Brain Soda Podcast - Episode 55 - 10 Things I Hate About the Shape of Your Skull

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

This week we're talking about a classic in multiple senses of the word, the hit movie 10 Things I Hate About You, and a wacky pseudoscience popular in the 19th century, phrenology!

The gall of this guy. Brain soda. It's the Brain Soda Podcast. I, as always, am your host, Kyle, joined by my co-host and cohort, Brad. How's it going? Today we're gonna be talking about phrenology, but first, Brad. Yes, Kyle? I wanna take you back in time, Brad.

I don't know about taking you back to memory lane, but we're gonna go back in time for today's subject, okay? Okay. We're actually gonna go back in time for today's subject, okay? Okay. We're actually gonna go back in time twice. All right, do we have like a time machine? Are we doing, like, do we have like a way back machine or something like that? No, we have a podcast.

It's the closest I could do them. Okay, okay, okay. Times are tough. But. Yeah, I'm sure it's not cheap for one of those. We're gonna start really, really fast in one point in time, and then we're gonna double that closer to what you and I would know are you ready? Ready. So in 1690 or 1692

William Shakespeare developed one of his most controversial works in The Taming of the Sun. All right. We, amongst maybe a few other adaptations, would nail this primarily for one film. Can you tell me what that is, Brett? Titanic. No, today we're going to be talking about 10 Things I Hate About You. Oh, man. Like, okay, this is one of my favorite, like, 90s.

Was it 90s? 90s, 2000s? Late 90s, yes. You're absolutely right How many like it is great. Yes. All right. Absolutely you hit the nail on the head This is a late 90s early 2000 teen comedy more exact to be more of a like Romantic comedy and I'm going to say right now that not only is this our suggestion of the week for couples most right now that not only is this our suggestion of the week for couples, most specifically sure sure I feel like this is a great date movie but I feel like also this is good for our younger female listeners our female listeners overall and yeah I mean it's for all sexes and genders and man cause like I mean maybe I'm just a sap so released on March 31st of

1999 it is a modern take of Taming of the Shrew. I never knew that man. That's so cool. Like I love how like, you know, history doesn't repeat itself, but like freaking media sure as hell does. That's for sure. Well, revisiting people's works too, and we are going to get into that because I feel like there's a specific reason as to why this adaptation happens when it does. But regardless of such, this film has a budget of $13 million. How much do you think it's gross, Brad? I'm terrible with this always, but I'm going to say 150. Lower. Okay. I usually undershoot. All right. Much lower. 25. A bit higher. 30.

60 million dollars. Okay. And yeah, it's a pretty good showing and critically, it was pretty well received. It won a lot of like MTV and Teen Choice Awards, you know, of its era, right? But it kind of developed the cult status as well. And a large part of that is because it helped launch the careers of Julia Styles Joseph Gordon Lovett and Heath Ledger really right launch there's okay Yeah, yeah, it also featured another actress who we would know as She was on the secret life of Alex Mack on Nickelodeon. Do you remember that show? Yeah, I remember I don't think I watched much of it. The girl who could turn up protoplasm and s***, right? Yeah. So we kind of knew her already from that, like,

94 or whatever, right? So Joseph Gordon-Levitt's best friend in the film is played by David Krumholtz. Most people would probably know him from numbers. The show numbers? Yes. Okay, I've always wanted to watch that. I've always heard good things as well. He was also in the Harold and Kumar movies, the Santa Claus movies. David Krumholtz is a very celebrated actor. I enjoy everything. I've ever seen him in but like I really low-key forgot he was in this movie and I loved like one of his big lines of, there's a **** on my face, right? Oh, okay. Yep, but with that, it's funny to see how they set this teenage rom-com in the late, late 90s in Seattle, Washington.

And not only is that like, I feel a kind of stereotype of films of the era, right? The soundtrack that it chooses and things like that. Cause like the film opens up, Baronet, the Good Ladies and all this other stuff, right? It's super stereotype, but like even the characters, like you open up in this guidance counselor's office and while she's sitting there guiding children,

I guess, right? She's writing her like romance novel, like her erotic romance novel, because it is kind of dirty, the things she's writing about. And like, that's kind of her character motif. And when you look at some of the other kids that like, we don't have any roles to play in the story

that goes off through this narrative, everybody's like this super stereotyped depiction of a quick in high school, right? And like that's kind of par for the course of the time, but I really feel like it helps this story in particular, because like when we talk about Kat, right? You know, one of the main characters of this film like I feel She's given a lot more depth than the average Female protagonist in a film like this. Yeah, especially for the time and right is like yeah at that time All these like because it was a teen movie like you say, you know But usually it's like about a guy and there's you know, like girls and stuff They're out partying and stuff

like that's that at the time you know you think your road trips are your eurotrips and things like that yeah no and you're and that's exactly what i have written here too is that like of the time a lot of these comedies would at the very least like in real life be like a noteworthy news story or felonious sexual assault. Yeah. Like while there are some compromising things maybe or some questionable things here, we're gonna kind of get into that in a moment. But so really quick, this is Jill Junger's directorial debut

and perhaps their most notable work. It even got a TV reboot in 2009 that ran for about 20 episodes, right? Really? Yeah. I didn't know that. Well, no, you know what? I think I did watch that. Really? Yeah, we might have. Was it good?

Well, I don't remember it much, so I doubt it. I know Larry Breuler comes back, right? So the dad, for those who don't know. So before we spoil or summarize or really discuss any of the events of this film, right? I wanna take a point to say that while there may be some things that people have contentions with or find to be problematic within this work, Shakespeare's original one may be of greater concern.

While following the larger narrative structure, the original finds are two suitors of the younger sister hiring Petruchio in the original, right, who subsequently breaks Kath, Katherine, but Kat in our story, right, her spirit by depriving her of food, demeaning and contradicting and humbling her, even to the point by the end that Katherine proclaims how her subservientness is a calling. Someone can easily view this play as a pro-patriarchal work, or at the very least a misogynist manifesto, right? Like, man. Jeez.

But, while a comedy, and thus presumed to be satire or farce, Taming of the Shrew is one of the most controversial works of Shakespeare's. And like, you know, a point for people to discuss. Now, me myself, I do believe that it is supposed to be this big, lambastic statement on gender roles, and not necessarily like this is the way a marriage is supposed to be like yeah especially from Shakespeare as an artist and a person I I don't think that's really what it's about well a lot of his stuff was like now I want to say satire but it was like it spoke on the events of the day exactly like he was like he was almost a comedian in a sense. He was a stand up in a way.

This is exactly, yeah. Taming of the Shrew is considered a comedy. Take into mind all the psychological abuse things I just said to you again, this is a comedy, right? The play itself is a comedy. So obviously it is meant to be satirical or a level of farce, right? But like to what end some people have debated. But over that period of time, right? From like 1692 forward,

this story has gone over a litany of reinterpretations, reimaginings and retellings to make them palatable for their given audience at that time. I will say this though, like we said a moment ago, the middle to late 90s was indeed a time to revisit Shakespeare's works. From films like 2001's Oh, which also starred Julius Stiles. Oh! Yeah, as in Othello, but right, the adaptation of uh, okay. Do you remember the movie? No. Mackay, Fight for Julius Stiles, Josh Arnol. No, No, no. We're gonna cover it. Okay.

This is a reoccurring segment that we're introducing today about the modern interpretation. Are we gonna do all of? Not all of them, but we are going to dedicate a segment going forward, reoccurring about modern interpretations of, or re-imaginings, whatever have you, right, of Shakespeare's work.

And some of them we're gonna list off right now. So 1996 is Romeo plus Juliet, right, of Shakespeare's work. And some of them we're gonna list off right now. So 1996 is Romeo plus Juliet, right? And even Hamlet having three different adaptations done within a decade, right? 1990 with Mel Gibson, Ethan Hawks in 2000, and in between 1996 is Hamlet, right? So like- And why is is because you know

what now you have anyway it was funny and soon as you said it's like, ah, now we have to do this. But anyway, so all these films were coming out among a countless different number of films that were different interpretations, reiterations, or whatever may have you of Shakespeare's original work, right? But in this film, we are following high school students, a perfect backdrop for any drama or comedy. And thus I feel that those elements like kind of take away

not only from our suspension of disbelief as watching a program, right? But like also kind of our judgment, right? Like we've all done stupid things while being young and in love, right? That's probably why they do that. I never even thought of that you're right yeah to a certain extent I feel that it makes it more yeah there's other reasons to be a drastic exactly the drasticness of why you would get to these decisions make a lot more sense

when you're like you have a malformed th mind you know because like it's kind of questionable how your suitor or your love interest at that point like pays somebody to date somebody else and it's supposed to be ethically all right with you but is that oh man i gotta watch this movie that is the principle of this film we're gonna get into this yes so finally i would say one of the biggest underpinnings of this film is about the social climate of sex and like, obviously in particular, teenage sex and pregnancy. The father in this film, while, you know, a large comedic relief in Larry Miller, he's an OBGYN who's like overly obsessed and worried about teenage pregnancy. And if you were to then adjacent to teenage life, and listening to the news at this time,

the teenage pregnancy rate was always a point of concern or mention in the average day to day existence of the mid to the late nineties, I feel right. Oh yeah. Yeah. So while their dad is kind of overbearing it, but meaning well, he decides to make this rule that his daughters, Bianca nor Kat, date until they graduate. Kat, about to graduate at the end of the year, Bianca, sophomore in high school. But now Bianca, the one who's kind of chased and, you know, a little bit, I don't, I don't

want to say the word domesticated, but you know what I mean? She's seemingly the more socially prim and proper yeah thank you the more prim and proper clear-cut and instead she can only date if her sister Kat can date now Kat is the shrew right a? A woman who's opinionated, maybe a little bit overly mature or uptight. I guess you could say like militantly feminist, right? So it's here that I wanna make a few points. Number one, this screenplay is written by two women.

Okay, and like I said just a moment ago, Kat has these features of being a little bit more uptight and holding herself above like the regular teenage societal rigamarole and things like that. But the next point I want to make is that those characteristics, because they're not really dulled by the end of this film, and they're not really presented as being overly negative, right? In fact, there are perhaps what changed our versions of Percutio, in this case, Ledger's Patrick, to like, again, not even change, I would say, because I give this film a lot of credit

that men aren't even held to like the lowest common denominator standard and stereotype. While Heath Ledger is supposed to be the high school hard-ass, you learn over time that like he doesn't necessarily fit that role. He's a soft boy. Well, he's a soft boy. He is a pretty boy. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

You're trying to say I'm not pretty? Are you trying to say I'm not pretty? Because right, and you're right, and I feel like that is a very good statement too where they're like, well, you know, she doesn't like guys who smoke, she doesn't, you know, she likes pretty guys. Well, I'm not pretty, you know, like, well that's to hear this guy say, you know, the first two minutes you meet him in the film,

but you do shortly learn within the film that like, this guy isn't really the, you know, ex con, sold his liver for some speakers stereotype that he's portrayed early on in this film, right? And with that, well, the discussion and debate can happen over the events and the ideas within this film, because you have Cameron, who sees Bianca's instantly smitten with her and tries to find a way to get around this, meets

Ledger and decides that's who they can pay to go ahead and have him date but they don't have any money so they actually have the rich vain vapid kid pay and try to move in on that. Now I do want to make a point to say that while all of these things and there are a couple other things that you can make an argument and Perhaps maybe there should be a bit of discussion but like this film in and of itself tackles predatory sexual advances and objectification of women or others in general in the character of Joey, right? Joey is kind of, you know, the vapid vein, rich, self-interested character.

So while being manipulated by Cameron to pay Heath Ledger Patrick to date Kat, you know, he is actually kind of being pursued by Bianca. And we'll get into that in a moment because by the end though, it's revealed he's just trying to get into her pants and a complete, you know, kind of self-interested jerk. And then she ends up breaking his nose.

And I really love that part of this film. But I also want to make the point to say that perhaps one of the more overlooked aspects of this film that we kind of resolve earlier on than that grand finale is, you know, originally Bianca is not just the more chosen of the two sisters. She's given agency in her decision. You see her make and realize the mistake of pursuing Joey through Cameron's efforts, right? And when he kind of confronts her with it,

she starts to go with him. This makes Joey mad and Joey then splits up Cat and Patrick at the prom by telling him, you know, the whole plot to the film, like I am right now. Right, but I will say that like, even in that moment where she gets that revenge on Joey for what he had done to Kat, what he was attempting to do to her. And, you know, she's given the capability to fend for herself and not a lot of films at this point, or maybe

even today, some could are you do that but yet they do it with this character. Yeah, no, like it's man. The way you just laid that out is crazy to think that it's a Shakespeare play because like it really it really will. And mind you, this is this also the way that the Shakespeare play is kind of came to the zeitgeist over centuries of retellings and reimaginings and things like that as well, right?

Like this is a modern interpretation. But the last point that I wanna make about this is ultimately I think one of the greatest aspects of this film is not only is it a good date movie or look at films of that time or of that genre or even the careers that were built off of this point as a foundation, right? Yeah.

I think it's a snapshot at which point romantic interest in films really started to become more of a compliment to one another, focusing not on changing or accepting them, but growing with them as individuals, both becoming more than surface level observations, typical traits are a befitting archetype, but feeling more closely similar to real couples. That's very true. Yeah, I really do. I mean, I don't want to say that like this film came in, thus films changed. But I think this is a really good example of the point in time in which those changes were being made if not directly with this film right does it pass the Man, I don't even remember the name of the test the tests were were two women talk about not a male character Oh, man, I don't yeah that I would think that it does though, but I don't wanna say it's a sort of like,

really if you think about it, there's a lot of movies that don't and like a ton of movies, it's crazy. But it's true. That is a good barometer for all female characterization. As a woman and even as a point of contention with this film, as a woman narratively in your story because she fills the role of a romantic?

Exactly. Is she only there because of exactly. Is that solely her reasoning? Yeah, and it's changed like that. Nowadays, I think it's getting a lot better. But man, when you look back at a lot of older movies. Even in an empowering one like this may not pass. That f**ing pass.

Yeah, we had to think, we're like, maybe not. Yeah, exactly. Well, that's the thing, you know what I mean? Well, if we're talking about medical advances, where, yeah, well, we're going a little farther back, you know, but. Are we going back to the 1600s, like we did with- Not the 1600s, the late 1700s,

and mostly the 1800s, though, is when this crazy pseudoscience was popular I was gonna say but there's a lot of cockamamie. Oh, yeah It's related to some stuff which we'll get into at the end like how it kind of did lead to some things not like Directly, but you know it started, you know, it was little pieces, right? We stand on the shoulder of giants right now and saying these were giants But how's Bob Ross would say happy little exactly exactly phrenology let's get into it so phrenology to define it is a pseudoscience

that used measurements of bumps and the shape of the skull to predict mental traits it was believed that because the brain was an organ and that there were certain localized areas of the brain that they would perform specific functions and I mean that's actually true though if you think about it like right I was gonna say so they know about the cerebellum and things like that right or like at least conceptually what that entails no they didn't that like actually that's the whole thing is they didn't like, they just thought like,

they were like mapping the entire brain. Like this one gives you this trait, this part gives you that trait. Like not like this part makes you breathe, this part makes you think, this part makes you, you know. Right, but that's like, they know that there are dedicated, not pathways, but sectors of the brain.

Yes, sections. Yeah, from dissections and stuff, for sure. Yeah. This is the whole thing because they would measure brains, like dissect skulls and brains, but also measure you while you're living. They measure the distance between different parts of your brain and look for bumps. The bumps were the big thing because if you had bumps, you know, that means that they thought that like the brain was like a muscle, right?

And they thought that the more you used it, it would get bigger. So that like that part they- Like somebody's just gonna have a ripped skull. Hey, what's up guys, I just read the dictionary last week. Yeah, I'm sorry. I keep laughing because like I did, I laughed there.

It's stupid, that's why. It is, it's really laughed it is really is really funny and like but at the time they didn't know man they're like this was the beginning of like the scientific method and stuff this this is this yes humor ask time or things like that what are um it was just a little bit after that right so like I said you know like the 1800s like when we were starting, this was like when, you know, the scientific method was starting to be developed. And like when people really started like doing experiments, you know, there wasn't experimentation.

There was, but it wasn't like tracked, you know, it wasn't done like empirically, I guess. But in speaking of empirical, there is empirical evidence that shows like, you know, anybody that... because some people might, I don't think maybe, believe specifically in this, you know, but there is, there's evidence. I actually read like a scientific study, you know, I like to go through like read actual papers when I try to do this research.

And it was like one from 2009. And, you know, they like definitively proved that there was no evidence of any of these traits being associated with any parts of the brain. But I mean, by now, it's obvious. But still, they wanted to. It was just, you know, kind of a cool study. Right. Yeah. The ultimate note, right. And boom. So phrenology, like as a study, I guess, was invented in 1796 by a German physician named Franz Josef Gall. And man, the gall of this guy, that's what I really gotta say, like I said before.

And it really became influential though, around like 1810 to 1840. And not so much him. Obviously, he had influence to it. He spread it. But it was a couple other people that really spread it more than him. And one of them was a partner of his that they ended up having to follow out later on. But at the time, a partner of his named Johann Spurzheim, I think that's how you say it. name, Johan Spurs, I think that's how you say it. He started, he went around to like the UK and eventually the U S like later in life, but the UK and then 18 teens and started spreading the word of it. Right? Like started spreading this idea, I guess, because it never

really gained traction with mainstream media, you know, whatever it was like this considered a theory though. Like even if it's discredited and everything else, this is a theory. I guess, not really, a hypothesis. Okay. We'll put it as that, cause it's no. I mean, if you want to be scientific with it, it's not a theory.

Yeah. Thank you. And that's why I said that though, is like, is there enough that while we would never accept it, like we do the theory of gravity, it is a theory nonetheless, and no it is not not. No, because like if you want to like the theory of gravity, because in a scientific term, a theory is like a set. It's almost like a rule or a law. It is. It's the right. We have found these things to be a consistent function of X. Yes. It's like it's a thing that's been tested many times and proven to be to the best of our knowledge true. It hasn't been falsified

yet I guess is the best way to put it. There we go. Exactly. Yeah, hypothesis is really what a lot of when we use theory in common terms that's really a hypothesis. You know, yes. Speaking of common terms, this like idea was popular in like the masses. It may not have been picked up so much by the scientists and people in the scientific community, but it was picked up. But John Q. Public bought that. Exactly.

It was kind of like horoscopes, right? They picked up like, oh yeah, let's measure each other's heads and see why. Because it made them feel like they were this you know this new breaking science that they thought was real right well and I think it's easy like we say a lot of times to kind of pick on the past from our position here we have a lot of scientific exactly and knowledge that they didn't. Yeah, for sure. And I mean, also, it was really easy to be used with racism too. So in America, they love that. Right. So anyways, Gall though, he proposed these principles for phrenology, that the brain is an organ of the mind, which that is right. You

know, I would agree with him on that. Right, check. Also that the brain is not a homogeneous unit, but an aggregate of mental organs that have specific functions. So, I mean- Check. Well, check and yes, because it is one organ,

but it's not, they do have specific functions. I have, it's hard. Yeah. It's not an aggregate of mental organs. It has sub-sex, although it is one, right. Okay. Yes, I guess there is, because there's different glands and stuff.

It is, yeah. I mean, this one's like a half-check. We'll give them a half-check on this one, right? Check minus. Yes. The next one is that the cerebral organs are topographically localized, meaning that the cerebral organs are topographically localized, meaning that, you know, the cerebral,

like the thinking parts of the brain. The frontal lobe or whatever. Well, yeah, well, what we know now is the frontal lobe, but where like the higher knowledge, the higher thinking that makes us human, right? Those things are topographically, meaning on the top, like on the outside, localized in different parts of, you know, or more like in maps, you can map it, localize it in different parts of the brain. So another quarter check, or a quarter check, let's give it a quarter check on that one, because yes, the frontal lobe, right? Check minus minus. This is what I mean, like some of these things have been like, it's the beginning of some things, you know,

but it's not at the same time. Right. So this next one, other things being equal, the relative size of any particular mental organ is indicative of the power or strength of that organ. Now this one is a definitely minus or well actually maybe an eighth check. So other things being equal, I guess, you know, in the brain, like, you know, at all. Yeah, like not development wise, right? The relative size of that part of the brain is an indication of how powerful or strong that part of the brain is. So, yes and no, because all right, we do,

and this is, and actually it's not a settled science yet. Sometimes archeologists use the skulls and the shape of skulls to determine like, well, this one had a bigger frontal lobe, this one had a bigger cerebellum to understand like how animals, different extinct species like, you know, were. Could have functioned versus the common common parts of today. Yes, could have. Exactly.

And you can, and in a sense, extrapolate a little bit of information from that, but not how they were. Because again, we have to separate, like they did not understand that, you know, the frontal lobe was where like a lot of the thinking was, and the frontal lobe was where like a lot of the Thinking was and the cerebellum was where like a lot of like the base basal functions were you know and things like that It's like a jigsaw puzzle with a few key missing pieces, right? Like yes, you can kind of see an out-of-focus picture, but to say that it is an accurate representation is but to say that it is an accurate representation is inaccurate. Exactly. Yes. And he believed though, so like I keep talking about these sections, right, he called them mental faculties and he believed that each represented different

faculties, each of these areas represented different ones and there was like different sub areas too. Like this is the thing, like they never really agreed, nobody agreed on where these areas were, how many they were. Like it was just ridiculous. But it was so funny. And we were talking about this and Phineas Gage, you know, this is why I want to bring this up because like his doctor remember was a chronologist. Right.

He was like, yeah. He was like, Oh, you know, it damaged this part of his brain and stuff, which he should have seen, but yeah, cause Spurzheim and then later this guy named Combe, George Combe, he started helping Spurzheim promote this. Right. He was the one that really went to America and got it big. And they like further elaborated on it because at first, like Gall had like different spaces. He left like different areas of the brain where just like,

I don't know what that is. Yeah. In Gall's original hypothesis, there is not much inklings towards racism or is there? No, he didn't. I don't think he himself, I mean, he might have. I didn't look, I didn't see anything specifically. I didn't look up his biography. But nothing in the work is specifically. Yeah, not specifically, but people use that. Oh yeah. And like, especially, we're going to have to get into some of the reasons why because this one was hard for me to find like a good like list of them because like certain spots like

Britannica didn't really list them at all. They just like listed like such as blah blah blah, you know. And then, you know, I obviously went to Wikipedia and they like listed them in weird ways. The scientific study had the best lists, I think, and they explained why and like different like traits. Like this is why scientific studies are the bomb. This is why you go to the source, right? Because of like this, right? Yeah, because it's a perfect example. Like the ones they listed were this and there's I think like 26 of them and I'm gonna go through a lot of them quickly. But aimativeness, which is like the impulse to propagate, you know, how much you wanna.

Right, okay. Phylo progenitiveness, which is how like tender you are towards your offspring. So how good you are towards your babies, right? Okay, okay. And like, so these are things like, yeah, you can use those as like traits, but it's not, you know, it's not mapped on your brain.

There's no definitive lobe in the brain for that, right? Exactly, yep. Adhesiveness, which they define as like friendly attachment. like traits but it's, you know. Right. Again, self-explanatory. Right. Yes. Self-esteem, self-explanatory. Right. Love of approbation, which is like ambition or vanity, you know. Oh, okay. Okay. Cautiousness, eventuality and individuality.

So that was an and. And I was like, okay, individuality, right? That's cool. You know, independentness, right? But no, they said it was more aptness to receive an education. So like that's what they define it as. Okay. Locality, which, you know, like how much you are like staying low.

Aware of your immediate surroundings you are. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yes. Words, which in this is like words and verbal memory and then language. So like those language, which they grouped as, you know, language as in speaking and understanding too.

You know, this was one area of the brain, which was important. We'll get into that in a second. And then coloring, which is like your disposition for color or you're delighting in colors. And like, this is where like, oh, you know, an artist has, you know, their coloring muscle is strong, you know, in their brain.

Right, yeah, exactly. That's what they would say. But yeah, or tune, which is like your musical talent, right? Or numbers would be mathematics or being a mathematician. It's like the force. It's so that's what I'm saying. Oh, your medical written rates are so high, Anakin. It's crazy. That's what I'm saying. It reminds me of tarot cards or horoscopes or something like that. It really does. Yeah. And then there's constructiveness, comparison, which I didn't look that up,

but like I think how much you compare to others or something causality. And then mirthfulness, which is like a sense of inference. So like, you know, intuition, you know, and then ideality, which is like your poetic talent. And then benevolence is like a moral sense. But yeah, so like, I mean, like I said, some of these really are kind of, yes, traits you would see because they are traits you would see, but they're not related to parts of your brain. And so some of these people, like I said, use this to kind of explain racism. Like one of them

thought that Australian Aboriginals- To justify- Yes, exactly. To justify. Right. Well, both. To explain and justify. That is true. Right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Like they want to be like, well, this is why we're superior. And then also be like, that's why we need to be superior. Right. Yeah. Not only do I believe it, I have this bulls**t evidence on it.. Exactly, yep exactly. This one guy said that the Australian Aboriginals had underdeveloped cerebral organs which they don't. And that was the reason why they didn't produce good art which I don't know I love Aboriginal art it's like really

like I don't know it's tribal type like that's the coolest like the tattoos and all yeah. Yeah different it's not European art so it's different tons of people though also try to compare the skulls of African Americans and European Americans and try to say like you know there's levels to this man you know like we're we're the top and that's why black people should be subordinate to us because look at their skull shape compared to ours which there's like very little difference in skull shape if any you know right but it could be anything you know what I mean right exactly I'm not mistaken there's more variation between like Europeans

than there is between Africans or well sorry there's like an insane amount of variance between Africans like Western and Eastern, but like it's not like less. There's more, I guess there's more difference. Like, so it's right. Yeah, I can see that. So yeah, it's the opposite, like, because we're part Neanderthal man, because we left at a certain time. And then after that, our gene pool was smaller, right? Like the African gene pool, that's where we originated from. When you know, people left Africa, that was a bottleneck right? Because after that, the ones that stayed, there was more, there was more diversity there because that's how you know genes work, which we're going to talk about evolution here soon, not this episode, but

you know, to come in general. And because of that, there's more diversity in Africa than there is in Europe, in Asia, in America. And even as a continent, it's like twice the size. So why wouldn't there be, right? Exactly. Like, I don't know, Africa is a freaking amazing continent. It is, yeah. That's another thing is Africa is huge.

Like you said, yeah. It just goes to show that when you think about this for 20 minutes, it just doesn't make any sense, right? Like, oh, Africa, there's's no way uh actually there's a total way because if you were to go to north south east west all four of them would be vastly different versus like countries that are size of the states bro no offense to our european listeners at all but that's just the truth like there are states that are the size of countries in Europe. Yeah no doubt. They also used phrenology to justify sexism surprise. Wow what a reach. Yeah okay so what they said they

claimed that women that had larger heads in the back and lower foreheads were underdeveloped but underdeveloped in the sense for arts and sciences, better for children and religion. Domestication. Exactly. Yep. So they also use that as a justification for banning women from politics because this is something that blows my mind. Oh great. I'm sorry, I'm going on a lot of tango. No, you're right. But like, even like the beginning of America, not everybody could vote. It's like not even all men could vote.

And then eventually that changed in the 1800s pretty quickly to all white men could vote. Then it was all black men. And then finally in the 1900, I think the 1920s, I think it was women could vote in the 1920s, man. Yeah, that's insane. It is, but unfortunately it bore out over time with things like this everybody will find an excuse to not

look at somebody as an equal to not give somebody their just do and they'll even come up with a way to justify why exactly yeah now like I said for analogy kind of did help in some senses and And one of these ways I would say somewhat helped, at least for the time, was in criminology. Because at the time, you know, criminals were just thrown into like, you know, a pit essentially, like especially in crazy people too, you know, but they kind of they started thinking like, oh, we could diagnose criminals and maybe there's a reason why or maybe we could change them if we were able to work out these parts of the brain, you know, to help them not have these moral,

you know, misgivings or whatnot. Right, right. Yeah. So some they like deemed too intellectually disabled, right? They're like, Oh, you know, their brains, their skulls are too messed up. So they just need to work and house them together and a lot of those people like were there forever you know like insane houses I was getting down they were put to like asylums and not prisons exactly yes yes yeah which were still weren't that great at the time no they were ramshackle shows exactly yeah but the criminals that they deemed like intelligent and that like had like vicious intent like they were confined and isolated and like oh no so they're like oh you're crafty you need to be yes oh my god guys they thought a lot of them could be like reformed

right that's the thing but you would make them go insane doing that well it depends on what like i mean whatever this phrenologist thought or believed you know because like i said there's all these different like it was just crazy like because man it really there was some deep rabbit holes you could go in with this stupid stuff yeah there's no uniform thing here there's no checklist to say okay by phrenology standards this guy is deemed redeemed or whatever you want to say. No, it's just exactly. Yeah. Well, perfect example of this. So there was one and all it said was a reference was one person with homicidal intent. So I don't know if he like killed somebody or like just wanted to kill somebody or something. Yeah. But they told him to become a butcher instead because they get

him work with me and you know, and yeah, you can leave a lot of stuff if you become a butcher instead, because then you get to work with meat, you know? And that worked for that person. Oh yeah, you can cleave a lot of stuff if you're a butcher. Yeah, and then another person with the same type of whatever diagnosis, I guess, they told them to become a military chaplain, so they could watch people die.

Oh man. Like it puts death, and that worked for them too, I guess. You know what though, that is too. You know what though? That is true. You know what? Work with the best of somebody. Yeah, I mean, you know, they take their aptitude tests. Like, oh, yep, you like killing things.

All right, well, we'll send you over to do this. Well, we got a caliphar right on down the road. We can kill the out of some bro. Exactly. Oh man. And like, I mean, like I said though, like insane asylum. So this is the one where it kind of did help because like insane asylums at the time were really, really bad. It was

probably even worse than the 1800s and the 1900s. But it was bad at the time. You know, there was this one physician though, named John Connolly that like wanted to like diagnose patients with it. And through that, he like got leniency on a lot of patients that were clearly mentally disabled you know like that probably did something wrong so the distinction here are people who are criminally insane or versus actually just yes not able to fit in functioning society regularly exactly okay like I yeah but I just want to make clear your distinction too right right? You know? But like, yeah, so like these are people that maybe like, maybe had a violent outbreak

or something that were like schizophrenic people with a violent outbreak or something like that. If you could acclimate them or regiment them, they could probably put them in a home. Exactly. Versus a prison. You know, and like he helped a lot of people, I would say with that, you know, and I didn't look into him deeply, so maybe he has some other s***. But the 1840s, it really started like being discredited. And one of, or two, I would say, two of the main studies that discredited it was done by first Jean-Pierre Forins, who performed experiments on pigeons where he destroyed different parts of their brains and realized, oh yeah, I mean, it does like, hey, this prison can't walk anymore.

This pigeon can't fly anymore or this pigeon can't breathe anymore or things like that. It showed that like, no, it didn't fit with the way Gall and all these other phrenologists were talking about. Right. It counterdecks enough to show that they had some bearings in reality, but not enough to have a foothold in it, right? Exactly. And the one that really did though was done by a French physician named Paul Bracha. And he discovered an area in the frontal lobe, which is later to be named Bracha's area, that controls language production. And he discovered that through autopsies and like, you know, people that maybe were born

with a damaged or damaged through life, found out that that damage to the left side of your frontal lobe reduced or damaged their ability to speak, but not their ability to understand language. And that was one big thing. Like I said earlier, that, you know, language was a specific area where it was like all of it, you know, speak it, understand it, all that. And that, like from there, people were like, you know, this phrenology thing is stupid. They're, you know, like, I mean, at the time, that's what really. This kind of just seems like an excuse for people to be racist sometimes.

Exactly. So yeah, so after like, I mean, it kind of just fell out of excuse for people to be racist. Exactly. So, yeah. So after like, I mean, it kind of just fell out of favor after that, you know. But like I said, there's a like neuropsychology, psychiatry, even archaeology. These things were influenced by phrenology, even though it's this dumb, like goofy, quacky pseudoscience. It still has its basis. It didn't stand on the shoulders of giants this time, maybe like a, you know, a smaller or normal sized person. But we still stood on the shoulders of

that person. That gall, the guy that had the gall to say our brains were mepped like that. Well, you know, and I kind of feel bad, but you know, maybe he didn't have as much gall as we thought. If this guy honestly was just thinking he was onto something and his got co-opted, I feel bad for him, but we, but we don't know that for, for certain, right? You know what I mean? And unfortunately, I mean, yeah, it for analogy has left a bad taste in people's mouth and rightfully so, but like you just said, like we did reach over those efforts, those misunderstandings, those perhaps misgivings that people have of people.

And we've learned better from it. Agreed man, that's a great way of putting it too, for sure. Ever the optimist. And with that, we're optimistic that you enjoyed this episode and will once further. us a rating review on your podcast platform of choice. Find us on our social medias, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and on Patreon. For Brad, I'm Kyle, and we will see you again here soon. I shalt see thou.

Blammateest of the blams. Ah, brain soda.