in

DNA, Brain cell, Cell, Neuron, Genetics Talkers Are Leaders, DNA Evidence Myth, Thinking Sans Brain (Podcast)

Talk, hpes tech talk is a brand new podcast that takes you straight to the source from hewlett packard enterprise youll get an inside out. Look at hpe news, insights and innovations with guests who are the foremost change makers. Topics include super computing aboard the international space station, how to harness the power of 5g to offer the ultimate experience and walt disney studios experiments with ai and machine learning within the filmmaking process. For the must know, news from a challenging and complex tech landscape, you can turn to hpes tech. Talk to stay in the know, check out hpes tech talk wherever you get your podcasts hi youre about to get smarter in just a few minutes with curiosity daily from curiosity.com im, cody goff and im ashley hamer. Today you learn about why people who talk more are seen as leaders why dna evidence is far from perfect and an organism that can do things we associate with thinking, even though it doesnt have a brain lets satisfy some curiosity in the musical hamilton. Aaron burr advises alexander hamilton to talk less smile more, but a new study from the leadership quarterly explains why thats bad advice for power hungry folks, like hamilton, because when it comes to leading a group, your best bet might be to talk more. It might seem obvious that you have to talk if you want to be a leader, but starting in the 1950s, some researchers started to wonder: does it matter what a leader actually talks about, and that brings us to the so called babel hypothesis of leadership? It says no, when it comes to leadership its only about the quantity of the words, not the quality, interesting hypothesis, but even after numerous studies looking into it, researchers didnt have an answer on whether its true so researchers from binghamton university and the university of oklahoma decided To settle this once and for all, and to do that, they turned to the perfect way to learn about leadership: a group project, dun dun dun, the team assembled 33 groups of college students to work through a computer simulation where they either had to execute a military Mission or develop a clean energy startup, each group had between 4 and 10 members and they got 10 minutes to plan how they would tackle the challenge and then 60 minutes to attempt it as a team.

One group member was randomly chosen to operate the games controls during the simulation, but importantly, nobody was assigned to be the groups leader after the planning phase and then again after the game play. Each person was asked to name up to five of their teammates who had emerged as leaders. Now there are a lot of traits that you might expect to be traits of a true leader. You know experience intelligence, extroversion, even proven successes, but these researchers found that not much of that mattered who commanded the controls didnt even make much of a difference. The one defining factor was how much time each person spent talking. Those who talked more were more likely to be recognized as leaders, quantity totally outweighed quality. In this scenario the researchers say it could be that the amount of speaking time matters because its connected to other important behaviors, like portraying confidence. But one thing was clear and thats. The gender was a key factor. Female group members got less speaking time and fewer leadership votes. The analysis found that all male group members got an extra vote just because of their gender and that effect was magnified for the person who got the most votes. So now that you know this be sure to speak up, if you want to step up to a leadership position and guys be good teammates by sharing the mic in any detective. So you, oh im, sorry did you want to talk? Yes, cody, as i was saying in any detective, show sorry i was just just trying to lead being a leader in this uh.

Yes, yes, youre such a leader thanks in any detective show. You know that when theres dna on the murder weapon, the cops are certain to find their killer, but in the real world this level of scientific certainty is just as fictional as the shows plot dna is hardly the airtight evidence. Most people think it is. There is, unfortunately, a lot of junk science in the field of forensics. I mean just look at polygraph tests for starters, but dna analysis has always been held up as unassailable. It was conceived in 1984 by british geneticist alec jeffries, who stumbled upon it when he was researching genetic sequencing. Soon he used his technique to help nearby police crack two unsolved murder cases that made his technique front page news around the world. It wasnt long before dna typing was an essential part of the criminal justice system, but at the same time the technique was gaining in popularity. It was losing its precision heres. Why alec jeffreys technique only worked when you compared one large sample of dna to another large sample of dna saved to determine whether a pool of blood found at the crime scene came from a particular suspect, as the science progressed labs could use smaller samples and mixtures That included dna from multiple people, and that was handy for law enforcement, but it made the job of scientists a lot tougher see. Humans have 99.9 of their genes in common, so its that last 0.

1 percent, the geneticists look for in dna analysis. Specifically, there are certain pairs of genes or alleles that vary from person to person and the most accurate way to identify whether dna came from a certain person is to compare samples at as many locations as possible, but where there are tiny samples, degraded, dna or mixtures. Its not that simple, you have to decide how many peoples dna are involved which alleles belong to which person and whether alleles have disappeared altogether. Suddenly interpretation comes into play and thats where things can go very wrong. Like for one study, 17 lab technicians were asked to re analyze a dna sample unbeknownst to them. This sample came from a trial where the defendant was found guilty. Only one of the 17 decided that the defendant was guilty. The rest determined that the dna either didnt, belong to the defendant or was inconclusive this isnt to say that dna is useless in trained competent hands. Dna analysis can be incredibly valuable, but many juries and courtrooms see it as scientific perfection and it is anything but remember this. The next time you watch your favorite crime show because its a good reminder, dont, believe everything you see on tv, hi, im, ethan, edenberg, host of the good, the bad and the science, a podcast that breaks down the science of movies and television with a comedian and A scientist, its scientifically proven to be the most fun way to learn about everything, from astronomy to marine biology, from neuroscience to robotics and much much more.

Okay, maybe its not scientifically proven, but hey im. Just a curious host who enjoys bombarding highly respected scientists with a myriad of inquiries and records their responses, while poking fun at them, with my comedian pals on a podcast, so stop yelling at me anyway. Weve covered movies, like spider man, get out interstellar fern gully men in black alien, you name it ive, probably watched it and annoyed a scientist about it. With a string of stupid questions, plus weve had some of my favorite comedians on the show like paul shearer, reggie watts, ricky, lindholm, thomas lennon, and so many more and now were tackling discovery plus shows too thats right. If youre like me, you have spent an embarrassing amount of time watching shows like 90 day fiance, but now. Finally, for the first time you can say that you did so in the name of science, so follow the good, the bad and the science on apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Does thinking really require a brain? What do you think? I know it seems like a simple question with a simple answer. I mean, of course you need a brain to think right and yet slime molds might beg to differ. They can navigate mazes without so much as a single neuron, but do they think so slime molds? Are amazing creatures and theyre totally alien to us too? Slime molds come from a different evolutionary branch than plants, animals and fungi, and from the look of these oozing pulsing creatures, its easy to see that some slime molds are made up of individual cells that work together.

While others are pretty much one giant cell with a ton of nuclei, some can even grow to be several feet. Long slime molds can be found attached to logs and leaves like moss and lichen can but thats pretty much where the similarities end. Unlike moss and lichen slime molds also crawl, they grow they explore and, yes, they think at least they do things that seem to require thinking and scientists arent totally sure how exactly they do that. Without you know, an actual brain scientists have placed slime, molds and mazes with a food reward at both the entrance and exit from the entrance. The slime mold can extend a tendril out to explore the mace and eventually connect the entrance with the exit in a more complex experiment. A researcher arranged little piles of oat flakes around the slime molds, as if the slime molds were tokyo and the piles were the map locations of surrounding towns. The slime mold stretched out its tendrils to those towns in a way that bore an uncanny resemblance to the tokyo rail network. But let me reiterate the slime mold does all of this. Without a brain scientists still dont know exactly how slime molds make these decisions, but its clear that they are able to use environmental cues to control their growth patterns, by extension, their movement, but its more than a simple stimulus response type of reaction. Recent experiments have shown that slime molds make choices about which direction they should move when theyre offered options of differing quality.

First, they grow in all directions in a parents, efforts to sample the environment, but when they detect something that might be interesting, they begin to move toward it, often ignoring the option that wasnt as good im going to say for the 80th time they dont have a Brain this is incredibly complex, behavior for something that doesnt think at least the way we do. Scientists are actively trying to better understand how slime molds make such complex decisions, so i guess brains who needs them right. Alright lets recap what we learned today, starting with the fact that, when it comes to leadership, the quantity of your words matter more than the quality, at least according to a recent study. Another thing that matters, unfortunately, gender women in the study got less speaking time and fewer people calling them leaders than men did when it comes to who we see as leaders. Remember that weve all got biases and its a good idea to judge leaders on their skills and experience rather than who they are and how much they talk. We also learned that, contrary to popular belief, dna evidence is far from perfect. It works the best when theres a large sample from one individual like say a pool of blood, but when you start dealing with tiny samples from specks of saliva or fingerprints or samples mixed with dna from multiple individuals, then interpretation comes into play and thats. When things can go wrong, and this brings to mind a story – we talked about the csi effect, which is a real thing where people who watch crime shows like csi on a jury, are more likely to believe dna evidence and other stuff like this yeah and another Thing thatll happen when you watch a lot of crime shows is mean world syndrome, where you think that everything out there is dangerous and that you need to lock your doors at night and you shouldnt trust anyone when actually, the fact is that the world is getting Safer every year, wow a lot of weird things happen when you you consume, a lot of crime shows yeah, so you know everything in moderation and thats.

Why were only 10 minutes a day? You cannot overdue curiosity daily, its not actually possible right were just like were like those little costco samples right i mean they wont. Even let you overdo it, you can only take one, maybe two. If youre sneaky exactly thats us thats us, and we learned that slime molds are organisms that are unrelated to plants, animals or fungi, and they do things that resemble thinking. Even though they dont have brains. Not only can they navigate a maze, they seem to make actual choices when offered multiple options and scientists arent sure how they do it. This is definitely one of those ones that you should look at pictures of, because especially the species that they use. The most in these studies is gorgeous its like neon, yellow, and i mean its not what you think of when you imagine a slime mold, i mean, i know i think, of something kind of green and mucusy. No, this things actually kind of lovely and everyone should check it out and it does not look like the slime from dragon quest, which is all i was picturing, the entire time or the slime from teenage mutant. Ninja turtles wait thats, not right ghostbusters slimer slimer, but i think theres. I think theres slime in ninja turtles too. Well, its mutagen like radioactive, its mutagen ooze. Oh its excuse me yeah. I got my my terminology mixed up big difference between mutagen ooze and uh slimer, that ghost right, but in general, none of these examples are what slime molds look like.

That is our point in general, in general. Nothing were saying is real move along nothing to see here. Todays writers were steffy drucker and cameron. Duke our managing editor is ashley hamer, who is also a writer on todays episode. Our producer and audio editor is cody.

What do you think?

Written by freotech

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0

Pokémon GO, Hoopa, Pokémon, Psychic, Ghost, Dark, Niantic Yup, Cofagrigus is SOLID! Great League Remix Cup Team in Pokémon GO Battle League!

DNA, Brain cell, Cell, Neuron, Genetics 20 Things Your Body Does That You Don't Know Why