Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how Stuff
Speaker 1: Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Julie Douglas. And
Speaker 1: in this they could kick this one off. I want
Speaker 1: everyone to think back on their most recent argument. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: not like a little argument, but when something where it
Speaker 1: actually got a little heated, even even if it was
Speaker 1: just a heat on one side only. Yeah, and we're
Speaker 1: not talking like, hey, did you you know you gotta
Speaker 1: leave the seat up? You know kind of argument right
Speaker 1: right that, you know, because that's sort of like a
Speaker 1: wrote usual argument between couples, right yeah, and talking about
Speaker 1: something that there was a topic and you felt passionate
Speaker 1: about it, and you had a story to tell about
Speaker 1: why you were passionate, and you were arguing with this story,
Speaker 1: and and and I do have some serious questions about
Speaker 1: anyone who's still arguing, for um, keeping the seat up
Speaker 1: like that just seems. I mean, I'm just gonna agree
Speaker 1: that we can get an entire podcast on that, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure we could find some science and some stats.
Speaker 1: Well in in a way, this podcast is a podcast
Speaker 1: about that, because that's actually a great argument to keep
Speaker 1: in mind because I have met uh none, I guess
Speaker 1: you can call them men who the people who like
Speaker 1: to put the seat up? Who or make an impassioned
Speaker 1: argument for why it's it's totally cool that they don't
Speaker 1: put the seat down. You know, they'll be like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it just you know, it's one figures and the other
Speaker 1: or I can't remember all the arguments they make four
Speaker 1: uh continuing and doing this thing they do. But it
Speaker 1: actually kind of kind of strikes at the core of
Speaker 1: what arguing is all about, which we're going to discuss
Speaker 1: in this podcast, the science of arguing. So first, let's
Speaker 1: back up. Let's imagine the sort of classical idea of arguing. Okay, well, well,
Speaker 1: I think of it more in terms of debate, really debate.
Speaker 1: So imagine some old Greek men in their their their robes.
Speaker 1: Was it called a toga then, or is it just
Speaker 1: kind of a robe. Let's go with toga. Let's go
Speaker 1: with toga. Yeah, just create a more instantly visible picture
Speaker 1: in the mind old man in toga, like a little
Speaker 1: flabby chest kind of exposed there. So you're gonna lot
Speaker 1: of details. Standing in the middle of this forum and
Speaker 1: they're discussing the you know, the philosophy of we'll not
Speaker 1: toilet seats, but but pretty much every other aspect of life.
Speaker 1: One is taking this side of the argument, the other
Speaker 1: this side. You know, what is the what is the
Speaker 1: meaning of existence? Why are we here? How should we
Speaker 1: approach government? I mean everything is on the table. You
Speaker 1: go in ancient Greece. Here we're at the assembly. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe they're even talking about some of the architecture, and
Speaker 1: they say, oh, but if we do, those people will
Speaker 1: think it's a vomitory. Um. Hundreds of years later, I
Speaker 1: think that we're so excessive that we need a place
Speaker 1: to vomit our transgressions. Right. But the the idea, the
Speaker 1: sort of classical idea here of of debate and are
Speaker 1: doing is that is, you get people that are passionate
Speaker 1: about about one side or another, get them together in
Speaker 1: a room, and out of all this debate will emerge
Speaker 1: truth will emerge, uh, an idea of actually which direction
Speaker 1: we should go in? Yes, and many judicial systems are
Speaker 1: predicated on this model, right yeah, So I mean bring
Speaker 1: the lawyers in. One side will present this side of
Speaker 1: the case, another will present the other, and out of
Speaker 1: this some sort of truth will emerge. That the jury
Speaker 1: or the judge will see and the decision will be made. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a noble path to arguing times. Um, But as
Speaker 1: we have uh discovered as of late, there is a
Speaker 1: dark side to debate, which may or may not come
Speaker 1: as a surprise to you. So let's talk about our
Speaker 1: old friend, confirmation bias, which we've talked about quite a bit. Yes, okay,
Speaker 1: this is this idea that we cherry picked the information
Speaker 1: around us to support our own agenda or the idea
Speaker 1: we already have formed in our mind. Right, and so
Speaker 1: that's why we make mistakes. That's why we make errors
Speaker 1: in logic, and a lot of times we thought about
Speaker 1: this as a flaw, but it turns out that this
Speaker 1: could actually be a feature of arguing. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: there's some have been some people who say, why hasn't
Speaker 1: natural selection actually ferreted out this part of our cognition?
Speaker 1: Because if it keeps causing us to make mistakes, why
Speaker 1: is it still with us. We'd be much smarter about
Speaker 1: our choices if we ran them up against data that
Speaker 1: challenge them, and we don't. Right. And it also the
Speaker 1: other way of looking at this too is that it
Speaker 1: instead of saying oh, why can't we have why can't
Speaker 1: we have a news uh, you know, corporation that actually
Speaker 1: presents both sides equally, because that would kind of be
Speaker 1: out of keeping with with with how our mind works. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it turns out that this again, this is a feature
Speaker 1: of reasoning. Um. Cognitive social scientists Hugo merci A and
Speaker 1: Dan Sperber think that we've been looking at confirmation confirmation
Speaker 1: bias all wrong. They pose it in their what they
Speaker 1: call their argumentative theory that because we humans are so
Speaker 1: good at reasoning, uh, that confirmation bias is actually a
Speaker 1: feature of it and not a detraction from logicum, even
Speaker 1: though gets us in trouble sometimes. And really the reason
Speaker 1: that we argue is not to get to a rational conclusion,
Speaker 1: but to win the argument. So basically, the way I
Speaker 1: was thinking about this, and part of this is because
Speaker 1: I've been watching Nature shows a lot the last couple
Speaker 1: of days, because I think of those elephant walruses, you know,
Speaker 1: the ones were the males of the big flapping noses
Speaker 1: and the teeth and the scars, like slam into each
Speaker 1: other and fight on the beach to see who'll get
Speaker 1: to breed with this Uh, this harem of beautiful elephant
Speaker 1: seals like that is essentially what all arguing is and
Speaker 1: not to learn it men in togas standing around the
Speaker 1: philosophizing about the world. It's basically like, it's this headbutting,
Speaker 1: chest dumping together kind of a situation. Well, and some
Speaker 1: people would say to you that besides being a bunch
Speaker 1: of wrong headed walruses, that it's also our ego. Oh totally.
Speaker 1: I mean, our egos are the walruses that are slamming
Speaker 1: what I mean, seals that are slamming into each other here,
Speaker 1: you know, I feel like again, think back to that
Speaker 1: big argument you you personally had, uh, and you'll probably
Speaker 1: find you'll probably find your ego as the the key
Speaker 1: instigator there. Like uh, Like, I'm just thinking back to
Speaker 1: the last argument I had, um, which I think was
Speaker 1: with my editor. But but there there came, there comes up,
Speaker 1: Like if I was to look at a timeline of
Speaker 1: that of the conversation becoming an argument, there is a
Speaker 1: certain point where it becomes less about significantly less about
Speaker 1: the topic that we are discussing, and more about the
Speaker 1: the need to be right and the and the inability
Speaker 1: to let the other person be right and Uh, I
Speaker 1: feel like this is definitely this is definitely a part
Speaker 1: of of so many argumentative situations. What varies is our
Speaker 1: ability to to realize, uh, what's pulling the strings? Well, uh,
Speaker 1: this is This is from um Mercy, a uh and
Speaker 1: edge dot org conversation that he had with edge dot org.
Speaker 1: He says, if you take the point of view of
Speaker 1: the argumentative theory, having a confirmation bias its complete sense.
Speaker 1: When you're trying to convince someone, you don't want to
Speaker 1: find arguments for the other side. You want to find
Speaker 1: arguments for your side, and that's what the confirmation bias
Speaker 1: helps you to do. So that's what's what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, is um you know that's serving your ego, right.
Speaker 1: You probably could poke holes in your own argument if
Speaker 1: you really wanted to find the truth, but you are
Speaker 1: building a case, right, Yeah, there kinds of the point
Speaker 1: where you're it's it's not not about figuring out, well,
Speaker 1: what is actually the best solution of this problem we're discussing,
Speaker 1: But what can I do to support the fact that
Speaker 1: I am right and I am going to destroy you
Speaker 1: for thinking differently? Yeah, yeah, it's it. I mean the
Speaker 1: the what he says is that it is to devise
Speaker 1: and evaluate argument arguments intended to persuade, so destroy persuade. Yes, Um,
Speaker 1: same thing right, Uh, well, at least in terms of
Speaker 1: metaphorical arguments. But really, I mean what we're talking about
Speaker 1: here too is and we've talked about this before, reality
Speaker 1: is as fiction. You know, a lot of times we're
Speaker 1: creating our own realities and they are a fiction they
Speaker 1: you know, because they're particular to us. Um, there's no
Speaker 1: absolute truth in each of our realities, right right, Like
Speaker 1: another um argument I can think of because I cannot
Speaker 1: argue with my friends for the most part. Um, well,
Speaker 1: well I can think of a few friends they are
Speaker 1: particularly argumentative. But um. But one of the last arguments
Speaker 1: I remember having with with a group of friends, and
Speaker 1: this is one of those arguments where I was the
Speaker 1: only one that was really impassionate about it. But it
Speaker 1: was over whether a particular movie was merely a social
Speaker 1: uh quirk or just sort of interesting and in what
Speaker 1: it said about society, or whether it was actually either
Speaker 1: harmful to society or on some level telling about what
Speaker 1: is wrong with us. And uh, and I was very
Speaker 1: impassionate about it, and and in and in trying to
Speaker 1: make my case. I'm basically saying this, I'm telling a
Speaker 1: story about what reality is, and how this thing I'm
Speaker 1: arguing about factors into that, uh, that that fiction, that
Speaker 1: that particular story, that version of reality, and in their
Speaker 1: version reality, it plays a slightlyfferent role. And well, and
Speaker 1: this is the problem maybe why we can't many times
Speaker 1: reach some sort of common ground, because we are furthering
Speaker 1: our own story. Right, We are essentially living in different worlds.
Speaker 1: I mean, and I say that, and it's a very
Speaker 1: um kind of cliche thing to say, but think of
Speaker 1: it as like literally a different world, a different universe,
Speaker 1: a different um, a different worldview, a different bubble of reality.
Speaker 1: And these bubbles are bumping up against each other. Well
Speaker 1: don't we see this play out all the time in
Speaker 1: American politics, right, because there's so much information out there,
Speaker 1: there's so much rhetoric. But you know, it's not It seems,
Speaker 1: at least most of the time that the point of
Speaker 1: a lot of the debates isn't to actually get to
Speaker 1: some sort of solution or some sort of rational thought process,
Speaker 1: but to further whatever that agenda is. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: I just think about it just in our day to
Speaker 1: day interactions with with one another. You know, I grew
Speaker 1: up the family that loved to debate. My brother loves
Speaker 1: to debate, and I can look at the patterns in
Speaker 1: our conversation and I can see the same sort of
Speaker 1: patterns going on, and you know, political conversations going on,
Speaker 1: where you know, you take these strategies like you know,
Speaker 1: if the other person maybe has a more rational perspective,
Speaker 1: you may start looking at fringe details and throwing little
Speaker 1: Molotov cocktails. They are just to get the person feeling
Speaker 1: a little bit more unstable in his or her argument um.
Speaker 1: And so it's it is a sport really, um. But
Speaker 1: you know that being said, uh, there is actually an
Speaker 1: upside to arguing, and we'll talk about that when we
Speaker 1: get back. All right, we're back arguing the upside um. So,
Speaker 1: especially as it was we're discussing this argumentative theory, it's
Speaker 1: easy to sort of say, oh, well, arguing is just
Speaker 1: kind of horrible. Then it's just people bumping chests against
Speaker 1: each other. It's just egos acting out each other at
Speaker 1: each other with nod teeth, and it's uh, individuals just
Speaker 1: throwing around, um different versions of the world and never
Speaker 1: actually learning anything. Yeah, but according to Mercier and Sperber,
Speaker 1: group evaluations can actually sess out rational lines of thinking.
Speaker 1: And maybe not in American politics, but but obviously we
Speaker 1: know dissent is good. I mean, this is the basis
Speaker 1: of democracy. Right, Well, I mean, I guess you could
Speaker 1: make the case, U is it is it really a
Speaker 1: group discussion if they're like two parties, you know, the
Speaker 1: two parties, that breaks down to two enormous people arguing
Speaker 1: each Well, that's what people have as often cited as
Speaker 1: a problem of the American political system. Right, that's not
Speaker 1: necessarily representative of all citizens. Um, but but you know,
Speaker 1: in theory, if you have a bunch of arguments before
Speaker 1: a group of people, they can be evaluated as a whole.
Speaker 1: And then this is when the flawed logic of confirmation
Speaker 1: bias actually gets to run up against information that can
Speaker 1: challenge each argument until the truly rational one emerges victorious.
Speaker 1: This is the idea, and we have seen this in play,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, there's certainly think tanks are predicated
Speaker 1: on this as well. And we've also discussed a group
Speaker 1: think and uh an emergence and the idea that you know,
Speaker 1: people guessing at the jelly beans, and as long as
Speaker 1: they don't have too many preconceived notions about what they're
Speaker 1: they're they're guessing about, you know, if if they haven't
Speaker 1: been told what they're going to believe, the truth will
Speaker 1: often emerge from what the street, from what the the
Speaker 1: the average person is thinking. That's right if they haven't
Speaker 1: been influenced by the person next to them. But it's
Speaker 1: also good for you on a physical level. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: we we can certainly be really irrational at times and
Speaker 1: as a result, all of us have had that knockdown,
Speaker 1: drag out argument at one time or another that she
Speaker 1: makes you feel awful. Um, So it makes sense that
Speaker 1: most of the time we would avoid a conflict if
Speaker 1: we could. But it turns out that arguing is actually
Speaker 1: better for you than turning the other cheek and avoidance.
Speaker 1: And when I say arguing, I mean in a productive way. Okay, Um,
Speaker 1: So how do we know? From a study conducted by
Speaker 1: the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan,
Speaker 1: there were one thousand, eight hundred and forty two adults
Speaker 1: ages UH eighty four, and they were asked each day
Speaker 1: for eight days whether they had engaged in an argument,
Speaker 1: or whether they had experienced a situation in which they
Speaker 1: could have argued but decided to let it pass without
Speaker 1: a fight. Uh. The subjects also gave a live examples
Speaker 1: for four of those eight days, and researcher Kira Bird
Speaker 1: found out that sixty percent of the participants sidestepped arguments. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that sort of mirrors what we normally do anyway.
Speaker 1: And it was found that this group had elevated levels
Speaker 1: of the stress hormone cortisol, which we know can really
Speaker 1: mess up your body when it's elevated. And um, those
Speaker 1: who experienced tension and argued and those who experienced tension
Speaker 1: and avoided arguments all felt some sense of aneyes, and
Speaker 1: we're talking about negative emotions upset stomachs. But those who
Speaker 1: avoided arguments still felt the emotions and physical symptoms the
Speaker 1: next day. So I had far reaching effects for those
Speaker 1: people who avoided it. I ran across an interesting study
Speaker 1: myself from University of Virginia and this one that was
Speaker 1: just recently published. UM, and it makes the argument that
Speaker 1: an argumentative teenager is is actually an ideal an ideal
Speaker 1: person to have in your household. UM, Because though it
Speaker 1: may not seem like it at the time, right, right.
Speaker 1: Uh So, if you were yourself a teenager, and I
Speaker 1: know we have teen listeners out there, or if you're
Speaker 1: a parent of a teenager, uh, you may put yourself
Speaker 1: into this scenario. The study argues that these a disputes
Speaker 1: between a team and the parent are actually a symbol
Speaker 1: of keen developmental separation from the parents and uh and
Speaker 1: it's it's a vital part of growing up and that
Speaker 1: it actually, um it actually leads to lifelong benefits to
Speaker 1: the child that they as they grow up, they're going
Speaker 1: to be if they argue with the parents a lot there,
Speaker 1: they're sort of testing those muscles. They're using those muscles
Speaker 1: of indefinite thought. So if they then faced with, say
Speaker 1: the decision of whether to uh engage in underage drinking
Speaker 1: or any other kind of risky behavior, they're more likely
Speaker 1: to turn that kind of stuff down. They're going to
Speaker 1: be more resistant to peer pressure. I've also read to
Speaker 1: you that's a sign of respect that the child actually
Speaker 1: or the teenager wants to engage in debate with you
Speaker 1: because they're really interested in your thoughts and it's trying
Speaker 1: to you know, they're trying to inform their own worldview
Speaker 1: and run them up against their thoughts. So again, you
Speaker 1: know there's that independent thought emerging. Yeah, a teenager who
Speaker 1: thinks independently and maybe rebels against whatever the the man
Speaker 1: is saying. You know, I mean it may be a
Speaker 1: little annoying when you are the man, but when they
Speaker 1: get out there in the real world, they're gonna maybe
Speaker 1: avoid us some of the more the more harmful elements
Speaker 1: in society. Yeah. So so any of you team listeners,
Speaker 1: you could always melt the heart of your parents by
Speaker 1: saying I'm just arguing with you because I respect your opinion.
Speaker 1: They try it out, see if it works. So what
Speaker 1: is the future of debate? Based on what we know
Speaker 1: here and the technology that continues is to emerge around us.
Speaker 1: So where are we headed? Uh, it's up for debate,
Speaker 1: I suppose. Uh. Well, there's this little paradox of the Internet. Right,
Speaker 1: everything is available to us at our fingertips information all
Speaker 1: the time. Um, so many debates that you could engage in,
Speaker 1: but there are systems that continue to winnow down and
Speaker 1: serve up only what we like. Alright, And instantly Facebook
Speaker 1: comes to mind. Facebook, Yeah, they their news feed has
Speaker 1: a feature that learns what you like and will show
Speaker 1: updates from only friends that you align your political interests with.
Speaker 1: For instance, Uh, stumble Upon is another good example. It's
Speaker 1: trying to ferret out what you like and what you
Speaker 1: don't like. Right, these are situations where you're pressing, oh,
Speaker 1: I like that, I don't like that, I'm responding to this,
Speaker 1: I'm leaving a comment on that, and eventually it's learning.
Speaker 1: It's it's via algorithms. It's figuring out what you like
Speaker 1: and only serving that to you. Right, So, if you
Speaker 1: were to just go into absolute autopilot and allow all
Speaker 1: these systems to serve up all this information that it
Speaker 1: thinks you like, then know you've really narrowed the scope
Speaker 1: of what you're exposed to. And then you know what
Speaker 1: happens to our worldviews just kind of shrink down to
Speaker 1: these little flivers of the like the underlying audiologies behind
Speaker 1: the information that served up. Well, it's like stumble Upon.
Speaker 1: It's it's like it's serving your dinner and it's and
Speaker 1: it's saying, oh, well, he doesn't really like to eat spinach,
Speaker 1: so I'm going to quit serving it to him. He
Speaker 1: doesn't like l O L cats um, he's not getting
Speaker 1: any more of that, she's not really into Huffington's post.
Speaker 1: No more of that, uh to the point where like
Speaker 1: maybe maybe you need l O L cat every now
Speaker 1: and then, maybe maybe you need to be exposed to uh,
Speaker 1: any number of media outlets that you have turned your
Speaker 1: back on because you don't really appreciate what they have
Speaker 1: to offer. We need l O L cat all the
Speaker 1: time in my opinion. This is actually from the book
Speaker 1: called Monoculture, How One Story Is Changing Everything by F. S. Michael's.
Speaker 1: Um he's kind of saying, like, you know, these these
Speaker 1: filters on the Internet could create a monoculture for us, right,
Speaker 1: and not just the Internet, but different aspects of the
Speaker 1: life that we live. Um. He says, a monoculture doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that everyone believes exactly the same thing or acts
Speaker 1: in exactly the same way, but that we end up
Speaker 1: sharing key beliefs and assumptions that direct our lives. Because
Speaker 1: the monoculture is mostly left unarticulated until it has been
Speaker 1: displaced years later. We learn as boundaries by trial and error.
Speaker 1: So if you grew up in the Dark Ages, you
Speaker 1: probably didn't know you were in the Dark Ages, right,
Speaker 1: So you know, the Renaissance arrived and all its glory
Speaker 1: and uh ideas and and and made you completely have
Speaker 1: a paradigm shift. It does seem when I think back
Speaker 1: on the on my own use of the Internet, it
Speaker 1: seems like there was I used to argue more on
Speaker 1: the internet. Now, possibly that could be in a situation
Speaker 1: where I just had more time and have like less
Speaker 1: of a life, uh in the old day, so I
Speaker 1: could I can engage in long arguments about about one
Speaker 1: toprica or another. But it seems like, uh, it does
Speaker 1: seem like things like Facebook and UH and stumble Upon.
Speaker 1: If it's it's it's made an environment where you are
Speaker 1: only tuning into the things that you agree with and
Speaker 1: you're not encountering the people that you would argue with. Well, no,
Speaker 1: it's interesting you said that, because I mean, we live
Speaker 1: in Atlanta, and I've always joked that I have a
Speaker 1: five mile radius in Atlanta, and it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: my neighborhood. It's what I like, it's you know, I
Speaker 1: chose to live there because it fits my ideas of
Speaker 1: what a neighborhood is and what it contains. But there
Speaker 1: are section segments of Atlanta though, that do not appeal
Speaker 1: to you. But there are some that do. But for
Speaker 1: the most part, because it's my neighborhood and I'm situated there,
Speaker 1: I don't so much go out of this five mile
Speaker 1: radius except for when I come to work. Um. But
Speaker 1: the point is is that are we creating our own
Speaker 1: little neighborhoods in our Internet existence, which are providing this,
Speaker 1: uh you know, fodder for thought and in essence creating
Speaker 1: these silos of thought? Um, you know because just as
Speaker 1: you had mentioned, uh, you know, you're not as argumentative
Speaker 1: um the internet as you used to be. But is
Speaker 1: this because you are you know, being served up information
Speaker 1: that you like that's being selected for you to some extent? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it'll sort of allows us, Paul to crawl
Speaker 1: even more into our bubble and sort of and live
Speaker 1: inside this, uh, this carefully crafted bubble of beliefs. Well,
Speaker 1: and then there's also this idea that we kind of
Speaker 1: have to put the blinders on sometimes because it is
Speaker 1: completely overwhelming. Yeah. You know, so if you're trying to
Speaker 1: seek out every single argument or perspective on an issue,
Speaker 1: I mean you you could become completely dumbfounded really yea,
Speaker 1: or enlightened. All right, Well, let's put that topic to
Speaker 1: bed and call out the robot that is an argumentative robot.
Speaker 1: By the way, Yes that he's good enough to to
Speaker 1: shut it when we're actually recording, but yeah, it's way
Speaker 1: to l afterwards. All right, here's one from Azra Azra right,
Speaker 1: Senden says high, I just started listening to your show
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, and I wanted to say
Speaker 1: I really really enjoy it. I just want to listen
Speaker 1: to your episode about our cohabitation with robot servants when
Speaker 1: you mentioned Siri and I want and I felt compelled
Speaker 1: to say something. I have a very small list, but
Speaker 1: it is still there and makes life very difficult when
Speaker 1: trying to call customer support. All these companies that are
Speaker 1: trying to get you to use a computer instead of
Speaker 1: a human being make me very frustrated because the computers
Speaker 1: never understand me. I end up yelled at by yelling
Speaker 1: at the thing and pressing random numbers in order to
Speaker 1: confuse it enough until it connects me with a human being.
Speaker 1: Now I am not the biggest Apple fanatic, but I
Speaker 1: have just started playing with Syria on the iPhone and
Speaker 1: am thoroughly impressed. It understands almost everything I say. This
Speaker 1: is my first positive experience talking to a computer and
Speaker 1: it might turn me around on the whole subject. Now,
Speaker 1: if they could get it to understand accent, that would
Speaker 1: be really great. Thank you for your time. Oh, very cool.
Speaker 1: That just the cract maps. I was just thinking about
Speaker 1: the times that I've actually yelled automated oh yeah voice
Speaker 1: recording before, and then it felt foolish or was really
Speaker 1: sarcastic toward it. Yeah. I've also wondered like sometimes I'll
Speaker 1: be like I'll be like, oh, I just want to
Speaker 1: tell this machine off, and then I'm like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: what if they had a program the end to where
Speaker 1: if I start saying bad things to it, it's going
Speaker 1: to just instantly shut me down. Yeahs, or it's starts
Speaker 1: saying to you you know this is in the future.
Speaker 1: I sent some sarcasm in your voice. Would you like
Speaker 1: to continue the call? All right? Here's another one. This
Speaker 1: is from Becky, and Becky writes in and says, I
Speaker 1: love stuff to blow your mind. I especially love listening
Speaker 1: to it while I'm studying or reading textbooks because it
Speaker 1: breaks up the monotony of taking notes on dry textbook material.
Speaker 1: I especially love when something I've heard recently on this
Speaker 1: podcast comes up in a conversation on one of my classes,
Speaker 1: because then I can quote you guys and seem very
Speaker 1: seem much more knowledgeable than I really am. Smiley histnic place.
Speaker 1: I am really behind on episodes because I'm a pretty
Speaker 1: new listener. But I just listen to your Musical Hallucinations
Speaker 1: book episode and I wanted to write in because it's
Speaker 1: really interesting to me as a psychology major in college.
Speaker 1: I don't think this counts is true musical hallucination. But
Speaker 1: I often find myself hearing music during the early morning
Speaker 1: hours before my alarm clock goes off. My alarm plays
Speaker 1: music to wake me up, and I often wake up
Speaker 1: totally convinced that music that music is playing, but when
Speaker 1: I look at the clot it is time to get up.
Speaker 1: Yet sometimes it's so convincing that I start to get
Speaker 1: up and only later recognize that I have woken up
Speaker 1: before I need to. Sometimes it's a specific song that
Speaker 1: I can identify or even hear the lyrics uh in
Speaker 1: the voice or the singer, And other times it is
Speaker 1: more generic music that doesn't seem like any specific song
Speaker 1: that I know or have heard before. It can be
Speaker 1: quite annoying because after I wake up thinking i've heard
Speaker 1: the music, I usually can't go back to sleep. So
Speaker 1: that's my musical hallucination story. Thanks very much for making
Speaker 1: the podcast and making me aware of strength phenomena without
Speaker 1: ever needing to leave my dorm room. Oh, Becky, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean seriously, it sounds like you need to be composing.
Speaker 1: I mean this, This is what I happened to Paul McCartney. Right,
Speaker 1: He woke up with the tune of Yesterday in his
Speaker 1: head and immediately ran over to his piano and I
Speaker 1: put it down, and he was afraid that he had
Speaker 1: actually ripped off a tune. Uh So, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Look into it, Becky, you could be a composing. It
Speaker 1: brings to mind like I have this gripe that is
Speaker 1: growing up as far as the way our devices use music,
Speaker 1: Like I end up using my iPhone to play music
Speaker 1: a lot of times when I'm like in the house
Speaker 1: and all, and it will do this thing where you're
Speaker 1: getting a call, right, you're listening to a mixer, an
Speaker 1: album or something. You're getting a call and then the
Speaker 1: music will sort of dive down. They'll leave this this
Speaker 1: pose will suddenly develop, It'll it'll go silent for a second.
Speaker 1: And then the call, we'll we'll register, you'll get your
Speaker 1: ringtone or whatever. But it's got to the point where
Speaker 1: there's a naturally occurring uh dip in the volume, say
Speaker 1: like a gap between tracks or just an abrupt stop
Speaker 1: between between the tracks and a mix. It'll throw me
Speaker 1: offer a second, I think I'm getting a phone call.
Speaker 1: And it really makes me mad at the technology because
Speaker 1: I'm like, this would this was not an issue before,
Speaker 1: before the technology became involved in this. That would have
Speaker 1: just been a gap that wouldn't have registered in my
Speaker 1: brain as anything like, oh, you might be giving a
Speaker 1: call from your security company, or oh, um, you know,
Speaker 1: my wife's trying to reach me, I you know, or
Speaker 1: I wonder if that's my mom calling that kind of thing. Well,
Speaker 1: you need to blame your predictive modeling mind, which it's
Speaker 1: all excited, start serving up a little dopamine to your
Speaker 1: brain because it thinks that's call from your wife. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so there there you go. It's it's uh, I just
Speaker 1: I just hate the technology has done into my music.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like when your brain into my brain.
Speaker 1: It's like when suddenly, uh, you'll hear a sound in
Speaker 1: a mix, sounds sort of like a ringtone and I'll
Speaker 1: throw you off for a second, you think of getting
Speaker 1: a phone call it? Yeah. Technology. So, speaking of technology,
Speaker 1: if you would like to share something with us, you
Speaker 1: can find us on Twitter and Facebook. We're below the
Speaker 1: Mind on Twitter and on Facebook. You can just search
Speaker 1: for stuff to Blow your Mind and you will find us.
Speaker 1: Share anything you would like, like two of us about UH,
Speaker 1: current or past or future podcast episodes, and indeed, let
Speaker 1: us know what you think about arguing, like how does UH?
Speaker 1: How do? How do you? How do you view your
Speaker 1: own arguments? Are you aware of your own ego and
Speaker 1: its role in your argument? It is nature? Are you
Speaker 1: a master debater? Indeed? Indeed, all right, then send us
Speaker 1: an email at blow the Mind at how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com. Be sure to check out our new video podcast,
Speaker 1: Stuff from the Future. Join how staf Work staff as
Speaker 1: we explore the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow.