Guided by Science

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
Twists. This Week in Science episode number ten twenty three,
recorded on Wednesday, July twenty third, twenty twenty five, Guided
by Science. Hey everyone, I'm doctor Kiki, and tonight on
the show we will fill your head with misinformation, replication
and screaming plants. But first, thanks to our amazing Patreon

(00:27):
sponsors for their generous support of Twists. You can become
a part of the Patreon community at patreon dot com.
Slash This Week in Science.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
Yes Coclaimer disclaimer disclaimer. Science tends to be a reverent
of pre existing beliefs. Overturning the Earth centric universe with
one that centers around the Sun upset thousands of years
of well reasoned observations and many mythical contemplations later discoveries,

(00:57):
so that the Sun itself is moving along a rural
stretch of a spiral arm amidst billions of stars in
the Milky Way galaxy, any universe brimming frothing, even with
trillions of galaxies, firmly upending any concept of humanity being

(01:17):
at or even near the center of anything. Archaeological anthropology
has also gained an especially irreverent reputation, as there is
scarcely an origin story of any culture on the planet
that has not been amended or completely refuted by its findings.

(01:38):
Scientific irreverence also applies to the field itself when new
evidence emerges to question long accepted interpretations, including those once
presented as prevailing frameworks. Science updates its knowledge overturns those
well reasoned, well found assumptions. Real knowledge is never being

(02:01):
right about anything. It's earned through methodical seeking of truth
wherever it may lead, and seeking that truth is likely
what led you here to another episode of This Week
in Science coming up next. I've got the kind of

(02:22):
mind I can't get enough. I want to learn everything.
I want to fill it all up with new discoveries.
It happened every day this week.

Speaker 3 (02:31):
There's only one place to go to find the knowledge.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Zek I want to know.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Lots, lots lots happened this week in science. Lots happened
this week in science.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Good science, Freekiki, and a good science. To you too,
Justin and everyone out there. Welcome to another episode of
This Week in Science. We're back again to talk about
oh all the science that we want to on this
show that we're doing with you right now. Thank you

(03:15):
for joining us. The show is full of magical, wondrous,
bounteous curiosity and maybe some misinformation.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Oh my gosh, Oh that's my favorite.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, we're gonna be having an interview tonight discussing misinformation
with doctor Matthew Facciani in just a minute. Just a minute,
and of course on this week's show. Unfortunately we're missing
Blair tonight, but I brought some great stories. I am
paying homage to the animal corner with the things that

(03:49):
moths pay attention to and deciding where to lay their eggs.
They might not like, you know, loud noises. We'll find
that out. Additionally, I have the brains of friends, the
things we remember.

Speaker 1 (04:04):
We should give those back?

Speaker 2 (04:06):
No, no, my, now.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
I'm very suspicious about why Blair is missing.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
A jar full of brain Blair brain, No, I do
not I have, but tonight on the show, I have
brains of friends, the things we remember, a potential rewind
button for brain damage and some replication. What do you have, Justine?

Speaker 1 (04:32):
That would be very nice. I've got not so ancient
Australians after all. Maybe Oh, I've got a secret of
the Stonehenge bluestones revealed, and uh, why taking blood pressure
medicine that night might be better at controlling it during

(04:53):
the day.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
Interesting. We always know circadian rhythms are in involved places.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
But it's very involved in this one.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Want to know more. I want to know all the
things I can do in the daytime and the nighttime
and when they're going to work perfectly, so I can
have the exact right schedule justin I need to know.
All right, everybody, as we jump into the show right now,
I want to remind you that subscribing to the Twist
podcast on your favorite platform, or helping a friend do

(05:26):
so if they have not already, is just going to
be one of the best things you can do this week. Additionally,
you can find us on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch. Look
for Twist Science this Week in Science or Twist twis.
You can also head to our website Twist dot org,
where you can get information show notes about every episode
the show, the hosts find ways to subscribe as well,

(05:50):
and you know, just remember we try to be here
as often as possible, usually Wednesdays around eight pm Pacific time.
If you want to catch us live on the innerweb,
don't don't du And now, without further ado, you're ready,
Are you ready? To jump into the science.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
No more ados, no a do A, do a do.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
It's time to introduce our guest this evening. Doctor Matthew
Fatiani is a post doctoral researcher at the University of
Notre Dame. I want to do Notre Dame in Notre
Dame in the Computer Science and Engineering Department. He is
an interdisciplinary social scientist with a background in neuroscience and

(06:33):
psychology and a PhD in sociology. His research focuses on
media literacy, misinformation, social networks, political polarization, identities, and this
is the Good One artificial intelligence. He's also a science communicator,
has written for various media outlets, spoken at conferences, and
hosts a podcast, Misguided the Podcast where he explores how

(06:58):
social and psychological forces shape the way we process and
consume information. His new book, Misguided, Where Misinformation Starts, How
It Spreads, and What to Do about It, was recently
published by Columbia University Press. Doctor Matthew, Welcome to the show.

Speaker 4 (07:17):
Hello, it's great to be here. Thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (07:20):
I'm so glad.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Based on that, you must be busy right now or normal?

Speaker 4 (07:28):
Well, what do you mean? Was there something going on
related to misinformation.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
Maybe maybe it's a term.

Speaker 1 (07:38):
I'm not wondering. I'm beginning to wonder if we have
an untapped resource of of geniuseness in the world. Because
to be able to hold all these diametrically opposed concepts
in mind at the same time and still believe a thing, uh,
seems like it would take a lot of work, Like

(08:01):
a lot of mental work is going into just believing
in some of the misinformation. And I mean I don't
just mean the political stuff going on. I see a
lot of the the fake archaeology stuff, the easily seemingly
easily debunked things where you can look things up in
this age, and yet it still gets like tremendous amounts

(08:25):
of attention.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
I think, as we know, jump into what this is
all about. Right in the science realm, we've come across
ideas like flat Earth, which you talk about a bit
a little bit in your book, and there are documentaries
and other things related to the communities of people that
ascribe to this belief. But before we jump into all

(08:49):
these like different directions and all this stuff, what is
misinformation and how did you get interested in it?

Speaker 4 (08:58):
Yeah? So misinformation broadly refers to false or misleading information.
So it's a super big umbrella term, and it's actually
an academic term in the psychology literature that was popularized
in the nineteen eighties with research about false memories. So
there's been people studying misinformation for decades now, and a

(09:19):
lot of the research that I started reading about in
the early twenty tens was about psychological bias and how
that influences information processing. So my background is a little
weird because I changed majors in graduate school, which is
not very typical, but I was a neuroscience PhD student
and then I switched into sociology and finished my PhD

(09:43):
in that field, and I was at the same university,
so some of my credits and stuff actually transferred. But
it was an interesting journey, but a really cool journey
because I was able to have that background of cognitive
neuroscience and psychology and thinking about how the brain processes information,
but then also studying how all these social elements influence

(10:05):
our beliefs and attitudes. And that's really the perspective I
take when I study misinformation. I am trying to understand
how these social forces influence how we process information, and
then what we can do about it to become hopefully
more objective and more accurate, and how we respond to
the information we're exposed to.

Speaker 2 (10:29):
What I love about the wave your journey has led
you to where you are is that you know you
have this kind of cognitive the understanding of the underpinnings
of the brain right, how it works, and now you're
looking more into Okay, let's look outside. What are the
social pressures and how does that influence what happens inside?

(10:49):
So the feedback loop of self, society or culture and
how that all works together. But is there like the
misinformation misguided right, is different from disinformation, But like do

(11:11):
we need to worry about or think about what is
misinformation or disinformation on a daily basis? Is that even
something people need to understand.

Speaker 4 (11:22):
I think so because disinformation refers to intention so intentionally
trying to mislead someone and spread falsehoods. So when we
think about where the misinformation big umbrella term, where this
all comes from, we can think about the people who
spread it and has have incentives to spread falsehoods. So

(11:42):
when we think about like big picture, macro level our
information environments, it's important to also think about you know,
political incentives for example, that's a big one, or economic incentives,
and I think that can help us understand the supply
side of misinformation and disinformed. And I do talk about

(12:02):
that in the book, but I mostly focus on the
demand side of it, like why are we susceptible to it?
Why do people seek this out, and how all those
processes work on both an individual level, but then also
looking at community levels and then institutional levels as well.

Speaker 2 (12:20):
So in the sense of the misinformation, it's like this
is like here on the show, maybe I misstate something.
Maybe I don't accurately report a news story related to
science is but the intent was to be accurate, but
I made a mistake. Is that spreading misinformation? And then

(12:41):
if people take what I say and spread it further,
is that then the spread of misinformation versus I want
to make money off of nutritional supplements and so I
tell a story about the science of how they work.
I make it up right.

Speaker 4 (13:01):
That's a great example. So, yeah, if if you misunderstand
something and you tell a friend about something, maybe supplements,
Like maybe you read something and you think that, hey,
you know this supplement I think could help someone, So
I share this this information with them. That's not evidence based.
It's not back then reality. That's just you know, misleading

(13:23):
false information that anyone can fall for. The disinformation side
of it is, Okay, I want to make money, and
I know if I tell people this pill will make
them feel better, they'll buy my pill. So I'm going
to intentionally mislead them. The tricky thing is with with
the people who do this. I think sometimes they kind
of deceive themselves and they kind of want to it's true,

(13:46):
so that.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
There is there a little wavy gray area there somewhere
like you, it's disinformation. So for for instance, flat earth
was Russian uh propaganda. It was like a flag. It
was a test case to see how easy it would
be to get people to believe something on social media.

(14:09):
So like in the early in the two thousands, they ooh,
this thing kind of has a little group of people
who talk about it sometimes. So we are going to
serve disinformation. We're going to create these accounts and talk
about the reality of the flat earth that we live on.
And they and that was propaganda, that was lies, that

(14:29):
was disinformation. And also why don't we call disinformation lies
in propaganda?

Speaker 4 (14:38):
You can, and some people do use those terms. So
I guess tricky once you dive into which terms you know,
people prefer.

Speaker 1 (14:44):
To those, you can't call it properly. It used to
be called propaganda, but but they changed it.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Now it's called us.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
No, now it's called public relations. That was we had.
The US government had a department of propaganda and the
same Oh God, Brene's I can't remember his first name,
but he he was Freud's nephew through marriage.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
Oh yeah, yeah, he started.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
But he was he was working for the Department of
Propaganda and started to realize, like after the war, had
a bad connotation, so turned it into public relations. And
so all of these public relations firms that we have
today you can imagine, is just rebranded propaganda. That's that's
what their title is.

Speaker 2 (15:34):
So the propaganda of flat earth was spread on social media,
and then people came together, they started listening to it.
They were susceptible to the disinformation, and then started sharing
it and turning it into a whole thing that they believed,
and so they weren't knowingly spreading disinformation in that case.

(15:54):
Are the people who are part of the flat earth community,
who share this information, who try to talk with other
people about it, who truly believe it that we live
on a flat Are they then misguided and spreading misinformation?

Speaker 1 (16:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (16:11):
I mean from their perspective, they think they're they're sharing
accurate information. So I think it's important to unpack, like
why we have these motivations. And when I talk about
in the book, I cite this great documentary Behind the
Curve that does interview flat earthers and describe their perspective

(16:32):
and importantly their communities, And I use them as an
example because I think it helps us understand something of
why we would believe something that most people would consider
it to be obviously false, that the Earth is flat.
It's like, okay, like how could anyone believe this? And
then I describe in the book, well, it's like, okay,

(16:53):
so if the Earth is round or flat or hexagon shaped,
that it doesn't impact your day to day life all
that much. But if all your friends and your social
support system is involved in believing that the Earth is flat,
then rejecting that belief actually will have a big impact

(17:14):
under day to day life. So it's important to think
about how these communities and the beliefs and meanings associated
with those identities and communities have a strong impact on
our motivation to process information in a certain way.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
So thinking about the psychology of it from the social
perspective of belonging group identity, there's all that cultural social influence.
But are there also like brain types or are there genotypes?
Are there certain personalities that are more likely to believe misinformation?

Speaker 4 (17:51):
Yeah, So there's also cognitive research in this area that
dives into different cognitive styles where some people tend to
engage in more intuitive quick thinking that helps them derive
an answer through their intuitive processing, and that is contrasted
against more an analytical, reflective, slow deliberative type of thinking style.

(18:15):
And these two thinking styles are measured from a variety
of different survey measures and experiments. You know, is like
brain teasers that that oftentimes can try to study this
like how if you go with the initial answer that
makes sense to you versus the one that if you
think through it a little bit more, you'll get to

(18:37):
the answer. So we do find that when people have
these more analytical reflective thinking styles, they tend to be
less susceptible to misinformation and less likely to share misinformation.
So there is an important cognitive component as well. The
good news is this can be pretty malleable, and you

(18:59):
can try people to think more reflectively by just having them,
you know, ask them to reflect on how they know
something is true. That can get them in this mindset
a bit more so. It's not something that's completely static.
So that's the good news that we all have this
tendency to be more reflective under certain conditions.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
I'd love to know. I mean, all of us have
various people in our lives who reflect to a greater
or lesser degree, but especially in the world of science,
communication and trying to trying to correct this information in
people's minds. Is there you know, have you come across,

(19:45):
like I guess, really best practices or ways to really
talk with people? I mean, you talk with people right,
you get to know them, don't make them feel like
you know, ah you think that what, don't attack them,
don't be mean. But are there other ways that as
a as a communicator you can especially if it's not

(20:06):
one to one conversation, you know, for instance, in a podcast,
how can you talk to people?

Speaker 4 (20:11):
Yeah, so that's an important distinction, So one to one
That is something that I do discuss in the book
and I've written about before. There are strategies that you
can do to reduce defensive biases. So how I approach
it is, I don't ever go into these discussions with
a goal of changing minds. The goal is to turn

(20:33):
down polarization and the heat of the conversation, so you
can at least improve your odds of your perspective being
heard by the other person like that should be. The
goal is having information actually be absorbed because a lot
of times if people have these really strong defensive biases,
because for example, the information you're presenting conflicts with a

(20:55):
really strong identity that they have, they just they don't
even listen to it. It's just immediately asted. So you
can at least have the increase the odds in your
favor that they'll at least listen to it, and then
maybe they'll reflect on it and change their mind down
the road if they decide on it. And some techniques
for that involve connecting via shared identity first, so you know,

(21:17):
we know these identities are important for our beliefs. But
if you can bond with someone over something completely different
from what you're talking about, So if it's you know,
about a health topic for example, like vaccines, you don't
even have to talk about you know, anything related to health. First,
you can talk about your common interest with maybe you
both care about your children and what's best for them,

(21:40):
and come at it from that particular frame of having
a co identity of parents. And then once you start
talking about the topic, you can start trying to understand
where they're coming from and reframing the conversation in a
way that is consistent with the stuff they care about. So,
if they're skeptical vaccines, for example, why are they skeptical

(22:01):
of them? Is it the financial motivations of big pharma.
If it is, then you can have a conversation about
that and maybe go into how vaccines actually don't make
all that much money for these pharmaceutical companies. So once
you reframe it, you can also think about the actual
language that you use too. So instead of just having

(22:23):
this kind of binary debate of you know, our vaccines
good or bad, for example, like that's not going to
be very productive in your conversation, and instead you can
really try to focus on the word how, like how
do you know this is true? How confident are you?
Can you walk me by this step by step mechanism
of why you think that the vaccine manufacturer process has

(22:46):
these flaws and really try to point out those steps
and that can be much more productive. But ultimately all
of these steps need to be repeated, and it's very
challenging to do one on one.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Run over again over.

Speaker 4 (23:02):
But yeah, there are.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
Especially help especially if though I mean I can see
and if I probably have many times gotten agreement on
in a conversation about something walking it through in a
one on one, but if at the end of the
day they're going back to the community of think that
rejects that what you're saying is, it doesn't really help

(23:26):
that they've even rationed or you know, thought through it
and come to any other conclusion. They still need to
belong to group and group thinks this, and so they
will I assume, just go back to that too for
belonging sake.

Speaker 4 (23:43):
Yeah, right, sure, I mean a single conversation, you know,
especially like you know, an online conversation with someone is
not going to be super productive and make a big dent.
And how they think about the thing that you're talking
about when you're contrasting it against their community and their
information ecosystem that they're in. So that really speaks to

(24:04):
the importance of having people diversify the identities within themselves,
so not all of their self esteem is derived from
this narrow set of identity. So again, to take this
extreme example, let's say you have you know, your political identity,
and you have a very strong like contrarian identity, and
those are the only two identities you have that you

(24:24):
care about. So you're automatically going to reject what the
medical institution says to you because you want to be contrarian.
And then your political identity is also against medical institutions.
So that's one hundred percent of your self esteem is
being dependent on rejecting this information. So yeah, then in
that case, it's super hard for that person to update

(24:45):
any of their beliefs when they are challenged by them.
So really it's more about how do we create a
society where we have these more diversified social groups and
identities so we're not so dependent on a narrow set
of meanings with the narrow set of identities attached to them.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
And just to clarify the idea of identities, right, that's
I'm a mom, I'm a podcaster. No, I don't want
to be a podcaster. I am a science communicator. That's
broader you know, are you are the identities? Are they labels?
Are they the contextual content or the conceptual aspects of

(25:28):
you know, how how we see ourselves belonging in the world.

Speaker 4 (25:32):
Yeah, a great, great question. Yeah, So to define identities
in the sociological literature, we refer to identities as a
set of meanings and the set of meanings that are
attached to social groups. We belong to, roles that we
have or unique characteristics that define us as people. So yeah,

(25:54):
a mom could be it could be several things, be
roles that you do as a mom, but also maybe
belong to like a mom's group, so maybe that's a
social group. And then as a science communicator, that could
be a role that you're adhering to. May you think
of yourself as like a curious, skeptical person and that's
the unique characteristic how you view yourself. So yeah, when

(26:15):
you evaluate information, you're viewing it through these lenses of
how do the identities that I have? Are am I
acting in a way that is supporting the meanings attached
to them or not? And there's this feedback loop of Okay,
am I being a good mom? If I am, then yes,
that makes me feel good and I will keep being
a good mom because I want to get this self

(26:37):
esteem boost. Or it's the same thing with science, communication
or any of these identities, which is constant feedback loop
of wanting to adhere to those meanings. The big challenge
is when those meanings are overlapping so much with other
identities and they're being reinforced by other people around us,
And it's really that amplification process that's where we can

(26:58):
get into trouble because we are are so dependent on
these meanings for our self esteem and they have such
power over us that we want to try to diversify
where we're deriving our self esteem from, so it's not
just so much on just one or two meanings. For example, I.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
Mean idealistically, ideally, you don't derive it from anything external, right, Ideally,
the you know, ultimate enlightened human, your self esteem is
you know, it is just that you exist. Right, But
we is there any work that has suggested that, you know, say,

(27:38):
the you know, there's a loneliness issue in the United States.
There is an issue with American American families especially but
Western families, you know, not not being as caring to
the older you know, the parents grandparents, you know, parents

(28:00):
and parents end up living alone, maybe watching Fox News
all the time. Is there work that suggests that it
is that this winnowing of social contact and the you know,
the closing of doors to identity and meaning with with
isolation that can lead to that greater potential for misinformation

(28:23):
to take root.

Speaker 4 (28:24):
Yeah. Absolutely, So it's all connected, and we can look
at the macro level of how our society is structured
and how we don't have a lot of opportunities to
go to what's called third spaces. So we have our
home and our work, but a lot of times we
don't have these third spaces where we can meet lots
of different people and form different friendships with a diverse
group of people, inform different types of identities.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Your bowling club, Yeah yeah, yeah, we.

Speaker 4 (28:50):
Have bowling alone. Yeah. Putnam's work on that, Like it's
it's still very relevant today when we think about our
society and you know, loneliness as a problem of its self,
which is a health problem just by itself, but also
in terms of misinformation. And there is research showing that
when people feel lonely and isolated and detached from society,

(29:12):
they are more vulnerable to misinformation when they feel lower status.
So it's it's also it's the lower status component of
them feeling unhappy. But also because they have a smaller
set of identities and they don't have all these different
friend groups that they can rely on, then they might
be overly attached to, you know, maybe some political identity

(29:35):
that they formed online through different people that they you know,
even just having parasocial relationships with, like TikToker YouTubers that
they follow.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
Right, I am all of my parasocial friends right now,
I'm here for you.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
Yeah, it sounds like what politics works now, Like, you know,
the idea that rural farmers in Iowa would vote because
they were against transgender fencing or something, seems like that
is something that got added in to the end of

(30:17):
a different list of things that they maybe did care
about or did group think about, and it seems like
it becomes this growing sort of trend of people. You're like,
why are they talking about these issues in this part
of the country where why are they talking about immigration
in parts of the country that don't have a border

(30:38):
and have very few people, let alone immigrants in them.
It seems like they get combined into their group with
all of these different things that they then start to
identify with issues that haven't actually affected them. And it's
very curious because then, from what you're telling me, this
is how grown is. It's all wedge issues, but are

(31:00):
adding them alongside a group issue that they might care
about or something that is uh, you know, in their
in their culture already. But by adding a couple of
other things and making it this larger tentive identity, then
they start to believe things that they might not have
ever even considered in their frame before, so that biasing

(31:23):
of of of thought. There's this weird conversation I've had
I think fifty times now where somebody has told me
that California's gun laws have resulted in, you know, in
more gundats than Texas where it's low, and then I
always have to go pull up the data.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Here it is you look and well, actually I'm.

Speaker 1 (31:47):
Sure look it up per capita, and it's much much
much lower in California than it is in Texas. That's
the that's the fact part. But for some reason, everyone
who who's into guns or pro guns has that locked.
And I don't know, if you know the battle then
with good information versus misinformation. They may have heard that

(32:11):
once and locked it in versus no matter how many
times they hear the other, it may not it may
not change it back again. And I don't know how
much of that is just choosing the information that fits
your view what you want the world to be, or
if it is part of a group think like, Okay,

(32:32):
I see this as the actual data, but all of
my friends think this, and I'm going to continue.

Speaker 4 (32:39):
Yeah, it's a few different things. So you know, the
signaling to your group identity is definitely a big part
of it. The media information that you consume is also
a big part of it, and then also the sources
of information that you trust is a big part of it.
So if you pull up some scientific study and someone
doesn't trust science or scientists or that protular institution, then

(33:01):
it doesn't matter what facts or logic you use on them.
They say, well, that group is against my group, and
I'm not going to listen to what you have to say.
So that really dives into a broader question of trust
and what that looks like as far as rebuilding trusts
in these scientific institutions.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
And in the chapter in your book on identities, you
bring up identity. Protective cognition is this kind of the
same as wilful ignorance, which I think is kind of
what Justin was like, there's this concept of just you know,
choosing like it willfully ignoring information it has been given

(33:40):
to you.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
Yeah, I mean you want to protect yourself. It's like,
from a psychological perspective, it's rational to want to protect
yourself and avoid discomfort and pain. So you know, we
can understand this from a psychology lens that, yeah, like
you don't want to feel things that make you feel bad.
You don't want to you know, get upset and get depressed,

(34:02):
and a lot of times we avoid pain when we can.
So this is just like another component of that is Okay,
this for me to really grapple with this means I
really have to challenge a lot of these beliefs, and
then those beliefs are attached to identities, and those identities
are attached to communities that I care about. So it

(34:23):
can be really painful to grapple with something that's going
to completely shatter your sense of self. So again this
goes back to that point I keep talking about about
the diversity and the how broad your identity structures are
so you can handle some challenging information sometimes and it

(34:43):
doesn't feel like a complete personal tack on who you are.

Speaker 2 (34:48):
Yeah, I have to know, do you think you know misinformation?
It's not like it's a new thing, right. Misinformation is
just it's it's just sharing stuff. It's stuff that's not
quite right. Right. So, but is it social media? Like
is it really is it social media's fault that we're

(35:09):
in the predicament we're in or is it is this
just you know, is this machiavellian political maneuverings that people
have in pr thrust upon our society.

Speaker 4 (35:22):
Yeah, I mean there's always been misinformation, There's always been
bad actors exploiting this, these processes and spreading disinformation. Social
media does amplify it and accelerate these processes. And again,
when you think about those identity structures, you can think
about how easy it is to find people who agree
exactly with you and whatever topic it is, and then

(35:45):
have this narrow group of people that you follow, and
then you reinforce each other through this like mutual verification,
these mutual spirals of misinformation, And that's really the challenge,
is it's not it's like one thing. Okay, we have
political identities, We've always had political identities. But then it's
another thing when you can go on and you can

(36:07):
find a bunch of people that fills up your entire
social media page that think just like you do on
a particular topic, and you're all supporting each other and saying, yeah,
we're the smart ones, We're good. It's us versus them,
and you can see just how powerful that is, whereas before,
before social media, it was hard to find ten people
who agreed with you exactly on a particular topic. So

(36:30):
it's not so much that social media is like adding
in something new. It's just like amplifying and accelerating these
existing processes.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
And there's something interesting about that that I've always questioning now,
which is does do they actually believe it? In that
there seems to be this really fine line between here's
a group of people who actually believe this two yeah,
but we don't. We have our tribe and we don't

(36:59):
want to be wrong, so we're going to defend it
whether it's true or not, like almost like we're in
on the fact that we're going to sell this information
together now, like sort of like the misinformation that you
might have bought into and after you're part of the community,
you're like, well, okay, now I'm part of disinformation. But

(37:20):
that's gonna win, right. Like there's this weird like imbounce
in it, and you can you can see it flowing
sort of through social media postings and that sort of thing.
But it becomes really prevalent at the highest levels of
political office nowadays, where politicians are switching their views completely

(37:44):
from something they've said just a couple of years ago
to fit a narrative and that the followers fit that narrative.
I don't think that they've changed their beliefs. I think
they're engaging in disinformation for the tribal win almost. I mean,
it's it's really it's like beyond gas lighting when everyone

(38:07):
you're gas lighting is in on it. Is there a
thing to call that when somebody switches from from being
misinformed to engaging in disinformation themselves.

Speaker 4 (38:23):
Yeah, that's a good question. So there is research looking
at the impact of what's called political elite cues on
the broader public, and we do see this trend of Yeah,
whenever a political leader that you really care about changes
or adds something new, it does have an impact and
a lot of their followers will listen to them if
they're well liked in their group, and for them it's

(38:47):
it could be you know, something that might lose some
people who maybe have you know, other identities that really
conflicts with But if you really fuse your identity with
the group and the leader, then you will update your
beliefs in a way that makes sense to you and
you probably do actually believe it. So I think there's
a distinction between the political leaders and the people who

(39:10):
follow them. I think that's an important distinction because there's
different incentives the political leaders, you know, they want money,
they want power, and the people who follow them are
belonging to a group or maybe they do care about
these particular issues and they also want to act in
accordance to the different identities that they have. So I

(39:33):
do think it's a little bit of both.

Speaker 2 (39:35):
For your question, there are so many wonderful topics in
your book that you that you're covering in chapter five.
I think it is when you're talking about social media
and identity and also like you know, now you could
oh on LinkedIn verify yourself, you know, by paying for

(39:56):
a clear membership. You know, these very interesting systems being
put in place. You mentioned the importance of trying to
rebuild trust in institutions. I feel like we are still
in this since COVID nineteen especially, but since twenty sixteen.

(40:17):
It's this decade more over a decade long process of
eroding trust in our public institutions, where we are now
just like fully in the soup of it. Right, let's
just tear them apart. Let's just get rid of them.
We don't need them anymore. We're going to just have
corporations take care of everything. I'm just curious about your

(40:40):
ideas on how to start rebuilding trust as these massive
external forces are at play, just ready to tear apart
any efforts you may undertake.

Speaker 4 (40:52):
Yeah, I mean that's a big question, and answer it now.
I'll try to solve all the problems in sixty seconds
to see if I could do it.

Speaker 1 (41:04):
So.

Speaker 4 (41:04):
Yeah, So there are definitely big external forces at play
that make things definitely very challenging. I don't think it's
worth ignoring that component. But what we can control within
these institutions and as scientists, there are certain things that
we can do. So the communication aspect is a big one. Unfortunately,

(41:26):
for a long time there wasn't a big incentive for
scientists and academics to communicate with the broader public. So like,
you know, your tenure package wasn't gonna have anything about
you know, how many podcasts you did or anything like that.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, and how many like scientific American articles you wrote.
That was a part of it. It's just your contribution
to the academic institution, right, the internal knowledge as opposed
to external.

Speaker 4 (41:53):
Right, exactly. And I think changing those incentive structures is
really important. And I think slowly now that these into
two are being so attacked and are having to play
a lot of defense, like they're now, they're starting to
care more about that stuff, which is frustrating because you know,
I was concerned about this, you know, a long time ago,
as where many other people saw the Yeah yeah, you know,

(42:14):
you know, like it's frustrating to see like, hey, like this,
this bad thing is going to happen if we don't
change the way this is operating, and then the bad
things happen. It's like that's frustrating. But yeah, yeah, So
now that we're here, like what do we do about it?
One is you know, improving communication and improving incentive structures.
So academics and scientists will actually have time to communicate

(42:35):
their research with people, so people understand the importance of
these institutions and these universities.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
Like they actually think there should also be like sustainable
funding models for professional science communicators who are not academics.

Speaker 4 (42:49):
Yep, I totally agree that.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
They're not like last minute line items in your broader
impact section of your NSF grant.

Speaker 4 (42:56):
Yeah, And I mean that speaks to like the bigger
broader issue all of this is that there isn't a
lot of funding in science communication and science outreach, and
there's a ton of funding to tell lies. And that's
just an unfortunate asymmetry of our world. That science is
not going to lie to you. It's not going to
give you satisfying falsehoods that make you feel better. It's

(43:19):
just going to give you the best available evidence that
we have. And sometimes you know, that doesn't give you
a very satisfying answer. And then you can contrast that
with someone who's lying to you for profit, who says,
you know, buy my supplement and all your problems will
be solved. Well, you know that's a pretty attractive option. Oh,
I just buy this pill and everything's better. Versus a
scientist who sayd as well, you know your particular medical condition,

(43:42):
we don't really understand how to cure it right now,
and we're still working through all the science and then
you know, like it's it's a very difficult thing, so
it will require people investing in this. So it's basically
trying to invest in this. So it's we're constantly maintaining
science who can engage in the public, prevent future attacks,

(44:04):
and also just you know, better work with their communities too.
Like another big part of this, it's not just the
communication aspect, but what I hope happens is universities and
hospital systems will actually work with their local communities more
and have this two way dialogue of understanding what people

(44:26):
care about, what are their concerns, and how can we
best work together to address them. So if people are
questioning vaccines, they can have a town hall with their
local physicians who will answer these questions, or the local scientists.
So it reduces that psychological distance between different communities and
people within these institutions. And within institutions that's broadly speaking,

(44:52):
it can be you know, working within a university or
someone who has a background in science, so I think,
you know, we're seeing this happen now with a lot
of science communicators, you know, trying to be more active,
but it really needs a lot more organization and collaboration
and funding for I think to have a bigger impact.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
I celebrate these ideas and I can only hope that
we can develop the develop them further. Now at one
of the topics you do study, you're in a department
of computer science, but doing social science. The last little
item in there is that you study artificial intelligence. What

(45:36):
role is artificial intelligence? Do you are you? Do you
talk about it at all in the book for people
who might want to be interested, might be interested? Is
there going to be another book coming out? Is this
something you talk about on your podcast? But artificial intelligence
and its role in the future of misinformation? What do
you think?

Speaker 4 (45:56):
Yeah? Yeah, absolutely, this is this something I do think about
and I do talk about it at the end the book.
And it was a challenging thing to write about because
you know, it's changing so fast, So I tried to
be mindful of Okay, whatever I write here, how do
I future proof it as best I can for the
next few years, And I try to couch it basically
and okay, technology is going to evolve. We know these

(46:18):
chatbots and AI tools are going to be more and
more popular, but we also know that that. For me,
it just highlights the importance of understanding human bias and
social biases. Because humans are developing these tools, our biases
are built into these tools, and we really need to
understand that process. So we're not replicating and expanding these

(46:40):
biases at scale with AI. So that's one of the
big arguments I make, and I describe that in the book.
But more broadly, what I worry about with artificial intelligence
is just the sheer scale and volume of misinformation and disinformation.
It's just so easy to promote falsehoods online in a

(47:02):
way that is really well written, in a way that
wasn't before, you know.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
And with these large language models and the hallucinations that
they experience, I mean, they're learning from themselves. They're getting
positive reinforcement from users who do not necessarily know the
accurate facts, and so the misinformations that they may report
get baked in to their knowledge matrix. Right, So suddenly

(47:30):
misinformation becomes part of the knowledge base over AI, and
it shouldn't, but it was.

Speaker 1 (47:44):
Is it? I mean, what is I don't I don't
think that there.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
I think somebody had maybe maybe Matthew knows better than
either of us.

Speaker 1 (47:53):
But well yeah, yeah, it seems like they're trying trying
to keep that separate because that was a problem in
some of the early rollouts, right that the training it
on people's text messages or whatever you or chat rooms
became a real problem. Is they became varyly racist or crude, right, yeah,

(48:15):
go ahead.

Speaker 4 (48:17):
Yeah, So the the training data is critical. So I
think that's a really important perspective to have, is like, Okay,
these large language models are being trained on various types
of data, like huge amounts of text data, and it's like,
how are they waiting this data? What data they include

(48:38):
and exclude? Like you can see the differences, you know,
as we saw recently with Rock and at X, like
when you tweak the training data, you can have to be.

Speaker 2 (48:48):
Tweaked only to like your prime leaders like ideologies and tweets.

Speaker 4 (48:55):
Yeah yeah, so we see just how how sensitive it is.
So I think that's the interesting component of it. Like
beyond you know that particular example, it's just like you
kind of veer into the black box a little bit
of these of these algorithms and these training sets, and
there's some research diving into this looking at okay, all
takes is like a little bit of you know, misinformation

(49:16):
however you want to define that, and it can completely
change what answers the chatbot will give. So what I
think is really important is these companies really need to
be super transparent and share their data with independent researchers.
Now that's a big ask, but that's where I hope
what we can advocate for.

Speaker 2 (49:36):
And there was this bright shining spot for a while
when when Twitter's api was completely open to researchers and
it seemed like we were there. It was this golden
period of social science research of things happening online, of trends,
of tracking networks of individuals who were working in certain realms.

(49:59):
And but this is the how do you how do
we convince I mean, this is the next steps, not
related to your misinformation book at all, but it's, you know,
the next level. How do we convince the corporations to
have these collaborations, to allow researchers to access the data
that it's going to be beneficial to them in the
long run, when really they want to keep their little

(50:22):
silo and you know, sell all those informations to all
of your personal information for fifty dollars a month to
or whatever.

Speaker 4 (50:34):
Yeah, I mean, that's that's the big question, right, So, like,
how do you put pressure on these companies? And you know,
part of that is awareness of the public, so we
can you know, ideally we would have people realize the
value of transparency and accountability of these companies, and then
they would go to their local representatives who would put
regulatory pressure on the companies for them to do the

(50:56):
right thing as opposed to just solely caring about shareholder value.
You know, that's that's a tough thing.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
Said that so straight faced. I didn't get the joke.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
I know, Matthew, have you in the work that you're doing, Like,
have you have you done any work where you've needed
to get into uh a tech company or social media
platforms data and what kind of challenges have you found
if you've done that?

Speaker 4 (51:32):
Yeah? So yeah, So Twitter, like you mentioned, used to
be really open and unfortunately it's not. So that's that's
definitely been a challenge. I do have my my my
boss at Notre Dame has access to Meta's content library,

(51:52):
which provides some data of threads, Facebook and Instagram, and
so researchers can apply for this and they can. It
takes a while to go through the process, but you
do get access to a lot of good data, but
it's still not as detailed as I would like. And

(52:14):
that's really the trick is like getting access to the
really detailed, granular stuff. Yep. So yeah, I have, I
have had some access to it. I've known people that
I've had access to these things. It's just it's challenging because, yeah,
these companies are very cautious about who has access to
their data because they don't want anything to come out
that makes them look bad. So yeah, it's it's tough

(52:37):
because again, for my ideal world is having transparency and
accountability and collaboration with independent researchers, like that's how we
actually would solve these problems. But again, the incentive structure
of these companies is not always to be as open
with a lot of different people.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
Yeah, no, and I think I think the problem is
not obvious to everybody. But the same way that our
medical data is kept anonymized and secret and only really
supposed to be used, get access to for doing research
purposes that sort of thing it's not being it's your

(53:18):
medical data is not being sold to leverage products at
you or to influence your political views that I'm aware
of at least, and the same thing should, you know,
the same things should those same types of regulations should
be in place for your social media social media data
data because it's this, it's those even more so really

(53:43):
access points to influencing, manipulating people than we would ever
worry about from our medical data. You know, your medical
data is at the worst case, the you know, going
to maybe be used for bias and jobs or something
like this, right, like, this is the sort of thing
people were afraid of having medical data sort of open for.

(54:07):
And why it's so closed and why it's so tightly controlled,
My goodness, the amount of manipulations and biases that can
be applied against you for whatever political or economic reasons
through all the sharing you do on social media is
tenfold the exposure that you would get from having your

(54:28):
medical data, uh, you know identifying. Yeah, yeah, really weird
to me that that sort of thing, sort of thing
isn't covered and uh, and I think the EU is
doing a better job of it.

Speaker 2 (54:43):
They're trying, They're definitely. The EU is definitely trying. Yeah,
but that's it's still all of this information management. There's
you talk in the book, and this is something that
I've been a supporter of for a while is media
literally see that you know, if we start at the
young and my son is in going into high school now,

(55:05):
but for years in school, in middle and elementary school,
they've stepped into the basics of checking your sources and
figuring out what is a rely you know, what's a
reliable source. And we don't even have to get into
the trust you know, who you trust as a source
and why you don't that's the identity issue. But I

(55:26):
know we're we're keeping you up late. So I just
in terms of your book and the work that you do,
what do you wish that more people knew about misinformation?

Speaker 4 (55:44):
Yeah? So I think we actually covered some of the
big takeaways as far as understanding that, yes, media literacy, education,
digital literacy all very important, and understanding how to verify
the credibility of a source and the information it's presenting
really really helpful in reducing the spread of misinformation broadly speaking,

(56:08):
But all of that becomes much more limited if we
don't understand how our social and psychological biases influence how
we process information. And that's kind of like my main
point is, like, Okay, so yes, we have fact checking,
we can learn about you know, lateral reading, media literacy,
these different techniques which are really great. However, we might

(56:32):
be selective in when we apply them. For example, so yeah,
we can verify the credibility of something, but only if
we're skeptical of it, and then we don't maybe verify
things that we believe because of our identity biases. So
what I hope is not only to promote media and
digital literacy, but also this like social identity literacy of

(56:52):
understanding where we're deriving our self esteem from through these
social communities that we belong to, and how they might
influence us in how we process information. And that's what
I hope that people can start reflecting on, is reflecting
on where these biases are most pronounced in their lives

(57:15):
and under what conditions would they realize this? And to
do this, I think it has to be a collaborative process.
Like you can think about it yourself, and there's some
value in that, but ideally it would take a diverse
network of people where you're checking each other and challenging
each other and pointing out where your logical inconsistencies are

(57:36):
and all of that. Again, that's the ideal, but we
can work towards that as we all try to become
more resilient against misinformation.

Speaker 2 (57:46):
Thank you very much for your time tonight, Matthew. It
is just so wonderful to get to talk with you,
and do have had a chance to look through your book,
And I really do think this is a crucial period
of time for more people to become aware of this topic,
the issues that are related to it, and also exactly

(58:07):
how how they rub up against it in life. You know,
like you said, I don't know. There might be a
ven diagram here of the people who would read your
book and the people who would be willing to go
into that self assessment space to be able to take
the time to go, how is my social circle impacting me? Yeah?

Speaker 4 (58:30):
I hope so, and I hope to reach people, you know,
beyond that ven diagram as well. You know, I think
that's really the trick is expanding this. So it's something
that we all care about because we're all influenced by
our information ecosystem and how people respond to it. So again,
hopefully this is something that we can talk about and
create more social norms to reflect on these identity biases collectively.

Speaker 2 (58:53):
I hope. So I'm not affected by anything. I only
get information from my Google news feed. That's it. I'm
not affected by anything.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
In the chat room saying they don't want to rewind
to the beginning of the show. What is the title
of the book?

Speaker 2 (59:08):
I am bringing it up right now. I was just
going to ask Matthew, Yes, where can your audio? Where
can our audience find you and your book?

Speaker 4 (59:17):
Yeah, so my book is up there, Misguided about all
about misinformation, where it spreads and what we can do
about it. So the you can find it on wherever
major you know, all your major book retailler resellers, you know, Amazon, Barnes,

(59:39):
and Noble, but also local bookstores, so you can actually
request it at your local bookstore if you want to
support them. So I definitely would advocate for that. And
I have a podcast also called Misguided along with my newsletter,
where I interview people in this space who do this
kind of work various different angles. So it's really cool

(01:00:02):
to kind of keep up with this ever evolving landscape
and then I also write about social science research that
I find interesting and I think other people find interesting,
both from my own research and other people's research on
my newsletter. So yeah, if you're interested in following that,
It's Misguided is the brand that I'm leaning into for

(01:00:25):
my podcast, my newsletter, and my book. I'm also on
social media. I'm probably most active on threads, but I'm
also on blue Sky and Instagram, where I talk about
this stuff as well.

Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
And are you as your name just your name on.

Speaker 4 (01:00:43):
Blue Sky yep, yeah, Matthew Facciani. So thankfully having a
unique name helps me that I don't have a lot
of people to sort out as usually the only Matthew
Facciani in a lot of places.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Yeah, no matter where I go, there's at least twenty
thousand an other justin Jackson.

Speaker 2 (01:01:04):
I haven't found too many Kiki Sandford's or Kirsten Sandford's.
I don't know, there's not too many of me, but yes,
justin Sorry you're in the out group here. But once again, Matthew,
thank you so much for joining us for the evening.
It has just been really wonderful getting to talk with
you about your book, about your research, and I do
hope that we can chat with you again at some

(01:01:24):
point in time, and I hope you get a good
night's sleep.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
Great.

Speaker 4 (01:01:27):
Thank you so much. It was great talking with you all.
Thank you again for having me.

Speaker 2 (01:01:31):
Thank you have a great night.

Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:01:33):
Thanks all right, everybody, we are going too whoo take
a quick break. Well it's not really a break break.
It's like a little break. It's not a big break.
It's it's time for me to say thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank you for being a part of this
family of science appreciators of curious people, uniquely curious people.

(01:02:00):
Our show is supported by our listeners, and so if
you are subscribed, we appreciate that if you help find
us more subscribers in your friends, in your social circle.
I love that. If people want Twist Twist listener, Twist
fan as part of their identity, I'll cheer that on totally.

(01:02:22):
I'm not going to fight you on that one. We'd
like to bring more more people into the Twists the
Twist family of curious minds. You can head over to
Twist dot org, click on the Patreon link and become
one of our financial supporters. Click on the Patreon link,
or there's also a link for PayPal support if you

(01:02:43):
don't do the Patreon. Those are the two things that
we have that I've come up with over the years,
but Patreon isn't a way you can support twists and
ongoing fashion. Choose your level of support ten dollars in
more a month and I will try to read your
name at the end of the show without tripping over
the salables. So please head over to twist dot org,

(01:03:03):
click on that Patreon link and help support science communication
not misinformation. We thank you for your support. We really
can't do it without you. All right, I was going
to come on back to talk a little bit about
some more science. We're going to do a little bit

(01:03:24):
of more science talking. I think we will, Yes, we
will be conversing about many more interesting topics. I think
I'm going to jump right into as we come on
back with more this week in science, I'm going to
jump right into a big win for the field of replication.

(01:03:48):
So researchers trying to be part of the open science
reproducibility world, trying to figure out we know and science
and psychology behavioral research. There were a lot of issues
with reproducing studies so that they got similar or the

(01:04:09):
same results as previous studies. Sometimes researchers in these areas
trying to reproduce the studies would talk to the original researchers,
try and do everything exactly the same, and they still
would get different results. We don't exactly know why there
is such a massive crisis. They call it a crisis
in reproducing behavioral studies. Maybe it's sample size, maybe it's methods,

(01:04:33):
Maybe it's some aspect of the environment. Maybe it's regional,
maybe it's circadian. Who knows. But some areas of research,
and that in fact most areas of research that have
where there have been attempts to reproduce and verify the
results of the fields. They really found that there's a problem.

(01:04:54):
More than half of one hundred psychology studies fail reproducibility tests.
In my biomedical studies, they could replicate less than half
of the tested experiments in this article. Talking about the
article in Nature this last week, there's a group at

(01:05:16):
the Swiss Fererral Technology Institute of Lausan epefl Epfl, Hansen
and le Maitre. They're geneticists. They decided to take a
look at their field of research, fruitflies and fruitfly immunity

(01:05:36):
so they did a big meta review looking at one
thousand results from four hundred papers published between nineteen fifty
nine and two thousand eleven, and that's when the twenty
eleven Medicine Nobel Prize had d was a drisopholo winner.
After twenty eleven, they looked at published published work supporting

(01:06:01):
or refuting each claim that had come from those original
four hundred papers and one thousand and six results, and
they determined, using their own expertise in their field, sixty
one percent of the one thousand and six claims were verifiable.
Only seven percent had been challenged and were not reproducible.

(01:06:22):
This is the smallest amount of non reproducible results that
they have that they have found to date. They discovered
that by and large the field of Drosophila genetics and immunity,
it's pretty good, it's fairly well reproducible. And when they

(01:06:47):
there were inconsistent results that were not reproducible, it was
in a subset of one hundred and eleven results that
they knew that le Maitre says, these are claims I
knew were a bit fragile, and in those particular claims,
thirty eight were inconsistent with current knowledge, So there was

(01:07:08):
a higher percentage in kind of this group of studies
and claims that we're already kind of on the edge anyway.
So and this is an expert in the field going, well,
I know this is this is what it is is
not good saying so they do not like this, you know,
and now I'm going to challenge the claim and we
will see it. No, of course it is not good.
Is it's not good at all? Yeah, but anyway, d

(01:07:32):
model species for genetics for human immunity for all sorts
of studies gets reproduced like mad, so you can trust
in immunity.

Speaker 1 (01:07:46):
So and that is that is the result I would expect, right, Yeah,
you're talking about a very tight system the genome of
the fruitfly. You're you in your earlier comparison with human behavior,
like well that's where it started.

Speaker 4 (01:08:06):
It was.

Speaker 2 (01:08:06):
I think it's so fascinating.

Speaker 1 (01:08:09):
Conversity of researcher bias and you know, like how deep
is your personality profile of your subjects to know that
you've got, gosh, we have somehow in this study everybody,
you know, a majority has this personality type versus this

(01:08:29):
other group has this completely different majority, and you might
expect completely different behavioral results if you knew that information,
But if that information is not covered, then you don't
know what you're working with.

Speaker 2 (01:08:46):
Yeah, and I think I feel like the it's fascinating,
this reproducibility crisis that people talk about. It came from
they started in psychology. They were like, let's test the
behavior literature, which is basically like the oh, this is
the this is gonna be rough everybody you started with
the hardest to reproduce pretty much possible. But we've seen

(01:09:10):
also that Alzheimer's research, that there has been cancer research
the like I said, there's a biomedical uh review of
Brazilian biomedical research. There are vast areas of research that
have have have popped up as not being reproducible, and

(01:09:32):
it just this one fly genetics, go flies, you're doing.

Speaker 1 (01:09:38):
Great, well. And then it's it's also, uh, what is
the what is the Alzheimer's gene aop something.

Speaker 2 (01:09:51):
Yeah, there's like there's the you know, the the alpha
and the alpha sheets beta tangles or beta sheets alpha tangles,
tau tangles.

Speaker 3 (01:10:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:10:02):
So APOE is a really interesting example to me because
here's a gene that we have that is correlated with
risk for Alzheimer's, like strongly correlated. We can look at
this and we say, okay, yes, if you have this gene,
you have xfold chances of developing. The gene and the

(01:10:28):
protein that it creates have no causal effect. It is
not This is like, this is sort of the frustration
that has been going on Alzheimer's for so long, is
that the thing that they they the biomarsters if they
have had don't do anything. If they're removed or if

(01:10:52):
they're countered, they're not causally influenced. They're being caused or
they're part of a you know, the the larger system
of differentiation that is involved. That's a great marker for
showing risk. But no matter how much research you do
on that gene, the proteins that's creating aren't participating in

(01:11:16):
the actual disease. And so it's like a really frustrating thing.
And even you know, even some of the plaques, that's like, well,
even when you counter the plaques you still have, you
still haven't the inflammation in the brain that's causing a
lot of the NeuroD degenerative issues. So it's not just
that either, it's a whole system. There was actually a

(01:11:38):
study I didn't bring, which is.

Speaker 2 (01:11:40):
A just say it isn't.

Speaker 1 (01:11:46):
Well, I should look I should look it up because
if you were tiring that we're.

Speaker 2 (01:11:50):
Spread misinformation, man, right, But this is.

Speaker 1 (01:11:53):
A it's a Gates Foundation funded group, the Global New
Degeneration Proteomics Consortium GNPC. They went through a looking at
all these past studies and you know, sifting through two

(01:12:14):
hundred and fifty million plasmum measurements, and they found five
proteins that consistently match the apo E four carriers across
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, dementia, and a what is this word,

(01:12:40):
amotrophic lateral scrolerosis ALS.

Speaker 2 (01:12:45):
Yes, he is the acronym. Yeah, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:12:48):
So so so they've just this is just breaking news
from the past coupleoics. The this consortium has published that
they they found these new five biomarkers that are linked
across NERD degenerative diseases and the APOE. So even though

(01:13:11):
we've been doing all this research for decades around APOE,
around the plaques and trying to get that sorted out
and coming to ill fruition, just discovered is these five
more targets or more things to inquire into that are
consistent not just in one but across nerdic gender of diseases.

(01:13:34):
And again that doesn't mean we've found a causal. It
doesn't mean anything really, it's just correlative still, but it's
a big signal, right that all of our looking was
missing through lines, it was missing connecting threads and so
and so these things can improve now that we have

(01:13:56):
that more information to tackle it with. But but that's
part of the that's part of the problem and a
lot of the you know, consistencies, are you missing something
like nutritional studies that didn't take into account the microbiome
or don't take into account the ill effects of a

(01:14:17):
processed food are going to Until you have identified these
things that need to be considered alongside your main thrust
of your study, you're going to get inconsistent results because
you're missing part of the picture. And that's and that's
what science is always trying to do, is complete that
picture so that that we're not missing that through life.

Speaker 2 (01:14:38):
Narrow the narrow the scope, understand the through line, make
sure you know all the parameters. I mean, it really is,
it's like but the biology's messy, right, so it's like, Okay,
who has this particular genetic variant? Who has this? Why
is this the way that And there's a story that
was published published back in March, but that got some

(01:15:00):
new coverage this last week related to emidiol emidisol proprionate,
which is a compound that is released by bacteria in
your gut and the bacteria in your gut, and this
emittodol family has been understudy for a while for its

(01:15:21):
impacts metabolically on the on the body and our physiology.
But this particular study, we've been looking at athyleosclerosis, right,
so the hardening of the arteries, right, the build up
of plaques on the inside of your arteries. For years,
it's been like, oh, you want to you know, it's like,

(01:15:43):
got to have the good cholesterol, not the bad cholesterol.
But then some people die of heart attacks who only
have good cholesterol, And why do they have plaques and
sclerosis if they've got such high good cholesterol levels and
low bad I lived exactly right. I did what I
was supposed to. What what this particular paper directly linked

(01:16:07):
the emit isolproprionate that is produced by the bacteria in
your gut. Two the buildup of plaque through inflammation in
the inside of your blood vessels. So the bacteria are
in there and life changes, stress, diet changes, whatever. It

(01:16:28):
can change the bacterial makeup of your gut and lead
to more bacteria who produce this particular type of compound
that produce the emitto isol And when it does, it
goes into the blood vessels. It gets in the blood
vessels and it causes inflammation and the endothelium of the

(01:16:48):
blood vessels. That inflammation leads to plaques, leads to harder
rate hardening, and leads to asploroschlerosis, even if you have
really great cholesterol levels. So it explains some of those
like it is the through line that nobody had put
together before. It is this thing that impacts you know, outcomes,

(01:17:11):
and it has nothing to do with your cholesterol, absolutely
nothing at all, and it could you know it's there.
But there are different populations of people, some people who
it is cholesterol, some people who it is this kind
of autoimmune immune system uh emitisol system, some people where

(01:17:32):
it's a combination there. But it explains things that were
never explained before. And no Kevin reridon. Plaque on your
teeth is not the same as plaque in your vessels,
but they are both kind of like caused by bacteria,
but they're not the same, not the same thing.

Speaker 1 (01:17:53):
And still find you can still find uh toothpaste claims
that the brushing people well based on yes, based on
based on.

Speaker 2 (01:18:06):
That's different from yes. That is different.

Speaker 1 (01:18:10):
It's not true. No, it's been debunked. That whole claim
has been long debunked.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
There's there are issues you can still see that misinformation
or disinformation depending on tent. I suppose have a clean
mouth everybody. Basically, if you you want to clean clean
your mouth, it'll make you feel nice. You can be
part of the toothbrushing team. Team tooth pressures. Let's do it.

(01:18:40):
Speaking of medical stuff, there was a story this week
that I thought was super duper duper duper duper cool.
It's not in people yet, but this is one of
those fingers crossed. Please have it work in humans, because
this is awesome. Researchers at Osaka Metropolitan University in Usaka.

(01:19:02):
Researchers have been studying a compound it's called a GAI seventeen,
and this is an inhibitor for the aggregation of a
compound called clue serralde hyde three phosphate dehydrogen dehydrogenase gap

(01:19:22):
du gap DH so GAI seventeen stops gap du from
building up and from aggregating. They gave it to mice
that it had acute strokes. They gave them my strokes. Yeah,
and they weren't cute. They weren't cute strokes. Ian Yeah,

(01:19:45):
now I know that. Jok yah mouse. So it's got
to be acute anyway. This, this compound that they have
created worked successfully even when administered six hours after a
stroke to reverse damage to the brain, to the neurons,

(01:20:07):
to the blood vessels in the brain of the mice.
Brain damage was reversed. It six hour rewind button.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
My goodness, that's the whole game, the oxygenating, the repair mechanisms,
like what's taking place.

Speaker 2 (01:20:28):
So all it does is it stops this uh so.
It inhibits this glyceraaldehyde three phosphate dehydrogenase, which in lots
of system, lots of uh working aspects of the brain.
The physiology of the brain, the gap duh is is pathological.

(01:20:51):
When you have aggregation of gap duh, you have issues
with your brain. It's lots of gap DH not good.
They made a compound that stops g A p d
H from building up and it can actually lead to
reversals in damage to the brain. So, so what is it?

Speaker 1 (01:21:12):
What is the job of this g there was less?
I'm assuming it's some sort of not a repair mechanism,
but a removal of what is deemed unrepaarable material. That
would be my guess that it's like a trash pickup, like, well,
we have we have we have a bunch of cells

(01:21:35):
that aren't getting oxygenated and they've sent a signal that
they may be dying. So instead of having them persist,
let's go get rid of it and shut them all down.
It sounds like an aptosis external aptosis mechanism kind of
a thing.

Speaker 2 (01:21:49):
So it leads to so it leads to UH. Gap
leads to mitochondrial dysfunction. So when you have lots of
it building up, your mitochondria don't work as well. And
we know that when the mitochondria don't work as well,
suddenly you have metabolic issues. You have oh, maybe you
have cellul neuronal issues like Alzheimer's right in the cell,

(01:22:15):
which one of them is the buildup of GAPDH, which
then causes mitochondria not to work very well. And so
then you have areas of the brain that are damaged
where neurons die, and you can have limb paralysis where
neurons don't communicate with each other anymore. And so this

(01:22:38):
new GAI seventeen is protecting mitochondria by keeping the gapta away.
But the insight to this is that although they have
only looked at it in ischemic mice, it was so
like so good that at saving function in the brain

(01:23:00):
that researchers are interested in other instances like Alzheimer's disease.
So they're going to start looking at it in models
of Alzheimer's disease and mice to see if ongoing doses
or single delivered doses might be sufficient to reverse damage
to the brain due to the build up of those

(01:23:21):
plaques and tangles within the brain.

Speaker 1 (01:23:24):
And this is again highly speculative, justin talk.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
Highly this is all this is still in mice, we
don't but it worked really really.

Speaker 1 (01:23:32):
Well speculativeness, But mitochondria is like a chief signaling system,
and so I can see one of the things that
mitochondria do is when they're in trouble, they signal and

(01:23:56):
sometimes neighboring mitochondria will come over and help out, right,
but they will they will self identify as I am
I'm in trouble. Somebody needs to fix something here. So
if they're under a bunch of them are under stress,
it may be sending out a massive signal that you
almost would need to get rid of a gangering limb

(01:24:20):
if you get you know, like a bunch of of
these cells are in trouble and and we need a
critical sort of repair, not repair, but it just get
get rid of us instant aptosis. We're not going senescent,
just get us out of here. And that might be
that might be the cascade. It might be something that

(01:24:42):
because you know, in this stroke, instead of one cell
or two cells doing this, a whole bunch are doing
it at once, and it's an overreaction of sort of
that defense mechanism. Otherwise, I don't know why they would
be getting recruited so quickly, right.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
Cell cell dep programmed cell death is a normal process
within all tissues of the body, including the brain, And like.

Speaker 1 (01:25:07):
You were saying, I don't know is involved in that, because.

Speaker 2 (01:25:11):
Yeah, so I've highlight high I've highlighted a paragraph at
the start of this paper in eye science. So it's open,
open access if you're interested. Glysso GAPTA is a glycolytic
enzyme that is responsible for the sixth step of glycolysis.
I knew. I remembered it from some kind of a
feedback loop anyway. Uh. In addition to this glycolytic function,

(01:25:32):
in metabolism, it is recognized as a multifunctional protein exhibiting
various functions DNA repair, t RNA export, transcription, membrane trafficking,
heme metabolism, regulation of kinases, and apoptosis and necrosis. It
is so yeah, apoptosis, it is going to be gap

(01:25:54):
to mediated cell death. Uh. And it's in this there's
nuclear transfer, location and aggregation. So in oxidative nitrote nitrocative stress.
Gapta binds to something called CIA and undergoes nuclear translocation,
inducing P fifty three dependent transcription of apoptotic genes, resulting

(01:26:19):
in apoptotic cell death. I love saying apoptotic.

Speaker 1 (01:26:25):
And that so it is it is. It is a
it is your it's it's not a nega. It's not
a pathological thing. In your body. It's a thing that's
doing really.

Speaker 2 (01:26:34):
Important, but sometimes it becomes mathological.

Speaker 1 (01:26:39):
Yeahs.

Speaker 4 (01:26:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
So you have an area of the brain that doesn't
get oxygen, doesn't because of lack of blood flow, and
this stroke Suddenly it's like ah oxidative stress and it
builds it. It gets released more and more and more,
and uh. When it does that, it can create amyloid
like fibrils and cause cell cell death in vitro in

(01:27:08):
living organisms or in this in a in a in
vitro in vivo in vitro in a dish. Yeah, but
the amyloid like fibrils are another part of that interesting process.

Speaker 1 (01:27:23):
Well, it's it's like if you if somebody has surgery
and something gets left behind. H it'll get covered up,
It'll get the body will try to sequester it with
this fibril tissue to keep it away from everything else.

Speaker 2 (01:27:39):
I love this.

Speaker 1 (01:27:39):
This is very It's very much like the zombie Apocalypse
is broken out in part of the brain and the
solution is we'll put a big dome over that part
of town and so none of the zombies can get out.

Speaker 2 (01:27:54):
That's one of the other statements here that I think
is interesting from previous research gap to over expressing mice
treated with methamphetamine, which causes robust oxidative nitrocative stress in
the brain, also display abundant gap to aggregates and neuronal
cell death in vivo. That's in living organisms. Yeah, So anyway,

(01:28:19):
what they've done is they've is this is just part
of a signaling cascade that leads to cell death. But
what they have done is they've figured out they've created
a molecule that can block it.

Speaker 1 (01:28:30):
Right. So, but the long, long story that I was
trying to get to though, then is.

Speaker 2 (01:28:37):
That it can reward, not damage six.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
Rewind d that's brilliant. However, this is not something you
would ever want to take preventatively because you would be
preventing necessary cell death.

Speaker 2 (01:28:54):
Yes, right, but in a scene, this is not.

Speaker 1 (01:28:56):
A process that we want to genetically fix the make
us immune from a thing.

Speaker 2 (01:29:01):
This is normal. It's good.

Speaker 1 (01:29:04):
And now the question is how Then the second follow
up question is how long then does it last beyond that? Like,
what's the half life? Like? Is this gonna are we
going to have rogue cell building taking place for months
and months? I mean, granted you want to rewind the
stroke damage immediately and that's the priority anyway, but there

(01:29:27):
could be a recovery downside to it as well.

Speaker 2 (01:29:33):
Yeah, I have no idea, but I mean I ideally,
if you are directly delivering it to where it is needed,
you're not impacting, you know, the function of this compound
in other places in the body. It's only hopefully helping
what's in the brain and the the idea, like right now,

(01:29:56):
we talk about with strokes especially, it's like you have
a window of like minutes to identify a stroke and
make a phone call and get an ambulance and like
and and time is everything for the damage that is done.
And it's like after a stroke, the extent of the stroke,
the damage increases with time, and that six hours later

(01:30:20):
they were able to rewind.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
Just hit That's nope, that's so huge.

Speaker 2 (01:30:26):
Mice are fine. I really really want to be a mouse.
A mouse. Everything is solved, I know, tell me a
story justin yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:30:39):
Oh gosh, okay, I don't even know uh what I brought.

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
I know, we're just talking about things now, bringing.

Speaker 1 (01:30:46):
It through now we're just.

Speaker 2 (01:30:50):
We're riven on the stories that we brought. I mean,
kind of give me one.

Speaker 1 (01:30:55):
Uh, I gotta go pull up the story because it didn't.
I didn't. I don't have it open. But this is
really fascinating that this is actually something I think we
kind of talked about a while ago. But it's one
of those now that like, but they needed to do
this study, and now they've done the study sort of thing.
This is genetic evidence casting doubt on early colonization timelines

(01:31:18):
in Australia. Australia has this peculiar thing of the folks
that are there. They have been dating fifty thousand years now,
back as far as sixty five thousand years based on site.

Speaker 2 (01:31:32):
Data, and somebody is saying maybe not this new study
maybe not.

Speaker 1 (01:31:39):
So a lot of research actually, when you look at it,
it's it's pretty much genomic research on humans is saying.

Speaker 2 (01:31:47):
Nah, why what happened?

Speaker 1 (01:31:52):
So there's cave Art Cave Art on an Indonesian island
that dates to approximately fifty one thousand years ago. There's
a in Northern Australia where I was saying sixty five
thousand year old stone tools and other human activity, and
people like said, oh, but what about your dating techniques?
So then more dating techniques were brought to bear and

(01:32:14):
they confirmed sixty five thousand years ago, there were these
stone tools and some evidence of maybe cooking and some
other human activity in this at this site. The problem is,
and this is coming from actually two studies recently published
in Nature and Science that both found that Neanderthal interbreeding

(01:32:35):
with anatomically modern humans out of Africa occurred only once.

Speaker 2 (01:32:42):
Who whine.

Speaker 1 (01:32:45):
In it only once in Europe between approximately forty three
point five and fifty one point five thousand years ago.
Now this is likely in southern Georgia, northern Iran, maybe
into the levant. It's not that it just happened once,
but that happened within the same range of cohabitating years, right.

(01:33:09):
It could have been it could have been going on
for a thousand or two thousand or three thousand years
where humans and Neanderthals were living in close quarters. But
it's likely that this all happened very close to to

(01:33:29):
I guess eastern Europe or close to the time when
when out of African humans were leaving Africa, because according
to those genomic studies, that two percent issue of Neanderthal
DNA that a lot of Europeans and Asians and everybody

(01:33:51):
out of Africa seems to have overlaps. It's the same.
It's the same, and it's not been watered down through
generational increases of Neanderthal interactions or decreases. It looks like
it's the same event.

Speaker 2 (01:34:11):
So only one now.

Speaker 1 (01:34:16):
That places the Aborigines of Australia in Southern Georgia, northern
Iran somewhere in the levant at forty thousand years ago,
which means, of course they can't be also in Australia

(01:34:36):
sixty five thousand or even fifty five thousand years ago.
So it's really messing up what was a story that
was sold to them about Hey, we looked at your
genome and it looks like in the sites around here,
and it looks like you're this old, and well, I
gotta take it away because now that doesn't make sense anymore. However,

(01:35:00):
the thing that is really interesting about this to me
is that it doesn't change the dates of the sites
or the tools. So how do we explain the older
sites in Australia that have to be older than the
people that are there now? The main population? So it

(01:35:21):
means that the current Australian population couldn't be more than
probably fifty thousand years old, maybe maybe, maybe a bit
less than that could be, which.

Speaker 2 (01:35:33):
Is still fifty thousand is still significant, but it's not
it's not the sixty five the sixty five thousand seventy
thousand that maybe we're being suggested, right.

Speaker 1 (01:35:45):
So it means that the out of Africa happened at
the same time as the rest of the out of Africa,
not a group that left early and went directly to Australia,
which was sort of one of the hypotheses. Now they
have the one of the I think it's like the
second highest h amount of Denisovan DNA, only beaten by

(01:36:10):
the indigenous peoples of the Philippines. These are the two
groups that have the highest denisvan uh DNA. And from
what I understood, uh, the denisovan DNA in the Philippines
is different than that of Australia, a little bit different
and maybe more recent.

Speaker 2 (01:36:33):
Well that's if it's more recent, that would make sense. Yeah. Now, now, wow,
here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:36:43):
Somebody was already in Australia before the current Aborigines got there.
If if the because the site data stands currently, it's
still human activity stone tools site data from multiple sites
is still older now than the people who are there

(01:37:04):
living currently have been there.

Speaker 2 (01:37:06):
What happened to the people were there was right, So
it could be that you'd expect that the people coming
in that are there now there would be genetic leftovers
if they inner bread with whoever was there previously, and we.

Speaker 1 (01:37:22):
Don't we don't see that. Yeah, well we could be
seeing that. So the way that we could be seeing
that is that that population that is that was the
previous population of current modern humans may not have had
an interbreeding event with Neanderthals, meaning they wouldn't be diluting

(01:37:43):
or changing or altering that signal, so that the signals.
It could still be that the that there was a
group of early humans sixty five thousand and seventy thousand
years ago. Yeah, yeah, current modern humans that that made

(01:38:04):
it to Australia before. It could also mean, yeah, it
could also mean that there were Denise Evans already in
Australia and that's who's evidence we're seeing.

Speaker 2 (01:38:18):
Yeah, that's a possible I can see that.

Speaker 1 (01:38:19):
Yeah, very unlikely that there were any Neanderthals. More and more,
more and more it's the case for Neanderthals. Uh, basically
east of Iran are very very low because while we
see these percentages of Neanderthal in popular current modern human

(01:38:39):
populations in East Asia and Oceania and everywhere else East
they're the same event as everyone in Europe. It's the same.

Speaker 2 (01:38:48):
Basically, Neanderthals were like, I like this space. We're going
to hang out over here. We're not gonna We're not
gonna the other areas.

Speaker 1 (01:38:58):
Closer you get to Oceania, Australia, the closer you get
to the Philippines, the higher the Denise Evan content. Yeah,
so very fascinating. So up ending a little bit of
a current modern human history with some maybe more ancient

(01:39:19):
current modern or human histories. No, no, it's now, but
it's and I think we talked about this before because
like the whole you know, one time event didn't make
sense with the older populations. Now, Yeah, what else did
I say I was gonna bring? Oh, let's talk about Stonehenge.

Speaker 2 (01:39:40):
We always love this one.

Speaker 1 (01:39:43):
There's this one thing about Stonehenge. There's these uh, there's
these things called the bluestones. And they're not the iconic
really giant standing ones. These are like smaller, but they
came from some two hundred kilometers away. They've been sourced

(01:40:03):
very reliably to outcrops and whales. Two unter kilometers from
the Salisbury plane were stonehenges. Okay, there's been two versions
of how they got there. One is, well, you know,
humans brought them all that distance, you know what a

(01:40:26):
long way to carry a bunch of giant rocks, right,
And the other has been there was a glaciation event
that moved the rocks there, and that they were just
they got incorporated because they were they were nearby, and
that was it. And so it all comes down to
this one, this one bluestone called the new All Boulder

(01:40:48):
because that's who discovered it in nineteen twenty four. And
this one's interesting because it was the only one that's
been found that was like dug up and discovered and
wasn't already like sitting out in place and exposed for
a long time. So it was the one that had
the best chance of sort of identifying whether or not,

(01:41:09):
because you know, it looked if it was brought by
a glacier and that it was missed by the builders,
and if it wasn't brought by a glacier, then it
was left there by whoever brought it, and it should
show signs. So Anyway, they did a new analysis on it,
and humans brought it. There's actually there's no sign in

(01:41:32):
the in the entire region, apparently on the plains of
any glacial deposits. Bluestones are otherwise like real thorough analysis. Yeah,
like it would be it would be the only stones
that would have been brought, and they would have been
left right, you know, around Stonehenge, So that doesn't really

(01:41:58):
make sense. Then they also like look at the weathering
patterns and that sort of thing, and they can actually
see all the stone looks like it broke off on
one section, but it was actually worked over like modified
on another part, and they think it was a broken
off piece of a larger bluestone, bluestone that broke off

(01:42:18):
there on site. So anyway, ancient humans carried stones two
hundred kilometers for reasons.

Speaker 2 (01:42:29):
For reasons that we do not know.

Speaker 1 (01:42:32):
No, I think that would be. That would be like
the real fascinating mystery to me of of Stonehenge isn't
like I get like monolithic building. You got a bunch
of big stones, build a thing, make it look cool.
I get that. I want to know what the journey was.
Was it months, was it years? Did they you know,

(01:42:54):
bring these giant stones along. It's like a makeshift dwelling
as they as they trudged across ancient Britanny. Like, why
did they have the plan that they were going to
build a thing and then went looking for rocks or
did they think like, you know what, we take them
everywhere we go, no matter what we're doing. I want

(01:43:16):
to know what that life, that life on the road
with the big rocks was like.

Speaker 2 (01:43:22):
Well it was a rocky road, but they had the
stones to do it.

Speaker 1 (01:43:26):
So the pun machine that is. And then the I
guess the last story I will uh for tonight is
I'm only bringing this by the way, because it was
the most popular story that I've written. It had been.

(01:43:51):
It's well over a million views. So people seem to
be interested in the fact that a clinical ale shows
taking blood pressure medication at night improves nocturnal and daytime control.
So this is a This is a research out of

(01:44:13):
Sichuan University in China revealed that bedtime anti hypertensive medication
dosing improves nocturnal blood pressure control over morning dosing and
patients with hypertension. It also found that by taking it
at night, there were less increases than the daytime users

(01:44:36):
we're doing there there was less chance of them needing
to up their dosages. It's interesting that even though this
is again a very current research study, a lot of
people have anecdotally noticed this and it's actually a recommendation.
I think in the Mayo clinic. It's like one of

(01:44:59):
the So it's been noticed that connection has been noticed before,
but here's here's research that is reaffirming. Or went to
go look at the thing that people were noticing and
then found, oh, yeah, we actually see it when you
when you do this bedtime dosing versus morning dosing, and

(01:45:20):
it may have a lot to do with that circadian rhythm. Right,
so your blood pressure should naturally be going lower as
you're going to bed and getting your sleep, But if
you have hypertension and you took your meds in the morning,
they may be staying kind of high at night and
that might be messing up that whole circadian rhythm. So

(01:45:44):
you know, then there's like a downstream effect of all
sorts of other processes that may be relying on on
that rhythm to know when to do things and when
to do work and when to be protective of your
body and anyway that makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:46:03):
I think it's it's interesting too though, if you're dosing
at night before you go to sleep, then the blood
pressure medication potentially has this window in which your body
is going into a rest cycle. Right, So the metabolism
of the drug, the way it gets however it gets

(01:46:24):
accommodated by and used by the body where it gets
taken and put in you know, however it works. They're
not moving around except you know, if you're an active sleeper,
but if you're doing a bedtime dosing, you're going to
have five to eight to nine hours of not eating,

(01:46:44):
not drinking anything, not exercising. Your brain's still pretty active
during that sleep cycle, but your whole body's kind of like, well,
we're on a rest right now. So that's that aspect
of the circadian rhythm is very important. But I've always
wondered about, you know, how drugs are metabolized or supplements.

(01:47:08):
People say you have to take this in the morning,
that at night. This isn't But it's fascinating that this
is actually one where they are showing this relationship to
be bearing out with truth.

Speaker 1 (01:47:18):
Yeah, it's also sort of interesting because one of the
things they point out is that they have very unreliable previously,
typically have very unreliable data for what your nighttime blood
pressure is because you're not going into a doctor's office.
Your doctor's office visits are during the day.

Speaker 2 (01:47:36):
Yeah, so and taking it stressed hopefully is lower. I
mean people are like, chill out. You should have bed hygiene,
right or sleep hygiene. Don't think about all the stressful
things that pop into your head right before you're going
to fall asleep. Just go just fall asleep. Yeah, it's
totally normal falling asleep. It's what people do. Yeah, I

(01:48:01):
think I think it's very interesting. All right, People take
take your hypertech tension medication at night.

Speaker 1 (01:48:08):
After consulting, after.

Speaker 2 (01:48:10):
Consulting your doctor. Yes, exactly. Make sure that you do
not make any health choices without consulting your medical doctor.
But you know, it's great for you to be talking
to us here at Twists listening to us, but take
it to your doctor. For show. I'm going to talk
a little bit about uh about brains before I talk

(01:48:33):
about where moths like to lay their eggs.

Speaker 1 (01:48:39):
So not in brains.

Speaker 2 (01:48:41):
It's not in brains. No, I can tell you mods
the moths and the study at least they do not
like to lay their eggs in brains. But when you
just heard that, like and you know, what memories do
you pop pop up? Do you do you immediately start
thinking about moths that you you have known and loved,

(01:49:02):
or do you start thinking about you know, more you know?
Do you think of more meaningful stuff or more surface
kind of things, things that are like I saw a
moth yesterday versus moths are nocturnal and moths are this,
you know, the death's head moth is a sign of

(01:49:23):
whatever deeper concepts I picture A light bulb?

Speaker 1 (01:49:28):
Is that is.

Speaker 2 (01:49:31):
There?

Speaker 4 (01:49:31):
We go like a night light or not? A door?

Speaker 1 (01:49:35):
What do you call it door light? They're outside light?
What do you call it? Patio light?

Speaker 2 (01:49:39):
Pat your porch light?

Speaker 1 (01:49:43):
Or thank you? That's what I'm picturing.

Speaker 2 (01:49:45):
Researchers at the University of Geneva have asked the question
how does memory retrieve one type of memory or another? Why?
How does our memory? How does our brain decide quote
unquote which memory to surface when other related information is

(01:50:08):
presented to you? So in thinking about this, the researchers
were specifically looking about at two particular categories, surface level cues,
which are commonalities that are just a moth, a brown moth,
a white moth, different moths, moths like lights. You know,

(01:50:30):
these are very surface level cues that you can bring
that your memory can bring to bear on surfacing one
or more memories from your past. But what about what
they what are called meaningful structural, deeper, more conceptual memories

(01:50:51):
and which does our brain favor? Their research published in
widely interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, they determined, using based on
their studies, that our brain actually prioritizes conceptual, deeper memories
as opposed to somebody. You know, you see an advertisement

(01:51:13):
for cereal and you say, I had cereal for breakfast.
That's a surface memory. But if you start thinking about
conceptual aspects of harvest grains or you know, other conceptual
aspects within your with your you know, memories that are
much deeper, uh in your brain actually prioritizes those. And

(01:51:37):
so the researchers found this very interesting that if you
can provide connections for people to create deeper, more conceptual,
structural understandings of topics, deeper memories, that potentially you will

(01:51:57):
lead individuals to to surface those memories and have deeper,
find deeper threads among topics within their daily life more
and more often, so they approach us from the idea
of developing teaching tools to introduce new mental categories that
if you can if with teaching tools, the tools can

(01:52:20):
encourage the formation of deep, con sexual, contextual links that
this could lead to greater understanding of course content or
informational content. But even beyond that, I think it just
gives some very interesting insight into that your brain is
going for deeper understanding and concepts more often than it's

(01:52:44):
just looking at like blue eyes, blue eyes surface commonality.
You know, it's not just a pattern recognizer. It's not
just that. And the memories that it is surfacing are
usually if they're there, if you have that link, your
brain is going to give you something that's more rich.

Speaker 1 (01:53:07):
Well yeah, yeah, I mean but wait a second.

Speaker 2 (01:53:13):
Think deeply everyone, But.

Speaker 1 (01:53:16):
Wait a second.

Speaker 2 (01:53:17):
No, Okay, that's just that's just like.

Speaker 1 (01:53:25):
Thought connotation or like concept kind of like that's like, yes,
that's previously how that's obviously how the brain works, is it.
I sometimes you know they're isolated.

Speaker 2 (01:53:37):
I think so.

Speaker 1 (01:53:39):
I think so because I mean maybe not, but I
think it's got to be the majority of people. But
it seems like it seems like one of those studies
like when you were you were talking about this a
while ago, or you and Blair were talking about this
about when science uh says there's no evidence for something

(01:53:59):
that doesn't that's I mean, it's it's proving that negative.
It's maybe just saying we haven't looked at it yet.

Speaker 2 (01:54:05):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:54:06):
So it's good that they looked at this. But when
they say this, it's also like animals show that they
have some form of intelligence. Well, yeah, yes, thank you, Yes,
I feel like that's one of those didn't We just
always know this? Isn't that how all of storytelling works? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:54:27):
Yeah, yep. Abstraction, right, it's a high abstraction layer that
our brain provides. Our brain really likes abstraction and concept
and story metaphor as opposed to simple pattern recognition.

Speaker 1 (01:54:44):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:54:47):
And in terms of knowledge transfer from one paradigm to another,
that you know, you teaching in ways that lead to
greater structural or understanding or greater abstraction of concepts is
going to lead to easier transfer between paradigms as opposed

(01:55:07):
to here are your multiplication tables, now divide, or here
are your multiplication tables now work in a grocery store.
It's the transfer between the two is not as simple
as you know, so that the abstraction is important for
real knowledge transfer and understanding. That's basically what this is

(01:55:30):
coming down to. And we've been friends for a very
long time working on this stuff. Do you think that
we are more in sync with ideas and you know,
with things that we talk about than we were when
we first started hanging out.

Speaker 1 (01:55:50):
No, No, well, I think honestly, I think I think
that that's why we started doing the show is because
we were like pretty in sync on a lot of
these things, like and how we like you know what
I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:56:08):
We talked a lot before the show happened.

Speaker 1 (01:56:11):
There was a lot of that. Yeah, yeah, So I
don't know that I don't know that we even with
many many years. I mean that's there's definitely aspects of
like I can start to talk about a thing and
you can be like, I know where you're going I
gotta say this. I know you're going to say that.
Like there's a little of that where we're in sync

(01:56:31):
with what that conversation flow is going to going to
be before it really unfolds. Sometimes, but uh. But interestingly,
I think if if we you and I took a
worldview poll twenty years ago and took it again today,
I feel like we would be pretty.

Speaker 2 (01:56:51):
Pretty close, probably pretty close both times. Yeah, well, thinking
about that, there is some amount We've talked about it
on the show previous. There is some amount of brain synchronization,
neural patterns in different areas of the brain that are
synchronized between people who are friends. You have similar likes, dislikes,

(01:57:14):
you know, various you like to talk about certain things,
whatever your thought patterns, because you're able to talk, and
you're able to you know, share information and share experiences
together as friends. And like you said, we can both
predict you're going to go here, Oh you're going to
do that now you know we know each other. And
this is because there are certain aspects of our brain,

(01:57:39):
the activity in our brain, that are synced my brain
and your brain right now.

Speaker 1 (01:57:46):
And like you, I'm so sorry, and you've anologized.

Speaker 2 (01:57:50):
You listen right now, you watching the show, you listening
right now, I bet we are synced. If you have been,
if you've been in the audience for a long that's
terrible news.

Speaker 1 (01:58:04):
I apologize to everybody. So for every time you see
a word and then and even though it's spelled out
in front of you, you pronounce it like completely differently
than the letters. That that's me, that's my influence. And
I apologize that you syncd with my part of the
brain that just takes wild stabs at pronouncing things.

Speaker 2 (01:58:25):
But it's also predicting what the other person is going
to be doing. Right, So, because my brain, our brains
are prediction engines, I'm in sync with you. And I, oh,
he's going to take a while. I see that word,
He's going to mispronounce that for.

Speaker 1 (01:58:43):
I know, I know what happens. It's like I can't
read the word if I don't know it, and I
start to pronounce it based on the first few letters,
and then I panic, pour letters in. It's complete panic,
And I'm like, throw a dart, Throw a dart and
see if you can land it anywhere near the rest

(01:59:03):
of the word. And I don't know why that happens.

Speaker 2 (01:59:07):
It is because we are you are a you were
a victim of the nineteen seventies to eighties experiments in
reading education.

Speaker 1 (01:59:22):
Well, no, I think, honest, I think it has to
be a topic that we've talked about quite a few times,
which is visualizing words versus images. I'm a complete image
person who can't Like you, you've heard.

Speaker 2 (01:59:37):
About the letters versus holistic word. Do you see the
word or do you see it in each of with
each of its letters?

Speaker 1 (01:59:45):
Hold. I can't hold a word in mind. Like people
maybe have experienced trying to read something in a dream
and not being able to, I can't hold a word
in my head and see it either, even like completely awake,
I can't. I just can't.

Speaker 2 (02:00:00):
I repeat constantly.

Speaker 1 (02:00:07):
Audio, yes, but not like I can't see a word
in my mind, and I don't know why it is.
It's made me terrible at names. I can't remember names
and things I would love to if I could choose,
I would be a botanist. But I can't remember the
word name of any plant. This is the leafy plant
versus the kind of pokey fern plant. I don't know

(02:00:29):
what it's called. That's the room. I can't remember people's
names too. I can tell you the story of the plant,
but I can't ever remember what it's called. So how
do I spell? Very badly?

Speaker 4 (02:00:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:00:44):
So anyway, friendship brain, all of us, we all have
friendship brain. According to this new paper in the Journal
of Neuroscience, researchers have written up their work about brain
syncization and consumer behavior. So the better friend that you are,

(02:01:06):
the more your friendship bond grows, the more similar your
evaluations of products become, and also the more synchronized your
brain activity is in regions linked to perception, memory, and reward.

Speaker 4 (02:01:26):
So in the.

Speaker 2 (02:01:29):
Abstract for the paper, they say that neuroimaging and meta
analytic decoding indicated that there's heightened neural synchrony is linked
to cognitive functions like object perception, attention memory, social judgment,
and reward processing, and that they use machine learning stacked

(02:01:53):
machine learning based predictive models. They showed that functional connectivity
maps of the brain and the activity predicted the purchase
intention of their friends or their own purchasing intents, but
not strangers. We're not good at predicting what strangers want

(02:02:15):
to buy, but we can predict what our Oh, I
know you're gonna love. You're gonna love doctor Justin's not
a real doctor. Poop hills there or for what ails you?
That's right? Anyway, brains. The more the more you are friends,

(02:02:36):
the more your brains are in sync, the better you
can predict your friends likes, dislikes, wants, needs, and the
same for them of you. This is good. This is
social connectivity. So now let me ask you one final
question before the end of this show, justin if you

(02:03:00):
were a moth trying to figure out where you were
going to lay your eggs, Like, I'm going to put
my little moth eggs somewhere Tokyo on a plant. Maybe
not saying not Tokyo. Say you're a moth, though, would

(02:03:23):
you put it? Would you put it? Put your eggs
in the place with lots of screaming or the place
without screaming.

Speaker 5 (02:03:36):
Regardless of what type of organism I am, I feel like,
would you I would be gravitating towards places with less screaming.

Speaker 2 (02:03:47):
Guess I like places with less screaming as well, unless,
of course, it is a haunted house I'm going to
on Halloween or an an amusement park roller coasters.

Speaker 1 (02:04:02):
Yeah, so anyway, that's what I was thinking.

Speaker 2 (02:04:07):
Mathra surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise. I'm really
not surprised. Researchers have published in the journal eLife their
study of moths and where they want to lay their eggs.

(02:04:31):
They gave them all sorts of options, and it was
based on a previous study in which they discovered that
plants scream. So when plants are stressed out, like they're
dehydrated or they've been bitten, that that they scream. And

(02:04:54):
the researchers and we talked about this a little bit,
and it's not screaming per se. I mean, it's definitely
out side the range of human hearing. But there are
sounds that are made by plants when they're stressed out.
I love that it's been sensationalized into plant screaming for

(02:05:14):
the good of the study. And so I'm just gonna
get to play you the sounds of plant screaming.

Speaker 1 (02:05:24):
Yeah, I still didn't hear it.

Speaker 2 (02:05:31):
You hear the no I think I'm uh, let me
see if I don't anymore.

Speaker 1 (02:05:41):
Kids out there are probably going like, oh gosh, sure
it's so terrible.

Speaker 2 (02:05:46):
Let me see if it should share audio the mosquito.
You try try again, turn up your headphones.

Speaker 1 (02:05:59):
It's Morris code. It sounds like I need water. It's a.

Speaker 2 (02:06:09):
I find it interesting that the video is a recording
of plant sounds being made by a cactus and they're
talking about being stressed out from being thirsty. Oh you spiky,
succulent you anyway, this is what it sounds like to
a moth, and so the researchers, Yeah, so the researchers

(02:06:32):
what is making that sound. It is the release of
compounds that when the plants are cut, or they are
or they've been damaged, or they are dehydrated, stressed out,

(02:06:53):
they emit popping or clicking noises there that are at
these ultrasonic frequencies. And it's and it could be the
the pores, it could be it could be all sorts
of it could be different things that impact what actually

(02:07:13):
is making the sound when plants scream trubscribed when plants scream.
Years ago, they found out that plants can detect sound,
so they looked at whether or not the plants could
produce sound, and so they determined that these plants are

(02:07:35):
making their emitting popping or clicking noises that are too
high pitched for us to hear. But the these stressed
plants are making these sounds. It's not clear how they're
being produced though, so that's one of the next questions.
We don't know exactly why, but they are making the noises,
and so then the researcher said, what about other animals

(02:07:58):
who might be able to hear? Are the frequencies of
the sounds being released by the plants? And so they're like, hey,
let's look at some moths that like to lay their
eggs on plants. And so they first they had two boxes,
no plants whatsoever, and they had one box, and the

(02:08:21):
moths wanted to go lay their eggs somewhere. They put
one box that had a playing a recording of screaming
plants and the other one that didn't, and it was
a higher than chance result that they went into the
box with the screaming plants. The screaming plants, they went there,

(02:08:45):
and they spent more of their time in the screaming
plant box. Remember there's no plant in there, it's just
the sound. And so then the next experiment they did
was to move a little bit further and to see
whether or not the moths were interested in plants that

(02:09:05):
were stressed or not stressed. So they weren't playing the recordings,
they actually had the plants. So first boxes, no plants,
second plants stressed, no stress, and the the moths selected
the plants that were not stressed out. So what they
think is the screaming indicated there were plants, whereas the

(02:09:29):
silent box the no screaming is no plants. So screaming
plants are better than no plants if you want to
lay your eggs. Okay, And they did a number of
different alterations.

Speaker 1 (02:09:40):
That means that healthy plants might be making a sound.

Speaker 2 (02:09:44):
Too, different not that sound, maybe a different sound, but
they haven't they haven't recorded that. They haven't seen that
they have recorded healthy plants, and they haven't found a
sound that's like this popping screaming noise of a pair.

Speaker 1 (02:09:59):
Would have to be mm hmmm. The right we not
have to be the the the impet is to go
to the screaming one because at least you've heard some
plants there. If it was if the plants are normally silent,
you'd still go look for them. M hm hm hmm.

Speaker 2 (02:10:19):
So you're looking for your plants, right, So you're going
to find the screamy ones. But then when you are
given the option of a stressed plant in a not
stressed plant, then you're going to take the not stressed plant.
And when they on the third time they uh put
the moths back in the boxes, and they said, instead

(02:10:42):
of the plant noises, they put in male moth mating
calls against nothing. And they found that the female moths,
who already wanted to lay eggs, were not interested the
male mating calls. So the moths can hear. The moths

(02:11:04):
differentiate between sounds they're interested in and not interested in.
The moths choose plants over no plants if that's the
only option, and they would rather not choose the male
screaming male screaming moths, but they do prefer to lay

(02:11:26):
their eggs on unstressed plants. So anyway, if you would
like to keep moths from laying their eggs on your plants,
you should stress them out. So your plants will be
screaming all the time. But you couldn't hear it, but
the moths will. This is why all of us who

(02:11:49):
have not very green thumbs in this world and have
plants that are just like scrawny and whatever, we're doing great.
The moths are not laying eggs on our plants. It's
great perfect. I didn't know this was a strategy of
mine until now. I am protecting my plants by not

(02:12:09):
watering them regularly.

Speaker 1 (02:12:11):
I try yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:12:17):
Anyway, this is the first evidence of moths tuning into
plant acoustic signals.

Speaker 1 (02:12:31):
Yeah, it's tuning into insect acoustics. But I've never heard
it the other way around.

Speaker 2 (02:12:38):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (02:12:38):
They're talking to each other, yid.

Speaker 2 (02:12:42):
Yep, yep. So the uh, the plants are listening. The
plants are talking, the moths are talking and listening like everybody.
It's a noisy world out there.

Speaker 1 (02:12:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:12:58):
So everyone sleep well, surrounded by your screaming plants, knowing
that they are not going to be interesting to the moths.
Not today, not today. Thank you for listening everybody tonight,

(02:13:19):
Thank you for being here. I think we've done it,
have we?

Speaker 1 (02:13:21):
Justin I think we've come to the end of yet
another episode of this weekend Signs.

Speaker 2 (02:13:27):
We have done it, all right, everyone, So at this
point in time, I do like to say thank you.
Thank you, all of you in the chat room rap.
Thank you for being here, for talking, for sharing, for
commenting on my wonderful large glasses. Yes, I know I'm
wearing very large glasses tonight. I broke my better, regular

(02:13:49):
smaller reading glasses and need to get them. I need
a new pair of reading glasses, maybe like a real
pair of grown up glasses. Someday, I don't know, we'll
see what happens. I don't like glasses. I don't know.
This is like I don't know. I'm just gonna wear
an optical face mask. In the know. It's super fun.

Speaker 1 (02:14:12):
Though, I can have like googly snic hypnotic.

Speaker 2 (02:14:18):
Yeah. So, thank you all for being here and joining
us for our hypno hypno science episode full of misinformation.
Thank you so much for joining us. And I have
to give the shout outs for sure to all of
you for keeping it civil, being respectful. Thanks our and
Lord Gord others who make sure that everybody's being nice

(02:14:39):
to each other. Be kind, be thoughtful, have fun, right,
be curious. Let's all do well in this world together
with each other. And I do have to shout out
also Fata, thank you so much for your help with
social media and show notes. I know sometimes things show
up last minute. It's just always a great help the
help that you give. I done eighty four. Thank you

(02:15:02):
for recording the show, and Rachel, thank you for editing
the show. And thank you too. Our Patreon sponsors, thank
you too. Robert Norland, Robert W. Farley, Lauren Gifford, Dana Lewis,
Eden Mundel, Allen Biola, Aaron Anathma, Arthur Coppler, Craig Potts,
Mary christ Teresa Smith, Richard Badge, Bob Coles, Kenton Northcote,

(02:15:24):
George Chorus, Pierre vell Zarb, John Rattnaswami, Chris Woozniak, Viger Chefstad,
Donathan Styles, Ali coff Aka, Don Stylo, Ali Coffin, Shubret,
Don Monday's Pig, Stephen Alberon, Daryl Meishak, Andrew Swanson, fred
Us one O four, Paul Ronovich, Kevin Brdon Reardon, Noodles, Jack,
Brian Carrington, davidy young Blood, Shawn Clarence Lam, John Ckey,

(02:15:44):
Greg Riley, Marquessenflow, Steve Leasman, a k Z, mckenn Hayes,
Howard Tan, Christopher Rappin, Richard Brendan Minish Brod, Johnny Gridley,
let Me Day, dew Written Latimore, Flying Out, Christopher drier,
ardm Greg Briggs, John Out With Britty Garcia, David Wilkinson,
Rodney Lewis, Paul Phillip, Shane, Kurt lars And, Craig LANDNCU, Dooster,
Jason Old Stavee neighbor Eric Naplan, makes Eo, Adam Michcon,
Kevin Parachan, Bob Calder, Marjorie pald Disney, Patrick Piccararo, and

(02:16:07):
Tony Steele. Thank you for all of your support on Patreon,
and if you are not a Patreon supporter yet and
would like to be, head over to Twist dot org
and click on the Patreon link. I want to read
your name. Come on, let's get it in there on

(02:16:27):
next week's show.

Speaker 1 (02:16:29):
We will be back Wednesday, eight pm Pacific time, broadcasting
live from our Twitch, YouTube and Facebook book channels. We
want to listen to listen to podcast? Do it will
highlighted one? So I figured you weren't coming to showing
up until the way over there. Want to listen to
us as a podcast, Just google this Week in Science

(02:16:52):
and wherever podcasts are found these days. And if you
enjoyed the show, get your friends to subscribe Vibe as
well for more information I anything you've heard here. Today's
show notes links to stories are available on our website
www dot twist dot org, where you can also turn
out for use letter that may or may not verset up.

Speaker 2 (02:17:17):
It will show it really will? I know it will?
This is still yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:17:24):
We love your feedback. If there's a topic you would
like us to cover or address, the suggestion for an
interview haiku that comes to tonight, please let us know.
Just be sure to put twist tws somewhere in your
subject line, otherwise your email will be spam filtered into
a screaming plant.

Speaker 2 (02:17:46):
You'll run screaming from it.

Speaker 1 (02:17:52):
Is this, but I got more? Oh gosh, Oh yeah.
We look forward to discussing signs with you again next week.
And if you have learned anything from the show, remember.

Speaker 2 (02:18:03):
It's all in your head and your friends.

Speaker 6 (02:18:08):
This week in science, This week in science, This week
in science, This week in science, it's the end of
the world. So I'm setting up shop.

Speaker 2 (02:18:23):
Got my banner.

Speaker 6 (02:18:24):
Unfurled, it says the scientist is in. I'm going to
sell my advice. Tell them how to stop the robots
with a simple device. I'll reverse all the warming with
a wave of my hand.

Speaker 1 (02:18:36):
And oh it'll cost you is a couple of grass.

Speaker 6 (02:18:41):
Because this week science is coming your way. So everybody
listens to what I say. I use the scientific method
for all that it's worth, and I'll broadcast.

Speaker 1 (02:18:52):
My opinion all over the.

Speaker 3 (02:18:57):
Well.

Speaker 6 (02:18:57):
It's this week of science. This week in science, This
week in science, scienscience, science, science.

Speaker 3 (02:19:05):
This week in science, this weekend science, This week in science,
This week in science, This week in science, This week
in science, This week in science, This week in science,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Guided by Science

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Guided by Science

On Purpose with Jay Shetty