1 00:00:06,240 --> 00:00:08,079 Speaker 1: Hey, you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My 2 00:00:08,200 --> 00:00:09,000 Speaker 1: name is Robert. 3 00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:11,840 Speaker 2: Lamb and I am Joe McCormick, and it's Saturday. We 4 00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:13,840 Speaker 2: are heading into the vault for an older episode of 5 00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:16,479 Speaker 2: the show. This is part two of the series that 6 00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:19,480 Speaker 2: we did in May of twenty twenty three. This episode 7 00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:22,560 Speaker 2: published on May fourth, twenty twenty three, Part two of 8 00:00:22,560 --> 00:00:26,320 Speaker 2: the series on the game of telephone and related concepts 9 00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:28,240 Speaker 2: about the oral transmission of information. 10 00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:29,800 Speaker 1: All right, let's dive right in. 11 00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:39,800 Speaker 3: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio. 12 00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:45,320 Speaker 1: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My 13 00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:46,239 Speaker 1: name is Robert. 14 00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:49,800 Speaker 2: Lamb and I am Joe McCormick. And today we are 15 00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:54,680 Speaker 2: returning with part two in our series on the Telephone Game, 16 00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:58,920 Speaker 2: a children's game in which a secret message is passed 17 00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:01,720 Speaker 2: along from one place to the next in a chain, 18 00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:05,800 Speaker 2: until finally the original message and the message that emerges 19 00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:08,760 Speaker 2: at the end are both announced, so everybody can see 20 00:01:09,200 --> 00:01:13,560 Speaker 2: how the information was either preserved faithfully or horribly mangled 21 00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:17,360 Speaker 2: by the passing from mouth to ear so many times now, 22 00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:19,440 Speaker 2: if you have not heard part one of the series, 23 00:01:19,480 --> 00:01:21,800 Speaker 2: I think this is a case where you really should 24 00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:23,000 Speaker 2: go back and check that one out. 25 00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:23,280 Speaker 1: First. 26 00:01:23,319 --> 00:01:25,600 Speaker 2: We lay a lout of the groundwork for what we're 27 00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:29,080 Speaker 2: talking about today in the first episode, but as a 28 00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:32,160 Speaker 2: brief refresher, we talked about some of our memories of 29 00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:35,680 Speaker 2: these games from childhood, and we also discussed a very 30 00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:39,800 Speaker 2: famous and influential series of experiments from roughly a century ago, 31 00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:44,400 Speaker 2: discussed in a book by the British experimental psychologist Frederick C. 32 00:01:44,720 --> 00:01:50,200 Speaker 2: Bartlett called Remembering, a Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. 33 00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:52,960 Speaker 2: That book came out in nineteen thirty two. Now, the 34 00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:56,920 Speaker 2: experiments described by Bartlett in this book concerned what is 35 00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:01,800 Speaker 2: called serial reproduction, which is very similar to the telephone game, 36 00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:05,760 Speaker 2: but involves a written component. So basically, a person would 37 00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:08,360 Speaker 2: be given a text to read, and this could be anything. 38 00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:10,919 Speaker 2: It could be a transcription of a folk tale, it 39 00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:14,120 Speaker 2: could be a newspaper article, a passage from a book, whatever, 40 00:02:14,520 --> 00:02:17,520 Speaker 2: and then that person is allowed to read it several times, 41 00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:20,280 Speaker 2: and then it's taken away, and then later they are 42 00:02:20,280 --> 00:02:24,000 Speaker 2: asked to reproduce the text as accurately as they could 43 00:02:24,320 --> 00:02:28,200 Speaker 2: from memory. Then that reproduction would be the text given 44 00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:30,280 Speaker 2: to the next person in the chain, and they would 45 00:02:30,280 --> 00:02:33,320 Speaker 2: do the best they could to reproduce that from memory, 46 00:02:33,480 --> 00:02:36,000 Speaker 2: and so on down the chain for an arbitrary number 47 00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:40,200 Speaker 2: of reproductions. Now, what Bartlett found in these experiments was 48 00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:44,440 Speaker 2: that his text based version of the telephone game in 49 00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:50,920 Speaker 2: most cases produced radical, profound alterations to the original story 50 00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:54,040 Speaker 2: or message. And to read from his conclusion of that 51 00:02:54,120 --> 00:02:58,360 Speaker 2: chapter quote, epithets are changed into their opposites, Incidents and 52 00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:03,000 Speaker 2: events are transposed, names and numbers rarely survive intact for 53 00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:07,200 Speaker 2: more than a few reproductions. Opinions and conclusions are reversed. 54 00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:11,600 Speaker 2: Nearly every possible variation seems as if it can take place, 55 00:03:11,800 --> 00:03:15,560 Speaker 2: even in a relatively short series. So I wanted to 56 00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:18,640 Speaker 2: begin today by following up on Bartlett's work, which we 57 00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:20,560 Speaker 2: talked about in the last episode, because it cast a 58 00:03:20,639 --> 00:03:23,520 Speaker 2: very long shadow in the study of memory and cultural 59 00:03:23,560 --> 00:03:26,360 Speaker 2: transmission of information. But obviously this book is from a 60 00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:29,000 Speaker 2: very long time ago, so I wanted to see whether 61 00:03:29,040 --> 00:03:33,760 Speaker 2: there were any more recent scientific reviews commenting on whether 62 00:03:33,840 --> 00:03:36,320 Speaker 2: his work on serial reproduction has stood the test of 63 00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:40,720 Speaker 2: time and or been successfully replicated. So I found a 64 00:03:40,760 --> 00:03:46,360 Speaker 2: few papers. One was actually focused on Bartlett's repeated reproduction experiments. 65 00:03:46,400 --> 00:03:50,080 Speaker 2: That's where the same person tries to recall a story 66 00:03:50,160 --> 00:03:53,360 Speaker 2: or piece of information at different time intervals after being 67 00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:57,120 Speaker 2: exposed to it, as opposed to the serial reproduction experiments 68 00:03:57,160 --> 00:04:00,200 Speaker 2: where it's given from one person to the next. But 69 00:04:00,560 --> 00:04:04,280 Speaker 2: this study did briefly address the other Bartlett experiments in 70 00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:08,080 Speaker 2: the background section. This paper was ken Bartlett's repeated reproduction 71 00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:11,600 Speaker 2: experiments be replicated by Bergmann and Rodeger in Memory and 72 00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:15,240 Speaker 2: Cognition in nineteen ninety nine, and the authors say that 73 00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:19,120 Speaker 2: quote serial reproduction can often lead to dramatic distortions in 74 00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:23,680 Speaker 2: recall over repeated reconstructions of the event. Although rarely used now, 75 00:04:23,800 --> 00:04:27,040 Speaker 2: this experimental technique was used in later studies with results 76 00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:31,839 Speaker 2: generally confirming those of Bartlett. Psychologists interested in transmission of 77 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:36,480 Speaker 2: rumors use this technique among others. And then I found 78 00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:39,200 Speaker 2: another study from more recent years. This was from twenty 79 00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:42,000 Speaker 2: fourteen in the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and 80 00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:46,960 Speaker 2: Cognition by Rodigertte a'll called Bartlett Revisited direct comparison of 81 00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:52,000 Speaker 2: repeated reproduction and serial reproduction techniques, and in their review 82 00:04:52,080 --> 00:04:55,680 Speaker 2: the authors say in some virtually every experiment we can 83 00:04:55,720 --> 00:05:00,640 Speaker 2: find using Bartlet's serial reproduction technique confirms his observation that 84 00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:04,440 Speaker 2: social transmission of information is error prone and that the 85 00:05:04,440 --> 00:05:06,800 Speaker 2: more links there are in the chain, the greater the 86 00:05:06,839 --> 00:05:10,159 Speaker 2: probability of error. So, putting all this together, it looks 87 00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:13,960 Speaker 2: to me like subsequent research may have found some differences 88 00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:17,760 Speaker 2: at the margins, but for the most part, Bartlett's findings 89 00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:21,320 Speaker 2: about the telephone game process have been confirmed. When you 90 00:05:21,400 --> 00:05:24,080 Speaker 2: do this particular type of experiment where one person gets 91 00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:26,440 Speaker 2: to read a story and then they're supposed to repeat 92 00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:28,880 Speaker 2: it as accurately as they can from memory, and you 93 00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:31,640 Speaker 2: go on and on, all the different kinds of changes 94 00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:34,760 Speaker 2: that we talked about in the last episode are introduced. 95 00:05:35,440 --> 00:05:38,159 Speaker 2: Now there might be some important caveats based on what 96 00:05:38,560 --> 00:05:41,560 Speaker 2: the genre of the information is, and we can talk 97 00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:44,760 Speaker 2: about that later in this episode, But for the most part, 98 00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:47,200 Speaker 2: one of my big takeaways from this is we should 99 00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:52,000 Speaker 2: all be very cautious about believing rumors, even if you 100 00:05:52,279 --> 00:05:56,400 Speaker 2: trust that the person directly sharing the information with you 101 00:05:57,240 --> 00:05:59,640 Speaker 2: is not a liar, because this is something people always 102 00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:01,960 Speaker 2: say when you know, when you hear a rumor, people 103 00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:05,040 Speaker 2: say like, oh, but Johnny, who told me this isn't 104 00:06:05,040 --> 00:06:07,040 Speaker 2: a liar? Why would he tell me this if it 105 00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:07,680 Speaker 2: wasn't true. 106 00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:11,240 Speaker 1: M Yeah, that's a good point, though. I think the 107 00:06:11,240 --> 00:06:14,040 Speaker 1: only example of rumors that you should take to the bank, 108 00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:16,400 Speaker 1: the only example is going to be the of course, 109 00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:20,120 Speaker 1: the eleven studio album by Fleetwood Mac, which absolutely holds up, 110 00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:22,520 Speaker 1: no doubt about it. 111 00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:24,040 Speaker 2: That's just secondhand news. 112 00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:27,240 Speaker 1: There's also a track cook you also have the chain 113 00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:29,719 Speaker 1: on there, so take that into account. 114 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:31,760 Speaker 2: I do love Fleetwood Mac, but I got to ding 115 00:06:31,839 --> 00:06:36,039 Speaker 2: them for a false meteorological fact that they perpetuate in 116 00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:38,680 Speaker 2: one of their songs with the statement the thunder only 117 00:06:38,720 --> 00:06:40,919 Speaker 2: happens when it rains. That is not true. 118 00:06:41,360 --> 00:06:45,360 Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely incorrect. But to your point, Yeah, that's a 119 00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:48,440 Speaker 1: good point on rumors. Sort of like the dark side 120 00:06:48,440 --> 00:06:52,480 Speaker 1: of this this phenomenon. I really like the idea of 121 00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:56,640 Speaker 1: the storytelling element and the chain of storytellers within a 122 00:06:56,680 --> 00:07:01,120 Speaker 1: given oral storytelling tradition or or what have you. Like. 123 00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:04,880 Speaker 1: It made me rethink and reanalyze the role of the 124 00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:08,000 Speaker 1: storyteller in a given culture. You know that with each 125 00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:12,240 Speaker 1: transmission of this story you may lose so many great things, 126 00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:15,000 Speaker 1: but you also may gain things. It's going to introduce 127 00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:20,080 Speaker 1: new ways to make this content more agreeable with an audience. 128 00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:23,120 Speaker 1: More beneficial to the audience, more entertaining, though at the 129 00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:26,760 Speaker 1: same time also opening it up to further manipulation so 130 00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:29,560 Speaker 1: that the message of the story could also be misused. 131 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:32,960 Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean this is noted I think by Bartlett himself, 132 00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:35,720 Speaker 2: but also in many papers I was reading about this research. 133 00:07:36,000 --> 00:07:38,880 Speaker 2: So the thing is that, yes, this should make us 134 00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:43,520 Speaker 2: very skeptical of the objective accuracy of much of memory 135 00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:48,480 Speaker 2: and of chains of information sharing between people, especially where 136 00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:51,480 Speaker 2: the whole process cannot be reviewed with a fixed record, 137 00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:54,080 Speaker 2: Because the crucial element of this here is that you 138 00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:57,200 Speaker 2: only have to work with what the previous person told you. 139 00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:00,520 Speaker 2: It's a totally different thing if like it's all done, 140 00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:03,920 Speaker 2: maybe it's all done in writing or somehow it's all recorded, 141 00:08:03,960 --> 00:08:06,440 Speaker 2: and you can go back and review what the story 142 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:10,240 Speaker 2: was at each point in its history. But for this 143 00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:12,800 Speaker 2: type of information sharing, yes it should make a skeptical 144 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:17,880 Speaker 2: about objective accuracy in reproduction of the original. But this 145 00:08:17,960 --> 00:08:21,600 Speaker 2: doesn't mean that the way people process information and serial 146 00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:25,720 Speaker 2: transmission is bad. It just means that you shouldn't rely 147 00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:29,040 Speaker 2: on it to get objective accurate accounts. It may not 148 00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:32,000 Speaker 2: be good for that purpose, but it's good for other things. 149 00:08:32,280 --> 00:08:36,240 Speaker 2: It's great for creating culture, for enlivening art and narrative 150 00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:40,920 Speaker 2: across time, and making it always newly relevant, for maintaining 151 00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:45,600 Speaker 2: friendship and social bonds, for teaching applicable lessons in everyday life. 152 00:08:45,920 --> 00:08:49,120 Speaker 2: In fact, several papers I was reading pointed out that 153 00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:54,360 Speaker 2: in fact, this combination of conservation and distortion of information 154 00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:57,760 Speaker 2: at the same time through transmission from person to person 155 00:08:58,559 --> 00:09:02,000 Speaker 2: could be viewed as metaphorically similar to the combination of 156 00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:07,679 Speaker 2: conservation and distortion in biological evolution. Life can only exist 157 00:09:07,760 --> 00:09:11,760 Speaker 2: on Earth where there is the appropriate balance of conservation 158 00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:16,559 Speaker 2: and distortion of genetic information. So genetic traits are heritable 159 00:09:16,880 --> 00:09:19,920 Speaker 2: and they're passed on from one generation of organisms to another. 160 00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:24,520 Speaker 2: But species survive in a changing environment because they're able 161 00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:27,120 Speaker 2: to adapt and evolve, and they're able to adapt and 162 00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:32,520 Speaker 2: evolve when mutations distortions of that genetic information prove beneficial 163 00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:35,360 Speaker 2: to them. Though it's interesting to note, I think that 164 00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:38,680 Speaker 2: the error rate is probably much higher in the transmission 165 00:09:38,840 --> 00:09:42,440 Speaker 2: of most genres of verbal information than it is for 166 00:09:42,679 --> 00:09:46,720 Speaker 2: genetic information and organisms. Like in life, accurate transmission of 167 00:09:46,760 --> 00:09:50,760 Speaker 2: genes is the norm and mutations are the exception. When 168 00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:53,400 Speaker 2: we're telling stories to each other or repeating something we 169 00:09:53,480 --> 00:09:56,720 Speaker 2: read in the newspaper to a friend. In that kind 170 00:09:56,760 --> 00:10:00,480 Speaker 2: of verbal memory based transmission, mutations are much more than 171 00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:02,880 Speaker 2: norm But at the same time, I think about how 172 00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:06,200 Speaker 2: there I guess there is a higher survival tolerance there, 173 00:10:06,280 --> 00:10:11,000 Speaker 2: Like a single harmful mutation can prove fatal to a bacterium. 174 00:10:11,600 --> 00:10:14,760 Speaker 2: But how does that work in the analogy for transmitting information. 175 00:10:15,760 --> 00:10:19,120 Speaker 2: Is it possible that one memory error could kill a 176 00:10:19,160 --> 00:10:22,120 Speaker 2: piece of information and prevent it from spreading further? 177 00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:25,160 Speaker 1: I guess so, you know, like the example of the 178 00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:30,640 Speaker 1: story of the ghost Battle the Ghost Warriors in the 179 00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:35,880 Speaker 1: last episode. You know, like sometimes if certain details, certain descriptions, 180 00:10:35,960 --> 00:10:41,000 Speaker 1: certain narrative choices are removed, like you can take the 181 00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:44,360 Speaker 1: heart out of a particular story, a particular myth, and 182 00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:48,280 Speaker 1: could impact the degree to which people want to pass 183 00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:49,800 Speaker 1: it on or need to pass it on. 184 00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:53,000 Speaker 2: That's a good point. Yes, This thing that Bartlett noticed 185 00:10:53,000 --> 00:10:56,240 Speaker 2: where certain details this is he called the leveling process, 186 00:10:56,320 --> 00:11:01,600 Speaker 2: where individualizing characteristics and stylistic details from a story are 187 00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:04,920 Speaker 2: stripped out as they are reproduced by people who don't 188 00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:09,120 Speaker 2: remember them because they deem them inessential, not realizing that 189 00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:12,360 Speaker 2: the soul of the story lies in those details. The 190 00:11:12,360 --> 00:11:14,840 Speaker 2: fact that those details are now missing could make the 191 00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:17,840 Speaker 2: story so uninteresting to the person who hears it that 192 00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:21,280 Speaker 2: they would never share it again. That's a good point, 193 00:11:21,880 --> 00:11:23,400 Speaker 2: But wait a minute. I wanted to come back to 194 00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:26,240 Speaker 2: something I started saying a minute ago, this thing about 195 00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:29,840 Speaker 2: believing rumors, where people are often inclined to believe a 196 00:11:29,880 --> 00:11:32,920 Speaker 2: rumor because they don't want to believe the individual person 197 00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:36,240 Speaker 2: who shared the rumor with them is a liar. And 198 00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:39,199 Speaker 2: I think that that is such a misguided mentality because, 199 00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:42,240 Speaker 2: first of all, and less related to the experimental findings 200 00:11:42,280 --> 00:11:45,040 Speaker 2: we're talking about here, the person who shared the rumor 201 00:11:45,080 --> 00:11:47,520 Speaker 2: with you may not be a liar, but you know 202 00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:49,760 Speaker 2: less about the person who shared the rumor with them, 203 00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:53,480 Speaker 2: and who that person heard it from, etc. You can't 204 00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:57,840 Speaker 2: usually inspect the entire chain of transmission, only the person 205 00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:01,720 Speaker 2: you're directly getting it from. More relevant to today's topic, 206 00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:06,000 Speaker 2: it's absolutely clear from these experiments that massive distortions of 207 00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:10,839 Speaker 2: original source material can creep into human transmission chains, even 208 00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:14,320 Speaker 2: when the person isn't a liar. When they're not trying 209 00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:17,080 Speaker 2: to distort it, they're trying as best they can to 210 00:12:17,200 --> 00:12:20,720 Speaker 2: accurately reproduce it. And that's in cases where the person 211 00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:24,240 Speaker 2: is not personally invested in the subject matter, where they 212 00:12:24,240 --> 00:12:27,760 Speaker 2: have no incentive to exaggerate, and they're just trying to 213 00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:31,480 Speaker 2: reproduce the material as best they can. How much worse 214 00:12:31,520 --> 00:12:34,200 Speaker 2: will things be in the real world? Will distortions be 215 00:12:34,360 --> 00:12:38,400 Speaker 2: when like somebody is personally invested in the material, maybe 216 00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:41,319 Speaker 2: in it presenting a certain way, when they do have 217 00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:44,960 Speaker 2: incentives to exaggerate or otherwise distort the material, whether that's 218 00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:49,040 Speaker 2: to maybe make it more entertaining, more impressive, more illustrative 219 00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:51,480 Speaker 2: of a point they want to make, or whatever, and 220 00:12:51,720 --> 00:12:56,439 Speaker 2: when they're not necessarily conscious of being scrutinized for accuracy. 221 00:12:56,920 --> 00:12:59,360 Speaker 1: Yeah, so there are all these different types of unconscious 222 00:12:59,760 --> 00:13:02,640 Speaker 1: chain an event, of course, intentional changes that can take place, 223 00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:05,920 Speaker 1: and the result is that some details in the story 224 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:08,280 Speaker 1: or the rumor or what have you, some will change, 225 00:13:08,320 --> 00:13:10,880 Speaker 1: some will remain, and there will also be a sharpening 226 00:13:11,000 --> 00:13:15,920 Speaker 1: of things, you know, like an exaggeration. But what does 227 00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:18,560 Speaker 1: it all mean? I was looking at a handful of 228 00:13:18,559 --> 00:13:23,559 Speaker 1: papers discussing transmission chain experiments and the transmission of urban 229 00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:26,840 Speaker 1: legends and other stories, which I thought seems like a 230 00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:28,640 Speaker 1: really good area to look at because a lot of 231 00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:32,120 Speaker 1: times urban legends, especially, I mean, we're not talking about literature, 232 00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:35,440 Speaker 1: we're not talking about myths, where they often kind of 233 00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:39,000 Speaker 1: come out of nowhere, and the way in which we 234 00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:43,040 Speaker 1: pass them on sometimes feels more akin to like older 235 00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:45,120 Speaker 1: oral storytelling traditions. 236 00:13:45,840 --> 00:13:48,000 Speaker 2: Well, right, because the case with urban myths is you 237 00:13:48,080 --> 00:13:53,079 Speaker 2: at least usually assume that they were created by many minds. 238 00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:56,480 Speaker 2: You know, they're the product of this transmission chain, rather 239 00:13:56,600 --> 00:13:59,880 Speaker 2: than say, being originally written down in a fixed form 240 00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:03,520 Speaker 2: one person and then other people have tried to replicate 241 00:14:03,559 --> 00:14:07,000 Speaker 2: it across time, though in fact there are variation, Like 242 00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:10,040 Speaker 2: some urban legends do come from books. That's a funny 243 00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:13,040 Speaker 2: thing that pops up occasionally, like it was originally a 244 00:14:13,120 --> 00:14:15,199 Speaker 2: story somebody wrote that was published in a sci fi 245 00:14:15,280 --> 00:14:18,160 Speaker 2: magazine somewhere, and then it got turned into an urban 246 00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:20,360 Speaker 2: legend and morphed along along the chain. 247 00:14:20,960 --> 00:14:23,240 Speaker 1: Yeah. And of course, speaking of the chain, we have 248 00:14:23,280 --> 00:14:27,280 Speaker 1: to acknowledge the email chain of technology changes things. Technology 249 00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:29,240 Speaker 1: ends up bringing us a scenario we're end up with 250 00:14:29,280 --> 00:14:33,960 Speaker 1: things like pasta, creepy pasta and so forth, where it's 251 00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:37,040 Speaker 1: something that is as the name alludes, to generally just 252 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:40,400 Speaker 1: copied and pasted, though sometimes there are augmentations made, and 253 00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:43,200 Speaker 1: then of course everyone has received it, or at least 254 00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:44,640 Speaker 1: in times past. I don't know if this is still 255 00:14:44,640 --> 00:14:47,640 Speaker 1: a thing so much, but when a family member forwards 256 00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:51,560 Speaker 1: you an email and it has some sort of perhaps 257 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:55,600 Speaker 1: an unbelievable quality to it, some sort of tall tail 258 00:14:55,640 --> 00:14:58,320 Speaker 1: or urban legend at the heart of it. But nothing 259 00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:02,680 Speaker 1: has changed except for the string of forwards that are 260 00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:03,960 Speaker 1: at the top of it, where you can see all 261 00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:05,920 Speaker 1: these people that have passed it on like a chain letter. 262 00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:08,400 Speaker 2: But if I don't forward this, I'm going to look 263 00:15:08,400 --> 00:15:10,160 Speaker 2: in the mirror and see a ghost and it will 264 00:15:10,240 --> 00:15:10,560 Speaker 2: kill me. 265 00:15:11,040 --> 00:15:22,680 Speaker 1: That's right, in seven days. So one of the papers 266 00:15:22,680 --> 00:15:25,320 Speaker 1: I was looking at was from Storytelling to Facebook by 267 00:15:25,360 --> 00:15:29,800 Speaker 1: Alberto Rcibi, published in Human Nature in twenty twenty two. 268 00:15:30,120 --> 00:15:36,080 Speaker 1: This particular paper utilized a registered online pair of studies, 269 00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:39,800 Speaker 1: one using a traditional transmission chain set up, and the 270 00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:42,960 Speaker 1: other asking subjects whether they would be likely to share 271 00:15:43,000 --> 00:15:47,560 Speaker 1: a story on social media or with friends in a 272 00:15:47,560 --> 00:15:51,680 Speaker 1: anonymous or attributed status. 273 00:15:51,760 --> 00:15:54,320 Speaker 2: So I thought this was really interesting. So, if I'm 274 00:15:54,400 --> 00:15:58,320 Speaker 2: understanding right, the author wanted to compare different types of 275 00:15:58,360 --> 00:16:01,800 Speaker 2: information sharing in the modern era one is more like 276 00:16:01,800 --> 00:16:04,080 Speaker 2: the experiments we've been talking about, where somebody has to 277 00:16:04,120 --> 00:16:07,960 Speaker 2: pass along the story effortfully by like using their memory 278 00:16:08,280 --> 00:16:11,200 Speaker 2: to retell the story as they understand it, like in 279 00:16:11,240 --> 00:16:16,320 Speaker 2: the Bartlet experiments, versus the technology assisted passing along of 280 00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:20,600 Speaker 2: a story passively in its original unaltered form. You know, 281 00:16:20,640 --> 00:16:22,520 Speaker 2: you just click the button to share, so you're not 282 00:16:22,560 --> 00:16:25,800 Speaker 2: actually changing it in that case, you are just deciding 283 00:16:25,840 --> 00:16:28,800 Speaker 2: whether or not you want this same original piece of 284 00:16:28,840 --> 00:16:31,240 Speaker 2: media to go to all of the people following you. 285 00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:35,000 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, So just some of the very quick sort 286 00:16:35,040 --> 00:16:38,720 Speaker 1: of findings from this. First of all, negative content was 287 00:16:38,760 --> 00:16:42,760 Speaker 1: both better transmitted in transmission chain experiments and shared more 288 00:16:43,080 --> 00:16:44,680 Speaker 1: than its neutral counterpart. 289 00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:47,840 Speaker 2: That should not be surprising based on all the studies 290 00:16:47,840 --> 00:16:51,080 Speaker 2: of what does well online negative content works. 291 00:16:51,560 --> 00:16:56,360 Speaker 1: Yeah. Next, threat related information was successful in transmission chain experiments, 292 00:16:56,720 --> 00:17:01,440 Speaker 1: but not when sharing straight up. So that's that's interesting 293 00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:03,320 Speaker 1: as well, and again kind of matches up with what 294 00:17:03,360 --> 00:17:07,240 Speaker 1: we we tend to understand about, you know, why we 295 00:17:07,320 --> 00:17:10,199 Speaker 1: pass something on, why we would we would tell someone 296 00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:15,359 Speaker 1: a particular story. And then finally, information eliciting disgust was 297 00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:18,600 Speaker 1: not advantaged in either which which is interesting. 298 00:17:19,040 --> 00:17:21,480 Speaker 2: That's surprising to me. But okay, I. 299 00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:23,560 Speaker 1: Guess you know some people. I guess maybe it depends 300 00:17:23,600 --> 00:17:27,000 Speaker 1: on the population. Again, this is this is a small study, 301 00:17:28,160 --> 00:17:31,280 Speaker 1: but it does seem like there would be individuals who 302 00:17:31,280 --> 00:17:33,160 Speaker 1: are like, hey, I got a disgusting story I need 303 00:17:33,200 --> 00:17:37,560 Speaker 1: to tell you listen to me. But but maybe other's 304 00:17:37,600 --> 00:17:39,800 Speaker 1: not so much, or maybe it's like the disgusting thing 305 00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:42,119 Speaker 1: that we might might be the thing we sort of 306 00:17:42,119 --> 00:17:46,200 Speaker 1: focus on, Like, maybe it's ultimately something about it being 307 00:17:46,280 --> 00:17:49,399 Speaker 1: negative or something about it being threat related that is 308 00:17:49,560 --> 00:17:53,600 Speaker 1: more important to the transmission than merely the discuss Now, 309 00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:57,400 Speaker 1: the author points out that content biases are strongest when 310 00:17:57,440 --> 00:18:01,480 Speaker 1: memorization and reproduction aren't involved in the transmission of information, 311 00:18:01,800 --> 00:18:05,280 Speaker 1: as in the telephone game and the traditional oral transmission 312 00:18:05,280 --> 00:18:08,399 Speaker 1: of narratives. Now, another paper I was looking at pointed 313 00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:11,480 Speaker 1: out some other great ideas related to this. It's titled 314 00:18:11,520 --> 00:18:15,880 Speaker 1: serial Killers, Spiders and Cybersex, Social and Survival Information by 315 00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:19,440 Speaker 1: us in the Transmission of Urban Legends by stubbards Field 316 00:18:19,520 --> 00:18:22,240 Speaker 1: at All, published in the British Journal of Psychology in 317 00:18:22,280 --> 00:18:27,080 Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. Okay, oh y, that's great time. The authors 318 00:18:27,080 --> 00:18:29,919 Speaker 1: point out that when we take in information and retell it, 319 00:18:30,440 --> 00:18:33,440 Speaker 1: various cognitive selection pressures kick in to make sure it's 320 00:18:33,840 --> 00:18:38,160 Speaker 1: maximally transmittable. This can alter structure, it can alter content, 321 00:18:38,600 --> 00:18:44,320 Speaker 1: and transmissibility depends on three factors salience, accuracy of recall, 322 00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:46,399 Speaker 1: and motivation to pass it on. 323 00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:48,639 Speaker 2: Okay, so can you explain that. 324 00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:50,679 Speaker 1: The way I was thinking about is in terms of like, 325 00:18:50,680 --> 00:18:52,840 Speaker 1: all right, you've heard a good joke and you want 326 00:18:52,840 --> 00:18:54,840 Speaker 1: to retell that joke. Why do you want to retell 327 00:18:54,880 --> 00:18:57,520 Speaker 1: that joke? Is it good? Is it notable? Is it 328 00:18:57,560 --> 00:19:01,439 Speaker 1: attention grabbing in any way? Can you actually remember the 329 00:19:01,480 --> 00:19:04,720 Speaker 1: beats well enough to retell it? And then why are 330 00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:07,800 Speaker 1: you retelling it? Is? Is it timely? Is it entertaining? 331 00:19:07,920 --> 00:19:10,120 Speaker 1: Is it particularly cutting? Are you just trying to create 332 00:19:10,160 --> 00:19:12,520 Speaker 1: a distraction? You know, dot sort of lift the mood. 333 00:19:13,040 --> 00:19:15,760 Speaker 1: All of this matters without any of us having to 334 00:19:15,800 --> 00:19:18,440 Speaker 1: actively check these boxes off in our head. We don't 335 00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:20,480 Speaker 1: have to actually think like, all right, can I read? 336 00:19:20,520 --> 00:19:23,160 Speaker 1: Because Lord knows, plenty of people launch into a joke 337 00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:26,840 Speaker 1: without trying to, without making sure that they can actually 338 00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:31,479 Speaker 1: retell all the necessary beats first. But also you're not 339 00:19:31,560 --> 00:19:35,280 Speaker 1: necessarily you know, conscious of all of this. As you're 340 00:19:35,320 --> 00:19:36,400 Speaker 1: about to retell. 341 00:19:36,160 --> 00:19:38,760 Speaker 2: Something, the horse goes into the doctor's office has a 342 00:19:38,800 --> 00:19:42,879 Speaker 2: long face. The horse says, why is my face like this? 343 00:19:43,920 --> 00:19:44,960 Speaker 2: I don't remember the rest. 344 00:19:45,600 --> 00:19:49,200 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but still, it's like you're taking a joke 345 00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:52,240 Speaker 1: or some other bit of information. If it ends with you, 346 00:19:52,320 --> 00:19:54,880 Speaker 1: there's a reason, and if you pass it on, there's 347 00:19:54,920 --> 00:19:57,960 Speaker 1: a reason as well. So the first and third factors here, 348 00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:02,960 Speaker 1: salience and motivation, depend on social information bias and survival 349 00:20:03,000 --> 00:20:06,320 Speaker 1: information bias. In other words, coming back to the joke 350 00:20:06,480 --> 00:20:09,080 Speaker 1: or say an urban legend, does the thing you were 351 00:20:09,119 --> 00:20:15,160 Speaker 1: passing on contain to any degree social information or survival information? 352 00:20:15,680 --> 00:20:18,120 Speaker 2: Hmm okay, Yeah. 353 00:20:18,119 --> 00:20:20,320 Speaker 1: It's really interesting to think about this because indeed, some 354 00:20:20,359 --> 00:20:24,320 Speaker 1: of the memorable ideas out there, be they jokes, urban legends, 355 00:20:24,400 --> 00:20:27,680 Speaker 1: or what have you, at least seem to have some 356 00:20:27,760 --> 00:20:32,359 Speaker 1: sort of social revelation or commentary baked into them, and 357 00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:35,280 Speaker 1: or some sort of information that seems to contain a 358 00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:38,879 Speaker 1: lesson on how to survive in the world. I mean, 359 00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:41,720 Speaker 1: you're not necessarily processing this. You're not thinking like, oh, 360 00:20:41,720 --> 00:20:43,879 Speaker 1: this is a good urban legend. I can use this, 361 00:20:43,880 --> 00:20:46,119 Speaker 1: This might save my life tomorrow. You might not be 362 00:20:46,200 --> 00:20:48,840 Speaker 1: thinking that, but that could be like the reason that 363 00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:50,480 Speaker 1: you're inclined to remember it. 364 00:20:50,760 --> 00:20:52,800 Speaker 2: I think a lot of the jokes that people find 365 00:20:52,880 --> 00:20:57,040 Speaker 2: the funniest are ones that make a playfully negative observation 366 00:20:57,280 --> 00:21:02,159 Speaker 2: about general human nature. Yes, classic example, the two hunters 367 00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:04,320 Speaker 2: in the woods they see a bear charging at them. 368 00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:07,719 Speaker 2: One kneels down to tie his shoes. His friend says, 369 00:21:07,800 --> 00:21:09,960 Speaker 2: why are you tying your shoes. You can't outrun a bear. 370 00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:11,879 Speaker 2: The guy tying his shoes says, I don't have to 371 00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:13,760 Speaker 2: outrun a bear, I just have to outrun you. 372 00:21:14,600 --> 00:21:17,439 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, So you can look at examples like this. 373 00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:20,960 Speaker 1: There are also various parables and co EN's that really 374 00:21:21,119 --> 00:21:24,760 Speaker 1: zing because they seem to reveal something about human nature. Likewise, 375 00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:26,960 Speaker 1: you can also point to a lot of negative examples, 376 00:21:27,359 --> 00:21:31,760 Speaker 1: things that contain disinformation or just hurtful ideas or stereotypes, 377 00:21:32,760 --> 00:21:35,280 Speaker 1: but true or not, they seem to have some sort 378 00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:38,399 Speaker 1: of social information. Now, on the survival information front, the 379 00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:41,800 Speaker 1: first place my mind went to was the old urban 380 00:21:41,920 --> 00:21:45,000 Speaker 1: legend of hey, don't flash your lights your car lights 381 00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:48,439 Speaker 1: at another car that doesn't have its lights on, because 382 00:21:48,480 --> 00:21:51,280 Speaker 1: you know what's going on. This is a murder gang initiation. 383 00:21:51,760 --> 00:21:54,960 Speaker 1: There are gang members in that car. They're intentionally riding 384 00:21:55,000 --> 00:21:57,320 Speaker 1: around without their headlights on, and if you flash your 385 00:21:57,359 --> 00:22:00,199 Speaker 1: lights at them, you may think you're generally reminding them 386 00:22:00,200 --> 00:22:01,840 Speaker 1: that they need to turn their lights on. They but 387 00:22:01,960 --> 00:22:04,120 Speaker 1: know it'll be on and they will come and kill you. 388 00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:07,800 Speaker 2: So this allegedly has survival information. You need to know this. 389 00:22:07,920 --> 00:22:10,200 Speaker 2: If you don't know this, you could die. 390 00:22:10,640 --> 00:22:13,680 Speaker 1: Right. It seems to be important on some level and 391 00:22:13,720 --> 00:22:17,879 Speaker 1: then gets transmitted and passed on. It of course completely false. 392 00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:19,720 Speaker 1: This was as an urban legend that began in the 393 00:22:19,760 --> 00:22:22,680 Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, has no truth to it, though at times 394 00:22:22,720 --> 00:22:27,879 Speaker 1: got passed on by reputable and semi reputable sources. But again, 395 00:22:27,960 --> 00:22:31,159 Speaker 1: it seems to have survival information inside of it, and 396 00:22:31,200 --> 00:22:33,320 Speaker 1: therefore there's a stickiness to it. 397 00:22:33,440 --> 00:22:34,080 Speaker 2: That makes sense. 398 00:22:34,119 --> 00:22:36,840 Speaker 1: Okay, Now back to the paper itself. They conducted a 399 00:22:36,960 --> 00:22:41,520 Speaker 1: very small study but found quote legends which contained social information, 400 00:22:41,680 --> 00:22:45,600 Speaker 1: social type legends which contained survival information survival type, and 401 00:22:45,760 --> 00:22:49,640 Speaker 1: legends which contained both forms of information combined type were 402 00:22:49,680 --> 00:22:54,120 Speaker 1: all recalled with significantly greater accuracy than control material, while 403 00:22:54,200 --> 00:22:57,679 Speaker 1: social and combined type legends were recalled with significantly greater 404 00:22:57,840 --> 00:23:00,200 Speaker 1: accuracy than survival type legend. 405 00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:03,920 Speaker 2: Well counterintuitive? Is it maybe that social and combined beats 406 00:23:03,920 --> 00:23:07,639 Speaker 2: out survival. I am not really surprised by that, because 407 00:23:07,720 --> 00:23:10,359 Speaker 2: I don't know what is the what is the juiciest 408 00:23:10,400 --> 00:23:12,760 Speaker 2: type of information that if you hear a little snippet 409 00:23:12,800 --> 00:23:14,880 Speaker 2: of you've got to lean in and find out more. 410 00:23:15,240 --> 00:23:18,159 Speaker 2: It's gossip about people, it's you know, it's not people 411 00:23:18,200 --> 00:23:21,000 Speaker 2: talking about life threatening situations. You might lean in and 412 00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:23,879 Speaker 2: want to hear more about life threatening situations, But even 413 00:23:23,920 --> 00:23:27,240 Speaker 2: more so, it's if you hear like, oh man, did 414 00:23:27,320 --> 00:23:30,119 Speaker 2: you hear what Johnny said to say? And then like 415 00:23:30,200 --> 00:23:31,719 Speaker 2: you have to hear the rest of that. 416 00:23:32,480 --> 00:23:35,440 Speaker 1: Yeah, like the whole thing about gang members driving around 417 00:23:35,440 --> 00:23:38,280 Speaker 1: in cars without their lights on. Yeah, there's the survival 418 00:23:38,359 --> 00:23:42,040 Speaker 1: last aspect of it, certainly, But there is also at least, 419 00:23:42,200 --> 00:23:44,560 Speaker 1: and I'm not I didn't look at any specific examples 420 00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:46,560 Speaker 1: of the text. I'm just kind of remembering it. There's 421 00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:49,680 Speaker 1: it's at least implied that there's some sort of social 422 00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:54,200 Speaker 1: information about like reckless youth culture or punk gangs, or 423 00:23:54,240 --> 00:23:57,360 Speaker 1: there's some sort of racial connotation to it. That's all 424 00:23:57,400 --> 00:24:00,239 Speaker 1: just kind of baked into the idea. Even if they 425 00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:03,520 Speaker 1: are not specific examples added in its transmission. 426 00:24:03,800 --> 00:24:07,880 Speaker 2: Yes, like pings on a lot of different unhealthy fixations 427 00:24:07,880 --> 00:24:08,640 Speaker 2: people might have. 428 00:24:10,440 --> 00:24:12,879 Speaker 1: So anyway, I thought that was interesting. It also I 429 00:24:12,880 --> 00:24:15,120 Speaker 1: would be interested to hear from listeners out there if 430 00:24:15,119 --> 00:24:19,359 Speaker 1: they have other examples of the sort of like urban 431 00:24:19,440 --> 00:24:22,600 Speaker 1: legend transmission. I think there's a lot to reveal in 432 00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:31,960 Speaker 1: these examples. 433 00:24:32,760 --> 00:24:35,800 Speaker 2: Well, speaking of urban legends, I also wanted to talk 434 00:24:35,840 --> 00:24:39,480 Speaker 2: briefly about a study I was looking at that concerned 435 00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:43,680 Speaker 2: urban legends and folk tales. And so this was by 436 00:24:44,280 --> 00:24:47,800 Speaker 2: ost at All published in the journal Memory very recently 437 00:24:47,840 --> 00:24:50,800 Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two, and the title was the Serial 438 00:24:50,880 --> 00:24:56,959 Speaker 2: Reproduction of an Urban Myth revisiting Bartlett's schema theory. So 439 00:24:57,000 --> 00:25:00,439 Speaker 2: the title makes reference to Bartlett's schema theory. This is 440 00:25:01,200 --> 00:25:06,920 Speaker 2: an idea proposed by Bartlett that memory is more accurate 441 00:25:07,160 --> 00:25:11,840 Speaker 2: when it conforms to what he called our schema, meaning 442 00:25:11,960 --> 00:25:16,880 Speaker 2: a sort of an existing body of knowledge and expectations 443 00:25:17,440 --> 00:25:20,560 Speaker 2: that we use to help store memory efficiently and make 444 00:25:20,640 --> 00:25:23,440 Speaker 2: sense of the world. And so according to this theory, 445 00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:27,760 Speaker 2: not all information is distorted at the same rate the 446 00:25:27,800 --> 00:25:31,520 Speaker 2: author's right quote. According to the logic of Bartlett's schema 447 00:25:31,560 --> 00:25:35,680 Speaker 2: theory remembering should, in relation to certain kinds of material, 448 00:25:35,840 --> 00:25:40,320 Speaker 2: be relatively reliable, and so the authors here investigate the 449 00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:45,400 Speaker 2: reliability of Bartlett style serial reproduction chains by modulating two 450 00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:50,240 Speaker 2: different variables. First of all, whether the original information fits 451 00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:56,000 Speaker 2: with the subject's familiar cultural schema or not, and whether 452 00:25:56,119 --> 00:25:59,520 Speaker 2: the audience of their retelling was understood to be quote 453 00:25:59,680 --> 00:26:03,840 Speaker 2: lean or strict. And I thought both of these variables 454 00:26:03,960 --> 00:26:06,720 Speaker 2: were interesting because they both came up in Bartlett's discussion 455 00:26:06,720 --> 00:26:08,359 Speaker 2: of his own work. One of the things he was 456 00:26:08,400 --> 00:26:11,680 Speaker 2: testing with the famous example of that story, the War 457 00:26:11,760 --> 00:26:15,080 Speaker 2: of the Ghosts, which again this is when we discussed 458 00:26:15,080 --> 00:26:19,200 Speaker 2: in episode one. This is a translated adaptation of a 459 00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:23,320 Speaker 2: Native American folk tale that in its original form is 460 00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:27,560 Speaker 2: we found very haunting and beautiful and interesting, but it 461 00:26:27,680 --> 00:26:33,320 Speaker 2: doesn't conform to common expectations of storytelling that might be 462 00:26:33,920 --> 00:26:38,359 Speaker 2: expected by a Western audience. And thus Bartlett featured it 463 00:26:38,440 --> 00:26:43,160 Speaker 2: because he thought that these differences in storytelling conventions and 464 00:26:43,520 --> 00:26:47,439 Speaker 2: the subjects lack of familiarity with the cultural context of 465 00:26:47,440 --> 00:26:50,359 Speaker 2: the story would make it more difficult for them to 466 00:26:50,480 --> 00:26:53,560 Speaker 2: remember and reproduce it accurately, and that did seem to 467 00:26:53,560 --> 00:26:57,040 Speaker 2: be the case. But here the authors of this study 468 00:26:57,080 --> 00:27:01,120 Speaker 2: wanted to actually compare that directly with a much more 469 00:27:01,320 --> 00:27:05,280 Speaker 2: culturally familiar story, and in this case they chose the 470 00:27:05,400 --> 00:27:08,760 Speaker 2: vanishing hitchhiker. Rob Do you know the vanishing hitchhiker tail? 471 00:27:09,320 --> 00:27:11,639 Speaker 1: Oh, I don't know. Is this the one? Or the hook? No? 472 00:27:11,640 --> 00:27:13,639 Speaker 2: No, no, no, no not the hook? A hook is a 473 00:27:13,640 --> 00:27:16,320 Speaker 2: good one too, the vanishing hitchhiker. There are a lot 474 00:27:16,359 --> 00:27:19,520 Speaker 2: of different variations, but usual contours are the same. So 475 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:22,400 Speaker 2: maybe there is a man driving along a lonely highway 476 00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:26,200 Speaker 2: at night and he sees a hitchhiker, a woman who 477 00:27:26,280 --> 00:27:29,520 Speaker 2: appears to be in distress. She's asking for a ride. 478 00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:31,479 Speaker 2: Walking on the side of the highway. She asks him 479 00:27:31,480 --> 00:27:34,199 Speaker 2: for a ride, He picks her up. They have a 480 00:27:34,200 --> 00:27:36,800 Speaker 2: brief conversation as he drives her to the address she 481 00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:39,639 Speaker 2: asks for, and then when he arrives, he turns to 482 00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:43,040 Speaker 2: find she has vanished entirely from the car. And then 483 00:27:43,119 --> 00:27:46,240 Speaker 2: he later often compares his story with somebody else He 484 00:27:46,320 --> 00:27:50,280 Speaker 2: tells this, you know, he's like. He gets home and says, oh, 485 00:27:50,320 --> 00:27:52,240 Speaker 2: you wouldn't believe it. I picked up this woman to 486 00:27:52,240 --> 00:27:54,600 Speaker 2: give her a ride home, and then she disappeared completely, 487 00:27:54,640 --> 00:27:58,160 Speaker 2: and then the person he's talking to says, I've driven 488 00:27:58,200 --> 00:28:00,800 Speaker 2: her home as well. She also disappears from my car. 489 00:28:01,520 --> 00:28:04,760 Speaker 1: Oh nice, nice, nice. So this is like an automobile 490 00:28:04,840 --> 00:28:08,120 Speaker 1: age sort of take on the classic ghost story where 491 00:28:08,160 --> 00:28:10,680 Speaker 1: you find out after the fact that this mysterious person 492 00:28:10,680 --> 00:28:14,200 Speaker 1: who vanished is a frequently occurring ghost exactly. Now. 493 00:28:14,200 --> 00:28:16,560 Speaker 2: It might have earlier analogs, but I think most people 494 00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:19,840 Speaker 2: would interpret this as like a twentieth century folk tale. 495 00:28:20,400 --> 00:28:23,959 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, clearly involves the car, the hitch hiker. 496 00:28:24,960 --> 00:28:26,360 Speaker 1: It's new for a new age. 497 00:28:26,560 --> 00:28:28,639 Speaker 2: So the authors of the study, first they did a 498 00:28:28,680 --> 00:28:31,560 Speaker 2: pilot study to compare these two stories, the War of 499 00:28:31,600 --> 00:28:36,040 Speaker 2: the Ghosts and the Vanishing hitch Hiker within to determine 500 00:28:36,040 --> 00:28:39,680 Speaker 2: how schema friendly these two stories were in the cultural 501 00:28:39,720 --> 00:28:43,400 Speaker 2: setting of the experiment, which was twenty first century college undergrads. 502 00:28:43,440 --> 00:28:46,400 Speaker 2: I believe in the UK, So again always testing with 503 00:28:46,400 --> 00:28:48,880 Speaker 2: the college students, but okay, you know, you at least 504 00:28:48,880 --> 00:28:51,640 Speaker 2: want to find out among the general population that is 505 00:28:51,680 --> 00:28:54,680 Speaker 2: being tested in this study, how familiar would these two 506 00:28:54,720 --> 00:28:58,200 Speaker 2: different types of stories be. And familiarity here doesn't just 507 00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:01,840 Speaker 2: mean like have you heard this story before? They measured 508 00:29:01,880 --> 00:29:04,520 Speaker 2: it along a bunch of different variables, and those variables 509 00:29:04,520 --> 00:29:08,760 Speaker 2: were familiarity of the setting, what the readers perceived to 510 00:29:08,800 --> 00:29:13,000 Speaker 2: be the logical structure, the clarity of the structure, how 511 00:29:13,120 --> 00:29:17,000 Speaker 2: understandable the events in the story were, and how conventional 512 00:29:17,080 --> 00:29:19,800 Speaker 2: the language was. So I think this is generally a 513 00:29:19,800 --> 00:29:22,000 Speaker 2: good way of approaching it, finding a bunch of different 514 00:29:22,040 --> 00:29:25,520 Speaker 2: ways of scoring, like when a person in the study 515 00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:29,040 Speaker 2: encounters a particular story, how out of their element do 516 00:29:29,120 --> 00:29:33,000 Speaker 2: they feel? And perhaps not surprisingly, participants here rated the 517 00:29:33,080 --> 00:29:37,080 Speaker 2: Vanishing Hitchhiker as much more familiar along these dimensions than 518 00:29:37,120 --> 00:29:39,840 Speaker 2: the War of the Ghosts. No surprise there, and so 519 00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:43,320 Speaker 2: they tried to do the serial reproduction experiments like Bartlett 520 00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:47,600 Speaker 2: did with these two different stories, and in line with 521 00:29:47,680 --> 00:29:51,320 Speaker 2: their hypothesis, they found that while participants in the experimental 522 00:29:51,360 --> 00:29:55,600 Speaker 2: portion of the study came up with enormous distortions while 523 00:29:55,640 --> 00:29:59,120 Speaker 2: attempting to transmit the War of the Ghosts, they produced 524 00:29:59,160 --> 00:30:03,920 Speaker 2: comparatively very accurate copies from memory of the Vanishing Hitchhiker. 525 00:30:04,560 --> 00:30:06,920 Speaker 2: And I thought that was very interesting. It would seem 526 00:30:06,960 --> 00:30:10,160 Speaker 2: to validate some part of the scheme of theory, the 527 00:30:10,240 --> 00:30:14,320 Speaker 2: idea that stories that fit more in the box of 528 00:30:14,360 --> 00:30:19,560 Speaker 2: our cultural expectations, are remembered and preserved more accurately and 529 00:30:19,640 --> 00:30:24,720 Speaker 2: more easily than stories that somehow don't fit our expectations 530 00:30:24,880 --> 00:30:27,880 Speaker 2: or don't behave in familiar ways that are easy for 531 00:30:28,000 --> 00:30:28,880 Speaker 2: us to understand. 532 00:30:29,480 --> 00:30:31,959 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's interesting. I mean also can't help but think that, 533 00:30:32,040 --> 00:30:36,560 Speaker 1: like the basic hitchhiker scenario, the experience of picking up 534 00:30:36,560 --> 00:30:39,160 Speaker 1: a hitchhiker, I guess it's something that I mean a 535 00:30:39,160 --> 00:30:41,320 Speaker 1: lot of people have never done this, maybe even more 536 00:30:41,360 --> 00:30:44,120 Speaker 1: so today, but you've seen it in movies, you've seen 537 00:30:44,120 --> 00:30:47,040 Speaker 1: it heard it in stories. So the basic scenario is 538 00:30:47,080 --> 00:30:51,520 Speaker 1: pretty much like culturally intact. And then this is a 539 00:30:51,560 --> 00:30:55,600 Speaker 1: supernatural twist on that that you know, I guess it 540 00:30:55,600 --> 00:31:00,600 Speaker 1: doesn't particularly have survival information or social and information. To 541 00:31:00,600 --> 00:31:02,320 Speaker 1: go back to that earlier study, I mean, it's not 542 00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:06,640 Speaker 1: implied that the ghost is harmful, but it's like there's 543 00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:08,800 Speaker 1: something about the everyday quality of it, like you're saying, 544 00:31:08,840 --> 00:31:11,760 Speaker 1: like it's very relatable. It's relatable to this reality of 545 00:31:11,960 --> 00:31:12,840 Speaker 1: modern life. 546 00:31:13,080 --> 00:31:14,880 Speaker 2: So this is totally a tangent off of what we're 547 00:31:14,880 --> 00:31:17,120 Speaker 2: talking about. But I would almost say that there is 548 00:31:17,280 --> 00:31:23,200 Speaker 2: somehow implied social and survival information in any ghost story. 549 00:31:23,240 --> 00:31:26,120 Speaker 2: Even though it's hard to express what that social or 550 00:31:26,160 --> 00:31:29,240 Speaker 2: survival information is, it might have something to do with 551 00:31:30,240 --> 00:31:33,960 Speaker 2: proof of the afterlife. You know, something about life after death, 552 00:31:34,000 --> 00:31:36,600 Speaker 2: and the experience of any ghost has some kind of 553 00:31:36,600 --> 00:31:40,920 Speaker 2: inherent survival type value to us, and ghosts are usually 554 00:31:41,000 --> 00:31:43,920 Speaker 2: understood to have some kind of message to the living, 555 00:31:44,040 --> 00:31:48,080 Speaker 2: which has a kind of gossip or social information quality 556 00:31:48,120 --> 00:31:49,680 Speaker 2: to it. At least that's my take. 557 00:31:50,000 --> 00:31:51,719 Speaker 1: Yeah, and I guess you could also make an argument 558 00:31:51,760 --> 00:31:56,000 Speaker 1: that the hitchhiker was not what they seemed, they were 559 00:31:56,040 --> 00:31:59,320 Speaker 1: a ghost. This is basically just a supernatural twist on 560 00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:03,720 Speaker 1: the hitchhiker was not what they seemed, which could arguably 561 00:32:03,720 --> 00:32:08,600 Speaker 1: have survival and social commentary within it right in a 562 00:32:08,600 --> 00:32:11,080 Speaker 1: more mundane way, like you know, you know that there's 563 00:32:11,080 --> 00:32:13,760 Speaker 1: some sort of criminal threat there or something or some 564 00:32:13,800 --> 00:32:16,479 Speaker 1: sort of unknown that one should be wary of. And 565 00:32:16,520 --> 00:32:20,200 Speaker 1: this is just taking a mundane threat and transforming it 566 00:32:20,240 --> 00:32:23,160 Speaker 1: into a supernatural threat on some level. Because you don't 567 00:32:23,160 --> 00:32:24,640 Speaker 1: what a ghost in your car, you don't know what's 568 00:32:24,640 --> 00:32:25,120 Speaker 1: gonna happen. 569 00:32:25,400 --> 00:32:27,760 Speaker 2: They might get ectoplasm on your passenger seat. 570 00:32:28,200 --> 00:32:31,000 Speaker 1: Yeah, they might scare you. I mean We've all heard 571 00:32:31,080 --> 00:32:33,520 Speaker 1: enough ghost stories that don't involve automobiles to know it 572 00:32:33,560 --> 00:32:37,040 Speaker 1: can go any number of ways. Your hitchhiker vanishes, you 573 00:32:37,120 --> 00:32:39,560 Speaker 1: finally pull over the gas station, and then bam, hook 574 00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:41,000 Speaker 1: on the outside handle of the car. 575 00:32:41,200 --> 00:32:44,400 Speaker 2: That's a good twist. At first it's a ghost, she vanishes, 576 00:32:44,440 --> 00:32:46,240 Speaker 2: but then she reappears with a hook. 577 00:32:46,600 --> 00:32:47,320 Speaker 1: Yeah. 578 00:32:47,680 --> 00:32:50,800 Speaker 2: Okay, but here's another interesting twist on what they found 579 00:32:50,880 --> 00:32:54,200 Speaker 2: in this study. So remember the first variable was, you know, 580 00:32:54,400 --> 00:32:57,200 Speaker 2: does familiarity with the story, whether the story fits in 581 00:32:57,240 --> 00:33:00,080 Speaker 2: the box of your cultural expectations, does that affect how 582 00:33:00,120 --> 00:33:02,840 Speaker 2: well you can remember and transmit it. Answer is yes, 583 00:33:02,960 --> 00:33:05,680 Speaker 2: it does. If the story fits in the box, it's 584 00:33:05,720 --> 00:33:08,280 Speaker 2: easier for you to remember and transmit it. The other 585 00:33:08,360 --> 00:33:12,480 Speaker 2: thing is does the implied audience of the story matter. 586 00:33:13,240 --> 00:33:17,800 Speaker 2: They were testing the hypothesis that a listener understood as 587 00:33:18,280 --> 00:33:23,600 Speaker 2: strict in terms of expecting accuracy would produce more accurate 588 00:33:23,680 --> 00:33:27,360 Speaker 2: recall than one understood as lenient. So the way they 589 00:33:27,560 --> 00:33:30,400 Speaker 2: did this was, on one hand, they said, okay, reproduce 590 00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:32,640 Speaker 2: this story for a friend. Here's the story for you 591 00:33:32,680 --> 00:33:35,000 Speaker 2: to memorize. Now you need to reproduce it and tell 592 00:33:35,000 --> 00:33:38,400 Speaker 2: it to a friend. Second option is reproduce this and 593 00:33:38,440 --> 00:33:42,840 Speaker 2: tell it to a police officer. Well, that changes a lot, yes, 594 00:33:43,000 --> 00:33:46,720 Speaker 2: And they found this did indeed matter for one type 595 00:33:46,720 --> 00:33:50,040 Speaker 2: of story more than the other. So they say recall 596 00:33:50,200 --> 00:33:53,120 Speaker 2: was better for a strict audience than a lenient audience. 597 00:33:53,160 --> 00:33:56,120 Speaker 2: People did remember better when talking to the cop, but 598 00:33:56,840 --> 00:34:00,640 Speaker 2: this only really applied to one of the story, So 599 00:34:00,800 --> 00:34:04,480 Speaker 2: recall was more accurate when talking to the cop for 600 00:34:04,760 --> 00:34:09,920 Speaker 2: the familiar story the Vanishing Hitchhiker, but recall seemed to 601 00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:12,960 Speaker 2: be equally bad for the War of the Ghosts. The 602 00:34:13,200 --> 00:34:17,120 Speaker 2: having a strict cop listening to your recounting did not 603 00:34:17,280 --> 00:34:20,760 Speaker 2: really improve recall for the story that was more difficult 604 00:34:20,760 --> 00:34:25,080 Speaker 2: to remember anyway, which I don't know. I guess you 605 00:34:25,080 --> 00:34:27,920 Speaker 2: could interpret that multiple ways. But that makes me wonder if, well, 606 00:34:27,960 --> 00:34:30,600 Speaker 2: you know, when you're talking to a friend, it signals 607 00:34:30,600 --> 00:34:33,560 Speaker 2: you're you're probably just not putting that much effort into 608 00:34:33,680 --> 00:34:39,000 Speaker 2: being strictly accurate in reproducing a story, even when in 609 00:34:39,080 --> 00:34:41,880 Speaker 2: cases when you could be, so the case with the 610 00:34:41,960 --> 00:34:44,959 Speaker 2: familiar story that's easier to reproduce, but when you're trying 611 00:34:44,960 --> 00:34:47,920 Speaker 2: to reproduce an unfamiliar story that doesn't really fit with 612 00:34:47,960 --> 00:34:51,719 Speaker 2: your schema it is, it's sort of impossible to do 613 00:34:51,880 --> 00:34:54,080 Speaker 2: even if you're putting that extra effort. 614 00:34:53,719 --> 00:34:56,560 Speaker 1: In Yeah, I mean, I guess in speaking to a 615 00:34:56,600 --> 00:35:00,160 Speaker 1: police officer about your ghost story, did something about it 616 00:35:00,160 --> 00:35:03,040 Speaker 1: should be actionable, right, Like, even if it's not a 617 00:35:03,040 --> 00:35:06,200 Speaker 1: ghost story, Like, if you're telling a police officer about it, 618 00:35:06,200 --> 00:35:08,680 Speaker 1: it must be because you want the police to do something. 619 00:35:09,320 --> 00:35:12,120 Speaker 1: And therefore that I guess could impact your attention to 620 00:35:12,200 --> 00:35:13,240 Speaker 1: details and so forth. 621 00:35:13,760 --> 00:35:15,640 Speaker 2: But anyway, at the end today, I wanted to come 622 00:35:15,680 --> 00:35:18,800 Speaker 2: back to something we talked about earlier in the episode, 623 00:35:18,800 --> 00:35:22,400 Speaker 2: which has emphasize my feeling that there are two sides 624 00:35:22,400 --> 00:35:25,080 Speaker 2: to the coin and they're both true. One is that 625 00:35:25,480 --> 00:35:29,800 Speaker 2: serial reproduction of information between people, you know, information passing 626 00:35:29,800 --> 00:35:33,319 Speaker 2: along the grapevine between people should not be relied upon 627 00:35:33,640 --> 00:35:37,560 Speaker 2: as representing what that information was accurately at the beginning. 628 00:35:37,600 --> 00:35:40,319 Speaker 2: You just should not trust that. And at the same time, 629 00:35:40,400 --> 00:35:44,320 Speaker 2: you should not think about serial reproduction or transmission chains 630 00:35:44,320 --> 00:35:47,640 Speaker 2: as they occur in human culture as bad. It's part 631 00:35:47,680 --> 00:35:49,960 Speaker 2: of what culture is and it provides a lot of 632 00:35:50,000 --> 00:35:53,759 Speaker 2: good things. It provides a lot of the entertainment and 633 00:35:53,920 --> 00:35:57,400 Speaker 2: the learning and the spice of life, even if it 634 00:35:57,440 --> 00:36:02,080 Speaker 2: does not objectively accurately usually preserve the information from the 635 00:36:02,120 --> 00:36:03,040 Speaker 2: beginning of the chain. 636 00:36:03,560 --> 00:36:05,640 Speaker 1: See. This is all great stuff that I think should 637 00:36:05,640 --> 00:36:08,719 Speaker 1: have been included in the elementary school telephone games that 638 00:36:08,840 --> 00:36:10,000 Speaker 1: does so many of us play. 639 00:36:10,320 --> 00:36:11,759 Speaker 2: Well, I don't know, I mean, it kind of is 640 00:36:11,800 --> 00:36:16,080 Speaker 2: all there. Like the game, you recognize that the message 641 00:36:16,120 --> 00:36:18,319 Speaker 2: doesn't make it to the end intact, so you get 642 00:36:18,320 --> 00:36:20,879 Speaker 2: a lesson there like, oh, don't believe everything you hear. 643 00:36:21,320 --> 00:36:24,560 Speaker 2: But also the game is fun and the fun comes 644 00:36:24,600 --> 00:36:26,000 Speaker 2: from the failure. 645 00:36:26,080 --> 00:36:29,480 Speaker 1: Fail and distort. This is how you amuse yourself. This 646 00:36:29,560 --> 00:36:31,799 Speaker 1: is the lesson to the telephone game I get. But 647 00:36:31,840 --> 00:36:34,439 Speaker 1: it is really revealing. Like I said, I just didn't 648 00:36:34,440 --> 00:36:36,080 Speaker 1: think about it much when I was a kid playing 649 00:36:36,080 --> 00:36:39,280 Speaker 1: this game. But yeah, when you looking at these studies 650 00:36:39,320 --> 00:36:42,800 Speaker 1: and discussing, you know, the out effects of transmission of 651 00:36:42,880 --> 00:36:46,839 Speaker 1: rumors and myths and legends, urban legends, et cetera. Yeah, 652 00:36:46,840 --> 00:36:47,880 Speaker 1: it really gets fascinating. 653 00:36:48,440 --> 00:36:51,200 Speaker 2: Another thing I was thinking about was how when we 654 00:36:51,280 --> 00:36:53,880 Speaker 2: talk about rumors, I feel like we still often have 655 00:36:53,920 --> 00:36:56,920 Speaker 2: an understanding of this being entirely word of mouth, just 656 00:36:56,960 --> 00:36:59,440 Speaker 2: like one person talking to another and then that person 657 00:36:59,480 --> 00:37:01,920 Speaker 2: talking to the next person. But it seems to me 658 00:37:02,040 --> 00:37:06,319 Speaker 2: the much more common route of rumors today involves some 659 00:37:06,440 --> 00:37:09,799 Speaker 2: kind of media in between there. So it may go 660 00:37:10,000 --> 00:37:13,040 Speaker 2: like a word of mouth from one person to the next, 661 00:37:13,120 --> 00:37:15,759 Speaker 2: and then to the internet to a written form, and 662 00:37:15,800 --> 00:37:19,279 Speaker 2: then somebody reading that piece of information on the Internet, 663 00:37:19,360 --> 00:37:22,520 Speaker 2: and then telling somebody in person, and then them posting 664 00:37:22,520 --> 00:37:25,160 Speaker 2: on the internet and reading it. So you're also having 665 00:37:25,160 --> 00:37:29,080 Speaker 2: these media changes back and forth that are not really 666 00:37:29,480 --> 00:37:31,800 Speaker 2: showing up quite so much in at least any of 667 00:37:31,840 --> 00:37:34,479 Speaker 2: the experiments we've looked at, because all of them either 668 00:37:34,520 --> 00:37:38,520 Speaker 2: went you know, they either go entirely oral or entirely 669 00:37:38,600 --> 00:37:39,280 Speaker 2: text based. 670 00:37:40,320 --> 00:37:42,800 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good point. I should also just remind 671 00:37:42,800 --> 00:37:45,600 Speaker 1: everyone probably don't go to the police with your ghost story. 672 00:37:45,680 --> 00:37:49,319 Speaker 1: I'm just maybe exceptions to that rule, you know, use 673 00:37:49,360 --> 00:37:52,520 Speaker 1: your best judgment. But it's also hard for me to 674 00:37:52,520 --> 00:37:54,560 Speaker 1: get past that idea of just like I think I 675 00:37:54,560 --> 00:37:56,320 Speaker 1: saw a ghost, bet I called the police. 676 00:37:56,640 --> 00:37:59,000 Speaker 2: I disagree. I think you should only call the police 677 00:37:59,000 --> 00:38:00,080 Speaker 2: with your ghost story. 678 00:38:00,480 --> 00:38:02,759 Speaker 1: Hmm, agree to disagree. 679 00:38:03,080 --> 00:38:05,439 Speaker 2: I'm kidding. Do not call nine one one and tie 680 00:38:05,480 --> 00:38:07,280 Speaker 2: up the phone lines with your ghost story. 681 00:38:08,480 --> 00:38:12,080 Speaker 1: Yes, tell a friend, tell a close friend. All right, 682 00:38:12,120 --> 00:38:15,160 Speaker 1: We're gonna go ahead and close out this episode, but 683 00:38:15,200 --> 00:38:19,600 Speaker 1: we'll be back on Tuesday. So you know, hey, keep 684 00:38:19,760 --> 00:38:22,320 Speaker 1: writing into us because on Mondays we do listener mail 685 00:38:22,600 --> 00:38:25,600 Speaker 1: and then we do our core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. 686 00:38:25,880 --> 00:38:28,840 Speaker 1: On Wednesdays we do a short form Monster Factor Artifact episode, 687 00:38:28,880 --> 00:38:31,160 Speaker 1: and Fridays we set aside most serious concerns to just 688 00:38:31,160 --> 00:38:33,560 Speaker 1: talk about a weird film on Weird House Cinema. 689 00:38:33,800 --> 00:38:36,880 Speaker 2: Huge thanks to our audio producer JJ Posway. If you 690 00:38:36,920 --> 00:38:39,320 Speaker 2: would like to get in touch with this with feedback 691 00:38:39,360 --> 00:38:41,640 Speaker 2: on this episode or any other, to suggest a topic 692 00:38:41,680 --> 00:38:43,560 Speaker 2: for the future, or just to say hello, you can 693 00:38:43,600 --> 00:38:46,280 Speaker 2: email us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind 694 00:38:46,400 --> 00:38:54,560 Speaker 2: dot com. 695 00:38:54,640 --> 00:38:57,560 Speaker 3: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For 696 00:38:57,640 --> 00:39:00,120 Speaker 3: more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio you 697 00:39:00,239 --> 00:39:16,000 Speaker 3: up Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.