Pseudoscience Psucks

to justify certain moral or ideological stances. First, I would caution against using evolution as a moral compass. After all, if you listen to this podcast, you know that evolution is one twisted sister full of murder, baby eaten and cannibalism, body snatching and so on. Pop evolutionary psychology often make sperious claims like women like jewelry because we picked berries, and men like cars because of all those saber tooth cars back in caveman times or whatever. And here's the thing.

Evolution is in a linear, simple process. It's full of weird twists and turns, bandrels, detours and pit stops that make tracing back the origins of behavioral tree It's extremely difficult. It's like trying to thread a needle through the roots of a tree, or if you'll allow another comparison, trying to thread a male duck's corkscrew weener through a female duck's labyrinthian vagina. The point is evolution is like a

duck's puzzle genitalia, twisted, freaky and weirdly beautiful. But just because it's difficult to trace back human behavior to our evolutionary roots doesn't stop a lot of people from trying. And some of those people are well kind of bad at it. They cherry picked from the evolutionary tree to

justify their cultural preferences, often with hateful consequences. Joining me to talk about some of the pseudo scientific flim flammery is Katie Stolen, Cody Johnston, hosts of the podcast Even More News, producers of Some More News, and also they've got some kind of new podcast. That's right. First you're ever here. We're with my Heart Radio and other hosts on their shows, Robert of Behind the Bastard's Fame. It will be premiering. Uh, it's going to be premiering before

you hear this episode. Probably it's available now for you to download listen. Yeah, we're the hosts of Fan Favorites worst You're ever available now in the future, but not in the future when you hear this in our future, in our current future, low dude, your current past and your current future and your current cool. Yeah. So I chose this topic because I actually feel like we've you guys, like I've talked to you guys about my frustration with pseudoscience.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to to bunk a lot of the evolutionary psychology and pseudoscience that seems to kind of plague or political discourse. Now I love it. I'm so excited. Um. First of all, uh, you know a guy named Jordan Peterson, familiar a favorite special boy, familiar with the Canadian gentleman. Yeah, he's a psychologist and he makes a lot of claims that aren't really you know, backed in fact. Kidding, Yeah, Jordan, Jordan Peterson. I thought

it was for bad boy Peterson. Man Peterson. He has an appeal. I can get it because he kind of talks like a dad, and he tells you things like clean your room and stand up straight, and those are solid advice, and then he gets into like weird like gender and race sign He's got very specific views that go back to his like whole his whole world view is very interesting and where it comes from and his his upbringing, but like he really tries to push it

based off of like random cherry pick fact. But you know when he talks about his all meat diet that I think we can accept as being based in science, right, that that's good for it even water for your depression, only if you're eating We actually talked about this on

last podcast. You can only have an all meat diet if you like to eat raw meat and raw fish and uh, if you basically follow a very strict diet based on some Inuit cultures where you you got to eat like raw organs to get vitamin c um and they don't even eat it like the entire year there, it's like sixty percent of the year. Is the does seem like something he would be a proponent of though, back get back to like you kill the animals. It's

just that can you imagine him killing the animal? There's no evidence to suggest this is healthier, just that we can do it. It's to do it, yeah, And I don't recommend it because, as I talked about last time, if you do it wrong, you can die of malnutrition, like, if you eat only rabbits, you can starve to death because rabbits do not contain enough nutrients to sustain you. So, uh, you can go very wrong. So his not a nutritionist

daughter is wrong about this meat and water die. Yeah, I'm not sure if it's completely right that you should. I'm not familiar with what the meat and water diet is. Yeah, I'm not sure. I don't even think fishes included, do they are they supposed to cook the meat just beef, just beef and water, and I don't think that's Yeah, I'm not I mean, look, I want a nutritionist, but I don't think he can or should. I think we

can rule it out as as being not true. Um So, one thing I wanted to talk about, which I think is kind of his more one of his more viral moments is his opinion on lipstick in the workplace. What is it? So here's here's a quote. This is from an interview. So I've cut out some of the like back and forth like answer questions, but this is a this is what he says. He says, quote, here's a rule. How about no makeup in the workplace? Why should you

wear makeup? In the workplace. Isn't that sexually provocative? Why why do you make your lips red? Here he gets very confrontational. He's like, why why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal. That's why why do you put rouge on your cheeks? Same reason? Um, And he's in in the interview, they're discussing sexual harassment, and Jordan Peterson is saying, can men and women work together? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if

they can, doesn't know. We don't know the rules yet, right, we don't know the rules. In the same in that same conversation, he also complains about how one of the rules at his university was to have open door meetings with students and he will not abide by that rule. So, uh, we don't know the rules yet. But also we do and he doesn't like them. Unbelievable. Yeah, No, that that

whole quote makes me so angry when I hear it. Also, he also thinks that a woman who wears makeup in the workplace who doesn't want to be sexually harassed is being hypocritical. Okay, cool, So obviously, uh, this is bad because of moral reasons, so you don't understand what you're

really saying. Well, And it's funny because, like an interviewer asked him again, like she's wearing red lipstick, and she asked him what it means, and he said, you're enhancing signals of youth and fecundity, which is a very normal way to talk about things. Dislike that way. So, but I often hear the refrain reels before fields. Facts, don't care about your feelings, that kind of stuff. So let's let's look at the facts, you guys, let's look at those.

I just like, what about like black lipstick? What about like colors that he's not referring to? What about saying you bring that up? Code? I may in fact have something about that in just a minute here if you just wait this Cody. Um. So, studies do indicate that women with redder lips are concern that are more attractive. Uh. It's been conjectured that this is due to sexual arousal and health. But there's an obvious problem with this conclusion.

And when they do a study like this, it's like they say, oh, maybe it's because of this, They don't really know, they can't prove that. But One of the issues is that men and women's when we're you know, doing the sex, both of our lips get read. It's not like only women. Um, and their face also, their faces also get flushed. You know what else. People's faces get flushed when you're walking, when you're embarrassed, when you're excited about something. I have attractive embarrassed people. I like

to humiliate people. It's very attractive when someone's really awkward social and going like a Jesus. Uh, yeah, I warn't make up because I want to look nervous, right. Um. And in fact, lipstick has been worn by men throughout history, So this idea that it is strictly a gender thing is uh not necessarily true. Eloys were dresses. That is true. But it also this idea that redness is associated with sex,

that itself is not necessarily true. So there's a study that examined this and they explored the idea that red lips are associated with sexual arousal and uh red genitals, which is interestingly. One of the theories is that, oh, red lips are supposed to look like a red Volvo. I guess well, I'm always but yeah, I'm always putting lipstick on my vagina. Yeah yeah, I mean, you know,

gotta gotta get that vagina on fleek. I guess. Um. So, they found that in heterosexual men, and I'm sorry, a lot of these studies are heteronormative, the redder vulvas were less attractive. Uh So, they had like these photoshopped images of women's volvas and they made them redder or less red, and the ones that were redder were deemed less attractive. I guess because they don't want, like Rudolph the rain

your vaginas. I don't know. Um so, uh the study, so the researchers said, quote, we found in fact that men showed a strong aversion to red or female genitals. Is not a sentence I normally like to say. Anyways, the researchers continue, quote this, this study shows that the myth of red is a proxy for female genital color should be abandoned. This view must be replaced by careful examination of precisely what the color red in clothing, makeup,

and other contexts is actually signaling to men. What it isn't signaling is female sexual arousal. Um So, you know that's not to say that it I don't necessarily think that that study proves and negative, like it doesn't mean that there can't be any context. So much red lips uh signal sexuality, but to just reduce it to it's like, oh, you know we see flushed bodies as more attractive because

it's sexual. It's making that connection is very tenuous. Yeah, I mean you could say people wear that rugie lips or pink lips for a youthful blush something like that. But like you said earlier, like yeah, what about the blue lipstick the other things, Like it's about so much more than that, right, And so speaking of which, throughout history, both men and women have worn lipstick for a variety

of cultural reasons. So ancient Sumerian men and women wore lipstick made of crushed gemstones, which sounds hard to that doesn't painful, but you know that's true. Um. Ancient Egyptians used red lipsticks to show status rather than gender demarcation. Red lips was traditional, but orange, magenta, and blue black were also popular colors to show your social status. There is more than one color exactly. During the Roman Empire, lipstick was also an indicator of social status and not gender.

Purple lip color became popular amongst women. In addition to the kind of more traditional red. In Germany and Britain during the Dark Ages, orange lipstick was all the rage, so that was the most popular lip color. In England. During the Middle Ages, religion made red lipstick fall out of style as it was unnatural and going against God's plan. Instead, women would wear rose tints as that was associated with purity. And during Edward the Fourth Sign in England, both men

and women of the court would wear lip color. And so as you can see throughout human history, first of all, it's not strictly associated with gender. It's also not just red lipstick. Yeah, there's so many variables. This is why he's he and people like him are so interesting to

me because they skip everything. They take this this little bit that they assume about evolution, and they look at the modern day and what they don't like about it, and they skip all culture and all of history and make their conclusion because they trust that most people aren't going to go and look back at history and right, and even when you look at the Animal Kingdom and you look at they're both the use of makeup, which is very rare, but when it happens, it's quite funny uh,

and just the presence of red lips. Uh. It's more complex than just being like a sexual indicator. So we've actually talked about this before, but I think it's a really important example. It's the uh snub nose monkey. Uh. Their old world love Old World monkeys who live in China. They're really weird looking because they lack nasal bones, so they kind of have a no nose look. And then they have really juicy lips uh. And the males are

the ones that have the jiciest lips. That what they're uh, they live at really high alstitudes, so that's why they don't have a nose because their nose would get frost bite otherwise, like they're just like, well we don't need a nose then, so they're plump red lips maybe a sexual selection thing to show uh, sexual availability. But the older the male, the redder the lips. So first of all,

it's not youth, it's not showing youth and virility. It is thought to also be a dominance signal, so like I'm older, I'm more dominant, and so that right exactly right, And again like these are we're not these aren't are like direct ancestors. So any conclusions you draw from these monkeys is specific to these monkeys. You can't necessarily apply to human So many things from just like they pick any animals like that about that animal, this suits whatever

I want to say, right, you know? And I mean, like, so take an animal that's very distant from us, like birds. So bearded vultures will use iron rich soil to give them a blush basically a reddish hue. And we talked about this the last time I was on here. I think, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. It'll enhance the red hue, and the older, the older the vulture. As you may remember, like the more reddit is. And so it's not just to attract mates,

although that's part of it. It's also to signal their dominance, so their social status, which I think is interesting because throughout human history it's been a signal of social status. Obviously, we didn't evolve from vultures, we didn't evolve from birds. But would you say that the desire, the instinct to paint yourself, uh, to decorate yourself in certain ways as a form of attraction, is a form of like expression

is very natural amongst many species. It could be I mean, it's something that obviously doesn't occur in a lot of species, like most animals don't necessarily decorate themselves. But you can also make the argument that birds who are attractive, which are typically the males, the females are typically more drab, a little browner, and blend in with their environment more so that they don't stick out, and it's a protective technique.

But the males are really beautiful and vibrate many different colors, and the idea there's this more it used to be like, oh, this is just an honest indicator of their fitness, but um, more recently the ideas that like, maybe it's just the females thought it was pretty and liked it, and it's this, Um, it's a sexual selection that's for esthetic preference and not

just fitness. So it's not just an honest indicator of fitness, but it's also they are stimulated by those colors and they like them, and then they select them, and that's how you get these crazy birds that in fact, their plumage can sometimes be have a negative effect on their

overall fitness. So I think this is I mean, this is one of the problems with looking to evolution for answers, it's so complicated and you have so many different reasons for you can have parallel evolution, like a bird putting blush on, right, or a decorator clab crab decorating itself, but the decorator crab is doing it to be camouflage. Like it it'll pick up a little bits from its

environment and put it on. It'll like wear jewelry. If you give it a pearl necklace, it'll put it on because it's it just thinks it's part of its environment exactly. So another problem with looking to evolution for answers is that culture is a huge influence and it's really difficult to separate like what's biological and what's cultural evolution, even in animals. So we've seen this in primates. So savannah

baboons in Kenya are often aggressive bullies. Dominant males will at tax subordinate males and they'll bully females basically to get their white way. They'll bully them into submission. And I think it's often thought that this is like an innate behavior, it's an instinctive thing that the baboons do, but there's some evidence to contradict this. So a troop of Savannah baboon's found themselves suddenly rid of their most

aggressive males. The dominant males had been aggressive enough to fight their way into a garbage dump and eat all the spoils, and in a karmic twist, this gave them bovine tubercular want want did you get? Just the bullies because they were the only ones that were able to like fight their way to the garbage dump. Uh, So they died off. Uh, And now the troop was populated by females and subordinate males, and they became more peaceful

and pro social. So when they wanted things from each other, instead of like smacking each other, they would groom each other and like display affection and kind of just it's a lot nicer, a lot more more peaceful. And then this new pacifist culture has lasted over two decades. So even after most of the original males have died off and been replaced by new males. Uh, the newcomers are

being taught the pacifist lifestyle by the female. So these uh, like a lot of animals, these, even though the males will display like the aggressive males will sort of dominate maybe um, the females form the core of the troop because they don't migrate away from their natal homes, and it's the males that will disperse and migrate around, so

they kind of have the core of the culture. So so if they enforced this idea of being peaceful and then new males come even when all the original males die off and new males are coming around, the females are creating this culture of being nice, just being chilled,

right exactly. And this even happens in interspecies interactions. So captive Reese's monkeys, who are typically kind of aggressive, were raised with peaceful sump tailed monkeys, and they learned to be more gentle and they, according to the researchers, they engaged in hip hugging as a form where they like touch each other's hips and they're like, like, I like you. That's so intimit and sweet, it's very cute, and other things not just aggressiveness, but just other kind of cultural things,

like certain groups of chimpanzees learned to like tickle themselves. Uh. Last time on the podcast, we talked about potato dipping monkeys monkeys UH in Japan who would dip potatoes in saltwater, or these were maccaques, and they copied a female macaque that would dip potatoes and saltwater and eat it. And then that propagated throughout their whole whole thing. And now even though all the original monkeys are dead, they still

do that. Um And different groups of primates who use tools will use different kinds of tools, and it doesn't really seem to track with like their environment necessarily. It's just like a preference of some of them will you say, they're cracking open nuts, some of them will use rocks. Some of them you will use like sticks and stuff, And it seems to just depend. It's like learned culturally.

So I think it's we when we think about animals, we think about their behavior as being the static, unchanging thing determined by their biology, which is it can be the fact. It's often the fact that animals are born with some kind of instinct. But I think in them, especially the more intelligent animals, you see that influence of uh, if not culture, at least learning certain habits from their cohort. Yeah, yeah,

shared behavior transferring over there. There's also like there's a thing I think that it also happens where It's it's assumption that anything that has come about from evolution means it's automatically good, as opposed to just well that's how it happened, right exactly, Because I mean, you know, if you I hope that the people who listen to this regularly have this sense of like, how screwed up because you know, just eating babies, uh, you know, killing each other, cannibalism.

Nothing that would track to like morality, right, unless you think that stepfathers should kill all the existing children like lions do. I don't know about that. I'll have to think about it, but I gotta gotta think about it. I mean, that sounds dicey to me, but it's it's questionable, you know. I mean, but it's like you said, it really is kind of a It's not a moral compass evolution.

It is what it is. And one of the great things about being humans is we kind of get to rise above just like we can change our behavior, can make value judgments and things like that. That's why I like, even despite all of this stuff, when I hear that Peterson argument about lipstick, my reaction is, so what right even if even if it was true, which like I explained is probably not true. Yes, there's no, there's not

any definitive evidence that it's true. There's always a chance that there there could find something feeling that he wants to be true. But right, even if it is, like, so, what we can we get to change, like we've seen throughout history how lipstick use has changed, you know, from orange to purple, uh to like mean different things we get to do that. That's it's just there's a there's a lot of reasons, there's not just one. And we are evolved people that know how to control our impulses.

People were lipstick literally everywhere. So yeah, that's true. That's very well stated. Also, like even if that's like, so if you want to ban lipstick from workplaces, do you want to ban like shoulder pads and like stuff that, Like I do actually because of the the kind of door situations where you're trying to brush past someone in their their shoulder pad smacks you in the face. I think that's specific to like your height range, our height

range for people. But yeah, yeah, you can take our lipstick, but you don't get to wear your shoulder pads. That's a good compromise. It seems that testosterone pills are flooding the market. These promised to prevent you from becoming a quote soy boy, a term for someone with low testosterone based on the erroneous, unscientific idea that eating soy lowers your testosterone. The idea is that high testosterone will make you more manly and attractive, but is this actually true.

Researchers at the biology department of the College of William and Mary and Williamsburg at least found this not to be true for heterosexual women. They showed women images of men's faces that were digitally altered to mimic the variation of facial differences due to testosterone levels. They found that while women did perceive the high test doosterone individuals to be more quote dominant, this had no effect on their

perceived attractiveness. Another study, conducted at the University of Aberte Dundee in Scotland, took pictures of men and measured their testosterone levels. Then they had women ripe the men's faces. They found that there was no link between actual testosterone levels and perceived attractiveness, masculinity, or health. So maybe you shouldn't be taking testosterone supplements to try to look more manly as it could lead the heartbreak. Literally, the FDA

warns that testosterone supplements can cause heart attacks and infertility. God, so you know, maybe those a is Alex Jones still talking those codes. Oh yeah, he's got it all. Oh my god. And the grill on mindset. Yeah yeah, it's uh, you know. And actually, guys, if you want to be a girl alike, you're going to have very small genital Sometimes pseudoscience can have dire consequences. The Bell Curve is a book that was written by psychologist Richard J. Hernstein

and political scientists Charles Murray. It makes a variety of claims that have received criticism, such as intelligence being more heritable than determined by socioeconomic status, and that race is different intelligence. It's often used in a racist social Darwinist context to justify inequality by claiming that there are inherent, static, biologically determined differences and intelligence which determines our quote ranking

in society. Often when a controversial claim such as this is criticized, critics are accused of putting feelings before facts. But hey, guys, let's take a look at those facts.

I would love to very exciting. So um, I think this is one of those uh flashpoint things where it's like this book has been often used as like, oh, political correctness gone mad on college campuses because students don't like for him to come speak and they they there's a lot of criticism of this book, and it's kind of held aloft as like oh, well, science should be controversial, and the problem with this example shouldn't be anything right exactly.

Science should just be uh, you know, scientific. Um. So, the book has been criticized by scientists for various methodological issues as well as for their erroneous interpretations of the data. So Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Harvard evolutionary biologist and major contributor to the field of evolutionary biology, had some pretty harsh critique of the book. Uh. He said that the main argument of the book was based on four false, unproven assumptions. So first, it's that intelligence must

be reducible to a single number. So like, um that i Q is the absolute determinant of intelligence. He likens it to like soil, like the phlevel and soil, or like the quality of soil or something doesn't. Yeah, it was like you look at soil and like, oh, that's twelve. Yeah, well I do, I like, I like my men, like I like my soil A number. Um. The second assumption is that intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people

in a linear order. So like, you know, it's just like this, the more the higher your number, the more intelligent you are. And there's no like, if you're smarter than a person, you're just absolutely smarter than them, not that like, hey, you may be better at math, but they're better at not getting run over by cars um or you know, like they're better at looking at like someone's feeling and going what if I look that up right? Or even like if you're good at math, you could

be bad at evolutionary biology. So it's not just like arts for the sciences. It's just various intelligence and very it's it's a multifaceted thing. Intelligence is not just one thing. The other assumption is that intelligence must be primarily genetically based, and then also that intelligence must be essentially immutable, so it doesn't change. You're born with it, you you die with it. Basically, as we'll discuss, these assumptions are not

only unproven, but there's actually a scientific evidence that contradicts them. So, uh, let's see first of all, One of the problems is that it's so they make the assumption that racial and gender differences in test scores must be due to genetics rather than social influences. Um. They claim that when compared to the influences of socioeconomic status, the biological influence is greater,

but the way they reach this conclusion is extremely flawed. Uh. First of all, it's almost impossible to control for cultural influence on is on i Q unless you like, uh, you know, go with Elon Musk's wet dream and drop some people off at Mars as babies and then just have them like grown up in a sterile environment. But even then they would develop their own culture. And because we're humans and it's just like so like the culture

that brought them there, right exactly, So you can't. It's one of the biggest problems with evolutionary psychology is it's so hard to separate culture as a conflicting variable. So here's an example of that in action. There's a known phenomenon in psychology called stereotype threat. It's where your test score is affected by just being reminded of your gender

or your race. And an example of study found that students who were women or black or Latino Latina did significantly worse on tests just by being reminded about who they were being reminded that of their gender or their race, as opposed to the same demographic of students who weren't

given that. Um. This has been reproduced a few times and sometimes it's even like, if you remind boys and girls of the difference in uh their performances in math, like reinforces that makes right make sense to me, and it bums me out. Another problem with this book, which has got a lot of it's it's it's it's a book of problems. Yeah that's the Yeah, that's the thing with this book, where like you just gotta you have to delve into every single bit, right, and I'm not

gonna I'm really not going to be able to. I don't have time to literally don't have the studio time to debunk this entire book. But there are a lot of problems. But one of them is that the Bell curve our authors pointedly don't control for education levels. Um. They make the assumption that education is a result of i Q and therefore is not an independent variable at so maddening our school funding on the wealth of the people that live there. Did they mention that in the book?

I think there was like two footnotes about it. So at the same time, this doesn't stop them from studying socie economic factors, but then they exclude education. So I think the problem with this is kind of evident. This essentially has a minimizing effect on the power of wealth

by like excluding education as a factor. Uh, and the ability to pour more resources into education because someone who goes to it's this idea that someone who goes to a fancy school goes there because they have a higher i Q and they have it a higher i Q because they're born with it, rather than maybe um, their education from a very young age has been better and they're going to these better schools and as they get older and older, like, yeah, maybe their i Q is

going up because they're getting better education, so they wind up at these you know, right, And I mean the brain is the most malleable very early on, and like if you're if you're a baby, what happens to you in the first three or four years off your life is going to greatly affect that. And yeah, I mean it's you see that very markedly with say, um children who are in some ways either severely neglected or somehow

accidentally excluded from society. So like children who are just grow up in the woods, very rare cases, but they cannot learn language. If you don't acquire language as basically a baby and toddler and you're not around other people and you don't pick up language, you can't really learn it. Yeah, maybe you can learn one or two words, but it really you have this crystallization period as a very young person.

So and the fact that we pick up on so much in terms of culture and uh, language and all these things from a very young age were just little sponges that soak up everything around us. To try to separate that out from the effects later in life is it's very difficult. It's very tricky. So uh, even just like the nuts and bolts of their statistical methodology has

been called into question. They concluded that the haritability of intelligence is around but Carnegie Melons statisticians, that's cool, But Carnegie Melon statisticians used the same studies um that we're in the Bell curve and subjected them to a new meta analysis and found that only around thirty heritability, which

is a pretty massive difference. UM which suggests that their findings would suggest that intelligence is primarily not inherited, which also makes sense, right, Um, but I mean it's not I don't even know if this study is definitive because they they're just studying these studies that are in the Bell curve. So it's it's essentially saying that, you know, the the statistics that the authors in the Bell Curve

came up with may not be right. So you have, like the data they have the day they have might not be reliable, but also the way they interpreted the data was not necessarily correct, right, I mean at every step basically, like the data collection may not have been reliable, the statistics that they ran on the data may not have been good, and then the conclusions they draw from

it have a lot of assumptions. This sounds like an irresponsible book a little bit that it's mainly just this book and then a bunch of other people saying the book is wrong, as opposed to more and more people writing books like that. Yeah, I mean that is a little bit interesting. Although I mean if you believe that, then you believe in climate change, and that the like handful of sciences who are saying it's not a big deal. Are like not not true? Is that? That is what

that would if the thing? If a thing is against the scientific sense, is that means that thing is right? Because Um, I don't know if you've heard, because at one point we thought that the earth was actually the center of the university, the sourcism and everything revolved around the earth, and someone was like, and they were right. Therefore, anything that's controversial it means that, um, it's right because that thing that example I gave was actually before the

scientific method was developed. Tell me, was that before after we were wiping our butt holes with our like thumbs. It's it's undetermined around the current, around the time. Um, we're not supposed to do that. That's just I hear that,

So okay, I don't want to hear about it. Here's another issue with the book, and also just with this kind of ideology in general, is that research has found um repeatedly that genetically speaking, between group differences like between different races or regions, are on average less than between individual difference. So the difference between me and you, like you butt scraping people, it's probably greater than me and

some random person in another country. Hopefully um. In fact, differentiating between races based on genome is not really straightforward. We're a really young species, were like a hundred thousand years old, so a lot of the differentiations that we see between different races and ethnicities are skin deep, like literally. Dr Jade Craig Venter, head of the Solero Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Maryland, says that quote, race is a social concept,

not a scientific one. We all evolved in the last hundred thousand years from the same number of small the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonize the world. Um. The number of genes and alleles that control external experience appearance like skin color are very few and have like really drastic effects. So those kinds of genes that you know can like change the pigment of your skin, it's like it's a lot more.

Just a few genes can have a much more drastic effect in terms of your appearance versus the many many genes that are thought to control intelligence, which are it's we don't even really understand that, and they also interact with each other your environment, right, right, It's much more complex. So it's like the idea that intelligence would somehow be just as easily mutable as like skin color is kind

of ridiculous. And a study published in two thousand and seven in the journal Genetics by Witherspoon and all I didn't know reest was this, Yeah, you know, she's really all trade. She gets a reverse Google. So um. They found that random individuals within a population are far more

genetically dissimilar than the average difference between two groups. So, I mean, that's kind of what I said earlier, the chance that you're just more it's like, you take two random people in a population, they're going to be more dissimilar than the kind of group differences between like an entire population. Um. But they also found often like a random individual from one population will be more similar to a random individual in another population than within their own regions.

So it's basically just kind of confirming the previous finding that, like, you know, I have a good chance of being more similar to someone like in Australia than I am. Take God, no, so uh now is the part of the show that I really kind of don't want to talk about, but it's eugenic. Yeah, it's the Nazi stuff kind of have to talk about it even though it's very upsetting. It's a viciously racist and bigoted ideology. It's the same kind of genocidal rhetoric used to justify the Holocaust and the

justification for this hate. It's like the hatred of Jewish people predated the Holocaust, and they just kind of used that as a way to justify it. My Jewish side of the family was ousted from Russia or just because they didn't like Jewish people. Uh, and then like later there there's all this like pseudoscience, like, oh well it's because of this so um, not only is eugenics morally

terrible and indefensible, it's also just wrong. So the presence of recessive genes and alleles and also spontaneous mutations mean that you can't like do a gattica like you can't get a gatica situation. You can't effectively get rid of certain traits because they will basically kind of we have like a genetic library, and we can kind of we can have variations within that genetic library, but without like evolving over millions of years, we can't drastically alter that

library to exclude certain traits. So even back in nineteen fifteen, that had already been discovered, so we really had no excuse. Um, there was a study that found that red eyed fruit flies without a history of any white eyes uh blue dragon uh or it's a Yugo card game joke. Very yeah. Um, so they were able to give birth to white eyed fruit flies despite the fact that they didn't have previously these red eyed jens just due to spontaneous mutation over

millions of years. You can have an accumulation of mutations that change your genetic library, but you can't like eliminate.

You can't because it's like a it's kind of a memory, right like right, So like an example is, um, what you're kind of thinking of, I think is atavistic traits where you can have an evolutionary throwback sort of spontaneously pop up again, like having supernumery nipples, which used to be thought to supernumery, like an extra nipple, yeah, which used to be thought to be a trait of witches, that they had these extra nipples to feed their familiar,

which were demonic animals. But it really is because like when we were more simple mammals, we had a lot we had scaz and nipples, lots of nipples and now we don't nipples and this disappeared hundreds of thousands of years ago, but still up. Sometimes a nipple just pops up, like Chandler Being had an extra nipple. That's true. There you go. Treated I knew that. I keep track of all these celebrities that have extra nipples. Um, like Crusty

the Clown. Yes, like Crusty exactly. Um. Also, tail stuff can sometimes happen where it's like you're it's just like an overgrowth of your spinal cord into like the the caudle region, like the tail region, and it, uh, you know, just like pops up sometimes and it's like we haven't had that for if you if you quote got rid

of it, it would still be there. Yeah, exactly. Interestingly, atavistic traits has been used by racist social Darwinists who claim that certain races are inferior, despite the fact that it just like disproves that whole idea. It proves you can't like selectively quote unquote breed out entire swatches of d n A because like every you know, every human has the capacity to have a child who has supernumery nipples. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it is true.

And you know, it's like these attavistic traits also pop up in animals, which is kind of fun. So snakes sometimes grow legs just like what we got legs again not, are they like little legs? Yeah, they're just little leg leggies kind of like just like dragging across as they slither around. Your legs have feet? Yeah, well feet, we'll use have toes, sure, yeah, why not? What's so gross about it? It's just like a long, long, long, long lizard. Yes,

that's exactly correct. Sometimes horses grow extra toes. Yeah, yeah, just like an extra It looks like a little miniature hoove growing on the other and so it's like on the on the other hoof, well know, so like at the back of their hoofs, you know, because like some like some ungulates like animals that are hooved to animals will have like not just the one big toe like the that horses have, they have like more, yeah, exactly.

Researchers have even used genetic modification to grow teeth and embryonic birds bringing back in dinosaur times, like the universe already decided that the dinosaurs lost the bird to losers, why do we have to bring them back? Teeth. Well, I mean, why not give birds teeth? Look, I'm not saying I'm on this side of the bird. I'm not saying I'm biased in favor of birds, or that I have an entire Twitter account devoted to making birds the supreme rulers of the planet. I'm just saying that I

funded this research. I may have funded this reason. It's like it's Katie funded research, and I think birds should have teeth just for reasons. I don't worry about it. Don't don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. It scares me, Katie. I got to be honest. So, as you may know, lack of genetic diversity and humans and animals can cause problems. Which is yeah, so um, recessive

genes stick around because they're overshadowed by dominant genes. Um, so they're not expressed an offspring who have inherited the dominant genes. And right exactly, in recessive genes aren't always bad. Like I've got red hair and blue eyes doesn't make me well, it does mean it doesn't mean I don't have a soul. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly with my mini extra nipples with which I use to feed my

toothed birds. Oh how they bite and pinch? But uh so, but sometimes recessive genes are like diseases that that heart harm us. But um, lack of diversity means that recessive genes are more likely to double up. And if the recessive genes happens to be harmful such a disease, we have less protection against that. Uh. And also look, determining which genes are good and bad is beyond our humble capabilities.

So pliotropy is when one gene affects multiple traits. So like if you get rid of a gene that you think is bad, it could have had a bunch of positive benefits that you've accidentally and eliminated, and like vice versa. You could think, oh, this is a gene for being good and strong, and then it turns out it makes interacts with other stuffen exactly yeah, and in certain environments

it will express itself and so exactly yeah. And and gene expression is a big thing where it's like it's not just you know, you've got certain genes and that's it. Like gene expression is very mutable and react yea, and so even uh in the womb, like you can have like development that affects certain traits that become tied to

each other. So have you noticed that like all domesticated animals have floppy ears and they usually have spotted coats, So floppy ears are associated with calmer demeanors and domesticated animals. So a wolf rigid acuiote and a wild boar versus accuate at all. Peggy, um, So this is actually potentially do Recent research suggests uh. The neural crest cells, which are a type of stem cell that is an embryonic development and the ideas that in domesticated animals these cells

are suppressed during development. And these neural cells are stem cells that control brain and head and other parts of the body development. And having fewer or suppressed neural crest cells leads to a less developed adrenal medulla adrenal medulla. It's a wonderful um. Having a less developed adrenal medulla means a friendlier, more social dog or other domesticated animal. And the neural crust cells also control things like your

cartilage and for for coloration. So that's why when you take a wild fox and you try to this was an experiment where they tried to breed more calm, domesticated behaviors. In these wild foxes, they get floppy ears and spotted coats to despite the fact that they're not like the closest relatives to dogs. Yeah, it's just yeah, and a

side side effect. Yeah, it's fascinating, It really is. And I think it's kind of interesting that, you know, you would if you were using sort of like the pseudoscience perspective, You're you're like, oh, they have more repressed medullas or

adrenal medulas. That means they're not as intelligent or or you know, but actually, in that case, it means they're more socially, you know, Like you look at the ears and you'd like to be like, oh, well, the actually the floppiest of the ears actually indicates, like I don't know, some bullshit to write, like them from being able to vote or whatever, like like, let's let's pretend to be sort of a pop evolutionary psychologists just sort of trying to spin a yarn where you're like, Okay, they have

floppy ears because they look cuter and we selected the cuter dogs, uh, you know, or like they don't need their ears to perk up anymore because we're protecting them so they don't need to be so like, you can come up with all these stories, um like fearful of sounds, so they're like trying to mask themselves or whatever. Right, So it's like you can come up with all these stories,

but it's actually really difficult. Sometimes these are just a spandrel, which in evolutionary terms means like a physical change that doesn't really have any function. It's just the result of other constructions, sort of like in a building, a spandrel is the space between like two archways, and it's just it's not there for any real architectural purpose. It's just there because it has to be there for the Yeah, exactly like a corel. I don't think that's where it

was going. Oh that's great. Sometimes pseudoscience not only threatens people, but animals as well. Industries can use their political wealth and power to pervert the course of scientific research to

the detriment of animals. Take, for instance, the humble salmon and the early two thousands of fishery biologists working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blew the whistle, and the fact that he was being pressured to change the conclusions of his research to downplay the negative effect that hatchery has had on the salmon population, and now currently under Trump, the Energy Department's International Climate Office received instructions

to not use the term quote climate change, emissions reductions, or Paris agreement in their memos. Attacking real science to fit a political ideology is often referred to as licendiism. It's a Russian word lysand Coism, which was coined from the term used to describe the Stalinist policy of quashing any science that went against the theory of trothen Lysenko,

who did not believe in natural selection. The fact that even killed some of these scientists who believed in natural selection and who were against this theory troughen Lysenko thought that the genetics of crops could be changed by exposing wheat seeds to humidity such that the crop yields would be higher. Well, this wasn't true, and it's screwed over a lot of people who needed the crops to you know, eat.

This feels especially relevant now as climate science deniers and the current administration tries to downplay the seriousness of climate change as it could mess up the planet which we need to you know, live on. So when we return, will discuss even more science quests. And I don't mean adorable ducks were scientists. I'm sorry, but if you have a picture of a duck in a nab coat, send

it to me. We'll be right back. Throughout history, science has had a few growing pains, but for some reason, even as we prove certain theories wrong, they just keep popping up in modern society. Even today, there are flat earther's, anti vaxer's, evolution deniers, and so called race realists who try to lend credence to their ideologies by using suit of scientific explanations that may have the veneer of truthiness, but when you actually think about it, they make no sense.

The lack of science behind these truth the ideas are even more clear when you look throughout history. Unfortunately, some of these ideas are weirdly making a comeback. Like rhrenology. Okay,

let's talk about phrenology and get your caliber clowder. Such a creepy thing like so connected with the Nazis, just like let's nest so the little background, uh s. Phrenology is an old discredited pseudoscience claiming that skull shape determines personality and intelligence because when they're like distinct parts of the brain that like, this is your intelligence, this is your ability to cook, this is your And when they're bigger, they make bumps in the skull, and each bump correlates

to a personality trait, so you can feel someone's skull. And phrenology has taken many shapes and forms, but like, um, that was that's sort of the main thing that that popped up in the eighteen hundreds, and there's kind of been a resurgence of people talking about skull shape where they point to it as an indicator of a difference in intelligence between like different groups of people, like based on sex or race, which is a problem because it's

just there's no science to indicate that it's true. Here's

one big problem that it's kind of off es. So Neanderthals had much bigger skulls and much bigger brains, and they lacked the I mean, it's always hard to compare intelligence, but if you're like looking at it at the metric of human intelligence, they weren't as smart as us in that kind of aspect, like humans were able to develop complex kind of second and third order tools where it's like you use a tool to make another tool to make another tool, which Neanderthals, it's thought that that's like

one reason they didn't advance socially as much as we did. And obviously so Neanderthals were around a lot longer than we've ever been around, and we've like just kind of exponentially developed in terms of our civilization, for better or for worse. But you know, obviously, in nature, there's not strong evidence to indicate that brain size and intelligence are always directly correlated. It's not that brain size and shape and stuff doesn't necessarily like have an effect on on

how that brain functions. But it's just it's not like as simple as a bigger brain or a smaller brain are less or more intelligence, right exactly. Like it's really, first of all, it's hard to measure animal intelligence, as kind of a disclaimer, but if you use sort of human metrics of what intelligence is, you're good at being

a smart human, right right exactly. So, for example, an African parrot's head and brain is very tiny, but it's considered one of the smartest birds, capable of outperforming for your old human children on simple physics test. Really. Yeah, so, like you know, the whole thing where you give a child like a liquid volume liquids and they're like, here,

I'm gonna pour this liquid into a taller glass. And then they're like, I want the taller glass because it's taller and that's more orange juice that I want more juice. You can't fool an African gray parrot with that. Each other, Like, no, dude, trying to scammy. I've seen the scam. I invented this scam. Of course. The sometimes the argument is that it's brain to body ratio. So African grain parrots are more intelligent

because they have a high brain to body ratio. So research has been just like kind of basic facts about animals doesn't really seem to indicate this is true. So here's here's kind of an example of why this is a problem. Humans have a brain to body ratio of on average about one to forty. Tree shrews have a one to twenty brain body ratio, dolphins have a one to seventy eight brained body ratio, and dogs have one to one and ants have one to seven. Yeah, so

according to this, ants are the most smart. Uh. Tree shoes are also very very smart. A lot of people are saying this, yes and uh, that humans are not as smart as the tree shoes, um, which obviously is you know it's true. I mean, have you seen the tree shows either they don't even know to treat shoe is well, see that's the thing. They're so secret, They've got their entire secret society. So tree shoes are so

smart that they know what treaties are. But the point is that the idea of like brained body ratio meaning like more intelligent less intelligent, it's not to say that like, Okay, yeah, if you have a brain that's like two neurons, yeah, that's going to be more simple than a brain that has like hundreds of thousands of neurons. But it's you can't just like look at an animal and be like, okay, that bird is small and that whale shark is big,

therefore bird dumb, whale sharts. So you can't take like, i mean size and density or different things, right, and density in terms of brain is like you know, one of the things is like brain folds can be an indicator of it, Like smoother brains are considered like maybe

not having as much neurological activity. But you know, even then it's like you can't know measuring these things doesn't necessarily like the difference between gray matter and white matter, like we don't really know how that translates to intelligence, Like that's often pointed to in gender differences, is like an indicator that like, oh, well there's a difference, but we don't actually see that reflected in like you know, say, like you know, women and men who take like get

the same scores on like Ravens tests, which is a type of UM. It's another kind of type of i Q test that tries to eliminate a lot of cultural factors. Of course you can't. Um, there's no test that is

going to eliminate cultural influence. Yes, it's yeah, it's trying UM and you know, the gender scores are basically identical, and so it's you know, it's one of these things where we don't we just don't understand the brain well enough to be able to like point out like, ha, that brain is a lot a lot more you know,

fat than that one, so it's better. So much of this just seem it's just a lot of grasping it strong, like knowing like I really want this to be a thing, right, and and speaking about it definitively when you just can't

write exactly. Um. I've seen like several conversations between like Jordan Peterson and like Stephan Mall and you, who speaks so definitively about these things, and it's like, well a lot of times they're just wrong or they're just it's not decided and it there's so much nuance to it that to speak diffinitively about it makes me question what your intentions? So frustrating We know that you don't know

this answer. People don't know. The brain is hard to study, like and that's the thing, and I think that's an important distinction, is what is their motivation for doing this? Because obviously evolutionary biology and psychology are both fields that are plagued by um just it's really difficult to study. And that doesn't mean that it's not they aren't worthy disciplines or that you know, obviously, I think they're extremely

worthy disciplines. And I think that you know, trying to find out why behaviors came across and stuff, that's not it's not it's not all garbage science. It's just that it's so hard to figure these things out. It requires such detailed analysis and studies to parse out all of the um conflicting variables and that you know, we will try things sometimes and then like genuinely good natured studies that are really intellectually honest will sometimes be proven wrong

later on. So it's like, what is your So that motivation is actually very important because if you're doing a study where it's like, well, I think this beetle maybe uses its um chills rae in like sexual selection, and I'm just curious about this, and I'm proposing this thing, and I'm doing the study you're doing that, it's like your your whole motivation is you're curious about this thing.

You want to find out the truth. When you're like, you know, maybe chicks can't just do can't do math, and maybe it's okay to that they you know, are pressed in society or something, right, David blatant motive for why they're trying to extrapolate this specific conclusion from something that doesn't have a conclusion, And usually the motivation, in my opinion, is to justify social inequalities, so like to say that if certain like if if a gender or

race is not doesn't have as many resources or rights as another one that's okay because they're in fear. That's how it is. Yeah, that's just how. And I'm it's like any time, like the burden of proof for that kind of claim. It's not only high morally but just scientifically.

It's like, I feel like you should just be very skeptical of anyone who makes a sweeping claim about human behavior, uh, in any capacity, especially though if it's in that vein where it's like everything's don't don't rock the boat, stop trying to Yeah, it's yeah, you see it a lot again. I keep coming back to Jordan Peterson, but like his like his lobster thing, it's very much like no hierarcharies is good, don't rock the boat because the way lobsters operated,

therefore society works the way it's as if. Yeah, I mean that's so funny to me because of all the animals that you could have picked, like a lobster is maybe one of the furthest it isn't the furthest, but so far back on the evolutionary tree, like uh, sea bugs, like what are you doing man? And and like just the idea that because it's also although they are remembering little merdmaid like wasn't that Sebastian, Oh it was a crab, So maybe we should be looking to crabs, right, that's

actually a Disney propaganda for some feminisms bat or something. Um, but these also these It's always interesting because as we've sort of you've been talking about this whole time, uh, making a claim like that from evolutionary biological standpoint without like saying like have you have you talked to an anthropologist about this and historian about this, and people who are aware of these kinds of things that are like, oh, actually that's related to this, or like that wasn't always true,

and uh, they don't seem to be open to all of the variables and the nuance that is required. I wonder why. I wonder what we'll also, I mean, like Peterson doesn't want ethics panels for science, so he has a specific agenda. He has this he wants he basically wants like the fifties again, where women are in their place.

You have sort of like you know, uh, white people have all the privilege and you know, and science was king dips into like low i Q people not participating in society and eugenics, yes, eugenic yes, he does well speaking of all this, I wanna in the show with something that is very funny. Well it's terrible, but funny. So physiognomy. Physiognomy, which is a Nazi Furries wet dream. Look, I'm not by the way, I'm not slandering all Furries. Good job, good job on kicking Polo Annapolis out of

that convention. So they're really taking a stance against the Nazis. Nazi Furries are right, very vigilant about keeping fascist Nazis out of there. That's great. Yeah. The So physiognomy is the idea that someone's outer appearance, such as facial structure, is an indicator of personality and intelligence. So this was popular during ancient times like uh in in ancient Greece, uh and in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Um. One of the claims is that animal like features indicated a

personality similar to that animal. So like a lion like face meant that the person was going to be more bold and brutish, and like a dog like face is going to be more like submissive. Um. Actually, let me show you some of these because it's extremely funny. Here's a here's a science for you face face looks more like lyon, therefore person more like lyon. Uh. It's so fascinating well because also like there's an element of like people might treat you differently if you look like a lion,

and that might affect your personality behavior. But it's not because of that, but also just it's also they weren't like doing studies ums like the same, same, same, same. Like here's one see he looked like dog. They're funny. Maybe he's like a dog. Dog therefore is right And this uh sounds like something that would just like how it would just be dismissed um before the eighteen hundreds. But so this almost derailed the course of evolutionary biology research.

So Charles Darwin was almost barred from sailing on the the Beagle because the captain was a fan of physi agnomy, so he didn't like the shape of Darwin's nose. So Darwin wrote, quote, this captain was an ardent disciple of Lavador, who I guess as a physiognomist, and he was convinced that he could judge a man's character by the outline of his features. And he doubted whether anyone with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination for the voyage.

But I think he was afterwards well satisfied that my nose had spoken falsely drag him Darwin. Ye oh, my gosh. It's so it's just I mean, it's silly, it's funny, but I think it's kind of like it's fun to laugh at it. But I think it's a really good reminder that, like, just be alert for these kinds of things.

Anyone telling you something that kind of seems like snake oil, Like, hey, if he's got a face that looks like a bird, maybe he's bird like, Like that doesn't make any sense, but you know, I mean I've seen just kind of anecdotally like this a sort of more of these kinds of things of like well maybe you know, like skull shape or like face shape or whatever, you know, has some kind of thing to do with personality, and it's just just be alert to that and like being legitimized

by people who have the air of and there's so many grifters that have a platform and being elevated that you know, things are happening today across the board that you wouldn't have been able, you wouldn't expect it happened. So yeah, it's a very good warning to be on guard for this kind of ship. Yeah. Yeah, it's uh. I don't know if you're familiar with the Prigger You website, but yeah, we're familiar the website that says not an

accredited universe, but that's the one. It is weird how because they do get like they will get professors on there and such. So it's like it's not that it's all just like Ben Shapiro, you know, whining about pronouns or whatever. But oh Benjamin talking about how comedy is dying running into a Nazi whoops. Um. But yeah, so it's like it's kind of trying to legitimize a lot of these these things, and is he looking at it as a whole, like, I mean, even have a video

about how the Civil War was actually about slavery. It's good job. Oh they do have Oh I see, Okay, that's confusing to me because typically yeah, um, but again that's like they try, they try to make it legitimate. But then they'll have one on They had one where it was like it was by Praeger himself, Dennis Trager, where he was talking about the power of the visual.

I don't know if you guys saw this one. But it was like saying that men are just hard wired to be more attracted to visual stimuli, and they were aroused by visuals, whereas women won't aren't and they can't understand it and so um and and he's like, that's this is not to justify sexual assault, like whoa buddy, what this? Um? Yeah, they know they know that that's but it's basically saying women or men are attracted by

visual stimuli like hot ladies. Of course, it's it's right exactly, it's all heteronormative, of course, like it's always been attracted. Although he does mention like, oh, well, you know, women don't look at pornography, but game in look at pornography or whatever. I don't even know why speaking of citations needed.

A study found that even though women when they were sort of surveyed they may report less being like visually stimulated, when they actually measured their brain responses brain activity identical to men when they were shown um, you know, like sexual image. Yeah it was so you know, it's like, I mean, it's it's one of these things where you can have Again, it's so hard to separate culture from biology, right exactly, so I mean, for example, obviously different cultures,

different clothing styles, different things are considered attractive. We used to get hard about ankles, you know. So it's I just if you take one thing away from this whole fun journey through pseudoscience is if something sounds like a big claim, it might be and just check out the CITA, like read the studies it's based on. Oftentimes those studies will you know, maybe not actually say what the person is saying. They're saying right and there, and it's not

like all It's not like studies are always perfect. Like there could be a study that makes a claim like or they do something and then in the discussion section they're like, we think maybe this, but they don't. That's just an assumption right there. They're Oftentimes studies like that are used to say that the thing is true when studies like, yeah, they're speculating right exactly. So, uh, you know,

and studies can be flawed too. I mean that's not I don't think people you know, don't not trust the larger body of scientific research, but just you know, I think being having a sort of critical eye for things is really important, especially if someone is trying to trying to tell you button up your shirt, keep your shoulders straight,

and don't have women in the workplace. Yeah, if it's like if there's like a political or social agenda that's clear, or like a conclusion that's being made and it's based off of this kind of stuff. Question that right? Uh, it's yeah, it's really misused a lot and again more and more and more by publications and figures. That's fun. That is cool? How fun? What fun we've had? What fun we've had? I feel like if I if you did physiognomy on my face, I'm trying to think what

I would look like. I feel like human being, human being. That's a good one. Yeah, I think I think a human being, right, I think definitely being You know, you look like human being, an act like a human being, you might be being human being. Also like the idea that like all like one species of animal has like a personality. It's also weird, like I mean, look at any dog. Probably not true. Also the lion like face.

I might post this online, but like the lion like face, it was also their mustache and beard hair like the hair style Cody, you have a beard, so clearly you're like a lion. You eat babies. But if I were to shave, if I personality would change with you would stop eating babies, which I mean, maybe you should shave. No you haven't. I mean I've been trying to say it for a while now. It's very distracting, the eating the babies. Yeah, I mean, and then he doesn't finish them.

So we've got like that. But like we get ants. And one time we came back to the office and there, which is a room full of lies, was that the baby though it might have been my coffee. Well, this has been a delight. So do you guys want to talk a little bit about all the things that you do, because you do a lot of things, a lot of sure. Um, we have our own podcast called even More News. Our YouTube show is called some More News, and you can check us out on patreon dot com slash some More

News if you'd like to support us. Hear all that kind of stuff. Social media is all some More News, and then our news show with Robert Evans is called Worst Year Ever. It will be released releasing when you hear this, um social media first year pod. Yeah, I'm so looking forward to that. It's gonna be fun and all basically we're yeah, we're doing everything. Uh, you know, for the rest of this year, we're gonna be going in depth on candidates and talking about different issues and

things like that. In the next year news sources. Um. Next year we're gonna start traveling around going to contention. Now you not thank you for taking that weight upon your shoulders. It was exciting. It still is, but now it's like, oh God, there that's happening. And you can find us on the internet Creature feature Pod dot Com, Creature Feature Pod on Instagram, Creature feak Pod on Twitter, at t tee that is a um and you can find me at Katie Golden and at pro bird Rites

where I say we give teeth to birds. And thanks to the Space Costics for their awesome song Exo Lumina. Cre 's Your Feature is a production of I Heart Radio's How Stuff Works. For more podcasts from our Heart Radio, visit i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.