1 00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:07,080 Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of iHeartRadio. 2 00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:14,760 Speaker 2: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name 3 00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:15,400 Speaker 2: is Robert. 4 00:00:15,200 --> 00:00:18,560 Speaker 3: Lamb, and I am Joe McCormick, and we are back 5 00:00:18,640 --> 00:00:21,920 Speaker 3: with Part two in our series on the psychology and 6 00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:26,680 Speaker 3: cultural significance of number parody p A R I T 7 00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:30,800 Speaker 3: Y parody meaning whether a number is odd or even. 8 00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:34,640 Speaker 3: In Part one, we described the principle of number parody, 9 00:00:34,760 --> 00:00:38,240 Speaker 3: and we talked about evidence that in some cases people 10 00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,360 Speaker 3: seem to have surprising feelings about associations with and even 11 00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:46,519 Speaker 3: preferences for odd and even quantities. And so one of 12 00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:50,280 Speaker 3: the big examples we discussed in that first episode was 13 00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:53,920 Speaker 3: the concept in various branches of visual art theory that 14 00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:57,560 Speaker 3: people have a preference for, say, three part divisions of 15 00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:00,720 Speaker 3: imagery over two part divisions, or that people prefer an 16 00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:04,240 Speaker 3: image composed with an odd number of subjects over an 17 00:01:04,280 --> 00:01:07,440 Speaker 3: even number, even to the extent that even numbers of 18 00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:11,360 Speaker 3: subjects will sometimes be subdivided into groups of odd numbers, 19 00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:14,160 Speaker 3: so you know, instead of four subjects, you would get 20 00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:17,040 Speaker 3: a painting with three and one. But we also got 21 00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:20,000 Speaker 3: into a bit of empirical research interrogating these ideas and 22 00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:23,720 Speaker 3: questioning to what extent they're truly natural esthetic preferences. Maybe 23 00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:27,280 Speaker 3: they're just sort of random conventions that people latched onto. 24 00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:30,119 Speaker 3: Including you know, one thing that came up in Part 25 00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:33,840 Speaker 3: one was the domain of food plating and food styling, 26 00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:36,360 Speaker 3: with us just you know, shoot, shooting from the hips 27 00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:39,920 Speaker 3: saying I think three little sliders are better than four. 28 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:42,440 Speaker 3: We're going to come back to that later today. You 29 00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:43,640 Speaker 3: might be surprised. 30 00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:47,440 Speaker 2: I mean it is still you still see this idea 31 00:01:47,480 --> 00:01:50,559 Speaker 2: out there, but how does it hold up to any 32 00:01:50,600 --> 00:01:52,760 Speaker 2: manner of study. Well, we'll take a look at that. 33 00:01:53,440 --> 00:01:56,520 Speaker 3: So one thing I wanted to talk about today was 34 00:01:56,680 --> 00:02:03,120 Speaker 3: the cognitive psychology of number parity, how we process the 35 00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:06,760 Speaker 3: idea of numbers being odd and even in the brain. 36 00:02:07,760 --> 00:02:10,480 Speaker 3: So I came across a very interesting paper about this 37 00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:13,480 Speaker 3: that was published in the journal Frontiers and Psychology in 38 00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,839 Speaker 3: the year twenty eighteen by Hubner at All and it's 39 00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:21,520 Speaker 3: called a mental odd even continuum account some numbers may 40 00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:25,160 Speaker 3: be more odd than others, and some numbers may be 41 00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:29,279 Speaker 3: more even than others. And so if you're not initially 42 00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,440 Speaker 3: thrilled about the idea of that, the cognitive psychology of numbers, 43 00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:36,359 Speaker 3: how we represent number properties internally. Stick around. I think 44 00:02:36,840 --> 00:02:39,919 Speaker 3: this might be more interesting than you would at first suspect, 45 00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:43,200 Speaker 3: because it's kind of it kind of reveals deeper ways 46 00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:45,560 Speaker 3: that our brains work in general, at least I think. 47 00:02:45,600 --> 00:02:47,520 Speaker 3: So we can come back to that after we look 48 00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:50,080 Speaker 3: at the findings of the study, But anyway to start 49 00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:55,840 Speaker 3: with the mathematical fact is that number parity is binary. 50 00:02:56,480 --> 00:03:00,920 Speaker 3: In math, natural numbers are either odd or even. Any 51 00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:04,359 Speaker 3: positive integer is even if it can be represented as 52 00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:08,320 Speaker 3: two times in, wherein is also a positive integer, and 53 00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:11,040 Speaker 3: it's odd if it can be represented as two times 54 00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:15,280 Speaker 3: in plus one. All positive whole numbers are either odd 55 00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:18,480 Speaker 3: or even. But this paper is focused not on the 56 00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:22,359 Speaker 3: question of the mathematics of parity, but on the question 57 00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:26,359 Speaker 3: of how number parity is represented in the brain, how 58 00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:30,440 Speaker 3: we think about quantities that are odd and even, And 59 00:03:30,639 --> 00:03:34,720 Speaker 3: the authors propose an interesting hypothesis that people do not 60 00:03:35,080 --> 00:03:39,080 Speaker 3: think about odd and even as a mathematical binary, but 61 00:03:39,200 --> 00:03:43,440 Speaker 3: rather as a spectrum of odd ness and even ness, 62 00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:46,800 Speaker 3: where some numbers can be relatively more odd or even 63 00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:50,560 Speaker 3: than others. And in a kind of amusing aside, the 64 00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:52,960 Speaker 3: author is acknowledge that if this is true, it may 65 00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:57,040 Speaker 3: prove irritating to some researchers, but you know, this is 66 00:03:57,080 --> 00:03:58,920 Speaker 3: the kind of thing I like reading about, because I 67 00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:03,040 Speaker 3: think it's when you observe the mismatch between how a 68 00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:07,280 Speaker 3: concept is technically defined and how we actually think about 69 00:04:07,320 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 3: it when we consider it in practice, it's a great 70 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:12,320 Speaker 3: way to get insights into our brains. 71 00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:15,600 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, And I'm already thinking about thinking about ways 72 00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:18,719 Speaker 2: that I might qualify certain numbers as more even or 73 00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:20,960 Speaker 2: more odd than others. But I want to see where 74 00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:22,920 Speaker 2: you're taking us here and see if any of these 75 00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:26,360 Speaker 2: are are the examples that are coming to my mind. 76 00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:28,560 Speaker 3: So to provide a model for how this would be 77 00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:32,000 Speaker 3: happening in the brain, the authors refer to a psychology 78 00:04:32,040 --> 00:04:36,560 Speaker 3: concept called prototype theory, which has been established going at 79 00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:40,680 Speaker 3: least as far back as the nineteen sixties. As they explain, quote, 80 00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:45,560 Speaker 3: prototype theory has long suggested that certain members of distinct 81 00:04:45,640 --> 00:04:51,240 Speaker 3: categories are more typical examples of that category than others, 82 00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:56,000 Speaker 3: and that membership to such a category may be graded. Now, 83 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:58,359 Speaker 3: they don't use the following example, and in fact, I 84 00:04:58,360 --> 00:05:01,080 Speaker 3: don't know if this is strictly a perfect example of 85 00:05:01,080 --> 00:05:03,960 Speaker 3: prototype theory, because the category I'm going to use is 86 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,120 Speaker 3: not strictly defined, but I think this will still illustrate it. 87 00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:13,960 Speaker 3: Both Pumpkinhead and Grover from Sesame Street are examples of 88 00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:20,000 Speaker 3: the category monster. And yet while they are undoubtedly both monsters, 89 00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:22,440 Speaker 3: and if you doubt Grover is a monster, go read 90 00:05:22,520 --> 00:05:25,839 Speaker 3: up about them, Grover's a monster, one of them just 91 00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:29,920 Speaker 3: seems like a better example of the category monster than 92 00:05:29,960 --> 00:05:33,880 Speaker 3: the other. Now, there are no real objective criteria for 93 00:05:33,960 --> 00:05:36,520 Speaker 3: what is and is not a monster, but you could 94 00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:40,480 Speaker 3: learn a lot about how people mentally construct the idea 95 00:05:40,520 --> 00:05:44,520 Speaker 3: of a monster by studying how easy it is to 96 00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:50,560 Speaker 3: associate particular examples of creatures with the category monster. And 97 00:05:50,800 --> 00:05:54,279 Speaker 3: one way of studying this would be time latency. So 98 00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:58,520 Speaker 3: imagine you're in a psychological study and you're given a task. 99 00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:02,400 Speaker 3: Somebody's going to show you a series of images of creatures, 100 00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:05,440 Speaker 3: and it's your job to say as quickly as you 101 00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:08,520 Speaker 3: can whether the creature in the image is a monster 102 00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:12,040 Speaker 3: or not. In this kind of test, the speed with 103 00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:15,680 Speaker 3: which you make the categorization could be one piece of 104 00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:20,760 Speaker 3: evidence for how easily you associate the example with the category. 105 00:06:20,960 --> 00:06:23,559 Speaker 3: So even if everybody who takes this kind of test 106 00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:27,760 Speaker 3: correctly recognizes that Grover is a monster. I would still 107 00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:30,920 Speaker 3: bet that on average people would say Pumpkinhead is a 108 00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:34,359 Speaker 3: monster a good bit faster. It just it takes less 109 00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:37,040 Speaker 3: thinking to get there, so you can click the monster 110 00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:37,880 Speaker 3: button faster. 111 00:06:38,600 --> 00:06:41,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you don't have to catch yourself and go, oh, well, yes, 112 00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:43,120 Speaker 2: of course he is the monster at the end of 113 00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:43,520 Speaker 2: the book. 114 00:06:43,760 --> 00:06:46,479 Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. And so with this kind of study you 115 00:06:46,480 --> 00:06:48,840 Speaker 3: could maybe get some insights. For example, you could look 116 00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:52,599 Speaker 3: at these specific attributes that make an individual picture of 117 00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:56,320 Speaker 3: a creature a better prototype example of the monster category 118 00:06:57,200 --> 00:07:00,000 Speaker 3: as measured by people selecting it as a monster faster. 119 00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:04,479 Speaker 3: Maybe maybe creatures that have sharp teeth or claws or 120 00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:07,360 Speaker 3: threatening posture or something like that. It just clicks in 121 00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:09,480 Speaker 3: the brain faster that it's a monster. You got to 122 00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:12,040 Speaker 3: think about it less. And so in this paper, the 123 00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:16,480 Speaker 3: authors do the same thing with odd and even numbers. 124 00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:19,480 Speaker 3: They're going to study the degree to which different numbers 125 00:07:19,520 --> 00:07:23,400 Speaker 3: are prototypes of their parity class, and then they're going 126 00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:25,720 Speaker 3: to try to look for the different factors that make 127 00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:29,720 Speaker 3: a number more easily identifiable as odd or even. And 128 00:07:29,760 --> 00:07:31,720 Speaker 3: this is, by the way, not the first study ever 129 00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:33,480 Speaker 3: to do this. There have been studies in the past 130 00:07:33,560 --> 00:07:36,920 Speaker 3: that have used processing time as a measure of prototypicality 131 00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:40,160 Speaker 3: for odd and even numbers, like they mentioned one study 132 00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:45,119 Speaker 3: that showed six took people longer to classify as even 133 00:07:45,600 --> 00:07:47,280 Speaker 3: than two four or eight did. 134 00:07:47,800 --> 00:07:48,040 Speaker 2: Why. 135 00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:51,480 Speaker 3: I don't know. That's kind of interesting. I mean, two, four, six, 136 00:07:51,480 --> 00:07:54,920 Speaker 3: and eight are all equally even in real mathematics, but 137 00:07:55,040 --> 00:07:58,440 Speaker 3: apparently two four and eight are just easier to identify 138 00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:00,840 Speaker 3: as even something something's a little for about six. 139 00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:02,880 Speaker 2: Huh. Interesting. 140 00:08:03,520 --> 00:08:05,800 Speaker 3: So in their introduction, the authors lay out a bunch 141 00:08:05,840 --> 00:08:09,840 Speaker 3: of different numerical reasons that they think a number might 142 00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:13,800 Speaker 3: be more easily recognizable as even or odd, and the 143 00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:20,040 Speaker 3: hypothetical explanations they include are first of all, ease of divisibility. 144 00:08:20,480 --> 00:08:23,520 Speaker 3: So the easier a number is to divide, the more 145 00:08:23,720 --> 00:08:27,680 Speaker 3: even and less odd it should feel. And this principle 146 00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:31,280 Speaker 3: could subconsciously be applied within the categories and not just 147 00:08:31,320 --> 00:08:35,520 Speaker 3: between them. So twenty five and twenty seven are both odd, 148 00:08:35,920 --> 00:08:38,760 Speaker 3: but the author's idea here is that twenty five may 149 00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:42,400 Speaker 3: feel less odd and take longer to classify as odd 150 00:08:42,480 --> 00:08:44,040 Speaker 3: because it's easy to divide it. 151 00:08:44,480 --> 00:08:46,840 Speaker 2: Now, this is where my mind was headed that. Yeah, 152 00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:49,840 Speaker 2: just thinking about the way I divide numbers is if 153 00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:52,680 Speaker 2: it's easier to divide, then yes, on some level, it 154 00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:55,840 Speaker 2: is more even than an even number that I have 155 00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:58,400 Speaker 2: to sort of like pause a second with then do 156 00:08:58,480 --> 00:09:00,000 Speaker 2: a little extra math in my life. 157 00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:00,920 Speaker 4: Yeah. 158 00:09:01,960 --> 00:09:03,959 Speaker 3: I think that's a strong instinct that they had the 159 00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:07,480 Speaker 3: same idea to begin with. Here. Another thing they hypothesize 160 00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:10,760 Speaker 3: would make a number feel more even is powers of two, 161 00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:14,079 Speaker 3: so that would be two for eight, sixteen, thirty two. 162 00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:18,920 Speaker 3: They think these are cognitively more even. Another factor is 163 00:09:19,080 --> 00:09:23,280 Speaker 3: whether a number is prime. The authors argue that prime 164 00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:28,920 Speaker 3: numbers may feel more odd than non prime odds, and 165 00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:31,400 Speaker 3: one piece of evidence for this is that a couple 166 00:09:31,440 --> 00:09:34,720 Speaker 3: of different previous studies have found that people are quicker 167 00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:39,439 Speaker 3: to flag three, five, and seven as odd than they 168 00:09:39,480 --> 00:09:42,839 Speaker 3: are to flag nine. That's interesting, now, this is kind 169 00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:46,000 Speaker 3: of like the inverse of the six not feeling as 170 00:09:46,120 --> 00:09:49,800 Speaker 3: even as the other even numbers under ten. In this case, apparently, 171 00:09:49,920 --> 00:09:52,800 Speaker 3: maybe nine does not feel as odd as the other 172 00:09:52,920 --> 00:09:56,640 Speaker 3: odd numbers under ten, and the authors argue that this 173 00:09:56,760 --> 00:09:59,679 Speaker 3: may be because the other three odd numbers under ten, three, five, 174 00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:02,960 Speaker 3: and seve are all prime. Nine is not prime. Three 175 00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:06,160 Speaker 3: times three is nine, so the divisibility of it maybe 176 00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:11,880 Speaker 3: makes it feel less odd. The authors also hypothesize maybe 177 00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:16,439 Speaker 3: being part of a standard multiplication table that children memorize 178 00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:19,680 Speaker 3: in school that might make numbers feel more even and 179 00:10:19,760 --> 00:10:23,160 Speaker 3: less odd, But we'll have to look at the results 180 00:10:23,160 --> 00:10:26,360 Speaker 3: and see if that bears out. However, the authors point 181 00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,839 Speaker 3: out that previous studies have shown that it is probably 182 00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:33,880 Speaker 3: not only the mathematical properties of a number the number 183 00:10:33,960 --> 00:10:37,840 Speaker 3: properties of a number that influence how long we take 184 00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:42,679 Speaker 3: to make judgments about it. Other factors, such as linguistic factors, 185 00:10:42,800 --> 00:10:46,080 Speaker 3: appear to play a role as well. And illustrate this, 186 00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:49,760 Speaker 3: the authors bring up a really interesting concept that I 187 00:10:49,800 --> 00:10:52,280 Speaker 3: don't think I'd ever read about before, but this really 188 00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:56,280 Speaker 3: stuck with me. So they refer to previous research by 189 00:10:56,559 --> 00:11:01,120 Speaker 3: Hines in the journal Memory and Cognition in nineteen and 190 00:11:01,200 --> 00:11:05,000 Speaker 3: this paper found that if you give people random numbers, 191 00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:08,679 Speaker 3: especially in pairs or in triples, and ask them to 192 00:11:08,800 --> 00:11:12,280 Speaker 3: judge whether the numbers are odd or even, people simply 193 00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:17,480 Speaker 3: take longer to recognize oddness than they do to recognize evenness. 194 00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:23,120 Speaker 3: So odd numbers were just harder to judge overall, so 195 00:11:23,200 --> 00:11:26,640 Speaker 3: people more quickly recognize that fifty two and fifty four 196 00:11:26,880 --> 00:11:30,680 Speaker 3: are even than that fifty three and fifty five are odd. 197 00:11:31,160 --> 00:11:35,199 Speaker 3: Now that's kind of weird, like why would oddness itself 198 00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:38,720 Speaker 3: take longer to process? Pretty much across the board. In 199 00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:42,040 Speaker 3: this older paper, the author argued that part of the 200 00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,040 Speaker 3: explanation may lie in the idea of what are called 201 00:11:45,400 --> 00:11:50,440 Speaker 3: marked and unmarked terms in language. Marked and unmarked This 202 00:11:50,520 --> 00:11:53,720 Speaker 3: is a concept in linguistics, and it goes like this, 203 00:11:54,280 --> 00:11:59,480 Speaker 3: So there exist in languages pairs of adjectives that have 204 00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:05,680 Speaker 3: opposite meanings, so long and short, old and young, even 205 00:12:05,920 --> 00:12:11,160 Speaker 3: an odd, alive and dead, things like that. Linguistic markedness 206 00:12:11,200 --> 00:12:15,199 Speaker 3: theory says that usually when you have pairs of adjectives 207 00:12:15,280 --> 00:12:18,760 Speaker 3: like this, one of the terms in the pair is 208 00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:23,040 Speaker 3: treated as the more basic and natural of the two 209 00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:25,800 Speaker 3: in the brain. So we think about one of these 210 00:12:25,840 --> 00:12:29,079 Speaker 3: two terms in a way that what they call they 211 00:12:29,120 --> 00:12:33,560 Speaker 3: call it unmarked. It is the natural state of this measure, 212 00:12:34,080 --> 00:12:39,880 Speaker 3: and then the other term is treated as mentally more complex, complicated, 213 00:12:39,960 --> 00:12:43,440 Speaker 3: and unnatural. This is the marked word in the pair, 214 00:12:44,240 --> 00:12:46,840 Speaker 3: and there are experiments that will show this. But the 215 00:12:46,960 --> 00:12:51,559 Speaker 3: unmarked word in the pair, for example, is used more 216 00:12:51,600 --> 00:12:56,439 Speaker 3: frequently than the marked word. It's learned earlier in language acquisition, 217 00:12:56,480 --> 00:12:59,320 Speaker 3: when you're a child, and it is considered usually the 218 00:12:59,480 --> 00:13:03,880 Speaker 3: default to measure. So, for example, you say how old 219 00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:07,520 Speaker 3: are you, not how young are you? Because in old 220 00:13:07,559 --> 00:13:11,120 Speaker 3: and young, old is treated as the unmarked word and 221 00:13:11,200 --> 00:13:15,200 Speaker 3: young is the marked concept. Similarly, you will say how 222 00:13:15,320 --> 00:13:18,520 Speaker 3: long will it take? Not how short will it take? 223 00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:21,320 Speaker 3: I thought this was interesting. They say also that in 224 00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:24,440 Speaker 3: some cases you can create the same meaning as the 225 00:13:24,480 --> 00:13:28,120 Speaker 3: marked word simply by adding a negative prefix to the 226 00:13:28,280 --> 00:13:32,000 Speaker 3: unmarked word. So you can say uneven to mean the 227 00:13:32,040 --> 00:13:35,560 Speaker 3: same thing as odd, but nobody says un odd to 228 00:13:35,640 --> 00:13:36,240 Speaker 3: mean even. 229 00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:38,400 Speaker 2: Oh, that's true. That's a great point. 230 00:13:38,720 --> 00:13:42,000 Speaker 3: Now, whatever this division between marked and unmarked comes from, 231 00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:46,560 Speaker 3: it seems that it results in different processing times in 232 00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:51,640 Speaker 3: the brain. That we just deal with unmarked concepts faster 233 00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:54,840 Speaker 3: and more easily, and it takes us, you know, maybe 234 00:13:54,880 --> 00:13:58,320 Speaker 3: a split second longer to think about, or deliver or 235 00:13:58,400 --> 00:14:02,480 Speaker 3: deal with a marked concept. And so if even is 236 00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:05,960 Speaker 3: unmarked and odd is marked, it may in fact be 237 00:14:06,240 --> 00:14:09,360 Speaker 3: that we just deal with the concept of evenness a 238 00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:11,960 Speaker 3: little bit more easily in the brain than oddness. It's 239 00:14:12,120 --> 00:14:15,640 Speaker 3: oddness is linguistically marked, and so it takes us a 240 00:14:15,679 --> 00:14:19,600 Speaker 3: split second longer to kind of process this concept whenever 241 00:14:19,640 --> 00:14:22,000 Speaker 3: we're dealing with it or producing a judgment about it, 242 00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:24,400 Speaker 3: And this may play a role in explaining the so 243 00:14:24,480 --> 00:14:28,200 Speaker 3: called odd effect that was discovered in this paper in 244 00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:40,840 Speaker 3: the nineties. Moving on from that, there's another linguistic effect 245 00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:44,920 Speaker 3: that actually shows up when you compare judgments about parody 246 00:14:44,920 --> 00:14:49,800 Speaker 3: across different languages, and this is the inversion property of 247 00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:53,920 Speaker 3: multiple digit numbers. So in English, when we want to 248 00:14:54,120 --> 00:14:56,680 Speaker 3: say or write out in words the number that is 249 00:14:56,760 --> 00:15:00,120 Speaker 3: one quarter of one hundred, we say twenty five, we 250 00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:03,480 Speaker 3: write the twenty first and then the five, or we 251 00:15:03,520 --> 00:15:06,000 Speaker 3: say the twenty first and then the five. So for 252 00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:10,000 Speaker 3: two digit numbers, it's always the decade digit first in language, 253 00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:12,960 Speaker 3: and then the unit digit. But not all languages work 254 00:15:13,000 --> 00:15:16,840 Speaker 3: this way. For example, in German, twenty five is and 255 00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:19,240 Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm sure i'm pronouncing this wrong. It is 256 00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:25,720 Speaker 3: something like fun fundzwanzig, meaning five and twenty. And this 257 00:15:25,800 --> 00:15:28,520 Speaker 3: has been found to have all sorts of interesting effects 258 00:15:28,520 --> 00:15:33,400 Speaker 3: on number cognition. For example, German speakers are studies have 259 00:15:33,440 --> 00:15:37,520 Speaker 3: shown more likely to make trans coding errors when writing 260 00:15:37,640 --> 00:15:41,760 Speaker 3: numbers out, so more likely to write fifty two when 261 00:15:41,800 --> 00:15:46,200 Speaker 3: they mean twenty five. In terms of digits, Also, compared 262 00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:50,960 Speaker 3: to non inverted languages, German speakers pay relatively more attention 263 00:15:51,200 --> 00:15:55,040 Speaker 3: to the unit digit in a multi digit number, and 264 00:15:55,080 --> 00:15:58,480 Speaker 3: so the authors write quote. This prioritizing of either the 265 00:15:58,640 --> 00:16:02,600 Speaker 3: unit or decade digit might influence participants' performance in number 266 00:16:02,640 --> 00:16:06,680 Speaker 3: processing tasks in which units play a decisive role. Parity 267 00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:09,960 Speaker 3: judgment is clearly one of those tasks, because only the 268 00:16:10,080 --> 00:16:14,320 Speaker 3: unit parity is relevant for answering correctly, which is true 269 00:16:14,320 --> 00:16:16,280 Speaker 3: when you look at you can judge whether it's odd 270 00:16:16,320 --> 00:16:19,000 Speaker 3: or even without knowing any of the numbers before the 271 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:21,920 Speaker 3: last one. And just a couple of other factors the 272 00:16:21,960 --> 00:16:26,600 Speaker 3: authors mention that have been possibly shown to influence parity judgments. 273 00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:31,640 Speaker 3: Larger numbers may cause longer processing times, regardless of the 274 00:16:32,080 --> 00:16:34,480 Speaker 3: parity or any other facts about them. Is just like 275 00:16:34,520 --> 00:16:36,400 Speaker 3: the bigger the number is, the longer you have to 276 00:16:36,400 --> 00:16:40,560 Speaker 3: think about it. Also, word frequency, numbers that appear more 277 00:16:40,600 --> 00:16:43,680 Speaker 3: often in language get faster responses, and this is not 278 00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:46,520 Speaker 3: just true of numbers any words in general that are 279 00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:51,400 Speaker 3: used more often are processed more efficiently, So this study 280 00:16:51,440 --> 00:16:55,160 Speaker 3: tried to test the relative influence of number prototypicality and 281 00:16:55,400 --> 00:16:58,840 Speaker 3: the linguistic factors we were just talking about. And the 282 00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:02,440 Speaker 3: way they did this was by getting a group of 283 00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:06,640 Speaker 3: subjects and giving them auditory prompts of numbers between twenty 284 00:17:06,680 --> 00:17:09,760 Speaker 3: and ninety nine, and then they would try to analyze 285 00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:12,399 Speaker 3: how long it took people to classify these numbers as 286 00:17:12,480 --> 00:17:16,399 Speaker 3: odd or even to test the linguistic factors. The author's 287 00:17:16,480 --> 00:17:20,640 Speaker 3: recruited subjects from three different language groups. They had English speakers, 288 00:17:20,680 --> 00:17:25,200 Speaker 3: German speakers, and Polish speakers. In Polish, two digit numbers 289 00:17:25,240 --> 00:17:29,040 Speaker 3: are expressed with the decade digit first, like in English. 290 00:17:29,080 --> 00:17:31,280 Speaker 3: And I'm not going to discuss all of their findings, 291 00:17:31,280 --> 00:17:34,120 Speaker 3: but just to summarize and pick a few highlights, they 292 00:17:34,160 --> 00:17:38,240 Speaker 3: do say that quote. Overall, the results suggest that perceived 293 00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:41,800 Speaker 3: paroity is not the same as objective paroity, and some 294 00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:47,680 Speaker 3: numbers are more prototypical exemplars of their categories. And specifically, 295 00:17:48,040 --> 00:17:52,960 Speaker 3: with regards to these mathematical or numerical factors influencing things, 296 00:17:53,200 --> 00:17:57,119 Speaker 3: they found that some but not all, of the characteristics 297 00:17:57,160 --> 00:18:02,080 Speaker 3: they hypothesized actually did play a role imperceived paroity. So, 298 00:18:02,160 --> 00:18:06,479 Speaker 3: for evens. The numbers that people identified as even the 299 00:18:06,560 --> 00:18:11,399 Speaker 3: fastest tended to be even squares, so a square being 300 00:18:11,480 --> 00:18:14,840 Speaker 3: the product of a number multiplied by itself. Sixteen is 301 00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:17,760 Speaker 3: a square because it's four times four, sixty four is 302 00:18:17,800 --> 00:18:21,200 Speaker 3: a square because it's eight times eight. Thirty six is 303 00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:23,919 Speaker 3: a square because it's six times six. So in the 304 00:18:23,960 --> 00:18:28,240 Speaker 3: results you would find that sixty four was significantly easier 305 00:18:28,280 --> 00:18:32,600 Speaker 3: to identify as even than sixty two, so squares tended 306 00:18:32,640 --> 00:18:36,920 Speaker 3: to be very fast. Multiples of four also did really good. 307 00:18:37,560 --> 00:18:41,080 Speaker 3: For some reason, our brains love noticing that multiples of 308 00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:45,440 Speaker 3: four are even. Now, when it came to recognizing odd numbers, 309 00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:48,320 Speaker 3: things got a little more complicated, and the authors say 310 00:18:48,400 --> 00:18:51,400 Speaker 3: that there's a good reason for this. It may have 311 00:18:51,480 --> 00:18:56,040 Speaker 3: to do with multiple hypothesized effects working against one another, 312 00:18:56,119 --> 00:18:59,439 Speaker 3: and these would be number prototypicality on one hand, but 313 00:18:59,640 --> 00:19:04,480 Speaker 3: linguistic markedness on the other. So, to refresh the explanation 314 00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:08,479 Speaker 3: based on linguistic markedness, says that because even is an 315 00:19:08,600 --> 00:19:13,080 Speaker 3: unmarked concept and odd is marked, we will usually recognize 316 00:19:13,160 --> 00:19:17,000 Speaker 3: evens faster than odds across the board. And it may 317 00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:21,040 Speaker 3: also possibly mean that numbers that seem odder to us 318 00:19:21,560 --> 00:19:26,320 Speaker 3: will take longer to recognize. So this effect, if present, 319 00:19:26,359 --> 00:19:30,680 Speaker 3: would work in opposite directions depending on parity. For example, 320 00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:34,920 Speaker 3: the super even numerical properties like say being a multiple 321 00:19:34,960 --> 00:19:38,760 Speaker 3: of four, will make a number feel more even, but 322 00:19:38,800 --> 00:19:42,359 Speaker 3: they will also make it easier to process the evenness 323 00:19:42,359 --> 00:19:45,760 Speaker 3: of the number quickly from a linguistic standpoint, because now 324 00:19:45,800 --> 00:19:49,560 Speaker 3: the number is especially unmarked. On the other hand, as 325 00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:53,159 Speaker 3: a number becomes more subjectively odd by say being a 326 00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:57,840 Speaker 3: prime number, the prototypicality explanation would predict that we can 327 00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:03,520 Speaker 3: notice that it's odd faster, but because it's especially numerically odd. 328 00:20:04,000 --> 00:20:07,560 Speaker 3: Working against this would be the linguistic markedness, which might 329 00:20:07,680 --> 00:20:11,840 Speaker 3: predict that the more odd number seems, the more linguistically 330 00:20:11,880 --> 00:20:15,000 Speaker 3: complicated it will feel, and thus the longer our reaction 331 00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:18,800 Speaker 3: time before we can say anything about it. So with evens, 332 00:20:19,160 --> 00:20:22,960 Speaker 3: these two explanations stack, but with odds they work against 333 00:20:22,960 --> 00:20:26,600 Speaker 3: each other. And so they said that the results with 334 00:20:26,720 --> 00:20:30,280 Speaker 3: odd numbers were more muddled. But they did find basically 335 00:20:30,320 --> 00:20:35,040 Speaker 3: that primes and numbers divisible by five took the longest 336 00:20:35,160 --> 00:20:39,880 Speaker 3: to classify as odds. Odd squares were the fastest. Kind 337 00:20:39,920 --> 00:20:44,679 Speaker 3: of counterintuitively, a couple of other results They also found 338 00:20:44,920 --> 00:20:49,120 Speaker 3: effects from what's called parody congruity. That's whether the two 339 00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:52,119 Speaker 3: digits in the number are the same parody, so whether 340 00:20:52,320 --> 00:20:56,840 Speaker 3: you know, like sixty eight, they're both even, sixty seven 341 00:20:56,960 --> 00:20:59,240 Speaker 3: one is even and one is odd. That had an effect, 342 00:20:59,760 --> 00:21:03,879 Speaker 3: and also decade magnitude, so the how high the first 343 00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:06,960 Speaker 3: number in the pair was had an effect on how 344 00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:09,399 Speaker 3: long it took to process. As it gets bigger, it 345 00:21:09,440 --> 00:21:12,720 Speaker 3: takes longer to think about. They also did find some 346 00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:16,800 Speaker 3: major differences in reaction times by language group. In general, 347 00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:20,920 Speaker 3: German speakers identified two digit numbers as odd or even 348 00:21:21,080 --> 00:21:24,439 Speaker 3: faster than English or Polish speakers, and this could be 349 00:21:24,520 --> 00:21:28,359 Speaker 3: due again to this linguistic inversion principle that you say 350 00:21:28,440 --> 00:21:31,760 Speaker 3: the unit number first when you're speaking German, and the 351 00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:34,200 Speaker 3: unit number is actually all you need to know whether 352 00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:37,200 Speaker 3: a number is odd or even. But anyway, I found 353 00:21:37,280 --> 00:21:41,320 Speaker 3: this whole thing so interesting because it sort of reveals 354 00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:46,280 Speaker 3: to me that while the actual, you know, the mathematical 355 00:21:46,359 --> 00:21:50,280 Speaker 3: algorithm for determining whether a number is even or odd 356 00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:57,440 Speaker 3: is extremely simple and it's totally binary, and yet when 357 00:21:57,480 --> 00:22:00,680 Speaker 3: we think about it, apparently we must be using all 358 00:22:00,760 --> 00:22:06,440 Speaker 3: these different kind of heuristics and influences and different kinds 359 00:22:06,440 --> 00:22:09,760 Speaker 3: of little rules to make these judgments about numbers as 360 00:22:09,800 --> 00:22:12,280 Speaker 3: fast as we can. And the study did find that 361 00:22:12,320 --> 00:22:14,159 Speaker 3: people get the right answer most of the time, and 362 00:22:14,200 --> 00:22:16,560 Speaker 3: people rarely get it wrong when asked to judge whether 363 00:22:16,600 --> 00:22:19,640 Speaker 3: a number is even or odd. But they're they're clearly 364 00:22:19,800 --> 00:22:23,840 Speaker 3: using like different little, different little principles are at work 365 00:22:23,960 --> 00:22:26,520 Speaker 3: in helping them get to that answer as fast as 366 00:22:26,520 --> 00:22:30,920 Speaker 3: they can. And some numbers are just easier to judge 367 00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:34,320 Speaker 3: faster than other ones, meaning that they're just more represented 368 00:22:34,400 --> 00:22:38,200 Speaker 3: as a correct answer within this category than others are. 369 00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:41,960 Speaker 3: And no number in reality is any more even or 370 00:22:42,000 --> 00:22:43,280 Speaker 3: any more odd than another. 371 00:22:43,920 --> 00:22:46,080 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I can't help but think about the 372 00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:50,840 Speaker 2: basic reality of when I'm using real world math, particularly 373 00:22:50,880 --> 00:22:53,320 Speaker 2: say with money. You know, any amount of money is 374 00:22:53,359 --> 00:22:56,000 Speaker 2: divisible by two, you just get into change, And that 375 00:22:56,040 --> 00:22:58,520 Speaker 2: holds true elsewhere as well. I mean, it's not like 376 00:22:58,960 --> 00:23:03,560 Speaker 2: an odd number cannot be split into two equal portions. 377 00:23:03,880 --> 00:23:06,159 Speaker 2: It's it's just it's just you're going to have to 378 00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:08,280 Speaker 2: go into the decimal points to do so. But when 379 00:23:08,280 --> 00:23:11,800 Speaker 2: you do have to divide an even number into in 380 00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:16,040 Speaker 2: the real world, it does feel like a more wholesome act. Yeah, 381 00:23:16,280 --> 00:23:18,200 Speaker 2: maybe I just hate doing math, but that's the way 382 00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:18,640 Speaker 2: I feel. 383 00:23:19,240 --> 00:23:21,600 Speaker 3: Well no, no, I see, yeah, what you're saying. I mean, 384 00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:26,840 Speaker 3: so when you're talking about whole number division, obviously dividing 385 00:23:26,880 --> 00:23:29,199 Speaker 3: an even number is you know, you can get to 386 00:23:29,280 --> 00:23:31,639 Speaker 3: an unproblematic answer to that, and if you have an 387 00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:33,439 Speaker 3: odd number, you're going to have a problem. You're going 388 00:23:33,480 --> 00:23:35,760 Speaker 3: to have to figure out what to do about the 389 00:23:35,760 --> 00:23:38,280 Speaker 3: fact that it doesn't split down the middle correctly. If 390 00:23:38,320 --> 00:23:40,320 Speaker 3: you're you're dealing with some kind of like whole I 391 00:23:40,320 --> 00:23:41,879 Speaker 3: don't know, if you're trying to figure out how to 392 00:23:41,880 --> 00:23:43,639 Speaker 3: split the three scallops on your plate. 393 00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:44,360 Speaker 2: Mm hmm. 394 00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:44,720 Speaker 3: Yeah. 395 00:23:44,920 --> 00:23:45,320 Speaker 2: Yeah. 396 00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:47,360 Speaker 3: But this also it just makes me think about all 397 00:23:47,359 --> 00:23:50,960 Speaker 3: the ways that you know, you might have categories in 398 00:23:51,000 --> 00:23:54,639 Speaker 3: the real world, whether it's mathematical or whatever, that you 399 00:23:54,680 --> 00:23:57,439 Speaker 3: know are are technically distinct in the way that they 400 00:23:57,440 --> 00:24:00,560 Speaker 3: are defined, and yet our brains are just not going 401 00:24:00,600 --> 00:24:04,040 Speaker 3: to be bound by that for having like strict inclusion criteria. Well, 402 00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:06,800 Speaker 3: like we'll get into these like ways of thinking about 403 00:24:06,840 --> 00:24:09,320 Speaker 3: it as some kind of gradient, and that's just kind 404 00:24:09,359 --> 00:24:11,160 Speaker 3: of interesting that we tend to work that way. 405 00:24:11,560 --> 00:24:13,880 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Like now that I think about it. I'm 406 00:24:13,880 --> 00:24:17,480 Speaker 2: pretty sure that five and seven especially are just like 407 00:24:17,600 --> 00:24:20,760 Speaker 2: disgustingly odd, you know. Oh okay, I mean it gets 408 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:23,200 Speaker 2: more disgusting the more sevens you have. I guess, like 409 00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:26,800 Speaker 2: like seventy seven, seven hundred and seventy seven. Just I 410 00:24:26,800 --> 00:24:27,960 Speaker 2: don't even want to think about those. 411 00:24:29,520 --> 00:24:32,240 Speaker 3: Oh, that's starting to make me think about the stacking 412 00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:33,440 Speaker 3: of sevens in the Bible. 413 00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:33,679 Speaker 1: You know. 414 00:24:34,080 --> 00:24:36,120 Speaker 3: Sometimes they really like to get into the There will 415 00:24:36,119 --> 00:24:39,200 Speaker 3: be like seven seven seven of something that they're seventy 416 00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:40,560 Speaker 3: seven of on the seventh day. 417 00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:42,760 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it kind of gets into the know, 418 00:24:42,880 --> 00:24:44,800 Speaker 2: the idea of something Okay, well, you know it's not 419 00:24:44,880 --> 00:24:47,760 Speaker 2: easily divisible. I guess it's you know, it's more solid, 420 00:24:47,800 --> 00:24:50,159 Speaker 2: it's more holy in that regard. It depends on how 421 00:24:50,160 --> 00:25:01,159 Speaker 2: you want to spend all right, now, it's time to 422 00:25:01,160 --> 00:25:04,919 Speaker 2: come back to the idea of three sliders on a plate, 423 00:25:06,480 --> 00:25:09,800 Speaker 2: the supposed rule of odds. So in part one I 424 00:25:09,880 --> 00:25:13,160 Speaker 2: mentioned the rule of odds and visual composition, and yeah, 425 00:25:13,200 --> 00:25:14,640 Speaker 2: I want to come back and discuss it a bit 426 00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:18,000 Speaker 2: more here, so refresh. This is the idea that if 427 00:25:18,040 --> 00:25:21,000 Speaker 2: you're going to present multiple objects or subjects in an image, 428 00:25:21,000 --> 00:25:24,800 Speaker 2: you should gravitate toward odd numbers rather than evens. The 429 00:25:24,840 --> 00:25:28,600 Speaker 2: basic concept here, as described by David Taylor in Understanding 430 00:25:28,640 --> 00:25:31,960 Speaker 2: Composition from twenty fifteen, is that a presentation of odd 431 00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:34,920 Speaker 2: numbers is always more esthetically pleasing. With an odd number, 432 00:25:34,960 --> 00:25:39,679 Speaker 2: there's always a central object or subject framed by the others. Meanwhile, 433 00:25:39,800 --> 00:25:43,520 Speaker 2: even numbered subjects or objects will read as symmetrical with 434 00:25:43,680 --> 00:25:47,400 Speaker 2: no central subject or object unless they are, as we discuss, 435 00:25:47,600 --> 00:25:52,520 Speaker 2: grouped in a manner that reads more as odd than even. 436 00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:55,680 Speaker 3: Yeah, And we talked about examples of that last time, 437 00:25:55,720 --> 00:25:58,320 Speaker 3: with like paintings that will have four people in them 438 00:25:58,359 --> 00:26:01,440 Speaker 3: and it's like three standing together, one standing apart. 439 00:26:01,560 --> 00:26:03,639 Speaker 2: Right, And I and I know, I've seen this pointed 440 00:26:03,680 --> 00:26:06,120 Speaker 2: out as something that factors into food photography as well. 441 00:26:06,640 --> 00:26:10,399 Speaker 2: And I kind of like ended on that point on 442 00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:12,840 Speaker 2: a Friday afternoon and then spent the whole weekend thinking 443 00:26:12,880 --> 00:26:15,640 Speaker 2: about it, and like went into a restaurant with my family, 444 00:26:16,080 --> 00:26:18,760 Speaker 2: and you know, at one point, appetizer just came out 445 00:26:18,800 --> 00:26:20,919 Speaker 2: in a pair of two and I was, I was, 446 00:26:21,000 --> 00:26:22,520 Speaker 2: you know, thinking about that a lot. I was like, 447 00:26:22,520 --> 00:26:24,320 Speaker 2: why is it too? It should be three? Right? That 448 00:26:24,800 --> 00:26:27,600 Speaker 2: is that the whole sense here and so then I 449 00:26:27,640 --> 00:26:30,680 Speaker 2: came back to it Monday morning and read a bit 450 00:26:30,680 --> 00:26:32,040 Speaker 2: more about it. So I'm going to come back to 451 00:26:32,080 --> 00:26:35,000 Speaker 2: the food spin on this in just a minute, but 452 00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:38,040 Speaker 2: just this idea of Okay, if you have odd images, 453 00:26:38,080 --> 00:26:40,760 Speaker 2: there's always a central and if you have even there's 454 00:26:40,840 --> 00:26:44,960 Speaker 2: no like centrality. It's it's symmetrical. It's like a group 455 00:26:45,000 --> 00:26:47,160 Speaker 2: of two and two, and that's just how our brains 456 00:26:47,280 --> 00:26:50,840 Speaker 2: end up taking it all in. Now. I started wondering, 457 00:26:51,320 --> 00:26:53,399 Speaker 2: what is this reminding me of. There's some sort of 458 00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:55,760 Speaker 2: image in my head, and I realized I was thinking 459 00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:58,840 Speaker 2: of a particular puppet on display in the museum at 460 00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:02,119 Speaker 2: the Center for Puppetry Art here in Atlanta. The puppet 461 00:27:02,280 --> 00:27:06,520 Speaker 2: is of the demon king Ravana from the Hindu epic 462 00:27:06,880 --> 00:27:11,639 Speaker 2: the Ramayana. This is the demon king, the villain of 463 00:27:11,680 --> 00:27:15,120 Speaker 2: that particular work. He rules over the island of Lanka 464 00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:20,880 Speaker 2: and famously abducts Lord Rama's wife Sita. So yeah, he's 465 00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:23,760 Speaker 2: the big bad and he's often depicted as having ten heads, 466 00:27:24,240 --> 00:27:27,040 Speaker 2: though for reasons I'll get into, he also sometimes is 467 00:27:27,080 --> 00:27:30,440 Speaker 2: depicted is having nine heads. These heads are generally presented 468 00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:33,879 Speaker 2: lined up ear to ear, with only a single head 469 00:27:33,880 --> 00:27:37,239 Speaker 2: connected by a neck to a single humanoid body. Now 470 00:27:37,240 --> 00:27:39,280 Speaker 2: the puppet that's on display in the Center for Public Arts, 471 00:27:39,320 --> 00:27:42,679 Speaker 2: this is a West Bengal puppet in the tradition of 472 00:27:42,760 --> 00:27:46,840 Speaker 2: and I'm maybe mispronouncing this, my apologies, don jier Puto knock. 473 00:27:46,960 --> 00:27:49,320 Speaker 2: This is a style of wooden rod puppetry. Literally it 474 00:27:49,400 --> 00:27:53,480 Speaker 2: means dance of the wooden dolls. This puppet has ten heads, 475 00:27:53,760 --> 00:27:57,080 Speaker 2: and you can guess what that means. It means that 476 00:27:57,160 --> 00:28:00,600 Speaker 2: a tin headed Ravena presented in this fashion does not 477 00:28:00,720 --> 00:28:03,240 Speaker 2: have an even number of heads on either side of 478 00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:06,800 Speaker 2: the bodied head. The Center for Puppetry Arts puppet Ravena 479 00:28:06,840 --> 00:28:08,760 Speaker 2: has a row of four heads to one side of 480 00:28:08,800 --> 00:28:10,720 Speaker 2: the main head and a row of five heads to 481 00:28:10,760 --> 00:28:13,480 Speaker 2: the other side of the main head. It's also hard 482 00:28:13,480 --> 00:28:18,840 Speaker 2: to portray that with nonlinear depictions of Ravena. So I 483 00:28:18,920 --> 00:28:22,520 Speaker 2: came across a likely AI generated depiction of Ravena on 484 00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:26,400 Speaker 2: Shutterstock with a different grouping that does read is more balanced, 485 00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:30,000 Speaker 2: you know, to the average observer. But I should note 486 00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:32,480 Speaker 2: that this is non through traditional means of depicting the character. 487 00:28:32,560 --> 00:28:34,560 Speaker 2: This one has like a group of four on one side, 488 00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:36,960 Speaker 2: group of four on the other and then one above 489 00:28:37,040 --> 00:28:40,640 Speaker 2: the central head. I also ran across a statue of 490 00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:45,239 Speaker 2: Ravena from Statue Park in Muraswar, India that seems to 491 00:28:45,280 --> 00:28:47,800 Speaker 2: have a circular representation, So I guess kind of like 492 00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:52,440 Speaker 2: radial alignment of the heads. But I believe this is 493 00:28:52,480 --> 00:28:54,600 Speaker 2: a more modern interpretation. It's not what you tend to 494 00:28:54,640 --> 00:28:58,360 Speaker 2: see in sculpture, puppetry, masks and so forth. And it 495 00:28:58,400 --> 00:29:02,760 Speaker 2: is a depiction of Ravena attempting to lift a mountain 496 00:29:02,840 --> 00:29:06,960 Speaker 2: in order to impress or intimidate Lord Shiva. Now, meanwhile, 497 00:29:07,200 --> 00:29:09,720 Speaker 2: like I said earlier, Ravena is sometimes depicted as having 498 00:29:09,800 --> 00:29:13,040 Speaker 2: nine heads, and when presented in the traditional fashion, this 499 00:29:13,120 --> 00:29:15,320 Speaker 2: does even things out and gives us a central bodied 500 00:29:15,360 --> 00:29:18,720 Speaker 2: head with four heads to either side. Why does Rabina 501 00:29:18,800 --> 00:29:21,760 Speaker 2: sometimes only have nine heads? Well, remember the tail of 502 00:29:21,840 --> 00:29:25,600 Speaker 2: him lifting the mountains to impress Lord Shiva. Well, according 503 00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:28,920 Speaker 2: to this telling, Lord Shiva was not impressed and merely 504 00:29:28,960 --> 00:29:31,680 Speaker 2: put one toe on the mountain to squash Ravena beneath 505 00:29:31,680 --> 00:29:34,160 Speaker 2: it like a bug. He howls out in pain, but 506 00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:36,160 Speaker 2: he realizes, Oh, the only way I'm going to escape 507 00:29:36,160 --> 00:29:38,560 Speaker 2: this is if I can play a sweet hymn, a 508 00:29:38,600 --> 00:29:41,760 Speaker 2: sweet song for Shiva about how great he is. But 509 00:29:41,840 --> 00:29:45,040 Speaker 2: I need an instrument to do that. So what does 510 00:29:45,080 --> 00:29:47,200 Speaker 2: he do? He plucks off one of his heads, He 511 00:29:47,560 --> 00:29:50,240 Speaker 2: plucks off one of his twenty arms, some of his 512 00:29:50,320 --> 00:29:52,600 Speaker 2: intestines and tendency plucks out as well, and he makes 513 00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:55,800 Speaker 2: himself a traditional stringed instrument known as a vina to play. 514 00:29:56,520 --> 00:29:59,560 Speaker 2: And there are some there are different depictions of this. 515 00:29:59,600 --> 00:30:03,000 Speaker 2: I think sometimes Ravena is seen to basically just be 516 00:30:03,120 --> 00:30:08,120 Speaker 2: holding a traditional stringed instrument here, but other times, for instance, 517 00:30:08,120 --> 00:30:11,520 Speaker 2: there's at least one temple example, saw an image of this. 518 00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:14,080 Speaker 2: This is a photograph from Sri Lanka. It is the 519 00:30:14,600 --> 00:30:19,400 Speaker 2: Konswaram Hindu temple, and we see this kind of I 520 00:30:19,400 --> 00:30:26,000 Speaker 2: guess mildly grizly musical instrument that Ravena has made out 521 00:30:26,000 --> 00:30:28,440 Speaker 2: of his body parts and he's playing it there. And 522 00:30:28,600 --> 00:30:31,800 Speaker 2: in this image he does have foreheads to either side 523 00:30:31,800 --> 00:30:34,680 Speaker 2: of the central head instead of again that kind of 524 00:30:35,320 --> 00:30:39,280 Speaker 2: visually reading lop sided arrangement that we see in a 525 00:30:39,360 --> 00:30:42,840 Speaker 2: tin headed rabna. Now you may wonder why does Ravena 526 00:30:42,960 --> 00:30:45,720 Speaker 2: have tin heads to begin with? Well, I was reading 527 00:30:45,720 --> 00:30:51,240 Speaker 2: different examples and different stories regarding this number, and one 528 00:30:51,280 --> 00:30:54,760 Speaker 2: in particular, there's an article titled the Untold Story of 529 00:30:54,840 --> 00:30:59,480 Speaker 2: Ravena on the Hindu American Foundation website by Maha Kashuk 530 00:31:00,040 --> 00:31:03,160 Speaker 2: from twenty twenty two. The author here recounts the story 531 00:31:03,240 --> 00:31:05,440 Speaker 2: of how Ravena came to have ten heads to begin 532 00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:09,400 Speaker 2: with in some tellings, and this one involves Ravena seeking 533 00:31:09,400 --> 00:31:13,400 Speaker 2: atonement from Shiva by annexing his head, which I'm to 534 00:31:13,480 --> 00:31:17,000 Speaker 2: assume means a form of self decapitation. And he does 535 00:31:17,040 --> 00:31:20,440 Speaker 2: this enough times that when the head grows back each time, 536 00:31:20,480 --> 00:31:23,360 Speaker 2: he ends up with ten. Now, symbolically, the author also 537 00:31:23,400 --> 00:31:26,640 Speaker 2: has that ten heads represent the six Shastras or say, 538 00:31:26,720 --> 00:31:28,800 Speaker 2: these are sacred scriptures of Hinduism, as well as the 539 00:31:28,800 --> 00:31:33,240 Speaker 2: four Vedas. Thus it's a manifestation of Ravena's scholarly mastery 540 00:31:33,280 --> 00:31:36,600 Speaker 2: over these subjects. So multiple heads can mean great knowledge. 541 00:31:36,960 --> 00:31:39,520 Speaker 2: Another take on the ten heads that the author points 542 00:31:39,520 --> 00:31:41,480 Speaker 2: out here, and I've seen this sighted elsewhere as well, 543 00:31:41,560 --> 00:31:46,160 Speaker 2: is that they stand in for the ten emotions lust, anger, delusion, greed, 544 00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:50,040 Speaker 2: pride in the mind, intellect, will, and ego. And the 545 00:31:50,120 --> 00:31:53,080 Speaker 2: idea here apparently is that you want intellect to overpower 546 00:31:53,160 --> 00:31:55,760 Speaker 2: all the rest. But Ravena is instead controlled by all 547 00:31:55,800 --> 00:31:57,920 Speaker 2: of them, which leads him to make the choices, the 548 00:31:58,000 --> 00:32:00,920 Speaker 2: result in his downfall now in him. I do iconography, 549 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:03,680 Speaker 2: As with most religious iconography, we have to remember that 550 00:32:03,720 --> 00:32:06,880 Speaker 2: these images are meant to convey ideas. So multiple arms 551 00:32:06,880 --> 00:32:09,800 Speaker 2: on a deity are more about displaying their power and 552 00:32:09,960 --> 00:32:15,600 Speaker 2: via the objects in said hands, other particularities about the deity. 553 00:32:16,800 --> 00:32:19,080 Speaker 2: But power is definitely key, which is why you'll definitely 554 00:32:19,080 --> 00:32:22,840 Speaker 2: see multiple hands when various deities are depicted as being 555 00:32:22,880 --> 00:32:26,800 Speaker 2: in battle or overcoming an adversary. Again, multiple heads may 556 00:32:26,920 --> 00:32:31,080 Speaker 2: likewise speak to the intellect of a particular entity or 557 00:32:31,160 --> 00:32:35,240 Speaker 2: various other aspects of that deity and their differing nature. So, 558 00:32:35,360 --> 00:32:38,080 Speaker 2: for instance, Siva is sometimes depicted with a triple head 559 00:32:38,360 --> 00:32:42,040 Speaker 2: blissful and wrathful aspects to either side, and of course 560 00:32:42,080 --> 00:32:44,560 Speaker 2: this also lines up with the general tradition of the 561 00:32:44,600 --> 00:32:47,680 Speaker 2: great triad, you know, a triple face or triple headed 562 00:32:47,720 --> 00:32:51,040 Speaker 2: god that is depicted in religions around the world. Other times, 563 00:32:51,080 --> 00:32:53,760 Speaker 2: Shiva is depicted with five heads, each representing the five 564 00:32:53,800 --> 00:32:58,160 Speaker 2: divine activities creation, preservation, destruction, concealing grace and revealing grace, 565 00:32:58,720 --> 00:33:01,800 Speaker 2: and Brahma may be depicted with four faces and four arms. 566 00:33:02,000 --> 00:33:05,720 Speaker 2: Four arms is very common in Hindu symbolism for multiple gods. Now, 567 00:33:05,760 --> 00:33:09,520 Speaker 2: as to the particular fondness for odd numbers and Hindu traditions, 568 00:33:10,040 --> 00:33:12,680 Speaker 2: I haven't run across anything that draws a fine line 569 00:33:12,720 --> 00:33:15,920 Speaker 2: on the matter. In large part this is not surprising because, 570 00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:18,200 Speaker 2: as we've discussed in the show before, Hinduism is not 571 00:33:18,280 --> 00:33:21,120 Speaker 2: a monolith. It's a deep well of belief that's thousands 572 00:33:21,160 --> 00:33:23,800 Speaker 2: of years old and contains many di her schools. And 573 00:33:23,840 --> 00:33:28,160 Speaker 2: while one does see a tendency towards odd numbers a 574 00:33:28,320 --> 00:33:30,280 Speaker 2: law of odds to a certain extent, I guess in 575 00:33:30,360 --> 00:33:32,560 Speaker 2: Hindu traditions it's probably easier to loop all of that 576 00:33:32,680 --> 00:33:36,440 Speaker 2: in to what might seem like a global tendency towards 577 00:33:36,480 --> 00:33:40,040 Speaker 2: sacred odd numbers as opposed to anything that is particular 578 00:33:40,120 --> 00:33:43,400 Speaker 2: to Hinduism. And I was reading about this in a 579 00:33:43,480 --> 00:33:46,120 Speaker 2: book from nineteen eighty three titled The Mystery of Numbers 580 00:33:46,320 --> 00:33:49,680 Speaker 2: by Anne Maurice Shimmel, and the author here points to 581 00:33:49,760 --> 00:33:53,840 Speaker 2: various examples from the ancient Mediterranean, from Christian, Muslim, and 582 00:33:53,880 --> 00:33:58,240 Speaker 2: Jewish traditions as well that dwell on odd numbers, particularly 583 00:33:58,280 --> 00:34:04,320 Speaker 2: in ritual acts prayer and incantations. She writes, one performs 584 00:34:04,360 --> 00:34:07,640 Speaker 2: acts of magic three or seven times and repeats a 585 00:34:07,720 --> 00:34:12,320 Speaker 2: prayer or the concluding amen thrice. In earlier times, physicians 586 00:34:12,320 --> 00:34:14,960 Speaker 2: and medicine men used to give their patients pills in 587 00:34:15,000 --> 00:34:17,880 Speaker 2: odd numbers. Magic knots, too, had to be tied in 588 00:34:17,920 --> 00:34:21,680 Speaker 2: odd numbers. The Talmud offers numerous examples of the use 589 00:34:21,680 --> 00:34:24,160 Speaker 2: of odd numbers and the avoidance of even ones, and 590 00:34:24,200 --> 00:34:27,560 Speaker 2: the Muslim tradition states that the prophet Muhammad broke his 591 00:34:27,640 --> 00:34:31,120 Speaker 2: fast with an odd number of dates. When performing witchcraft 592 00:34:31,200 --> 00:34:34,160 Speaker 2: or black magic, an odd number of persons should be present, 593 00:34:34,440 --> 00:34:36,600 Speaker 2: and even today it is the custom in Europe at 594 00:34:36,680 --> 00:34:40,360 Speaker 2: least to send someone bouquets containing an odd number of flowers, 595 00:34:40,600 --> 00:34:43,719 Speaker 2: with the exception of a dozen hm hm Yeah. 596 00:34:43,760 --> 00:34:47,640 Speaker 3: I think it's so interesting to consider why these kinds 597 00:34:47,640 --> 00:34:48,960 Speaker 3: of patterns emerge. 598 00:34:49,760 --> 00:34:49,960 Speaker 2: Now. 599 00:34:50,040 --> 00:34:52,719 Speaker 3: On one hand, I do think there can be a temptation, 600 00:34:53,040 --> 00:34:57,759 Speaker 3: probably to quickly jump to some kind of like universal 601 00:34:57,920 --> 00:35:00,480 Speaker 3: in you know, built in thing in our brain is like, oh, 602 00:35:00,520 --> 00:35:03,960 Speaker 3: we just everybody around the world. Something about being human 603 00:35:04,560 --> 00:35:07,920 Speaker 3: prefers odd numbers or thinks they're more sacred, And I 604 00:35:07,960 --> 00:35:10,480 Speaker 3: wouldn't rule that out. It could be possible, but I 605 00:35:10,480 --> 00:35:13,400 Speaker 3: wouldn't jump to that conclusion either, because you know, you 606 00:35:13,400 --> 00:35:16,759 Speaker 3: can think about all kinds of ways that that sort 607 00:35:16,800 --> 00:35:20,200 Speaker 3: of accidents of history can become ingrained in a culture 608 00:35:20,320 --> 00:35:23,359 Speaker 3: or literary tradition and then just get amplified from there 609 00:35:24,239 --> 00:35:27,960 Speaker 3: that maybe something about you know, initial bits of storytelling 610 00:35:28,040 --> 00:35:30,600 Speaker 3: that happened to include an odd number of something or 611 00:35:30,640 --> 00:35:33,600 Speaker 3: an even number of something can build up over time 612 00:35:33,719 --> 00:35:36,360 Speaker 3: and suddenly that starts to feel just like the fabric 613 00:35:36,400 --> 00:35:37,080 Speaker 3: of reality. 614 00:35:37,760 --> 00:35:40,240 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we definitely don't want to overstate 615 00:35:40,280 --> 00:35:43,239 Speaker 2: it because from on one hand, any given faith that 616 00:35:43,280 --> 00:35:45,719 Speaker 2: we mentioned just now, there are going to be examples 617 00:35:46,239 --> 00:35:48,319 Speaker 2: in both odd and even. You know, you can come 618 00:35:48,400 --> 00:35:51,600 Speaker 2: up with plenty of examples of wholly even numbers or 619 00:35:51,800 --> 00:35:54,080 Speaker 2: the use of even numbers, and you know, some sort 620 00:35:54,080 --> 00:35:59,040 Speaker 2: of sacred tradition of one sort or another. And likewise, yeah, 621 00:35:59,040 --> 00:36:01,799 Speaker 2: there's information that is being related, ideas that are being 622 00:36:01,880 --> 00:36:05,600 Speaker 2: related that may just incidentally be even odd. It's not like, 623 00:36:06,600 --> 00:36:08,560 Speaker 2: you know, it's not like they were putting together the 624 00:36:08,560 --> 00:36:10,960 Speaker 2: Ten Commandments and they're like, well, this is a good 625 00:36:10,960 --> 00:36:13,360 Speaker 2: even number of commandments. We don't need to add or 626 00:36:13,400 --> 00:36:15,120 Speaker 2: subtract one or it's not like they were. Oh, we 627 00:36:15,200 --> 00:36:17,440 Speaker 2: have nine nine commandments, we better come up with one more. 628 00:36:17,480 --> 00:36:18,319 Speaker 2: We want an even ten. 629 00:36:18,719 --> 00:36:22,160 Speaker 4: Well, who knows, maybe maybe, But I mean, at the 630 00:36:22,160 --> 00:36:24,960 Speaker 4: same time, with the example of the Bible, like I 631 00:36:25,040 --> 00:36:28,000 Speaker 4: was saying earlier, like it is hard not to if 632 00:36:28,040 --> 00:36:30,840 Speaker 4: you just read through the Old Testament, notice a huge 633 00:36:30,920 --> 00:36:33,440 Speaker 4: amount of odd numbers, especially a lot of sevens. 634 00:36:34,360 --> 00:36:37,000 Speaker 3: I don't know that that that's meaning something. 635 00:36:37,480 --> 00:36:40,040 Speaker 2: Yeah, I couldn't help but think about this one as well. 636 00:36:40,080 --> 00:36:42,880 Speaker 2: Over the weekend because I went with my family to 637 00:36:42,880 --> 00:36:46,360 Speaker 2: see the new Beetlejuice movie. Oh and of course one 638 00:36:46,800 --> 00:36:50,080 Speaker 2: uh summons the character in question by saying his name 639 00:36:50,200 --> 00:36:54,839 Speaker 2: three times in why not two or four? Yeah, And 640 00:36:54,880 --> 00:36:56,480 Speaker 2: we see the same with you know other you know 641 00:36:56,560 --> 00:36:59,680 Speaker 2: folk traditions, the old idea of bloody Mary, you know 642 00:36:59,719 --> 00:37:03,360 Speaker 2: some and her scaring yourself by seeing her in the 643 00:37:03,360 --> 00:37:06,439 Speaker 2: mirror by saying her name three times in a row, 644 00:37:06,520 --> 00:37:07,279 Speaker 2: that sort of thing. 645 00:37:07,840 --> 00:37:09,600 Speaker 3: I got real freaked out about that. When I was 646 00:37:09,600 --> 00:37:13,120 Speaker 3: a kid, I had a phase where that was just 647 00:37:13,160 --> 00:37:14,160 Speaker 3: like super scary to me. 648 00:37:15,520 --> 00:37:16,920 Speaker 2: I mean, I still am not going to do it. 649 00:37:18,440 --> 00:37:20,520 Speaker 2: I don't believe it, but I'm not gonna still not 650 00:37:20,560 --> 00:37:22,279 Speaker 2: going to say her name three times in front of 651 00:37:22,320 --> 00:37:23,200 Speaker 2: a mirror. 652 00:37:22,960 --> 00:37:24,160 Speaker 3: And I mess around. 653 00:37:24,360 --> 00:37:28,960 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, okay, So coming back to the law of 654 00:37:28,960 --> 00:37:32,000 Speaker 2: odds in general, Yeah, it's often touted as a deciding 655 00:37:32,040 --> 00:37:36,880 Speaker 2: factor in various various approaches to visual imagery, and I 656 00:37:36,920 --> 00:37:40,080 Speaker 2: have seen it mentioned as as lining up with food 657 00:37:40,120 --> 00:37:42,440 Speaker 2: imagery as well. You know, again, I think the example 658 00:37:42,560 --> 00:37:45,480 Speaker 2: used before was, if you're gonna have a appetizer of 659 00:37:45,560 --> 00:37:48,920 Speaker 2: sliders at a restaurant, you want as your menu photo 660 00:37:49,080 --> 00:37:51,840 Speaker 2: or your Instagram food photo, you want an image of 661 00:37:52,040 --> 00:37:55,879 Speaker 2: three sliders, not two. You want an image of three 662 00:37:55,920 --> 00:37:58,239 Speaker 2: sliders and not four, because three is going to be 663 00:37:58,360 --> 00:38:00,520 Speaker 2: an odd number. It's more attractive. And yeah, you can 664 00:38:00,560 --> 00:38:02,480 Speaker 2: throw in these other ideas of like, well there's a 665 00:38:02,520 --> 00:38:06,280 Speaker 2: central slider, I know which one is the lead slider. 666 00:38:06,719 --> 00:38:09,560 Speaker 2: But the thing is, when I started looking around for 667 00:38:09,640 --> 00:38:14,080 Speaker 2: studies about this, it seems like that experiments don't back 668 00:38:14,120 --> 00:38:18,320 Speaker 2: this up. So according to odd versus even a scientific 669 00:38:18,360 --> 00:38:20,880 Speaker 2: study of the rules of plating by woods at all 670 00:38:20,960 --> 00:38:26,200 Speaker 2: published in twenty sixteen in pere j Law and Environment. Yeah, 671 00:38:26,400 --> 00:38:30,560 Speaker 2: according to this paper, it just doesn't seem to work 672 00:38:31,200 --> 00:38:35,200 Speaker 2: quite as strongly as some might have you believe, they 673 00:38:35,239 --> 00:38:37,400 Speaker 2: actually conducted some experiments. I want to say it was 674 00:38:38,320 --> 00:38:42,120 Speaker 2: over a thousand folks involved in this, but you know, 675 00:38:42,120 --> 00:38:44,200 Speaker 2: they ended up contending that we have to take various 676 00:38:44,239 --> 00:38:48,799 Speaker 2: cultural factors into consideration here. You know, there's a lot 677 00:38:48,840 --> 00:38:51,359 Speaker 2: going on when we look at an image and if 678 00:38:51,360 --> 00:38:53,600 Speaker 2: we add but if we add that that image is 679 00:38:53,680 --> 00:38:56,200 Speaker 2: image of food, and it's food that we are on 680 00:38:56,239 --> 00:39:01,320 Speaker 2: some level considering eating, then it seems that overall portion 681 00:39:01,560 --> 00:39:04,719 Speaker 2: size is more important than odd or even numbers when 682 00:39:04,719 --> 00:39:06,560 Speaker 2: it comes to human perceptions of food. 683 00:39:07,040 --> 00:39:10,640 Speaker 3: Okay, so we would rather have on average, would rather 684 00:39:10,719 --> 00:39:12,560 Speaker 3: have four sliders than three. 685 00:39:12,560 --> 00:39:14,719 Speaker 2: Right, We'd rather have three than two, yes, but not 686 00:39:14,800 --> 00:39:18,160 Speaker 2: because three is odd, but because three is more sliders. 687 00:39:18,680 --> 00:39:22,120 Speaker 2: And of course this seems like a gross over statement 688 00:39:22,120 --> 00:39:23,880 Speaker 2: of the obvious, right, because it's like you go to 689 00:39:23,920 --> 00:39:26,239 Speaker 2: a restaurant. You're like, I'm paying you know, close to 690 00:39:26,280 --> 00:39:29,080 Speaker 2: twenty dollars for this plate of sliders. Of course I 691 00:39:29,120 --> 00:39:31,040 Speaker 2: want it to be four and not three, because I'm 692 00:39:31,040 --> 00:39:34,600 Speaker 2: getting more slider for my buck. Also, when you're hungry, 693 00:39:34,680 --> 00:39:37,520 Speaker 2: you're hungry, and your hunger is not always a great 694 00:39:37,520 --> 00:39:41,920 Speaker 2: gauge of how many sliders you need to satisfy yourself 695 00:39:42,080 --> 00:39:45,200 Speaker 2: and or those around you, you know, so you know, 696 00:39:46,080 --> 00:39:49,200 Speaker 2: on that level, of course four sliders sound better. Let 697 00:39:49,239 --> 00:39:52,040 Speaker 2: it be four and not three. Three is just maybe 698 00:39:52,080 --> 00:39:54,840 Speaker 2: a little less likely to satisfy everyone's cravings. 699 00:39:55,080 --> 00:39:57,520 Speaker 3: But so on my understanding this right there, it's not 700 00:39:57,560 --> 00:40:01,840 Speaker 3: necessarily that they found that people prefer for evens to odds. 701 00:40:01,920 --> 00:40:04,960 Speaker 3: It's just that maybe, like if there is a preference 702 00:40:05,000 --> 00:40:07,839 Speaker 3: for odds, it doesn't play that big of a role 703 00:40:07,880 --> 00:40:10,560 Speaker 3: when compared to people just wanting more food. 704 00:40:10,840 --> 00:40:13,560 Speaker 2: Right, right, And they provide some wiggle room there, because 705 00:40:13,560 --> 00:40:16,480 Speaker 2: again there's a lot going on when you're considering an 706 00:40:16,480 --> 00:40:19,319 Speaker 2: image or you're considering a presentation. I think there could 707 00:40:19,560 --> 00:40:21,120 Speaker 2: based on what I was reading here, I mean, there 708 00:40:21,120 --> 00:40:25,320 Speaker 2: could easily be a situation where ultimately having an odd 709 00:40:25,400 --> 00:40:29,440 Speaker 2: number is more important. Like maybe it's a very you know, 710 00:40:29,560 --> 00:40:34,200 Speaker 2: ritualistic presentation of food. Maybe it's a situation where the 711 00:40:34,239 --> 00:40:37,719 Speaker 2: present where the presentation is more about just having a 712 00:40:37,719 --> 00:40:42,640 Speaker 2: great photograph as opposed to, you know, making the potential 713 00:40:42,680 --> 00:40:45,399 Speaker 2: customer salivate. Again, there are a lot there's so much 714 00:40:45,400 --> 00:40:47,920 Speaker 2: going on when we look at an image, but you 715 00:40:48,040 --> 00:40:51,560 Speaker 2: cannot discount the importance of hunger when that image is 716 00:40:51,600 --> 00:40:52,320 Speaker 2: of food. 717 00:40:52,480 --> 00:40:55,319 Speaker 3: It's it's about tricking people into believing that if you 718 00:40:55,360 --> 00:40:57,719 Speaker 3: get this sandwich the tomato on it will be red 719 00:40:57,760 --> 00:40:58,240 Speaker 3: and juicy. 720 00:40:59,760 --> 00:41:02,160 Speaker 2: Yeah, in reality, it may not, may be very anemic 721 00:41:02,440 --> 00:41:05,480 Speaker 2: look at it. It may not have much flavor to it. 722 00:41:05,480 --> 00:41:08,439 Speaker 2: It may merely be wet and hopefully cold. In some cases, 723 00:41:08,480 --> 00:41:10,360 Speaker 2: that's fine, Maybe it's gonna work well within the context 724 00:41:10,360 --> 00:41:13,319 Speaker 2: of the slider the studying question. They also looked at like, 725 00:41:13,440 --> 00:41:16,320 Speaker 2: you know, they were looking at it like horizontal versus 726 00:41:16,400 --> 00:41:20,279 Speaker 2: vertical plating scenario. So I would be very interested to 727 00:41:20,320 --> 00:41:22,640 Speaker 2: hear from anyone out there who is involved in plating, 728 00:41:22,719 --> 00:41:25,880 Speaker 2: either professionally or you know, on an amateur chef level, 729 00:41:26,360 --> 00:41:27,640 Speaker 2: what your thoughts are on this. 730 00:41:28,480 --> 00:41:33,200 Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I actually just got interested in how much 731 00:41:33,320 --> 00:41:35,400 Speaker 3: of say you're at, you know, sort of some kind 732 00:41:35,400 --> 00:41:37,160 Speaker 3: of elite level, you know, you're working at like a 733 00:41:37,280 --> 00:41:42,080 Speaker 3: very fancy, expensive restaurant or something plating choices. How much 734 00:41:42,120 --> 00:41:44,600 Speaker 3: of that is is an art and how much is 735 00:41:44,600 --> 00:41:46,640 Speaker 3: a science? Are you just sort of going off of 736 00:41:47,080 --> 00:41:49,960 Speaker 3: some kind of chef or stylists instinct there, or do 737 00:41:50,040 --> 00:41:54,560 Speaker 3: you actually do research on what people dining there prefer 738 00:41:54,680 --> 00:41:56,200 Speaker 3: in terms of plating in appearance. 739 00:41:56,560 --> 00:41:58,080 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and then there's also the whole the 740 00:41:58,160 --> 00:42:00,680 Speaker 2: economic value of there, right, because I mean, you have 741 00:42:00,719 --> 00:42:03,239 Speaker 2: to have to factor in like can we afford to 742 00:42:03,480 --> 00:42:06,680 Speaker 2: have a four slider platter? Shouldn't it just be a 743 00:42:06,719 --> 00:42:09,200 Speaker 2: three slider platter? Are we really going to lose business 744 00:42:09,520 --> 00:42:11,440 Speaker 2: because everyone thinks they need a fourth one? If they 745 00:42:11,440 --> 00:42:13,040 Speaker 2: need a fourth one, they can buy that out a 746 00:42:13,080 --> 00:42:15,640 Speaker 2: la cart perhaps, I don't know. There are a number 747 00:42:15,640 --> 00:42:16,879 Speaker 2: of factors involved. 748 00:42:17,000 --> 00:42:18,920 Speaker 3: You know, I'm a big fan of chips and dips, 749 00:42:18,960 --> 00:42:20,880 Speaker 3: and for some reason, I really like it when there 750 00:42:20,880 --> 00:42:25,320 Speaker 3: are two dips. Oh okay, there were two different dips. 751 00:42:25,719 --> 00:42:27,680 Speaker 3: It seems like there should be three. Though there should 752 00:42:27,719 --> 00:42:30,440 Speaker 3: be three tips. I mean yeah, but then you start 753 00:42:30,520 --> 00:42:33,280 Speaker 3: once they're three, that's just like that's like a buffet 754 00:42:33,320 --> 00:42:35,920 Speaker 3: of dips. You get two dips, that's like really focused. 755 00:42:35,920 --> 00:42:38,680 Speaker 3: Do you get like one I don't know, one roasted 756 00:42:38,719 --> 00:42:41,120 Speaker 3: tomato salsa and one guacamole or something. 757 00:42:41,360 --> 00:42:43,239 Speaker 2: Yeah, when there are three dips, I do find that 758 00:42:43,280 --> 00:42:46,560 Speaker 2: one dip is definitely going back in the fridge for dinner. 759 00:42:46,600 --> 00:42:48,839 Speaker 2: And then because you think, well, I'll use that later. 760 00:42:49,160 --> 00:42:51,160 Speaker 2: I'll definitely dip something in that later, and you don't 761 00:42:51,200 --> 00:42:53,200 Speaker 2: you just wash that up out and recycle it like 762 00:42:53,360 --> 00:42:56,160 Speaker 2: a week or two later. All right, I guess we're 763 00:42:56,200 --> 00:42:57,640 Speaker 2: out of time for this, but we didn't even get 764 00:42:57,640 --> 00:43:01,040 Speaker 2: into the whole idea of the seven layer burrito. So 765 00:43:01,680 --> 00:43:05,360 Speaker 2: just leave listeners to contemplate the seven layer burrito and 766 00:43:05,360 --> 00:43:08,200 Speaker 2: if that is an appropriate number of layers or should 767 00:43:08,200 --> 00:43:09,080 Speaker 2: it be less or more? 768 00:43:09,400 --> 00:43:11,360 Speaker 3: I don't know the magic burrito. 769 00:43:12,840 --> 00:43:15,040 Speaker 2: All right, Just a reminder for everyone that Stuff to 770 00:43:15,040 --> 00:43:17,160 Speaker 2: Blow Your Mind is primarily a science and culture podcast, 771 00:43:17,239 --> 00:43:20,680 Speaker 2: with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, short form episode 772 00:43:20,680 --> 00:43:23,240 Speaker 2: on Wednesday and on Fridays. We set aside most serious 773 00:43:23,280 --> 00:43:25,480 Speaker 2: concerns to just talk about a weird film on Weird 774 00:43:25,560 --> 00:43:29,360 Speaker 2: House Cinema and let's see what else to remind you of. 775 00:43:29,440 --> 00:43:32,600 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, if you were on Instagram, follow us on Instagram. 776 00:43:32,840 --> 00:43:36,160 Speaker 2: We are STBYM podcast. That's our handle, and you know 777 00:43:36,200 --> 00:43:38,319 Speaker 2: you can keep track of keep up a little bit 778 00:43:38,440 --> 00:43:41,000 Speaker 2: with what we're putting out in the podcast. 779 00:43:40,680 --> 00:43:43,640 Speaker 3: Feed Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer 780 00:43:43,719 --> 00:43:45,799 Speaker 3: JJ Posway. If you would like to get in touch 781 00:43:45,800 --> 00:43:47,839 Speaker 3: with us with feedback, on this episode or any other. 782 00:43:47,920 --> 00:43:50,000 Speaker 3: To suggest a topic for the future, or just to 783 00:43:50,040 --> 00:43:53,080 Speaker 3: say hello, you can email us at contact at stuff 784 00:43:53,120 --> 00:44:02,040 Speaker 3: to Blow your Mind dot com. 785 00:44:02,200 --> 00:44:05,120 Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For 786 00:44:05,239 --> 00:44:09,080 Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, 787 00:44:09,120 --> 00:44:24,480 Speaker 1: or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.