Learn about why popular opinion might not be as popular as you thought; a new analysis that’s debunked the blood type diet; and a pool of water in Kidd Creek Mine in Timmins, Ontario, Canada, that’s 2 billion years old.
Learn about why popular opinion might not be as popular as you thought; a new analysis that’s debunked the blood type diet; and a pool of water in Kidd Creek Mine in Timmins, Ontario, Canada, that’s 2 billion years old.
One person repeating an opinion makes people think it's a popular opinion by Kelsey Donk
A new analysis has debunked the blood type diet by Grant Currin
The World's Oldest Known Pool of Water Is a Staggering 2 Billion Years Old by Joanie Faletto
Subscribe to Curiosity Daily to learn something new every day with Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer. You can also listen to our podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing; Amazon smart speakers users, click/tap “enable” here: https://www.amazon.com/Curiosity-com-Curiosity-Daily-from/dp/B07CP17DJY
Find episode transcript here: https://curiosity-daily-4e53644e.simplecast.com/episodes/popular-opinion-isnt-what-you-think
CODY: Hi! You’re about to get smarter in just a few minutes with Curiosity Daily from curiosity-dot-com. I’m Cody Gough.
ASHLEY: And I’m Ashley Hamer. Today, you’ll learn about why a popular opinion might not be as popular as you thought; a new analysis that’s debunked the blood type diet; and a pool of water that’s 2 billion years old.
CODY: Let’s satisfy some curiosity.
People are always influenced by popular opinion. It’s human nature! But here’s a weird psychology quirk: our perceptions of which opinions are popular aren’t always accurate. In fact, research shows that when one person repeats an opinion over and over, we tend to think it’s a popular opinion.
This comes from a surprising study from 2007, which involved a series of six experiments with more than 1,000 participants. The experiments varied, but they generally went like this: participants would be told that a group of people was expressing their opinions on a controversial issue. Then, some of the participants were given one opinion to read and others were given three. In some of the three-opinion conditions, each opinion was attributed to a different person; in others, all three were from the same person.
The results? People more likely to assume a position is the majority belief when it’s repeated by multiple people than when they read one opinion from one person. But hearing one person express the same opinion multiple times had nearly the same effect as hearing that opinion from multiple people!
Why is this? The researchers say it comes down to familiarity. When you hear an opinion repeated multiple times, you become familiar with it, and you use that feeling as an indication that the opinion is popular. And yeah, if it came from multiple people, that’s a safe bet to make. But the same thing happens when an opinion comes from one person repeatedly. Our shortcuts fail us, and we get a distorted perception of how many people hold that opinion.
These findings impact nearly every facet of modern life. Take, for instance, a publicly elected official. If that person gets 10,000 calls about an issue but all of those calls come from a small group of really dedicated constituents, the elected official could think that opinion is more widely held than it really is.
The same thing could happen with the news and opinions we read in our social media feeds. If someone has one friend or family member who regularly posts about their fringe beliefs, that person might start to assume that the beliefs aren’t so fringe after all. That could be enough to get them interested, and make a small conspiracy grow into something much larger. All the more reason to share the beliefs you hold dear, even if you think they’re already popular.
Should someone base their diet off their blood type? Proponents of the blood type diet have said so for decades, but a recent study says probably not. It’s a small study, but it’s some of the best research we have into this surprisingly popular diet.
The way researchers tested this claim was pretty interesting: they just re-analyzed a previous diet study to see if blood type had any effect on the results. That study was published in November, and it involved 244 overweight individuals who participated in a 16-week randomized control trial. Half the participants went on a low-fat vegan diet and the others didn’t change anything. The results at the time? The new vegans saw a nearly 20 percent boost in metabolism as compared to the control group. Not too shabby!
Later, some of the same researchers took a second look at the results to see if participants with type-A blood saw greater improvements in body weight, blood lipids, and glycemic control than participants with different blood types.
Why type-A? Well, that’s because the blood type diet says different blood types emerged at different times. Type-O is supposedly the original hunter-gatherer blood type that tends to support the digestion of meat. Type-A supposedly emerged alongside the agricultural revolution, so it should support the digestion of plants. And Type-B supposedly emerged in nomadic tribes that raised livestock, meaning it supports the digestion of dairy.
But there are a lot of problems with this theory. For one, Type-A actually evolved before Type-O, which makes the whole hunter-gatherer-slash-agricultural-revolution story pretty tough to believe. I should also mention that no one has ever proven that there’s even a relationship between a person’s blood type and their ability to digest different kinds of food.
So, knowing that, it’s probably not surprising that the participants with Type-A blood didn’t take to the vegan diet any better or any worse than those with other blood types.
There are a couple takeaways from this study. First, the blood type diet is... something to be skeptical of. This was a small study, but the findings definitely undermine the diet’s already shaky claims. And second, plants are good for you! The vegans ended up being a lot healthier than the participants who didn’t change their diet, irrespective of blood type. The good news is that you probably don’t have to drop all animal products from your diet to benefit. Bottom line: Put greens on your plate, and don’t worry about what’s in your veins.
If you found a pool of water that was 2 billion years old, would you drink it? Probably not, right? But say you were super thirsty — could you drink it? Y’know, and survive? Ask the scientists who discovered the oldest pool of water on Earth — and gave it a taste.
First, I’ve gotta set the scene: we’re in Kidd Creek Mine in Timmins, Ontario, Canada — about an 8-hour drive north of Toronto. It’s known as the world’s deepest base-metal mine, at nearly 2 miles (or 3 kilometers) deep. And it used to be home to one of the largest deposits of zinc, copper, lead, silver, and tin in the world. So it makes some sense that in 2013, researchers at the University of Toronto did some spelunking and discovered a 1.5 billion-year-old pool of water in the mine. But that was just the beginning. Three years later in 2016, the team went back to the mine and dug a little deeper: about a mile and a half, or 2.4 kilometers, deeper, to be exact.
What they found at that depth was a pool of 2-billion-year-old water bubbling up like an eager young spring. Just how old is that? Well, Earth’s atmosphere was virtually devoid of oxygen 2 billion years ago. Multicellular life didn’t get going until 600 million years ago.
Ancient water is more than just a cool geological record-breaker. This water contains sulfates that were borne of a chemical reaction between the rocks and the water. And, long story short, where there are sulfates, there could be life. The area made its own sulfates, which means it may be able to sustain microbial life, completely cut off from the surface.
And that means more places on Earth and on other planets may be habitable than we previously thought. We're ready for you, aliens!
But could you, uh, drink the ancient water? Team lead Barbara Sherwood Lollar explained at the time that it wouldn’t kill you, but it would taste disgusting. She would know: she actually dipped her finger in and tasted it. She said it was very salty and bitter — much saltier than seawater. Probably not something anyone’s going to be bottling any time soon.
Let’s recap what we learned today to wrap up. Starting with
[ad lib optional]
CODY: Today’s stories were written by Kelsey Donk, Grant Currin, and Joanie Faletto, and edited by Ashley Hamer, who’s the managing editor for Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY: Scriptwriting was by Cody Gough and Sonja Hodgen. Today’s episode was produced and edited by Cody Gough.
CODY: Join us again tomorrow to learn something new in just a few minutes. Everyone’s doing it. Everyone’s going to join us again tomorrow to learn something new in just a few minutes. The most popular thing to do these days is to join us again tomorrow to learn something new in just a few minutes. People LOVE joining us again tomorrow to learn something new in just a few minutes [Ashley cut off at some point]
ASHLEY: And until then, stay curious!