WEBVTT - From the Vault: The Gods Must Be Counterintuitive

0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:08.600
<v Speaker 1>Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your mind. My name

0:00:08.640 --> 0:00:11.200
<v Speaker 1>is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and it's Saturday.

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>Time to venture into the vault, this time for an

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:17.919
<v Speaker 1>episode from August of This was an episode that I

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:20.360
<v Speaker 1>really enjoyed where we got to talk about some of

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:23.759
<v Speaker 1>the weirder grim fairy tales if I recall, Yeah, and

0:00:23.840 --> 0:00:26.760
<v Speaker 1>just like, how counterintuitive does a narrative need to be

0:00:27.240 --> 0:00:29.880
<v Speaker 1>to really work as a myth or a fairy tale?

0:00:30.600 --> 0:00:32.560
<v Speaker 1>And then at what point did it does it become

0:00:32.760 --> 0:00:36.560
<v Speaker 1>too convoluted to really have any staying power in the

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:38.840
<v Speaker 1>in our zide geist. Uh? Yeah, it was a really

0:00:38.840 --> 0:00:42.280
<v Speaker 1>fun discussion. Now. I remember after this episode, I really

0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:44.920
<v Speaker 1>really wanted us to get in our T shirt store

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>online to get like a mock up of a cover

0:00:47.800 --> 0:00:51.760
<v Speaker 1>for what would be basically Walt Disney's The Donkey Cabbage Is. Uh,

0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:54.440
<v Speaker 1>you know what would that look like as a Disney poster?

0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:56.840
<v Speaker 1>And we never got to make that happen. But hey,

0:00:56.960 --> 0:00:59.280
<v Speaker 1>if you're an artist out there, especially if you're in

0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:01.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, ooster design or whatever, will you make

0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:05.520
<v Speaker 1>us a Walt Disney's The Donkey Cabbage Is poster or

0:01:05.680 --> 0:01:09.080
<v Speaker 1>VHS box cover. Oh yeah, and by the way, we

0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:12.600
<v Speaker 1>do love listener submitted art. If you're ever inspired to

0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:15.240
<v Speaker 1>create art based in an episode or a vault episode

0:01:15.240 --> 0:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>that you hear, or if you're inspired to do so

0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:20.640
<v Speaker 1>based on an episode of Invention, feel free to send

0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:23.000
<v Speaker 1>it in. If it all possible, we'll use it on

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:26.120
<v Speaker 1>like a future Listener mail episode. You know it's the

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>landing page art. Yeah, we can't, We can't pay you,

0:01:28.840 --> 0:01:32.200
<v Speaker 1>but you'll get all the credit in the Listener Mail episode. Absolutely.

0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:35.080
<v Speaker 1>All right, Well, let's venture once more into the vault.

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how Stuff

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:50.360
<v Speaker 1>Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:53.160
<v Speaker 1>My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick and Robert.

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 1>This might be kind of a strange question, but if

0:01:56.120 --> 0:02:00.760
<v Speaker 1>I forced you to tell me the whole story Cinderella

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 1>on Command, do you think you could tell me that

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:05.280
<v Speaker 1>folk tale? All right, it's not one of my favorite

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>folk tales, but I believe it goes something like this,

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>poor lady puts on a magic shoe and becomes a

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:14.480
<v Speaker 1>rich lady. Uh, the end you have? You have missed

0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:17.080
<v Speaker 1>some key elements, but I bet you could do it.

0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:19.760
<v Speaker 1>Come on you you know the story of Cinderella. Yeah, okay,

0:02:19.800 --> 0:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>so there's some magic mice in there that that talk

0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:27.360
<v Speaker 1>and have engaged in some some comic mischief with a cat. Uh.

0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:31.800
<v Speaker 1>There's an evil stepmother. Uh. They're evil step sisters. And

0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:34.880
<v Speaker 1>I believe in the more uh, you know, classic versions

0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:37.040
<v Speaker 1>of the tale, the non Disney versions, there's a little

0:02:37.040 --> 0:02:41.040
<v Speaker 1>bit of like nasty uh torture revenge at the end. Yeah,

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of foot cutting and stuff like that

0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:46.200
<v Speaker 1>in the in the classic versions, as told by like

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:50.840
<v Speaker 1>the brothers Grim and Charles Perrault. Uh. These old classic

0:02:50.880 --> 0:02:54.560
<v Speaker 1>folk tales that were collected hundreds of years ago often

0:02:54.600 --> 0:02:58.720
<v Speaker 1>had very strong, bloody, uh sadistic elements to them, but

0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:02.200
<v Speaker 1>they're also intensely memorable. Yeah. But at the same time,

0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 1>it's you know, you get down to its roots. I

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:06.640
<v Speaker 1>feel like it's a deeply unpleasant story. And then even

0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:09.720
<v Speaker 1>in the Disney version, like Nobody Nobody turns into a dragon.

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 1>There are no monsters. There's you know a little bit

0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:16.120
<v Speaker 1>of magic, but it's it has it has a lot

0:03:16.160 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 1>to compete with with when it comes to other like

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 1>major uh you know, you know tent poles fairy tales. Well, Robert,

0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:26.400
<v Speaker 1>you are a spoil sport for my examples today. Uh,

0:03:26.680 --> 0:03:28.640
<v Speaker 1>come on, you you know the story of Cinderella. You

0:03:28.680 --> 0:03:30.960
<v Speaker 1>definitely know the story of Rapunzel. That's got some good

0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:34.600
<v Speaker 1>eye gouging and all kinds of hard nous h. But

0:03:34.680 --> 0:03:36.920
<v Speaker 1>what I bet you don't know is the story of

0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 1>the donkey cabbage is a k a. The Donkey Lettuce.

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>This is true. I was not familiar with this tale

0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:46.560
<v Speaker 1>prior to this recording. Also a story recounted by the

0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:49.600
<v Speaker 1>brothers grim. It's a classic folk tale that that has

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:52.800
<v Speaker 1>been put into these collections of folk tales, and I

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:56.560
<v Speaker 1>think maybe I'm going to do the horrible, horrible act

0:03:56.640 --> 0:03:59.080
<v Speaker 1>of trying to tell it from memory. Okay, stop me

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.160
<v Speaker 1>if this is getting on horble, Okay, Donkey cabbages. So

0:04:02.200 --> 0:04:04.440
<v Speaker 1>you've got a young huntsman. He goes out one day

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:07.240
<v Speaker 1>into the forest and he comes across an old crone

0:04:07.320 --> 0:04:10.480
<v Speaker 1>in the forest, and the old crone is begging for alms.

0:04:10.520 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 1>So he takes pity on her and he gives her

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:16.039
<v Speaker 1>what he can afford. And she likes this. She's like, Wow,

0:04:16.120 --> 0:04:18.080
<v Speaker 1>you took pity on me. So I'm gonna give you

0:04:18.120 --> 0:04:20.440
<v Speaker 1>some advice. Up ahead in the forest, you're gonna come

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 1>across a tree that has nine birds in it, and

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:26.440
<v Speaker 1>those birds are gonna be tearing at a cloak. Now,

0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:29.359
<v Speaker 1>what you need to do is shoot those birds, and

0:04:29.400 --> 0:04:31.520
<v Speaker 1>then one of them will fall dead, and you need

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:34.599
<v Speaker 1>to take its heart out and eat it. And when

0:04:34.600 --> 0:04:38.040
<v Speaker 1>you eat the heart, every time, every time you wake up,

0:04:38.080 --> 0:04:41.040
<v Speaker 1>after you eat that bird's heart, you will have a

0:04:41.080 --> 0:04:44.520
<v Speaker 1>piece of gold under your pillow. And also hang onto

0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 1>that cloak, because by putting it on, you can wish

0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:52.400
<v Speaker 1>yourself into any place and magically appear there. So the

0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 1>young huntsman walks a little bit further into the forest.

0:04:55.160 --> 0:04:57.440
<v Speaker 1>Sure enough, he comes across the birds. He shoots into

0:04:57.520 --> 0:05:00.159
<v Speaker 1>the flock of birds, one of them falls dead. He

0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>takes the cloak from the birds, and he cuts the

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:04.600
<v Speaker 1>heart out of the dead bird and he eats it.

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:08.040
<v Speaker 1>So then he goes home. He goes to sleep. Next day.

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.160
<v Speaker 1>Sure enough, there's gold under his pillow, and so he

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:15.000
<v Speaker 1>waits a while accumulating the wealth, right the sleep wealth,

0:05:15.279 --> 0:05:18.279
<v Speaker 1>until he's got a good collection of gold. And now

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:21.040
<v Speaker 1>he thinks time to go explore the world. Right, I'm

0:05:21.120 --> 0:05:24.479
<v Speaker 1>I'm young, I've got a magic transportation cloak, and I've

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:27.400
<v Speaker 1>got gold under my pillow every night. So he goes

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:29.440
<v Speaker 1>roman all over the place and eventually ends up at

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:33.160
<v Speaker 1>a castle. At the castle, he sees another ugly old Crone,

0:05:33.200 --> 0:05:35.320
<v Speaker 1>but not the original crone. This is a different crone

0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>who is in fact a witch. And he sees a

0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:40.720
<v Speaker 1>beautiful young woman, and so he asks to be led

0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:43.600
<v Speaker 1>into the castle where there is a witch who knows

0:05:43.640 --> 0:05:46.560
<v Speaker 1>about his magical items and wants to take them. And

0:05:46.600 --> 0:05:49.839
<v Speaker 1>so the witch gets her beautiful young daughter to seduce

0:05:49.880 --> 0:05:52.600
<v Speaker 1>the huntsman so that they can steal his magical items.

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 1>And so, first of all, the young daughter gets him

0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:59.000
<v Speaker 1>to drink and poisonous draft that the witch has created

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:02.840
<v Speaker 1>that will cause him to vomit up the bird heart

0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:05.320
<v Speaker 1>that he ate. And so she gets him to drink

0:06:05.360 --> 0:06:07.479
<v Speaker 1>that he vomits up the bird heart. She takes it

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>and she eats it, so now she can get the

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:12.840
<v Speaker 1>Now she can get the gold under the pillow. Second thing,

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:16.080
<v Speaker 1>the young the young beautiful daughter takes him up on

0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>the mountains one day by saying, oh, I wish you

0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:21.240
<v Speaker 1>could use that cloak of transportation to take me where

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:24.200
<v Speaker 1>we can gather some gyms up in the mountains, so

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:27.200
<v Speaker 1>they travel there together with the use of the magic cloak,

0:06:27.520 --> 0:06:30.159
<v Speaker 1>and then while he is drowsy on the mountain, she

0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:33.240
<v Speaker 1>steals the cloak from him and leaves him there. He

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:35.760
<v Speaker 1>comes across some giants on the mountain, and the giants

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:37.960
<v Speaker 1>they discussed whether or not they should kill him, but

0:06:38.000 --> 0:06:40.520
<v Speaker 1>eventually they decide, now we'll just leave him here because

0:06:40.520 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 1>eventually the clouds will carry him away. So the young

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:47.200
<v Speaker 1>huntsman gets carried away by the clouds. He ends up

0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 1>getting deposited in the field of cabbage is. He's hungry

0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:53.640
<v Speaker 1>and so he eats some of the cabbage. This cabbage

0:06:53.680 --> 0:06:56.840
<v Speaker 1>transforms him into a donkey. He doesn't really like being

0:06:56.839 --> 0:06:59.919
<v Speaker 1>transformed into a donkey, but he eats some other cabbin

0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:02.799
<v Speaker 1>from a nearby field and transforms back into a human.

0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:06.160
<v Speaker 1>He realizes that each of these fields grows cabbage. One

0:07:06.200 --> 0:07:09.400
<v Speaker 1>type of cabbage transforms people into donkeys, the other type

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:13.040
<v Speaker 1>transforms donkeys into people. So he takes cabbages of both

0:07:13.120 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 1>kinds and he goes back to the castle. He goes

0:07:16.000 --> 0:07:18.880
<v Speaker 1>to the old witch and tricks her into eating some

0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:21.480
<v Speaker 1>of the bad cabbage that turns you into a donkey.

0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:24.880
<v Speaker 1>The old witch turns into a donkey. He also accidentally

0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:28.360
<v Speaker 1>tricks the maid servant and the young daughter who are

0:07:28.400 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>at the castle also into eating the donkey cabbage, and

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:33.760
<v Speaker 1>they turn into donkeys. Then he takes the donkeys to

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:36.880
<v Speaker 1>a miller and he tells the miller to basically tells

0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:39.440
<v Speaker 1>them to mistreat the old donkey and to be nicer

0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:42.120
<v Speaker 1>to the young donkeys. The miller comes back to him

0:07:42.160 --> 0:07:44.160
<v Speaker 1>a little while after that and says, well, your old

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.000
<v Speaker 1>donkey died, and the other two they're not going to

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:49.880
<v Speaker 1>hang on much longer. But then the huntsman he relents

0:07:49.920 --> 0:07:51.840
<v Speaker 1>from his revenge and he says, you know what, I'll

0:07:51.880 --> 0:07:55.280
<v Speaker 1>transform those donkeys back into people. So he gives them

0:07:55.320 --> 0:07:58.560
<v Speaker 1>the good cabbage that transformed back into humans, and then

0:07:58.760 --> 0:08:02.120
<v Speaker 1>the the which his daughter and he get married and

0:08:02.120 --> 0:08:06.240
<v Speaker 1>they live happily ever after. Well that is quite a story, Joe.

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:09.640
<v Speaker 1>If it were, I would say it was. It would

0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:12.080
<v Speaker 1>be pretty great if it were. If this was a

0:08:12.160 --> 0:08:16.560
<v Speaker 1>summary of kind of like a freewheeling like randomly generated

0:08:17.080 --> 0:08:20.120
<v Speaker 1>like dungeons and dragons in a series of encounters, you know,

0:08:20.160 --> 0:08:21.680
<v Speaker 1>because it has that kind of vibe to it, Like

0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:25.960
<v Speaker 1>there's just kind of a seeming randomness to it. The magic,

0:08:26.880 --> 0:08:32.080
<v Speaker 1>it feels convoluted, the characters are confusing. The moral message

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.560
<v Speaker 1>of the piece is uh is equally lost on me.

0:08:36.520 --> 0:08:40.680
<v Speaker 1>Um now, I certainly. Well it's sort of a weird

0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:44.800
<v Speaker 1>revenge story. Yeah, but it it really takes this time

0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:46.800
<v Speaker 1>getting there. It's kind of it does kind of feel

0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:50.720
<v Speaker 1>like a winding Goat trail to nowhere. Uh, it's shaggy

0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:53.640
<v Speaker 1>dog story. Yeah. But but at the same time, it

0:08:53.720 --> 0:08:56.960
<v Speaker 1>does remind me of some of I mean, I've had

0:08:56.960 --> 0:09:00.160
<v Speaker 1>this experience with other folk tales before, where you start

0:09:00.200 --> 0:09:03.200
<v Speaker 1>reading it and it seems to be kind of going

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:07.240
<v Speaker 1>in circles and it's making nonsensical choices. But then I

0:09:07.280 --> 0:09:11.080
<v Speaker 1>often end up reminding myself, well, I'm not encountering this

0:09:11.160 --> 0:09:13.800
<v Speaker 1>story in its original language. I am not a part

0:09:13.840 --> 0:09:17.080
<v Speaker 1>of the culture that that it was the intended. Uh,

0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.959
<v Speaker 1>you know, listener to the to the tale. Like I've

0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:23.120
<v Speaker 1>had a similar situation watching some of the old Russo

0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:26.800
<v Speaker 1>Finish fairytale epics. Oh, like Jack Frost, the one they

0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:29.440
<v Speaker 1>did on Mystery Science Theater three thousand, which is just

0:09:29.600 --> 0:09:32.000
<v Speaker 1>the best. Yeah, it's one of my favorite episode. It's

0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:36.760
<v Speaker 1>tremendous in the movie itself. That's father measure. I mean,

0:09:37.080 --> 0:09:39.880
<v Speaker 1>the movie is beautiful. I mean that if you challenge

0:09:39.880 --> 0:09:42.520
<v Speaker 1>anyone who has only seen that MST three K episode

0:09:42.760 --> 0:09:46.280
<v Speaker 1>to to look online and find a more pristine, uh

0:09:46.559 --> 0:09:50.320
<v Speaker 1>copy of it, because the footage is just beautiful. It's

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:53.400
<v Speaker 1>this is a high budget film at the time. But

0:09:53.480 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 1>the story, yeah, for for for non russo finished viewers,

0:09:57.080 --> 0:10:01.200
<v Speaker 1>I guess it it is confusing and you kind of

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:03.679
<v Speaker 1>lose track of like what magical piece of magic is

0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:06.360
<v Speaker 1>in play and what's the what's the morality of the

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:09.560
<v Speaker 1>character turning in like having his head turned into the

0:10:09.559 --> 0:10:11.719
<v Speaker 1>head of a bear and then he he loses the

0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:13.680
<v Speaker 1>head of a bear just for promising to be good

0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:16.920
<v Speaker 1>to the outsider. That story just feels like the hell

0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:19.400
<v Speaker 1>you go to if you get killed in the Tiger

0:10:19.440 --> 0:10:23.360
<v Speaker 1>by a gnome. But it reminds me a bit of

0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:26.719
<v Speaker 1>Donkey Cabbages. Well yeah, so, I guess that the big

0:10:26.800 --> 0:10:29.640
<v Speaker 1>question that we're we've we've led ourselves to at this

0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:32.920
<v Speaker 1>point is like what is what is ultimately the difference?

0:10:32.960 --> 0:10:36.440
<v Speaker 1>What what makes one story Cinderella and one story uh

0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:39.720
<v Speaker 1>Donkey Cabbages and why does Cinderella stick with us, whereas

0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:42.720
<v Speaker 1>donkey cabbage is is just it's just leaking through your

0:10:42.880 --> 0:10:47.080
<v Speaker 1>your fingers almost immediately upon grasping it. Yeah, exactly. I mean,

0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>one thing is that Cinderella is not just the the

0:10:50.520 --> 0:10:54.319
<v Speaker 1>sort of European tradition grim fairy tale Cinderella. They're Cinderella

0:10:54.400 --> 0:10:57.240
<v Speaker 1>type stories all over the world. This is almost one

0:10:57.280 --> 0:11:00.120
<v Speaker 1>of those those horror stories you know that seems to

0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:03.480
<v Speaker 1>have an ancient prototype that filters into cultures all around

0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:06.360
<v Speaker 1>the world or maybe has parallel development because it's themes

0:11:06.360 --> 0:11:13.200
<v Speaker 1>are so basic. Um, Cinderella is a widely known, widely distributed,

0:11:13.360 --> 0:11:19.559
<v Speaker 1>ineradicable myth. Meanwhile, donkey cabbages is it feels like donkey

0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:22.000
<v Speaker 1>cabbages could disappear from the earth and we would all

0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:24.600
<v Speaker 1>be poorer for having lost donkey cabbages because I kind

0:11:24.600 --> 0:11:27.840
<v Speaker 1>of love donkey cabbages, but nobody not that many people

0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:30.800
<v Speaker 1>would notice it was missing, right, Um, it has not

0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:34.840
<v Speaker 1>penetrated the culture in the same way that the Cinderella

0:11:35.000 --> 0:11:38.520
<v Speaker 1>archetype narrative has. And so the question is why are

0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:42.560
<v Speaker 1>some narratives more successful than others, Like you're saying, what

0:11:42.760 --> 0:11:47.560
<v Speaker 1>makes one story? Uh, the the the narrative equivalent of

0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:51.400
<v Speaker 1>a highly successful insect species and the other one and

0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:56.240
<v Speaker 1>endangered species. Why is donkey cabbages endangered while Cinderella is thriving.

0:11:56.679 --> 0:11:59.040
<v Speaker 1>It would be a shame if we lost donkey cabbages forever,

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:02.320
<v Speaker 1>But it seems like that's much more plausible of an

0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:06.040
<v Speaker 1>outcome than losing Cinderella. Right, Okay, Well, we'll come back

0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:08.640
<v Speaker 1>to this question in just a minute. First, let's explore

0:12:08.640 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 1>a related question and see how these two subjects come together.

0:12:11.920 --> 0:12:15.400
<v Speaker 1>This question is why do religions emerge and what makes

0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:18.920
<v Speaker 1>one religion more successful than another in the same way

0:12:18.960 --> 0:12:22.120
<v Speaker 1>that one narrative can be more successful than another. You know,

0:12:22.120 --> 0:12:24.480
<v Speaker 1>we've talked before on the show about all of the

0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:28.800
<v Speaker 1>various psychological and biological explanations that people think may exist

0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:31.840
<v Speaker 1>for the emergence of religions. I think I think it's

0:12:31.840 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 1>safe to say this is not a subject where there

0:12:34.080 --> 0:12:37.319
<v Speaker 1>is a settled, known answer, But there are some answers

0:12:37.320 --> 0:12:40.240
<v Speaker 1>that seem more plausible than others, right, And I mean,

0:12:40.480 --> 0:12:43.160
<v Speaker 1>you have some answers are certainly models for how it

0:12:43.200 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>could occur. And I am often inclined to think, well,

0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:51.200
<v Speaker 1>it's probably multiple different models at once. Of course, it's

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:53.319
<v Speaker 1>it's hard to just say that, like, this is the

0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:56.920
<v Speaker 1>equation for religion in human culture. Yeah, there's probably not

0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.400
<v Speaker 1>one cause of the emergence of religion, But what are

0:12:59.440 --> 0:13:04.800
<v Speaker 1>the dominant physical, biological, psychological factors that make a religion

0:13:05.080 --> 0:13:07.600
<v Speaker 1>a thing that exists? Why did how did we get

0:13:07.640 --> 0:13:09.200
<v Speaker 1>this way? Now some of you might be wondering what

0:13:09.280 --> 0:13:10.960
<v Speaker 1>you were talking about fairy tales, now you're talking about

0:13:11.160 --> 0:13:13.880
<v Speaker 1>about religion. You know, what is the connection between Cinderella

0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:16.840
<v Speaker 1>and the great religions of the modern world or the

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:19.400
<v Speaker 1>ancient world or the ancient world? I mean, obviously one

0:13:19.400 --> 0:13:21.679
<v Speaker 1>of the big ones is that there is any religion

0:13:21.720 --> 0:13:23.280
<v Speaker 1>you look at, there is going to be some sort

0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:26.600
<v Speaker 1>of narrative or narratives that they're at the heart of

0:13:26.640 --> 0:13:29.360
<v Speaker 1>its sacred narratives upon which it is based. Yeah, there

0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:32.600
<v Speaker 1>are almost no successful religions that don't have at least

0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:36.440
<v Speaker 1>some strong narrative component in them. And uh, and so

0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:40.720
<v Speaker 1>obviously narrative might might be the common thread between the

0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:43.600
<v Speaker 1>success of folklore and the success of a religion. Yeah,

0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:46.199
<v Speaker 1>religions tend to have heroes. They didn't have villains. They

0:13:46.320 --> 0:13:49.959
<v Speaker 1>they they are stories. That have just taken on a

0:13:50.040 --> 0:13:53.720
<v Speaker 1>grander cultural and personal meaning. So as far as the

0:13:53.760 --> 0:13:56.679
<v Speaker 1>emergence of religion explanation goes that, there are a lot

0:13:56.720 --> 0:13:59.400
<v Speaker 1>of ideas that have been put forward by scholars over

0:13:59.440 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 1>the years. I know, actually recently, Robert, you talked a

0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:04.040
<v Speaker 1>little bit to Barbara J. King about this at the

0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:09.240
<v Speaker 1>World Science Festival, like what psychological drives and biological drives

0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:12.520
<v Speaker 1>play into the emergence of religion? And I know part

0:14:12.520 --> 0:14:15.679
<v Speaker 1>of her answer had to do with with social cohesion

0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:19.560
<v Speaker 1>and stuff, right, yeah, and in grieving and bereavement and

0:14:19.640 --> 0:14:22.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of the the precursors to grieving and bereavement that

0:14:23.640 --> 0:14:27.640
<v Speaker 1>it can arguably be identified in in certain animals, such

0:14:27.680 --> 0:14:32.480
<v Speaker 1>as some of our closer primate relatives exactly. Another very

0:14:32.480 --> 0:14:35.800
<v Speaker 1>common explanation from evolutionary psychology is the idea of the

0:14:35.880 --> 0:14:38.920
<v Speaker 1>hyperactive agency detection. And we've talked about this on the

0:14:38.920 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 1>show before, but the basic idea here is that there's

0:14:41.760 --> 0:14:45.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be an evolutionary selection pressure in favor of

0:14:45.280 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 1>people who are over sensitive about the possibility of detecting agents,

0:14:50.000 --> 0:14:55.160
<v Speaker 1>meaning beings with intentions like animals or other people from

0:14:55.200 --> 0:14:58.520
<v Speaker 1>ambiguous data. So the classic example as you imagine two

0:14:58.520 --> 0:15:01.440
<v Speaker 1>different scenarios. One is you hear a twig breaking in

0:15:01.440 --> 0:15:03.720
<v Speaker 1>the forest at night and you think it's a tiger,

0:15:03.960 --> 0:15:06.240
<v Speaker 1>or you know it's my nemesis, Jeffrey and he's come

0:15:06.280 --> 0:15:09.160
<v Speaker 1>for his revenge, and then you raise your guard and

0:15:09.200 --> 0:15:11.960
<v Speaker 1>try to get yourself out of the situation safely. The

0:15:12.040 --> 0:15:14.280
<v Speaker 1>other scenario is you hear a twig breaking in the

0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:16.680
<v Speaker 1>forest at night and you think it's probably nothing. You

0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:19.760
<v Speaker 1>just keep collecting firewood, and then I don't know, maybe

0:15:19.960 --> 0:15:22.920
<v Speaker 1>break some other horror movie sins. You split up, you

0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:26.040
<v Speaker 1>drink some beer, you do all the bad stuff. Those

0:15:26.080 --> 0:15:28.520
<v Speaker 1>are the very people who either are either eaten by

0:15:28.560 --> 0:15:31.280
<v Speaker 1>tigers are killed by Jeffrey. Right, So the people in

0:15:31.360 --> 0:15:34.400
<v Speaker 1>the latter scenario are probably going to be correct more

0:15:34.480 --> 0:15:37.400
<v Speaker 1>often right. More often it's probably nothing, But there's a

0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:40.720
<v Speaker 1>relatively small benefit to being correct. The person in the

0:15:40.720 --> 0:15:43.840
<v Speaker 1>first situation who's afraid hyper aware of what might be

0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:46.600
<v Speaker 1>an animal or a person, some kind of intentional agent.

0:15:47.040 --> 0:15:50.280
<v Speaker 1>They might waste some time and energy being overly cautious,

0:15:50.360 --> 0:15:52.920
<v Speaker 1>but they're less likely to get killed in the off

0:15:53.040 --> 0:15:55.960
<v Speaker 1>chance that they're correct about detecting an agent. And so

0:15:56.040 --> 0:15:59.040
<v Speaker 1>because this person survives more often the genes that put

0:15:59.080 --> 0:16:02.560
<v Speaker 1>them on the hyper active lookout for people or for animals.

0:16:02.600 --> 0:16:06.280
<v Speaker 1>These intentional agents, those genes proliferate in the gene pool

0:16:06.520 --> 0:16:09.760
<v Speaker 1>and this causes us to read intentions into our environment

0:16:09.800 --> 0:16:13.120
<v Speaker 1>at an unusual rate just to be safe. And this

0:16:13.240 --> 0:16:16.400
<v Speaker 1>reading of intentions into all kinds of random phenomena lead

0:16:16.480 --> 0:16:19.840
<v Speaker 1>us to the belief that there actually our minds controlling

0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:22.840
<v Speaker 1>events that we don't understand, in essence to the idea

0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:27.680
<v Speaker 1>of God's So that's one interesting possible explanation. There's also

0:16:28.440 --> 0:16:32.280
<v Speaker 1>like the meme obedience duality, which basically says there's a

0:16:32.320 --> 0:16:35.720
<v Speaker 1>selection advantage for children with brains that tend to tell

0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:38.800
<v Speaker 1>them to believe what adults tell them. You know, if

0:16:38.840 --> 0:16:41.160
<v Speaker 1>you are warned that it's dangerous to leave the camp

0:16:41.200 --> 0:16:44.240
<v Speaker 1>fire at night, more children who believe that warning and

0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:47.360
<v Speaker 1>accepted are going to survive to adulthood. And then pigging

0:16:47.400 --> 0:16:50.960
<v Speaker 1>backing on this, you'd eventually have adults spreading religious memes

0:16:51.000 --> 0:16:54.560
<v Speaker 1>by telling myths, stories, folk tales, and the beneficial belief

0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:58.080
<v Speaker 1>in obedience mechanism that causes children to survive after a

0:16:58.440 --> 0:17:01.360
<v Speaker 1>warning not to leave the firelight also causes them to

0:17:01.440 --> 0:17:04.320
<v Speaker 1>take these stories very seriously, to believe them, to pay

0:17:04.359 --> 0:17:09.040
<v Speaker 1>heed to their values. But whatever the actual biological and

0:17:09.080 --> 0:17:13.040
<v Speaker 1>psychological reasons for the emergence of religion, it leads to

0:17:13.119 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>this question that we asked a minute ago of why

0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:18.440
<v Speaker 1>some religions are more successful than others. I mean, there

0:17:18.440 --> 0:17:21.640
<v Speaker 1>are tons of religions throughout human history that have been

0:17:21.680 --> 0:17:25.000
<v Speaker 1>invented and now they're extinct, and very few people ever

0:17:25.080 --> 0:17:29.200
<v Speaker 1>followed them. Right, So they winted that the ancient Egyptian religion,

0:17:29.359 --> 0:17:31.639
<v Speaker 1>why is it? Why has it not survived in a

0:17:31.680 --> 0:17:34.320
<v Speaker 1>in a real tangible sense in the modern age? Why

0:17:34.320 --> 0:17:37.480
<v Speaker 1>did it not even travel well beyond Egypt in its

0:17:37.480 --> 0:17:40.800
<v Speaker 1>own day? But even it was relatively successful last time.

0:17:40.840 --> 0:17:43.480
<v Speaker 1>I mean, think about all the variations on it, or

0:17:43.560 --> 0:17:46.920
<v Speaker 1>all of the other types of mythologies that got started

0:17:46.920 --> 0:17:49.000
<v Speaker 1>but never really went anywhere. I think of all the

0:17:50.080 --> 0:17:54.040
<v Speaker 1>cults that emerge that we know relatively little about. I

0:17:54.160 --> 0:17:57.760
<v Speaker 1>think of all the heresies that were that were squashed

0:17:57.800 --> 0:18:00.840
<v Speaker 1>out before they could be really take a name beyond

0:18:00.960 --> 0:18:03.840
<v Speaker 1>heresy exactly. I think because you think about how we

0:18:03.880 --> 0:18:06.119
<v Speaker 1>refer to them, we don't even refer to them as religions.

0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:10.480
<v Speaker 1>They were just upstarts that were destroyed by the more

0:18:10.640 --> 0:18:14.560
<v Speaker 1>popular and powerful models of belief exactly. So the question

0:18:14.640 --> 0:18:18.119
<v Speaker 1>we want to look at today is could the variable

0:18:18.200 --> 0:18:21.080
<v Speaker 1>success of new religions have anything to do with the

0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:24.280
<v Speaker 1>question we were asking a minute ago why some folk

0:18:24.359 --> 0:18:27.480
<v Speaker 1>tales and legends are more successful than others, Because, Robert,

0:18:27.480 --> 0:18:31.360
<v Speaker 1>as you mentioned a minute ago, what religions and and

0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:35.760
<v Speaker 1>folklore have in common is narrative. Almost all of the

0:18:35.760 --> 0:18:39.720
<v Speaker 1>world's religions past and present have major narrative elements. They're

0:18:39.720 --> 0:18:43.280
<v Speaker 1>based on stories. Um So, even though there are other

0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:47.040
<v Speaker 1>components to religions, we know there's metaphysical incentives, a sense

0:18:47.080 --> 0:18:50.280
<v Speaker 1>of meaning, social inclusion, and all that stuff. Since the

0:18:50.400 --> 0:18:54.240
<v Speaker 1>narrative element is so common, wouldn't it be reasonable to

0:18:54.280 --> 0:18:57.280
<v Speaker 1>guess that part of what makes a successful religion is

0:18:57.359 --> 0:19:02.159
<v Speaker 1>containing successful stories, the right kind of stories that you know,

0:19:02.200 --> 0:19:03.840
<v Speaker 1>made me feel a little bit good and also makes

0:19:03.840 --> 0:19:06.840
<v Speaker 1>me feel a little bit bad and just the right way. Right,

0:19:06.880 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 1>A good religious narrative, it hurts so good. Uh So

0:19:11.720 --> 0:19:13.720
<v Speaker 1>this this could be wrong. I mean, maybe a narrative

0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:15.600
<v Speaker 1>is not actually a major element, but I think it's

0:19:15.600 --> 0:19:18.679
<v Speaker 1>a very reasonable starting assumption. And if this is the

0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:21.199
<v Speaker 1>case that the success of a narrative plays into the

0:19:21.240 --> 0:19:24.919
<v Speaker 1>success of a religion? What makes a story that leads

0:19:25.000 --> 0:19:27.600
<v Speaker 1>to a successful faith? Maybe we should take a quick

0:19:27.640 --> 0:19:32.760
<v Speaker 1>break and then explore more when we come back. Alright,

0:19:32.760 --> 0:19:35.880
<v Speaker 1>we're back. So we've asked the question what sort of narrative,

0:19:36.240 --> 0:19:39.840
<v Speaker 1>what kind of story is going to make a religion successful?

0:19:40.040 --> 0:19:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Or just make a story of a fairy tale successful?

0:19:42.640 --> 0:19:45.639
<v Speaker 1>In general? Like, what what are the elements that are

0:19:45.640 --> 0:19:48.800
<v Speaker 1>going to get guarantee that it resonates and remains in

0:19:48.920 --> 0:19:51.000
<v Speaker 1>human culture? Yeah, I guess maybe it makes sense to

0:19:51.080 --> 0:19:55.320
<v Speaker 1>start with narratives and then see how this applies to religions. Um,

0:19:55.520 --> 0:19:57.920
<v Speaker 1>so it's time to explore. Basically, I would say the

0:19:58.000 --> 0:20:00.400
<v Speaker 1>key idea of this episode the idea of what's come

0:20:00.440 --> 0:20:05.720
<v Speaker 1>to be known as minimally counterintuitive elements of belief. Now

0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:08.840
<v Speaker 1>we can't know for sure what makes one religion or

0:20:08.880 --> 0:20:11.280
<v Speaker 1>one story more successful than another, and it is probably

0:20:11.320 --> 0:20:14.359
<v Speaker 1>due to multiple factors rather than just one. But this

0:20:14.560 --> 0:20:19.720
<v Speaker 1>minimally counterintuitive elements paradigm, I think is a really clever answer,

0:20:19.920 --> 0:20:22.399
<v Speaker 1>offering what I guess is an important part of the

0:20:22.440 --> 0:20:27.160
<v Speaker 1>picture of the comparative success of stories. Narratives and belief structures.

0:20:27.320 --> 0:20:29.760
<v Speaker 1>There have been a ton of papers investigating this over

0:20:29.800 --> 0:20:32.240
<v Speaker 1>the years, a lot of studies, but I thought we

0:20:32.240 --> 0:20:35.520
<v Speaker 1>should examine the issue through one one important study from

0:20:35.560 --> 0:20:38.440
<v Speaker 1>the year two thousand six, and that's a paper published

0:20:38.440 --> 0:20:42.879
<v Speaker 1>in Cognitive Science by Aura norn Zion's got A tran

0:20:43.000 --> 0:20:47.040
<v Speaker 1>Jason Faulkner, and Mark Schaller called Memory and Mystery the

0:20:47.119 --> 0:20:51.560
<v Speaker 1>cultural selection of minimally counterintuitive narratives. So I want to

0:20:51.600 --> 0:20:53.840
<v Speaker 1>read a quote from their introduction starts to set the

0:20:53.840 --> 0:20:56.720
<v Speaker 1>scene for why memory would be a relevant issue. Here

0:20:57.080 --> 0:21:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the author's right quote. Of the many ecological and psychological

0:21:00.880 --> 0:21:04.120
<v Speaker 1>factors that influence the extent to which any such narrative

0:21:04.200 --> 0:21:09.679
<v Speaker 1>achieves cultural success, Mnemonic resilience maybe one of the most important.

0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:15.440
<v Speaker 1>Memorability places necessary constraints on the cultural transmission of narratives

0:21:15.440 --> 0:21:20.159
<v Speaker 1>and ideas in oral traditions that characterize most of human

0:21:20.200 --> 0:21:24.959
<v Speaker 1>cultures throughout history. A narrative cannot be transmitted and achieve

0:21:25.040 --> 0:21:29.040
<v Speaker 1>cultural success unless it stands the test of memory. So,

0:21:29.080 --> 0:21:33.040
<v Speaker 1>in other words, in the telephone game of belief, you've

0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:35.240
<v Speaker 1>got to have a core story that is going to

0:21:35.359 --> 0:21:39.840
<v Speaker 1>remain more or less intact with each retelling in each embellishment. Yeah,

0:21:39.880 --> 0:21:42.119
<v Speaker 1>and I mean part of the problem is that most

0:21:42.160 --> 0:21:45.520
<v Speaker 1>of human history, most people have not had access to

0:21:45.600 --> 0:21:50.320
<v Speaker 1>any recording method for narratives. Most people throughout the history

0:21:50.359 --> 0:21:54.080
<v Speaker 1>of the world have been illiterate and have transmitted stories

0:21:54.200 --> 0:21:58.040
<v Speaker 1>orally by hearing them told and then retelling them to others.

0:21:58.080 --> 0:22:03.040
<v Speaker 1>So if a story cannot be accurately remembered, that story

0:22:03.080 --> 0:22:06.440
<v Speaker 1>doesn't really have much of a chance of survival, right, right,

0:22:06.520 --> 0:22:08.159
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I'm reminded. I want to in one of

0:22:08.160 --> 0:22:11.159
<v Speaker 1>our recent episodes that dealt with writing, I want to

0:22:11.160 --> 0:22:15.199
<v Speaker 1>say there was one description that uh discussed writing as

0:22:15.240 --> 0:22:19.360
<v Speaker 1>an ability to like freeze thought or to in some

0:22:19.400 --> 0:22:21.960
<v Speaker 1>way you have to to to to freeze thought in time,

0:22:22.520 --> 0:22:24.800
<v Speaker 1>And that's exactly what it's doing. When otherwise, Yeah, these

0:22:24.840 --> 0:22:28.879
<v Speaker 1>stories would be perpetually changing. Yeah, and of course I

0:22:28.880 --> 0:22:31.239
<v Speaker 1>think there there is plenty of evidence that stories do

0:22:31.400 --> 0:22:35.000
<v Speaker 1>change through transmission in in oral cultures, right, I mean,

0:22:35.000 --> 0:22:37.320
<v Speaker 1>this happens all the time. Every time you tell the story,

0:22:37.400 --> 0:22:39.600
<v Speaker 1>you make little changes to it, and over time those

0:22:39.680 --> 0:22:43.960
<v Speaker 1>changes accumulate. But how does a story become resilient, How

0:22:44.000 --> 0:22:47.520
<v Speaker 1>do its key elements become set well enough that it

0:22:47.600 --> 0:22:52.720
<v Speaker 1>can survive the sort of changing landscape of of forcing,

0:22:53.000 --> 0:22:56.040
<v Speaker 1>of of being stored in human minds alone and being

0:22:56.040 --> 0:22:59.199
<v Speaker 1>transmitted through human retelling alone. Well, there's the old quote, right,

0:22:59.240 --> 0:23:01.040
<v Speaker 1>it don't mean it's sing if it if it ain't

0:23:01.040 --> 0:23:03.640
<v Speaker 1>got that swing right at this what you know, there's

0:23:03.640 --> 0:23:06.480
<v Speaker 1>gotta be this that, there's gotta be that element that

0:23:06.560 --> 0:23:10.399
<v Speaker 1>just really stands out right. It makes it stick. Um,

0:23:10.480 --> 0:23:13.040
<v Speaker 1>And I think that probably seems like a no brainer

0:23:13.320 --> 0:23:15.960
<v Speaker 1>on the surface, right, Memorable stories are going to resonate

0:23:15.960 --> 0:23:18.560
<v Speaker 1>and survive. I can't help but think of the modern

0:23:18.640 --> 0:23:21.040
<v Speaker 1>elevator pitch idea and all of this. You know, like

0:23:21.080 --> 0:23:23.360
<v Speaker 1>you you're in the elevator. You've got you got two

0:23:23.400 --> 0:23:25.680
<v Speaker 1>sentences sell me on your script. You gotta you gotta

0:23:25.680 --> 0:23:27.480
<v Speaker 1>phrase it in a memorable way. Yeah, so what do

0:23:27.520 --> 0:23:30.440
<v Speaker 1>you say? Say Jaws with pause and they're like, that's brilliant.

0:23:30.520 --> 0:23:32.879
<v Speaker 1>What does that mean? It's like ku jo, I guess

0:23:32.880 --> 0:23:36.919
<v Speaker 1>you know, you took this thing that I was familiar with.

0:23:36.960 --> 0:23:40.120
<v Speaker 1>It's just become mundane in my my world of cinema.

0:23:40.240 --> 0:23:41.840
<v Speaker 1>But you put a twist on it. You put this

0:23:41.920 --> 0:23:44.400
<v Speaker 1>there's there's this new idea and that's what's standing out

0:23:44.400 --> 0:23:46.960
<v Speaker 1>in my mind. Plus it rhymes, well, I would certainly

0:23:47.040 --> 0:23:50.600
<v Speaker 1>not discount the power of rhyming. Rhyming poetry might be

0:23:50.640 --> 0:23:52.960
<v Speaker 1>selected not just because it sounds good, but because it's

0:23:52.960 --> 0:23:55.600
<v Speaker 1>a memory ating device, right, And this can certainly be

0:23:56.200 --> 0:23:58.840
<v Speaker 1>a factor, you know we're talking about Sometimes the fairy

0:23:58.840 --> 0:24:01.920
<v Speaker 1>tale loses something in trent relation. Sometimes it just loses

0:24:02.680 --> 0:24:05.440
<v Speaker 1>the rhyme, Like these are the connections between words that

0:24:05.560 --> 0:24:08.600
<v Speaker 1>make a fanciful story makes sense. But anyway, that the

0:24:08.640 --> 0:24:12.560
<v Speaker 1>broader point here is that the contents of our narratives,

0:24:12.560 --> 0:24:15.959
<v Speaker 1>our folk tales, and our religions are influenced by the

0:24:16.080 --> 0:24:21.280
<v Speaker 1>underlying capabilities and biases of our brains. So just one

0:24:21.400 --> 0:24:24.960
<v Speaker 1>crazy example of this, all other things being equal, you

0:24:25.040 --> 0:24:28.360
<v Speaker 1>probably would not expect a religion that offered a reward

0:24:28.440 --> 0:24:31.520
<v Speaker 1>in the afterlife for good behavior of being thrown into

0:24:31.560 --> 0:24:34.439
<v Speaker 1>an ocean of spiders. And there's a reason for that.

0:24:34.560 --> 0:24:37.879
<v Speaker 1>People have enough of a natural dislike of spiders that

0:24:38.040 --> 0:24:41.479
<v Speaker 1>this type of religion would not be successful. The human

0:24:41.520 --> 0:24:45.720
<v Speaker 1>brain is not fertile soil in which to grow that myth, right,

0:24:46.160 --> 0:24:49.960
<v Speaker 1>it just naturally grows some types of content better than others,

0:24:50.040 --> 0:24:55.320
<v Speaker 1>based on natural predispositions, capabilities, and biases of the brain. Right, So,

0:24:55.400 --> 0:24:58.320
<v Speaker 1>the authors are pushing a hypothesis in this paper about

0:24:59.160 --> 0:25:03.399
<v Speaker 1>one possible relationship between memory cognition and the success of

0:25:03.560 --> 0:25:08.320
<v Speaker 1>narratives like religious myths. They write, quote, we hypothesize that

0:25:08.520 --> 0:25:14.680
<v Speaker 1>narratives combining mostly intuitive concepts with a minority of counterintuitive

0:25:14.680 --> 0:25:19.000
<v Speaker 1>ones enjoy a memory advantage and as a result, achieve

0:25:19.119 --> 0:25:23.080
<v Speaker 1>cultural success. Such a m c I template. An MCI

0:25:23.160 --> 0:25:28.760
<v Speaker 1>stands for minimally counterintuitive, a little bit counterintuitive, not totally counterintuitive.

0:25:29.280 --> 0:25:33.240
<v Speaker 1>Such an MCI template maybe no accident. Indeed, we propose

0:25:33.359 --> 0:25:36.800
<v Speaker 1>that it may be a recipe for cultural success compared

0:25:36.840 --> 0:25:41.120
<v Speaker 1>to narratives that fit other templates, for example, no counterintuitive

0:25:41.119 --> 0:25:45.480
<v Speaker 1>concepts at all, or many counterintuitive concepts. Those that are

0:25:45.720 --> 0:25:50.439
<v Speaker 1>minimally counterintuitive maybe especially memorable, and therefore more likely to

0:25:50.480 --> 0:25:54.000
<v Speaker 1>achieve cultural stability. All Right, So it's not a situation

0:25:54.040 --> 0:25:56.159
<v Speaker 1>where it's like going to the movie, right, the movie

0:25:56.359 --> 0:25:59.720
<v Speaker 1>is not just an accurate depiction of real life. That

0:25:59.720 --> 0:26:02.359
<v Speaker 1>would be so boring. Right, But it's also not just

0:26:02.600 --> 0:26:07.760
<v Speaker 1>so bonkers, that is just complete surrealism, which granted can

0:26:07.800 --> 0:26:10.200
<v Speaker 1>be great. Give but but but it's that middle ground

0:26:10.240 --> 0:26:13.040
<v Speaker 1>that's where you're gonna find the really successful films, right,

0:26:13.200 --> 0:26:16.200
<v Speaker 1>It's where every most everything is pretty mundane, but there's

0:26:16.280 --> 0:26:18.720
<v Speaker 1>there's some element that's out of out of whack, there's

0:26:18.720 --> 0:26:21.480
<v Speaker 1>a mysterious stranger that's not what they seem, you know.

0:26:21.760 --> 0:26:25.440
<v Speaker 1>I often think about how there are there are versions

0:26:25.480 --> 0:26:27.960
<v Speaker 1>of this that work at various levels of narrative that

0:26:28.040 --> 0:26:31.520
<v Speaker 1>contribute to their how aesthetically pleasing they are. One thing

0:26:31.560 --> 0:26:36.520
<v Speaker 1>I think about is the realism of dialogue characters. Sometimes

0:26:36.600 --> 0:26:39.160
<v Speaker 1>people say, I love the way that characters in this

0:26:39.200 --> 0:26:42.240
<v Speaker 1>movie talk how people really talk. The characters in that

0:26:42.280 --> 0:26:44.840
<v Speaker 1>movie did not talk how people really talk. If they

0:26:44.880 --> 0:26:48.080
<v Speaker 1>actually talked how people really talked, you would be so bored.

0:26:48.560 --> 0:26:51.520
<v Speaker 1>You would think the movie was terrible. People do not

0:26:51.720 --> 0:26:55.520
<v Speaker 1>talk in deliverable dialogue that drives a plot. What you

0:26:55.600 --> 0:26:59.119
<v Speaker 1>probably mean is they talked in an unnatural way that

0:26:59.240 --> 0:27:03.199
<v Speaker 1>was just bare really unnatural enough to be interesting, but

0:27:03.359 --> 0:27:06.520
<v Speaker 1>not so unnatural that it felt false, the way bad

0:27:06.600 --> 0:27:09.359
<v Speaker 1>dialogue in a movie often does. And of course it's

0:27:09.400 --> 0:27:11.560
<v Speaker 1>easy to to just to to go to examples that

0:27:11.640 --> 0:27:13.840
<v Speaker 1>have like a specuative element that's thrown in, like everything

0:27:13.960 --> 0:27:16.359
<v Speaker 1>is normal, except one character is magic. But but it

0:27:16.359 --> 0:27:19.120
<v Speaker 1>can also work in other ways to right, where there's

0:27:19.119 --> 0:27:23.520
<v Speaker 1>an inversion of of character, like the you know, the

0:27:23.600 --> 0:27:28.119
<v Speaker 1>village priest is actually evil as opposed to good, and

0:27:28.160 --> 0:27:30.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, whatever the expectation might be like that the

0:27:30.560 --> 0:27:33.000
<v Speaker 1>character that is that is expected to behave in one

0:27:33.000 --> 0:27:38.800
<v Speaker 1>way morally behaves another way. Yeah, aesthetically pleasing narratives are

0:27:39.080 --> 0:27:43.879
<v Speaker 1>surprising enough, but they can't be too surprising otherwise you

0:27:44.000 --> 0:27:47.360
<v Speaker 1>just stop being able to appreciate them as narratives. Right,

0:27:47.800 --> 0:27:50.160
<v Speaker 1>you want to keep with it. It's like they say,

0:27:50.160 --> 0:27:51.840
<v Speaker 1>you want to keep one foot on the ground, right,

0:27:51.880 --> 0:27:53.440
<v Speaker 1>you don't want to keep both feet on the ground.

0:27:53.440 --> 0:27:56.359
<v Speaker 1>And likewise you don't want both feet just floating free.

0:27:57.760 --> 0:28:00.359
<v Speaker 1>So but in this uh, we've been using the idea

0:28:00.480 --> 0:28:03.680
<v Speaker 1>loosely here for a moment. What in the literature itself

0:28:03.800 --> 0:28:08.080
<v Speaker 1>makes a concept intuitive or counterintuitive? And so the author's

0:28:08.160 --> 0:28:11.359
<v Speaker 1>right quote. As several psychologists and anthropologists have noted, the

0:28:11.440 --> 0:28:15.040
<v Speaker 1>key is whether the concept is consistent with or violates

0:28:15.359 --> 0:28:21.000
<v Speaker 1>ontological assumptions about the properties of ordinary objects. So they're

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:23.720
<v Speaker 1>going with this idea of ontologies, and all that means

0:28:23.800 --> 0:28:28.520
<v Speaker 1>is how things normally work, right. Um. The one trope

0:28:28.560 --> 0:28:31.399
<v Speaker 1>I'm instantly reminded of is just the the with a

0:28:31.480 --> 0:28:34.639
<v Speaker 1>heart of gold trope, you know, because there's she's a

0:28:34.680 --> 0:28:37.200
<v Speaker 1>prostitute with a heart of gold. He's a prostitute with

0:28:37.240 --> 0:28:41.280
<v Speaker 1>a heart of gold. Their assassins with hearts of gold. Uh,

0:28:41.560 --> 0:28:43.800
<v Speaker 1>you know that's the you see that spend time and

0:28:43.840 --> 0:28:47.720
<v Speaker 1>time again, right um? Or one of my favorite recent ones,

0:28:47.840 --> 0:28:49.479
<v Speaker 1>even though I never actually watched the show. I just

0:28:49.520 --> 0:28:52.400
<v Speaker 1>really love the trailers. He's not just a pope, he's

0:28:52.440 --> 0:28:55.200
<v Speaker 1>a young pope. Popes aren't supposed to be young, I know,

0:28:55.400 --> 0:28:57.280
<v Speaker 1>and I want to find out just how young is

0:28:57.320 --> 0:29:02.480
<v Speaker 1>this pope. He's a baby, baby pope. I'd watch baby Pope.

0:29:02.520 --> 0:29:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Actually that's not a bad idea for they had Boss Baby.

0:29:05.560 --> 0:29:07.680
<v Speaker 1>Um what does boss Baby? I don't I don't know,

0:29:07.720 --> 0:29:10.360
<v Speaker 1>I just know it exists. Um. You have that movie

0:29:10.360 --> 0:29:13.160
<v Speaker 1>where the horse played professional football. I don't know what

0:29:13.160 --> 0:29:16.720
<v Speaker 1>you're talking about, Like, was it like Airbud? It was, yeah,

0:29:16.760 --> 0:29:19.840
<v Speaker 1>basically the Airbud trope. Okay, but this was a horse

0:29:19.880 --> 0:29:21.960
<v Speaker 1>that was, due to some sort of loophole and the

0:29:22.000 --> 0:29:24.120
<v Speaker 1>rules was able to play a professional football and maybe

0:29:24.120 --> 0:29:26.960
<v Speaker 1>was college football. So This is not exactly what the

0:29:26.960 --> 0:29:31.560
<v Speaker 1>author noted and talking about, but it's pretty close. So

0:29:31.960 --> 0:29:35.120
<v Speaker 1>they're basically a few different types of intuitive ontologies that

0:29:35.200 --> 0:29:38.240
<v Speaker 1>govern our basic understanding of the world at several levels,

0:29:38.520 --> 0:29:42.800
<v Speaker 1>and the author's list for example, our intuitive theory of physics.

0:29:42.840 --> 0:29:45.800
<v Speaker 1>This is the ontology of our basic understanding of how

0:29:45.880 --> 0:29:49.600
<v Speaker 1>objects and energy work. This is the intuitive theory you

0:29:49.720 --> 0:29:52.280
<v Speaker 1>used to conclude that a brick will sink in water

0:29:52.400 --> 0:29:55.760
<v Speaker 1>and not float, or to conclude that a falling snowflake

0:29:55.880 --> 0:29:58.200
<v Speaker 1>won't land with enough force to pierce a hole in

0:29:58.240 --> 0:30:02.440
<v Speaker 1>your skull. Right, then you've got the intuitive theory of biology,

0:30:02.480 --> 0:30:05.600
<v Speaker 1>and this is our basic understanding of life forms. This

0:30:05.680 --> 0:30:09.120
<v Speaker 1>one will intuitively tell you that trees do not speak French,

0:30:09.560 --> 0:30:12.200
<v Speaker 1>and sharks can't walk up onto the beach and bite

0:30:12.240 --> 0:30:14.720
<v Speaker 1>you off your towel, and snails don't live to be

0:30:14.760 --> 0:30:17.880
<v Speaker 1>thirty seven million years old. And then you've got your

0:30:18.000 --> 0:30:21.920
<v Speaker 1>theory of mind. And this ontology tells you that, for example,

0:30:21.960 --> 0:30:24.600
<v Speaker 1>other people can have both true and false beliefs, and

0:30:24.640 --> 0:30:27.200
<v Speaker 1>they can't read your mind, but they can see where

0:30:27.240 --> 0:30:29.760
<v Speaker 1>you're looking with your eyes, and they can imagine what

0:30:29.840 --> 0:30:32.800
<v Speaker 1>you're thinking based on external clues, And if you break

0:30:32.840 --> 0:30:36.320
<v Speaker 1>any of these theories, you instantly find yourself dealing with

0:30:36.400 --> 0:30:39.120
<v Speaker 1>narrative elements right now. Oh yeah, you break physics, theory

0:30:39.120 --> 0:30:41.320
<v Speaker 1>of physics, and then you have superpowers, you have miracles,

0:30:41.800 --> 0:30:43.920
<v Speaker 1>you you you break the theory of biology and you

0:30:43.960 --> 0:30:47.600
<v Speaker 1>get magical creatures and immortal bodies, and you break theory

0:30:47.640 --> 0:30:49.880
<v Speaker 1>of mind and you get things like psychics. Yeah, it's

0:30:49.920 --> 0:30:53.120
<v Speaker 1>almost It's kind of telling, isn't it that anytime you

0:30:53.160 --> 0:30:54.880
<v Speaker 1>come up with an idea of breaking one of these

0:30:54.920 --> 0:30:58.960
<v Speaker 1>intuitive ontologies, you instantly have what sounds like a concept

0:30:59.000 --> 0:31:01.960
<v Speaker 1>for a story. Isn't that odd? Now? The author is

0:31:02.080 --> 0:31:04.400
<v Speaker 1>right that there are some minor cultural differences in how

0:31:04.400 --> 0:31:08.280
<v Speaker 1>these ontologies work, like different cultures sometimes have slightly different

0:31:08.280 --> 0:31:11.560
<v Speaker 1>beliefs about theory of mind or biology. But then again,

0:31:11.640 --> 0:31:14.760
<v Speaker 1>some bottom level elements of these theories appears so early

0:31:14.760 --> 0:31:17.760
<v Speaker 1>in development and are found in so many different cultures

0:31:17.760 --> 0:31:19.400
<v Speaker 1>that it looks like they might be more sort of

0:31:19.480 --> 0:31:23.000
<v Speaker 1>hard coded instincts from primitive parts of the brain more

0:31:23.040 --> 0:31:26.440
<v Speaker 1>so than culturally conditioned belief And the examples that the

0:31:26.440 --> 0:31:29.440
<v Speaker 1>authors give or studies that have found evidence that babies

0:31:29.520 --> 0:31:33.280
<v Speaker 1>as young as four months old already show expectations based

0:31:33.320 --> 0:31:36.719
<v Speaker 1>on some core aspects of our theory of physics. For example,

0:31:36.760 --> 0:31:39.400
<v Speaker 1>they've got the idea of a solid object, and they

0:31:39.800 --> 0:31:42.920
<v Speaker 1>clearly do not expect one solid object to be able

0:31:42.920 --> 0:31:46.160
<v Speaker 1>to pass through another solid object. And they also do

0:31:46.240 --> 0:31:48.760
<v Speaker 1>not expect that a solid object can be in more

0:31:48.760 --> 0:31:51.520
<v Speaker 1>than one place at a time. Yeah, I mean children

0:31:51.560 --> 0:31:55.400
<v Speaker 1>have an innate number sense. Each one is a natural Euclidean,

0:31:55.960 --> 0:31:58.440
<v Speaker 1>born to navigate a three dimensional world of fixed and

0:31:58.520 --> 0:32:02.200
<v Speaker 1>movable objects. The words. We start utilizing geometry before we

0:32:02.240 --> 0:32:05.560
<v Speaker 1>can even name things. We don't understand wall or cap,

0:32:05.640 --> 0:32:08.960
<v Speaker 1>but we already can think in geometric terms. For instance,

0:32:09.360 --> 0:32:13.240
<v Speaker 1>kids will use geometric clues to navigate through rooms, uh

0:32:13.280 --> 0:32:15.960
<v Speaker 1>and uh, And given all the means of navigating their environment,

0:32:15.960 --> 0:32:18.840
<v Speaker 1>they're most likely to use lengths of walls in a

0:32:18.960 --> 0:32:21.440
<v Speaker 1>room to remember where a toy is hidden, rather than

0:32:21.480 --> 0:32:25.160
<v Speaker 1>color or decoration. We're also born within anate understanding of

0:32:25.200 --> 0:32:29.719
<v Speaker 1>basic physical laws. Only adults believe in magic. Well, toddler

0:32:29.760 --> 0:32:32.680
<v Speaker 1>will see right through all of the supernatural. There was

0:32:32.720 --> 0:32:34.600
<v Speaker 1>actually any m my T study that even found out

0:32:34.600 --> 0:32:38.600
<v Speaker 1>that young children understand that teleportation is not feasible. Yeah,

0:32:38.720 --> 0:32:40.959
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it makes you wonder how much of our

0:32:41.080 --> 0:32:45.000
<v Speaker 1>understanding about the world, like our coded, our coded knowledge

0:32:45.040 --> 0:32:48.600
<v Speaker 1>about how things work is actually instinctual, like a kid

0:32:48.600 --> 0:32:52.280
<v Speaker 1>would know it without ever having to observe anything. Yeah,

0:32:52.400 --> 0:32:54.680
<v Speaker 1>like just sort of the basics of gravity, you know,

0:32:54.680 --> 0:32:57.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean that is the environment that we have evolved

0:32:57.360 --> 0:32:59.920
<v Speaker 1>to thrive it. Yeah, that's going to be an interesting

0:33:00.040 --> 0:33:02.720
<v Speaker 1>study when for the first time, when children are brought

0:33:02.800 --> 0:33:06.360
<v Speaker 1>up in space in microgravity environments. Though actually that might

0:33:06.400 --> 0:33:08.640
<v Speaker 1>be a really bad idea because that could disrupt development

0:33:08.640 --> 0:33:10.640
<v Speaker 1>and everything like that. But just assuming it were to

0:33:10.760 --> 0:33:13.840
<v Speaker 1>happen somehow, you'd wonder, would those kids have an intuitive

0:33:13.920 --> 0:33:16.480
<v Speaker 1>understanding of how gravity worked back on Earth? Would it

0:33:16.520 --> 0:33:20.000
<v Speaker 1>be that built in? Also, the authors of this paper

0:33:20.080 --> 0:33:23.480
<v Speaker 1>right that preschool aged kids in most cultures already have

0:33:23.640 --> 0:33:27.120
<v Speaker 1>a common set of biological intuitions. For example, they know

0:33:27.200 --> 0:33:31.240
<v Speaker 1>that making superficial alterations to an animal doesn't alter what

0:33:31.360 --> 0:33:33.959
<v Speaker 1>kind of species it is, So they know that you

0:33:34.000 --> 0:33:36.280
<v Speaker 1>can't just like put a put a carrot on a

0:33:36.320 --> 0:33:39.880
<v Speaker 1>horse's head and make it a unicorn. It's still a horse. Also,

0:33:39.960 --> 0:33:43.280
<v Speaker 1>children from preschool age typically have a basic theory of mind.

0:33:43.320 --> 0:33:46.640
<v Speaker 1>The classic example is understanding that other people can have

0:33:46.800 --> 0:33:50.520
<v Speaker 1>false beliefs. Kind of a profound thing to realize. Do

0:33:50.560 --> 0:33:53.240
<v Speaker 1>you remember realizing that, Robert, I mean it might have

0:33:53.320 --> 0:33:56.680
<v Speaker 1>come from having younger siblings, you know. I feel like

0:33:56.720 --> 0:33:59.320
<v Speaker 1>that that that might be the area where those those

0:33:59.360 --> 0:34:02.840
<v Speaker 1>kind of ideas are initially introduced. You know, where you're

0:34:02.880 --> 0:34:05.680
<v Speaker 1>you're told you're younger sibling does not know not to

0:34:05.680 --> 0:34:08.239
<v Speaker 1>touch this hot surface, you know, and then therefore there

0:34:08.280 --> 0:34:12.120
<v Speaker 1>might be some false belief baked into their understanding of

0:34:12.120 --> 0:34:16.319
<v Speaker 1>their immediate surroundings. Yeah, I wonder well. Anyway, so the

0:34:16.360 --> 0:34:20.640
<v Speaker 1>authors observed that despite how universal or near universal these

0:34:20.640 --> 0:34:23.880
<v Speaker 1>beliefs are, our folk tales and religious mythologies are full

0:34:23.920 --> 0:34:26.759
<v Speaker 1>of stories and images that violate these ontologies. We were

0:34:26.760 --> 0:34:31.040
<v Speaker 1>just talking about this. Anytime you you just say something

0:34:31.080 --> 0:34:34.320
<v Speaker 1>that violates the ontology, immediately it sounds like a story

0:34:34.480 --> 0:34:36.319
<v Speaker 1>and not just like a concept. But you want to

0:34:36.360 --> 0:34:39.840
<v Speaker 1>tell a story about it. Frogs that can talk, people

0:34:39.880 --> 0:34:42.880
<v Speaker 1>that can pass through walls like ghosts, or people who

0:34:42.960 --> 0:34:45.480
<v Speaker 1>can read minds or otherwise have knowledge of that they

0:34:45.560 --> 0:34:49.200
<v Speaker 1>couldn't access. Nasty Old Richmond, who are capable of change

0:34:49.280 --> 0:34:52.000
<v Speaker 1>from Christmas, I can't. I kept thinking of that one

0:34:52.000 --> 0:34:55.040
<v Speaker 1>in the research. You know, Christmas Carol and Scrooge. Oh,

0:34:55.640 --> 0:34:58.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm kind of a Christmas Carol lover. Actually, Oh, I mean,

0:34:58.600 --> 0:35:01.240
<v Speaker 1>you can't help but love it. But I did keep

0:35:01.280 --> 0:35:03.360
<v Speaker 1>thinking of it. You know. It's like, ultimately, is is

0:35:03.400 --> 0:35:06.960
<v Speaker 1>it just this story where the the the one area

0:35:06.960 --> 0:35:11.000
<v Speaker 1>of inversion, the one area that is um that's counterintuitive

0:35:11.160 --> 0:35:13.600
<v Speaker 1>is that Scrooge was capable of turning his life around

0:35:13.600 --> 0:35:17.440
<v Speaker 1>and changing, whereas in many cases reality would seem to

0:35:17.560 --> 0:35:21.080
<v Speaker 1>indicate that it's the opposite with old, nasty, rich people.

0:35:22.600 --> 0:35:24.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm just throwing that out there. I'll probably come back

0:35:24.480 --> 0:35:27.319
<v Speaker 1>to that idea again. Well let's let's get there. I mean,

0:35:27.320 --> 0:35:31.040
<v Speaker 1>so the question is, why do so many popular narratives

0:35:31.080 --> 0:35:34.160
<v Speaker 1>like mythology, folk tales and so forth, why do they

0:35:34.200 --> 0:35:37.440
<v Speaker 1>always violate our ontologies? Why is that just intuitive to

0:35:37.520 --> 0:35:39.680
<v Speaker 1>us at this point that oh, if you say a

0:35:39.719 --> 0:35:43.000
<v Speaker 1>frog that can talk, that's a story. And why do

0:35:43.200 --> 0:35:46.680
<v Speaker 1>almost all of our most popular stories do stuff like that?

0:35:46.719 --> 0:35:50.440
<v Speaker 1>The idea of realistic narratives is actually kind of an

0:35:50.560 --> 0:35:54.200
<v Speaker 1>unusual thing. And in the history of successful folk tales

0:35:54.239 --> 0:35:57.239
<v Speaker 1>and narratives, Yeah, I mean I remember in uh, in

0:35:57.520 --> 0:35:59.719
<v Speaker 1>creative writing classes where you know they would drive home.

0:35:59.719 --> 0:36:02.520
<v Speaker 1>Would just because it really happened doesn't mean it's interesting, right,

0:36:03.200 --> 0:36:05.680
<v Speaker 1>which which is is true. But I think one of

0:36:05.680 --> 0:36:08.120
<v Speaker 1>the most obvious answers would be novelty, right. I mean,

0:36:08.160 --> 0:36:11.320
<v Speaker 1>we we we we create the idea of the black

0:36:11.360 --> 0:36:13.600
<v Speaker 1>swan even before we know what it acts, that it

0:36:13.680 --> 0:36:18.200
<v Speaker 1>actually exists, um and and and mentioning that I'm touching

0:36:18.239 --> 0:36:24.000
<v Speaker 1>on NASA Nicholas Talb's black Swan theory, UM, the idea

0:36:24.040 --> 0:36:27.799
<v Speaker 1>that major black Swan events are the norm uh and

0:36:28.040 --> 0:36:30.879
<v Speaker 1>uh and and also the problem of induction induction here.

0:36:31.520 --> 0:36:34.120
<v Speaker 1>So I wonder if we're drawn to these novel ideas

0:36:34.160 --> 0:36:36.879
<v Speaker 1>because human existence kind of demands that we both move

0:36:37.000 --> 0:36:39.520
<v Speaker 1>forward with expectations based on the known world, but with

0:36:39.719 --> 0:36:43.080
<v Speaker 1>an openness to the possible inversions that shake everything up. So,

0:36:43.440 --> 0:36:46.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, it basically comes back to the tiger in

0:36:46.480 --> 0:36:48.879
<v Speaker 1>the grass and the high grass and when and how

0:36:48.920 --> 0:36:52.000
<v Speaker 1>we're going to judge the sound of a snapping twig. Oh.

0:36:52.040 --> 0:36:53.640
<v Speaker 1>I didn't expect us to come back and make a

0:36:53.640 --> 0:36:59.120
<v Speaker 1>connection between minimally counterintuitive ideas and UH and the hyperactive

0:36:59.120 --> 0:37:01.359
<v Speaker 1>agency detection, but I can see a through line there

0:37:01.520 --> 0:37:03.640
<v Speaker 1>and I also can't you know, I can't help it,

0:37:03.680 --> 0:37:06.839
<v Speaker 1>but think about the the idea that inversions end up

0:37:07.200 --> 0:37:11.000
<v Speaker 1>highlighting the reality. Right, So by having a story in

0:37:11.040 --> 0:37:13.560
<v Speaker 1>which Scrooge is able to turn his life around, it

0:37:13.680 --> 0:37:16.120
<v Speaker 1>just kind of also drives home that most people don't,

0:37:16.400 --> 0:37:20.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, by having somebody that acts heroically, like truly heroically,

0:37:20.719 --> 0:37:23.000
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of a reminded that, well, most people are

0:37:23.040 --> 0:37:25.560
<v Speaker 1>not heroes and would not do this. It's not how

0:37:25.719 --> 0:37:28.520
<v Speaker 1>you see how things could be otherwise that you recognize

0:37:28.520 --> 0:37:31.399
<v Speaker 1>how things are. Yeah, but you have another possible answer here,

0:37:31.560 --> 0:37:34.239
<v Speaker 1>Oh well, yeah. So the authors here are drawing on

0:37:34.280 --> 0:37:36.520
<v Speaker 1>a bunch of research over the years that's indicated a

0:37:36.520 --> 0:37:41.000
<v Speaker 1>couple of things. First of all, there is the indications

0:37:41.120 --> 0:37:45.200
<v Speaker 1>that sometimes it appears that people are better able to

0:37:45.320 --> 0:37:51.240
<v Speaker 1>remember counterintuitive ideas than intuitive ideas. So you tell somebody

0:37:51.360 --> 0:37:55.520
<v Speaker 1>a frog that talks, they'll remember that item better than

0:37:55.560 --> 0:37:59.400
<v Speaker 1>you saying a frog that jumps, right. A frog that

0:37:59.520 --> 0:38:03.720
<v Speaker 1>jumps is not memorable. Right. But then again, in recent

0:38:03.800 --> 0:38:06.200
<v Speaker 1>years before the study, other research has made it clear

0:38:06.239 --> 0:38:08.840
<v Speaker 1>that there there's some pressure coming from the other side

0:38:09.200 --> 0:38:13.279
<v Speaker 1>that while some counterintuitive content makes ideas and narratives more

0:38:13.320 --> 0:38:16.560
<v Speaker 1>transmissible and easier to remember. There's also a limit to

0:38:16.640 --> 0:38:20.440
<v Speaker 1>this benefit. Uh So some examples of this balance, like

0:38:20.920 --> 0:38:23.880
<v Speaker 1>ghosts and spirits are one of the most popular narrative

0:38:23.880 --> 0:38:27.840
<v Speaker 1>subjects in history, but they've basically got the properties of

0:38:27.880 --> 0:38:32.719
<v Speaker 1>a person except somewhat counterintuitive, Like ghosts have the powers

0:38:32.760 --> 0:38:35.960
<v Speaker 1>that humans do not have, like moving through walls, but

0:38:36.040 --> 0:38:40.720
<v Speaker 1>otherwise they behave is quote ordinary intentional agents. Well with ghosts,

0:38:40.760 --> 0:38:43.320
<v Speaker 1>you guys, you can make the argument that, uh, any

0:38:43.360 --> 0:38:45.840
<v Speaker 1>of like the ghostly details, like that's all just fluff.

0:38:46.360 --> 0:38:49.280
<v Speaker 1>The basic mechanics are just it is a person without

0:38:49.480 --> 0:38:53.680
<v Speaker 1>physical substance. Yeah, exactly. Another example the author's site of

0:38:53.719 --> 0:38:57.839
<v Speaker 1>how people tend to limit the counterintuitive features of of

0:38:58.160 --> 0:39:00.960
<v Speaker 1>things they believe in is that research by Barrett and

0:39:01.040 --> 0:39:07.520
<v Speaker 1>Kyle in nineteen found quote people spontaneously anthropomorphize God in

0:39:07.560 --> 0:39:13.320
<v Speaker 1>their reasoning, even if doing so contradicts their stated theological beliefs.

0:39:13.320 --> 0:39:15.839
<v Speaker 1>So while they don't, you know, they don't think that

0:39:15.920 --> 0:39:19.280
<v Speaker 1>God is like a normal person, when they don't remember

0:39:19.320 --> 0:39:21.879
<v Speaker 1>to limit themselves from doing so, they tend to think

0:39:21.880 --> 0:39:24.680
<v Speaker 1>of God as a normal person, but just with great

0:39:24.719 --> 0:39:28.719
<v Speaker 1>supernatural powers. And these types of limits on the wildness

0:39:28.719 --> 0:39:32.040
<v Speaker 1>of supernatural elements also seemed to be present in existing

0:39:32.040 --> 0:39:36.000
<v Speaker 1>cultural narratives. Just one example, an existing study of Ovid's

0:39:36.040 --> 0:39:39.760
<v Speaker 1>metamorphosis from Kelly and Kyle in nineteen eighty five found

0:39:39.760 --> 0:39:42.280
<v Speaker 1>that even though there were a lot of magic transformations

0:39:42.280 --> 0:39:44.960
<v Speaker 1>of people and things, it was much more common to

0:39:45.120 --> 0:39:48.719
<v Speaker 1>transform a person into, say, an animal, than it was

0:39:48.760 --> 0:39:51.920
<v Speaker 1>to transform them into an an inanimate object. That was

0:39:51.960 --> 0:39:55.279
<v Speaker 1>sort of less of a violation of their ontology. But

0:39:55.400 --> 0:39:57.560
<v Speaker 1>this reminds me of the children's books Sylvester in the

0:39:57.560 --> 0:39:59.759
<v Speaker 1>Magic Pebble I wish I may have mentioned on the

0:39:59.760 --> 0:40:03.319
<v Speaker 1>show before. Um it's an award winning children's book about

0:40:03.320 --> 0:40:06.560
<v Speaker 1>a donkey who obtains the magic pebble, and the magic

0:40:06.560 --> 0:40:10.680
<v Speaker 1>pebble allows you to grants your wishes essentially, and the

0:40:10.920 --> 0:40:13.520
<v Speaker 1>donkey ends up being turned into a stone, and then

0:40:13.520 --> 0:40:15.759
<v Speaker 1>the pebble falls and rolls away from him and he

0:40:15.840 --> 0:40:20.040
<v Speaker 1>stuck as the stone. Yeah, it's and it's it's kind

0:40:20.080 --> 0:40:23.799
<v Speaker 1>of a traumatic story to read. It's really good, but

0:40:24.080 --> 0:40:26.600
<v Speaker 1>I remember reading it to my son when he was

0:40:26.840 --> 0:40:29.600
<v Speaker 1>he was really young, and I feel like it was

0:40:29.680 --> 0:40:32.799
<v Speaker 1>difficult to get across this idea that a donkey turned

0:40:32.800 --> 0:40:35.680
<v Speaker 1>into rock not not a rock that looks like a donkey,

0:40:35.719 --> 0:40:38.320
<v Speaker 1>but just a rock that looks like a rock. Whereas

0:40:38.360 --> 0:40:42.600
<v Speaker 1>stories of people turning into animals, donkey, cabbages, Yeah, yeah,

0:40:42.880 --> 0:40:46.360
<v Speaker 1>those make I feel like those were more easily transferred

0:40:46.360 --> 0:40:48.200
<v Speaker 1>to him, you know, like he was able to buy

0:40:48.239 --> 0:40:50.480
<v Speaker 1>into those stories a lot easier. Where this idea of

0:40:50.520 --> 0:40:54.560
<v Speaker 1>the pebble turning the donkey into just a rock, and

0:40:54.560 --> 0:40:57.239
<v Speaker 1>then somehow the rock was still conscious of everything it was.

0:40:57.360 --> 0:40:59.719
<v Speaker 1>It was kind of a confusing magic to try and

0:40:59.760 --> 0:41:02.040
<v Speaker 1>relate it to him. Yeah, I mean, I'm there with you.

0:41:02.160 --> 0:41:04.480
<v Speaker 1>Like turning into a donkey that makes sense. Turning into

0:41:04.520 --> 0:41:08.600
<v Speaker 1>a rock, I don't know. Uh So, The authors write

0:41:08.640 --> 0:41:11.520
<v Speaker 1>how Barrett and Niehoff in two thousand one tested how

0:41:11.560 --> 0:41:14.800
<v Speaker 1>well people could remember and retell stories, and these stories

0:41:14.800 --> 0:41:17.960
<v Speaker 1>were broken down by how much they contained objects or

0:41:17.960 --> 0:41:22.080
<v Speaker 1>ideas in three different categories. You've got intuitive, normal stuff,

0:41:22.400 --> 0:41:26.319
<v Speaker 1>intuitive but bizarre this is weird stuff that doesn't violate ontologies,

0:41:26.320 --> 0:41:30.120
<v Speaker 1>and then counterintuitive stuff that does violate ontologies. And they

0:41:30.120 --> 0:41:34.080
<v Speaker 1>found that after retelling the story through three generations of transmission,

0:41:34.360 --> 0:41:38.400
<v Speaker 1>people remembered and passed on counterintuitive ideas better than simple

0:41:38.440 --> 0:41:42.320
<v Speaker 1>intuitive ones, and after three months, participants could still recall

0:41:42.480 --> 0:41:47.040
<v Speaker 1>minimally counterintuitive elements better than other elements. And this delay

0:41:47.239 --> 0:41:50.000
<v Speaker 1>is an important part because how do stories get passed

0:41:50.040 --> 0:41:53.280
<v Speaker 1>on in the wild. Right When you retell a story

0:41:53.360 --> 0:41:56.040
<v Speaker 1>to somebody, you don't usually tell it right after you

0:41:56.120 --> 0:41:59.600
<v Speaker 1>heard it, Right, You've had some time to ruminate on

0:41:59.640 --> 0:42:02.959
<v Speaker 1>it and embellish it, both intentionally but also just through

0:42:03.080 --> 0:42:06.960
<v Speaker 1>the flaws of our memory systems. Yeah, memory mechanisms. I mean,

0:42:07.000 --> 0:42:10.640
<v Speaker 1>we've talked recently in UH, for example, the Illusory Truth episodes,

0:42:10.640 --> 0:42:13.520
<v Speaker 1>about the ways that we edit our memories just by

0:42:13.560 --> 0:42:16.000
<v Speaker 1>remembering them, right, And these are memories of things that

0:42:16.000 --> 0:42:19.359
<v Speaker 1>actually happened as opposed to stories. I'm reminded of Carl

0:42:19.400 --> 0:42:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Sagan writing about how how quickly an historical account became

0:42:26.280 --> 0:42:30.000
<v Speaker 1>a tale of ancient high magic, like while the actual

0:42:30.040 --> 0:42:33.600
<v Speaker 1>historic individuals were still alive. Yeah, that came up in

0:42:33.680 --> 0:42:36.040
<v Speaker 1>the story. I don't remember it was. I think it

0:42:36.080 --> 0:42:41.440
<v Speaker 1>was a European UH account. I don't remember. We went

0:42:41.440 --> 0:42:44.799
<v Speaker 1>into this in I think Our Ancient Aliens episodes. But

0:42:44.840 --> 0:42:48.239
<v Speaker 1>he was talking about just how unreliable of many of

0:42:48.239 --> 0:42:51.480
<v Speaker 1>these folk tales or fairy tales and legends could be

0:42:51.560 --> 0:42:54.839
<v Speaker 1>in trying to find some nugget of the fantastic, because

0:42:54.840 --> 0:42:58.200
<v Speaker 1>they could very well just be completely embellished from a

0:42:58.280 --> 0:43:01.800
<v Speaker 1>very mundane incident just in the course of a decade

0:43:02.040 --> 0:43:04.759
<v Speaker 1>or or thereabouts. Right So, given what seemed to be

0:43:04.760 --> 0:43:07.160
<v Speaker 1>the case from the existing literature, where people are more

0:43:07.200 --> 0:43:11.359
<v Speaker 1>likely to remember things that are somewhat counterintuitive than they

0:43:11.400 --> 0:43:14.359
<v Speaker 1>are to remember just totally mundane intuitive things, and at

0:43:14.400 --> 0:43:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the same time are seem less likely to retell stories

0:43:18.440 --> 0:43:21.720
<v Speaker 1>that are just full of counterintuitive stuff, you know, crammed

0:43:21.800 --> 0:43:24.480
<v Speaker 1>the gills with it. Is it the case that there's

0:43:24.520 --> 0:43:28.640
<v Speaker 1>a cognitive selection pressure in favor of m C I

0:43:28.680 --> 0:43:33.080
<v Speaker 1>are minimally counterintuitive elements and stories? Are we more likely

0:43:33.120 --> 0:43:36.960
<v Speaker 1>to remember and transmit ideas that violate our intologies a

0:43:37.000 --> 0:43:40.759
<v Speaker 1>little bit but don't violate them too much? Is there

0:43:40.760 --> 0:43:44.240
<v Speaker 1>a sweet spot for the kind of narrative that makes

0:43:44.280 --> 0:43:47.080
<v Speaker 1>it through our brains to the next generation of retelling

0:43:47.360 --> 0:43:50.680
<v Speaker 1>and gets retold. Now, one thing that the author's wonder about,

0:43:50.680 --> 0:43:52.920
<v Speaker 1>and you've got to wonder about, is if the hypothesis

0:43:53.000 --> 0:43:56.000
<v Speaker 1>is correct that people are more likely to remember minimally

0:43:56.040 --> 0:44:02.239
<v Speaker 1>counterintuitive things, Why don't minimally counterintuitive elements just dominate successful

0:44:02.280 --> 0:44:07.400
<v Speaker 1>cultural narratives even more than they do. Like many popular myths, legends,

0:44:07.400 --> 0:44:11.520
<v Speaker 1>and folk tales contain these elements, but they're outnumbered by

0:44:11.600 --> 0:44:15.640
<v Speaker 1>mundane intuitive concepts. I mean think about for example, stories

0:44:15.680 --> 0:44:18.600
<v Speaker 1>in the Bible. Stories in the Bible are actually mostly

0:44:18.719 --> 0:44:21.480
<v Speaker 1>mundane if you read them, they're they're you know, long,

0:44:21.640 --> 0:44:27.840
<v Speaker 1>mundane narratives with occasional punctuations of counterintuitive elements and magic

0:44:27.920 --> 0:44:30.160
<v Speaker 1>and stuff like that. Now, of course, there are a

0:44:30.160 --> 0:44:33.520
<v Speaker 1>few books and passages in the Bible, such as you know, Revelations,

0:44:33.520 --> 0:44:37.200
<v Speaker 1>Apocalypse is various prophetic visions that are sort of crammed

0:44:37.239 --> 0:44:40.880
<v Speaker 1>with bizarre and counterintuitive imagery and stuff. But most of

0:44:40.920 --> 0:44:45.440
<v Speaker 1>the time the basic stories are mostly mundane. Yeah. No, no,

0:44:46.280 --> 0:44:48.480
<v Speaker 1>even with something like the Book of Revelation, we we

0:44:48.520 --> 0:44:51.040
<v Speaker 1>do have to stop and you know, pause and wonders like,

0:44:51.160 --> 0:44:55.560
<v Speaker 1>just how counterintuitive is it really? Because at least on

0:44:55.640 --> 0:44:58.040
<v Speaker 1>face value, yeah, I mean face value for the the

0:44:58.080 --> 0:45:01.080
<v Speaker 1>average modern day individual picking up Book of Revelation, yeah,

0:45:01.080 --> 0:45:03.239
<v Speaker 1>it just seems like crazy town, right, But we do

0:45:03.280 --> 0:45:05.759
<v Speaker 1>have to remember the Book of Revelation is a symbolic

0:45:05.880 --> 0:45:08.239
<v Speaker 1>work from the first century CE, and it's a work

0:45:08.280 --> 0:45:12.920
<v Speaker 1>of apocalyptic literature. So uh, it would have followed particular

0:45:12.960 --> 0:45:16.920
<v Speaker 1>conventions of this style, conventions that would have been better

0:45:16.960 --> 0:45:19.960
<v Speaker 1>known and understood by the intended reader, and the intended

0:45:20.000 --> 0:45:22.440
<v Speaker 1>reader in this situation would have been very much an

0:45:22.480 --> 0:45:26.560
<v Speaker 1>insider as opposed to just your average Joe Christian. And

0:45:26.560 --> 0:45:28.880
<v Speaker 1>we touched on this. So the same situation with the

0:45:28.960 --> 0:45:33.359
<v Speaker 1>highly symbolic work of Hieronymous Bosh before. You know, if

0:45:33.400 --> 0:45:34.520
<v Speaker 1>you look at it and you think, well, this is

0:45:34.560 --> 0:45:37.520
<v Speaker 1>just bizarre, this is crazy. Clearly this artist was just

0:45:37.560 --> 0:45:41.880
<v Speaker 1>on drugs. But the closer you look, you realize, well, okay,

0:45:41.920 --> 0:45:44.719
<v Speaker 1>maybe some of that is true. But but on the

0:45:44.719 --> 0:45:47.040
<v Speaker 1>other hand, you do have a lot of of symbols

0:45:47.040 --> 0:45:51.120
<v Speaker 1>that are speaking to a different viewer, and you were

0:45:51.160 --> 0:45:54.040
<v Speaker 1>not the intended audience totally. So even in some of

0:45:54.080 --> 0:45:56.680
<v Speaker 1>these cases, it might be that if you could, if

0:45:56.680 --> 0:46:00.319
<v Speaker 1>you could sort of decode the meaning of all of

0:46:00.320 --> 0:46:04.000
<v Speaker 1>these revelations, that it might actually sort of key out

0:46:04.120 --> 0:46:06.919
<v Speaker 1>to a more mundane kind of message that has some

0:46:07.040 --> 0:46:11.040
<v Speaker 1>minimally counterintuitive suggestions in it, even though the face value

0:46:11.040 --> 0:46:14.200
<v Speaker 1>imagery is pretty off the wall. But of course, another

0:46:14.200 --> 0:46:16.440
<v Speaker 1>example would be standard folk tales like the stories of

0:46:16.440 --> 0:46:19.200
<v Speaker 1>the brothers Graham a Little Red Riding Hood is actually

0:46:19.239 --> 0:46:23.800
<v Speaker 1>a mostly mundane narrative. There are only two really counterintuitive elopments.

0:46:23.800 --> 0:46:25.960
<v Speaker 1>You've got a talking wolf and then you've got a

0:46:25.960 --> 0:46:28.800
<v Speaker 1>person who can survive being eaten alive by a wolf

0:46:28.880 --> 0:46:31.279
<v Speaker 1>and come out of the stomach alive. Those are the

0:46:31.320 --> 0:46:33.680
<v Speaker 1>two magic parts. The rest of it is a normal

0:46:33.800 --> 0:46:37.040
<v Speaker 1>story with intuitive elements, and so the authors of the

0:46:37.080 --> 0:46:39.760
<v Speaker 1>study think that maybe we should think of each narrative

0:46:39.800 --> 0:46:43.839
<v Speaker 1>as something like a single unit of transmission, rather than

0:46:43.880 --> 0:46:46.839
<v Speaker 1>looking at individual elements within the story to see how

0:46:46.840 --> 0:46:52.160
<v Speaker 1>many counteract counterintuitive ideas the story elements contain. You think

0:46:52.160 --> 0:46:54.920
<v Speaker 1>about how many does the story as a whole contain,

0:46:55.280 --> 0:46:58.680
<v Speaker 1>Because you don't usually tell part of a story. Maybe

0:46:58.680 --> 0:47:01.880
<v Speaker 1>the point of a story is to get transmitted as

0:47:01.880 --> 0:47:05.359
<v Speaker 1>a whole, and so the optimal level of counterintuitiveness might

0:47:05.440 --> 0:47:08.520
<v Speaker 1>function at the level of the whole narrative rather than

0:47:08.600 --> 0:47:11.560
<v Speaker 1>individual ideas within it. So it's possible that the narrative

0:47:11.560 --> 0:47:15.080
<v Speaker 1>itself as a whole might need to be minimally counterintuitive,

0:47:15.120 --> 0:47:19.040
<v Speaker 1>not just stuff within it being minimally counterintuitive. It needs

0:47:19.080 --> 0:47:22.040
<v Speaker 1>to violate our ontologies a little bit, but it can't

0:47:22.080 --> 0:47:25.520
<v Speaker 1>contain too many of these things, or maybe then it

0:47:25.560 --> 0:47:28.360
<v Speaker 1>becomes the donkey cabbages. And you know, once you start

0:47:28.400 --> 0:47:31.239
<v Speaker 1>piling up all the donkey cabbages stuff, I mean, who

0:47:31.239 --> 0:47:34.480
<v Speaker 1>gives a dang like it? Just it's sort of makes

0:47:34.520 --> 0:47:37.200
<v Speaker 1>you stop caring, right, Right, it just become too many

0:47:37.200 --> 0:47:39.640
<v Speaker 1>fantastic elements and there's nothing I can relate to, right,

0:47:40.280 --> 0:47:42.759
<v Speaker 1>So how do you test to see whether this is true? Well?

0:47:42.800 --> 0:47:45.600
<v Speaker 1>The authors put together a couple of studies. The first

0:47:45.640 --> 0:47:49.840
<v Speaker 1>study was to look at lists of minimally counterintuitive ideas

0:47:49.840 --> 0:47:53.360
<v Speaker 1>compared with intuitive ideas and to see how those lists

0:47:53.400 --> 0:47:55.960
<v Speaker 1>fared in recall, and then the second one. The second

0:47:55.960 --> 0:47:58.880
<v Speaker 1>study was to look at existing folk tales and to

0:47:58.920 --> 0:48:03.279
<v Speaker 1>see how well compared narratively minimally counterintuitive folk tales did. So,

0:48:03.320 --> 0:48:06.440
<v Speaker 1>the researchers put together lists of two word ideas, some

0:48:06.520 --> 0:48:09.960
<v Speaker 1>of which were intuitive, some of which were minimally counterintuitive.

0:48:10.560 --> 0:48:13.879
<v Speaker 1>Here's an example, closing door. How do you like that?

0:48:14.040 --> 0:48:21.160
<v Speaker 1>That's pretty normal? Right, thirsty cat, four legged table, confused student?

0:48:21.320 --> 0:48:23.840
<v Speaker 1>These are all you know? This is the right world, right,

0:48:24.120 --> 0:48:27.759
<v Speaker 1>Everything's okay? How about thirsty door? Oh now it's getting

0:48:27.760 --> 0:48:38.439
<v Speaker 1>a little poetic. Confused table, mischievous coat, impatient fist, contrived dog. Yes,

0:48:38.520 --> 0:48:42.160
<v Speaker 1>these are minimally counterintuitive for sure, And so the researchers

0:48:42.200 --> 0:48:45.800
<v Speaker 1>tested how well group of ninety four students could remember

0:48:45.880 --> 0:48:49.280
<v Speaker 1>stories like this uh in immediate recall three minutes after

0:48:49.280 --> 0:48:53.040
<v Speaker 1>studying a list, and then also in um and then

0:48:53.080 --> 0:48:56.239
<v Speaker 1>also in a later test after a week, and the

0:48:56.280 --> 0:48:59.440
<v Speaker 1>results were that in immediate recall three minutes after studying

0:48:59.480 --> 0:49:03.400
<v Speaker 1>the list of entirely intuitive items were actually remembered best,

0:49:03.960 --> 0:49:06.000
<v Speaker 1>just kind of strange like the ones that were just

0:49:06.040 --> 0:49:09.480
<v Speaker 1>all normal concepts were remembered the best of all. But

0:49:09.560 --> 0:49:12.440
<v Speaker 1>delayed recall was a different story. After a week, there

0:49:12.520 --> 0:49:16.400
<v Speaker 1>was massive overall degradation of memory, but the lists that

0:49:16.520 --> 0:49:19.200
<v Speaker 1>people could recall the best were the ones that had

0:49:19.520 --> 0:49:23.920
<v Speaker 1>a minimal number of minimally counterintuitive elements in them. So

0:49:24.000 --> 0:49:26.840
<v Speaker 1>after a week, if the list was all intuitive ideas,

0:49:26.880 --> 0:49:30.120
<v Speaker 1>people remembered it less. If the list contained equal numbers

0:49:30.200 --> 0:49:34.360
<v Speaker 1>of intuitive and counterintuitive ideas, or contained all counterintuitive ideas,

0:49:34.640 --> 0:49:38.279
<v Speaker 1>people remembered it less. What people remembered best after one

0:49:38.320 --> 0:49:41.040
<v Speaker 1>week where lists that had a minority of weird monster

0:49:41.160 --> 0:49:45.160
<v Speaker 1>concepts in them but were otherwise unremarkable. And note that

0:49:45.200 --> 0:49:48.440
<v Speaker 1>this is for lists, not individual concepts. And this seems

0:49:48.440 --> 0:49:51.920
<v Speaker 1>to partially back up the idea that this works at

0:49:51.960 --> 0:49:54.280
<v Speaker 1>the function of a of a narrative as a whole

0:49:54.360 --> 0:49:57.560
<v Speaker 1>instead of just individual ideas that you would remember as

0:49:57.600 --> 0:50:01.879
<v Speaker 1>a single concept or object or word phrase. And then

0:50:01.880 --> 0:50:04.080
<v Speaker 1>in the second study, they tested a survey of folk

0:50:04.160 --> 0:50:07.120
<v Speaker 1>tales from the collections of the brothers grim and they

0:50:07.360 --> 0:50:11.280
<v Speaker 1>counted numbers of counterintuitive elements that they contained and compared

0:50:11.320 --> 0:50:14.560
<v Speaker 1>that to how successful and well known these folk tales were.

0:50:14.600 --> 0:50:16.160
<v Speaker 1>So like, if you count all the stuff in the

0:50:16.200 --> 0:50:19.839
<v Speaker 1>Donkey Cabbages, you'll get a pretty big number, versus if

0:50:19.880 --> 0:50:22.000
<v Speaker 1>you count all the stuff in Cinderella, you'll get a

0:50:22.000 --> 0:50:25.480
<v Speaker 1>smaller number. And so they made a chart basically of

0:50:25.680 --> 0:50:29.880
<v Speaker 1>all these stories and compared how successful the story was

0:50:29.920 --> 0:50:33.319
<v Speaker 1>as measured by how familiar test subjects were with them

0:50:33.600 --> 0:50:36.320
<v Speaker 1>and how many Internet hits they got about these stories

0:50:36.760 --> 0:50:40.239
<v Speaker 1>versus how many counterintuitive elements were in the stories, and

0:50:40.280 --> 0:50:42.239
<v Speaker 1>they got the same kind of result. They found that

0:50:42.280 --> 0:50:45.880
<v Speaker 1>for the less memorable folk tales, as measured by familiarity

0:50:45.920 --> 0:50:49.120
<v Speaker 1>and the Internet results, there was a pretty flat distribution.

0:50:49.640 --> 0:50:52.960
<v Speaker 1>Uh there were mci tales, tales that were highly intuitive,

0:50:52.960 --> 0:50:56.160
<v Speaker 1>tales that were as bonkers as the donkey cabbages or worse.

0:50:56.760 --> 0:50:59.919
<v Speaker 1>But for the more memorable tales, the really successful ones,

0:51:00.040 --> 0:51:04.320
<v Speaker 1>there was a clustering around a small number of counterintuitive elements,

0:51:05.960 --> 0:51:08.720
<v Speaker 1>and that means that the m CI narrative template seems

0:51:08.760 --> 0:51:12.400
<v Speaker 1>somewhat validated. Those that had penetrated the culture more deeply,

0:51:12.520 --> 0:51:15.360
<v Speaker 1>on average were the ones that had a small number

0:51:15.440 --> 0:51:19.440
<v Speaker 1>of counterintuitive elements. And in their discussion, the authors proposed

0:51:19.440 --> 0:51:22.640
<v Speaker 1>that mc I narratives are more successful partially because they're

0:51:22.680 --> 0:51:26.000
<v Speaker 1>easier to remember as a whole, and they write, quote,

0:51:26.440 --> 0:51:33.200
<v Speaker 1>these deviations involve evocative, minimal counterintuitions that are quote relevant mysteries.

0:51:33.840 --> 0:51:37.040
<v Speaker 1>They are closely connected to background knowledge, but do not

0:51:37.160 --> 0:51:40.759
<v Speaker 1>admit to a final interpretation. As a result, they are

0:51:40.840 --> 0:51:46.040
<v Speaker 1>attention arresting and inferentially rich, and therefore encourage further cognitive

0:51:46.080 --> 0:51:50.839
<v Speaker 1>processing and multiple interpretations over time that facilitate the cognitive

0:51:50.880 --> 0:51:54.759
<v Speaker 1>stabilization of narratives. And I thought that was interesting because

0:51:54.800 --> 0:51:56.480
<v Speaker 1>it made me think of a discussion we were having

0:51:56.520 --> 0:51:59.320
<v Speaker 1>in the episode about finite and infinite games and the

0:51:59.560 --> 0:52:03.160
<v Speaker 1>religious scholarly work by James P. Carse about the idea

0:52:03.280 --> 0:52:07.960
<v Speaker 1>of of mythology and um, whether a mythology can survive

0:52:08.040 --> 0:52:11.640
<v Speaker 1>if it is made finite, or if a mythology is

0:52:11.640 --> 0:52:15.239
<v Speaker 1>is only kept alive by sort of like the the

0:52:15.360 --> 0:52:18.680
<v Speaker 1>unending tendency to change it and and keep working on it,

0:52:18.719 --> 0:52:21.920
<v Speaker 1>to keep asking questions. Yeah, I mean, ultimately I think

0:52:21.920 --> 0:52:24.719
<v Speaker 1>that is how that is how the stories stay relevant

0:52:25.280 --> 0:52:28.399
<v Speaker 1>without having to just like bend and break your interpretation

0:52:28.520 --> 0:52:31.480
<v Speaker 1>of them. I mean, I think they may be onto

0:52:31.520 --> 0:52:35.800
<v Speaker 1>something here with the idea that stories are can only

0:52:36.000 --> 0:52:40.360
<v Speaker 1>be properly mysterious and arresting to us and keep prodding

0:52:40.360 --> 0:52:44.120
<v Speaker 1>our brains if they have the right balance of mundane

0:52:44.200 --> 0:52:48.080
<v Speaker 1>content and confusing content, right, I mean, like, if if

0:52:48.120 --> 0:52:53.320
<v Speaker 1>something is just totally unfamiliar and unrelatable, then you you

0:52:53.360 --> 0:52:56.040
<v Speaker 1>don't even have a context in which to frame questions

0:52:56.120 --> 0:52:59.320
<v Speaker 1>or which in questions can feel like they mean something.

0:52:59.600 --> 0:53:01.839
<v Speaker 1>But if a story is totally mundane, you don't end

0:53:01.920 --> 0:53:04.520
<v Speaker 1>up asking questions. All right, don't not know. We're going

0:53:04.600 --> 0:53:06.399
<v Speaker 1>to take a quick break, but we'll be right back.

0:53:07.000 --> 0:53:10.640
<v Speaker 1>Thank thank you, thank you. All right, we're back. So,

0:53:10.680 --> 0:53:12.680
<v Speaker 1>if the authors of the study we just looked at

0:53:12.719 --> 0:53:17.520
<v Speaker 1>are correct, that minimally counterintuitive narratives, narratives that have some

0:53:17.680 --> 0:53:21.280
<v Speaker 1>weird counterintuitive content but not too much. If those types

0:53:21.280 --> 0:53:24.360
<v Speaker 1>of narratives are key to the success of folk tales

0:53:24.400 --> 0:53:27.560
<v Speaker 1>and mythology that spread throughout oral cultures that have to

0:53:27.560 --> 0:53:32.200
<v Speaker 1>be remembered and transmitted, is it also true that modern

0:53:32.400 --> 0:53:36.120
<v Speaker 1>literate societies, or even ancient literate society, societies in which

0:53:36.200 --> 0:53:40.239
<v Speaker 1>stories can be written down before they're transmitted, that those

0:53:40.280 --> 0:53:45.319
<v Speaker 1>societies make room for more highly counterintuitive narratives or for

0:53:45.440 --> 0:53:49.080
<v Speaker 1>more mundane, totally intuitive narratives. Does that make sense what

0:53:49.120 --> 0:53:51.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm asking like, if if that's the sweet spot for

0:53:52.080 --> 0:53:56.680
<v Speaker 1>oral culture transmission, does writing change what type of mythology

0:53:56.719 --> 0:53:59.840
<v Speaker 1>becomes salient? Well, we come back to this idea that

0:54:00.040 --> 0:54:04.960
<v Speaker 1>writing freezes thought right, and nothing frees his thought, And

0:54:05.000 --> 0:54:06.960
<v Speaker 1>this goes back to some of the ideas of James P.

0:54:07.120 --> 0:54:10.040
<v Speaker 1>Cars as well. Nothing is going to freeze thought like

0:54:10.160 --> 0:54:13.600
<v Speaker 1>sacred literature. Yeah, And I actually found out a wonderful

0:54:13.640 --> 0:54:17.240
<v Speaker 1>paper on some of this um It is titled uh

0:54:17.280 --> 0:54:21.080
<v Speaker 1>An Alternative Account of the Minimal Counterintuitives Effect, and it

0:54:21.160 --> 0:54:25.920
<v Speaker 1>was by by cognitive scientist Muhammad afzal Opal And this

0:54:26.000 --> 0:54:29.040
<v Speaker 1>was published in two thousand ten in cognitive systems Research,

0:54:29.680 --> 0:54:33.920
<v Speaker 1>and he argues that that essentially we have WE WE WE.

0:54:34.360 --> 0:54:36.720
<v Speaker 1>You can look at m c I in two different ways.

0:54:37.160 --> 0:54:40.479
<v Speaker 1>You have concept based m c I, and that's where

0:54:40.560 --> 0:54:44.160
<v Speaker 1>just the concept itself is resonating, right, because it's it's

0:54:44.200 --> 0:54:48.000
<v Speaker 1>a it's a donkey that talks, etcetera. Right. But then

0:54:48.040 --> 0:54:51.880
<v Speaker 1>you can also look at it as context based, and

0:54:51.920 --> 0:54:55.520
<v Speaker 1>he makes the case that counterintuitive concepts lose their advantages

0:54:55.560 --> 0:54:58.120
<v Speaker 1>as they become widely accepted in part of the culture.

0:54:58.239 --> 0:55:01.720
<v Speaker 1>Oh interesting, So if I introduce to you a new

0:55:01.960 --> 0:55:05.480
<v Speaker 1>counterintuitive concept, you might be more likely to remember that

0:55:05.520 --> 0:55:08.279
<v Speaker 1>than if I just say, like a ghost, which is

0:55:08.280 --> 0:55:11.479
<v Speaker 1>a counterintuitive concept, but you're familiar with it, right, Or

0:55:11.520 --> 0:55:13.880
<v Speaker 1>a vampire. You know, it's like, I know that I'm

0:55:13.920 --> 0:55:16.560
<v Speaker 1>bored with vampires. Give me something with a little more

0:55:16.640 --> 0:55:18.760
<v Speaker 1>jazz to it, right, But if I say a turtle

0:55:18.840 --> 0:55:23.160
<v Speaker 1>that drinks human blood, people are probably going to remember that. Yeah. Therefore,

0:55:23.360 --> 0:55:28.680
<v Speaker 1>he argues that ideas with enhanced counterintuitiveness obtain transmission advantages,

0:55:29.000 --> 0:55:33.480
<v Speaker 1>and this results in a ratcheting up of counterintuitiveness that

0:55:33.680 --> 0:55:38.360
<v Speaker 1>may help explain cultural innovation and dynamism. Interesting, So this

0:55:38.400 --> 0:55:40.480
<v Speaker 1>would be bigger than just religions. This would be for

0:55:40.600 --> 0:55:43.560
<v Speaker 1>ideas in general and narratives in general. Right, though he

0:55:43.640 --> 0:55:46.640
<v Speaker 1>is particularly interested in religion. That's like one of his Uh,

0:55:46.719 --> 0:55:50.400
<v Speaker 1>that's one of of Upaul's areas of expertise is cognitive

0:55:50.400 --> 0:55:53.480
<v Speaker 1>science of religion. And he he says that quote it

0:55:53.600 --> 0:55:56.360
<v Speaker 1>also allows us to account for the development and spread

0:55:56.360 --> 0:56:00.480
<v Speaker 1>of complex cultural ideas, such as the overly counter intuitive

0:56:00.560 --> 0:56:05.320
<v Speaker 1>religious concepts, including the Judeo Christian Islamic conceptions of God.

0:56:05.920 --> 0:56:11.000
<v Speaker 1>Does that mean like overly counterintuitive because not anthropomorphic enough? Um? Yeah?

0:56:11.080 --> 0:56:13.439
<v Speaker 1>And just I mean I think part of it also

0:56:13.480 --> 0:56:16.319
<v Speaker 1>comes back to examples like revelation. You know, you have

0:56:16.640 --> 0:56:19.880
<v Speaker 1>just to to a modern readers, just completely counterintuitive. What

0:56:19.920 --> 0:56:21.360
<v Speaker 1>does it mean? Why is it there? What is it

0:56:21.400 --> 0:56:24.080
<v Speaker 1>supposed to be saying to me? Part of the problem

0:56:24.120 --> 0:56:26.880
<v Speaker 1>is that it's sacred, right, it's it's it's it's frozen

0:56:26.880 --> 0:56:30.040
<v Speaker 1>in time. It's no longer speaking to the people. Uh,

0:56:30.120 --> 0:56:33.160
<v Speaker 1>the specific individuals who would have who would have understood

0:56:33.160 --> 0:56:38.399
<v Speaker 1>it without a bunch of you know, theological dissection. Interesting. Uh. So,

0:56:38.760 --> 0:56:43.200
<v Speaker 1>Paul writes the context based view posits that religious concepts

0:56:43.200 --> 0:56:47.759
<v Speaker 1>such as God's ghost, angels, and devil have become maximally

0:56:47.840 --> 0:56:51.279
<v Speaker 1>counterintuitive in the barn and Boyer sense because they have

0:56:51.360 --> 0:56:53.880
<v Speaker 1>had to survive in the minds of an adaptive and

0:56:53.920 --> 0:56:57.320
<v Speaker 1>innovative population of human beings over a long period of time.

0:56:57.840 --> 0:57:00.720
<v Speaker 1>In light of the model we develop here, one should

0:57:00.719 --> 0:57:04.560
<v Speaker 1>not be surprised to see maximally counterintuitive concepts to form

0:57:04.600 --> 0:57:08.000
<v Speaker 1>a significant part of religious beliefs. Indeed, it would be

0:57:08.040 --> 0:57:14.200
<v Speaker 1>surprising if they did not maximally counterintuitive. So stuff that, um,

0:57:14.680 --> 0:57:18.360
<v Speaker 1>because it's hard to get your counterintuitive juice is flowing

0:57:18.400 --> 0:57:21.520
<v Speaker 1>anymore because you've been so exposed to ideas like spirits

0:57:21.520 --> 0:57:26.480
<v Speaker 1>and ghosts that they want to offer you visions that

0:57:26.400 --> 0:57:28.120
<v Speaker 1>that tell you, like, you're not going to get a

0:57:28.120 --> 0:57:31.240
<v Speaker 1>weirder idea than this. Yeah, I mean you get into areas.

0:57:31.560 --> 0:57:34.080
<v Speaker 1>Uh and this this is me commenting on his material.

0:57:34.080 --> 0:57:35.960
<v Speaker 1>He didn't make the specific point, but you know, stuff

0:57:36.000 --> 0:57:38.920
<v Speaker 1>like the transfiguration of Christ and the Holy Trinity and

0:57:38.960 --> 0:57:42.640
<v Speaker 1>these kind of complex ideas of of what what is

0:57:42.680 --> 0:57:46.800
<v Speaker 1>the nature of God? You know, right is it's it's

0:57:46.880 --> 0:57:49.200
<v Speaker 1>built into it. That's that it's a mystery and you

0:57:49.240 --> 0:57:51.640
<v Speaker 1>can't understand it, right, and then added to that too

0:57:51.680 --> 0:57:54.840
<v Speaker 1>that you have you know, these ancient religions are I

0:57:54.880 --> 0:57:58.400
<v Speaker 1>often use this analogy for for Hinduism, Like, Hinduism is

0:57:58.440 --> 0:58:02.880
<v Speaker 1>not this one product. It is this well of time

0:58:03.120 --> 0:58:06.320
<v Speaker 1>and culture with all of these varying ideas and different

0:58:06.320 --> 0:58:09.160
<v Speaker 1>interpretations of gods that are then uh, spun around and

0:58:09.240 --> 0:58:11.080
<v Speaker 1>used in different ways. And you do see that in

0:58:11.640 --> 0:58:15.200
<v Speaker 1>Christian traditions as well. Hinduism is a world of belief

0:58:16.080 --> 0:58:18.960
<v Speaker 1>and layer upon layers. It's like an archaeological dig Yeah.

0:58:19.080 --> 0:58:21.480
<v Speaker 1>But then of course that raises the question of modern religions,

0:58:21.600 --> 0:58:24.840
<v Speaker 1>right yeah, And so I would wonder if the m

0:58:24.840 --> 0:58:29.000
<v Speaker 1>c I hypothesis is correct as an explanation for the

0:58:29.040 --> 0:58:32.600
<v Speaker 1>success of religious narratives. Shouldn't it be that we see

0:58:32.960 --> 0:58:37.400
<v Speaker 1>unusual religions emerging in a mostly literate world where things

0:58:37.400 --> 0:58:40.200
<v Speaker 1>get written down a lot, and those religions have more

0:58:40.280 --> 0:58:44.240
<v Speaker 1>permission to be the donkey cabbages of religion, Right? Well,

0:58:44.280 --> 0:58:46.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean it, if you can write it down, you

0:58:46.400 --> 0:58:49.160
<v Speaker 1>can make it sacred, and you can say nobody touched this. Uh.

0:58:49.200 --> 0:58:51.320
<v Speaker 1>And one of the one of the points that to

0:58:51.600 --> 0:58:55.160
<v Speaker 1>Paul makes about this, he compares it to emergent religions,

0:58:55.840 --> 0:58:59.880
<v Speaker 1>and how you have you have new religions that have emerged,

0:59:00.320 --> 0:59:03.320
<v Speaker 1>and they generally have an uphill battle because they're they're

0:59:03.360 --> 0:59:06.800
<v Speaker 1>having to go up against the established religions that have

0:59:07.160 --> 0:59:09.640
<v Speaker 1>in you know, in many cases centuries upon centuries, thousands

0:59:09.680 --> 0:59:13.360
<v Speaker 1>of years of history, all these sacred texts, and somebody saying,

0:59:13.760 --> 0:59:16.520
<v Speaker 1>you don't alter this. This is the text and uh,

0:59:16.560 --> 0:59:19.240
<v Speaker 1>and this is the accepted interpretation of it. And if

0:59:19.280 --> 0:59:22.200
<v Speaker 1>you tweak it in any way, well that's heresy and

0:59:22.320 --> 0:59:25.400
<v Speaker 1>we will punish that. Uh. And but then he points

0:59:25.400 --> 0:59:27.480
<v Speaker 1>out what you end up with with something like say,

0:59:27.520 --> 0:59:31.680
<v Speaker 1>the Church of Scientology emerging, getting enough power, and what

0:59:31.680 --> 0:59:34.000
<v Speaker 1>what do they turn around and do they kind of

0:59:34.000 --> 0:59:36.680
<v Speaker 1>they make their own sacred text and they say, you

0:59:36.720 --> 0:59:38.760
<v Speaker 1>can't mess with this, you can't take these don't be

0:59:38.760 --> 0:59:41.680
<v Speaker 1>a squirrel and turn these concepts around and try and

0:59:41.720 --> 0:59:46.800
<v Speaker 1>market them off into your own heretical religion? Is squirrel

0:59:46.960 --> 0:59:50.040
<v Speaker 1>part of their whole thing? I I wasn't aware of squirrels? Yes,

0:59:50.160 --> 0:59:53.480
<v Speaker 1>uh oop, al rightes quote. For instance, the founder of Scientology,

0:59:54.000 --> 0:59:57.120
<v Speaker 1>or On Hubbard, is reported to have referred to those

0:59:57.160 --> 1:00:00.000
<v Speaker 1>who modify as techniques as squirrels who should be harassed

1:00:00.000 --> 1:00:04.640
<v Speaker 1>asked in any possible way. Weapons used to discourage any

1:00:04.760 --> 1:00:09.600
<v Speaker 1>change in religious doctrine in practice include ridicule, expulsion, and harassment.

1:00:09.960 --> 1:00:13.200
<v Speaker 1>Continuity and religious doctrine is explained to the extent that

1:00:13.360 --> 1:00:17.160
<v Speaker 1>such thought control techniques are successful. So it's kind of

1:00:17.160 --> 1:00:20.960
<v Speaker 1>a it feels like a struggle between the uh, the

1:00:20.960 --> 1:00:24.880
<v Speaker 1>the oral stories and the written stories, right, the one

1:00:24.920 --> 1:00:27.360
<v Speaker 1>that wants to live and change, and the other that

1:00:27.400 --> 1:00:31.440
<v Speaker 1>we're trying to artificially set in stone. Here's a question

1:00:31.480 --> 1:00:33.640
<v Speaker 1>I have, and I think it is to some degree

1:00:33.680 --> 1:00:36.480
<v Speaker 1>addressed by this literature, but I'm not sure if there

1:00:36.560 --> 1:00:40.080
<v Speaker 1>is a settled answer on it. What is the stronger tendency,

1:00:40.600 --> 1:00:46.960
<v Speaker 1>the the counterintuitive element adding tendency or the subtraction tendency?

1:00:47.120 --> 1:00:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Do stories over time tend to undergo more adding of

1:00:50.120 --> 1:00:54.000
<v Speaker 1>donkey cabbages style elements are more subtraction of donkey cabbages

1:00:54.040 --> 1:00:57.800
<v Speaker 1>style elements? Well, I I like the like Coopa's argument

1:00:57.840 --> 1:01:00.120
<v Speaker 1>that there's a there's a dynamism in place that going

1:01:00.160 --> 1:01:03.280
<v Speaker 1>to have You're gonna have it come in waves. To

1:01:03.400 --> 1:01:06.040
<v Speaker 1>think of it this way, right, you have alien it's

1:01:06.080 --> 1:01:08.280
<v Speaker 1>just about a person you know, a crew on a

1:01:08.280 --> 1:01:11.600
<v Speaker 1>ship against one alien, and then things get crazy. You

1:01:11.680 --> 1:01:14.840
<v Speaker 1>get aliens, and you've got multiple aliens, You've got new

1:01:14.920 --> 1:01:17.280
<v Speaker 1>kinds of aliens, and it's a it's a it's a

1:01:17.320 --> 1:01:21.680
<v Speaker 1>fiesta but aliens. I would say it's minimally counterintuitive. I mean,

1:01:22.240 --> 1:01:25.919
<v Speaker 1>it is a mostly mundane narratives, like one thing, which

1:01:25.960 --> 1:01:28.280
<v Speaker 1>is that there are these horrible monsters. But but there's

1:01:28.320 --> 1:01:31.680
<v Speaker 1>a ratcheting up. So think of it like one one

1:01:31.760 --> 1:01:35.160
<v Speaker 1>alien is one m c I and then multiple aliens.

1:01:35.200 --> 1:01:38.560
<v Speaker 1>That's a bunch of m ciyes, and then Alien three

1:01:38.600 --> 1:01:42.520
<v Speaker 1>comes around or what alien cubed sometimes it's display does

1:01:42.760 --> 1:01:44.240
<v Speaker 1>and that when they're like, all right, let's boil it

1:01:44.240 --> 1:01:48.120
<v Speaker 1>back down. Just one m c I alien in play

1:01:48.200 --> 1:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>and then four things get crazy again and you see

1:01:50.920 --> 1:01:53.800
<v Speaker 1>this back and forth. Right, um but I feel like

1:01:53.840 --> 1:01:56.640
<v Speaker 1>that's probably the tendency, right, is that you'll ratchet things

1:01:56.720 --> 1:01:59.680
<v Speaker 1>up more and more um M CIEs are added, and

1:01:59.760 --> 1:02:01.920
<v Speaker 1>then in it kind of goes in reverse, fewer and fewer,

1:02:01.960 --> 1:02:05.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of getting back to the it becomes more relatable

1:02:05.160 --> 1:02:07.840
<v Speaker 1>as it is it is. It is a transferred from

1:02:07.920 --> 1:02:10.320
<v Speaker 1>user to user. Yeah, this is all real interesting, but

1:02:10.400 --> 1:02:15.120
<v Speaker 1>now I'm I'm I'm undercutting myself because I'm thinking about

1:02:15.120 --> 1:02:18.520
<v Speaker 1>the difference, uh, of there being both kinds of narratives

1:02:18.560 --> 1:02:22.400
<v Speaker 1>going way back. So if you go back sixteen years ago, uh,

1:02:22.520 --> 1:02:26.400
<v Speaker 1>think about the difference between the basically emergent Catholic Christian

1:02:26.480 --> 1:02:31.400
<v Speaker 1>story compared to the narratives you find of Gnostic Christian texts.

1:02:31.480 --> 1:02:35.440
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, the Gnostic Christian texts are wonderful.

1:02:35.640 --> 1:02:38.880
<v Speaker 1>They they are worth reading, and they're so interesting, But

1:02:38.960 --> 1:02:42.920
<v Speaker 1>they're cosmology narratives are they're they're off the you know,

1:02:42.960 --> 1:02:47.240
<v Speaker 1>they're outlandish, they're super counterintuitive. They're barely tethered to any

1:02:47.320 --> 1:02:50.480
<v Speaker 1>kind of understandable or munday and earthly story. You've got

1:02:50.520 --> 1:02:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the Pleroma and YadA both. Uh, it's just not it's

1:02:55.240 --> 1:03:00.360
<v Speaker 1>not as earthly and tethered and relatable as most mythologies

1:03:00.440 --> 1:03:02.640
<v Speaker 1>that you're used to. It's, yeah, this is where you

1:03:02.680 --> 1:03:06.000
<v Speaker 1>have like the ideas like the first creation and the secondary,

1:03:07.160 --> 1:03:10.320
<v Speaker 1>the dimmi urge, the different levels of creation, the beings

1:03:10.360 --> 1:03:12.760
<v Speaker 1>of light and all this stuff. I mean, it's not

1:03:12.960 --> 1:03:16.600
<v Speaker 1>stuff that's easy to picture. It doesn't work like a

1:03:16.640 --> 1:03:21.160
<v Speaker 1>normal human story. It's very abstract and removed from from

1:03:21.240 --> 1:03:25.680
<v Speaker 1>grounded reality. It seems too counterintuitive to be successful. But

1:03:25.680 --> 1:03:29.400
<v Speaker 1>then again, I guess historically it was not successful, true,

1:03:29.760 --> 1:03:32.560
<v Speaker 1>but maybe it was only it can only be successful

1:03:32.600 --> 1:03:34.720
<v Speaker 1>in a time in which this uh, and say that

1:03:34.720 --> 1:03:37.760
<v Speaker 1>the Catholic narrative was just so widespread and so dominant

1:03:38.040 --> 1:03:40.040
<v Speaker 1>that it it kind of took on the trappings of

1:03:40.120 --> 1:03:43.200
<v Speaker 1>the physical laws of the of of life. Yeah, and

1:03:43.240 --> 1:03:46.160
<v Speaker 1>I guess it also happened within a broader Christian context,

1:03:46.240 --> 1:03:49.280
<v Speaker 1>so many of the people who practiced Gnostic Christianity would

1:03:49.280 --> 1:03:51.400
<v Speaker 1>think of it as a sort of like an extra

1:03:51.480 --> 1:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>helping It's like the secret add on mythology that you

1:03:54.680 --> 1:03:58.560
<v Speaker 1>take in addition to your regular Catholic mythology. So in

1:03:58.560 --> 1:04:01.720
<v Speaker 1>a sense, Catholicism was roller skates and then uh and

1:04:01.720 --> 1:04:06.560
<v Speaker 1>then a NaSTA. The Gnostic Bulley system was was roller blades. Maybe,

1:04:06.640 --> 1:04:08.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean it'd be like roller skates with an extra

1:04:08.920 --> 1:04:12.400
<v Speaker 1>rocket booster or something or Robert. This has been fun

1:04:12.400 --> 1:04:15.040
<v Speaker 1>I feel like this is a really compelling explanation for

1:04:15.080 --> 1:04:19.440
<v Speaker 1>the dynamics of of narratives and memory and human culture.

1:04:19.560 --> 1:04:22.680
<v Speaker 1>I I don't think I'd fully tried to put all

1:04:22.720 --> 1:04:26.400
<v Speaker 1>this together before, but once funny enough, it is very

1:04:26.400 --> 1:04:29.840
<v Speaker 1>intuitive once you hear it. Yeah, yeah, I agree, it doesn't.

1:04:29.920 --> 1:04:33.280
<v Speaker 1>It makes you rethink everything from your you know, your

1:04:33.280 --> 1:04:38.640
<v Speaker 1>favorite books and movies to major world religions. Uh. And

1:04:38.680 --> 1:04:41.120
<v Speaker 1>I do think it is it is getting at the

1:04:41.320 --> 1:04:43.560
<v Speaker 1>at some of the truth of what's going on, but

1:04:43.640 --> 1:04:46.479
<v Speaker 1>maybe a minimal part of the truth. Well, we shall see.

1:04:46.520 --> 1:04:50.640
<v Speaker 1>There's always a lot of pizza pie left over all. Right, Well,

1:04:50.960 --> 1:04:52.360
<v Speaker 1>there you go. If you want to check out more

1:04:52.400 --> 1:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>episodes of Stuff to Blow your Mind, head on over

1:04:54.040 --> 1:04:56.120
<v Speaker 1>to stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. That is

1:04:56.160 --> 1:04:59.280
<v Speaker 1>where you will find all the episodes, including the various

1:04:59.280 --> 1:05:04.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes we've done on religious and narrative topics over the years. Uh.

1:05:04.200 --> 1:05:07.160
<v Speaker 1>And if you want to support the show, really, as

1:05:07.240 --> 1:05:10.160
<v Speaker 1>I've said before, rate and review us wherever you have

1:05:10.200 --> 1:05:12.480
<v Speaker 1>the ability to do so. That helps us out immensely

1:05:13.360 --> 1:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>big thanks as always for our wonderful audio producers Alex

1:05:16.600 --> 1:05:19.120
<v Speaker 1>Williams and Torry Harrison. If you would like to get

1:05:19.160 --> 1:05:21.840
<v Speaker 1>in touch with us directly with feedback about this episode

1:05:21.920 --> 1:05:24.680
<v Speaker 1>or any other UH to let us know where you

1:05:24.720 --> 1:05:26.840
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show from, how you found out about it,

1:05:26.920 --> 1:05:29.840
<v Speaker 1>or suggest a topic for a future episode, you can

1:05:30.000 --> 1:05:32.720
<v Speaker 1>email us at blow the Mind at how stuff works

1:05:32.840 --> 1:05:44.720
<v Speaker 1>dot com for more on this and thousands of other topics.

1:05:44.960 --> 1:06:02.280
<v Speaker 1>Is it how stuff works dot Com. The D three

1:06:02.400 --> 1:06:05.480
<v Speaker 1>part Proper par