Speaker 1: Welcome to Part Time Genius, the production of iHeartRadio. Guess
Speaker 1: what mang go with that?
Speaker 2: Well, all right, so I was reading up this week
Speaker 2: on strange advantages that certain people have. You know, we're
Speaker 2: always trying to get a leg up on people who
Speaker 2: super competitive, as our listeners may know. But sure, it
Speaker 2: turns out that left handed people have a pretty distinct advantage,
Speaker 2: like when it comes to one on one sports. So
Speaker 2: you take boxing, tennis, fencing, even pitching a baseball if
Speaker 2: it involves taking aim at an opponent, lefties have a
Speaker 2: little bit of an edge. And if you look at
Speaker 2: professional sports, the numbers actually bear this out. For instance,
Speaker 2: back in twenty seventeen, one third of Major League Baseball
Speaker 2: players were left handed.
Speaker 1: That's kind of crazy, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, as well as twenty percent of the top ranking
Speaker 2: boxers and twenty percent of the top ranking fencers. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: it's a completely different story for the more team oriented
Speaker 2: sports like basketball or football.
Speaker 1: So why do you think that is? Well, it ultimately
Speaker 1: comes down to how rare lefties are.
Speaker 2: It's estimated that only ten percent of the people in
Speaker 2: the world are left handed, So that means that if
Speaker 2: you're a right handed tennis player, for example, you've probably
Speaker 2: only ever gone up against other right handed players, and
Speaker 2: the same is true for left handed players too. Right
Speaker 2: like ninety percent of the world is right handed, then
Speaker 2: left handed players are also mostly squaring off with righty's.
Speaker 2: This was something I really didn't think about, right So
Speaker 2: the result is that when a left handed player goes
Speaker 2: up against the right handed one is just another day
Speaker 2: at the office, the same old, same on. But that's
Speaker 2: not the case for a right handed player. The right
Speaker 2: handers don't really know what to expect, and that makes
Speaker 2: it easier for them to be caught off guard. It
Speaker 2: makes sense, like when you think about it. Playing baseball
Speaker 2: as a kid, if you saw a lefty throwing to
Speaker 2: you like it was, it just looked so strange totally.
Speaker 1: It's almost like when a boxer throws, I mean left hook,
Speaker 1: you know, that old southpaw surprise. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's a real boxing I think.
Speaker 2: It might be like boxing to me, well, just like
Speaker 2: when you were a big boxer as a kid and
Speaker 2: left sure, but weirdly enough, some researchers think the main
Speaker 2: reason why left handed trade is still around today is
Speaker 2: because it's always granted this element of surprise and comba.
Speaker 2: For example, there was a study in two thousand and
Speaker 2: five where researchers looked at the remains of primitive societies
Speaker 2: and made a breakdown of how many people were left
Speaker 2: handed and how many were right handed, And amazingly, they
Speaker 2: found that about three percent of the population was left
Speaker 2: handed in the more peaceful societies, but a whopping twenty
Speaker 2: seven percent were left handed in the more warlike societies. Yeah, so,
Speaker 2: in other words, things, if you've ever challenged a left
Speaker 2: handed boxer, historically speaking, it probably isn't going to go
Speaker 2: so well for you.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not sure i'd fear that much better against
Speaker 1: right handed boxes at safe bet.
Speaker 2: Well, there's plenty more where that came from, because today's
Speaker 2: show is all about the unusual advantages that everyday people enjoyed,
Speaker 2: from the high social standing of tall people to the
Speaker 2: surprising success rate behind your lucky rabbits foot. There's all
Speaker 2: sorts of ways to get the upper hand in life,
Speaker 2: even if you aren't left handed.
Speaker 1: So let's dive in.
Speaker 2: Hey, their podcast listeners, welcome to Part Time Genius. I'm
Speaker 2: Will Pearson and as always I'm joined by my good
Speaker 2: friend Mangesh hot ticket and on the other side of
Speaker 2: that soundproof glass working the soundboard with his left hand
Speaker 2: today had press That is our brilliant producer, Loll. And
Speaker 2: I should say that Lol is not, in fact left handed,
Speaker 2: so this is something at least somewhat notable. So anyway, Mango,
Speaker 2: where do you want to start?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we've never faced a left handed producer before,
Speaker 1: so I actually do you want to stick with actual
Speaker 1: sports and talking about something I had always wondered about
Speaker 1: until this week, and that's whether or not home field
Speaker 1: advantage is a real thing, Like does the location of
Speaker 1: a game factor into an athlete's performance or do teams
Speaker 1: play the same whether they're on their own turf or not.
Speaker 1: What's kind of an age old question.
Speaker 2: And if I had to guess, I'd say there's at
Speaker 2: least some truth to it. I mean, I know some
Speaker 2: sports leagues have regulations to ensure that playing fields are
Speaker 2: mostly the same from place to place, but there's still
Speaker 2: the psychological element of it all, Like you have to
Speaker 2: figure players would be more at ease in the place
Speaker 2: that they're used to playing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, in a world the bathrooms, are they
Speaker 1: the best places to get nachos? The away teams not
Speaker 1: going to know any of that. But yeah, it's very,
Speaker 1: very true.
Speaker 2: I love that your conception of home field advantage is
Speaker 2: knowing where to find that the tastiest snacks.
Speaker 1: But you're right about a home field advantage being a
Speaker 1: real thing, and a good deal of why that is
Speaker 1: does have to do with psychology. So first I want
Speaker 1: to give a little bit of background. There have been
Speaker 1: a bunch of studies into home field advantage over the years,
Speaker 1: covering a wide variety of different sports, and the results
Speaker 1: have been shockingly consistent, like the home team wins more
Speaker 1: games away than away teams, and not by a small
Speaker 1: margin either. In twenty ten, a psychologist named Jeremy Jamison
Speaker 1: put together a review of all the different home field
Speaker 1: advantage studies out there, and based on the combined data,
Speaker 1: it concluded that a home team will win roughly sixty
Speaker 1: percent of all its games its places. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit higher than I would have guessed.
Speaker 2: So what's actually fueling that advantage, like you said, has
Speaker 2: something to do with the psychology of.
Speaker 1: The players, that's right. So part of it goes back
Speaker 1: to what you allude to earlier, like the player's familiarity
Speaker 1: with where they're playing kind of feeling at ease in
Speaker 1: this environment. It tends to contribute a lot to the
Speaker 1: home field advantage. In fact, according to one study, if
Speaker 1: a team moves into a new home stadium, it'll have
Speaker 1: a weaker home field advantage until the players get acclimated
Speaker 1: to the new space. Oh that's interesting.
Speaker 2: So you're feeling at home in your home field at
Speaker 2: some point.
Speaker 1: So what else is a factor? The next one is
Speaker 1: something I know we can both relate to, and that's
Speaker 1: travel fatigue. Like I don't travel as much as you do,
Speaker 1: but it can get pretty exhausting trying to adjust to
Speaker 1: new cities and time zones and all the while taking
Speaker 1: meetings and missing home. But you know, imagine all of that,
Speaker 1: except in between flights, you play hours and hours of
Speaker 1: tackle football in front of like thousands of screaming fans.
Speaker 1: Like jet lag suddenly becomes like a million times more tiring.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I do kind of want somebody to tackle
Speaker 2: you before our next movie, just to see for ourselves, Like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we gotta live by example here.
Speaker 2: But all right, so you're saying there's a link between
Speaker 2: how far a team travels and how well they play
Speaker 2: against the home team.
Speaker 1: Competitors. Yeah, it seems like the farther a team has
Speaker 1: to travel, the bigger the advantage for the home team,
Speaker 1: and the last factor at play kind of goes along
Speaker 1: with that travel component, because the other downside for the
Speaker 1: way team is that it can't bring its fan base along.
Speaker 1: Like a crowd's behavior has a major impact on how
Speaker 1: all the players perform. You and I know this from
Speaker 1: going to Duke and having that whole advantage there. But
Speaker 1: you know, at an away game, most of the people
Speaker 1: in the crowd will be rooting for the home team.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, and that obviously gives the home team a
Speaker 2: little morale boost, but I imagine it also deflates the
Speaker 2: away team, like it can't be a great feeling to
Speaker 2: hear a stadium full of people cheering for the other guy.
Speaker 1: Or again. But you know, all the stuff we've mentioned,
Speaker 1: the crowd, the field, the travel time, all of that
Speaker 1: factors into the psychological state of the players, and that
Speaker 1: positive mindset is really the biggest contributor to home field advantage.
Speaker 1: If all the players are feeling motivated and upbeat about
Speaker 1: the conditions of the game, that's likely to show up
Speaker 1: in their performance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it makes sense, but I'm still wondering,
Speaker 2: like if this advantage is the same from sport to sport.
Speaker 2: Like I know you said that studies have looked at
Speaker 2: a wide range of different sports, but were some sports
Speaker 2: better for the home team than others or was it
Speaker 2: always pretty much the same degree of advantage?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I wondered about that too, and it seems
Speaker 1: like it really does vary depending on the sport. For example,
Speaker 1: there's a sports author named John Boas who took three
Speaker 1: years worth of win and lost data and he took
Speaker 1: it from four different pro leagues, so hockey, baseball, football,
Speaker 1: and basketball. Then he extrapolated how each of the different
Speaker 1: win counts would have been affected if the teams had
Speaker 1: played all of their games at home, so like no
Speaker 1: away games at all. And what he found was that
Speaker 1: the NHL teams and MLB teams would have experienced the
Speaker 1: small boost from the home field advantage of all the leagues.
Speaker 1: They would have won each a little shy of I
Speaker 1: guess five and a half percent more games than they
Speaker 1: actually did, which is still nothing to sneeze at, particularly
Speaker 1: if you got money riding on those games. But the
Speaker 1: NFL teams would have seen the second biggest boost about
Speaker 1: six point four percent, and then NBA teams would have
Speaker 1: seen the biggest boost by far if they had played
Speaker 1: all of their games at home for a three year period,
Speaker 1: they would have won ten percent more games than they
Speaker 1: actually do.
Speaker 2: You know, I think about this in football. I feel
Speaker 2: like it makes sense because you think about the intensity
Speaker 2: of the cheering when the offense is trying to call
Speaker 2: plays or whatever, like whatever they do in that scenario, right,
Speaker 2: and it's hard for them to hear each other, and
Speaker 2: it seems like you could get them rattled. But do
Speaker 2: we know why the advantage would be so much greater
Speaker 2: for NBA teams, Well.
Speaker 1: We don't, but I guess one of the things that
Speaker 1: Bos pointed out was that the playing dimensions of a
Speaker 1: basketball court don't really vary like they do in other
Speaker 1: sports such as baseball. And on top of that, like
Speaker 1: NBA games are all played inside, so weather is never
Speaker 1: a factory. So, in other words, the home, crowd and
Speaker 1: travel factors are still in play for NBA teams, but
Speaker 1: the environmental factor might not play as large a role
Speaker 1: in the player's mindsets as it does in baseball or
Speaker 1: even football. Huh, all right, well, believe it or not.
Speaker 2: Home field advantage isn't the only kind of location based
Speaker 2: benefit in the sports world. There's also something I was
Speaker 2: reading about this week called small town advantage, and the
Speaker 2: gist of this is that people who grew up in
Speaker 2: a small town, say like fifty thousand people or under,
Speaker 2: they will have a higher chance of becoming a professional
Speaker 2: athlete than someone for a more populated city or a town.
Speaker 2: This is something I've not seen before, and the numbers
Speaker 2: behind this are actually pretty remarkable. So there was this
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen article in Pacific Standard that only about twenty
Speaker 2: five percent of the US population lives in a town
Speaker 2: with under fifty thousand people. Yet despite that, nearly half
Speaker 2: of all NFL and PGA players are from towns that size,
Speaker 2: and the same trend is present to a slightly lesser
Speaker 2: degree in other sports too. I think it's like forty
Speaker 2: percent of NHL players somewhere around that same stat or
Speaker 2: Major League Baseball players come from towns fewer than fifty thousand,
Speaker 2: and for the NBA, I think it's twenty eight percent,
Speaker 2: so pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: That's pretty crazy, especially since you think the opposite would
Speaker 1: be true, right, like the larger cities would have access
Speaker 1: to more equipment, maybe more competition, and more opportunities for
Speaker 1: players to be discovered.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the truth is, it's tough to pinpoint
Speaker 2: why small towns make such great incubators for pro athletes.
Speaker 2: I mean, it could be there's something unique about the
Speaker 2: atmosphere of small towns that make it particularly conducive to
Speaker 2: athletic development. The close knit community spirit, or the level
Speaker 2: of importance that rural areas tend to place on sports. Maybe,
Speaker 2: but whatever first got the trend rolling, it's kind of
Speaker 2: become a self perpetuating cycle at this point.
Speaker 1: Oh what do you mean by that?
Speaker 2: Well, small town residents tend to know how many legends
Speaker 2: their areas have produced, like Bojacks. I mean, how many
Speaker 2: times a day do I remind you that Bo Jackson
Speaker 2: chain from the Birmingham area, right, you know, to Wayne Gretzky.
Speaker 2: And that makes the dream of making it to the
Speaker 2: big league seem all the more attainable for the next
Speaker 2: crop of players.
Speaker 1: And it is something that makes sense.
Speaker 2: So if somebody grew up in your neighborhood and you
Speaker 2: see them turn pro, then it stands the reason that
Speaker 2: maybe you could too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I used to live in Greenville, North Carolina,
Speaker 1: and Kinston was right next door, and the number of
Speaker 1: star basketball players and football players that will come out
Speaker 1: of is pretty remarkable. Yeah, but not Bo Jackson, No,
Speaker 1: not or Wayne Gretzky. Right, But you know, there's one
Speaker 1: more sports advantage I wanted to talk about, and that's
Speaker 1: the fact that being short can actually give players a
Speaker 1: big advantage in soccer. It's it's funny, but one of
Speaker 1: our friends kids learned from his doctor that he might
Speaker 1: be you know, six foot or whatever like these projections,
Speaker 1: and he was totally depressed because he would He was
Speaker 1: hoping you'd be like five seven like Messi or five eight,
Speaker 1: which is just funny to think about, especially for someone
Speaker 1: like me. But you know, it's kind of counterintuitive since
Speaker 1: bigger is usually better when it comes to sports. But
Speaker 1: in the case of soccer, being tall is only helpful
Speaker 1: if you're a defender or a goalie. For the other
Speaker 1: positions like forwards and midfielders, the edge goes to the
Speaker 1: shorter players. So why is that the main reason is
Speaker 1: that shorter players tend to have better control of their limbs,
Speaker 1: which allows them to change direction faster than a tall
Speaker 1: player could. That kind of nimbleness really keeps defenders on
Speaker 1: their toes and makes it harder to box in a
Speaker 1: short opponent or to anticipate their movements. But that's not
Speaker 1: the only advantage, you know. According to the Atlantic, studies
Speaker 1: have shown that tall players are called for fouls more
Speaker 1: frequently than shorter players. Huh. That could just be that
Speaker 1: the referees are associating height with aggression, or maybe the
Speaker 1: longer limbs are more visible. But you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure exactly what the reason is, but but tall folks
Speaker 1: definitely get carded more.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I know in other sports like basketball, it's
Speaker 2: obviously an advantage overall to be tall, But it is
Speaker 2: also interesting to watch. You know, when you used to
Speaker 2: watch guys like Shack play and they could just get
Speaker 2: hammered all day long and nobody would call.
Speaker 1: Them a lot of times. But Iverson will pull someone
Speaker 1: down and get called.
Speaker 2: For it exactly exactly. It's so bizarre to look at
Speaker 2: these stats, but you know, it's interesting to see how
Speaker 2: different levels of influence people can have over these advantages.
Speaker 2: Like with home field advantage, it kind of comes down
Speaker 2: to the player's mindset and how they respond to things
Speaker 2: outside their control. And with the small town advantage, like
Speaker 2: that's something people could actually seek out if they were
Speaker 2: so inclined, Like if you had a young kid that
Speaker 2: wants to be a pro football player, you could move
Speaker 2: to a small town and theoretically they could reap the
Speaker 2: advantage of that. But now we're getting into stuff like
Speaker 2: height and the social stigma surrounding height, and those are
Speaker 2: things that nobody really has much say in.
Speaker 1: You know, Yeah, that seems like a good distinction to make,
Speaker 1: and why don't we check out some of those advantages
Speaker 1: right after this break? And then.
Speaker 2: You're listening to part time Genius and we're talking about
Speaker 2: some of the lesser known advantages that certain groups of
Speaker 2: people enjoy. And since we closed out the last segment
Speaker 2: with a short person perk, I think it's.
Speaker 1: Only fair we balance it out and go for one
Speaker 1: for the tall people out there. So here we go.
Speaker 2: Tall people make more money than short people. That's it,
Speaker 2: end of story.
Speaker 1: So I hate this already, but I feel like you
Speaker 1: need to explain a little bit well.
Speaker 2: According to a twenty fifteen study published in the Journal
Speaker 2: of Human Capital, salary rates trend upward right along with
Speaker 2: height in most Western countries, so much so that if
Speaker 2: one employee is four or five inches taller than another,
Speaker 2: the taller person would make anywhere between nine and fifteen
Speaker 2: percent more than this shorter whoa imagine being a seven fetter.
Speaker 2: It would be so rich. But put another way, an
Speaker 2: extra inch of height could be worth as much as
Speaker 2: eight hundred dollars per year in additional earnings. Match that
Speaker 2: to inflation rates, Track it over thirty years, and you're
Speaker 2: looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Speaker 1: In extra income just for being tall. So I guess,
Speaker 1: setting aside the sheer injustice of this all, I'm curious
Speaker 1: to hear what's driving this because I feel like this
Speaker 1: would have made sense like centuries ago, right when was
Speaker 1: the jobs relied on on size or strength or whatever.
Speaker 1: But it seems strange that the trend would continue in
Speaker 1: an era of like the desk job. Right, Yeah, like
Speaker 1: maybe someone who's taller can reach the high shelf in
Speaker 1: the break room or something that's advantage. Height doesn't really
Speaker 1: help with Excel sheets.
Speaker 2: Well, it doesn't make a lot of sense on paper.
Speaker 2: And you know, one theory is that employers aren't paying
Speaker 2: strictly based on height. Instead, it's that taller people are
Speaker 2: landing higher paying jobs because their height lends them to
Speaker 2: more self confidence or better social skills, which allows them
Speaker 2: to climb the pay ladder faster. Anyway, if you're angling
Speaker 2: for a raise at work, adding some lists to your
Speaker 2: shoes might actually help.
Speaker 1: So think about that. I'm sure that's how Tom Cruise
Speaker 1: got that big payday. So, sticking with our theme of
Speaker 1: things that are beyond our control, here's another bombshell. I
Speaker 1: bet you never would have guessed their advantages to being attractive.
Speaker 1: What you don't say, mango? Come on. So what's funny
Speaker 1: about this is that even scientists benefit from this. So,
Speaker 1: according to new research from the University of Essex and
Speaker 1: the Universe of Cambridge, the way that a scientist looks
Speaker 1: affects the level of interest in their work and their
Speaker 1: perceived credibility. As one of the psychologists behind the study explained,
Speaker 1: this is true because quote people partly treat science communication
Speaker 1: as a form of entertainment, where emotional impact and the
Speaker 1: aesthetic appeal are desirable qualities.
Speaker 2: Wow, it's weird to think society might buy into an
Speaker 2: argument that the world is flat or some other ridiculous
Speaker 2: argument like if this scientist is just attractive enough.
Speaker 1: It sounds a little like that thirty Rock episode where
Speaker 1: John Hem becomes a doctor and a Tennyson's writer, and
Speaker 1: like he's horrible at all these things, but people keep
Speaker 1: getting in the past because he's so handsome. But I
Speaker 1: actually clarified this with Gabe because I was thinking the
Speaker 1: same thing you were, and the link here between attractiveness
Speaker 1: and credibility isn't quite what you were thinking. So over
Speaker 1: the course of six studies, researchers were able to show
Speaker 1: that scientists who appear competent, moral, and attractive are more
Speaker 1: likely to garner interest in their work, which isn't a surprise, right, right,
Speaker 1: But then the researchers continued writing, quote, the scientists who
Speaker 1: appear and moral but who are relatively unattractive create a
Speaker 1: stronger impression of doing high quality research.
Speaker 2: So just to get this right, so the public is
Speaker 2: more likely to pay attention to the research of an
Speaker 2: attractive scientist, but less likely to believe what they're saying.
Speaker 1: Like, is that right? Yeah, they're basically like Serno de
Speaker 1: Burger racking right. But basically, the next time the public
Speaker 1: needs to be informed about a scientific breakthrough, it's probably
Speaker 1: best to pair scientists to give a presentation, like an
Speaker 1: attractive one to win the audience's approval, and you know,
Speaker 1: an ugly one to give it credibility, right, the old
Speaker 1: Watson and Krik will what they call it, I think,
Speaker 1: so I have no idea for that's interesting though.
Speaker 2: Well, since we're on the subject of scientists, have you
Speaker 2: ever noticed how we tend to refer to the male
Speaker 2: ones by their surnames, but we call female scientists by
Speaker 2: their full names, Like Darwin is just Darwin. But have
Speaker 2: you ever heard anyone just say Curi, like it's always
Speaker 2: Marie Curie.
Speaker 1: Right, I know it's just making a joke about Watson
Speaker 1: and Krik, but like I know Rosalind Franklin's full name,
Speaker 1: but I know one of them is James, but I
Speaker 1: don't know which one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there's actually even a name for this bias.
Speaker 2: It's called surname bias. So basically, when we hear someone
Speaker 2: called by their surname, it tends to improve our perception
Speaker 2: of them. Maybe it makes them seem more important or
Speaker 2: dignified in our minds, maybe stronger or more imminent or
Speaker 2: something like that. But the main problem with this is
Speaker 2: that we don't wield that surname bias fairly so. According
Speaker 2: to a string of recent studies, on average, and regardless
Speaker 2: of gender, people are twice as likely to refer to
Speaker 2: men by their surnames than they are women. And those
Speaker 2: findings hold true across a lot of different professions, whether
Speaker 2: it's politics, science, literature, Like the list goes on.
Speaker 1: So how exactly does this advantage play on in real life?
Speaker 1: Like what's the payoff for being just being called by
Speaker 1: your last name? All right?
Speaker 2: Well, just going back to the scientists for a minute,
Speaker 2: there was a study back in twenty seventeen where more
Speaker 2: than five hundred participants we're asked to determine who among
Speaker 2: a group of scientists should receive a half million dollars
Speaker 2: science grant. Some of the scientists refer to by their
Speaker 2: full names and others by their surnames. And, as you
Speaker 2: can probably guess by what we've been saying, the participants
Speaker 2: showed a clear preference for the surname only contenders. In fact,
Speaker 2: those candidates were a full fourteen percent more likely to
Speaker 2: be recommended for the award. So if that same strange
Speaker 2: advantage is cropping up across all these different fields, it
Speaker 2: stands to reason that surname bias is a serious contributor
Speaker 2: to the gender inequality in the workplace. And the ironic
Speaker 2: part of this is that, you know, the trend of
Speaker 2: using women's full names actually may have started with noble
Speaker 2: intentions as a way of drawing attention to the presence
Speaker 2: and the contributions of women, especially in fields traditionally associated
Speaker 2: with men. So the plan, though, it seems to have
Speaker 2: backfired since so many of us have this surname bias
Speaker 2: kind of baked in to us.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a little depressing, but I'm glad we're
Speaker 1: more aware of it, and I think I am only
Speaker 1: going to call Marie Curie Curi from now on. But
Speaker 1: when don't we switch gears and talk about a few
Speaker 1: of the more even handed advantages out there right after
Speaker 1: this break? Welcome back to part time Genius. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: so let's talk about advantages that are a little easier
Speaker 1: to come by, ones that aren't as dependent on chance
Speaker 1: or circumstances. Did you come across anything like that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel like I've got just the thing for you,
Speaker 2: because all you really need for this one is a
Speaker 2: library card. Now being able to read and having access
Speaker 2: to books are obviously big advantages in life, especially during childhood,
Speaker 2: and hopefully it's clear by now that you and I
Speaker 2: are big proponents of reading. But according to new research,
Speaker 2: simply being around books might be a benefit in itself,
Speaker 2: even if you don't actually read them.
Speaker 1: So my first question is, are you sure we're supposed
Speaker 1: to be talking about this because my kids listening to
Speaker 1: this program. Yeah, just just sit near the books. But
Speaker 1: what's the advantage of having unread books around. There's something
Speaker 1: in social science called radiation effect. I think this is
Speaker 1: so interesting.
Speaker 2: So that's when children grow up with books in the house,
Speaker 2: they don't read them very much, but still somehow benefit
Speaker 2: later in life just from having grown up around books.
Speaker 2: It's a really weird phenomenon, but there's a study on
Speaker 2: it recently by a sociologist at the Australian National University.
Speaker 2: Her name is Joanna Sikora, and along with her colleagues,
Speaker 2: she pieced together five years worth of developmental data on
Speaker 2: more than one hundred and sixty thousand adults from thirty
Speaker 2: one different societies. These surveys were aimed at assessing things
Speaker 2: like literacy, competency, with numbers, even technology, and part of
Speaker 2: this was asking the question of how large of a
Speaker 2: home library the participants had during their adolescence. Some of
Speaker 2: the findings from this were were actually pretty surprising. So,
Speaker 2: for instance, the participants who only had a high school
Speaker 2: education but who had grown up around books, they boasted
Speaker 2: better literacy, numeracy, and digital problem solving as adults than
Speaker 2: the college grads and the survey who had grown up
Speaker 2: in bookless homes.
Speaker 1: Huh, that's interesting, And I'm guessing this all comes down
Speaker 1: to someone in the house valuing knowledge or learning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it ultimately comes down to why the books are
Speaker 2: in the house in the first place. So the lead researcher, Scora,
Speaker 2: sum this up well in a recent interview with Scientific American.
Speaker 1: Here's what she said.
Speaker 2: If we grow up in a house, in a home
Speaker 2: where parents enjoy books, where books are given as birthday
Speaker 2: presents and cherished and valued, this is something that becomes
Speaker 2: part of our identity and gives us this lifelong incentive
Speaker 2: to be literacy oriented, to always kind of steer toward
Speaker 2: books and read more than we would otherwise.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating and honestly, I have so many books in
Speaker 1: our house that we haven't read. I'm wondering if it's
Speaker 1: a good life hack for you know, not having to
Speaker 1: pay for my kids college, So good strategy. On an
Speaker 1: opposite note, Gabe was telling me about lucky charms this week,
Speaker 1: and it's pretty much the opposite case, right. The advantage
Speaker 1: depends entirely on the charmholder's participation in it.
Speaker 2: Are you saying there really is some advantage to carrying
Speaker 2: a lucky charm?
Speaker 1: It sounds impossible, but there's a social psychology study from
Speaker 1: about a decade ago where participants all performed better in
Speaker 1: memory and dexterity tests when they were allowed to keep
Speaker 1: their lucky charms with them, and when the charms were
Speaker 1: taken away there's scores plummeted, and when the charms were returned,
Speaker 1: their scores increased again.
Speaker 2: So then why it's like a placebo effect, but for
Speaker 2: luckiness instead of health.
Speaker 1: Yes, sort of. I mean the researchers theorized that the
Speaker 1: people with lucky charms perform better because they stuck with
Speaker 1: the problems longer than those without charms. Because they believed
Speaker 1: in the luckiness of their objects, they felt more equipped
Speaker 1: and capable when faced with a tough challenge, and that
Speaker 1: confidence ultimately boosted them over the top. Wow.
Speaker 2: You know, it's funny because there's this urge to like
Speaker 2: look sideways at people for putting so much faith and
Speaker 2: like a rabbit's phone or whatever the lucky charm is.
Speaker 2: But I guess there must be some reason why they
Speaker 2: believe in an object's luck in the first place, right,
Speaker 2: Like something must have convinced them. It's just hard to
Speaker 2: imagine exactly what that could be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think it helps to remember that
Speaker 1: what we think of as luck is really more about
Speaker 1: brain chemistry and world views than it is about you know,
Speaker 1: chance or magic. Like our brains are hardwired to look
Speaker 1: for patterns, and we often have good incentive to find them,
Speaker 1: like even if they aren't really there. For example, if
Speaker 1: I make a conscious choice to wear I don't know,
Speaker 1: a shirt with a bear on it, and then I
Speaker 1: end up having a great day at work, there's a
Speaker 1: part of me that'll take notice of that and link
Speaker 1: the two events wearing the bear shirt and then having
Speaker 1: a good day at the office. And then if I
Speaker 1: wear the bear shirt a second time and have another
Speaker 1: great day at work like that mental connection will become
Speaker 1: even stronger, and I might think there's something going on
Speaker 1: and that shirt is lucky or whatever. You know.
Speaker 2: I know we talk about a lot of business ideas,
Speaker 2: but like, just hearing you talk about this, it kind
Speaker 2: of makes me think we need to get in the bears.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna be our next thing.
Speaker 2: But as bizarre as it all sounds, I have to admit,
Speaker 2: it's sort of comforting to think that there could actually
Speaker 2: be a way for us to kind of make our
Speaker 2: own luck like that. It reminds me of something I
Speaker 2: read in The Atlantic this week about the social advantage
Speaker 2: that comes with having pockets.
Speaker 1: Mango pucket like pant pockets. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: It turns out the word pocket is an Anglo Norman
Speaker 2: word meaning little bag. And when pockets first came on
Speaker 2: the scene of the late seventeenth century, that's essentially what
Speaker 2: they were, like, these small, detachable bags that were tied
Speaker 2: around the waist with a draw string. And it wasn't
Speaker 2: until the eighteen fifties, when clothes became more tightly fitted,
Speaker 2: that pockets started to be sewn directly into the garments.
Speaker 2: And this new kind of pocket was smaller than the
Speaker 2: old draw string version, but it kind of made up
Speaker 2: for that by being so much harder to steal. Honestly, though,
Speaker 2: if you were a woman living during this time period,
Speaker 2: you wouldn't really care which kind of pockets you had
Speaker 2: so long as you did have pockets. And that's because
Speaker 2: pockets were a game changer for women. So it seems
Speaker 2: like such a small thing, but being able to easily
Speaker 2: and discreetly carry objects, you know, it is an advantage.
Speaker 2: But before pockets came along, that really wasn't much of
Speaker 2: an option for women. Now remember this is all prior
Speaker 2: to the rise of handbags and backpacks, and so suddenly
Speaker 2: women were able to move outside the home because now
Speaker 2: they had a private space to hold, you know, whatever
Speaker 2: they needed throughout the day.
Speaker 1: That's funny. I never really thought of pockets as a
Speaker 1: symbol of independence. But you know, if you can't have
Speaker 1: your wallet or phone or keys on you, like, you
Speaker 1: can't really move through that like public spaces. Yeah, it's right.
Speaker 2: In fact, I don't know if you remember this, but
Speaker 2: there's a great scene about pockets and the wind and
Speaker 2: the willows.
Speaker 1: Do you remember all the scenes from them or do
Speaker 1: you say pockets this month? Yeah? I know.
Speaker 2: It's when mister Toad is trying to escape from jail
Speaker 2: after being locked up, you know, for joy riding in
Speaker 2: his motor car, and he ends up disguising himself as
Speaker 2: the prisons washerwoman in order to slip past the guards.
Speaker 2: But he finds out that the stolen clothes he's wearing
Speaker 2: don't include pockets. And so listen to how he takes
Speaker 2: the news to this horror, Toad recollected that he had
Speaker 2: left both coat and waistcoat behind him and his cell.
Speaker 2: All that makes life worth living, all that distinguishes the
Speaker 2: many pocketed animal, the lord of creation from the end
Speaker 2: fear or one pocketed or no pocketed productions that hop
Speaker 2: or trip about permissively unequipped for the real contest.
Speaker 1: Pretty definitive right there. So even mister Toad realized the
Speaker 1: freedom grind by pockets, and not just him.
Speaker 2: So back in the nineteenth century you'd see posted advertisements
Speaker 2: for runaway slaves, and some of the descriptions would warn
Speaker 2: that just because his clothes have pockets, that doesn't mean
Speaker 2: he's a free man. So I guess we should be
Speaker 2: grateful for pockets, is what I'm saying. I'm just gonna
Speaker 2: keep saying pockets. But they give us this agency in
Speaker 2: public that was denied to so many people for a
Speaker 2: long long time.
Speaker 1: Plus we'll else are you going to keep your lucky
Speaker 1: charms right? So you know, we start today's show talking
Speaker 1: about one on one competitions, and now it's time to
Speaker 1: close it by holding one of our own. It's time
Speaker 1: for the fact off. Okay, So I came across a
Speaker 1: bunch of different advantages this week that all center on
Speaker 1: the sound of your voice and how it can influence
Speaker 1: the way people perceive you. So, for example, men are
Speaker 1: more likely to vote for men who have deeper, more
Speaker 1: masculine voices, and CEOs with deeper voices tend to manage
Speaker 1: larger companies and earn larger salaries. But there's at least
Speaker 1: one profession where it pays for men to be a
Speaker 1: little more soft spoken. According to a study outlined and
Speaker 1: New Scientists, lawyers with gentler, less masculine voices are more
Speaker 1: likely to win in court than their gruffer, sounder colleagues.
Speaker 1: And the researchers behind the study aren't one hundred percent
Speaker 1: sure why that is, but they say it could be
Speaker 1: that the lawyers with deeper voices are perceived as being
Speaker 1: overcompensating or trying to sound masculine.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's interesting, all right. So here's a weird one.
Speaker 2: It turns out that die hard opera fans have a
Speaker 2: slight edge when it comes to chemistry class.
Speaker 1: This is my favorite.
Speaker 2: So back in twenty thirteen, a team of chemists study
Speaker 2: the librettos of twenty famous operas, and they found that
Speaker 2: the effects of twenty five different natural and synthetic chemical
Speaker 2: materials were accurately described in them, everything from snake venom
Speaker 2: to deadly nightshade. Ring to the Smithsonian. The researchers hope
Speaker 2: that teachers will use the poison based plots to help
Speaker 2: the students better engage with chemistry, because if there is
Speaker 2: one thing teens love more than chemistry, it's gotta be opera.
Speaker 1: So we talked about left handed advantages at the top
Speaker 1: of the show, but there's one more that's too random
Speaker 1: not to mention. According to a report commissioned by the
Speaker 1: AA Driving School, left handed drivers have a much easier
Speaker 1: time passing their driving test. In fact, six out of
Speaker 1: ten or fifty seven percent actually, of the left handers
Speaker 1: passed the driving test on the first try, according to
Speaker 1: the findings, and that means southpause are a full ten
Speaker 1: percent more likely than right handers to pass on their
Speaker 1: first attempt, and as any culver points out for ABC News,
Speaker 1: that puts left handed drivers in good company with famous
Speaker 1: lefty drivers, including Buzz Aldrin and none other than Chewbacco himself,
Speaker 1: who you know was also left handed.
Speaker 2: That's right, all right, Well, here's one I was kind
Speaker 2: of surprised to learn. Actually, color blindness can sometimes be
Speaker 2: an asset in combat situations. The ideas that the condition
Speaker 2: forces a soldier to focus on patterns instead of colors,
Speaker 2: which can be useful for spotting camouflaged enemies in the field.
Speaker 2: So much so in fact, that colorblind units were reportedly
Speaker 2: used during World War Two to help identify snipers.
Speaker 1: That's fascinating. So here's a fun one. It turns out
Speaker 1: that women are more attracted to men if they're holding guitars.
Speaker 2: Which is why someone taught the house course in college
Speaker 2: called just enough Guitar to Serenada Girl.
Speaker 1: That's right. I think the whole thing led up to
Speaker 1: playing that song Tangerine by led Zeppelin. But let me
Speaker 1: tell you about the study because it's interesting. A team
Speaker 1: of researchers in France hired this beefcake guy and over
Speaker 1: the course of a single afternoon. They had him hit
Speaker 1: on three hundred women between the ages of eighteen and
Speaker 1: twenty two, and in each case, the guy followed the
Speaker 1: same routine, right beat for beat, He introduced himself, he
Speaker 1: told the woman like, I think you're really pretty, and
Speaker 1: then he proceeded to ask each one for her phone numbers,
Speaker 1: so you know, they could get a drink together. But
Speaker 1: here's the twist. For a third of these encounters, the
Speaker 1: guy was carrying a guitar case, for another third he
Speaker 1: was carrying a gym bag, and for the remaining third
Speaker 1: he wasn't carrying anything. And wouldn't you know it, when
Speaker 1: he was carrying the guitar case, a shocking thirty two
Speaker 1: percent of the women gave him their numbers.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: Compare that with nine percent who did when he was
Speaker 1: carrying the gym bag and fourteen percent when he was
Speaker 1: carrying nothing, and it's pretty clear that music is the
Speaker 1: language of love.
Speaker 2: That's wild though, Like thirty two percent to fourteen percent.
Speaker 2: It's not just like a small advantage, it's a huge advantage.
Speaker 1: And nine percent with the gym bag because I think
Speaker 1: like they just think he's a meathead or something.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's pretty well well It may not be the
Speaker 2: most surprising factor of the day, but you managed to
Speaker 2: breathe a little romance into the show, and for that ALIGNE,
Speaker 2: I think you got to take the show Mango.
Speaker 1: Well played. Thanks so much and I accept this on
Speaker 1: behalf of everyone who's faked playing a musical instrument to
Speaker 1: get a date. But that's going to do it. For
Speaker 1: today's Part Time Genius from Will Gabeloel and myself, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for listening. We'll be back soon with another
Speaker 1: new episode. Part Time Genius is a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 2: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.