What's the Science of Changing Someone's Mind?

modern day infographics. You think about things like pie charts, the bar graph, the line graph, all of those things. I mean, it's pretty crazy to think that we actually know who invented the bar graph for the pineff. It's like knowing who invented the parallelogram or something. Well, why didn't the world treat him well? Well, because they were

so stubborn. You see, prior to William coming along, you had intellectuals who felt that information should always be presented in writing and that trying to present information as pictures was just dumbing it down and maybe even useless. So, you know, just going back and and think about what this guy's life was like. When when William was young, he did a lot of work for his mathematician brother.

He'd help him record data, and over time he started playing with this idea of putting data into a graphical format. And William credits his brother with teaching him how to do this, so he says of him, John taught me to know that whatever can be expressed in numbers may be represented in lines. And so you fast forward a decade or so and he ends up apprenticing with James Watt, And yes, it's that James Watt who's steam engine disastin

really changed the world. Yeah, and underwat supervision, William continued to hone this craft of data representation, so he parts ways with what floats around from odd job to odd job, and finally, in the late seventeen hundreds, he publishes something called the Commercial and Political Atlas, And what he does in this is he basically has this giant collection of bar and line charts that are illustrating pretty complex financial

information about European countries. So you think people would give him some sort of credit for this, but it largely gets ignored. So he follows it a few years later with something called the Statistical Breviary, and he pretty much introduces the world to the pie chart. And I'm like you, I'm like, how did somebody actually invent this? But he is the one that came up with this. And again, you think people would realize how helpful these devices could be,

but instead he was mocked. I mean even his old boss, James Watt. Here's how he described me. He first of all, he described the book as quote mere plummery and described William as a rascal. Yeah, and so you know, others dismissed his work and they said geometrical measurement has not any relation to money or to time, which is just absurd.

But this is how people were responding to this. So you know, despite these contributions to the way we represent all this complex data today, William Playfair was pretty much ignored and died in poverty. That's sad. So why do you think he was just like dismissed like that. Why why couldn't they see how helpful these graphs and charts could be. Well, because people are stubborn, and once a mind, and especially a group's mind is made up, it's really

difficult to change that way of thinking. So it took decades before people started to warm up to this idea of you know, information being represented in these ways, and now it's impossible to look at a magazine or a newspaper article without seeing infographics all over them. And you know, the story reminded us of just how difficult it can be to change someone's mind. So today that's what we're talking about, the science behind us, the science behind changing

people's minds. So let's dive in. Hey, their podcast listeners, welcome to Part Time Genius. I'm Will Pearson and as always I'm joined by my good friend Manges Ticketer and on the other side of the soundproof glass, the only guy who still can't decide if he hears laurel or Yung and Mango. I don't want to say Tristan's ever done anything to annoy me, because he never has, but this has been the closest to it. I mean, seriously, he's probably listened to that clip a thousand times by now.

But that's our friend and producer, Tristan McNeil. I know, I feel like the Internet moved on from this ages ago now Tristan, it's time for you to do the same. It definitely is. But we we've got a show to do. And so while Tristan changes his mind over there probably a dozen more times during this episode. Most of us actually have the exact opposite problem. I mean, our minds are made up about things and we won't change them

for anything or anyone. And this is something we've experience all the time now, because, in case you haven't noticed, we live in this increasingly polarized world. Whether it's an unwillingness to compromise on political positions or even just these silly debates about whether the newest Star Wars movie retroactively ruined our childhoods, it seems like no one is willing to give an inch on their opinions, and that's no matter how many facts or reasoned arguments you throw at them.

So with all this discord in mind, we actually thought it might be helpful to look into the science and the psychology of how people change their minds, as well as why we form such stubborn opinions in the first place. That's right, and I actually thought we could start with a bit of neuroscience, because as tough as it is to change someone else's mind, it turns out that it's just as hard to change your own, even about the

little things. And that's because even a simple last minute decision like stepping left to avoid a puddle, that involves a complex system of communication between several brain regions, and that means that these split second decisions often come too late for our bodies to act on. Okay, So then in your example, someone decides to move left a second too late, so they end up walking through the puddle anyway, right,

Except the time window is even shorter than that. So uh, this team of researchers at Johns Hopkins, they recently concluded that we have to change our minds within about a hundred milliseconds and making a decision, and that's in order for that new plan to be successful. So, as one of the researchers put it, if we change our mind about pressing the gas pedal even a few milliseconds after the original go message has been sent to our muscles,

we simply can't stop. And this problem only worsens as we age because our neural communication tends to get slower and slower, which is one reason why it falls are so common among the elderly, like their decisions to alter course or even to cash themselves are simply made too slowly to be carried out, And so does this time limit apply strictly the decisions about physical movements like where to walk or the pedal to press or or is this also related to behavioral actions too, I mean, it

definitely applies to both. In fact, one aim of the research I mentioned is to find ways to help people with drug addictions make a faster decision, and this is to ignore their pulses to use. So the idea is that the sooner a person can change their mind about a plan to use a drug, less likely they'll actually be to act upon that plan. That's interesting, and I guess it makes sense that time is such a big

factor in whether these last minute decisions are successful. I mean, it's sort of how it goes with changing your mind in general, right, Like, it seems like the longer the person has held a certain opinion, the harder it is for them to reverse that position. And that's, of course, even if there's a lot of evidence that their view

may be wrong. Yeah, that sounds right to me, because I mean, we do have facts and we have beliefs, and ideally everyone would recognize and readily admit the difference between those two things. But in practice, humans sent to argue on behalf of a third category which are the things we want to believe so badly that we treat them as if they were facts even though they're not. And that's where this confirmation bias comes in, and we start to trust sources that just support our own viewpoints,

and that's over things that actually challenge our perceptions. Well, and this is really something that we're all guilty of and in some fashion, because as much as we like to pretend that we're always rational and fair, the truth is that each and every one of us has our own biases. So and obviously it's just part of human nature. There was actually this study about a decade ago that found that as young as three months old, humans already prefer the faces of those who share their skin color

to the faces of those who don't. And then by the age of five, we're already conscious of the status of our families and our friends circles, including how they're viewed and treated in relation to other groups. So it really isn't a question of whether or not people have biases. It's more about the degree to which we let those biases influence the way we view and interact with the world.

And studies have shown that if you can recognize your bias on certain issues, you'll likely be more open to changing your mind in light of any new evidence that may be presented. That's really interesting. So well, what do you think determine someone's willingness to change their minds? Then, well, I think it comes down largely to what we're changing our minds about, because if you think about it, we change our minds based on new information all the time,

just in everyday life. I mean, you pick out something to wear one day, you think it's going to be a sunny day, you find that it's going to be raining, so you change your mind and your clothes, and it's no big deal. But you know, things aren't as easy when it comes to something much heavier, like something people consider deeply important or that may define them in some way.

So with issues like that, it's almost like no news report or research study is going to change someone's mind because at the end of the day, I mean, people's misperceptions and false beliefs, they have less to do with political affiliation or I don't know, maybe like a lack of education, and much more to do with self identity, and you know, with how they view themselves through the lens of an issue that they care about. So I think a great example of that is with evolution and

the Big Bang. Like a whole slew of studies have shown that belief or disbelief in those theories typically aligns with the person's religious and culturally. So if someone refuses to change their mind about evolution, it doesn't mean they're unfamiliar with the science. It's more that they see evolution as a threat to their ideology and, by extension, their identity,

so changing their mind doesn't seem like a legitimate option. Well, of course, that makes it extremely tricky to change someone's mind about an issue like this, because I mean, how do you make a case for something like evolution to folks without making them feel like they're even their core beliefs are under attack. Yeah, I mean, tearing down someone's self identity definitely isn't the way to win them over.

But I was reading about this biology professor. He's named Kenneth Miller, and he's made headway by highlighting the compatibility of science and religion. And this is compared to the alternate, which is, you know, harping on their apparent differences. So whenever he comes up against someone who's anti evolution. He points out connections between science and religion as a way

of showing that both can co exist. For example, this is something I hadn't even heard before, but the Belgian scientist who laid out the math behind the Big Bang, he was actually a Catholic priest. Oh really, I've never heard that somehow, But I'm actually glad you're bringing up people's beliefs about science, because, aside from politics, that's probably the area where we push the hardest to change each

other's minds. And that's whether it's about evolution, or climate change, or genetically modified foods or I mean, there are so many of these topics. And that's why I was surprised to learn that when it comes to policy issues, Americans actually trust science leaders more than they do leaders in other sectors, and of course that includes business and even government. Well I'm not so sure about that, because, like the last time I checked, there's still this chunk of the

population who sware the Earth is flat. Well, this is according to a two thousand and sixteen study by the National Science Foundation, and apparently more respondents said they have quote a great deal of confidence in the knowledge and impartiality of scientists than they do in any other institution. That's with the exception of the military. That's really interesting. But if if people trust scientists so much, like, why

are there so many flat earthers out there? Well, I think in general is the key phrase here, because most people likely do recognize that science is a pretty rigorous field and you know, has this long history of trying to deliver accurate results. But you know, I think the problem really starts when specific issues bump up against those ideological beliefs that we were talking about before. And actually, here's a quote from Scientific American that that gives a

good example of this. And here's what it says. Our innate desire to be accurate conflicts with other motives, some of them unconscious. People hold beliefs to protect important values. For example, individuals who think of nature as sacred may perceive genetic modification as morally wrong, regardless of its safety or utility. People also whole beliefs that are rooted in their emotions. A flu pandemic that can cause widespread death among the innocent may cause feelings of fear and helplessness.

The one way to cope with those emotions is to belittle warnings of a pandemic as impossible, which makes sense, but it's also kind of scary to think about because it shows just how bad we are at judging whether our views are rational or irrational. Like, even if our views are only based on bias or emotion, we can still find ways to dupe ourselves into thinking those beliefs

are truly based on facts or reason. I mean, if you think about global warming, one or two descending scientists is all it really took to perpetuate the idea that climate science is controversial or still a matter of debate in the scientific community, and that kernel of doubt was enough to validate the belief that it's all a hoax and some other people's minds, even if they consider themselves science supporters in general, Yeah, you're right, And it's it's

also kind of ironic when you think about it, because scientists are probably the most adept when it comes to changing their beliefs in light of new information that they may have, and I mean revising theories to match the current evidence. Is it's kind of their whole m o. So it's it's it's pretty sad when you have issues where there's near consensus among the scientific community, and yet

they're still so easily dismissed by some people. Yeah, and to play devil's advocate, I do think some people just aren't aware of what scientists actually think about certain issues. Like a few years back, the Pew Research Center released this report where thirty seven percent of respondents said that they didn't think scientists agreed on climate change, while in reality of scientists say climate change is a serious problem.

So in this case, the misinformation campaigned about how quote unsettled the issue is really seems to have worked, like people were convinced that the science was still uncertain and they didn't take the time to double check that claim themselves. Well, see, and to me that that says that although climate change is a scientific issue at its core, it's really become

more of an ideological one for most of us. I mean, nowadays our belief for disbelief in global warming is really an expression of identity more than anything else, and it's a way of showing which groups we belong to. Alright, Well, I I do sense that we're heading into the realm of politics here. So before we open that particularly kind of worms, why don't we take a quick break. You're listening to part time genius and we're talking about the

messy science of how to change another person's mind. Okay, Well, so we mentioned how people tend to dig in their heels on issues they connect to their own identities, and as a result, they'll do any sort of mental gymnastics necessary to avoid changing their minds on the subject. But that makes a lot of sense with moral or religious considerations. But you said global warming is a matter of identity

now too, So how does that work exactly? All right? Well, think about how so much of human identity is tied up with the groups that we form, whether that's family or friends, or you know, colleagues or even political parties. So the downside of having your individual identity wrapped up in groups is is that we do run that risk of giving into tribalism, you know, when those beliefs or

values of those groups are under question. And actually, this is the same thing you'll see even with something as extreme as like cults, because that sense of belonging becomes so important that members will will actually ignore any information that threatens that feeling. And in the same way, you know, we don't want to lose membership, and the groups that

are important to us. And so today, you know, you think about how important political parties are to a lot of people, and it's a stronger part of our identity than ever before. And for example, recent polls show that not only do die hard liberals and conservatives try to avoid spending time together whenever possible, they even feel unhappy if a family member is married to somebody else from

across the aisle. So what you're saying is that the issue of climate change isn't strictly a scientific one anymore. It's become so politicized that it's basically a way to signal which political and social groups you belong to. Yeah, it is, and you know, and people aren't likely to change their minds on something like that, and that's no matter what the science says, because you know, on some level, they don't want to jeopardize their standing with their group.

And it's actually pretty fascinating how much group mentalities factor into all of our decision making. Well, that connection actually goes even deeper, because some scientists now believe that humans developed reason in the first place as this way to deal with the problems associated with living in groups, which is really interesting because we always assume that humans of all, reason is a way to solve these abstract puzzles or

to like draw conclusions from evidence. But according to this pair of cognitive scientists named Hugo Mercy and Dance Berber, reason is really an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves, all right, So just to try to break that down, I mean, what what what kind of hyper social problems was reason actually meant to help with the main one is making sure you don't get

taken advantage of by members of the group. So this makes sense if you think about it, because humans first lived together in small groups of hunter gatherers, where social standing was everything and each member of the group needed to pull their own weight. But inevitably you'd have some lazy people in the group, you know, the type. They always have an excuse for why they want to remain warm or safe in the cave while everyone else risks their neck to bring home dinner. I mean, those guys

are the worst. But actually, hang on, So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying we developed reason mostly as a way to sniff out hucksters and kind of maintain our social standing exactly, And the reason was more a tool for winning arguments than it was a means for pursuing truth, and that's actually what gets us into trouble today. We still argue primarily to win a battle rather than

to learn something new or changing another person's mind. I mean, if you just think about all arguments people get into on Twitter or Facebook and in the comment section of news sites, like, people might back up their viewpoints with stats or links, but no one is interested in learning from the other people there, and instead the conversation becomes this competition with like each side trying to score off the other, and all these fans of both sides just

rallying to cheer them on in the form of likes, well and and that kind of interaction. It also shows how backwards our cultures approaches to facts and evidence. I mean, we like to think we use facts and logic as the basis for all of our beliefs, but in reality, it's often the other way around, where the belief comes first, and then we just pick and choose the facts and evidence to really reinforce those beliefs, and then wield them kind of like a sledgehammer, just to prove our points online.

And you know, given how vast the Internet is now and how lousy it is with misinformation that seems credible at first glance. Finding that evidence for just about anything you believe is pretty easy these days. Yeah, and these really are the glory days of confirmation bias. But you know, the cheapening of facts isn't the only danger posed by arguing to win. Another more insidious threat is the way this mode of argument affects the way we view the

questions we're debating. All right, so what do you what do you mean by that? Well, when people engage in combative arguments, the expectation is that someone will win and someone will lose. And like we've been saying, that's the whole point. But the implication there is that every issue will always have this clear cut, objective answer, like with a math problem or something, so there's no accounting for different views that still might be valid, and instead every issue,

no matter how nuanced, is produced to these absolutes. And actually I came across the Salon article by a research team who studied the psychology of this argue to win mentality, and they had a nice summary of what's at stake here, so they right quote. The more we argue to win, the more we will feel that there is a single objectively correct answer and that all other answers are mistaken. Conversely, the more we argue to learn, the more we will

feel that there's no single objective truth. Then different answers can be equally right. So the next time you're deciding how to enter into an argument on Facebook about the controversial question of the day, remember you're not just making a choice about how to interact with the person who holds the opposing view. You're also making a decision that will shape the way you and others think about whether

the question itself has a correct answer. And I think that's pretty good advice, But you know, for my own peace of mind, I feel like I should point out here that there are times when facts and evidence can help change somebody's mind. And that's because there are plenty of people out there who maybe they're misinformed or mistaken about something, but but who don't cling to that false belief and treat it like a cornerstone of their identity. So in these cases, facts and reason can truly make

a difference. So for our listeners out there, don't give up all hope on this kind of thing. I mean, that's a good point, but what about all those other times, like are really saying there's no way to change a person's mind once they're personally invested in a certain view. Well, I'm not ready to concede that just yet, because, as it turns out, humanities hyper social nature that you've talked about, it might just be the key to changing a person's

long held beliefs. But before we get into that, let's take a quick break. All right. So this whole episode, we've been talking about how difficult it is to change people's minds on these deeply personal or emotionally charged issues. And you know why, we mentioned how simply laying out the facts doesn't work in these cases. There is new research out of Penn State that suggests that doing so can be effective so long as you deliver the facts

along with a heaping dose of peer pressure. So that's when it's come to like using peer pressure to get people to change their minds, which seems kind of shady to me. Yeah, it feels like we're going back to high school for this one. But but at least listen to how the study went. It was It was pretty interesting. First, the researchers gathered fifty eight volunteers from around the campus and had them offer their opinions on the firing of

coach Joe Paterno. Of course, all remember that case, and you know, he was the head of the football program for years and then one of his long time assistance I was accused of these you know, sexual abuses, and you know, the thinking was that Paterno likely had knowledge of the incidents and unfortunately kept quiet. So the college covered its bass and decided to fire Paterno as well. Yeah, I remember it was seen as a pretty controversial move

at the time, especially on campus. That's right. So what they did in this study was that, you know, the researchers pulled the participants on their opinions, and then they split them up, and the first thirty four people took part in these separate discussion sessions they called them, and they were paired with two to four research assistants who

always took the opposing view of the volunteer. And before these discussions commenced, everyone had been given this fact sheet and a summary of the different arguments in Paterno's case. Then things got underway and they'd go back and forth about the case for something like thirty minutes, and these research assistants would offer counter argument after counter argument. No matter what the volunteer would say, they would always counter it.

And so after that, the participants each filled out a ballot with their final opinion on Paternos firing, and the researchers could then use that to track whose opinion had shifted due to the discussion. Which is interesting, But what happened to those other twenties something participants. Well, they also read the same fact sheet and those case summaries, but they didn't have those discussion sessions like the other group did. Instead, they simply filled out the ballot with their final opinion.

Now for that second group, the ones who had only read the materials, only eight percent of these people changed their minds about Paternals firing based on what they had read. But the people who took part in the discussions where they were outnumbered, a shocking thirty eight percent of those shifted their stance in response to that social pressure. I mean, that's pretty wild. But who's to say the people who changed their minds won't just change the back a few

months later. In fact, how do we even know they really changed their minds in the first place, like they could have been lying just to please the researchers. Right, Well, those final ballots were anonymous, so I guess you could say, in theory, the participants wouldn't have felt the need to lie.

But there's actually a similar study that dealt with his concern more directly, and it was this experiment out of Harvard back in two thousand eleven, and it basically found that men judge a woman is more attractive when they believe their peers also fine tore attractive. And so they reached this conclusion by having fourteen men rate the attractiveness of a hundred and eighty female faces on a scale

from one to ten. Then half an hour later, the same men rated the faces again, but this time every face that they looked at was paired with a numerical rating. Now, these ratings displayed were completely random, but the participants were told that these were the averages of the scores given by their peers. And would you know at this bit of suggested peer pressure actually worked, So all of the men ended up rating the women that had higher rankings

as more attractive than they had the first time around. Okay, so to tell me, how is that any more definitive than the last study, Like they could have still been lying just to seem like they had as good an eye for beauty as the other guys or something. Well, here's what's maybe the most interesting part of this. So those participants underwent m r I scans that effectively proved

the men weren't lying. So the brain's pleasure centers lit up more strongly during that second round of rankings, which suggests that their opinions of the women's attractiveness actually did change. That's fascinating, But you know, I still feel a little conflicted about weaponizing peer pressure as a means of winning people to your side. But there might be something to the idea that people are more open minded in group

settings or during personal interactions. Like I remember reading how back during World War Two, the US government tried to sell the public on the idea of eating organ meat because the thinking was that the choice or cuts of

meat could then be saved to feed the troops. So they did research to find out the most effective ways to get people to make the switch, and it turned out that people who had a group discussion about the idea, they were actually five times more likely to go along with it than those who simply read about the merits of organ meat from a nutritionist. Yeah, it's a pretty significant difference. I mean, it's gross, but but it is interesting.

But to be honest, I'm not sure how far peer pressure or personal interactions would get you when it comes to changing minds on like stuff that really matters. I mean, you're thinking in these scenarios, it's whether some person is attractive or whether to cook up some organ meat for dinner. But I think on heavier issues it feels like it'd

be a little bit different. Yeah, I know what you mean, But I think the key might actually be to something we talked about in the last segment, this idea that people most readily accept facts that confirmed the beliefs they already hold. Alright, so how are you seeing that as

a positive thing though? So one example of what I'm thinking about is the legality of gay marriage, and that's been the reality for years now, but the fight to get it to that point was incredibly long and challenging because in order to win the right to get married, gay people needed to get straight voters and politicians on their sides, and of course, historically speaking that's easier said

than done. In fact, all through the early two thousands, same sex marriage activists lost one political battle after another and things really weren't looking rate and a big reason for this lack of success came down to messaging. Like the common arguments from activists at the time centered on the injustice of discrimination and how gay people should be entitled to the same rights and benefits as you know,

straight people. But these kinds of legal and moral appeals pretty much fell on deaf ears and it quickly became apparent that the movement would need a new message, one that was less political and more universal. So what sort of strategy did they come up with? Well, there was one advocate group, in particular, Freedom to Marry, that really led the charge by analyzing data from hundreds of polls

and focus groups. Then, after a year of pouring over this information, the team finally found the answers they were looking for in a single public opinion poll. So, according to the poll, when straight people were asked why they had gotten married, they said it was for a quote, love and commitment. But when these people were asked why they think gay people wanted to get married, the number

one reason was for benefits. I mean, on the one hand, it's obviously a pretty ugly assumption to make about complete strangers that they're driven more by these selfish economic concerns than by the same wholesome motives that that you might possess. But I mean, it does sound like what you're saying is the movement was able to somehow use this thinking to their advantage anyway, that's right. So, in light of this discovery of the team at Freedom to Marry quickly

launched this new nationwide campaign. It was called Why Marriage Matters, and rather than selling the idea on political or economic rounds, the campaign just focused on this universal idea that most people already believed in, which is that love and commitment matter. And little by little, this new message began to change people's minds. Some of the work was done remotely through

TV or radio ads. There were even robocalls employed and media appearances, but the most effective method by far was these door to door visits from actual gain lesbian couples who hoped one day to get married, and when faced with real people expressing that same earnest desire they had, voters finally began to see themselves in the issue as

well as the humanity of those that affected. And in time, those changed minds translated to votes in local elections and the state house victories helped build momentum for the eventual Supreme Court ruling, and that's the one that made gay marriage legal. I mean, it is pretty remarkable, how you know, reframing this argument can make all the difference. And I see what you mean now about people using confirmation bias to their advantage. But you know, you think about it.

Winning this campaign you describe essentially used reason and facts to confirm the core beliefs that these voters already held, and that was instead of trying to change those beliefs. It's it's pretty clever as a tactic, and it actually reminds me of what we talked about earlier with that biology professor who tries to build those bridges between religion

and science. I mean, if we can manage to strip away the political and the social hang ups around an issue, we might find that we have more common ground than we originally thought. I mean, that's the hope. And the other thing to remember is that personal identity isn't static.

All of us change and grow as we go through life, and as we accume life experiences, those inevitably altered the people we are, and as our self identity shifts, there's always the chance our beliefs and opinions will too, even the more deep seated ones that used to define us. Well,

that's a great point. And actually I read this article by a writer named Jennifer Hulette, and she wrote about the potential of that kind of personal growth, and she has some pretty good advice on managing our mind changing expectations too, so I'll just go ahead and read it. So she writes, of course, you can't precisely control how people respond and evolve over time. It's a complex system, and your input is just one variable among many working to shape said system. All you can do is sow

the seeds and hope some fine fallow ground. And since most of us can't see into a person's innermost thoughts, there's no way of knowing where that fallow ground may lie. Those seeds might not flourish for months or years. You might not see any outward change at all for a good long while. That doesn't mean your efforts are useless. People can change their minds and progress be made on

a broad social scale don't despair just yet. Yeah, that is good advice, right, And you know, because I'm not sure we can top it, what do you say we leave it at that and just start the fact off? Well, I did have three or four points I wanted to make, but I sort of feel like you already made up your mind on this, so I can already hear the factor off using, so we might as well start. So, yeah, I told you peer pressure work. Okay, So I'm gonna start us off on a slightly different note and talk

about not just changing our minds, but changing our brains. So, first of all, do you meditate? You know, I've always said I was going to start meditating, and I just haven't gotten around to it. So I think I'll start

next week. I know I talked about it all the time too, but I was reading a couple of articles about the power of meditation, and specifically the serious compassion meditation that to bed and monks do and nor scientists have been studying them for years and have been prized by just how dramatic and effect this kind of meditation can have on their brains, and the studies have shown that monks experienced these huge increases in gamma wave activity

at level they've never seen in other studies, And when their brains were scanned, they found that the region most affected during meditation was the left prefrontal cortex, which is where a positive emotion comes from, and then it was much much more active than the right prefrontal which is actually where more negative emotions like anxiety come from. So I think it's time for us to sign up for the meditation class. All right, let's do it. But but next week we we've got things to work on first.

So but before we start meditating, I'm going to bring us back to changing people's minds, and this one in particular is about food. So have you ever heard people say that seafood and cheese should never be paired? Yeah? Definitely. Well there's this great Las Obscure article and it's looking at this topic and trying to find the origins of this.

And the article starts off I talk about how even on things like the show Top Chef, you'll hear experts say all the time things like, you know, even though I don't like cheese and seafood together, this wasn't that bad. And it's like that's the ultimate compliment you can give that sort of pairing, which is just strange. And it turns out we have Italy to blame for this thinking. And it's actually kind of amazing how global events and

national identities can play into something like this. So it had been the thinking among certain groups and Italy that these two food types should not be served together. And coming out of World War Two, you had a nation in Italy that was feeling the threat of globalization. They need to really cling to those national traditions and it's natural that you'd find certain things to dig in on.

And food is obviously one of Italy's greatest exports because it feels like everybody loves Italian food, and this was the thing that they really stuck to and convinced much of American culture, especially that seafood and cheese should not be paired. So I've got a food related one as well.

It's emasy to read about the high ends companies attempts to get Ketchup to catch on in Australia, like the company had been successful and Sony plays around the world, but in Australia American style, Ketchup only represents about three to four percent of the tomato sauce market. In fact, Hines even introduced this cookbook in the market there a couple of decades ago, just to try to get the public to understand how different ketchup is from like these

other tomato sauces. But I think what I found most interesting is just how passionately some Australians are about this topic and how they almost see it as an invasion of their culture. And here are just a couple of quotes. A famous Australian entrepreneur named Dick Smith, whose company makes a competitive ketchup, said quote, they don't give us stuff

about Australian culture or a way of life. They basically said, if we have one common label and call it ketchup around the world, that's the best way we can make money. And Scott cam who's a TV personality there, expressed concern that the word ketchup might be replacing tomato sauce. So here's what he said, what are we going to start walking down the sidewalk instead of a footpath? As Australian say, they're infiltrated to us. It's not our way of life.

So it turns out the passionate response was pretty effective because just a few years ago Hines actually closed their Australian catchup factory, and this is seventy years after opening it. They finally just gave up and moved it to New Zealand. That is impressive. I'm also going to start using the phrase don't give us stuff about something. I kind of like that alright. Well, in a different direction. During their twenty three years working for Columbia Pictures, the three Stooges

never once got a raise. In fact, they were severely underpaid. Apparently the head of the studio convinced them that they weren't very popular. I don't know how he managed to pull this off, and he almost made it seem like he was doing them a favor just to renew their contracts at the very last moment for the same price each year, which is obviously a horrible to do, but kind of remarkable that he pulled this off for twenty

three years in a row. Wow. So this gentleman named Matthias Blow from Chicago actually convinced his wife to have her teeth pull because of our dental issues. And then he decided, without really asking her, not to get her dentures. He just thought it was cheaper for them to serve her soup every day rather than any food she could choose. I guess he was trying to save money or something.

I don't get it. So she smartly took him to court, where the judge called it quote the meanest trick he'd ever heard, and he promptly ordered Mr Bloud to buy her two sets of teeth and a beefsteak every week. All right, well, I feel like we should try to

end on a happier note. So in the nineteen fifties, fans used to go up to George Reeves, who played Superman at the time, and try to test his strength, and in fact, one time a young fan actually pulled a gun on him, but the quick thinking Reeves convinced the guy to hand it over to him on account that if he shot at Superman, the bullet would bounce

off and likely hit and then a sent bystander. That's really interesting, And uh, I do like in a week that Batman and Catwoman are all the attention for getting married. You decided to end on a Superman fact, so I think you should get the prize this week. I'm gonna act like that was intentional, but I'll take it either way. I'm sure we've forgotten some great facts about the science behind changing someone's mind, or even just fun stories about

the efforts to change people's mind. So we always love hearing those stories and those facts from you. I have to say, Mango, I was a little bit jealous hearing from a listener earlier this week that she was trying to convince a family member to name their child Mango, which just seemed crazy to me. But anyway, I think Will is a pretty good name too. But congratulations to you on that, and we'd love to hear from you. Guys.

You can always email us part Time Genius at how stuff Works dot com or hit us up on Facebook or Twitter. But thanks so much for listening. Thanks again for listening. Part Time Genius is a production of How Stuff Works and wouldn't be possible without several brilliant people who do the important things we couldn't even begin to understand. CHRISTA McNeil does the editing thing. Noel Brown made the theme song and does the mixy MIXI sound thing. Jerry

Rowland does the exact producer thing. Gay blues Yer is our lead researcher, with support from the Research Army, including Austin Thompson, Nolan Brown and Lucas Adams and Eve Jeff Cook gets the show to your ears. Good job, Eves. If you like what you heard, we hope you'll subscribe, And if you really really like what you've heard, maybe you could leave a good review for us. Do we do we forget Jason? Jason who