In this episode, Jesse Fries discusses various topics including the upcoming election, security measures in New York, the war in Ukraine, the concept of an Anthropocene epoch, support for Israel, and the evolution of gossip.
Support the Mindless Sea Podcast
https://www.podcast.mindlesssea.com
(00:38) Biden v Trump
(02:17) Security measures in New York
(03:32) The war in Ukraine
(05:25) Epoch Denied
(15:24) Americans Polled On Israel
(17:58) Study of the Day: Gossip
(21:26) Value 4 Value
Show Notes:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Quaternary
https://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2011/09/27/geologic-timescale-names/
https://dnyuz.com/2024/03/05/are-we-in-the-anthropocene-the-human-age-nope-scientists-say/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214160121
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/super-tuesday
https://www.podcast.mindlesssea.com/episodepage/epoch-denied
[00:00:00]
Unknown:
This is the Mindless Sea podcast.
[00:00:16] Unknown:
Hello, everyone. Today is March 7th 2024, and it's been a busy week, it looks like. So and this week, I am, doing 2 podcasts just to catch up from, the other one that I did not that I was not able to catch, due to some family stuff going on. Anyways, let's start off right away with what's going on right now. The big news is that, the election is set. And, unfortunately, or fortunately for you, depending on how you view, this is a repeat of 2020. Yay. Just what we wanted, the same 2 old dudes going at it. Well, I guess that's what we're stuck with. At least we know these 2. A lot of times, it's just the same people with different names that the party just puts up with the same ideas and everything like that. So at least this time, you know, we actually get 2 of the exactly same people. Yeah. That's kinda nice.
Super Tuesday was Tuesday, and it took Nikki Haley out of the fight. She just couldn't hang in there anymore. Trump has won every state except for Vermont during this whole process. Haley also won DC, but since that's not a state, it counts, but it isn't a state. So Trump won every state except Vermont, and then he also lost DC to that to her as well. Biden himself, he was a shoo in. Basically, the democrats are a loyal party, and they're loyal to a fault. So they were gonna put them in no matter what. And so because of that, we're gonna have a Trump slash Biden election cycle again.
Should be just as boring and just as crazy as the last one, possibly. And speaking of elections, looks like the governor and mayor of New York have, announced that they have to get security going. Apparently, there's too much crime, especially in the subway systems. And so they have announced that they will be checking bags when you enter the subway system, and they will actually be deploying the National Guard to be able to do this. 1,000 National Guard members are gonna be deployed around New York City to facilitate this. This is all because of 3 deaths that have happened so far this year, and, apparently, that's a huge spike or enough that, they are worried.
Also, though, it is an election year, and so, of course, they will just pull out all that they can do to actually try to win votes for their party or for them for themselves in this election year, because only in election years do you really need to protect your citizens. Beyond that, yeah, it can go away, you know, they're just there. It doesn't matter, but in an election year, they actually count. Maybe we should make every year an election year. Okay. And then it looks like late last month, French president iman Emmanuel Macron said there is no consensus today to send ground troops, but nothing should be excluded.
We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war, and he's talking about the war in Ukraine. Apparently, he wants to send troops or thinks that might be a good idea. I think that is completely asinine. I don't see why we would wanna do it because it would make NATO an offensive alliance. It would actually prove to Russia that it is an offensive alliance and not a defensive alliance, So it'd make a liar out of, well, all of us in the NATO countries. And it would also prove to Russia that NATO was never about defense. It was about their own interests, about NATO's own interests. So this would be against what NATO should actually do if NATO actually wants to be a defensive organization.
Not only that, but if you send your troops in there, this could possibly open up NATO countries to valid attacks from Russia. As in their troops are killing or, like, say, France's troops are killing Russians, so then Russia could attack France itself, could send a missile just and lob it right on in there to France. Russia does have the capability to do that. They have an advanced military, so we should always be careful about that. Also, we need to realize, for god's sakes, Ukraine is not part of NATO. They are not. So why would we send in troops for this? This is only it just doesn't make any sense to me.
But, thankfully, other countries have shot this idea down, including ours. The United States has shot it down. Germany shot it down, and very various other countries have as well. So it looks like only Imran Macron is the only one out on a limb when it comes to that. Okay. In other news, I really have a wide interest in knowing different things and of being curious on many different things. And so I ran across this article, and, the title of the article, it was on the local, looks like a local television station. But the title of the article was are we in the Anthropocene, the human age? And nope, scientists say. So this got me going, and I was wondering about that, so I read a little bit into it.
And it looks like geologists have decided there is not a new epoch. So we're talking about epochs here, which is a level of geological time. You have eons. You have eras. You have periods. You have epochs. And so in this, they some geologists were wanting to have a new epoch, but they voted, and the vote was that there is no new epoch. We are still in the holocene, and we are not in a new epoch called the Anthropocene, which is basically the age of the humans. Basically, why this all boiled down to not being the Anthropocene and just sticking to the Holocene is that humans have greatly changed the planet.
This has been this is viewed everybody knows this. We have done a lot to this planet. Some of this is like the radioactive fallout from nuclear testing back in the forties the fifties. There's also microplastics that are all over the world right now. They're even in our body right now because everything we use is basically plastic. There also have been mass extinctions due to us, and things like that, and so, because of this, we know that humans have greatly changed the planet, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we need to name a epoch after ourselves.
2 of the reasons for denying the Anthropocene was, 1, is when would it be? When would the epoch, the Anthropocene epoch, start? Some say that it could have started during the development of agriculture, developed land, irrigation. Also, could domestication of animals be another start time? So it all just depends on where it is. Then there's also the industrial revolution. You add all the smoke, soot, acid rain, cars, road waves, and that could be a geological layer as well. Some even argue that the colonization of the Americas or of Australia could also be the start of the Anthropocene.
So, basically, it's an argument on when it would begin, and so because of that, it cannot be an era or an epoch. You have to have a specific time when that epoch started. There has to be something that you can point to. And the Anthropocene, since it's all about humans, it's hard to say when it actually started. Did it start 11000 years ago? Did it start 200 years ago? Did it start a 150 years ago, 250 years ago? When exactly did it start? Some people believed that, they should put it at about 1950 because that's the nuclear age and things like that, but it's still a bit too waffley because we have changed quite a bit, on the earth's surface even before then.
Also is the question, where would it be? For an epoch to change, it has to be worldwide all at the same time. Humans Changing the Planet is more of a sprawling storyline than it is, complete break. So did it all start July 16, 1945, or is it just a sprawling storyline? Is it just the United States testing nuclear weapons, or is it all the different other countries testing the nuclear weapons as well? And in this whole discussion, there's something that shows that epochs are really thought of as sexy, and calling human activity an event would be better than an epoch. So an event is just what it is. It's like the meteor coming down, asteroid coming down, and killing off the dinosaurs. That's an event.
Volcano erupting. That's an event. A mass extinction. That is an event. And so because of that, it may be better to actually have us known as an event so far and not as a epoch. With an event, you don't need to narrow down the start date. Events don't need a specific start date. And so because of this, you can actually be waffly. You could say it was due to agriculture. You could say it was due to the nuclear, weapons testing. You could say it's due to microplastics. You could say it's due to global warming. You could have it any which way, and that would be fine, because it's just an event. But epochs actually need a specific date.
It's like, the last epoch, or the current one that we're in, the Holocene epoch, that one started 11,700 years ago. That's when it started. Plain and simple, that's when it started. So you actually need a specific time for epochs to start, And, also, just because it's an event does not mean that it doesn't have a huge effect on Earth on Earth's geological records. Many of the most important things in geological history are events, such as oxygen filling the Earth's atmosphere. This was over 2000000000 years ago. That was a very important thing, but it was not the start of an epoch.
There was also mass extinctions, dinosaurs going off. That was not the start of a epoch. There's also been biodiversity explosions where the biodiversity has just exploded beyond belief. More species, more flora, more fauna, all these sorts of things have just exploded. And because of that, all these are events. So events are important, but they don't get to be put onto the actual geological timeline. And that is exactly why some people want the Anthropocene to actually be an epoch, because it goes on the official geological timeline. And to them this is very important.
To me, not so much, but if you really want to know where we stand in the world and everything like that, we are in the Holocene epoch. Holocene is Greek for entirely new, and this started roughly around 11,700 years ago, and this is also roughly when agriculture and civilization began. So they kinda go hand in hand with human civilization and agriculture. And so the Holocene epoch, it is in the quaternary period. Quaternary is Latin for 4th, and this period has seen many ice ages and rapid warming periods. So that is how this our time right now is viewed geologically.
And then that quarter period period is in the Cenozoic era. Cenozoic mean is Greek for new life. And then that Cenozoic era is within the Phanerozoic Eon, which means which is Greek for visible life. So before so this eon that we are in is 1000000 and 1000000 of years old, and it's basically just when life you could actually see it with your naked eye. That is how far back that goes. To me, we should just stick with the Holocene, as our epoch. I don't see why we would need to change it, because it corresponds with the rise of human civilization and also the neolithic the new stone age period of human advancement.
So because of that, I don't really see a need for it. Stating that we should name an epoch after ourselves really strikes me as arrogant. It says that we are so reckless with life that we deserve to be called out for it, because most scientists actually say that's why they wanna do it, because humans have had a really devastating effect on the earth. And so that is why they want to name a epoch after us, the Anthropocene. Now, if you want to name a epoch after us, just change Holocene's name. That'd be fine with me. Just change the Holocene to the Anthro scene, and we'll call it good. I don't see why we would actually need to create a new epoch, but then scientists don't like to change names very often, so, I guess that might not be happening.
And, really, if you do would change it to the Anthropocene, it would make sense because that was 11,700 years ago, which is roughly, give or take, 1000 years or so, is when civilization and the rise of our species really started to take off. It was with the last melting of the glaciers that really took us to where we are today. It was that period of time that caused us, that allowed us to flourish as much as we have.
[00:15:20] Unknown:
Okay, Jesse. You've said enough. Let's go on to the next topic.
[00:15:24] Unknown:
Okay. Okay. I guess I'll go on to the next topic here. Okay. Looks like, let's talk about Israel for a little bit. Looks like Harvard did a poll with Harris of registered voters. And just so you know, I love polls. I love studies. I love polls. I love all that sort of thing. And this one is about Israel and support for Israel and Hamas. Apparently, it says 63% of registered voters said that Israel should continue its ground invasion into southern southern Gaza to root out the final elements of of Hamas. It also said in another question, that 33% of Americans wanted unconditional ceasefire, but 67% wanted, to go all out until the hostages are released and until Hamas is wiped off the face of the planet. Well, that that's in my words.
I think that's really what we would like. Then another question said that 78% said Hamas should be removed from power, in Gaza. 22% said that Hamas should stay in control of Gaza. Looks like only about 18% support Hamas, while 82% of the American voting public support Israel in the war. This is not really what I expected. I always thought, that people most supported Hamas and everything like that, but it's nice to know that I'm not in the more minority on this one. It just seems like it a lot of times because the pro ham Hamas voices have been loud.
But, apparently, they are few in comparison, so I think we should be pretty happy about that. It's nice to see that people actually view things kinda the same way I do. Now don't get me wrong. War is always bad, but it is necessary in some cases, and if you are attacked, you can respond in any way you need. Some say Israel has gone too far, but they are trying to root out the problem and not just let it fester until the next blow up. Now, of course, this could lead to more attacks in the future. Whenever you do attack, you create enemies, but the same could have been said about Hamas attacking in the first place. But no matter what, if you're attacked, you do have to try. No matter what, you have to try to fix whatever is going on.
[00:17:58] Unknown:
And now it's time for study of the day.
[00:18:10] Unknown:
Okay. I love me a good study, and today's study of the day is all about gossip. Apparently, gossip is good, even though people can get in trouble for gossiping, and everybody looks at that gospel as a bit shady here or there. But gossip is good, apparently, and it's explaining the and there's in the study, it's it's called explaining the evolution of gossip. It was a study out of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and also out of Stanford and also the University of Maryland. The abstract for the study. So this is basically the breakdown of what the study found. The abstract of the study, and I states, and I quote, gossip, the exchange of personal information about absent third parties is ubiquitous in human societies.
However, the evolution of gossip remains a puzzle. The current article proposes an evolutionary cycle of gossip and uses an agent based evolutionary game theoretic model to assess it. We argue that the evolution of gossip is the joint consequence of its reputation dissemination and selfishness deterrence functions. Specifically, the dissemination of information about individuals' reputations leads more individuals to condition their behavior on others' reputations. This induces individuals to behave more cooperated cooperatively toward gossipers in order to improve their reputations.
As a result, gossiping has a evolutionary advantage that leads it to its proliferation. The evolution of gossip further facilitates these two functions of gossip and sustains the evolutionary cycle. So, to put it in other words, gossip is kind of a non author nonauthoritative way to control a group, to control the civilization, the society. The whole idea is that if you don't want to be the butt of negative gossip, you have to cooperate. If you are the selfish one, you will be gossiped about as a selfish person, and that person will not be treat will not be trusted. To quote the study, a gossiper can deter individuals from acting selfishly by making it known that their reputations will be spread to others, which manifests as the selfishness deterrence functions of gossip.
So as I stated, it's just it's an author nonauthoritative way to control a group. You don't wanna be on the bad side of gossip. It's never a good thing, and people won't trust you. People do trust gossip. That's the one thing that it seems odd. You shouldn't trust gossip, but you also should trust gossip. What else are you gonna actually trust if you have no definitive proof? You have to trust what somebody tells you. If you have no other inkling, you have to trust that. It's a human nature just to trust that, because what other information do you have? And so because of that, gossip is apparently a good thing.
Yeah. Who knew? Okay. Well, here at the Mindless Sea podcast, we are value for value, so please send us your donations. If you send us, some money, I will actually make you a producer of this podcast. I will put it in the credits, and you will be credited as a producer or executive producer. Whoever sends in me in the most will be the executive producer, and then from there, it will be producers. If you don't wanna be a producer, that's fine. But just let me know, when you send in, the cash, because cash is always good. With that, I could get new equipment, develop this a little bit better, maybe have a better sound, and everything like that. So if you can help, that would be great.
So, yeah, also, if you just would want to help out in, like, artwork or research or anything like that, please shoot me an email. My email is jesse@mindlessc.com. And please donate. And to donate, you can either go through your app. Fountain is one of those apps, and with that, you can just pay through the Fountain app, or you can go to my website, podcast.mindlessc.com, and that will give you a link to help support the show, which I would greatly appreciate, and maybe we can make the show even better. Wouldn't that be great? Well, today was March 7th, and I will see you next week.
[00:23:07] Unknown:
This is the mindlessly podcast.
This is the Mindless Sea podcast.
[00:00:16] Unknown:
Hello, everyone. Today is March 7th 2024, and it's been a busy week, it looks like. So and this week, I am, doing 2 podcasts just to catch up from, the other one that I did not that I was not able to catch, due to some family stuff going on. Anyways, let's start off right away with what's going on right now. The big news is that, the election is set. And, unfortunately, or fortunately for you, depending on how you view, this is a repeat of 2020. Yay. Just what we wanted, the same 2 old dudes going at it. Well, I guess that's what we're stuck with. At least we know these 2. A lot of times, it's just the same people with different names that the party just puts up with the same ideas and everything like that. So at least this time, you know, we actually get 2 of the exactly same people. Yeah. That's kinda nice.
Super Tuesday was Tuesday, and it took Nikki Haley out of the fight. She just couldn't hang in there anymore. Trump has won every state except for Vermont during this whole process. Haley also won DC, but since that's not a state, it counts, but it isn't a state. So Trump won every state except Vermont, and then he also lost DC to that to her as well. Biden himself, he was a shoo in. Basically, the democrats are a loyal party, and they're loyal to a fault. So they were gonna put them in no matter what. And so because of that, we're gonna have a Trump slash Biden election cycle again.
Should be just as boring and just as crazy as the last one, possibly. And speaking of elections, looks like the governor and mayor of New York have, announced that they have to get security going. Apparently, there's too much crime, especially in the subway systems. And so they have announced that they will be checking bags when you enter the subway system, and they will actually be deploying the National Guard to be able to do this. 1,000 National Guard members are gonna be deployed around New York City to facilitate this. This is all because of 3 deaths that have happened so far this year, and, apparently, that's a huge spike or enough that, they are worried.
Also, though, it is an election year, and so, of course, they will just pull out all that they can do to actually try to win votes for their party or for them for themselves in this election year, because only in election years do you really need to protect your citizens. Beyond that, yeah, it can go away, you know, they're just there. It doesn't matter, but in an election year, they actually count. Maybe we should make every year an election year. Okay. And then it looks like late last month, French president iman Emmanuel Macron said there is no consensus today to send ground troops, but nothing should be excluded.
We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war, and he's talking about the war in Ukraine. Apparently, he wants to send troops or thinks that might be a good idea. I think that is completely asinine. I don't see why we would wanna do it because it would make NATO an offensive alliance. It would actually prove to Russia that it is an offensive alliance and not a defensive alliance, So it'd make a liar out of, well, all of us in the NATO countries. And it would also prove to Russia that NATO was never about defense. It was about their own interests, about NATO's own interests. So this would be against what NATO should actually do if NATO actually wants to be a defensive organization.
Not only that, but if you send your troops in there, this could possibly open up NATO countries to valid attacks from Russia. As in their troops are killing or, like, say, France's troops are killing Russians, so then Russia could attack France itself, could send a missile just and lob it right on in there to France. Russia does have the capability to do that. They have an advanced military, so we should always be careful about that. Also, we need to realize, for god's sakes, Ukraine is not part of NATO. They are not. So why would we send in troops for this? This is only it just doesn't make any sense to me.
But, thankfully, other countries have shot this idea down, including ours. The United States has shot it down. Germany shot it down, and very various other countries have as well. So it looks like only Imran Macron is the only one out on a limb when it comes to that. Okay. In other news, I really have a wide interest in knowing different things and of being curious on many different things. And so I ran across this article, and, the title of the article, it was on the local, looks like a local television station. But the title of the article was are we in the Anthropocene, the human age? And nope, scientists say. So this got me going, and I was wondering about that, so I read a little bit into it.
And it looks like geologists have decided there is not a new epoch. So we're talking about epochs here, which is a level of geological time. You have eons. You have eras. You have periods. You have epochs. And so in this, they some geologists were wanting to have a new epoch, but they voted, and the vote was that there is no new epoch. We are still in the holocene, and we are not in a new epoch called the Anthropocene, which is basically the age of the humans. Basically, why this all boiled down to not being the Anthropocene and just sticking to the Holocene is that humans have greatly changed the planet.
This has been this is viewed everybody knows this. We have done a lot to this planet. Some of this is like the radioactive fallout from nuclear testing back in the forties the fifties. There's also microplastics that are all over the world right now. They're even in our body right now because everything we use is basically plastic. There also have been mass extinctions due to us, and things like that, and so, because of this, we know that humans have greatly changed the planet, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we need to name a epoch after ourselves.
2 of the reasons for denying the Anthropocene was, 1, is when would it be? When would the epoch, the Anthropocene epoch, start? Some say that it could have started during the development of agriculture, developed land, irrigation. Also, could domestication of animals be another start time? So it all just depends on where it is. Then there's also the industrial revolution. You add all the smoke, soot, acid rain, cars, road waves, and that could be a geological layer as well. Some even argue that the colonization of the Americas or of Australia could also be the start of the Anthropocene.
So, basically, it's an argument on when it would begin, and so because of that, it cannot be an era or an epoch. You have to have a specific time when that epoch started. There has to be something that you can point to. And the Anthropocene, since it's all about humans, it's hard to say when it actually started. Did it start 11000 years ago? Did it start 200 years ago? Did it start a 150 years ago, 250 years ago? When exactly did it start? Some people believed that, they should put it at about 1950 because that's the nuclear age and things like that, but it's still a bit too waffley because we have changed quite a bit, on the earth's surface even before then.
Also is the question, where would it be? For an epoch to change, it has to be worldwide all at the same time. Humans Changing the Planet is more of a sprawling storyline than it is, complete break. So did it all start July 16, 1945, or is it just a sprawling storyline? Is it just the United States testing nuclear weapons, or is it all the different other countries testing the nuclear weapons as well? And in this whole discussion, there's something that shows that epochs are really thought of as sexy, and calling human activity an event would be better than an epoch. So an event is just what it is. It's like the meteor coming down, asteroid coming down, and killing off the dinosaurs. That's an event.
Volcano erupting. That's an event. A mass extinction. That is an event. And so because of that, it may be better to actually have us known as an event so far and not as a epoch. With an event, you don't need to narrow down the start date. Events don't need a specific start date. And so because of this, you can actually be waffly. You could say it was due to agriculture. You could say it was due to the nuclear, weapons testing. You could say it's due to microplastics. You could say it's due to global warming. You could have it any which way, and that would be fine, because it's just an event. But epochs actually need a specific date.
It's like, the last epoch, or the current one that we're in, the Holocene epoch, that one started 11,700 years ago. That's when it started. Plain and simple, that's when it started. So you actually need a specific time for epochs to start, And, also, just because it's an event does not mean that it doesn't have a huge effect on Earth on Earth's geological records. Many of the most important things in geological history are events, such as oxygen filling the Earth's atmosphere. This was over 2000000000 years ago. That was a very important thing, but it was not the start of an epoch.
There was also mass extinctions, dinosaurs going off. That was not the start of a epoch. There's also been biodiversity explosions where the biodiversity has just exploded beyond belief. More species, more flora, more fauna, all these sorts of things have just exploded. And because of that, all these are events. So events are important, but they don't get to be put onto the actual geological timeline. And that is exactly why some people want the Anthropocene to actually be an epoch, because it goes on the official geological timeline. And to them this is very important.
To me, not so much, but if you really want to know where we stand in the world and everything like that, we are in the Holocene epoch. Holocene is Greek for entirely new, and this started roughly around 11,700 years ago, and this is also roughly when agriculture and civilization began. So they kinda go hand in hand with human civilization and agriculture. And so the Holocene epoch, it is in the quaternary period. Quaternary is Latin for 4th, and this period has seen many ice ages and rapid warming periods. So that is how this our time right now is viewed geologically.
And then that quarter period period is in the Cenozoic era. Cenozoic mean is Greek for new life. And then that Cenozoic era is within the Phanerozoic Eon, which means which is Greek for visible life. So before so this eon that we are in is 1000000 and 1000000 of years old, and it's basically just when life you could actually see it with your naked eye. That is how far back that goes. To me, we should just stick with the Holocene, as our epoch. I don't see why we would need to change it, because it corresponds with the rise of human civilization and also the neolithic the new stone age period of human advancement.
So because of that, I don't really see a need for it. Stating that we should name an epoch after ourselves really strikes me as arrogant. It says that we are so reckless with life that we deserve to be called out for it, because most scientists actually say that's why they wanna do it, because humans have had a really devastating effect on the earth. And so that is why they want to name a epoch after us, the Anthropocene. Now, if you want to name a epoch after us, just change Holocene's name. That'd be fine with me. Just change the Holocene to the Anthro scene, and we'll call it good. I don't see why we would actually need to create a new epoch, but then scientists don't like to change names very often, so, I guess that might not be happening.
And, really, if you do would change it to the Anthropocene, it would make sense because that was 11,700 years ago, which is roughly, give or take, 1000 years or so, is when civilization and the rise of our species really started to take off. It was with the last melting of the glaciers that really took us to where we are today. It was that period of time that caused us, that allowed us to flourish as much as we have.
[00:15:20] Unknown:
Okay, Jesse. You've said enough. Let's go on to the next topic.
[00:15:24] Unknown:
Okay. Okay. I guess I'll go on to the next topic here. Okay. Looks like, let's talk about Israel for a little bit. Looks like Harvard did a poll with Harris of registered voters. And just so you know, I love polls. I love studies. I love polls. I love all that sort of thing. And this one is about Israel and support for Israel and Hamas. Apparently, it says 63% of registered voters said that Israel should continue its ground invasion into southern southern Gaza to root out the final elements of of Hamas. It also said in another question, that 33% of Americans wanted unconditional ceasefire, but 67% wanted, to go all out until the hostages are released and until Hamas is wiped off the face of the planet. Well, that that's in my words.
I think that's really what we would like. Then another question said that 78% said Hamas should be removed from power, in Gaza. 22% said that Hamas should stay in control of Gaza. Looks like only about 18% support Hamas, while 82% of the American voting public support Israel in the war. This is not really what I expected. I always thought, that people most supported Hamas and everything like that, but it's nice to know that I'm not in the more minority on this one. It just seems like it a lot of times because the pro ham Hamas voices have been loud.
But, apparently, they are few in comparison, so I think we should be pretty happy about that. It's nice to see that people actually view things kinda the same way I do. Now don't get me wrong. War is always bad, but it is necessary in some cases, and if you are attacked, you can respond in any way you need. Some say Israel has gone too far, but they are trying to root out the problem and not just let it fester until the next blow up. Now, of course, this could lead to more attacks in the future. Whenever you do attack, you create enemies, but the same could have been said about Hamas attacking in the first place. But no matter what, if you're attacked, you do have to try. No matter what, you have to try to fix whatever is going on.
[00:17:58] Unknown:
And now it's time for study of the day.
[00:18:10] Unknown:
Okay. I love me a good study, and today's study of the day is all about gossip. Apparently, gossip is good, even though people can get in trouble for gossiping, and everybody looks at that gospel as a bit shady here or there. But gossip is good, apparently, and it's explaining the and there's in the study, it's it's called explaining the evolution of gossip. It was a study out of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and also out of Stanford and also the University of Maryland. The abstract for the study. So this is basically the breakdown of what the study found. The abstract of the study, and I states, and I quote, gossip, the exchange of personal information about absent third parties is ubiquitous in human societies.
However, the evolution of gossip remains a puzzle. The current article proposes an evolutionary cycle of gossip and uses an agent based evolutionary game theoretic model to assess it. We argue that the evolution of gossip is the joint consequence of its reputation dissemination and selfishness deterrence functions. Specifically, the dissemination of information about individuals' reputations leads more individuals to condition their behavior on others' reputations. This induces individuals to behave more cooperated cooperatively toward gossipers in order to improve their reputations.
As a result, gossiping has a evolutionary advantage that leads it to its proliferation. The evolution of gossip further facilitates these two functions of gossip and sustains the evolutionary cycle. So, to put it in other words, gossip is kind of a non author nonauthoritative way to control a group, to control the civilization, the society. The whole idea is that if you don't want to be the butt of negative gossip, you have to cooperate. If you are the selfish one, you will be gossiped about as a selfish person, and that person will not be treat will not be trusted. To quote the study, a gossiper can deter individuals from acting selfishly by making it known that their reputations will be spread to others, which manifests as the selfishness deterrence functions of gossip.
So as I stated, it's just it's an author nonauthoritative way to control a group. You don't wanna be on the bad side of gossip. It's never a good thing, and people won't trust you. People do trust gossip. That's the one thing that it seems odd. You shouldn't trust gossip, but you also should trust gossip. What else are you gonna actually trust if you have no definitive proof? You have to trust what somebody tells you. If you have no other inkling, you have to trust that. It's a human nature just to trust that, because what other information do you have? And so because of that, gossip is apparently a good thing.
Yeah. Who knew? Okay. Well, here at the Mindless Sea podcast, we are value for value, so please send us your donations. If you send us, some money, I will actually make you a producer of this podcast. I will put it in the credits, and you will be credited as a producer or executive producer. Whoever sends in me in the most will be the executive producer, and then from there, it will be producers. If you don't wanna be a producer, that's fine. But just let me know, when you send in, the cash, because cash is always good. With that, I could get new equipment, develop this a little bit better, maybe have a better sound, and everything like that. So if you can help, that would be great.
So, yeah, also, if you just would want to help out in, like, artwork or research or anything like that, please shoot me an email. My email is jesse@mindlessc.com. And please donate. And to donate, you can either go through your app. Fountain is one of those apps, and with that, you can just pay through the Fountain app, or you can go to my website, podcast.mindlessc.com, and that will give you a link to help support the show, which I would greatly appreciate, and maybe we can make the show even better. Wouldn't that be great? Well, today was March 7th, and I will see you next week.
[00:23:07] Unknown:
This is the mindlessly podcast.
