Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how Stuff
Speaker 1: Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Julie Douglas. It
Speaker 1: is September two thousand and twelve, which means we have
Speaker 1: just um experienced the world has just experienced another Ignoble
Speaker 1: Prize ceremony. This, of course, is the ceremony that takes
Speaker 1: place every year in Harvard, put on by the publication
Speaker 1: UH the Anals of Improbable Research, which is a fabulous publication.
Speaker 1: Do check it out. Do a website. They have a
Speaker 1: great website and they focus on the ridiculousness, the the unexpected,
Speaker 1: and the often grotesque and hilarious aspects of legitimate scientific research.
Speaker 1: So this isn't like fringe stuff where like some guy
Speaker 1: in a in a shed in uh In in rural
Speaker 1: Mississippi is trying to to to create an artificial gravity
Speaker 1: device or something. We're talking about actual legitimate scientific research
Speaker 1: that often winds its way into strange territory. Yes, it's true,
Speaker 1: and one of the things that they are trying to
Speaker 1: accomplish with the Ignoble UH ceremonies, they say, is to
Speaker 1: make you laugh and then make you think, this is
Speaker 1: a really important premise of this and I think that
Speaker 1: you just highlighted that. UM. As you will note, the
Speaker 1: name is ig Noble, which is sort of a spoof
Speaker 1: on the Nobel Prizes. And each year the Ignoble Prizes
Speaker 1: honor achievements that do make people laugh and then make
Speaker 1: them think, and they are awarded to ten people and
Speaker 1: winners do travel from around the world and on their
Speaker 1: own dime, by the way, UM to a gallus ceremony
Speaker 1: at Harvard where Nobel laureates then present them with their prize.
Speaker 1: And the prize itself is made of really cheap material
Speaker 1: that's prone to disintegrate. Yeah, it's a and the reason
Speaker 1: that everyone travels here and everyone everyone's in on the joke.
Speaker 1: Everyone loves it because with it with a few small
Speaker 1: exceptions here and there, because it is a celebration of
Speaker 1: the work. It's not a ridiculing of it. And it's
Speaker 1: not using it to uh to push some sort of agenda.
Speaker 1: Well like we saw with the whole shrimp on a
Speaker 1: treadmill thing where uh, individuals that wish to cut the
Speaker 1: U S Science budget, we're using it like look at
Speaker 1: this with people are spending money and using time on
Speaker 1: on this experiment where they just put a shrimp on
Speaker 1: a treadmill, ignoring the fact that that particular experiment was
Speaker 1: very interested in in in how bacteria affects these important
Speaker 1: food creatures in a polluted environment. It was just the
Speaker 1: catalyst that they were making, belittling it and saying this
Speaker 1: is stupid science that accomplishes nothing. Ignobles Ist is the
Speaker 1: entirely different direction, the positive direction, which is saying, here's
Speaker 1: the study that illuminates something hilarious, but that also illuminates
Speaker 1: something important about the scientific workings of the universe. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's talk about about who this group is that selects
Speaker 1: the the nominate or makes the nominations, and then also
Speaker 1: what the process is. Basically, we have a group of
Speaker 1: people and we did we mentioned Mark Abraham's yet, but
Speaker 1: he is one of the principals. He is the editor
Speaker 1: and co founder of the Annals of Improbable Research and
Speaker 1: the founder and master of ceremonies for the prizes. And he,
Speaker 1: along with a few other Nobel laureates, science writers, athletes,
Speaker 1: politicians from time to time to you, right, they make
Speaker 1: up the board that nominates the studies and the inventions.
Speaker 1: So basically they are flooded every year with up to
Speaker 1: nine thousand submissions. That's a lot they have to wade
Speaker 1: through all of that. They also seek out nominations as well,
Speaker 1: our nominees, I should say, and Abraham says that they
Speaker 1: will quietly get in touch with them, offer them the prize,
Speaker 1: and give them the opportunity to quietly decline the honor
Speaker 1: if they want to, and if they say no, he says,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely fine, and that's it. He said that they
Speaker 1: don't mention it, and they don't even keep records at
Speaker 1: that point because again, this is something that they want
Speaker 1: to make sure the person is comfortable with and it
Speaker 1: really is an honor. Well, the exception that comes to
Speaker 1: mind that was the was when the gay bomb. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about that in a moment, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to awesome give you guys a sense of the
Speaker 1: ceremony itself. Paper airplanes are launched and then the winners
Speaker 1: are confined to a sixty second speech. If if they
Speaker 1: go beyond that sixty seconds, they at least in this
Speaker 1: year's awards, they had two girls, not one, but two girls,
Speaker 1: eight year old year olds come up and say please stop,
Speaker 1: you're boring me, Please stop, you're boring me, over and
Speaker 1: over again until the recipient stopped, because you got to
Speaker 1: keep the point short, and it's a it's not about it.
Speaker 1: It's about celebrating the awesomeness of any of these given products,
Speaker 1: not boring usarily with all of the hardcore details. I
Speaker 1: just wish they would do that for the oscars. It
Speaker 1: would be awesome. Okay, so let's give an example of
Speaker 1: a past recipient. Uh Dr Elena Bodnar invented that in
Speaker 1: an emergency can be quickly converted into a pair of
Speaker 1: protective face masks. So we have one for yourself and
Speaker 1: one for a friend, which I think is brilliant. Of course,
Speaker 1: you know again as the catalyst for is that the
Speaker 1: part that is so very funny, but it actually has
Speaker 1: practical implications here for us. Yeah, and in that one
Speaker 1: they had a lot of fun with because I think
Speaker 1: even the ceremony after that they were still having people
Speaker 1: come on with. They brought the brawl back and they
Speaker 1: put it on the Nobel Laureates faces, which I thought
Speaker 1: was pretty anes because it also brings to mind the
Speaker 1: old flick Weird Science, you know, where they had the
Speaker 1: they were doing the crazy Man science experiment. They wore
Speaker 1: the braws in their head. Yeah. Some of the some
Speaker 1: of the other winners we've discussed in the past. There
Speaker 1: was the the study that I believe this was a
Speaker 1: New Mexico or no, it was Nevada study University of
Speaker 1: Las Vegas, where they were looking at how ovulating strippers
Speaker 1: received more tips than normal than the other strippers at
Speaker 1: a strip club. That's been brought into question by the
Speaker 1: way it has, But yes, I mean, if that doesn't
Speaker 1: deserve an I know, well, I don't know what does,
Speaker 1: because the story, like the the instant picture you get
Speaker 1: is a bunch of researchers spending their time at a
Speaker 1: strip club. Uh. Though the question that they're speaking to
Speaker 1: answer all the cheeky stuff aside is legitimate because we're
Speaker 1: very interested in human behavior. How does and how does uh?
Speaker 1: How how did these various animal properties of ourselves influenced
Speaker 1: the the the culture that we have built on top
Speaker 1: of it. Uh. There was of course the gay bomb
Speaker 1: and this was the one where uh, nobody from the
Speaker 1: US military actually showed up to accept the prize, but
Speaker 1: it was and I feel like we discussed this one
Speaker 1: in more detail in the past. But the idea was,
Speaker 1: all right, you get some enemies in the trench over there.
Speaker 1: I mean they would not now obviously wouldn't be in
Speaker 1: a trench, but I like the simple version of the
Speaker 1: of it. You know, we're in this trench there, in
Speaker 1: that trench. We wanna either kill them or make them
Speaker 1: not kill us. Both would be great, preferably both because
Speaker 1: you know, we're soldiers, right, So let's fire something into
Speaker 1: their trench that makes them love each other in a
Speaker 1: very biblical fashion. So in other words, let's distract them
Speaker 1: from war and it releases chemical that induces them to then, uh,
Speaker 1: cuddle with each other. Yes, at least it's pretty great. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's and it was. They did a fabulal spit on
Speaker 1: Dirty Rock where they lampoon did as well. Um, I mean,
Speaker 1: and and this is a fascinating because on one level,
Speaker 1: it's hilarious the idea of forcing a makeout party on
Speaker 1: on your your enemies, but also it's it's very telling,
Speaker 1: like the idea that we are we are these creatures
Speaker 1: that could potentially be manipulated in this fashion, that that
Speaker 1: we ultimately don't have that much control over our our
Speaker 1: violent or passive tendencies. Um. I wanted to point this out.
Speaker 1: In an interview with Ira Plateau of Science Friday, Abraham's
Speaker 1: talked about the worth of this sort of thing by
Speaker 1: using an example of a shrew. Um. Now, these anthropologists
Speaker 1: Brian Crandell and Peter Stall, who who did the study
Speaker 1: on the shrew, they did not get an ignoble prize
Speaker 1: and they perhaps could um for this, but right now
Speaker 1: they were just covered in the Animals of Improbable research
Speaker 1: for this. But they were featured because, uh, they worked
Speaker 1: with the shrew, which is, you know, as a reminder,
Speaker 1: a small, nearly blind animal. Yes, they boiled it and
Speaker 1: then one of them it was never said in the study,
Speaker 1: but either Crandell or Stall actually swallowed it whole. Okay, um,
Speaker 1: And they wanted to make sure that there was you know,
Speaker 1: no sort of masticating, no chewing going on here. They
Speaker 1: wanted to deliver it to their gut whole. And then
Speaker 1: this is it gets even better. For three days, the
Speaker 1: anthropologists examined the resulting feces to discover how the human
Speaker 1: digestive system might break the shrew down. Okay, all that
Speaker 1: seems absolutely crazy and ridiculous, right, uh. But the reason
Speaker 1: they wanted to do this is because they thought there
Speaker 1: is a gap in the knowledge of how something gets
Speaker 1: um digested and the remains, the resulting remains, and what
Speaker 1: is actually there. In other words, if you're an anthropologist
Speaker 1: or an archaeologist and you stumble upon remains that were digested,
Speaker 1: you don't know how much of those remains are a
Speaker 1: result of the process of digestion or the actual like
Speaker 1: teeth marks in the tearing apart of a jaw, which
Speaker 1: would give you a really good idea of how big
Speaker 1: or small the animal was. Right, So, what they did
Speaker 1: discover when they went through all the feces is that
Speaker 1: a lot of the bones of the shrew, including a
Speaker 1: lot of the big bones, were missing, and one of
Speaker 1: the big jawbones was missing. Four of the teeth the
Speaker 1: shrews teeth were missing, and a big chunk of its
Speaker 1: school was missing, just from this digestive process. So this
Speaker 1: tells us something now going forward as an anthropologist of
Speaker 1: what you might be looking at, You're not probably going
Speaker 1: to make the same assumptions if you know that the
Speaker 1: digestive system can play a as much of a part
Speaker 1: as let's say, the creatures chief or the humans teeth. Um.
Speaker 1: So I thought that was a good example to share.
Speaker 1: Of course, not everybody really gets in on the humor
Speaker 1: of the thing. Robert May, who at the time was
Speaker 1: the British government's Chief Scientific Advisor, UH, he wrote a
Speaker 1: letter to both Nature UH, you know, the Science Journal,
Speaker 1: as well as the Annals and Probable Research, and he
Speaker 1: took the ignoble Prize agenas to task any UH for
Speaker 1: quote ridiculing serious work um and UH, also arguing that
Speaker 1: the awards should only target anti science and pseudoscience and
Speaker 1: leave the real scientists to their labor. So his he
Speaker 1: was like, this is horribly youre just making fun of
Speaker 1: these I don't think it was a particularly informed opinion.
Speaker 1: I think it was more of like a gut reaction
Speaker 1: to him hearing about it. It's it's kind of my
Speaker 1: take on it. But but he did. Here was somebody
Speaker 1: who did not get the joke. Yeah, And again Abraham said,
Speaker 1: we are not ridiculing, which is shining a light on science,
Speaker 1: and we're doing it in a fun way in which
Speaker 1: most people don't necessarily think of sciences is fun, you know,
Speaker 1: lighthearted thing. But here we are talking about things in
Speaker 1: a way that um that again, as he says, makes
Speaker 1: you laugh and makes you think, well, I can't help
Speaker 1: but be reminded of a little tidbit from Mary Roaches
Speaker 1: packing from Mars, because she was talking about the space program,
Speaker 1: especially in its early days. You kind of had two groups.
Speaker 1: You had the scientists who were very much immersed in
Speaker 1: this world of science and world of scientific research and
Speaker 1: hardcore facts and trying to factor out these various equations
Speaker 1: to to do amazing things in space. And then you
Speaker 1: had the astronauts who were, hey, you had more of
Speaker 1: a cowboy mentality. You know a lot of these guys
Speaker 1: where they were former experimental jet pilots and all this,
Speaker 1: so there was a big divide between their outlook on life,
Speaker 1: and occasionally it would clash. And the example that Mary
Speaker 1: Roach brought up was be you know, the scientists were
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how to do long distant space
Speaker 1: flights and they were like, well, uh, let's you know,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about ways to make food for there for
Speaker 1: a long flight through space. Um, let's see, there's got it.
Speaker 1: There's probably a really good way that we could make
Speaker 1: portions of the spaceship edible and potentially come up with
Speaker 1: a way to turn the astronauts poop into food and
Speaker 1: and the astronauts Scott winted this and they're like, no,
Speaker 1: we're not doing that. So you had this clash between
Speaker 1: the scientific world in the outside world, and that is
Speaker 1: where a lot of the humor tends to come from
Speaker 1: in these experiments because you have you have scientists immersed
Speaker 1: in their studies when then the closed confines of the
Speaker 1: lab and then they bring out these results that that
Speaker 1: may not necessarily even seem all that funny to them,
Speaker 1: but when you expose it to the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: that's that's where a lot of the humor comes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: when you back up and take some perspective, I think
Speaker 1: it's so interesting. Although some of the scientists know that
Speaker 1: if they're having fun with it, but um for for them,
Speaker 1: it's you know, sometimes it's even a thought experiment, which
Speaker 1: we've talked about being so um valuable in trying to
Speaker 1: have breakthroughs. All Right, there's a little background on what
Speaker 1: the Ignable prizes are all about. We're gonna take a
Speaker 1: quick break and when we come back, we're going to
Speaker 1: dive into some of the two thousand and twelves more
Speaker 1: notable in all right, we're back. So we're not going
Speaker 1: to get through all of them are certainly not in
Speaker 1: this podcast, but we're gonna we're gonna highlight some of
Speaker 1: the ones that kind of resonated with us and we
Speaker 1: thought were particularly um amusing. Yeah. One that I thought
Speaker 1: was great both of us that were great is the
Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve Neuroscience Prize. And this is largely
Speaker 1: a story about a dead salmon's brain activity and about
Speaker 1: statistical correction methods in F M R. I. Okay, so
Speaker 1: first of all, why is this funny? First of all,
Speaker 1: dead fish. There's just a dead fish in and of
Speaker 1: itself is hilarious. I couldn't help but think of the
Speaker 1: character Lose Zealand from the Muppets. You remember him with
Speaker 1: the I had the big frilly collar and the mustache
Speaker 1: and the eyes and just throw fish, boomerang fish. It's
Speaker 1: part of his act, or any kind of a skip
Speaker 1: where somebody is slapped with a fish. It's just it's true,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, hilarious, it's it's on par with a rubber chicken. Right,
Speaker 1: And the idea that you could study dead fish, I
Speaker 1: mean it's not it's not hilarious. Factly, because the dead
Speaker 1: fish is still that's it's an animal, it's a it's
Speaker 1: an organism. We can perform a necroxy on that species
Speaker 1: and learn all sorts of things. But there's something just
Speaker 1: hilarious about the idea of a dead fish being anything
Speaker 1: other than something rotting on the bank or or laid
Speaker 1: out on ice at the grocery store. Well, um, in
Speaker 1: the in the salmon comes to us actually kind of
Speaker 1: by accident, or rather to the researchers Craig Bennett, Abego Baird,
Speaker 1: Michael Miller, and George Wolford, we're all looking at a
Speaker 1: rather preparing themselves for an upcoming experiment or study with humans,
Speaker 1: and they were I think it was a social stimuli study.
Speaker 1: But anyway, they had to test out fm R I
Speaker 1: machine and get some baseline operations on it. So at
Speaker 1: first they used a pumpkin to try to gather some
Speaker 1: statistical data and do some scanning. Um. And then they thought, well,
Speaker 1: that's not, this doesn't quite work out. We can't really
Speaker 1: see that too. Well, that's not there's going on inside
Speaker 1: of a pumpkin. Yeah, exactly, you could see the seeds.
Speaker 1: But then they said, okay, a cornish game hen would
Speaker 1: be great. Did that wasn't quite on par with what
Speaker 1: they needed. Finally they settled on in an Atlantic salmon
Speaker 1: because it had, you know, the sort of definition it needed,
Speaker 1: had the guts um, it was pretty much ideal. So
Speaker 1: they ran all the usual anatomical scans and then they
Speaker 1: ran the experimental set of the study as well, and
Speaker 1: then they actually showed the salmon images of people in
Speaker 1: social situations, either socially inclusive situations or socially exclusive situations,
Speaker 1: and the salmon was asked to respond saying how it felt.
Speaker 1: So of course, they basically just did the baseline of
Speaker 1: the machine testing and then they took the data and
Speaker 1: they stored it away. Well. Two years later, one of
Speaker 1: the authors of the study was running a seminar on
Speaker 1: how to properly analyze FMR eyes, and they thought to themselves,
Speaker 1: you know, what, what sort of data can we use
Speaker 1: to try to illustrate what we're talking about? And they
Speaker 1: came on their sam and data. And the reason why
Speaker 1: they were using or looking for data is because what
Speaker 1: they wanted to try to illustrate is that information can
Speaker 1: get so bogged down from these fm R eyes. In
Speaker 1: other words, they create so much data UM, and they're
Speaker 1: broken down into sections called voxels, and these voxels can
Speaker 1: have something like a hundred and thirty thousand pieces of
Speaker 1: data and UM, and they're looking at this contrast selection
Speaker 1: and they're trying to do these comparisons, and doing all
Speaker 1: the statistics can be a problem because as soon as
Speaker 1: you have that much data, you can actually produce false positives,
Speaker 1: all right, So what they wanted to do is they
Speaker 1: wanted to do something called multiple correct comparisons. In other words,
Speaker 1: you correct for all these different points of data before
Speaker 1: you really run your final fMRI data sets. And they
Speaker 1: used the salmon. They took these scans and they then
Speaker 1: ran it against uh what they call their normal multiple comparisons,
Speaker 1: and they found that there was actually brain activity it
Speaker 1: looked like in the dead salmon when they ran it
Speaker 1: across these multiple comparisons. And then they ran it across
Speaker 1: their multiple corrected comparisons and they saw no brain activity. Right,
Speaker 1: and that's the correct thing. So all of it seems ridiculous,
Speaker 1: but the point of it is that uh fm r
Speaker 1: I s are widely used and they're widely cited in media,
Speaker 1: and they have told us so much about our brain
Speaker 1: or mental abilities UM and even certain diseases, but there
Speaker 1: wasn't really a control or a control that was being
Speaker 1: widely used. So Bennett says, Okay, fine, laugh at the
Speaker 1: salmon thing. But in the year before work was released
Speaker 1: around something like of fMRI I, papers didn't use the
Speaker 1: proper statistical correction methods. And now that they ran their
Speaker 1: paper and everybody's laughing about the salmon, that number has dropped.
Speaker 1: So it's an important aspect of it. It It seems like
Speaker 1: it's kind of minutia. But if all of us are
Speaker 1: depending on the data that comes out of fMRI I,
Speaker 1: and it is certainly a technology that is so widely used,
Speaker 1: then you want it to be corrected for to get
Speaker 1: the best results. Yeah. I mean the great thing about
Speaker 1: studies like this is that at once they seem to
Speaker 1: be both ridiculous and pointless and then also highly important
Speaker 1: and illuminating about an important topic. So yeah, so I
Speaker 1: mean this is a perfect example. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: of course they were having fun with it as they
Speaker 1: were asking the dead salm and questions about how they
Speaker 1: felt about social stimuli. We could also mention the fluid
Speaker 1: dynamics UM work is also pretty which on the surfaces
Speaker 1: hilarious because the fluid Dynamics prize went to the paper
Speaker 1: walking with coffee, Why does it spill? This study came
Speaker 1: from a team of Russian, Canadian, and US scientists who
Speaker 1: were studying the dynamics of liquid slashing to learn what
Speaker 1: happens when a person walks while carrying a cup of coffee, which,
Speaker 1: which which this is of course on the surfaces is
Speaker 1: great because there's nothing more every day than a cup
Speaker 1: of coffee, and that's certainly slashing coffee. So the idea
Speaker 1: that you would study something so seemingly low steak is
Speaker 1: that is hilarious. Well, and I love that these guys
Speaker 1: physicists Ruslan Katchnikov and HC. Meyer, they were at a conference,
Speaker 1: say that they were watching all of their colleagues slashing
Speaker 1: their coffee around, and they sat down as we all,
Speaker 1: you know, most of us wouldn't say, wow, what a
Speaker 1: my coffee, were like really actually, like, what's the physics
Speaker 1: behind coffee slashing around? Well, most of us would probably
Speaker 1: leave it right there, because guys were like, let's actually
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this, which I thought was fascinating.
Speaker 1: Piece of fluid dynamics papers and fluid dynamics publications and
Speaker 1: conferences that they're always really amazing, Like there's we try
Speaker 1: to keep an eye on the various studies that come out,
Speaker 1: you know, because we're we're looking at Eureka alert in
Speaker 1: all those places in an intent to keep up with
Speaker 1: with current science and cover it. And the fluid dynamic
Speaker 1: papers will come out and it's always crazy because it'll
Speaker 1: they'll range from stuff like one paper in particular that
Speaker 1: really blew my mind. It was dealing with how nuclear
Speaker 1: fallout moves through an urban city. So there's an idea
Speaker 1: of something potentially very high stakes because you use you
Speaker 1: analyze how fluids flow and again flow, how fluids be
Speaker 1: it air, you know, airs, gases, waters, The way they
Speaker 1: move through an environment is complex. That's why, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's one of the reasons. It's whether prediction is so
Speaker 1: complicated and impossible beyond a certain point. Uh, it's a
Speaker 1: it's it's so when we get down to the science
Speaker 1: of how those movements work, it gets really rich and
Speaker 1: complex and uh and if we're looking at how uh
Speaker 1: fall outspreads through the city, that allows us to better
Speaker 1: uh plan out our means of responding to a disaster.
Speaker 1: But then On the other hand, these same papers and
Speaker 1: publications will also analyze things such as this, like how
Speaker 1: does how does coffee slash out of a saucer? And
Speaker 1: ultimately they're illuminating that they're adding more data to the
Speaker 1: same equation, how do these how do fluids move? Like?
Speaker 1: What are the physics of these of these fluid interactions? Right?
Speaker 1: Because it's a mental exercise, right, because you can apply
Speaker 1: this to rocketry, like shifting weight that could destabilize a
Speaker 1: missile or a rocket, so um, if you're interested. They
Speaker 1: did come to the conclusion that the slashing is due
Speaker 1: to a complex motion of a cup and also the
Speaker 1: biomechanics of walking and the low viscocity liquid dynamics. And
Speaker 1: this is great because all of those things, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a pretty much a no brainer. We pretty much
Speaker 1: knew all of that already. But there's something hilarious but
Speaker 1: also really fulfilling about somebody setting out to scientifically answer
Speaker 1: a question that we already had an answer to. Like
Speaker 1: it always it always kind of blows my mind. It's
Speaker 1: like it's just something that we like, here's an example
Speaker 1: of something that we just we just saw it, we
Speaker 1: took it on faith. It turned out to be exactly
Speaker 1: what we thought it would be. And when we have
Speaker 1: the scientific reasons why, But what if the reasons had
Speaker 1: been different? You know, never know until you actually prove it.
Speaker 1: You know, this is basically a proof of common sense
Speaker 1: with science. I like that proof of common sense. And
Speaker 1: if you wanted to, or if the industry wanted to,
Speaker 1: it could change the design if it's coffee cups. Right, Um,
Speaker 1: all right, So I think that gives a good couple
Speaker 1: of examples. We have some other ones that we will
Speaker 1: leave for our part two, and just to wet your appetite,
Speaker 1: what they have to do with monkey butts, thwarting along
Speaker 1: winded orators, and preventing gastro intestinal explosions. Yes, so all
Speaker 1: of those things are definitely worth tuning into on the
Speaker 1: next episode, so join us for that. In the mean time,
Speaker 1: if you would like to reach out to us and
Speaker 1: share something about a current or past ignoble winner that
Speaker 1: you thought was particularly fascinating, you can find this on
Speaker 1: Tumblr and on Facebook. We are stuff to blow your
Speaker 1: mind on both of those and on Twitter we go
Speaker 1: by the handle blow the Mind, and you can always
Speaker 1: drop us a line and blow the mind at Discovery
Speaker 1: dot com for more on this and thousands of other topics.
Speaker 1: Is it how Stuff Works dot com