Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how Stuff
Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Julie Douglas. And
in this they could kick this one off. I want
everyone to think back on their most recent argument. I mean, like,
not like a little argument, but when something where it
(00:25):
actually got a little heated, even even if it was
just a heat on one side only. Yeah, and we're
not talking like, hey, did you you know you gotta
leave the seat up? You know kind of argument right
right that, you know, because that's sort of like a
wrote usual argument between couples, right yeah, and talking about
something that there was a topic and you felt passionate
(00:46):
about it, and you had a story to tell about
why you were passionate, and you were arguing with this story,
and and and I do have some serious questions about
anyone who's still arguing, for um, keeping the seat up
like that just seems. I mean, I'm just gonna agree
that we can get an entire podcast on that, and
I'm sure we could find some science and some stats.
(01:07):
Well in in a way, this podcast is a podcast
about that, because that's actually a great argument to keep
in mind because I have met uh none, I guess
you can call them men who the people who like
to put the seat up? Who or make an impassioned
argument for why it's it's totally cool that they don't
put the seat down. You know, they'll be like, oh, well,
(01:27):
it just you know, it's one figures and the other
or I can't remember all the arguments they make four
uh continuing and doing this thing they do. But it
actually kind of kind of strikes at the core of
what arguing is all about, which we're going to discuss
in this podcast, the science of arguing. So first, let's
back up. Let's imagine the sort of classical idea of arguing. Okay, well, well,
(01:49):
I think of it more in terms of debate, really debate.
So imagine some old Greek men in their their their robes.
Was it called a toga then, or is it just
kind of a robe. Let's go with toga. Let's go
with toga. Yeah, just create a more instantly visible picture
in the mind old man in toga, like a little
flabby chest kind of exposed there. So you're gonna lot
(02:12):
of details. Standing in the middle of this forum and
they're discussing the you know, the philosophy of we'll not
toilet seats, but but pretty much every other aspect of life.
One is taking this side of the argument, the other
this side. You know, what is the what is the
meaning of existence? Why are we here? How should we
approach government? I mean everything is on the table. You
(02:32):
go in ancient Greece. Here we're at the assembly. Yes, yeah,
maybe they're even talking about some of the architecture, and
they say, oh, but if we do, those people will
think it's a vomitory. Um. Hundreds of years later, I
think that we're so excessive that we need a place
to vomit our transgressions. Right. But the the idea, the
sort of classical idea here of of debate and are
doing is that is, you get people that are passionate
(02:54):
about about one side or another, get them together in
a room, and out of all this debate will emerge
truth will emerge, uh, an idea of actually which direction
we should go in? Yes, and many judicial systems are
predicated on this model, right yeah, So I mean bring
the lawyers in. One side will present this side of
the case, another will present the other, and out of
(03:14):
this some sort of truth will emerge. That the jury
or the judge will see and the decision will be made. Right,
there's a noble path to arguing times. Um, But as
we have uh discovered as of late, there is a
dark side to debate, which may or may not come
as a surprise to you. So let's talk about our
old friend, confirmation bias, which we've talked about quite a bit. Yes, okay,
(03:37):
this is this idea that we cherry picked the information
around us to support our own agenda or the idea
we already have formed in our mind. Right, and so
that's why we make mistakes. That's why we make errors
in logic, and a lot of times we thought about
this as a flaw, but it turns out that this
could actually be a feature of arguing. And um, you know,
(04:01):
there's some have been some people who say, why hasn't
natural selection actually ferreted out this part of our cognition?
Because if it keeps causing us to make mistakes, why
is it still with us. We'd be much smarter about
our choices if we ran them up against data that
challenge them, and we don't. Right. And it also the
other way of looking at this too is that it
(04:22):
instead of saying oh, why can't we have why can't
we have a news uh, you know, corporation that actually
presents both sides equally, because that would kind of be
out of keeping with with with how our mind works. Yeah. Yeah,
it turns out that this again, this is a feature
of reasoning. Um. Cognitive social scientists Hugo merci A and
(04:43):
Dan Sperber think that we've been looking at confirmation confirmation
bias all wrong. They pose it in their what they
call their argumentative theory that because we humans are so
good at reasoning, uh, that confirmation bias is actually a
feature of it and not a detraction from logicum, even
though gets us in trouble sometimes. And really the reason
that we argue is not to get to a rational conclusion,
(05:06):
but to win the argument. So basically, the way I
was thinking about this, and part of this is because
I've been watching Nature shows a lot the last couple
of days, because I think of those elephant walruses, you know,
the ones were the males of the big flapping noses
and the teeth and the scars, like slam into each
other and fight on the beach to see who'll get
to breed with this Uh, this harem of beautiful elephant
(05:27):
seals like that is essentially what all arguing is and
not to learn it men in togas standing around the
philosophizing about the world. It's basically like, it's this headbutting,
chest dumping together kind of a situation. Well, and some
people would say to you that besides being a bunch
of wrong headed walruses, that it's also our ego. Oh totally.
(05:51):
I mean, our egos are the walruses that are slamming
what I mean, seals that are slamming into each other here,
you know, I feel like again, think back to that
big argument you you personally had, uh, and you'll probably
find you'll probably find your ego as the the key
instigator there. Like uh, Like, I'm just thinking back to
the last argument I had, um, which I think was
(06:12):
with my editor. But but there there came, there comes up,
Like if I was to look at a timeline of
that of the conversation becoming an argument, there is a
certain point where it becomes less about significantly less about
the topic that we are discussing, and more about the
the need to be right and the and the inability
(06:33):
to let the other person be right and Uh, I
feel like this is definitely this is definitely a part
of of so many argumentative situations. What varies is our
ability to to realize, uh, what's pulling the strings? Well, uh,
this is This is from um Mercy, a uh and
edge dot org conversation that he had with edge dot org.
(06:55):
He says, if you take the point of view of
the argumentative theory, having a confirmation bias its complete sense.
When you're trying to convince someone, you don't want to
find arguments for the other side. You want to find
arguments for your side, and that's what the confirmation bias
helps you to do. So that's what's what we're talking
about here, is um you know that's serving your ego, right.
(07:15):
You probably could poke holes in your own argument if
you really wanted to find the truth, but you are
building a case, right, Yeah, there kinds of the point
where you're it's it's not not about figuring out, well,
what is actually the best solution of this problem we're discussing,
But what can I do to support the fact that
I am right and I am going to destroy you
for thinking differently? Yeah, yeah, it's it. I mean the
the what he says is that it is to devise
(07:37):
and evaluate argument arguments intended to persuade, so destroy persuade. Yes, Um,
same thing right, Uh, well, at least in terms of
metaphorical arguments. But really, I mean what we're talking about
here too is and we've talked about this before, reality
is as fiction. You know, a lot of times we're
creating our own realities and they are a fiction they
(08:00):
you know, because they're particular to us. Um, there's no
absolute truth in each of our realities, right right, Like
another um argument I can think of because I cannot
argue with my friends for the most part. Um, well,
well I can think of a few friends they are
particularly argumentative. But um. But one of the last arguments
I remember having with with a group of friends, and
this is one of those arguments where I was the
(08:21):
only one that was really impassionate about it. But it
was over whether a particular movie was merely a social
uh quirk or just sort of interesting and in what
it said about society, or whether it was actually either
harmful to society or on some level telling about what
is wrong with us. And uh, and I was very
(08:41):
impassionate about it, and and in and in trying to
make my case. I'm basically saying this, I'm telling a
story about what reality is, and how this thing I'm
arguing about factors into that, uh, that that fiction, that
that particular story, that version of reality, and in their
version reality, it plays a slightlyfferent role. And well, and
(09:02):
this is the problem maybe why we can't many times
reach some sort of common ground, because we are furthering
our own story. Right, We are essentially living in different worlds.
I mean, and I say that, and it's a very
um kind of cliche thing to say, but think of
it as like literally a different world, a different universe,
a different um, a different worldview, a different bubble of reality.
(09:27):
And these bubbles are bumping up against each other. Well
don't we see this play out all the time in
American politics, right, because there's so much information out there,
there's so much rhetoric. But you know, it's not It seems,
at least most of the time that the point of
a lot of the debates isn't to actually get to
some sort of solution or some sort of rational thought process,
(09:47):
but to further whatever that agenda is. And um, you know,
I just think about it just in our day to
day interactions with with one another. You know, I grew
up the family that loved to debate. My brother loves
to debate, and I can look at the patterns in
our conversation and I can see the same sort of
(10:08):
patterns going on, and you know, political conversations going on,
where you know, you take these strategies like you know,
if the other person maybe has a more rational perspective,
you may start looking at fringe details and throwing little
Molotov cocktails. They are just to get the person feeling
a little bit more unstable in his or her argument um.
(10:29):
And so it's it is a sport really, um. But
you know that being said, uh, there is actually an
upside to arguing, and we'll talk about that when we
get back. All right, we're back arguing the upside um. So,
(10:50):
especially as it was we're discussing this argumentative theory, it's
easy to sort of say, oh, well, arguing is just
kind of horrible. Then it's just people bumping chests against
each other. It's just egos acting out each other at
each other with nod teeth, and it's uh, individuals just
throwing around, um different versions of the world and never
actually learning anything. Yeah, but according to Mercier and Sperber,
(11:11):
group evaluations can actually sess out rational lines of thinking.
And maybe not in American politics, but but obviously we
know dissent is good. I mean, this is the basis
of democracy. Right, Well, I mean, I guess you could
make the case, U is it is it really a
group discussion if they're like two parties, you know, the
two parties, that breaks down to two enormous people arguing
(11:35):
each Well, that's what people have as often cited as
a problem of the American political system. Right, that's not
necessarily representative of all citizens. Um, but but you know,
in theory, if you have a bunch of arguments before
a group of people, they can be evaluated as a whole.
And then this is when the flawed logic of confirmation
bias actually gets to run up against information that can
(11:57):
challenge each argument until the truly rational one emerges victorious.
This is the idea, and we have seen this in play,
you know, you know, there's certainly think tanks are predicated
on this as well. And we've also discussed a group
think and uh an emergence and the idea that you know,
people guessing at the jelly beans, and as long as
they don't have too many preconceived notions about what they're
(12:19):
they're they're guessing about, you know, if if they haven't
been told what they're going to believe, the truth will
often emerge from what the street, from what the the
the average person is thinking. That's right if they haven't
been influenced by the person next to them. But it's
also good for you on a physical level. Um. You know,
we we can certainly be really irrational at times and
(12:39):
as a result, all of us have had that knockdown,
drag out argument at one time or another that she
makes you feel awful. Um, So it makes sense that
most of the time we would avoid a conflict if
we could. But it turns out that arguing is actually
better for you than turning the other cheek and avoidance.
And when I say arguing, I mean in a productive way. Okay, Um,
(13:00):
So how do we know? From a study conducted by
the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan,
there were one thousand, eight hundred and forty two adults
ages UH eighty four, and they were asked each day
for eight days whether they had engaged in an argument,
or whether they had experienced a situation in which they
could have argued but decided to let it pass without
(13:21):
a fight. Uh. The subjects also gave a live examples
for four of those eight days, and researcher Kira Bird
found out that sixty percent of the participants sidestepped arguments. Okay,
so that sort of mirrors what we normally do anyway.
And it was found that this group had elevated levels
of the stress hormone cortisol, which we know can really
(13:42):
mess up your body when it's elevated. And um, those
who experienced tension and argued and those who experienced tension
and avoided arguments all felt some sense of aneyes, and
we're talking about negative emotions upset stomachs. But those who
avoided arguments still felt the emotions and physical symptoms the
next day. So I had far reaching effects for those
(14:03):
people who avoided it. I ran across an interesting study
myself from University of Virginia and this one that was
just recently published. UM, and it makes the argument that
an argumentative teenager is is actually an ideal an ideal
person to have in your household. UM, Because though it
may not seem like it at the time, right, right.
(14:25):
Uh So, if you were yourself a teenager, and I
know we have teen listeners out there, or if you're
a parent of a teenager, uh, you may put yourself
into this scenario. The study argues that these a disputes
between a team and the parent are actually a symbol
of keen developmental separation from the parents and uh and
it's it's a vital part of growing up and that
(14:46):
it actually, um it actually leads to lifelong benefits to
the child that they as they grow up, they're going
to be if they argue with the parents a lot there,
they're sort of testing those muscles. They're using those muscles
of indefinite thought. So if they then faced with, say
the decision of whether to uh engage in underage drinking
(15:06):
or any other kind of risky behavior, they're more likely
to turn that kind of stuff down. They're going to
be more resistant to peer pressure. I've also read to
you that's a sign of respect that the child actually
or the teenager wants to engage in debate with you
because they're really interested in your thoughts and it's trying
to you know, they're trying to inform their own worldview
and run them up against their thoughts. So again, you
know there's that independent thought emerging. Yeah, a teenager who
(15:30):
thinks independently and maybe rebels against whatever the the man
is saying. You know, I mean it may be a
little annoying when you are the man, but when they
get out there in the real world, they're gonna maybe
avoid us some of the more the more harmful elements
in society. Yeah. So so any of you team listeners,
you could always melt the heart of your parents by
(15:50):
saying I'm just arguing with you because I respect your opinion.
They try it out, see if it works. So what
is the future of debate? Based on what we know
here and the technology that continues is to emerge around us.
So where are we headed? Uh, it's up for debate,
I suppose. Uh. Well, there's this little paradox of the Internet. Right,
everything is available to us at our fingertips information all
(16:12):
the time. Um, so many debates that you could engage in,
but there are systems that continue to winnow down and
serve up only what we like. Alright, And instantly Facebook
comes to mind. Facebook, Yeah, they their news feed has
a feature that learns what you like and will show
updates from only friends that you align your political interests with.
For instance, Uh, stumble Upon is another good example. It's
(16:35):
trying to ferret out what you like and what you
don't like. Right, these are situations where you're pressing, oh,
I like that, I don't like that, I'm responding to this,
I'm leaving a comment on that, and eventually it's learning.
It's it's via algorithms. It's figuring out what you like
and only serving that to you. Right, So, if you
were to just go into absolute autopilot and allow all
(16:55):
these systems to serve up all this information that it
thinks you like, then know you've really narrowed the scope
of what you're exposed to. And then you know what
happens to our worldviews just kind of shrink down to
these little flivers of the like the underlying audiologies behind
the information that served up. Well, it's like stumble Upon.
It's it's like it's serving your dinner and it's and
it's saying, oh, well, he doesn't really like to eat spinach,
(17:18):
so I'm going to quit serving it to him. He
doesn't like l O L cats um, he's not getting
any more of that, she's not really into Huffington's post.
No more of that, uh to the point where like
maybe maybe you need l O L cat every now
and then, maybe maybe you need to be exposed to uh,
any number of media outlets that you have turned your
back on because you don't really appreciate what they have
(17:38):
to offer. We need l O L cat all the
time in my opinion. This is actually from the book
called Monoculture, How One Story Is Changing Everything by F. S. Michael's.
Um he's kind of saying, like, you know, these these
filters on the Internet could create a monoculture for us, right,
and not just the Internet, but different aspects of the
life that we live. Um. He says, a monoculture doesn't
(18:00):
mean that everyone believes exactly the same thing or acts
in exactly the same way, but that we end up
sharing key beliefs and assumptions that direct our lives. Because
the monoculture is mostly left unarticulated until it has been
displaced years later. We learn as boundaries by trial and error.
So if you grew up in the Dark Ages, you
probably didn't know you were in the Dark Ages, right,
(18:21):
So you know, the Renaissance arrived and all its glory
and uh ideas and and and made you completely have
a paradigm shift. It does seem when I think back
on the on my own use of the Internet, it
seems like there was I used to argue more on
the internet. Now, possibly that could be in a situation
where I just had more time and have like less
of a life, uh in the old day, so I
(18:44):
could I can engage in long arguments about about one
toprica or another. But it seems like, uh, it does
seem like things like Facebook and UH and stumble Upon.
If it's it's it's made an environment where you are
only tuning into the things that you agree with and
you're not encountering the people that you would argue with. Well, no,
it's interesting you said that, because I mean, we live
(19:06):
in Atlanta, and I've always joked that I have a
five mile radius in Atlanta, and it's you know, it's
my neighborhood. It's what I like, it's you know, I
chose to live there because it fits my ideas of
what a neighborhood is and what it contains. But there
are section segments of Atlanta though, that do not appeal
to you. But there are some that do. But for
the most part, because it's my neighborhood and I'm situated there,
(19:27):
I don't so much go out of this five mile
radius except for when I come to work. Um. But
the point is is that are we creating our own
little neighborhoods in our Internet existence, which are providing this,
uh you know, fodder for thought and in essence creating
these silos of thought? Um, you know because just as
you had mentioned, uh, you know, you're not as argumentative
(19:49):
um the internet as you used to be. But is
this because you are you know, being served up information
that you like that's being selected for you to some extent? Yeah,
I mean it'll sort of allows us, Paul to crawl
even more into our bubble and sort of and live
inside this, uh, this carefully crafted bubble of beliefs. Well,
and then there's also this idea that we kind of
(20:11):
have to put the blinders on sometimes because it is
completely overwhelming. Yeah. You know, so if you're trying to
seek out every single argument or perspective on an issue,
I mean you you could become completely dumbfounded really yea,
or enlightened. All right, Well, let's put that topic to
bed and call out the robot that is an argumentative robot.
(20:34):
By the way, Yes that he's good enough to to
shut it when we're actually recording, but yeah, it's way
to l afterwards. All right, here's one from Azra Azra right,
Senden says high, I just started listening to your show
a couple of months ago, and I wanted to say
I really really enjoy it. I just want to listen
to your episode about our cohabitation with robot servants when
(20:54):
you mentioned Siri and I want and I felt compelled
to say something. I have a very small list, but
it is still there and makes life very difficult when
trying to call customer support. All these companies that are
trying to get you to use a computer instead of
a human being make me very frustrated because the computers
never understand me. I end up yelled at by yelling
at the thing and pressing random numbers in order to
(21:15):
confuse it enough until it connects me with a human being.
Now I am not the biggest Apple fanatic, but I
have just started playing with Syria on the iPhone and
am thoroughly impressed. It understands almost everything I say. This
is my first positive experience talking to a computer and
it might turn me around on the whole subject. Now,
if they could get it to understand accent, that would
be really great. Thank you for your time. Oh, very cool.
(21:38):
That just the cract maps. I was just thinking about
the times that I've actually yelled automated oh yeah voice
recording before, and then it felt foolish or was really
sarcastic toward it. Yeah. I've also wondered like sometimes I'll
be like I'll be like, oh, I just want to
tell this machine off, and then I'm like, oh, well,
what if they had a program the end to where
if I start saying bad things to it, it's going
(21:58):
to just instantly shut me down. Yeahs, or it's starts
saying to you you know this is in the future.
I sent some sarcasm in your voice. Would you like
to continue the call? All right? Here's another one. This
is from Becky, and Becky writes in and says, I
love stuff to blow your mind. I especially love listening
to it while I'm studying or reading textbooks because it
breaks up the monotony of taking notes on dry textbook material.
(22:21):
I especially love when something I've heard recently on this
podcast comes up in a conversation on one of my classes,
because then I can quote you guys and seem very
seem much more knowledgeable than I really am. Smiley histnic place.
I am really behind on episodes because I'm a pretty
new listener. But I just listen to your Musical Hallucinations
book episode and I wanted to write in because it's
(22:41):
really interesting to me as a psychology major in college.
I don't think this counts is true musical hallucination. But
I often find myself hearing music during the early morning
hours before my alarm clock goes off. My alarm plays
music to wake me up, and I often wake up
totally convinced that music that music is playing, but when
I look at the clot it is time to get up.
Yet sometimes it's so convincing that I start to get
(23:03):
up and only later recognize that I have woken up
before I need to. Sometimes it's a specific song that
I can identify or even hear the lyrics uh in
the voice or the singer, And other times it is
more generic music that doesn't seem like any specific song
that I know or have heard before. It can be
quite annoying because after I wake up thinking i've heard
the music, I usually can't go back to sleep. So
(23:24):
that's my musical hallucination story. Thanks very much for making
the podcast and making me aware of strength phenomena without
ever needing to leave my dorm room. Oh, Becky, you know,
I mean seriously, it sounds like you need to be composing.
I mean this, This is what I happened to Paul McCartney. Right,
He woke up with the tune of Yesterday in his
head and immediately ran over to his piano and I
put it down, and he was afraid that he had
(23:45):
actually ripped off a tune. Uh So, I don't know.
Look into it, Becky, you could be a composing. It
brings to mind like I have this gripe that is
growing up as far as the way our devices use music,
Like I end up using my iPhone to play music
a lot of times when I'm like in the house
and all, and it will do this thing where you're
getting a call, right, you're listening to a mixer, an
(24:06):
album or something. You're getting a call and then the
music will sort of dive down. They'll leave this this
pose will suddenly develop, It'll it'll go silent for a second.
And then the call, we'll we'll register, you'll get your
ringtone or whatever. But it's got to the point where
there's a naturally occurring uh dip in the volume, say
like a gap between tracks or just an abrupt stop
(24:27):
between between the tracks and a mix. It'll throw me
offer a second, I think I'm getting a phone call.
And it really makes me mad at the technology because
I'm like, this would this was not an issue before,
before the technology became involved in this. That would have
just been a gap that wouldn't have registered in my
brain as anything like, oh, you might be giving a
call from your security company, or oh, um, you know,
(24:48):
my wife's trying to reach me, I you know, or
I wonder if that's my mom calling that kind of thing. Well,
you need to blame your predictive modeling mind, which it's
all excited, start serving up a little dopamine to your
brain because it thinks that's call from your wife. Yeah,
so there there you go. It's it's uh, I just
I just hate the technology has done into my music.
It's kind of like when your brain into my brain.
(25:08):
It's like when suddenly, uh, you'll hear a sound in
a mix, sounds sort of like a ringtone and I'll
throw you off for a second, you think of getting
a phone call it? Yeah. Technology. So, speaking of technology,
if you would like to share something with us, you
can find us on Twitter and Facebook. We're below the
Mind on Twitter and on Facebook. You can just search
(25:30):
for stuff to Blow your Mind and you will find us.
Share anything you would like, like two of us about UH,
current or past or future podcast episodes, and indeed, let
us know what you think about arguing, like how does UH?
How do? How do you? How do you view your
own arguments? Are you aware of your own ego and
its role in your argument? It is nature? Are you
(25:50):
a master debater? Indeed? Indeed, all right, then send us
an email at blow the Mind at how stuff works
dot com. Be sure to check out our new video podcast,
Stuff from the Future. Join how staf Work staff as
we explore the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow.