The 2022 Ig Nobel Prizes, Part 1

It’s that time of year again! Join Robert and guest co-host Seth as they discuss some of this year’s Ig Nobel prize-winning scientific studies and papers – honored as always for first making us laugh, then making us think.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of My
Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Seth Nicholas Johnson.
That's right, Joe is still out on par rental leave.
But we gotta we gotta keep the show rolling, and

(00:23):
we find ourselves at that time of year when we
tend to cover the ig Nobel Prizes. Uh So, this
episode and probably a second episode are going to look
at some of the Igno bell winners from this year.
I mean, we couldn't skip Igno bells just because Joe
is out on paternity leave. Igno bells are tradition around here,
that's right. Yeah, we've been covering the Igno bells for

(00:44):
many years. I'm not even sure when we started covering
it on the show. We generally don't cover them right
away because the awards usually come out during September. Usually
it's like late mid to late September or very early
October perhaps for a couple of years, and were often
wrapped up in Halloween stuff by that point. But the
Ignal bells usually make for a fun episode or two

(01:07):
in early November for us. In a way. It sometimes
it's a nice palate cleanser after a bunch of Halloween content.
Uh so we yeah, again, we tend to use it
later than usual. But the two thousand twenty two awards
were handed out septembo. It's kind of like the World
Series versus Halloween. They both usually end up around the

(01:28):
same time, and at least in my life growing up,
it was always kind of a flip of the coin
whether or not the World Series would interfere with the
Simpsons annual Treehouse of Horror. It was oh yeah, sometimes
they would air a Treehouse of Horror really really early
to get it out of the way beforehand. Sometimes, and
these were the years I hated the most. They would
air Simpsons Treehouse of Horror after Halloween, which just flu

(01:53):
next me. I hated those years. Yeah, I mean, I
think you've pointed out before. It's also a reason why
we can feel feel good about doing halloweeny things in
the weeks following Halloween because the Simpsons President is there. Yes.
By the way, Uh, this is real quick. Did you
watch this year's rob I I didn't. I We as

(02:14):
a family we rewatch the five or so tree ousis
that we always rewatch, but I'm I'm I'm just I don't.
I know. You've given me advice on watching more recent
episodes in the past, but I'm just I'm kind of scared.
I just I tend to stick to exactly what I know,
even though so many of the jokes, not all of them,
but there are certain jokes that are way outdated or

(02:35):
haven't stood the test of time, or I just have
to explain them to my ten year old. The one
this year, I have to say, was particularly good. I'm
recommending it to you and to all the listeners out there.
There was a Baba Duke parody, there was a West
World parody, and there was a Death Note parody, and
the Death Note parody was done exclusively in anime style

(02:57):
and it was gorgeous. So anyway, anyway, if people like
The Simpsons, or even a few don'ts I don't care,
go watch this year's Treehouse of Horror in the year two.
It was beautiful. I'll have to see all the source
material for those though. I still haven't seen the Baba Duke,
but I saw the episode of Guiana de Toro's Cabinet
of Curiosities that had the same director. Anyway, Sorry, back

(03:20):
to the Igno Bells. Yes, yes, so the Igno Bells
um if you're not familiar with these. The Igno Bells
are a series of awards given out once a year
by a scientific humor journal called The Animals of Improbable Research,
edited for many years now by Mark abrams Uh. Their
stated purpose is to quote honor achievements that first make
people laugh and then make them think so um, and

(03:44):
I'll also without it probably goes without saying that this
is also kind of a parody of the Nobel Prizes.
I'm sure that a mistake has been made many times
in the past. So occasionally the papers that get selected
are themselves intended to be satirical, and or how satirical
notes to them at any rate. An example that comes
to mind was a study of the Disgusted whether cats

(04:07):
should be considered a solid or a liquid um. You know,
obviously there is a fair amount of humor already there.
Other times it's just a straightforward study that deals with
a topic or deal, or there's some detail to the
experiment involved that is laughter inducing, or it's just weird,

(04:27):
or it's other times it's a study that that does
seem to be sort of testing out or exploring something
that we just take as a given that just seems
completely obvious and in perhaps it's a little humorous that
there's a study about it, even though this is how
we've sort of scientifically prove out the world around us.
And I think we're covering both. I think we have
a wide selection here, covering both the surprisingly impractical and

(04:50):
the surprisingly practical. Yeah, so in each of these we're
definitely going to talk about why it is funny, but
also why it is important, like why it matters because
again the stated purpose. Uh, stuff different studies and papers
that make you laugh but then make you think. So
it's not just that they're funny, they also are are
legitimate scientific papers. Now there, we're not gonna cover all

(05:13):
the winners. If you want to see the full list
of winners for this year plus all subsequent years, you
can go to the journal's web page at Improbable dot com. Uh.
Either way, you should definitely check out the website. It's
just all on one page all the winners throughout the years,
and it can be a fun exercise. You just search
for various keywords on that page and see what has

(05:35):
been honored. So, yeah, we're just gonna trade back and
forth here on some for this episode, and we'll probably
come back in the next episode as well. When I
initially scanned it, another thing about it is that a
lot of times they are very recent studies. Sometimes they're
older studies, and sometimes their their studies that are that
are kind of checking in on a on a strange
topic and maybe giggle inducing topic that's been around for

(05:57):
a little bit. And so I was instantly interested in
the Biology Prize for this year because it does touch
on a topic, though not a specific study, that Joe
and I have discussed on the show um at least
a couple of times. There are a trio of studies
honored here by the author's Garcia, Hernandes, and Machado and

(06:19):
uh in particular, there's a there's one just to give
you a taste of what we're getting into. This one
is from in the journal Integrative Zoology Short and Long
Term Effects of an extreme case of auto Tommy colon.
Does tail loss and subsequent constipation decrease the locomotive performance
of male and female scorpions? So specific yes, So this

(06:45):
gets into a really weird area that that again, longtime
listeners of the show might remember. Needless to say, the
tale of a scorpion is easily one of the most
interesting tales you'll find in the animal world. You can
go vertebrate or invertebrate. The scorpion and is still going
to be up there at the top, because I mean,
just just the image of it, this this curled tail,

(07:07):
just posed and ready to strike out with that stinger.
I mean, it's so good. It becomes part of our monsters,
right like we we can't help but blow it up.
We can't help it blow up the scorpion, as Ray
Harry Housing did and clash of the of of the Titans.
But the the scorpions tail or meta soma, is composed
of five segments as well as the Tellson Tellson isn't

(07:31):
so much a full segment as just sort of the
posterior most division of the creature's body, and this contains
venom glands, which of course feed the zinc harden stinger
at the end of the tail. The scorpion will use
this tail stinger, along with its claws, both offensively and
defensively against its many many enemies, because of course it's

(07:51):
trying to prey on various creatures. But lots of things
are trying to prey on it, and it also has
to deal with the dangers of posed by other scorpions,
even of its own species. But there's an interesting quirk
of evolution with the scorpions. Uh. And this is when
I first read about this. It was in an ed
Young paper from that appeared on the National Geographic website,

(08:14):
and in it, Young points out that the scorpions anus
isn't where you think it might be, so just that
that's kind of kind of leading into it. But I
don't know, did did you have set did you have
a a notion in your head about where you might
find a scorpions anus. I would compare it to all
other animals that I'm aware of and put it's below

(08:36):
the tail. That's where I would put it. Right that
that would have been my guess. And and even more
so after discussing this bit about the Tellson, you know
this idea that it's it's not the tail proper, but
it's kind of like it's far back on the animals
you can get before getting to the tail segments. I mean,
that's already where you're going to have the venom glands.
It seems to make sense that you would also have

(08:58):
the termination of the gut there, that that's where the
anus would be, that's where poop would come out. I
still think it's a good guess, but it is absolutely wrong.
The anus is on segment five of the tail, meaning
that the gut cavity of the scorpion extends through the
entire tail and then poops out just short of the
stinger itself. That's fascinating. So then picture in your mind

(09:21):
if it was typically where you would think it would
be on on any creature. So move its back legs
all the way up to the fifth segments you know
of of the stinger and that's it would It would
be almost like a like a doc sinto like a
big long winer dog body. And yeah, that makes sense
in its own strange way. Yeah, And it's it's so

(09:43):
different from what we tend to expect from animals that
have not not even similar morphology, because it's not like
not like a cow is similar to a scorpion in
in most major concerns. But but you know, there's a
there's a certain rhythm to the way things are laid out.
You you grow to expect to find the anus in
certain positions compared to the tale of a creature, especially

(10:06):
when it seems so consistent. Yeah, now this is already
pretty weird. But the kicker to all of this is
that there is a rare group of South American scorpions,
and Young points this out that practice auto Tommy. This
is the act by which a creature can shed parts
of its body, typically a tail. The most famous example

(10:27):
of this our little little lizards like backyard skinks and
so forth. That I think if you, if you grew
up in a world where lizards were running about, you
were familiar with this because occasionally you might catch a
lizard and its tail would fall off, or you would
find that tail. Perhaps you'd find a bird or a
cat playing with the tail as it's still kind of
bops around with some last you know, last ounce of energy.

(10:51):
And of course this is generally about enabling a better
chance of survival for the creature. And I think there
I remember talking about this in the show in the past.
There a few different ways of looking at this. It's
kind of a distracting lure. If a lizard jettison's a
tail and that tail still moving around, while that distracts
a predator, it also is kind of a bribe, like
you're not gonna eat me, but here, here's a piece

(11:12):
of me. Have at it. I'm delicious, but I'm also
running away. So we have this rare group of South
American scorpions that can do this. They can shed their tail,
but since their anus is on the fifth tail segment,
they also lose that as well. Um and I believe
in the case of these scorpions we're talking about the

(11:35):
the the shed occurring, the the uh that they lose
the tail somewhere at the second or third segment, which
which also seems crazy, right because it's like, come on, scorpions,
if you just you could have the anus on the tail,
but maybe just an earlier segment, and you could still
do this without losing your ability to poop. But no,
there they have the anus on the fifth segment. They're

(11:57):
losing their tail at the second or third segment, and
so it leaves the scorpion without a tail and without
an anush to live out the rest of its life,
because it does continue to live and and I believe
that we're talking something like maybe eight months more of life,
but still enough life to where these scorpions are still

(12:18):
going to continue hunting for food, feeding, and even successfully breeding. Wow.
But yeah, yeah, it's like you're saying, if there was
a focus group to redesign the scorpion, we should either
move its anus further up on these segments of the
tail or um have the portion of the tail that

(12:39):
does disconnect begin after the fifth segments. But but but no, no,
it's just just kind of a sad Cronenberg situation. Yeah, so,
I don't know what the the creation has taken. All
this is. I actually don't don't care what the creation,
but it seems like it would it seems like it
would pose some some some questions. Yeah. So as though, obviously,

(13:04):
what happens when a creature cannot poop but it's still
continuing to live and eat, well, it begins to swell up. Uh.
And they're actually you can find images I think Ed
Young has some of these in his his article where
you can see these like white globs through the skin
of the scorpion. And this is the scorpion swelling up
with its own extrement because it cannot poop. It reminds

(13:26):
me of seeing um, perhaps a crab getting ready to molt.
You know where we're like you can see like it's
exterior kind of they're they're getting very uncomfortable. In fact,
I actually just saw some footage last night of a
of a blue crab. It was given its favorite food,
and it wouldn't eat any just simply because it didn't
have room for its body to expand after eating. And

(13:48):
so what it would do I believe it was a
piece of mango that the crab would just kind of
put it in its mouth to taste it and then
just set it back down because they didn't have room
for the food inside it's it's too small body. It
had to wait until it molted to be able to finish. So,
as Young points out in this article, the scorpion is
on borrowed time. At this point, it's defensive and offensive

(14:10):
powers are reduced, plus again steadily swelling up with poop,
so much so that the swelling apparently sometimes pops off
one of the remaining tail segments or stumps. They're kind
of like a vest button bopping, you know, popping off
of a stuffed human diner in a cartoon. So here's this,
this steadily swelling scorpion, no tail, no stinger. They have

(14:33):
to end up having to prey on smaller prey because
they can't handle the bigger stuff without their their main bioweapon.
But they still managed to do it. They still managed
to mate and reproduce in their remaining eight months or
so on average, So this much was known. These latest
studies that are that are that are honored by the
Ignoble Prizes. They look specifically at the scorpions locomotion post autotommy,

(14:58):
So how are they moving around? How are they continuing
to function and reproduce after they've lost that tale? Now
why is it funny? I don't, Well, it's constipated scorpions
who threw away their anus, So I guess it's it's
inherently funny on some level or another. And why is
it important? Well, it is a crucial question about how
the creatures survive in the wild after losing their tail,

(15:21):
and given that mating still goes on after this point.
It's a question with ramifications of evolutionary concern as well,
because there the selection pressures are still applying. It's not
one of these situations where you could say, well, they've
lost their tail, but it's not like they're reproducing anymore.
You know, they're they're essentially dead. At this point. No,
they still have life to give and they give it.

(15:42):
So again, a trio of studies that were honored here
by Garcia, Hernandez and Machado from one and I'm just
going to single out the key findings here. Um, we
read a couple of quotes from from the papers. First quote,
tail loss has no mediate effect on the locomotive performance

(16:02):
of scorpions. The long term decrease in the locomotive performance
of autotomized males may impair mate searching. However, because death
by constipation takes several months, males have a long time
to find mates and reproduce. Thus, the prolonged period between
autotomy and death by constipation is crucial for understanding the

(16:23):
evolution of one of the most extreme cases of autotomy
and nature. Fair enough, and also they got to use
death by constipation twice there um, But then then it
gets more interesting as well. Quote. Although the male tail
is used during courtship and sperm transfer, autotomy has no
effect on male mating success. The combined effect of increased

(16:45):
mortality and reduced fecundity resulted in automatized females producing nearly
thirty five percent fewer offspring than intact females. In conclusion,
the negative effects of tail autotomy are clearly sex dependent,
probably because the factors that influence reproductive success in males
and females are markedly different. So the basic take home

(17:08):
there being that, yeah, it doesn't seem to really have
an impact on how males are mating, but it does
have an impact on the way the females are. And
then finally they point out the stinger loss reduced UH
their ability to subdue both small and large prey, and
that tail autotomy is costly because it decreases predation success.

(17:28):
It just makes these little scorpions less good at being
little scorpions. Makes sense, So, you know, these are these
are not studies that I guess um, they're not completely
groundbreaking or anything. They're not revealing something in the natural
world that we didn't completely you know, there was just
a mystery to us. But it does answer more questions

(17:49):
about this already weird situation that's occurring with UH, a
particular variety of scorpion in the wild. And it also
just broadens the mind in general. Like, for exact ample,
if you would have said to me, you know, I'm
gonna bet you fifty dollars that you can't show me
where a scorpions anus is. I would have taken that

(18:09):
bet before this study. I would have said, of course
I know where it is. But but now now I
I just can't take these things for granted. You know
there there's a broad spectrum of physiology out there. Yeah, absolutely,
thank you. Let's move on to our second story here. Uh,

(18:32):
this was the Ignoble Economics Prize. This. Let's see our
our authors are researchers. I believe they're all from Italy,
So I apologize for my lack of pronouncing Italian names
as as well as I should. This is by Pluccino,
Beyondo and Rapisarda, and this is for explaining mathematically why

(18:54):
success more often goes not to the most talented people
but instead to the luckiest. So a lot of Western cultures,
we can speak for us as two Americans here, but
I think a lot of Western cultures are this way,
are based on the idea that if you are talented
and work hard, you will be successful. That's that's the
thing that everyone tells you, whether it be a teacher

(19:16):
or a parent. Uh, that that's just how it is.
Work hard, you know, be, be, be more talented, be smarter,
study hard, all that stuff. Uh, And if you want
to really be successful, you need to be more talented
than everyone else and work harder than everyone else. If
you want to be a oh whoever, the billionaire dug

(19:36):
or just picture them in your mind, whicheveryone you're thinking
of that one? Now, Um, is this true? Can we
really break this apart? And can we do it with math?
I think is the most important thing that these three
researchers were trying to figure out. Now, if you if
you talk to one of these people, the people who
are extremely successful, a billionaire, let's say, they will tell

(20:01):
you that, you know, it's we worked hard, we we
really put our nose to the grindstone, you know. And
they'll talk about the virtues of the hustle. You know,
that's everything you gotta put in all those hours, neglect
your personal relationships, etcetera, etcetera. They got where they are
because of a meritocracy. Well, our researchers are here to

(20:22):
prove that that's just not true using math. So the
first claim that the researchers will make is that if
we're primarily talking about two aspects here, which is talent
and success. They're going to need to find a way
to apply math to those terms. So talent, they are claiming,
has a Gaussian distribution. Now, I'm sure even if those

(20:44):
of you out there aren't mathematicians, you know more or
less where I'm coming from, even if you don't know
these terms. A Gaussian distribution, a k A and normal
distribution is a typical bell curve along the X axis.
I'm sure most of you can picture that in your mind.
It's low on the left, it's high in the middle,
and it's low on the right, with a a cosine

(21:05):
curve easing in and out of each point. This is
used all over the place to explain all kinds of
averages in numbers, but it's extremely common. Is this typical
Bell curve? Okay, so our researchers are using a Gaussian
distribution to equate with talent, which they're equating with intelligence

(21:28):
because intelligence is a very measurable trait. Talent, of course,
much more difficult to measure. So so so get that
in your head first. Everyone, picture a little chart, and
this is for intelligence, and it's a little bell curve.
There are people with very very little intelligence on the
left people with extremely high intelligence on the right, and
then the average most of us right in the middle.

(21:50):
And that's where the big you know, the big body
of the bell is in that bell curve. Now, Rob, first,
is this a fair equivalence? Do you think? Do do?
Do you think equating talent and intelligence? Is that? Is
that an assumption you would be willing to make? Um? Well,
I mean, I think it's one of those things where

(22:11):
the alchemy of success and even things like talent and
intelligence on their own or or are far more complicated
than something like this is going to really be able
to represent. But you gotta work with some sort of model.
You gotta work with some sort of a simplified and
version of reality in order to apply the mathematics improve
things out right. And I do think that there is

(22:33):
talents that of course it doesn't require you know, book learning,
let's say, and um, perhaps something that you could have
a typically low intelligence by by all all tests that
exist in the world, but perhaps are extremely talented in
your own ways which are not measurable. So so yes,
let's just go with this. If we're using a way

(22:53):
to measure talent and we're making that equivalency with intelligence,
you can measure intelligence. We get a very simple bell curve.
So let's let's just go with that. We'll fall We'll
follow their logic on this. So next up, if we've
already measured our talent, next we're gonna start measuring success. Now. Now,
their way to find a formula for success is they

(23:15):
used um wealth, you know, financial gain, financial wealth as success.
Once again, I'll say, this is perhaps not something you
could really you know, one to one. You know that
there's there's personal success, there's creative success, and financial success
is certainly a type of success, but that's a very
specific kind. But once again we'll go with it. Okay,

(23:38):
So the next assertion for this math formula is that
success are other aspect that we're really trying to measure
here can be represented with a power law a k A.
The Parrito principle a k A rule. The Parrito principle,
named after the economist phil Fredo Parrito, specifies the eight
percent of consequences twenty the causes um so. Assertions using

(24:02):
this principle would be things like eighty percent of sales
come froment of the clients, eight percent of work done
is from you of the employees, and in the case
of this study, wealth distribution. So the world has a
large majority of poor people and a very small number
of billionaires. Um. But you can find examples of this
principle everywhere. It's actually a very fascinating thing to look into.

(24:26):
So this study is positing that to a certain degree,
wealth equals success. I think there are all kinds of
successes we could have in this world. But again, we
need to hammer this down with one simple principle. Rob,
what are your thoughts for the purpose of the study,
shure wealth can be success? Um? You know, I think
that you get into a larger discussion. I think it

(24:48):
is certainly a very Western uh idea that that wealth
is like the main market success. I've always liked, or
not always, but I've long liked the Chinese approach where
you have the three star gods of Fulu and Show,
and each one represents a different sort of desired state

(25:09):
that sometimes I see also kind of translated as luck,
which is interesting getting into all of this. But one
represents happiness, one represents wealth, and one represents longevity. So
wealth is still very much a part of that. With
one of these three individuals shown, you know, looking very
much like a wealthy business owner, but on his own

(25:30):
you're missing out on on on happiness and longevity, Like
these are two things that are also important. You don't
want just one of these three statues in your home
or your business, you want all three because you want
to balance of these three forces. Yeah, yeah, I mean again,
we're trying to measure this. So wealth is something that
can be measured. If you're talking about like artistic success,

(25:51):
perhaps having like you know, your your your your mission,
and your message be conveyed through art and aesthetics, that's
harder to measure. So so, but yeah, I feel like
in to a larger extent, I feel like, yes, in
the in the West, we have this idea that wealthiesical success,
and to a certain extent we can say that's true,
but also it's a it's a truth that ends up

(26:13):
muddying so many things. Like we get into it into
our heads that our hobbies also need to be things
that we make money at. That it's like like how
how can you be into a writing or painting or whatever, sculpting,
whatever your hobby happens to be if it's not producing money,
Like that's that's not really how hobbies have to work

(26:35):
like I can. I cannot make money at my hobby.
I can. I cannot be perfect at my hobby. And
it's still fine. It's it's it's perfectly acceptable. But we
can easily sort of fall into that commercial mindset and
think of it the opposite way. And I think that
applies to most things, like, for example, physical activity, you know,
like I love running. I can have all these goals

(26:57):
in my mind, like oh, I'm gonna go this far today,
I'm going to go this far without stopping to walk, etcetera, etcetera,
And that can be very successful at that. There's no
money involved, I don't get I'm sure with you. You
don't get paid to go swimming or to do your yoga,
but you can be very successful at those things in
our own ways. So yeah, not not to not to
you know, harsh on people who do find a way

(27:19):
to turn a hobby or a passion into a business.
But I think obviously it is not required. Yes, yes,
So so we we will just accept these equivalences and
and and continue this paper. So let's picture both these
things in our mind. We're picturing the bell curve for intelligence. Okay,
so we're all seeing a bell curve in our minds,
and now for success, we are picturing this eight twenty distribution,

(27:43):
and if you kind of put those over each other,
they don't really overlap. So it's like, wait, wait, wait,
I thought I thought we lived in a meritocracy. Shouldn't
these be one to one? And and that that's not
the case. So what is that mystery ingredient that makes
all of this compute? Well, they mentioned it at the
very beginning of the thesis. It's luck. So from the paper,

(28:04):
I really love this segment. Here. I'm gonna be uh
quoting most of it, but I'm paraphrasing a couple of
places quote. There's nowadays an even greater evidence about the
fundamental role of chance, luck, or more in general, random
factors in determining successes or failures in our personal and
professional lives. In particular, it has been shown that scientists

(28:26):
have the same chance along their career of publishing their
biggest hit. You know, as an aside, you would assume
that you would get smarter and smarter and smarter, so
eventually your biggest hit would come at the end of
your career. Turns out that's not the case. Oh and
of course, um in this paper, they've actually uh cited
their sources for each of these claims. These are not
just like random claims made by like some podcaster. No no, no,

(28:51):
These these are well researched claims that all go back
to two sources. So if you look at the look
up the real paper, they actually have each of these
claims cited. So look it up if you're If you're curious,
I recommend it. So anyway back to it um, it
has been shown that scientists have the same chance along
their career of publishing their biggest hit. That those with
earlier surname initials are significantly more likely to receive tenure

(29:15):
at top departments. That one's position in an alphabetically sorted
list may be important in determining access to oversubscribed public services.
That middle name initials enhance evaluations of intellectual performance. That
people with easy to pronounce names are judged more positively
than those with difficult to pronounce names. That individuals with

(29:38):
noble sounding surnames are found to work more often as
managers than as employees. That females with masculine monikers are
often more successful in legal careers. That roughly half of
the variants and incomes across persons worldwise is explained only
by their country of residents and by the income distribution

(29:58):
within that country. That the probability of becoming a CEO
is strongly influenced by your name or by your month
of birth, and that even the probability of developing some
sort of cancer might be cutting a brilliant career short.
It's mainly due to simple bad luck. And um it's
it was. It was fascinating to go through all these

(30:19):
and to check all their their sited sources. But but
the one thing that all these things have in common
is that you have no control over any of these things.
No matter how how much you think you have control
over any of these you you you really don't. You
don't determine your own name. For the most part, you
you can't say what month you're born in. I suppose
you could lie about some of these things, but but

(30:40):
but for the most part, you don't have any control
what country you're born in, etcetera, etcetera. You know where
where your name lands in the alphabets. Um. But but
it is an interesting idea to think about, like parents
choosing their child's name based on like you know, how
how will I make sure that my son Aaron a
Aaron Sin is, as you know, at the front of

(31:01):
every list and has all the advantages I can possibly
provide for them. Yeah, I mean there's a lot to
be said about about naming of children, and and different
ideas about naming of children, and yeah, the the downstream
results of those names. There's been so many studies and
about this. In fact, I think I I heard an

(31:22):
NPR story about a new one just the other day
that was quite fascinating. Um. But again, yeah, you generally
don't get to choose it yourself. Often you get to
tweak it later, or you or you do change it later,
but you're at least given that starting name that you
have to deal with. Yeah, for most folks, they're unable
to change their name until adulthood. So in many ways,

(31:45):
the cards have already been dealt. You've already lived eighteen
years of your life. You don't have much control over it,
perhaps until you're an adult. Yeah. So, because this is
a mathematics paper that I'm referring to today, there are
a lot of equations, charts, and graphs, specifically twenty two
pages worth of testing away. In particular, because we have

(32:07):
the ability to track success based on their model, and
a way to track um talent based on their model.
How are we going to determine luck? So they spend
twenty two pages determining that, which which will be very
hard for me to express on a podcast, but but hey,
they did it. So I recommend you open up this

(32:28):
paper and you look at it. You'll see a wide
variety of of ways to measure um uh good luck
and bad luck and um. If you'll kind of picture
in your mind, it's a pretty random distribution. Honestly, Uh,
it's hard to equate because it's not a typical uh
line like a like an twenty principle or a or

(32:49):
or a Gaussian curve like these. This is a brand
new thing to look at, which is the luck and
a lack of luck curve, which is um kind randomized.
So I recommend you look it up for details. But ultimately, uh,
the result is untalented people who don't work hard are

(33:10):
not successful. Okay, Also talented people who work hard are
not successful. An average person who is averagely talented and
works an average amount and is lucky is successful. That's
how you are successful in this country, which, honestly, I

(33:31):
think you could look at this in a couple of
different ways. Um. I think ultimately anyone who is lucky
and happened to just be a person in the world
living their life, you know what I mean. Um. Not
too long ago, we actually had a really interesting, uh
episode of stuff to Blow your mind. It was called
Barbara Blatchley on Why we Believe in Luck? And it

(33:54):
was really fascinating in particular because Blatchly she was she
was being interviewed in the episode, she was pointing out
that the biggest part of luck, honestly, there were a
few factors, but a big part of it was just
just showing up, just being in the world and existing.
So you are open to two lucky things happening to you.
That that's that's that this an enormous part of luck

(34:15):
is just being a person in the world. So if
you're an average person with average intelligence, living an average
life where you just do your life day to day,
you might get lucky and you might become one of
these mythical billionaires. But if you are I guess isolating
yourself too much, then then then you don't have the
chance for for most kinds of luck. Yeah, they say

(34:36):
you've got to be in the right place at the
right time, which means you've got to be you've got
to go to places. Yes, that's true. It's true. Again.
If you want to hear more about this, I really
do recommend Barbara Blatchley on Why we Believe in Luck?
Look it up in any of the stuff that blow
your mind feeds. It's it's a fascinating episode. So coming
back to why it's funny, um, I I think this

(34:57):
confirms what a lot of horror working people who are
not as successful as they want to be I want
to believe is true, which is that, hey, no matter
how hard I work, this country and perhaps this world
is not a meritocracy, I cannot just will myself or
work hard enough to become a billionaire. In fact, in

(35:19):
the paper they go into this where they're like, Okay,
how many hours of work can I put into this
formula to ensure billionaire status? And it's not humanly possible.
It's it's it's not. You can't track that same thing
with um all of the aspects. Really, if you can
go through with the individual elements and be like, how

(35:40):
can I become a billionaire and you can't determine it.
The luck has to be there. It's it's it's the
only factor that is truly determining this crazy segments, So
you can't discredit it. It's it's all you can really do. So, um,
I guess it's self fulfilling. It makes the most of us,
meaning you know, the majority of us who are not

(36:03):
as successful as we think we should be. It's a
confirmation of saying, don't worry, it's not your fault. That's
why it's funny to me. Yeah, But the kind of
the flip side is that it's also humbling as well,
because it's like, well, you're you're in the place you
are as well because of luck, Like you're here and
not in some more dire situation of which there are

(36:26):
plenty of of of examples to look at, Like I'm
I'm not there just because of luck as well, I'm
I was in the right right place and right time
to be here, Uh, even if I'm not up here
in this billionaire room. And that's why I think it's
important coming to that last segment here, it's that, Um,
first of all, it's impressive that they were able to

(36:46):
determine this through math and really kind of cut out
some um, some possibilities that people who do believe in
the hustle would claim. It's it's shutting down those arguments. Uh.
And it's also a great reminder that the world is
sadly not a meritocracy. Luck is a huge factor. Your
successes are not entirely your own, and neither are your failures.

(37:07):
You know, it's just an important thing to remember. So uh,
I think it does confirm what we already think. But
it's good to know that through math they were able
to determine its for sure. Yeah. Thank all right, le,
let's move on to another one of these prizes. I

(37:29):
decided to go with the physics prize here. Uh. This
one is a lot of fun. The physics prizes often,
like a lot of these studies, revolve around things you
might not expect um. And this one went to Frank Fish,
Zi Ming Wan uh Ming lu Chen Live Being, Guy
Uh Chun Yan Yi and Atla Incessic for trying to

(37:51):
understand how ducklings managed to swim in formation. So the
physics of ducklings swimming information uh um. And the the
actual paper that's referenced here energy conservation by formation swimming
metabolic evidence from ducklings by fish at all published in

(38:11):
the book Mechanics and Physiology of Animal Swimming. So yeah,
this is ultimately an older work here, but finally getting
the the the acclaim that it deserves. So first of all,
why is it funny? And I think it's obvious because
it concerns ducks, not only ducks, but ducklings. Um ducks

(38:32):
studies are somehow intrinsically humorous, perhaps simply because ducks are
intrinsically humorous if memory serves. A study about duck necrophilia
from I think two thousand three, or at least honored
in two thousand three, was also featured in the ig Nobles,
but various other topics have at least brought up ducks. Furthermore,
this study is about ducklings and revolves around a complex

(38:54):
attempt to understand something that ducks simply do. Like I
feel like most of us have probably seen a mother
duck followed in the water by her ducklings, and we
might say something like, oh, isn't that cute? Or oh,
look at those ducklings, isn't that sweet? But we're probably
not turning to the person next to us and going, oh,
my lord, how are they doing that? For? How is

(39:16):
that possible? And yet, at the same time, the study
is important because, as the study itself states, quote, the
study here sheds light on the importance of the fluid
mechanics on animals behavior and potentially evolution. So there's always
something I always find find it kind of amusing when
we have these cases of of physics, very serious physics

(39:37):
being used, being applied to something that is seemingly mundane
and thus revealing the hidden complexities of the thing. I
often find fluid mechanics of papers very interesting for this reason.
In some cases, they may tackle something seemingly mundane, like
it might be the way a coffee slashes around in
a mug or something like that, but it reveals this

(39:58):
strange world of visible and invisible fluids that we live in,
not only like liquids that we're interacting in, but also
gases that we live in and and essentially are swimming
through throughout our daily life, that we're born into and
that we die. And but again this this study is
funny too, just because it's ducks. I mean, think of
how many cartoon ducks that we have. It's quite a few, right,

(40:19):
Oh yeah, for sure, and yeah, I mean picture they're
funny walk. I'm sure that's that's the big part of it.
And uh and they're funny little noises they make. Yeah,
I think they make funny noises and they walk funny,
and that's that's amusing to us. Yeah, so it's why
we have Donald Duck. We have Daffy Duck, with have
ducula darkwing duck, the rest, I mean the entire uh

(40:42):
town of Duckberg, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, we have
Scrooge mc duck and so forth. And I imagine there
are a number of of less known duck car well,
and think about this way too, Marvel Comics. You know,
they have many serious superheroes running around doing their thing.
When they want to commit to hero, how are the duck?

(41:02):
That's so if you haven't seen this before, obviously when
we're talking about ducks and ducklings in the wild, Yeah,
it's just a mother duck in the water followed by
her ducklings in a straight line. And the obvious question, then,
if you want to dive deeper, is why are they
doing this formation? Is this the best formation from an

(41:23):
energy perspective, because that's often a way of understanding why
in the animals do the things they do, why animal
bodies are the way they are, why animal systems are
the way they are. I mean, there are some complexities
that arise in some sort of dead ends that can
occur via evolution, but for the most part, like energy
is a great place to look because evolution is is

(41:44):
essentially kind of lazy, and energy conservation is extremely important
for any organism, like what is the most efficient way
to achieve some end? So in this case, the researchers
created a simplified mathematical and numerical model and calculated the
wave drag on a group of waterfowl in a swimming formation,

(42:05):
and they highlighted uh two interesting findings too important factors
in all of this wave riding and wave passing quote.
By riding the waves generated by a mother duck, a
trailing duckling can obtain a significant wave drag reduction. When
a duckling swims at the quote sweet point behind its mother,

(42:26):
a destructive wave interference phenomenon occurs and the wave drag
of the duckling turns positive, pushing the duckling forward. More interestingly,
this wave riding benefit could be sustained by the rest
of the ducklings in a single file line formation. So
the the the answer then is that like this, this

(42:46):
is the most energy efficient way to do it. And
the ducklings, by riding in in this formation behind the mother,
are able to essentially be propelled along to a certain degree.
Like they're they're, they're, they're, they're, they're basically that they're
literally hiding in her wake. But the way that the
wave function here works, uh, they're kind of getting a
little boost. You know. I play a lot of Mario karts,

(43:09):
and I would have thought that that would have informed
me that this this is how it goes. But no, no,
I mean I didn't consider drag and all that at all.
Like like, if if I was thinking to myself, how
do they follow in a line, I'd go use their eyes.
They look at the duck in front of them and
they just follow that one. You know. But but this
makes so much more sense. Well yeah, because you I mean,

(43:33):
on one level, yes, it's like this is the mother.
It pays to keep your eyes on the mother. You're
learning from the mother, and you need to go where
she goes because she's also your protector. She's your source
of of nourishment and so forth. Um, But there does
seem to be this added this added level to it,
this energy efficiency to it. Uh. It also gets interesting
because the researchers here hypothesized that the energy efficiency of

(43:57):
this formation might be the driving force behind of course,
it's use in duck evolution, the reason that ducks continue
continue and have continued to use this formation. But they
also ponder its connection to imprinting. So they charge that
the importance of this practice may influence the duck's primal
instinct to follow any moving objects they see during this

(44:18):
crucial period. So imprinting it occurs usually during the first
day after a hatchling emerges and young ducklings usually, of
course they're imprinting on the mother duck, but they can
famously imprint on humans as well. There have been some
very important studies in which ducklings have imprinted upon a

(44:39):
human being. Now, don't do this, do not attempt to
go anywhere and have ducklings imprint upon you. Leave that
to the scientists. But it's interesting to think about about
this in in its connection to the swimming efficiency. This
idea of following, what it means to follow the mother around? Uh,
you know, it's it's uh, it's beyond on just learning

(45:01):
what she's doing. It's also benefiting, uh from from the
energy efficiency of following her in the water. It makes sense,
it makes sense. It's it's it's wonderful with science like
like like like like we were saying earlier, this is
the kind of study that I never would have considered.
I never would have considered the fact that like, oh,

(45:22):
these ducks do this more or less automatically through instinct
why you know, And it's it's just and then you
factor things in like, oh no, this is a this
is an evolutionary trait that can be you know, that
lead to to to their existence here in today's world,
you know, by by by following this, it's like, oh yeah, science,
you know, A plus B equals see, yeah, I got it.

(45:45):
And it it drives home why bio mimetics solutions are
are are often so effective because anything you see animals
doing like this in the wild, it's not just the
way they happen to do it. It's not it's not
like you know, it's easy to compare to things like
human traditions where it's like, well, why do they wear
those funny hats? Well, we just wear these funny hats.
This is the tradition. It's important to us, but in

(46:07):
the animal world is especially These are these are things
that have been selected for These are things that have
undergone like rigorous um uh, evolutionary forces over time and
so inevitably, like the way that the duck and the
ducklings are behaving, like this is the most efficient way
to do the thing. And I'm not sure off the

(46:30):
top of the top of my head, like where you
might be able to apply this particular scenario to engineering.
And maybe there's some sort of like dinghy based um
application here. But but it's the very reason that many
cases we can say, well, will we have this engineering
problem to solve, how can we best do it? Well,
we could crunch out some numbers, we could we could

(46:51):
bust out some some some tests and some models. Or
we could look and see, what's a similar problem that
has been faced in evolution, has been faced in nature,
and what lessons seem to have been developed there, what
seems to be the evolved solution? And can we just
copy their work instead of doing it all from scratch? Here, Yeah,

(47:12):
it makes perfect sense. Let's say you know you you
are a robotics company who are building robotic freighters to
send freight across the ocean. For example, if you want
to spend you know, less on on on fuel. However,
that may factor into your equation. Perhaps you should follow
a duckling following its mother formula, you know, perhaps using

(47:35):
that drag. Keeping that in mind, like one big freighter
in the fronts and a few baby freighters behind it.
Maybe that's the best solution. Who knows? Who knows? All right,
we're looking at the clock here and it looks like
we've about reached the time limit here for this episode.
But don't worry. We're gonna come back in the next
core episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, and we're

(47:57):
going to continue looking at some but not all, off
the two Ignobile Prize winners. Yeah, we've got plenty more
for you. We're looking at a big old list here.
Some we've already researched, some we still have to research.
But yeah, we've got a lot more fun on the way.
That's right, So yeah, check back in with us on Thursday.
Just a reminder that yeah, two season Thursdays are the

(48:18):
core episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind. On Monday's
we do listener mail on Wednesdays and short form artifact
or Monster Effect and on Fridays that's when we do
Weird How Cinema. That's there time to set aside most
serious concerns and just talk about a weird film. Uh,
let's see if you want to interact with other listeners
other followers of Stuff to Blow your Mind. Uh, there

(48:39):
are at least a couple of places you can go.
There is still a Facebook group called Stuff to Blow
your Mind Discussion Module. You can seek that out there
and uh asked to join, I think you have to
answer a very simple quiz to gain access. If you
would like to join us on discord, well email us
and I'll shoot that link out to you. And oh,
if you use letterbox, is L E T P E

(49:01):
R B O x D dot com. Well, Weird House
Cinema has an account on there. It's just us, your
name weird House. You can follow us there and that's
where we keep track of all the movies we've covered
on the show. As always, thanks to Seth Nicholas Johnson
for producing the show and stitching it all together for
us and in this case also co hosting. And if

(49:22):
you would like to get in touch with us via email,
well send us a message at contact Stuff to Blow
Your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is
production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts for my
heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or

(49:44):
wherever you're listening to your favorite shows. Past time a
time to about about