SGU Episode 898: Difference between revisions

From SGUTranscripts
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 203: Line 203:
=== 2022 Ig Nobels <small>(2:08)</small> ===
=== 2022 Ig Nobels <small>(2:08)</small> ===
* [https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/maya-ritual-enemas-and-constipated-scorpions-the-2022-ig-nobel-prize-winners/ Here are the winners of the 2022 Ig Nobel Prizes]<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/maya-ritual-enemas-and-constipated-scorpions-the-2022-ig-nobel-prize-winners/ Ars Technica: Here are the winners of the 2022 Ig Nobel Prizes]</ref>
* [https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/maya-ritual-enemas-and-constipated-scorpions-the-2022-ig-nobel-prize-winners/ Here are the winners of the 2022 Ig Nobel Prizes]<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/maya-ritual-enemas-and-constipated-scorpions-the-2022-ig-nobel-prize-winners/ Ars Technica: Here are the winners of the 2022 Ig Nobel Prizes]</ref>
   
 
[02:02.520 --> 02:05.640] You're going to have a news item to talk about a little bit later, but first we're just going
 
[02:05.640 --> 02:07.960]  to dive right into some news items.
 
[02:07.960 --> 02:12.760]  Jay, you're going to start us off by talking about this year's Ig Nobel Prizes.
 
[02:12.760 --> 02:14.160]  Yeah, this was interesting.
 
[02:14.160 --> 02:22.840]  This year, I didn't find anything about people getting razzed so much as I found stuff that
 
[02:22.840 --> 02:26.520]  was basically legitimate, just weird, if you know what I mean.
 
[02:26.520 --> 02:28.200]  Yeah, but that's kind of the Ig Nobles.
 
[02:28.200 --> 02:29.200]  They're legit, but weird.
 
[02:29.200 --> 02:32.880]  They're not fake science or bad science.
 
[02:32.880 --> 02:37.880]  The Ig Nobel Prize is an honor about achievements that first make people laugh and then make
 
[02:37.880 --> 02:39.720]  them think.
 
[02:39.720 --> 02:44.720]  That's kind of their tagline, and it was started in 1991.
 
[02:44.720 --> 02:47.600]  Here's a list of the 2022 winners.
 
[02:47.600 --> 02:48.600]  Check this one out.
 
[02:48.600 --> 02:53.520]  The first one here, the Art History Prize, they call it a multidisciplinary approach
 
[02:53.520 --> 02:57.600]  to ritual enema scenes on ancient Maya pottery.
 
[02:57.600 --> 03:01.960]  Whoa, I want to see those.
 
[03:01.960 --> 03:04.560]  Talk about an insane premise.
 
[03:04.560 --> 03:11.680]  Back in the 6-900 CE timeframe, the Mayans depicted people getting enemas on their pottery,
 
[03:11.680 --> 03:13.640]  which that's crazy.
 
[03:13.640 --> 03:18.520]  This is because they administered enemas back then for medicinal purposes.
 
[03:18.520 --> 03:20.200]  So it was part of their culture.
 
[03:20.200 --> 03:24.200]  And the researchers think it's likely that the Mayans also gave enemas that had drugs
 
[03:24.200 --> 03:28.000]  in them to make people get high during rituals, which is-
 
[03:28.000 --> 03:29.000]  That works, by the way.
 
[03:29.000 --> 03:30.000]  Yeah.
 
[03:30.000 --> 03:33.000]  So one of the lead researchers tried it.
 
[03:33.000 --> 03:39.960]  He gave himself an alcohol enema situation, and they were giving him breathalyzer, and
 
[03:39.960 --> 03:43.340]  lo and behold, he absorbed alcohol through his rectum.
 
[03:43.340 --> 03:46.120]  He didn't need to do that to know that that happens.
 
[03:46.120 --> 03:47.120]  This is science.
 
[03:47.120 --> 03:48.120]  We already know that that happens.
 
[03:48.120 --> 03:49.120]  What's the problem, Kara?
 
[03:49.120 --> 03:50.120]  Science?
 
[03:50.120 --> 03:51.120]  Hello?
 
[03:51.120 --> 03:52.120]  Lit review.
 
[03:52.120 --> 03:53.120]  Lit review.
 
[03:53.120 --> 04:01.160]  The guy also tested DMT, but apparently the dose was probably not high enough for him
 
[04:01.160 --> 04:03.280]  to feel anything because he didn't feel anything.
 
[04:03.280 --> 04:04.840]  So I think that's pretty interesting.
 
[04:04.840 --> 04:09.760]  I mean, that's very, very provocative, just to think that the Mayans, I didn't know they
 
[04:09.760 --> 04:11.160]  did that, and then it was like a thing.
 
[04:11.160 --> 04:13.480]  I was like, whatever.
 
[04:13.480 --> 04:16.080]  Next one, Applied Cardiology Prize.
 
[04:16.080 --> 04:18.940]  This one I find to be really cool.
 
[04:18.940 --> 04:24.700]  So the researchers, they were seeking and finding evidence that when new romantic partners
 
[04:24.700 --> 04:29.880]  meet for the first time and feel attracted to each other, their heart rates synchronize.
 
[04:29.880 --> 04:31.840]  That was the premise of their research.
 
[04:31.840 --> 04:35.640]  So the researchers wanted to find out if there is something physiological behind the gut
 
[04:35.640 --> 04:42.240]  feeling that people can and do feel when they have met the quote unquote right person.
 
[04:42.240 --> 04:44.560]  I don't know about you guys, but I've felt this.
 
[04:44.560 --> 04:49.440]  I felt an inexplicable physiological thing.
 
[04:49.440 --> 04:53.440]  I just didn't realize that something profound was happening.
 
[04:53.440 --> 04:55.960]  So let me give you a quick idea of what they did.
 
[04:55.960 --> 04:58.080]  They had 140 test subjects.
 
[04:58.080 --> 05:03.060]  They monitored test subjects as they met other test subjects one on one.
 
[05:03.060 --> 05:09.280]  If the pair got a gut feeling about the other person, the researchers predicted that they
 
[05:09.280 --> 05:15.660]  would have motor movements, you know, act certain types of activity with their eyes,
 
[05:15.660 --> 05:18.440]  heart rate, skin conductance.
 
[05:18.440 --> 05:22.020]  These types of things would synchronize or they would pair each other or mirror each
 
[05:22.020 --> 05:23.020]  other.
 
[05:23.020 --> 05:27.820]  So 17 percent of the test subjects had what they considered to be successful pairing with
 
[05:27.820 --> 05:28.820]  another subject.
 
[05:28.820 --> 05:33.760]  And they found that couples heart rates and skin conductance correlated to a mutual attraction
 
[05:33.760 --> 05:35.060]  with each other.
 
[05:35.060 --> 05:41.680]  So there is some type of thing happening physiologically when two people, you know, get that feeling
 
[05:41.680 --> 05:44.520]  when they're, you know, there's an initial attraction.
 
[05:44.520 --> 05:50.040]  And it doesn't surprise me because, you know, as mammals, attraction is, you know, it's
 
[05:50.040 --> 05:51.480]  a huge thing.
 
[05:51.480 --> 05:55.800]  It's really it's not only important, but it, you know, your body is reacting to it.
 
[05:55.800 --> 06:00.180]  There are things that happen when you feel that your body is is changing in a way.
 
[06:00.180 --> 06:01.180]  Very cool.
 
[06:01.180 --> 06:04.960]  The next one, I think a lot of people will get a kick out of the it's the literature
 
[06:04.960 --> 06:11.400]  prize and they are analyzing what makes legal documents unnecessarily difficult to understand.
 
[06:11.400 --> 06:14.280]  The basic idea here was there's two camps.
 
[06:14.280 --> 06:21.040]  There's a camp that thinks that legal documents need to be as complicated as they are because
 
[06:21.040 --> 06:26.180]  there's technical concepts and they need to be precise and they use they use this type
 
[06:26.180 --> 06:28.720]  of language to help get that precision.
 
[06:28.720 --> 06:33.880]  And there are other experts that think that laws are actually built upon, you know, mundane
 
[06:33.880 --> 06:38.360]  concepts like cause consent and having best interests.
 
[06:38.360 --> 06:42.100]  And what the researchers wanted to do was they wanted to test the two positions against
 
[06:42.100 --> 06:43.100]  each other.
 
[06:43.100 --> 06:47.600]  And essentially what they found, which is which is not going to surprise anyone, that
 
[06:47.600 --> 06:53.840]  legal documents are at their core, essentially difficult to understand, which is what they
 
[06:53.840 --> 06:55.320]  basically started with that premise.
 
[06:55.320 --> 07:00.640]  But they proved it and they found out exactly what parts of the of the actual legal documents
 
[07:00.640 --> 07:02.080]  were difficult to understand.
 
[07:02.080 --> 07:07.380]  And they called it something called center embedding, which is when lawyers use legal
 
[07:07.380 --> 07:11.920]  jargon within what they call convoluted syntax.
 
[07:11.920 --> 07:16.420]  So in essence, I think what they're saying here is that that legal documents are difficult
 
[07:16.420 --> 07:21.800]  essentially by design, that it's deliberate, which I find interesting and frustrating.
 
[07:21.800 --> 07:26.680]  If you've ever had to read any type of legal documentation, it's kind of annoying how difficult
 
[07:26.680 --> 07:27.680]  it is.
 
[07:27.680 --> 07:30.860]  You have to reread it over and over and over again and look things up and really like sink
 
[07:30.860 --> 07:32.000]  into it to understand.
 
[07:32.000 --> 07:34.320]  So I understand why they did the research.
 
[07:34.320 --> 07:37.500]  I just don't see what the benefit is to the result of their research.
 
[07:37.500 --> 07:38.720]  Maybe they have to iterate it.
 
[07:38.720 --> 07:41.920]  The center embedding thing is actually pretty interesting.
 
[07:41.920 --> 07:48.120]  I saw an example of it and it's like not like it's not what I thought it was going to be.
 
[07:48.120 --> 07:52.760]  It gives an example of like a sentence like a man loves a woman and then a man that a
 
[07:52.760 --> 07:57.880]  woman that a child knows loves a man that a woman that a child that a bird saw is giving
 
[07:57.880 --> 08:03.840]  these examples of like how they do the legal jargon with all those like with all those
 
[08:03.840 --> 08:08.520]  little like phrases within phrases.
 
[08:08.520 --> 08:12.120]  And it's like grammatically correct, but it's like impossible to follow once you have like
 
[08:12.120 --> 08:13.440]  more than one of those.
 
[08:13.440 --> 08:16.480]  The longest one they had here was a man that a woman that a child that a bird that I heard
 
[08:16.480 --> 08:18.680]  saw knows loves.
 
[08:18.680 --> 08:23.720]  I don't know how that actually makes grammatical sense, but apparently it does.
 
[08:23.720 --> 08:26.960]  It makes no sense to me even though I read it like five times in my head.
 
[08:26.960 --> 08:29.000]  I don't know what that sentence means.
 
[08:29.000 --> 08:33.500]  Have you guys seen I just started watching that show Maid.
 
[08:33.500 --> 08:35.000]  Have you guys seen that show on Netflix?
 
[08:35.000 --> 08:36.000]  It's so good.
 
[08:36.000 --> 08:37.840]  Oh, highly recommend.
 
[08:37.840 --> 08:41.660]  But they do this funny thing where like she has to go to a court hearing and they kind
 
[08:41.660 --> 08:45.600]  of show what she hears instead of what is being said.
 
[08:45.600 --> 08:51.680]  And so she's at this custody hearing and the judge is talking to one of the prosecutors
 
[08:51.680 --> 08:56.620]  and like mid-sentence they start going, and then legal, legal, legal, legal, so that you
 
[08:56.620 --> 08:57.720]  can legal, legal.
 
[08:57.720 --> 08:59.520]  I'll legal, legal after you legal.
 
[08:59.520 --> 09:02.520]  And she like looked so confused because it's all she hears.
 
[09:02.520 --> 09:06.680]  And they do it on the forms too when she looks at the forms like the words move and they
 
[09:06.680 --> 09:08.960]  start to just say like legal, legal, legal, legal.
 
[09:08.960 --> 09:13.360]  It's a great representation of exactly what you're talking about.
 
[09:13.360 --> 09:14.360]  Totally.
 
[09:14.360 --> 09:17.360]  The Charlie Brown teacher.
 
[09:17.360 --> 09:18.360]  Charlie Brown.
 
[09:18.360 --> 09:19.360]  Yeah.
 
[09:19.360 --> 09:20.360]  Totally.
 
[09:20.360 --> 09:22.080]  Let me get through a few more really quick.
 
[09:22.080 --> 09:26.720]  There was a biology prize where they studied whether and how constipation affects the mating
 
[09:26.720 --> 09:28.360]  prospects of scorpions.
 
[09:28.360 --> 09:36.540]  There was a medical prize for showing that when patients undergo some form of toxic chemotherapy,
 
[09:36.540 --> 09:41.720]  they suffer fewer harmful side effects when ice cream replaces ice chips.
 
[09:41.720 --> 09:42.720]  Okay.
 
[09:42.720 --> 09:43.720]  Reasonable to me.
 
[09:43.720 --> 09:44.720]  Reasonable.
 
[09:44.720 --> 09:45.720]  Unactionable.
 
[09:45.720 --> 09:46.720]  Yep, it is.
 
[09:46.720 --> 09:47.720]  And it's legit.
 
[09:47.720 --> 09:48.720]  It is actually legit.
 
[09:48.720 --> 09:53.080]  The ice cream, giving chemo patients ice cream helped them a lot more deal with side effects
 
[09:53.080 --> 09:55.280]  than ice chips.
 
[09:55.280 --> 09:59.300]  Their engineering prize, they're trying to discover the most efficient way for people
 
[09:59.300 --> 10:04.400]  to use their fingers when turning a knob, doorknob.
 
[10:04.400 --> 10:09.920]  That's you know, so they study people turning doorknobs and figured it out.
 
[10:09.920 --> 10:14.040]  Works for trying to understand how ducklings manage to swim in formation.
 
[10:14.040 --> 10:20.520]  Now this is cool because we know that fish and birds have very few rules of interaction
 
[10:20.520 --> 10:26.640]  in order to do profound feats of being able to stay in these giant groups.
 
[10:26.640 --> 10:27.640]  They could swim near each other.
 
[10:27.640 --> 10:31.600]  They can fly near each other and they don't really need to have a complicated algorithm
 
[10:31.600 --> 10:32.600]  happening.
 
[10:32.600 --> 10:34.560]  They just have to follow a few simple rules and it works.
 
[10:34.560 --> 10:36.240]  And apparently ducks can do it too.
 
[10:36.240 --> 10:40.720]  There was a peace prize and this one is for developing an algorithm to help gossipers
 
[10:40.720 --> 10:43.800]  decide when to tell the truth and when to lie.
 
[10:43.800 --> 10:44.800]  Very important.
 
[10:44.800 --> 10:45.800]  Right?
 
[10:45.800 --> 10:47.200]  That's just wacky as hell.
 
[10:47.200 --> 10:52.740]  The economics prize for explaining mathematically why success most often goes not to the most
 
[10:52.740 --> 10:55.460]  talented people but instead to the luckiest.
 
[10:55.460 --> 10:56.460]  That one was interesting.
 
[10:56.460 --> 10:57.840]  I recommend you read that.
 
[10:57.840 --> 11:04.400]  And then this last one here is safety engineering prize for developing a moose crash test dummy.
 
[11:04.400 --> 11:05.400]  That's smart actually.
 
[11:05.400 --> 11:06.400]  Yeah.
 
[11:06.400 --> 11:09.480]  So you know lots of people hit these animals with their cars.
 
[11:09.480 --> 11:12.800]  I heard you hesitate because you didn't know if you're supposed to say moose or mooses.
 
[11:12.800 --> 11:13.800]  Meeses.
 
[11:13.800 --> 11:14.800]  I don't know.
 
[11:14.800 --> 11:15.800]  You were like hit these animals.
 
[11:15.800 --> 11:16.800]  Animals.
 
[11:16.800 --> 11:17.800]  Yeah.
 
[11:17.800 --> 11:18.800]  I'm not going to.
 
[11:18.800 --> 11:19.800]  What the heck?
 
[11:19.800 --> 11:20.800]  What's the plural of moose?
 
[11:20.800 --> 11:21.800]  Isn't it moose?
 
[11:21.800 --> 11:22.800]  Yeah.
 
[11:22.800 --> 11:25.720]  I think the plural of moose is moose.
 
[11:25.720 --> 11:27.640]  I just add a K in when I don't know what to do.
 
[11:27.640 --> 11:29.520]  Have I told you the story about the mongoose?
 
[11:29.520 --> 11:30.520]  No.
 
[11:30.520 --> 11:31.520]  What?
 
[11:31.520 --> 11:32.520]  I heard.
 
[11:32.520 --> 11:33.520]  I learned this.
 
[11:33.520 --> 11:43.760]  I heard this in my film class where a director needed two mongoose for a scene and he couldn't
 
[11:43.760 --> 11:46.640]  figure out what the plural of mongoose was.
 
[11:46.640 --> 11:49.780]  You know the mongooses, mongies, whatever, he couldn't figure it out.
 
[11:49.780 --> 11:56.120]  So he wrote in his message to the person who had to do this, I need you to get me one mongoose
 
[11:56.120 --> 11:59.600]  and while you're at it get me another one.
 
[11:59.600 --> 12:04.160]  Yeah, technically solves that problem.
 
[12:04.160 --> 12:05.160]  All right.
 
[12:05.160 --> 12:06.160]  Thanks Jay.
 
=== It's OK to Ask for Help <small>(12:06)</small> ===
=== It's OK to Ask for Help <small>(12:06)</small> ===
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/well/family/asking-for-help.html Go Ahead, Ask for Help. People Are Happy to Give It.]<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/well/family/asking-for-help.html NYT: Go Ahead, Ask for Help. People Are Happy to Give It.]</ref>
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/well/family/asking-for-help.html Go Ahead, Ask for Help. People Are Happy to Give It.]<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/well/family/asking-for-help.html NYT: Go Ahead, Ask for Help. People Are Happy to Give It.]</ref>

Revision as of 21:54, 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 898
September 24th 2022
898 polar ice cap.png

2012 Arctic sea ice minimum. Outline shows average minimum 1979-2010.[1]

SGU 897                      SGU 899

Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella

B: Bob Novella

C: Cara Santa Maria

J: Jay Novella

E: Evan Bernstein

Guest

DA: David Almeda (sp?), SGU Patron

Quote of the Week

In the field of thinking, the whole history of science – from geocentrism to the Copernican revolution, from the false absolutes of Aristotle's physics to the relativity of Galileo's principle of inertia and to Einstein's theory of relativity – shows that it has taken centuries to liberate us from the systematic errors, from the illusions caused by the immediate point of view as opposed to "decentered" systematic thinking.

Jean Piaget, Swiss psychologist

Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

Introduction, Guest Rogue

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

[00:12.880 --> 00:17.560] Today is Tuesday, September 20th, 2022, and this is your host, Stephen Novella.

[00:17.560 --> 00:18.960] Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

[00:18.960 --> 00:19.960] Hey, everybody.

[00:19.960 --> 00:20.960] Kara Santamaria.

[00:20.960 --> 00:21.960] Howdy.

[00:21.960 --> 00:22.960] Jay Novella.

[00:22.960 --> 00:23.960] Hey, guys.

[00:23.960 --> 00:24.960] Evan Bernstein.

[00:24.960 --> 00:26.760] Good evening, everyone.

[00:26.760 --> 00:30.400] And we have a guest rogue this week, David Almeida.

[00:30.400 --> 00:32.120] David, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide.

[00:32.120 --> 00:33.120] Hi, guys.

[00:33.120 --> 00:34.120] Thank you for having me.

[00:34.120 --> 00:40.440] So, David, you are a patron of the SGU, and you've been a loyal supporter for a while,

[00:40.440 --> 00:45.200] so we invited you on the show to join us and have some fun.

[00:45.200 --> 00:46.200] Tell us what you do.

[00:46.200 --> 00:47.840] Give us a little bit about your background.

[00:47.840 --> 00:48.840] I'm an electrician.

[00:48.840 --> 00:52.640] That doesn't sound very exciting relative to what you guys are all doing.

[00:52.640 --> 00:55.080] No, electricians are cool, man.

[00:55.080 --> 00:56.080] Yeah, they're shocking.

[00:56.080 --> 00:58.120] Oh, it starts.

[00:58.120 --> 01:05.640] I actually heard about your show kind of because of work, because when I was starting out as

[01:05.640 --> 01:09.920] an apprentice, pretty much all the work I did was really boring and repetitive, and

[01:09.920 --> 01:13.520] so I was kind of losing my mind a little bit.

[01:13.520 --> 01:17.080] And a friend of mine was at my house helping me work on the house, and he was playing your

[01:17.080 --> 01:20.400] guys' podcast, and I had no idea what a podcast even was.

[01:20.400 --> 01:22.200] This was like 2012, I think.

[01:22.200 --> 01:24.400] I thought he was like listening to NPR or something.

[01:24.400 --> 01:26.320] You were late to the game.

[01:26.320 --> 01:27.320] Yeah, I know.

[01:27.320 --> 01:28.320] I know.

[01:28.320 --> 01:32.320] And so anyways, he was listening to your show, and I asked him what it was, and he told me,

[01:32.320 --> 01:35.400] and then I ended up going back and listening to your whole back catalog while I was doing

[01:35.400 --> 01:41.320] horrible, very repetitive work, and it got me through that for the first couple years

[01:41.320 --> 01:42.320] of my apprenticeship.

[01:42.320 --> 01:43.320] Yeah, we hear that a lot.

[01:43.320 --> 01:49.520] It's good for when you're exercising, doing mind-numbing repetitive tasks, riding a bike

[01:49.520 --> 01:50.520] or whatever.

[01:50.520 --> 01:51.520] It's good.

[01:51.520 --> 01:53.840] You're not just going to sit there staring off into space listening to the SGU.

[01:53.840 --> 01:58.520] I guess some people might do that, but it's always good for when you're doing something

[01:58.520 --> 01:59.520] else.

[01:59.520 --> 02:00.520] Well, great.

[02:00.520 --> 02:01.520] Thanks for joining us on the show.

[02:01.520 --> 02:02.520] It should be a lot of fun.

News Items

S:

B:

C:

J:

E:

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

2022 Ig Nobels (2:08)

[02:02.520 --> 02:05.640] You're going to have a news item to talk about a little bit later, but first we're just going

[02:05.640 --> 02:07.960] to dive right into some news items.

[02:07.960 --> 02:12.760] Jay, you're going to start us off by talking about this year's Ig Nobel Prizes.

[02:12.760 --> 02:14.160] Yeah, this was interesting.

[02:14.160 --> 02:22.840] This year, I didn't find anything about people getting razzed so much as I found stuff that

[02:22.840 --> 02:26.520] was basically legitimate, just weird, if you know what I mean.

[02:26.520 --> 02:28.200] Yeah, but that's kind of the Ig Nobles.

[02:28.200 --> 02:29.200] They're legit, but weird.

[02:29.200 --> 02:32.880] They're not fake science or bad science.

[02:32.880 --> 02:37.880] The Ig Nobel Prize is an honor about achievements that first make people laugh and then make

[02:37.880 --> 02:39.720] them think.

[02:39.720 --> 02:44.720] That's kind of their tagline, and it was started in 1991.

[02:44.720 --> 02:47.600] Here's a list of the 2022 winners.

[02:47.600 --> 02:48.600] Check this one out.

[02:48.600 --> 02:53.520] The first one here, the Art History Prize, they call it a multidisciplinary approach

[02:53.520 --> 02:57.600] to ritual enema scenes on ancient Maya pottery.

[02:57.600 --> 03:01.960] Whoa, I want to see those.

[03:01.960 --> 03:04.560] Talk about an insane premise.

[03:04.560 --> 03:11.680] Back in the 6-900 CE timeframe, the Mayans depicted people getting enemas on their pottery,

[03:11.680 --> 03:13.640] which that's crazy.

[03:13.640 --> 03:18.520] This is because they administered enemas back then for medicinal purposes.

[03:18.520 --> 03:20.200] So it was part of their culture.

[03:20.200 --> 03:24.200] And the researchers think it's likely that the Mayans also gave enemas that had drugs

[03:24.200 --> 03:28.000] in them to make people get high during rituals, which is-

[03:28.000 --> 03:29.000] That works, by the way.

[03:29.000 --> 03:30.000] Yeah.

[03:30.000 --> 03:33.000] So one of the lead researchers tried it.

[03:33.000 --> 03:39.960] He gave himself an alcohol enema situation, and they were giving him breathalyzer, and

[03:39.960 --> 03:43.340] lo and behold, he absorbed alcohol through his rectum.

[03:43.340 --> 03:46.120] He didn't need to do that to know that that happens.

[03:46.120 --> 03:47.120] This is science.

[03:47.120 --> 03:48.120] We already know that that happens.

[03:48.120 --> 03:49.120] What's the problem, Kara?

[03:49.120 --> 03:50.120] Science?

[03:50.120 --> 03:51.120] Hello?

[03:51.120 --> 03:52.120] Lit review.

[03:52.120 --> 03:53.120] Lit review.

[03:53.120 --> 04:01.160] The guy also tested DMT, but apparently the dose was probably not high enough for him

[04:01.160 --> 04:03.280] to feel anything because he didn't feel anything.

[04:03.280 --> 04:04.840] So I think that's pretty interesting.

[04:04.840 --> 04:09.760] I mean, that's very, very provocative, just to think that the Mayans, I didn't know they

[04:09.760 --> 04:11.160] did that, and then it was like a thing.

[04:11.160 --> 04:13.480] I was like, whatever.

[04:13.480 --> 04:16.080] Next one, Applied Cardiology Prize.

[04:16.080 --> 04:18.940] This one I find to be really cool.

[04:18.940 --> 04:24.700] So the researchers, they were seeking and finding evidence that when new romantic partners

[04:24.700 --> 04:29.880] meet for the first time and feel attracted to each other, their heart rates synchronize.

[04:29.880 --> 04:31.840] That was the premise of their research.

[04:31.840 --> 04:35.640] So the researchers wanted to find out if there is something physiological behind the gut

[04:35.640 --> 04:42.240] feeling that people can and do feel when they have met the quote unquote right person.

[04:42.240 --> 04:44.560] I don't know about you guys, but I've felt this.

[04:44.560 --> 04:49.440] I felt an inexplicable physiological thing.

[04:49.440 --> 04:53.440] I just didn't realize that something profound was happening.

[04:53.440 --> 04:55.960] So let me give you a quick idea of what they did.

[04:55.960 --> 04:58.080] They had 140 test subjects.

[04:58.080 --> 05:03.060] They monitored test subjects as they met other test subjects one on one.

[05:03.060 --> 05:09.280] If the pair got a gut feeling about the other person, the researchers predicted that they

[05:09.280 --> 05:15.660] would have motor movements, you know, act certain types of activity with their eyes,

[05:15.660 --> 05:18.440] heart rate, skin conductance.

[05:18.440 --> 05:22.020] These types of things would synchronize or they would pair each other or mirror each

[05:22.020 --> 05:23.020] other.

[05:23.020 --> 05:27.820] So 17 percent of the test subjects had what they considered to be successful pairing with

[05:27.820 --> 05:28.820] another subject.

[05:28.820 --> 05:33.760] And they found that couples heart rates and skin conductance correlated to a mutual attraction

[05:33.760 --> 05:35.060] with each other.

[05:35.060 --> 05:41.680] So there is some type of thing happening physiologically when two people, you know, get that feeling

[05:41.680 --> 05:44.520] when they're, you know, there's an initial attraction.

[05:44.520 --> 05:50.040] And it doesn't surprise me because, you know, as mammals, attraction is, you know, it's

[05:50.040 --> 05:51.480] a huge thing.

[05:51.480 --> 05:55.800] It's really it's not only important, but it, you know, your body is reacting to it.

[05:55.800 --> 06:00.180] There are things that happen when you feel that your body is is changing in a way.

[06:00.180 --> 06:01.180] Very cool.

[06:01.180 --> 06:04.960] The next one, I think a lot of people will get a kick out of the it's the literature

[06:04.960 --> 06:11.400] prize and they are analyzing what makes legal documents unnecessarily difficult to understand.

[06:11.400 --> 06:14.280] The basic idea here was there's two camps.

[06:14.280 --> 06:21.040] There's a camp that thinks that legal documents need to be as complicated as they are because

[06:21.040 --> 06:26.180] there's technical concepts and they need to be precise and they use they use this type

[06:26.180 --> 06:28.720] of language to help get that precision.

[06:28.720 --> 06:33.880] And there are other experts that think that laws are actually built upon, you know, mundane

[06:33.880 --> 06:38.360] concepts like cause consent and having best interests.

[06:38.360 --> 06:42.100] And what the researchers wanted to do was they wanted to test the two positions against

[06:42.100 --> 06:43.100] each other.

[06:43.100 --> 06:47.600] And essentially what they found, which is which is not going to surprise anyone, that

[06:47.600 --> 06:53.840] legal documents are at their core, essentially difficult to understand, which is what they

[06:53.840 --> 06:55.320] basically started with that premise.

[06:55.320 --> 07:00.640] But they proved it and they found out exactly what parts of the of the actual legal documents

[07:00.640 --> 07:02.080] were difficult to understand.

[07:02.080 --> 07:07.380] And they called it something called center embedding, which is when lawyers use legal

[07:07.380 --> 07:11.920] jargon within what they call convoluted syntax.

[07:11.920 --> 07:16.420] So in essence, I think what they're saying here is that that legal documents are difficult

[07:16.420 --> 07:21.800] essentially by design, that it's deliberate, which I find interesting and frustrating.

[07:21.800 --> 07:26.680] If you've ever had to read any type of legal documentation, it's kind of annoying how difficult

[07:26.680 --> 07:27.680] it is.

[07:27.680 --> 07:30.860] You have to reread it over and over and over again and look things up and really like sink

[07:30.860 --> 07:32.000] into it to understand.

[07:32.000 --> 07:34.320] So I understand why they did the research.

[07:34.320 --> 07:37.500] I just don't see what the benefit is to the result of their research.

[07:37.500 --> 07:38.720] Maybe they have to iterate it.

[07:38.720 --> 07:41.920] The center embedding thing is actually pretty interesting.

[07:41.920 --> 07:48.120] I saw an example of it and it's like not like it's not what I thought it was going to be.

[07:48.120 --> 07:52.760] It gives an example of like a sentence like a man loves a woman and then a man that a

[07:52.760 --> 07:57.880] woman that a child knows loves a man that a woman that a child that a bird saw is giving

[07:57.880 --> 08:03.840] these examples of like how they do the legal jargon with all those like with all those

[08:03.840 --> 08:08.520] little like phrases within phrases.

[08:08.520 --> 08:12.120] And it's like grammatically correct, but it's like impossible to follow once you have like

[08:12.120 --> 08:13.440] more than one of those.

[08:13.440 --> 08:16.480] The longest one they had here was a man that a woman that a child that a bird that I heard

[08:16.480 --> 08:18.680] saw knows loves.

[08:18.680 --> 08:23.720] I don't know how that actually makes grammatical sense, but apparently it does.

[08:23.720 --> 08:26.960] It makes no sense to me even though I read it like five times in my head.

[08:26.960 --> 08:29.000] I don't know what that sentence means.

[08:29.000 --> 08:33.500] Have you guys seen I just started watching that show Maid.

[08:33.500 --> 08:35.000] Have you guys seen that show on Netflix?

[08:35.000 --> 08:36.000] It's so good.

[08:36.000 --> 08:37.840] Oh, highly recommend.

[08:37.840 --> 08:41.660] But they do this funny thing where like she has to go to a court hearing and they kind

[08:41.660 --> 08:45.600] of show what she hears instead of what is being said.

[08:45.600 --> 08:51.680] And so she's at this custody hearing and the judge is talking to one of the prosecutors

[08:51.680 --> 08:56.620] and like mid-sentence they start going, and then legal, legal, legal, legal, so that you

[08:56.620 --> 08:57.720] can legal, legal.

[08:57.720 --> 08:59.520] I'll legal, legal after you legal.

[08:59.520 --> 09:02.520] And she like looked so confused because it's all she hears.

[09:02.520 --> 09:06.680] And they do it on the forms too when she looks at the forms like the words move and they

[09:06.680 --> 09:08.960] start to just say like legal, legal, legal, legal.

[09:08.960 --> 09:13.360] It's a great representation of exactly what you're talking about.

[09:13.360 --> 09:14.360] Totally.

[09:14.360 --> 09:17.360] The Charlie Brown teacher.

[09:17.360 --> 09:18.360] Charlie Brown.

[09:18.360 --> 09:19.360] Yeah.

[09:19.360 --> 09:20.360] Totally.

[09:20.360 --> 09:22.080] Let me get through a few more really quick.

[09:22.080 --> 09:26.720] There was a biology prize where they studied whether and how constipation affects the mating

[09:26.720 --> 09:28.360] prospects of scorpions.

[09:28.360 --> 09:36.540] There was a medical prize for showing that when patients undergo some form of toxic chemotherapy,

[09:36.540 --> 09:41.720] they suffer fewer harmful side effects when ice cream replaces ice chips.

[09:41.720 --> 09:42.720] Okay.

[09:42.720 --> 09:43.720] Reasonable to me.

[09:43.720 --> 09:44.720] Reasonable.

[09:44.720 --> 09:45.720] Unactionable.

[09:45.720 --> 09:46.720] Yep, it is.

[09:46.720 --> 09:47.720] And it's legit.

[09:47.720 --> 09:48.720] It is actually legit.

[09:48.720 --> 09:53.080] The ice cream, giving chemo patients ice cream helped them a lot more deal with side effects

[09:53.080 --> 09:55.280] than ice chips.

[09:55.280 --> 09:59.300] Their engineering prize, they're trying to discover the most efficient way for people

[09:59.300 --> 10:04.400] to use their fingers when turning a knob, doorknob.

[10:04.400 --> 10:09.920] That's you know, so they study people turning doorknobs and figured it out.

[10:09.920 --> 10:14.040] Works for trying to understand how ducklings manage to swim in formation.

[10:14.040 --> 10:20.520] Now this is cool because we know that fish and birds have very few rules of interaction

[10:20.520 --> 10:26.640] in order to do profound feats of being able to stay in these giant groups.

[10:26.640 --> 10:27.640] They could swim near each other.

[10:27.640 --> 10:31.600] They can fly near each other and they don't really need to have a complicated algorithm

[10:31.600 --> 10:32.600] happening.

[10:32.600 --> 10:34.560] They just have to follow a few simple rules and it works.

[10:34.560 --> 10:36.240] And apparently ducks can do it too.

[10:36.240 --> 10:40.720] There was a peace prize and this one is for developing an algorithm to help gossipers

[10:40.720 --> 10:43.800] decide when to tell the truth and when to lie.

[10:43.800 --> 10:44.800] Very important.

[10:44.800 --> 10:45.800] Right?

[10:45.800 --> 10:47.200] That's just wacky as hell.

[10:47.200 --> 10:52.740] The economics prize for explaining mathematically why success most often goes not to the most

[10:52.740 --> 10:55.460] talented people but instead to the luckiest.

[10:55.460 --> 10:56.460] That one was interesting.

[10:56.460 --> 10:57.840] I recommend you read that.

[10:57.840 --> 11:04.400] And then this last one here is safety engineering prize for developing a moose crash test dummy.

[11:04.400 --> 11:05.400] That's smart actually.

[11:05.400 --> 11:06.400] Yeah.

[11:06.400 --> 11:09.480] So you know lots of people hit these animals with their cars.

[11:09.480 --> 11:12.800] I heard you hesitate because you didn't know if you're supposed to say moose or mooses.

[11:12.800 --> 11:13.800] Meeses.

[11:13.800 --> 11:14.800] I don't know.

[11:14.800 --> 11:15.800] You were like hit these animals.

[11:15.800 --> 11:16.800] Animals.

[11:16.800 --> 11:17.800] Yeah.

[11:17.800 --> 11:18.800] I'm not going to.

[11:18.800 --> 11:19.800] What the heck?

[11:19.800 --> 11:20.800] What's the plural of moose?

[11:20.800 --> 11:21.800] Isn't it moose?

[11:21.800 --> 11:22.800] Yeah.

[11:22.800 --> 11:25.720] I think the plural of moose is moose.

[11:25.720 --> 11:27.640] I just add a K in when I don't know what to do.

[11:27.640 --> 11:29.520] Have I told you the story about the mongoose?

[11:29.520 --> 11:30.520] No.

[11:30.520 --> 11:31.520] What?

[11:31.520 --> 11:32.520] I heard.

[11:32.520 --> 11:33.520] I learned this.

[11:33.520 --> 11:43.760] I heard this in my film class where a director needed two mongoose for a scene and he couldn't

[11:43.760 --> 11:46.640] figure out what the plural of mongoose was.

[11:46.640 --> 11:49.780] You know the mongooses, mongies, whatever, he couldn't figure it out.

[11:49.780 --> 11:56.120] So he wrote in his message to the person who had to do this, I need you to get me one mongoose

[11:56.120 --> 11:59.600] and while you're at it get me another one.

[11:59.600 --> 12:04.160] Yeah, technically solves that problem.

[12:04.160 --> 12:05.160] All right.

[12:05.160 --> 12:06.160] Thanks Jay.

It's OK to Ask for Help (12:06)

Bitcoin and Fedimints (20:03)

Multivitamins for Memory (28:17)

  • [link_URL Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial][5]

Refreezing the Poles (42:07)

Neuro Emotional Technique (55:50)

Who's That Noisy? (1:07:17)

J: ... I did. This Noisy has appeared on the show before.[link needed]


New Noisy (1:12:05)

[gibberish song with trumpet and percussion beat]

J: So if you think you know what this week's Noisy is ...

Announcements (1:13:06)

Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups (1:16:39)

Followup #1: Chess Cheating

Science or Fiction (1:23:43)

Theme: Global Warming

Item #1: A survey of 48 coastal cities finds that they are sinking at an average rate of 16.2 mm per year, with the fastest at 43 mm per year. (For reference, average global sea level rise is 3.7 mm per year.)[8]
Item #2: A recent study estimates the total social cost of releasing carbon into the atmosphere at $185 per tonne, which is triple the current US government estimate. (For reference, the world emits >34 billion tonnes of CO2 each year.)[9]
Item #3: The latest climate models indicate that even with rapid decarbonization it is too late to prevent eventual warming >1.5 C.[10]

Answer Item
Fiction Too late to prevent >1.5 °C
Science Carbon release estimate
Science
Cities are sinking
Host Result
Steve win
Rogue Guess
David
Cities are sinking
Jay
Too late to prevent >1.5 °C
Bob
Too late to prevent >1.5 °C
Evan
Too late to prevent >1.5 °C
Cara
Too late to prevent >1.5 °C

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

David's Response

Jay's Response

Bob's Response

Evan's Response

Cara's Response

Steve Explains Item #2

Steve Explains Item #1

Steve Explains Item #3

Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:41:09)

In the field of thinking, the whole history of science – from geocentrism to the Copernican revolution, from the false absolutes of Aristotle's physics to the relativity of Galileo's principle of inertia and to Einstein's theory of relativity – shows that it has taken centuries to liberate us from the systematic errors, from the illusions caused by the immediate point of view as opposed to "decentered" systematic thinking.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980), Swiss 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.

[top]                        

Today I Learned

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

Notes

References

Vocabulary


Navi-previous.png Back to top of page Navi-next.png