1
00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:05,280
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, the production of

2
00:00:05,360 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome discussed to Blow your Mind.

3
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:17,759
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and

4
00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:21,400
Speaker 1: today I wanted to focus on a certain type of

5
00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:23,919
Speaker 1: figure of speech. This is something that's been in my

6
00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:26,520
Speaker 1: brain for a little bit. I'm not quite sure how

7
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:30,240
Speaker 1: it got lodged there, but I've noticed recently there's a

8
00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:32,239
Speaker 1: certain type of figure of speech that shows up a

9
00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:38,640
Speaker 1: lot in political speeches, and in religious preaching and in

10
00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:42,640
Speaker 1: self help literature. And this is a figure of speech

11
00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: known as anti metaboli, also known as inverted parallelism. So

12
00:00:48,600 --> 00:00:50,920
Speaker 1: you might not be familiar with the term. I wasn't

13
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:52,640
Speaker 1: before I had to like look this up and figure

14
00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 1: out what it was called. But as soon as you

15
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 1: hear some examples, you will instantly recognize the format. So

16
00:00:59,120 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: anti metabol is realized in common expressions like the following

17
00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:07,479
Speaker 1: when the going gets tough, the tough get going, or

18
00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:09,800
Speaker 1: it's not the size of the dog in the fight,

19
00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:12,760
Speaker 1: but the size of the fight in the dog, or

20
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:14,680
Speaker 1: how about this is one I was just talking to

21
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 1: Rachel about this one. It's not the years in your life,

22
00:01:18,080 --> 00:01:21,920
Speaker 1: but the life in your years. Ah. Yeah, So this

23
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:25,320
Speaker 1: this is a type of structure that often it just

24
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:29,480
Speaker 1: resonates with folksy wisdom, but sometimes much more than that.

25
00:01:29,560 --> 00:01:32,120
Speaker 1: Like one example, probably the first example became to mind

26
00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:35,280
Speaker 1: when you brought this up. Uh, what is the following

27
00:01:35,319 --> 00:01:40,120
Speaker 1: famous quote from from Frederick Nietzsche quote, Beware that when

28
00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:43,440
Speaker 1: fighting monsters yourself, do not become a monster. For when

29
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:47,319
Speaker 1: you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also

30
00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:50,720
Speaker 1: into you. So it's that last pair there, that's the

31
00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:54,280
Speaker 1: anti metaboli. When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss

32
00:01:54,320 --> 00:01:57,640
Speaker 1: gazes into you. Uh. And of course that's not folksy wisdom,

33
00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:00,960
Speaker 1: that's some some some Nietzche darkness right there. Yeah, And

34
00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:02,560
Speaker 1: there are a lot of forms of it. That's one

35
00:02:02,600 --> 00:02:05,680
Speaker 1: that offers a kind of scary twist on an initial thought.

36
00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,200
Speaker 1: But there are also ones that are just sort of

37
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:11,040
Speaker 1: basic life advice. There's like, you know, if you fail

38
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 1: to prepare, you prepare to fail, right, or they're they're

39
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:19,120
Speaker 1: the ones that don't even really offer that much of

40
00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:23,640
Speaker 1: a twist. They just sort of, uh suggest a comprehensiveness

41
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,359
Speaker 1: of of a sentiment. And one example I would use

42
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:29,280
Speaker 1: here is the line from the Three Musketeers, all for

43
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:31,640
Speaker 1: one and one for all, So you know, all of

44
00:02:31,720 --> 00:02:33,960
Speaker 1: us taking care of each other and each one taking

45
00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:36,840
Speaker 1: care of the others. Yeah. Like sometimes it makes a

46
00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:41,000
Speaker 1: statement resonate more. It like truly makes a message more compelling,

47
00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:43,520
Speaker 1: and we'll we'll get into the rhetorical details of that,

48
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:47,079
Speaker 1: uh as we proceed. Other times, so it just makes

49
00:02:47,080 --> 00:02:50,640
Speaker 1: a statement zing, perhaps even in an artificial way. And

50
00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 1: so yeah, a lot of a lot of this episode

51
00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:54,600
Speaker 1: is going to be about why that is. In busting

52
00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 1: out some examples of why this is the case, I

53
00:02:57,440 --> 00:02:59,240
Speaker 1: have to admit some of you might be thinking, well,

54
00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:02,120
Speaker 1: how is this going to a full episode? Uh? There

55
00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:04,360
Speaker 1: is plenty here to discuss. I would when when you

56
00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:06,560
Speaker 1: first brought it up, I was kind of wondering myself,

57
00:03:06,639 --> 00:03:08,320
Speaker 1: was like, is this a full episode? I don't know,

58
00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:10,760
Speaker 1: but I trust Joe, So if he says there is,

59
00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:13,120
Speaker 1: there is uh, And my and my wife ask the

60
00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:14,280
Speaker 1: same thing, and she's like, is that canna be a

61
00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:16,720
Speaker 1: whole episode? And uh, and I had to assure her, yes,

62
00:03:16,800 --> 00:03:19,520
Speaker 1: there's there's a lot to consider here. Uh. It's it's

63
00:03:19,520 --> 00:03:22,640
Speaker 1: a it's a far more fascinating topic than you might think.

64
00:03:23,520 --> 00:03:26,320
Speaker 1: Uh And also as we proceed, we're gonna bust out

65
00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:31,119
Speaker 1: numerous examples from like film and and and literature and politics,

66
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:33,480
Speaker 1: and you're gonna have lots of examples that come to

67
00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:36,240
Speaker 1: mind as well. Uh So, a lot of the fun,

68
00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 1: I think is going to be in thinking about examples

69
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:44,680
Speaker 1: of anti metaboli that you've heard before, and also thinking

70
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 1: about ways that you know what it does, and how

71
00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:51,360
Speaker 1: you could potentially tweak other um statements or even your

72
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 1: your way of thinking by using them more right. Uh So,

73
00:03:55,440 --> 00:03:58,680
Speaker 1: I guess it's probably clear what it is now because

74
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:00,680
Speaker 1: of the examples we've given, and but just to give

75
00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:05,360
Speaker 1: a formal definition, anti metaboli is an expression where a

76
00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 1: statement is repeated, but the second time you say it,

77
00:04:08,760 --> 00:04:13,360
Speaker 1: the word order is transposed or inverted, usually employing the

78
00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:16,719
Speaker 1: second phrase to offer some kind of twist on or

79
00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:20,320
Speaker 1: emphasis to the meaning of the first phrase. Uh And

80
00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:24,440
Speaker 1: anti metaboli, I think, is sometimes considered a specific form

81
00:04:24,640 --> 00:04:29,280
Speaker 1: of a broader type of syntactic parallelism that's known as chiasmus,

82
00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:32,600
Speaker 1: or sometimes chiasmus. I think, we're gonna say chiasmus. That's

83
00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:35,719
Speaker 1: a c H I A S m U s, but

84
00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 1: both of them take the form of A B B A.

85
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:43,320
Speaker 1: The difference is usually understood to be that in chiasmus

86
00:04:43,760 --> 00:04:46,839
Speaker 1: you don't have to repeat the same exact words. You

87
00:04:46,880 --> 00:04:50,920
Speaker 1: can state an inverted parallel is m with different language.

88
00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 1: So uh, a broader chiasmus version of the three musketeers

89
00:04:55,480 --> 00:04:59,120
Speaker 1: saying might be all for one and each for the others.

90
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:01,200
Speaker 1: So it still has the A B B A form,

91
00:05:01,279 --> 00:05:04,000
Speaker 1: but it's just using different words to express the same

92
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:08,560
Speaker 1: idea inverted. Another chiasmus could be something like at daybreak,

93
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:12,039
Speaker 1: we rise, we wake at the dawn, And you might

94
00:05:12,080 --> 00:05:14,720
Speaker 1: hear immediately that phrases like this do pop up a

95
00:05:14,720 --> 00:05:18,960
Speaker 1: lot in in poetry, especially in a lot of older poetry. Yeah,

96
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:22,279
Speaker 1: there's an example that I came across from Alexander Pope

97
00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:26,159
Speaker 1: his time, a moment and his point his space. Yes,

98
00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:29,240
Speaker 1: and so anti metaboli is just a version of this

99
00:05:29,320 --> 00:05:33,239
Speaker 1: form of chiasmas, but using exactly the same words again

100
00:05:33,480 --> 00:05:36,000
Speaker 1: in in the inverted order. In a way, it reminds

101
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:39,640
Speaker 1: me a lot of elegant variation, you know, where where

102
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:42,479
Speaker 1: you're kind of saying the same thing twice, um, but

103
00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:44,120
Speaker 1: doing in a way doing it in a way that

104
00:05:44,160 --> 00:05:48,560
Speaker 1: makes you sound maybe smarter or more profound. Um, I

105
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:51,040
Speaker 1: guess it. It can. It basically breaks down to how

106
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:54,440
Speaker 1: it's used. But sometimes it's I guess narrowing in on

107
00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:58,080
Speaker 1: the exact structure here. I often found myself thinking of that, like, like,

108
00:05:58,120 --> 00:06:01,160
Speaker 1: you just said the same thing twice. Um, you just

109
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:05,039
Speaker 1: you just rephrase the first thing you said. Um. But

110
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:08,120
Speaker 1: but if you used properly, it can be quite effective. Yeah,

111
00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:11,680
Speaker 1: it can be extremely rhetorically powerful. And again, like you said,

112
00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:13,640
Speaker 1: part of the reason I wanted to talk about this

113
00:06:13,680 --> 00:06:16,599
Speaker 1: today is to try to at least find some sort

114
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:20,280
Speaker 1: of thoughts about why it's rhetorically powerful. I'll go out

115
00:06:20,279 --> 00:06:21,960
Speaker 1: and spoil it say. I don't think we can have

116
00:06:22,040 --> 00:06:24,920
Speaker 1: a conclusive answer here, but there are some interesting threads

117
00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:27,680
Speaker 1: we can pull on, you know, in terms of the

118
00:06:27,720 --> 00:06:29,720
Speaker 1: A B B A construction. I don't know if you've

119
00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:31,920
Speaker 1: found yourself doing this as well. But I was desperate

120
00:06:31,920 --> 00:06:37,440
Speaker 1: to find an example of chiasmas or anti metaboli from

121
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:41,599
Speaker 1: the lyrics of Swedish supergroup ABBA, but I was not

122
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 1: able to do there. But I think if you had

123
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:45,600
Speaker 1: to mess with their lyrics and create when you might say,

124
00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:48,679
Speaker 1: if you change your mind, I'll be first in line,

125
00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 1: and if I'm first in line, you'll change your mind.

126
00:06:51,560 --> 00:06:53,200
Speaker 1: I guess that would be an example of an anti

127
00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:59,560
Speaker 1: metaboli uh in imagined non existent apple lyrics. But I'm

128
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:02,279
Speaker 1: not an a complete it. What please, what I'm trying

129
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 1: to think of? Abba songs? What is dancing? Queen dancing?

130
00:07:05,360 --> 00:07:09,840
Speaker 1: Queen dancing? Queen queen dancing? That that's not all that interesting. Well,

131
00:07:09,960 --> 00:07:12,840
Speaker 1: so one place you absolutely will find a lot of

132
00:07:12,920 --> 00:07:16,680
Speaker 1: chiasmas and and specifically anti metaboli is in the Bible

133
00:07:16,880 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 1: and a lot of other ancient religious texts and proverbs.

134
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 1: For example, in the Gospel of Mark, there is a

135
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:28,040
Speaker 1: scene where Jesus is attacked by the Pharisees because he

136
00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,280
Speaker 1: is supposedly violating the Sabbath law. So he's walking through

137
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:34,960
Speaker 1: a field with his disciples and they're picking grain off

138
00:07:34,960 --> 00:07:37,760
Speaker 1: the field to eat, and you're not supposed to do

139
00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:40,480
Speaker 1: that on the Sabbath, And so the Pharisees challenge him

140
00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 1: on this, and he replies very cleverly, the Sabbath was

141
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:48,160
Speaker 1: made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So that's

142
00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:50,280
Speaker 1: one of the one of the common ways we see

143
00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:53,280
Speaker 1: anti metaboli used is to sort of like offer a

144
00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:57,800
Speaker 1: defiant statement against an assumption or a defiant statement against

145
00:07:57,800 --> 00:08:01,800
Speaker 1: conventional wisdom, like you know, oh, you know your mind

146
00:08:01,920 --> 00:08:04,400
Speaker 1: is in the box of the first half of the sentence,

147
00:08:04,680 --> 00:08:07,000
Speaker 1: let me blow your mind with the with inverting the

148
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:10,840
Speaker 1: word order in the second half. But then they're they're

149
00:08:10,960 --> 00:08:14,600
Speaker 1: versions of anti metaboli that are just more straightforward, Like

150
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: in the Book of Genesis, we're told, whoever sheds man's

151
00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 1: blood by man, his blood shall be shed. Um. So

152
00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:24,880
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, okay, if you kill somebody, then

153
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:28,440
Speaker 1: somebody will kill you. But then it's also just like

154
00:08:28,640 --> 00:08:31,160
Speaker 1: so you know, you go back into the ancient literature

155
00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:33,280
Speaker 1: and religious literature that a lot of it has this

156
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:36,400
Speaker 1: kind of powerful, profound feeling. But then you can also

157
00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:39,880
Speaker 1: find it being used in extremely playful ways. For example,

158
00:08:39,920 --> 00:08:42,840
Speaker 1: in pop music, I think of the Crosby Stills, Nash

159
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:45,200
Speaker 1: and Young song if you can't be with the one

160
00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:48,400
Speaker 1: you love, love the one you're with. I think that

161
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:50,800
Speaker 1: that's a great example. That's I think it's a wonderful

162
00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:53,439
Speaker 1: lyrical example. And when when I hear it in that song,

163
00:08:53,760 --> 00:08:55,520
Speaker 1: like it, it makes me stop and think, and it

164
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:59,480
Speaker 1: it feels like it's a comfortable feeling of like the

165
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:03,320
Speaker 1: like this this interplay between the idea of of love

166
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,520
Speaker 1: is longing and love is being Yeah, and it's like

167
00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:11,560
Speaker 1: it occupies this interesting ambiguous middle space between like is

168
00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:14,920
Speaker 1: that statement supposed to be kind of a funny, mischievous

169
00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:19,640
Speaker 1: statement or is it supposed to be a profound philosophical statement. Yeah,

170
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:21,400
Speaker 1: it's true. I guess I tend to I tend to

171
00:09:21,480 --> 00:09:23,280
Speaker 1: lean more profound on it, just because I feel like

172
00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:26,840
Speaker 1: that's the more the comfortable interpretation. But h but you know,

173
00:09:26,920 --> 00:09:29,760
Speaker 1: like like any great lyrics, it's it is open to interpretation.

174
00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:32,439
Speaker 1: And then of course there's you know, this might be

175
00:09:32,520 --> 00:09:35,000
Speaker 1: the most cited example if you're looking at the examples

176
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:37,920
Speaker 1: of this on the internet now, the Snoop Dog line. Uh,

177
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:40,080
Speaker 1: it's in Gin and Juice right with my mind on

178
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 1: my money and my money on my mind. And I

179
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:44,600
Speaker 1: was trying to think about this one. I was like, actually,

180
00:09:44,760 --> 00:09:48,640
Speaker 1: does the second phrasing they're actually change the sense of

181
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:51,160
Speaker 1: the first phrasing or is it? Or do the two

182
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:53,400
Speaker 1: halves of this really just mean the same thing, Like

183
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:55,960
Speaker 1: he's thinking about his money and the second half is

184
00:09:56,000 --> 00:10:00,400
Speaker 1: just emphasizing the idea. Yet again, well, I you know,

185
00:10:00,480 --> 00:10:03,400
Speaker 1: I too have wondered about this. Um. I also like

186
00:10:03,480 --> 00:10:06,840
Speaker 1: to wrestle with rap lyrics and and overthink them in

187
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:10,200
Speaker 1: many cases. For instance, in UM in Natural Born Killers,

188
00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:13,120
Speaker 1: Dre and Cubes say they are quote six million ways

189
00:10:13,160 --> 00:10:15,680
Speaker 1: to murder, choose one, and I'll often every time I

190
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:18,680
Speaker 1: hear them, like six million. That's a lot, Like is

191
00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 1: that that's that's an exhaustive list, Like that's got to

192
00:10:21,520 --> 00:10:26,199
Speaker 1: be just a very pedantic list of ways to murder somebody. Yeah,

193
00:10:26,240 --> 00:10:27,719
Speaker 1: but it's also got it's got to have a lot

194
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:30,920
Speaker 1: of you know, sort of basic copies on the same theme,

195
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 1: like yeah, strangle in the bathroom, strangle in the hall, yeah,

196
00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:37,839
Speaker 1: all yeah, different places, all the different variations of things

197
00:10:37,880 --> 00:10:40,280
Speaker 1: you could stab with. Even then, I don't know, this

198
00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:43,320
Speaker 1: is kind of a mathematical question, but is it difficult

199
00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:45,560
Speaker 1: to reach six million? Or is or is six million?

200
00:10:45,880 --> 00:10:48,760
Speaker 1: You know underplaying it? Although I was actually talking about

201
00:10:48,760 --> 00:10:50,839
Speaker 1: this with Rachel this morning and we realized that there

202
00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:54,240
Speaker 1: could be another way of reading the Snoop Dogg lyric,

203
00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:56,520
Speaker 1: which is that like the first half is sort of

204
00:10:56,559 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 1: like I'm thinking about my money, and then the second

205
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:01,480
Speaker 1: half is like the heavy lies the Crown, you know,

206
00:11:01,520 --> 00:11:04,400
Speaker 1: the money's on my mind. That's That's the way I

207
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:07,280
Speaker 1: kind of like lean into over interpreting Gin and Juice,

208
00:11:07,320 --> 00:11:09,360
Speaker 1: is that, yeah, he's he's focused on his money, but

209
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:11,600
Speaker 1: at the same time the money is weighing heavily on

210
00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 1: on his thoughts. Um. Though I admit that it seems

211
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 1: to clash with the overall vibe of the track, which

212
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:22,319
Speaker 1: is of course very laid back, celebratory. Yeah. Um, I'll

213
00:11:22,360 --> 00:11:23,719
Speaker 1: tell you another one real quick because I don't know

214
00:11:23,720 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 1: if we'll ever get a chance to discuss over analyzing

215
00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:29,120
Speaker 1: rap lyrics on the show before. But who who was

216
00:11:29,160 --> 00:11:31,480
Speaker 1: it it was? I think I think Cyperus Hill did

217
00:11:31,520 --> 00:11:34,880
Speaker 1: the did the beats and all, but it was like

218
00:11:34,920 --> 00:11:38,680
Speaker 1: a bunch of like Boston, Its right? Who who rapped it? Um?

219
00:11:39,480 --> 00:11:41,600
Speaker 1: Not insane in the membrane, but the song that sounds similar?

220
00:11:42,679 --> 00:11:46,199
Speaker 1: Oh what am I thinking of? Um? Seth has jumped

221
00:11:46,200 --> 00:11:48,000
Speaker 1: in and reminded me that it is House of Pain,

222
00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:51,800
Speaker 1: uh with jump around. Well, there's there's a line in

223
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,080
Speaker 1: that where the the individual rapping informs everyone that he

224
00:11:56,160 --> 00:12:00,000
Speaker 1: has more rhymes than the Bible has psalms, which always

225
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:04,079
Speaker 1: found rather interesting because the Bible doesn't have that many psalms.

226
00:12:04,160 --> 00:12:07,440
Speaker 1: There should be more rhymes at your disposal than psalms.

227
00:12:07,480 --> 00:12:10,160
Speaker 1: But it rhymes, so I guess it works. Maybe they're

228
00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:13,319
Speaker 1: counting like each line of the psalms as a psalm.

229
00:12:13,360 --> 00:12:15,000
Speaker 1: I guess so. But it seems like you would need

230
00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:18,119
Speaker 1: to go. I mean, the psalms are are very numerical,

231
00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:20,840
Speaker 1: like there there are a finite number of psalms, and

232
00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:23,120
Speaker 1: it's not that high a number. But anyway, it's it's

233
00:12:23,120 --> 00:12:25,600
Speaker 1: a weird flex, that's what I'm saying. One of the

234
00:12:25,760 --> 00:12:30,079
Speaker 1: great anti metaboli's in film, of course, is comes from

235
00:12:30,080 --> 00:12:34,719
Speaker 1: Sam Elliott, right, that's right, playing the stranger in The

236
00:12:34,720 --> 00:12:37,880
Speaker 1: Big Lebowski by the Coen Brothers, where he famously says,

237
00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:41,640
Speaker 1: sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes well he eats

238
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:48,240
Speaker 1: you the bar. Yep uh. So that's that's a wonderful one.

239
00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:50,840
Speaker 1: And and that's what I find myself thinking of and

240
00:12:50,960 --> 00:12:52,920
Speaker 1: using sometimes. You know, it just kind of sums up

241
00:12:52,960 --> 00:12:56,480
Speaker 1: like the nature of the ups and downs reality. Um. Now.

242
00:12:56,520 --> 00:13:00,640
Speaker 1: Another classic example of this that is purely from the

243
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:05,520
Speaker 1: realm of entertainment and in particular comedy, is the so

244
00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:09,400
Speaker 1: called Russian reversal made famous by Yakov Smyrnoff with such

245
00:13:09,480 --> 00:13:12,560
Speaker 1: quips as in America, you can always find a party.

246
00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:17,520
Speaker 1: In Soviet Russia, party always finds you. Uh. The other

247
00:13:17,520 --> 00:13:21,000
Speaker 1: one I remember is uh, in America you watch television,

248
00:13:21,080 --> 00:13:26,160
Speaker 1: and Soviet Russia television watch you. Yeah. So it's that

249
00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:30,120
Speaker 1: very very simple use of anti and metaboli, but one

250
00:13:30,160 --> 00:13:32,920
Speaker 1: that was quite successful for Yakov Smrnoff. Do you remember

251
00:13:32,920 --> 00:13:36,720
Speaker 1: when we had to read that Smeernoff ad like five

252
00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:39,600
Speaker 1: times because we kept saying Smernoff and they were like, no,

253
00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:42,480
Speaker 1: you have to say smear. Oh, that's right. That was.

254
00:13:42,520 --> 00:13:44,680
Speaker 1: It was like a Christmas ornament thing. Yeah, I don't

255
00:13:44,720 --> 00:13:46,960
Speaker 1: I don't know if Yakov is picky in the same way.

256
00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:49,920
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yakov fans will have to to write

257
00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 1: in let us know now. Another one of my favorite

258
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:56,840
Speaker 1: examples from the realm of comedy that I very often

259
00:13:56,840 --> 00:14:00,640
Speaker 1: think about, especially around Halloween, is the line from Simpsons

260
00:14:00,640 --> 00:14:04,800
Speaker 1: Trios of Horror. This is the one with Hugo Bart's

261
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:08,040
Speaker 1: um evil twin that was separated from it and lives

262
00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:12,440
Speaker 1: in the attic where the doctor character says too crazy

263
00:14:12,480 --> 00:14:14,920
Speaker 1: for boys town, too much of a boy for crazy Town.

264
00:14:15,440 --> 00:14:19,720
Speaker 1: That's one of Dr Hibbard's great moments. Yeah, yeah, that's

265
00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:24,240
Speaker 1: a very good pick. So there is. So I was

266
00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:28,840
Speaker 1: looking around for solid sources getting into um sort of

267
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:31,840
Speaker 1: like the history or science of of anti metaboli, and

268
00:14:31,920 --> 00:14:34,200
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem like there's been a lot of direct

269
00:14:34,280 --> 00:14:35,880
Speaker 1: research on it. We we can get into that a

270
00:14:35,920 --> 00:14:38,920
Speaker 1: little bit more later in the episode. But I did

271
00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:43,240
Speaker 1: come across one very interesting book chapter that is in

272
00:14:43,280 --> 00:14:47,960
Speaker 1: a book called Rhetorical Figures in Science published by Oxford

273
00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:51,840
Speaker 1: University Press by an author named Genie Fannas Stock. Uh.

274
00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:53,680
Speaker 1: This came out I think in around the year two

275
00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:56,880
Speaker 1: thousand or maybe two thousand two. But Genie fan of

276
00:14:56,920 --> 00:14:59,880
Speaker 1: Stock is a professor at the University of Maryland and

277
00:15:00,040 --> 00:15:03,520
Speaker 1: scholar of rhetoric. And the book is more directly relevant

278
00:15:03,520 --> 00:15:05,040
Speaker 1: to something I want to talk about in a little bit,

279
00:15:05,080 --> 00:15:08,800
Speaker 1: which is the relationship between anti metaboli and scientific writing.

280
00:15:09,640 --> 00:15:12,440
Speaker 1: But she also traces some good deep history of the

281
00:15:12,520 --> 00:15:16,520
Speaker 1: rhetorical form in the beginning of this chapter, and so

282
00:15:17,120 --> 00:15:20,080
Speaker 1: she finds what I'm aware of is like the oldest

283
00:15:20,160 --> 00:15:25,040
Speaker 1: example known of anti metaboli, which is in this ancient

284
00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:29,800
Speaker 1: Sumerian epic poem known as Gilgamesh inky Do and the

285
00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:33,000
Speaker 1: Nether World, and this dates back to the third millennium BC.

286
00:15:33,480 --> 00:15:36,280
Speaker 1: This might be rivaled by one quote that you have

287
00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:39,040
Speaker 1: from an Egyptian text, but uh, this is going to

288
00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:42,240
Speaker 1: be definitely one of the oldest known ones. And so

289
00:15:42,440 --> 00:15:45,640
Speaker 1: Gilgamesh nky Do in the Nether World was one of

290
00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:50,640
Speaker 1: the Sumerian source poems that would later feed into the

291
00:15:50,680 --> 00:15:54,440
Speaker 1: Acadian Epic of Gilgamesh. And there's a funny detail. I

292
00:15:54,640 --> 00:15:58,600
Speaker 1: didn't quite realize this. Sometimes in Sumerian sources, the the

293
00:15:58,680 --> 00:16:02,280
Speaker 1: epic hero, the mess Potamian epic hero Gilgamesh is known

294
00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:07,360
Speaker 1: as bill Gamesh, which is an objectively funnier name. Yeah,

295
00:16:07,400 --> 00:16:10,320
Speaker 1: that sounds like like a modern American remake of the

296
00:16:10,360 --> 00:16:16,440
Speaker 1: Epic of Gilgamesh, the Epic of Bilgamesh, Bilgamesh, Baggins, Bilgamesh,

297
00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:21,600
Speaker 1: the names Gamesh, bill Gamesh. But anyway, So in this

298
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:25,280
Speaker 1: ancient Sumerian poem, Uh, we encounter a couple of lines

299
00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:29,560
Speaker 1: describing the setting in time that it's talking about. Uh.

300
00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:33,160
Speaker 1: And it this so the setting reaches back, according to

301
00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:38,120
Speaker 1: the Smith translation quote, after heaven from Earth had been moved,

302
00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:43,440
Speaker 1: After Earth from Heaven had been separated. And it's so

303
00:16:44,080 --> 00:16:46,480
Speaker 1: this actually is doing a couple of interesting things. Number One,

304
00:16:46,520 --> 00:16:48,760
Speaker 1: it is an anti metaboli. It takes the same two

305
00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:53,040
Speaker 1: elements but then reverses their order. But it's also uh

306
00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:56,760
Speaker 1: indicative of a common device of ancient Near Eastern poetry

307
00:16:56,760 --> 00:17:00,920
Speaker 1: and religious texts, which is that you are can repeat

308
00:17:01,160 --> 00:17:06,240
Speaker 1: lines and ideas twice with slight rephrasings. And you can

309
00:17:06,280 --> 00:17:09,520
Speaker 1: find this all throughout the Bible, like you go through

310
00:17:09,560 --> 00:17:12,800
Speaker 1: the especially the poetic sections of the Hebrew Bible, the

311
00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:15,840
Speaker 1: poetic sections of the Book of Job, of Psalms Um,

312
00:17:15,880 --> 00:17:17,720
Speaker 1: you know what, where a lot of the greatest literature

313
00:17:17,800 --> 00:17:20,280
Speaker 1: of the Hebrew Bible is. One example is in the

314
00:17:20,320 --> 00:17:23,440
Speaker 1: Psalms you shall break them with a rod of iron.

315
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:26,639
Speaker 1: You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel.

316
00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:30,040
Speaker 1: I will not eat it in a boat. I will

317
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 1: not eat it with a goat. Well, yes, exactly, I've

318
00:17:34,080 --> 00:17:36,240
Speaker 1: never thought about that, but I guess the dr SEUs

319
00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:39,919
Speaker 1: maybe quite biblically inspired. But anyway, so the way it

320
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:42,680
Speaker 1: works is that both lines are making the same point,

321
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:45,480
Speaker 1: but they're repeating it with different words or imagery. And

322
00:17:45,520 --> 00:17:47,280
Speaker 1: as I mentioned, the Bible is just full of this

323
00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:51,040
Speaker 1: poetic device, but it also appears in other works of

324
00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:54,520
Speaker 1: of ancient Near Eastern poetry. And this couplet in the

325
00:17:54,560 --> 00:17:58,199
Speaker 1: Sumerian Epic is an interesting variation because it is an

326
00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:01,399
Speaker 1: anti metaboli. It repeats the sense of a line, but

327
00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:04,960
Speaker 1: it does so with inverted order, And I wonder what

328
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:08,919
Speaker 1: is the poetic purpose of that, Like, what exactly is

329
00:18:08,960 --> 00:18:11,960
Speaker 1: that the author is trying to suggest by using this

330
00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:15,240
Speaker 1: device where you repeat an idea twice, but the change

331
00:18:15,280 --> 00:18:19,440
Speaker 1: in the second version is just that the order is transposed. Well,

332
00:18:19,520 --> 00:18:21,719
Speaker 1: you know, I guess it's like, um, it could be

333
00:18:21,720 --> 00:18:25,040
Speaker 1: suggesting something about the mystery of the ancient past, like

334
00:18:25,560 --> 00:18:27,280
Speaker 1: was it the earth that was taken out of the

335
00:18:27,320 --> 00:18:29,480
Speaker 1: sky or was it the sky that was taken out

336
00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:32,119
Speaker 1: of the earth. I don't know always what exactly the

337
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:34,720
Speaker 1: effect of phrasings like this is, but I find it

338
00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:38,080
Speaker 1: really fascinating. Yeah, I mean it's, you know, in a

339
00:18:38,119 --> 00:18:40,159
Speaker 1: way a lot of the times you're getting into basically

340
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:43,399
Speaker 1: like chicken and egg paradox sort of stuff like chicken

341
00:18:43,560 --> 00:18:46,119
Speaker 1: came first, egg came first. We don't know, it's the

342
00:18:46,160 --> 00:18:50,560
Speaker 1: mystery of the egg. Uh. One of the sources I

343
00:18:50,560 --> 00:18:54,600
Speaker 1: was looking at for This was papered by Randy Alan

344
00:18:54,720 --> 00:19:00,159
Speaker 1: Harris titled uh, Anti Metapoli and Image Schemata onto law,

345
00:19:00,240 --> 00:19:05,040
Speaker 1: Ontological and vector space model. Um. This was very theoretical, yes,

346
00:19:05,560 --> 00:19:10,200
Speaker 1: but but in it the author briefly says that anti

347
00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:14,360
Speaker 1: Metaboli dates back to the sixth dynasty in ancient Egypt.

348
00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:16,240
Speaker 1: So this was this would have been the Twilight of

349
00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:18,920
Speaker 1: the Old Kingdom during the twenty third century b c E.

350
00:19:19,560 --> 00:19:23,160
Speaker 1: And I actually I had trouble running down an example

351
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:26,080
Speaker 1: of what the author was citing. Here is best I

352
00:19:26,080 --> 00:19:30,040
Speaker 1: could tell by looking at some other papers. Uh, he

353
00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:34,119
Speaker 1: may be referring to this pyramid text that reads, the

354
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:37,280
Speaker 1: male serpent is bitten by the female serpent. The female

355
00:19:37,280 --> 00:19:40,640
Speaker 1: serpent is bitten by the male serpent. Oh. And that's

356
00:19:40,640 --> 00:19:43,320
Speaker 1: interesting because this will actually tie into a version of

357
00:19:43,359 --> 00:19:46,400
Speaker 1: anti metaboli that pops up in the history of scientific rhetoric.

358
00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:51,800
Speaker 1: That which uh, that which asserts a symmetry. Yeah. Now,

359
00:19:51,840 --> 00:19:54,240
Speaker 1: I also ran across a really good one um from

360
00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:58,119
Speaker 1: Chinese history from the sixth century b c. E. Text

361
00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:01,600
Speaker 1: the Tao teaching it Go is one who knows does

362
00:20:01,640 --> 00:20:05,920
Speaker 1: not speak, one who speaks does not know. Oh, man,

363
00:20:06,040 --> 00:20:10,600
Speaker 1: how true that often is I say, with all invitations

364
00:20:10,600 --> 00:20:17,800
Speaker 1: of irony as someone who speaks for a living, than

365
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:22,160
Speaker 1: while these are some of the oldest examples we could,

366
00:20:22,280 --> 00:20:26,080
Speaker 1: we could find evidence of fantas Stock documents that anti

367
00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:29,520
Speaker 1: metaboli was just extremely common in the classical rhetoric of

368
00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:31,919
Speaker 1: ancient Greece and Rome. So if you were trained in

369
00:20:32,080 --> 00:20:34,359
Speaker 1: rhetoric by I don't know, in in the tradition of

370
00:20:34,359 --> 00:20:37,480
Speaker 1: Cicero or whatever you would, you would be trained to

371
00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:42,320
Speaker 1: often employ anti metaboli is one of your standard rhetorical figures. Yeah,

372
00:20:42,359 --> 00:20:44,560
Speaker 1: I mean, if nothing else, and and certainly there's more

373
00:20:44,600 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: going on here, it seems like a great way to

374
00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:49,720
Speaker 1: just hammer home your point, just hammer at home, say it,

375
00:20:50,520 --> 00:20:52,639
Speaker 1: an elegant way of just going ahead and saying it

376
00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:55,479
Speaker 1: twice sometimes. But I guess this brings us to the

377
00:20:55,560 --> 00:20:59,679
Speaker 1: idea of anti metaboli in scientific writing. And this is

378
00:20:59,720 --> 00:21:02,399
Speaker 1: something that's raised in that chapter by Fantastock, which I

379
00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:05,600
Speaker 1: found really interesting. So uh, to address the purpose of

380
00:21:05,640 --> 00:21:08,480
Speaker 1: her book in some ways, I think you could really

381
00:21:08,520 --> 00:21:13,920
Speaker 1: see science and rhetoric as diametrically opposed projects. Like science

382
00:21:14,040 --> 00:21:17,400
Speaker 1: is a method of studying and explaining nature by reference

383
00:21:17,440 --> 00:21:22,719
Speaker 1: to empirical surveys, experiments, you know, recursive self critical analysis.

384
00:21:22,760 --> 00:21:25,280
Speaker 1: The goal is to figure out what's true and how

385
00:21:25,320 --> 00:21:29,440
Speaker 1: things work, regardless of how you phrase it, right. Rhetoric

386
00:21:29,560 --> 00:21:33,080
Speaker 1: is the art of shaping language to be maximally persuasive

387
00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:37,359
Speaker 1: or effective, not necessarily with reference to what's true. Right, Like,

388
00:21:37,400 --> 00:21:39,800
Speaker 1: you could have good rhetoric that makes a point that's

389
00:21:39,840 --> 00:21:45,760
Speaker 1: completely false. Yeah, Its goal is to impress audiences, change minds,

390
00:21:45,800 --> 00:21:48,800
Speaker 1: and motivate action. And you know that that's good when

391
00:21:48,800 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 1: it's deployed on behalf of the truth, But it doesn't

392
00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:53,280
Speaker 1: necessarily have to be, and it often is deployed on

393
00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:57,320
Speaker 1: behalf of falsehoods. And yet fantas Stock argues for the

394
00:21:57,359 --> 00:22:02,400
Speaker 1: importance of rhetoric and communication in shaping the development of science.

395
00:22:02,440 --> 00:22:04,080
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of what her book is about

396
00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:07,679
Speaker 1: is like looking at examples in history of how attempts

397
00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:12,400
Speaker 1: to rhetorically communicate and persuade the essence of scientific discoveries

398
00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:16,719
Speaker 1: actually sort of shaped the science itself. That scientific theories

399
00:22:16,760 --> 00:22:20,600
Speaker 1: are in a way refined and clarified through attempts to

400
00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:24,680
Speaker 1: communicate them in language. And I find myself very sympathetic

401
00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:26,879
Speaker 1: to this point because as I've said on the show before,

402
00:22:27,640 --> 00:22:30,720
Speaker 1: I feel like I often really don't know what I

403
00:22:30,800 --> 00:22:34,200
Speaker 1: think about something until I've tried to write about it.

404
00:22:34,200 --> 00:22:38,159
Speaker 1: It's the process of writing that clarifies my judgment about

405
00:22:38,200 --> 00:22:40,920
Speaker 1: what's actually true. Yeah, I find this to be the

406
00:22:41,200 --> 00:22:43,160
Speaker 1: case as well. In fact, I mean I should probably

407
00:22:43,359 --> 00:22:48,199
Speaker 1: utilize writing more often to sort of solidify, you know,

408
00:22:48,240 --> 00:22:50,720
Speaker 1: sort of the storm of thoughts that occur in the mind.

409
00:22:50,800 --> 00:22:54,040
Speaker 1: You know, this is probably one of the advantages of

410
00:22:54,040 --> 00:22:58,400
Speaker 1: of keeping like a personal journal or diary. Absolutely, that is, uh,

411
00:22:58,440 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 1: that is perhaps, I mean I don't I haven't read

412
00:23:01,080 --> 00:23:04,160
Speaker 1: any stats on you know, people self reporting their use

413
00:23:04,200 --> 00:23:07,040
Speaker 1: of diaries and journals, But I mean it seems like

414
00:23:07,080 --> 00:23:09,600
Speaker 1: with with the Internet, a lot of that same energy

415
00:23:09,600 --> 00:23:13,679
Speaker 1: goes into blogging and especially the use of social media,

416
00:23:14,080 --> 00:23:20,280
Speaker 1: which ultimately becomes different because it's not a personal, um linguistic, written,

417
00:23:20,359 --> 00:23:23,919
Speaker 1: linguistic treatment of your thoughts and experiences, but it is

418
00:23:23,960 --> 00:23:27,040
Speaker 1: this thing that is created for consumption by others, with

419
00:23:27,040 --> 00:23:30,360
Speaker 1: with a with an intended audience in mind, and therefore

420
00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:34,120
Speaker 1: it's it's not going to be as much of this, uh,

421
00:23:34,320 --> 00:23:37,520
Speaker 1: you know, pure statement or pure treatment of what's going

422
00:23:37,600 --> 00:23:39,040
Speaker 1: on in your head, or at least that's that's the

423
00:23:39,040 --> 00:23:41,560
Speaker 1: way it seems to me. Uh So, I've actually thought

424
00:23:41,560 --> 00:23:43,560
Speaker 1: about this before. It's like I should, I should try

425
00:23:43,560 --> 00:23:46,360
Speaker 1: to do some some sort of journaling that has no

426
00:23:46,680 --> 00:23:49,639
Speaker 1: audience other than myself. In mind that maybe even is

427
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:51,919
Speaker 1: completely physical in a notebook, you know, it is not

428
00:23:52,040 --> 00:23:55,120
Speaker 1: even uh you know, touched by the Internet at all.

429
00:23:55,560 --> 00:23:59,520
Speaker 1: I think there are huge advantages. I I am absolutely

430
00:23:59,520 --> 00:24:01,639
Speaker 1: sympathetic to this idea. I don't I don't know of

431
00:24:01,680 --> 00:24:06,240
Speaker 1: any empirical evidence to confirm it, but I strongly suspect

432
00:24:06,400 --> 00:24:11,280
Speaker 1: that personal journaling, especially journaling for not for an audience,

433
00:24:11,359 --> 00:24:15,680
Speaker 1: just for yourself, is intensely helpful in clarifying thought. Yeah,

434
00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:16,960
Speaker 1: you don't even have to keep it. You can. You

435
00:24:16,960 --> 00:24:20,320
Speaker 1: can burn it afterwards or or deleted afterwards. I mean,

436
00:24:20,359 --> 00:24:23,719
Speaker 1: it's kind of like the famous UM, right, your angry email,

437
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:27,840
Speaker 1: and then UM, don't send it, don't address it yet,

438
00:24:28,040 --> 00:24:29,600
Speaker 1: wait and see how you feel a little bit later,

439
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:31,600
Speaker 1: because a lot of times just the act of writing

440
00:24:31,640 --> 00:24:35,040
Speaker 1: the email, of of putting your thoughts into words will

441
00:24:35,200 --> 00:24:38,600
Speaker 1: will calm the storm. Yeah, yeah, I think there's something

442
00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:42,320
Speaker 1: to that. Um. But to come back to the history

443
00:24:42,359 --> 00:24:45,480
Speaker 1: of sciences. So fantas Stock points out all these examples

444
00:24:45,480 --> 00:24:48,200
Speaker 1: of how anti metaboli pops up throughout the written history

445
00:24:48,520 --> 00:24:52,760
Speaker 1: of science and philosophy of science. Uh. One idea that

446
00:24:52,760 --> 00:24:56,240
Speaker 1: that just came to me is the aphorism that is

447
00:24:56,280 --> 00:24:59,920
Speaker 1: more philosophy of science than a theory itself. But it's

448
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:03,359
Speaker 1: the aphorism absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

449
00:25:03,440 --> 00:25:05,880
Speaker 1: And this is a very contiense of this is clearly

450
00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:08,320
Speaker 1: anti metaboli. It's sort of the perfect form of anti

451
00:25:08,320 --> 00:25:13,080
Speaker 1: metaboli with no other you know, cluttering language. And it's

452
00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:16,680
Speaker 1: basically making the point against the use of the argument

453
00:25:16,720 --> 00:25:19,800
Speaker 1: from ignorance fallacy, saying like, just because you haven't seen

454
00:25:19,880 --> 00:25:22,880
Speaker 1: an example of something that doesn't allow you to conclude

455
00:25:22,880 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 1: that it doesn't exist. Yeah, just because you haven't seen

456
00:25:26,359 --> 00:25:30,560
Speaker 1: sasquatch doesn't mean there is not a sasquatch out there right,

457
00:25:30,720 --> 00:25:33,240
Speaker 1: Well there there, that's a good point, and they're interesting

458
00:25:33,320 --> 00:25:39,560
Speaker 1: variations on like further clarifying this idea, because because there

459
00:25:39,600 --> 00:25:43,080
Speaker 1: are search spaces, right and like, there are degrees to

460
00:25:43,119 --> 00:25:46,119
Speaker 1: which you should expect to have seen something already if

461
00:25:46,119 --> 00:25:48,440
Speaker 1: you've looked around, like if you look inside a shoebox,

462
00:25:49,200 --> 00:25:51,359
Speaker 1: and you know you don't see a mouse, you can

463
00:25:51,400 --> 00:25:53,880
Speaker 1: probably conclude there is no mouse in the shoebox because

464
00:25:53,880 --> 00:25:56,160
Speaker 1: you can see the whole thing. And so a lot

465
00:25:56,160 --> 00:25:58,600
Speaker 1: of the times the question is how thoroughly have you

466
00:25:58,680 --> 00:26:01,760
Speaker 1: exhausted the search space? Like how much do you think

467
00:26:01,800 --> 00:26:05,119
Speaker 1: we've actually looked? And and should we have expect should

468
00:26:05,119 --> 00:26:08,160
Speaker 1: we expect to have seen this thing in the given

469
00:26:08,200 --> 00:26:10,760
Speaker 1: the search space that we've looked at. But but you're

470
00:26:10,760 --> 00:26:14,280
Speaker 1: exactly right that this aphorism, while I think it contains

471
00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:17,400
Speaker 1: a lot of wisdom and is true, is often deployed

472
00:26:17,440 --> 00:26:20,360
Speaker 1: by people who are holding out hope for the existence

473
00:26:20,359 --> 00:26:23,840
Speaker 1: of something that really we should probably fairly conclude doesn't

474
00:26:23,840 --> 00:26:26,520
Speaker 1: exist at this point. But there are a lot of

475
00:26:26,560 --> 00:26:28,639
Speaker 1: good thoughts by by Fan of Stock in this chapter.

476
00:26:28,720 --> 00:26:31,640
Speaker 1: One is that she mentions a potential advantage of anti

477
00:26:31,680 --> 00:26:34,679
Speaker 1: metaboli as a as a rhetorical devices that it often

478
00:26:35,440 --> 00:26:39,119
Speaker 1: invites the reader or the listener to complete the thought

479
00:26:39,320 --> 00:26:42,480
Speaker 1: in their own mind before the speaker has had to

480
00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:46,159
Speaker 1: complete it themselves. And this ties into old courtroom wisdom,

481
00:26:46,280 --> 00:26:49,160
Speaker 1: right like if you can get the jury to sort

482
00:26:49,160 --> 00:26:52,760
Speaker 1: of say your assertion in their own heads, rather than

483
00:26:53,040 --> 00:26:55,400
Speaker 1: having you say it out loud, or before you say

484
00:26:55,400 --> 00:26:58,919
Speaker 1: it out loud, it's supposedly more convincing to them. And

485
00:26:59,000 --> 00:27:01,400
Speaker 1: I think the same as probably true of an audience,

486
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:04,119
Speaker 1: like if you if you set up the idea that

487
00:27:04,119 --> 00:27:06,760
Speaker 1: you're going to be stating in anti metaboli, especially by

488
00:27:06,840 --> 00:27:09,119
Speaker 1: maybe if you're saying a number of them, or if

489
00:27:09,119 --> 00:27:11,919
Speaker 1: it's one they've heard before, or if it or if

490
00:27:11,920 --> 00:27:13,679
Speaker 1: you set it up so it is clearly you know,

491
00:27:13,800 --> 00:27:16,080
Speaker 1: it's not the size of the dog in the fight,

492
00:27:16,320 --> 00:27:19,080
Speaker 1: but people sort of already know where you're going with it,

493
00:27:19,119 --> 00:27:21,359
Speaker 1: and if they say it themselves in their head first,

494
00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:24,959
Speaker 1: it might be more convincing. Ah yeah, like it becomes

495
00:27:25,000 --> 00:27:28,159
Speaker 1: the thought that they have generated. Yeah. But there are

496
00:27:28,160 --> 00:27:30,600
Speaker 1: a lot of other ways that it's used in scientific writing.

497
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:33,159
Speaker 1: One thing she points out is that anti metaboli is

498
00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:38,720
Speaker 1: often used to express a rejection of existing assumptions about

499
00:27:38,760 --> 00:27:41,639
Speaker 1: the direction of causality. And this will come up again

500
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:43,920
Speaker 1: in a minute. I know you wanted to mention something

501
00:27:43,960 --> 00:27:46,640
Speaker 1: about Newton, and it will come up there. But one

502
00:27:46,640 --> 00:27:50,439
Speaker 1: example that fannas Stock sites is Benjamin Franklin explaining the

503
00:27:50,480 --> 00:27:54,879
Speaker 1: mechanics of an electric shock where Franklin wrote, quote fire

504
00:27:54,960 --> 00:27:58,040
Speaker 1: does not proceed from the touching finger to the wire,

505
00:27:58,200 --> 00:28:01,439
Speaker 1: as is supposed, but from the wire to the finger.

506
00:28:02,640 --> 00:28:04,800
Speaker 1: But there are other great examples from the history of science.

507
00:28:05,200 --> 00:28:07,600
Speaker 1: There's one from Isaac Newton that I think you wanted

508
00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:10,880
Speaker 1: to talk about, right, yeah, yeah, I ran across this

509
00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:13,560
Speaker 1: in UM. Basically what happened is, I was I was

510
00:28:13,600 --> 00:28:18,199
Speaker 1: searching for that ancient Egyptian um anti metaboli tie in,

511
00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:20,960
Speaker 1: and in doing so, I came across the paper titled

512
00:28:21,160 --> 00:28:26,400
Speaker 1: Rhetorical Figure Annotation with XML by uh ruan at All,

513
00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:31,800
Speaker 1: published in Computational Models of Natural Argumentation in six So

514
00:28:31,840 --> 00:28:34,960
Speaker 1: this is like a computer science paper, I think. So yeah,

515
00:28:35,040 --> 00:28:37,199
Speaker 1: like this is this is one of you know, sometimes

516
00:28:37,200 --> 00:28:38,920
Speaker 1: you get lost in the woods a little bit, but

517
00:28:39,240 --> 00:28:42,800
Speaker 1: this was I ended up running across this interesting knowledge

518
00:28:42,840 --> 00:28:47,440
Speaker 1: camp fire because the author's right in a very you know,

519
00:28:47,440 --> 00:28:50,080
Speaker 1: absorbable way here and uh, and they deal with like

520
00:28:50,080 --> 00:28:53,920
Speaker 1: a basic treatment of anti metaboli and UH. The author

521
00:28:54,000 --> 00:28:59,120
Speaker 1: state that anti metaboli is often used to convey reciprocal force. Uh.

522
00:28:59,240 --> 00:29:02,080
Speaker 1: This is present in the Nietzsche example that we've mentioned

523
00:29:02,120 --> 00:29:05,360
Speaker 1: before already. But they present a very compelling example from

524
00:29:05,400 --> 00:29:08,200
Speaker 1: the writings of Sir Isaac Newton. Uh, and this is

525
00:29:08,240 --> 00:29:10,800
Speaker 1: the quote, if you press a stone with your finger,

526
00:29:11,120 --> 00:29:14,959
Speaker 1: the finger is also pressed by the stone. And of

527
00:29:14,960 --> 00:29:18,360
Speaker 1: course this is more formalized in Newton's third law. For

528
00:29:18,440 --> 00:29:22,040
Speaker 1: every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yeah.

529
00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:24,640
Speaker 1: Fanta Stock cites this one too as as being a

530
00:29:24,680 --> 00:29:28,280
Speaker 1: really important one. And this is this rhetorical figure. Is

531
00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:31,000
Speaker 1: another way that anti metabolic shows up a lot in

532
00:29:31,040 --> 00:29:37,000
Speaker 1: the history of science, um, which is to clarify symmetries

533
00:29:37,240 --> 00:29:40,560
Speaker 1: inherent in nature. And when you think about it, much

534
00:29:40,600 --> 00:29:44,360
Speaker 1: of the development of theories of physics has just been

535
00:29:44,560 --> 00:29:50,560
Speaker 1: the recognition of previously unknown symmetries in physical reality. So

536
00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:54,400
Speaker 1: like the recognition of universal gravitation. That's a symmetry. You know,

537
00:29:54,680 --> 00:29:56,800
Speaker 1: it's not just that you fall to the earth, but

538
00:29:56,840 --> 00:29:59,560
Speaker 1: also the earth is attracted to you, that all objects

539
00:29:59,560 --> 00:30:03,080
Speaker 1: with mass are attracted to each other. And another one

540
00:30:03,080 --> 00:30:06,400
Speaker 1: of these symmetries that's phrased as an anti metabolity shows

541
00:30:06,480 --> 00:30:09,360
Speaker 1: up in the writings of Michael Faraday, very important historical

542
00:30:09,400 --> 00:30:15,480
Speaker 1: scientist on the relationship between magnetism and electricity. Faraday wrote

543
00:30:15,480 --> 00:30:19,480
Speaker 1: after after making some discoveries in his experiments. Quote. Hence

544
00:30:19,560 --> 00:30:23,120
Speaker 1: the wire moves in opposite circles round each pole, and

545
00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:26,560
Speaker 1: or the poles move in opposite circles round the wire,

546
00:30:27,040 --> 00:30:33,240
Speaker 1: showing a symmetry between magnetic effects and electrical effects. Interesting. Yeah,

547
00:30:33,360 --> 00:30:36,200
Speaker 1: now that that ruin at all paper that I mentioned.

548
00:30:36,200 --> 00:30:39,040
Speaker 1: They also point out that anti metabolity is often used

549
00:30:39,040 --> 00:30:42,959
Speaker 1: to convey reciprocal specification. They use the example of a

550
00:30:42,960 --> 00:30:46,200
Speaker 1: two thousand eleven Hillary Clinton quote quote gay rights or

551
00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:49,440
Speaker 1: human rights and human rights are gay rights a variation

552
00:30:49,480 --> 00:30:51,520
Speaker 1: of a statement on women's rights that she made in

553
00:30:52,880 --> 00:30:55,240
Speaker 1: But in ayther case, the idea is that these two

554
00:30:55,320 --> 00:30:59,480
Speaker 1: things mutually identify each other. Yeah, and and I think

555
00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:04,000
Speaker 1: part of the idea expressed here is, um, it's about qualifying, right,

556
00:31:04,040 --> 00:31:08,200
Speaker 1: So like gay rights are a an example of human rights,

557
00:31:08,320 --> 00:31:11,520
Speaker 1: and then in the second half, in order to really

558
00:31:11,680 --> 00:31:16,160
Speaker 1: mean human rights, that must include gay rights. Right now.

559
00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:19,160
Speaker 1: They also point to comprehensiveness as a key factor and

560
00:31:19,480 --> 00:31:23,280
Speaker 1: anti metaboli usage. Their example is a place for everything

561
00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:26,800
Speaker 1: and everything in its place. Uh they right. Quote. We

562
00:31:26,880 --> 00:31:32,360
Speaker 1: call this function comprehensiveness because sequential iconicity means a back

563
00:31:32,400 --> 00:31:36,160
Speaker 1: and forth alpha to Omega omega to alpha coverage of

564
00:31:36,240 --> 00:31:39,960
Speaker 1: some domain, in this case the domain of tidiness. I

565
00:31:40,000 --> 00:31:44,680
Speaker 1: think this this type of expression, the comprehensiveness version, might

566
00:31:44,720 --> 00:31:48,840
Speaker 1: be what's implied in that really ancient Sumerian creation example, right.

567
00:31:49,200 --> 00:31:52,560
Speaker 1: The The stating of the inversion this way sort of

568
00:31:52,600 --> 00:31:56,680
Speaker 1: implies there's an irrelevance of order, which in turn implies

569
00:31:56,720 --> 00:32:02,520
Speaker 1: like total transcendence. Interestingly enough, they run at all. Also

570
00:32:02,640 --> 00:32:05,240
Speaker 1: point to Dr Seuss on this one with the quote

571
00:32:05,280 --> 00:32:07,000
Speaker 1: I meant what I said, and I said what I

572
00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:10,120
Speaker 1: meant that. That's a good one too, because that also

573
00:32:10,160 --> 00:32:13,040
Speaker 1: has that religious quality. But the comprehensiveness there is in

574
00:32:13,120 --> 00:32:16,000
Speaker 1: order to end the discussion, right, that's what you say

575
00:32:16,080 --> 00:32:19,520
Speaker 1: when you're like, this conversation is over. Yeah, well, anyway,

576
00:32:19,720 --> 00:32:21,960
Speaker 1: So this brings me back to a question I was

577
00:32:22,000 --> 00:32:25,920
Speaker 1: wondering about, which is why is anti metaboli so common?

578
00:32:26,080 --> 00:32:28,760
Speaker 1: In specifically, the context where I think I see it

579
00:32:28,800 --> 00:32:34,160
Speaker 1: the most are political speeches, self help writing, and religious preaching.

580
00:32:35,280 --> 00:32:37,640
Speaker 1: And of course you can think of tons of examples

581
00:32:37,680 --> 00:32:40,840
Speaker 1: from political speeches. Maybe one of the most famous anti

582
00:32:40,840 --> 00:32:44,200
Speaker 1: metabolis in history is John F. Kennedy in his inaugural

583
00:32:44,280 --> 00:32:47,040
Speaker 1: address in nineteen sixty one saying, ask not what your

584
00:32:47,040 --> 00:32:49,520
Speaker 1: country can do for you, ask what you can do

585
00:32:49,600 --> 00:32:53,320
Speaker 1: for your country. Yeah, that's a big one. But then

586
00:32:53,360 --> 00:32:56,120
Speaker 1: there's another one. I've found a number of examples in

587
00:32:56,200 --> 00:32:58,240
Speaker 1: a in a Slate article from two thousand and eight

588
00:32:58,280 --> 00:33:01,320
Speaker 1: that was talking about how how many of these types

589
00:33:01,360 --> 00:33:03,560
Speaker 1: of cliches were being deployed in the two thousand eight

590
00:33:03,640 --> 00:33:07,320
Speaker 1: presidential campaign. But one it quoted was Bill Clinton speaking

591
00:33:07,360 --> 00:33:10,560
Speaker 1: in the nineties saying, people the world over have always

592
00:33:10,560 --> 00:33:13,600
Speaker 1: been more impressed by the power of our example than

593
00:33:13,640 --> 00:33:16,200
Speaker 1: by the example of our power. And I think you

594
00:33:16,280 --> 00:33:19,000
Speaker 1: heard this line repeated. I think sometimes Barack Obama would

595
00:33:19,000 --> 00:33:21,680
Speaker 1: say this too. And this is one of those anti

596
00:33:21,680 --> 00:33:25,080
Speaker 1: metabolise that's attempting to offer a contrast, right, it's you know,

597
00:33:25,120 --> 00:33:28,440
Speaker 1: it's not this, but that. You might call that a

598
00:33:28,600 --> 00:33:32,200
Speaker 1: size of the fight in the dog ooid version. And

599
00:33:32,240 --> 00:33:35,880
Speaker 1: I was trying to think, Okay, just like at a

600
00:33:35,960 --> 00:33:38,600
Speaker 1: qualitative sense, when I hear these things, what is most

601
00:33:38,640 --> 00:33:42,360
Speaker 1: often happening in these political speeches, especially like especially political

602
00:33:42,480 --> 00:33:46,920
Speaker 1: or religious or motivational rhetoric, what is the anti metaboli doing?

603
00:33:47,480 --> 00:33:50,920
Speaker 1: And it seems to be most often it's first of

604
00:33:50,920 --> 00:33:55,560
Speaker 1: all inviting emphatic agreement. Anti metabolise are the kinds of

605
00:33:55,640 --> 00:33:59,360
Speaker 1: statements that, the way they're placed in a speech, they're

606
00:33:59,360 --> 00:34:03,520
Speaker 1: supposed to make the audience start nodding vigorously or yelling

607
00:34:03,520 --> 00:34:06,920
Speaker 1: out yeah, that's right, you know exactly. It's the amen

608
00:34:07,000 --> 00:34:11,080
Speaker 1: brother moment, which is interesting in itself. Furthermore, they often,

609
00:34:11,160 --> 00:34:13,680
Speaker 1: especially when they're phrased in the not X but why

610
00:34:13,840 --> 00:34:17,200
Speaker 1: thing uh, that they showed defiance in a political speech.

611
00:34:17,920 --> 00:34:21,600
Speaker 1: Anti metaboli is often framed as a wise rebuke to

612
00:34:21,719 --> 00:34:25,000
Speaker 1: a naive piece of conventional wisdom. You know, people might

613
00:34:25,040 --> 00:34:27,400
Speaker 1: say that X comes from why, but we know that

614
00:34:27,440 --> 00:34:31,880
Speaker 1: why it comes from X. And then also it's clearly

615
00:34:31,920 --> 00:34:36,480
Speaker 1: supposed to achieve pithiness. That that's a core quality of

616
00:34:36,600 --> 00:34:40,759
Speaker 1: anti metaboli. It feels like when when an anti metaboli

617
00:34:40,960 --> 00:34:44,480
Speaker 1: lands in a political speech, it feels like a good

618
00:34:44,520 --> 00:34:48,360
Speaker 1: point has been made without the need for any supporting

619
00:34:48,440 --> 00:34:52,680
Speaker 1: evidence or argumentation. You notice that, like when you land

620
00:34:52,719 --> 00:34:55,520
Speaker 1: an anti metaboli, you don't have to back up your

621
00:34:55,560 --> 00:34:59,920
Speaker 1: point release simply hearing it creates the impression that the

622
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:04,480
Speaker 1: speaker has proven a point. Yeah, it's almost at times

623
00:35:04,520 --> 00:35:07,200
Speaker 1: again with the weakest examples. It can almost feel like,

624
00:35:07,239 --> 00:35:09,880
Speaker 1: well it rhymes, it must be true. Yeah that rhymes,

625
00:35:09,880 --> 00:35:18,799
Speaker 1: and you know it rhymes. Yeah. So I was thinking

626
00:35:18,840 --> 00:35:21,879
Speaker 1: about reasons why these things could be the case. Why

627
00:35:21,920 --> 00:35:26,239
Speaker 1: does anti metaboli achieve those ends? And I have a hypothesis.

628
00:35:26,280 --> 00:35:27,759
Speaker 1: I don't have a way of proving this, but this

629
00:35:27,800 --> 00:35:29,640
Speaker 1: seems to go in line with what a lot of

630
00:35:29,640 --> 00:35:32,759
Speaker 1: people have written about different types of poetic and rhetorical

631
00:35:32,840 --> 00:35:37,320
Speaker 1: devices as used in speeches like this, And my hypothesis

632
00:35:37,400 --> 00:35:41,120
Speaker 1: is that anti metaboli could be particularly effective at causing

633
00:35:41,160 --> 00:35:45,000
Speaker 1: people to reframe their thinking about an issue by taking

634
00:35:45,040 --> 00:35:49,560
Speaker 1: advantage of processing fluency. Now, processing fluency is something we've

635
00:35:49,560 --> 00:35:51,840
Speaker 1: talked about on the show before. It is the ease

636
00:35:51,960 --> 00:35:56,400
Speaker 1: with which different information is processed. For example, you so

637
00:35:56,640 --> 00:35:58,400
Speaker 1: you show somebody a picture of a face. You know,

638
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:01,759
Speaker 1: it's Hugh Grant's face, you short right side up. That

639
00:36:01,840 --> 00:36:05,520
Speaker 1: has much greater processing fluency than the same picture of

640
00:36:05,520 --> 00:36:09,680
Speaker 1: you Grant's face shown upside down. Different types of information

641
00:36:09,800 --> 00:36:13,080
Speaker 1: have different processing fluency values, and that goes for spoken

642
00:36:13,160 --> 00:36:16,480
Speaker 1: and written sentences as well. Some are processed very easily,

643
00:36:16,560 --> 00:36:21,440
Speaker 1: some are harder to process. Familiar statements have greater processing

644
00:36:21,440 --> 00:36:25,200
Speaker 1: fluency than novel statements. And this is one of the

645
00:36:25,280 --> 00:36:28,759
Speaker 1: proposed explanations of the illusory truth effect that we've talked

646
00:36:28,760 --> 00:36:30,160
Speaker 1: about on the show before. I think we've got a

647
00:36:30,200 --> 00:36:33,000
Speaker 1: couple of episodes about that, where if you hear a

648
00:36:33,080 --> 00:36:35,879
Speaker 1: claim repeated, you start to believe it more and more

649
00:36:36,440 --> 00:36:40,200
Speaker 1: studies have found this somewhat small but consistent effect where

650
00:36:40,560 --> 00:36:43,320
Speaker 1: if you've already been exposed to a statement in the past,

651
00:36:43,400 --> 00:36:45,920
Speaker 1: it starts to seem more true when you're exposed to

652
00:36:45,920 --> 00:36:49,000
Speaker 1: it again. And why would this be well, A leading

653
00:36:49,560 --> 00:36:55,280
Speaker 1: contending explanation is processing fluency. It's easier to process because

654
00:36:55,320 --> 00:36:58,560
Speaker 1: you've seen it before, and because it's easier to process,

655
00:36:58,640 --> 00:37:01,320
Speaker 1: it feels more true. And for that same reason, I

656
00:37:01,360 --> 00:37:04,759
Speaker 1: think it's possible that anti metaboli has a processing fluency

657
00:37:04,800 --> 00:37:09,400
Speaker 1: advantage over other types of statements because it involves repetition

658
00:37:09,440 --> 00:37:12,080
Speaker 1: of the same words. So you get the advantage of

659
00:37:12,080 --> 00:37:14,520
Speaker 1: getting like a twist on something that feels kind of

660
00:37:14,560 --> 00:37:17,680
Speaker 1: novel and exciting by inverting the word order. But it's

661
00:37:17,680 --> 00:37:20,560
Speaker 1: also got a processing fluency advantage because it's literally the

662
00:37:20,600 --> 00:37:24,759
Speaker 1: same words repeated twice. Yeah, yeah, again. Just coming back

663
00:37:24,760 --> 00:37:26,720
Speaker 1: to the idea of the ide just you're just saying

664
00:37:26,760 --> 00:37:30,400
Speaker 1: something the same thing differently a few different times, and

665
00:37:30,400 --> 00:37:32,560
Speaker 1: and it can have this effect on making it seem

666
00:37:32,600 --> 00:37:34,879
Speaker 1: more true. Now, in terms of some of the other

667
00:37:35,400 --> 00:37:38,840
Speaker 1: powers of anti metabolity that we've mentioned, um, I found

668
00:37:38,920 --> 00:37:41,759
Speaker 1: that this rather interesting. I was I was mainly I

669
00:37:41,760 --> 00:37:44,600
Speaker 1: think checking out the pronunciation issues here, but I ran

670
00:37:44,640 --> 00:37:49,560
Speaker 1: across a talk a video on YouTube by one Mr

671
00:37:49,640 --> 00:37:53,319
Speaker 1: Skype Lessons or Dave nick Nichols. Uh, that's actually quite good.

672
00:37:53,360 --> 00:37:56,360
Speaker 1: I recommend checking these videos out because he was like

673
00:37:56,360 --> 00:37:58,239
Speaker 1: a blackboard. It's just the guy in front of a

674
00:37:58,280 --> 00:38:01,759
Speaker 1: blackboard taking you through to various concepts. I think a

675
00:38:01,760 --> 00:38:03,520
Speaker 1: lot of them are rhetorical, but I'm not sure what

676
00:38:03,800 --> 00:38:06,520
Speaker 1: other topics he may cover. But at the end of

677
00:38:06,520 --> 00:38:08,719
Speaker 1: this piece, where he was talking about anti metabolit eyes

678
00:38:08,800 --> 00:38:12,160
Speaker 1: and related items, he was making the case for incorporating

679
00:38:12,200 --> 00:38:16,520
Speaker 1: them in them and other rhetorical structures into one speech.

680
00:38:16,920 --> 00:38:19,280
Speaker 1: And it made me wonder if more of us forced

681
00:38:19,280 --> 00:38:23,319
Speaker 1: ourselves to use anti metabolit eyes, would that encourage the

682
00:38:23,520 --> 00:38:26,279
Speaker 1: sort of anti metabolity instinct. I wonder if it would

683
00:38:26,560 --> 00:38:29,880
Speaker 1: you know, conserve to expand thought or I guess it

684
00:38:29,920 --> 00:38:33,799
Speaker 1: also depends on just how you're using it. But in

685
00:38:33,800 --> 00:38:36,560
Speaker 1: another sense, it comes back to that old linguistic concept, right,

686
00:38:36,600 --> 00:38:40,600
Speaker 1: does cognition come before language or does language come before cognition? Well,

687
00:38:40,640 --> 00:38:43,960
Speaker 1: I think there is absolutely to the idea that putting

688
00:38:44,080 --> 00:38:48,120
Speaker 1: constraints and pressures on the formation, on the the expression

689
00:38:48,120 --> 00:38:52,040
Speaker 1: of thoughts can lead to things like creativity. I think

690
00:38:52,040 --> 00:38:53,919
Speaker 1: this is this is a case that's often been made

691
00:38:53,920 --> 00:38:57,120
Speaker 1: about the role of meter and rhyme and poetry, that

692
00:38:57,200 --> 00:39:00,279
Speaker 1: it's not only pleasing to hear meter and rhyme, that

693
00:39:00,320 --> 00:39:03,200
Speaker 1: when you're forced to follow meter and rhyme, you end

694
00:39:03,320 --> 00:39:07,120
Speaker 1: up choosing words and landing on ideas that you wouldn't

695
00:39:07,120 --> 00:39:09,640
Speaker 1: have arrived at otherwise. They don't just grow naturally out

696
00:39:09,640 --> 00:39:12,520
Speaker 1: of your brain, but they're forced by the constraints of

697
00:39:12,560 --> 00:39:16,600
Speaker 1: the poetic devices, and so that that can lead to

698
00:39:16,600 --> 00:39:19,960
Speaker 1: like it can take you places you wouldn't have gone otherwise.

699
00:39:20,480 --> 00:39:24,640
Speaker 1: One of my favorite uses of anti metaboli in poetry

700
00:39:25,360 --> 00:39:29,360
Speaker 1: comes from a poem by Wallace Stevens titled Connoisseur of Chaos,

701
00:39:29,840 --> 00:39:33,320
Speaker 1: and it's It's great because it is boat is anti metaboli.

702
00:39:33,560 --> 00:39:35,960
Speaker 1: That is then followed by basically a definition of what

703
00:39:36,120 --> 00:39:39,000
Speaker 1: he just did. But the poem, which is which is

704
00:39:39,080 --> 00:39:42,120
Speaker 1: quite good, uh, you know, it deals with you know,

705
00:39:42,160 --> 00:39:46,400
Speaker 1: the idea of opposite things, partaking of one uh specifical specification.

706
00:39:46,760 --> 00:39:50,720
Speaker 1: But it starts off by saying a a violent order

707
00:39:50,760 --> 00:39:54,640
Speaker 1: is a disorder, and be a great disorder is an order.

708
00:39:54,920 --> 00:39:58,799
Speaker 1: These two things are one pages of illustrations. That's a

709
00:39:58,840 --> 00:40:02,160
Speaker 1: really good triplet. Now, another thing I was wondering about

710
00:40:02,239 --> 00:40:07,880
Speaker 1: is is there any scientific or empirical evidence that that, uh,

711
00:40:08,120 --> 00:40:11,759
Speaker 1: statements that are phrased in a certain rhetorically appealing way,

712
00:40:11,800 --> 00:40:15,280
Speaker 1: whether that's you know, through using poetic devices like rhyme

713
00:40:15,360 --> 00:40:20,000
Speaker 1: and meter or even rhetorical devices like anti metaboli, does

714
00:40:20,040 --> 00:40:25,279
Speaker 1: that actually translate to a measurable change in perception of accuracy? Like?

715
00:40:25,400 --> 00:40:30,200
Speaker 1: Is it actually miserably more persuasive? And I did find

716
00:40:30,239 --> 00:40:33,080
Speaker 1: some studies looking at this. I'm not sure how robust

717
00:40:33,160 --> 00:40:35,520
Speaker 1: the findings are, but but I at least want to

718
00:40:35,560 --> 00:40:37,840
Speaker 1: talk just for a minute about what I came across.

719
00:40:38,520 --> 00:40:41,719
Speaker 1: So a couple of relevant papers I found where by

720
00:40:41,800 --> 00:40:47,000
Speaker 1: Matthew S. Mcgloan and Jessica to fig Bakish. The first

721
00:40:47,080 --> 00:40:49,799
Speaker 1: was called The Keys heuristic rhyme has reason and aphorism

722
00:40:49,840 --> 00:40:54,160
Speaker 1: interpretation published in Poetics in nine The next by the

723
00:40:54,200 --> 00:40:57,520
Speaker 1: same authors was called birds of a feather flock conjointly

724
00:40:58,360 --> 00:41:02,000
Speaker 1: uh rhyme as reason in aphorisms. This was in psychological

725
00:41:02,000 --> 00:41:05,600
Speaker 1: science in the year two thousand and uh. The authors

726
00:41:05,600 --> 00:41:08,359
Speaker 1: here wanted to test poetic forms to see if they

727
00:41:08,360 --> 00:41:11,120
Speaker 1: would affect the perceived accuracy of statements. So what they

728
00:41:11,120 --> 00:41:14,759
Speaker 1: did was they took collections of aphorisms and then had

729
00:41:14,880 --> 00:41:18,000
Speaker 1: volunteers rate them for accuracy, like how true do you

730
00:41:18,080 --> 00:41:21,680
Speaker 1: think this statement is? And some of the aphorisms were

731
00:41:21,840 --> 00:41:28,319
Speaker 1: rhyming aphorisms, for example, what sobriety conceals alcohol reveals or

732
00:41:28,600 --> 00:41:32,440
Speaker 1: caution and measure will win you treasure. But then they

733
00:41:32,520 --> 00:41:37,239
Speaker 1: substituted some modified examples that were almost identical aphorisms, but

734
00:41:37,360 --> 00:41:41,840
Speaker 1: without the rhyme, So that would be what sobriety conceals

735
00:41:41,880 --> 00:41:47,520
Speaker 1: alcohol unmasks caution and measure will win you riches? And

736
00:41:47,760 --> 00:41:50,279
Speaker 1: did this difference make Did this make a difference in

737
00:41:50,320 --> 00:41:53,719
Speaker 1: accuracy judgments? The authors claimed that it did. They say

738
00:41:53,760 --> 00:41:58,600
Speaker 1: on average, subjects found rhyming aphorisms more accurate, but only

739
00:41:58,640 --> 00:42:01,640
Speaker 1: if they were not warned to think about it only

740
00:42:01,680 --> 00:42:04,600
Speaker 1: if they were not warmed to make their judgment quote

741
00:42:04,920 --> 00:42:07,920
Speaker 1: only on the claim that the statement makes about behavior,

742
00:42:08,239 --> 00:42:11,360
Speaker 1: not the poetic quality of the statement's wording. So it

743
00:42:11,400 --> 00:42:13,920
Speaker 1: seems like when people were put on guard about the

744
00:42:13,960 --> 00:42:19,800
Speaker 1: idea of of of rhyming or poetic qualities, the advantage

745
00:42:20,000 --> 00:42:24,879
Speaker 1: in accuracy perception of rhyming aphorisms was reduced. And they

746
00:42:24,960 --> 00:42:28,560
Speaker 1: attribute their finding to processing fluency. That they note that

747
00:42:28,560 --> 00:42:32,360
Speaker 1: there could be other factors, possible word choice preferences or

748
00:42:32,400 --> 00:42:35,600
Speaker 1: meter preferences, but but that's what they came up with.

749
00:42:36,200 --> 00:42:38,279
Speaker 1: And so so that would be for rhyming, not for

750
00:42:38,360 --> 00:42:41,359
Speaker 1: anti metaboli. But if those findings are correct, that would

751
00:42:41,360 --> 00:42:45,200
Speaker 1: at least suggest that, yeah, like if you're not sufficiently

752
00:42:45,280 --> 00:42:49,000
Speaker 1: primed to be on guard about the dangers of mistaking

753
00:42:49,080 --> 00:42:53,600
Speaker 1: rhyme for reason, you might actually be uh likely to

754
00:42:53,680 --> 00:42:55,880
Speaker 1: mistake rhyme for reason. And that could be true for

755
00:42:55,920 --> 00:42:59,480
Speaker 1: other poetic rhetorical devices as well, which would kind of

756
00:42:59,520 --> 00:43:02,400
Speaker 1: confirm or are crude intuitions, right, I mean that that

757
00:43:02,800 --> 00:43:06,200
Speaker 1: rhymes and you know it rhymes. There was another paper

758
00:43:06,200 --> 00:43:09,600
Speaker 1: I just wanted to look at quickly, um by many

759
00:43:09,719 --> 00:43:14,680
Speaker 1: how set all published in Poetics in called the emotional

760
00:43:14,719 --> 00:43:18,560
Speaker 1: and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Now, again, I don't

761
00:43:18,560 --> 00:43:22,360
Speaker 1: know how uh deeply this supplies or how robustly this

762
00:43:22,400 --> 00:43:24,800
Speaker 1: applies to what we're talking about, but just as an interesting,

763
00:43:25,080 --> 00:43:28,480
Speaker 1: uh point of background, this was a general study on

764
00:43:28,560 --> 00:43:31,839
Speaker 1: the psychological effects of different kinds of what they call

765
00:43:32,239 --> 00:43:37,520
Speaker 1: stylistic parallelism or parallelistic diction on readers. Now, obviously there

766
00:43:37,560 --> 00:43:41,200
Speaker 1: are tons of different kinds of quote parallelism, uh, to

767
00:43:41,280 --> 00:43:44,080
Speaker 1: read from their paper. Quote in its original meaning, the

768
00:43:44,200 --> 00:43:48,319
Speaker 1: term parallelism was and partly still is specifically used to

769
00:43:48,360 --> 00:43:53,520
Speaker 1: designate entire sentences or phrases that feature syntactically, morphologically, and

770
00:43:53,600 --> 00:43:58,680
Speaker 1: mostly also semantically parallel members. The repetitive sentence patterns in

771
00:43:58,719 --> 00:44:03,000
Speaker 1: several parts of the Old Testament are key examples of parallelism.

772
00:44:03,000 --> 00:44:04,839
Speaker 1: So this is what we were talking about earlier, where

773
00:44:04,920 --> 00:44:07,880
Speaker 1: the same line as the idea is expressed twice but

774
00:44:07,960 --> 00:44:11,880
Speaker 1: in different language. But then they invoke a more modern

775
00:44:11,920 --> 00:44:17,960
Speaker 1: definition quote all features of linguistically non mandatory recurrence. And

776
00:44:18,000 --> 00:44:19,719
Speaker 1: this can mean a lot of different things, right, It

777
00:44:19,719 --> 00:44:23,200
Speaker 1: can mean alliteration. You're repeating the sounds at the beginnings

778
00:44:23,239 --> 00:44:26,480
Speaker 1: of words for no particular reason. It can be rhyme,

779
00:44:26,520 --> 00:44:28,680
Speaker 1: you're repeating the sounds at the ends of words for

780
00:44:28,719 --> 00:44:32,680
Speaker 1: no particular reason. But it can also be structural. You're repeating, uh,

781
00:44:33,000 --> 00:44:34,880
Speaker 1: you know, a couple of elements in a sentence like

782
00:44:34,960 --> 00:44:37,560
Speaker 1: an A, B, B, a pattern such as anti metaboli.

783
00:44:38,280 --> 00:44:43,040
Speaker 1: And while this study isn't specifically about anti metaboli, obviously

784
00:44:43,080 --> 00:44:46,680
Speaker 1: anti metaboli is one of these highly relevant forms of

785
00:44:46,800 --> 00:44:51,240
Speaker 1: linguistically non mandatory recurrence. There's a parallelism where the second

786
00:44:51,239 --> 00:44:53,280
Speaker 1: half of the thought is a mirror image of the first.

787
00:44:54,080 --> 00:44:57,480
Speaker 1: And so the authors here picked this broad corporus corpus

788
00:44:57,480 --> 00:45:01,040
Speaker 1: of different sort of lines of poetry bearing paralalistic diction

789
00:45:01,760 --> 00:45:04,440
Speaker 1: and had people rate their reactions to them on a

790
00:45:04,520 --> 00:45:07,799
Speaker 1: on a sort of broad survey of psychological effects. And

791
00:45:07,840 --> 00:45:11,800
Speaker 1: what they found was kind of interesting to me. They write, quote,

792
00:45:12,200 --> 00:45:16,320
Speaker 1: the presence versus absence of the parallelistic patterns caused higher

793
00:45:16,400 --> 00:45:22,880
Speaker 1: ratings for sadness being moved, joy intensity and positive affect

794
00:45:23,000 --> 00:45:26,960
Speaker 1: in sadly moving poems, and higher ratings for joy being

795
00:45:27,040 --> 00:45:32,720
Speaker 1: moved intensity and positive affect in joyfully moving poems. Parallelistic

796
00:45:32,719 --> 00:45:39,160
Speaker 1: features hint served as general intensifiers of emotional impact, regardless

797
00:45:39,239 --> 00:45:42,600
Speaker 1: of whether the key emotional content of the poems was

798
00:45:42,760 --> 00:45:45,480
Speaker 1: sad or joyful. And so, if this study is correct,

799
00:45:45,520 --> 00:45:48,600
Speaker 1: what they find is that lots of different kinds of

800
00:45:48,680 --> 00:45:53,239
Speaker 1: parallelism in in words and in sentences just cause you

801
00:45:53,320 --> 00:45:56,880
Speaker 1: to sort of like feel more powerfully whatever it is

802
00:45:56,920 --> 00:45:59,080
Speaker 1: as being evoked, and that can go in any different

803
00:45:59,120 --> 00:46:03,080
Speaker 1: direction happiness or sadness. You feel it more strongly, more

804
00:46:03,080 --> 00:46:06,680
Speaker 1: intensely if there are these parallel ms in the language.

805
00:46:07,800 --> 00:46:14,279
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like linguistic MSG sprinkled over. That's

806
00:46:14,280 --> 00:46:15,960
Speaker 1: a good point. Well, I mean you could actually even

807
00:46:16,000 --> 00:46:19,520
Speaker 1: say this about salt, Like the use of salt in

808
00:46:19,680 --> 00:46:23,840
Speaker 1: in sweet foods often sort of intensifies the the the

809
00:46:23,960 --> 00:46:28,000
Speaker 1: sweetness experience of the dessert. Yeah, now, if this is correct,

810
00:46:28,120 --> 00:46:30,839
Speaker 1: I do think that's really interesting, And I wonder why

811
00:46:30,880 --> 00:46:34,400
Speaker 1: that is so, Like, why is it that um non

812
00:46:34,600 --> 00:46:40,480
Speaker 1: mandatory repetitions within language or parallel types of word choices

813
00:46:40,560 --> 00:46:44,280
Speaker 1: or sentence structure would cause you to have more intense

814
00:46:44,400 --> 00:46:48,000
Speaker 1: feelings about something that it could be something that we're

815
00:46:48,040 --> 00:46:51,000
Speaker 1: just trained on throughout life, Like you recognize this as

816
00:46:51,520 --> 00:46:53,759
Speaker 1: sort of the form of poetry, and you know, the

817
00:46:53,760 --> 00:46:57,239
Speaker 1: poetry is supposed to make you feel something. You can't

818
00:46:57,280 --> 00:46:59,560
Speaker 1: rule that out. But then again, I just note, you know,

819
00:46:59,600 --> 00:47:02,880
Speaker 1: when I experience poetry myself, it it feels more primal

820
00:47:02,920 --> 00:47:05,319
Speaker 1: than that. It feels like something's happening that is not

821
00:47:05,480 --> 00:47:09,640
Speaker 1: part of just a conditioned response to the category of poetry.

822
00:47:10,000 --> 00:47:13,280
Speaker 1: It's kind of similar to how even really inane lyrics

823
00:47:13,840 --> 00:47:17,120
Speaker 1: in a moving song, you know, can can feel profound.

824
00:47:17,680 --> 00:47:19,640
Speaker 1: Now there's one other paper I wanted to mention, but

825
00:47:19,920 --> 00:47:22,399
Speaker 1: this one comes with a big caveat. I actually did

826
00:47:22,480 --> 00:47:27,080
Speaker 1: find one paper specifically about how anti metaboli affects the

827
00:47:27,120 --> 00:47:31,160
Speaker 1: perceived accuracy of a statement, but unfortunately it is like

828
00:47:31,239 --> 00:47:33,279
Speaker 1: brand new. It's from this year, and I found it

829
00:47:33,320 --> 00:47:36,799
Speaker 1: on a pre print server on on psych archive. Uh,

830
00:47:36,880 --> 00:47:39,319
Speaker 1: not in an actual journal, so it has not yet

831
00:47:39,360 --> 00:47:41,800
Speaker 1: as far as I know, like past the editorial process.

832
00:47:42,160 --> 00:47:44,440
Speaker 1: It's possible that, you know, there could be problems with

833
00:47:44,480 --> 00:47:46,600
Speaker 1: it that would be recognized later. So I don't want

834
00:47:46,600 --> 00:47:50,040
Speaker 1: to dwell on this or cited as as proof. But

835
00:47:50,200 --> 00:47:53,200
Speaker 1: maybe if it's formally published, we can come back to

836
00:47:53,239 --> 00:47:55,400
Speaker 1: it in a flaming barrel chat or something and revisit

837
00:47:55,440 --> 00:47:59,319
Speaker 1: more detail, just briefly. It's by Kara Yukubian at all

838
00:48:00,080 --> 00:48:04,359
Speaker 1: UH this year called Accuracy Judgments are swayed by Chiasmus

839
00:48:04,440 --> 00:48:09,040
Speaker 1: and Chiasmus sways accuracy judgments anti metaboli and the keys heuristic.

840
00:48:09,600 --> 00:48:11,960
Speaker 1: And what they claim in this preprint version is that

841
00:48:12,000 --> 00:48:14,920
Speaker 1: they found in three out of four experiments that anti

842
00:48:15,000 --> 00:48:19,279
Speaker 1: metabolic statements like success is getting what you want, happiness

843
00:48:19,360 --> 00:48:22,640
Speaker 1: is wanting what you get, are judged as more accurate

844
00:48:22,800 --> 00:48:27,320
Speaker 1: than semantically equivalent non anti metabolic statements. UH, So that

845
00:48:27,360 --> 00:48:30,040
Speaker 1: would be modified to be something like success is getting

846
00:48:30,040 --> 00:48:34,480
Speaker 1: what you wish, happiness is wanting what you receive. So

847
00:48:34,520 --> 00:48:36,160
Speaker 1: maybe we can come back to that in the future

848
00:48:36,200 --> 00:48:39,360
Speaker 1: if that that ever gets published. Yeah. You know a

849
00:48:39,360 --> 00:48:42,279
Speaker 1: couple of other examples of of anti metabolity that come

850
00:48:42,280 --> 00:48:45,680
Speaker 1: to mind that I frequently think of is the idea

851
00:48:45,800 --> 00:48:50,000
Speaker 1: of of an artist or a creator or just someone

852
00:48:50,160 --> 00:48:52,560
Speaker 1: engaging in a project. You know, it's often said that

853
00:48:52,640 --> 00:48:56,719
Speaker 1: they either the main version is they they bid off

854
00:48:56,760 --> 00:48:59,200
Speaker 1: more than they could choose, you know, but then the

855
00:48:59,239 --> 00:49:01,319
Speaker 1: reverse of that is they chew more than they bid off.

856
00:49:02,120 --> 00:49:05,480
Speaker 1: Often find that that helpful, UH in in thinking about

857
00:49:05,600 --> 00:49:07,839
Speaker 1: you know, particularly like films and all, you're like, oh boy,

858
00:49:07,840 --> 00:49:11,000
Speaker 1: they really they really tackled more than they could handle,

859
00:49:11,200 --> 00:49:14,719
Speaker 1: or wow, they really they really chewed this one up

860
00:49:14,880 --> 00:49:17,600
Speaker 1: for way more than was necessary. I think I've heard

861
00:49:17,600 --> 00:49:21,000
Speaker 1: you say that before. You're chewing more than a bid off. Yeah,

862
00:49:21,040 --> 00:49:23,279
Speaker 1: So that that's a that's a fun one. It's the

863
00:49:23,320 --> 00:49:26,000
Speaker 1: difference of like biting off more than you can choose,

864
00:49:26,040 --> 00:49:28,759
Speaker 1: like being in over your head. Chewing more than you

865
00:49:28,800 --> 00:49:31,440
Speaker 1: bid off is like standing in an ankle deep water,

866
00:49:31,560 --> 00:49:34,880
Speaker 1: maybe peeing into it or something. Yeah, or you know,

867
00:49:34,960 --> 00:49:40,560
Speaker 1: making making a really sloggy art picture you know about

868
00:49:41,680 --> 00:49:43,400
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know, like if you do like

869
00:49:43,560 --> 00:49:48,719
Speaker 1: an eight hour documentary series about oh the shoehorn, that

870
00:49:48,760 --> 00:49:50,840
Speaker 1: seems like you might be you might. I don't know,

871
00:49:50,920 --> 00:49:52,560
Speaker 1: could have I have not looked into it. It It could have.

872
00:49:52,640 --> 00:49:55,160
Speaker 1: That's what we do. That is what we do. And

873
00:49:55,239 --> 00:49:58,319
Speaker 1: sometimes I mean, you know, we're talking about over analyzing

874
00:49:58,760 --> 00:50:02,000
Speaker 1: lyrics of songs, which is a fun exercise, but it

875
00:50:02,080 --> 00:50:04,520
Speaker 1: is an exercise often in chewing more than you bite off,

876
00:50:04,840 --> 00:50:06,879
Speaker 1: like you're really making more out of out of what

877
00:50:08,239 --> 00:50:10,360
Speaker 1: out of what was intended? Uh, And I don't know

878
00:50:10,440 --> 00:50:11,680
Speaker 1: that can be a lot of fun. You gotta chew

879
00:50:11,719 --> 00:50:14,080
Speaker 1: on something, right. I think some of your favorite films

880
00:50:14,120 --> 00:50:17,480
Speaker 1: are chewing more than they bit off films I love too.

881
00:50:17,480 --> 00:50:19,920
Speaker 1: I would say that is an accurate description of the

882
00:50:20,120 --> 00:50:24,880
Speaker 1: great film Beyond the Black Rainbow. Yeah. I find it

883
00:50:25,040 --> 00:50:28,239
Speaker 1: an excellent exercise to watch films that either bite off

884
00:50:28,280 --> 00:50:29,839
Speaker 1: more than they could chew or chew more than they

885
00:50:29,840 --> 00:50:33,399
Speaker 1: buy it off. And then I myself will chew more

886
00:50:33,440 --> 00:50:36,280
Speaker 1: than I bite off concerning my viewing of the film,

887
00:50:36,320 --> 00:50:39,040
Speaker 1: and um, yeah, this is pretty much my approach to life. Well,

888
00:50:39,080 --> 00:50:41,479
Speaker 1: I don't know if we could conclude anything solid about

889
00:50:41,480 --> 00:50:44,040
Speaker 1: anti metaboli here, but it's still really banging around in

890
00:50:44,120 --> 00:50:46,480
Speaker 1: my head. And this has been interesting. I'm I'm I'm

891
00:50:46,520 --> 00:50:49,440
Speaker 1: glad you indulge me on this topic. Oh absolutely, I

892
00:50:49,600 --> 00:50:51,520
Speaker 1: knew if you if you thought there was an episode here,

893
00:50:51,520 --> 00:50:53,440
Speaker 1: there'd be an episode here. And ultimately I feel like

894
00:50:53,480 --> 00:50:56,680
Speaker 1: this was a great topic for the podcast, and this

895
00:50:56,760 --> 00:51:02,759
Speaker 1: was a great podcast for this topic. Oh uh, all right, Well,

896
00:51:03,040 --> 00:51:05,080
Speaker 1: obviously we'd love to hear from everybody about this. What

897
00:51:05,120 --> 00:51:07,840
Speaker 1: are you some of your favorite examples of anti metaboli?

898
00:51:08,400 --> 00:51:10,239
Speaker 1: How do you how do you feel about some of

899
00:51:10,239 --> 00:51:12,399
Speaker 1: the quotes we mentioned here or other quotes that are

900
00:51:12,400 --> 00:51:15,640
Speaker 1: coming to mind. You know, are they they resonating with

901
00:51:15,640 --> 00:51:18,840
Speaker 1: with with with with truth or do you feel a

902
00:51:18,880 --> 00:51:21,520
Speaker 1: little manipulated by them? Yeah, we'd we'd love to hear

903
00:51:21,560 --> 00:51:24,320
Speaker 1: from everybody. Um. In the meantime, if you would like

904
00:51:24,360 --> 00:51:26,160
Speaker 1: to check out other episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind,

905
00:51:26,200 --> 00:51:28,840
Speaker 1: you'll find us wherever you get your podcasts and wherever

906
00:51:28,840 --> 00:51:31,360
Speaker 1: that happens to be. If you if you can rate, review,

907
00:51:31,400 --> 00:51:33,320
Speaker 1: and subscribe a great way to help out the show.

908
00:51:33,880 --> 00:51:35,680
Speaker 1: Always feel free to go to stuff to Blow your

909
00:51:35,719 --> 00:51:37,120
Speaker 1: Mind dot com that will shoot you over to the

910
00:51:37,160 --> 00:51:39,960
Speaker 1: I heart listing for our page and yeah, the episodes

911
00:51:40,000 --> 00:51:41,520
Speaker 1: are there. There's also a button for a store you

912
00:51:41,520 --> 00:51:43,560
Speaker 1: can go there. You can buy like a shirt, a sticker,

913
00:51:44,280 --> 00:51:47,000
Speaker 1: what like tote bags and whatnot that have our logo

914
00:51:47,040 --> 00:51:49,839
Speaker 1: on it if you so desire. Um. There's also some

915
00:51:49,840 --> 00:51:52,520
Speaker 1: some other cool designs on there, some monsters and whatnot.

916
00:51:52,520 --> 00:51:55,319
Speaker 1: It's a cool new Pandora shirt that a listener made

917
00:51:55,360 --> 00:51:57,960
Speaker 1: for us that is super cool. Make sure you check

918
00:51:58,040 --> 00:52:01,000
Speaker 1: that out. Yeah up, maybe in the near future we're

919
00:52:01,000 --> 00:52:02,560
Speaker 1: going to end up with a with a good weird

920
00:52:02,600 --> 00:52:05,959
Speaker 1: house Cinema, Mad Love Sausage Man T shirt. I feel

921
00:52:05,960 --> 00:52:08,560
Speaker 1: like that's going to happen. Yeah, yeah, we even need

922
00:52:08,600 --> 00:52:10,799
Speaker 1: to get some sort of weird house content into our

923
00:52:10,800 --> 00:52:15,239
Speaker 1: store for sure. All Right, So anyway, huge thanks as

924
00:52:15,239 --> 00:52:19,080
Speaker 1: always to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. If

925
00:52:19,120 --> 00:52:20,520
Speaker 1: you would like to get in touch with us with

926
00:52:20,640 --> 00:52:23,640
Speaker 1: feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest topic

927
00:52:23,719 --> 00:52:25,600
Speaker 1: for the future, or just to say hello, you can

928
00:52:25,680 --> 00:52:28,520
Speaker 1: email us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind

929
00:52:28,719 --> 00:52:38,600
Speaker 1: dot com Stuff to Blow Your Mind's production of I

930
00:52:38,719 --> 00:52:41,440
Speaker 1: Heart Radio for more podcasts for my Heart Radio with

931
00:52:41,600 --> 00:52:44,160
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you

932
00:52:44,239 --> 00:53:01,759
Speaker 1: listening to your favorite shows. She had to hab