SGU Episode 897

This transcript is not finished. Please help us finish it! Add a Transcribing template to the top of this transcript before you start so that we don't duplicate your efforts.

Template:Editing required (w/links) You can use this outline to help structure the transcription. Click "Edit" above to begin.

SGU Episode 897
September 17th 2022
By comparison, Neanderthals needed more brain to control their larger bodies.
SGU 896                      SGU 898
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
C: Cara Santa Maria
J: Jay Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
Quote of the Week
If I want to know how we learn and remember and represent the world, I will go to psychology and neuroscience. If I want to know where values come from, I will go to evolutionary biology and neuroscience and psychology, as Hume and Aristotle would have, were they alive.
Patricia Churchland, Canadian-American analytic philosopher
Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

Introduction, Black Mirror reflections

Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

[00:12.600 --> 00:17.480] Today is Wednesday, September 14th, 2022, and this is your host, Stephen Novella.

[00:17.480 --> 00:19.280] Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

[00:19.280 --> 00:20.280] Hey, everybody.

[00:20.280 --> 00:21.280] Kara Santamaria.

[00:21.280 --> 00:22.280] Howdy.

[00:22.280 --> 00:23.280] Jay Novella.

[00:23.280 --> 00:24.280] Hey, guys.

[00:24.280 --> 00:25.280] And Evan Bernstein.

[00:25.280 --> 00:26.280] Good evening, everyone.

[00:26.280 --> 00:30.800] You know what, guys, I'm rewatching The Black Mirror because I haven't seen most of those

[00:30.800 --> 00:32.600] episodes since they originally aired.

[00:32.600 --> 00:33.600] Really?

[00:33.600 --> 00:36.080] You mean you started at season one, episode one all over again?

[00:36.080 --> 00:37.080] Yeah.

[00:37.080 --> 00:38.160] I'm just going through in order.

[00:38.160 --> 00:43.840] And I forgot most of the details of the episodes, you know?

[00:43.840 --> 00:48.640] I sort of remember what the episode was about, but don't remember the details.

[00:48.640 --> 00:50.920] So it's almost like watching it again.

[00:50.920 --> 00:51.920] So good.

[00:51.920 --> 00:54.120] It is a brilliant TV series.

[00:54.120 --> 00:55.720] So you just watched the first season?

[00:55.720 --> 00:56.720] No.

[00:56.720 --> 00:57.720] I think I'm in the third season now.

[00:57.720 --> 01:00.800] I mean, there's not that many episodes, like four episodes a season, so I'm burning my

[01:00.800 --> 01:01.800] way through.

[01:01.800 --> 01:02.800] Yeah.

[01:02.800 --> 01:03.800] There's some good stuff in there, man.

[01:03.800 --> 01:04.800] Yeah.

[01:04.800 --> 01:05.800] Sure.

[01:05.800 --> 01:06.800] Very, very good.

[01:06.800 --> 01:07.800] Very good futurism, actually.

[01:07.800 --> 01:08.800] Quite good.

[01:08.800 --> 01:09.800] Even though they're mostly like cautionary tales.

[01:09.800 --> 01:10.800] Oh.

Cheating at Tournament Chess (1:09)

• Huge chess world upset of grandmaster sparks wild claims of cheating — with vibrating sex toy

[01:10.800 --> 01:11.800] So speaking of cautionary tales.

[01:11.800 --> 01:12.800] Yeah.

[01:12.800 --> 01:16.040] If you're going to enter a chess tournament, okay?

[01:16.040 --> 01:17.040] Don't cheat.

[01:17.040 --> 01:18.040] Now, what the heck?

[01:18.040 --> 01:19.040] Where did that come from?

[01:19.040 --> 01:21.760] Why are you bringing that up, Evan?

[01:21.760 --> 01:24.320] Because of this particular news item I ran across today.

[01:24.320 --> 01:30.240] Of course, I'm a gamer, I've been a chess player, I've been in tournaments.

[01:30.240 --> 01:32.280] So chess is something that's near and dear to me.

[01:32.280 --> 01:37.520] So when chess pops up in the news, I do pause and I read about it.

[01:37.520 --> 01:42.240] And in this particular case, this headline, it's the New York Post, so take that for

[01:42.240 --> 01:47.920] what it is, but it reads, huge chess world upset of Grandmaster sparks wild claims of

[01:47.920 --> 01:52.160] cheating with vibrating sex toy.

[01:52.160 --> 01:53.160] What a title.

[01:53.160 --> 01:54.160] I love it.

[01:54.160 --> 01:58.240] So if that's not click bait, I don't know what it is.

[01:58.240 --> 01:59.680] But here's the thing.

[01:59.680 --> 02:04.740] The Magnus Carlsen is currently the world's chess champion, he's like a five time world

[02:04.740 --> 02:05.740] chess champion.

[02:05.740 --> 02:12.400] He's on a long streak of wins, I believe he had 59 wins coming into a particular tournament

[02:12.400 --> 02:16.760] in which he was matched up in the first round against the lowest rated player, which obviously

[02:16.760 --> 02:17.760] makes sense.

[02:17.760 --> 02:21.160] Highest versus lowest and you meet in the middle and that's usually how the first round

[02:21.160 --> 02:22.600] works.

[02:22.600 --> 02:23.600] And he was upset.

[02:23.600 --> 02:24.600] He was beaten.

[02:24.600 --> 02:32.520] He was beaten by somebody who's effectively relatively new to the professional chess circuit

[02:32.520 --> 02:35.240] and tournaments and other things.

[02:35.240 --> 02:40.600] And it's causing obviously a controversy, a big one in the world of chess.

[02:40.600 --> 02:47.040] You see, because the person who beat him, his name is Hans Nieman, he admitted to cheating

[02:47.040 --> 02:49.240] in online tournaments when he was younger.

[02:49.240 --> 02:51.640] Oh boy, not good for him.

[02:51.640 --> 02:52.800] Yeah.

[02:52.800 --> 02:59.540] And so he has this cloud of accusations hovering over him that there is really no plausible

[02:59.540 --> 03:04.200] way in the world of chess that the lowest rated player can beat the highest rated who

[03:04.200 --> 03:09.800] happens to be the current grandmaster, world grandmaster, five time world champion in the

[03:09.800 --> 03:12.120] first round of a tournament like this.

[03:12.120 --> 03:18.060] Apparently it's so statistically nearly impossible that it likely would not have happened unless

[03:18.060 --> 03:21.600] there was some kind of cheating and you add on top of that the fact that this person has

[03:21.600 --> 03:26.840] admitted to cheating before.

[03:26.840 --> 03:33.620] He's being questioned by certainly lots of professional organizations about it, this

[03:33.620 --> 03:35.160] kid Nieman.

[03:35.160 --> 03:41.760] He has also been banned from chess.com, the world's number one chess website because of

[03:41.760 --> 03:42.760] the accusations.

[03:42.760 --> 03:43.760] I'm sorry, is it chess.org or chess.com?

[03:43.760 --> 03:44.760] I thought it was chess.com.

[03:44.760 --> 03:45.760] Evan.

[03:45.760 --> 03:50.640] And he's been banned from them because of these cheating accusations, yep.

[03:50.640 --> 03:54.760] The part that I don't get is you can make the accusation.

[03:54.760 --> 04:00.760] Well, first of all, I'm very triggery about someone like, I didn't win so therefore it

[04:00.760 --> 04:04.240] must be cheating, right, because we're seeing that.

[04:04.240 --> 04:05.240] Yes.

[04:05.240 --> 04:09.040] Number two, they either caught the guy or they didn't catch the guy.

[04:09.040 --> 04:10.040] You can't say afterwards.

[04:10.040 --> 04:11.040] They didn't catch him.

[04:11.040 --> 04:12.720] They did not catch him.

[04:12.720 --> 04:14.240] Let's say he had a device on him.

[04:14.240 --> 04:16.000] Let's say he was cheating, right?

[04:16.000 --> 04:17.000] Yes.

[04:17.000 --> 04:19.040] They don't catch him during the competition.

[04:19.040 --> 04:25.040] He gets up, he walks out, he gets rid of anything that could incriminate him.

[04:25.040 --> 04:28.400] So now they're making an accusation that is virtually unprovable.

[04:28.400 --> 04:34.440] So what I read, first of all, Carlson, the champion who lost, did not directly accuse

[04:34.440 --> 04:37.040] him of cheating, but he implied it.

[04:37.040 --> 04:42.520] He quote unquote all but accused him, but he didn't straight up say he cheated.

[04:42.520 --> 04:46.200] And you're right, Jay, from what I'm reading, we're not experts, but this is an interesting

[04:46.200 --> 04:51.480] story is that it's all based on plausibility and game analysis.

[04:51.480 --> 04:54.720] It's based upon like what's more likely to be true.

[04:54.720 --> 04:57.160] There's no direct evidence that he cheated.

[04:57.160 --> 04:58.160] Yeah.

[04:58.160 --> 05:02.720] Speaking of game analysis, though, I just read that both, if you look at gameplay, both

[05:02.720 --> 05:08.000] sides were making mistakes and the author was claiming that, you know, something that

[05:08.000 --> 05:13.080] would make you think that maybe he really wasn't cheating if he was also making mistakes,

[05:13.080 --> 05:17.440] which isn't necessarily true because you could just cheat not for every move, but for just

[05:17.440 --> 05:20.560] some of the critical moves, you know, so you could still make mistakes.

[05:20.560 --> 05:21.560] So yeah.

[05:21.560 --> 05:27.080] So the initial analysis was like when people were watching the game live, like if you were

[05:27.080 --> 05:31.800] listening to the commentary from what I'm reading again, it said that Carlson kind of

[05:31.800 --> 05:32.800] underestimated.

[05:32.800 --> 05:35.360] He was like, this is the first round, this is a low strength player.

[05:35.360 --> 05:41.520] He kind of rushed and that he messed up, like he did not play well early in the game, but

[05:41.520 --> 05:45.080] that he should have still been able to play him to a draw.

[05:45.080 --> 05:50.760] But then he made a bad move late in the game that Neiman exploited and won.

[05:50.760 --> 05:55.760] So it just it looked like he choked because he underestimated based on what you just said,

[05:55.760 --> 05:56.760] man.

[05:56.760 --> 06:02.040] However, once Carlson brought up the possibility that the guy cheated and people like analyze

[06:02.040 --> 06:09.720] the game in detail, some people are saying that Neiman made a clutch, brilliant move

[06:09.720 --> 06:16.680] really quickly and that that might imply that, you know, he that he cheated, that he was,

[06:16.680 --> 06:18.480] you know, that there was some sort of guidance.

[06:18.480 --> 06:19.480] Yeah.

[06:19.480 --> 06:20.480] But of course, we don't.

[06:20.480 --> 06:23.840] This is all, you know, speculation, speculation and probability.

[06:23.840 --> 06:25.600] It's possible that it was just an upset.

[06:25.600 --> 06:29.280] The thing is, unusual outcomes are going to occur from time to time.

[06:29.280 --> 06:33.100] And when they do, you can point to that's an anomaly and therefore there must be something

[06:33.100 --> 06:34.100] going on.

[06:34.100 --> 06:36.540] But anomaly should happen pretty regularly.

[06:36.540 --> 06:37.920] And there are upsets in chess.

[06:37.920 --> 06:38.920] It does happen.

[06:38.920 --> 06:39.920] You know.

[06:39.920 --> 06:40.920] Oh, in all sports.

[06:40.920 --> 06:41.920] Sure.

[06:41.920 --> 06:42.920] Sure.

[06:42.920 --> 06:44.880] So it's not enough to say, oh, this guy should not have won.

[06:44.880 --> 06:49.920] They would they would need to show evidence that he actually cheated, not although it

[06:49.920 --> 06:57.800] is interesting to this idea that we can, quote unquote, prove cheating to a high degree of

[06:57.800 --> 07:00.780] probability by analyzing the game.

[07:00.780 --> 07:03.960] So let me give you an example from a game if you guys remember this.

[07:03.960 --> 07:07.140] But I can't remember the specific video game, which a lot of our listeners know.

[07:07.140 --> 07:10.720] But somebody, you know, how they do like a you try to run through the game as fast as

[07:10.720 --> 07:11.720] possible.

[07:11.720 --> 07:12.720] Yes.

[07:12.720 --> 07:13.720] I've seen some.

[07:13.720 --> 07:17.320] Somebody did that in one of the games on the portal, whatever it was, one of the some

[07:17.320 --> 07:21.400] game where you could play through the beginning to end and broke all records.

[07:21.400 --> 07:23.720] And I think it was from Minecraft.

[07:23.720 --> 07:28.120] I think he did a Minecraft run through like faster than anybody else.

[07:28.120 --> 07:34.820] And somebody calculated the odds of him getting the drops that he got in the game.

[07:34.820 --> 07:36.320] And it was like astronomical.

[07:36.320 --> 07:39.000] I just defied all probability.

[07:39.000 --> 07:41.120] So he said he must have been hacking somehow.

[07:41.120 --> 07:47.520] He was cheating that it wasn't just based on drops, not speed, but but drops.

[07:47.520 --> 07:49.520] And when you say drops for people who aren't familiar with Minecraft.

[07:49.520 --> 07:54.200] So in other words, like you kill a bad guy and he drops treasure and that that drop is

[07:54.200 --> 07:58.480] random and there's a very hard probability.

[07:58.480 --> 07:59.480] It's coded into the game.

[07:59.480 --> 08:03.840] Like there's a one percent chance that you'll get this drop, you know, in a perfect thing.

[08:03.840 --> 08:04.840] Yeah.

[08:04.840 --> 08:10.880] So if you calculate the odds of him getting the favorable drops that he got, it defies

[08:10.880 --> 08:11.880] all.

[08:11.880 --> 08:12.880] It's like winning a lottery.

[08:12.880 --> 08:15.760] You know, it was like, but somebody always wins the lottery.

[08:15.760 --> 08:17.520] Well, that's that's kind of the point.

[08:17.520 --> 08:18.520] It's different.

[08:18.520 --> 08:19.520] No, but it's different.

[08:19.520 --> 08:20.520] It's numbers are different.

[08:20.520 --> 08:21.520] Yeah.

[08:21.520 --> 08:23.480] I have 10 million people play in that game.

[08:23.480 --> 08:24.480] Yeah.

[08:24.480 --> 08:29.640] But but so many but so many attempts at it if it's a large enough number, shouldn't there

[08:29.640 --> 08:30.640] be?

[08:30.640 --> 08:31.720] But it wasn't even close.

[08:31.720 --> 08:33.640] Not that many people do this right.

[08:33.640 --> 08:38.040] Do this like fast running, you know, run through of Minecraft.

[08:38.040 --> 08:42.320] The probability that somebody doing this, let's say there are thousands of people doing

[08:42.320 --> 08:43.320] it, whatever.

[08:43.320 --> 08:48.200] It still is like, you know, trillions to one against like orders of magnitude off it trillions

[08:48.200 --> 08:49.400] is a tough number to overcome.

[08:49.400 --> 08:50.400] It's just yeah.

[08:50.400 --> 08:51.400] Yeah.

[08:51.400 --> 08:54.840] It just should not have happened by right by chance because that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[08:54.840 --> 08:59.120] We're just saying probabilistically it's a huge red flag.

[08:59.120 --> 09:02.660] It's I think a little bit harder to say that with chess because it's not hard probabilities

[09:02.660 --> 09:03.660] that you can calculate.

[09:03.660 --> 09:07.560] It's just like maybe the guy choked and maybe the other guy got lucky or he made a he made

[09:07.560 --> 09:08.600] a move.

[09:08.600 --> 09:11.040] In retrospect, it was a brilliant move, but he could have just got lucky.

[09:11.040 --> 09:13.000] I mean, you know, could have just been.

[09:13.000 --> 09:14.000] Yeah.

[09:14.000 --> 09:15.000] Yeah.

[09:15.000 --> 09:18.860] The big thing for me, the big thing for me was Steve was when you said that this guy made

[09:18.860 --> 09:20.480] some bad moves.

[09:20.480 --> 09:21.480] He did.

[09:21.480 --> 09:24.860] A bunch of uncharacteristically bad moves.

[09:24.860 --> 09:29.600] And to me, that really kind of sways it back into this guy's corner, I think, because if

[09:29.600 --> 09:35.040] he if the champ still played a brilliant game and the guy still took him out, then that

[09:35.040 --> 09:38.520] would be, you know, it would be different, a little bit different.

[09:38.520 --> 09:39.520] Right.

[09:39.520 --> 09:40.520] Now, in terms of the cheating.

[09:40.520 --> 09:43.520] I mean, you know, this is why you don't cheat, man, because then your reputation's in the

[09:43.520 --> 09:44.520] shitter.

[09:44.520 --> 09:45.520] Yeah.

[09:45.520 --> 09:46.520] That's right.

[09:46.520 --> 09:48.080] Then if you do get lucky, no one's going to believe you.

[09:48.080 --> 09:50.280] But he said and even said, listen, he admitted it.

[09:50.280 --> 09:54.760] I admitted that I cheated once when I was 12 years old and when I was six twelve years

[09:54.760 --> 09:55.760] old.

[09:55.760 --> 10:03.160] And then when he was 16, he's now 19 years old, but he says, oh, I know he's sorry about

[10:03.160 --> 10:04.160] those.

[10:04.160 --> 10:05.160] He's reformed, whatever.

[10:05.160 --> 10:06.880] He cheats about every three years.

[10:06.880 --> 10:11.000] That's what you're saying.

[10:11.000 --> 10:12.520] You can kind of take that for what it's worth.

[10:12.520 --> 10:16.820] I mean, if you were like 30, I would say, OK, it was like he was a child and I was.

[10:16.820 --> 10:18.560] But he's 19.

[10:18.560 --> 10:25.560] It's still 16 to 19 is a huge deal, but it's not so much time that we could say he's out

[10:25.560 --> 10:29.880] of the woods in terms of still right bearing the burden of having a reputation of being

[10:29.880 --> 10:30.880] a cheater.

[10:30.880 --> 10:33.920] But it's interesting like you could make a case any way you want with something like

[10:33.920 --> 10:34.920] this.

[10:34.920 --> 10:35.920] You know, it's all about you.

[10:35.920 --> 10:37.920] You're missing like a part of this, Steve.

[10:37.920 --> 10:41.480] Evan, did I hear you correctly?

[10:41.480 --> 10:44.560] Did you say that they accused him of cheating with a sex toy?

[10:44.560 --> 10:48.160] Well, that's well, yeah, that where does that detail come from?

[10:48.160 --> 10:54.740] I'm not one hundred percent sure where that I think they're saying how could he have possibly

[10:54.740 --> 10:56.880] cheated using a piece of technology?

[10:56.880 --> 10:58.200] And this was one scenario.

[10:58.200 --> 11:03.640] And because it is, you know, because of the nature, the sexual nature of it, it obviously

[11:03.640 --> 11:06.520] gets a lot of attention more so than perhaps other.

[11:06.520 --> 11:12.160] But what's the what sex toy did this guy have that was helping him play chess?

[11:12.160 --> 11:18.040] Well, according to the accusation, it's something, you know, you anally insert and you vibrate

[11:18.040 --> 11:19.040] more.

[11:19.040 --> 11:20.480] And it vibrates and it vibrates.

[11:20.480 --> 11:22.720] Somebody would have had to have been controlling it remotely.

[11:22.720 --> 11:29.320] Well, yeah, you can other other another person or a computer or something else can control

[11:29.320 --> 11:30.320] the vibration.

[11:30.320 --> 11:32.800] Oh, and use it as a means of communication.

[11:32.800 --> 11:36.920] That's it's basically a way to send him information remotely.

[11:36.920 --> 11:37.920] Yeah, right.

[11:37.920 --> 11:38.920] Yeah.

[11:38.920 --> 11:39.920] But that's correct.

[11:39.920 --> 11:40.920] Yeah.

[11:40.920 --> 11:46.000] And that has and that and that that is a known thing in cheating when when somebody places

[11:46.000 --> 11:51.160] a device upon their body and it gives them a shock or a vibrational pulse or something

[11:51.160 --> 11:55.600] that that is very well established that people have done that in the past.

[11:55.600 --> 11:58.940] But do you think the guy was sitting there playing chess and every like five minutes

[11:58.940 --> 12:09.060] he'd be like, oh, well, this is what that sounds awfully like an argument from lack

[12:09.060 --> 12:10.060] of evidence.

[12:10.060 --> 12:11.060] Right.

[12:11.060 --> 12:12.720] It's like there's no evidence that he cheated.

[12:12.720 --> 12:18.280] That means he's a really good cheater because he he had something in his but, you know,

[12:18.280 --> 12:20.960] it's just that's not a very compelling argument.

[12:20.960 --> 12:22.360] But it is technically feasible.

[12:22.360 --> 12:25.160] You can communicate with very little information.

[12:25.160 --> 12:30.080] I think it's like three characters, three or four characters for any given chess move.

[12:30.080 --> 12:32.920] So it wouldn't take so that that can be done.

[12:32.920 --> 12:33.920] But yeah.

[12:33.920 --> 12:34.920] Yeah, you're right.

[12:34.920 --> 12:35.920] I mean, yeah.

[12:35.920 --> 12:36.920] Well, right.

[12:36.920 --> 12:37.920] Every piece occupies.

[12:37.920 --> 12:38.920] Yeah, that's right.

[12:38.920 --> 12:39.920] Every piece has a designation, a letter number combination.

[12:39.920 --> 12:44.180] So very, very easy, like you said, but let's follow this has those codes.

[12:44.180 --> 12:45.360] Let's follow this.

[12:45.360 --> 12:52.080] So he had to have a co-conspirator here that was like in the audience pressing.

[12:52.080 --> 12:53.160] Was it televised?

[12:53.160 --> 12:58.000] The button like he'd have to have somebody like looking up the information and then radioing

[12:58.000 --> 12:59.000] it to his butt.

[12:59.000 --> 13:00.000] Right.

[13:00.000 --> 13:01.000] Yeah.

[13:01.000 --> 13:02.800] So I I have to check and I haven't looked for the video.

[13:02.800 --> 13:09.360] I think it was somehow being televised or was able to be watched in real time.

[13:09.360 --> 13:15.200] And so, yeah, there would be some sort of in the audience would be too too risky.

[13:15.200 --> 13:20.080] Co-conspirator or with them or or a or something that's or a I don't know if there are automated

[13:20.080 --> 13:25.360] programs that read the chessboard or it's somehow programmed in or somebody online is

[13:25.360 --> 13:30.240] putting in the moves and then that is being relayed into whatever device supposedly this

[13:30.240 --> 13:31.920] thing is can transmit.

[13:31.920 --> 13:33.480] You know, I get you're right.

[13:33.480 --> 13:38.480] It's it's it's total speculation and unprovable at this point.

[13:38.480 --> 13:45.160] And you know, it does smack of kind of sour grapes overall, if you ask me, you know, queen

[13:45.160 --> 13:54.720] to to two D. Oh, but yes, I mean, Carlson is denying that he accused him of cheating

[13:54.720 --> 14:00.200] because that I think he knows that is bad for him now, unless you have proof.

[14:00.200 --> 14:01.200] Yeah.

[14:01.200 --> 14:03.280] You don't accuse the other guy of cheating.

[14:03.280 --> 14:05.560] Have them play five more games.

[14:05.560 --> 14:08.240] Let's see how this guy does that.

[14:08.240 --> 14:09.360] That proves nothing.

[14:09.360 --> 14:10.360] It proves nothing.

[14:10.360 --> 14:11.360] Yeah.

[14:11.360 --> 14:12.360] Why?

[14:12.360 --> 14:15.960] Because we know that Carlson will lose.

[14:15.960 --> 14:16.960] Yeah.

[14:16.960 --> 14:17.960] Right.

[14:17.960 --> 14:20.680] Because we know that the champion is better than the lowest ranking ranking guy.

[14:20.680 --> 14:23.000] It's just that did he underestimate him and choke?

[14:23.000 --> 14:24.000] Right.

[14:24.000 --> 14:27.080] That's the question that the other guy get lucky that, you know, that's the question.

[14:27.080 --> 14:31.440] And then nothing will answer that because it's done because the guy's clearly not going

[14:31.440 --> 14:32.920] to underestimate him a second time.

[14:32.920 --> 14:34.440] He's going to bring his freaking a game.

[14:34.440 --> 14:35.440] Yeah.

[14:35.440 --> 14:37.400] I played one Grandmaster in my life.

[14:37.400 --> 14:38.400] Really?

[14:38.400 --> 14:39.400] Yes.

[14:39.400 --> 14:40.400] How badly did he wipe you?

[14:40.400 --> 14:42.960] He destroyed me in like nine moves.

[14:42.960 --> 14:44.440] It was pretty much done.

[14:44.440 --> 14:45.440] Nine's not bad.

[14:45.440 --> 14:46.440] You held out for nine moves.

[14:46.440 --> 14:47.440] It was.

[14:47.440 --> 14:48.440] It was.

[14:48.440 --> 14:49.440] Yeah.

[14:49.440 --> 14:50.440] It was humbling.

[14:50.440 --> 14:51.440] It was just fun.

[14:51.440 --> 14:53.240] It was a friend of mine from high school.

[14:53.240 --> 14:54.240] His father.

[14:54.240 --> 14:55.240] Yeah.

[14:55.240 --> 14:56.240] Was technically a Grandmaster.

[14:56.240 --> 14:57.240] He played for 13.

[14:57.240 --> 14:58.240] I'd just like to be one of those guys.

[14:58.240 --> 15:01.240] You don't like to have the Grandmaster play 20 people at once.

[15:01.240 --> 15:02.240] Yeah.

[15:02.240 --> 15:03.240] Oh, gosh.

[15:03.240 --> 15:04.240] Defeats being one of those people.

[15:04.240 --> 15:08.280] You're taking up one twentieth of his attention and he's still wiped the board with you.

[15:08.280 --> 15:09.280] It's humbling.

[15:09.280 --> 15:10.280] Yeah.

[15:10.280 --> 15:11.280] So many moves.

[15:11.280 --> 15:12.280] Expertise.

[15:12.280 --> 15:13.280] Oh, gosh.

[15:13.280 --> 15:14.280] Yes.

[15:14.280 --> 15:15.280] And they're thinking so many moves ahead.

[15:15.280 --> 15:16.280] Yes.

[15:16.280 --> 15:17.280] Yeah.

[15:17.280 --> 15:21.640] The Korovinsky move from 1947 when he played Stratsky in this game and, you know, really

[15:21.640 --> 15:22.640] it comes down to that.

[15:22.640 --> 15:27.080] It's like they analyze they were they you they can memorize all the moves of a particular

[15:27.080 --> 15:31.960] game from a particular tournament from a particular, you know, year 90 that was played 90 years

[15:31.960 --> 15:32.960] ago.

[15:32.960 --> 15:33.960] It's impressive.

[15:33.960 --> 15:37.720] What's interesting from a skeptical point of view is that so many people now are trying

[15:37.720 --> 15:45.320] to infer whether or not he cheated based upon circumstantial and tangential evidence and

[15:45.320 --> 15:49.760] the logical fallacies are flying, you know, the motivated reasoning is flying.

[15:49.760 --> 15:56.900] So it's interesting to watch that from the sidelines having zero stake in the game.

[15:56.900 --> 15:58.480] But it's interesting.

[15:58.480 --> 16:02.280] And if any objective evidence emerges, we'll we'll let you know, because that would be

[16:02.280 --> 16:03.960] then then you have the hindsight.

[16:03.960 --> 16:04.960] Right.

[16:04.960 --> 16:07.960] And we'll look at all those statements and inferences with hindsight.

[16:07.960 --> 16:08.960] All right.

[16:08.960 --> 16:10.240] We're going to start off.

Is It Real: Ear Snake (16:08)

• Does Video Show Snake’s Head in Woman’s Ear?

[16:10.240 --> 16:11.800] Evan, you sent this around.

[16:11.800 --> 16:12.800] This is a segment.

[16:12.800 --> 16:14.240] I think we've done this once or twice before.

[16:14.240 --> 16:15.240] Is it real?

[16:15.240 --> 16:16.240] Right.

[16:16.240 --> 16:17.240] Is the segment.

[16:17.240 --> 16:18.240] Is it real?

[16:18.240 --> 16:20.720] Have you guys all seen the YouTube video of the ear snake?

[16:20.720 --> 16:21.720] Oh, yeah.

[16:21.720 --> 16:26.000] I you know, I was going to watch it and then I realized I don't want to see whether it's

[16:26.000 --> 16:27.000] fake or not.

[16:27.000 --> 16:28.000] I don't want to see.

[16:28.000 --> 16:29.000] Oh, my God.

[16:29.000 --> 16:31.200] A snake come out of somebody's ear.

[16:31.200 --> 16:32.380] It's a high creep factor.

[16:32.380 --> 16:33.380] It's like it's.

[16:33.380 --> 16:34.380] Oh, yes.

[16:34.380 --> 16:35.380] I want to see it.

[16:35.380 --> 16:37.600] Well, it's right now.

[16:37.600 --> 16:40.680] Snakes is a natural fear, Steve, or the brain.

[16:40.680 --> 16:42.880] We have a disposition towards fear of snakes.

[16:42.880 --> 16:43.880] Oh, yeah.

[16:43.880 --> 16:44.880] I mean, generally.

[16:44.880 --> 16:47.800] So right there, you know, is the cringe.

[16:47.800 --> 16:48.800] You don't see it come out, Jay.

[16:48.800 --> 16:52.760] It's just basically hanging out in the ear with the opening and closing its mouth.

[16:52.760 --> 16:55.800] I don't like its head is facing outward.

[16:55.800 --> 16:56.800] Yeah.

[16:56.800 --> 16:57.800] Right.

[16:57.800 --> 17:03.320] So it's a it's like a portion of a video of a longer video, which is, you know, cut

[17:03.320 --> 17:09.560] strategically to only show that there's a head of a snake protruding from a woman's

[17:09.560 --> 17:14.800] ear and someone with gloves and tweezers is kind of poking it and provoking it into making

[17:14.800 --> 17:15.800] these mouth gestures.

[17:15.800 --> 17:16.800] Oh, my God.

[17:16.800 --> 17:17.800] Right.

[17:17.800 --> 17:18.800] And they're so they're so funny.

[17:18.800 --> 17:19.800] How did it turn inside?

[17:19.800 --> 17:20.800] Did it enter from another ear?

[17:20.800 --> 17:21.800] I know.

[17:21.800 --> 17:22.800] Oh, gosh.

[17:22.800 --> 17:23.800] It's crazy.

[17:23.800 --> 17:30.800] So as a neurologist, I could tell you this is 100 percent fake.

[17:30.800 --> 17:33.080] There's just no place for the snake to be.

[17:33.080 --> 17:37.800] You would be dead if there was if there was a body attached to that snake head.

[17:37.800 --> 17:42.840] There's the only place for it to be is in your brain's brain, freaking dead if that

[17:42.840 --> 17:43.840] were real.

[17:43.840 --> 17:48.460] If that were coming out of a corpse, OK, then there would be some plausibility there.

[17:48.460 --> 17:54.360] And the other thing is, the doctor is clearly not trying to remove it.

[17:54.360 --> 17:56.960] If you were trying to remove it, you would freaking remove it.

[17:56.960 --> 17:59.200] He's just poking it to make it smoking at it.

[17:59.200 --> 18:00.200] Yeah.

[18:00.200 --> 18:03.640] Like, there's no species of snake that's just a head, right?

[18:03.640 --> 18:09.480] Like, that would be the only plausible thing is if there was just a living head of a snake

[18:09.480 --> 18:10.480] there.

[18:10.480 --> 18:11.480] Right.

[18:11.480 --> 18:12.480] My guess is there's two options.

[18:12.480 --> 18:13.480] Yeah.

[18:13.480 --> 18:16.600] Either CG, which doesn't look CG, but I mean, it's possible.

[18:16.600 --> 18:17.600] No, it doesn't.

[18:17.600 --> 18:18.600] It could be.

[18:18.600 --> 18:19.600] It could be.

[18:19.600 --> 18:20.600] It could be.

[18:20.600 --> 18:21.600] It could be animatronic.

[18:21.600 --> 18:23.800] That's damn good animatronics.

[18:23.800 --> 18:26.240] Do you consider, Bob, that it was a ghost snake?

[18:26.240 --> 18:27.240] You know, it would be ethereal.

[18:27.240 --> 18:28.240] It wouldn't be actually.

[18:28.240 --> 18:29.240] Bigfoot snake.

[18:29.240 --> 18:30.240] It's a bigfoot snake.

[18:30.240 --> 18:31.240] Lots of feet on it.

[18:31.240 --> 18:34.520] It's a psychic, ghost, bigfoot snake from the future.

[18:34.520 --> 18:36.960] No, that's the most plausible explanation I've heard yet.

[18:36.960 --> 18:41.960] Or the most likely explanation, right, we pretty much, most people agree or Snopes agrees

[18:41.960 --> 18:47.880] or whatever, is that it's just a decapitated snake and they will move for a while, even

[18:47.880 --> 18:48.880] after decapitation.

[18:48.880 --> 18:50.440] And that's why he's poking it.

[18:50.440 --> 18:51.440] Yes.

[18:51.440 --> 18:53.760] Yeah, they cut the snake's head off, stuck it in her ear, and they're poking it to make

[18:53.760 --> 18:54.760] it move.

[18:54.760 --> 18:59.000] Okay, so if that's the, ooh, if that's the explanation, I don't know what's worse.

[18:59.000 --> 19:02.160] The false story or the actual explanation for this thing.

[19:02.160 --> 19:05.320] Also then, the question with no context, is this real?

[19:05.320 --> 19:06.320] Yes.

[19:06.320 --> 19:09.440] There is a decapitated snake head in her ear.

[19:09.440 --> 19:10.440] That's real.

[19:10.440 --> 19:16.080] Well, it's not real as presented, like as a living snake nestled in somebody's ear.

[19:16.080 --> 19:19.400] And that is what we're supposed to get from it, because the first thing I said was, why

[19:19.400 --> 19:21.800] is there just a snake head in her ear?

[19:21.800 --> 19:25.440] Because of course, any reasonable person knows that there's nowhere for the body to go, because

[19:25.440 --> 19:28.560] your ear canal, how big is your ear canal?

[19:28.560 --> 19:29.560] It's teeny.

[19:29.560 --> 19:30.560] I don't know.

[19:30.560 --> 19:31.560] Like a centimeter or two?

[19:31.560 --> 19:32.560] Yeah.

[19:32.560 --> 19:33.640] An inch max?

[19:33.640 --> 19:34.760] I don't know.

[19:34.760 --> 19:35.760] And it's narrow.

[19:35.760 --> 19:36.760] Yeah.

[19:36.760 --> 19:37.760] That's what I'm saying.

[19:37.760 --> 19:38.760] Yeah.

[19:38.760 --> 19:39.760] It's short and narrow.

[19:39.760 --> 19:40.760] There's no...

[19:40.760 --> 19:44.880] And then there's your cochlea, your inner ear, and then there's your brainstem.

[19:44.880 --> 19:48.560] You know, it's just, there's no place for the snake body to be.

[19:48.560 --> 19:50.200] So there's clearly no snake body there, right?

[19:50.200 --> 19:51.480] That's that we could say for sure.

[19:51.480 --> 19:56.880] Whether it's CG or a recently decapitated head or whatever, there's no body attached

[19:56.880 --> 19:57.880] to it.

[19:57.880 --> 19:58.880] It's an illusion.

[19:58.880 --> 20:01.440] It's an illusion, right?

[20:01.440 --> 20:06.560] Is surgeon in quotes, struggles to remove live snake bones there.

[20:06.560 --> 20:09.160] It's a surgeon in quotes.

[20:09.160 --> 20:10.160] Yeah.

[20:10.160 --> 20:15.600] Because apparently it started as a clip to Facebook, posted on September 1st by India

[20:15.600 --> 20:21.280] based social media star named Chandan Singh, or 20,000 followers, whatever.

[20:21.280 --> 20:26.900] And surgeon, it was written in a foreign language, I can't read it, but the word surgeon was

[20:26.900 --> 20:27.940] in there.

[20:27.940 --> 20:31.740] And also in quotes, it says the snake has gone in the ear.

[20:31.740 --> 20:35.800] So that's why surgeon is quoted the way it is.

[20:35.800 --> 20:37.140] That guy's not a surgeon.

[20:37.140 --> 20:41.660] Or if he is, he's not trying to remove that snake skin because if he were, he would freaking

[20:41.660 --> 20:42.660] remove it.

[20:42.660 --> 20:47.880] And the other thing is, if he removed the snake, why are we not seeing that portion

[20:47.880 --> 20:48.880] of the video?

[20:48.880 --> 20:49.880] Right.

[20:49.880 --> 20:55.560] Why is it so conveniently cut before you get to see the head pop out or whatever?

[20:55.560 --> 21:00.800] And after the removal of something other than just poking the snake head.

[21:00.800 --> 21:06.800] But sitting there and allowing yourself to be used like that for this purpose is heroic,

[21:06.800 --> 21:08.760] brave or weird.

[21:08.760 --> 21:14.320] I've seen people do weirder, grosser things on the internet, so not surprising.

[21:14.320 --> 21:18.000] All right, let's move on to some news items.

News Items

S:

B:

C:

J:

E:

(laughs) (laughter) (applause) [inaudible]

What Children Believe (21:18)

• Children Don't Believe Everything They Are Told

[21:18.000 --> 21:21.200] Kara, you're going to start us off with what children believe.

[21:21.200 --> 21:22.200] Yeah.

[21:22.200 --> 21:26.520] This is one of those like I could approach this two different ways because as I was reading

[21:26.520 --> 21:29.860] the coverage of this, the headlines made it sound kind of juicy.

[21:29.860 --> 21:34.560] And then the more I dug into the actual paper, like the research study that we're about to

[21:34.560 --> 21:38.600] talk about, the more I was like, uh-huh, uh-huh, well, duh.

[21:38.600 --> 21:45.360] And so let's talk a little bit about how this is a well, duh subject, but also why it matters.

[21:45.360 --> 21:54.400] So an article published in Child Development by some Canadian and I think and U.S. researchers,

[21:54.400 --> 22:02.080] yeah, University of Toronto and also Harvard, were saying kind of do kids believe everything

[22:02.080 --> 22:03.080] that they're told?

[22:03.080 --> 22:07.120] I think any of us, like as you're reading coverage of this, it's really funny to me

[22:07.120 --> 22:10.080] because you're like, have you ever been around a child?

[22:10.080 --> 22:15.680] Like yes, kids are gullible, but yes, kids also are explorers.

[22:15.680 --> 22:18.320] And so the question here, they're observers and they're explorers.

[22:18.320 --> 22:22.200] So the question here is how do those things converge?

[22:22.200 --> 22:24.940] I don't think it's really well answered by this study, but let me tell you what they

[22:24.940 --> 22:26.200] did in the study.

[22:26.200 --> 22:29.520] So there's sort of two paradigms.

[22:29.520 --> 22:33.120] In one of the paradigms, it was quite simple.

[22:33.120 --> 22:38.480] They basically had kids come in and they asked them straightforward questions like, is this

[22:38.480 --> 22:41.600] rock hard or soft?

[22:41.600 --> 22:44.880] And the kids were like, well, the rock's hard.

[22:44.880 --> 22:48.680] Like all of them said that because these were four to seven-year-olds, by the way, because

[22:48.680 --> 22:50.960] even a four-year-old knows that a rock is hard.

[22:50.960 --> 22:53.200] They have seen and felt rocks before.

[22:53.200 --> 22:57.720] And then they sort of randomized them into groups and in one group they were like, yeah,

[22:57.720 --> 22:58.720] it's hard.

[22:58.720 --> 23:02.560] And in the other group they were like, no, this rock is soft.

[23:02.560 --> 23:07.600] And then the researcher was like, oh, quick, I got a phone call, BRB, and left the kids

[23:07.600 --> 23:08.600] in the room.

[23:08.600 --> 23:13.300] And so unbeknownst to the kids, they were being videotaped and their exploratory behavior

[23:13.300 --> 23:14.740] was being observed.

[23:14.740 --> 23:16.280] And that's really what the study was.

[23:16.280 --> 23:22.640] What do the kids do after they're told that there's a surprising piece of information

[23:22.640 --> 23:28.800] that doesn't comport with their preexisting understanding of the world?

[23:28.800 --> 23:29.800] Kids explored.

[23:29.800 --> 23:33.040] I mean, you know, what do you expect them to do?

[23:33.040 --> 23:36.080] I guess you might expect that one or two kids are going to sit there and go, I guess the

[23:36.080 --> 23:39.400] rock's soft, weird, and like never touched the rock.

[23:39.400 --> 23:41.760] But most kids did exactly what you would think they would do.

[23:41.760 --> 23:47.620] They started to observe and explore and see for themselves, see if that adult's claim

[23:47.620 --> 23:50.440] was real.

[23:50.440 --> 23:51.440] What age?

[23:51.440 --> 23:52.440] Four to seven.

[23:52.440 --> 23:53.440] Yeah, sure.

[23:53.440 --> 23:54.440] Yeah.

[23:54.440 --> 24:00.600] What I love about it, though, because they have to summarize the study exactly, is that

[24:00.600 --> 24:07.520] in the pretest or in the pre-experimental condition group, so they ask them all, is

[24:07.520 --> 24:10.320] the rock hard or soft, all the kids said the rock was hard.

[24:10.320 --> 24:15.640] And then in part of the two different groups, one group, no, the rock is soft.

[24:15.640 --> 24:19.280] The other group, yeah, you're right, the rock is hard.

[24:19.280 --> 24:25.680] Most of the kids, it's really funny, they say most but not all of the kids concurred.

[24:25.680 --> 24:29.080] In the group where they were reinforced that the rock was hard, most but not all of the

[24:29.080 --> 24:32.620] kids continued to concur that the rock was hard.

[24:32.620 --> 24:33.960] This is my favorite part of the study.

[24:33.960 --> 24:36.760] That means at least one child was like, no, the rock's hard.

[24:36.760 --> 24:39.120] And then the adult goes, yeah, you're right, the rock's hard, and the kid goes, I think

[24:39.120 --> 24:40.120] it's soft.

[24:40.120 --> 24:41.120] Yeah, right?

[24:41.120 --> 24:43.240] Which is like, because they had to report it that way, right?

[24:43.240 --> 24:45.120] They said most, not all.

[24:45.120 --> 24:46.640] Anyway, that's an aside.

[24:46.640 --> 24:49.920] So some of the kids said, okay, maybe it is soft.

[24:49.920 --> 24:52.160] Some of the kids said, no, I think it's hard.

[24:52.160 --> 24:55.760] But regardless, they went in and they explored for themselves.

[24:55.760 --> 25:01.420] Then they did another study where they actually kind of compared the differences between the

[25:01.420 --> 25:06.540] younger group, so they sort of arbitrarily split them after the fact into a four to five-year-old

[25:06.540 --> 25:10.460] group and then into a six to seven-year-old group.

[25:10.460 --> 25:15.720] And in that one, they were given the vignettes, specific vignettes.

[25:15.720 --> 25:18.840] I think they were sort of based on the ideas from this first group.

[25:18.840 --> 25:24.600] And in those different vignettes, they asked the kids, what do you do if an adult says

[25:24.600 --> 25:28.140] to you, the sponge is harder than the rock?

[25:28.140 --> 25:32.160] What do you do if an adult says to you, blah, blah, blah?

[25:32.160 --> 25:36.680] And so they presented the kids with these vignettes of kind of unbelievable claims or

[25:36.680 --> 25:41.560] claims that shouldn't compute for them because they're between the ages of four and seven

[25:41.560 --> 25:45.560] and are old enough to know that a sponge is soft and a rock is hard.

[25:45.560 --> 25:53.340] And what they found was that the older group kind of identified strategies that were more

[25:53.340 --> 25:55.920] specific and more efficient.

[25:55.920 --> 26:01.080] So the older group would say things like, they should touch the sponge and they should

[26:01.080 --> 26:03.340] touch the rock and compare them.

[26:03.340 --> 26:09.280] And the younger group was less likely to have, I guess, a more sophisticated approach to

[26:09.280 --> 26:11.060] that problem solving.

[26:11.060 --> 26:12.680] This is being reported all over the place.

[26:12.680 --> 26:17.620] And basically, the quote that a lot of people are citing is from one of the researchers

[26:17.620 --> 26:20.160] that says, there's still a lot we don't know.

[26:20.160 --> 26:23.320] This is a senior author from the Toronto Lab.

[26:23.320 --> 26:24.880] It's called the Child Lab.

[26:24.880 --> 26:28.320] But what's clear is that children don't believe everything they're told.

[26:28.320 --> 26:31.520] They think about what they've been told, and if they're skeptical, they seek out additional

[26:31.520 --> 26:34.960] information that could confirm or disconfirm it.

[26:34.960 --> 26:38.480] And I think for me, this is the like, well, duh, haven't you ever been around a child

[26:38.480 --> 26:39.840] situation?

[26:39.840 --> 26:44.280] Because children aren't completely naive to the world by the time they're four.

[26:44.280 --> 26:50.020] They've lived for four years, and they've made their own observations.

[26:50.020 --> 26:55.940] And so Steve, you wrote this up, and you took sort of the study, and you said, well, let's

[26:55.940 --> 26:56.940] think broader.

[26:56.940 --> 27:00.040] Because of course, the findings, the outcome findings of the study are not surprising.

[27:00.040 --> 27:02.400] It's pretty narrow and not surprising, yeah.

[27:02.400 --> 27:03.900] It's super narrow.

[27:03.900 --> 27:06.240] It's really trying to test, are kids ultra gullible?

[27:06.240 --> 27:11.000] And it's like, well, yeah, sometimes they are, but obviously, sometimes they're not.

[27:11.000 --> 27:15.800] And then, you know, the bigger question is, you know, do kids believe everything they're

[27:15.800 --> 27:20.440] told by adults, kind of when does that start to change?

[27:20.440 --> 27:24.760] And sort of what are the factors, I think, that are involved here?

[27:24.760 --> 27:29.740] If the paradigm had been something that was a little bit vaguer or harder to confirm,

[27:29.740 --> 27:32.200] we may have seen a different outcome.

[27:32.200 --> 27:39.160] Very often, we're running into claims that we can't confirm ourselves, that we have to

[27:39.160 --> 27:42.880] confirm by figuring out who are the experts?

[27:42.880 --> 27:44.480] What are they saying?

[27:44.480 --> 27:46.120] Is there a consensus?

[27:46.120 --> 27:50.060] And this skill is not the skill that the study looked at at all.

[27:50.060 --> 27:54.600] This study looked at very basic scientific reasoning skills.

[27:54.600 --> 27:58.880] And so, I'm a little, like, the headline's fine.

[27:58.880 --> 28:01.760] Children don't believe everything they're told, well, again, duh.

[28:01.760 --> 28:06.040] Or children as, it's hard to lie to children according to scientists, that one's a stretch

[28:06.040 --> 28:07.440] for me.

[28:07.440 --> 28:08.440] Not liking that headline.

[28:08.440 --> 28:14.000] It's hard to lie to children about things that they can directly observe themselves.

[28:14.000 --> 28:17.120] They said, you know, an adult, an authority figure is telling them something.

[28:17.120 --> 28:23.480] But whether the child agreed or not, the child then explored to try and test that observation

[28:23.480 --> 28:24.480] for themselves.

[28:24.480 --> 28:27.920] And I think that is a fundamentally important aspect of this study.

[28:27.920 --> 28:32.360] But I don't think there's a lot of inferences that you can draw from it about how to develop

[28:32.360 --> 28:34.920] really strong critical thinking skills later in life.

[28:34.920 --> 28:37.240] Yeah, this one study is such a tiny slice.

[28:37.240 --> 28:39.880] You have to look at it in the context of so much of the research.

[28:39.880 --> 28:43.040] I didn't talk about it in my write-up, though, but we also, there's also research looking

[28:43.040 --> 28:51.520] at like if an adult tells a child, like gives them a toy and shows them how to use the toy,

[28:51.520 --> 28:57.040] the child will use the toy in the way that they were shown, even if it's a very narrow,

[28:57.040 --> 28:58.920] simplistic way of using the toy.

[28:58.920 --> 29:03.880] If they're given the toy with no direction, they will be more creative and they'll explore

[29:03.880 --> 29:07.760] and they'll use it in different ways and they'll try out different things.

[29:07.760 --> 29:14.520] So one factor is does it contradict or conflict with things they already know or are they

[29:14.520 --> 29:18.200] being told information in a vacuum?

[29:18.200 --> 29:23.460] And also, as you say, is it part of, like, are they being told, this is part of our identity

[29:23.460 --> 29:24.840] of who we are, right?

[29:24.840 --> 29:29.400] Obviously, parents convey religious beliefs to children and children believe them.

[29:29.400 --> 29:32.860] Most people have the religious faith that they were raised in.

[29:32.860 --> 29:36.520] And that's one of those things that you can't just turn around and observe for yourself.

[29:36.520 --> 29:38.840] Yeah, you can't say, is God there?

[29:38.840 --> 29:42.520] You know, there's nothing you can do to test that.

[29:42.520 --> 29:47.440] But what's interesting about testing kids, first of all, it's interesting to say, when

[29:47.440 --> 29:50.320] do certain modules, you know, engage?

[29:50.320 --> 29:52.640] When do they start to do things?

[29:52.640 --> 29:56.720] And you can see how they get more sophisticated and nuanced and how they approach things.

[29:56.720 --> 30:03.240] But also, there is this question about like whether or not, you know, children are like

[30:03.240 --> 30:09.600] more curious and more sort of questioning younger, and then it gets beaten out of them

[30:09.600 --> 30:12.800] by the desire to conform to society.

[30:12.800 --> 30:13.800] Right.

[30:13.800 --> 30:16.120] And is there something almost bimodal there, right?

[30:16.120 --> 30:19.800] Where when they're so young, they believe everything they're told because they don't

[30:19.800 --> 30:23.760] have context and they don't have anything to connect it to.

[30:23.760 --> 30:26.120] And they have no reason to question.

[30:26.120 --> 30:30.320] And then as they get older, they start to be more questioning.

[30:30.320 --> 30:35.040] And then as they get even older, still, they want to conform and belong because the idea

[30:35.040 --> 30:40.100] of social in-group, out-group status becomes more salient to them.

[30:40.100 --> 30:42.960] Perhaps it does kind of follow that to some extent.

[30:42.960 --> 30:44.840] I think creativity is the same way.

[30:44.840 --> 30:47.720] Creativity, I mean, it's interesting, you were talking about the research about giving

[30:47.720 --> 30:48.720] a child a toy.

[30:48.720 --> 30:50.260] And this is maybe a little bit of a departure.

[30:50.260 --> 30:55.060] But I worked with a professor who was like fascinated by creativity research.

[30:55.060 --> 30:58.480] And I hated it because I was like, how do you define that?

[30:58.480 --> 30:59.480] Oh, my gosh.

[30:59.480 --> 31:00.480] It's so vague.

[31:00.480 --> 31:02.000] It's all over the place.

[31:02.000 --> 31:09.840] And they often talked about like, give a child anything, a piece of equipment, a paperclip,

[31:09.840 --> 31:13.360] and have them list all the things it can be.

[31:13.360 --> 31:17.580] And for me, I would get frustrated when people would say it's super creative if they just

[31:17.580 --> 31:21.400] made a list of things that it could never be.

[31:21.400 --> 31:27.040] But creativity seemed really in that sweet spot when they would think of things that

[31:27.040 --> 31:31.400] were outside of the box, but they still used some amount of constraint.

[31:31.400 --> 31:33.680] Like a paperclip can't be an airplane.

[31:33.680 --> 31:35.200] It just can't.

[31:35.200 --> 31:37.440] But it can be this, this, this, and this.

[31:37.440 --> 31:41.460] And maybe those are things you wouldn't think of if you're always thinking inside the box.

[31:41.460 --> 31:48.280] And so there does seem to be some amount of developmental correlation there, right?

[31:48.280 --> 31:52.920] The older that you get, the more constrained your thinking becomes.

[31:52.920 --> 31:57.320] And so it is that sort of like the more conformist you are, the more it's being beaten out of

[31:57.320 --> 31:58.320] you.

[31:58.320 --> 32:02.360] But I think that also comes not just with age, but it comes with the amount of time

[32:02.360 --> 32:04.760] you spend in a certain paradigm as well.

[32:04.760 --> 32:09.920] Because you see this a lot with people who work in a certain field being brought into

[32:09.920 --> 32:13.600] another field to try to solve problems in that field.

[32:13.600 --> 32:16.240] And it's amazing what happens where they're like, well, did you try this?

[32:16.240 --> 32:20.760] And people are like, oh, my god, how have we none of us have ever thought of that before.

[32:20.760 --> 32:24.480] Because that's not how you were trained to think.

[32:24.480 --> 32:25.480] Fresh approach to it.

[32:25.480 --> 32:26.480] Yeah.

[32:26.480 --> 32:30.920] I always think of the fact that the Iceman, you know, they didn't know how he died.

[32:30.920 --> 32:39.640] And meanwhile, there's an arrowhead clearly visible on the X-ray in his chest that they

[32:39.640 --> 32:44.160] looked at for years and didn't see it because they weren't looking for it.

[32:44.160 --> 32:45.160] No, no.

[32:45.160 --> 32:46.880] They kept saying, wow, what is this arrow pointing to?

[32:46.880 --> 32:51.160] It must be a clue as to what might have killed him.

[32:51.160 --> 32:52.160] Someone's like, hey, what's that arrowhead?

[32:52.160 --> 32:53.160] You know, whatever.

[32:53.160 --> 33:00.960] Or what's the other one, the gorilla and the scan of the monkey in the brain?

[33:00.960 --> 33:06.240] They did a research study where they showed radiologists a CT scan of the chest.

[33:06.240 --> 33:09.880] And they said, tell us what pathology you see there.

[33:09.880 --> 33:14.000] And there was literally a gorilla in the middle of the chest.

[33:14.000 --> 33:15.000] And nobody found it.

[33:15.000 --> 33:16.000] Oh, that's great.

[33:16.000 --> 33:17.000] Nobody.

[33:17.000 --> 33:20.640] It's like a large percentage of them didn't see it because, of course, they're not looking

[33:20.640 --> 33:21.640] for it.

[33:21.640 --> 33:22.640] They're looking for what they know to be pathology.

[33:22.640 --> 33:23.640] Yeah.

[33:23.640 --> 33:24.640] That's based on that classic.

[33:24.640 --> 33:25.640] Yeah.

[33:25.640 --> 33:26.640] It's inattentional blindness.

[33:26.640 --> 33:27.640] There's a classic psych experiment that you can Google it.

[33:27.640 --> 33:28.640] Like, you can watch the video.

[33:28.640 --> 33:32.160] It's a super classic video where they tell people, count how many times the ball is passed.

[33:32.160 --> 33:36.400] And it's a really complex video where basketball is being passed amongst a lot of people.

[33:36.400 --> 33:39.320] You really have to focus to count the passes.

[33:39.320 --> 33:41.400] And while focusing on it, it's inattentional blindness.

[33:41.400 --> 33:43.640] That's the phenomenon that they're highlighting.

[33:43.640 --> 33:47.360] While you're focusing on the ball, you literally don't see the gorilla walk completely through

[33:47.360 --> 33:48.360] the scene.

[33:48.360 --> 33:49.360] It's amazing.

[33:49.360 --> 33:50.360] It's amazing.

[33:50.360 --> 33:51.360] I know.

[33:51.360 --> 33:54.440] And professors love to show this to first-year psych students and go, anybody notice anything

[33:54.440 --> 33:56.800] weird about the video?

[33:56.800 --> 33:59.240] It's pretty cool how many people are like, what do you mean?

[33:59.240 --> 34:01.880] About 30% see it, 30% or 40%.

[34:01.880 --> 34:02.880] Yeah.

[34:02.880 --> 34:03.880] Yeah.

[34:03.880 --> 34:05.920] But that's why they used a gorilla in the x-ray study.

[34:05.920 --> 34:06.920] Yeah.

[34:06.920 --> 34:07.920] Because it was like a nod.

[34:07.920 --> 34:10.920] An homage to that original gorilla video.

[34:10.920 --> 34:11.920] Yeah.

[34:11.920 --> 34:12.920] Fascinating.

[34:12.920 --> 34:15.800] Well, everyone, we're going to take a quick break from our show to talk about one of our

[34:15.800 --> 34:18.680] sponsors this week, BetterHelp.

[34:18.680 --> 34:21.640] There are so many reasons to go to therapy.

[34:21.640 --> 34:23.760] I mean, too many to list.

[34:23.760 --> 34:28.800] And I think all of us know that whether we're struggling with a mental illness, with an

[34:28.800 --> 34:35.120] actual diagnosis, or whether we're dealing with an experience in our lives, that we just

[34:35.120 --> 34:38.640] need a little bit of support, a little bit of guidance through.

[34:38.640 --> 34:43.760] These are all valid reasons to talk to somebody, and BetterHelp makes it super easy because,

[34:43.760 --> 34:45.560] of course, this is online therapy.

[34:45.560 --> 34:46.560] Yeah.

[34:46.560 --> 34:50.640] Kara, in my personal experience, going to therapy, it's doing multiple things at the

[34:50.640 --> 34:51.640] same time.

[34:51.640 --> 34:53.720] I just feel good after I go to therapy.

[34:53.720 --> 34:55.680] It's like I'm unloading.

[34:55.680 --> 35:01.200] And along with that, I'm learning skills to help me deal with my own anxiety and depression,

[35:01.200 --> 35:02.840] which it's a double win.

[35:02.840 --> 35:06.320] So when you want to be a better problem solver, therapy can get you there.

[35:06.320 --> 35:11.600] Visit BetterHelp.com slash SGU today to get 10% off your first month.

[35:11.600 --> 35:15.000] That's Better H-E-L-P dot com slash SGU.

[35:15.000 --> 35:16.160] All right, guys.

[35:16.160 --> 35:17.640] Let's get back to the show.

[35:17.640 --> 35:18.760] All right.

[35:18.760 --> 35:19.760] Let's move on.

Health Effects of Gas Stoves (35:18)

• Is your gas stove bad for your health?

[35:19.760 --> 35:23.680] Jay, is my gas stove slowly killing me?

[35:23.680 --> 35:25.400] It is, isn't it, Jay?

[35:25.400 --> 35:26.400] Check the gas.

[35:26.400 --> 35:30.320] Do you hear it moving around the house at night when you're in bed?

[35:30.320 --> 35:31.320] Is that what it is?

[35:31.320 --> 35:32.320] Is that my noise?

[35:32.320 --> 35:37.160] Yeah, the question is, is having a gas stove in your house dangerous to your health?

[35:37.160 --> 35:42.000] Yeah, unfortunately, we've known this for a while, but recent research strongly suggests

[35:42.000 --> 35:43.680] the answer is yes.

[35:43.680 --> 35:48.360] Gas stoves are considered, this is my opinion, but lots of people feel this way.

[35:48.360 --> 35:52.440] Gas stoves are considered the best of all versions of stoves out there.

[35:52.440 --> 35:53.440] Disagree.

[35:53.440 --> 35:54.440] Induction.

[35:54.440 --> 35:58.880] I'll explain to you right now why I like it better than induction.

[35:58.880 --> 36:04.000] Because you have more control over the temperature because I can visually tell what my... Once

[36:04.000 --> 36:09.780] you learn your stove, I can visually tell where it's at just by looking at the flame.

[36:09.780 --> 36:13.600] You think you have more control because you can visually see the flame height once you

[36:13.600 --> 36:19.900] get used to it as opposed to being able to dial in a digital display?

[36:19.900 --> 36:22.600] Of course you have more control when you're using technology.

[36:22.600 --> 36:24.800] Yeah, but this is gas.

[36:24.800 --> 36:29.480] I love you, Jay.

[36:29.480 --> 36:31.080] You don't have more control.

[36:31.080 --> 36:32.080] You just think you do.

[36:32.080 --> 36:33.080] It's also instant heat.

[36:33.080 --> 36:34.600] You like the flame, go vroom, vroom, vroom.

[36:34.600 --> 36:38.520] You don't have to wait for it to heat up, which is another thing that I like about it.

[36:38.520 --> 36:39.520] Induction is instant.

[36:39.520 --> 36:40.520] It boils water in 90 seconds.

[36:40.520 --> 36:41.520] It's true.

[36:41.520 --> 36:42.520] I had one.

[36:42.520 --> 36:43.520] Look into it.

[36:43.520 --> 36:45.800] You never have invited me over to show me.

[36:45.800 --> 36:46.800] You've never done this.

[36:46.800 --> 36:47.800] I know.

[36:47.800 --> 36:48.800] Sorry.

[36:48.800 --> 36:49.800] Sorry.

[36:49.800 --> 36:50.800] See?

[36:50.800 --> 36:51.800] You're talking like we hang out.

[36:51.800 --> 36:53.800] Induction can be very fast.

[36:53.800 --> 36:57.640] The one thing I don't like about induction is that you have to use special pottery.

[36:57.640 --> 36:59.320] Not special, just magnetic.

[36:59.320 --> 37:00.560] So long as everything's magnetic.

[37:00.560 --> 37:01.560] And yes, okay.

[37:01.560 --> 37:04.340] Go through your cookware.

[37:04.340 --> 37:05.560] You can't use all your cookware.

[37:05.560 --> 37:09.120] You got to now have all cookware that's consistent with the induction.

[37:09.120 --> 37:11.240] Kara, this is a good throw down.

[37:11.240 --> 37:13.480] We should have George make this a throw down for the Excavator.

[37:13.480 --> 37:14.480] We should have.

[37:14.480 --> 37:15.480] Oh, it'd be great.

[37:15.480 --> 37:20.440] I just can hear the sounds of all of the European listeners nodding their heads vigorously

[37:20.440 --> 37:24.800] because for some reason it's so caught on in Europe and like here in the U.S. induction

[37:24.800 --> 37:25.800] is really rare.

[37:25.800 --> 37:28.520] Anyway, I will not continue to fight for induction.

[37:28.520 --> 37:30.280] I have an induction stove top.

[37:30.280 --> 37:33.320] I have a gas stove, but I have an induction plate.

[37:33.320 --> 37:37.040] Oh yeah, that's not uncommon to have like that, the hybrid kind of thing.

[37:37.040 --> 37:38.040] Oh, so you have a hybrid.

[37:38.040 --> 37:39.040] Let's circle it back.

[37:39.040 --> 37:45.320] So the important topic here tonight is whether or not the gas debate will put down for a

[37:45.320 --> 37:46.320] little bit.

[37:46.320 --> 37:47.880] The question is, does it pollute the air in your home?

[37:47.880 --> 37:48.880] And the answer is yes.

[37:48.880 --> 37:50.680] Let's get into the details.

[37:50.680 --> 37:56.960] Gas stoves give off nitrogen dioxide when combustion happens and nitrogen dioxide exposure

[37:56.960 --> 38:01.280] in the home is associated with an increase in asthma symptoms.

[38:01.280 --> 38:06.080] Also it's associated with a higher level of use of something called a rescue inhaler for

[38:06.080 --> 38:07.080] children, right?

[38:07.080 --> 38:10.600] So that's doing things to people's lungs.

[38:10.600 --> 38:11.600] So that's bad.

[38:11.600 --> 38:15.080] And as far as asthmatic adults go, they're affected as well.

[38:15.080 --> 38:21.080] And breathing in nitrogen dioxide increases the occurrences or worsening of chronic obstructive

[38:21.080 --> 38:22.920] pulmonary disease.

[38:22.920 --> 38:25.240] So you know, that's not good.

[38:25.240 --> 38:26.240] Definitely not good.

[38:26.240 --> 38:29.560] Keep in mind that nitrogen dioxide can come from the outdoors as well, right guys?

[38:29.560 --> 38:31.400] It's not just coming from your stove.

[38:31.400 --> 38:35.040] People who live near busy roads, you know, they're exposed to higher levels as well.

[38:35.040 --> 38:39.480] Indoor emissions of nitrogen dioxide are typically greater than outdoor sources though.

[38:39.480 --> 38:41.100] And this is important.

[38:41.100 --> 38:44.520] For example, during times when people cook, right?

[38:44.520 --> 38:48.400] It's dinnertime and you get in there and you start turning the oven on, you're cooking.

[38:48.400 --> 38:53.960] We call this peak exposure and half of those people that are cooking are exposed to higher

[38:53.960 --> 38:59.080] levels than what health standards suggest we should be, you know, that we should be

[38:59.080 --> 39:00.280] exposed to.

[39:00.280 --> 39:01.280] That's not good.

[39:01.280 --> 39:02.320] That's a lot of people.

[39:02.320 --> 39:07.440] The obvious question is how could one stove expose you to more nitrogen dioxide than all

[39:07.440 --> 39:10.140] of the cars that are driving around where you live?

[39:10.140 --> 39:14.240] And the simple answer is that there is a significant amount of air outside compared to the air

[39:14.240 --> 39:16.360] you have inside your home.

[39:16.360 --> 39:21.800] All of that pollution outside is dramatically diluted in the unbelievable amount of air

[39:21.800 --> 39:22.800] that exists outside.

[39:22.800 --> 39:27.640] But when you're inside your house, you have a very small amount of air.

[39:27.640 --> 39:33.500] And when that air gets polluted in any way, it's significant, you know, and it can stay

[39:33.500 --> 39:34.680] in your house.

[39:34.680 --> 39:39.000] So another factor to consider is that the layout of a home also impacts your exposure.

[39:39.000 --> 39:44.040] So things like a stove exhaust, you know, like if you have a range hood with a vent

[39:44.040 --> 39:48.880] on it, you know, if these vent outside, I'm not talking about the microwave one, which

[39:48.880 --> 39:53.320] just blows air, you know, away from the stove, it has to vent outside.

[39:53.320 --> 39:57.920] Or if you happen to have a well ventilated home or even a larger home that has a lot

[39:57.920 --> 40:01.720] more airspace in it, this could help limit your exposure to what's, you know, what's

[40:01.720 --> 40:05.320] being what's coming out of your your stove.

[40:05.320 --> 40:07.340] So a lot has to do with air circulation.

[40:07.340 --> 40:10.720] If your kitchen is in a small, non ventilated area.

[40:10.720 --> 40:15.000] This is very typical in apartments or, you know, if you're living in a city, for example,

[40:15.000 --> 40:19.460] you're in a small apartment, the kitchen could be in a little, you know, galley way, right?

[40:19.460 --> 40:20.460] That's very bad.

[40:20.460 --> 40:25.320] This is very, very, very likely you'll get greater exposure than a kitchen where the

[40:25.320 --> 40:29.360] air in the kitchen can mix with, you know, the living room and dining room or like an

[40:29.360 --> 40:30.360] open kind of thing.

[40:30.360 --> 40:34.000] I have I have that kind of layout in my house where there's not a lot of walls.

[40:34.000 --> 40:37.840] It's just like, you know, connected rooms that are open for the most part.

[40:37.840 --> 40:41.000] And that happens to be better because then the air in your kitchen will mix with the

[40:41.000 --> 40:44.700] other air and it dilutes down all all of the toxins.

[40:44.700 --> 40:49.860] So simply opening a kitchen window can dramatically decrease the amount of nitrogen dioxide exposure

[40:49.860 --> 40:51.360] that you have in your kitchen.

[40:51.360 --> 40:54.560] So, you know, keep that in mind, you know, just crack open a window, get it open or have

[40:54.560 --> 40:59.000] a fan sucking air out, you know, while you're cooking that that can make a big difference.

[40:59.000 --> 41:00.000] All right.

[41:00.000 --> 41:02.900] Now, let's get to the part where things get a little troublesome.

[41:02.900 --> 41:08.240] Even when your stove is off, you could be exposed to pollutants that can affect your

[41:08.240 --> 41:09.240] health.

[41:09.240 --> 41:10.240] That sucks.

[41:10.240 --> 41:15.020] So a study conducted this year concluded that stoves that are not currently in use emit

[41:15.020 --> 41:19.080] a colorless, odorless gas, also known as methane.

[41:19.080 --> 41:20.080] Right.

[41:20.080 --> 41:22.160] Methane is a major component of natural gas.

[41:22.160 --> 41:28.240] A study conducted this year estimated that gas stoves in the United States emitted enough

[41:28.240 --> 41:35.800] methane equal to about four hundred thousand cars in the same time frame.

[41:35.800 --> 41:36.800] That's bad.

[41:36.800 --> 41:41.080] Now, this is we're talking about little leaks here, like many methane leaks found in the

[41:41.080 --> 41:44.540] home go undetected because it's just a tiny little bit of methane.

[41:44.540 --> 41:47.000] But there happens to be a lot of people.

[41:47.000 --> 41:48.320] So you add up that methane.

[41:48.320 --> 41:53.680] I mean, I remember the few times I lived in Manhattan two times in my life and so many

[41:53.680 --> 41:57.240] times while living in Manhattan, you smell natural gas.

[41:57.240 --> 41:59.440] Walking by a building, you smell natural gas.

[41:59.440 --> 42:03.620] That's because that building was built, you know, a hundred years ago.

[42:03.620 --> 42:08.120] And you know, the the pipes that they use to carry the natural gas to the stoves is

[42:08.120 --> 42:10.360] old and they leak and you're just smelling it.

[42:10.360 --> 42:13.840] You go into an apartment building and you're smelling natural gas the whole time you're

[42:13.840 --> 42:14.840] there.

[42:14.840 --> 42:15.840] It's just natural gas.

[42:15.840 --> 42:20.360] And just to be pedantic, the the odors put in the gas, the gas itself is odorless, as

[42:20.360 --> 42:21.360] you said.

[42:21.360 --> 42:22.360] Yeah.

[42:22.360 --> 42:25.680] They actually they put a chemical in the natural gas so that it does smell so that

[42:25.680 --> 42:26.680] you can detect it.

[42:26.680 --> 42:28.880] You know, because otherwise it would be odorless.

[42:28.880 --> 42:29.880] That's right, Steven.

[42:29.880 --> 42:30.880] That's very important.

[42:30.880 --> 42:33.700] And a lot of gas leaks are found that way.

[42:33.700 --> 42:39.480] But sometimes that smell is not strong enough and people can't detect small leaks.

[42:39.480 --> 42:40.480] Right.

[42:40.480 --> 42:43.680] Because if you have a very small leak, you're not going to be able to detect that smell

[42:43.680 --> 42:45.400] even though it's there.

[42:45.400 --> 42:49.960] Another study found that five percent of homes that had an active natural gas leak significant

[42:49.960 --> 42:53.500] enough to require repair went undetected.

[42:53.500 --> 42:55.540] You know, that five percent is significant.

[42:55.540 --> 43:01.180] Did you know that benzene is also present in natural gas and it causes cancer?

[43:01.180 --> 43:05.320] So one of the worst case scenarios is to be in a poorly ventilated home that has a natural

[43:05.320 --> 43:10.320] gas leak because you're just breathing this in all the time.

[43:10.320 --> 43:11.320] It's there.

[43:11.320 --> 43:15.580] It's just this leak is constantly putting out this gas 24 hours a day.

[43:15.580 --> 43:17.020] You know, it's not just when you cook.

[43:17.020 --> 43:18.020] It's just happening all the time.

[43:18.020 --> 43:21.240] Now, I'm not saying that you need to get rid of your gas stove.

[43:21.240 --> 43:23.740] It wouldn't be a bad idea, but you don't really need to do it.

[43:23.740 --> 43:28.880] There's some things you could do like, you know, my wife and I just got a new stove about

[43:28.880 --> 43:32.960] a year ago, and I am absolutely not going to get rid of that magical box that I now

[43:32.960 --> 43:35.640] have in my kitchen because I adore this stove.

[43:35.640 --> 43:36.640] But that's just me.

[43:36.640 --> 43:39.160] You know, what should you do if you have a gas stove in your home?

[43:39.160 --> 43:43.800] Well, you know, it's it's not a bad idea to improve the overall ventilation in your house,

[43:43.800 --> 43:47.360] open windows, you know, particularly when you're cooking.

[43:47.360 --> 43:50.920] Use your kitchen ventilation over your stove if you have it.

[43:50.920 --> 43:51.920] That that can help a lot.

[43:51.920 --> 43:55.800] And if you have someone in your home that does have some type of breathing condition,

[43:55.800 --> 43:59.920] then, you know, it very well might be a good idea for you to get rid of your gas stove

[43:59.920 --> 44:02.600] and go with a magnetic inductive stove, Kara.

[44:02.600 --> 44:03.600] All right.

[44:03.600 --> 44:05.640] I said I said it.

[44:05.640 --> 44:08.200] Kara, you live in the United States, correct?

[44:08.200 --> 44:09.200] I do.

[44:09.200 --> 44:11.540] I live in Fort Lauderdale now.

[44:11.540 --> 44:12.540] That's right.

[44:12.540 --> 44:13.680] You moved to Florida for your internship.

[44:13.680 --> 44:18.080] Well, if you live in the if you live in the United States, I'm sure other countries have

[44:18.080 --> 44:19.320] incentives as well.

[44:19.320 --> 44:24.160] But specifically in the United States, if you look into the Inflation Reduction Act

[44:24.160 --> 44:30.200] of 2022 that Biden passed recently, this offers rebates if you purchase certain high efficiency

[44:30.200 --> 44:37.720] electric appliances for your home so you can get a break on the cost of some non gas appliances,

[44:37.720 --> 44:38.720] which is a good idea.

[44:38.720 --> 44:44.280] But I sort of put the gas stove thing into a little bit of perspective as well.

[44:44.280 --> 44:48.800] Everything you're saying is true, but the relative risk here is actually fairly small

[44:48.800 --> 44:50.840] in terms of like the asthma risk.

[44:50.840 --> 44:54.680] And if you don't have asthma or somebody in the in the home with asthma, I haven't seen

[44:54.680 --> 45:00.560] any data saying there's any other health risk, asthma and COPD, I'll say, you know, chronic

[45:00.560 --> 45:02.160] obstructive pulmonary disease.

[45:02.160 --> 45:05.820] You also have to put it into the context of the fact that there's lots of other pollutants

[45:05.820 --> 45:15.320] in the home, pet dander, candles, your fireplace, insects, basically they leave their bits themselves

[45:15.320 --> 45:21.640] all over the place, flatulence, dust, flatulence, especially in Jay's home.

[45:21.640 --> 45:26.120] So there's lots of sources of pollutants inside the home.

[45:26.120 --> 45:30.320] It's not like if you get rid of your gas stove, your home, the air inside your home is going

[45:30.320 --> 45:32.600] to be magically perfect.

[45:32.600 --> 45:37.380] The best thing to do for all of those things is to have good ventilation.

[45:37.380 --> 45:41.880] Just think like we ventilate our home whenever we can, like whenever the weather is permitting,

[45:41.880 --> 45:46.640] we try to have as much ventilation going through the home as we possibly can, especially in

[45:46.640 --> 45:49.400] the downstairs kitchen area, you know.

[45:49.400 --> 45:50.520] So that's a good idea.

[45:50.520 --> 45:54.440] You could run a fan, you know, which should be pointed at an open window just to get the

[45:54.440 --> 45:55.440] air circulating.

[45:55.440 --> 46:00.500] It's got to go outside the house, right, you know, just moving air around inside the house.

[46:00.500 --> 46:04.560] You can have a HEPA air filtration system with a HEPA filter, the HEPA carbon filter.

[46:04.560 --> 46:09.120] So that would be another way to remove particulate matter and certain contaminants from the air

[46:09.120 --> 46:10.880] in your home.

[46:10.880 --> 46:12.640] So those are all, those are all good ideas.

[46:12.640 --> 46:16.160] Just good ventilation, especially around your kitchen, especially when you're cooking is

[46:16.160 --> 46:18.560] probably the best thing to do.

[46:18.560 --> 46:23.600] I think if you have a choice between a gas stove and a not a gas stove, whether it's

[46:23.600 --> 46:28.380] electric or induction, there's a lot of reasons to not choose the gas stove because of the

[46:28.380 --> 46:34.560] methane issue, not just the pollutants inside your house, but you know, also contributes

[46:34.560 --> 46:35.560] to global warming.

[46:35.560 --> 46:40.520] You know, so we're trying to minimize the amount of natural gas we're pumping around.

[46:40.520 --> 46:45.180] There's basically a certain amount of a minimal amount of leak leakage that happens in the

[46:45.180 --> 46:47.880] system, you know, and it's significant.

[46:47.880 --> 46:52.600] It's a significant contributor to global warming that's up absolutely.

[46:52.600 --> 46:54.780] Okay, let's move on.

Neanderthal Brains (46:55)

• Neanderthal Brains

[46:54.780 --> 46:58.240] What do you guys know about Neanderthal brains?

[46:58.240 --> 47:00.200] Let me ask you a basic question.

[47:00.200 --> 47:05.920] Do you think a bit rubbery, do you think that Neanderthals were smarter, as smart or not

[47:05.920 --> 47:07.560] as smart as modern humans?

[47:07.560 --> 47:12.200] Well, I think the knee jerk reaction would be not as smart, but I've lately been leaning

[47:12.200 --> 47:14.880] towards pretty much just as smart.

[47:14.880 --> 47:16.760] I mean, we were having sex with them.

[47:16.760 --> 47:17.760] Mm hmm.

[47:17.760 --> 47:18.760] Yeah.

[47:18.760 --> 47:22.400] Something about them that I mean, they couldn't have been significantly different cognitively

[47:22.400 --> 47:23.560] from us.

[47:23.560 --> 47:26.480] When you say we care, what do you mean by that?

[47:26.480 --> 47:31.600] Human being homo sapiens a long time ago, like you're not something you want to tell

[47:31.600 --> 47:32.600] us.

[47:32.600 --> 47:38.640] Well, I mean, there are no I mean, the more interesting aspect of that would be if there

[47:38.640 --> 47:44.720] were a Neanderthal among us, that would be like sex with that person was would be so

[47:44.720 --> 47:45.720] famous.

[47:45.720 --> 47:46.720] Exactly.

[47:46.720 --> 47:50.880] Is there a chance one of us has some Neanderthal DNA?

[47:50.880 --> 47:51.880] We all do.

[47:51.880 --> 47:52.880] We all do.

[47:52.880 --> 47:53.880] Yes.

[47:53.880 --> 47:54.880] All right.

[47:54.880 --> 47:55.880] So hey, five Neanderthals.

[47:55.880 --> 47:58.640] Two to four percent, depending on where you come from.

[47:58.640 --> 48:01.040] Europeans have the most around more like four percent.

[48:01.040 --> 48:02.480] All right.

[48:02.480 --> 48:09.760] So Neanderthals as a species officially lived from about 400000 years ago to 40000 years

[48:09.760 --> 48:10.760] ago.

[48:10.760 --> 48:13.400] They are extinct.

[48:13.400 --> 48:18.080] There's been a little bit of a controversy about whether or not humans and Neanderthals

[48:18.080 --> 48:25.540] are subspecies that like homo sapiens, Neanderthal lenses, but I think the current consensus

[48:25.540 --> 48:30.960] is that they're a distinct species from homo sapiens, which is modern humans.

[48:30.960 --> 48:37.000] There's also and also just this is not a scientific controversy, but just a lot of people might

[48:37.000 --> 48:43.960] be confused about the fact that we didn't we did not evolve from Neanderthals, Neanderthals

[48:43.960 --> 48:52.000] and modern humans have a common ancestor and that common ancestor is is about 700000 years

[48:52.000 --> 48:54.560] ago.

[48:54.560 --> 49:00.400] Probably something related to homo heidelbergensis was our common ancestor.

[49:00.400 --> 49:04.760] And now there's also the Denisovans who are very close to Neanderthals, but they're recognized

[49:04.760 --> 49:06.400] as a separate branch.

[49:06.400 --> 49:10.320] That's basically like Asian Neanderthals were the Denisovans.

[49:10.320 --> 49:11.320] Cool.

[49:11.320 --> 49:12.320] Yeah.

[49:12.320 --> 49:18.800] So there's probably a lot more nuance that will come to light as we find more specimens.

[49:18.800 --> 49:20.520] Neanderthals were Ice Age adapted.

[49:20.520 --> 49:21.840] They were more robust.

[49:21.840 --> 49:22.840] Yeah.

[49:22.840 --> 49:23.840] Modern humans.

[49:23.840 --> 49:27.480] So they were they had bigger, thicker bones, heavier muscles.

[49:27.480 --> 49:28.480] Right.

[49:28.480 --> 49:34.600] So on average, their brains were a little bigger than homo sapiens brains.

[49:34.600 --> 49:40.160] But if you take the ratio to body size, they're basically the same.

[49:40.160 --> 49:42.120] So they're a little bit bigger, but they were a little bit bigger.

[49:42.120 --> 49:44.880] But how many data points do we have?

[49:44.880 --> 49:45.880] We have quite a few.

[49:45.880 --> 49:47.800] We have quite a few Neanderthal skulls.

[49:47.800 --> 49:52.400] So enough to say that on average, it's a little bit bigger.

[49:52.400 --> 49:53.400] Yeah, we do.

[49:53.400 --> 49:56.880] And if you look at the skull, so if you just look at a human skull and look at and look

[49:56.880 --> 50:00.760] at Neanderthal, like adult Neanderthal skull, you could see they're just everything is big.

[50:00.760 --> 50:03.440] You could say that looks like their brain should be bigger.

[50:03.440 --> 50:06.720] But in any case, it's proportional to their overall robustness.

[50:06.720 --> 50:10.380] So that doesn't necessarily mean that they're more encephalized than humans are.

[50:10.380 --> 50:16.280] So from that point of view, we could say, yeah, there are very closely, they're like

[50:16.280 --> 50:18.820] the most closely related species to homo sapiens.

[50:18.820 --> 50:21.600] Their brains were basically the same size as ours.

[50:21.600 --> 50:23.840] They can't be that different, you know, from ours.

[50:23.840 --> 50:25.400] So maybe they were the same.

[50:25.400 --> 50:27.640] So how could we know, right?

[50:27.640 --> 50:28.780] How could we know?

[50:28.780 --> 50:29.880] We don't have Neanderthals.

[50:29.880 --> 50:31.480] We can't give them IQ tests or whatever.

[50:31.480 --> 50:35.200] We can't figure out, evaluate their neurological or cognitive functions.

[50:35.200 --> 50:36.980] We have to infer it from indirect evidence.

[50:36.980 --> 50:42.640] So the two basic kinds of indirect evidence we have are one, biological and two, cultural.

[50:42.640 --> 50:47.240] So the cultural evidence is basically, well, what did they do?

[50:47.240 --> 50:50.860] What did they leave behind in terms of their toolkit?

[50:50.860 --> 50:52.580] Did they have any art?

[50:52.580 --> 50:54.840] How sophisticated was their culture?

[50:54.840 --> 50:57.400] How sophisticated was their language?

[50:57.400 --> 50:59.880] And what can we infer from that?

[50:59.880 --> 51:05.160] The problem with that line of evidence is we don't know how much is biological potential

[51:05.160 --> 51:06.600] and how much is just culture.

[51:06.600 --> 51:08.720] You know what I mean?

[51:08.720 --> 51:14.920] Like would a Neanderthal raised in modern human culture be just as smart as a homo sapiens?

[51:14.920 --> 51:15.920] We don't know.

[51:15.920 --> 51:19.340] That'd be obviously very, very interesting, but we don't know that.

[51:19.340 --> 51:26.360] But we do know that their toolkit was not as sophisticated as homo sapiens.

[51:26.360 --> 51:32.720] Homo sapiens stone tools were more delicate, were harder to make.

[51:32.720 --> 51:36.520] They had longer blades with more cutting edge.

[51:36.520 --> 51:38.700] They had way more variety.

[51:38.700 --> 51:39.700] That's it.

[51:39.700 --> 51:40.700] We win.

[51:40.700 --> 51:41.700] Done.

[51:41.700 --> 51:45.820] Well, it's just, you know, but the Neanderthal tools worked really well.

[51:45.820 --> 51:50.100] And in some ways, for some applications, they were superior to the more delicate tools,

[51:50.100 --> 51:54.920] you know, but still there are a lot of paleontologists do infer from that.

[51:54.920 --> 52:00.760] There's evidence of greater tool making skill among any cave paintings we can look at.

[52:00.760 --> 52:08.800] So for a while the evidence was homo sapiens, you know, had art cave paintings and there

[52:08.800 --> 52:12.380] was no evidence of any artistic creations among Neanderthals.

[52:12.380 --> 52:14.520] But more recently they have been discovered.

[52:14.520 --> 52:18.680] So the very first cave paintings were actually Neanderthal.

[52:18.680 --> 52:23.840] But definitely there is more types of art, you know, way more production of art among

[52:23.840 --> 52:27.600] homo sapiens than homo neanderthalensis, but it's not an absolute difference now.

[52:27.600 --> 52:30.020] It's just a relative difference.

[52:30.020 --> 52:34.760] There is no evidence that Neanderthals developed ever developed written language.

[52:34.760 --> 52:37.400] And of course, homo sapiens did.

[52:37.400 --> 52:43.600] And we also have to point out that Neanderthal culture was completely unchanged over 400,000

[52:43.600 --> 52:44.600] years.

[52:44.600 --> 52:45.600] Right.

[52:45.600 --> 52:48.840] It was pretty much what it was, you know, they sort of developed their toolkit early

[52:48.840 --> 52:49.840] on and that was it.

[52:49.840 --> 52:51.160] You know, we have DNA, Steve.

[52:51.160 --> 52:52.160] Yes, we do.

[52:52.160 --> 52:56.740] So you're getting to the second line of evidence, which is the biological evidence, you know,

[52:56.740 --> 53:01.880] and so one is we could look at their their brain cavities and not just that sheer size,

[53:01.880 --> 53:08.040] but we could say, well, we can infer something about, you know, the the anatomy, the gross

[53:08.040 --> 53:12.800] anatomy of the brain from the shape of the skull.

[53:12.800 --> 53:18.480] And there are some studies which show that Neanderthal brains were bigger in the parts

[53:18.480 --> 53:23.600] of the brain that had to deal with motor and sensory function and not as big in the parts

[53:23.600 --> 53:27.520] of the brain that had to do with like the higher cortical function.

[53:27.520 --> 53:33.720] So kind of their their frontal lobes weren't as developed as homo sapiens and and more

[53:33.720 --> 53:37.400] of their brain tissue is probably dedicated to motor and sensory function, which also

[53:37.400 --> 53:39.880] goes along with the they were physically more robust.

[53:39.880 --> 53:42.840] They needed more brain just to map to that bigger body.

[53:42.840 --> 53:44.640] But did their brains pulsate?

[53:44.640 --> 53:47.480] Yeah, they probably didn't pulsate.

[53:47.480 --> 53:50.400] I think they pulsated even more than homo sapiens.

[53:50.400 --> 53:51.400] Oh, geez.

[53:51.400 --> 53:52.400] Oh.

[53:52.400 --> 53:54.280] Now, Jay, you bring up the genetic evidence.

[53:54.280 --> 53:58.640] That's the latest evidence because we do have a lot of DNA evidence now from Neanderthals

[53:58.640 --> 54:00.160] and Denisovans.

[54:00.160 --> 54:05.280] And there was the reason for the actual news item here is a recent study looking at a particular

[54:05.280 --> 54:08.360] protein called the TKTL1 protein.

[54:08.360 --> 54:11.360] TK421, why aren't you at your post?

[54:11.360 --> 54:12.360] TKTL1.

[54:12.360 --> 54:19.280] And modern humans have a different version of this protein than Neanderthals.

[54:19.280 --> 54:26.320] And the version that modern humans have when they look at it in the effect that it has

[54:26.320 --> 54:35.240] on brain development is correlates with greater neuro neurone genesis, especially in the frontal

[54:35.240 --> 54:39.300] cortex, which then goes along with the brain anatomy evidence.

[54:39.300 --> 54:47.080] So probably homo sapiens have greater neuronal density than the Neanderthals, especially

[54:47.080 --> 54:52.120] in the frontal lobes, which is where all the action is in terms of the higher cortical

[54:52.120 --> 54:53.120] function.

[54:53.120 --> 54:59.400] So the brain anatomy and the genetic evidence is pointing back in the direction of, OK,

[54:59.400 --> 55:07.360] we probably were smarter than the Neanderthals when it comes to higher cognitive function.

[55:07.360 --> 55:14.360] In much less time, we developed cars and the computer and the Neanderthals over a few hundred

[55:14.360 --> 55:19.600] thousand years didn't get beyond their starting toolkit.

[55:19.600 --> 55:22.800] But again, is that because one genius kicked it off?

[55:22.800 --> 55:29.360] It's hard to say how much of this is cultural contingency rather than biological destiny.

[55:29.360 --> 55:33.760] And sort of uncomfortable with the notion that this is sort of biological destiny.

[55:33.760 --> 55:39.120] But even still, there's multiple lines of evidence now to suggest that homo sapiens

[55:39.120 --> 55:44.520] did probably have greater neuronal density and greater size of their frontal lobes and

[55:44.520 --> 55:51.200] their higher neocortex, like the executive function, the highest level of cortical function,

[55:51.200 --> 55:52.740] the cognitive function.

[55:52.740 --> 55:56.680] So they would have won all the gold medals, but we would have won all the Nobel Prizes.

[55:56.680 --> 55:57.840] We would have won the chess games.

[55:57.840 --> 55:58.840] Yeah.

[55:58.840 --> 56:06.880] I saw a video where they were showing a Neanderthal and like it dislocated a couple of fingers

[56:06.880 --> 56:11.400] on its hand and it literally just popped them back out and put it back like it was nothing.

[56:11.400 --> 56:14.840] I don't know how accurate that is, but I have no idea where they would get that information.

[56:14.840 --> 56:15.840] I agree with you.

[56:15.840 --> 56:20.240] But, you know, I guess they were trying to express how physically tough they were, you

[56:20.240 --> 56:21.240] know?

[56:21.240 --> 56:22.240] But how could they even know that?

[56:22.240 --> 56:27.800] Yeah, but a human could effectively do the same thing, you know, ignore that pain and

[56:27.800 --> 56:29.320] fix themselves like that.

[56:29.320 --> 56:32.360] But unfortunately, we only have one data point, right?

[56:32.360 --> 56:33.360] Yeah.

[56:33.360 --> 56:39.240] We only know how history played itself out one time and we have to infer a lot from that.

[56:39.240 --> 56:44.480] You wonder how, like, is it possible that a genius Neanderthal would have been born

[56:44.480 --> 56:50.160] that could have kicked off agriculture and then once that happens, all of modern society

[56:50.160 --> 57:00.800] eventually unfolds from that, or did Homo sapiens really just tick over the neurological

[57:00.800 --> 57:04.680] threshold necessary to have a technological civilization?

[57:04.680 --> 57:06.640] You know, and is it that close?

[57:06.640 --> 57:11.700] Is it really that, you know, that fine that Neanderthals could never develop technology

[57:11.700 --> 57:17.600] and we did or, you know, it's just interesting to think about that because we really don't

[57:17.600 --> 57:18.600] know.

[57:18.600 --> 57:21.200] Could DNA last 40,000 years?

[57:21.200 --> 57:22.200] Yeah.

[57:22.200 --> 57:23.200] Yeah.

[57:23.200 --> 57:24.200] We have DNA from Neanderthals.

[57:24.200 --> 57:25.200] Absolutely.

[57:25.200 --> 57:26.200] I mean, like, how much?

[57:26.200 --> 57:28.680] I mean, how much of a genome?

[57:28.680 --> 57:30.880] We've pretty much sequenced their genome at this point.

[57:30.880 --> 57:31.880] Well, crap, man.

[57:31.880 --> 57:32.880] That's it.

[57:32.880 --> 57:34.880] One day we'll make one.

[57:34.880 --> 57:35.880] Well, yeah.

[57:35.880 --> 57:38.680] Now, that's ethically, you know, complicated.

[57:38.680 --> 57:39.680] No.

[57:39.680 --> 57:40.680] Not at all.

[57:40.680 --> 57:41.680] Not at all.

[57:41.680 --> 57:46.720] What I suggest, Bob, instead is we allow AI to help us make certain inferences, play out

[57:46.720 --> 57:49.720] various scenarios using what?

[57:49.720 --> 57:50.720] Computer modeling.

[57:50.720 --> 57:51.720] Oh, yeah.

[57:51.720 --> 57:52.720] We could simulate one.

[57:52.720 --> 57:55.840] That would say, you know, give you, okay, we did this 8 million times, ran it through

[57:55.840 --> 58:00.720] our systems, and in all these scenarios, you know, in every scenario, Neanderthal didn't,

[58:00.720 --> 58:02.000] you know, did not emerge.

[58:02.000 --> 58:03.000] Yeah.

[58:03.000 --> 58:05.480] That's hard to simulate, you know, convincingly by, yeah.

[58:05.480 --> 58:08.200] I'm not saying it's going to happen in five to 10 years, but...

[58:08.200 --> 58:09.200] Yeah.

[58:09.200 --> 58:13.080] Computer simulations will help inform that as well at some point, absolutely.

[58:13.080 --> 58:17.760] And we, you know, we may be able to, with enough genetic information, you know, imagine

[58:17.760 --> 58:23.240] making a Neanderthal brain in silicon, right, basically an Android Neanderthal brain, and

[58:23.240 --> 58:31.240] then we can test it, you know, and see what its limits were, but as long as the model

[58:31.240 --> 58:32.760] is accurate enough.

[58:32.760 --> 58:34.920] But I find all this extremely fascinating.

[58:34.920 --> 58:35.920] Yeah, it's awesome.

[58:35.920 --> 58:36.920] Yeah, man.

[58:36.920 --> 58:37.920] First question.

[58:37.920 --> 58:38.920] First question we'll ask it.

[58:38.920 --> 58:39.920] How are you?

[58:39.920 --> 58:40.920] I dislocated my finger.

Synthetic Microbiome (58:43)

• Researchers construct most complex, complete synthetic microbiome

... encephalized

[58:40.920 --> 58:47.960] All right, Bob, you're going to give us an update on synthetic microbiology.

[58:47.960 --> 58:53.040] Researchers have created the most sophisticated synthetic microbiome yet with over 100 species

[58:53.040 --> 58:57.000] of bacteria, and they've tested it inside very special mice.

[58:57.000 --> 59:00.800] So why would they do such a thing, and what makes the mice so special?

[59:00.800 --> 59:06.760] If you want to find out, listen, or just go right to Cell, which was published on September

[59:06.760 --> 59:07.760] 6th of this year.

[59:07.760 --> 59:11.920] Author of the study was Michael Fischbach, he was associate professor of bioengineering

[59:11.920 --> 59:18.540] microbiology and immunology at Stanford's Seraphin Chem H. Interesting place, Seraphin

[59:18.540 --> 59:24.560] Chem H. Okay, so if we learn anything about the hundreds of species of bacteria in our

[59:24.560 --> 59:31.000] digestive systems or our gut microbiome, it's that not only do they help us digest otherwise

[59:31.000 --> 59:36.020] indigestible food, but recent decades have clearly shown that they've got a connection

[59:36.020 --> 59:40.920] to many of the scourges of the day, obesity, depression, anxiety, Parkinson's, the list

[59:40.920 --> 59:42.640] goes on and on.

[59:42.640 --> 59:47.080] There's some major connection going on there, it seems.

[59:47.080 --> 59:52.640] So the potential benefits from fully understanding our gut microbiome seems as great as the complexity

[59:52.640 --> 59:57.000] of these bacterial ecosystems that we've evolved in partnership with.

[59:57.000 --> 01:00:03.040] Up until now, if you wanted to study our microbiome, it involved words that probably dramatically

[01:00:03.040 --> 01:00:06.920] change the expression on your face every time you hear them, fecal transplants.

[01:00:06.920 --> 01:00:07.920] Yeah.

[01:00:07.920 --> 01:00:10.200] We've talked about those.

[01:00:10.200 --> 01:00:16.400] So that technique essentially just drops in the entire gut microbiome of one organism

[01:00:16.400 --> 01:00:21.560] into another, the whole thing, tweaking it and then learning from such a transplant though

[01:00:21.560 --> 01:00:24.640] is pretty much doesn't happen.

[01:00:24.640 --> 01:00:30.360] Since there's really just no tools now that would allow researchers to edit any of those

[01:00:30.360 --> 01:00:34.160] fecal bacterial species, it's a real shitty problem.

[01:00:34.160 --> 01:00:38.880] Come on, I just had to get it out of the way.

[01:00:38.880 --> 01:00:44.720] So author of the study, Michael Fishback said, so much of what we know about biology, we

[01:00:44.720 --> 01:00:50.920] would not know if it weren't for the ability to manipulate complex biological systems piecewise.

[01:00:50.920 --> 01:00:54.280] That's exactly what we cannot do with fecal transplants.

[01:00:54.280 --> 01:01:00.840] So their solution was to just build a microbiome from scratch, which sounds hard, but is actually

[01:01:00.840 --> 01:01:04.320] in reality still hard.

[01:01:04.320 --> 01:01:08.680] All the bacteria had to do two critical things or it wasn't going to happen.

[01:01:08.680 --> 01:01:13.560] They had to get along with each other without one or two of them just taking over, right?

[01:01:13.560 --> 01:01:18.640] Imagine you throw a hundred bacteria into one's place and it's like one or two of them

[01:01:18.640 --> 01:01:22.960] just like, that's it, we're kings and they just dominate and take it all over.

[01:01:22.960 --> 01:01:25.520] They also had to actually be functional, right?

[01:01:25.520 --> 01:01:30.160] Like a natural microbiome, they actually had to perform some of the functions that our

[01:01:30.160 --> 01:01:33.720] biome does, otherwise what's the point?

[01:01:33.720 --> 01:01:40.560] So now they couldn't use a natural microbiome as a template because there is no real template

[01:01:40.560 --> 01:01:41.940] out there.

[01:01:41.940 --> 01:01:47.960] If you take two random people, they only share about 50% of the bacterial genes.

[01:01:47.960 --> 01:01:56.760] Now of course, the closer you are genetically and I guess location wise, I think that increases

[01:01:56.760 --> 01:01:58.480] the similarity.

[01:01:58.480 --> 01:02:01.240] Like Steve and I probably share 80 or 90%.

[01:02:01.240 --> 01:02:06.200] I would be my guess, I have no idea, but I would guess it'd be more than 50%.

[01:02:06.200 --> 01:02:12.280] So the researchers compromised on using a hundred strains of bacteria that 20% of all

[01:02:12.280 --> 01:02:14.100] people share.

[01:02:14.100 --> 01:02:15.920] So then of course they had to do it right.

[01:02:15.920 --> 01:02:17.820] They didn't just take them and throw them together.

[01:02:17.820 --> 01:02:24.360] They grew them individually and then mix them together and they called it Human Community

[01:02:24.360 --> 01:02:28.680] 1 or HCOM1, which I guess is a decent, it's okay.

[01:02:28.680 --> 01:02:31.360] I've heard worse, but I think we could have come up with something better.

[01:02:31.360 --> 01:02:36.280] Okay, so they then tested this community in that special mice that I was talking about.

[01:02:36.280 --> 01:02:38.960] Now these mice were bred to be literally germ free.

[01:02:38.960 --> 01:02:40.880] I mean, amazing.

[01:02:40.880 --> 01:02:44.040] Imagine that, no gut bacteria at all.

[01:02:44.040 --> 01:02:50.920] So they basically implanted HCOM1 into these special mice and they found that 98% of the

[01:02:50.920 --> 01:02:56.500] HCOM bacterial species colonized and stayed stable and balanced over two months, which

[01:02:56.500 --> 01:02:58.360] is pretty sweet.

[01:02:58.360 --> 01:03:01.920] But they really were just getting started though, nowhere near the end.

[01:03:01.920 --> 01:03:06.520] Next was the stage to make HCOM more robust, right?

[01:03:06.520 --> 01:03:12.840] So to do that, they took advantage of a theory, interesting theory called colonization resistance.

[01:03:12.840 --> 01:03:17.860] So that means if I, for example, say distracted Jay and introduced a new bacterium into his

[01:03:17.860 --> 01:03:24.040] established colony, that bacterium would survive only if it fills an unoccupied niche.

[01:03:24.040 --> 01:03:30.800] So that's the essence of colonization resistance, but not Jay, it's just the idea that if you

[01:03:30.800 --> 01:03:36.640] introduce a bacterium into a colony, it's not going to get a job unless it fills a job

[01:03:36.640 --> 01:03:39.480] that is not currently being taken, okay?

[01:03:39.480 --> 01:03:44.960] For the second part, they introduced to HCOM1 in a mouse, an entire human fecal microbiome,

[01:03:44.960 --> 01:03:45.960] right?

[01:03:45.960 --> 01:03:50.680] So they have the mouse, they have HCOM1 already in there and established, and then they throw

[01:03:50.680 --> 01:03:56.620] at it, bam, here's a fecal microbiome, which is the entire suite, right, A to Z.

[01:03:56.620 --> 01:03:59.240] And a lot of people thought that, what do you think would happen?

[01:03:59.240 --> 01:04:03.840] I mean, just a gut feeling, so to speak, what do you think would happen?

[01:04:03.840 --> 01:04:09.200] It seems, I agree with a lot of the scientists who thought that, hey, this fecal microbiome

[01:04:09.200 --> 01:04:10.880] has been around for a long time.

[01:04:10.880 --> 01:04:13.060] This one specifically was 10 years.

[01:04:13.060 --> 01:04:19.600] It was an established colony of bacteria for 10 years and they put it up against this HCOM1,

[01:04:19.600 --> 01:04:22.160] which has just been inside this mouse for three weeks.

[01:04:22.160 --> 01:04:28.360] So a lot of the scientists thought that the fecal bacteria would just decimate them, but

[01:04:28.360 --> 01:04:29.760] that's not what happened.

[01:04:29.760 --> 01:04:37.900] HCOM1 had girded its loins and survived, it totally survived, but the resulting new community

[01:04:37.900 --> 01:04:42.240] now had 10% of its constituents from the fecal transplant.

[01:04:42.240 --> 01:04:46.480] So then of course, the obvious implication there then is that the fecal bacteria filled

[01:04:46.480 --> 01:04:53.820] roles in HCOM1 that were not yet filled yet by other bacteria per the colonization resistance

[01:04:53.820 --> 01:04:55.640] theory, okay?

[01:04:55.640 --> 01:04:59.480] So they then individually, of course, now they had to start from scratch, right?

[01:04:59.480 --> 01:05:04.920] Now they learned something about what new bacteria were needed, were important, so they

[01:05:04.920 --> 01:05:08.880] individually grew the now 120 bacterial species.

[01:05:08.880 --> 01:05:15.000] They regrew the community and put them together and then they renamed it, right?

[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:17.560] Because you got to rename it at this point because it's kind of new.

[01:05:17.560 --> 01:05:24.720] They called it, of course, HCOM2, HCOM2, which was now much more resistant to any more attempts

[01:05:24.720 --> 01:05:27.060] at shitty interference.

[01:05:27.060 --> 01:05:31.200] So they, all right, so then they weren't even done there.

[01:05:31.200 --> 01:05:38.240] Then they tested HCOM2 against E. coli, an E. coli infection, and showed that the synthetic

[01:05:38.240 --> 01:05:42.200] microbiome resisted infection just like a natural one does.

[01:05:42.200 --> 01:05:45.560] So that's great news, but now what, okay, what's the next step?

[01:05:45.560 --> 01:05:50.280] Okay, so in the future, what they want to do is, and of course, this makes perfect sense,

[01:05:50.280 --> 01:05:53.980] they want to more fully take advantage of this new research paradigm because now we

[01:05:53.980 --> 01:05:56.060] can tweak, you know, think about it.

[01:05:56.060 --> 01:06:02.080] They can now add or delete the individual components of an engineered microbiome to learn who does

[01:06:02.080 --> 01:06:03.480] what, right?

[01:06:03.480 --> 01:06:07.940] So first up, what they want to do is they want to identify the critical bacteria that

[01:06:07.940 --> 01:06:13.280] confer the observed infection resistance that they saw, and perhaps they can make it even

[01:06:13.280 --> 01:06:14.280] better.

[01:06:14.280 --> 01:06:18.240] And then after that, they may do the same for those strains that may now, that may show

[01:06:18.240 --> 01:06:21.880] at some point immunotherapy response, for example.

[01:06:21.880 --> 01:06:27.620] So you can kind of see, all right, it's doing A, so let's find out which specific bacteria

[01:06:27.620 --> 01:06:33.560] of these 120 bacteria are filling these roles, and they could find out, you know, which bacteria,

[01:06:33.560 --> 01:06:37.280] all the roles that they play and how they interact, pretty amazing.

[01:06:37.280 --> 01:06:42.120] So engineered microbiomes certainly seem to have an amazing potential, in my eyes anyway,

[01:06:42.120 --> 01:06:46.180] for therapeutic interventions to enhance health and treat disease.

[01:06:46.180 --> 01:06:52.440] The deeper future of this technology's potential, it seems like right out of a sci-fi movie.

[01:06:52.440 --> 01:06:53.440] Like what?

[01:06:53.440 --> 01:06:57.520] Imagine, imagine, what could an engineered gut microbiome do if the bacteria themselves

[01:06:57.520 --> 01:06:58.520] were engineered?

[01:06:58.520 --> 01:06:59.520] Right?

[01:06:59.520 --> 01:07:03.160] So you're not, you're not just tweaking the constituents of the microbiome.

[01:07:03.160 --> 01:07:07.880] You're also, imagine at some point, and we're doing this now where we're taking individual,

[01:07:07.880 --> 01:07:13.320] you know, bacteria, bacterium, and tweaking it genetically to be even more efficient or

[01:07:13.320 --> 01:07:19.440] whatever at what it does, or how about altering, fundamentally altering the DNA, changing the

[01:07:19.440 --> 01:07:25.200] base pairs and, you know, using, you know, using things that just aren't found in nature

[01:07:25.200 --> 01:07:26.920] and then sticking that into a microbiome.

[01:07:26.920 --> 01:07:30.680] I mean, I'm really going, you know, I'm going, you know, many decades in the future where,

[01:07:30.680 --> 01:07:33.080] you know, where we could really tweak the crap out of this.

[01:07:33.080 --> 01:07:37.920] It's really fascinating to think what could be possible, but even beyond our own personal

[01:07:37.920 --> 01:07:44.880] gut microbiome, you know, looking non-selfishly outward, we could have engineered biomes that

[01:07:44.880 --> 01:07:49.160] could dramatically impact environmental preservation and restoration.

[01:07:49.160 --> 01:07:54.200] We could tweak oceanic biomes that can mitigate microplastics pollution and on and on.

[01:07:54.200 --> 01:07:59.720] It's really, you know, it's really interesting to think at where this could be, you know,

[01:07:59.720 --> 01:08:05.160] even five, 10 years or 30, 40 years, this could be really, make some dramatic changes,

[01:08:05.160 --> 01:08:09.160] not only to our health and the treatment of disease, but also the environment itself as

[01:08:09.160 --> 01:08:10.160] well.

[01:08:10.160 --> 01:08:11.160] Sounds like we need it today, Bob.

[01:08:11.160 --> 01:08:12.160] Yeah.

[01:08:12.160 --> 01:08:13.160] Tell me about it, dude.

[01:08:13.160 --> 01:08:14.160] Yeah.

[01:08:14.160 --> 01:08:15.160] This is potentially a really big, big step.

[01:08:15.160 --> 01:08:16.160] Oh yeah.

[01:08:16.160 --> 01:08:22.200] Essentially, now that we have like a starter microbiome ecosystem, right, because it's

[01:08:22.200 --> 01:08:26.360] exactly why like the whole probiotic thing, it's like, oh, you're going to take some,

[01:08:26.360 --> 01:08:32.380] you know, like one or two or three different bacteria and, and add that to your ecosystem.

[01:08:32.380 --> 01:08:33.380] It does nothing.

[01:08:33.380 --> 01:08:38.760] Like I say, if you have a stable, complete ecosystem, adding something new, isn't going

[01:08:38.760 --> 01:08:39.760] to do anything.

[01:08:39.760 --> 01:08:46.120] Um, you know, like Mark Chrysler made an analogy, it's like, it's like planting corn, rows of

[01:08:46.120 --> 01:08:47.120] corn in the rainforest.

[01:08:47.120 --> 01:08:48.120] It's not going to do anything.

[01:08:48.120 --> 01:08:50.600] It's like, it's not going to affect the ecosystem.

[01:08:50.600 --> 01:08:55.840] Here we have, yeah, you have a good, you have a complete ecosystem as a starting point and

[01:08:55.840 --> 01:08:57.980] now we could endlessly tweak it.

[01:08:57.980 --> 01:09:03.900] And as you say, like this could be a platform for like a totally new therapeutic paradigm.

[01:09:03.900 --> 01:09:07.160] People have been researching this for the last 20 years or so, but they haven't really

[01:09:07.160 --> 01:09:12.240] been making any headway because again, they're trying to, to, to add one or two bacteria.

[01:09:12.240 --> 01:09:16.360] But here, if they could say, all right, we're going to replace this ecosystem with an alternate

[01:09:16.360 --> 01:09:24.520] gut ecosystem, one that will reduce inflammation or will reduce depression or will, will cause

[01:09:24.520 --> 01:09:30.280] you to have to be, have better weight control or whatever it is, or all kinds of things

[01:09:30.280 --> 01:09:32.120] that theoretically it could affect.

[01:09:32.120 --> 01:09:35.160] Or maybe just get rid of that excessive flatulence that you have or whatever.

[01:09:35.160 --> 01:09:39.400] So it, yeah, this is, this, but I do think it's going to be 20, 30 years before we see

[01:09:39.400 --> 01:09:44.600] like the real, the real therapeutic applications emerging.

[01:09:44.600 --> 01:09:52.480] Just saying, we'll have to give you an update on episode 2,374 at that point, right Cara?

[01:09:52.480 --> 01:09:59.200] But first, what, first, what's the word from Cara gentrification is done with her internship

[01:09:59.200 --> 01:10:00.200] by then.

[01:10:00.200 --> 01:10:01.200] That's right.

[01:10:01.200 --> 01:10:02.200] Hopefully.

UFO Videos Classified (1:10:03)

• Navy Says All UFO Videos Classified, Releasing Them ‘Will Harm National Security’

Who's That Noisy? (1:23:35)

Answer to previous Noisy:

Jaw harp, specifically an Indian morchang (morsing)

New Noisy (1:28:51)

[whooshing and deep woodwind-like tones and vibrations]

... some of you are going to get this,

Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups (1:33:06)

Email #1: Climate Change Nihilism

_consider_using_block_quotes_for_emails_read_aloud_in_this_segment_
with_reduced_spacing_for_long_chunks –

Science or Fiction (1:44:11)

Theme: 2022 Golden Goose Awards Item #1: The development of laser LASIK surgery was inspired by a case of accidental laser injury to the eye, producing precise perfectly circular damage. Item #2: Researchers developed a powerful microscope out of paper that folds like origami, with total material costs less than $1. Item #3: While examining the properties of cone snail venom, researchers accidentally discovered that it is a potent inhibitor of HIV replication.

Answer	Item
Fiction	Snail venom inhibits hiv
Science	Powerful origami microscope
Science	Lasik from laser eye injury

Host	Result
Steve	win

Rogue	Guess
Evan	Lasik from laser eye injury
Cara	Lasik from laser eye injury
Bob	Lasik from laser eye injury
Jay	Snail venom inhibits hiv

Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.

Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:57:48)

If I want to know how we learn and remember and represent the world, I will go to psychology and neuroscience. If I want to know where values come from, I will go to evolutionary biology and neuroscience and psychology, just as Aristotle and Hume would have, were they alive.

–Canadian-American analytic philosopher Patricia Churchland, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor at the Salk Institute

Signoff

S: —and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

S: Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information, visit us at theskepticsguide.org. Send your questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. And, if you would like to support the show and all the work that we do, go to patreon.com/SkepticsGuide and consider becoming a patron and becoming part of the SGU community. Our listeners and supporters are what make SGU possible.

[top]                        

Today I Learned

• Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference
• Fact/Description
• Fact/Description

References

Vocabulary