SGU Episode 897: Difference between revisions

From SGUTranscripts
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,098: Line 1,098:
=== What Children Believe <small>(21:18)</small> ===
=== What Children Believe <small>(21:18)</small> ===
* [https://neurosciencenews.com/children-belief-21393/ Children Don't Believe Everything They Are Told]<ref>[https://neurosciencenews.com/children-belief-21393/ Neuroscience News: Children Don't Believe Everything They Are Told]</ref>
* [https://neurosciencenews.com/children-belief-21393/ Children Don't Believe Everything They Are Told]<ref>[https://neurosciencenews.com/children-belief-21393/ Neuroscience News: Children Don't Believe Everything They Are Told]</ref>
   
 
[21:18.000 --> 21:21.200] Kara, you're going to start us off with what children believe.
 
[21:21.200 --> 21:22.200]  Yeah.
 
[21:22.200 --> 21:26.520]  This is one of those like I could approach this two different ways because as I was reading
 
[21:26.520 --> 21:29.860]  the coverage of this, the headlines made it sound kind of juicy.
 
[21:29.860 --> 21:34.560]  And then the more I dug into the actual paper, like the research study that we're about to
 
[21:34.560 --> 21:38.600]  talk about, the more I was like, uh-huh, uh-huh, well, duh.
 
[21:38.600 --> 21:45.360]  And so let's talk a little bit about how this is a well, duh subject, but also why it matters.
 
[21:45.360 --> 21:54.400]  So an article published in Child Development by some Canadian and I think and U.S. researchers,
 
[21:54.400 --> 22:02.080]  yeah, University of Toronto and also Harvard, were saying kind of do kids believe everything
 
[22:02.080 --> 22:03.080]  that they're told?
 
[22:03.080 --> 22:07.120]  I think any of us, like as you're reading coverage of this, it's really funny to me
 
[22:07.120 --> 22:10.080]  because you're like, have you ever been around a child?
 
[22:10.080 --> 22:15.680]  Like yes, kids are gullible, but yes, kids also are explorers.
 
[22:15.680 --> 22:18.320]  And so the question here, they're observers and they're explorers.
 
[22:18.320 --> 22:22.200]  So the question here is how do those things converge?
 
[22:22.200 --> 22:24.940]  I don't think it's really well answered by this study, but let me tell you what they
 
[22:24.940 --> 22:26.200]  did in the study.
 
[22:26.200 --> 22:29.520]  So there's sort of two paradigms.
 
[22:29.520 --> 22:33.120]  In one of the paradigms, it was quite simple.
 
[22:33.120 --> 22:38.480]  They basically had kids come in and they asked them straightforward questions like, is this
 
[22:38.480 --> 22:41.600]  rock hard or soft?
 
[22:41.600 --> 22:44.880]  And the kids were like, well, the rock's hard.
 
[22:44.880 --> 22:48.680]  Like all of them said that because these were four to seven-year-olds, by the way, because
 
[22:48.680 --> 22:50.960]  even a four-year-old knows that a rock is hard.
 
[22:50.960 --> 22:53.200]  They have seen and felt rocks before.
 
[22:53.200 --> 22:57.720]  And then they sort of randomized them into groups and in one group they were like, yeah,
 
[22:57.720 --> 22:58.720]  it's hard.
 
[22:58.720 --> 23:02.560]  And in the other group they were like, no, this rock is soft.
 
[23:02.560 --> 23:07.600]  And then the researcher was like, oh, quick, I got a phone call, BRB, and left the kids
 
[23:07.600 --> 23:08.600]  in the room.
 
[23:08.600 --> 23:13.300]  And so unbeknownst to the kids, they were being videotaped and their exploratory behavior
 
[23:13.300 --> 23:14.740]  was being observed.
 
[23:14.740 --> 23:16.280]  And that's really what the study was.
 
[23:16.280 --> 23:22.640]  What do the kids do after they're told that there's a surprising piece of information
 
[23:22.640 --> 23:28.800]  that doesn't comport with their preexisting understanding of the world?
 
[23:28.800 --> 23:29.800]  Kids explored.
 
[23:29.800 --> 23:33.040]  I mean, you know, what do you expect them to do?
 
[23:33.040 --> 23:36.080]  I guess you might expect that one or two kids are going to sit there and go, I guess the
 
[23:36.080 --> 23:39.400]  rock's soft, weird, and like never touched the rock.
 
[23:39.400 --> 23:41.760]  But most kids did exactly what you would think they would do.
 
[23:41.760 --> 23:47.620]  They started to observe and explore and see for themselves, see if that adult's claim
 
[23:47.620 --> 23:50.440]  was real.
 
[23:50.440 --> 23:51.440]  What age?
 
[23:51.440 --> 23:52.440]  Four to seven.
 
[23:52.440 --> 23:53.440]  Yeah, sure.
 
[23:53.440 --> 23:54.440]  Yeah.
 
[23:54.440 --> 24:00.600]  What I love about it, though, because they have to summarize the study exactly, is that
 
[24:00.600 --> 24:07.520]  in the pretest or in the pre-experimental condition group, so they ask them all, is
 
[24:07.520 --> 24:10.320]  the rock hard or soft, all the kids said the rock was hard.
 
[24:10.320 --> 24:15.640]  And then in part of the two different groups, one group, no, the rock is soft.
 
[24:15.640 --> 24:19.280]  The other group, yeah, you're right, the rock is hard.
 
[24:19.280 --> 24:25.680]  Most of the kids, it's really funny, they say most but not all of the kids concurred.
 
[24:25.680 --> 24:29.080]  In the group where they were reinforced that the rock was hard, most but not all of the
 
[24:29.080 --> 24:32.620]  kids continued to concur that the rock was hard.
 
[24:32.620 --> 24:33.960]  This is my favorite part of the study.
 
[24:33.960 --> 24:36.760]  That means at least one child was like, no, the rock's hard.
 
[24:36.760 --> 24:39.120]  And then the adult goes, yeah, you're right, the rock's hard, and the kid goes, I think
 
[24:39.120 --> 24:40.120]  it's soft.
 
[24:40.120 --> 24:41.120]  Yeah, right?
 
[24:41.120 --> 24:43.240]  Which is like, because they had to report it that way, right?
 
[24:43.240 --> 24:45.120]  They said most, not all.
 
[24:45.120 --> 24:46.640]  Anyway, that's an aside.
 
[24:46.640 --> 24:49.920]  So some of the kids said, okay, maybe it is soft.
 
[24:49.920 --> 24:52.160]  Some of the kids said, no, I think it's hard.
 
[24:52.160 --> 24:55.760]  But regardless, they went in and they explored for themselves.
 
[24:55.760 --> 25:01.420]  Then they did another study where they actually kind of compared the differences between the
 
[25:01.420 --> 25:06.540]  younger group, so they sort of arbitrarily split them after the fact into a four to five-year-old
 
[25:06.540 --> 25:10.460]  group and then into a six to seven-year-old group.
 
[25:10.460 --> 25:15.720]  And in that one, they were given the vignettes, specific vignettes.
 
[25:15.720 --> 25:18.840]  I think they were sort of based on the ideas from this first group.
 
[25:18.840 --> 25:24.600]  And in those different vignettes, they asked the kids, what do you do if an adult says
 
[25:24.600 --> 25:28.140]  to you, the sponge is harder than the rock?
 
[25:28.140 --> 25:32.160]  What do you do if an adult says to you, blah, blah, blah?
 
[25:32.160 --> 25:36.680]  And so they presented the kids with these vignettes of kind of unbelievable claims or
 
[25:36.680 --> 25:41.560]  claims that shouldn't compute for them because they're between the ages of four and seven
 
[25:41.560 --> 25:45.560]  and are old enough to know that a sponge is soft and a rock is hard.
 
[25:45.560 --> 25:53.340]  And what they found was that the older group kind of identified strategies that were more
 
[25:53.340 --> 25:55.920]  specific and more efficient.
 
[25:55.920 --> 26:01.080]  So the older group would say things like, they should touch the sponge and they should
 
[26:01.080 --> 26:03.340]  touch the rock and compare them.
 
[26:03.340 --> 26:09.280]  And the younger group was less likely to have, I guess, a more sophisticated approach to
 
[26:09.280 --> 26:11.060]  that problem solving.
 
[26:11.060 --> 26:12.680]  This is being reported all over the place.
 
[26:12.680 --> 26:17.620]  And basically, the quote that a lot of people are citing is from one of the researchers
 
[26:17.620 --> 26:20.160]  that says, there's still a lot we don't know.
 
[26:20.160 --> 26:23.320]  This is a senior author from the Toronto Lab.
 
[26:23.320 --> 26:24.880]  It's called the Child Lab.
 
[26:24.880 --> 26:28.320]  But what's clear is that children don't believe everything they're told.
 
[26:28.320 --> 26:31.520]  They think about what they've been told, and if they're skeptical, they seek out additional
 
[26:31.520 --> 26:34.960]  information that could confirm or disconfirm it.
 
[26:34.960 --> 26:38.480]  And I think for me, this is the like, well, duh, haven't you ever been around a child
 
[26:38.480 --> 26:39.840]  situation?
 
[26:39.840 --> 26:44.280]  Because children aren't completely naive to the world by the time they're four.
 
[26:44.280 --> 26:50.020]  They've lived for four years, and they've made their own observations.
 
[26:50.020 --> 26:55.940]  And so Steve, you wrote this up, and you took sort of the study, and you said, well, let's
 
[26:55.940 --> 26:56.940]  think broader.
 
[26:56.940 --> 27:00.040]  Because of course, the findings, the outcome findings of the study are not surprising.
 
[27:00.040 --> 27:02.400]  It's pretty narrow and not surprising, yeah.
 
[27:02.400 --> 27:03.900]  It's super narrow.
 
[27:03.900 --> 27:06.240]  It's really trying to test, are kids ultra gullible?
 
[27:06.240 --> 27:11.000]  And it's like, well, yeah, sometimes they are, but obviously, sometimes they're not.
 
[27:11.000 --> 27:15.800]  And then, you know, the bigger question is, you know, do kids believe everything they're
 
[27:15.800 --> 27:20.440]  told by adults, kind of when does that start to change?
 
[27:20.440 --> 27:24.760]  And sort of what are the factors, I think, that are involved here?
 
[27:24.760 --> 27:29.740]  If the paradigm had been something that was a little bit vaguer or harder to confirm,
 
[27:29.740 --> 27:32.200]  we may have seen a different outcome.
 
[27:32.200 --> 27:39.160]  Very often, we're running into claims that we can't confirm ourselves, that we have to
 
[27:39.160 --> 27:42.880]  confirm by figuring out who are the experts?
 
[27:42.880 --> 27:44.480]  What are they saying?
 
[27:44.480 --> 27:46.120]  Is there a consensus?
 
[27:46.120 --> 27:50.060]  And this skill is not the skill that the study looked at at all.
 
[27:50.060 --> 27:54.600]  This study looked at very basic scientific reasoning skills.
 
[27:54.600 --> 27:58.880]  And so, I'm a little, like, the headline's fine.
 
[27:58.880 --> 28:01.760]  Children don't believe everything they're told, well, again, duh.
 
[28:01.760 --> 28:06.040]  Or children as, it's hard to lie to children according to scientists, that one's a stretch
 
[28:06.040 --> 28:07.440]  for me.
 
[28:07.440 --> 28:08.440]  Not liking that headline.
 
[28:08.440 --> 28:14.000]  It's hard to lie to children about things that they can directly observe themselves.
 
[28:14.000 --> 28:17.120]  They said, you know, an adult, an authority figure is telling them something.
 
[28:17.120 --> 28:23.480]  But whether the child agreed or not, the child then explored to try and test that observation
 
[28:23.480 --> 28:24.480]  for themselves.
 
[28:24.480 --> 28:27.920]  And I think that is a fundamentally important aspect of this study.
 
[28:27.920 --> 28:32.360]  But I don't think there's a lot of inferences that you can draw from it about how to develop
 
[28:32.360 --> 28:34.920]  really strong critical thinking skills later in life.
 
[28:34.920 --> 28:37.240]  Yeah, this one study is such a tiny slice.
 
[28:37.240 --> 28:39.880]  You have to look at it in the context of so much of the research.
 
[28:39.880 --> 28:43.040]  I didn't talk about it in my write-up, though, but we also, there's also research looking
 
[28:43.040 --> 28:51.520]  at like if an adult tells a child, like gives them a toy and shows them how to use the toy,
 
[28:51.520 --> 28:57.040]  the child will use the toy in the way that they were shown, even if it's a very narrow,
 
[28:57.040 --> 28:58.920]  simplistic way of using the toy.
 
[28:58.920 --> 29:03.880]  If they're given the toy with no direction, they will be more creative and they'll explore
 
[29:03.880 --> 29:07.760]  and they'll use it in different ways and they'll try out different things.
 
[29:07.760 --> 29:14.520]  So one factor is does it contradict or conflict with things they already know or are they
 
[29:14.520 --> 29:18.200]  being told information in a vacuum?
 
[29:18.200 --> 29:23.460]  And also, as you say, is it part of, like, are they being told, this is part of our identity
 
[29:23.460 --> 29:24.840]  of who we are, right?
 
[29:24.840 --> 29:29.400]  Obviously, parents convey religious beliefs to children and children believe them.
 
[29:29.400 --> 29:32.860]  Most people have the religious faith that they were raised in.
 
[29:32.860 --> 29:36.520]  And that's one of those things that you can't just turn around and observe for yourself.
 
[29:36.520 --> 29:38.840]  Yeah, you can't say, is God there?
 
[29:38.840 --> 29:42.520]  You know, there's nothing you can do to test that.
 
[29:42.520 --> 29:47.440]  But what's interesting about testing kids, first of all, it's interesting to say, when
 
[29:47.440 --> 29:50.320]  do certain modules, you know, engage?
 
[29:50.320 --> 29:52.640]  When do they start to do things?
 
[29:52.640 --> 29:56.720]  And you can see how they get more sophisticated and nuanced and how they approach things.
 
[29:56.720 --> 30:03.240]  But also, there is this question about like whether or not, you know, children are like
 
[30:03.240 --> 30:09.600]  more curious and more sort of questioning younger, and then it gets beaten out of them
 
[30:09.600 --> 30:12.800]  by the desire to conform to society.
 
[30:12.800 --> 30:13.800]  Right.
 
[30:13.800 --> 30:16.120]  And is there something almost bimodal there, right?
 
[30:16.120 --> 30:19.800]  Where when they're so young, they believe everything they're told because they don't
 
[30:19.800 --> 30:23.760]  have context and they don't have anything to connect it to.
 
[30:23.760 --> 30:26.120]  And they have no reason to question.
 
[30:26.120 --> 30:30.320]  And then as they get older, they start to be more questioning.
 
[30:30.320 --> 30:35.040]  And then as they get even older, still, they want to conform and belong because the idea
 
[30:35.040 --> 30:40.100]  of social in-group, out-group status becomes more salient to them.
 
[30:40.100 --> 30:42.960]  Perhaps it does kind of follow that to some extent.
 
[30:42.960 --> 30:44.840]  I think creativity is the same way.
 
[30:44.840 --> 30:47.720]  Creativity, I mean, it's interesting, you were talking about the research about giving
 
[30:47.720 --> 30:48.720]  a child a toy.
 
[30:48.720 --> 30:50.260]  And this is maybe a little bit of a departure.
 
[30:50.260 --> 30:55.060]  But I worked with a professor who was like fascinated by creativity research.
 
[30:55.060 --> 30:58.480]  And I hated it because I was like, how do you define that?
 
[30:58.480 --> 30:59.480]  Oh, my gosh.
 
[30:59.480 --> 31:00.480]  It's so vague.
 
[31:00.480 --> 31:02.000]  It's all over the place.
 
[31:02.000 --> 31:09.840]  And they often talked about like, give a child anything, a piece of equipment, a paperclip,
 
[31:09.840 --> 31:13.360]  and have them list all the things it can be.
 
[31:13.360 --> 31:17.580]  And for me, I would get frustrated when people would say it's super creative if they just
 
[31:17.580 --> 31:21.400]  made a list of things that it could never be.
 
[31:21.400 --> 31:27.040]  But creativity seemed really in that sweet spot when they would think of things that
 
[31:27.040 --> 31:31.400]  were outside of the box, but they still used some amount of constraint.
 
[31:31.400 --> 31:33.680]  Like a paperclip can't be an airplane.
 
[31:33.680 --> 31:35.200]  It just can't.
 
[31:35.200 --> 31:37.440]  But it can be this, this, this, and this.
 
[31:37.440 --> 31:41.460]  And maybe those are things you wouldn't think of if you're always thinking inside the box.
 
[31:41.460 --> 31:48.280]  And so there does seem to be some amount of developmental correlation there, right?
 
[31:48.280 --> 31:52.920]  The older that you get, the more constrained your thinking becomes.
 
[31:52.920 --> 31:57.320]  And so it is that sort of like the more conformist you are, the more it's being beaten out of
 
[31:57.320 --> 31:58.320]  you.
 
[31:58.320 --> 32:02.360]  But I think that also comes not just with age, but it comes with the amount of time
 
[32:02.360 --> 32:04.760]  you spend in a certain paradigm as well.
 
[32:04.760 --> 32:09.920]  Because you see this a lot with people who work in a certain field being brought into
 
[32:09.920 --> 32:13.600]  another field to try to solve problems in that field.
 
[32:13.600 --> 32:16.240]  And it's amazing what happens where they're like, well, did you try this?
 
[32:16.240 --> 32:20.760]  And people are like, oh, my god, how have we none of us have ever thought of that before.
 
[32:20.760 --> 32:24.480]  Because that's not how you were trained to think.
 
[32:24.480 --> 32:25.480]  Fresh approach to it.
 
[32:25.480 --> 32:26.480]  Yeah.
 
[32:26.480 --> 32:30.920]  I always think of the fact that the Iceman, you know, they didn't know how he died.
 
[32:30.920 --> 32:39.640]  And meanwhile, there's an arrowhead clearly visible on the X-ray in his chest that they
 
[32:39.640 --> 32:44.160]  looked at for years and didn't see it because they weren't looking for it.
 
[32:44.160 --> 32:45.160]  No, no.
 
[32:45.160 --> 32:46.880]  They kept saying, wow, what is this arrow pointing to?
 
[32:46.880 --> 32:51.160]  It must be a clue as to what might have killed him.
 
[32:51.160 --> 32:52.160]  Someone's like, hey, what's that arrowhead?
 
[32:52.160 --> 32:53.160]  You know, whatever.
 
[32:53.160 --> 33:00.960]  Or what's the other one, the gorilla and the scan of the monkey in the brain?
 
[33:00.960 --> 33:06.240]  They did a research study where they showed radiologists a CT scan of the chest.
 
[33:06.240 --> 33:09.880]  And they said, tell us what pathology you see there.
 
[33:09.880 --> 33:14.000]  And there was literally a gorilla in the middle of the chest.
 
[33:14.000 --> 33:15.000]  And nobody found it.
 
[33:15.000 --> 33:16.000]  Oh, that's great.
 
[33:16.000 --> 33:17.000]  Nobody.
 
[33:17.000 --> 33:20.640]  It's like a large percentage of them didn't see it because, of course, they're not looking
 
[33:20.640 --> 33:21.640]  for it.
 
[33:21.640 --> 33:22.640]  They're looking for what they know to be pathology.
 
[33:22.640 --> 33:23.640]  Yeah.
 
[33:23.640 --> 33:24.640]  That's based on that classic.
 
[33:24.640 --> 33:25.640]  Yeah.
 
[33:25.640 --> 33:26.640]  It's inattentional blindness.
 
[33:26.640 --> 33:27.640]  There's a classic psych experiment that you can Google it.
 
[33:27.640 --> 33:28.640]  Like, you can watch the video.
 
[33:28.640 --> 33:32.160]  It's a super classic video where they tell people, count how many times the ball is passed.
 
[33:32.160 --> 33:36.400]  And it's a really complex video where basketball is being passed amongst a lot of people.
 
[33:36.400 --> 33:39.320]  You really have to focus to count the passes.
 
[33:39.320 --> 33:41.400]  And while focusing on it, it's inattentional blindness.
 
[33:41.400 --> 33:43.640]  That's the phenomenon that they're highlighting.
 
[33:43.640 --> 33:47.360]  While you're focusing on the ball, you literally don't see the gorilla walk completely through
 
[33:47.360 --> 33:48.360]  the scene.
 
[33:48.360 --> 33:49.360]  It's amazing.
 
[33:49.360 --> 33:50.360]  It's amazing.
 
[33:50.360 --> 33:51.360]  I know.
 
[33:51.360 --> 33:54.440]  And professors love to show this to first-year psych students and go, anybody notice anything
 
[33:54.440 --> 33:56.800]  weird about the video?
 
[33:56.800 --> 33:59.240]  It's pretty cool how many people are like, what do you mean?
 
[33:59.240 --> 34:01.880]  About 30% see it, 30% or 40%.
 
[34:01.880 --> 34:02.880]  Yeah.
 
[34:02.880 --> 34:03.880]  Yeah.
 
[34:03.880 --> 34:05.920]  But that's why they used a gorilla in the x-ray study.
 
[34:05.920 --> 34:06.920]  Yeah.
 
[34:06.920 --> 34:07.920]  Because it was like a nod.
 
[34:07.920 --> 34:10.920]  An homage to that original gorilla video.
 
[34:10.920 --> 34:11.920]  Yeah.
 
[34:11.920 --> 34:12.920]  Fascinating.
 
[34:12.920 --> 34:15.800]  Well, everyone, we're going to take a quick break from our show to talk about one of our
 
[34:15.800 --> 34:18.680]  sponsors this week, BetterHelp.
 
[34:18.680 --> 34:21.640]  There are so many reasons to go to therapy.
 
[34:21.640 --> 34:23.760]  I mean, too many to list.
 
[34:23.760 --> 34:28.800]  And I think all of us know that whether we're struggling with a mental illness, with an
 
[34:28.800 --> 34:35.120]  actual diagnosis, or whether we're dealing with an experience in our lives, that we just
 
[34:35.120 --> 34:38.640]  need a little bit of support, a little bit of guidance through.
 
[34:38.640 --> 34:43.760]  These are all valid reasons to talk to somebody, and BetterHelp makes it super easy because,
 
[34:43.760 --> 34:45.560]  of course, this is online therapy.
 
[34:45.560 --> 34:46.560]  Yeah.
 
[34:46.560 --> 34:50.640]  Kara, in my personal experience, going to therapy, it's doing multiple things at the
 
[34:50.640 --> 34:51.640]  same time.
 
[34:51.640 --> 34:53.720]  I just feel good after I go to therapy.
 
[34:53.720 --> 34:55.680]  It's like I'm unloading.
 
[34:55.680 --> 35:01.200]  And along with that, I'm learning skills to help me deal with my own anxiety and depression,
 
[35:01.200 --> 35:02.840]  which it's a double win.
 
[35:02.840 --> 35:06.320]  So when you want to be a better problem solver, therapy can get you there.
 
[35:06.320 --> 35:11.600]  Visit BetterHelp.com slash SGU today to get 10% off your first month.
 
[35:11.600 --> 35:15.000]  That's Better H-E-L-P dot com slash SGU.
 
[35:15.000 --> 35:16.160]  All right, guys.
 
[35:16.160 --> 35:17.640]  Let's get back to the show.
 
[35:17.640 --> 35:18.760]  All right.
 
[35:18.760 --> 35:19.760]  Let's move on.
 
=== Health Effects of Gas Stoves <small>(35:18)</small> ===
=== Health Effects of Gas Stoves <small>(35:18)</small> ===
* [https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/is-your-gas-stove-bad-for-your-health/ Is your gas stove bad for your health?]<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/is-your-gas-stove-bad-for-your-health/ Ars Technica: Is your gas stove bad for your health?]</ref>
* [https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/is-your-gas-stove-bad-for-your-health/ Is your gas stove bad for your health?]<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/is-your-gas-stove-bad-for-your-health/ Ars Technica: Is your gas stove bad for your health?]</ref>

Revision as of 22:31, 28 October 2022

  Emblem-pen-green.png 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.

Template:Editing required (w/links) You can use this outline to help structure the transcription. Click "Edit" above to begin.


SGU Episode 897
September 17th 2022
897 skulls.jpg

By comparison, Neanderthals needed more brain to control their larger bodies.

SGU 896                      SGU 898

Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella

B: Bob Novella

C: Cara Santa Maria

J: Jay Novella

E: Evan Bernstein

Quote of the Week

If I want to know how we learn and remember and represent the world, I will go to psychology and neuroscience.
If I want to know where values come from, I will go to evolutionary biology and neuroscience and psychology, as Hume and Aristotle would have, were they alive.

Patricia Churchland, Canadian-American analytic philosopher

Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

Introduction, Black Mirror reflections

Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

[00:12.600 --> 00:17.480] Today is Wednesday, September 14th, 2022, and this is your host, Stephen Novella.

[00:17.480 --> 00:19.280] Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

[00:19.280 --> 00:20.280] Hey, everybody.

[00:20.280 --> 00:21.280] Kara Santamaria.

[00:21.280 --> 00:22.280] Howdy.

[00:22.280 --> 00:23.280] Jay Novella.

[00:23.280 --> 00:24.280] Hey, guys.

[00:24.280 --> 00:25.280] And Evan Bernstein.

[00:25.280 --> 00:26.280] Good evening, everyone.

[00:26.280 --> 00:30.800] You know what, guys, I'm rewatching The Black Mirror because I haven't seen most of those

[00:30.800 --> 00:32.600] episodes since they originally aired.

[00:32.600 --> 00:33.600] Really?

[00:33.600 --> 00:36.080] You mean you started at season one, episode one all over again?

[00:36.080 --> 00:37.080] Yeah.

[00:37.080 --> 00:38.160] I'm just going through in order.

[00:38.160 --> 00:43.840] And I forgot most of the details of the episodes, you know?

[00:43.840 --> 00:48.640] I sort of remember what the episode was about, but don't remember the details.

[00:48.640 --> 00:50.920] So it's almost like watching it again.

[00:50.920 --> 00:51.920] So good.

[00:51.920 --> 00:54.120] It is a brilliant TV series.

[00:54.120 --> 00:55.720] So you just watched the first season?

[00:55.720 --> 00:56.720] No.

[00:56.720 --> 00:57.720] I think I'm in the third season now.

[00:57.720 --> 01:00.800] I mean, there's not that many episodes, like four episodes a season, so I'm burning my

[01:00.800 --> 01:01.800] way through.

[01:01.800 --> 01:02.800] Yeah.

[01:02.800 --> 01:03.800] There's some good stuff in there, man.

[01:03.800 --> 01:04.800] Yeah.

[01:04.800 --> 01:05.800] Sure.

[01:05.800 --> 01:06.800] Very, very good.

[01:06.800 --> 01:07.800] Very good futurism, actually.

[01:07.800 --> 01:08.800] Quite good.

[01:08.800 --> 01:09.800] Even though they're mostly like cautionary tales.

[01:09.800 --> 01:10.800] Oh.

Cheating at Tournament Chess (1:09)

[01:10.800 --> 01:11.800] So speaking of cautionary tales.

[01:11.800 --> 01:12.800] Yeah.

[01:12.800 --> 01:16.040] If you're going to enter a chess tournament, okay?

[01:16.040 --> 01:17.040] Don't cheat.

[01:17.040 --> 01:18.040] Now, what the heck?

[01:18.040 --> 01:19.040] Where did that come from?

[01:19.040 --> 01:21.760] Why are you bringing that up, Evan?

[01:21.760 --> 01:24.320] Because of this particular news item I ran across today.

[01:24.320 --> 01:30.240] Of course, I'm a gamer, I've been a chess player, I've been in tournaments.

[01:30.240 --> 01:32.280] So chess is something that's near and dear to me.

[01:32.280 --> 01:37.520] So when chess pops up in the news, I do pause and I read about it.

[01:37.520 --> 01:42.240] And in this particular case, this headline, it's the New York Post, so take that for

[01:42.240 --> 01:47.920] what it is, but it reads, huge chess world upset of Grandmaster sparks wild claims of

[01:47.920 --> 01:52.160] cheating with vibrating sex toy.

[01:52.160 --> 01:53.160] What a title.

[01:53.160 --> 01:54.160] I love it.

[01:54.160 --> 01:58.240] So if that's not click bait, I don't know what it is.

[01:58.240 --> 01:59.680] But here's the thing.

[01:59.680 --> 02:04.740] The Magnus Carlsen is currently the world's chess champion, he's like a five time world

[02:04.740 --> 02:05.740] chess champion.

[02:05.740 --> 02:12.400] He's on a long streak of wins, I believe he had 59 wins coming into a particular tournament

[02:12.400 --> 02:16.760] in which he was matched up in the first round against the lowest rated player, which obviously

[02:16.760 --> 02:17.760] makes sense.

[02:17.760 --> 02:21.160] Highest versus lowest and you meet in the middle and that's usually how the first round

[02:21.160 --> 02:22.600] works.

[02:22.600 --> 02:23.600] And he was upset.

[02:23.600 --> 02:24.600] He was beaten.

[02:24.600 --> 02:32.520] He was beaten by somebody who's effectively relatively new to the professional chess circuit

[02:32.520 --> 02:35.240] and tournaments and other things.

[02:35.240 --> 02:40.600] And it's causing obviously a controversy, a big one in the world of chess.

[02:40.600 --> 02:47.040] You see, because the person who beat him, his name is Hans Nieman, he admitted to cheating

[02:47.040 --> 02:49.240] in online tournaments when he was younger.

[02:49.240 --> 02:51.640] Oh boy, not good for him.

[02:51.640 --> 02:52.800] Yeah.

[02:52.800 --> 02:59.540] And so he has this cloud of accusations hovering over him that there is really no plausible

[02:59.540 --> 03:04.200] way in the world of chess that the lowest rated player can beat the highest rated who

[03:04.200 --> 03:09.800] happens to be the current grandmaster, world grandmaster, five time world champion in the

[03:09.800 --> 03:12.120] first round of a tournament like this.

[03:12.120 --> 03:18.060] Apparently it's so statistically nearly impossible that it likely would not have happened unless

[03:18.060 --> 03:21.600] there was some kind of cheating and you add on top of that the fact that this person has

[03:21.600 --> 03:26.840] admitted to cheating before.

[03:26.840 --> 03:33.620] He's being questioned by certainly lots of professional organizations about it, this

[03:33.620 --> 03:35.160] kid Nieman.

[03:35.160 --> 03:41.760] He has also been banned from chess.com, the world's number one chess website because of

[03:41.760 --> 03:42.760] the accusations.

[03:42.760 --> 03:43.760] I'm sorry, is it chess.org or chess.com?

[03:43.760 --> 03:44.760] I thought it was chess.com.

[03:44.760 --> 03:45.760] Evan.

[03:45.760 --> 03:50.640] And he's been banned from them because of these cheating accusations, yep.

[03:50.640 --> 03:54.760] The part that I don't get is you can make the accusation.

[03:54.760 --> 04:00.760] Well, first of all, I'm very triggery about someone like, I didn't win so therefore it

[04:00.760 --> 04:04.240] must be cheating, right, because we're seeing that.

[04:04.240 --> 04:05.240] Yes.

[04:05.240 --> 04:09.040] Number two, they either caught the guy or they didn't catch the guy.

[04:09.040 --> 04:10.040] You can't say afterwards.

[04:10.040 --> 04:11.040] They didn't catch him.

[04:11.040 --> 04:12.720] They did not catch him.

[04:12.720 --> 04:14.240] Let's say he had a device on him.

[04:14.240 --> 04:16.000] Let's say he was cheating, right?

[04:16.000 --> 04:17.000] Yes.

[04:17.000 --> 04:19.040] They don't catch him during the competition.

[04:19.040 --> 04:25.040] He gets up, he walks out, he gets rid of anything that could incriminate him.

[04:25.040 --> 04:28.400] So now they're making an accusation that is virtually unprovable.

[04:28.400 --> 04:34.440] So what I read, first of all, Carlson, the champion who lost, did not directly accuse

[04:34.440 --> 04:37.040] him of cheating, but he implied it.

[04:37.040 --> 04:42.520] He quote unquote all but accused him, but he didn't straight up say he cheated.

[04:42.520 --> 04:46.200] And you're right, Jay, from what I'm reading, we're not experts, but this is an interesting

[04:46.200 --> 04:51.480] story is that it's all based on plausibility and game analysis.

[04:51.480 --> 04:54.720] It's based upon like what's more likely to be true.

[04:54.720 --> 04:57.160] There's no direct evidence that he cheated.

[04:57.160 --> 04:58.160] Yeah.

[04:58.160 --> 05:02.720] Speaking of game analysis, though, I just read that both, if you look at gameplay, both

[05:02.720 --> 05:08.000] sides were making mistakes and the author was claiming that, you know, something that

[05:08.000 --> 05:13.080] would make you think that maybe he really wasn't cheating if he was also making mistakes,

[05:13.080 --> 05:17.440] which isn't necessarily true because you could just cheat not for every move, but for just

[05:17.440 --> 05:20.560] some of the critical moves, you know, so you could still make mistakes.

[05:20.560 --> 05:21.560] So yeah.

[05:21.560 --> 05:27.080] So the initial analysis was like when people were watching the game live, like if you were

[05:27.080 --> 05:31.800] listening to the commentary from what I'm reading again, it said that Carlson kind of

[05:31.800 --> 05:32.800] underestimated.

[05:32.800 --> 05:35.360] He was like, this is the first round, this is a low strength player.

[05:35.360 --> 05:41.520] He kind of rushed and that he messed up, like he did not play well early in the game, but

[05:41.520 --> 05:45.080] that he should have still been able to play him to a draw.

[05:45.080 --> 05:50.760] But then he made a bad move late in the game that Neiman exploited and won.

[05:50.760 --> 05:55.760] So it just it looked like he choked because he underestimated based on what you just said,

[05:55.760 --> 05:56.760] man.

[05:56.760 --> 06:02.040] However, once Carlson brought up the possibility that the guy cheated and people like analyze

[06:02.040 --> 06:09.720] the game in detail, some people are saying that Neiman made a clutch, brilliant move

[06:09.720 --> 06:16.680] really quickly and that that might imply that, you know, he that he cheated, that he was,

[06:16.680 --> 06:18.480] you know, that there was some sort of guidance.

[06:18.480 --> 06:19.480] Yeah.

[06:19.480 --> 06:20.480] But of course, we don't.

[06:20.480 --> 06:23.840] This is all, you know, speculation, speculation and probability.

[06:23.840 --> 06:25.600] It's possible that it was just an upset.

[06:25.600 --> 06:29.280] The thing is, unusual outcomes are going to occur from time to time.

[06:29.280 --> 06:33.100] And when they do, you can point to that's an anomaly and therefore there must be something

[06:33.100 --> 06:34.100] going on.

[06:34.100 --> 06:36.540] But anomaly should happen pretty regularly.

[06:36.540 --> 06:37.920] And there are upsets in chess.

[06:37.920 --> 06:38.920] It does happen.

[06:38.920 --> 06:39.920] You know.

[06:39.920 --> 06:40.920] Oh, in all sports.

[06:40.920 --> 06:41.920] Sure.

[06:41.920 --> 06:42.920] Sure.

[06:42.920 --> 06:44.880] So it's not enough to say, oh, this guy should not have won.

[06:44.880 --> 06:49.920] They would they would need to show evidence that he actually cheated, not although it

[06:49.920 --> 06:57.800] is interesting to this idea that we can, quote unquote, prove cheating to a high degree of

[06:57.800 --> 07:00.780] probability by analyzing the game.

[07:00.780 --> 07:03.960] So let me give you an example from a game if you guys remember this.

[07:03.960 --> 07:07.140] But I can't remember the specific video game, which a lot of our listeners know.

[07:07.140 --> 07:10.720] But somebody, you know, how they do like a you try to run through the game as fast as

[07:10.720 --> 07:11.720] possible.

[07:11.720 --> 07:12.720] Yes.

[07:12.720 --> 07:13.720] I've seen some.

[07:13.720 --> 07:17.320] Somebody did that in one of the games on the portal, whatever it was, one of the some

[07:17.320 --> 07:21.400] game where you could play through the beginning to end and broke all records.

[07:21.400 --> 07:23.720] And I think it was from Minecraft.

[07:23.720 --> 07:28.120] I think he did a Minecraft run through like faster than anybody else.

[07:28.120 --> 07:34.820] And somebody calculated the odds of him getting the drops that he got in the game.

[07:34.820 --> 07:36.320] And it was like astronomical.

[07:36.320 --> 07:39.000] I just defied all probability.

[07:39.000 --> 07:41.120] So he said he must have been hacking somehow.

[07:41.120 --> 07:47.520] He was cheating that it wasn't just based on drops, not speed, but but drops.

[07:47.520 --> 07:49.520] And when you say drops for people who aren't familiar with Minecraft.

[07:49.520 --> 07:54.200] So in other words, like you kill a bad guy and he drops treasure and that that drop is

[07:54.200 --> 07:58.480] random and there's a very hard probability.

[07:58.480 --> 07:59.480] It's coded into the game.

[07:59.480 --> 08:03.840] Like there's a one percent chance that you'll get this drop, you know, in a perfect thing.

[08:03.840 --> 08:04.840] Yeah.

[08:04.840 --> 08:10.880] So if you calculate the odds of him getting the favorable drops that he got, it defies

[08:10.880 --> 08:11.880] all.

[08:11.880 --> 08:12.880] It's like winning a lottery.

[08:12.880 --> 08:15.760] You know, it was like, but somebody always wins the lottery.

[08:15.760 --> 08:17.520] Well, that's that's kind of the point.

[08:17.520 --> 08:18.520] It's different.

[08:18.520 --> 08:19.520] No, but it's different.

[08:19.520 --> 08:20.520] It's numbers are different.

[08:20.520 --> 08:21.520] Yeah.

[08:21.520 --> 08:23.480] I have 10 million people play in that game.

[08:23.480 --> 08:24.480] Yeah.

[08:24.480 --> 08:29.640] But but so many but so many attempts at it if it's a large enough number, shouldn't there

[08:29.640 --> 08:30.640] be?

[08:30.640 --> 08:31.720] But it wasn't even close.

[08:31.720 --> 08:33.640] Not that many people do this right.

[08:33.640 --> 08:38.040] Do this like fast running, you know, run through of Minecraft.

[08:38.040 --> 08:42.320] The probability that somebody doing this, let's say there are thousands of people doing

[08:42.320 --> 08:43.320] it, whatever.

[08:43.320 --> 08:48.200] It still is like, you know, trillions to one against like orders of magnitude off it trillions

[08:48.200 --> 08:49.400] is a tough number to overcome.

[08:49.400 --> 08:50.400] It's just yeah.

[08:50.400 --> 08:51.400] Yeah.

[08:51.400 --> 08:54.840] It just should not have happened by right by chance because that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[08:54.840 --> 08:59.120] We're just saying probabilistically it's a huge red flag.

[08:59.120 --> 09:02.660] It's I think a little bit harder to say that with chess because it's not hard probabilities

[09:02.660 --> 09:03.660] that you can calculate.

[09:03.660 --> 09:07.560] It's just like maybe the guy choked and maybe the other guy got lucky or he made a he made

[09:07.560 --> 09:08.600] a move.

[09:08.600 --> 09:11.040] In retrospect, it was a brilliant move, but he could have just got lucky.

[09:11.040 --> 09:13.000] I mean, you know, could have just been.

[09:13.000 --> 09:14.000] Yeah.

[09:14.000 --> 09:15.000] Yeah.

[09:15.000 --> 09:18.860] The big thing for me, the big thing for me was Steve was when you said that this guy made

[09:18.860 --> 09:20.480] some bad moves.

[09:20.480 --> 09:21.480] He did.

[09:21.480 --> 09:24.860] A bunch of uncharacteristically bad moves.

[09:24.860 --> 09:29.600] And to me, that really kind of sways it back into this guy's corner, I think, because if

[09:29.600 --> 09:35.040] he if the champ still played a brilliant game and the guy still took him out, then that

[09:35.040 --> 09:38.520] would be, you know, it would be different, a little bit different.

[09:38.520 --> 09:39.520] Right.

[09:39.520 --> 09:40.520] Now, in terms of the cheating.

[09:40.520 --> 09:43.520] I mean, you know, this is why you don't cheat, man, because then your reputation's in the

[09:43.520 --> 09:44.520] shitter.

[09:44.520 --> 09:45.520] Yeah.

[09:45.520 --> 09:46.520] That's right.

[09:46.520 --> 09:48.080] Then if you do get lucky, no one's going to believe you.

[09:48.080 --> 09:50.280] But he said and even said, listen, he admitted it.

[09:50.280 --> 09:54.760] I admitted that I cheated once when I was 12 years old and when I was six twelve years

[09:54.760 --> 09:55.760] old.

[09:55.760 --> 10:03.160] And then when he was 16, he's now 19 years old, but he says, oh, I know he's sorry about

[10:03.160 --> 10:04.160] those.

[10:04.160 --> 10:05.160] He's reformed, whatever.

[10:05.160 --> 10:06.880] He cheats about every three years.

[10:06.880 --> 10:11.000] That's what you're saying.

[10:11.000 --> 10:12.520] You can kind of take that for what it's worth.

[10:12.520 --> 10:16.820] I mean, if you were like 30, I would say, OK, it was like he was a child and I was.

[10:16.820 --> 10:18.560] But he's 19.

[10:18.560 --> 10:25.560] It's still 16 to 19 is a huge deal, but it's not so much time that we could say he's out

[10:25.560 --> 10:29.880] of the woods in terms of still right bearing the burden of having a reputation of being

[10:29.880 --> 10:30.880] a cheater.

[10:30.880 --> 10:33.920] But it's interesting like you could make a case any way you want with something like

[10:33.920 --> 10:34.920] this.

[10:34.920 --> 10:35.920] You know, it's all about you.

[10:35.920 --> 10:37.920] You're missing like a part of this, Steve.

[10:37.920 --> 10:41.480] Evan, did I hear you correctly?

[10:41.480 --> 10:44.560] Did you say that they accused him of cheating with a sex toy?

[10:44.560 --> 10:48.160] Well, that's well, yeah, that where does that detail come from?

[10:48.160 --> 10:54.740] I'm not one hundred percent sure where that I think they're saying how could he have possibly

[10:54.740 --> 10:56.880] cheated using a piece of technology?

[10:56.880 --> 10:58.200] And this was one scenario.

[10:58.200 --> 11:03.640] And because it is, you know, because of the nature, the sexual nature of it, it obviously

[11:03.640 --> 11:06.520] gets a lot of attention more so than perhaps other.

[11:06.520 --> 11:12.160] But what's the what sex toy did this guy have that was helping him play chess?

[11:12.160 --> 11:18.040] Well, according to the accusation, it's something, you know, you anally insert and you vibrate

[11:18.040 --> 11:19.040] more.

[11:19.040 --> 11:20.480] And it vibrates and it vibrates.

[11:20.480 --> 11:22.720] Somebody would have had to have been controlling it remotely.

[11:22.720 --> 11:29.320] Well, yeah, you can other other another person or a computer or something else can control

[11:29.320 --> 11:30.320] the vibration.

[11:30.320 --> 11:32.800] Oh, and use it as a means of communication.

[11:32.800 --> 11:36.920] That's it's basically a way to send him information remotely.

[11:36.920 --> 11:37.920] Yeah, right.

[11:37.920 --> 11:38.920] Yeah.

[11:38.920 --> 11:39.920] But that's correct.

[11:39.920 --> 11:40.920] Yeah.

[11:40.920 --> 11:46.000] And that has and that and that that is a known thing in cheating when when somebody places

[11:46.000 --> 11:51.160] a device upon their body and it gives them a shock or a vibrational pulse or something

[11:51.160 --> 11:55.600] that that is very well established that people have done that in the past.

[11:55.600 --> 11:58.940] But do you think the guy was sitting there playing chess and every like five minutes

[11:58.940 --> 12:09.060] he'd be like, oh, well, this is what that sounds awfully like an argument from lack

[12:09.060 --> 12:10.060] of evidence.

[12:10.060 --> 12:11.060] Right.

[12:11.060 --> 12:12.720] It's like there's no evidence that he cheated.

[12:12.720 --> 12:18.280] That means he's a really good cheater because he he had something in his but, you know,

[12:18.280 --> 12:20.960] it's just that's not a very compelling argument.

[12:20.960 --> 12:22.360] But it is technically feasible.

[12:22.360 --> 12:25.160] You can communicate with very little information.

[12:25.160 --> 12:30.080] I think it's like three characters, three or four characters for any given chess move.

[12:30.080 --> 12:32.920] So it wouldn't take so that that can be done.

[12:32.920 --> 12:33.920] But yeah.

[12:33.920 --> 12:34.920] Yeah, you're right.

[12:34.920 --> 12:35.920] I mean, yeah.

[12:35.920 --> 12:36.920] Well, right.

[12:36.920 --> 12:37.920] Every piece occupies.

[12:37.920 --> 12:38.920] Yeah, that's right.

[12:38.920 --> 12:39.920] Every piece has a designation, a letter number combination.

[12:39.920 --> 12:44.180] So very, very easy, like you said, but let's follow this has those codes.

[12:44.180 --> 12:45.360] Let's follow this.

[12:45.360 --> 12:52.080] So he had to have a co-conspirator here that was like in the audience pressing.

[12:52.080 --> 12:53.160] Was it televised?

[12:53.160 --> 12:58.000] The button like he'd have to have somebody like looking up the information and then radioing

[12:58.000 --> 12:59.000] it to his butt.

[12:59.000 --> 13:00.000] Right.

[13:00.000 --> 13:01.000] Yeah.

[13:01.000 --> 13:02.800] So I I have to check and I haven't looked for the video.

[13:02.800 --> 13:09.360] I think it was somehow being televised or was able to be watched in real time.

[13:09.360 --> 13:15.200] And so, yeah, there would be some sort of in the audience would be too too risky.

[13:15.200 --> 13:20.080] Co-conspirator or with them or or a or something that's or a I don't know if there are automated

[13:20.080 --> 13:25.360] programs that read the chessboard or it's somehow programmed in or somebody online is

[13:25.360 --> 13:30.240] putting in the moves and then that is being relayed into whatever device supposedly this

[13:30.240 --> 13:31.920] thing is can transmit.

[13:31.920 --> 13:33.480] You know, I get you're right.

[13:33.480 --> 13:38.480] It's it's it's total speculation and unprovable at this point.

[13:38.480 --> 13:45.160] And you know, it does smack of kind of sour grapes overall, if you ask me, you know, queen

[13:45.160 --> 13:54.720] to to two D. Oh, but yes, I mean, Carlson is denying that he accused him of cheating

[13:54.720 --> 14:00.200] because that I think he knows that is bad for him now, unless you have proof.

[14:00.200 --> 14:01.200] Yeah.

[14:01.200 --> 14:03.280] You don't accuse the other guy of cheating.

[14:03.280 --> 14:05.560] Have them play five more games.

[14:05.560 --> 14:08.240] Let's see how this guy does that.

[14:08.240 --> 14:09.360] That proves nothing.

[14:09.360 --> 14:10.360] It proves nothing.

[14:10.360 --> 14:11.360] Yeah.

[14:11.360 --> 14:12.360] Why?

[14:12.360 --> 14:15.960] Because we know that Carlson will lose.

[14:15.960 --> 14:16.960] Yeah.

[14:16.960 --> 14:17.960] Right.

[14:17.960 --> 14:20.680] Because we know that the champion is better than the lowest ranking ranking guy.

[14:20.680 --> 14:23.000] It's just that did he underestimate him and choke?

[14:23.000 --> 14:24.000] Right.

[14:24.000 --> 14:27.080] That's the question that the other guy get lucky that, you know, that's the question.

[14:27.080 --> 14:31.440] And then nothing will answer that because it's done because the guy's clearly not going

[14:31.440 --> 14:32.920] to underestimate him a second time.

[14:32.920 --> 14:34.440] He's going to bring his freaking a game.

[14:34.440 --> 14:35.440] Yeah.

[14:35.440 --> 14:37.400] I played one Grandmaster in my life.

[14:37.400 --> 14:38.400] Really?

[14:38.400 --> 14:39.400] Yes.

[14:39.400 --> 14:40.400] How badly did he wipe you?

[14:40.400 --> 14:42.960] He destroyed me in like nine moves.

[14:42.960 --> 14:44.440] It was pretty much done.

[14:44.440 --> 14:45.440] Nine's not bad.

[14:45.440 --> 14:46.440] You held out for nine moves.

[14:46.440 --> 14:47.440] It was.

[14:47.440 --> 14:48.440] It was.

[14:48.440 --> 14:49.440] Yeah.

[14:49.440 --> 14:50.440] It was humbling.

[14:50.440 --> 14:51.440] It was just fun.

[14:51.440 --> 14:53.240] It was a friend of mine from high school.

[14:53.240 --> 14:54.240] His father.

[14:54.240 --> 14:55.240] Yeah.

[14:55.240 --> 14:56.240] Was technically a Grandmaster.

[14:56.240 --> 14:57.240] He played for 13.

[14:57.240 --> 14:58.240] I'd just like to be one of those guys.

[14:58.240 --> 15:01.240] You don't like to have the Grandmaster play 20 people at once.

[15:01.240 --> 15:02.240] Yeah.

[15:02.240 --> 15:03.240] Oh, gosh.

[15:03.240 --> 15:04.240] Defeats being one of those people.

[15:04.240 --> 15:08.280] You're taking up one twentieth of his attention and he's still wiped the board with you.

[15:08.280 --> 15:09.280] It's humbling.

[15:09.280 --> 15:10.280] Yeah.

[15:10.280 --> 15:11.280] So many moves.

[15:11.280 --> 15:12.280] Expertise.

[15:12.280 --> 15:13.280] Oh, gosh.

[15:13.280 --> 15:14.280] Yes.

[15:14.280 --> 15:15.280] And they're thinking so many moves ahead.

[15:15.280 --> 15:16.280] Yes.

[15:16.280 --> 15:17.280] Yeah.

[15:17.280 --> 15:21.640] The Korovinsky move from 1947 when he played Stratsky in this game and, you know, really

[15:21.640 --> 15:22.640] it comes down to that.

[15:22.640 --> 15:27.080] It's like they analyze they were they you they can memorize all the moves of a particular

[15:27.080 --> 15:31.960] game from a particular tournament from a particular, you know, year 90 that was played 90 years

[15:31.960 --> 15:32.960] ago.

[15:32.960 --> 15:33.960] It's impressive.

[15:33.960 --> 15:37.720] What's interesting from a skeptical point of view is that so many people now are trying

[15:37.720 --> 15:45.320] to infer whether or not he cheated based upon circumstantial and tangential evidence and

[15:45.320 --> 15:49.760] the logical fallacies are flying, you know, the motivated reasoning is flying.

[15:49.760 --> 15:56.900] So it's interesting to watch that from the sidelines having zero stake in the game.

[15:56.900 --> 15:58.480] But it's interesting.

[15:58.480 --> 16:02.280] And if any objective evidence emerges, we'll we'll let you know, because that would be

[16:02.280 --> 16:03.960] then then you have the hindsight.

[16:03.960 --> 16:04.960] Right.

[16:04.960 --> 16:07.960] And we'll look at all those statements and inferences with hindsight.

[16:07.960 --> 16:08.960] All right.

[16:08.960 --> 16:10.240] We're going to start off.


Is It Real: Ear Snake (16:08)

[16:10.240 --> 16:11.800] Evan, you sent this around.

[16:11.800 --> 16:12.800] This is a segment.

[16:12.800 --> 16:14.240] I think we've done this once or twice before.

[16:14.240 --> 16:15.240] Is it real?

[16:15.240 --> 16:16.240] Right.

[16:16.240 --> 16:17.240] Is the segment.

[16:17.240 --> 16:18.240] Is it real?

[16:18.240 --> 16:20.720] Have you guys all seen the YouTube video of the ear snake?

[16:20.720 --> 16:21.720] Oh, yeah.

[16:21.720 --> 16:26.000] I you know, I was going to watch it and then I realized I don't want to see whether it's

[16:26.000 --> 16:27.000] fake or not.

[16:27.000 --> 16:28.000] I don't want to see.

[16:28.000 --> 16:29.000] Oh, my God.

[16:29.000 --> 16:31.200] A snake come out of somebody's ear.

[16:31.200 --> 16:32.380] It's a high creep factor.

[16:32.380 --> 16:33.380] It's like it's.

[16:33.380 --> 16:34.380] Oh, yes.

[16:34.380 --> 16:35.380] I want to see it.

[16:35.380 --> 16:37.600] Well, it's right now.

[16:37.600 --> 16:40.680] Snakes is a natural fear, Steve, or the brain.

[16:40.680 --> 16:42.880] We have a disposition towards fear of snakes.

[16:42.880 --> 16:43.880] Oh, yeah.

[16:43.880 --> 16:44.880] I mean, generally.

[16:44.880 --> 16:47.800] So right there, you know, is the cringe.

[16:47.800 --> 16:48.800] You don't see it come out, Jay.

[16:48.800 --> 16:52.760] It's just basically hanging out in the ear with the opening and closing its mouth.

[16:52.760 --> 16:55.800] I don't like its head is facing outward.

[16:55.800 --> 16:56.800] Yeah.

[16:56.800 --> 16:57.800] Right.

[16:57.800 --> 17:03.320] So it's a it's like a portion of a video of a longer video, which is, you know, cut

[17:03.320 --> 17:09.560] strategically to only show that there's a head of a snake protruding from a woman's

[17:09.560 --> 17:14.800] ear and someone with gloves and tweezers is kind of poking it and provoking it into making

[17:14.800 --> 17:15.800] these mouth gestures.

[17:15.800 --> 17:16.800] Oh, my God.

[17:16.800 --> 17:17.800] Right.

[17:17.800 --> 17:18.800] And they're so they're so funny.

[17:18.800 --> 17:19.800] How did it turn inside?

[17:19.800 --> 17:20.800] Did it enter from another ear?

[17:20.800 --> 17:21.800] I know.

[17:21.800 --> 17:22.800] Oh, gosh.

[17:22.800 --> 17:23.800] It's crazy.

[17:23.800 --> 17:30.800] So as a neurologist, I could tell you this is 100 percent fake.

[17:30.800 --> 17:33.080] There's just no place for the snake to be.

[17:33.080 --> 17:37.800] You would be dead if there was if there was a body attached to that snake head.

[17:37.800 --> 17:42.840] There's the only place for it to be is in your brain's brain, freaking dead if that

[17:42.840 --> 17:43.840] were real.

[17:43.840 --> 17:48.460] If that were coming out of a corpse, OK, then there would be some plausibility there.

[17:48.460 --> 17:54.360] And the other thing is, the doctor is clearly not trying to remove it.

[17:54.360 --> 17:56.960] If you were trying to remove it, you would freaking remove it.

[17:56.960 --> 17:59.200] He's just poking it to make it smoking at it.

[17:59.200 --> 18:00.200] Yeah.

[18:00.200 --> 18:03.640] Like, there's no species of snake that's just a head, right?

[18:03.640 --> 18:09.480] Like, that would be the only plausible thing is if there was just a living head of a snake

[18:09.480 --> 18:10.480] there.

[18:10.480 --> 18:11.480] Right.

[18:11.480 --> 18:12.480] My guess is there's two options.

[18:12.480 --> 18:13.480] Yeah.

[18:13.480 --> 18:16.600] Either CG, which doesn't look CG, but I mean, it's possible.

[18:16.600 --> 18:17.600] No, it doesn't.

[18:17.600 --> 18:18.600] It could be.

[18:18.600 --> 18:19.600] It could be.

[18:19.600 --> 18:20.600] It could be.

[18:20.600 --> 18:21.600] It could be animatronic.

[18:21.600 --> 18:23.800] That's damn good animatronics.

[18:23.800 --> 18:26.240] Do you consider, Bob, that it was a ghost snake?

[18:26.240 --> 18:27.240] You know, it would be ethereal.

[18:27.240 --> 18:28.240] It wouldn't be actually.

[18:28.240 --> 18:29.240] Bigfoot snake.

[18:29.240 --> 18:30.240] It's a bigfoot snake.

[18:30.240 --> 18:31.240] Lots of feet on it.

[18:31.240 --> 18:34.520] It's a psychic, ghost, bigfoot snake from the future.

[18:34.520 --> 18:36.960] No, that's the most plausible explanation I've heard yet.

[18:36.960 --> 18:41.960] Or the most likely explanation, right, we pretty much, most people agree or Snopes agrees

[18:41.960 --> 18:47.880] or whatever, is that it's just a decapitated snake and they will move for a while, even

[18:47.880 --> 18:48.880] after decapitation.

[18:48.880 --> 18:50.440] And that's why he's poking it.

[18:50.440 --> 18:51.440] Yes.

[18:51.440 --> 18:53.760] Yeah, they cut the snake's head off, stuck it in her ear, and they're poking it to make

[18:53.760 --> 18:54.760] it move.

[18:54.760 --> 18:59.000] Okay, so if that's the, ooh, if that's the explanation, I don't know what's worse.

[18:59.000 --> 19:02.160] The false story or the actual explanation for this thing.

[19:02.160 --> 19:05.320] Also then, the question with no context, is this real?

[19:05.320 --> 19:06.320] Yes.

[19:06.320 --> 19:09.440] There is a decapitated snake head in her ear.

[19:09.440 --> 19:10.440] That's real.

[19:10.440 --> 19:16.080] Well, it's not real as presented, like as a living snake nestled in somebody's ear.

[19:16.080 --> 19:19.400] And that is what we're supposed to get from it, because the first thing I said was, why

[19:19.400 --> 19:21.800] is there just a snake head in her ear?

[19:21.800 --> 19:25.440] Because of course, any reasonable person knows that there's nowhere for the body to go, because

[19:25.440 --> 19:28.560] your ear canal, how big is your ear canal?

[19:28.560 --> 19:29.560] It's teeny.

[19:29.560 --> 19:30.560] I don't know.

[19:30.560 --> 19:31.560] Like a centimeter or two?

[19:31.560 --> 19:32.560] Yeah.

[19:32.560 --> 19:33.640] An inch max?

[19:33.640 --> 19:34.760] I don't know.

[19:34.760 --> 19:35.760] And it's narrow.

[19:35.760 --> 19:36.760] Yeah.

[19:36.760 --> 19:37.760] That's what I'm saying.

[19:37.760 --> 19:38.760] Yeah.

[19:38.760 --> 19:39.760] It's short and narrow.

[19:39.760 --> 19:40.760] There's no...

[19:40.760 --> 19:44.880] And then there's your cochlea, your inner ear, and then there's your brainstem.

[19:44.880 --> 19:48.560] You know, it's just, there's no place for the snake body to be.

[19:48.560 --> 19:50.200] So there's clearly no snake body there, right?

[19:50.200 --> 19:51.480] That's that we could say for sure.

[19:51.480 --> 19:56.880] Whether it's CG or a recently decapitated head or whatever, there's no body attached

[19:56.880 --> 19:57.880] to it.

[19:57.880 --> 19:58.880] It's an illusion.

[19:58.880 --> 20:01.440] It's an illusion, right?

[20:01.440 --> 20:06.560] Is surgeon in quotes, struggles to remove live snake bones there.

[20:06.560 --> 20:09.160] It's a surgeon in quotes.

[20:09.160 --> 20:10.160] Yeah.

[20:10.160 --> 20:15.600] Because apparently it started as a clip to Facebook, posted on September 1st by India

[20:15.600 --> 20:21.280] based social media star named Chandan Singh, or 20,000 followers, whatever.

[20:21.280 --> 20:26.900] And surgeon, it was written in a foreign language, I can't read it, but the word surgeon was

[20:26.900 --> 20:27.940] in there.

[20:27.940 --> 20:31.740] And also in quotes, it says the snake has gone in the ear.

[20:31.740 --> 20:35.800] So that's why surgeon is quoted the way it is.

[20:35.800 --> 20:37.140] That guy's not a surgeon.

[20:37.140 --> 20:41.660] Or if he is, he's not trying to remove that snake skin because if he were, he would freaking

[20:41.660 --> 20:42.660] remove it.

[20:42.660 --> 20:47.880] And the other thing is, if he removed the snake, why are we not seeing that portion

[20:47.880 --> 20:48.880] of the video?

[20:48.880 --> 20:49.880] Right.

[20:49.880 --> 20:55.560] Why is it so conveniently cut before you get to see the head pop out or whatever?

[20:55.560 --> 21:00.800] And after the removal of something other than just poking the snake head.

[21:00.800 --> 21:06.800] But sitting there and allowing yourself to be used like that for this purpose is heroic,

[21:06.800 --> 21:08.760] brave or weird.

[21:08.760 --> 21:14.320] I've seen people do weirder, grosser things on the internet, so not surprising.

[21:14.320 --> 21:18.000] All right, let's move on to some news items.

News Items

S:

B:

C:

J:

E:

(laughs) (laughter) (applause) [inaudible]

What Children Believe (21:18)

[21:18.000 --> 21:21.200] Kara, you're going to start us off with what children believe.

[21:21.200 --> 21:22.200] Yeah.

[21:22.200 --> 21:26.520] This is one of those like I could approach this two different ways because as I was reading

[21:26.520 --> 21:29.860] the coverage of this, the headlines made it sound kind of juicy.

[21:29.860 --> 21:34.560] And then the more I dug into the actual paper, like the research study that we're about to

[21:34.560 --> 21:38.600] talk about, the more I was like, uh-huh, uh-huh, well, duh.

[21:38.600 --> 21:45.360] And so let's talk a little bit about how this is a well, duh subject, but also why it matters.

[21:45.360 --> 21:54.400] So an article published in Child Development by some Canadian and I think and U.S. researchers,

[21:54.400 --> 22:02.080] yeah, University of Toronto and also Harvard, were saying kind of do kids believe everything

[22:02.080 --> 22:03.080] that they're told?

[22:03.080 --> 22:07.120] I think any of us, like as you're reading coverage of this, it's really funny to me

[22:07.120 --> 22:10.080] because you're like, have you ever been around a child?

[22:10.080 --> 22:15.680] Like yes, kids are gullible, but yes, kids also are explorers.

[22:15.680 --> 22:18.320] And so the question here, they're observers and they're explorers.

[22:18.320 --> 22:22.200] So the question here is how do those things converge?

[22:22.200 --> 22:24.940] I don't think it's really well answered by this study, but let me tell you what they

[22:24.940 --> 22:26.200] did in the study.

[22:26.200 --> 22:29.520] So there's sort of two paradigms.

[22:29.520 --> 22:33.120] In one of the paradigms, it was quite simple.

[22:33.120 --> 22:38.480] They basically had kids come in and they asked them straightforward questions like, is this

[22:38.480 --> 22:41.600] rock hard or soft?

[22:41.600 --> 22:44.880] And the kids were like, well, the rock's hard.

[22:44.880 --> 22:48.680] Like all of them said that because these were four to seven-year-olds, by the way, because

[22:48.680 --> 22:50.960] even a four-year-old knows that a rock is hard.

[22:50.960 --> 22:53.200] They have seen and felt rocks before.

[22:53.200 --> 22:57.720] And then they sort of randomized them into groups and in one group they were like, yeah,

[22:57.720 --> 22:58.720] it's hard.

[22:58.720 --> 23:02.560] And in the other group they were like, no, this rock is soft.

[23:02.560 --> 23:07.600] And then the researcher was like, oh, quick, I got a phone call, BRB, and left the kids

[23:07.600 --> 23:08.600] in the room.

[23:08.600 --> 23:13.300] And so unbeknownst to the kids, they were being videotaped and their exploratory behavior

[23:13.300 --> 23:14.740] was being observed.

[23:14.740 --> 23:16.280] And that's really what the study was.

[23:16.280 --> 23:22.640] What do the kids do after they're told that there's a surprising piece of information

[23:22.640 --> 23:28.800] that doesn't comport with their preexisting understanding of the world?

[23:28.800 --> 23:29.800] Kids explored.

[23:29.800 --> 23:33.040] I mean, you know, what do you expect them to do?

[23:33.040 --> 23:36.080] I guess you might expect that one or two kids are going to sit there and go, I guess the

[23:36.080 --> 23:39.400] rock's soft, weird, and like never touched the rock.

[23:39.400 --> 23:41.760] But most kids did exactly what you would think they would do.

[23:41.760 --> 23:47.620] They started to observe and explore and see for themselves, see if that adult's claim

[23:47.620 --> 23:50.440] was real.

[23:50.440 --> 23:51.440] What age?

[23:51.440 --> 23:52.440] Four to seven.

[23:52.440 --> 23:53.440] Yeah, sure.

[23:53.440 --> 23:54.440] Yeah.

[23:54.440 --> 24:00.600] What I love about it, though, because they have to summarize the study exactly, is that

[24:00.600 --> 24:07.520] in the pretest or in the pre-experimental condition group, so they ask them all, is

[24:07.520 --> 24:10.320] the rock hard or soft, all the kids said the rock was hard.

[24:10.320 --> 24:15.640] And then in part of the two different groups, one group, no, the rock is soft.

[24:15.640 --> 24:19.280] The other group, yeah, you're right, the rock is hard.

[24:19.280 --> 24:25.680] Most of the kids, it's really funny, they say most but not all of the kids concurred.

[24:25.680 --> 24:29.080] In the group where they were reinforced that the rock was hard, most but not all of the

[24:29.080 --> 24:32.620] kids continued to concur that the rock was hard.

[24:32.620 --> 24:33.960] This is my favorite part of the study.

[24:33.960 --> 24:36.760] That means at least one child was like, no, the rock's hard.

[24:36.760 --> 24:39.120] And then the adult goes, yeah, you're right, the rock's hard, and the kid goes, I think

[24:39.120 --> 24:40.120] it's soft.

[24:40.120 --> 24:41.120] Yeah, right?

[24:41.120 --> 24:43.240] Which is like, because they had to report it that way, right?

[24:43.240 --> 24:45.120] They said most, not all.

[24:45.120 --> 24:46.640] Anyway, that's an aside.

[24:46.640 --> 24:49.920] So some of the kids said, okay, maybe it is soft.

[24:49.920 --> 24:52.160] Some of the kids said, no, I think it's hard.

[24:52.160 --> 24:55.760] But regardless, they went in and they explored for themselves.

[24:55.760 --> 25:01.420] Then they did another study where they actually kind of compared the differences between the

[25:01.420 --> 25:06.540] younger group, so they sort of arbitrarily split them after the fact into a four to five-year-old

[25:06.540 --> 25:10.460] group and then into a six to seven-year-old group.

[25:10.460 --> 25:15.720] And in that one, they were given the vignettes, specific vignettes.

[25:15.720 --> 25:18.840] I think they were sort of based on the ideas from this first group.

[25:18.840 --> 25:24.600] And in those different vignettes, they asked the kids, what do you do if an adult says

[25:24.600 --> 25:28.140] to you, the sponge is harder than the rock?

[25:28.140 --> 25:32.160] What do you do if an adult says to you, blah, blah, blah?

[25:32.160 --> 25:36.680] And so they presented the kids with these vignettes of kind of unbelievable claims or

[25:36.680 --> 25:41.560] claims that shouldn't compute for them because they're between the ages of four and seven

[25:41.560 --> 25:45.560] and are old enough to know that a sponge is soft and a rock is hard.

[25:45.560 --> 25:53.340] And what they found was that the older group kind of identified strategies that were more

[25:53.340 --> 25:55.920] specific and more efficient.

[25:55.920 --> 26:01.080] So the older group would say things like, they should touch the sponge and they should

[26:01.080 --> 26:03.340] touch the rock and compare them.

[26:03.340 --> 26:09.280] And the younger group was less likely to have, I guess, a more sophisticated approach to

[26:09.280 --> 26:11.060] that problem solving.

[26:11.060 --> 26:12.680] This is being reported all over the place.

[26:12.680 --> 26:17.620] And basically, the quote that a lot of people are citing is from one of the researchers

[26:17.620 --> 26:20.160] that says, there's still a lot we don't know.

[26:20.160 --> 26:23.320] This is a senior author from the Toronto Lab.

[26:23.320 --> 26:24.880] It's called the Child Lab.

[26:24.880 --> 26:28.320] But what's clear is that children don't believe everything they're told.

[26:28.320 --> 26:31.520] They think about what they've been told, and if they're skeptical, they seek out additional

[26:31.520 --> 26:34.960] information that could confirm or disconfirm it.

[26:34.960 --> 26:38.480] And I think for me, this is the like, well, duh, haven't you ever been around a child

[26:38.480 --> 26:39.840] situation?

[26:39.840 --> 26:44.280] Because children aren't completely naive to the world by the time they're four.

[26:44.280 --> 26:50.020] They've lived for four years, and they've made their own observations.

[26:50.020 --> 26:55.940] And so Steve, you wrote this up, and you took sort of the study, and you said, well, let's

[26:55.940 --> 26:56.940] think broader.

[26:56.940 --> 27:00.040] Because of course, the findings, the outcome findings of the study are not surprising.

[27:00.040 --> 27:02.400] It's pretty narrow and not surprising, yeah.

[27:02.400 --> 27:03.900] It's super narrow.

[27:03.900 --> 27:06.240] It's really trying to test, are kids ultra gullible?

[27:06.240 --> 27:11.000] And it's like, well, yeah, sometimes they are, but obviously, sometimes they're not.

[27:11.000 --> 27:15.800] And then, you know, the bigger question is, you know, do kids believe everything they're

[27:15.800 --> 27:20.440] told by adults, kind of when does that start to change?

[27:20.440 --> 27:24.760] And sort of what are the factors, I think, that are involved here?

[27:24.760 --> 27:29.740] If the paradigm had been something that was a little bit vaguer or harder to confirm,

[27:29.740 --> 27:32.200] we may have seen a different outcome.

[27:32.200 --> 27:39.160] Very often, we're running into claims that we can't confirm ourselves, that we have to

[27:39.160 --> 27:42.880] confirm by figuring out who are the experts?

[27:42.880 --> 27:44.480] What are they saying?

[27:44.480 --> 27:46.120] Is there a consensus?

[27:46.120 --> 27:50.060] And this skill is not the skill that the study looked at at all.

[27:50.060 --> 27:54.600] This study looked at very basic scientific reasoning skills.

[27:54.600 --> 27:58.880] And so, I'm a little, like, the headline's fine.

[27:58.880 --> 28:01.760] Children don't believe everything they're told, well, again, duh.

[28:01.760 --> 28:06.040] Or children as, it's hard to lie to children according to scientists, that one's a stretch

[28:06.040 --> 28:07.440] for me.

[28:07.440 --> 28:08.440] Not liking that headline.

[28:08.440 --> 28:14.000] It's hard to lie to children about things that they can directly observe themselves.

[28:14.000 --> 28:17.120] They said, you know, an adult, an authority figure is telling them something.

[28:17.120 --> 28:23.480] But whether the child agreed or not, the child then explored to try and test that observation

[28:23.480 --> 28:24.480] for themselves.

[28:24.480 --> 28:27.920] And I think that is a fundamentally important aspect of this study.

[28:27.920 --> 28:32.360] But I don't think there's a lot of inferences that you can draw from it about how to develop

[28:32.360 --> 28:34.920] really strong critical thinking skills later in life.

[28:34.920 --> 28:37.240] Yeah, this one study is such a tiny slice.

[28:37.240 --> 28:39.880] You have to look at it in the context of so much of the research.

[28:39.880 --> 28:43.040] I didn't talk about it in my write-up, though, but we also, there's also research looking

[28:43.040 --> 28:51.520] at like if an adult tells a child, like gives them a toy and shows them how to use the toy,

[28:51.520 --> 28:57.040] the child will use the toy in the way that they were shown, even if it's a very narrow,

[28:57.040 --> 28:58.920] simplistic way of using the toy.

[28:58.920 --> 29:03.880] If they're given the toy with no direction, they will be more creative and they'll explore

[29:03.880 --> 29:07.760] and they'll use it in different ways and they'll try out different things.

[29:07.760 --> 29:14.520] So one factor is does it contradict or conflict with things they already know or are they

[29:14.520 --> 29:18.200] being told information in a vacuum?

[29:18.200 --> 29:23.460] And also, as you say, is it part of, like, are they being told, this is part of our identity

[29:23.460 --> 29:24.840] of who we are, right?

[29:24.840 --> 29:29.400] Obviously, parents convey religious beliefs to children and children believe them.

[29:29.400 --> 29:32.860] Most people have the religious faith that they were raised in.

[29:32.860 --> 29:36.520] And that's one of those things that you can't just turn around and observe for yourself.

[29:36.520 --> 29:38.840] Yeah, you can't say, is God there?

[29:38.840 --> 29:42.520] You know, there's nothing you can do to test that.

[29:42.520 --> 29:47.440] But what's interesting about testing kids, first of all, it's interesting to say, when

[29:47.440 --> 29:50.320] do certain modules, you know, engage?

[29:50.320 --> 29:52.640] When do they start to do things?

[29:52.640 --> 29:56.720] And you can see how they get more sophisticated and nuanced and how they approach things.

[29:56.720 --> 30:03.240] But also, there is this question about like whether or not, you know, children are like

[30:03.240 --> 30:09.600] more curious and more sort of questioning younger, and then it gets beaten out of them

[30:09.600 --> 30:12.800] by the desire to conform to society.

[30:12.800 --> 30:13.800] Right.

[30:13.800 --> 30:16.120] And is there something almost bimodal there, right?

[30:16.120 --> 30:19.800] Where when they're so young, they believe everything they're told because they don't

[30:19.800 --> 30:23.760] have context and they don't have anything to connect it to.

[30:23.760 --> 30:26.120] And they have no reason to question.

[30:26.120 --> 30:30.320] And then as they get older, they start to be more questioning.

[30:30.320 --> 30:35.040] And then as they get even older, still, they want to conform and belong because the idea

[30:35.040 --> 30:40.100] of social in-group, out-group status becomes more salient to them.

[30:40.100 --> 30:42.960] Perhaps it does kind of follow that to some extent.

[30:42.960 --> 30:44.840] I think creativity is the same way.

[30:44.840 --> 30:47.720] Creativity, I mean, it's interesting, you were talking about the research about giving

[30:47.720 --> 30:48.720] a child a toy.

[30:48.720 --> 30:50.260] And this is maybe a little bit of a departure.

[30:50.260 --> 30:55.060] But I worked with a professor who was like fascinated by creativity research.

[30:55.060 --> 30:58.480] And I hated it because I was like, how do you define that?

[30:58.480 --> 30:59.480] Oh, my gosh.

[30:59.480 --> 31:00.480] It's so vague.

[31:00.480 --> 31:02.000] It's all over the place.

[31:02.000 --> 31:09.840] And they often talked about like, give a child anything, a piece of equipment, a paperclip,

[31:09.840 --> 31:13.360] and have them list all the things it can be.

[31:13.360 --> 31:17.580] And for me, I would get frustrated when people would say it's super creative if they just

[31:17.580 --> 31:21.400] made a list of things that it could never be.

[31:21.400 --> 31:27.040] But creativity seemed really in that sweet spot when they would think of things that

[31:27.040 --> 31:31.400] were outside of the box, but they still used some amount of constraint.

[31:31.400 --> 31:33.680] Like a paperclip can't be an airplane.

[31:33.680 --> 31:35.200] It just can't.

[31:35.200 --> 31:37.440] But it can be this, this, this, and this.

[31:37.440 --> 31:41.460] And maybe those are things you wouldn't think of if you're always thinking inside the box.

[31:41.460 --> 31:48.280] And so there does seem to be some amount of developmental correlation there, right?

[31:48.280 --> 31:52.920] The older that you get, the more constrained your thinking becomes.

[31:52.920 --> 31:57.320] And so it is that sort of like the more conformist you are, the more it's being beaten out of

[31:57.320 --> 31:58.320] you.

[31:58.320 --> 32:02.360] But I think that also comes not just with age, but it comes with the amount of time

[32:02.360 --> 32:04.760] you spend in a certain paradigm as well.

[32:04.760 --> 32:09.920] Because you see this a lot with people who work in a certain field being brought into

[32:09.920 --> 32:13.600] another field to try to solve problems in that field.

[32:13.600 --> 32:16.240] And it's amazing what happens where they're like, well, did you try this?

[32:16.240 --> 32:20.760] And people are like, oh, my god, how have we none of us have ever thought of that before.

[32:20.760 --> 32:24.480] Because that's not how you were trained to think.

[32:24.480 --> 32:25.480] Fresh approach to it.

[32:25.480 --> 32:26.480] Yeah.

[32:26.480 --> 32:30.920] I always think of the fact that the Iceman, you know, they didn't know how he died.

[32:30.920 --> 32:39.640] And meanwhile, there's an arrowhead clearly visible on the X-ray in his chest that they

[32:39.640 --> 32:44.160] looked at for years and didn't see it because they weren't looking for it.

[32:44.160 --> 32:45.160] No, no.

[32:45.160 --> 32:46.880] They kept saying, wow, what is this arrow pointing to?

[32:46.880 --> 32:51.160] It must be a clue as to what might have killed him.

[32:51.160 --> 32:52.160] Someone's like, hey, what's that arrowhead?

[32:52.160 --> 32:53.160] You know, whatever.

[32:53.160 --> 33:00.960] Or what's the other one, the gorilla and the scan of the monkey in the brain?

[33:00.960 --> 33:06.240] They did a research study where they showed radiologists a CT scan of the chest.

[33:06.240 --> 33:09.880] And they said, tell us what pathology you see there.

[33:09.880 --> 33:14.000] And there was literally a gorilla in the middle of the chest.

[33:14.000 --> 33:15.000] And nobody found it.

[33:15.000 --> 33:16.000] Oh, that's great.

[33:16.000 --> 33:17.000] Nobody.

[33:17.000 --> 33:20.640] It's like a large percentage of them didn't see it because, of course, they're not looking

[33:20.640 --> 33:21.640] for it.

[33:21.640 --> 33:22.640] They're looking for what they know to be pathology.

[33:22.640 --> 33:23.640] Yeah.

[33:23.640 --> 33:24.640] That's based on that classic.

[33:24.640 --> 33:25.640] Yeah.

[33:25.640 --> 33:26.640] It's inattentional blindness.

[33:26.640 --> 33:27.640] There's a classic psych experiment that you can Google it.

[33:27.640 --> 33:28.640] Like, you can watch the video.

[33:28.640 --> 33:32.160] It's a super classic video where they tell people, count how many times the ball is passed.

[33:32.160 --> 33:36.400] And it's a really complex video where basketball is being passed amongst a lot of people.

[33:36.400 --> 33:39.320] You really have to focus to count the passes.

[33:39.320 --> 33:41.400] And while focusing on it, it's inattentional blindness.

[33:41.400 --> 33:43.640] That's the phenomenon that they're highlighting.

[33:43.640 --> 33:47.360] While you're focusing on the ball, you literally don't see the gorilla walk completely through

[33:47.360 --> 33:48.360] the scene.

[33:48.360 --> 33:49.360] It's amazing.

[33:49.360 --> 33:50.360] It's amazing.

[33:50.360 --> 33:51.360] I know.

[33:51.360 --> 33:54.440] And professors love to show this to first-year psych students and go, anybody notice anything

[33:54.440 --> 33:56.800] weird about the video?

[33:56.800 --> 33:59.240] It's pretty cool how many people are like, what do you mean?

[33:59.240 --> 34:01.880] About 30% see it, 30% or 40%.

[34:01.880 --> 34:02.880] Yeah.

[34:02.880 --> 34:03.880] Yeah.

[34:03.880 --> 34:05.920] But that's why they used a gorilla in the x-ray study.

[34:05.920 --> 34:06.920] Yeah.

[34:06.920 --> 34:07.920] Because it was like a nod.

[34:07.920 --> 34:10.920] An homage to that original gorilla video.

[34:10.920 --> 34:11.920] Yeah.

[34:11.920 --> 34:12.920] Fascinating.

[34:12.920 --> 34:15.800] Well, everyone, we're going to take a quick break from our show to talk about one of our

[34:15.800 --> 34:18.680] sponsors this week, BetterHelp.

[34:18.680 --> 34:21.640] There are so many reasons to go to therapy.

[34:21.640 --> 34:23.760] I mean, too many to list.

[34:23.760 --> 34:28.800] And I think all of us know that whether we're struggling with a mental illness, with an

[34:28.800 --> 34:35.120] actual diagnosis, or whether we're dealing with an experience in our lives, that we just

[34:35.120 --> 34:38.640] need a little bit of support, a little bit of guidance through.

[34:38.640 --> 34:43.760] These are all valid reasons to talk to somebody, and BetterHelp makes it super easy because,

[34:43.760 --> 34:45.560] of course, this is online therapy.

[34:45.560 --> 34:46.560] Yeah.

[34:46.560 --> 34:50.640] Kara, in my personal experience, going to therapy, it's doing multiple things at the

[34:50.640 --> 34:51.640] same time.

[34:51.640 --> 34:53.720] I just feel good after I go to therapy.

[34:53.720 --> 34:55.680] It's like I'm unloading.

[34:55.680 --> 35:01.200] And along with that, I'm learning skills to help me deal with my own anxiety and depression,

[35:01.200 --> 35:02.840] which it's a double win.

[35:02.840 --> 35:06.320] So when you want to be a better problem solver, therapy can get you there.

[35:06.320 --> 35:11.600] Visit BetterHelp.com slash SGU today to get 10% off your first month.

[35:11.600 --> 35:15.000] That's Better H-E-L-P dot com slash SGU.

[35:15.000 --> 35:16.160] All right, guys.

[35:16.160 --> 35:17.640] Let's get back to the show.

[35:17.640 --> 35:18.760] All right.

[35:18.760 --> 35:19.760] Let's move on.

Health Effects of Gas Stoves (35:18)

Neanderthal Brains (46:55)

Synthetic Microbiome (58:43)

... encephalized [v 1]

UFO Videos Classified (1:10:03)

Who's That Noisy? (1:23:35)

Answer to previous Noisy:
Jaw harp, specifically an Indian morchang (morsing)


New Noisy (1:28:51)

[whooshing and deep woodwind-like tones and vibrations]

... some of you are going to get this,

Announcements (1:29:54)

Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups (1:33:06)

Email #1: Climate Change Nihilism

_consider_using_block_quotes_for_emails_read_aloud_in_this_segment_
with_reduced_spacing_for_long_chunks –

Science or Fiction (1:44:11)

Theme: 2022 Golden Goose Awards

Item #1: The development of laser LASIK surgery was inspired by a case of accidental laser injury to the eye, producing precise perfectly circular damage.[8]
Item #2: Researchers developed a powerful microscope out of paper that folds like origami, with total material costs less than $1.[9]
Item #3: While examining the properties of cone snail venom, researchers accidentally discovered that it is a potent inhibitor of HIV replication.[10]

Answer Item
Fiction Snail venom inhibits hiv
Science Powerful origami microscope
Science
Lasik from laser eye injury
Host Result
Steve win
Rogue Guess
Evan
 Lasik from laser eye injury
Cara
 Lasik from laser eye injury
Bob
 Lasik from laser eye injury
Jay
 Snail venom inhibits hiv

Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.

Evan's Response

Cara's Response

Bob's Response

Jay's Response

Steve Explains Item #2

Steve Explains Item #1

Steve Explains Item #3

Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:57:48)

If I want to know how we learn and remember and represent the world, I will go to psychology and neuroscience. If I want to know where values come from, I will go to evolutionary biology and neuroscience and psychology, just as Aristotle and Hume would have, were they alive.

–Canadian-American analytic philosopher Patricia Churchland, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor at the Salk Institute

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.

[top]                        

Today I Learned

  • Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference[11]
  • Fact/Description
  • Fact/Description

Notes

References

  1. ↑ NY Post: Huge chess world upset of grandmaster sparks wild claims of cheating — with vibrating sex toy
  2. ↑ Snopes: Does Video Show Snake’s Head in Woman’s Ear?
  3. ↑ Neuroscience News: Children Don't Believe Everything They Are Told
  4. ↑ Ars Technica: Is your gas stove bad for your health?
  5. ↑ Neurologica: Neanderthal Brains
  6. ↑ From Cell: Design, construction, and in vivo augmentation of a complex gut microbiome
  7. ↑ Vice: Navy Says All UFO Videos Classified, Releasing Them ‘Will Harm National Security’
  8. ↑ Golden Goose Award: How a Lab Incident Led to Better Eye Surgery for Millions of People
  9. ↑ Golden Goose Award: Foldscopes and Frugal Science: Paper Microscopes Make Science Globally Accessible
  10. ↑ Golden Goose Award: Tiny Snail, Big Impact: Cone Snail Venom Eases Pain and Injects New Energy into Neuroscience
  11. ↑ [url_for_TIL publication: title]

Vocabulary

  1. ↑ Wiktionary: encephalize
Navi-previous.png Back to top of page Navi-next.png
Retrieved from "https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_897&oldid=16131"