Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey you, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 3: This is Robert Lamb and this is Joe McCormick. And
Speaker 3: it's Monday, the day of each week that we read
Speaker 3: back messages sent into the Stuff to Blow Your Mind
Speaker 3: email account. If you've never gotten in touch before and
Speaker 3: you would like to give it a shot, you can
Speaker 3: reach us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind
Speaker 3: dot com. Let's see rob I think I'm going to
Speaker 3: kick things off today with a response to some of
Speaker 3: our older episodes on numeracy the human number sense.
Speaker 2: All right, let's have it.
Speaker 3: This is from Charlotte. Charlotte says, Hi, thank you for
Speaker 3: a great podcast. A while ago, I listened to your
Speaker 3: episode on numerosity and the approximate number system where you
Speaker 3: mentioned that we still don't know much about the ideology
Speaker 3: of this phenomenon, where it comes from. Therefore, I would
Speaker 3: just like to highlight that I published an article last
Speaker 3: year on the heritability of the approximate number system in infancy.
Speaker 3: This is the first study on the heritability of the
Speaker 3: ans the approximate number system and the largest infant twin
Speaker 3: study in the world. We found that the ANS was
Speaker 3: partly heritable but also largely influenced by factors unique to
Speaker 3: each twin. Not sure if this is interest of interest
Speaker 3: to you, but here's the link anyway, Best regards, Charlotte.
Speaker 3: So Oh man, I love getting email like this. Always
Speaker 3: love to hear from a researcher who's done direct research
Speaker 3: on a topic we touched on. So I looked into
Speaker 3: this paper. This is by Charlotte Victorson at All published
Speaker 3: in the journal Developmental Science just this year twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: called infant sense of approximate numerosity, heritability and link to
Speaker 3: other concurrent traits. So, as Charlotte said, the paper is
Speaker 3: looking at the approximate number system, which is a very
Speaker 3: interesting ability that we have in our brains. Of course,
Speaker 3: it's obvious that we can look at two groups of
Speaker 3: objects and tell which group is bigger by counting the
Speaker 3: objects in each group, but actually we can do it
Speaker 3: without counting. So the approximate number system is the ability
Speaker 3: to distinguish the numerical magnitude of different groups of objects
Speaker 3: without relying on language or symbols. So, in fact, to
Speaker 3: be able to look at like two groups of things
Speaker 3: and know which one has more in it without counting,
Speaker 3: And the supplies typically to groups of items greater than four.
Speaker 3: There could be more than four numbers in it when
Speaker 3: you're just comparing like two of something to three of something.
Speaker 3: Apparently the brain uses a different system, but obviously this
Speaker 3: is a paramount use in our lives. We use it
Speaker 3: all the time, in fact, without even realizing we're doing it.
Speaker 3: So like the approximate number system is how you can
Speaker 3: look at two bushes that each have hundreds of berries
Speaker 3: on them and just immediately see that one bush has
Speaker 3: more berries than the other, even though you didn't count them,
Speaker 3: and you didn't rely on any words or numbers to
Speaker 3: form that judgment, And so I was doing a bit
Speaker 3: of background. The accuracy of a person's approximate number system,
Speaker 3: it seems, is usually measured by finding the smallest ratio
Speaker 3: of difference that you can reliably tell apart without counting. So,
Speaker 3: for example, if you show me two scattering you flash
Speaker 3: at me two scatterings of red dots on a screen, quickly,
Speaker 3: I might reliably be able to tell that a group
Speaker 3: of one hundred and thirty dots is greater than a
Speaker 3: group of just one hundred dots, but I cannot reliably
Speaker 3: tell the difference between one hundred and five dots and
Speaker 3: one hundred dots, And so from there you would keep
Speaker 3: on sort of narrowing it down until you eventually determine
Speaker 3: what the threshold is, like how big the difference needs
Speaker 3: to be before you can usually tell them apart. And
Speaker 3: that might be a difference of ten percent or twenty
Speaker 3: percent or whatever. Before you reliably get it right with babies,
Speaker 3: which are studied in this paper, obviously you need a
Speaker 3: different kind of test. I think they used a gaze
Speaker 3: tracking apparatus to see what the babies were looking at
Speaker 3: to determine whether they were sensing novelty.
Speaker 2: Just strap that right onto their heads, right.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it turns out we do have a sense
Speaker 3: for approximate numerosity even in infancy before we can count
Speaker 3: at all. But it's not super well developed. It's certainly
Speaker 3: not as well developed as it will be in adulthood.
Speaker 3: And this paper and Developmental Science, where our listener here
Speaker 3: was the lead author, it tested five hundred and fourteen
Speaker 3: five month old twin subjects, and I was just thinking, wow,
Speaker 3: that must have been the process for assembling that sample
Speaker 3: group must have been interesting, and it tested them to
Speaker 3: figure out what portion of the infant skill for approximate
Speaker 3: numerosity is heritable. Of course, studies on identical identical twins
Speaker 3: are very useful for figuring out two what extent things
Speaker 3: are genetic or heritable? And the author's right quote. We
Speaker 3: found a small to moderate but statistically significant effect of
Speaker 3: genetic factors on approximate number system acuity, but only when
Speaker 3: differences in numerosity were relatively large, such as in a
Speaker 3: one to four ratio. So to the extent you know
Speaker 3: that there was evidence for a genetic difference in how
Speaker 3: babies can tell the difference in numbers of objects. That
Speaker 3: difference in acuity only manifested for big differences in numbers
Speaker 3: for babies. They also found that this acuity for finding
Speaker 3: difference in approximate numbers was quote not positively associated with
Speaker 3: concurrent attentional, cognitive or motor abilities. So in a way,
Speaker 3: it seems to be sort of its own thing.
Speaker 2: Fascinating.
Speaker 3: So anyway, thank you so much Charlotte for getting in
Speaker 3: touch for sharing relevant research with us. This is one
Speaker 3: of my favorite kinds of email. So researchers out there,
Speaker 3: if you're listening. If you've published a paper on the
Speaker 3: topic we talked about, you want to share it with us,
Speaker 3: and especially if you want to explain it and offer
Speaker 3: some interpretive context, please always send it in contact at
Speaker 3: stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. It is absolutely
Speaker 3: of interest to us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, all right. We also heard from folks already
Speaker 2: about our Future Shock series they were doing revisiting the
Speaker 2: topic of Alvin and heid Toffler's Future Shock from nineteen seventy.
Speaker 2: I'm going to start off with just a couple of
Speaker 2: messages from our discord server. Now, if you're wondering, well,
Speaker 2: WHOA there's a discord server for Stuff to Blow your Mind?
Speaker 2: There is, indeed, and if you would like to access it,
Speaker 2: just email us at that email address that we just
Speaker 2: shared with you, and we'll share again at the end
Speaker 2: of this program. Anyway, one user named Ymz says, quote
Speaker 2: Rob's wife cracks me up. Future Shock is not real.
Speaker 2: I feel the same way, but I'm still enjoying the discussion.
Speaker 2: And then we had then one of our listeners, Steve
Speaker 2: here I believe, chimes in and says, I feel it
Speaker 2: is real. What Joe said about AI killing day jobs
Speaker 2: for various artists trying to subsidize personal work not the
Speaker 2: soul is stuff that AI scraped, homogenized plagiaristic generations so
Speaker 2: often are is spot on. Radiologists, surgeons, and many other
Speaker 2: professions are already being affected. This does not have to
Speaker 2: be a bad thing, but it is already happening. Even
Speaker 2: though many experts said just a handful of years ago
Speaker 2: that these changes were at least a decade away. This
Speaker 2: episode is pure stuff to blow your mind. Gold. I
Speaker 2: would add that if the primary force motivating future artists
Speaker 2: of any kind involves winning the favor of almighty algorithms
Speaker 2: while maximizing likes over convictions and personal vision, a dark
Speaker 2: age of empty digital kitch will add all the minds
Speaker 2: of the masses.
Speaker 3: My inclination is to agree with you there, Steve. I
Speaker 3: think the metrics used to measure the quality of a
Speaker 3: piece of media on social media sites and other platforms
Speaker 3: are off and actually do not have a huge amount
Speaker 3: of overlap with what actually brings value to our lives.
Speaker 3: There may be things that you're very likely to click
Speaker 3: like on or reshare that are really of quite shallow
Speaker 3: interest to you, whereas you were less likely to use
Speaker 3: the metric tract interactions on the platform itself that are
Speaker 3: all the platform can really care about. There are things
Speaker 3: where you're less likely to do that, but that actual
Speaker 3: piece of content is much more valuable to you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, there's plenty of stuff that's clickable and memeable,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't mean it actually improves your life. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think about I can have cheeseburger every day, but
Speaker 2: it doesn't really really impact my life at all. It
Speaker 2: just occasionally makes me chuckle or shake my head. And
Speaker 2: that was a human creation, by the way, that was
Speaker 2: not AI. I'd like to see AI try to top
Speaker 2: I can have cheeseburger.
Speaker 3: I feel like the kind of engagement and value that
Speaker 3: is easily tracked on digital platforms will end up prioritizing
Speaker 3: things that people like in a very shallow and non
Speaker 3: committal way, and things that actually involve you more intellectually
Speaker 3: or emotionally or whatever will will suffer for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right. We also heard from Fletch in Discord.
Speaker 2: Fletch is a frequent contributor to discussions there chimes in
Speaker 2: about Tharg's future Shocks in the British comic book series
Speaker 2: two thousand and AD. I guess it's more than a series.
Speaker 2: It's like a publication. Fletch says Tharg's Future Shocks in
Speaker 2: two thousand and eight was kind of a Twilight Zone
Speaker 2: series of one off weird tales, if memory serves, One
Speaker 2: of them was the basis of the Richard Stanley movie Hardware.
Speaker 2: Judge Dread also occasionally featured a class of adversary called
Speaker 2: fut seats, citizens driven to psychotic outburst by the future
Speaker 2: shock of living in mega city one.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, in defense of the Tofflers, I don't
Speaker 3: know if they were quite picturing the creation of like
Speaker 3: mad zombies running amok due to future shock. I think
Speaker 3: it was more like a state of mostly characterized by
Speaker 3: anxiety and stress and all of the downstream effects of
Speaker 3: anxiety and stress.
Speaker 2: Well, I either don't remember or have not encountered. The
Speaker 2: futzis myself in the Judge Dread comics that I've read.
Speaker 2: But I think it is important to recognize that the tone,
Speaker 2: at least for a lot of Judge Dread comics is
Speaker 2: more absurdist and inhumorous, something that if you've just seen
Speaker 2: the movies you might not get, especially if you've just
Speaker 2: seen like the more recent film The Carl Urban One,
Speaker 2: which was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed that
Speaker 2: one and an action packed flick, but it does significantly
Speaker 2: dial down the absurdest humor that is I think inherent
Speaker 2: in the world.
Speaker 3: But was he the law?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's the law, but he also has like like
Speaker 2: he has a like a like a robot made with
Speaker 2: an Italian accent. If I remember, you know, there's all
Speaker 2: sorts of really odd things that occur in his life,
Speaker 2: in the life of everyone living in Mega City one.
Speaker 2: It's like, it's intentionally absurd.
Speaker 3: When is it my turn to be the law?
Speaker 2: Well, you have to go through the program like everybody else.
Speaker 3: Okay, I guess somebody's got to be the law. Okay.
Speaker 3: This next message is from email. This comes from two
Speaker 3: two says Hi Joe and Robert, a longtime listener, first
Speaker 3: time writer. I wanted to express my deep resonance with
Speaker 3: your recent episode on future shock. As a professional technologist.
Speaker 3: The discussion struck a chord I couldn't quite articulate before.
Speaker 3: The concept of future shock, akin to culture shock, but
Speaker 3: caused by the relentless march of time and evolving standards,
Speaker 3: truly resonated with me. In my work. My team is
Speaker 3: often seen as pioneers and innovation, yet we perceive our
Speaker 3: efforts as merely keeping pace with competitors. This disparity in
Speaker 3: perception between our groundbreaking work and how it's perceived creates
Speaker 3: a significant gap between our team, the creators, and our
Speaker 3: target audience, the users. I want to extend my heartfelt
Speaker 3: thanks for shedding light on the insights from a fifty
Speaker 3: year old novel. Well, it wasn't a novel, but we
Speaker 3: can get into that that so accurately captures the daily
Speaker 3: challenges my team and I face. Best two Well, first
Speaker 3: of all, thank you for getting in touch and sharing
Speaker 3: your perspective on that. I find it interesting that you
Speaker 3: mistakenly thought, based on our discussion, that The Future Shock
Speaker 3: is a novel. It is not a novel. But the
Speaker 3: Tofflers do point out that a lot of the work
Speaker 3: of futurology is similar to the work of fiction writing
Speaker 3: and the work of writing science fiction. Obviously, if you
Speaker 3: are a disciplined person who's trying to make accurate predictions
Speaker 3: about reality, you're going to be more constrained, probably than
Speaker 3: a fiction writer, because fiction writers have all kinds of
Speaker 3: different relationships with reality. Some of them may be trying
Speaker 3: to go for as hard and accurate a prediction of
Speaker 3: what they think will happen in reality as possible, but
Speaker 3: many writers are going for a kind of more exaggerated
Speaker 3: satirical approach, or are including things they don't think are
Speaker 3: actually likely to happen in order to create a world
Speaker 3: where they can illustrate things about human life or something
Speaker 3: like that. But they do highlight that there are big
Speaker 3: similarities between writing science fiction and doing serious futurology, and
Speaker 3: they point to the work of great science fiction authors
Speaker 3: as being truly important in helping helping create what they
Speaker 3: call the shock absorbers for coming changes in technology and culture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great point, Yeah, because like on one hand,
Speaker 2: something like Mega City one from two thousand and eight eight,
Speaker 2: you know, it's not really so much prediction about what,
Speaker 2: you know, supercities of the future might look like. It's
Speaker 2: more a commentary and kind of a you know, a
Speaker 2: change in commentary on where we are now. But you know,
Speaker 2: I guess it's always the case with science with science fiction.
Speaker 2: But then yeah, you have other works that that engage
Speaker 2: in both activities, you know, a little bit predictive but
Speaker 2: also as always speaking to contemporary anxieties, fears, and hopes.
Speaker 3: Another thing I want to mention about this email. The
Speaker 3: writer doesn't say exactly what products it is that they're
Speaker 3: working on in the technology space, but still I think
Speaker 3: it's interesting that it highlights a lot of us who
Speaker 3: don't work in the tech space just kind of assume
Speaker 3: that people who do are like the masters of future progress.
Speaker 3: They're like the ones who are on top of it.
Speaker 3: They figure out what's going to happen next, and they've
Speaker 3: you know, they they understand what's going on. But I
Speaker 3: think that that may often not be the case. In fact,
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people who work in the
Speaker 3: technology sector are just they're they're feeling also confused and overwhelmed,
Speaker 3: and you know, they know the one thing, the project
Speaker 3: that they're working on, and what they're trying to do
Speaker 3: to achieve that, but may perceive the other, you know,
Speaker 3: other changes in technology in the world around them as
Speaker 3: being a thing that is hard to understand and outside
Speaker 3: their control and and happening faster than they can keep
Speaker 3: up with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, here's another one. This one comes to
Speaker 2: us from Taylor. Taylor says, Hello, Robin, Joe, happy to
Speaker 2: oblige your request for decision fatigue and future shock experiences
Speaker 2: like the two of you. I'm not sure what to
Speaker 2: make of the top fours predictions about decision fatigue regarding
Speaker 2: personal style, but I've definitely experienced the phenomenon in another
Speaker 2: aspect of my life. I've been an avid video game
Speaker 2: player for as long as I can remember, but it
Speaker 2: felt overwhelmed in recent years by the sheer quantity of
Speaker 2: compelling video game releases. When I was growing up, it
Speaker 2: was a reasonable desire to experience every video game that
Speaker 2: piqued my interest, But as the medium has grown, that
Speaker 2: expectation has fled away from me at an accelerating pace. Today,
Speaker 2: a gamer of any persuasion could gluck themselves on their
Speaker 2: favorite genre day in and day out and never complete
Speaker 2: all the offerings available to them. I'm certain my assessment
Speaker 2: is partially colored by the information bias of childhood, when
Speaker 2: my ability to consume video games was defined by the
Speaker 2: consoles I owned, my allowance, my parents, content restrictions, and
Speaker 2: my greater free time. But the data backs me up here.
Speaker 2: According to the market data company Statista, the number of
Speaker 2: new video games published on the popular video game platform
Speaker 2: Steam skyrocketed from four hundred and thirty four in twenty
Speaker 2: twelve to teny nine hundred and sixty three in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, and the rampant development increase isn't the only
Speaker 2: bit of future shock effecting my favorite hobby. Playing a cooperative, competitive,
Speaker 2: or narrative video game is definitely a form of quote
Speaker 2: unquote serious leisure, akin to reading a book or watching
Speaker 2: a movie, and is similarly threatened by the many things
Speaker 2: competing for our attention moment to moment. In response, many
Speaker 2: game developers compete for user attention by shifting their games
Speaker 2: to quote unquote living game models, where content is drip
Speaker 2: dead instead of being released as a single, discrete experience.
Speaker 2: All of these changes have introduced sour frustration into a
Speaker 2: hobby I've always enjoyed and left me with a constant
Speaker 2: fear of missing out. If I choose to play X game,
Speaker 2: what might I be missing from Y and Z game.
Speaker 2: It's a similar experience to the phenomenon Rob described of
Speaker 2: browsing a streaming platform until going to bed instead of
Speaker 2: watching any movies at all. Ultimately, I have had to
Speaker 2: reconcile myself to the reality that there are many exciting
Speaker 2: things in the world I don't have time to experience.
Speaker 2: Perhaps these abundant choices give us greater self determination than
Speaker 2: ever before, but the fatigue of making these decisions takes
Speaker 2: a toll, and I'm not certain whether I'm happier for it.
Speaker 2: As ever, thank you for creating your wonderfully weird and
Speaker 2: stimulating podcast. I look forward to the rest of your
Speaker 2: future Shock series. Cheers Taylor. Ps. I also often find
Speaker 2: myself racing through one game in the anticipation of another
Speaker 2: game's pending release, which diminishes my enjoyment of both. I
Speaker 2: imagine this kind of race to keep up with media
Speaker 2: isn't unique to video games.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Taylor. No, I don't think it is,
Speaker 3: And yeah, I think this is. This is an excellent perspective,
Speaker 3: and in one sense, there's a feeling that, like, well,
Speaker 3: what what does one have to complain about with this
Speaker 3: particular issue. You know that there are more great games
Speaker 3: to enjoy than ever before, But there is this other
Speaker 3: side to it, because we're we're not necessarily always made
Speaker 3: happier by having more things to choose from, like there
Speaker 3: is a there is a psychological cost that comes with
Speaker 3: this greater diversity of content in the world, even if
Speaker 3: in certain ways you could you could absolutely say it's
Speaker 3: a good thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel like just ten years ago, it was
Speaker 2: more likely that my friends and I would be playing
Speaker 2: the same games. Yeah, you know, And nowadays it's like
Speaker 2: there's just so many choices. None of us are playing
Speaker 2: the same games because I mean, and in a way,
Speaker 2: you know that we have such great options. You can
Speaker 2: just whatever if you're more into you know, simulation versus
Speaker 2: you know, something real time, I don't know whatever. The distinction,
Speaker 2: like you're just going to sort of go down that hallway,
Speaker 2: go down that avenue, and your friends are going to
Speaker 2: go down their own hallways and avenues, and then you
Speaker 2: it seems like it's less often that I have something
Speaker 2: to connect with with them in the video game realm.
Speaker 3: I've had exactly the same experience years ago. It used
Speaker 3: to be like if I was playing a game that
Speaker 3: was probably also the same game that my friend was
Speaker 3: currently playing, and now it's like, I don't know. Also,
Speaker 3: I'm rarely playing something new. Yeah, I'm always like years
Speaker 3: behind whatever the hot thing is.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, sometimes that's easier because it's already out, it's cheaper,
Speaker 2: and it's like Okay, I'm going to I'm going into this,
Speaker 2: but it's not like a living system that I have
Speaker 2: to live with as well.
Speaker 3: Right, it's gotten all the patches and now it's ten
Speaker 3: bucks instead of sixty. Right.
Speaker 2: But yeah, and the other side, coming back to what
Speaker 2: Taylor said, these games these days, some of these games
Speaker 2: are so long, and you have so many other games
Speaker 2: or other experiences in life you want to get to.
Speaker 2: It's just you end up feeling this rush in the
Speaker 2: latter portion of it if you actually complete the game
Speaker 2: at all, which you know, makes it feel a little
Speaker 2: more hollow, because it's like, I'm not even completely enjoying
Speaker 2: the back half of this game because I'm thinking about
Speaker 2: the next thing that I am going to try and
Speaker 2: make time to play. And yeah, and I think part
Speaker 2: of that's a product of just length and scope of
Speaker 2: these games, the whole play to Extinction model on some
Speaker 2: of them, for sure. As I've said before, I actually
Speaker 2: kind of get excited when I see a review for
Speaker 2: a game and people are like and it's so short.
Speaker 2: I'm like, great, yeah, wonderful.
Speaker 3: I totally agree. I really appreciate a well crafted, tight
Speaker 3: video game. I like one that's tight. It's like the
Speaker 3: whole experience is there. Maybe it could even be played
Speaker 3: in one long sitting. And it's all good because like,
Speaker 3: this whole thing is the main experience you were meaning
Speaker 3: to get. It's not like an open world that you
Speaker 3: explore for one hundred hours or something of variable quality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, grind, none of that.
Speaker 3: But anyway, Taylor, Yes, it does seem we were talking
Speaker 3: mainly I guess about like like books and movies and
Speaker 3: music in the episode, but I think video games follow
Speaker 3: an absolutely similar pattern. Yeah, all right. Next message comes
Speaker 3: from Matt. Matt says, Hey, Robin Joe, longtime listener and
Speaker 3: big fan here, just wanted to share the perfect example
Speaker 3: of future shock, gentlemen, I present you Squidward. And then
Speaker 3: there was a link. Matt says. It's a link to
Speaker 3: a thirty second clip from SpongeBob in which Squidward, SpongeBob's neighbor,
Speaker 3: ends up in the future and has a short mental
Speaker 3: breakdown over the changes. But then Matt says, I know
Speaker 3: links from strangers on the Internet can be dicey. You
Speaker 3: can also just search Squidward Future and find it easily.
Speaker 3: Keep on doing what you'all do, Thanks Matt. Matt I
Speaker 3: appreciate that. Note. Yes, I am very hesitant to click
Speaker 3: links in listener emails, not because I don't trust you
Speaker 3: all out there, but it's just, you know, it's smart
Speaker 3: to be hesitant about clicking things, so appreciate the search terms.
Speaker 3: Anybody else who wants us to click something that would
Speaker 3: be helpful as well.
Speaker 2: So this episode specifically, it's from the first season of SpongeBob.
Speaker 2: It's episode fourteen A and its title is SB one
Speaker 2: twenty nine. You can definitely find clips from this episode
Speaker 2: all over the place, and certainly on YouTube. I would
Speaker 2: advise folks to go for the slightly longer clip. I
Speaker 2: had not seen this before before Matt brought it to
Speaker 2: my attention here. I watched it last night with my wife,
Speaker 2: and I think I'm gonna have to go back and
Speaker 2: watch the full episode as well. I agree that this
Speaker 2: absolutely nails the extreme essence of future shock, because, yes,
Speaker 2: squid Word is in the future where everything is chrome,
Speaker 2: there are multiple SpongeBob clones greeting him, there's high technology,
Speaker 2: he's he's his eyes have been open to the to
Speaker 2: the realities and paradoxes of time travel, and it causes
Speaker 2: him to just lower himself to the floor, to the
Speaker 2: chrome floor, curl up into sort of a what is
Speaker 2: in yoga known as a boat pose, and just start
Speaker 2: going future future. And Yeah, I feel like this is
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have to make this my default behavior for
Speaker 2: anytime I feel overwhelmed by technological change.
Speaker 3: But squidward, once you're there, it's not the future anymore.
Speaker 3: It's the present.
Speaker 2: I think he does get back. He's like, I would
Speaker 2: just want to go back. Okay, but like I said,
Speaker 2: I need to watch the full episode to get the
Speaker 2: whole story. But it looks marvelous. I haven't seen a
Speaker 2: lot of SpongeBob, but what I have seen is super weird,
Speaker 2: and every time I see something like this, I just
Speaker 2: reminded of how weird it is and how I need
Speaker 2: to make room for more SpongeBob in my life.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't know any SpongeBob, but this was great.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Matt. Okay, I think we need to close
Speaker 3: it out there for today, but we've got some great
Speaker 3: messages still in the bag that we'll have to say
Speaker 3: for next time, including some responses to our episode, our
Speaker 3: Weird House on Danger, Diabolic, and other things to come,
Speaker 3: so tune in next week and keep sending the listener
Speaker 3: mail our way, So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, see you next Monday. But as always we'll have
Speaker 2: core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays for you. We'll have
Speaker 2: we usually have an artifact or a monster fact or
Speaker 2: something of that nature on Wednesdays, and then on Fridays
Speaker 2: we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about
Speaker 2: a weird movie on Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 3: Huge thanks to our excellent audio producer jj Pos. If
Speaker 3: you would like to get in touch with us with
Speaker 3: feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a
Speaker 3: topic for the future, or just to say hello, you
Speaker 3: can email us at contact at stuffdo Blowyourmind dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.