Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind from how Stuff
Speaker 1: Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: I'm Julie Douglas and my name is Ben Bowlen. I
Speaker 1: host car Stuff Stuff Then Want you to Know, and
Speaker 1: today I am guest hosting with you, Julie. That's right.
Speaker 1: Today Robert is not here, but in his stead is
Speaker 1: Mr Ben Boleyn and Robert will be back um for
Speaker 1: April five and infinity beyond that. But so thank you
Speaker 1: very much for hanging out with us today. Oh, thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm actually a big time fan, longtime listener, first time
Speaker 1: co host. Yeah, yeah, I know. It's very nice to
Speaker 1: have you here because today's topic, we think is going
Speaker 1: to lend itself nicely to April Fool's Day and a
Speaker 1: bit of what you do with stuff they don't want
Speaker 1: you to know because you deal with conspiracy theories of time, right, Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: it is in a lot of ways. I would say
Speaker 1: it's it's the focus of stuff then want you to know.
Speaker 1: We also cover some paranormal things. But if we're talking
Speaker 1: about conspiracy theories, uh, let's let's go ahead and take
Speaker 1: it all the way to the top. Let's let's take
Speaker 1: it to the Moon to the Moon. All right, you're
Speaker 1: you're speaking of the conspiracy theory that the moon landing
Speaker 1: was just a hoax perpetrated by the United States government. Yes,
Speaker 1: and this is uh, that's that's great. You've encapsulated it
Speaker 1: in a sentence. This if if conspiracy theories were like
Speaker 1: a band and they had a discography, this would be
Speaker 1: on the greatest hits because this is one of the
Speaker 1: classic conspiracies and it ranges. The reasons that people believe
Speaker 1: the moon landing was faked can can change depending on
Speaker 1: the circumstances and the conversation. But you know, we've got
Speaker 1: an excellent uh, we've got an excellent article for our
Speaker 1: own John Fuller, Right, that's right, and wonderful editor, John.
Speaker 1: And it's a great article, and it's about why some
Speaker 1: people believe the moon landings were a hoax. And you know,
Speaker 1: there's some reasons that you'll typically here. Oh yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean they're really really um. Typical things are that if
Speaker 1: you look at the photographs, there are no stars in
Speaker 1: the background, right and um, and they say, well, if
Speaker 1: there's no there are no stars, obviously this was done
Speaker 1: on a set, right. And now, so it's like you
Speaker 1: know what that's not actually why, it's because the sun's
Speaker 1: rays are hitting the surface and it's way too bright
Speaker 1: for any camera to capture something in the distance. Right, So,
Speaker 1: you know, there are these reasons that seem kind of
Speaker 1: logical that that you can see in conspiracy theory, you know,
Speaker 1: starting to weave them their way in. But then you
Speaker 1: can refute it just as easily with well science and
Speaker 1: an empirical objective observation. Um, there's also you know, it's funny,
Speaker 1: there's a sidebar this conspiracy theory. One of the furthest
Speaker 1: reaches of it is the idea that Stanley Kubrick, no
Speaker 1: one other than Stanley Kubrick himself, actually participated and was
Speaker 1: the one who filmed the fake landing on the Moon.
Speaker 1: Of course, I know it all makes sense now the
Speaker 1: pieces come together. I got it, totally makes sense because
Speaker 1: he's got skin in the game with one. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: And it sounds sort of reasonable. Of course, these explanations
Speaker 1: people would have, if they don't, uh, if they don't
Speaker 1: seem to quite jibe with what you already know, then
Speaker 1: there must be a reason for that. And the reason,
Speaker 1: of course can't be that we were wrong. Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: what's it was? Another really good one from that. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go with the infamous sea rock. A lot of
Speaker 1: people who believe the moon landing was faked will tell
Speaker 1: you that it was a prop that was that actually
Speaker 1: dentally was shown on film with the letters C on
Speaker 1: it like someone some uh foolish proper person forgot to
Speaker 1: turn the rock around because you know whatever, like maybe
Speaker 1: the company's logo was emblazoned on it and the sea
Speaker 1: was showing right, And never mind that, NASA says, this
Speaker 1: is most likely a stray hair that got onto the
Speaker 1: film and the developing process, because of course that's just
Speaker 1: smoke and mirrors, right right, that's just of course you have.
Speaker 1: NASA would say that that seems really logical, and that's
Speaker 1: that's not the only one, of course, you you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sure we have a list of these here somewhere.
Speaker 1: Um shadow links. Oh yeah, the different shadow links. They
Speaker 1: were saying, okay, here's here's a photo of two astronauts
Speaker 1: are standing together, and yet their photo is showing these
Speaker 1: lengths that are disproportionate, and why is that? Why is that? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so NASA says, okay, again, it's not some sort
Speaker 1: of faulty lighting system that we used on our set
Speaker 1: that you think we built. It's actually that the terrain
Speaker 1: is rough and it's hilly and it produces variance. Is
Speaker 1: just like if you were to take a picture on
Speaker 1: a snow covered right and that you know, of course
Speaker 1: that makes sense again if you have taken photographs on
Speaker 1: a snow covered hill. But of course, if you believe
Speaker 1: that this is all some sort of large attempt to
Speaker 1: cover up quote unquote the truth, then of course NASA
Speaker 1: is gonna come up with explanations that may even seem clever,
Speaker 1: but but they don't jive again with what you're thinking.
Speaker 1: Another example, the American flag flapping in the breeze. Uh.
Speaker 1: As we know, one of the reasons that there's not
Speaker 1: a resort on the Moon yet is that the atmosphere
Speaker 1: is not conducive to human beings or wind, and so
Speaker 1: the idea is, how could how could the wind uh
Speaker 1: show a flag or how could the film show a
Speaker 1: flag flapping in the breeze. And that's that's one of
Speaker 1: the other points. I mean, we you know, we could
Speaker 1: go on about this, uh, we go on about this forever,
Speaker 1: and um, Robert I apologize if people write mean things
Speaker 1: about moon landings to you. Please please guys forward the
Speaker 1: email to me. Um, you know you have other accusations
Speaker 1: slow motion films and wires. And for a long time,
Speaker 1: these groups, the people who believed in that the moon
Speaker 1: landing was faked for some reason, and the people who
Speaker 1: believe that those people were crazy, were understandably contentious and
Speaker 1: and um right, right, yes, And it was difficult for
Speaker 1: them to have a dialogue about that until Julian Assange
Speaker 1: of wiki leaks released some very interesting cables regarding the
Speaker 1: moon landing. Yeah, it turns out it's conclusively proven, due
Speaker 1: to the or from these diplomatic cables, uh, that the
Speaker 1: moon landing was faked with the assistance Stanley Kubrick, this
Speaker 1: just hit the news. Go ahead and google it. You're kidding,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Well to make sure you get right to
Speaker 1: the story, go ahead and google Happy April Fool's Day
Speaker 1: been fallen. I'm sorry, yeah, it's but you see how
Speaker 1: easy that was. I started, I was like, what wiki leaks, Wait,
Speaker 1: this is a new source, because it sounds reasonable if
Speaker 1: something like that was going to come from somewhere right right,
Speaker 1: Our new source in the sense that we're starting obviously
Speaker 1: to get a flood of information we haven't gotten before,
Speaker 1: sure new sensory information, right, And my brain was starting
Speaker 1: to take that in and I have to say, like
Speaker 1: I was like, Okay, no, and he's he's not he's
Speaker 1: not actually telling the truth that were there. But a
Speaker 1: little part of my brain was going, but Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: telling us stuff we haven't known before. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what's so fascinating about just the whole is the
Speaker 1: man the moon landings, where they a hoax, but the
Speaker 1: fact that you know, we have this sort of logic
Speaker 1: that can't help but assemble itself on its own. It's
Speaker 1: almost like its own emergence in our brain cells try
Speaker 1: and put all this together for us. And I was
Speaker 1: thinking about it. You know, we can't help but detect patterns,
Speaker 1: and especially when we look at path examples um that
Speaker 1: have eroded our faith and information and government in the corporations.
Speaker 1: And a really good example is the cigarette industry. Oh
Speaker 1: that's a great example, you know. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: for years, you know, decades long foot see playing with
Speaker 1: the government in terms of the information that they released
Speaker 1: about cigarettes and how harmful they are. So you've got
Speaker 1: an example like that in the public, well knows now
Speaker 1: that that was information that was kept from them. We've
Speaker 1: got Watergate, You've got Milli Vanilli, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are things that you can start to point to
Speaker 1: and say, you know, if it happened before, you know,
Speaker 1: why couldn't happen again. This presentation is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Intel Sponsors of Tomorrow because human beings depend The
Speaker 1: way that the human species has survived for so long
Speaker 1: is really based on the ability to detect patterns and
Speaker 1: to think critically and abstractly about the future, or to
Speaker 1: let the precedent set from those past experiences influence our
Speaker 1: attitudes and behaviors when confronted with information that seems similar
Speaker 1: or seems to again coincide with what we had believed before.
Speaker 1: And this can lead to a funny little thing. And
Speaker 1: by funny little thing, I mean one an enormously influential
Speaker 1: theory of psychology, uh that we call cognitive dissonance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's the bread to the butter when it comes to
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories and how we try to explain to ourselves, um,
Speaker 1: how this could happen? And I will you know, I
Speaker 1: do want to say, like I'm not making fun of
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists. And I'm not making light of UM any
Speaker 1: of this, but I do think that we all have
Speaker 1: a little bit of a conspiracy theorists inside of ourselves. Sure,
Speaker 1: And it doesn't necessary really have to be UM for
Speaker 1: something like it doesn't necessarily have to be for something
Speaker 1: like the idea that the world is ruled by freemasons
Speaker 1: or reptilian aliens or anything. It can be, it can
Speaker 1: it can be a small sort of theory as uh.
Speaker 1: I think we talked about a little bit before on
Speaker 1: the air where you say, you know, uh, that person
Speaker 1: is after me, Yeah, yeah, or my cat, My cat
Speaker 1: is purposely you know, perpetrating this crime against me. I
Speaker 1: just know it. I just need to get that camera
Speaker 1: in my house hooked up and then I'll have evidence. Well,
Speaker 1: cats are are actually vengeful creatures. So I don't know
Speaker 1: that example, right, But I mean, basically, when you bring
Speaker 1: up cognitive dissonance, what we're talking about, and in more
Speaker 1: high salutent terms, is that when actions conflict with our beliefs,
Speaker 1: they can produce a phenomenon called cognitive distance, and it's
Speaker 1: essentially a way of dealing with a discomfort that arises
Speaker 1: when your brain is trying to parse out two different
Speaker 1: cognitions which can and be manifested in our beliefs or
Speaker 1: our actions. And uh, here's the if if I could
Speaker 1: take us with a historical sidebar real quicks. Okay, So
Speaker 1: this term cognitive dissonance. We we get this from the
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties by a social psychologist named Leon Festinger. And uh,
Speaker 1: the interesting thing is his his research came about because
Speaker 1: he was trying to understand why a UFO doomsday cult
Speaker 1: uh increased trying to proselytize new believers when their prophecy failed.
Speaker 1: So this actually does come from a study of conspiracy theory. Okay.
Speaker 1: So and so his he kind of sat there and went, hey,
Speaker 1: now that that, um, it's obvious that the UFOs maybe
Speaker 1: didn't have the evidence that that this group thought there
Speaker 1: was why in the world where they continue with their beliefs, Right,
Speaker 1: he was like, what's going on here? Excellent question for
Speaker 1: for the we'll do the reader's digest version of this.
Speaker 1: So basically, there's, uh, this person, this cult leader who
Speaker 1: begins receiving messages of course, uh, intangible messages from a
Speaker 1: UFO telling her about the end of the world, gathering
Speaker 1: up followers. These she forms a cult. These people are
Speaker 1: um together, united in their preparation for a coming apocalypse
Speaker 1: with a definite date. And the date comes and it
Speaker 1: goes and nothing. The world surprisingly does not end. But
Speaker 1: the cult leader, uh strangely enough, gets a new message
Speaker 1: that says, due to their the good works of the
Speaker 1: cult and the good intentions or whatnot, um, they have
Speaker 1: saved the world, which means that their religion is now
Speaker 1: not disproven but further validated, which means that they have
Speaker 1: somehow um. This this kind of attempt to even out
Speaker 1: or balance the gap between the knowledge that they have,
Speaker 1: which is that the world is not ended, and the
Speaker 1: actions that they took, you know, um, and to make themselves,
Speaker 1: I don't want to say, feel better, but to sort
Speaker 1: of rationalize the distance between those two. I don't know though,
Speaker 1: I think that's the crux of it. I mean, because
Speaker 1: that is the discomfort they're feeling, right, Yes, that's the
Speaker 1: cognitive distance. Okay, they're like that is not matching up.
Speaker 1: And and all of a sudden, the cult leader, in
Speaker 1: automatic writing, right, which is like so eighties, um, you know,
Speaker 1: gets this message and then they're all relieved of that
Speaker 1: discomfort and that relief outweighs the chance I suppose for
Speaker 1: true knowledge in this case. And so they're they're going
Speaker 1: to be tied to that because at least they're feeling better,
Speaker 1: and it's all squared to their logic and life is
Speaker 1: normal again, at least for them, whatever normal is. And
Speaker 1: and then with as Fastener was exploring this, you know,
Speaker 1: he said that there are that this dissonance produces a discomfort,
Speaker 1: and correspondingly, there will arise pressures to reduce or eliminate
Speaker 1: this dissonance. And you know, he goes on to analyze
Speaker 1: the ways in which this dissonance occurs and how it resolves,
Speaker 1: and he found that there are several ways to to
Speaker 1: find this. Uh, there are several ways to deal with
Speaker 1: this cognitive dissonance, and I'll tell you what they are. Um,
Speaker 1: a person may try to change one or more of
Speaker 1: their behaviors or beliefs. That's the first way. The second
Speaker 1: is that a person may try to acquire new information
Speaker 1: or beliefs to increase the consonants, which will lessen the
Speaker 1: overall dissonance. I mean, that's that's obvious in the case
Speaker 1: of the UFOL cult. And then the third is that
Speaker 1: a person may try to forget or play down the
Speaker 1: importan the cognition that butting up against the contradictory cognition.
Speaker 1: And there's our smoking example again, right, there's a there's
Speaker 1: a great example of smoking. Um. And this is from passenger. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm quoting a passenger. Uh. He says, for example, a
Speaker 1: cigarette smoker who believes that smoking is bad for his
Speaker 1: health has an opinion that is dissonant with the knowledge
Speaker 1: that he is continuing to smoke. He may have many
Speaker 1: other opinions, beliefs, or items of knowledge that are consonant
Speaker 1: with continuing to smoke, but the dissonance still exists too,
Speaker 1: and because of that come because of that discomfort, you know,
Speaker 1: because humans want patterns. We want all the pieces of
Speaker 1: a puzzle to fit. Because of that, this smoker in
Speaker 1: this question may try to change a behavior belief, may
Speaker 1: try to quit smoking, for instance, UH, may try to
Speaker 1: learn new things that will increase the consonants, something that says, well,
Speaker 1: smoking might be bad for other people, but for me,
Speaker 1: it's actually genius, um, you know. Or may just try
Speaker 1: to forget it or play it down, you know, never
Speaker 1: mind them young, or I'm under a last stress. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and the forgetting part right, I may have to say,
Speaker 1: I have to admit that when I was a smoker,
Speaker 1: I oftentimes, you know, sort of willfully forgot the fact
Speaker 1: that I was doing all sorts of crazy things to
Speaker 1: my poor cells in my body. Um. So, I mean
Speaker 1: it happens, right, And that's why I say it's it's
Speaker 1: really this. This is so fascinating because there is a
Speaker 1: little bit of cognitive dissonance going on with us, all
Speaker 1: of us at some level, every day with with the
Speaker 1: things that we're dealing with. And then you just see
Speaker 1: it in really extreme forms and stuff like conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: revolving around the moon. Sure sure, or we we could
Speaker 1: also see at times, um, cognitive dissonance can really come
Speaker 1: out in uh decision points, you know. Uh. For for instance,
Speaker 1: you will often hear that people will say a a
Speaker 1: public figure or a politician or a large, um, very
Speaker 1: influential business owner is saying things that seem to be hypocritical.
Speaker 1: But how much of that is actually how much of
Speaker 1: that is um malevolent or calculated? And how much of
Speaker 1: that is just these poor folks functioning under cognitive dissonances. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so and basically funneling those perceptions through right, so this
Speaker 1: is really interesting. There is a neuroscientist named Cameron Carter
Speaker 1: at the University of California Davis and UM. This is
Speaker 1: actually information pulled from a Newsweek article titled Wired for
Speaker 1: Hypocrisy by Sharon Bagley UM. Carter used volunteers to study
Speaker 1: their brains basically during cognitive dissonance UH, and he did
Speaker 1: that with fl MARI and the volunteer spent forty five
Speaker 1: minutes doing a really rope task inside fm R I
Speaker 1: tube and then afterward they were asked to answer questions
Speaker 1: about their experience, which, of course the board across the
Speaker 1: board they did not like, which seems obvious, right, You're
Speaker 1: stuck in a tiny little tube doing something boring and
Speaker 1: you're really gonna probably so I would highly dislike it.
Speaker 1: That's what I would check highly disliked UM. But they
Speaker 1: were asked to answer the questions again that they had
Speaker 1: answered after their first experience, and this time half of
Speaker 1: the volunteers were told that their answers were going to
Speaker 1: be read by a nervous patient who needed reassurance about
Speaker 1: undergoing an fm R. The other half were told that
Speaker 1: they were going to get a dollar each time they
Speaker 1: answered the questions as though they were enjoying the scanner kitching.
Speaker 1: So as though, so that's the that's the important part,
Speaker 1: to answer the questions um with two sort of present
Speaker 1: an opinion publicly that does not match with their personal
Speaker 1: opinion or experience. Yeah, and of course I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: ask which do you think which narra do you think
Speaker 1: was more effective? Hmmm, that's you know, that's a question
Speaker 1: for me. That's tricky because it seems, you know, on
Speaker 1: the offset, just with this information, it seems like there
Speaker 1: may be a difference between the people who am angst
Speaker 1: us are profiteers and who amongst us are nurturing people. Okay,
Speaker 1: but you know what, for just just for guessing, just
Speaker 1: for the sake of guessing, I would say that the
Speaker 1: people who are the people who are motivated by the
Speaker 1: money probably think that the probably actually think that this
Speaker 1: might be a better thing. No, no, no, no, wait,
Speaker 1: oh I don't know, I don't know. Oh, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think you just revealed your your black capitalist heart.
Speaker 1: I did. I'm a profiteer, yeah, you're a profitier. Actually,
Speaker 1: it was the people who were most concerned about a
Speaker 1: nervous patient and the exciting thing about this whole thing,
Speaker 1: UM wasn't necessarily that they could see the neural correlations
Speaker 1: what was going on inside of their brain when they
Speaker 1: were lying, because they also took f M R I
Speaker 1: when they were UM, when they were essentially lying on
Speaker 1: those tests to see what was going on, all of
Speaker 1: those brains, All the areas in the brain were active,
Speaker 1: all those areas that are trying to square two different
Speaker 1: pieces of information. Yes, yeah, that was definitely happening, and
Speaker 1: that is interesting in and of itself. But the really again,
Speaker 1: the really interesting thing was that it was the people
Speaker 1: who um who were trying to yeah that this this
Speaker 1: phony patient that it was okay. Those were the people
Speaker 1: who have the most activity. And then those were also
Speaker 1: the people who afterward continued to say that they had
Speaker 1: a good experience and that they changed their brain essentially,
Speaker 1: like they changed their actually their actions and their beliefs
Speaker 1: based on this. Julie, there is there is a fan
Speaker 1: of Orwell somewhere out there on the internet listening to
Speaker 1: show right now, and they're waiting for us to say
Speaker 1: it you win, double think. It's it's almost it's it's
Speaker 1: kind of similar to that, and it sort of makes sense,
Speaker 1: because if you think about it, your cognitive dissonance is
Speaker 1: sort of your brain asking why is this happening? Why
Speaker 1: am I doing this? Um? And now that I have
Speaker 1: that answer wrong, it makes sense that the people who
Speaker 1: are receiving an external reward or an external justification for
Speaker 1: their line will find themselves uh less uh, you know,
Speaker 1: with less of a desire to internally retrofit their ideas.
Speaker 1: So they can say they can say, you know, well,
Speaker 1: of course I'm lying to these people. I'm getting a
Speaker 1: dollar every time. Let me lie to some more people. Yeah, sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: they don't really have any skin in the game emotionally. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a good point. But when you're trying to be involved,
Speaker 1: um and motivate someone, I guess in a in a
Speaker 1: in a qualified way, whether when your reward is something
Speaker 1: that is qualitative rather than quantitative. In this case, right,
Speaker 1: they're trying to make somebody feel better, and in the
Speaker 1: process of saying all these it's not that bad, it's
Speaker 1: not that boring, you're gonna have fun. In the process
Speaker 1: of that, they're starting to um. So sort of pull
Speaker 1: the move that Merlin pulls in a Connecticut Yankee King
Speaker 1: Arthur's court. The Mark Twain book, Merlin makes the mistake
Speaker 1: of a lot of magicians and believes that his stuff
Speaker 1: is actual magic. And uh so you start to believe
Speaker 1: yourself as you sell these days. Well, I will tell you.
Speaker 1: I'll give you a personal example, and it'll be a
Speaker 1: short one. But when we were at south By Southwest,
Speaker 1: I was at the Austin Airport and I was coming home,
Speaker 1: and it was overbooked, of course, and I had not
Speaker 1: had a seat confirmed yet, even though you know, I've
Speaker 1: had my um my arrangements made well in advance. And
Speaker 1: so what happened is I got bumped from that plane
Speaker 1: and I was rerouted to St. Paul, Minnesota, and then
Speaker 1: back down to Atlanta. St. Paul. Yeah, it was mad.
Speaker 1: It was steaming mad, understandable. It was like a love
Speaker 1: ster that had crawled out of the pot and I
Speaker 1: was seeking revenge. Um And they said, okay, well, and
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna tell you how much they paid me
Speaker 1: for my inconveniences, but they paid me a considerable sum.
Speaker 1: And at the time I was like, yeah, whatever, money
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. You're awful. But I can't tell them are
Speaker 1: awful because it's the principle of the things right, I did.
Speaker 1: I didn't actually say it's the principal thing, and thanks
Speaker 1: a lot and whatever, um, And I have to say
Speaker 1: that ever since then, I applied that money to a
Speaker 1: mini vacation and the experience feels a lot less awful
Speaker 1: than it was, because it was it was like then
Speaker 1: it was, you know, another eight hours of travel, um,
Speaker 1: and so I want and so forth. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to tell you that that sort of cognitive dissonance was
Speaker 1: dispelled by the folks at Delta. So I know that
Speaker 1: they're studying this, and you're now you're reaching the state
Speaker 1: of consonants where things are starting to fit together. Things
Speaker 1: are fine, but kind a mini vacation. But here's the question.
Speaker 1: Oh and and just for the just for the goodies,
Speaker 1: for the people who love the love the specifics and
Speaker 1: the anatomical Yeah, yeah, we should. We should talk about
Speaker 1: the parts of the brain that that are letting up
Speaker 1: during that from R I, So, cognitive dissonance engages the
Speaker 1: dorsal anterior singulate cortex and anterior insula. Yes, these are
Speaker 1: the parts that These are the parts that light up.
Speaker 1: If you want to look on a map of the brain,
Speaker 1: will not light up. I don't mean like someone's brain
Speaker 1: is made of LEDs. Right, but this is the blood
Speaker 1: is rushing to those parts of the rain. Sure the
Speaker 1: activity increases there during these cognitive dissonance things. And Julie,
Speaker 1: I have to ask you, um, do you think that
Speaker 1: this experience uh in your personal life has given you
Speaker 1: a confirmation bias? Uh. I don't know that it's given
Speaker 1: me a confirmation bias, but I can tell you that
Speaker 1: I've certainly felt or or have my own confirmation biases
Speaker 1: in my own life. And when we talk about confirmation bias,
Speaker 1: it's really similar to cognitive dissonance, and that again we
Speaker 1: can't help but create patterns out of random randomness. Yes,
Speaker 1: like the like the Supreme Court of the United States,
Speaker 1: the the human species. The human brain places a great
Speaker 1: value on precedent and on expectations that the past should
Speaker 1: match the president in the future. Right. And there is
Speaker 1: a really interesting book, uh, Leonard Metal metalon though excuse me,
Speaker 1: only try that a gang, because I'm sure that at
Speaker 1: least his his family would appreciate that I pronounced it correctly.
Speaker 1: But Leonard Mallette. Now it's called Drunkard's Walk, and it's
Speaker 1: a book about randomness, and it turns chaos theory UM
Speaker 1: and Medlow is also the co writer of A Brief
Speaker 1: History Time with Stephen Hawking and for those of you
Speaker 1: that are interested in this, he's also the victor of
Speaker 1: a YouTube face off with Depac Chopra on quantum entanglement
Speaker 1: and spirituality. And I know some people are going to
Speaker 1: love to check out that way. It's really it's actually
Speaker 1: pretty great. Um. I definitely recommend it. But he talks
Speaker 1: about the confirmation bias UM and he says that when
Speaker 1: we are in the grasp of an illusion, or for
Speaker 1: that matter, whenever we have a new idea, instead of
Speaker 1: searching for waste prove our ideas wrong, we usually attempt
Speaker 1: to prove them correct. Psychologists call this confirmation bias, and
Speaker 1: it presents a major impediment to our ability to break
Speaker 1: free of the misinterpretation of randomness. Uh. And it goes
Speaker 1: on with to make matters worse. Not only do we
Speaker 1: preferentially seek evidence to confirm our preconceived notions, but we
Speaker 1: also interpret ambiguous evidence in favor of our ideas. This
Speaker 1: can be a big problem because data are often ambiguous,
Speaker 1: so by ignoring some patterns and emphasizing others, our clever
Speaker 1: brains can reinforce their belief even in the absence of
Speaker 1: convincing data. Yeah. So, I mean that's what I think
Speaker 1: is interesting about confirmation confirmation biases. It is like cognitive dissonance,
Speaker 1: but this is more behavioral. I suppose um and and
Speaker 1: again stems from our experiences and pointing back to what
Speaker 1: our expectations are. And I thought that was so fascinating
Speaker 1: about the not looking at the ways that we're wrong,
Speaker 1: because we always assume that we're right. Yeah, and and
Speaker 1: a lot of and a lot of people, myself included,
Speaker 1: at times. You know, it's nobody's favorite thing to be wrong. No,
Speaker 1: no's just around saying like, how are how am I
Speaker 1: wrong in the following ways at this very moment. You know, Now,
Speaker 1: I I tried to do that when I'm working on
Speaker 1: something really important right before I put it out, because
Speaker 1: you know, that's just but that's just sort of a
Speaker 1: way to proof read or cross check yourself. And in
Speaker 1: the natural world, in informal situations that doesn't really happen.
Speaker 1: People want to know if you if you, for instance,
Speaker 1: believe that the moon landing is faked. When you're reading things,
Speaker 1: you're reading things science proves that you are reading things
Speaker 1: that will tend to reinforce your beliefs rather than denigratee
Speaker 1: or erode those beliefs. Right, You're often going to seek
Speaker 1: out information that that corroberates what you're thinking. Essentially. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to give you an example actually of
Speaker 1: confirmation bias. I think that we have year perpetuated by me.
Speaker 1: And this is from a listener emails from Russ Smith
Speaker 1: and he says, hey, guys, Russ and Alliance, ohio here,
Speaker 1: I love the show. I'm a college student and listen
Speaker 1: to your podcast all the time walking to and from class.
Speaker 1: But as a side note, you should always be aware
Speaker 1: of your surroundings, especially when you're walking by yourself or
Speaker 1: in the dark. That's true. Just a small correction though.
Speaker 1: In one of your recent podcast you mentioned the lorax
Speaker 1: cutting down needs. The lorax was speaking for the excuse me,
Speaker 1: I flew up that, I'm sorry, um, cutting down trees,
Speaker 1: not needs and causing the environmental change. In fact, it
Speaker 1: was the onceler who cut down the trees to make
Speaker 1: the needs. The Lorax was speaking for the trees against
Speaker 1: the onesler all the best, Russ. Okay, so that was
Speaker 1: me Um, and I do this all the time. Always
Speaker 1: when I mean to talk about the on Sler, I
Speaker 1: always talk about the Lorax because in my mind it's
Speaker 1: acts cutting down or and I cannot square it. And
Speaker 1: it drives me nuts because honestly, I read this book
Speaker 1: at least once a week to my two year old,
Speaker 1: not just my own personal reading. So anyway, so confirmation bias,
Speaker 1: confirmation bias right there. Well, actually that's not conformation, that's
Speaker 1: cognitive dissonance. Excuse me. So yeah, I mean there, that's
Speaker 1: in action right there. My brain is trying to square it.
Speaker 1: So myth mufford move on my part. Oh, but that's
Speaker 1: just part of the human conditions. So now we have
Speaker 1: a final proof, Um, as some of the conspiracy fans
Speaker 1: of asked me, we have final proof that at least
Speaker 1: one of the people who works at ausup works is
Speaker 1: not a robot or an android. Yes, that is a
Speaker 1: real letter that I received. Yeah, but I mean you're
Speaker 1: kind of shimmering a little bit. I mean, how do
Speaker 1: I know that you're not, you know, a Hall of
Speaker 1: Graham like beamed in here by the illuminati. That's a
Speaker 1: that's a great question, and that might be that might
Speaker 1: be a podcast that goes uh more more on my end.
Speaker 1: Uh we have we have you guys. So, um, well,
Speaker 1: some people would say that, uh. Some people say, A,
Speaker 1: that's that's ridiculous because the technology doesn't exist. But people
Speaker 1: who already believe that, of course, would say, no, person a,
Speaker 1: you're being ridiculous because that technology does exist, and it's
Speaker 1: obviously been suppressed for thousands of years. Insert various building
Speaker 1: blocks of existing thought or existing school thought there. Um,
Speaker 1: people will uh in almost you know, it's easier to
Speaker 1: describe this in terms of conspiracy theories, but this is
Speaker 1: a common phenomenon in the human brain, both cognitive distance
Speaker 1: and confirmation bias. I don't know, I just you're shimmering again.
Speaker 1: And now I'm starting to think maybe you've just been
Speaker 1: sent to talk about this and maybe make me think
Speaker 1: that the moon landing actually was not a hoax and
Speaker 1: you were sent here, weren't you. Well, that is a
Speaker 1: very interesting question that we cannot answer completely. I am
Speaker 1: not at liberty to divulge that. And all right, fine,
Speaker 1: well you're confirming or denying it. I have some uh,
Speaker 1: some great news, which is that our own science guru,
Speaker 1: Robert Lamb, will be returning uh very soon. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's right, and we'll be talking about what should be
Speaker 1: talking about Flange's next week and why we have five
Speaker 1: on each hand, which is such a good question. It
Speaker 1: is it Actually, it's really fascinating, so we'll explore that.
Speaker 1: But before we wrap up today, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: give a really quick shout out to Rich Miles. It
Speaker 1: is your birthday. Happy birthday, birthday, March one. Um. He
Speaker 1: is in Laramie, Wyoming, and Nicole and his uh girlfriend
Speaker 1: Mica actually wanted to to give you a shout out, so, um,
Speaker 1: it's your birthday, your birthday. We won't do that too much,
Speaker 1: but really, I hope you have a wonderful birthday. And
Speaker 1: thank you so much for listening. And I would love
Speaker 1: to know Ben Bullen. Yes, Julie, can you tell us
Speaker 1: where people can reach you, how they can find you
Speaker 1: and your various forms holographic forms. Oh yes, yes, you
Speaker 1: can find you can find car stuff stuff then want
Speaker 1: you to know um and stuff of genus on Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: We've got got blogs. Um. Also, let me pass the
Speaker 1: shout out baton to our own John Fuller, of course,
Speaker 1: who has written this excellent article about the moon landings.
Speaker 1: Now you can. You can find John's article, along with
Speaker 1: several other interesting, fascinating articles, on the website how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. You've probably heard about our handy search bar.
Speaker 1: That's right, just pop it in there, and you can
Speaker 1: also find stuff to blow your mind at blow the
Speaker 1: mind at Facebook and Twitter, and you can also drop
Speaker 1: us note let us know what your favorite conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: is at and blow the mind at how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics,
Speaker 1: visit how stuff works dot com. To learn more about
Speaker 1: the podcast, click on the podcast icon in the upper
Speaker 1: right corner of our homepage. The how stuff Works iPhone
Speaker 1: app has a ride. Download it today on iTunes