September 18, 2023 • 25 mins
Once more, it's time for a weekly dose of Stuff to Blow Your Mind and Weirdhouse Cinema listener mail...
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hey you, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
This is Robert Lamb and this is Joe McCormick. And
it's Monday, the day of each week that we read
back messages sent into the Stuff to Blow Your Mind
email account. If you've never gotten in touch before and
you would like to give it a shot, you can
reach us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind
dot com. Let's see rob I think I'm going to
kick things off today with a response to some of
(00:34):
our older episodes on numeracy the human number sense.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
All right, let's have it.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
This is from Charlotte. Charlotte says, Hi, thank you for
a great podcast. A while ago, I listened to your
episode on numerosity and the approximate number system where you
mentioned that we still don't know much about the ideology
of this phenomenon, where it comes from. Therefore, I would
(01:02):
just like to highlight that I published an article last
year on the heritability of the approximate number system in infancy.
This is the first study on the heritability of the
ans the approximate number system and the largest infant twin
study in the world. We found that the ANS was
partly heritable but also largely influenced by factors unique to
(01:23):
each twin. Not sure if this is interest of interest
to you, but here's the link anyway, Best regards, Charlotte.
So Oh man, I love getting email like this. Always
love to hear from a researcher who's done direct research
on a topic we touched on. So I looked into
this paper. This is by Charlotte Victorson at All published
(01:46):
in the journal Developmental Science just this year twenty twenty three,
called infant sense of approximate numerosity, heritability and link to
other concurrent traits. So, as Charlotte said, the paper is
looking at the approximate number system, which is a very
interesting ability that we have in our brains. Of course,
it's obvious that we can look at two groups of
(02:07):
objects and tell which group is bigger by counting the
objects in each group, but actually we can do it
without counting. So the approximate number system is the ability
to distinguish the numerical magnitude of different groups of objects
without relying on language or symbols. So, in fact, to
be able to look at like two groups of things
(02:29):
and know which one has more in it without counting,
And the supplies typically to groups of items greater than four.
There could be more than four numbers in it when
you're just comparing like two of something to three of something.
Apparently the brain uses a different system, but obviously this
is a paramount use in our lives. We use it
(02:49):
all the time, in fact, without even realizing we're doing it.
So like the approximate number system is how you can
look at two bushes that each have hundreds of berries
on them and just immediately see that one bush has
more berries than the other, even though you didn't count them,
and you didn't rely on any words or numbers to
form that judgment, And so I was doing a bit
of background. The accuracy of a person's approximate number system,
(03:13):
it seems, is usually measured by finding the smallest ratio
of difference that you can reliably tell apart without counting. So,
for example, if you show me two scattering you flash
at me two scatterings of red dots on a screen, quickly,
I might reliably be able to tell that a group
of one hundred and thirty dots is greater than a
(03:34):
group of just one hundred dots, but I cannot reliably
tell the difference between one hundred and five dots and
one hundred dots, And so from there you would keep
on sort of narrowing it down until you eventually determine
what the threshold is, like how big the difference needs
to be before you can usually tell them apart. And
that might be a difference of ten percent or twenty
(03:57):
percent or whatever. Before you reliably get it right with babies,
which are studied in this paper, obviously you need a
different kind of test. I think they used a gaze
tracking apparatus to see what the babies were looking at
to determine whether they were sensing novelty.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Just strap that right onto their heads, right.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
So yeah, it turns out we do have a sense
for approximate numerosity even in infancy before we can count
at all. But it's not super well developed. It's certainly
not as well developed as it will be in adulthood.
And this paper and Developmental Science, where our listener here
was the lead author, it tested five hundred and fourteen
(04:38):
five month old twin subjects, and I was just thinking, wow,
that must have been the process for assembling that sample
group must have been interesting, and it tested them to
figure out what portion of the infant skill for approximate
numerosity is heritable. Of course, studies on identical identical twins
are very useful for figuring out two what extent things
(05:00):
are genetic or heritable? And the author's right quote. We
found a small to moderate but statistically significant effect of
genetic factors on approximate number system acuity, but only when
differences in numerosity were relatively large, such as in a
one to four ratio. So to the extent you know
(05:21):
that there was evidence for a genetic difference in how
babies can tell the difference in numbers of objects. That
difference in acuity only manifested for big differences in numbers
for babies. They also found that this acuity for finding
difference in approximate numbers was quote not positively associated with
concurrent attentional, cognitive or motor abilities. So in a way,
(05:44):
it seems to be sort of its own thing.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Fascinating.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
So anyway, thank you so much Charlotte for getting in
touch for sharing relevant research with us. This is one
of my favorite kinds of email. So researchers out there,
if you're listening. If you've published a paper on the
topic we talked about, you want to share it with us,
and especially if you want to explain it and offer
some interpretive context, please always send it in contact at
stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. It is absolutely
(06:11):
of interest to us.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah, absolutely, all right. We also heard from folks already
about our Future Shock series they were doing revisiting the
topic of Alvin and heid Toffler's Future Shock from nineteen seventy.
I'm going to start off with just a couple of
messages from our discord server. Now, if you're wondering, well,
WHOA there's a discord server for Stuff to Blow your Mind?
(06:33):
There is, indeed, and if you would like to access it,
just email us at that email address that we just
shared with you, and we'll share again at the end
of this program. Anyway, one user named Ymz says, quote
Rob's wife cracks me up. Future Shock is not real.
(06:53):
I feel the same way, but I'm still enjoying the discussion.
And then we had then one of our listeners, Steve
here I believe, chimes in and says, I feel it
is real. What Joe said about AI killing day jobs
for various artists trying to subsidize personal work not the
soul is stuff that AI scraped, homogenized plagiaristic generations so
(07:15):
often are is spot on. Radiologists, surgeons, and many other
professions are already being affected. This does not have to
be a bad thing, but it is already happening. Even
though many experts said just a handful of years ago
that these changes were at least a decade away. This
episode is pure stuff to blow your mind. Gold. I
would add that if the primary force motivating future artists
(07:36):
of any kind involves winning the favor of almighty algorithms
while maximizing likes over convictions and personal vision, a dark
age of empty digital kitch will add all the minds
of the masses.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
My inclination is to agree with you there, Steve. I
think the metrics used to measure the quality of a
piece of media on social media sites and other platforms
are off and actually do not have a huge amount
of overlap with what actually brings value to our lives.
There may be things that you're very likely to click
(08:10):
like on or reshare that are really of quite shallow
interest to you, whereas you were less likely to use
the metric tract interactions on the platform itself that are
all the platform can really care about. There are things
where you're less likely to do that, but that actual
piece of content is much more valuable to you.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yeah. I mean, there's plenty of stuff that's clickable and memeable,
but it doesn't mean it actually improves your life. I mean,
I think about I can have cheeseburger every day, but
it doesn't really really impact my life at all. It
just occasionally makes me chuckle or shake my head. And
that was a human creation, by the way, that was
not AI. I'd like to see AI try to top
(08:55):
I can have cheeseburger.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
I feel like the kind of engagement and value that
is easily tracked on digital platforms will end up prioritizing
things that people like in a very shallow and non
committal way, and things that actually involve you more intellectually
or emotionally or whatever will will suffer for that.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Yeah, all right. We also heard from Fletch in Discord.
Fletch is a frequent contributor to discussions there chimes in
about Tharg's future Shocks in the British comic book series
two thousand and AD. I guess it's more than a series.
It's like a publication. Fletch says Tharg's Future Shocks in
two thousand and eight was kind of a Twilight Zone
(09:39):
series of one off weird tales, if memory serves, One
of them was the basis of the Richard Stanley movie Hardware.
Judge Dread also occasionally featured a class of adversary called
fut seats, citizens driven to psychotic outburst by the future
shock of living in mega city one.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Well, you know, in defense of the Tofflers, I don't
know if they were quite picturing the creation of like
mad zombies running amok due to future shock. I think
it was more like a state of mostly characterized by
anxiety and stress and all of the downstream effects of
anxiety and stress.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Well, I either don't remember or have not encountered. The
futzis myself in the Judge Dread comics that I've read.
But I think it is important to recognize that the tone,
at least for a lot of Judge Dread comics is
more absurdist and inhumorous, something that if you've just seen
the movies you might not get, especially if you've just
(10:42):
seen like the more recent film The Carl Urban One,
which was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed that
one and an action packed flick, but it does significantly
dial down the absurdest humor that is I think inherent
in the world.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
But was he the law?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Yeah, he's the law, but he also has like like
he has a like a like a robot made with
an Italian accent. If I remember, you know, there's all
sorts of really odd things that occur in his life,
in the life of everyone living in Mega City one.
It's like, it's intentionally absurd.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
When is it my turn to be the law?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Well, you have to go through the program like everybody else.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Okay, I guess somebody's got to be the law. Okay.
This next message is from email. This comes from two
two says Hi Joe and Robert, a longtime listener, first
time writer. I wanted to express my deep resonance with
(11:43):
your recent episode on future shock. As a professional technologist.
The discussion struck a chord I couldn't quite articulate before.
The concept of future shock, akin to culture shock, but
caused by the relentless march of time and evolving standards,
truly resonated with me. In my work. My team is
often seen as pioneers and innovation, yet we perceive our
(12:04):
efforts as merely keeping pace with competitors. This disparity in
perception between our groundbreaking work and how it's perceived creates
a significant gap between our team, the creators, and our
target audience, the users. I want to extend my heartfelt
thanks for shedding light on the insights from a fifty
year old novel. Well, it wasn't a novel, but we
(12:25):
can get into that that so accurately captures the daily
challenges my team and I face. Best two Well, first
of all, thank you for getting in touch and sharing
your perspective on that. I find it interesting that you
mistakenly thought, based on our discussion, that The Future Shock
is a novel. It is not a novel. But the
(12:46):
Tofflers do point out that a lot of the work
of futurology is similar to the work of fiction writing
and the work of writing science fiction. Obviously, if you
are a disciplined person who's trying to make accurate predictions
about reality, you're going to be more constrained, probably than
a fiction writer, because fiction writers have all kinds of
(13:08):
different relationships with reality. Some of them may be trying
to go for as hard and accurate a prediction of
what they think will happen in reality as possible, but
many writers are going for a kind of more exaggerated
satirical approach, or are including things they don't think are
actually likely to happen in order to create a world
(13:30):
where they can illustrate things about human life or something
like that. But they do highlight that there are big
similarities between writing science fiction and doing serious futurology, and
they point to the work of great science fiction authors
as being truly important in helping helping create what they
call the shock absorbers for coming changes in technology and culture.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, that's a great point, Yeah, because like on one hand,
something like Mega City one from two thousand and eight eight,
you know, it's not really so much prediction about what,
you know, supercities of the future might look like. It's
more a commentary and kind of a you know, a
change in commentary on where we are now. But you know,
(14:14):
I guess it's always the case with science with science fiction.
But then yeah, you have other works that that engage
in both activities, you know, a little bit predictive but
also as always speaking to contemporary anxieties, fears, and hopes.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Another thing I want to mention about this email. The
writer doesn't say exactly what products it is that they're
working on in the technology space, but still I think
it's interesting that it highlights a lot of us who
don't work in the tech space just kind of assume
that people who do are like the masters of future progress.
(14:51):
They're like the ones who are on top of it.
They figure out what's going to happen next, and they've
you know, they they understand what's going on. But I
think that that may often not be the case. In fact,
I think a lot of people who work in the
technology sector are just they're they're feeling also confused and overwhelmed,
and you know, they know the one thing, the project
(15:12):
that they're working on, and what they're trying to do
to achieve that, but may perceive the other, you know,
other changes in technology in the world around them as
being a thing that is hard to understand and outside
their control and and happening faster than they can keep
up with.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, all right, here's another one. This one comes to
us from Taylor. Taylor says, Hello, Robin, Joe, happy to
oblige your request for decision fatigue and future shock experiences
like the two of you. I'm not sure what to
make of the top fours predictions about decision fatigue regarding
(15:51):
personal style, but I've definitely experienced the phenomenon in another
aspect of my life. I've been an avid video game
player for as long as I can remember, but it
felt overwhelmed in recent years by the sheer quantity of
compelling video game releases. When I was growing up, it
was a reasonable desire to experience every video game that
piqued my interest, But as the medium has grown, that
(16:12):
expectation has fled away from me at an accelerating pace. Today,
a gamer of any persuasion could gluck themselves on their
favorite genre day in and day out and never complete
all the offerings available to them. I'm certain my assessment
is partially colored by the information bias of childhood, when
my ability to consume video games was defined by the
(16:33):
consoles I owned, my allowance, my parents, content restrictions, and
my greater free time. But the data backs me up here.
According to the market data company Statista, the number of
new video games published on the popular video game platform
Steam skyrocketed from four hundred and thirty four in twenty
twelve to teny nine hundred and sixty three in twenty
(16:55):
twenty two, and the rampant development increase isn't the only
bit of future shock effecting my favorite hobby. Playing a cooperative, competitive,
or narrative video game is definitely a form of quote
unquote serious leisure, akin to reading a book or watching
a movie, and is similarly threatened by the many things
competing for our attention moment to moment. In response, many
(17:15):
game developers compete for user attention by shifting their games
to quote unquote living game models, where content is drip
dead instead of being released as a single, discrete experience.
All of these changes have introduced sour frustration into a
hobby I've always enjoyed and left me with a constant
fear of missing out. If I choose to play X game,
(17:38):
what might I be missing from Y and Z game.
It's a similar experience to the phenomenon Rob described of
browsing a streaming platform until going to bed instead of
watching any movies at all. Ultimately, I have had to
reconcile myself to the reality that there are many exciting
things in the world I don't have time to experience.
Perhaps these abundant choices give us greater self determination than
(17:58):
ever before, but the fatigue of making these decisions takes
a toll, and I'm not certain whether I'm happier for it.
As ever, thank you for creating your wonderfully weird and
stimulating podcast. I look forward to the rest of your
future Shock series. Cheers Taylor. Ps. I also often find
myself racing through one game in the anticipation of another
game's pending release, which diminishes my enjoyment of both. I
(18:20):
imagine this kind of race to keep up with media
isn't unique to video games.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Well, thank you, Taylor. No, I don't think it is,
And yeah, I think this is. This is an excellent perspective,
and in one sense, there's a feeling that, like, well,
what what does one have to complain about with this
particular issue. You know that there are more great games
to enjoy than ever before, But there is this other
side to it, because we're we're not necessarily always made
(18:46):
happier by having more things to choose from, like there
is a there is a psychological cost that comes with
this greater diversity of content in the world, even if
in certain ways you could you could absolutely say it's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Yeah, I feel like just ten years ago, it was
more likely that my friends and I would be playing
the same games. Yeah, you know, And nowadays it's like
there's just so many choices. None of us are playing
the same games because I mean, and in a way,
you know that we have such great options. You can
just whatever if you're more into you know, simulation versus
(19:23):
you know, something real time, I don't know whatever. The distinction,
like you're just going to sort of go down that hallway,
go down that avenue, and your friends are going to
go down their own hallways and avenues, and then you
it seems like it's less often that I have something
to connect with with them in the video game realm.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
I've had exactly the same experience years ago. It used
to be like if I was playing a game that
was probably also the same game that my friend was
currently playing, and now it's like, I don't know. Also,
I'm rarely playing something new. Yeah, I'm always like years
behind whatever the hot thing is.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yeah. Yeah, sometimes that's easier because it's already out, it's cheaper,
and it's like Okay, I'm going to I'm going into this,
but it's not like a living system that I have
to live with as well.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Right, it's gotten all the patches and now it's ten
bucks instead of sixty. Right.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
But yeah, and the other side, coming back to what
Taylor said, these games these days, some of these games
are so long, and you have so many other games
or other experiences in life you want to get to.
It's just you end up feeling this rush in the
latter portion of it if you actually complete the game
at all, which you know, makes it feel a little
more hollow, because it's like, I'm not even completely enjoying
(20:38):
the back half of this game because I'm thinking about
the next thing that I am going to try and
make time to play. And yeah, and I think part
of that's a product of just length and scope of
these games, the whole play to Extinction model on some
of them, for sure. As I've said before, I actually
kind of get excited when I see a review for
a game and people are like and it's so short.
I'm like, great, yeah, wonderful.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
I totally agree. I really appreciate a well crafted, tight
video game. I like one that's tight. It's like the
whole experience is there. Maybe it could even be played
in one long sitting. And it's all good because like,
this whole thing is the main experience you were meaning
to get. It's not like an open world that you
explore for one hundred hours or something of variable quality.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Yeah, no, grind, none of that.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
But anyway, Taylor, Yes, it does seem we were talking
mainly I guess about like like books and movies and
music in the episode, but I think video games follow
an absolutely similar pattern. Yeah, all right. Next message comes
from Matt. Matt says, Hey, Robin Joe, longtime listener and
(21:49):
big fan here, just wanted to share the perfect example
of future shock, gentlemen, I present you Squidward. And then
there was a link. Matt says. It's a link to
a thirty second clip from SpongeBob in which Squidward, SpongeBob's neighbor,
ends up in the future and has a short mental
breakdown over the changes. But then Matt says, I know
(22:10):
links from strangers on the Internet can be dicey. You
can also just search Squidward Future and find it easily.
Keep on doing what you'all do, Thanks Matt. Matt I
appreciate that. Note. Yes, I am very hesitant to click
links in listener emails, not because I don't trust you
all out there, but it's just, you know, it's smart
to be hesitant about clicking things, so appreciate the search terms.
(22:32):
Anybody else who wants us to click something that would
be helpful as well.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
So this episode specifically, it's from the first season of SpongeBob.
It's episode fourteen A and its title is SB one
twenty nine. You can definitely find clips from this episode
all over the place, and certainly on YouTube. I would
advise folks to go for the slightly longer clip. I
(22:59):
had not seen this before before Matt brought it to
my attention here. I watched it last night with my wife,
and I think I'm gonna have to go back and
watch the full episode as well. I agree that this
absolutely nails the extreme essence of future shock, because, yes,
squid Word is in the future where everything is chrome,
(23:20):
there are multiple SpongeBob clones greeting him, there's high technology,
he's he's his eyes have been open to the to
the realities and paradoxes of time travel, and it causes
him to just lower himself to the floor, to the
chrome floor, curl up into sort of a what is
in yoga known as a boat pose, and just start
(23:40):
going future future. And Yeah, I feel like this is
I'm gonna have to make this my default behavior for
anytime I feel overwhelmed by technological change.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
But squidward, once you're there, it's not the future anymore.
It's the present.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I think he does get back. He's like, I would
just want to go back. Okay, but like I said,
I need to watch the full episode to get the
whole story. But it looks marvelous. I haven't seen a
lot of SpongeBob, but what I have seen is super weird,
and every time I see something like this, I just
reminded of how weird it is and how I need
to make room for more SpongeBob in my life.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Yeah. I don't know any SpongeBob, but this was great.
Thank you, Matt. Okay, I think we need to close
it out there for today, but we've got some great
messages still in the bag that we'll have to say
for next time, including some responses to our episode, our
Weird House on Danger, Diabolic, and other things to come,
so tune in next week and keep sending the listener
(24:38):
mail our way, So.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah, see you next Monday. But as always we'll have
core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays for you. We'll have
we usually have an artifact or a monster fact or
something of that nature on Wednesdays, and then on Fridays
we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about
a weird movie on Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Huge thanks to our excellent audio producer jj Pos. If
you would like to get in touch with us with
feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a
topic for the future, or just to say hello, you
can email us at contact at stuffdo Blowyourmind dot com.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hey you, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
This is Robert Lamb and this is Joe McCormick. And
it's Monday, the day of each week that we read
back messages sent into the Stuff to Blow Your Mind
email account. If you've never gotten in touch before and
you would like to give it a shot, you can
reach us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind
dot com. Let's see rob I think I'm going to
kick things off today with a response to some of
(00:34):
our older episodes on numeracy the human number sense.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
All right, let's have it.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
This is from Charlotte. Charlotte says, Hi, thank you for
a great podcast. A while ago, I listened to your
episode on numerosity and the approximate number system where you
mentioned that we still don't know much about the ideology
of this phenomenon, where it comes from. Therefore, I would
(01:02):
just like to highlight that I published an article last
year on the heritability of the approximate number system in infancy.
This is the first study on the heritability of the
ans the approximate number system and the largest infant twin
study in the world. We found that the ANS was
partly heritable but also largely influenced by factors unique to
(01:23):
each twin. Not sure if this is interest of interest
to you, but here's the link anyway, Best regards, Charlotte.
So Oh man, I love getting email like this. Always
love to hear from a researcher who's done direct research
on a topic we touched on. So I looked into
this paper. This is by Charlotte Victorson at All published
(01:46):
in the journal Developmental Science just this year twenty twenty three,
called infant sense of approximate numerosity, heritability and link to
other concurrent traits. So, as Charlotte said, the paper is
looking at the approximate number system, which is a very
interesting ability that we have in our brains. Of course,
it's obvious that we can look at two groups of
(02:07):
objects and tell which group is bigger by counting the
objects in each group, but actually we can do it
without counting. So the approximate number system is the ability
to distinguish the numerical magnitude of different groups of objects
without relying on language or symbols. So, in fact, to
be able to look at like two groups of things
(02:29):
and know which one has more in it without counting,
And the supplies typically to groups of items greater than four.
There could be more than four numbers in it when
you're just comparing like two of something to three of something.
Apparently the brain uses a different system, but obviously this
is a paramount use in our lives. We use it
(02:49):
all the time, in fact, without even realizing we're doing it.
So like the approximate number system is how you can
look at two bushes that each have hundreds of berries
on them and just immediately see that one bush has
more berries than the other, even though you didn't count them,
and you didn't rely on any words or numbers to
form that judgment, And so I was doing a bit
of background. The accuracy of a person's approximate number system,
(03:13):
it seems, is usually measured by finding the smallest ratio
of difference that you can reliably tell apart without counting. So,
for example, if you show me two scattering you flash
at me two scatterings of red dots on a screen, quickly,
I might reliably be able to tell that a group
of one hundred and thirty dots is greater than a
(03:34):
group of just one hundred dots, but I cannot reliably
tell the difference between one hundred and five dots and
one hundred dots, And so from there you would keep
on sort of narrowing it down until you eventually determine
what the threshold is, like how big the difference needs
to be before you can usually tell them apart. And
that might be a difference of ten percent or twenty
(03:57):
percent or whatever. Before you reliably get it right with babies,
which are studied in this paper, obviously you need a
different kind of test. I think they used a gaze
tracking apparatus to see what the babies were looking at
to determine whether they were sensing novelty.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Just strap that right onto their heads, right.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
So yeah, it turns out we do have a sense
for approximate numerosity even in infancy before we can count
at all. But it's not super well developed. It's certainly
not as well developed as it will be in adulthood.
And this paper and Developmental Science, where our listener here
was the lead author, it tested five hundred and fourteen
(04:38):
five month old twin subjects, and I was just thinking, wow,
that must have been the process for assembling that sample
group must have been interesting, and it tested them to
figure out what portion of the infant skill for approximate
numerosity is heritable. Of course, studies on identical identical twins
are very useful for figuring out two what extent things
(05:00):
are genetic or heritable? And the author's right quote. We
found a small to moderate but statistically significant effect of
genetic factors on approximate number system acuity, but only when
differences in numerosity were relatively large, such as in a
one to four ratio. So to the extent you know
(05:21):
that there was evidence for a genetic difference in how
babies can tell the difference in numbers of objects. That
difference in acuity only manifested for big differences in numbers
for babies. They also found that this acuity for finding
difference in approximate numbers was quote not positively associated with
concurrent attentional, cognitive or motor abilities. So in a way,
(05:44):
it seems to be sort of its own thing.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Fascinating.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
So anyway, thank you so much Charlotte for getting in
touch for sharing relevant research with us. This is one
of my favorite kinds of email. So researchers out there,
if you're listening. If you've published a paper on the
topic we talked about, you want to share it with us,
and especially if you want to explain it and offer
some interpretive context, please always send it in contact at
stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. It is absolutely
(06:11):
of interest to us.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah, absolutely, all right. We also heard from folks already
about our Future Shock series they were doing revisiting the
topic of Alvin and heid Toffler's Future Shock from nineteen seventy.
I'm going to start off with just a couple of
messages from our discord server. Now, if you're wondering, well,
WHOA there's a discord server for Stuff to Blow your Mind?
(06:33):
There is, indeed, and if you would like to access it,
just email us at that email address that we just
shared with you, and we'll share again at the end
of this program. Anyway, one user named Ymz says, quote
Rob's wife cracks me up. Future Shock is not real.
(06:53):
I feel the same way, but I'm still enjoying the discussion.
And then we had then one of our listeners, Steve
here I believe, chimes in and says, I feel it
is real. What Joe said about AI killing day jobs
for various artists trying to subsidize personal work not the
soul is stuff that AI scraped, homogenized plagiaristic generations so
(07:15):
often are is spot on. Radiologists, surgeons, and many other
professions are already being affected. This does not have to
be a bad thing, but it is already happening. Even
though many experts said just a handful of years ago
that these changes were at least a decade away. This
episode is pure stuff to blow your mind. Gold. I
would add that if the primary force motivating future artists
(07:36):
of any kind involves winning the favor of almighty algorithms
while maximizing likes over convictions and personal vision, a dark
age of empty digital kitch will add all the minds
of the masses.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
My inclination is to agree with you there, Steve. I
think the metrics used to measure the quality of a
piece of media on social media sites and other platforms
are off and actually do not have a huge amount
of overlap with what actually brings value to our lives.
There may be things that you're very likely to click
(08:10):
like on or reshare that are really of quite shallow
interest to you, whereas you were less likely to use
the metric tract interactions on the platform itself that are
all the platform can really care about. There are things
where you're less likely to do that, but that actual
piece of content is much more valuable to you.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yeah. I mean, there's plenty of stuff that's clickable and memeable,
but it doesn't mean it actually improves your life. I mean,
I think about I can have cheeseburger every day, but
it doesn't really really impact my life at all. It
just occasionally makes me chuckle or shake my head. And
that was a human creation, by the way, that was
not AI. I'd like to see AI try to top
(08:55):
I can have cheeseburger.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
I feel like the kind of engagement and value that
is easily tracked on digital platforms will end up prioritizing
things that people like in a very shallow and non
committal way, and things that actually involve you more intellectually
or emotionally or whatever will will suffer for that.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Yeah, all right. We also heard from Fletch in Discord.
Fletch is a frequent contributor to discussions there chimes in
about Tharg's future Shocks in the British comic book series
two thousand and AD. I guess it's more than a series.
It's like a publication. Fletch says Tharg's Future Shocks in
two thousand and eight was kind of a Twilight Zone
(09:39):
series of one off weird tales, if memory serves, One
of them was the basis of the Richard Stanley movie Hardware.
Judge Dread also occasionally featured a class of adversary called
fut seats, citizens driven to psychotic outburst by the future
shock of living in mega city one.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Well, you know, in defense of the Tofflers, I don't
know if they were quite picturing the creation of like
mad zombies running amok due to future shock. I think
it was more like a state of mostly characterized by
anxiety and stress and all of the downstream effects of
anxiety and stress.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Well, I either don't remember or have not encountered. The
futzis myself in the Judge Dread comics that I've read.
But I think it is important to recognize that the tone,
at least for a lot of Judge Dread comics is
more absurdist and inhumorous, something that if you've just seen
the movies you might not get, especially if you've just
(10:42):
seen like the more recent film The Carl Urban One,
which was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed that
one and an action packed flick, but it does significantly
dial down the absurdest humor that is I think inherent
in the world.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
But was he the law?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Yeah, he's the law, but he also has like like
he has a like a like a robot made with
an Italian accent. If I remember, you know, there's all
sorts of really odd things that occur in his life,
in the life of everyone living in Mega City one.
It's like, it's intentionally absurd.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
When is it my turn to be the law?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Well, you have to go through the program like everybody else.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Okay, I guess somebody's got to be the law. Okay.
This next message is from email. This comes from two
two says Hi Joe and Robert, a longtime listener, first
time writer. I wanted to express my deep resonance with
(11:43):
your recent episode on future shock. As a professional technologist.
The discussion struck a chord I couldn't quite articulate before.
The concept of future shock, akin to culture shock, but
caused by the relentless march of time and evolving standards,
truly resonated with me. In my work. My team is
often seen as pioneers and innovation, yet we perceive our
(12:04):
efforts as merely keeping pace with competitors. This disparity in
perception between our groundbreaking work and how it's perceived creates
a significant gap between our team, the creators, and our
target audience, the users. I want to extend my heartfelt
thanks for shedding light on the insights from a fifty
year old novel. Well, it wasn't a novel, but we
(12:25):
can get into that that so accurately captures the daily
challenges my team and I face. Best two Well, first
of all, thank you for getting in touch and sharing
your perspective on that. I find it interesting that you
mistakenly thought, based on our discussion, that The Future Shock
is a novel. It is not a novel. But the
(12:46):
Tofflers do point out that a lot of the work
of futurology is similar to the work of fiction writing
and the work of writing science fiction. Obviously, if you
are a disciplined person who's trying to make accurate predictions
about reality, you're going to be more constrained, probably than
a fiction writer, because fiction writers have all kinds of
(13:08):
different relationships with reality. Some of them may be trying
to go for as hard and accurate a prediction of
what they think will happen in reality as possible, but
many writers are going for a kind of more exaggerated
satirical approach, or are including things they don't think are
actually likely to happen in order to create a world
(13:30):
where they can illustrate things about human life or something
like that. But they do highlight that there are big
similarities between writing science fiction and doing serious futurology, and
they point to the work of great science fiction authors
as being truly important in helping helping create what they
call the shock absorbers for coming changes in technology and culture.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, that's a great point, Yeah, because like on one hand,
something like Mega City one from two thousand and eight eight,
you know, it's not really so much prediction about what,
you know, supercities of the future might look like. It's
more a commentary and kind of a you know, a
change in commentary on where we are now. But you know,
(14:14):
I guess it's always the case with science with science fiction.
But then yeah, you have other works that that engage
in both activities, you know, a little bit predictive but
also as always speaking to contemporary anxieties, fears, and hopes.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Another thing I want to mention about this email. The
writer doesn't say exactly what products it is that they're
working on in the technology space, but still I think
it's interesting that it highlights a lot of us who
don't work in the tech space just kind of assume
that people who do are like the masters of future progress.
(14:51):
They're like the ones who are on top of it.
They figure out what's going to happen next, and they've
you know, they they understand what's going on. But I
think that that may often not be the case. In fact,
I think a lot of people who work in the
technology sector are just they're they're feeling also confused and overwhelmed,
and you know, they know the one thing, the project
(15:12):
that they're working on, and what they're trying to do
to achieve that, but may perceive the other, you know,
other changes in technology in the world around them as
being a thing that is hard to understand and outside
their control and and happening faster than they can keep
up with.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, all right, here's another one. This one comes to
us from Taylor. Taylor says, Hello, Robin, Joe, happy to
oblige your request for decision fatigue and future shock experiences
like the two of you. I'm not sure what to
make of the top fours predictions about decision fatigue regarding
(15:51):
personal style, but I've definitely experienced the phenomenon in another
aspect of my life. I've been an avid video game
player for as long as I can remember, but it
felt overwhelmed in recent years by the sheer quantity of
compelling video game releases. When I was growing up, it
was a reasonable desire to experience every video game that
piqued my interest, But as the medium has grown, that
(16:12):
expectation has fled away from me at an accelerating pace. Today,
a gamer of any persuasion could gluck themselves on their
favorite genre day in and day out and never complete
all the offerings available to them. I'm certain my assessment
is partially colored by the information bias of childhood, when
my ability to consume video games was defined by the
(16:33):
consoles I owned, my allowance, my parents, content restrictions, and
my greater free time. But the data backs me up here.
According to the market data company Statista, the number of
new video games published on the popular video game platform
Steam skyrocketed from four hundred and thirty four in twenty
twelve to teny nine hundred and sixty three in twenty
(16:55):
twenty two, and the rampant development increase isn't the only
bit of future shock effecting my favorite hobby. Playing a cooperative, competitive,
or narrative video game is definitely a form of quote
unquote serious leisure, akin to reading a book or watching
a movie, and is similarly threatened by the many things
competing for our attention moment to moment. In response, many
(17:15):
game developers compete for user attention by shifting their games
to quote unquote living game models, where content is drip
dead instead of being released as a single, discrete experience.
All of these changes have introduced sour frustration into a
hobby I've always enjoyed and left me with a constant
fear of missing out. If I choose to play X game,
(17:38):
what might I be missing from Y and Z game.
It's a similar experience to the phenomenon Rob described of
browsing a streaming platform until going to bed instead of
watching any movies at all. Ultimately, I have had to
reconcile myself to the reality that there are many exciting
things in the world I don't have time to experience.
Perhaps these abundant choices give us greater self determination than
(17:58):
ever before, but the fatigue of making these decisions takes
a toll, and I'm not certain whether I'm happier for it.
As ever, thank you for creating your wonderfully weird and
stimulating podcast. I look forward to the rest of your
future Shock series. Cheers Taylor. Ps. I also often find
myself racing through one game in the anticipation of another
game's pending release, which diminishes my enjoyment of both. I
(18:20):
imagine this kind of race to keep up with media
isn't unique to video games.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Well, thank you, Taylor. No, I don't think it is,
And yeah, I think this is. This is an excellent perspective,
and in one sense, there's a feeling that, like, well,
what what does one have to complain about with this
particular issue. You know that there are more great games
to enjoy than ever before, But there is this other
side to it, because we're we're not necessarily always made
(18:46):
happier by having more things to choose from, like there
is a there is a psychological cost that comes with
this greater diversity of content in the world, even if
in certain ways you could you could absolutely say it's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Yeah, I feel like just ten years ago, it was
more likely that my friends and I would be playing
the same games. Yeah, you know, And nowadays it's like
there's just so many choices. None of us are playing
the same games because I mean, and in a way,
you know that we have such great options. You can
just whatever if you're more into you know, simulation versus
(19:23):
you know, something real time, I don't know whatever. The distinction,
like you're just going to sort of go down that hallway,
go down that avenue, and your friends are going to
go down their own hallways and avenues, and then you
it seems like it's less often that I have something
to connect with with them in the video game realm.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
I've had exactly the same experience years ago. It used
to be like if I was playing a game that
was probably also the same game that my friend was
currently playing, and now it's like, I don't know. Also,
I'm rarely playing something new. Yeah, I'm always like years
behind whatever the hot thing is.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yeah. Yeah, sometimes that's easier because it's already out, it's cheaper,
and it's like Okay, I'm going to I'm going into this,
but it's not like a living system that I have
to live with as well.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Right, it's gotten all the patches and now it's ten
bucks instead of sixty. Right.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
But yeah, and the other side, coming back to what
Taylor said, these games these days, some of these games
are so long, and you have so many other games
or other experiences in life you want to get to.
It's just you end up feeling this rush in the
latter portion of it if you actually complete the game
at all, which you know, makes it feel a little
more hollow, because it's like, I'm not even completely enjoying
(20:38):
the back half of this game because I'm thinking about
the next thing that I am going to try and
make time to play. And yeah, and I think part
of that's a product of just length and scope of
these games, the whole play to Extinction model on some
of them, for sure. As I've said before, I actually
kind of get excited when I see a review for
a game and people are like and it's so short.
I'm like, great, yeah, wonderful.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
I totally agree. I really appreciate a well crafted, tight
video game. I like one that's tight. It's like the
whole experience is there. Maybe it could even be played
in one long sitting. And it's all good because like,
this whole thing is the main experience you were meaning
to get. It's not like an open world that you
explore for one hundred hours or something of variable quality.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Yeah, no, grind, none of that.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
But anyway, Taylor, Yes, it does seem we were talking
mainly I guess about like like books and movies and
music in the episode, but I think video games follow
an absolutely similar pattern. Yeah, all right. Next message comes
from Matt. Matt says, Hey, Robin Joe, longtime listener and
(21:49):
big fan here, just wanted to share the perfect example
of future shock, gentlemen, I present you Squidward. And then
there was a link. Matt says. It's a link to
a thirty second clip from SpongeBob in which Squidward, SpongeBob's neighbor,
ends up in the future and has a short mental
breakdown over the changes. But then Matt says, I know
(22:10):
links from strangers on the Internet can be dicey. You
can also just search Squidward Future and find it easily.
Keep on doing what you'all do, Thanks Matt. Matt I
appreciate that. Note. Yes, I am very hesitant to click
links in listener emails, not because I don't trust you
all out there, but it's just, you know, it's smart
to be hesitant about clicking things, so appreciate the search terms.
(22:32):
Anybody else who wants us to click something that would
be helpful as well.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
So this episode specifically, it's from the first season of SpongeBob.
It's episode fourteen A and its title is SB one
twenty nine. You can definitely find clips from this episode
all over the place, and certainly on YouTube. I would
advise folks to go for the slightly longer clip. I
(22:59):
had not seen this before before Matt brought it to
my attention here. I watched it last night with my wife,
and I think I'm gonna have to go back and
watch the full episode as well. I agree that this
absolutely nails the extreme essence of future shock, because, yes,
squid Word is in the future where everything is chrome,
(23:20):
there are multiple SpongeBob clones greeting him, there's high technology,
he's he's his eyes have been open to the to
the realities and paradoxes of time travel, and it causes
him to just lower himself to the floor, to the
chrome floor, curl up into sort of a what is
in yoga known as a boat pose, and just start
(23:40):
going future future. And Yeah, I feel like this is
I'm gonna have to make this my default behavior for
anytime I feel overwhelmed by technological change.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
But squidward, once you're there, it's not the future anymore.
It's the present.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
I think he does get back. He's like, I would
just want to go back. Okay, but like I said,
I need to watch the full episode to get the
whole story. But it looks marvelous. I haven't seen a
lot of SpongeBob, but what I have seen is super weird,
and every time I see something like this, I just
reminded of how weird it is and how I need
to make room for more SpongeBob in my life.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Yeah. I don't know any SpongeBob, but this was great.
Thank you, Matt. Okay, I think we need to close
it out there for today, but we've got some great
messages still in the bag that we'll have to say
for next time, including some responses to our episode, our
Weird House on Danger, Diabolic, and other things to come,
so tune in next week and keep sending the listener
(24:38):
mail our way, So.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah, see you next Monday. But as always we'll have
core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays for you. We'll have
we usually have an artifact or a monster fact or
something of that nature on Wednesdays, and then on Fridays
we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about
a weird movie on Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Huge thanks to our excellent audio producer jj Pos. If
you would like to get in touch with us with
feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a
topic for the future, or just to say hello, you
can email us at contact at stuffdo Blowyourmind dot com.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff To Blow Your Mind News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Lamb
Joe McCormick
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.