Learn about why everyone claims they’re awful at remembering names; how “hobo code” helped itinerant workers communicate in the 1900s; and whether you probably see yourself as more attractive than you really are.
Learn about why everyone claims they’re awful at remembering names; how “hobo code” helped itinerant workers communicate in the 1900s; and whether you probably see yourself as more attractive than you really are.
We all think our memories are above average, except for remembering names by Steffi Drucker
If You Rode the Rails in the 1930s, Hobo Code is How You'd Know Where to Go by Reuben Westmaas
Does your brain perceive you as five times more attractive? by Ashley Hamer (Listener question from T.J.)
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/we-all-think-were-bad-with-names-the-genius-of-hobo-code-and-how-attractive-do-you-think-you-are
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. And it’s Cody’s last day before paternity leave! Which is why we’ve invited his fill-in to join us on this episode.
NATALIA: That’s right! Hi again. I’m Natalia Reagan. And if I may do the honors: today, you’ll learn about how EVERYONE claims they are awful at remembering names, and how itinerant workers in the 1900s communicated with HOBO CODE. We’ll also answer a listener question about whether you see yourself as more attractive than you are.
CODY: Let’s satisfy some curiosity.
Last year the New York Times said the phrase “OK Boomer” signaled the end of friendly generational relations. It’s true that there’s intergenerational debate online about everything from music to moral superiority, but new research found one thing people of all ages have in common: We all think we’re bad at remembering names. Aww.
When comparing ourselves against others, we tend to overestimate our abilities. Like, you probably think you’re smarter than average, right? Maybe a better-than-average driver? It turns out that almost everyone has these beliefs about themselves, and it’s, you know, mathematically impossible for everyone to be right. Scientists call this tendency the “better than average effect.” But there is an exception. When we rate ourselves on a task that we find to be more challenging, we’re likely to believe we’re actually worse than average.
To study this phenomenon further, researchers asked 69 seniors and 84 20–25-year-olds to complete a survey. Participants were asked to compare themselves to others their age when it came to remembering names, scientific terms, historical figures, and locations. They also rated themselves in terms of honesty, work ethic, leadership ability, and how well they get along with others.
In a truly generation-uniting result, both the seniors and the twentysomethings rated themselves as above average in nearly every category except for remembering names.
What’s in a name that makes it so tricky to remember? Well, for one thing, names are kind of random: it’s not like everybody with red hair is named Red. So that arbitrary relationship between a face and a name already makes remembering difficult. But there’s also extra shame associated with forgetting someone’s name. It’s happened to just about everyone at some point, and we can all recall the humiliation we felt in that moment. When the team asked the participants to rate how they’d feel if they forgot someone’s name or if others forgot their name, everyone agreed that forgetting someone else’s name is more uncomfortable. Seniors who felt greater shame at forgetting others’ names tended to rate their name memory as worse, too.
These findings suggest that how we assess our own skills is most realistic when we feel like someone else is watching or judging us. So if you want to be an accurate judge of your abilities? Maybe it’s best to dance like everybody’s watching.
These days, the word “hobo” is just a rude word for a homeless person. But in the 1930s, it meant something very specific. It referred to men who’d left their homes in search of work, riding the rails from town to town. Life as a hobo wasn’t an easy one. Fortunately, they had their fellow hobos — and the hobo code they used to communicate with each other.
Hobo code was a real language system that itinerant workers of the 1930s used to let others know where they could find food or avoid danger. So like, let's say you've just come in on the rails and you're looking for a place to stay. You pass three mailboxes. The first has a tiny chalk drawing of a tall triangle with two raised arms. The second is marked with a sideways, four-armed "E" inside a square. The final one is marked with a little cat made out of ovals.
Guess what?! You've stumbled onto messages from hobos who have walked this path before you. And if you know what’s best for you, you’ll choose the house marked with the cat. See, the house with the triangle is home to a man with a gun. The house marked with the "E" in the square has a vicious dog. But the oval cat? It says a kind-hearted woman lives there. There are lots of other symbols, too — a cross means "act religious and you'll get food," and a tiny sketch of a bird means "you can use the phone here."
Not every piece of hobo code would be written on someone's residence. It was just as useful for helping out with navigation or imparting general information about the area.
As you can probably imagine, the code was subject to a lot of variation over the years. It almost seems like a miracle that it ever codified into an understandable language at all. But it did — and over the years, it made life on the rails a little more bearable.
We got a listener question from Toby in Ohio. Take a listen!
[0:17 voicemail]
Interesting question, Toby! I hadn’t actually heard that factoid before, but a quick internet search shows that I’m definitely in the minority on that. And as you might imagine, there aren’t any actual studies that confirm this factoid to be true.
So what does the science say about how attractive we think we are? It’s not super clear cut. Researchers have studied this in a bunch of different ways. Some of those studies say you’re more attractive than you think, some say the opposite. So let’s start with the less-than-flattering science.
First of all, remember how we just told you about the better than average effect? That a subset of a phenomenon known as the self-enhancement effect, which says that we all tend to have an unrealistically rosy view of ourselves: like Cody said, the majority of people think they’re better drivers than average, more charitable than average, smarter than average — the list goes on. So it makes some sense that a 2008 study found that people really do tend to think of themselves as more attractive than they are. These researchers took pictures of study participants and digitally altered them to make them more or less attractive than the original. When the participants were asked to choose the original photo of themselves, they usually chose a more attractive version.
Another effect that might be at play here is called the mere-exposure effect, which says that the more you’re exposed to a stimulus, the more you like it. You see your face in the mirror on a daily basis, so you’re probably pretty fond of it. That also may be why you might not like how you look in photographs — it’s not the image you see in the mirror! Just know that that’s the version your friends and loved ones see all the time, and they probably think it looks great.
I’m not just saying that. Exhibit A in the defense of your ravishing good looks: you probably underestimate how attractive your romantic partner finds you. Thanks to the love-is-blind bias, people tend to rate their romantic partners as more attractive than the partners rate themselves. Same thing with friends: in that digital photo study I mentioned? People tended to choose the more attractive photos of their friends, too. And finally, a study from March of this year found that women rated their own bodies as more attractive from a third-person perspective than from a first-person perspective — so, the way everyone else sees them looked better to them than the way they always see themselves.
So like I said, the science is mixed. One thing is for sure: we absolutely don’t see ourselves the way others do. So when someone tells you you look good, believe them! Thanks for your question, Toby. If you have a question, send it in to podcast at curiosity dot com or leave us a voicemail (like Toby did!) at 312-596-5208.
Leave us a voicemail at 312-596-5208!
CODY: Before we recap what we learned today, here’s a sneak peek at what you’ll hear next week on Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY: Next week, you’ll learn about whether smiling can really make you happier;
What happened when children led a research project into what they really think of adults;
Why razors dull, even though steel is stronger than hair;
The two types of empathy, and why we need both;
And more! Okay, so now, let’s recap what we learned today.
[ad lib optional]
CODY: Today’s stories were written by Reuben Westmaas, Steffi Drucker, and Ashley Hamer, and edited by Ashley Hamer, who’s the managing editor for Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY: Scriptwriting was by Cody Gough, Sonja Hodgen, and Natalia Reagan.
NATALIA: Curiosity Daily is produced and edited by Cody Gough… FOR NOW. DUN DUN DUN
CODY: Have a great weekend, and join Ashley and Natalia Monday to learn something new in just a few minutes.
ASHLEY: And until then, stay curious!