WEBVTT - Short Stuff: Semantic Satiation

0:00:04.320 --> 0:00:06.600
<v Speaker 1>Hey, and welcome to the Short Stuff. I'm Josh, and

0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:09.080
<v Speaker 1>there's Chuck and Jerry sitting in for Dave. And this

0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:14.240
<v Speaker 1>is short stuff, short stuff that's right, all about something

0:00:14.280 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>that big thanks to mental floss dot co and how

0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:20.119
<v Speaker 1>emotions are made. But the big thing that happens to

0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:23.439
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people is when and for me, it

0:00:23.440 --> 0:00:26.000
<v Speaker 1>happens when I say a word out loud too many times.

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:29.080
<v Speaker 1>I've never had the experience of writing a word too

0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:33.279
<v Speaker 1>many times. Oh really, no, I guess because I just

0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:36.160
<v Speaker 1>don't sit around and write the same word over and over.

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:39.360
<v Speaker 1>But it's it's the idea that if you say something

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:42.640
<v Speaker 1>or write something over and over, that word starts to

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 1>sound weird or look weird. Then it starts to completely

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:48.360
<v Speaker 1>kind of fall apart. The more you do it to

0:00:48.440 --> 0:00:53.520
<v Speaker 1>the point where you're like, what even is driveway right?

0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.639
<v Speaker 1>And it becomes just a string of sounds or if

0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:00.800
<v Speaker 1>you're just seeing it visually, a string of letters. Yeah,

0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:03.520
<v Speaker 1>it's a phenomenon. It is. It's an actual thing. It's

0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>called semantic satiation, and it's actually a kind of a

0:01:07.640 --> 0:01:10.800
<v Speaker 1>window into the way our brain works. I believe to

0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:13.760
<v Speaker 1>conserve energy. But we'll dive a little more into it.

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:18.759
<v Speaker 1>The thing is, semantic satiation is not new. We've been

0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:23.319
<v Speaker 1>probably doing it ever since we've been speaking or writing words, right,

0:01:23.400 --> 0:01:28.240
<v Speaker 1>so saying bronze age, and it was first described. Semantic

0:01:28.280 --> 0:01:30.959
<v Speaker 1>satiation was first described in nineteen oh seven in the

0:01:30.959 --> 0:01:34.959
<v Speaker 1>American Journal of Psychology. Should I read it? I think

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:37.120
<v Speaker 1>you should, because I think it gets it across really well.

0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:40.000
<v Speaker 1>All right, If a printed word has looked at steadily

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:42.679
<v Speaker 1>for some little time, will be found to take on

0:01:42.720 --> 0:01:47.360
<v Speaker 1>a curiously strange and foreign aspect. This loss of familiarity

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:50.360
<v Speaker 1>in its appearance sometimes makes it look like a word

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>in another language. Sometimes proceeds further until the word is

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:58.840
<v Speaker 1>a mere collection of letters, and occasionally reaches the extreme

0:01:59.240 --> 0:02:02.840
<v Speaker 1>where the letters to themselves look like meaningless marks on

0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the paper. Right. So these psychologists who are describing it

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 1>back in nineteen and seven are basically focused on seeing

0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:13.560
<v Speaker 1>it written right again. That's how I've normally experienced it,

0:02:13.600 --> 0:02:15.520
<v Speaker 1>and the best way to experience it is to just

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:19.359
<v Speaker 1>have one word, that one word typed out on paper, right,

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:23.280
<v Speaker 1>because it's in isolation, and it quickly falls apart. But

0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:26.280
<v Speaker 1>they nailed something, I think in their description. It's a

0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:31.520
<v Speaker 1>loss of familiarity. It just doesn't it's not itself any longer.

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:35.400
<v Speaker 1>And it's completely subjective to you because the person sitting

0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:38.320
<v Speaker 1>next to you might not be experiencing that while you are.

0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:41.880
<v Speaker 1>You're just lost in the sea of unfamiliarity. And the

0:02:41.919 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 1>word driveway just doesn't make sense anymore, right, And I

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:48.680
<v Speaker 1>guess what I was saying was writing or typing it

0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:50.519
<v Speaker 1>over and over. You don't have to do that, even

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>that can just be looking at it yes on paper

0:02:54.280 --> 0:02:56.200
<v Speaker 1>over and over, because I was thinking it might make

0:02:56.200 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>sense in the first days of writing, when they were

0:02:58.600 --> 0:03:03.320
<v Speaker 1>using writing long hand to do like logging pounds of

0:03:03.320 --> 0:03:06.280
<v Speaker 1>wheat or whatever, like writing the same word over and

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 1>over might have done it. But that's not necessarily the case. No,

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:12.480
<v Speaker 1>But it can happen like that, right. Yeah. So there's

0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:16.440
<v Speaker 1>a guy named Leon James. He's the guy who coined

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:18.959
<v Speaker 1>the term semantic satiation. There's other terms for it, to

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:24.880
<v Speaker 1>word decrement, it's gross extinction, reminiscence, a little too broad,

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:28.600
<v Speaker 1>verbal transformation, that's a good one, but semantic satiation is

0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:31.480
<v Speaker 1>the one that everybody said, that's that's the one. Yeah,

0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>And that happened in nineteen sixty two. He's a professor

0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:38.200
<v Speaker 1>or was at least a professor of psychology at the

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 1>University of Hawaii at their College of Social Sciences, and

0:03:42.360 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 1>he did some interesting I mean, he described it as

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>a he did some experiments we'll talk about in a minute,

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:49.560
<v Speaker 1>but he described it in a way that also kind

0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:53.040
<v Speaker 1>of helps drive it home as a kind of fatigue, right. Yeah,

0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:56.000
<v Speaker 1>And basically, like he explains how when a sell fires,

0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:58.680
<v Speaker 1>it's going to take more energy for it to fire

0:03:58.720 --> 0:04:01.840
<v Speaker 1>the second and third time on down the line, and

0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:03.640
<v Speaker 1>once you get down to like the fourth time that

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:07.320
<v Speaker 1>cell is firing, apparently it won't even respond unless you

0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:10.480
<v Speaker 1>wait a few seconds. And so I guess is he

0:04:10.600 --> 0:04:15.120
<v Speaker 1>likening that to the repetition of the word. Yeah, he's saying,

0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:17.919
<v Speaker 1>if you if you just expose yourself to the word

0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:19.719
<v Speaker 1>the first time, your brain's going to go through the

0:04:19.760 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 1>process of recalling all the memories and emotions and everything

0:04:23.320 --> 0:04:26.640
<v Speaker 1>attached that you have attached to that word. Right, And

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:28.920
<v Speaker 1>then if you do that again, if you just think

0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:31.159
<v Speaker 1>or look at the same order here, the same word again,

0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>it's gonna do it again. But it's gonna be like, Okay,

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:36.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't know why we're doing this again. Third time,

0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:39.120
<v Speaker 1>it's gonna sigh heavily while it's doing it. The fourth

0:04:39.120 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>time it's just going to stand there with its arms

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:43.679
<v Speaker 1>crossed and say, I'm not recalling any of this stuff.

0:04:44.040 --> 0:04:47.640
<v Speaker 1>And again, it's probably because the brain likes to conserve

0:04:47.720 --> 0:04:51.159
<v Speaker 1>energy as much as possible, and it's being presented with

0:04:51.240 --> 0:04:53.719
<v Speaker 1>the same stimulus over and over again, and it's like,

0:04:53.760 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 1>I've already, I've already done my job here. I don't

0:04:55.760 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 1>need to keep doing it. This is a waste of energy, literally,

0:04:58.839 --> 0:05:03.159
<v Speaker 1>And that processes is not applied just to semantic satiation.

0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:08.400
<v Speaker 1>Semantic satiation is a type of a larger phenomenon, which

0:05:08.440 --> 0:05:12.080
<v Speaker 1>is what I just described called reactive inhibition. And that's

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:14.520
<v Speaker 1>the same thing that's behind going nose blind to the

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 1>smells in your house. That's a type of reactive inhibition too. Yeah,

0:05:18.640 --> 0:05:21.400
<v Speaker 1>which was the most disturbing thing I've learned ever on

0:05:21.440 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 1>the show. It is because it's not great to come

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:25.560
<v Speaker 1>back to your house a week later and be like,

0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:28.200
<v Speaker 1>this is what my house really smells like. I know,

0:05:28.680 --> 0:05:31.960
<v Speaker 1>it's sort of that we just tend to live with

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:33.600
<v Speaker 1>our head in the sand. I think that's how I'm

0:05:33.640 --> 0:05:36.160
<v Speaker 1>going to proceed on that one, because if not, then

0:05:36.200 --> 0:05:38.600
<v Speaker 1>what you just know your house smells like rotten dangerines

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:42.080
<v Speaker 1>or something. All right, well, let's take a break and

0:05:42.120 --> 0:05:43.920
<v Speaker 1>we'll come back and talk a little bit more about

0:05:43.960 --> 0:06:10.920
<v Speaker 1>this after this. That's why we should know. But Josh Clark,

0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 1>all right, here's a very fun thing that Leon James did.

0:06:15.440 --> 0:06:18.400
<v Speaker 1>He did a lot of different research on how this

0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:21.240
<v Speaker 1>can be applied on not just words but other things.

0:06:21.720 --> 0:06:24.440
<v Speaker 1>And I find this fascinating. And we'll jump back to

0:06:24.480 --> 0:06:28.919
<v Speaker 1>the stuttering thing. But the music charts, like the you know,

0:06:28.960 --> 0:06:32.160
<v Speaker 1>Billboard Top one hundred or whatever. Yeah, he studied this

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:37.799
<v Speaker 1>and he found a correlation where songs that that really

0:06:37.880 --> 0:06:41.119
<v Speaker 1>hit the top of the charts really really fast also

0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:44.560
<v Speaker 1>went off the charts really really fast, and songs that

0:06:44.680 --> 0:06:47.240
<v Speaker 1>kind of work their way up the top one hundred

0:06:47.279 --> 0:06:51.480
<v Speaker 1>or whatever to the top ten, let's say, also faded

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:56.720
<v Speaker 1>away very slowly. Fascinating. Yeah, it's basically semantic satiation is

0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:59.440
<v Speaker 1>a type of burnout, And you can burn out on

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:02.040
<v Speaker 1>hearing the same thing in your brain being triggered by

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:03.919
<v Speaker 1>it over and over again, and the thing that's going

0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:06.080
<v Speaker 1>to storm the charts is going to get the most airplaced.

0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Everybody's gonna get sick of it faster, it's gonna lose

0:07:08.400 --> 0:07:11.280
<v Speaker 1>its effect more quickly. That's a pretty clever way of

0:07:11.320 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>showing that by looking at the pop charts. Yeah, but

0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:17.760
<v Speaker 1>it's not just like the charts themselves that show it.

0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:21.920
<v Speaker 1>The songs, individual songs have that same effect. Anybody who's

0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:25.720
<v Speaker 1>listened to any song made by Journey now in twenty

0:07:25.920 --> 0:07:29.360
<v Speaker 1>twenty three knows that you can burn out on a

0:07:29.400 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 1>song after hearing it too many times. Yeah, it's sad,

0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:35.600
<v Speaker 1>but true. Journeys songs are so great. But if I

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:38.160
<v Speaker 1>hear don't stop believing one more time, I'm gonna drive

0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 1>my car into a traffic poll. Yeah, I had, especially

0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:43.720
<v Speaker 1>with classic rock, I have a lot of instances of

0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:48.000
<v Speaker 1>bands that I loved, loved, loved forever and then I

0:07:48.080 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 1>was just like, I can't hear it any of it anymore, right,

0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 1>But then fifteen years later I'm back on it right right. Well,

0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>that's another feature of semantic satiation. Like Leon James said,

0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:03.240
<v Speaker 1>if you're or the nineteen oh seven old timey psychologists said,

0:08:03.360 --> 0:08:05.960
<v Speaker 1>if you wait a little bit, it'll come back to you.

0:08:06.040 --> 0:08:09.520
<v Speaker 1>It's a temporary thing where your brain is like, oh okay,

0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:12.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm being presented with us again and it's new enough,

0:08:13.480 --> 0:08:16.000
<v Speaker 1>but you can also get easily burned out on that

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:21.000
<v Speaker 1>same stuff even faster after it comes back that second time, Right, Yeah,

0:08:21.040 --> 0:08:23.200
<v Speaker 1>I think so. And classic rock is a great example

0:08:23.200 --> 0:08:26.800
<v Speaker 1>because that's the genre that refuses to go away, right,

0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:30.360
<v Speaker 1>And you know, it's one where you turn it on

0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:32.800
<v Speaker 1>any classic rock station and you're gonna hear that Journey

0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:36.280
<v Speaker 1>song or that Boston song that you just may not

0:08:36.360 --> 0:08:38.240
<v Speaker 1>be able to handle anymore that you used to love,

0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:42.480
<v Speaker 1>right exactly. What's interesting about it, though, is so like

0:08:42.520 --> 0:08:47.000
<v Speaker 1>the words themselves lose their meaning. They stop evoking the

0:08:48.160 --> 0:08:51.719
<v Speaker 1>emotion or the thought or the association or the conceptual

0:08:51.760 --> 0:08:57.480
<v Speaker 1>information that you attached to those words, and the words

0:08:57.559 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 1>become like musical notes. It's like the vocals become the

0:09:01.000 --> 0:09:03.640
<v Speaker 1>same thing as an instrument, like a guitar or something

0:09:03.679 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 1>like that. And if you stop and think about it,

0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:08.960
<v Speaker 1>like you know, all the words to don't Stop Believing,

0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:14.440
<v Speaker 1>but they rarely have that same well, I shouldn't say rarely.

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:17.000
<v Speaker 1>It depends on the person, but it can very easily

0:09:17.040 --> 0:09:20.520
<v Speaker 1>not have any impact on you whatsoever. It's I mean,

0:09:20.559 --> 0:09:23.560
<v Speaker 1>it can still evoke emotion, but the words themselves aren't

0:09:23.600 --> 0:09:26.760
<v Speaker 1>making you think of what Steve Perry's saying. And Steve

0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:28.760
<v Speaker 1>Perry's actually a really good example of that because his

0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:32.000
<v Speaker 1>vocals are so melodious that it's very easy for them

0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:35.920
<v Speaker 1>to transition into music rather than words. You know, Yeah,

0:09:35.960 --> 0:09:37.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you can be a small town girl living

0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:41.400
<v Speaker 1>in a lonely world and still feel nothing when that

0:09:41.480 --> 0:09:43.360
<v Speaker 1>song comes up, if you've heard it too many times,

0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:51.199
<v Speaker 1>nothing except rage. I think it's interesting that words a

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:53.960
<v Speaker 1>word can spark an emotion or be tied to an

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:57.720
<v Speaker 1>emotion period, just like seeing a word on a piece

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.760
<v Speaker 1>of paper. And they've used an example, I believe, like

0:10:01.320 --> 0:10:05.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, even seeing the word anger can like kind

0:10:05.880 --> 0:10:08.280
<v Speaker 1>of prime the pump for you to be angry. It

0:10:08.320 --> 0:10:11.880
<v Speaker 1>doesn't necessarily make you angry, but it can spark an

0:10:11.880 --> 0:10:14.920
<v Speaker 1>emotion in you to that sort of gets you headed

0:10:14.920 --> 0:10:17.720
<v Speaker 1>in that direction, right right, Yeah, Like you can be

0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:20.080
<v Speaker 1>primed to feel anger. Whereas if you're if you see

0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:23.840
<v Speaker 1>that word anger written down or something like that, and

0:10:24.080 --> 0:10:27.480
<v Speaker 1>something comes along that would make you angry, you're more

0:10:27.559 --> 0:10:30.040
<v Speaker 1>likely to become angry at that thing if you've seen

0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:33.280
<v Speaker 1>that word. So yeah, that whole semantic satiation thing reveals

0:10:33.360 --> 0:10:36.440
<v Speaker 1>that that fact that words have that effect, they have

0:10:36.520 --> 0:10:39.800
<v Speaker 1>emotional attachments, they can evoke emotions in us. Yeah, it's

0:10:39.800 --> 0:10:44.240
<v Speaker 1>pretty cool. I did mention stuttering at the beginning, and

0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:46.040
<v Speaker 1>we'll probably just close with this a little bit. Leon

0:10:46.200 --> 0:10:48.959
<v Speaker 1>James did. He's like, well, I wonder if I could

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:52.600
<v Speaker 1>apply this to people who stutter, and let me do

0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 1>this experiment while where I call people who have a

0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:58.920
<v Speaker 1>stutter over and over again all day long and talk

0:10:58.960 --> 0:11:01.600
<v Speaker 1>to them and see how much I can annoy them.

0:11:02.360 --> 0:11:05.360
<v Speaker 1>But what he found was the more he called, the

0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:11.000
<v Speaker 1>less they stuttered. So the stress of receiving that phone

0:11:11.000 --> 0:11:15.280
<v Speaker 1>call apparently seems like it had been satiated as well.

0:11:16.120 --> 0:11:19.480
<v Speaker 1>And yeah, that's not This probably the same thing as

0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:22.640
<v Speaker 1>semantic satiation. I think Chris is Leon James showing off.

0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:26.200
<v Speaker 1>I think so too. But what it basically shows is

0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:28.440
<v Speaker 1>it's the same thing as exposure. Like if you fly

0:11:28.480 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 1>in an airplane a bunch and you're afraid to fly,

0:11:30.840 --> 0:11:33.480
<v Speaker 1>you're going to become less afraid to fly over time.

0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:37.720
<v Speaker 1>One way to explain it is that you're showing yourself

0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:40.240
<v Speaker 1>there's actually nothing to be afraid of. Another one is

0:11:40.280 --> 0:11:44.560
<v Speaker 1>that you're actually stimulating that stress or that anxiety enough

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:47.760
<v Speaker 1>times that your brains just like, forget about it. I'm done,

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:51.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm satiated. Yeah, very interesting. It is interesting. The brain

0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:56.360
<v Speaker 1>is interesting, John, it certainly is well check agreed with me, everybody.

0:11:56.400 --> 0:11:57.800
<v Speaker 1>So I'm going to end on a high note and

0:11:57.880 --> 0:12:03.439
<v Speaker 1>say short stuff is out. Stuff you should Know is

0:12:03.480 --> 0:12:06.880
<v Speaker 1>a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,

0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:10.560
<v Speaker 1>visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen

0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 1>to your favorite shows.