Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: Listener mail. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick.
Speaker 1: And here we are bringing you some of the messages
Speaker 1: you've sent us over the past couple of weeks. Rob,
Speaker 1: if you're ready, I think we can jump right in.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Uh. Do you mind if I read this
Speaker 1: one from Kate about our navigation episodes? Make it so
Speaker 1: so in our three part are on Pacific Island navigation. Uh.
Speaker 1: One thing we asked for was if any listeners had
Speaker 1: experienced themselves with sailing, if they had thoughts about it. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so we did hear from someone. Kate wrote in
Speaker 1: to say hello, Robert, Joe, and Seth. I'm writing in
Speaker 1: today in regards to the navigation episodes. I have multiple
Speaker 1: reasons this episode hit home, but I will try to
Speaker 1: keep it brief. First, I have the book you referenced
Speaker 1: throughout the series and it is next on my reading list.
Speaker 1: She's talking about We the Navigators by David Lewis um.
Speaker 1: But then second, I am a licensed day skipper small
Speaker 1: sailboats and also lived on a tall ship for five
Speaker 1: months and crossed the Atlantic. During this crossing, the second
Speaker 1: mate on board offered the opportunity to learn to navigate
Speaker 1: by the stars, and no one else took advantage of it,
Speaker 1: which was good in that it allowed me a solo
Speaker 1: course for our twenty one day crossing, but also may
Speaker 1: say something of people's disinterest in something they don't directly require.
Speaker 1: The other thing I wanted to mention was that although
Speaker 1: there may have been specialized navigators, there would have been
Speaker 1: a massive amount of knowledge of the sea that would
Speaker 1: have been as commonplace as our understanding of a stop
Speaker 1: sign within today's society. The decline of this knowledge it
Speaker 1: could be compared to even fifty years ago, when the
Speaker 1: majority of people were able to keep a decent sense
Speaker 1: of direction in the bush, or at least enough knowledge
Speaker 1: to stay on a path that they wouldn't get lost on,
Speaker 1: even if it wasn't a very noticeable path. Now out
Speaker 1: with the urbanization of humanity, there's considerably less common knowledge
Speaker 1: about bushcraft. It takes very little time for this information
Speaker 1: to be lost to a culture. Anyways, I really enjoy
Speaker 1: your shows, and my long drives to work are much
Speaker 1: more enjoyable when I have something to occupy my mind.
Speaker 1: Hope you're all well, Kate. Uh, thanks Kate, And yeah,
Speaker 1: one thing you say in here that I think is
Speaker 1: absolutely true and that sort of comes through in uh
Speaker 1: in in Lewis's book, is that knowledge is a is
Speaker 1: a fragile thing, especially if you don't have a written
Speaker 1: culture like knowledge. In an oral culture, it could take
Speaker 1: hundreds of years maybe to build up this this vast
Speaker 1: store of wisdom and lore that's communicated from generation to generation.
Speaker 1: But if you don't have like written sources of it,
Speaker 1: it could easily be lost in just one generation. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I mean, even of course in a in a written
Speaker 1: culture and in modern culture, there is still the risk
Speaker 1: of slipping into another dark age. And of course writers
Speaker 1: have been um, I've been discussing this are pretty much
Speaker 1: as as long as as we've been out of the
Speaker 1: dark ages. Um, So it's always worth keeping in mind. Now,
Speaker 1: I like what the what Kate shared about about knowledge
Speaker 1: of of of the bush Bushcraft. This reminds me of
Speaker 1: our discussions I'm getting Lost in the Woods. I can't
Speaker 1: recall that those were stand different episodes or that was
Speaker 1: part of our look at the leshy. Oh I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: it was in the lesson and some follow up stuff
Speaker 1: we did about the less Yeah, but just the idea
Speaker 1: that that if you don't know anything about the woods,
Speaker 1: if you're just you've just stuck to the path, you
Speaker 1: might well think that you can get off the path
Speaker 1: and easily return, that your sense of direction will will
Speaker 1: guide you and it will be something you can trust.
Speaker 1: And as we discussed in that episode, experiments have shown
Speaker 1: that humans do not have that innate ability. Um, if
Speaker 1: you if you don't know what you're doing, leaving the
Speaker 1: path can be fatal. Yes, and of course that varies
Speaker 1: a lot with like individual skill in the local terrain.
Speaker 1: You know, some places are easier to get lost than others.
Speaker 1: But there are these stories, uh that we did discuss
Speaker 1: in the least the episode about Yeah, people go, you know,
Speaker 1: they think they're just going ten or twenty feet off
Speaker 1: the path to go to the bathroom and then suddenly
Speaker 1: like they have no idea where they are and they
Speaker 1: can't find the path again. So I'd say that, together
Speaker 1: with the Pacific Navigation episodes, just should make you to
Speaker 1: to keep in mind appreciate direction finding and appreciate the
Speaker 1: tools and the resources you have. Appreciate the skills people
Speaker 1: have in that area. It's it's very valuable, and this
Speaker 1: something we often take for granted. Absolutely all right, This
Speaker 1: next one comes to us from ian Ian Ritson and says,
Speaker 1: Dear Rob and Joe, I am still writing in about
Speaker 1: robot punishment, despite it having been a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: since I listened to it. In that episode, you mentioned
Speaker 1: in passing that humans often have less conscious control of
Speaker 1: our actions than we like to believe. This has come
Speaker 1: up in other episodes as well, specifically the one you
Speaker 1: did about how our choices effect our preferences instead of
Speaker 1: the other way around. I meditate daily, a practice that,
Speaker 1: among other things, can be looked at as a way
Speaker 1: to gain more conscious control of your actions, emotions, and
Speaker 1: even your thoughts. Of course, this is easier said than done.
Speaker 1: I wrote most of this email in my head this
Speaker 1: morning while attempting to clear my mind of all thoughts
Speaker 1: I've certainly been there. It's got me thinking about the
Speaker 1: rider and the horse analogy and the criticism that this
Speaker 1: view separates the mind and body in a way that
Speaker 1: isn't justified. We are inherently embodied beings. You've also discussed
Speaker 1: this idea, which I believe with that. I believe Rob
Speaker 1: saying we are more like a centaur, which I like. However,
Speaker 1: I wonder if it isn't more apt than we give
Speaker 1: it credit for. The common way the analogy is explained
Speaker 1: is that people think of the mind as a rider
Speaker 1: in command of a horse the body, but considered that
Speaker 1: in reality, a human rider isn't actually in command of
Speaker 1: the horse they're riding. As much as they might like
Speaker 1: to think they are sound familiar, a human is not
Speaker 1: strong enough to actually make the horse do anything it
Speaker 1: doesn't want to do. All the human can do is
Speaker 1: create incentives and disincentives to try to encourage the horse
Speaker 1: to behave in the way the human desires. But ultimately
Speaker 1: it is still the horse that is deciding what it
Speaker 1: will do. And this is I think this is a
Speaker 1: valid point. And certainly uh in meditation and meditative practices, Uh,
Speaker 1: sometimes your body is a bit barn sour, you know. Uh,
Speaker 1: sometimes it's in a bit too much of a hurry
Speaker 1: uh to get out of the wilds and back to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the sweet hay of the barn. Anyway, Ian continues,
Speaker 1: even though our consciousness isn't in charge of our actions
Speaker 1: like we think it is, and it's mostly post facto explanation.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it evolved as an incentive system to train our
Speaker 1: other mental processes. For instance, it may be my emotions
Speaker 1: and other lower mental processes that determine whether I have
Speaker 1: that second piece of cake, but maybe those are influenced
Speaker 1: by my conscious thoughts, or at least the conscious thoughts
Speaker 1: I've had in the past. Perhaps my doctor has told
Speaker 1: me I need to cut back on sugar, but at
Speaker 1: the last birthday party I decided to have a second
Speaker 1: piece of cake anyway, and then, upon reflection, felt guilt
Speaker 1: about having done so, which changes the emotional calculus this time.
Speaker 1: As you've mentioned before, evolution is stingy and expensive. Things
Speaker 1: like mental processes don't tend to stick around unless they
Speaker 1: serve a purpose. Perhaps this is that purpose. So maybe
Speaker 1: the horse and rider idea isn't so bad after all,
Speaker 1: we're just drawing the line in the wrong place. Maybe
Speaker 1: instead of the rider being the mind and the horse
Speaker 1: being the body, the rider is our consciousness and the
Speaker 1: horses the rest of our mental, emotional, and bodily processes.
Speaker 1: The rider thinks they're in charge, but really they're just
Speaker 1: one influence on the horse among many as an aside,
Speaker 1: this brings up another way this analogy works well, the
Speaker 1: feeling of loss of control when very upset. I'm sure
Speaker 1: we all have experienced being so upset that we act
Speaker 1: entirely on our emotions while simultaneously experiencing the conscious part
Speaker 1: of ourselves watching our actions and thinking stop, I shouldn't
Speaker 1: be doing this, but being unable to actually stop ourselves.
Speaker 1: I suppose this would be akin to the horse buck
Speaker 1: king and the rider not being able to do much
Speaker 1: besides hold on. To go back to my original thoughts
Speaker 1: about meditation, perhaps the way that helps us gain control
Speaker 1: was by teaching us to be a horse whisper. We're
Speaker 1: still without true control of the horse, but it helps
Speaker 1: us be a heck of a lot better at motivating
Speaker 1: it to do what we want. Ian Ian, I think
Speaker 1: this is a fantastic analogy. I mean, and I think
Speaker 1: there are, uh, there are truths to both methods here.
Speaker 1: I mean, rob in your analogy of the centaur, you're
Speaker 1: emphasizing that you can't make a clear distinction between the
Speaker 1: brain and the body. The body influences the brain, of course,
Speaker 1: the brain influences the body, but it goes the other
Speaker 1: way too. You know, they're they're inherently connected, and trying
Speaker 1: to think about them as like two separate things, uh
Speaker 1: leads to some confusion. But I think Ian also has
Speaker 1: a very good point here. Yeah, yeah, I I love
Speaker 1: all of this, but also I can't help may be
Speaker 1: reminded of the most recent episode of Weird House Cinema
Speaker 1: where we discussed Spontaneous Combustion starring Brad Dorrif because that
Speaker 1: is a that is, as we discussed, it's a film
Speaker 1: about an individual who has trouble controlling his emotions, and
Speaker 1: when his emotions are out of control, um, fire erupts
Speaker 1: from his body, from the world around him, from bits
Speaker 1: of technology, etcetera. And and he had he seems to
Speaker 1: have very little, if if if any control over these
Speaker 1: these flames, and the flames are indiscriminate and who and
Speaker 1: what they burn. Uh So I feel like that is
Speaker 1: kind of a proper analogy for for some of this
Speaker 1: as well. You know, this idea of loss of control. Stop,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't be doing this because once the fire is out,
Speaker 1: the fire does what fire does? It burns and um,
Speaker 1: and what can you do but watch very apt all
Speaker 1: John Landises take note. Um, But I would also say that, um,
Speaker 1: I can see some merit to Ian's other points. So
Speaker 1: Ian is uh I think sort of making a case
Speaker 1: against epiphenomenalism. You know, So epiphenomenalism is one take on
Speaker 1: the mind by the problem that would tend to say
Speaker 1: that actually consciousness does nothing. I mean, consciousness exists and
Speaker 1: it is. It is the part of your brain that
Speaker 1: can reflect upon itself. But your brain could do everything
Speaker 1: it does without being conscious. Consciousness is just some sort
Speaker 1: of strange byproduct maybe that we don't understand, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't actually have power over anything, and epiphenomenalism would be
Speaker 1: something that's difficult to demonstrate. But but here I think
Speaker 1: Ian is sort of equating consciousness with having some kind
Speaker 1: of reinforcing power on the metacognition of the brain in
Speaker 1: order to influence future the future behavior of the brain,
Speaker 1: saying that the consciousness actually does play this role in metacognition,
Speaker 1: that that helps us better rain in our own mental processes.
Speaker 1: And I guess that's possible, but it's hard to know.
Speaker 1: I can't recall who's written like this before, but I
Speaker 1: know I have encountered this idea that in some ways
Speaker 1: basically sees uh consciousness as necessary to or coextensive with metacognition,
Speaker 1: so it remains an open question. Is the human mental condition?
Speaker 1: Is it a is it a centaur? Is it a
Speaker 1: rider on a horse? Is it a character actor on fire?
Speaker 1: Is it a satyr? I don't know. You can go
Speaker 1: in various directions, all right, Oh, and so also apologies
Speaker 1: to and I had to make some abridgements to the
Speaker 1: previous email for length. Apologies to the next writer because Sean.
Speaker 1: I also had to make some abridgements to this email
Speaker 1: as well. I'm sure you'll understand. But Sean writes to
Speaker 1: us about sorry. I was just thinking, we've we've we
Speaker 1: telled everybody not to not to say they sorry for
Speaker 1: writing a long email, but now we're apologizing for a
Speaker 1: carving uploo emails. Well, okay, No, So I don't usually
Speaker 1: mention if I just cut out like a line here
Speaker 1: or there at the beginning or end, that's just sort
Speaker 1: of introductory material or whatever. But if I have to,
Speaker 1: if I have to chop out like huge paragraphs or something,
Speaker 1: I might note it just just so the writer doesn't
Speaker 1: believe I missed it by accident. But maybe me saying
Speaker 1: this now means I won't have to say it in
Speaker 1: the future. Yeah. Sometimes, folks, I'm just gonna have to
Speaker 1: edit emails down a bit anyway. Uh, thank you very much, Ian,
Speaker 1: And then Sean gets in touch with us about finger
Speaker 1: counting and free San. Sean says, Hi, Joe, Robert, and Seth.
Speaker 1: Someone might have written in to tell you this already,
Speaker 1: but I have a method of counting to thirty three.
Speaker 1: On one hand, I first learned this method from my
Speaker 1: late father in law, who was teaching me how to
Speaker 1: make thicker. Um. Well, okay, so the word here is
Speaker 1: spelled d h i k r or d h i
Speaker 1: k i r. I've heard it pronounced thicker before, um,
Speaker 1: but Sean gives a pronunciation guide in which he says
Speaker 1: to pronounce it thick keer, which might be like a
Speaker 1: regional language variation. I'm not sure. But but since, uh,
Speaker 1: since Sean gives that, I'm going to say the keyer
Speaker 1: instead of thicker for the rest of the email. So
Speaker 1: uh in thick ear here, which is in his Lamic
Speaker 1: practice of praying, Sean says, the first time he showed
Speaker 1: me how to count this way. On one hand, I
Speaker 1: nodded along, but really it took a long time before
Speaker 1: I understood. I'll try to describe the method. Imagine each
Speaker 1: finger split into four sections. The fingertip, then each crease
Speaker 1: where there is a joint. By placing your thumb before
Speaker 1: the first joint crease of a finger, you can count
Speaker 1: to one, then after that same crease makes two. Continue
Speaker 1: up the finger, counting up one both before and after
Speaker 1: each crease, finally counting one when you reach the fingertip.
Speaker 1: This makes a total of account of seven for each finger.
Speaker 1: You can do the same with the index finger on
Speaker 1: the thumb, counting to a total of five. As there
Speaker 1: are only two joint creases in the thumb, four times
Speaker 1: seven plus five makes a total of thirty three for
Speaker 1: one hand. This is useful for the gear as each
Speaker 1: mantra should be said thirty three times. However, I can't
Speaker 1: imagine many other situations and what you need to count
Speaker 1: to a base thirty three. I'm sure if one has
Speaker 1: been learning to count this way since childhood it would
Speaker 1: be easier to remember. But after learning this method as
Speaker 1: a second language, I doubt I'll ever be able to
Speaker 1: master it for day to day needs. Technically, with mastery
Speaker 1: of this counting method, you could count these single digits
Speaker 1: on one hand up to thirty three, then count orders
Speaker 1: of magnitude on the other hand, again up to thirty three.
Speaker 1: So theoretically one could count up to one thousand, eighty
Speaker 1: nine or thirty three times thirty three with just two hands. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I've never heard about this before, But then Sean goes on.
Speaker 1: Sean says, changing topic. I wanted to offer my experience
Speaker 1: of Freesan. I noticed while listening to an episode of
Speaker 1: Listener Mail that you were talking about the backing vocals
Speaker 1: of Gimme Shelter, and I experienced a wave of goose bumps.
Speaker 1: I first heard these particular vocals in the original Freesan
Speaker 1: episode and they triggered Freesan in me, but it was
Speaker 1: unexpected that a mere description of the vocals would trigger
Speaker 1: it too. I often experienced musical free song, as well
Speaker 1: as a similar sensation in emotional movies or podcasts, and
Speaker 1: sometimes while just thinking about an emotional story or movie
Speaker 1: scene all the best Sean. Now, that does make me
Speaker 1: wonder when Sean is is thinking about these particular musical bits,
Speaker 1: are they playing out in their head? You know? Because
Speaker 1: I find that like that's the case for me, like
Speaker 1: if if someone was to mention say, um, like the
Speaker 1: the very opening of Radioheads everything in its right place
Speaker 1: or um, you know, or to or to say, hey,
Speaker 1: how about that really that really uh dramatic part of
Speaker 1: Carmina barana um which I know which which dramatic part,
Speaker 1: but um, but like if if there's enough of a
Speaker 1: of a hook there, then I will I do replay
Speaker 1: it in my mind and then I can certainly feel
Speaker 1: a certain amount of chills, you know, I can experience
Speaker 1: goose bumps if it is the right song. Yeah, parts
Speaker 1: of le miss for me, I will do that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not sorry, no, no, lately, this is a good music.
Speaker 1: I got to see it once. It had the big
Speaker 1: the big wheel stage. Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, you know
Speaker 1: that actually powers the the whole the whole theater. It's
Speaker 1: just the pure acting energy of the of the of
Speaker 1: the cast and crew. They've got a little gavroche on
Speaker 1: a hamster wheel. Yeah all right. Here's one from Taylor
Speaker 1: and this has to comes to the response to our
Speaker 1: episode on Queuing Robert and Joe. Great episode on waiting.
Speaker 1: It finally prompted me to write. After years listing uh
Speaker 1: consistently since the how stuff works days. In the Waiting episodes,
Speaker 1: I'd be curious to hear more of our tendency to
Speaker 1: wait or follow orderly lines when there is no line
Speaker 1: or correct order. For example, in New York City, when
Speaker 1: hailing a cab, there's always the situation where a cab
Speaker 1: can pull over, but it takes time for it to stop,
Speaker 1: so he overshoots you by a few feet. Innately, people
Speaker 1: understand that the cab pulled over for me from the
Speaker 1: line of I was earlier in the streets, so he
Speaker 1: saw me, even if they may be closer to where
Speaker 1: he finally stopped. So we make a line of where
Speaker 1: you are in the street, even though there isn't an
Speaker 1: actual line. I think I understand that you should prove
Speaker 1: this nuance. How we innately create unwritten laws by labeling
Speaker 1: the show the Waiting Part four, only to a week
Speaker 1: later have a the Waiting Part three for thirty seconds
Speaker 1: when you point out many people probably waited patiently for
Speaker 1: a part three before listening to part four, because that's
Speaker 1: what people do. Great show, Taylor, I love these this
Speaker 1: guidance on how to screw with listeners heads. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: would do. I feel like we're doing enough of that,
Speaker 1: um um without trying to So I don't know if
Speaker 1: we need to to orchestrate anything to sinister here the Taylor.
Speaker 1: I do think that's interesting about the understanding of the
Speaker 1: unspoken queuing rules for for cabs on the New York
Speaker 1: City streets, especially since there is this there's this uh
Speaker 1: cultural meme or reputation for like people in New York
Speaker 1: being like rude and pushy and selfish and just trying
Speaker 1: to get ahead of everything. Um. I mean, for one thing,
Speaker 1: we saw plenty of opposition to that in those Stanley
Speaker 1: Milgram experiments which were carried out in New York City
Speaker 1: or at least around the New York City area. But
Speaker 1: but also I think that's, you know, to whatever extent
Speaker 1: that's true, it clearly doesn't extend to people not obeying
Speaker 1: lines like you know, lines dominate even when everybody's really
Speaker 1: got to get a cab. Yeah, I mean, if things
Speaker 1: get too out of hand out, what we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to do is just make everybody roll for initiative. That's
Speaker 1: just the only way to handle it. Let's get those
Speaker 1: dexterity uh rolls out here. Let's let's see what we
Speaker 1: get on a d twenty and we will rank everybody accordingly,
Speaker 1: and you will know exactly what order you go in. Alright.
Speaker 1: This next listener wanted to remain anonymous, but they write
Speaker 1: in concerning queuing at a place where where I have
Speaker 1: experienced some of the most nerve racking lines and wait
Speaker 1: times ever, which is at border crossing checkpoints. You ever
Speaker 1: have this experience, rob Um, Yeah, I mean going through
Speaker 1: customs at the airport. That's that kind of thing. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: this anonymous listener says, I currently live in Chula Vista, California,
Speaker 1: and I crossed almost religiously to Tijuana for family and business.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest fight starters that always happens at
Speaker 1: the border are those who cut in line via car
Speaker 1: or foot. Fights and arrests happen weekly, especially people who
Speaker 1: cross without appropriate documentations such as spring breakers or weekend drunks.
Speaker 1: There are people who cross daily because of work or school,
Speaker 1: and there's always people who don't respect the line, And
Speaker 1: when you least expected, a fight breaks out and the
Speaker 1: cops show up, and then the border has to close
Speaker 1: for a while until everything is calmed down. People are
Speaker 1: always in a rush. There aren't enough CBP officers and
Speaker 1: the lines have taken from two minutes to four hours
Speaker 1: on foot and ten minutes to ten wors via car. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is through my own experience crossing through the port
Speaker 1: at Santa Cedro. Thanks for taking the time to read
Speaker 1: my email. Uh and man this one well, thank you
Speaker 1: for getting in touch. But also this one makes me
Speaker 1: think about some of the downsides of the single file
Speaker 1: queuing for access to things where they're like wildly different
Speaker 1: stakes for different cures. So you have somebody like the
Speaker 1: person writing in or here, who probably has to cross
Speaker 1: the border frequently, maybe every day for work and family
Speaker 1: and stuff like that, and then at the same time,
Speaker 1: like the same cues are being shared by like drunk
Speaker 1: tourists who are just partying. I can't believe it didn't
Speaker 1: bring us up. But this reminds me of a form
Speaker 1: of queuing that I have really appreciated in the I
Speaker 1: guess few establishments that I found it integrated. And that
Speaker 1: is the idea of having two lines that I know
Speaker 1: what I want line and the I need some helpline
Speaker 1: um that's smart, that can that can really strange and
Speaker 1: move things along. You know, if you know exactly what
Speaker 1: you're getting, let's going back to our bagel sandwich analogy.
Speaker 1: If you just know you're getting the number three, no
Speaker 1: changes whatever, then then yeah, let's have a line for
Speaker 1: those people. But if you need to enquire about about
Speaker 1: changes to the menu, about about the ingredients, if you
Speaker 1: need some guidance on which bagel sandwich to order, then yes,
Speaker 1: let's have a separate line for that, and we can
Speaker 1: have a specialized teller that deals with with those clientele. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean it may be the case that some border
Speaker 1: border checkpoints have something like this. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: I mean, if they don't, you should find a way
Speaker 1: to organize things into, you know, one line for people
Speaker 1: who have business and family obligations, and then the other
Speaker 1: all the spring breakers and stuff. Could they get their
Speaker 1: own line? Yeah, but I guess that one of the
Speaker 1: challenges is just how do you any time you get
Speaker 1: into a system like that, how do you do it
Speaker 1: in a in a way that's that's fair for everybody? Right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, here's another one. Some comes to us from Chris,
Speaker 1: Dear Robert and Mr Joe listening. Okay, it's the one
Speaker 1: might might be maybe this is, uh Mr Joe, the
Speaker 1: only person I think I've introduced you to as Mr
Speaker 1: Joe as my son um. But it's okay. I guess
Speaker 1: if the people call you Mr Joe listener from the
Speaker 1: Science Lab days thanks for years of podcast stuff in
Speaker 1: the Science Lab was, of course, the original name of
Speaker 1: this podcast way back in the day when I co
Speaker 1: hosted with Alice and Loudermilk. Anyway, Chris continues queueing. I
Speaker 1: had an experience with queuing yesterday that I had that
Speaker 1: I thought i'd write in with. I was at the
Speaker 1: county Clerk's office to get a title from my car.
Speaker 1: The queuing system was a paper system. You would get
Speaker 1: a number and have a waiting area. The wait was long,
Speaker 1: an hour and a half, and during that time I
Speaker 1: saw a couple of things you may be interested in.
Speaker 1: First Off, several people left after waiting for a while.
Speaker 1: This meant their number was getting unused. What is the
Speaker 1: morality of taking their number? I didn't get the chance,
Speaker 1: as they threw it out while leaving. But would it
Speaker 1: be cutting in line? I don't think anyone would have noticed.
Speaker 1: They were too busy looking at their phones. What would
Speaker 1: that change the morality of it? Second, in a system
Speaker 1: where it is easy to understand once you understand what
Speaker 1: the system is. What is your responsibility as a line
Speaker 1: waiter to communicate with others who are trying to understand
Speaker 1: the system. In a normal queue, people point out the
Speaker 1: line and the end of the line for the person,
Speaker 1: I think, to make sure the system is orderly for
Speaker 1: their own convenience. In this case, someone stood waiting where
Speaker 1: you would get called up as if there were a
Speaker 1: regular queue. Do you tell them or let them learn
Speaker 1: to pay attention, perhaps allowing a person or two to
Speaker 1: grab a number in front of them as a lesson.
Speaker 1: It felt like it was an an easy system. I
Speaker 1: had seen many people figure it out before her. Or
Speaker 1: am I just being rude because I don't like to
Speaker 1: talk to people anyhow? Great podcast. Thanks Chris Well on
Speaker 1: the first question, I think yes, taking the number of
Speaker 1: someone who has there's actually a technical term for this
Speaker 1: in the queuing literature. It's known as bulking. People who
Speaker 1: who look day line or look at a queuing system
Speaker 1: and then just say like, Okay, the service or product
Speaker 1: I want is not worth whatever this waiting or queuing
Speaker 1: situation is and they just leave. That's called balking. So
Speaker 1: somebody boks they've already got a number they you know,
Speaker 1: they do a late balk and then they leave. If
Speaker 1: you take your their number, yes, you are violating the
Speaker 1: first in, first out principle there, So I would say
Speaker 1: that is cutting. I would say the only real variation
Speaker 1: on that is if somehow an abandoned number took as
Speaker 1: much time as a as like an actual customer. But
Speaker 1: usually an abandoned number just means like they call it out,
Speaker 1: nobody comes and they go to the next one. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know how. I never really thought
Speaker 1: about this before because yet, generally, I don't think I've
Speaker 1: ever seen anyone say, hey, I'm leaving, I'm I'm out
Speaker 1: of here. Who wants my number? It's generally just discarded
Speaker 1: or maybe they might sort of casually lead it out.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but um, yeah, I guess I could
Speaker 1: see a case going either way. Kind of a gray area. Now, now,
Speaker 1: this idea of balking, it's interesting because I I heard, uh,
Speaker 1: I think an NPR story recently about balking in terms
Speaker 1: of reservations for restaurants, UH, which especially during you know
Speaker 1: this time when restaurants are are opening up often from
Speaker 1: very um slim down models of operation, and you have
Speaker 1: people do something that can make a lot of sense
Speaker 1: on the consumer end. You you're not sure if you're
Speaker 1: gonna eat at this restaurant or not. You're gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and get a reservation. Maybe you'll go ahead and
Speaker 1: get two reservations for restaurants that are close to each
Speaker 1: other and see how you feel when you get closer
Speaker 1: to the time. And of course that may give you
Speaker 1: a lot of options, but it takes options away from
Speaker 1: the restaurant that's trying to to to you know, to
Speaker 1: to run a business. And so they're talking about how
Speaker 1: some places are turning this model of of of requiring
Speaker 1: you in order to make a reservation you have to
Speaker 1: pay a small fee um, which which I have I
Speaker 1: have done. I was kind of surprised when that came up.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh wow, this this place thinks they're fancy,
Speaker 1: but they weren't that fancy. And after I heard the
Speaker 1: radio story, it made a lot more sense. It's like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you want you want people to have um an investment
Speaker 1: in actually following up on that reservation. As somebody who
Speaker 1: has worked in restaurants, people don't do this. This is
Speaker 1: so annoying to the to the staff that works at
Speaker 1: the restaurant. It can mean lost business of course, but
Speaker 1: it also is just like a huge pain in the
Speaker 1: neck for like the host or whoever's managing the seating.
Speaker 1: And a lot of restaurants they have like, uh cycles
Speaker 1: of they go through cycles of giving the tables to
Speaker 1: the different servers. So like you might have a server
Speaker 1: who's getting skipped in one cycle of seating because they
Speaker 1: know they've got a big party coming next with a reservation.
Speaker 1: But then if that party doesn't show up, they're just
Speaker 1: out that table and out the tip. It just it
Speaker 1: screws things up for everybody. It's extremely rude. Don't do that. Yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: I didn't mean to get a two finger wagg either,
Speaker 1: but no, no, I know it from the other end,
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I mean and from the consumer and like it.
Speaker 1: You know, it sucks to try and get a reservation
Speaker 1: somewhere you can or you show up at a place
Speaker 1: and you can't get a table. Uh, So help reduce
Speaker 1: the number of like of ghosts that have reservations, you know,
Speaker 1: people that are never going to show up. Okay, one
Speaker 1: last message here. This is in response I think to
Speaker 1: a previous Listener mail episode and generally too Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 1: This is from Megan. Megan says, hello, I've been an
Speaker 1: avid listener for many years now, and I love the
Speaker 1: addition of Weird House Cinema and your recent Listener Mail episode.
Speaker 1: You were discussing why nuclear radiation is depicted as a
Speaker 1: green glow rather than a more realistic blue glow. Something
Speaker 1: you didn't discuss was a fact I learned while getting
Speaker 1: my Film studies degree, a fact that I can't unsee
Speaker 1: ever since I learned it. In film, the use of
Speaker 1: green often foreshadows death. For example, if a character is
Speaker 1: bathed in green light during a tense scene, the outcome
Speaker 1: is usually not good for that character. Maybe the use
Speaker 1: of green to depict radiation glow is also related to
Speaker 1: this cinematic shorthand, since radioactive substances can lead to illness
Speaker 1: or death. Anyways, keep your eyes peeled for this. In movies,
Speaker 1: it is surprising how often a character's demise can be
Speaker 1: forecast by the color green being subtly added to the
Speaker 1: character in some way. Thanks for all you do. Stuff
Speaker 1: to blow your mind is the metric by which I
Speaker 1: measure all other podcasts. Megan, all that's sweet. Uh, thank
Speaker 1: you Megan. Yeah, this is interesting. I think maybe I've
Speaker 1: heard this before, but it's definitely never been front of
Speaker 1: mind for me. Yeah, I guess it's something I need
Speaker 1: to look out for next time I sat down and
Speaker 1: watch a film. But it does bring to mind. I
Speaker 1: was I was looking at different Brad Dorriff clips for
Speaker 1: a recent Weird House Cinema episode and I ran across
Speaker 1: one of those just unnecessarily grotesque scenes from David Lynch's
Speaker 1: Dune that invent the features Clan Harconan sitting around grossing
Speaker 1: it up, and and it has these just just disturbingly
Speaker 1: green walls in the background. You know the scene I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. Oh yeah, the very first time we meet
Speaker 1: the Harcone And so you got Baron harcon in there,
Speaker 1: like I think he ends up like floating around the room.
Speaker 1: But it's, uh, what's Brad Dourf has Peter Davries there
Speaker 1: and what is sting in the room? I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think, um fad Ratha is there. Also the Beast
Speaker 1: is there, and yeah, so it's it's the whole crew
Speaker 1: just hanging out in the room. Yeah yeah, but they're
Speaker 1: hanging out in the room is just green. It is
Speaker 1: just Lepericon green shockingly green, like green enough that by
Speaker 1: modern standards, you look at it and you're like, is
Speaker 1: this a finished scene? Is this is there? They were
Speaker 1: they gonna add something digitally in the background, and you're like, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I think that no, this is before all that this
Speaker 1: is just a really green color choice for their wall.
Speaker 1: Do I recall that also in in Lynches Dune when
Speaker 1: you see the harcon and planet, it's sort of green
Speaker 1: on the outside too, but not like a not like
Speaker 1: a natural green like trees and foliage and all that,
Speaker 1: but it's just like green buildings. That sounds familiar, But
Speaker 1: I I don't recall, It's been a while since I've
Speaker 1: seen it in full Well, it's quite appropriate. Harconan means death, yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think by the end of the movie or
Speaker 1: all those characters dead. I believe they are. Um. I
Speaker 1: don't know what happens to the beast, but I think
Speaker 1: the beast dies. Yeah, Okay, spoiler for DOUN Sorry, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean these these these bad guys are all are
Speaker 1: all doomed. But um, but they cause a lot of
Speaker 1: havit before that comes. It comes around. So oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: good good old Clan Harconan. All right, we're gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and close the mail bag here, but we will
Speaker 1: be back, so keep writing in. We didn't get to
Speaker 1: everything in this episode as usual, but we'll come back
Speaker 1: to it. So right in with your thoughts about navigation,
Speaker 1: about emotional outbursts and centaurs on fire, uh more, more
Speaker 1: listener mail, about Harkonen's and waiting in line. We'd love
Speaker 1: to hear all of it. Let's say yes if you
Speaker 1: want to hear listener mail. It occurs on Monday, as Artifact,
Speaker 1: occurs on Wednesday's Weird How Cinema occurs on Fridays, and
Speaker 1: two season Thursdays. Those are our core episodes of Stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow Your Mind. Huge thanks as always to our
Speaker 1: excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. If you would like
Speaker 1: to get in touch with us with feedback on this
Speaker 1: episode or any other, to suggest a topic for the future,
Speaker 1: or just to say hello, you can email us at
Speaker 1: contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow Your Mind is production of I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.