WEBVTT - Ig Nobels 2017: Crocodile Slots, Twins & Old Ears

0:00:03.040 --> 0:00:05.840
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how stuff

0:00:05.880 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.

0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:17.680
<v Speaker 1>And my name is Robert Lamb, I'm Christian and I'm

0:00:17.760 --> 0:00:19.880
<v Speaker 1>Joe McCormick. And hey, this is part two of our

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:24.279
<v Speaker 1>seventeen Ignobles series. That's right. If you haven't listened to

0:00:24.280 --> 0:00:26.680
<v Speaker 1>the first one, I recommend that you go back at

0:00:26.720 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>least listen to the first twenty minutes because we set

0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:32.640
<v Speaker 1>up the stage for what ignobells are, how we've covered

0:00:32.680 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>them in the past before, and what we're doing here today.

0:00:35.920 --> 0:00:39.280
<v Speaker 1>This is really a continuation of us observing the prizes.

0:00:39.560 --> 0:00:44.000
<v Speaker 1>That being said, if there was ever a multipart episode

0:00:44.159 --> 0:00:45.959
<v Speaker 1>that you could just drop in at any point, it's

0:00:46.040 --> 0:00:48.959
<v Speaker 1>this one. This is a bag yeah, because because basically

0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:50.919
<v Speaker 1>we're just taking the ten different winners for the two

0:00:50.960 --> 0:00:54.080
<v Speaker 1>thousand seventeen Ignoble prizes, we divvy them up and we're

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.080
<v Speaker 1>each like taking the lead on a different study discussing

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:00.200
<v Speaker 1>why it's cool, why it's funny, and exactly what the signs.

0:01:00.520 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 1>In the last episode, we talked about liquid cats, cave bugs,

0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:08.319
<v Speaker 1>and digury do therapy, along with weird coffee mugs, and

0:01:08.360 --> 0:01:11.520
<v Speaker 1>now we're gonna get into even weirder stuff. Okay, So

0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:14.080
<v Speaker 1>the first prize we're going to discuss today is the

0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:19.319
<v Speaker 1>Economics Prize, ordered to Matthew Rocklough and Nancy Greer quote

0:01:19.319 --> 0:01:22.559
<v Speaker 1>for their experiments to see how contact with a live

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 1>crocodile affects a person's willingness to gamble. Okay, this sounds

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:29.039
<v Speaker 1>like something out of a out of a James Bond

0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:32.319
<v Speaker 1>film right here. I'm imagining that this is like, I

0:01:32.319 --> 0:01:34.920
<v Speaker 1>don't know, based in Louisiana or Florida or something where

0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:37.920
<v Speaker 1>live crocodiles are a common sighting and then you may

0:01:38.000 --> 0:01:42.600
<v Speaker 1>go gambling it. Based in Australia, you can gamble and

0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:47.199
<v Speaker 1>you can handle saltwater crocodile. Right, Yeah, So the paper

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:49.920
<v Speaker 1>is called never Smile at a crocodile. Betting on electronic

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:54.640
<v Speaker 1>gaming machines is intensified by reptile induced arousal. Actually, there,

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:57.080
<v Speaker 1>we should put an asterisk on the statement in that

0:01:57.120 --> 0:02:00.720
<v Speaker 1>title there, because that that's partially true depending on what

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:03.120
<v Speaker 1>kind of gambler you are and some other things about you.

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:06.040
<v Speaker 1>It was published in the Journal of Gambling Studies in

0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:11.080
<v Speaker 1>and so there are a lot of slot machines studies.

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:14.560
<v Speaker 1>That the whole episode that right, and I think we

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:16.519
<v Speaker 1>could do more. Robert and I have talked about doing

0:02:16.560 --> 0:02:20.799
<v Speaker 1>episodes entirely on rat slot machine studies or I mean,

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:23.239
<v Speaker 1>there's just tons of research on slot machines, and there's

0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:26.440
<v Speaker 1>a reason for the slot machines or as the literature

0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:29.959
<v Speaker 1>refers to them, electronic gaming machines or e g m s.

0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:35.959
<v Speaker 1>They're kind of a perfect predator. They're like brilliantly designed

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 1>to exploit vulnerabilities in human psychology and risk management behavior,

0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:42.120
<v Speaker 1>gambling with e g m s tends to produce this

0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>state of what's known as autonomic arousal. You and I

0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:49.080
<v Speaker 1>would just probably call this excitement, you know, physiological sensation

0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:51.440
<v Speaker 1>of excitement in the body that the brain tends to

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:55.120
<v Speaker 1>interpret sometimes in the case of gambling, interprets as a

0:02:55.200 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>lucky streak, which keeps you gambling, and it leads to

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 1>this vicious cycle where it's more and more arousing and

0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:04.080
<v Speaker 1>you just keep wanting to bet more and more money.

0:03:04.120 --> 0:03:09.400
<v Speaker 1>Autonomic arousal not to be confused with reptile induced arousal. Well, no,

0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:12.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, reptiles could create a state of aucomic arousal,

0:03:12.960 --> 0:03:15.160
<v Speaker 1>but yeah, not one and the same thing one could

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 1>lead to the other. So I think e g M

0:03:18.600 --> 0:03:20.480
<v Speaker 1>s are an interesting thing to study, and this kind

0:03:20.480 --> 0:03:24.160
<v Speaker 1>of research really matters because they fit into a similar category.

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:28.000
<v Speaker 1>Uh that that I would put social media interface design

0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:32.640
<v Speaker 1>in this this successful technology design that is actually better

0:03:32.760 --> 0:03:35.800
<v Speaker 1>at its job than is good for us. What do

0:03:35.840 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 1>y'all think about that? With like social media interfaces that

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:42.080
<v Speaker 1>I would say, it's a great success story in terms

0:03:42.080 --> 0:03:47.040
<v Speaker 1>of designing technology. But success doesn't necessarily mean morally good

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:50.480
<v Speaker 1>or good for our lives. Well, I think we When

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 1>I think of a slot machine, I instantly think of

0:03:52.480 --> 0:03:54.880
<v Speaker 1>like somebody that's kind of shackled there to the machine

0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:57.920
<v Speaker 1>and they're just pushing buttons, uh, And there's this idea

0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 1>that it's going to pay off for them, and then

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:01.920
<v Speaker 1>maybe it does pay off a little bit, and then

0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 1>they keep going. And with with social media, you do

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:08.360
<v Speaker 1>see a some more situation. Someone has their phone out,

0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 1>they're constantly checking this feed or that feed, this social

0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.880
<v Speaker 1>media appor that or another. And the win in this case,

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:18.680
<v Speaker 1>I guess would be somebody contacting them directly or some

0:04:18.760 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 1>sort of response. Howbody like that I get on my

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:24.080
<v Speaker 1>or you might even you might even have a real win.

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 1>You could have a meaningful interaction with somebody you care

0:04:26.640 --> 0:04:29.480
<v Speaker 1>about on social media, or you might come across an

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:31.919
<v Speaker 1>interesting article that you're glad you read. Those are the

0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:35.440
<v Speaker 1>little winds, but maybe it just keeps you playing. After that,

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:39.240
<v Speaker 1>we're speaking more little on our is social media making

0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:41.600
<v Speaker 1>us crazy? Episode from last year? And I think, yeah,

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:47.279
<v Speaker 1>if I remember correctly, the literature basically assumes and they're

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 1>still looking into this of course that like the same

0:04:50.040 --> 0:04:52.200
<v Speaker 1>parts of our brain that are lit up by gambling

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:54.159
<v Speaker 1>or lit up by social media. I think I think

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.719
<v Speaker 1>that's a highly successful and correct analogy. Uh so for

0:04:57.800 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 1>social media interfaces that the job they're trying to achieve

0:05:01.160 --> 0:05:04.640
<v Speaker 1>generally is maximizing time on site. They want to keep

0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:07.400
<v Speaker 1>you on that platform as long as possible and keep

0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:09.800
<v Speaker 1>you looking at stuff and clicking on ads and all that.

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:12.520
<v Speaker 1>Is that why we do those hour long Facebook lives

0:05:12.520 --> 0:05:15.160
<v Speaker 1>every Friday? I don't, Well, that's why Facebook wants us

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:18.160
<v Speaker 1>doing those things. Yeah, I don't know what our reason is.

0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:21.440
<v Speaker 1>Maybe we're just slaves to the machine. But you didn't

0:05:21.440 --> 0:05:25.240
<v Speaker 1>know that. Basically, Yeah, the machine says you need to

0:05:25.240 --> 0:05:28.159
<v Speaker 1>do this, and we basically turned it around and said, Okay,

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:31.280
<v Speaker 1>we'll do it, but if we're gonna do right, we'll

0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>change it from the inside. Sure, yeah, that's what we're doing.

0:05:34.240 --> 0:05:37.359
<v Speaker 1>We're changing the machine. Man. But the electronic gaming machines,

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:39.920
<v Speaker 1>I would put them in the same category. But instead

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:42.520
<v Speaker 1>what they're seeking is not maximizing time on site, but

0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:47.040
<v Speaker 1>maximizing time on machine. Because when they maximize time on machine,

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>this tends toward infinity of losses for the player. It

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:56.240
<v Speaker 1>leads to playing two extinctions industry term. Basically, the machine

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:58.640
<v Speaker 1>getting all your cash and then making you come back

0:05:58.680 --> 0:06:01.200
<v Speaker 1>to play again when you've got more are draining the

0:06:01.279 --> 0:06:05.040
<v Speaker 1>host dry of its precious blood. So unless you want

0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:08.119
<v Speaker 1>to make gambling illegal or something, one of the best

0:06:08.120 --> 0:06:12.680
<v Speaker 1>defenses against this type of machine is for independent researchers

0:06:12.720 --> 0:06:15.720
<v Speaker 1>to study the psychology of gaming, basically to understand how

0:06:15.760 --> 0:06:18.760
<v Speaker 1>these machines exploit our brains, so we can build up

0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:22.920
<v Speaker 1>defense behaviors that people could employ independently to resist the machines,

0:06:23.000 --> 0:06:25.960
<v Speaker 1>or maybe so you could impose regulations on what types

0:06:26.000 --> 0:06:28.880
<v Speaker 1>of things these machines can do. Well, like what one

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:31.760
<v Speaker 1>of the issues that we got into before was what

0:06:31.880 --> 0:06:34.120
<v Speaker 1>happens when a machine is speaking to you in a

0:06:34.200 --> 0:06:39.039
<v Speaker 1>human voice or using other kind of anthropomorphic forms, like

0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:41.800
<v Speaker 1>if if you were to pass a lot and says, look,

0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:43.640
<v Speaker 1>you can have slot machines, but they can't look like

0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:47.080
<v Speaker 1>beautiful women. They can't look like cartoon characters. That's they

0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:49.840
<v Speaker 1>can't be a cowboy that says, howdy, partner, put coins

0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>in me. And that is actually a meaningful thing because

0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:56.479
<v Speaker 1>studies have shown that you might spend more money in

0:06:56.520 --> 0:06:59.479
<v Speaker 1>a slot machine that seems more humanoid and less mechanical.

0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:02.240
<v Speaker 1>So the tons of studies like this, there's just a

0:07:02.279 --> 0:07:06.760
<v Speaker 1>prolific slot machine research. This is one example that is

0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 1>maybe the weirdest one I've ever come across, but I

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:12.560
<v Speaker 1>like it. So Rock Lofting Career decided to study this

0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:15.720
<v Speaker 1>strange condition. What happens when you have the opportunity to

0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:18.840
<v Speaker 1>gamble on an e g M after you've just held

0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:23.560
<v Speaker 1>a saltwater crocodile. The so the subjects are tourists at

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:29.080
<v Speaker 1>the Kurana Saltwater Crocodile Farm in Kowonga, Queensland, Australia. It

0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:31.840
<v Speaker 1>was a hundred and three subjects, forty one of them female,

0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:35.520
<v Speaker 1>uh ages eighteen to sixty six. And here's the experiment

0:07:36.440 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 1>under two different conditions. Subjects would be given money. They'll

0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:42.320
<v Speaker 1>give you twenty bucks, and then they ask you to

0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:45.680
<v Speaker 1>play a laptop simulated e g M sort of a

0:07:45.720 --> 0:07:48.880
<v Speaker 1>slot machine simulator written in visual basic on a laptop

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:52.000
<v Speaker 1>computer where you would get to gamble with the money

0:07:52.040 --> 0:07:55.480
<v Speaker 1>they just gave you. And the two different conditions were this,

0:07:56.000 --> 0:07:57.880
<v Speaker 1>you could either play this game or right before you

0:07:57.920 --> 0:08:01.760
<v Speaker 1>walk into the crocodile farm or right after you have

0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:05.240
<v Speaker 1>cradled a one meter long saltwater crocodile in your hands.

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:08.320
<v Speaker 1>So there are some independent variables going into this. Right

0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:11.280
<v Speaker 1>you've got obviously the control condition and the test condition

0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:13.880
<v Speaker 1>did you just walk in or have you handled a crocodile,

0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 1>and so that is supposed to correspond to your level

0:08:16.720 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 1>of arousal. They did a galvanic skin conductance test to

0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:22.200
<v Speaker 1>to sort of check this and say, okay, we're people

0:08:22.240 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>actually showing physiological signs of arousal, and they determined yeah,

0:08:25.680 --> 0:08:29.920
<v Speaker 1>people who held crocodiles were physiologically aroused. But the other

0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:33.480
<v Speaker 1>independent variables would be problem gaming status, like do do

0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:35.880
<v Speaker 1>you have any of the risk factors for being a

0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:40.920
<v Speaker 1>problem gambler or affective state? Are you having negative feelings

0:08:41.040 --> 0:08:43.520
<v Speaker 1>right now, and so they'd established that by a questionnaire

0:08:44.040 --> 0:08:46.360
<v Speaker 1>UH that they administer at the time of the test,

0:08:46.480 --> 0:08:49.400
<v Speaker 1>like are you having emotions that we'd usually classify as

0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:53.559
<v Speaker 1>negative affect or positive affect? And then the deependit variables.

0:08:53.600 --> 0:08:55.680
<v Speaker 1>This is what they were seeing. Was was coming out

0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:58.440
<v Speaker 1>from those variables was bet size, how much you bet,

0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:02.040
<v Speaker 1>speed of betting, how asty bet, and final payouts like

0:09:02.080 --> 0:09:04.079
<v Speaker 1>what what's your your bottom line at the end of

0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:07.559
<v Speaker 1>the game. And the results they found where that compared

0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:10.920
<v Speaker 1>to people in the control group, holding a crocodile could

0:09:10.960 --> 0:09:14.559
<v Speaker 1>affect problem gamblers in a couple of different ways. If

0:09:14.600 --> 0:09:19.240
<v Speaker 1>you held a crocodile and had negative emotions, you actually

0:09:19.240 --> 0:09:22.520
<v Speaker 1>placed lower than average bets on the e g M.

0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:25.880
<v Speaker 1>So if you're somebody who's at risk for problem gambling,

0:09:26.280 --> 0:09:28.679
<v Speaker 1>they hand you a crocodile and you don't like it

0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:32.400
<v Speaker 1>and you have negative emotions, you'll actually it will tamp

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:35.839
<v Speaker 1>down your problem gambling behaviors. You're less likely to spend

0:09:35.840 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 1>more interesting But if you are a problem gambler or

0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:42.240
<v Speaker 1>have these you know, risk factors for problem gambling, and

0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:45.240
<v Speaker 1>you hold a crocodile and you don't have negative feelings

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:48.800
<v Speaker 1>about it, you actually place much higher than average bets

0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:51.720
<v Speaker 1>on the e g M. That's what I imagined would happen,

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.720
<v Speaker 1>That there's some kind of like I held this dangerous

0:09:54.760 --> 0:09:57.720
<v Speaker 1>animal and everything turned out okay, so now I'm willing

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:02.199
<v Speaker 1>to take more risks. Well, So here's how the researchers

0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:04.240
<v Speaker 1>interpreted it. I'll see what you guys think about this.

0:10:04.480 --> 0:10:06.520
<v Speaker 1>The way they interpreted it is that they're going on

0:10:06.520 --> 0:10:10.000
<v Speaker 1>what's known as the two factor model of effective states.

0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:13.120
<v Speaker 1>So the way they think affective states tend to happen

0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:17.200
<v Speaker 1>is that we first of all experience physiological arousal, like

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:20.480
<v Speaker 1>there are feelings in the body that tell you something

0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>of emotional significance is happening, and then secondary to that,

0:10:24.840 --> 0:10:28.240
<v Speaker 1>you cognitively think about it and give it some kind

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.640
<v Speaker 1>of meaning or significance or cause. So what would happen,

0:10:31.760 --> 0:10:35.320
<v Speaker 1>say if, um, you suddenly a car is driving head

0:10:35.360 --> 0:10:37.400
<v Speaker 1>on at you in the highways. First you have the

0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:40.880
<v Speaker 1>feelings in your body there's some kind of arousal, and

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>then you use your sense data and your thoughts to

0:10:43.760 --> 0:10:46.360
<v Speaker 1>kind of say, okay, here's why that's happening. I'm afraid

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:49.480
<v Speaker 1>because a car is coming at me um. And so

0:10:50.160 --> 0:10:53.560
<v Speaker 1>what that means, though, is that the feelings of arousal

0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:57.480
<v Speaker 1>in the body are not necessarily linked to their actual causes.

0:10:58.000 --> 0:11:00.360
<v Speaker 1>It's just something that we sort of figure you're out

0:11:00.440 --> 0:11:04.360
<v Speaker 1>secondary to having the feeling. And so the way that

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:06.880
<v Speaker 1>might work in a gambler is if you do something

0:11:07.000 --> 0:11:12.080
<v Speaker 1>dangerous or something arousing, like holding a dangerous reptile, you

0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:14.800
<v Speaker 1>can you get this physiological sense of arousal. But the

0:11:14.880 --> 0:11:19.360
<v Speaker 1>gambler who doesn't have fear emotions really about that animal

0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:22.560
<v Speaker 1>or any other kind of negative emotions, can just interpret

0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:26.360
<v Speaker 1>that free floating arousal as a lucky streak. So it's like,

0:11:26.400 --> 0:11:29.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm pumped up by what just happened, and I'm that

0:11:29.800 --> 0:11:32.640
<v Speaker 1>means I'm good to go. Let's gamble. I'm I just

0:11:32.679 --> 0:11:35.160
<v Speaker 1>had the crocodile. I'm ready to drop some cash. Yeah,

0:11:35.160 --> 0:11:38.560
<v Speaker 1>it's content content free arousal that you can interpret in

0:11:38.679 --> 0:11:41.600
<v Speaker 1>any schema you want. And for the problem gambler, that

0:11:41.640 --> 0:11:44.680
<v Speaker 1>schema may very well be the feeling of luckiness or

0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:46.840
<v Speaker 1>the feeling of being on a roll. So I gotta

0:11:46.920 --> 0:11:50.280
<v Speaker 1>ask you, then, how well do you think Kenny Rogers

0:11:50.559 --> 0:11:54.520
<v Speaker 1>the gambler would do based on his crocodile experience was it.

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:56.840
<v Speaker 1>Maybe here's the thing he maybe he was talking about

0:11:56.960 --> 0:11:58.959
<v Speaker 1>a crocodile. You've got to know when to hold the

0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:01.800
<v Speaker 1>crocodile and when to run. See, that would actually be

0:12:01.840 --> 0:12:06.319
<v Speaker 1>more specific. I've got issues with Kenny Rogers the Gambler

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:10.040
<v Speaker 1>who doesn't because I think it fits into this category

0:12:10.200 --> 0:12:15.160
<v Speaker 1>of advice that is not actually specific enough to matter. There.

0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:17.319
<v Speaker 1>There's tons of advice like that out in the world.

0:12:17.360 --> 0:12:20.120
<v Speaker 1>You'll read these, you know, inspirational quotes. People have whole

0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:22.920
<v Speaker 1>books like this where they offer advice, but the advice

0:12:22.960 --> 0:12:26.880
<v Speaker 1>is actually completely generic. It's essentially like telling somebody you

0:12:26.920 --> 0:12:29.200
<v Speaker 1>should figure out what the right thing to do is.

0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:31.520
<v Speaker 1>It's like a fortune cookie. Yeah, and so in the

0:12:31.679 --> 0:12:33.439
<v Speaker 1>in the song, it's you've got to know when to

0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:35.720
<v Speaker 1>hold them, no, when to fold them. That's not advice.

0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Advice would be telling me what to judge that on,

0:12:38.720 --> 0:12:41.679
<v Speaker 1>Like how should I know when to hold them? Uh,

0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:44.640
<v Speaker 1>this is completely an aside. But if you want some fun,

0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:47.520
<v Speaker 1>look up the video of him performing that song on

0:12:47.559 --> 0:12:50.360
<v Speaker 1>The Muppet Show in the eighties. Now he does he

0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:52.439
<v Speaker 1>does give us some advice. You never count your money.

0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:54.680
<v Speaker 1>I want you sitting at the table that Okay, I'll

0:12:54.679 --> 0:12:57.120
<v Speaker 1>give him that. That is specific advice. I'll take that.

0:12:57.240 --> 0:12:58.640
<v Speaker 1>But you've got to know when to hold them, no

0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:01.720
<v Speaker 1>one to fold them. That's not advice, that's just generic

0:13:01.800 --> 0:13:04.719
<v Speaker 1>fortune teller stuff. But anyway, I wanted to come back

0:13:04.720 --> 0:13:06.880
<v Speaker 1>to the study because there are some masterisks we should

0:13:06.880 --> 0:13:09.320
<v Speaker 1>put on this. Number one is I want to clarify

0:13:09.440 --> 0:13:12.760
<v Speaker 1>that this only seemed to be the case for problem gamblers,

0:13:13.120 --> 0:13:16.200
<v Speaker 1>So like holding the crocodile, just for normal people who

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:18.640
<v Speaker 1>do who did not have these risk factors for being

0:13:18.679 --> 0:13:23.640
<v Speaker 1>a problem gambler, did not seem to intensify betting, and uh,

0:13:23.840 --> 0:13:26.440
<v Speaker 1>like these would be people for whom gambling is not

0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:30.320
<v Speaker 1>a novel experience, but maybe holding a crocodile is, whereas

0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:34.679
<v Speaker 1>from for me, holding a crocodile is the novel experience,

0:13:34.760 --> 0:13:38.280
<v Speaker 1>as is using a slot machine. Right, so you you

0:13:38.360 --> 0:13:41.800
<v Speaker 1>probably would not place higher bets or or have intensified

0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:45.840
<v Speaker 1>gambling or reward seeking behaviors after holding a crocodile, or likewise,

0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:48.040
<v Speaker 1>somebody who had a strict rule like, yeah, I play

0:13:48.120 --> 0:13:49.960
<v Speaker 1>the slot machines when I go to the casino, but

0:13:50.000 --> 0:13:52.800
<v Speaker 1>I only spend five dollars and once that's gone. I'm done,

0:13:52.840 --> 0:13:55.120
<v Speaker 1>and I never break that rule. Right. Yeah, So people

0:13:55.120 --> 0:13:57.959
<v Speaker 1>who don't exhibit these behaviors, this doesn't apply to them.

0:13:58.000 --> 0:14:00.320
<v Speaker 1>It does seem to apply to people who are risk

0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:03.520
<v Speaker 1>for problem gambling. But there is a limitation to the study.

0:14:03.600 --> 0:14:06.120
<v Speaker 1>Essentially that they did not have a lot of people

0:14:06.200 --> 0:14:09.640
<v Speaker 1>in their sample group who showed problem gambling behaviors or

0:14:09.880 --> 0:14:12.440
<v Speaker 1>or risk factors. So one thing would be that they

0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:15.400
<v Speaker 1>should probably try to replicate this to have more confidence

0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:18.400
<v Speaker 1>in the in the result with a larger sample group

0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:20.880
<v Speaker 1>that has more problem gamblers, and it just to make

0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:23.320
<v Speaker 1>sure that they're getting a real effect and this isn't

0:14:23.320 --> 0:14:25.960
<v Speaker 1>just noise. Now. Remember also, the thing is that even

0:14:26.000 --> 0:14:28.600
<v Speaker 1>among the problem gamblers, it was only when you don't

0:14:28.680 --> 0:14:32.000
<v Speaker 1>have any negative moods or negative feelings about holding the

0:14:32.040 --> 0:14:35.080
<v Speaker 1>crocodile that it leads to these intensified behaviors. If you

0:14:35.120 --> 0:14:38.360
<v Speaker 1>have these negative moods, you report it actually kind of

0:14:38.360 --> 0:14:41.720
<v Speaker 1>seems to moderate your gambling behavior. And so that sets

0:14:41.760 --> 0:14:43.280
<v Speaker 1>up this quote I want to read from the paper.

0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:47.960
<v Speaker 1>Quote in some low intensity negative moods, such as boredom

0:14:48.080 --> 0:14:52.920
<v Speaker 1>or mild anxiety, contribute to large bets among at risk players.

0:14:53.200 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 1>Whereas high autonomic arousal without negative moods also produces relatively

0:14:58.680 --> 0:15:03.000
<v Speaker 1>large wagers. Taken together, the results suggest that betting among

0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 1>at risk players may be motivated both by attempts to

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:12.240
<v Speaker 1>alleviate low arousal dysphoric moods and by high arousal induced

0:15:12.320 --> 0:15:16.320
<v Speaker 1>positive expectations of winning money. Yeah, totally. This lines up

0:15:16.320 --> 0:15:18.400
<v Speaker 1>with the social media thing as well. I think, yeah,

0:15:18.480 --> 0:15:20.720
<v Speaker 1>that makes sense. So it's like when you when you're

0:15:20.720 --> 0:15:23.680
<v Speaker 1>a problem gambler and you participate in these gambling behaviors,

0:15:23.680 --> 0:15:26.800
<v Speaker 1>it seems you may be trying to counteract basically like

0:15:27.160 --> 0:15:33.680
<v Speaker 1>low level unpleasantness and seeking high arousal, high reward pleas

0:15:34.120 --> 0:15:37.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, high high pleasure interactions. Right, But if you're

0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:41.000
<v Speaker 1>like absolutely in the pits emotionally, you're probably not going

0:15:41.040 --> 0:15:43.720
<v Speaker 1>to be likely to gamble as much as that the

0:15:43.800 --> 0:15:46.000
<v Speaker 1>person who's just sort of low level and happy, right,

0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:48.440
<v Speaker 1>a little bit anxious, a little bit bored, that's the

0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 1>target show. Yeah, So what's the what what's the overall

0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:54.400
<v Speaker 1>takeaway from this? Is there any kind of crocodile based

0:15:54.440 --> 0:15:58.280
<v Speaker 1>regulation that might be employed to help problem gambling? Well,

0:15:58.280 --> 0:16:01.480
<v Speaker 1>I wouldn't say crocodile based. I mean, I think it.

0:16:01.520 --> 0:16:04.440
<v Speaker 1>Studies like this actually do matter, like that, this is

0:16:04.440 --> 0:16:06.400
<v Speaker 1>the kind of thing that can help us understand the

0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:09.960
<v Speaker 1>psychological states that lead to problem gambling and can help

0:16:10.040 --> 0:16:13.360
<v Speaker 1>people either individually can help people come up with strategies

0:16:13.400 --> 0:16:16.640
<v Speaker 1>to avoid problem gambling behaviors if they know, like, Okay,

0:16:16.880 --> 0:16:19.120
<v Speaker 1>here's the state I'm in when I'm vulnerable. I know

0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:22.040
<v Speaker 1>when I'm in that state, I should, uh, you know,

0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:25.120
<v Speaker 1>not be around electronic gaming machines or something like that.

0:16:25.160 --> 0:16:29.040
<v Speaker 1>Like you can devise behaviors to protect yourself from your

0:16:29.080 --> 0:16:33.880
<v Speaker 1>own impulses, or you could also devise regulations on society,

0:16:33.920 --> 0:16:36.600
<v Speaker 1>like if we find out that in general, people are

0:16:36.640 --> 0:16:41.320
<v Speaker 1>just much more susceptible to electronic gaming machines under certain

0:16:41.320 --> 0:16:45.160
<v Speaker 1>psychological conditions, you could try to keep gaming machines from

0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:47.840
<v Speaker 1>being around in places where you would expect people to

0:16:47.920 --> 0:16:51.360
<v Speaker 1>be in those conditions. Or you end up you end

0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:54.200
<v Speaker 1>up having just like some sort of a B S

0:16:54.360 --> 0:16:57.320
<v Speaker 1>question that pops up on the screen. Uh, please write

0:16:57.360 --> 0:16:59.520
<v Speaker 1>your depression level and if you and if you and

0:16:59.560 --> 0:17:02.240
<v Speaker 1>if you ad it too appropriately, then it won't let

0:17:02.240 --> 0:17:03.920
<v Speaker 1>you play right, And then you do it again and

0:17:03.960 --> 0:17:07.040
<v Speaker 1>you just click the number that's required, like an age gate.

0:17:10.119 --> 0:17:12.000
<v Speaker 1>They have a test in the machine to see if

0:17:12.040 --> 0:17:14.600
<v Speaker 1>you're okay or you having kind of like no, no

0:17:14.760 --> 0:17:18.320
<v Speaker 1>real strong negative emotions, but experiencing high arousal. I don't

0:17:18.359 --> 0:17:20.399
<v Speaker 1>know how you test for that, but but if you

0:17:20.440 --> 0:17:22.600
<v Speaker 1>detect that, it's like you better not gamble right now.

0:17:22.680 --> 0:17:24.480
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if you wanted to do it physiologically, you

0:17:24.520 --> 0:17:27.119
<v Speaker 1>could actually do a galvanic skin conductance test, you know,

0:17:27.160 --> 0:17:30.080
<v Speaker 1>like you could test for arousal with a physical test

0:17:30.119 --> 0:17:32.119
<v Speaker 1>and not a questionnaire. Yeah, I can see that, you like,

0:17:32.160 --> 0:17:34.600
<v Speaker 1>put your arm into a cuff of some sort and test.

0:17:34.840 --> 0:17:37.480
<v Speaker 1>It's like you're too aroused. You can't, can't play right now.

0:17:38.280 --> 0:17:39.800
<v Speaker 1>But then you come back to the again, to the

0:17:40.160 --> 0:17:44.120
<v Speaker 1>the question, how much energy, how much effort, how much

0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:48.040
<v Speaker 1>design are slot machine makers going to be willing to

0:17:48.119 --> 0:17:52.480
<v Speaker 1>put into you know, basically protecting the host organs? Well,

0:17:52.520 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 1>of course, I mean when we did our last slot

0:17:54.760 --> 0:17:57.359
<v Speaker 1>machine episode, we had somebody right in who worked for

0:17:57.400 --> 0:18:00.080
<v Speaker 1>a gaming design company and they were like, you know,

0:18:00.160 --> 0:18:02.320
<v Speaker 1>I think you you were a little too harsh on us.

0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:05.320
<v Speaker 1>You were a little too negative about slot machines. You know,

0:18:05.359 --> 0:18:07.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't want to demonize them too much, because I

0:18:07.800 --> 0:18:10.919
<v Speaker 1>can understand, like, under plenty of conditions, they might just

0:18:10.960 --> 0:18:13.560
<v Speaker 1>be a fun thing people do, Like if they've got

0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:15.960
<v Speaker 1>certain limits on how much they bet, it might just

0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:18.679
<v Speaker 1>be a cool recreational activity. I don't have a problem

0:18:18.680 --> 0:18:22.359
<v Speaker 1>with that, but I think we should recognize that certain

0:18:22.359 --> 0:18:25.320
<v Speaker 1>people have conditions that make them vulnerable to this and

0:18:25.359 --> 0:18:27.720
<v Speaker 1>that can be incredibly destructive in their lives. Well, I

0:18:27.720 --> 0:18:29.119
<v Speaker 1>think one of the things that we observed in that

0:18:29.160 --> 0:18:32.120
<v Speaker 1>episode is that the origins of the slot machine were

0:18:32.200 --> 0:18:36.280
<v Speaker 1>very mundane and fun. It was about, uh, administering a

0:18:36.280 --> 0:18:40.359
<v Speaker 1>prize in a simple game, not unlike you know, like

0:18:40.359 --> 0:18:44.520
<v Speaker 1>a trivia machine or something in bars today. But the machine,

0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:48.919
<v Speaker 1>as machines do, uh, they they evolved, They took on

0:18:49.040 --> 0:18:51.800
<v Speaker 1>more advanced forms, they were designed to take on more

0:18:51.800 --> 0:18:55.760
<v Speaker 1>advanced forms. They became better and better at at carrying

0:18:55.760 --> 0:18:59.080
<v Speaker 1>out their their key bit of programming, which was, you know,

0:18:59.160 --> 0:19:03.000
<v Speaker 1>drain the sucker of its coin, the original Facebook algorithm.

0:19:03.080 --> 0:19:06.040
<v Speaker 1>Have you guys noticed this trend in video games lately

0:19:06.119 --> 0:19:08.399
<v Speaker 1>when you're in like an immersive world video game, that

0:19:08.440 --> 0:19:12.000
<v Speaker 1>there is almost always a gambling component to it, Like

0:19:12.080 --> 0:19:14.800
<v Speaker 1>if you're in like Skyrim you can gamble. If you're

0:19:14.800 --> 0:19:17.760
<v Speaker 1>in Red Dead Redemption, you can gamble. I'm trying to

0:19:17.800 --> 0:19:19.840
<v Speaker 1>remember what the most recent one. Oh, the Witcher. I

0:19:19.880 --> 0:19:22.120
<v Speaker 1>was playing one of those Witcher games. It's like, everywhere

0:19:22.160 --> 0:19:24.200
<v Speaker 1>you go you can sit down and gamble. I would

0:19:24.200 --> 0:19:27.720
<v Speaker 1>say that the games like that incorporate gambling elements even

0:19:27.720 --> 0:19:30.240
<v Speaker 1>outside of the gaming within the gaming things. So in

0:19:30.240 --> 0:19:31.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of these games, you can walk up to

0:19:31.880 --> 0:19:33.959
<v Speaker 1>a slot machine and play it, or you can play cards,

0:19:34.000 --> 0:19:37.520
<v Speaker 1>but also when you're in the world, there are variable

0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:41.800
<v Speaker 1>reward payouts where, for example, if your achievements yeah yeah,

0:19:41.840 --> 0:19:44.159
<v Speaker 1>you know, you might kill certain enemies or something, and

0:19:44.200 --> 0:19:47.320
<v Speaker 1>they've got goodies they give you when you loot them,

0:19:47.640 --> 0:19:50.240
<v Speaker 1>and you notice you don't get the same thing every time.

0:19:50.560 --> 0:19:54.320
<v Speaker 1>It's not guaranteed. It's variable payouts, just like a slot machine,

0:19:54.680 --> 0:19:57.720
<v Speaker 1>and the variable payouts are a psychological hack. The variable

0:19:57.760 --> 0:19:59.720
<v Speaker 1>payouts make us think like, oh, it could be really

0:19:59.720 --> 0:20:01.600
<v Speaker 1>big next time. I'm gonna keep doing it. That's what

0:20:01.680 --> 0:20:04.480
<v Speaker 1>leads to grinding and video games. Yeah, yeah, I think

0:20:04.560 --> 0:20:08.320
<v Speaker 1>I wonder though, if there's something about the actual placing

0:20:08.440 --> 0:20:13.359
<v Speaker 1>of gambling into those games that psychologically gets players to

0:20:13.359 --> 0:20:16.000
<v Speaker 1>play longer. Yeah, I think that could very well be.

0:20:16.119 --> 0:20:17.520
<v Speaker 1>All right. On that note, we're going to take a

0:20:17.520 --> 0:20:19.600
<v Speaker 1>break and when we come back, we're going to jump

0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:26.840
<v Speaker 1>into the Cognition prize. Alright, we're back cognition. You say,

0:20:26.880 --> 0:20:30.480
<v Speaker 1>what have we got here? We have a paper titled

0:20:30.720 --> 0:20:33.680
<v Speaker 1>is that Me or My Twin? Lack of self face

0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:38.560
<v Speaker 1>recognition advantage in identical Twins. I saw this and as

0:20:38.600 --> 0:20:40.920
<v Speaker 1>we were doing the research for this yesterday a headline

0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:45.399
<v Speaker 1>popped up that was related to this. Apparently, Uh, you know,

0:20:45.560 --> 0:20:48.840
<v Speaker 1>when your phone does facial recognition as a way to unlock,

0:20:49.119 --> 0:20:54.040
<v Speaker 1>like as as a password, it has trouble with identical twins. Yeah,

0:20:54.080 --> 0:20:56.080
<v Speaker 1>so I wonder if what you're about to reveal to

0:20:56.160 --> 0:20:58.840
<v Speaker 1>us is related in a way. In a way, So,

0:20:59.160 --> 0:21:03.040
<v Speaker 1>this is a paper that came out in and it's

0:21:03.080 --> 0:21:06.480
<v Speaker 1>from a an Italian and Spanish team and it was

0:21:06.520 --> 0:21:10.040
<v Speaker 1>published in p Los one it. Uh, Before we get

0:21:10.080 --> 0:21:13.080
<v Speaker 1>into it, I do want to just touch basically on

0:21:13.560 --> 0:21:16.919
<v Speaker 1>the idea of identical twins. And uh, we've had some

0:21:16.960 --> 0:21:18.919
<v Speaker 1>episodes in the past. I've dealt with twins a little bit,

0:21:18.960 --> 0:21:20.439
<v Speaker 1>but I don't know, like I can't remember we've done

0:21:20.480 --> 0:21:22.960
<v Speaker 1>a deep dive. I know that we have some identical

0:21:22.960 --> 0:21:25.359
<v Speaker 1>twins out there listening to the show. I know that

0:21:25.400 --> 0:21:29.600
<v Speaker 1>we have parents of identical twins, siblings of identical twins, etcetera.

0:21:29.960 --> 0:21:33.359
<v Speaker 1>For a lot of us, though, our main point of

0:21:33.400 --> 0:21:37.080
<v Speaker 1>reference for identical twins ends up being fiction because how

0:21:37.119 --> 0:21:39.880
<v Speaker 1>many of example, how many examples can you think of of,

0:21:39.920 --> 0:21:43.200
<v Speaker 1>like weird twins or twins with a paranormal link. Yeah,

0:21:43.200 --> 0:21:46.080
<v Speaker 1>it's played up for the uncanny nous. I mean they

0:21:46.160 --> 0:21:48.720
<v Speaker 1>push it to creepy links and things like The Shining

0:21:48.840 --> 0:21:52.199
<v Speaker 1>or Dead Ringers. Yeah. Uh, and I and I say this,

0:21:52.520 --> 0:21:55.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean I have written stories about creepy twins before,

0:21:55.760 --> 0:22:00.000
<v Speaker 1>because they it does become a useful way of examining yourself,

0:22:00.040 --> 0:22:03.880
<v Speaker 1>examining identity, uh, at least if you're out an outside

0:22:03.920 --> 0:22:06.680
<v Speaker 1>or if you're not an identical twin. Likewise, I'm glad

0:22:06.680 --> 0:22:09.320
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned dead Ringers because you also see it used

0:22:09.359 --> 0:22:12.320
<v Speaker 1>over and over again in films. Sometimes it feels like

0:22:12.359 --> 0:22:16.000
<v Speaker 1>just pure actor or director vanity, Like let's have this

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:19.760
<v Speaker 1>actor play two characters. Why have one James Franco when

0:22:19.800 --> 0:22:23.200
<v Speaker 1>you can have to James Franco is playing slightly different

0:22:23.760 --> 0:22:31.120
<v Speaker 1>James Franco twins. Yeah, yeah, I immediately thought of that.

0:22:31.119 --> 0:22:34.400
<v Speaker 1>That recent movie about the Crab Brothers legend where Tom

0:22:34.440 --> 0:22:36.639
<v Speaker 1>Hardy plays both the oh yeah, he plays he plays

0:22:36.640 --> 0:22:41.080
<v Speaker 1>identical twins. Uh. There was the recent Fargo season they

0:22:41.119 --> 0:22:44.160
<v Speaker 1>had identical twins played by the same actor. It's done

0:22:44.200 --> 0:22:47.080
<v Speaker 1>so many times that you get tired of it after

0:22:47.119 --> 0:22:50.280
<v Speaker 1>a while, unless there's a really compelling reason to have

0:22:50.520 --> 0:22:53.560
<v Speaker 1>identical twins played by single actor. I just got to

0:22:53.600 --> 0:22:56.040
<v Speaker 1>throw in that one of my favorite words in all

0:22:56.080 --> 0:23:00.640
<v Speaker 1>of science is the word for identical twins, the monozygotic twins. Yeah,

0:23:00.680 --> 0:23:04.960
<v Speaker 1>the monosygotic twinka. It is utilized in this paper quite

0:23:05.000 --> 0:23:09.600
<v Speaker 1>a bit now on top of so so basically it

0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:11.520
<v Speaker 1>comes down to the idea that for us non twins,

0:23:12.119 --> 0:23:15.840
<v Speaker 1>identical twins are a way to unravel ourselves. They perplex

0:23:15.920 --> 0:23:18.760
<v Speaker 1>us and they toy with our sense of self perception.

0:23:19.440 --> 0:23:21.960
<v Speaker 1>And as the researchers on this, uh, this paper, this

0:23:22.040 --> 0:23:26.000
<v Speaker 1>two thousand fIF paper point out, science has generally overlooked

0:23:26.040 --> 0:23:30.359
<v Speaker 1>the conundrum of self facial recognition in identical twins. We

0:23:30.359 --> 0:23:32.159
<v Speaker 1>have a lot of twin studies out there, but there

0:23:32.160 --> 0:23:34.560
<v Speaker 1>hasn't been a lot of papers that have looked at.

0:23:34.600 --> 0:23:38.520
<v Speaker 1>What happens when an identical twin looks at a photograph

0:23:38.760 --> 0:23:41.480
<v Speaker 1>or image of representation of their own face. Do they

0:23:41.480 --> 0:23:45.840
<v Speaker 1>experience some kind of cognitive dissonance? Yeah, because consider for

0:23:45.840 --> 0:23:47.360
<v Speaker 1>for the for the rest of us, for those of

0:23:47.480 --> 0:23:52.959
<v Speaker 1>us who are not identical twins. Um, self facial recognition

0:23:53.080 --> 0:23:55.480
<v Speaker 1>is is a major thing, and it may be a

0:23:55.520 --> 0:23:59.959
<v Speaker 1>cognitive prerequisite for theory of mind, our ability to imagine

0:24:00.000 --> 0:24:02.119
<v Speaker 1>the mind state of others. Because just think of all

0:24:02.119 --> 0:24:04.560
<v Speaker 1>the times you've looked in a mirror, you've taken a selfie,

0:24:04.640 --> 0:24:06.280
<v Speaker 1>or if you've looked at a picture of yourself and

0:24:06.320 --> 0:24:09.119
<v Speaker 1>you think, ah, who's that handsome devil? You know? And

0:24:09.160 --> 0:24:12.120
<v Speaker 1>then you answer that question, you you tell yourself who

0:24:12.119 --> 0:24:15.200
<v Speaker 1>that handsome devil is? Yeah? Why why is he making

0:24:15.200 --> 0:24:18.320
<v Speaker 1>a smile like that? What's that twinkle in his eyes? Um,

0:24:18.320 --> 0:24:21.280
<v Speaker 1>it's the evil twin? Well, you know, I'm I'm painting

0:24:21.280 --> 0:24:23.960
<v Speaker 1>in in in shades of vanity here, But there's a

0:24:24.000 --> 0:24:27.480
<v Speaker 1>there's a basic cognitive process that's going on when you

0:24:27.520 --> 0:24:30.000
<v Speaker 1>do that. You are identifying yourself and thinking about who

0:24:30.000 --> 0:24:34.119
<v Speaker 1>you are. Well, I mean people respond in hilarious, obsessive

0:24:34.240 --> 0:24:37.840
<v Speaker 1>ways to their own reflection when you notice it, like, uh,

0:24:37.880 --> 0:24:39.719
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's a reason that a lot of places

0:24:39.760 --> 0:24:43.040
<v Speaker 1>will put mirrors near elevators where people need to wait

0:24:43.080 --> 0:24:46.920
<v Speaker 1>for things. People just time flies. When you're looking in

0:24:46.960 --> 0:24:51.000
<v Speaker 1>a mirror, you can obsessively gaze into this image, right,

0:24:51.119 --> 0:24:53.320
<v Speaker 1>rather than worry about the people that are next to

0:24:53.320 --> 0:24:56.320
<v Speaker 1>you in the elevator. Yeah, and there's a there's a

0:24:56.359 --> 0:25:00.720
<v Speaker 1>similar uh, cognitive process going on when you look at

0:25:00.760 --> 0:25:02.879
<v Speaker 1>any face. You look at a loved one's face, you

0:25:02.920 --> 0:25:05.879
<v Speaker 1>look at a stranger's face. There's still this theory of

0:25:05.920 --> 0:25:08.440
<v Speaker 1>mind exercise that's going on. And what you're saying, who

0:25:08.560 --> 0:25:12.000
<v Speaker 1>is that handsome devil or who is that person with

0:25:12.440 --> 0:25:14.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, some brarow on, you know, whatever the case

0:25:14.440 --> 0:25:16.960
<v Speaker 1>may be, You're looking at the face and you're trying

0:25:16.960 --> 0:25:20.439
<v Speaker 1>to figure out who they are, at least insofar as

0:25:20.480 --> 0:25:23.800
<v Speaker 1>it relates to you. I've had like the opposite experience

0:25:23.840 --> 0:25:25.240
<v Speaker 1>with this, and I don't want to take us too

0:25:25.240 --> 0:25:28.399
<v Speaker 1>far off track, but when I used to ride the train,

0:25:29.080 --> 0:25:32.840
<v Speaker 1>the windows on the train were curved in such a

0:25:32.880 --> 0:25:34.840
<v Speaker 1>way that when you saw your own reflection in it,

0:25:34.920 --> 0:25:37.520
<v Speaker 1>your face was distorted a little bit, and it would

0:25:37.560 --> 0:25:40.359
<v Speaker 1>look like my forehead had ridges or something, or like

0:25:40.400 --> 0:25:42.399
<v Speaker 1>it was just it's kind of like a fun house mirror,

0:25:42.480 --> 0:25:45.760
<v Speaker 1>and I'm yeah, clings, that was exactly what it looked

0:25:45.800 --> 0:25:49.040
<v Speaker 1>like to me. Yeah, and uh, it was fascinating. I

0:25:49.080 --> 0:25:51.439
<v Speaker 1>would sit there and look at it for for the

0:25:51.440 --> 0:25:53.840
<v Speaker 1>whole ride and just kind of wonderment, like what if

0:25:53.840 --> 0:25:56.160
<v Speaker 1>I actually did look like that? You know. So there

0:25:56.280 --> 0:26:01.160
<v Speaker 1>is a weird sort of obsessiveness with our own uh reflection,

0:26:01.240 --> 0:26:04.760
<v Speaker 1>but also like just a slight variation on it. Yeah,

0:26:04.840 --> 0:26:06.800
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think you see this in in skype

0:26:06.800 --> 0:26:11.120
<v Speaker 1>calls and FaceTime calls where everyone's looking at their own

0:26:11.119 --> 0:26:13.679
<v Speaker 1>picture instead of the camera. Maybe they're looking at other

0:26:13.720 --> 0:26:16.120
<v Speaker 1>people's pictures. I noticed it with my son because he's

0:26:16.119 --> 0:26:18.800
<v Speaker 1>just when I when I put him on FaceTime calls

0:26:18.840 --> 0:26:21.960
<v Speaker 1>with relatives, he's just captivated by the own little, the

0:26:21.960 --> 0:26:24.400
<v Speaker 1>little version of his own face, and he's not even

0:26:24.400 --> 0:26:27.160
<v Speaker 1>thinking about the call, much less someone on the other line.

0:26:28.480 --> 0:26:32.639
<v Speaker 1>And this underlines a basic reality. Our own face grabs

0:26:32.640 --> 0:26:36.520
<v Speaker 1>and retains attention longer than any other face out there, uh,

0:26:36.560 --> 0:26:39.359
<v Speaker 1>you know, loved one, stranger, etcetera. And this, according to

0:26:39.400 --> 0:26:43.840
<v Speaker 1>the researchers, occurs with both upright and inverted faces. So

0:26:43.880 --> 0:26:48.200
<v Speaker 1>we process upright faces faster usually, but we also have

0:26:48.280 --> 0:26:52.359
<v Speaker 1>the similar process that goes on when the face is

0:26:52.560 --> 0:26:56.240
<v Speaker 1>upside down. In fact, our ability to recognize our own

0:26:56.280 --> 0:26:59.680
<v Speaker 1>face holds true even in cases of severe face blindness,

0:27:00.040 --> 0:27:04.960
<v Speaker 1>accept in cases of just really catastrophic neurological or psychiatric disorder.

0:27:05.160 --> 0:27:07.199
<v Speaker 1>Another fun word the term there, I guess would be

0:27:07.240 --> 0:27:11.920
<v Speaker 1>auto prosopagnosia. Prosopagnosia is face blindness. Yes, so even in

0:27:12.200 --> 0:27:15.480
<v Speaker 1>cases of severe face blindness, again, your own face is

0:27:15.520 --> 0:27:19.160
<v Speaker 1>still going to um have a special place in uh

0:27:19.200 --> 0:27:23.359
<v Speaker 1>in in facial recognition. Okay, but there is a So

0:27:23.400 --> 0:27:26.080
<v Speaker 1>what we're getting at here is with the twins in particular,

0:27:26.760 --> 0:27:30.639
<v Speaker 1>they lack the ability to recognize their own face. And

0:27:30.640 --> 0:27:34.080
<v Speaker 1>these these twins that have a similar face to them, well,

0:27:34.119 --> 0:27:36.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean basically it comes comes down to the fact

0:27:36.080 --> 0:27:39.879
<v Speaker 1>that it's going to mess with this system because the

0:27:40.080 --> 0:27:43.000
<v Speaker 1>basic fact here is that if you have an identical twin,

0:27:43.520 --> 0:27:47.000
<v Speaker 1>then looking at your own face, looking at a representation

0:27:47.040 --> 0:27:50.520
<v Speaker 1>of your own face, it's not instantly going to be

0:27:50.880 --> 0:27:54.199
<v Speaker 1>your face. It could be your twins face. And and

0:27:54.240 --> 0:27:57.080
<v Speaker 1>so we're looking at this to see like what's different

0:27:57.080 --> 0:27:59.320
<v Speaker 1>without identical twins, and then what this reveals about our

0:27:59.320 --> 0:28:03.040
<v Speaker 1>own about everyone else's facial recognition process. Now, there are

0:28:03.040 --> 0:28:06.120
<v Speaker 1>a few other factors you have to take into account, so, uh,

0:28:06.240 --> 0:28:11.040
<v Speaker 1>self face processing is a right hemisphere um exercise, and

0:28:11.080 --> 0:28:16.200
<v Speaker 1>it's impaired in individuals with schizotypal traits. Also, extroverts, who

0:28:16.280 --> 0:28:19.680
<v Speaker 1>typically have better social skills, they recognize a higher number

0:28:19.680 --> 0:28:24.320
<v Speaker 1>of faces than introverts. Lower face recognition is associated with

0:28:24.400 --> 0:28:29.040
<v Speaker 1>increased social phobia. So in all of this, personality plays

0:28:29.040 --> 0:28:31.920
<v Speaker 1>a role in facial recognition as well, twin or not.

0:28:32.200 --> 0:28:34.960
<v Speaker 1>So this is good because it gives me a reason

0:28:35.080 --> 0:28:37.199
<v Speaker 1>to explain to my wife why I mix up like

0:28:37.240 --> 0:28:39.880
<v Speaker 1>actors and actresses all the time, because she's like, you

0:28:39.960 --> 0:28:43.080
<v Speaker 1>just think everybody looks alike, and well, no, it's because

0:28:43.120 --> 0:28:47.040
<v Speaker 1>actually I have lower face recognition because of my increased

0:28:47.080 --> 0:28:52.480
<v Speaker 1>social phobia. So, given all of of what we've discussed

0:28:52.520 --> 0:28:57.480
<v Speaker 1>so far, uh monosa gottic twins they pose an interesting

0:28:57.680 --> 0:29:01.240
<v Speaker 1>exception to the uniqueness of the self face because again,

0:29:02.240 --> 0:29:04.920
<v Speaker 1>when we see a representation of our own face, we

0:29:04.960 --> 0:29:08.000
<v Speaker 1>instantly know who that is. There's no room for doubt,

0:29:08.280 --> 0:29:10.640
<v Speaker 1>and the idea here with an identical twin, there's going

0:29:10.680 --> 0:29:15.280
<v Speaker 1>to be at least a little room for doubt, you know. Granted,

0:29:15.320 --> 0:29:18.400
<v Speaker 1>if one has an evil goatee or something, it's gonna

0:29:18.520 --> 0:29:20.719
<v Speaker 1>throw things out the window a bit. But for the

0:29:20.760 --> 0:29:23.600
<v Speaker 1>most part, uh, this is this is interesting to look

0:29:23.600 --> 0:29:25.800
<v Speaker 1>at because it turns things on its on there on

0:29:25.840 --> 0:29:30.200
<v Speaker 1>its head a little bit. So. Past predictions have been

0:29:30.200 --> 0:29:33.120
<v Speaker 1>made related to this that twins might have trouble with

0:29:33.160 --> 0:29:37.840
<v Speaker 1>self identification as they identify more as a duo. Also,

0:29:37.920 --> 0:29:42.040
<v Speaker 1>identical twins might sometimes mistake photos of their twin or

0:29:42.080 --> 0:29:44.560
<v Speaker 1>their self. That's been the previous thinking on this. Also,

0:29:44.640 --> 0:29:47.440
<v Speaker 1>another past study indicated that while humans can you usually

0:29:47.440 --> 0:29:50.360
<v Speaker 1>identify themselves in a mirror by age two, uh, you,

0:29:50.880 --> 0:29:54.120
<v Speaker 1>there have been cases where two year old twins discriminate

0:29:54.160 --> 0:29:56.640
<v Speaker 1>their own faces from the face of their co twins

0:29:56.720 --> 0:29:59.440
<v Speaker 1>only of exposed to the facial stimuli for a longer

0:29:59.480 --> 0:30:03.240
<v Speaker 1>period of time, So there might be a delay at least.

0:30:03.600 --> 0:30:06.200
<v Speaker 1>And studies have looked at young twins and their ability

0:30:06.200 --> 0:30:09.360
<v Speaker 1>to work out these faces. But prior to this study,

0:30:09.360 --> 0:30:11.200
<v Speaker 1>no one had really looked at the ability of adult

0:30:11.200 --> 0:30:14.360
<v Speaker 1>twins to tell their faces apart. Okay, so what do

0:30:14.440 --> 0:30:17.800
<v Speaker 1>we find out all right. Well, basically, the the overall

0:30:17.840 --> 0:30:20.240
<v Speaker 1>aim of the paper, according to them is quote in

0:30:20.280 --> 0:30:23.520
<v Speaker 1>the light of these premises, the main objective of the

0:30:23.520 --> 0:30:27.520
<v Speaker 1>present study was to examine at both configural that's based

0:30:27.520 --> 0:30:30.840
<v Speaker 1>on the whole face and featural that's based on details

0:30:30.840 --> 0:30:34.760
<v Speaker 1>of the face processing levels, whether despite their physical similarity,

0:30:34.800 --> 0:30:38.000
<v Speaker 1>twins would be better at recognizing their own face compared

0:30:38.080 --> 0:30:40.680
<v Speaker 1>to their co twin faces. So what they did is

0:30:40.760 --> 0:30:44.600
<v Speaker 1>they presented groups of twins with upright and inverted images

0:30:44.680 --> 0:30:47.320
<v Speaker 1>of their faces, those of a twin and a control

0:30:47.440 --> 0:30:50.719
<v Speaker 1>image of a non twin, so just some other person.

0:30:51.560 --> 0:30:56.840
<v Speaker 1>They used tin monosygonic right handed gender balanced healthy twin

0:30:56.960 --> 0:31:00.360
<v Speaker 1>couples that's the exact wording from the paper, and tin

0:31:00.560 --> 0:31:05.960
<v Speaker 1>right handed gender balanced healthy controls all white Caucasians in Rome,

0:31:06.120 --> 0:31:09.080
<v Speaker 1>where they where the study was held, and the control

0:31:09.160 --> 0:31:12.680
<v Speaker 1>participants the non twins. Using the study for balance, they

0:31:12.680 --> 0:31:16.480
<v Speaker 1>were matched with sex matched close friends or relatives, all

0:31:16.520 --> 0:31:18.560
<v Speaker 1>people they've known at least three years, so there'd be

0:31:18.640 --> 0:31:22.280
<v Speaker 1>a level of familiarity. This resulted in two days of tests.

0:31:22.360 --> 0:31:25.280
<v Speaker 1>First they did personality tests, then they did the facial tests,

0:31:25.640 --> 0:31:28.720
<v Speaker 1>and these were the results. Identical twins they said, seem

0:31:28.800 --> 0:31:32.920
<v Speaker 1>to lack the self identification advantage. However, the absence of

0:31:32.960 --> 0:31:36.840
<v Speaker 1>the self advantage depends on how much the twins report

0:31:36.920 --> 0:31:39.880
<v Speaker 1>that they physically resemble each other. Okay, so adult twins

0:31:40.320 --> 0:31:43.840
<v Speaker 1>can't pick themselves out of a lineup as easily as

0:31:43.880 --> 0:31:48.560
<v Speaker 1>most adults can, but this is mitigated by whether they

0:31:48.600 --> 0:31:52.160
<v Speaker 1>look all that much like their identical twin. Right, Yeah,

0:31:52.280 --> 0:31:54.200
<v Speaker 1>I want to drive home that it is. We're not

0:31:54.360 --> 0:31:57.040
<v Speaker 1>saying that twins can't tell each other apart in there,

0:31:57.560 --> 0:32:02.320
<v Speaker 1>but that there is not basically not as easily. It

0:32:02.360 --> 0:32:05.360
<v Speaker 1>also depends on their anxious and avoid an attachment style.

0:32:05.480 --> 0:32:08.520
<v Speaker 1>And they found out that quote self and co twin

0:32:08.600 --> 0:32:12.920
<v Speaker 1>faces share very similar featural, configural and matching processes, but

0:32:13.080 --> 0:32:16.560
<v Speaker 1>differ with respect to the higher order stages of face processing.

0:32:17.360 --> 0:32:22.080
<v Speaker 1>So this is a study. Honestly, there's so many studies

0:32:22.320 --> 0:32:24.680
<v Speaker 1>that the Igno Bell covers that I'm like, yeah, that's

0:32:24.720 --> 0:32:27.040
<v Speaker 1>of course that the nobles chose that one or their

0:32:27.080 --> 0:32:28.520
<v Speaker 1>studies that come out and you're like, oh, I can't

0:32:28.560 --> 0:32:30.479
<v Speaker 1>wait till they feature this one. They give this one,

0:32:30.480 --> 0:32:33.560
<v Speaker 1>they need noble prize. I I honestly didn't see what

0:32:33.600 --> 0:32:36.880
<v Speaker 1>was that funny about this one is Yeah, it seems

0:32:36.920 --> 0:32:40.120
<v Speaker 1>like right exactly. I guess maybe it's the idea of

0:32:40.200 --> 0:32:43.760
<v Speaker 1>looking at your own face upside down again, Like if

0:32:43.800 --> 0:32:46.440
<v Speaker 1>we had watched the ceremony this year, I imagine they

0:32:46.440 --> 0:32:48.760
<v Speaker 1>would have done some kind of visual gag or whatever

0:32:49.240 --> 0:32:52.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, related to this specifics. But it doesn't seem

0:32:52.240 --> 0:32:54.920
<v Speaker 1>to have an inherent gag quality to it. There's no

0:32:55.000 --> 0:32:58.400
<v Speaker 1>crocodile being held already using a gambling machine. There's a

0:32:58.440 --> 0:33:02.240
<v Speaker 1>liquid cats. Yeah, so it's I have trouble figuring out.

0:33:02.280 --> 0:33:04.920
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I'm glad they highlighted it. It's a case

0:33:04.920 --> 0:33:06.640
<v Speaker 1>where yeah, it's a cool study and I'm glad more

0:33:06.640 --> 0:33:10.200
<v Speaker 1>eyes are on it because it does it is important. Uh.

0:33:10.240 --> 0:33:12.160
<v Speaker 1>The take home here is again not that twins are

0:33:12.200 --> 0:33:15.680
<v Speaker 1>freaky or anything. Rather, we're looking at a slight tweaking

0:33:15.720 --> 0:33:19.200
<v Speaker 1>of the basic visual, safe self faced recognition, and it

0:33:19.240 --> 0:33:21.840
<v Speaker 1>illuminates what's going on in all of us now. The

0:33:21.840 --> 0:33:25.000
<v Speaker 1>researchers also argue that their findings match up with the

0:33:25.160 --> 0:33:29.000
<v Speaker 1>self referrent phenotype matching theory that we recognize our kin

0:33:29.240 --> 0:33:33.479
<v Speaker 1>by implicitly or explicitly comparing the similarity of other people's

0:33:33.480 --> 0:33:36.959
<v Speaker 1>appearance to our own. So that's another potential takeome from

0:33:37.000 --> 0:33:39.240
<v Speaker 1>the from the study. And again, I know we have

0:33:39.320 --> 0:33:42.640
<v Speaker 1>some identical twins out there, We have parents of identical twins,

0:33:42.680 --> 0:33:45.960
<v Speaker 1>family members and friends of identical twins. We would obviously

0:33:46.080 --> 0:33:48.760
<v Speaker 1>love to hear from all of you about this particular paper,

0:33:48.920 --> 0:33:51.200
<v Speaker 1>and we'd like to hear from evil twins as well. Yeah,

0:33:51.280 --> 0:33:53.720
<v Speaker 1>evil twins jump in. All right, let's take one more break,

0:33:53.760 --> 0:33:55.280
<v Speaker 1>and when we get back, I'm going to talk to

0:33:55.280 --> 0:34:02.200
<v Speaker 1>you guys about big years. Alright, we're back. This potato

0:34:02.320 --> 0:34:05.200
<v Speaker 1>has big ears. Oh that's interesting that you went there.

0:34:05.480 --> 0:34:09.080
<v Speaker 1>So there is actually a variety of slang around the

0:34:09.120 --> 0:34:15.440
<v Speaker 1>world for talking about big ears, whether it's potatoes. Yeah,

0:34:15.719 --> 0:34:19.480
<v Speaker 1>well no, but in the UK, Uh, they are sometimes

0:34:19.480 --> 0:34:22.279
<v Speaker 1>called bat ears. I had not heard that before, or

0:34:22.360 --> 0:34:24.760
<v Speaker 1>wing nut, which I thought wing nut was a completely

0:34:24.800 --> 0:34:27.520
<v Speaker 1>different thing. I assume that this is talking about big

0:34:27.520 --> 0:34:31.040
<v Speaker 1>ears on humans, not on other animals. Yeah, yeah, uh.

0:34:31.080 --> 0:34:34.920
<v Speaker 1>And Hindus seem to find big ears desirable because of

0:34:34.960 --> 0:34:39.440
<v Speaker 1>comparisons to the elephant god Ganesha. The French compare big

0:34:39.440 --> 0:34:43.799
<v Speaker 1>ears to cabbage, Hungarians compare them to donkey ears, and

0:34:43.840 --> 0:34:47.280
<v Speaker 1>the Polish compare them to pig ears. Now, this is interesting.

0:34:47.280 --> 0:34:52.600
<v Speaker 1>The Chinese believe that long ears predict prosperity and longevity.

0:34:52.840 --> 0:34:56.160
<v Speaker 1>And this is the most important to this paper that

0:34:56.200 --> 0:34:58.560
<v Speaker 1>I'm about to present to you and its purposes. I

0:34:58.560 --> 0:35:01.600
<v Speaker 1>also want to say, all of those like statements about

0:35:01.719 --> 0:35:03.799
<v Speaker 1>various societies around the world, I didn't look that up

0:35:03.840 --> 0:35:06.200
<v Speaker 1>that came out of this original paper here. This is

0:35:06.520 --> 0:35:09.920
<v Speaker 1>yet another Ignoble winner. It is the Anatomy Prize winner

0:35:10.440 --> 0:35:16.160
<v Speaker 1>for the article why do you old men have big ears? Oh? Man?

0:35:16.400 --> 0:35:19.800
<v Speaker 1>Because it's true? Right? It turns out it is true,

0:35:19.880 --> 0:35:22.560
<v Speaker 1>but it's this is why it's funny, right. The idea

0:35:22.560 --> 0:35:24.520
<v Speaker 1>is that it's one of these things that we all assume,

0:35:25.200 --> 0:35:27.480
<v Speaker 1>but it does turn out that there's there's some reality

0:35:27.520 --> 0:35:29.560
<v Speaker 1>to it. They've done lots of measurements, so let's get

0:35:29.600 --> 0:35:32.640
<v Speaker 1>into it. I'm trying to picture pig ears and I

0:35:32.680 --> 0:35:35.320
<v Speaker 1>can't what a pig ears look like. Oh, they're they're

0:35:35.440 --> 0:35:37.960
<v Speaker 1>big and flopped. Well, sometimes they're floppy, It depends on

0:35:38.000 --> 0:35:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the pig. Yeah. Oh, they're kind of like dog ear,

0:35:40.040 --> 0:35:45.680
<v Speaker 1>they're kind of like pit bull ears. Yeah yeah. Um.

0:35:45.760 --> 0:35:49.000
<v Speaker 1>So the idea for this paper actually came about this way.

0:35:49.480 --> 0:35:53.320
<v Speaker 1>Nineteen members of the Thames Faculty of the Royal College

0:35:53.320 --> 0:35:57.440
<v Speaker 1>of General Practitioners. We're just sitting around brainstorming and the

0:35:57.480 --> 0:35:59.759
<v Speaker 1>first question that came up to them was why do

0:35:59.800 --> 0:36:02.760
<v Speaker 1>we old men have big ears? And then they realized

0:36:02.760 --> 0:36:04.359
<v Speaker 1>they were like, well, wait a minute, actually, we need

0:36:04.400 --> 0:36:07.759
<v Speaker 1>to confirm that old men's ears are bigger and they

0:36:07.800 --> 0:36:10.560
<v Speaker 1>get bigger in the first place. So this study was

0:36:10.640 --> 0:36:14.440
<v Speaker 1>conducted by Dr James A. Heath Cut and he was

0:36:14.480 --> 0:36:17.440
<v Speaker 1>a general practitioner in Bromley at the time. This is

0:36:17.480 --> 0:36:21.480
<v Speaker 1>in the nineties. The paper was published in So they

0:36:21.520 --> 0:36:25.680
<v Speaker 1>asked routine patients who were coming in for surgery consultations

0:36:26.160 --> 0:36:29.319
<v Speaker 1>if it was okay if they measured their ears as

0:36:29.360 --> 0:36:32.120
<v Speaker 1>part of this research along with it. When the group

0:36:32.239 --> 0:36:35.640
<v Speaker 1>was thirty plus years old, from either sex and from

0:36:35.680 --> 0:36:40.080
<v Speaker 1>any racial group that came in. Interestingly, none refused. Everybody

0:36:40.120 --> 0:36:43.879
<v Speaker 1>was cool, measure my ears. This sounds fun and they

0:36:43.920 --> 0:36:47.359
<v Speaker 1>recorded this along with the patient's age, and at this

0:36:47.400 --> 0:36:50.000
<v Speaker 1>time they got two hundred and six people to participate in.

0:36:50.080 --> 0:36:54.520
<v Speaker 1>The study showed that as these participants got older, their

0:36:54.520 --> 0:36:59.160
<v Speaker 1>ears grew on an average of point to two millimeters

0:36:59.160 --> 0:37:03.920
<v Speaker 1>a year. What the study didn't explain is why ears

0:37:04.080 --> 0:37:07.640
<v Speaker 1>keep growing when the rest of the body stops. That

0:37:07.719 --> 0:37:10.160
<v Speaker 1>seems to be odd, right. The thing about this study

0:37:10.280 --> 0:37:12.880
<v Speaker 1>is it doesn't explain another thing. What if you're a

0:37:12.920 --> 0:37:17.160
<v Speaker 1>taller person and like Robert, Robert is taller than I am.

0:37:17.600 --> 0:37:21.640
<v Speaker 1>Robert's taller than Joe. So what if Robert has longer

0:37:21.680 --> 0:37:25.360
<v Speaker 1>ears simply because he's taller, and then as he gets older?

0:37:25.960 --> 0:37:28.640
<v Speaker 1>You know, so there's some discrepancies that they didn't really

0:37:28.640 --> 0:37:32.160
<v Speaker 1>fill in here with you long legs, big ears, yeah,

0:37:32.200 --> 0:37:34.000
<v Speaker 1>and well, and plus when you get older, you're gonna

0:37:34.000 --> 0:37:36.000
<v Speaker 1>be more stooped over, whereas the ears are not going

0:37:36.040 --> 0:37:37.719
<v Speaker 1>to get stooped over to go. So I could see

0:37:37.719 --> 0:37:40.800
<v Speaker 1>that being the illusion of like, oh, this this old person,

0:37:40.880 --> 0:37:43.640
<v Speaker 1>they're shrinking except for their ears, which there's there's no

0:37:43.760 --> 0:37:47.400
<v Speaker 1>limited sight. Yeah. Uh. And they also didn't answer, for instance,

0:37:47.440 --> 0:37:50.520
<v Speaker 1>like all of the elderly people that they checked their ears,

0:37:50.560 --> 0:37:52.520
<v Speaker 1>they were all English because they're all in this one

0:37:52.520 --> 0:37:56.840
<v Speaker 1>small spot, so they hadn't didn't really replicate it across

0:37:56.880 --> 0:38:00.600
<v Speaker 1>cultures or ethnicities. Right, So this study was actually replicated

0:38:00.640 --> 0:38:04.720
<v Speaker 1>in Japan in nine and they found the same thing. Yes,

0:38:04.840 --> 0:38:08.520
<v Speaker 1>ear length still correlates with age, even when it is

0:38:08.600 --> 0:38:13.640
<v Speaker 1>corrected for height. But still there's all these alternative interpretations

0:38:13.640 --> 0:38:17.200
<v Speaker 1>that remain. So for instance, are people who are young

0:38:17.400 --> 0:38:20.759
<v Speaker 1>now when they turn old, are they also going to

0:38:20.800 --> 0:38:24.160
<v Speaker 1>see their ears age in the same way. Is ear

0:38:24.320 --> 0:38:27.279
<v Speaker 1>length changing and getting bigger as you get older? Is

0:38:27.280 --> 0:38:31.320
<v Speaker 1>it environmental? And if it's environmental, what could be responsible

0:38:31.360 --> 0:38:34.600
<v Speaker 1>for big years. One of the questions was literally the

0:38:34.640 --> 0:38:37.279
<v Speaker 1>idea that the people who were older at the time

0:38:37.280 --> 0:38:39.160
<v Speaker 1>that they were doing this study, when they were younger,

0:38:39.200 --> 0:38:42.200
<v Speaker 1>it was more common for their parents to box or

0:38:42.320 --> 0:38:45.920
<v Speaker 1>scrub their children's ears, so they thought, well, maybe that

0:38:45.960 --> 0:38:48.640
<v Speaker 1>could have affected it. I mean, my guess on the

0:38:48.680 --> 0:38:52.520
<v Speaker 1>size would just be flesh drooping effects, yeah, or something

0:38:52.600 --> 0:38:55.359
<v Speaker 1>that related to the way the ear grows, like the

0:38:55.400 --> 0:38:58.480
<v Speaker 1>inner um, the inner portions of the ear kind of

0:38:58.480 --> 0:39:01.439
<v Speaker 1>growing out the ear like a tree, like every year

0:39:01.480 --> 0:39:03.520
<v Speaker 1>he gets a new ring. Yeah. I mean, maybe that's

0:39:03.520 --> 0:39:08.240
<v Speaker 1>how aliens will categorize human captives that they alright, measure

0:39:08.280 --> 0:39:10.239
<v Speaker 1>the ears, see how old this one is. But heath

0:39:10.280 --> 0:39:12.720
<v Speaker 1>Cut didn't really account for any of that in his study,

0:39:12.800 --> 0:39:16.960
<v Speaker 1>So I turned to another UH analysis of this. Because

0:39:16.960 --> 0:39:19.759
<v Speaker 1>the study is over twenty years old, I looked at

0:39:19.840 --> 0:39:26.200
<v Speaker 1>Alice Sheryl Caswell's research on this for Improbable Research, so

0:39:26.400 --> 0:39:29.239
<v Speaker 1>the organization that puts out the ignobles. So this is

0:39:29.280 --> 0:39:33.160
<v Speaker 1>where it came about from. So Alice addresses in her paper.

0:39:33.239 --> 0:39:37.320
<v Speaker 1>First of all, the original study is very patriarchal because

0:39:37.320 --> 0:39:41.520
<v Speaker 1>it focuses on men. Now that's only in the title.

0:39:41.640 --> 0:39:45.440
<v Speaker 1>She acknowledges that the Japanese and subsequent German studies confirmed

0:39:45.440 --> 0:39:47.840
<v Speaker 1>that old women have big ears too. But I do

0:39:47.880 --> 0:39:50.480
<v Speaker 1>want to point out that is just poor phrasing of

0:39:50.520 --> 0:39:53.879
<v Speaker 1>the British study. It was clear that they didn't discriminate

0:39:53.920 --> 0:39:56.239
<v Speaker 1>on participants based on gender. I think they were just

0:39:56.360 --> 0:40:02.439
<v Speaker 1>using the old men term jokingly because talking about yeah,

0:40:03.120 --> 0:40:06.160
<v Speaker 1>they had based the entire study on this joke on

0:40:06.360 --> 0:40:10.160
<v Speaker 1>his hook, Yeah exactly. Now, the German study was conducted

0:40:10.160 --> 0:40:13.760
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand and seven, and they used photos instead

0:40:13.800 --> 0:40:16.880
<v Speaker 1>of measuring like real ears. I imagine they must have

0:40:16.880 --> 0:40:20.239
<v Speaker 1>been to scale these photos. They they used photos of

0:40:20.480 --> 0:40:23.799
<v Speaker 1>one thousand, four hundred and forty eight years and they

0:40:23.840 --> 0:40:28.399
<v Speaker 1>measured them in fifteen different ways, and they found that

0:40:28.600 --> 0:40:32.680
<v Speaker 1>female ears show a lesser increase than those of men.

0:40:32.840 --> 0:40:35.719
<v Speaker 1>So so far, across these three studies we've learned that yes,

0:40:35.760 --> 0:40:40.120
<v Speaker 1>people's ears grow as they get older. Yes, women's ears

0:40:40.160 --> 0:40:43.640
<v Speaker 1>also grow along with men's ears, but that it seems like,

0:40:43.680 --> 0:40:46.400
<v Speaker 1>at least in the German study, that female ears have

0:40:46.680 --> 0:40:50.640
<v Speaker 1>lesser increase. So that is really the gist of all

0:40:50.680 --> 0:40:53.840
<v Speaker 1>of these studies. I think they're awarding an older study,

0:40:54.000 --> 0:40:56.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, because Alice came along and was like, hey,

0:40:56.680 --> 0:40:59.359
<v Speaker 1>wait a minute, this deserves a second look. Now, why

0:40:59.440 --> 0:41:01.400
<v Speaker 1>is it funny? Well, because of the whole hook of

0:41:01.400 --> 0:41:04.279
<v Speaker 1>the whole old men have big ears thing, we all

0:41:04.320 --> 0:41:07.000
<v Speaker 1>just assume that to be true. Nobody ever thought you'd

0:41:07.040 --> 0:41:09.800
<v Speaker 1>sit down and actually measure people's ears with a ruler

0:41:09.920 --> 0:41:11.920
<v Speaker 1>or like a what do you call it, like a

0:41:11.920 --> 0:41:14.520
<v Speaker 1>tape measure or something like that. Right, but it does

0:41:14.560 --> 0:41:17.839
<v Speaker 1>seem to be actually important and the reason why there's

0:41:17.840 --> 0:41:20.960
<v Speaker 1>still questions to be answered. We still don't know why

0:41:21.239 --> 0:41:24.759
<v Speaker 1>ears keep going when the rest of the body stops, right,

0:41:25.200 --> 0:41:28.360
<v Speaker 1>and then the gender difference in the rate of growth

0:41:28.400 --> 0:41:31.279
<v Speaker 1>seems like that's it's something important as well, especially in

0:41:31.360 --> 0:41:35.600
<v Speaker 1>terms of just understanding human biology and anatomy. Well, you

0:41:35.600 --> 0:41:38.960
<v Speaker 1>know it also you have to wonder too about ear

0:41:39.040 --> 0:41:41.680
<v Speaker 1>rings and piercings and various you know, which is gonna

0:41:41.680 --> 0:41:45.239
<v Speaker 1>It's gonna vary from culture to culture. But in many

0:41:45.280 --> 0:41:49.879
<v Speaker 1>cases you're going to have more females than males using

0:41:49.920 --> 0:41:53.359
<v Speaker 1>the piercings. And is that going to increase length of

0:41:53.360 --> 0:41:55.840
<v Speaker 1>of low? And I think of about like my friends

0:41:56.000 --> 0:41:58.480
<v Speaker 1>in the punk scene who got like lots of ear

0:41:58.560 --> 0:42:01.000
<v Speaker 1>rings and got like big gage is placed in their

0:42:01.040 --> 0:42:04.120
<v Speaker 1>lobes and how their ears look. Now that could be

0:42:04.160 --> 0:42:06.000
<v Speaker 1>an effect as well. So there you go with some

0:42:06.080 --> 0:42:09.960
<v Speaker 1>environmental possibilities. I don't know about boxing or scrubbing though. Yeah,

0:42:10.120 --> 0:42:15.600
<v Speaker 1>so we're potentially looking though at sort of accidental body

0:42:15.640 --> 0:42:19.000
<v Speaker 1>modification of the human ear, sort of like cultural long

0:42:19.120 --> 0:42:23.279
<v Speaker 1>term modification. Or we're looking at at some sort of

0:42:24.280 --> 0:42:29.480
<v Speaker 1>gender dimorphism of of Homo sapiens where men end up

0:42:29.520 --> 0:42:33.080
<v Speaker 1>having longer ears over time. Yeah, I'm inclined to agree

0:42:33.120 --> 0:42:35.440
<v Speaker 1>with Joe. I mean, I haven't done the research, but

0:42:35.520 --> 0:42:37.640
<v Speaker 1>I would assume that it's similar to like why you

0:42:37.680 --> 0:42:40.760
<v Speaker 1>get bags under your eyes, right, Like over time, the

0:42:40.880 --> 0:42:45.839
<v Speaker 1>um facia underneath your skin just loosens and the you

0:42:45.840 --> 0:42:48.399
<v Speaker 1>know it droops basically, And so I think the ears

0:42:48.400 --> 0:42:50.960
<v Speaker 1>are probably the same, like the cartilage around the ears

0:42:51.560 --> 0:42:55.239
<v Speaker 1>stay I would imagine stays the same, but the other

0:42:55.360 --> 0:42:58.680
<v Speaker 1>stuff starts drooping down. Yeah, all right, so there you

0:42:58.760 --> 0:43:03.000
<v Speaker 1>have it. We've covered this episode the use of saltwater

0:43:03.040 --> 0:43:08.760
<v Speaker 1>crocodiles on problem gamblers. We've looked at facial recognition and twins,

0:43:09.080 --> 0:43:12.719
<v Speaker 1>and then the size of old man ears. So if

0:43:12.800 --> 0:43:15.799
<v Speaker 1>you have any anecdotes or maybe some of your own

0:43:15.840 --> 0:43:18.040
<v Speaker 1>research to share with us on these topics, you can

0:43:18.080 --> 0:43:21.040
<v Speaker 1>find us on Facebook. We're on Twitter, we're on tumbler,

0:43:21.320 --> 0:43:25.080
<v Speaker 1>and we're on Instagram. We've also got our fantastic Facebook

0:43:25.080 --> 0:43:28.120
<v Speaker 1>discussion group. Yeah, the discussion module. You can find it

0:43:28.160 --> 0:43:31.440
<v Speaker 1>on our Facebook page. That's where fans of the show

0:43:31.560 --> 0:43:35.400
<v Speaker 1>hang out, interact, talk about recent episodes, or sometimes share

0:43:35.719 --> 0:43:37.799
<v Speaker 1>potential topics with us. Yeah, and if you want to

0:43:37.800 --> 0:43:40.000
<v Speaker 1>get in touch with us directly, you want to answer

0:43:40.040 --> 0:43:42.920
<v Speaker 1>the question do your ears hang low? Do they wobble

0:43:42.960 --> 0:43:45.160
<v Speaker 1>to and fro? We want to know about that and

0:43:45.200 --> 0:43:48.360
<v Speaker 1>how it relates to this earloab study that Christian has

0:43:48.360 --> 0:43:50.719
<v Speaker 1>been discussing. You can email us at below the Mind

0:43:50.800 --> 0:44:02.600
<v Speaker 1>at how stuff works dot com for more on this

0:44:02.760 --> 0:44:05.279
<v Speaker 1>and thousands of other topics. Does it how stuff works

0:44:05.280 --> 0:44:28.520
<v Speaker 1>dot com