48.820] in the middle.
[36:48.820 --> 36:54.560] Kara, the halo effect reminds me of the Oscars because I, right?
[36:54.560 --> 37:00.820] I always had the feeling that like the, the movie that wins like best art direction.
[37:00.820 --> 37:04.800] Was that really the movie that had the best art direction or was that just the favorite
[37:04.800 --> 37:07.360] movie that was nominated for the, for best art?
[37:07.360 --> 37:08.360] Yeah.
[37:08.360 --> 37:09.360] What was it?
[37:09.360 --> 37:13.200] Was it one of the eight movies that got nominated for everything because there's like only certain
[37:13.200 --> 37:15.200] movies that were quote, Oscar worthy.
[37:15.200 --> 37:19.660] Did that movie really have the best editing and costuming and all the other little technical
[37:19.660 --> 37:22.760] things just because it was a popular movie?
[37:22.760 --> 37:23.760] You don't, yeah.
[37:23.760 --> 37:24.760] It just boggles the imagination.
[37:24.760 --> 37:25.760] Completely agree.
[37:25.760 --> 37:26.880] Completely agree.
[37:26.880 --> 37:35.400] I had a friend once who used to call the Oscars rich people prom and nary was their true statement.
[37:35.400 --> 37:42.840] The difference between a person perceived wanting to be liked versus that same person
[37:42.840 --> 37:46.800] perceiving to be either polite or courteous.
[37:46.800 --> 37:50.240] We talking, we're splitting hairs, are they two very different things?
[37:50.240 --> 37:51.240] It wasn't the paradigm.
[37:51.240 --> 37:52.240] So I can't tell you that.
[37:52.240 --> 37:53.240] You know what I mean?
[37:53.240 --> 37:54.840] They did not ask that question.
[37:54.840 --> 37:57.240] They asked three very simple questions.
[37:57.240 --> 37:58.240] Okay.
[37:58.240 --> 38:01.840] Do you want to be like, you know, if you want to be liked, how often will you talk?
[38:01.840 --> 38:03.880] If you want to seem interesting, how often will you talk?
[38:03.880 --> 38:05.720] If you want to enjoy the conversation, how often will you talk?
[38:05.720 --> 38:12.720] But I wonder if a person can confuse the desire to be liked with the desire to be accommodating
[38:12.720 --> 38:17.800] or you know, courteous to the other person by speaking less.
[38:17.800 --> 38:23.520] Is it, you know, can that be, can those two things be confused and therefore that's why
[38:23.520 --> 38:28.080] people would think that, yeah, I should probably talk less, not so much to be liked, but just
[38:28.080 --> 38:29.680] to give for consideration.
[38:29.680 --> 38:30.680] Right.
[38:30.680 --> 38:33.840] But, but you're basically talking about constructs, right?
[38:33.840 --> 38:36.560] Like these aren't, these aren't actual things that exist.
[38:36.560 --> 38:39.880] Being liked is not specifically different from being courteous.
[38:39.880 --> 38:43.920] It's all in how you construct that reality, how you interpret it.
[38:43.920 --> 38:48.240] So if your definition of being liked is that you're very courteous, that's how you're
[38:48.240 --> 38:50.240] going to view that when you do this study.
[38:50.240 --> 38:51.240] Okay.
[38:51.240 --> 38:52.240] All right.
[38:52.240 --> 38:54.600] So you can totally interpret that differently.
[38:54.600 --> 38:56.680] And that's the interesting thing about psychology.
[38:56.680 --> 39:01.480] It's why we have to always operationally define everything because nothing, there's no like
[39:01.480 --> 39:04.960] fundamental truth to the idea of being liked.
[39:04.960 --> 39:05.960] It's how we define it.
[39:05.960 --> 39:06.960] Right.
[39:06.960 --> 39:07.960] Right.
[39:07.960 --> 39:08.960] Yes.
[39:08.960 --> 39:09.960] It does seem nebulous.
[39:09.960 --> 39:10.960] Yeah.
[39:10.960 --> 39:12.440] And there's probably, sorry, there's probably a ton of crossover there.
[39:12.440 --> 39:17.640] If I want to seem likable, I might have different factors that if I were to ask, if I were to
[39:17.640 --> 39:22.400] sit down in a separate study and the researchers were to say, what are the five features of
[39:22.400 --> 39:24.920] likability that are most important?
[39:24.920 --> 39:27.960] My list might be different than your list, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a
[39:27.960 --> 39:30.680] lot of crossover among people.
[39:30.680 --> 39:35.680] And so courteousness is probably one of those things.
[39:35.680 --> 39:37.200] So I wouldn't say it's a conflation.
[39:37.200 --> 39:40.120] I would say it's part of it.
[39:40.120 --> 39:42.880] And the United States, is this a US study?
[39:42.880 --> 39:43.880] Yeah, absolutely.
[39:43.880 --> 39:44.880] This is a US study.
[39:44.880 --> 39:48.640] So we've got to remember that there's always a massive culture bias in these kinds of studies.
[39:48.640 --> 39:53.160] And this really only applies to the group of college students that they were looking
[39:53.160 --> 39:54.160] at.
[39:54.160 --> 39:59.680] But they do, like any good paper, cite the available research literature, show areas
[39:59.680 --> 40:05.120] where this reinforces things that have already been studied and basically move the needle
[40:05.120 --> 40:08.840] that much more because there is a body of literature around this.
[40:08.840 --> 40:14.000] But so the cool thing is basically the big two outcomes here are the reticence bias seems
[40:14.000 --> 40:15.640] to exist.
[40:15.640 --> 40:20.400] People generally think they are reticent to speak because they think that they will be
[40:20.400 --> 40:23.200] liked less when they speak more.
[40:23.200 --> 40:24.600] And that does not bear out.
[40:24.600 --> 40:29.240] The truth is you're actually liked more if you speak more up to a point.
[40:29.240 --> 40:30.320] And yeah, up to a point.
[40:30.320 --> 40:35.920] And then the other one, yeah, they did show that with but it's actually it's not a huge
[40:35.920 --> 40:40.160] effect like you it does start to have diminishing returns at the 70%.
[40:40.160 --> 40:42.000] And they didn't look at anything over 70%.
[40:42.000 --> 40:46.240] They didn't look at the extremes like 90% of the time.
[40:46.240 --> 40:54.800] But interestingly, being interesting plateaus more so basically that are liked and are interesting
[40:54.800 --> 40:59.120] and enjoy themselves less when they don't speak that much.
[40:59.120 --> 41:03.920] It all kind of peaks around the 50% so about when you're even and then you see a diminishing
[41:03.920 --> 41:08.920] return that's the heaviest on enjoyment.
[41:08.920 --> 41:15.920] So basically, you're seeing that there is a sort of bimodal distribution, but the researchers
[41:15.920 --> 41:19.960] make a kind of blanket statement, which I think is kind of a good statement, which is
[41:19.960 --> 41:22.840] that all things being equal, you should talk.
[41:22.840 --> 41:27.560] Because all things being equal, you're actually going to have a better outcome from talking
[41:27.560 --> 41:29.700] more than talking less.
[41:29.700 --> 41:34.440] And that flies in the face of most people's preconceived notions, which is often the case,
[41:34.440 --> 41:37.940] you know, people usually misjudge.
[41:37.940 --> 41:44.120] It's interesting how bad we are at intuitively like thinking about how our behavior affects
[41:44.120 --> 41:48.120] our relationships, you know, people do things that have the opposite effect of what they
[41:48.120 --> 41:49.120] want.
[41:49.120 --> 41:50.120] Absolutely.
[41:50.120 --> 41:51.120] Yeah.
[41:51.120 --> 41:52.120] People shoot themselves in the foot all the time.
[41:52.120 --> 41:57.040] It's also I mean, that's a fundamental part of exactly what Jay mentioned in the ad this
[41:57.040 --> 42:00.020] week of cognitive behavioral therapy.
[42:00.020 --> 42:06.360] It's recognizing these biases and recognizing all of the times that we we act in a way that
[42:06.360 --> 42:11.480] we think is going to achieve a goal when actually it gives us the opposite outcome or an outcome
[42:11.480 --> 42:13.160] that we weren't looking for.
[42:13.160 --> 42:14.160] Right.
[42:14.160 --> 42:17.320] That's why studies like this are important.
[42:17.320 --> 42:18.320] All right.
[42:18.320 --> 42:19.320] Thanks, Kara.
[42:19.320 --> 42:22.400] Well, everyone, we're going to take a quick break from our show to talk about our sponsor
[42:22.400 --> 42:23.880] this week, Wondrium.
[42:23.880 --> 42:26.600] Guys, we talk about therapy a lot on the show.
[42:26.600 --> 42:31.740] And I found a course on Wondrium that is called cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for
[42:31.740 --> 42:33.240] retraining your brain.
[42:33.240 --> 42:37.600] So it goes over the foundations of cognitive behavioral therapy, which, by the way, is
[42:37.600 --> 42:42.820] basically one of if not the best technique that you can learn in therapy to help yourself
[42:42.820 --> 42:46.080] get out of your anxiety and your depression.
[42:46.080 --> 42:48.780] They talk about setting your own goals.
[42:48.780 --> 42:50.800] They talk about dealing with stress.
[42:50.800 --> 42:54.760] They talk about dealing with anxiety and fear, how to treat your depression.
[42:54.760 --> 42:57.800] They have 24 chapters in this course.
[42:57.800 --> 42:59.760] And I really do recommend this course.
[42:59.760 --> 43:03.360] And get this, Wondrium will help you learn about pretty much anything you're curious
[43:03.360 --> 43:08.240] about from history to science to language to travel, even learning how to cook.
[43:08.240 --> 43:13.440] You get unlimited access to thousands of hours of trustworthy audio and video courses, documentaries,
[43:13.440 --> 43:15.520] tutorials and so much more.
[43:15.520 --> 43:19.840] And you can learn wherever and whenever that works for you because of the flexibility of
[43:19.840 --> 43:20.840] the platform.
[43:20.840 --> 43:25.640] We highly recommend signing up for Wondrium and Wondrium is offering our listeners a free
[43:25.640 --> 43:27.820] month of unlimited access.
[43:27.820 --> 43:31.120] Sign up today through our special URL to get this offer.
[43:31.120 --> 43:34.200] Go to Wondrium.com slash skeptics.
[43:34.200 --> 43:42.520] Again, that's W-O-N-D-R-I-U-M.com slash skeptics.
[43:42.520 --> 43:44.720] All right, guys, let's get back to the show.
News_Item_3 (43:45)
- [link_URL TITLE][4]
News_Item_4 (57:14)
- [link_URL TITLE][5]
Special Segment: Death by Pseudoscience (1:02:47)
Who's That Noisy? (1:10:42)
J: ... similar to English's "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo [+ 3 'buffalos']"
...
C: (sing-song) Homonymy![note 1]
New Noisy (1:14:49)
[musical boings and dings]
J: ... If you think you know the answer or you have a cool Noisy you heard this week, you can email me at WTN@theskepticsguide.org.
Announcements (1:15:29)
Science or Fiction (1:18:27)
Theme: Social Psychology Item #1: A recent study finds that positive fortune-telling results in increased financial risk-taking for men but not for women.[6]
Item #2: A study of 5-years-olds finds that they perceive overweight people to be happier than thin people.[7]
Item #3: A study of college students finds that mask-wearing does not impair social interactions.[8]
| Answer | Item |
|---|---|
| Fiction | Overweight happier than thin |
| Science | Risk-taking men vs. women |
| Science | Mask-wearing impairs not |
| Host | Result |
|---|---|
| Steve | win |
| Rogue | Guess |
|---|---|
Bob | Mask-wearing impairs not |
Jay | Mask-wearing impairs not |
Evan | Overweight happier than thin |
Cara | Overweight happier than thin |
Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.
Bob's Response
Jay's Response
Evan's Response
Cara's Response
Steve Explains Item #1
Steve Explains Item #2
Steve Explains Item #3
Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:29:29)
A good ghost story may hold entertainment and even cultural value, but the popular portrayal of pseudoscientific practices as science may be detracting from efforts to cultivate a scientifically literate public.
– Micheal Knees, engineering psychologist
Signoff
S: —and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.
S: Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information, visit us at theskepticsguide.org. Send your questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. And, if you would like to support the show and all the work that we do, go to patreon.com/SkepticsGuide and consider becoming a patron and becoming part of the SGU community. Our listeners and supporters are what make SGU possible.
Today I Learned
- Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference[9]
- Fact/Description
- Fact/Description
Notes
- ↑ The emailer uses the wrong word, homonymy here. The preceding wikilink goes to the disambiguation entry for "Homophony"; the Wikitionary entry shows that "homophony" is the word the emailer should have used.
References
- ↑ [url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_news_item_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_SoF_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_SoF_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_from_SoF_show_notes PUBLICATION: TITLE]
- ↑ [url_for_TIL publication: title]
Vocabulary
|
|
|