Speaker 1: Welcome Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey, you, welcome to Stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb and
Speaker 1: I'm Joe McCormick, and we're coming at you with listener
Speaker 1: mail today. Now our loyal mail bought. Carney has been
Speaker 1: through some changes. That's right. He's been uh, he's been
Speaker 1: off in Fatburg City. He's been helping uh Officer Fatburg
Speaker 1: battle the city's Fatburg problem. That's right. And in the
Speaker 1: course of fighting a Fatburg, which of course turned out
Speaker 1: to be sentient and alive. I guess that goes without
Speaker 1: saying you can't be sentient without being alive, but not
Speaker 1: for long um or maybe you can. Yeah, that's subject
Speaker 1: for another day. Anyway, like the black Ooze in Prometheus,
Speaker 1: part of that Fatburg just got right on into Carney.
Speaker 1: It took over part of his processor. Now he's Fatberg
Speaker 1: inside Fatberg power, uh Fatburg logic, and he's part fat
Speaker 1: Burg bought forever. Little flies come out of his nooks
Speaker 1: and crannies. I think that's just temporary. I think this
Speaker 1: is going to be an equilibrium that has reached and
Speaker 1: to whatever extent Carney can be fueled by fat birds. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's exciting. I think that's the future. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's actually gonna be the topic of another episode we're
Speaker 1: going to be recording. Have an episode of Invention coming up.
Speaker 1: What happens when robots can eat fat birds? We'll find out.
Speaker 1: But this episode is about listener mail, and we did
Speaker 1: receive a lot of really cool listener mail regarding our
Speaker 1: episode on fat birds. Now, just just to refresh, uh,
Speaker 1: to remove some of the you know, the sci fi
Speaker 1: fun here that we've been throwing out for a second.
Speaker 1: A fat berg is this large mass that accumulates in
Speaker 1: a modern sewer system or even kind of I guess
Speaker 1: an archaic sewer system, but due to modern sewage problems
Speaker 1: mostly caused by the flushing or the or the the
Speaker 1: dumping of of grease and the flush of sanitary wipes,
Speaker 1: wet wipes primarily. Yeah, like the problem with the with
Speaker 1: the wipe things or these things that are wet wipes.
Speaker 1: And apparently we heard from a lot of listeners, even
Speaker 1: people who worked in uh, you know, sewer maintenance, sewer workers,
Speaker 1: who said that these things that are so called flushable
Speaker 1: wet wipes are not flushable. Don't flush them even if
Speaker 1: they say you can. Yeah. And you know, I I
Speaker 1: have a kid. I've have used wet wipes plenty of times.
Speaker 1: And after you use them, you want to be rid
Speaker 1: of them, being able to throw them into a magical
Speaker 1: um uh you know, vat of water and then pushing
Speaker 1: a button and watching it disappear. That that's an attractive
Speaker 1: idea when you have a poop smeared. Uh what why?
Speaker 1: But but it doesn't really disappear, It goes somewhere and
Speaker 1: then it it makes friends. It becomes the bones of
Speaker 1: the soap dragon. That's right. Uh, So maybe we should
Speaker 1: get right to our first email. This one comes from Ray. Robert,
Speaker 1: you want to read this one? Hello Robert and Joe.
Speaker 1: My name is Ray, and I could not believe how
Speaker 1: close to home the episode of fat Bergs landed. I
Speaker 1: am currently a sewer utility worker in Faydeville, North Carolina,
Speaker 1: and prior to serving in the army for several years,
Speaker 1: I was a sewer utility worker in Jersey City, New Jersey.
Speaker 1: The issue of grease infiltrating our country sewers seems to
Speaker 1: be almost a universal problem with no real end in sight.
Speaker 1: Although there are significant differences in the capacity and complexity
Speaker 1: between the two sewer systems. I have personal experience with
Speaker 1: the effects of grease and non biodegradable solids such as
Speaker 1: wet wipes and feminine hygiene products. Seems to be universal
Speaker 1: in my experience. I have seen and worked on many
Speaker 1: Greef related issues, and though I have seen some large blockages,
Speaker 1: the issues I have come to find most common or
Speaker 1: more are more like grease tubes. The initial blockage creates
Speaker 1: a type of grease dam, which in turn leads to
Speaker 1: the sewer pipe becoming completely impacted with grease. Picture this
Speaker 1: is a tube of toothpaste. These issues can run for
Speaker 1: hundreds of feet underground and can require days of work.
Speaker 1: A clear the comparison made in the articles you read
Speaker 1: about it and concrete cannot be more accurate when trying
Speaker 1: to relieve a fat Burg induced blockage quote. Chipping away
Speaker 1: at the grease gestalt monstrosity with mason tools is surprisingly
Speaker 1: effective and brings to mind archaeologists using picks and hammers
Speaker 1: trying to reveal the hidden past and secrets the fat
Speaker 1: Birds hold in its subterranean lipid vaults. One point that
Speaker 1: I noticed was not mentioned that absolutely needs mentioning was
Speaker 1: the surprisingly distinct smell that grease blockages have, which, if
Speaker 1: one enjoys fried foods, could actually be appetite inducing. Each
Speaker 1: of the several grease blockages I have dealt with had
Speaker 1: a small had a smell scape that one could use
Speaker 1: to easily identify the main contributor to its unholy birth,
Speaker 1: whether it be Pizzeria's Chinese food takeout or even a
Speaker 1: rather famous diner located in downtown Jersey City. Nothing makes
Speaker 1: you look forward to lunch like the smell of comfort
Speaker 1: food wafting up from the depths of the sup Oh God,
Speaker 1: thank you again guys for never failing to surprise me
Speaker 1: with your awesome topics. This one, in particular, fat Burgs,
Speaker 1: made me realize that even something as mundane sounding as
Speaker 1: sewer utility work, it can be interesting. As a final
Speaker 1: side note, I would often try and tell people how
Speaker 1: serious grease problems can be in sewers and how large
Speaker 1: and lengthy they could be. It reminded me of another
Speaker 1: episode of Yours Great Wave, in which stories would be
Speaker 1: told by wayward sailors, often describing waves whose proportions seemed
Speaker 1: a drastically exaggerated I feel a shared kindred with these sailors,
Speaker 1: knowing that grease abominations lurk below the streets, and those
Speaker 1: who I tell my tales to disregard them as exaggerated fantasy.
Speaker 1: L O L. Thanks again, Right, Well, we don't disregard them, Ray,
Speaker 1: We believe every word, except I am a little skeptical
Speaker 1: about the the appetite inducing qualities of the sewer smell. Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think we have some other listener mail
Speaker 1: that that speaks to the odor, But I don't know
Speaker 1: I can and that I mean, I trust Ray on
Speaker 1: the matter. I mean, he he has experience that I
Speaker 1: do not have regarding uh fat bergs in their unholy kin.
Speaker 1: So if he says there's an appetizing odor, then I
Speaker 1: I believe it. I guess what I mean is the
Speaker 1: only thing I doubt is whether it would be appetizing
Speaker 1: to lots of people or to everyone. That seems like
Speaker 1: it would probably very person to person, especially depending on
Speaker 1: how maybe you're disgust reflexes and how sensitive they are,
Speaker 1: oh you need to fast food, or to just in general, No,
Speaker 1: I mean to general, like the association. I mean, we
Speaker 1: we know a lot about how smell is in some
Speaker 1: ways cognitive. You know, we've talked on the show before
Speaker 1: about how the exact same smell if you're told it's
Speaker 1: a cheese, it smells good. But if you're told you're
Speaker 1: smelling socks and it's the exact same chemical stimulant, uh,
Speaker 1: it's disgusting. It makes you you know, you find it revolting.
Speaker 1: And I think the same thing would probably be true.
Speaker 1: You know, they're different levels of sensitivity. But like, you
Speaker 1: can smell a smell that would maybe smell good if
Speaker 1: it's coming out of a restaurant kitchen, but if you
Speaker 1: smell it in a sewer, might give you the gag reflex, right,
Speaker 1: But then if you're working in a sewer, like I
Speaker 1: don't know, it might turn things around, Like you're you're
Speaker 1: in there so long exposed to this different smellscape, and
Speaker 1: if there's a hint of something even that is uh,
Speaker 1: you know, from beyond the sewer, then perhaps you know,
Speaker 1: the human mind can latch onto that I don't know. Um,
Speaker 1: there's also if I remember correctly, in our past episodes
Speaker 1: about smell, we've discussed how you know how about good
Speaker 1: smells and bad smells, and about how bad smells can
Speaker 1: sort of fade into the background a bit, while good
Speaker 1: smells remain in the forefront. I believe I have that right.
Speaker 1: Um In any right, there's there's a lot going on
Speaker 1: when we perceive odors, like even very strong odors. You know,
Speaker 1: some maybe destressed and others remain stressed. Uh in at
Speaker 1: least as you know, as far as our perceptions go,
Speaker 1: because there might be different adaptive reasons for the brain
Speaker 1: to remain aware of certain kinds of odors but not
Speaker 1: of others once you've initially smelled them, right, So maybe
Speaker 1: that would allow room for like the pleasing odor that
Speaker 1: is mixed in amongst the foul older odors to sort
Speaker 1: of resonate more after a while. This is just me guessing.
Speaker 1: Does the Yankee Candle Company make a fat burg candle?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but uh that we did discuss in
Speaker 1: that episode some of the possibilities of of using fatburgs
Speaker 1: for fuel. Yeah. Well, we actually have a great piece
Speaker 1: of listener mail about this, do it. Let's see here
Speaker 1: this one. This is a short one. This comes from Damian.
Speaker 1: Damian subject line, fat bergs are real. Hello from Little
Speaker 1: Rock fat Burgs. Sweet Jesus. Those things can ruin your life.
Speaker 1: My wife's grandparents had no qualms with pouring bacon grease
Speaker 1: down the sink. They had apparently been doing so for
Speaker 1: the last seventy years. A Router company worker that we
Speaker 1: hired told us that our pipes were worse off than
Speaker 1: a waffle house. I dug up ancient clay pipes and
Speaker 1: they were packed with the same stuff that's clocking sewers worldwide.
Speaker 1: It's a soap like material that is fairly stinky and
Speaker 1: very light weight. Actually lit it on fire while it
Speaker 1: was still wet. I'll include the fire video and offer
Speaker 1: to send you a sample of the burg itself. If
Speaker 1: you want some, let me know. I love your shows.
Speaker 1: Keep it up, Damien. Okay, Damien, I don't think we
Speaker 1: need a sample of the burg, but I did watch
Speaker 1: the video and dude, yeah, it's like it's like a
Speaker 1: tiny grease fire in puck form. Amazing. Yeah. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: I glanced at this video as well, and it is.
Speaker 1: It's it's really flaming up there. It's kind of it's
Speaker 1: kind of making spitting sounds that might have to do
Speaker 1: with water content or the fact that it's wet. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna say don't send us a piece of fatburg.
Speaker 1: Let's leave that up to the stochastic gods of fat
Speaker 1: berg face. I think I'm gonna do this next one
Speaker 1: here from our listener Joe. In fact, hi Robert and Joe.
Speaker 1: My name is also Joe, and I'm a plumber that
Speaker 1: listens to your podcast. No, not that plumber. I live
Speaker 1: in the state of Alabama. I routinely listen to your
Speaker 1: podcast on my way to job sites, having been a
Speaker 1: service lumber in the past. I have to tell you
Speaker 1: that Donnie Don't made me twitch a little. I think
Speaker 1: we started off the Fatberg episode with some don't do
Speaker 1: what Donnie Don't does, pouring pouring duck fat down the
Speaker 1: bathtub and stuff. Joe continues, Donna Don't, who also flushes
Speaker 1: sanitary products and plants shrubs over the residential sewer line,
Speaker 1: would have made me twitch a lot more. I don't
Speaker 1: care if the packaging says flushable or not. Anything small
Speaker 1: enough to fit down a toilet is flushable. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you should flush it. I could flush one Leader
Speaker 1: water bottles down some toilets, or even a bucket full
Speaker 1: of golf balls. There are even some that I wholly
Speaker 1: believe could flush small children, but that does not mean
Speaker 1: it's a good idea. That being said, my city doesn't
Speaker 1: have a sewer system that you can walk around in
Speaker 1: as it's more modern. However, I do have some grease
Speaker 1: stories that may interest you. Oh and old Greece is
Speaker 1: the single worst thing to smell in plumbing, narrowly beating
Speaker 1: out old urine. You would think that it's the pooh,
Speaker 1: but it's not. Of course, I haven't had the displeasure
Speaker 1: of cleaning the lines at a more refuneral home. I
Speaker 1: know some who have, and I will not regale you
Speaker 1: with those stories. I'm sure you can imagine. To preface
Speaker 1: these stories, restaurants are required to have a grease interceptor
Speaker 1: in their line going out, and they do just what
Speaker 1: the name implies. They intercept and hold the grease. However,
Speaker 1: in one case that was overlooked by the city when
Speaker 1: I was an apprentice, we received a service call to
Speaker 1: a dentist's office that was backing up with raw sewage.
Speaker 1: The building was roughly ten feet above the city sewer,
Speaker 1: and it was also the lowest of the surrounding buildings.
Speaker 1: After confirming that the lines to the city sewer were clear,
Speaker 1: we decided to pop a manhole cover the roads dirt
Speaker 1: and grime had sealed it down. This heavy cast iron
Speaker 1: manhole cover then proceeded to float, albeit briefly, on the
Speaker 1: flood of water among other things that rose from the manhole,
Speaker 1: and then had to direct traffic away from this open
Speaker 1: manhole as we waited for the city's jet truck to
Speaker 1: come clear the line. I think the jet truck is
Speaker 1: like a high pressure water. This was a very busy
Speaker 1: four lane road in the downtown of my city. I
Speaker 1: almost got run over several times as people swerved into
Speaker 1: the other lane within feet of me. I digress. When
Speaker 1: the truck arrived, the twelve inch City Maine was blocked
Speaker 1: for two hundred feet by you guessed it, fat and
Speaker 1: grease where this restaurant's line joined the cities. They had
Speaker 1: been pouring all of their oil down the drains. On
Speaker 1: another note, as an apprentice, again, I have personally stood
Speaker 1: on one foot on top of hardened grease and an
Speaker 1: intercept or at another restaurant. The grease was about a
Speaker 1: foot thick and weighed about two hundred pounds at the time,
Speaker 1: and it did not give. We had to take a
Speaker 1: steel bar to it to break it up so that
Speaker 1: it could be pumped out. I wouldn't say that it's
Speaker 1: as hard as concrete, but still rock like. I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to more awesome episodes from you guys. Joe all right,
Speaker 1: another field report from the war against the fat Bergs.
Speaker 1: That is an epic tale of a heroic struggle. I
Speaker 1: wish I only had the you know, the mind of
Speaker 1: a Homer to translated into poetry. But hey, you know
Speaker 1: one thing we did in that Fatburg episode is we
Speaker 1: proposed a movie crossover, which should be Fatburg copy and
Speaker 1: Officer Fatberg. So we asked if anybody out there is,
Speaker 1: you know, developer in Hollywood or anything, get Fatburg cop going.
Speaker 1: We did hear back from a couple of people, a
Speaker 1: couple of creative types who engage with fat Bergs one
Speaker 1: way or another. Weird from one listener named Tom, who
Speaker 1: shared with us a story he had written about a
Speaker 1: fat Burg that becomes sentient. This was independent of our episode.
Speaker 1: He had already written it in the past. But we
Speaker 1: also heard from our listener L Robert do you want
Speaker 1: to read this one? Yes? L Rights quote. I recently
Speaker 1: listened to your episode on Fatberg's. You had mentioned how
Speaker 1: it would be cool to create an artist rendition of
Speaker 1: an anthropomorphic, murderous and justice seeking Fatburg. Well, being an
Speaker 1: artist myself, I could think of nothing more than to
Speaker 1: do just this. I wanted to make the creature humanoid,
Speaker 1: but also not too human. I ended up with some
Speaker 1: sort of a lizard man cotton made of congealed grease,
Speaker 1: and it turned out more saying than I would have liked.
Speaker 1: Make of that what you will. Maybe Fatburg really is
Speaker 1: the hero. Nevertheless, I enjoyed making this a ight style
Speaker 1: poster art. Robert had mentioned never visiting Philly, Well, come
Speaker 1: on by, I can't recommend it enough. Also, I recently
Speaker 1: visited the Mooder Museum uh the week before the episode. This,
Speaker 1: of course, the museum with all sorts of cool um
Speaker 1: medical oddities. I guess you'd say, men in medical uh um,
Speaker 1: anomalous medical history, graham artifacts of medical history, etcetera. I've
Speaker 1: long wanted to visit there and just never have had
Speaker 1: the chance. It came up in the episode because we
Speaker 1: were talking about the process of supponification, where like lipid
Speaker 1: and fatty acids can turn into soap like substances, and
Speaker 1: one example is a thing that's within the Mooder Museum's collection,
Speaker 1: the soap Lady, and I think also a male uh corpse,
Speaker 1: the soapman, which are covered in this soap like material
Speaker 1: called adapas or that's formed out of the lipids and
Speaker 1: flesh as it decays in certain types of environments I
Speaker 1: think like alkaline environments. All right, l continues, I was
Speaker 1: looking for something to do with friends while nearby, though
Speaker 1: sadly not knowing what I was getting myself into. Listening
Speaker 1: to your description of the soap Lady instantly brought a
Speaker 1: haunting image to my head of the corps that visited
Speaker 1: visitors are greeted with as they entered the main room. Uh.
Speaker 1: This the main room of the Commuter Museum, at least
Speaker 1: I think it was it. I wasn't going to stick
Speaker 1: around to read the description. As soon as I realized
Speaker 1: what I got myself into, I tried to leave as
Speaker 1: soon as I could. Although I can see it's importance
Speaker 1: as medical history and uh and it's importance for research,
Speaker 1: the idea of dead body and fetuses on display just
Speaker 1: didn't settle well with me. Not to say others would.
Speaker 1: It would have a different experience at the very least
Speaker 1: it was a unique experience I attached to the work
Speaker 1: of Officer Fatburgh below. I loved listening to your episode
Speaker 1: as I always do, and I loved listening to your
Speaker 1: show every time I drive or commute. Keep it up
Speaker 1: L from Philly. Okay, So for starters, this art that
Speaker 1: L gave us is tremendous and as of this record thing,
Speaker 1: I've requested that we be allowed to share this with
Speaker 1: the world. On the landing page for this episode is
Speaker 1: stuff to Blow your Mind dot com, So hopefully that
Speaker 1: will be the case and you all can go check
Speaker 1: it out for yourself. It's pretty fun. It's reminiscent of
Speaker 1: things like Maniac Cop and so forth. And then secondly,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, I have to admit that I can as
Speaker 1: interested as I am, and in visiting the Neuter Museum,
Speaker 1: I can imagine it's not everybody's cup of tea, and
Speaker 1: not necessarily everybody's cup of tea every day. Like I,
Speaker 1: you know, some of my interests run uh or have
Speaker 1: run darker or more morbid at times. But in the
Speaker 1: air days where I don't do not want to see
Speaker 1: a soap person or or some sort of pickled remains.
Speaker 1: I mean, for instance, I just watched this is completely
Speaker 1: off topic, but I just watched The Deathly Hallows Part one,
Speaker 1: uh last night Harry Potter and How Its Part one
Speaker 1: last night with my family, and the film was a
Speaker 1: lot darker than I remember it being, uh to the
Speaker 1: point where it really I felt kind of bummed out
Speaker 1: into after finishing it. Yeah. I don't know if my
Speaker 1: my tastes have just changed a lot recently, but it's
Speaker 1: like like that was just it was that was too
Speaker 1: dark of a film for me. Yesterday is definitely how
Speaker 1: is the Last One? It's well, it's the first part
Speaker 1: of the last one, it's the so it's the penultimate
Speaker 1: movie and the Harry Potter sequence of films, so it is.
Speaker 1: It does have kind of ultimately an Empire strikes Back
Speaker 1: kind of ending, because it's like all these terrible things
Speaker 1: that are happening and all these trials of the characters
Speaker 1: have put through. And it's a great movie, Don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong. I think it's a tremendously impressive what they
Speaker 1: did with it. And I love Harry Potter uh and
Speaker 1: as much as anybody, but who that one, I felt
Speaker 1: like it really put me through the ringers, so their
Speaker 1: days when I am not in the mood for the
Speaker 1: darkness of a Harry Potter film Their days when I'm
Speaker 1: I'm definitely not in the mood to see a human
Speaker 1: cadaver that has been partially turned into soap. Fair enough, Robert,
Speaker 1: I will never try to force you to go look
Speaker 1: at the soap lady if you're not feeling it right.
Speaker 1: And if somebody sends us a fat bird chunk, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe it'll be a day day when I'm totally up
Speaker 1: for looking at it. Maybe It'll be a day when
Speaker 1: I just need a um, you know, ask you to
Speaker 1: keep the bag closed. Okay, I think we need to
Speaker 1: take a quick break, but we will be right back.
Speaker 1: Thank Alright, we're back. So Carney has given us the
Speaker 1: sign that we need to move on from fat Burgska
Speaker 1: is full of fat birds. He's currently processing and digesting it,
Speaker 1: turning it into energy. So we're gonna move on to
Speaker 1: some other episodes that we did some listener feedback on them,
Speaker 1: particularly our episode concerning the fundamental attribution error. Right now.
Speaker 1: This was a while back, so we did some messages
Speaker 1: about this on the last listener mail episode, but I
Speaker 1: think this one came in since then. This is from
Speaker 1: our listener, Matthew. Matthew says, greetings, So I am eagerly
Speaker 1: awaiting tonight's finale episode of Game of Thrones. It is
Speaker 1: one of the few shows or movies that I value
Speaker 1: experiencing along with the rest of the world. This last
Speaker 1: season has been taking a lot of flak from online critics,
Speaker 1: and I myself have felt the declining quality. While thinking
Speaker 1: through the seasons and talking to my wife, I came
Speaker 1: to the conclusion that it was mainly because of characters
Speaker 1: acting out of their expected behaviors as established over the
Speaker 1: past seven seasons. Having listened to your recent cast on
Speaker 1: fundamental attribution error, I began to think about the stories
Speaker 1: players on a grander scale, about the society and why
Speaker 1: the characters within that society are acting the way they are,
Speaker 1: as opposed to out of solely personal motivations. It made
Speaker 1: me feel so intelligent when I came across this article
Speaker 1: by an actual smart person discussing this very subject with
Speaker 1: direct references to fundamental attribution error. Basically, the show's focus
Speaker 1: switched from a broad society based story where something like
Speaker 1: the death of a main character progressed the narrative for
Speaker 1: everyone else and he says that that's more in line
Speaker 1: with George R. Martin's novels, and it switched to an
Speaker 1: individual focus narrative where each character's own psychology is being explored,
Speaker 1: which is the Hollywood's green writers more common approach. Thank
Speaker 1: you for equipping me to think about even mundane things
Speaker 1: like TV shows about dragons on a deep, almost academic level.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good work. Invention is awesome. You guys
Speaker 1: have long been the first thing I look for in
Speaker 1: my new releases list each week Matthew, and Matthew links
Speaker 1: to this article he's talking about, and this is what
Speaker 1: I had seen shared around a while, but I actually
Speaker 1: didn't read it until just today. It's an article in
Speaker 1: Scientific American by zep two fact she is, who's a
Speaker 1: really good writer. I'd seen it going around, but I'm
Speaker 1: glad I read it because I think I pretty much
Speaker 1: agree with it about a hundred percent. It's very spot
Speaker 1: on in analyzing how the show's storytelling mode changed over time,
Speaker 1: especially after the show ran out of book material to
Speaker 1: work with. Um And And the essential idea is that
Speaker 1: in the in the books, characters are hugely driven by
Speaker 1: circumstances by you know, the sort of like social pressures
Speaker 1: on them and the norms they face and by you know,
Speaker 1: events outside their control, and we we we constantly see
Speaker 1: characters having to deal with all of these circumstantial pressures,
Speaker 1: and we understand the influence of circumstantial pressures. And after
Speaker 1: the book material ran out and the show runners were
Speaker 1: more out on their own, it started to feel more
Speaker 1: like a typical Hollywood screenplay, where like characters have like
Speaker 1: a main defining personality attribute and everything they do is
Speaker 1: pretty much in line with that main personality attribute. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is interest, especially you know, coming from HBO. And
Speaker 1: granted these were different show runners, but I feel like, um,
Speaker 1: I feel it feel like The Wire, um for instance,
Speaker 1: did a great job of really I think throughout the series,
Speaker 1: like focusing on the societal pressures that are making people
Speaker 1: what they are. Yeah. I mean David Simon in interviews
Speaker 1: has talked about, you know, like in the in his work,
Speaker 1: especially in The Wire, like the gods of this Greek
Speaker 1: tragedy are instead of being like Zeus and Poseidon and
Speaker 1: so forth, their institutions uh there, you know, it's it's government.
Speaker 1: It's uh, it's law enforcement, it's a you know whatever.
Speaker 1: The particular institution is that is applying this pressure to
Speaker 1: populations to individuals. And yeah, I feel like that sort
Speaker 1: of thing is is more evident in the earlier seasons
Speaker 1: of Game of Thrones and then almost completely gone in
Speaker 1: the later seasons. The last couple of seasons particularly yeah
Speaker 1: and uh and actually zanat affect, she makes exactly that
Speaker 1: comparison to the Wire, so she does, okay, so yeah, uh, yeah.
Speaker 1: I think The Wire is a great example of that.
Speaker 1: A lot of the great shows are like that in
Speaker 1: in a way, even though it's it's more focused on
Speaker 1: individual psychology, but even The Sopranos is kind of like this.
Speaker 1: It has a it has a sociological kind of feel.
Speaker 1: They're like there are large movements and pressures and trends
Speaker 1: at play and characters. You constantly see characters struggling with
Speaker 1: their circumstances and being moved by them and not just
Speaker 1: like acting out their dominant personality traits, right, you know,
Speaker 1: I I do not want to make it sound like
Speaker 1: I am attributing Hollywood with all of society's woes or
Speaker 1: blaming superhero movies in particular, but I think it is
Speaker 1: worth noting that, you know, um, certainly Matthew here mentions
Speaker 1: the Hollywood screenwriter approach and that being focused on individuals,
Speaker 1: and of course Hollywood is epicenter for our our our
Speaker 1: focus on celebrities. To focus on these key individuals that
Speaker 1: we've sent singled out for deification and vilification, um to um,
Speaker 1: to lift up into sacrifice. This need be to satiate
Speaker 1: our our, our our need for some sort of vicarious experience.
Speaker 1: And um, it's I wonder you know what the dangers
Speaker 1: are and been putting that much. Um, you know, cultural
Speaker 1: power within a single you know, a single system, well,
Speaker 1: especially one that, as we talked about in the episode,
Speaker 1: is is very often given to the fundamental attribution error.
Speaker 1: I and like, I think a lot of especially the weaker,
Speaker 1: shallower kinds of you know, popular Hollywood storytelling, very much
Speaker 1: fall into the FA kind of category where characters behaviors
Speaker 1: are almost entirely explained by their like innate qualities and predispositions,
Speaker 1: and there's really not much attention paid to like broader
Speaker 1: trends and sidal pressures and circumstances that change the way
Speaker 1: people are right and and with superheroes, and and I
Speaker 1: do again I want to stress that I enjoy superhero movies,
Speaker 1: and I'm not I'm not meaning to criticize them just
Speaker 1: across the board, but superhero movies are movies about individuals
Speaker 1: that are essentially God's uh that they may have you know,
Speaker 1: flawed characteristics and even very human characteristics in some uh
Speaker 1: some ways, which can of course be very much in
Speaker 1: keeping with with you know, classical treatments of gods, but
Speaker 1: they are they are individuals that that that apply pressure
Speaker 1: more to society or seem to be you know, complete
Speaker 1: the remove from societal pressure in some cases. And um,
Speaker 1: if when those are the dominant stories that we're telling,
Speaker 1: those are the ones that seem to have the most
Speaker 1: cultural impact, and certainly have them, you know, the most
Speaker 1: box office impact. Does that uh? Does that just serve
Speaker 1: to to help reinforce the fundamental attribution error in our
Speaker 1: popular storytelling. I think that's that you could very well
Speaker 1: make that case. I think that's likely true. That being said,
Speaker 1: I may be missing some really key examples of of films,
Speaker 1: you know, particularly in non Hollywood films, but maybe some
Speaker 1: big tent pictures as well that that run counter to this.
Speaker 1: So I would love to hear from listeners who have
Speaker 1: some really good examples of of films that avoid the
Speaker 1: fundamental attribution eraor I think there's one reason you more
Speaker 1: often see uh like non f A storytelling and more
Speaker 1: like sociological or circumstance based storytelling in longer television series these. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's just like having to do with the efficiency
Speaker 1: of storytelling and run time. It's hard to tell a
Speaker 1: story that's not a little bit given to the f
Speaker 1: A E in a short run time, you know, because
Speaker 1: you need to identify themes really quickly and and identify
Speaker 1: who characters are in a memorable way really quickly. You
Speaker 1: don't have whole seasons to figure out who people are
Speaker 1: and get a sense of them. Oh yeah, Well, like
Speaker 1: with The Wire, for instance, they had the time to
Speaker 1: provide characters and secondary character, primary and secondary characters at
Speaker 1: all levels of society. So you had, you know, you
Speaker 1: had you had people on law enforcement side, people that
Speaker 1: were in the criminal element in the sale and the
Speaker 1: trafficking of drugs, but then also the political spectrum, the
Speaker 1: educational spectrum, you know, and they were able to layer
Speaker 1: on more from season to season to provide this overall
Speaker 1: ultimately holistic picture of how the world worked. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: doing something doing that kind of thing. You need time
Speaker 1: to do that, and it's really hard to tell a story,
Speaker 1: uh that you know, that appropriately treats the influence of
Speaker 1: circumstances and all that without doing something like that. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I can see why this kind of storytelling shows up
Speaker 1: more often on like the you know, the gold standard
Speaker 1: TV series than it does in movies. Yeah, yeah, because ultimately,
Speaker 1: of you know, if a movie can basically cover the
Speaker 1: ground of a short story, a short story is going
Speaker 1: to be limited generally to like one p O V. Like,
Speaker 1: there's not a lot generally not much room for anything
Speaker 1: beyond that. Alright, Well, speaking of created worlds, we have
Speaker 1: a correction here. This one comes to us from Steve Um.
Speaker 1: I can't even was this a previous Listener mail episode
Speaker 1: we were talking about. I think it was on the
Speaker 1: last Listener Mail episode we did. Somebody wrote in, uh,
Speaker 1: wrote in with an email that incorrectly attributed the author
Speaker 1: of a story, and we did not catch that right.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Steve writes in and says, in your recent
Speaker 1: listener email, uh, it was slated that John Scalz wrote
Speaker 1: the Forever War. That is incorrect. Joe Halderman wrote the
Speaker 1: Forever War, which yes, this is correct. Yes, the author
Speaker 1: of The Forever War is Joe Halderman. Okay, we stand corrected. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean and I've read The Forever War, so I
Speaker 1: should have remembered that one. But at any rate, stuff
Speaker 1: goes by really fast while we're sitting here talking. All right,
Speaker 1: here's another one. This one comes to us from Chris
Speaker 1: regarding our Almost Cannibals episode, which was, you know, a
Speaker 1: contemplation of well, you know, how do we classify things
Speaker 1: that are not quite cannibalism in the animal world and
Speaker 1: occasionally in the human world. Uh, they're not quite cannibalism,
Speaker 1: but they're almost cannibalism. It's all almost close in one
Speaker 1: way or another pre cannibalism. Right, So Chris writes in
Speaker 1: and says, hey, checking in on a couple of recent
Speaker 1: episodes of Stuff to Blow your mind and invention, and boy,
Speaker 1: do I have a crossover story for you. In your
Speaker 1: recent episode on Almost Cannibals, you mentioned a story about
Speaker 1: an army roasting meat and eating in close proximity to
Speaker 1: fallen soldiers from an opposing force. Uh. And this, by
Speaker 1: the way, this was like an older you know, a
Speaker 1: true you did detail from history that you know was
Speaker 1: probably rolled out as a way to criticize the enemy
Speaker 1: and make them seem more barbaric. Uh. You know, as
Speaker 1: if to say, let's look at these people. They're not
Speaker 1: cannibals yet, but they're just like just one stumble away
Speaker 1: from it. Anyway, it continues, and that there were rumors
Speaker 1: that the army were cannibals because of this. Well, my
Speaker 1: story is about my grandfather who was in the ninety
Speaker 1: five Infantry Division during World War two. Uh. And he
Speaker 1: includes a short link to a video about them this.
Speaker 1: He earned his nickname during the war as the Buzzard
Speaker 1: as an unfortunate part of his job was to remove
Speaker 1: bodies from the field and take them off the trucks
Speaker 1: when they returned to the base the moniker. The buzzard
Speaker 1: was applied because he was known to pull bodies from
Speaker 1: the truck with one hand and have a ham sandwich
Speaker 1: and the other WHOA, It's amazing what the human mind
Speaker 1: can normalize during the horrors of war. I am by
Speaker 1: no means in insinuating that he was a cannibal, but
Speaker 1: the bit about eating too close to dead bodies sparked
Speaker 1: a memory. The second tie in comes Once he returned home.
Speaker 1: My grandp and it's house was three blocks from our
Speaker 1: small town two thousand people funeral home. Um, here is
Speaker 1: where the camera comes in. We recently did a whole
Speaker 1: slew of episodes of Invention about the camera. Once he
Speaker 1: came back from the war, he would go to every
Speaker 1: week where the person was laid out at the funeral
Speaker 1: home and take a picture of them in the casket.
Speaker 1: You mentioned in the episode on the Camera about how
Speaker 1: early photo photography was used to document deceased relatives. He
Speaker 1: would then develop the film and annotate the back of
Speaker 1: the photograph with named date of birth, death, etcetera, and
Speaker 1: all the photos would be out in albums. When he died,
Speaker 1: he had dozens and dozens of albums filled with these photos.
Speaker 1: He never talked about the war or really anything much,
Speaker 1: but I have to imagine that what he saw on
Speaker 1: serving changed the way he viewed life and death, and
Speaker 1: his photographs of those who had died were his own
Speaker 1: way of remembering them. Cheers Chris. Wow, Well that's an
Speaker 1: interesting story. I don't know what to make about that,
Speaker 1: but thank you for sharing. Chris. Yeah, I mean it's
Speaker 1: I think it's a very point about the horrors of war.
Speaker 1: I mean, a lot of us, maybe most of those
Speaker 1: listening to us, you know, we were far removed from
Speaker 1: those horrors. Um. You know, certainly we we do hear
Speaker 1: from time to time from individuals who have served in
Speaker 1: combat situations or law enforcements to environments, or or you know,
Speaker 1: in some way or another, have have had you know,
Speaker 1: this level of violence impact their lives. But for a
Speaker 1: lot of us, we are removed from it. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we we don't know what it's like to have to
Speaker 1: haul dead bodies around and at the same time deal
Speaker 1: with the fact that you have to eat, you have
Speaker 1: to have sandwich, and maybe you do have a sandwich
Speaker 1: in one hand, and then likewise when it comes to
Speaker 1: just dealing with with with death. I mean, I'm wondering
Speaker 1: about this case with the grandfather to like being a
Speaker 1: you know, an older individual, like perhaps they had memories
Speaker 1: of of you know, of of a time when there
Speaker 1: were more there was more photography to a funeral photography
Speaker 1: taking place, and you know there therefore they're just kind
Speaker 1: of you know, returning to those memories and um and
Speaker 1: doing it themselves. I don't know, but but yeah, this
Speaker 1: was certainly all food for thoughts, So it looks like
Speaker 1: we need to move on to the next group of
Speaker 1: listener mail. This was in response to our episode against
Speaker 1: the phrase survival of the Fittest in the context of
Speaker 1: explaining how evolution works. And so we got some responses
Speaker 1: just to the episode in general, and we've got a
Speaker 1: number of responses, some mega responses to Pokemon, which Robert,
Speaker 1: I think you brought up at the end of the episode, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean part of it just is because I'm I'm
Speaker 1: too old for Pokemon, was I id or at least
Speaker 1: I didn't. I never did anything with Pokemon, so I
Speaker 1: don't have an appreciation for it. But I realize, you know,
Speaker 1: just from being online, that it is really important to
Speaker 1: many people, and and that Pokemon becomes like a metaphor
Speaker 1: for understanding various things in life. And so they made
Speaker 1: me curious about, well, how does that play into understandings
Speaker 1: of evolution. Is it helpful, is it a hindrance, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And so we put that out the listeners to chime in.
Speaker 1: We heard from a lot. Well, I think maybe should
Speaker 1: do a general email about the episode first and then
Speaker 1: we'll do the Pokemon one. Okay, So this first one
Speaker 1: comes from our listener Lloyd. Lloyd says, Hi, guys, love
Speaker 1: your podcast. I listened with interest to your episode on
Speaker 1: natural selection and Survival of the Fittest. I agree with
Speaker 1: your point that the latter phrase is not linguistically apt
Speaker 1: when a modern sembilance of the phrase is applied. However,
Speaker 1: I wondered if this overlooks the fact that fittest may
Speaker 1: have had a slightly different meaning at the time when
Speaker 1: Spencer Wallace and Darwin We're discussing it. You considered fittest
Speaker 1: to mean the biggest and the strongest, as in the
Speaker 1: bigger batterism you talked about. However, the word fittest literally
Speaker 1: means the best fit, most fit, or most suitable. Fit
Speaker 1: has only recently come to mean physically fit, and has
Speaker 1: in the past meant something more akin too suitable, as
Speaker 1: in the phrase this man is a fit and proper person.
Speaker 1: In your podcast, you also considered survival to mean survival
Speaker 1: of the individual. However, it also means survival of the
Speaker 1: species considered this way, survival of the fittest, survival of
Speaker 1: the species best fitted, or you might say, most suitable
Speaker 1: to its environment. I therefore find myself agreeing with Wallace
Speaker 1: to some extent that it is a good and in
Speaker 1: some sense is better descriptor of the evolutionary process than
Speaker 1: the phrase natural selection. I would suggest that the better
Speaker 1: argument for use of the term natural selection is that
Speaker 1: it suggests a kind of positive advancement or natural refinement.
Speaker 1: By contrast, survival of the most suitable or the fittest
Speaker 1: draws on the more nihilistic side of evolution that those
Speaker 1: who are not the most suitable are destined to decline.
Speaker 1: That is, of course true, but it's pretty depressing. Yours faithfully, Lloyd.
Speaker 1: Um Well, Lloyd, I mean I think I accepted a
Speaker 1: lot of the sense of what you're saying. I mean,
Speaker 1: what you're describing is I think how Darwin and Wallace,
Speaker 1: since Spencer meant it as we discussed in the episode.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think they were they were saying
Speaker 1: anything incorrect when they use the phrase. We were talking
Speaker 1: more about the the modern implications that people get from
Speaker 1: the baggage of these words. It's not that like Darwin
Speaker 1: and Wallace were incorrect and how they used it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, certainly the words uh, words can change over time,
Speaker 1: or at least the they can. They can skew different directions. Uh,
Speaker 1: and then we have to, um, we have to you know,
Speaker 1: account for that. Also, words tend to I mean, when
Speaker 1: there's a phrase like natural selection or survival of the fittest,
Speaker 1: we have to deal with the fact that, in Darwin's context,
Speaker 1: this is a phrase that's appearing within a book, you know,
Speaker 1: so he's got a whole book to explain what he means.
Speaker 1: But these phrases now are just sort of floating free
Speaker 1: within the culture and there you know, people invoke these
Speaker 1: phrases to explain how evolution works, but they might not
Speaker 1: necessarily bring with them all of the explanation that comes,
Speaker 1: like say, in on the Origin of species. So you
Speaker 1: don't have a book in front of you all the time.
Speaker 1: You have to think about how phrases are just received
Speaker 1: in in a vacuum. All right, Well here's one. Here's
Speaker 1: one of the Pokemon of spots. This this comes to
Speaker 1: us from Taylor. Hey, Robert and Joe Taylor here, another
Speaker 1: long time fan and email writer. When Robert asked the
Speaker 1: audience to reach out with their Pokemon experiences at the
Speaker 1: end of against Survival of the Fittest, it was a
Speaker 1: bespoke question for me, as a student of evolutionary biology
Speaker 1: and one of the biggest Pokemon nerds you'll ever meet.
Speaker 1: I couldn't resist saying everything I could, so let's get
Speaker 1: right to it. When a Pokemon quote unquote evolves within
Speaker 1: the context of the game, it matures into a larger,
Speaker 1: more powerful form and benefits from increased combat stats. Well,
Speaker 1: this might look like a terrible case of bigger batterism
Speaker 1: on the surface, the Pokemon franchise approaches adaptation and biodiversity
Speaker 1: with much more nuanced than you might expect. While the
Speaker 1: game uses the term evolution to describe this growth, it's
Speaker 1: clear within the context of the game the Pokemon evolution
Speaker 1: is a descriptive is a is a is descriptive of
Speaker 1: a Pokemon species maturation and natural life cycle, and not
Speaker 1: of natural selection. This distinction is especially clear when Pokemon
Speaker 1: evolution represents the metamorphosis of a species. For example, when
Speaker 1: the larval Pokemon wheel evolved into the pup eight Kakuna
Speaker 1: before emerging as the wasp like be Drill at the
Speaker 1: end of its life cycle, or when the tadpole like
Speaker 1: uh Dratini matures into the dopey amphibian dragon Pokemon called
Speaker 1: dragon Eyed, but Wait, there's more. The Pokemon games also
Speaker 1: do a great job of describing symbiotic relationships, sexual dimorphism,
Speaker 1: and yes, even natural selection. Many Pokemon species exhibit important
Speaker 1: symbiotic relationships. For example, the seafaring mantle like Pokemon manteen,
Speaker 1: is rarely depicted without a remorade. I like that. It's
Speaker 1: like the gatorade of remoras. Yeah, that would be I
Speaker 1: guess it's the genesis there clinging to its underside as
Speaker 1: you might have guessed. Their relationship is illustrative of the
Speaker 1: real life symbiosis of ramorras and open ocean predators like
Speaker 1: blue sharks. A lot of Pokemon also exhibits sexual dimorphism.
Speaker 1: One of my favorite examples is Burmy, a Pokemon based
Speaker 1: on real life bagwarm moths. Like their real world world
Speaker 1: on our parts, Burmi build protective cloaks around themselves out
Speaker 1: of whatever detritus is available to them. If you encounter
Speaker 1: Burmy with a forest within a forest, it is covered
Speaker 1: in leaves, whereas a desert dwelling Burmi would be covered
Speaker 1: in sand and pebbles. But it gets more interesting. Female
Speaker 1: burmi exhibit neatany they evolve into werma dam, a larger
Speaker 1: bagworm Pokemon that remains sessile but male burmy evolve into
Speaker 1: moth motham, a flying insect that can flit from one
Speaker 1: from female to female. Another great example is the grouse
Speaker 1: like Pokemon un Phasant, whose males boast resplendent plumage that
Speaker 1: the drab females lack and Pokemon doesn't have. Doesn't leave
Speaker 1: other examples of adaptation untouched. Several species illustrate coevolution, as
Speaker 1: is the case with heat More and Durant. Heat More
Speaker 1: as an ant eater Pokemon whose lava hot tongue allows
Speaker 1: it to bore through the metal exoskeleton of the insect Durant.
Speaker 1: The franchise is explicit in describing this predatory relationship's role
Speaker 1: in the evolution of both heat morse tongue and Durance
Speaker 1: metal shell. Finally, the most recent generation of the game's Pokemon,
Speaker 1: Sun and Moon, introduced regional variants. Sun and Moon take
Speaker 1: place on the Polynesian themed islands of Aloa. Regional variants
Speaker 1: represent Pokemon species that have been introduced to Alloa from
Speaker 1: elsewhere in the Pokemon world and have adapted to life
Speaker 1: on the islands. For example, the armadillo like sand shrew
Speaker 1: and its mature form sand slash are usually encountered in
Speaker 1: desert biomas, but in Aloa their regional variants have adapted
Speaker 1: to frigid mountain caves and both thicker bodies. Ultimately, Pokemon
Speaker 1: is a fantastical king. While I've put forth plenty of
Speaker 1: fascinating biology on display in the Pokemon world, there are
Speaker 1: still other Pokemon based on ghosts, dolemns, and inanimate objects,
Speaker 1: which may be unsurprising because of its Japanese origins. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: I think it does a fantastic job of illustrating biodiversity
Speaker 1: and the mechanisms that relate to it the Pokemon games.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be a child's textbook revolution, but for this
Speaker 1: childhood Pokemon fan become biologists, they played an extraordinary role
Speaker 1: in following in love with the natural world. Cheers Taylor. Ps.
Speaker 1: I highly recommend looking up images of the Pokemon I've
Speaker 1: described here because their designs are simply delightful. Let me
Speaker 1: show you my Pokemon's. Thank you so much, Taylor, you
Speaker 1: know what you've brought me around. Yeah, I am not.
Speaker 1: I am not a Pokemon nerd like you. I did
Speaker 1: not ever really get deep into Pokemon I think the
Speaker 1: deepest ever got was when that original game Boy game
Speaker 1: Play came out. I played it, but I never finished it.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the most I think I played when that
Speaker 1: uh that that that phone game came out recently. That
Speaker 1: was all the craze where you find Pokemon on the street,
Speaker 1: that had people wandering around waving their phones at stuff. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I checked that out of out, out of curiosity, and
Speaker 1: I think I like, I encountered a Pokemon in my
Speaker 1: house and then like I saw one down the street,
Speaker 1: and then um, but that was it. But I I
Speaker 1: appreciated what seemed possible with that game. Would did that
Speaker 1: game not turn out to be a massive data mining operation?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I haven't. I I have friends who
Speaker 1: I think still play it, still really into it, and
Speaker 1: they enjoy going on like walks and even trips and
Speaker 1: searching for Pokemon while they're out there. So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I gotta look into that more. But anyway, you've brought
Speaker 1: me around on the basic Pokemon concept. I love the
Speaker 1: Pokemon's now and you know what, some of the illustrations
Speaker 1: are really great. You got me there, alright. One that note,
Speaker 1: We're gonna take one more break, But when we come back,
Speaker 1: we will leave the realm of Pokemon behind and we
Speaker 1: will venture to the Holy Mountain. Thank thank Alright, we're back.
Speaker 1: So this is a straggler email that came in I
Speaker 1: think after the last batch that we read about sacred mountains,
Speaker 1: and this is from our listener, Dave. Dave writes, Hi,
Speaker 1: Robert and Joe Medium the longtime listener, first time writer.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of your podcast and your new
Speaker 1: one invention. I'm writing in regard to the two episodes
Speaker 1: focused on Sacred Mountains. I live in the Pacific Northwest
Speaker 1: and I'm an amateure mountaineer. I wanted to share a
Speaker 1: couple of things with you that you were curious about
Speaker 1: from your listeners. First, I've experienced altitude sickness a few times,
Speaker 1: but the worst of it was when I summitted Mount
Speaker 1: Whitney in California, the tallest peak in the country within
Speaker 1: the contiguous United States at fourteen thousand, five hundred and
Speaker 1: five feet. My partner and I were hiking the Pacific
Speaker 1: Crest Trail in SI from Mexico to Canada. We had
Speaker 1: stopped off to meet my mom and toured around Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: the Eastern Sierra and Death Valley National Park. So we
Speaker 1: went to Death Valley, which has the lowest point in
Speaker 1: the US at two hundred and seventy nine ft below
Speaker 1: sea level. Three or four days later we were back
Speaker 1: on the trail in the heart of the Sierra and
Speaker 1: summitted Mount Whitney. We had we we had lost all
Speaker 1: of our altitude acclimatization since we took a break, and
Speaker 1: it was certainly felt. I made it up the summit
Speaker 1: relatively fine, slowly moving to some degree. Then on the
Speaker 1: way down it hit me like a ton of bricks.
Speaker 1: I could barely move, had the worst migraine I had
Speaker 1: ever had, and was completely disoriented. I felt like I
Speaker 1: was going to explode at both ends constantly. Eventually I
Speaker 1: made it to camp at about eight thousand feet and
Speaker 1: recovered over the next twelve hours. I drank plenty of
Speaker 1: water eight and slept. After that, I was more or
Speaker 1: less back to normal. Secondly, you had both mentioned when
Speaker 1: researching the episode, you didn't come across any evil mountains. Really,
Speaker 1: When I was listening, one popped into my head that
Speaker 1: I find fascinating. According to the Native American tribe the Klamath,
Speaker 1: the Good God is Mount Shasta, in northern California, and
Speaker 1: the evil god was Mountain Massama in central Oregon. Apparently
Speaker 1: eight thousand years ago. The two gods had an awesome
Speaker 1: battle and ultimately the good prevailed. This resulted in Mountain
Speaker 1: Azama exploding and collapsing in on itself and then creating
Speaker 1: the clearest and cleanest lake in the world, Crater Lake,
Speaker 1: which is an amazing place to go to. If you've
Speaker 1: never been, Crater Lake is definitely worth the trip. David says,
Speaker 1: keep doing what you're doing. Love your stuff, and he
Speaker 1: also attaches a photo of himself on Mount Whitney. He says,
Speaker 1: quote before my world crashed in on me. Well, thanks David.
Speaker 1: All right, here's another one that comes into us, and
Speaker 1: this one um. You know, you know, no one ever
Speaker 1: has to use the real name when they're right in um,
Speaker 1: and this particular individual wrote in as Daddy. So at
Speaker 1: any rate, this is what Datty had to say. Dear
Speaker 1: Robert and Joe, I've been listening to your show for
Speaker 1: the last few months, and I would like to say
Speaker 1: thank you. You have provided me with such nutritious brain food.
Speaker 1: I have been bingeing on episodes while working out in
Speaker 1: the fields, mostly I sit a cross legged planting vegetables.
Speaker 1: While the setting is quite peaceful, the labor is quite monotonous.
Speaker 1: Listening to your podcast has prevented my mind from turning
Speaker 1: into mud. I have so many compliments and comments about
Speaker 1: various topics you discussed, but it would make for quite
Speaker 1: the read. To save time, I have neared it down
Speaker 1: to a list of three. Number one, you both have
Speaker 1: such great taste in film. Well many would disagree. Arguable,
Speaker 1: I guess, but but you know I'm glad we see I.
Speaker 1: He continues, I was so excited when I started listening
Speaker 1: and discovered that many of the tapes you discussed I
Speaker 1: own on VHS because it's the only way to go. Also,
Speaker 1: films you have mentioned that I haven't seen. I now
Speaker 1: have to thank you you also for the recommendations. Uh.
Speaker 1: Then number two, the Cube film would make for a
Speaker 1: killer episode. Not only could you explore the science behind
Speaker 1: such a structure, I was reminded of the Library of Babel,
Speaker 1: but the themes submerged in the film would also provide
Speaker 1: quite the thought adventure. Have you seen Cube Horring of
Speaker 1: its sequels? Joe, Yes, it's been a while. I remember it. Uh,
Speaker 1: I remember it? Was a movie that definitely held my
Speaker 1: attention but was also kind of bad. Yeah, I remember,
Speaker 1: I think I watched it like on the Sci Fi
Speaker 1: channel on a Sunday afternoon, Uh, sort of a thing,
Speaker 1: and I remember being intrigued by it because it does
Speaker 1: have an intriguing concept like it. It has certain Kafka
Speaker 1: esque elements to it, you know, where people were trapped
Speaker 1: in this machine that is lethal and full of lethal traps,
Speaker 1: but they don't know why they're in it or what
Speaker 1: purposes it serve ing. And I think it's also you know,
Speaker 1: it stated or implied that, like the people who made it,
Speaker 1: we're working on different parts of it and had no
Speaker 1: idea what the complete hole was. I think one of
Speaker 1: the guys in the Cube, it turns out like, helped
Speaker 1: build it, but he didn't know what it was going
Speaker 1: to be. Yeah, And I think like those some of
Speaker 1: those ideas are very thought provoking. It gets into you know,
Speaker 1: ideas of the Panopticon and uh, you know, modern modern
Speaker 1: society itself and uh, in in a way like the
Speaker 1: Cube movies, or at least the first one. You know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a predecessor to the Song movies, but
Speaker 1: kind of like elaborate traps, but I feel like the
Speaker 1: elaborate traps were more the cube set up for the
Speaker 1: elaborate traps. I think I far prefer than just like
Speaker 1: crazy serial killer with way too much time on their hands.
Speaker 1: We got another exquisite movie recommendation coming next though. Oh yes,
Speaker 1: number three Zar does. It was somewhat off handedly suggested
Speaker 1: by Joe in an episode I cannot remember which, but yes,
Speaker 1: please for apps you can break the tavernac. What did
Speaker 1: I say about Zardas? I don't. I don't remember because
Speaker 1: I suggest science of Zardas. Maybe you did, because we're
Speaker 1: probably talking about Highlander or Highlander too. I've actually never
Speaker 1: seen Zardas. It's a I've never checked it out. WHOA,
Speaker 1: this is a game changer, Robert. Would you like to
Speaker 1: see Sean Connery with a long braided ponytail and a
Speaker 1: red diaper and a mustache? Well, I absolutely I would,
Speaker 1: especially if there's some sort of weird flying heads. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's weird flying heads. That's all I know about it.
Speaker 1: But those two elements are alone are enough to get me. There.
Speaker 1: Didn't somebody interesting to the music? Is there something about
Speaker 1: the music? But I should be aware music because I
Speaker 1: think it was directed by the same guy who made Deliverance. Uh,
Speaker 1: very very strange movie. Anyway, I think both of those
Speaker 1: sound like solid suggestions. We I think we have yet
Speaker 1: to do them. So we basically we've been doing these
Speaker 1: movie episodes where once a month, generally will will pick
Speaker 1: a movie and we'll use it as an excuse to
Speaker 1: you know, talk about topics we've discussed before, but in
Speaker 1: light of the film, or as a way to talk
Speaker 1: about topics that might not otherwise come up on the
Speaker 1: show in their own episode. And generally there's some sort
Speaker 1: of you know, approach to be made there. And we've
Speaker 1: talked about stuff like two thousand one of Space Odyssey,
Speaker 1: the Dark Crystal. We've talked about Highlander too. Um, we've
Speaker 1: talked about Silent Running. Um am I missing one in there.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe maybe yeah. At any rate, it's
Speaker 1: a fun exercise and we're hoping to continue doing it
Speaker 1: and it's and we enjoy hearing recommendations from folks. Maybe
Speaker 1: one day we'll even come up we'll cover a movie
Speaker 1: that came out in the last couple of decades. You
Speaker 1: seem to be you know, uh narrowing in on like
Speaker 1: what the sixties, seventies, and eighties thus far. Why would
Speaker 1: we change that? Yeah, as as a golden age, right,
Speaker 1: But it's not just old media that we talked about
Speaker 1: on this show. We also talk about new media. We
Speaker 1: also talk about social media, um and and that can
Speaker 1: sometimes be quite a duze. Social media is certainly it
Speaker 1: is the cube and the czar DAWs of our world. Um. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's the tabernacle, it's the cube maze, it's all those things.
Speaker 1: The cube cube. Actually, that whole scenario we just talked
Speaker 1: about about people creating this thing, working on their individual
Speaker 1: um corners of it. It's a giant murderous weapon field traps, yeah,
Speaker 1: and ultimately making a giant murder machine. Um. I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of comparisons to be made between
Speaker 1: that and various big name social media platforms um, which
Speaker 1: I think will be exploring in greater detail and subsequent
Speaker 1: episodes of the show. But we have been discussing aspects
Speaker 1: of it already. Yeah. Well, let's talk about some listener
Speaker 1: feedback to the episode we did about the Doppelganger Network,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the idea, of course of doppelgangers and
Speaker 1: all that. But then also we discussed an article by
Speaker 1: Robert Zapolski, the neuro indo Chronologist, where he made a
Speaker 1: connection between the psychological syndrome known as Capgras delusion, where
Speaker 1: people and to believe that the people they know have
Speaker 1: been replaced by impostors or doubles or doublegangers, that and
Speaker 1: the kinds of psychological effects that are brought about by
Speaker 1: social media, and he in the main comparison he makes
Speaker 1: is that, uh, social media may be causing a similar
Speaker 1: kind of situation of recognition without familiarity uh and its inverse.
Speaker 1: So one of the things we talked about in that episode,
Speaker 1: of course, is you know, often Robert and I, especially
Speaker 1: lately or or we will tend to gripe about the
Speaker 1: evils of social media, and we talked about the possibility
Speaker 1: of could anything be improved if you just took the
Speaker 1: corporate influence out of it and just had like nonprofit,
Speaker 1: open source social media platforms. I do want to reiterate
Speaker 1: my feeling that even if we took the corrupting influence
Speaker 1: of the profit motive out of these platforms, I'm still
Speaker 1: not sure they'd be a good thing. I think it's
Speaker 1: highly possible they could still overall like even a nonprofit
Speaker 1: open source Facebook might be a bad thing for the world.
Speaker 1: And I also want to drive home to come back
Speaker 1: to the you scenario, is that a lot of the
Speaker 1: people that we've been reading on this topic, like they're
Speaker 1: not saying that there is UM. I think Jarren Lantier,
Speaker 1: uh is the exact phrase, and he says that there's not.
Speaker 1: He doesn't believe that say it Facebook, that there is.
Speaker 1: There's a room. There's like an evil room in which
Speaker 1: an evil person plots out evil things for this particular
Speaker 1: company that that it emerges more like the death machine
Speaker 1: in Cube, where where a company is trying to do
Speaker 1: various things, and some of those things may be quite
Speaker 1: noble or at least have noble ambitions to them. Other
Speaker 1: things have far more corporate leanings, and all of these
Speaker 1: things like come together in the just bake and the
Speaker 1: the alchemy of of a major corporation, and then the
Speaker 1: results uh may not be the best for us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And so so it's there's no guarantee all of these
Speaker 1: negative effects that we associate with social media platforms would
Speaker 1: go away if you say, like distributed the creation of
Speaker 1: that platform and took away the profit motive. But it
Speaker 1: still might possibly be a step in the right direction.
Speaker 1: So we're asking about this, and several listeners got in
Speaker 1: touch to name a few things. One is Keith who's
Speaker 1: a data scientist and software developer. He mentions a few
Speaker 1: platforms that are open source or nonprofit social media platforms. Quote.
Speaker 1: The main one I'd like to point out is mastadon.
Speaker 1: This one has been gaining interraction, and it's pretty much
Speaker 1: a clone of Twitter. Some major differences are that it's
Speaker 1: open source, and they also encourage users to self host,
Speaker 1: so you can use the code to have your own
Speaker 1: social media. The main site says that there are three
Speaker 1: d and twenty thousand users, which is not a large amount,
Speaker 1: but it is growing. I'd also like to note some
Speaker 1: more obscure social media. There are chat room social media
Speaker 1: platforms like discord and Slack where communities form too. Open
Speaker 1: source alternatives are getter and rocket chat. So I hadn't
Speaker 1: heard it of those. I think maybe i'd heard of Mastodon,
Speaker 1: but I didn't really know what it was. Mainly, I'm
Speaker 1: just familiar with the band end Right, which I don't
Speaker 1: think have any involvement in this, uh this at all.
Speaker 1: We're a thrash metal platform. Yeah, I massad On of
Speaker 1: course local local band. Occasionally I will I'll run into
Speaker 1: folks from Mastadon at various events. It's great seeing him.
Speaker 1: There was one band member in particular that UM and
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not like, I'm not super familiar familiar with Mastadon,
Speaker 1: but one of the members of Mastodon has like really
Speaker 1: cool sideburns, or has in the past, and I would
Speaker 1: occasionally see him at different events and I would like
Speaker 1: kind of look at him and be like, hey, guy's
Speaker 1: got some pretty good sideburns, you know, And I'm kind
Speaker 1: of like admiring his sideburns from afar and then he'll
Speaker 1: kind of look back at me and they'll be like
Speaker 1: kind of a not a look of fear, but a
Speaker 1: look of like like you know, like I'm staring at him,
Speaker 1: you know. And but and I didn't. I didn't put
Speaker 1: it together till later. Then I'm like, oh, he's in
Speaker 1: a famous band, and he thought that I was maybe like,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, fan boying out and that might
Speaker 1: like I might approach him and uh, you know, disruptive,
Speaker 1: you know, whatever he's doing. And really I was just
Speaker 1: admiring his sideburns. UM. Anyway, for whatever that's but I
Speaker 1: also admire their music that. Oh yeah, I think they're
Speaker 1: they're top tier modern metal. Okay, so I think let's
Speaker 1: look at this next email from Sammy. This one came
Speaker 1: in after the Doppelganger Network episode. Sammy says, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: I just started listening to your new episode the Doppelganger
Speaker 1: Network and you brought up cap cross syndrome. I've never
Speaker 1: heard of it. Uh. And at first, when you guys
Speaker 1: said that this famous frenchwoman thought her loved ones were
Speaker 1: replaced by doppelgangers, I thought, how is this even possible?
Speaker 1: But as you started explaining it more as when the
Speaker 1: face recognition part of our brain knows it's someone we know,
Speaker 1: but the feeling of familiarity does not arise, I started
Speaker 1: thinking this is what I have. I was diagnosed with
Speaker 1: depression about eight years ago and put it on an
Speaker 1: s s R I. But as I started my treatment
Speaker 1: and doing research, my dad and I came across a
Speaker 1: term called de personalization. This is exactly what you described
Speaker 1: when you know you know the person you see, but
Speaker 1: you don't feel the warmth of familiarity. In the first
Speaker 1: two years of my illness, I dealt with this probably
Speaker 1: about nine percent of the time. It was horrifying seeing
Speaker 1: my parents, my friends, my boyfriend, and knowing I'm supposed
Speaker 1: to feel something but I don't. Quite a few times
Speaker 1: I almost broke up with my boyfriend because I felt
Speaker 1: guilty that I didn't love him. At the peak of this,
Speaker 1: when I was with my therapist, I told her, if
Speaker 1: you brought another man into this room and told me
Speaker 1: he was my dad, I'd believe you. Fortunately, now several
Speaker 1: years later, I rarely experienced episodes like this. My last
Speaker 1: full on depersonalization episode was about two years ago. However,
Speaker 1: to this day, I hold myself back from certain situations
Speaker 1: because I know that they have caused me to have
Speaker 1: these episodes in the past. Anyways, I felt immense gratitude
Speaker 1: when you guys mentioned this in the first part of
Speaker 1: the episode, because this issue is something I find so
Speaker 1: hard to explain to people, but you guys and Sepolski
Speaker 1: put it into the perfect words. I don't know if
Speaker 1: what I have dealt with is related to this syndrome,
Speaker 1: as I don't think people have been replaced, but I
Speaker 1: thought it was interesting. My official diagnosis now is panic disorder.
Speaker 1: Thank you for everything you guys, do you're one of
Speaker 1: the three podcasts I always listened to Sammy. Uh Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you for sharing with us, but
Speaker 1: also I'm really glad to hear you're doing better these days. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And you know, I think as we try and stress
Speaker 1: on the podcast, you know, anybody out there if you're
Speaker 1: experiencing if you ever find yourself experiencing symptoms that were
Speaker 1: discussing on the show, Um, I mean, certainly they are
Speaker 1: dangers and self self evaluation, but don't hesitate to to
Speaker 1: ask a professional about what you're feeling and to bring
Speaker 1: it to their attention. Yeah, I think that is always
Speaker 1: a it's always a wise move, that's what that's what
Speaker 1: they're there for, and they're the ones that can can
Speaker 1: ultimately help you, uh or or tell you that you're
Speaker 1: if you're if you are worrying about nothing, if you
Speaker 1: are you know, self diagnosing based on a podcast and
Speaker 1: jump into conclusions like they're they're the ones to rein
Speaker 1: you in on that as well. Yeah, exactly. I mean,
Speaker 1: nothing nothing good ever comes out of keeping stuff like
Speaker 1: this hidden. If you are experiencing symptoms like this, it's
Speaker 1: important to talk to your loved ones about it to
Speaker 1: seek professional help. These are not the kind of things
Speaker 1: that it is best to deal with on your own
Speaker 1: right now. As But again though, as for social media
Speaker 1: inducing symptoms like this in a and a more widespread scale,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's kind of new territory in some regards.
Speaker 1: I wonder, I wonder how the therapeutic world is is currently,
Speaker 1: you know, adapting to all of this, and how they
Speaker 1: will be adapting in the near future, because I mean,
Speaker 1: I look at my own experience with say Facebook, and
Speaker 1: I go on there, and I think what I experienced
Speaker 1: some like level of just large scale depersonalization with everybody
Speaker 1: on there. These days, I feel like I am not
Speaker 1: encountering real versions of the people that I know or new,
Speaker 1: and that I am not presenting a real version of
Speaker 1: the person I am. And it's it's it's weird and
Speaker 1: and off putting and and granted, some of this may
Speaker 1: be due to some of the research we've been doing,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's certainly is a possibility, but I also
Speaker 1: think a large part of it is the platforms. Again
Speaker 1: will hopefully be discussing more of this in future episodes
Speaker 1: of the show. Yeah, totally. But also I just want
Speaker 1: to say again. We're really glad to hear you're doing better, Sammy,
Speaker 1: and best of luck in the future. All right, here's
Speaker 1: another one. This one comes to us from Kate high
Speaker 1: Stuff to blow your mind. Recently, listen to your episode
Speaker 1: about Doppelgangers. At one point you were talking about para
Speaker 1: social relationships and start listening some examples, but you completely
Speaker 1: forgot to mention the very medium you're using, podcasts. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I listen to podcasts more than I communicate with my friends, family,
Speaker 1: or even boyfriends. There was a time when I used
Speaker 1: to us to consider Ira Glass from This American Life
Speaker 1: like a brother, Stephen Dubner from Freakonomics like a father figure,
Speaker 1: and still to this day, you guys are like my friends.
Speaker 1: Interesting that this is based purely on personality and nothing
Speaker 1: to do with age. Stephen Dubner, five years old, is
Speaker 1: younger than Ira Glass sixty years old. I have mentioned
Speaker 1: this to friends, and they have also revealed that they
Speaker 1: consider some of the podcast hosts they listen to like
Speaker 1: their friends. I would never consider these paras social relationships
Speaker 1: as a negative because it genuinely enriches many of my
Speaker 1: face to face relationships. Thank you anyway, f Y, I
Speaker 1: The Myths and Legends podcasted an amazing episode about people
Speaker 1: in real life who have experiences seeing their doppelgangers. Definitely
Speaker 1: worth a listen. And she includes a link but the
Speaker 1: uh and I won't read the whole link, But basically
Speaker 1: the website is myth podcast dot com. So that sounds
Speaker 1: like a phone we to check out. Always always happy
Speaker 1: to check out new podcasts, especially if they concerned something
Speaker 1: like mythology. Yeah, so I will try to give that
Speaker 1: a look if I find some time. But also I
Speaker 1: have to report, Yeah, I sometimes have a feeling like this.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can definitely, when listening to a podcast,
Speaker 1: start to feel like the people you're listening to are
Speaker 1: just your buddies, especially if it's a conversational podcast. I
Speaker 1: have had this experience plenty of times. I think, um,
Speaker 1: and yeah, I guess the question about whether you know
Speaker 1: whether these counts para social relationships and whether or not
Speaker 1: they're destructive, I think is a question of what role
Speaker 1: they play in in your life, because yeah, I've also
Speaker 1: had the experience of listening to podcasts and sort of
Speaker 1: feeling when I'm listening to these people talk like they're
Speaker 1: my buddies. But I think it's okay because I don't
Speaker 1: find them like preventing me from spending time with my
Speaker 1: real friends or my real loved ones. Um, if if
Speaker 1: I did find that that it was like interfering with
Speaker 1: my relationships, I think I would be concerned then yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: or you know, certainly I would be concerned if if
Speaker 1: a listener showed you sor at my doorstep and wanted
Speaker 1: to borrow my xbox or something, right, yeah, that would
Speaker 1: probably right. I mean, also, yeah, it's important to have
Speaker 1: like realistic perspective and know that, you know, while it
Speaker 1: can feel like you're being social with people when you
Speaker 1: listen to a podcast, of course you know they're not
Speaker 1: actually you're you know, you don't actually know each other. Well,
Speaker 1: like let's say, take um Paul Kennedy, the hosts of Ideas,
Speaker 1: the CBC radio show I've spoken on spoken about it
Speaker 1: on the show before because it's one of my favorites,
Speaker 1: and like I can I can catch myself kind of
Speaker 1: looking at Paul Kennedy kind of like a father or
Speaker 1: grandfather figure. Um, And you know, especially since you know
Speaker 1: I don't I don't really have any of I don't
Speaker 1: have a real father or grandfather figure, in my life anymore.
Speaker 1: So maybe I'm more inclined to to find that in
Speaker 1: uh an individual from the uh you know, from the
Speaker 1: podcast world. But I think it's ultimately, like this particular example,
Speaker 1: like it's it's a healthy attachment, like like you don't
Speaker 1: think you're actually gonna go like meet Paul Kennedy, right I.
Speaker 1: I I know Paul Kennedy does not know me. And
Speaker 1: the ultimately is just this this friendly voice that shares
Speaker 1: uh you know, wonderful topics with me via this medium
Speaker 1: of podcast and uh and yeah, I think it's that
Speaker 1: that is a beneficial para social relationship, if that is
Speaker 1: indeed what it is. It sounds like it to me,
Speaker 1: and I I hope we can only be if we
Speaker 1: are a par of social or relationship for anybody, I
Speaker 1: hope we can only be a beneficial one. Don't don't
Speaker 1: don't let our voices replace your real relationships with your
Speaker 1: friends and family. They're more important. Go talk to them
Speaker 1: about fat bergs. Well that's you know, that's all. That's
Speaker 1: ultimately what what I I love to hear from listeners
Speaker 1: is when we've been able to turn you onto a
Speaker 1: topic and then you know you can, then you pick
Speaker 1: it up and you run with it, or you take
Speaker 1: it out and you share it with people and you
Speaker 1: should and it becomes a you know, conversation. It becomes
Speaker 1: at least a catalyst for you to then go out
Speaker 1: and interact with the world, interact with with with friends
Speaker 1: and family members and make new friends, make new family
Speaker 1: members for that matter. Um, if if such as possible
Speaker 1: with some of our topics, uh, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that's that that's ultimately the best case scenario for any
Speaker 1: any episode that we put out there. Not that I
Speaker 1: don't think I've ever heard of anybody like actually acquiring
Speaker 1: a new family member through the show, but I would
Speaker 1: love to hear if if anybody out there has ever
Speaker 1: met a significant other U through listening to our show,
Speaker 1: I would absolutely love to hear about. Oh my god, yes,
Speaker 1: please send us your stories if that happened. Maybe Fatbirg
Speaker 1: is doing it right now. Somewhere out there. A love
Speaker 1: story is brewing through um just strangers meeting and talking
Speaker 1: about the fat Burg episode of Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: It's a romance between so Plady and Fatbird Cop. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that would be the sequel, right, Fat Bird too, Fat
Speaker 1: Birds in Love La who's upontificating? Now there you go.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, hey, we we have a whole stack
Speaker 1: of emails here that Carney the mail bot brought us.
Speaker 1: We were not able to read them all at all,
Speaker 1: but we we we did what we could. We read
Speaker 1: some of them. There are plenty that we read to
Speaker 1: ourselves and you know, and we didn't read on the show.
Speaker 1: But hey, some of them will say for next time.
Speaker 1: And we encourage everyone to keep writing in. You have
Speaker 1: thoughts about episodes, you have corrections about episodes. Uh, you
Speaker 1: have criticisms, you have little tidbits to share. Uh. We
Speaker 1: love to hear from everybody. We'll share the email address
Speaker 1: here at the end of the show. You can also
Speaker 1: reach out to us. The main way really is if
Speaker 1: you go to the Facebook group associated with the show,
Speaker 1: which is the Stuff to Blew your Mind discussion module. UH.
Speaker 1: That's probably one of the better ways to interact with
Speaker 1: us these days. And of course Stuff to Bow your
Speaker 1: Mind dot Com is the mothership. That's our O n
Speaker 1: O website, as they say, that's where you'll find all
Speaker 1: the episodes of the show, uh, and the various other
Speaker 1: bits of information that you might need. Huge thanks as
Speaker 1: always to our excellent audio producer Tory Harrison, and to
Speaker 1: our guest producer today my Cole. If you would like
Speaker 1: to get in touch with us with feedback on this
Speaker 1: episode or any other, to suggest a topic for the future,
Speaker 1: just to say hello, you can email us at contact
Speaker 1: dot stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff to
Speaker 1: Blow Your Mind is a production of iHeart Radio's How
Speaker 1: Stuff Works. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen your favorite shows. The