1 00:00:06,280 --> 00:00:09,119 Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name 2 00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:11,719 Speaker 1: is Robert Lamb. Today is Saturday, so we have another 3 00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:13,920 Speaker 1: VAULD episode for you. This is going to be Odds 4 00:00:13,960 --> 00:00:18,160 Speaker 1: and Evens Part two. This one originally published nine ten, 5 00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:20,840 Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. Let's jump right in. 6 00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:28,000 Speaker 2: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, the production of iHeartRadio. 7 00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:35,480 Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. 8 00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:38,680 Speaker 3: My name is Robert Lamb, and I am Joe McCormick, 9 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:41,560 Speaker 3: and we are back with Part two in our series 10 00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:46,839 Speaker 3: on the psychology and cultural significance of number parody p 11 00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:50,600 Speaker 3: A r it y parody, meaning whether a number is 12 00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:54,960 Speaker 3: odd or even. In Part one, we described the principle 13 00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:57,800 Speaker 3: of number parody, and we talked about evidence that in 14 00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:02,760 Speaker 3: some cases people seem to have surprising feelings about associations 15 00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:07,160 Speaker 3: with and even preferences for odd and even quantities. And 16 00:01:07,240 --> 00:01:10,240 Speaker 3: so one of the big examples we discussed in that 17 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:13,640 Speaker 3: first episode was the concept in various branches of visual 18 00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:17,680 Speaker 3: art theory, that people have a preference for, say, three 19 00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:20,920 Speaker 3: part divisions of imagery over two part divisions, or that 20 00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:24,440 Speaker 3: people prefer an image composed with an odd number of 21 00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:27,520 Speaker 3: subjects over an even number, even to the extent that 22 00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:31,760 Speaker 3: even numbers of subjects will sometimes be subdivided into groups 23 00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:34,440 Speaker 3: of odd numbers, so you know, instead of four subjects, 24 00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,480 Speaker 3: you would get a painting with three and one. But 25 00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,440 Speaker 3: we also got into a bit of empirical research interrogating 26 00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:43,560 Speaker 3: these ideas and questioning to what extent they're truly natural 27 00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,840 Speaker 3: aesthetic preferences. Maybe they're just sort of random conventions that 28 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:50,360 Speaker 3: people latched onto, including you know, one thing that came 29 00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:53,920 Speaker 3: up in part one was the domain of food plating 30 00:01:53,960 --> 00:01:57,120 Speaker 3: and food styling, with us just you know, shooting from 31 00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:00,600 Speaker 3: the hips saying I think three little slide are better 32 00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:03,240 Speaker 3: than four. We're going to come back to that later today. 33 00:02:03,520 --> 00:02:04,800 Speaker 3: You might be surprised. 34 00:02:05,960 --> 00:02:08,600 Speaker 1: I mean it is still you still see this idea 35 00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:11,720 Speaker 1: out there, But how does it hold up to any 36 00:02:11,760 --> 00:02:13,920 Speaker 1: manner of study. Well, we'll take a look at that. 37 00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:17,680 Speaker 3: So one thing I wanted to talk about today was 38 00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:24,200 Speaker 3: the cognitive psychology of number parity, how we process the 39 00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:27,919 Speaker 3: idea of numbers being odd and even in the brain. 40 00:02:28,919 --> 00:02:31,639 Speaker 3: So I came across a very interesting paper about this 41 00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:34,639 Speaker 3: that was published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology in 42 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:38,000 Speaker 3: the year twenty eighteen by Hubner at All and it's 43 00:02:38,040 --> 00:02:42,640 Speaker 3: called a mental odd even continuum account some numbers may 44 00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:46,480 Speaker 3: be more odd than others, and some numbers may be 45 00:02:46,760 --> 00:02:50,400 Speaker 3: more even than others. And so if you're not initially 46 00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:53,120 Speaker 3: thrilled about the idea of that the cognitive psychology of 47 00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:57,320 Speaker 3: numbers how we represent number properties internally, stick around. I 48 00:02:57,360 --> 00:03:00,359 Speaker 3: think this might be more interesting than you would at 49 00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:03,360 Speaker 3: first suspect, because it's kind of it kind of reveals 50 00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:06,320 Speaker 3: deeper ways that our brains work in general, at least 51 00:03:06,360 --> 00:03:08,400 Speaker 3: I think. So we can come back to that after 52 00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:10,840 Speaker 3: we look at the findings of the study. But anyway 53 00:03:10,880 --> 00:03:15,840 Speaker 3: to start with the mathematical fact is that number parity 54 00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:21,480 Speaker 3: is binary. In math, natural numbers are either odd or even. 55 00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:25,320 Speaker 3: Any positive integer is even if it can be represented 56 00:03:25,360 --> 00:03:28,920 Speaker 3: as two times in wherein is also a positive integer, 57 00:03:29,360 --> 00:03:31,799 Speaker 3: and it's odd if it can be represented as two 58 00:03:31,880 --> 00:03:36,000 Speaker 3: times in plus one. All positive whole numbers are either 59 00:03:36,160 --> 00:03:39,480 Speaker 3: odd or even. But this paper is focused not on 60 00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:43,120 Speaker 3: the question of the mathematics of parity, but on the 61 00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:47,120 Speaker 3: question of how number parity is represented in the brain, 62 00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:50,640 Speaker 3: how we think about quantities that are odd and even. 63 00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:55,680 Speaker 3: And the authors propose an interesting hypothesis that people do 64 00:03:55,760 --> 00:04:00,119 Speaker 3: not think about odd and even as a mathematical binary, 65 00:04:00,160 --> 00:04:04,560 Speaker 3: but rather as a spectrum of odd ness and even ness, 66 00:04:04,680 --> 00:04:07,960 Speaker 3: where some numbers can be relatively more odd or even 67 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:11,720 Speaker 3: than others, and in a kind of amusing aside. The 68 00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:14,400 Speaker 3: authors acknowledge that if this is true, it may prove 69 00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:18,280 Speaker 3: irritating to some researchers. But you know, this is the 70 00:04:18,360 --> 00:04:20,320 Speaker 3: kind of thing I like reading about, because I think 71 00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:24,839 Speaker 3: it's when you observe the mismatch between how a concept 72 00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:28,600 Speaker 3: is technically defined and how we actually think about it. 73 00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:31,520 Speaker 3: When we know when we consider it in practice, it's 74 00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:33,480 Speaker 3: a great way to get insights into our brains. 75 00:04:34,120 --> 00:04:36,760 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And I'm already thinking about thinking about ways 76 00:04:36,760 --> 00:04:39,880 Speaker 1: that I might qualify certain numbers as more even or 77 00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:42,120 Speaker 1: more odd than others. But I want to see where 78 00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:44,080 Speaker 1: you're taking us here and see if any of these 79 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:47,520 Speaker 1: are are the examples that are coming to my mind. 80 00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:49,680 Speaker 3: So to provide a model for how this would be 81 00:04:49,760 --> 00:04:53,160 Speaker 3: happening in the brain, the authors refer to a psychology 82 00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:57,720 Speaker 3: concept called prototype theory, which has been established going at 83 00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:01,839 Speaker 3: least as far back as the nineteen sixties. As they explain, quote, 84 00:05:02,080 --> 00:05:06,719 Speaker 3: prototype theory has long suggested that certain members of distinct 85 00:05:06,800 --> 00:05:12,400 Speaker 3: categories are more typical examples of that category than others, 86 00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:17,200 Speaker 3: and that membership to such a category may be graded. Now, 87 00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:19,520 Speaker 3: they don't use the following example, And in fact, I 88 00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:22,200 Speaker 3: don't know if this is strictly a perfect example of 89 00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:25,120 Speaker 3: prototype theory, because the category I'm going to use is 90 00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:28,280 Speaker 3: not strictly defined, But I think this will still illustrate it. 91 00:05:28,839 --> 00:05:35,120 Speaker 3: Both Pumpkinhead and Grover from Sesame Street are examples of 92 00:05:35,160 --> 00:05:41,159 Speaker 3: the category monster. And yet while they are undoubtedly both monsters, 93 00:05:41,200 --> 00:05:43,599 Speaker 3: and if you doubt Grover is a monster, go read 94 00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:47,000 Speaker 3: up about them. Grover's a monster, one of them just 95 00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:51,080 Speaker 3: seems like a better example of the category monster than 96 00:05:51,120 --> 00:05:55,039 Speaker 3: the other. Now, there are no real objective criteria for 97 00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:57,680 Speaker 3: what is and is not a monster, but you could 98 00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:01,640 Speaker 3: learn a lot about how people mentally construct the idea 99 00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:05,680 Speaker 3: of a monster by studying how easy it is to 100 00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:11,720 Speaker 3: associate particular examples of creatures with the category monster. And 101 00:06:11,960 --> 00:06:15,440 Speaker 3: one way of studying this would be time latency. So 102 00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:19,680 Speaker 3: imagine you're in a psychological study and you're given a task. 103 00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:23,560 Speaker 3: Somebody's going to show you a series of images of creatures, 104 00:06:24,240 --> 00:06:26,560 Speaker 3: and it's your job to say as quickly as you 105 00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:29,680 Speaker 3: can whether the creature in the image is a monster 106 00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:33,200 Speaker 3: or not. In this kind of test, the speed with 107 00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:36,839 Speaker 3: which you make the categorization could be one piece of 108 00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:41,880 Speaker 3: evidence for how easily you associate the example with the category. 109 00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:44,719 Speaker 3: So even if everybody who takes this kind of test 110 00:06:44,839 --> 00:06:48,920 Speaker 3: correctly recognizes that Grover is a monster, I would still 111 00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:52,080 Speaker 3: bet that on average people would say Pumpkinhead is a 112 00:06:52,120 --> 00:06:55,159 Speaker 3: monster a good bit faster. It would just it takes 113 00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:57,800 Speaker 3: less thinking to get there, so you can click the 114 00:06:57,839 --> 00:06:59,000 Speaker 3: monster button faster. 115 00:06:59,720 --> 00:07:02,680 Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't have to catch yourself and go, oh, well, yes, 116 00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:04,279 Speaker 1: of course he is the monster at the end of 117 00:07:04,320 --> 00:07:04,640 Speaker 1: the book. 118 00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:07,640 Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. And so with this kind of study you 119 00:07:07,640 --> 00:07:09,960 Speaker 3: could maybe get some insights. For example, you could look 120 00:07:10,000 --> 00:07:13,760 Speaker 3: at these specific attributes that make an individual picture of 121 00:07:13,760 --> 00:07:17,440 Speaker 3: a creature a better prototype example of the monster category 122 00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:21,240 Speaker 3: as measured by people selecting it as a monster faster. 123 00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:26,360 Speaker 3: Maybe creatures that have sharp teeth or claws or threatening 124 00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:28,640 Speaker 3: posture or something like that. It just clicks in the 125 00:07:28,680 --> 00:07:30,840 Speaker 3: brain faster that it's a monster. You got to think 126 00:07:30,840 --> 00:07:33,720 Speaker 3: about it less. And so in this paper, the authors 127 00:07:34,080 --> 00:07:37,880 Speaker 3: do the same thing with odd and even numbers. They're 128 00:07:37,880 --> 00:07:40,840 Speaker 3: going to study the degree to which different numbers are 129 00:07:41,040 --> 00:07:44,640 Speaker 3: prototypes of their parity class, and then they're going to 130 00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:47,000 Speaker 3: try to look for the different factors that make a 131 00:07:47,080 --> 00:07:51,200 Speaker 3: number more easily identifiable as odd or even. And this is, 132 00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:53,240 Speaker 3: by the way, not the first study ever to do this. 133 00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:55,360 Speaker 3: There have been studies in the past that have used 134 00:07:55,400 --> 00:07:58,760 Speaker 3: processing time as a measure of prototypicality for odd and 135 00:07:58,800 --> 00:08:03,400 Speaker 3: even numbers, like they mentioned one study that showed six 136 00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:07,600 Speaker 3: took people longer to classify as even than two four 137 00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:08,440 Speaker 3: or eight did. 138 00:08:08,920 --> 00:08:09,160 Speaker 1: Why. 139 00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:12,600 Speaker 3: I don't know. That's kind of interesting. I mean, two, four, six, 140 00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:16,080 Speaker 3: and eight are all equally even in real mathematics, but 141 00:08:16,200 --> 00:08:19,600 Speaker 3: apparently two four and eight are just easier to identify 142 00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:22,000 Speaker 3: as even. Something's a little different about six. 143 00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:24,040 Speaker 1: Huh. Interesting. 144 00:08:24,680 --> 00:08:26,960 Speaker 3: So in their introduction, the authors lay out a bunch 145 00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:31,000 Speaker 3: of different numerical reasons that they think a number might 146 00:08:31,080 --> 00:08:34,920 Speaker 3: be more easily recognizable as even or odd, and the 147 00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:41,199 Speaker 3: hypothetical explanations they include are first of all, ease of divisibility. 148 00:08:41,640 --> 00:08:44,640 Speaker 3: So the easier a number is to divide, the more 149 00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:48,840 Speaker 3: even and less odd it should feel. And this principle 150 00:08:48,880 --> 00:08:52,440 Speaker 3: could subconsciously be applied within the categories and not just 151 00:08:52,480 --> 00:08:56,680 Speaker 3: between them. So twenty five and twenty seven are both odd. 152 00:08:57,080 --> 00:08:59,839 Speaker 3: But the author's idea here is that twenty five may 153 00:08:59,880 --> 00:09:03,559 Speaker 3: feel less odd and take longer to classify as odd 154 00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:05,200 Speaker 3: because it's easy to divide it. 155 00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:08,000 Speaker 1: Now, this is where my mind was headed that. Yeah, 156 00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:11,000 Speaker 1: just thinking about the way I divide numbers is if 157 00:09:11,040 --> 00:09:13,840 Speaker 1: it's easier to divide, then yes, on some level, it 158 00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:17,000 Speaker 1: is more even than an even number that I have 159 00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:19,560 Speaker 1: to sort of like pause a second with then do 160 00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:21,520 Speaker 1: a little extra math in my head. 161 00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:25,000 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's a strong instinct that they had 162 00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:27,880 Speaker 3: the same idea to begin with. Here. Another thing they 163 00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:31,120 Speaker 3: hypothesize would make a number feel more even is powers 164 00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:34,560 Speaker 3: of two, so that would be two, four, eight, sixteen, 165 00:09:34,760 --> 00:09:39,320 Speaker 3: thirty two. They think these are cognitively more even. Another 166 00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:43,800 Speaker 3: factor is whether a number is prime. The authors argue 167 00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:49,200 Speaker 3: that prime numbers may feel more odd than non prime odds, 168 00:09:49,920 --> 00:09:52,240 Speaker 3: and one piece of evidence for this is that a 169 00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:55,280 Speaker 3: couple of different previous studies have found that people are 170 00:09:55,440 --> 00:10:00,439 Speaker 3: quicker to flag three, five, and seven as odd than 171 00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:03,800 Speaker 3: they are to flag nine. That's interesting, Now, this is 172 00:10:03,840 --> 00:10:06,960 Speaker 3: kind of like the inverse of the six not feeling 173 00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:09,960 Speaker 3: as even as the other even numbers under ten. In 174 00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:13,320 Speaker 3: this case, apparently, maybe nine does not feel as odd 175 00:10:13,400 --> 00:10:17,040 Speaker 3: as the other odd numbers under ten, and the authors 176 00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:19,560 Speaker 3: argue that this may be because the other three odd 177 00:10:19,679 --> 00:10:22,160 Speaker 3: numbers under ten, three, five, and seven are all prime. 178 00:10:22,400 --> 00:10:25,320 Speaker 3: Nine is not prime three times three is nine, so 179 00:10:25,800 --> 00:10:28,600 Speaker 3: the divisibility of it maybe makes it feel less odd. 180 00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:34,679 Speaker 3: The authors also hypothesize maybe being part of a standard 181 00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:39,040 Speaker 3: multiplication table that children memorize in school that might make 182 00:10:39,160 --> 00:10:43,400 Speaker 3: numbers feel more even and less odd, but we'll have 183 00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:46,400 Speaker 3: to look at the results and see if that bears out. However, 184 00:10:46,800 --> 00:10:49,640 Speaker 3: the authors point out that previous studies have shown that 185 00:10:49,760 --> 00:10:54,520 Speaker 3: it is probably not only the mathematical properties of a number. 186 00:10:54,559 --> 00:10:58,360 Speaker 3: The number properties of a number that influence how long 187 00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:02,080 Speaker 3: we take to make judgments about other factors, such as 188 00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:06,360 Speaker 3: linguistic factors, appear to play a role as well. And 189 00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:10,040 Speaker 3: illustrate this, the authors bring up a really interesting concept 190 00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:12,920 Speaker 3: that I don't think I'd ever read about before, but 191 00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:16,640 Speaker 3: this really stuck with me. So they refer to previous 192 00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:20,640 Speaker 3: research by Hines in the journal Memory and Cognition in 193 00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:24,600 Speaker 3: nineteen ninety and this paper found that if you give 194 00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:29,200 Speaker 3: people random numbers, especially in pairs or in triples, and 195 00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:32,000 Speaker 3: ask them to judge whether the numbers are odd or even. 196 00:11:32,520 --> 00:11:36,920 Speaker 3: People simply take longer to recognize oddness than they do 197 00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:41,760 Speaker 3: to recognize evenness. So odd numbers were just harder to 198 00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:46,800 Speaker 3: judge overall, So people more quickly recognize that fifty two 199 00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:50,520 Speaker 3: and fifty four are even than that fifty three and 200 00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:53,800 Speaker 3: fifty five are odd. Now that that's kind of weird, 201 00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:58,120 Speaker 3: Like why would oddness itself take longer to process? Pretty 202 00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:02,120 Speaker 3: much across the board? In older paper, the author argued 203 00:12:02,240 --> 00:12:05,480 Speaker 3: that part of the explanation may lie in the idea 204 00:12:05,480 --> 00:12:10,079 Speaker 3: of what are called marked and unmarked terms in language. 205 00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:13,960 Speaker 3: Marked and unmarked This is a concept in linguistics, and 206 00:12:14,120 --> 00:12:18,640 Speaker 3: it goes like this, So there exist in languages pairs 207 00:12:18,760 --> 00:12:24,000 Speaker 3: of adjectives that have opposite meanings, so long and short, 208 00:12:24,640 --> 00:12:30,120 Speaker 3: old and young, even an odd, alive and dead, things 209 00:12:30,160 --> 00:12:34,320 Speaker 3: like that. Linguistic markedness theory says that usually when you 210 00:12:34,440 --> 00:12:38,720 Speaker 3: have pairs of adjectives like this, one of the terms 211 00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:42,560 Speaker 3: in the pair is treated as the more basic and 212 00:12:42,760 --> 00:12:45,960 Speaker 3: natural of the two in the brain. So we think 213 00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:48,800 Speaker 3: about one of these two terms in a way that 214 00:12:48,840 --> 00:12:52,160 Speaker 3: what they call they call it unmarked. It is the 215 00:12:52,320 --> 00:12:56,640 Speaker 3: natural state of this measure, and then the other term 216 00:12:57,200 --> 00:13:02,800 Speaker 3: is treated as mentally more complex, complicated, and unnatural. This 217 00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:05,959 Speaker 3: is the marked word in the pair, and there are 218 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:09,080 Speaker 3: experiments that will show this. But the unmarked word in 219 00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:13,840 Speaker 3: the pair, for example, is used more frequently than the 220 00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,920 Speaker 3: marked word. It's learned earlier in language acquisition, when you're 221 00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:22,280 Speaker 3: a child, and it is considered usually the default measure. So, 222 00:13:22,400 --> 00:13:26,679 Speaker 3: for example, you say how old are you, not how 223 00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:30,000 Speaker 3: young are you? Because in old and young, old is 224 00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:35,400 Speaker 3: treated as the unmarked word and young is the marked concept. Similarly, 225 00:13:35,480 --> 00:13:38,600 Speaker 3: you will say how long will it take? Not how 226 00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:41,400 Speaker 3: short will it take? I thought this was interesting. They 227 00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:44,240 Speaker 3: say also that in some cases you can create the 228 00:13:44,280 --> 00:13:47,840 Speaker 3: same meaning as the marked word simply by adding a 229 00:13:47,920 --> 00:13:51,560 Speaker 3: negative prefix to the unmarked word. So you can say 230 00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:55,280 Speaker 3: uneven to mean the same thing as odd, But nobody 231 00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:57,400 Speaker 3: says un odd to mean even. 232 00:13:58,080 --> 00:13:59,559 Speaker 1: Oh that's true. There's a great point. 233 00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:03,160 Speaker 3: Now, whatever this division between marked and unmarked comes from, 234 00:14:03,520 --> 00:14:07,719 Speaker 3: it seems that it results in different processing times in 235 00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:12,800 Speaker 3: the brain, that we just deal with unmarked concepts faster 236 00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:16,000 Speaker 3: and more easily, and it takes us you know, maybe 237 00:14:16,040 --> 00:14:19,480 Speaker 3: a split second longer to think about, or deliver or 238 00:14:19,560 --> 00:14:23,640 Speaker 3: deal with a marked concept. And so if even is 239 00:14:23,800 --> 00:14:27,120 Speaker 3: unmarked and odd is marked, it may in fact be 240 00:14:27,400 --> 00:14:30,440 Speaker 3: that we just deal with the concept of evenness a 241 00:14:30,520 --> 00:14:33,160 Speaker 3: little bit more easily in the brain than oddness. It's 242 00:14:33,280 --> 00:14:36,800 Speaker 3: oddness is linguistically marked, and so it takes us a 243 00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:40,760 Speaker 3: split second longer to kind of process this concept whenever 244 00:14:40,760 --> 00:14:43,160 Speaker 3: we're dealing with it or producing a judgment about it, 245 00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:45,560 Speaker 3: and this may play a role in explaining the so 246 00:14:45,640 --> 00:14:49,320 Speaker 3: called odd effect that was discovered in this paper in 247 00:14:49,360 --> 00:15:01,960 Speaker 3: the nineties. Moving on from that, there's another linguistic effect 248 00:15:02,040 --> 00:15:06,040 Speaker 3: that actually shows up when you compare judgments about parody 249 00:15:06,080 --> 00:15:10,960 Speaker 3: across different languages, and this is the inversion property of 250 00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:15,080 Speaker 3: multiple digit numbers. So in English, when we want to 251 00:15:15,280 --> 00:15:17,840 Speaker 3: say or write out in words the number that is 252 00:15:17,920 --> 00:15:21,200 Speaker 3: one quarter of one hundred, we say twenty five, we 253 00:15:21,280 --> 00:15:24,640 Speaker 3: write the twenty first and then the five, or we 254 00:15:24,680 --> 00:15:27,160 Speaker 3: say the twenty first and then the five. So for 255 00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:31,160 Speaker 3: two digit numbers, it's always the decade digit first in language, 256 00:15:31,240 --> 00:15:34,120 Speaker 3: and then the unit digit. But not all languages work 257 00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:38,000 Speaker 3: this way. For example, in German, twenty five is and 258 00:15:38,040 --> 00:15:40,400 Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm pronouncing this wrong. It is 259 00:15:40,440 --> 00:15:46,880 Speaker 3: something like fun Fundzwanzig, meaning five and twenty, And this 260 00:15:46,960 --> 00:15:49,600 Speaker 3: has been found to have all sorts of interesting effects 261 00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:54,560 Speaker 3: on number cognition. For example, German speakers our studies have 262 00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:58,680 Speaker 3: shown more likely to make trans coding errors when writing 263 00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:03,080 Speaker 3: numbers out, so likely to write fifty two when they 264 00:16:03,160 --> 00:16:07,440 Speaker 3: mean twenty five. In terms of digits. Also, compared to 265 00:16:07,640 --> 00:16:12,400 Speaker 3: non inverted languages, German speakers pay relatively more attention to 266 00:16:12,560 --> 00:16:16,320 Speaker 3: the unit digit in a multi digit number, and so 267 00:16:16,400 --> 00:16:20,080 Speaker 3: the authors write quote. This prioritizing of either the unit 268 00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:24,359 Speaker 3: or decade digit might influence participants' performance in number processing 269 00:16:24,400 --> 00:16:28,320 Speaker 3: tasks in which units play a decisive role. Parity judgment 270 00:16:28,400 --> 00:16:31,520 Speaker 3: is clearly one of those tasks, because only the unit 271 00:16:31,760 --> 00:16:35,640 Speaker 3: parity is relevant for answering correctly, which is true when 272 00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:37,560 Speaker 3: you look at you can judge whether it's odd or 273 00:16:37,600 --> 00:16:40,800 Speaker 3: even without knowing any of the numbers before the last one. 274 00:16:41,280 --> 00:16:43,840 Speaker 3: And just a couple of other factors the authors mention 275 00:16:44,120 --> 00:16:49,120 Speaker 3: that have been possibly shown to influence parity judgments. Larger 276 00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:53,680 Speaker 3: numbers may cause longer processing times, regardless of the parity 277 00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:56,080 Speaker 3: or any other facts about them, just like the bigger 278 00:16:56,120 --> 00:16:58,960 Speaker 3: the number is, the longer you have to think about it. Also, 279 00:16:59,200 --> 00:17:02,760 Speaker 3: word frequently. Numbers that appear more often in language get 280 00:17:02,800 --> 00:17:05,760 Speaker 3: faster responses, and this is not just true of numbers 281 00:17:05,840 --> 00:17:08,520 Speaker 3: in any words. In general that are used more often 282 00:17:08,600 --> 00:17:13,280 Speaker 3: are processed more efficiently. So this study tried to test 283 00:17:13,320 --> 00:17:18,080 Speaker 3: the relative influence of number prototypicality and the linguistic factors 284 00:17:18,080 --> 00:17:20,520 Speaker 3: we were just talking about. And the way they did 285 00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:24,800 Speaker 3: this was by getting a group of subjects and giving 286 00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:29,120 Speaker 3: them auditory prompts of numbers between twenty and ninety nine, 287 00:17:29,240 --> 00:17:31,560 Speaker 3: and then they would try to analyze how long it 288 00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:34,280 Speaker 3: took people to classify these numbers as odd or even 289 00:17:35,040 --> 00:17:39,000 Speaker 3: to test the linguistic factors. The author's recruited subjects from 290 00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:42,600 Speaker 3: three different language groups. They had English speakers, German speakers, 291 00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:47,000 Speaker 3: and Polish speakers. In Polish, two digit numbers are expressed 292 00:17:47,000 --> 00:17:50,600 Speaker 3: with the decade digit first, like in English. And I'm 293 00:17:50,640 --> 00:17:52,720 Speaker 3: not going to discuss all of their findings, but just 294 00:17:52,760 --> 00:17:55,879 Speaker 3: to summarize and pick a few highlights, they do say 295 00:17:55,960 --> 00:18:00,560 Speaker 3: that quote. Overall, the results suggests that perceived parody is 296 00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:03,720 Speaker 3: not the same as objective parity, and some numbers are 297 00:18:03,800 --> 00:18:09,800 Speaker 3: more prototypical exemplars of their categories, and specifically with regards 298 00:18:09,800 --> 00:18:14,840 Speaker 3: to these mathematical or numerical factors influencing things, they found 299 00:18:14,960 --> 00:18:19,400 Speaker 3: that some but not all, of the characteristics they hypothesized 300 00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:24,159 Speaker 3: actually did play a role in perceived parity. So, for evens, 301 00:18:24,960 --> 00:18:29,199 Speaker 3: the numbers that people identified as even the fastest tended 302 00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:33,200 Speaker 3: to be even squares, so a square being the product 303 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:36,479 Speaker 3: of a number multiplied by itself. Sixteen is a square 304 00:18:36,520 --> 00:18:39,320 Speaker 3: because it's four times four, sixty four is a square 305 00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:42,720 Speaker 3: because it's eight times eight. Thirty six is a square 306 00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:46,000 Speaker 3: because it's six times six. So in the results, you 307 00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:50,080 Speaker 3: would find that sixty four was significantly easier to identify 308 00:18:50,160 --> 00:18:54,159 Speaker 3: as even than sixty two, So squares tended to be 309 00:18:54,359 --> 00:18:58,840 Speaker 3: very fast. Multiples of four also did really good. For 310 00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:02,560 Speaker 3: some reason, our brains love noticing that multiples of four 311 00:19:02,680 --> 00:19:06,600 Speaker 3: are even. Now, when it came to recognizing odd numbers, 312 00:19:06,680 --> 00:19:09,480 Speaker 3: things got a little more complicated, and the authors say 313 00:19:09,560 --> 00:19:12,560 Speaker 3: that there's a good reason for this. It may have 314 00:19:12,640 --> 00:19:17,200 Speaker 3: to do with multiple hypothesized effects working against one another, 315 00:19:17,280 --> 00:19:20,639 Speaker 3: and these would be number prototypicality on one hand, but 316 00:19:20,880 --> 00:19:25,639 Speaker 3: linguistic markedness on the other. So to refresh. The explanation 317 00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:29,639 Speaker 3: based on linguistic markedness says that because even is an 318 00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:34,240 Speaker 3: unmarked concept and odd is marked, we will usually recognize 319 00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:38,160 Speaker 3: evens faster than odds across the board, and it may 320 00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:42,240 Speaker 3: also possibly mean that numbers that seem odder to us 321 00:19:42,720 --> 00:19:47,440 Speaker 3: will take longer to recognize. So this effect, if present, 322 00:19:47,520 --> 00:19:51,840 Speaker 3: would work in opposite directions depending on parity. For example, 323 00:19:52,040 --> 00:19:56,080 Speaker 3: the super even numerical properties like say being a multiple 324 00:19:56,119 --> 00:19:59,879 Speaker 3: of four, will make a number feel more even, but 325 00:20:00,040 --> 00:20:03,520 Speaker 3: they will also make it easier to process the evenness 326 00:20:03,520 --> 00:20:06,920 Speaker 3: of the number quickly from a linguistic standpoint, because now 327 00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:10,720 Speaker 3: the number is especially unmarked. On the other hand, as 328 00:20:10,760 --> 00:20:14,359 Speaker 3: a number becomes more subjectively odd by say being a 329 00:20:14,400 --> 00:20:19,000 Speaker 3: prime number, the prototypicality explanation would predict that we can 330 00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:24,679 Speaker 3: notice that it's odd faster, but because it's especially numerically odd. 331 00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:28,720 Speaker 3: Working against this would be the linguistic markedness, which might 332 00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:32,960 Speaker 3: predict that the more odd number seems, the more linguistically 333 00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:36,160 Speaker 3: complicated it will feel, and thus the longer our reaction 334 00:20:36,320 --> 00:20:39,960 Speaker 3: time before we can say anything about it. So with evens, 335 00:20:40,320 --> 00:20:44,040 Speaker 3: these two explanations stack, but with odds they work against 336 00:20:44,119 --> 00:20:47,760 Speaker 3: each other and so they said that the results with 337 00:20:47,880 --> 00:20:51,440 Speaker 3: odd numbers were more muddled, but they did find basically 338 00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:56,200 Speaker 3: that primes and numbers divisible by five took the longest 339 00:20:56,320 --> 00:21:01,040 Speaker 3: to classify as odds. Odd squares were the fastest, kind 340 00:21:01,040 --> 00:21:05,840 Speaker 3: of counterintuitively a couple of other results. They also found 341 00:21:06,080 --> 00:21:10,280 Speaker 3: effects from what's called paroity congruity. That's whether the two 342 00:21:10,359 --> 00:21:13,280 Speaker 3: digits in the number are the same parody, so whether 343 00:21:13,480 --> 00:21:17,960 Speaker 3: you know, like sixty eight, they're both even, sixty seven 344 00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:20,360 Speaker 3: one is even and one is odd. That had an effect, 345 00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:25,480 Speaker 3: and also decade magnitude, so how high the first number 346 00:21:25,480 --> 00:21:28,280 Speaker 3: in the pair was had an effect on how long 347 00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:30,879 Speaker 3: it took to process. As it gets bigger, it takes 348 00:21:30,920 --> 00:21:34,560 Speaker 3: longer to think about. They also did find some major 349 00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:38,399 Speaker 3: differences in reaction times by language group. In general, German 350 00:21:38,480 --> 00:21:42,600 Speaker 3: speakers identified two digit numbers as odd or even faster 351 00:21:42,720 --> 00:21:45,840 Speaker 3: than English or Polish speakers, and this could be due 352 00:21:45,880 --> 00:21:49,679 Speaker 3: again to this linguistic inversion principle that you say the 353 00:21:49,840 --> 00:21:53,240 Speaker 3: unit number first when you're speaking German, and the unit 354 00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:55,439 Speaker 3: number is actually all you need to know whether a 355 00:21:55,520 --> 00:21:58,520 Speaker 3: number is odd or even. But anyway, I found this 356 00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:02,600 Speaker 3: whole thing so interesting because it sort of reveals to 357 00:22:02,640 --> 00:22:08,160 Speaker 3: me that while the actual, you know, the mathematical algorithm 358 00:22:08,720 --> 00:22:12,080 Speaker 3: for determining whether a number is even or odd is 359 00:22:12,440 --> 00:22:18,080 Speaker 3: extremely simple, and it's and it's totally binary, and yet 360 00:22:18,359 --> 00:22:21,480 Speaker 3: when we think about it, apparently we must be using 361 00:22:21,640 --> 00:22:27,240 Speaker 3: all these different kind of heuristics and influences and different 362 00:22:27,320 --> 00:22:30,680 Speaker 3: kinds of little rules to make these judgments about numbers 363 00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:33,320 Speaker 3: as fast as we can. And the study did find 364 00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:35,200 Speaker 3: that people get the right answer most of the time, 365 00:22:35,240 --> 00:22:37,520 Speaker 3: and people rarely get it wrong when asked to judge 366 00:22:37,520 --> 00:22:40,400 Speaker 3: whether a number is even or odd, but they're they're 367 00:22:40,400 --> 00:22:44,680 Speaker 3: clearly using like different, little, different little principles are at 368 00:22:44,720 --> 00:22:47,480 Speaker 3: work in helping them get to that answer as fast 369 00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:51,560 Speaker 3: as they can. And some numbers are just easier to 370 00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:54,640 Speaker 3: judge faster than other ones, meaning that they're just more 371 00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:58,720 Speaker 3: represented as as a correct answer within this category than 372 00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:02,600 Speaker 3: others are. And no number in reality is any more 373 00:23:02,640 --> 00:23:04,439 Speaker 3: even or any more odd than another. 374 00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:07,199 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I can't help but think about the 375 00:23:07,359 --> 00:23:12,000 Speaker 1: basic reality of when I'm using real world math, particularly 376 00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:14,320 Speaker 1: say with money, Uh, you know, any amount of money 377 00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:16,920 Speaker 1: is divisible by two, you just get into change. And 378 00:23:17,040 --> 00:23:19,479 Speaker 1: that holds true elsewhere as well. I mean, it's not 379 00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:23,080 Speaker 1: like something that an odd number cannot be split into 380 00:23:23,359 --> 00:23:27,200 Speaker 1: two equal portions. It's it's just it's just you're gonna 381 00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:28,760 Speaker 1: have to go into the decimal points to do so. 382 00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:31,560 Speaker 1: But when you do have to divide an even number 383 00:23:32,200 --> 00:23:34,960 Speaker 1: into in the real world, it does feel like a 384 00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:38,720 Speaker 1: more wholesome act. Yeah, maybe I just hate doing math, 385 00:23:38,760 --> 00:23:39,800 Speaker 1: but that's the way I feel. 386 00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:42,760 Speaker 3: Well, no, no, I see, yeah, what you're saying. I mean, 387 00:23:42,880 --> 00:23:48,000 Speaker 3: so when you're talking about whole number division, obviously dividing 388 00:23:48,040 --> 00:23:50,359 Speaker 3: an even number is you know, you can get to 389 00:23:50,440 --> 00:23:52,800 Speaker 3: an unproblematic answer to that, And if you have an 390 00:23:52,800 --> 00:23:54,720 Speaker 3: odd number, you're going to have a problem. You're gonna 391 00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:57,120 Speaker 3: have to figure out what to do about the fact 392 00:23:57,160 --> 00:23:59,600 Speaker 3: that it doesn't split down the middle correctly. If you're 393 00:23:59,800 --> 00:24:01,720 Speaker 3: dealing with some kind of like whole I don't know, 394 00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:03,439 Speaker 3: if you're trying to figure out how to split the 395 00:24:03,480 --> 00:24:04,800 Speaker 3: three scallops on your plate. 396 00:24:05,080 --> 00:24:06,480 Speaker 1: M yeah, yeah. 397 00:24:06,520 --> 00:24:08,479 Speaker 3: But this also it just makes me think about all 398 00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:12,119 Speaker 3: the ways that you know, you might have categories in 399 00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:15,800 Speaker 3: the real world, whether it's mathematical or whatever, that you 400 00:24:15,840 --> 00:24:18,600 Speaker 3: know are are technically distinct in the way that they 401 00:24:18,600 --> 00:24:21,719 Speaker 3: are defined, and yet our brains are just not going 402 00:24:21,760 --> 00:24:24,720 Speaker 3: to be bound by that for having like strict inclusion criteria, 403 00:24:25,359 --> 00:24:27,960 Speaker 3: Like we'll get into these like ways of thinking about 404 00:24:28,000 --> 00:24:30,479 Speaker 3: it as some kind of gradient, and that's just kind 405 00:24:30,520 --> 00:24:32,280 Speaker 3: of interesting that we tend to work that way. 406 00:24:32,680 --> 00:24:35,000 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, Like now that you think about it, I'm 407 00:24:35,040 --> 00:24:38,639 Speaker 1: pretty sure that five and seven especially are just like 408 00:24:38,760 --> 00:24:41,920 Speaker 1: disgustingly odd, you know. Oh okay, I mean it gets 409 00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:44,119 Speaker 1: more disgusting the more sevens you have. I guess, like 410 00:24:44,320 --> 00:24:47,960 Speaker 1: like seventy seven, seven hundred and seventy seven just I 411 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:49,120 Speaker 1: don't even want to think about those. 412 00:24:50,680 --> 00:24:53,400 Speaker 3: Oh, that's starting to make me think about the stacking 413 00:24:53,400 --> 00:24:54,600 Speaker 3: of sevens in the Bible. 414 00:24:54,640 --> 00:24:54,840 Speaker 1: You know. 415 00:24:55,200 --> 00:24:57,280 Speaker 3: Sometimes they really like to get into the there will 416 00:24:57,280 --> 00:25:00,359 Speaker 3: be like seven seven seven of something that there's seventy 417 00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:01,760 Speaker 3: seven of on the seventh Day. 418 00:25:02,320 --> 00:25:04,400 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it kind of gets into the idea 419 00:25:04,440 --> 00:25:07,240 Speaker 1: of something Okay, well, you know it's not easily divisible. 420 00:25:07,280 --> 00:25:09,280 Speaker 1: I guess it's you know, it's more solid, it's more 421 00:25:09,280 --> 00:25:11,600 Speaker 1: holy in that regard. It depends on how you want 422 00:25:11,600 --> 00:25:22,560 Speaker 1: to spend it. All. Right, now, it's time to come 423 00:25:22,600 --> 00:25:26,080 Speaker 1: back to the idea of three sliders on a plate. 424 00:25:27,640 --> 00:25:30,960 Speaker 1: The supposed rule of odds. So in part one I 425 00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:34,320 Speaker 1: mentioned the rule of odds and visual composition, and yeah, 426 00:25:34,359 --> 00:25:35,800 Speaker 1: I want to come back and discuss it a bit 427 00:25:35,800 --> 00:25:39,159 Speaker 1: more here, so refresh. This is the idea that if 428 00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:42,120 Speaker 1: you're going to present multiple objects or subjects in an image, 429 00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:45,960 Speaker 1: you should gravitate toward odd numbers rather than evens. The 430 00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:49,760 Speaker 1: basic concept here, as described by David Taylor in Understanding 431 00:25:49,800 --> 00:25:53,080 Speaker 1: Composition from twenty fifteen, is that a presentation of odd 432 00:25:53,160 --> 00:25:56,080 Speaker 1: numbers is always more esthetically pleasing. With an odd number, 433 00:25:56,119 --> 00:26:00,840 Speaker 1: there's always a central object or subject framed by the others. Meanwhile, 434 00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:04,679 Speaker 1: even numbered subjects or objects will read as symmetrical with 435 00:26:04,840 --> 00:26:08,680 Speaker 1: no central subject or object unless they are, as we discussed, 436 00:26:08,760 --> 00:26:13,679 Speaker 1: grouped in a manner that reads more as odd than even. 437 00:26:14,400 --> 00:26:16,840 Speaker 3: Yeah, And we talked about examples of that last time, 438 00:26:16,880 --> 00:26:19,480 Speaker 3: with like paintings that will have four people in them 439 00:26:19,520 --> 00:26:22,600 Speaker 3: and it's like three standing together and one standing apart. 440 00:26:22,720 --> 00:26:24,800 Speaker 1: Right, And I and I know I've seen this pointed 441 00:26:24,840 --> 00:26:27,280 Speaker 1: out as something that factors into food photography as well. 442 00:26:27,760 --> 00:26:31,560 Speaker 1: And I kind of like ended on that point on 443 00:26:31,560 --> 00:26:34,000 Speaker 1: a Friday afternoon and then spent the whole weekend thinking 444 00:26:34,040 --> 00:26:36,359 Speaker 1: about it and like, went to a restaurant with my 445 00:26:36,400 --> 00:26:39,720 Speaker 1: family and you know, at one point, appetizer just came 446 00:26:39,720 --> 00:26:42,040 Speaker 1: out in a pair of two and I was, I was, 447 00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:43,680 Speaker 1: you know, thinking about that a lot. I was like, 448 00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:45,480 Speaker 1: why is it too? It should be three? Right? That 449 00:26:45,960 --> 00:26:48,760 Speaker 1: is that the whole sense here? And so then I 450 00:26:48,800 --> 00:26:51,800 Speaker 1: came back to it Monday morning and read a bit 451 00:26:51,840 --> 00:26:53,199 Speaker 1: more about it. So I'm going to come back to 452 00:26:53,240 --> 00:26:56,159 Speaker 1: the food spin on this in just a minute. But 453 00:26:56,320 --> 00:26:59,200 Speaker 1: just this idea of Okay, if you have odd images, 454 00:26:59,200 --> 00:27:01,880 Speaker 1: there's always a center, and if you have even there's 455 00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:06,240 Speaker 1: no centrality. It's it's symmetrical. It's like a group of 456 00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:08,560 Speaker 1: two and two. And that's just how our brains end 457 00:27:08,640 --> 00:27:12,560 Speaker 1: up taking it all in. Now, I started wondering, what 458 00:27:12,720 --> 00:27:15,000 Speaker 1: is this reminding me of. There's some sort of image 459 00:27:15,040 --> 00:27:17,000 Speaker 1: in my head, and I realized I was thinking of 460 00:27:17,000 --> 00:27:20,080 Speaker 1: a particular puppet on display in the museum at the 461 00:27:20,080 --> 00:27:23,520 Speaker 1: Center for Puppetry Arts here in Atlanta. The puppet is 462 00:27:23,560 --> 00:27:29,200 Speaker 1: of the demon king Ravana from the Hindu epic the Ramayana. 463 00:27:29,880 --> 00:27:33,960 Speaker 1: This is the demon king, the villain of that particular work. 464 00:27:34,359 --> 00:27:37,960 Speaker 1: He rules over the island of Lanka and famously abducts 465 00:27:38,640 --> 00:27:42,639 Speaker 1: Lord Rama's wife Sita. So yeah, he's the big bad 466 00:27:42,680 --> 00:27:45,720 Speaker 1: and he's often depicted as having ten heads, though for 467 00:27:45,800 --> 00:27:48,960 Speaker 1: reasons i'll get into, he also sometimes is depicted as 468 00:27:49,000 --> 00:27:52,400 Speaker 1: having nine heads. These heads are generally presented lined up 469 00:27:52,720 --> 00:27:55,760 Speaker 1: ear to ear, with only a single head connected by 470 00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:58,840 Speaker 1: a neck to a single humanoid body. Now, the puppet 471 00:27:58,840 --> 00:28:00,440 Speaker 1: that's on display in the center of a re arts 472 00:28:00,440 --> 00:28:03,840 Speaker 1: this is a West Bengal puppet in the tradition of 473 00:28:03,920 --> 00:28:08,080 Speaker 1: and I'm maybe mispronouncing this, my apologies, don jier Putl knocked. 474 00:28:08,119 --> 00:28:10,480 Speaker 1: This is a style of wooden rod puppetry. Literally it 475 00:28:10,560 --> 00:28:14,640 Speaker 1: means dance of the wooden dolls. This puppet has ten heads, 476 00:28:14,920 --> 00:28:18,239 Speaker 1: and you can guess what that means. It means that 477 00:28:18,320 --> 00:28:21,760 Speaker 1: a ten headed ravena presented in this fashion does not 478 00:28:21,880 --> 00:28:24,399 Speaker 1: have an even number of heads on either side of 479 00:28:24,440 --> 00:28:28,000 Speaker 1: the bodied head. The center for Puppetry arts puppet ravena 480 00:28:28,000 --> 00:28:29,920 Speaker 1: has a row of four heads to one side of 481 00:28:29,960 --> 00:28:31,879 Speaker 1: the main head and a row of five heads to 482 00:28:31,920 --> 00:28:34,639 Speaker 1: the other side of the main head. It's also hard 483 00:28:34,640 --> 00:28:40,000 Speaker 1: to portray that with nonlinear depictions of Rabina, so I 484 00:28:40,080 --> 00:28:43,680 Speaker 1: came across a likely AI generated depiction of Ravena on 485 00:28:43,720 --> 00:28:47,560 Speaker 1: Shutterstock with a different grouping that does read is more balanced, 486 00:28:48,520 --> 00:28:51,160 Speaker 1: you know, to the average observer. But I should note 487 00:28:51,160 --> 00:28:53,640 Speaker 1: that this is non or traditional means of depicting the character. 488 00:28:53,720 --> 00:28:55,680 Speaker 1: This one has like a group of four on one side, 489 00:28:55,760 --> 00:28:58,120 Speaker 1: group of four on the other, and then one above 490 00:28:58,200 --> 00:29:01,800 Speaker 1: the central head. I also ran across a statue of 491 00:29:01,920 --> 00:29:06,400 Speaker 1: Ravena from Statue Park in Muraswar, India that seems to 492 00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:08,920 Speaker 1: have a circular representation, so I guess kind of like 493 00:29:08,960 --> 00:29:13,479 Speaker 1: a radial alignment of the heads. But I believe this 494 00:29:13,520 --> 00:29:15,720 Speaker 1: is a more modern interpretation. It's not what you tend 495 00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:19,320 Speaker 1: to see in sculpture, puppetry, masks and so forth, And 496 00:29:19,360 --> 00:29:23,520 Speaker 1: it is a depiction of Ravena attempting to lift a 497 00:29:23,560 --> 00:29:28,120 Speaker 1: mountain in order to impress or intimidate Lord Shiva. Now, meanwhile, 498 00:29:28,360 --> 00:29:30,840 Speaker 1: like I said earlier, Ravena is sometimes depicted as having 499 00:29:30,960 --> 00:29:34,200 Speaker 1: nine heads, and when presented in the traditional fashion, this 500 00:29:34,280 --> 00:29:36,479 Speaker 1: does even things out and gives us a central bodied 501 00:29:36,520 --> 00:29:39,840 Speaker 1: head with four heads to either side. Why does Ravena 502 00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:42,920 Speaker 1: sometimes only have nine heads? Well, remember the tail of 503 00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:46,760 Speaker 1: him lifting the mountains to impress Lord Shiva. Well, according 504 00:29:46,800 --> 00:29:50,080 Speaker 1: to this telling, Lord Shiva was not impressed and merely 505 00:29:50,120 --> 00:29:52,800 Speaker 1: put one toe on the mountain to squash Ravena beneath 506 00:29:52,840 --> 00:29:55,320 Speaker 1: it like a bug. He howls out in pain, but 507 00:29:55,360 --> 00:29:57,320 Speaker 1: he realizes, Oh, the only way I'm going to escape 508 00:29:57,320 --> 00:29:59,600 Speaker 1: this is if I can play a sweet hymn, a 509 00:29:59,640 --> 00:30:02,920 Speaker 1: sweet song for Shiva about how great he is. But 510 00:30:03,000 --> 00:30:06,200 Speaker 1: I need an instrument to do that. So what does 511 00:30:06,240 --> 00:30:08,360 Speaker 1: he do? He plucks off one of his heads, He 512 00:30:08,720 --> 00:30:11,400 Speaker 1: plucks off one of his twenty arms, some of his 513 00:30:11,480 --> 00:30:13,760 Speaker 1: intestines and tendency plucks out as well, and he makes 514 00:30:13,800 --> 00:30:16,960 Speaker 1: himself a traditional stringed instrument known as a vina to play. 515 00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:20,720 Speaker 1: And there are some there are different depictions of this. 516 00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:24,160 Speaker 1: I think sometimes Ravena is seen to basically just be 517 00:30:24,280 --> 00:30:29,280 Speaker 1: holding a traditional stringed instrument here, but other times, for instance, 518 00:30:29,280 --> 00:30:32,680 Speaker 1: there's at least one temple example saw an image of this. 519 00:30:32,680 --> 00:30:35,240 Speaker 1: This is a photograph from Sri Lanka. It is the 520 00:30:35,720 --> 00:30:40,800 Speaker 1: Konswaram Hindu temple, and we see this kind of I guess, 521 00:30:40,880 --> 00:30:47,160 Speaker 1: mildly grisly musical instrument that the Ravna has made out 522 00:30:47,160 --> 00:30:49,600 Speaker 1: of his body parts, and he's playing it there. And 523 00:30:49,760 --> 00:30:52,920 Speaker 1: in this image he does have foreheads to either side 524 00:30:52,960 --> 00:30:55,840 Speaker 1: of the central head instead of again that kind of 525 00:30:56,480 --> 00:31:00,440 Speaker 1: visually reading lop sided arrangement that we see in a 526 00:31:00,520 --> 00:31:03,480 Speaker 1: tin head at Ravena. Now you may wonder why does 527 00:31:03,600 --> 00:31:06,280 Speaker 1: Ravena have ten heads to begin with? Well, I was 528 00:31:06,600 --> 00:31:11,720 Speaker 1: reading different examples in different stories regarding this number, and 529 00:31:12,200 --> 00:31:15,840 Speaker 1: one in particular, there's an article titled the Untold Story 530 00:31:15,840 --> 00:31:20,640 Speaker 1: of Ravena on the Hindu American Foundation website by Mahakashuk 531 00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:24,320 Speaker 1: from twenty twenty two. The author here recounts the story 532 00:31:24,400 --> 00:31:26,560 Speaker 1: of how Ravena came to have ten heads to begin 533 00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:30,560 Speaker 1: with in some tellings, and this one involves Ravena seeking 534 00:31:30,560 --> 00:31:34,600 Speaker 1: atonement from Shiva by annexing his head, which I'm to 535 00:31:34,600 --> 00:31:38,160 Speaker 1: assume means a form of self decapitation. And he does 536 00:31:38,200 --> 00:31:41,600 Speaker 1: this enough times that when the head grows back each time, 537 00:31:41,640 --> 00:31:44,520 Speaker 1: he ends up with ten. Now, symbolically, the author also 538 00:31:44,560 --> 00:31:47,800 Speaker 1: has that ten heads represent the six Shastras or say, 539 00:31:47,880 --> 00:31:49,960 Speaker 1: these are sacred scriptures of Hinduism, as well as the 540 00:31:49,960 --> 00:31:54,400 Speaker 1: four Vedas. Thus it's a manifestation of Ravna's scholarly mastery 541 00:31:54,440 --> 00:31:57,800 Speaker 1: over these subjects. So multiple heads can mean great knowledge. 542 00:31:58,120 --> 00:32:00,680 Speaker 1: Another take on the ten heads that the other points 543 00:32:00,680 --> 00:32:02,600 Speaker 1: out here, and I've seen this sighted elsewhere as well, 544 00:32:02,720 --> 00:32:07,880 Speaker 1: is that they stand in for the ten emotions lust, anger, delusion, greed, pride, 545 00:32:07,920 --> 00:32:11,640 Speaker 1: in the mind, intellect, will, and ego. And the idea 546 00:32:11,680 --> 00:32:14,440 Speaker 1: here apparently is that you want intellect to overpower all 547 00:32:14,480 --> 00:32:17,280 Speaker 1: the rest, but Ravna is instead controlled by all of them, 548 00:32:17,400 --> 00:32:19,560 Speaker 1: which leads him to make the choices that result in 549 00:32:19,600 --> 00:32:23,920 Speaker 1: his downfall. Now, in Hindu iconography, as with most religious iconography, 550 00:32:23,960 --> 00:32:26,040 Speaker 1: we have to remember that these images are meant to 551 00:32:26,080 --> 00:32:29,000 Speaker 1: convey ideas. So multiple arms on a deity are more 552 00:32:29,000 --> 00:32:33,560 Speaker 1: about displaying their power and via the objects in said hands, 553 00:32:34,280 --> 00:32:39,160 Speaker 1: other particularities about the deity. But power is definitely key, 554 00:32:39,200 --> 00:32:42,000 Speaker 1: which is why you'll definitely see multiple hands when various 555 00:32:42,240 --> 00:32:46,920 Speaker 1: deities are depicted as being in battle or overcoming an adversary. Again, 556 00:32:47,000 --> 00:32:50,960 Speaker 1: multiple heads may likewise speak to the intellect of a 557 00:32:51,000 --> 00:32:54,840 Speaker 1: particular entity or various other aspects of that deity and 558 00:32:54,880 --> 00:32:58,280 Speaker 1: their differing nature. So, for instance, Shiva is sometimes depicted 559 00:32:58,280 --> 00:33:02,240 Speaker 1: with a triple head blissful and wrathful aspects to either side. 560 00:33:02,720 --> 00:33:05,080 Speaker 1: And of course this also lines up with the general 561 00:33:05,120 --> 00:33:08,080 Speaker 1: tradition of the great triad. You know, a triple face 562 00:33:08,160 --> 00:33:11,120 Speaker 1: or triple headed god that is depicted in religions around 563 00:33:11,120 --> 00:33:13,720 Speaker 1: the world. Other times, Shiva is depicted with five heads, 564 00:33:13,760 --> 00:33:18,440 Speaker 1: each representing the five divine activities creation, preservation, destruction, concealing grace, 565 00:33:18,440 --> 00:33:21,720 Speaker 1: and revealing grace, and Brahma may be depicted with four 566 00:33:21,760 --> 00:33:24,360 Speaker 1: faces and four arms. Four arms is very common in 567 00:33:24,440 --> 00:33:28,120 Speaker 1: Hindu symbolism for multiple gods. Now, as to the particular 568 00:33:28,160 --> 00:33:31,800 Speaker 1: fondness for odd numbers and Hindu traditions, I haven't run 569 00:33:31,800 --> 00:33:34,400 Speaker 1: across anything that draws a fine line on the matter. 570 00:33:35,080 --> 00:33:37,400 Speaker 1: In large part this is not surprising because, as we've 571 00:33:37,400 --> 00:33:40,000 Speaker 1: discussed in the show before, Hinduism is not a monolith. 572 00:33:40,040 --> 00:33:42,720 Speaker 1: It's a deep well of belief that's thousands of years 573 00:33:42,760 --> 00:33:45,480 Speaker 1: old and contains many of her schools. And while one 574 00:33:45,560 --> 00:33:49,800 Speaker 1: does see a tendency towards odd numbers a law of 575 00:33:49,800 --> 00:33:52,240 Speaker 1: odds to a certain extent, I guess in Hindu traditions 576 00:33:52,240 --> 00:33:54,400 Speaker 1: it's probably easier to loop all of that in to 577 00:33:54,560 --> 00:33:58,360 Speaker 1: what might seem like a global tendency towards sacred odd 578 00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:02,000 Speaker 1: numbers as opposed to anything that is particular to Hinduism. 579 00:34:02,720 --> 00:34:05,040 Speaker 1: And I was reading about this in a book from 580 00:34:05,160 --> 00:34:07,960 Speaker 1: nineteen eighty three titled The Mystery of Numbers by Anne 581 00:34:07,960 --> 00:34:11,799 Speaker 1: Maurice Schimmel, and the author here points to various examples 582 00:34:11,840 --> 00:34:16,000 Speaker 1: from the ancient Mediterranean, from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish traditions 583 00:34:16,040 --> 00:34:21,440 Speaker 1: as well that dwell on odd numbers, particularly in ritual acts, prayers, 584 00:34:21,560 --> 00:34:26,919 Speaker 1: and incantations. She writes, one performs acts of magic three 585 00:34:27,120 --> 00:34:30,280 Speaker 1: or seven times and repeats a prayer or the concluding 586 00:34:30,360 --> 00:34:34,520 Speaker 1: ahmen thrice. In earlier times, physicians and medicine men used 587 00:34:34,600 --> 00:34:38,120 Speaker 1: to give their patients pills in odd numbers. Magic knots, too, 588 00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:41,080 Speaker 1: had to be tied in odd numbers. The Talmud offers 589 00:34:41,280 --> 00:34:43,799 Speaker 1: numerous examples of the use of odd numbers and the 590 00:34:43,840 --> 00:34:46,680 Speaker 1: avoidance of even ones, and the Muslim tradition states that 591 00:34:46,719 --> 00:34:50,080 Speaker 1: the prophet Muhammad broke his fast with an odd number 592 00:34:50,120 --> 00:34:53,600 Speaker 1: of dates. When performing witchcraft or black magic, an odd 593 00:34:53,680 --> 00:34:56,480 Speaker 1: number of persons should be present, and even today it 594 00:34:56,520 --> 00:34:58,960 Speaker 1: is the custom in Europe at least to send someone 595 00:34:59,040 --> 00:35:02,520 Speaker 1: bouquet's containing an odd number of flowers, with the exception 596 00:35:02,760 --> 00:35:03,360 Speaker 1: of a dozen. 597 00:35:03,760 --> 00:35:07,719 Speaker 3: Hmm, yeah, I think it's it's so interesting to consider 598 00:35:07,840 --> 00:35:11,799 Speaker 3: why these kinds of patterns emerge now on one hand, 599 00:35:11,920 --> 00:35:15,719 Speaker 3: I do think there can be a temptation, probably to 600 00:35:16,160 --> 00:35:19,520 Speaker 3: quickly jump to some kind of like universal in you know, 601 00:35:19,680 --> 00:35:21,759 Speaker 3: built in thing in our brains is like, oh, we 602 00:35:21,920 --> 00:35:26,279 Speaker 3: just everybody around the world something about being human prefers 603 00:35:26,360 --> 00:35:29,480 Speaker 3: odd numbers or thinks they're more sacred. And I wouldn't 604 00:35:29,520 --> 00:35:32,000 Speaker 3: rule that out. It could be possible, but I wouldn't 605 00:35:32,080 --> 00:35:34,719 Speaker 3: jump to that conclusion either, because you know, you can 606 00:35:34,719 --> 00:35:38,080 Speaker 3: think about all kinds of ways that that sort of 607 00:35:38,200 --> 00:35:41,520 Speaker 3: accidents of history can become ingrained in a culture or 608 00:35:41,640 --> 00:35:45,480 Speaker 3: literary tradition and then just get amplified from there that 609 00:35:45,600 --> 00:35:49,279 Speaker 3: maybe something about you know, initial bits of storytelling that 610 00:35:49,440 --> 00:35:51,920 Speaker 3: happened to include an odd number of something or an 611 00:35:51,920 --> 00:35:54,960 Speaker 3: even number of something can build up over time and 612 00:35:55,120 --> 00:35:58,239 Speaker 3: suddenly that starts to feel just like the fabric of reality. 613 00:35:58,920 --> 00:36:01,400 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we definitely don't want to overstate 614 00:36:01,440 --> 00:36:04,400 Speaker 1: it because from on one hand, any given faith that 615 00:36:04,440 --> 00:36:06,880 Speaker 1: we mentioned just now, there are going to be examples 616 00:36:07,400 --> 00:36:09,480 Speaker 1: in both odd and even you know, you can come 617 00:36:09,560 --> 00:36:12,759 Speaker 1: up with plenty of examples of wholly even numbers or 618 00:36:12,960 --> 00:36:15,239 Speaker 1: the use of even numbers, and you know, some sort 619 00:36:15,239 --> 00:36:20,200 Speaker 1: of sacred tradition of one sort or another, and likewise, yeah, 620 00:36:20,200 --> 00:36:23,000 Speaker 1: there's information that is being related, ideas that are being 621 00:36:23,040 --> 00:36:26,759 Speaker 1: related that may just incidentally be even odd. It's not like, 622 00:36:27,760 --> 00:36:29,719 Speaker 1: you know, it's not like they were putting together the 623 00:36:29,719 --> 00:36:32,080 Speaker 1: ten Commandments and they're like, well, this is a good 624 00:36:32,120 --> 00:36:34,520 Speaker 1: even number of commandments. We don't need to add or 625 00:36:34,560 --> 00:36:36,279 Speaker 1: subtract one. Or it's not like they were, oh, we 626 00:36:36,360 --> 00:36:38,600 Speaker 1: have nine nine commandments. We better come up with one more. 627 00:36:38,640 --> 00:36:39,480 Speaker 1: We want an even ten. 628 00:36:39,880 --> 00:36:43,879 Speaker 3: Well, who knows, maybe, But I mean, at the same time, 629 00:36:44,200 --> 00:36:46,920 Speaker 3: with the example of the Bible, like I was saying earlier, 630 00:36:47,000 --> 00:36:49,879 Speaker 3: like it is hard not to if you just read 631 00:36:49,920 --> 00:36:53,200 Speaker 3: through the Old Testament, notice a huge amount of odd numbers, 632 00:36:53,280 --> 00:36:57,320 Speaker 3: especially a lot of sevens. I don't know that that's 633 00:36:57,400 --> 00:36:58,160 Speaker 3: meaning something. 634 00:36:58,640 --> 00:37:01,000 Speaker 1: Yeah, I couldn't help but think about this one as 635 00:37:01,000 --> 00:37:03,920 Speaker 1: well over the weekend because I went with my family 636 00:37:03,960 --> 00:37:06,800 Speaker 1: to see the new Beetlejuice movie. Oh and of course 637 00:37:07,120 --> 00:37:10,960 Speaker 1: one uh summons the character in question by saying his 638 00:37:11,080 --> 00:37:12,399 Speaker 1: name three times. 639 00:37:13,320 --> 00:37:14,479 Speaker 3: In two or four. 640 00:37:14,920 --> 00:37:17,359 Speaker 1: Yeah, And we see the same with you know other 641 00:37:17,440 --> 00:37:19,920 Speaker 1: you know, folk traditions, the old idea of bloody Mary, 642 00:37:20,640 --> 00:37:24,360 Speaker 1: you know, summoning her, scaring yourself by seeing her in 643 00:37:24,440 --> 00:37:27,600 Speaker 1: the mirror by saying her name three times in a row, 644 00:37:27,680 --> 00:37:28,439 Speaker 1: that sort of thing. 645 00:37:29,000 --> 00:37:30,759 Speaker 3: I got real freaked out about that when I was 646 00:37:30,760 --> 00:37:33,960 Speaker 3: a kid, I had I had a phase where that 647 00:37:34,040 --> 00:37:35,319 Speaker 3: was just like super scary to me. 648 00:37:36,680 --> 00:37:38,080 Speaker 1: I mean, I still am not going to do it. 649 00:37:39,600 --> 00:37:41,680 Speaker 1: I don't believe it, but I'm not gonna still not 650 00:37:41,719 --> 00:37:43,440 Speaker 1: going to say her name three times in front of 651 00:37:43,480 --> 00:37:48,560 Speaker 1: a mirror and I mess around. Yeah, yeah, okay, so uh, 652 00:37:48,960 --> 00:37:51,520 Speaker 1: coming back to the law of odds in general, Yeah, 653 00:37:51,520 --> 00:37:56,120 Speaker 1: it's often touted as a deciding factor in various various 654 00:37:56,120 --> 00:37:59,200 Speaker 1: approaches to visual imagery, and I have seen it mentioned. 655 00:38:00,280 --> 00:38:02,760 Speaker 1: Is lining up with food imagery as well. You know again, 656 00:38:02,880 --> 00:38:05,080 Speaker 1: I think the example used before was if you're going 657 00:38:05,120 --> 00:38:08,400 Speaker 1: to have an appetizer of sliders at a restaurant, you 658 00:38:08,440 --> 00:38:11,720 Speaker 1: want as your menu photo or your Instagram food photo, 659 00:38:12,040 --> 00:38:16,120 Speaker 1: you want an image of three sliders, not two. You 660 00:38:16,160 --> 00:38:18,560 Speaker 1: want an image of three sliders and not four, because 661 00:38:18,600 --> 00:38:20,960 Speaker 1: three is going to be an odd number. It's more attractive. 662 00:38:21,000 --> 00:38:23,200 Speaker 1: And yeah, you can throw in these other ideas of like, 663 00:38:23,200 --> 00:38:26,160 Speaker 1: well there's a central slider, I know which one is 664 00:38:26,200 --> 00:38:30,080 Speaker 1: the lead slider. But the thing is, when I started 665 00:38:30,080 --> 00:38:33,560 Speaker 1: looking around for studies about this. It seems like that 666 00:38:34,080 --> 00:38:38,440 Speaker 1: experiments don't back this up. So according to odd versus 667 00:38:38,480 --> 00:38:41,399 Speaker 1: even a scientific study of the rules of plating by 668 00:38:41,440 --> 00:38:44,360 Speaker 1: woods at all published in twenty sixteen in pere j 669 00:38:44,719 --> 00:38:50,759 Speaker 1: Law and Environment. Yeah, according to this paper, it just 670 00:38:50,800 --> 00:38:54,759 Speaker 1: doesn't seem to work quite as strongly as some might 671 00:38:55,000 --> 00:38:58,120 Speaker 1: have you believe. They actually conducted some experiments. I want 672 00:38:58,120 --> 00:39:00,880 Speaker 1: to say it was over a thousand and folks involved 673 00:39:00,880 --> 00:39:04,239 Speaker 1: in this, but you know, they ended up contending that 674 00:39:04,280 --> 00:39:07,720 Speaker 1: we have to take various cultural factors into consideration here. 675 00:39:09,000 --> 00:39:11,000 Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot going on when we look 676 00:39:11,040 --> 00:39:13,319 Speaker 1: at an image and if we add but if we 677 00:39:13,360 --> 00:39:16,279 Speaker 1: add that that image is image of food, and it's 678 00:39:16,280 --> 00:39:20,040 Speaker 1: food that we are on some level considering eating, then 679 00:39:20,160 --> 00:39:24,640 Speaker 1: it seems that overall portion size is more important than 680 00:39:24,680 --> 00:39:27,279 Speaker 1: odd or even numbers when it comes to human perceptions 681 00:39:27,280 --> 00:39:27,720 Speaker 1: of food. 682 00:39:28,320 --> 00:39:31,759 Speaker 3: Okay, so we would rather have on average, would rather 683 00:39:31,880 --> 00:39:33,239 Speaker 3: have four sliders than three? 684 00:39:33,719 --> 00:39:35,920 Speaker 1: Right, We'd rather have three than two, yes, but not 685 00:39:35,960 --> 00:39:39,319 Speaker 1: because three is odd, but because three is more sliders. 686 00:39:39,840 --> 00:39:43,280 Speaker 1: And of course this seems like a gross over statement 687 00:39:43,280 --> 00:39:45,040 Speaker 1: of the obvious, right, because it's like you go to 688 00:39:45,080 --> 00:39:47,400 Speaker 1: a restaurant you're like, I'm paying you know, close to 689 00:39:47,440 --> 00:39:50,239 Speaker 1: twenty dollars for this plate of sliders. Of course i 690 00:39:50,280 --> 00:39:52,200 Speaker 1: want it to be four and not three, because I'm 691 00:39:52,200 --> 00:39:55,760 Speaker 1: getting more slider for my buck. Also, when you're hungry, 692 00:39:55,840 --> 00:39:58,640 Speaker 1: you're hungry, and your hunger is not always a great 693 00:39:58,680 --> 00:40:03,080 Speaker 1: gauge of how many sliders you need to satisfy yourself 694 00:40:03,239 --> 00:40:06,319 Speaker 1: and or those around you, you know, so you know, 695 00:40:07,239 --> 00:40:10,359 Speaker 1: on that level, of course four sliders sound better. Let 696 00:40:10,400 --> 00:40:13,200 Speaker 1: it be four and not three. Three is just maybe 697 00:40:13,239 --> 00:40:16,000 Speaker 1: a little less likely to satisfy everyone's cravings. 698 00:40:16,239 --> 00:40:18,640 Speaker 3: But so on my understanding this right there, it's not 699 00:40:18,719 --> 00:40:23,000 Speaker 3: necessarily that they found that people prefer evens to odds. 700 00:40:23,080 --> 00:40:26,120 Speaker 3: It's just that maybe, like if there is a preference 701 00:40:26,160 --> 00:40:29,000 Speaker 3: for odds, it doesn't play that big of a role 702 00:40:29,040 --> 00:40:31,719 Speaker 3: when compared to people just wanting more food. 703 00:40:32,000 --> 00:40:35,000 Speaker 1: Right right, And they provide some wiggle room there, because again, 704 00:40:35,520 --> 00:40:38,080 Speaker 1: there's a lot going on when you're considering an image 705 00:40:38,160 --> 00:40:41,000 Speaker 1: or you're considering a presentation. I think there could based 706 00:40:41,000 --> 00:40:42,480 Speaker 1: on what I was reading here, I mean, there could 707 00:40:42,480 --> 00:40:46,920 Speaker 1: easily be a situation where ultimately having an odd number 708 00:40:47,200 --> 00:40:50,600 Speaker 1: is more important. Like maybe it's a very you know, 709 00:40:50,719 --> 00:40:55,359 Speaker 1: ritualistic presentation of food. Maybe it's a situation where the 710 00:40:55,400 --> 00:40:58,719 Speaker 1: present where the presentation is is more about just having 711 00:40:58,800 --> 00:41:02,720 Speaker 1: a great photograph as a posed to, you know, making 712 00:41:02,760 --> 00:41:06,239 Speaker 1: the potential customer salivate. Again, there are a lot there's 713 00:41:06,280 --> 00:41:08,120 Speaker 1: so much going on when we look at an image, 714 00:41:08,680 --> 00:41:12,120 Speaker 1: but you cannot discount the importance of hunger when that 715 00:41:12,239 --> 00:41:13,200 Speaker 1: image is of food. 716 00:41:13,640 --> 00:41:16,480 Speaker 3: It's it's about tricking people into believing that if you 717 00:41:16,520 --> 00:41:18,879 Speaker 3: get this sandwich, the tomato on, it will be red 718 00:41:18,920 --> 00:41:19,440 Speaker 3: and juicy. 719 00:41:20,960 --> 00:41:23,320 Speaker 1: Yeah, in reality, it may not. It may be very anemic. 720 00:41:23,600 --> 00:41:26,640 Speaker 1: Look at it. It may not have much flavor to it. 721 00:41:26,640 --> 00:41:29,600 Speaker 1: It may merely be wet and hopefully cold. In some cases, 722 00:41:29,640 --> 00:41:31,480 Speaker 1: that's fine. Maybe it's gonna work well within the context 723 00:41:31,520 --> 00:41:34,480 Speaker 1: of the slider the studying question. They also looked at like, 724 00:41:34,600 --> 00:41:37,480 Speaker 1: you know, they were looking at it like horizontal versus 725 00:41:37,560 --> 00:41:41,440 Speaker 1: vertical plating scenario. So I would be very interested to 726 00:41:41,480 --> 00:41:43,800 Speaker 1: hear from anyone out there who is involved in plating, 727 00:41:43,880 --> 00:41:47,040 Speaker 1: either professionally or you know, on an amateur chef level, 728 00:41:47,520 --> 00:41:48,799 Speaker 1: what your thoughts are on this. 729 00:41:49,640 --> 00:41:54,360 Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I actually just got interested in how much 730 00:41:54,480 --> 00:41:56,560 Speaker 3: of say you're at, you know, sort of some kind 731 00:41:56,560 --> 00:41:58,239 Speaker 3: of elite level. You know, you're working at it like 732 00:41:58,239 --> 00:42:02,960 Speaker 3: a very fancy, expensive restaurant or something. Plating choices, how 733 00:42:03,040 --> 00:42:05,640 Speaker 3: much of that is is an art and how much 734 00:42:05,680 --> 00:42:07,640 Speaker 3: is a science? Are you just sort of going off 735 00:42:07,680 --> 00:42:11,000 Speaker 3: of some kind of chef or stylists instinct there or 736 00:42:11,040 --> 00:42:15,359 Speaker 3: do you actually do research on what people dining there 737 00:42:15,400 --> 00:42:17,360 Speaker 3: prefer in terms of plating in appearance? 738 00:42:17,719 --> 00:42:19,239 Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean, and then there's also the whole the 739 00:42:19,320 --> 00:42:21,560 Speaker 1: economic value out there, right, you know, because I mean 740 00:42:21,600 --> 00:42:23,719 Speaker 1: you have to have to factor in like can we 741 00:42:23,800 --> 00:42:27,680 Speaker 1: afford to have a four slider platter? Shouldn't it just 742 00:42:27,719 --> 00:42:29,640 Speaker 1: be a three slider platter? Are we really going to 743 00:42:29,719 --> 00:42:32,359 Speaker 1: lose business because everyone thinks they need a fourth one? 744 00:42:32,360 --> 00:42:33,840 Speaker 1: If they need a fourth one, they can buy that 745 00:42:33,920 --> 00:42:36,440 Speaker 1: alto a la carte. Perhaps, I don't know. There are 746 00:42:36,440 --> 00:42:38,360 Speaker 1: a number of factors involved. You know. 747 00:42:38,360 --> 00:42:40,400 Speaker 3: I'm a big fan of chips and dips, and for 748 00:42:40,440 --> 00:42:43,520 Speaker 3: some reason, I really like it when there are two dips. 749 00:42:43,840 --> 00:42:47,360 Speaker 3: Oh okay, there were two different dips. It seems like 750 00:42:47,440 --> 00:42:49,640 Speaker 3: there should be three. Though there should be three tips. 751 00:42:50,080 --> 00:42:52,440 Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, but then you start once they're three, 752 00:42:52,640 --> 00:42:55,200 Speaker 3: that's just like that's like a buffet of dips. You 753 00:42:55,239 --> 00:42:57,520 Speaker 3: get two dips, that's like really focused. Do you get 754 00:42:57,520 --> 00:43:00,759 Speaker 3: like one I don't know, one roasted Toto salsa and 755 00:43:00,800 --> 00:43:02,240 Speaker 3: one guacamole or something. 756 00:43:02,520 --> 00:43:04,400 Speaker 1: Yeah, when there are three dips, I do find that 757 00:43:04,440 --> 00:43:07,760 Speaker 1: one dip is definitely going back in the fridge for dinner. 758 00:43:07,760 --> 00:43:10,000 Speaker 1: And then because you think, well, I'll use that later, 759 00:43:10,320 --> 00:43:12,319 Speaker 1: I'll definitely dip something in that later. And you don't 760 00:43:12,360 --> 00:43:14,360 Speaker 1: you just wash that up out and recycle it like 761 00:43:14,520 --> 00:43:17,319 Speaker 1: a week or two later. All right, I guess we're 762 00:43:17,320 --> 00:43:18,799 Speaker 1: out of time for this, but we didn't even get 763 00:43:18,800 --> 00:43:22,200 Speaker 1: into the whole idea of the seven layer burrito. So 764 00:43:22,840 --> 00:43:26,520 Speaker 1: just leave listeners to contemplate the seven layer burrito and 765 00:43:26,520 --> 00:43:29,360 Speaker 1: if that is an appropriate number of layers or should 766 00:43:29,360 --> 00:43:30,240 Speaker 1: it be less or more? 767 00:43:30,560 --> 00:43:32,520 Speaker 3: I don't know, the magic burrito? 768 00:43:34,000 --> 00:43:36,200 Speaker 1: All right, just a reminder for everyone that Stuff to 769 00:43:36,200 --> 00:43:38,320 Speaker 1: Flow Your Mind is primarily a science and culture podcast, 770 00:43:38,400 --> 00:43:41,840 Speaker 1: with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, short form episode 771 00:43:41,840 --> 00:43:44,720 Speaker 1: on Wednesday, and on Fridays. We set aside most serious concerns, 772 00:43:44,760 --> 00:43:47,000 Speaker 1: would just talk about a weird film on Weird House 773 00:43:47,200 --> 00:43:50,560 Speaker 1: Cinema and let's see what else to remind you of? 774 00:43:50,600 --> 00:43:53,759 Speaker 1: Oh yeah, if you were on Instagram, follow us on Instagram. 775 00:43:54,000 --> 00:43:57,319 Speaker 1: We are STBYM podcast. That's our handle, and you know 776 00:43:57,360 --> 00:43:59,440 Speaker 1: you can keep track of keep up a little bit 777 00:43:59,600 --> 00:44:01,760 Speaker 1: with what we're putting out in the podcast. 778 00:44:02,280 --> 00:44:05,680 Speaker 3: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway. 779 00:44:05,800 --> 00:44:07,239 Speaker 3: If you would like to get in touch with us 780 00:44:07,239 --> 00:44:09,640 Speaker 3: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest 781 00:44:09,640 --> 00:44:11,560 Speaker 3: a topic for the future, or just to say hello, 782 00:44:11,960 --> 00:44:14,719 Speaker 3: you can email us at contact stuff to Blow your 783 00:44:14,760 --> 00:44:23,200 Speaker 3: Mind dot com. 784 00:44:23,360 --> 00:44:26,279 Speaker 2: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For 785 00:44:26,400 --> 00:44:29,160 Speaker 2: more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, 786 00:44:29,320 --> 00:44:45,879 Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.