Learn about a version of Schrödinger's cat that might break quantum physics; a study hack that makes you think about how you study; and why you’re not as mysterious as you think you are, thanks to a cognitive bias called asymmetric insight. In this podcast, Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer discuss the following stories from Curiosity.com to help you get smarter and learn something new in just a few minutes: Adding a Second Cat to Schrödinger's Cat Experiment Might Break Quantum Physics This Study Hack From a Stanford Researcher Gets A's out of B+ Students Asymmetric Insight Is Why You're Not as Mysterious as You Think You Are Please tell us about yourself and help us improve the show by taking our listener survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/curiosity-listener-survey If you love our show and you're interested in hearing full-length interviews, then please consider supporting us on Patreon. You'll get exclusive episodes and access to our archives as soon as you become a Patron! Learn about these topics and more on Curiosity.com, and download our 5-star app for Android and iOS. Then, join the conversation on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Plus: Amazon smart speaker users, enable our Alexa Flash Briefing to learn something new in just a few minutes every day!
Learn about a version of Schrödinger's cat that might break quantum physics; a study hack that makes you think about how you study; and why you’re not as mysterious as you think you are, thanks to a cognitive bias called asymmetric insight.
In this podcast, Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer discuss the following stories from Curiosity.com to help you get smarter and learn something new in just a few minutes:
Please tell us about yourself and help us improve the show by taking our listener survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/curiosity-listener-survey
If you love our show and you're interested in hearing full-length interviews, then please consider supporting us on Patreon. You'll get exclusive episodes and access to our archives as soon as you become a Patron!
Learn about these topics and more on Curiosity.com, and download our 5-star app for Android and iOS. Then, join the conversation on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Plus: Amazon smart speaker users, enable our Alexa Flash Briefing to learn something new in just a few minutes every day!
Full episode transcript here: https://curiosity-daily-4e53644e.simplecast.com/episodes/schrodingers-second-cat-asymmetric-insight-and-why-you-should-study-how-you-study
CODY GOUGH: Hi, we've got three stories from Curiosity.com to help you get smarter in just a few minutes. I'm Cody Gough.
ASHLEY HAMER: And I'm Ashley Hamer. Today, you'll learn about a version of Schrodinger's cat that might break quantum physics. A study hack that makes you think about how you study? And why you're not as mysterious as you think you are? Thanks to a cognitive bias called asymmetric insight.
CODY GOUGH: Let's satisfy some curiosity on the award-winning Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY HAMER: Ready for Schrodinger's cat part two, the revenge.
CODY GOUGH: Yes.
ASHLEY HAMER: Schrodinger's cat is that old thought experiment, where a cat inside a box is both alive and dead. And it's supposed to illustrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics. Well, it's just come out with a sequel, and it straight up breaks quantum mechanics.
CODY GOUGH: You're really into the quantum stuff lately, aren't you?
ASHLEY HAMER: I love it. This is my way of just like, zoning out, and thinking about how weird the universe is. I love it.
So the original Schrodinger's cat from 1935, demonstrates a few basic principles of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. When the cat is both alive and dead inside the box, it's in a state of quote, "superposition." When you open the box and see it state, you've quote, "collapsed the wave function." This is kind of like how quantum particles function.
In 1967, Hungarian physicist, Eugene Wigner, tried a different experiment, where the thing inside wasn't a cat, but a physicist. Let's say a physicist named Amy, gets inside a box with a device that can flip a coin to show either heads or tails. Does the wave function collapse when Amy sees the result?
It seems likely, but hold on. What if Wigner comes along and opens the box? Amy and her coin should be in a state of superposition until that moment. Weird, right?
Well, in 2016, researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology came up with an even more complex setup. Instead of lonely little Amy in the box, now you have two physicists in two boxes. Amy's in one box, and Rory's in the other. And there are two Wigner's outside the box too.
They're in separate rooms, so they can't see each other's boxes. Amy flips a coin, then sends a quantum message about the result. Say, a quantum particle spinning clockwise if its heads, and counterclockwise if its tails to Rory. Rory uses his knowledge of quantum mechanics to figure out the result Amy is trying to tell him about.
Finally, both Wingers' open their boxes and determine the result of the coin toss. What happens? Well, in certain scenarios, it's possible for both Wigner's to be certain of the result, but come up with different answers.
That's a big deal. It basically says that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics contradicts itself. Now, that doesn't mean all interpretations of quantum mechanics are wrong. But the researchers ran the same scenario through a few other interpretations, and they also had issues.
Fortunately, it might be possible to actually run this experiment using quantum computers in place of imaginary physicists. That way, they could stop the program along the way, and see how things were shaking out. We don't have quantum computers powerful enough to do this quite yet.
But maybe, we will, someday. It's exciting to think about the ways it could help us understand the Topsy Turvy quantum world.
CODY GOUGH: Stanford Research says that if you want to boost student performance, you have to study smarter, not harder. How are you study is the real key. I am so glad I don't have to study anymore.
ASHLEY HAMER: Yeah. When I did oral exams in college, I had to memorize a stack of index cards, like, probably 5 inches tall.
CODY GOUGH: Oh.
ASHLEY HAMER: It was so much. And I still have them, like, because I thought maybe I'd still need to know all that stuff. By heart, I don't.
CODY GOUGH: I still have some of my binders. I still have some notes from high school.
ASHLEY HAMER: Dang. Yeah.
CODY GOUGH: Sentence patterns, though. I'm telling you, I had a pretty solid English class.
ASHLEY HAMER: Nice.
CODY GOUGH: I am the semicolon king.
ASHLEY HAMER: I have noticed that. You're good with a semicolon. You really know how to throw a semicolon around.
CODY GOUGH: All right, that's too much. I get it. I'll simmer down. Well, the process of focusing on how you plan to use your study time is called metacognition, which Vanderbilt University defines as thinking about one's thinking.
In a recent study out of Stanford, some students in an introductory college statistics class took a survey 10 to 15 days before every exam. The survey had them take about 15 minutes to reflect on how they study. Specifically, it asked the students to think about the kinds of questions the exam might ask and to quote, "identify which of the 15 available class resources they would use to study, including lecture notes, practice exam questions, textbook readings, instructor office hours, peer discussions, and private tutoring," unquote.
Then they were asked to explain why each resource would be useful. They were effectively laying out a study plan. And the students who did this, actually outscored the control group by an average of a third of a letter grade. Boom. That B-plus is now a solid A.
Usually, students just kind of start studying mindlessly, which is kind of ironic when you think about it. The norm is basically, that you're memorizing things and rereading texts with out thinking about what you'll really use? Why you're using each resource? Or planning out how you would use the resource to learn effectively.
Not only is metacognition intervention and self regulation, one of the least expensive teaching and learning tools, but it's also one of the most effective and longest lasting. This brain training technique seems like a real number brainer.
ASHLEY HAMER: According to research, you probably think that you can predict other people's behavior better than they can predict yours. And that's an illusion called "asymmetric insight." Today, you'll learn about this cognitive bias, so you know how to resist.
I definitely feel this way. Like, I don't think that anybody knows anything about me and that I'm super mysterious. [LAUGHS] Don't laugh that hard, Cody.
CODY GOUGH: I couldn't stop myself. I feel like I am more predictable than I want to admit most of the time. I do have one friend who I have known since first grade, and I've never understood him.
ASHLEY HAMER: Really?
CODY GOUGH: At all.
ASHLEY HAMER: Wow.
CODY GOUGH: He was in my wedding. He's one of my close friends. I don't understand him.
ASHLEY HAMER: Wow.
CODY GOUGH: As a person. Just-- yeah. He--
ASHLEY HAMER: Just keeps things interesting.
CODY GOUGH: He confounds me. So, there are some people who are probably an exception to this rule. But as a general rule, this is a cognitive bias, which means that it's a shortcut our brain takes that we need to, kind of, rein in.
ASHLEY HAMER: Totally. So, like, think about your best friend, how well do you know them? Do their favorite things? Their pet peeves? Their social tendencies?
If they got the wrong order at a restaurant, would they choke it down? Or would they send it back? Do you think you could accurately predict how they'd act in any given situation? If they're a good enough friend, the answer is probably yes.
Now, turn the tables. How well do they know you? Do you think they could predict your behavior just as easily? According to research, you probably don't.
A series of studies from the University of Illinois and Williams College looked into this. In one experiment, volunteers were asked to complete words with missing letters. Something like s--r, which could be star, spur, stir, and so on. Then say how much they thought their responses said about their true selves.
Most people thought it didn't reveal anything at all. But when they looked at other people's responses on the same exercise, they were suddenly full of descriptions. They would say things like they were positive thinkers, they were vain, they loved nature, they were sleep deprived, or in a dishonest relationship.
And another experiment, showed this happening in ideological groups. Liberals thought they knew more about conservatives than conservatives did about liberals and vise versa. Asymmetric insight might sound like a harmless quirk. But it gets dark fast.
If you see yourself and your group as nuanced and mysterious, but you see other people and outsiders as open books, it's harder to take their perspective. You won't walk a mile in someone's shoes when you think you already know what their shoes feel like. That leads to conflict and hostility, not reasoned discourse and understanding.
We all have lots of cognitive biases. And we have to fight those tendencies if we want the world to be a better place. Fortunately, you've got the first step covered. You know they exist. All it takes now is to remember that when the next conflict arises.
CODY GOUGH: It's just another reminder that you should listen.
ASHLEY HAMER: Yeah.
CODY GOUGH: We all need to listen to each other.
ASHLEY HAMER: Most of us want the same things.
CODY GOUGH: I've learned that.
ASHLEY HAMER: The same basic things.
CODY GOUGH: Yeah. Read about today's stories and more on curiosity.com.
ASHLEY HAMER: Join us again tomorrow with the award-winning Curiosity Daily, and learn something new in just a few minutes. I'm Ashley Hamer.
CODY GOUGH: And I'm Cody Gough.
ASHLEY HAMER: Stay curious.
ANNOUNCER: On the Westwood One Podcast Network.