Transcript of How Your Sense of Taste Really Works & Why Sports Fans Care So Much

Today on Something You Should Know, How Driving When You Have a Cold Can be more dangerous than driving drunk. Then, a look at all the things that influence how food tastes.

How does packaging, how does marketing, how does color or storytelling literally change how something tastes? As researchers, we know that people can rate the exact same products higher if the marketing feels more premium.

Also, who's more likely to wake up grumpier? A man or a woman? And the psychology of sports fans. Why do people identify so strongly with teams and athletes?

We know from research, fans are twice as likely to change their marriage partner as they are their sporting team allegiance. But what's beautiful about sport is that that love tends not to diminish, unlike our romantic partners with whom we get bored.

All this today on Something You Should Know.

I'm Theresa, and my advice to all entrepreneurs: Start with Shopify successfully. I use Shopify since the first day, and the platform makes me never problems. I have many problems, but the platform is never one of them. I have the feeling that Shopify is constantly optimizing. Everything is super-einfach, integrated, and linkable. And the time and the money that I save, I can invest in other ways, especially in growth. Now, test it on Shopify. De.

Something You Should Know. Fascinating intel, the world's top experts, and practical advice you can use in your life. Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Caruthers. If you had a cold or the flu, but you had to go somewhere, would you still drive there? I bet you would. Most people would. But maybe you shouldn't. That's what we're going to start with today on this episode of Something You Should There's a warning from a study that suggests that driving with a cold or the flu can be even more dangerous than driving drunk. Researchers compared the reaction time of cold sufferers against the reaction time of people with alcohol blood levels above the legal limit. The results found that those with a cold had lower alertness levels than those who were over the legal limit. The drivers who had a cold had a tendency to follow too closely and took longer to stop the car on command. It seems that when your body is fighting an infection, memory and movement can be impaired, regardless of the severity of the illness. If you add a sneeze on top of it, you're really increasing the risk because a sneeze can take your eyes off the road for as much as three full seconds.

And that is something you should know. Isn't it interesting how some people love certain foods, and other people just hate them? And even with the foods we like, some we really like, while others are just, they're okay, they're fine. And if you recall, there are probably foods you didn't like when you were younger that now you do. So how did that happen? Why does our sense of taste change over time? And how do things like packaging, color, presentation, and expectation affect how a food tastes? Well, here to explain all this is Beth Kimmerly. She's a sensory science expert, meaning she tastes food for a living. She's founder of Attribute Analytics, which is a platform that helps companies that make packaged food use taste data to drive product success. She's also written four books about chocolate and sweets. Hi, Beth. Welcome to Something You Should Know.

Hi, Mike. Thank you for having me.

You taste food for a living. I know your job entails much more than that, but that is part that you taste food for a living, which sounds pretty appealing to me. But explain what it is you do exactly.

Oh, great question. In the food and beverage industry, there are folks like me who are practitioners of sensory evaluation, otherwise known as taste experts. There's folks that specialize. There's coffee tasters or chocolate tasters or tea tasters. But We're at the expert level. Folks like us have our tongues often insured because of the value they bring to our work. In my case, I not only have my tongue, but my olfactory bulb insured, much like famous people have body parts insured. I don't know, Keith Richard's hands, I'm imagining, are insured or Ronaldo's legs. We assess food products on behalf of the food industry and supply data around taste and texture and aftertaste, aroma, all really, really important things that the food industry, food and beverage industry, wants to know.

I would always would have assumed that because taste is so individual, that it isn't a science so much as it's... Because you may say something tastes great, and I may say, That's the worst thing I ever ate.

Aha, yes. For most of us, our taste buds detect five basic tastes. But there's these other elements, these other things that you're referring to that are at play. A aroma, memory, even expectation, can alter how we perceive taste. Sometimes it takes over and does much of the work. If I were to say to a room of untrained tasters, Hey, describe this chocolate, and they're all tasting the same chocolate, just like you're saying, some may describe a feeling of nostalgia, and some may focus on how it feels in their mouth and what we call the melt rate. While others might describe taste like... They might detect taste like bitter or sour. And that's because taste isn't just a chemical goal reaction in our body. It is a perception shaped by our life experience. And so what we do with sensory analysis, it is a science, and it involves using trained human tasters and a methodology. We transform aroma, taste, texture, and aftertaste into a language that we can use to generate structured and usable, what we call empirical data. When people When people talk about, Hey, how are you able to do that? If you think about it, we're not interested in subjective words.

We are what sommiers are to wine. We are to food because we have this lexicon, and I've tasted so many food products that we can really understand or detect what we call the flavor wheel of food.

Can you turn it on and off? Because you must have the same things that I have about memories about food and certain foods you like or don't like. Do you turn it on and off?

That's an incredible question because… Taste memories are emotional. They're powerful, and we're oftentimes chasing these experiences. We're not thinking about them as a flavor. You grab an item off the grocery store shelf because it reminds you of that experience that you had, mostly those good ones. You can turn it on and off. It's the hardest thing to train somebody to do because in our lives today, we go through life liking and disliking. Liking and disliking things online, liking and disliking, thumbs up on your text messages. And so you have to divorce yourself from liking or disliking and only use objective subjective language. And it's incredible. And that's what sensory evaluation is, this ability to be able to use this objective language and divorce yourself from liking or disliking. And there's certain things that help you do it. We don't look at things in packages, because packages can influence our presentation, can influence how we perceive taste. We are trained to respond almost like robots or or machines so that we can utilize this portion of our brain that can give us data or objective information.

I have heard, and I think we have all heard this notion that taste is primarily smell. Is that true or not?

It is true. That's 100% true. If you were to hold your nose and eat a, let's call it strawberry jellybean, so you're not using your nasal cavity, it's going to taste off or flat just because you're only tasting sweet. Aromas are really the... Aroma is the indicator of taste. And the ability to taste if your nasal cavity is blocked, if you're sick, much of food flavor disappears. And so that's the proof that taste buds aren't... They're just a starting point. And an aroma plays into taste heavily. And It's really aroma plus taste that give us flavor.

When people like or dislike food, as you said, we could have memories from childhood, or there could be other subjective factors. But objectively, do people like or dislike food? It's just that I just happen to like it and you just don't, and that's the beginning and end of it.

Some of these differences have to do with how many taste buds we have on our tongue or papale, as they're called. Even our saliva chemistry can amplify or alter flavor perception. Genetics, all these things come into play. If one person likes something and another person doesn't like. Again, it could be memory influencing. It could be things like age or medication or illness. There's so many things that go into taste. But really, we have found that repeated exposure, social context, and positive influences or experiences can really help retrain our palate. If you know somebody who doesn't like something, you could work with them. And we see this often in, let's call it bitter foods, or even think about the trend in super sour candy with kids. 25 years ago or 35 years ago, kids might have spit out super sour candy because it was too sour, but they got trained with these experiences, and now they've learned to enjoy those foods.

Is that it? Here's what I mean. If you give a kid a sip of beer or whiskey, which you shouldn't do, it's probably not legal.

No, probably not. It's probably a bad idea, Mike.

But if you did, They're going to go, That's the worst thing. Tastes like cough syrup. It's just going to be horrible. They're not going to like it. Ten years from now, they could be drinking it and liking it. So is it just because they were exposed to it enough times, or could their tastes have actually changed, and now they actually like it when then they didn't?

Maybe a little bit of both. Again, it's this repeated exposure. That was their first sip, and now they're on their They're 10th, or maybe they're off to drinking ABVs, who knows? But it's also social context. If you think about the social piece of food, we're oftentimes with others, and and experiencing food, whether it's beer or candy in social settings. And so we can change. And some of that has to do with the way our taste buds change over time. If you think about what a baby needs and wants in flavor, it's sweet, and they're really looking for the sweetness of mother's milk. And that's how our taste buds work. So this question is about where we are in our life, and then how much have we been exposed to this product, whether it's beer or otherwise? What's the social context in which we've enjoyed the product? And have we really enjoyed the product? Has it been a positive experience, or has everybody around us shared this same drink and frowned?

I want to ask you how possible and likely is it to change someone's taste so they like a food that maybe they don't like now or give up a food that they do like that maybe they shouldn't. I'm talking with Beth Kimmerly. She is a sensory science expert.

The insolvence is gestellt, and plötzlich, The Regency era.

You You might know it as the time when Bridgerton takes place, or as the time when Jane Austen wrote her books. The Regency era was also an explosive time of social change, sex scandals, and maybe the worst king in British history. Vulgar History's new season is all about the Regency era, the balls, the gowns, and all the scandal. Listen to Vulgar History, Regency era, wherever you get podcasts.

Beth, if you wanted to work with a child or get someone to change their taste away from a food or towards a food? How do you do it?

That's a great question because if you, as the parent, can create what they call this positive experience, repeated exposure, create a social context. Let's just back up from that. What does that mean? You introduce foods repeatedly, Right? So repeated exposure means you're showing up with the broccoli and the mac and cheese at the same time. And then at some point, you're eliminating the mac and cheese, and you're just constantly exposing the, quote-unquote, fussy eater to the item that you wish them to enjoy, and that you're showing them how to eat it yourself. So when we talk about this social context piece of it, it's really showing them that you can have a positive experience with it. Instead of just putting it on the plate, you're picking up that piece of broccoli, you're showing them how delicious it is and training them through your actions as opposed to just putting it on the plate. So yes, there's a method to working with fussy eaters, and it's also around being less emotional, strangely enough, and less reactive and just exposing.

We all like sweet, right?

I have never met anybody who is just totally opposed to sweet. I do know people who don't like sweets in general. They run towards savor, but I don't know anybody who's just shut down from sweet. That is an evolutionary There is an evolutionary reason for that, and that is because sweet, let's call it carbohydrate, sweet keeps humans alive. Sweet as a taste keeps humans alive or has kept humans alive. It's a really, really important basic tastes. It is one of the more important, especially, again, for children and babies, because sweet is probably the first taste that that baby's tastes.

Yeah, I've always been interested in this idea of portion control in the sense that I've noticed, and I've done experiments with myself on this. When a plate of food is put in front of you, there's a tendency to want to eat the food that's on that plate. And if you get a smaller portion of food, there's a tendency to want to eat that and that that'll be enough. Just like what you said about, if you give me a big piece of pie, well, I'll eat the big piece of pie. If you gave me a smaller piece, that's probably fine, too. But we're seeing that portions get bigger and bigger, and when you see a plate of food in front of you, you tend to want to eat the plate of food.

Exactly. I think what we call those in our industry is what are the expectations and how do those affect how we perceive taste? You're talking about large and small. We often Sometimes talk about appearance in terms of size and shape and color. There's so many different ways we can, what we call modulate these expectations because they really prime the brain. There's a quote that says, We eat with our eyes. If you think about that in terms of, you're talking about it portion control, but we look at how does packaging, how does marketing, how does color or typestyle or storytelling, literally really change how something tastes. As researchers, we know that people can rate the same product, this exact same product, higher if the marketing feels more premium. Their expectation is elevated and they like that product better. Or even consumers, if something doesn't feel authentic or if they notice it's broken, meaning have you ever gotten a cracker or a cookie out of a package and it's not whole, then that will shift your perception. Well, it doesn't taste as good.

Well, it does seem, and I imagine everybody's had an experience where their taste has changed over time. When I was a kid, I used to drink a lot of soda. I can't drink a soda now. It's so sweet and syrupy because I I realized that they weren't healthy, and I backed off and got to the point where now I don't want one.

Yeah, and that's that interesting thing about how you had repeated exposure. At some point, you drank a lot of soda, and you had the social context or experience that trained your palate to think that that was a good thing. Then at some point, whether it was the social context, learning how much sugar is actually in a traditional soda or seeing people around you drink alternatives. Again, our taste can change, and that has to do with this learned information. Then sometimes taste sensitivity changes with age or illnesses or medications, and that can dull or distort flavor perception. If somebody put a traditional can of soda in front of me that had either cane sugar or corn syrup in it, and I wasn't in tasting mode, and it was a choice. I'd prefer water. I think that has to do with social contracts. We learned more about sugary drinks. But I also, because I've worked for companies like Starbucks along the way, and I've learned to drink unsweetened coffee because of coffee cuppings. Really, that was that exposure thing, learning to enjoy foods that we maybe initially disliked.

Well, I think people like to think that they know what they like and they like what they like. But as you were saying, we are so susceptible to marketing. If the cracker is broken, the things that influence what we like or don't like are seen from what you're saying. There's a lot of things at play here that are way under the radar.

Oh, 100%. Because I work with professional tasers, I hear all the time memories that drive preferences, which I find really interesting. People cannot divorce themselves from things like, This tastes just like the I grew up with, or, My grandmother used to make something that was just like this, or, I had a medication. Memories are such a force. Companies try to translate those, let's call them collective memories into terms just like homemade or just like grandma used to make. I find that interesting because with those memories, sometimes comes very emotional reactions, joy, fear around medication. Oh, my gosh. I had this cherry flavor. It was like this Luden's cough drop that I had when I had scarlet fever. I mean, on and on and on. When you're talking about under the radar. It's so embedded in us that sometimes we don't even know they're there until we taste that thing again. And it's like walking into a portal. I call it a time machine because we can't access them until we taste that thing again.

Well, this is fun because it's a topic I think everybody thinks about, especially when they're eating, why they like what they like and they don't like that thing that other people seem to like. I really enjoy hearing how you do your job and you can turn it on and off like that. I've been talking with Beth Kimmerly. She is a sensory science expert, founder of Attribute Analytics, and she's the author of a couple of books about sweets and chocolate. I'll put a link to her chocolate book in the show notes. Thank you, Beth. This was great.

Thanks, Mike. It's been a pleasure. Thanks for the great questions.

If Bravo drama, pop culture chaos, and honest takes are your love language, you'll want All About Terry H. Podcast in your feed.

Hosted by Roxanne and Shantel, this show breaks down Real Housewives reality TV and the moments everyone's group chat is arguing about. Roxanne has been spilling Bravo tea since 2010. And yes, we've interviewed Housewives royalty like Countess Louanne and Theresa Judais. Smart recap, Insider Energy, and Zero Fluff. Listen to All About TRH podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. New episodes weekly.

When they were young, the five members of an elite Commando Group nicknamed the Stone wolves raged against the oppressive rule of the Keraduraki Empire, which occupies and dominates most of the galaxy's inhabited planets. The wolves fought for freedom, but they failed, leaving countless corpses in their wake. Defeated and disillusioned, they hung up their guns and went their separate ways, all hoping to find some small bit of peace amidst a universe thick with violence and oppression. Four decades after their heyday, they each try to stay alive and eke out a living. But a friend from the past won't let them move on, and neither will their bitterest enemy. The Stone Wolves is Season 11 of the Galactic Football League science fiction series by author Scott Sigler. Enjoy it as a standalone story or listen to the entire GFL series beginning with Season 1, The Rookey. Search for Scott Sigler, S-I-G-L-E-R, wherever you get your podcasts.

Why does being a sports fan matter so much?

For some people, it's not just entertainment, it's identity. They follow a team year after year. They know every player, every statistic. They wear the jerseys and the hats. They even talk about the team like they're part of it. They don't say, They won. They say, We won. Others don't latch on to team so much. They follow individual athletes, tennis players, golfers, fighters, and they ride every win and loss right along with them. So what is it about sports that turns spectators into loyal, emotionally invested fans? Why do we care so deeply about games played by people we've never met? And what does that say about how our brains are wired? Well, that's what my next guest studies. Aaron C. T. Smith is a professor of management at New Castle Business School at the University of New Castle, and he's author of a book called The psychology of sports fans. And he's here to explain why sports fandom is such a powerful and very human force. Hi, Aaron. Welcome to Something You Should Know.

Thanks very much, Mike. Appreciate being on.

What What is it about sports? What is it that drives people to become such loyal, devoted fans?

People like me see a connection between sport as a religion. And now, of course, we've been talking about sport as religion forever. But what's interesting now is that there's a new series of evidence from fields like cognitive psychology and neuroscience. It seems that the brain doesn't really care whether religion is supernatural or secular, what happens in the brain during worship and during fandom are similar. And it's because the brain is hardwired to believe, and it believes strongly to have a strongest form of belief, of course, is faith. And the ability to have faith also means that sport gives us a opportunity to lose ourselves in something bigger than us and experience what for many of us, I think, is really true belonging. And that, that might be one of the, I think, the greatest consolations for feeling a bit trivial in a world that's easy to feel marginalized and inconsequential in. So for me, this isn't just about sport. It's really about the brain's need for faith to be connected to a tribe, our search for meaning. And sometimes that just happens to involve watching people chase a ball. I think that's why across human history and civilization, in a sport's proven to be inevitable.

One of the things that I find striking is it's one thing to be a fan of a team and wear the hat, wear the shirt, and all that. But there are also fans of teams who have this, hate's a strong word, but they don't like other teams, like the Yankees and the Red Sox. You know what I mean? It's not only do I I like this team. I really hate that team.

Right. And that's connected directly, of course, to our sense of tribal identification. And it is amplified also by the nature of the way our brains work. We are connected to that tribal sense of association. And so it's not just sufficient for us to bond around our own team, but also bond around a common enemy. And so that sense of rivalry, whether it's Duke in North Carolina, Army and Navy. And all of this is about what connects us to our team is also part of what disconnects us from other tribes and fans.

I've always been curious why sports fans pick the sport they do and pick the team they do. I mean, I used to play baseball, Little League baseball, and so I was a very big I was a baseball fan when I was younger, but I played the sport, so I identified with the guys on the team. But my wife's a hockey fan, big Kings fan, but she's never played hockey. But that's the sport that she gravitates to.

The actual exposure to sports and our decisions to become fans of one team or another is not much of a decision, as it turns out, based on the research. For people of our generation, perhaps, and going back in the past, the biggest impact was our families, specifically our fathers. But the cultural connections to regions and areas in particular sports can often be quite tenuous. It might have been a big brother or sister. It might have been an early exposure in order to create a social connection with a group we wanted to be part of. It might have been connected to a particular regional cultural affiliation with a certain sports, depending on where you grow up in the world. Today, it's changing, though, of course, where young people today are not necessarily the same kinds of fans that older generations have been, which are fans for life. A good example is that we know from research, fans are twice as likely to change their marriage partner as they are their sporting team allegiance over the course of their lifetimes. But what's beautiful about sport is that love tends not to diminish, unlike our romantic partners with whom we get bored.

And it's part of it is because of all of the not just psychological payoff, but all of the neurochemical and hormonal responses that come because we feed the brain's pleasure pathways as a consequence of indulging in sport. So in a sense, going back to your original question, it doesn't really matter who we support. It's the consequences of that support which give us the sense of belonging and the deeper meaning. Our brains then come to the party by triggering a cascade, an avalanche of what neuroscientists call happy hormones.

One of the things that I notice is that there's a spectrum. There are people who are diehard fans. They know all the stats, they know all the players, they know everything. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who couldn't care less about sports. Then there are plenty of people in various points along the middle where they go to some of the games, they follow it on TV. I wonder why people are where they are on that spectrum.

The jury is still out in terms of research about exactly whether certain individuals have a greater propensity for fandom. It appears that they might well be because of their desire for a strong identification. And it also appears that people become more strong in their identification when they need that psychological reward, because that sense of identification leads to positive structure, meaning, and community. And many fans do become deeper fans over time as they find that genuine lifelong friendship and emotional support, and the sense of resilience that comes along with being part of a social identity with their community. As for why certain individuals gravitate towards certain teams and then forge the strength of relationship probably has something to do with our need for two different and competing intentions. One is a desire, of course, to belong to something, to be part of something bigger. So we're all trying to be part of a tribe. But at the same time, we're also all trying to be distinctive and different. And sport gives us a way of doing that so that within our social group, we can be important and respected. One of the ways you do that in sport is that you lean in and you become a stronger fan, and you demonstrate your interest and your fanaticism by going that extra step through, social sacrifice and commitment to the team.

So what often happens is that some individuals find when they're seeking that sense of meaning, it's easy to lean in and to accumulate that sense of respect through the experience of sport. But there's still some uncertainties here as well. I mean, for example, Mike, when we look at the research of individuals who get themselves into trouble at sport, whether it's through hooliganism or just yelling obsenities at officials, you might think that they're bad apples. But the reality turns out that they're everyday people who just seem to be finding a cathartic release through sport, sometimes going over the line. So it's an interesting revelation to discover that all of us can become diehard hard fans. And maybe you've had that experience where you've gone to two different kinds of sporting events with the same person. Maybe you go to golf or tennis and you're both quite restrained, and then you go to hockey or a highly intense fan experience, and you scream and you yell, and you become completely different people depending on the context.

But some people don't like sports at all. I mean, they just couldn't care less and don't even understand why others do. There's no need for them, for whatever reason, to seek out that tribe.

No, there isn't but. What we discover is that all people have this need, the same need that's being yielded through a sport. It can be through other experiences as well. And it just depends on your cultural exposures as to whether that was important to you. What we do find, though, is that there's a very strong correlation between early life experiences in sport and ongoing fandom. In other words, if sport was good to you as a young person, then you tend to find that you're good to sport in the way back. Those of us who weren't very good at sport when we were younger or at school or in early settings, don't tend to gravitate towards sport and move towards other ways of meeting those needs.

There does It seemed to be a gender difference. If you look at the stands at a football game or a baseball game, there are plenty of women there, but the men seem to outnumber the women substantially at most sporting events. Why would that be?

The probable reason is that testosterone amplifies a sense of tribal affiliation and aggression. So we dig deeper as men because we're driven through our hormonal system to get a stronger impact out of sports sense of tribal belonging. We know, for example, that many experience greater hormonal changes while watching intense matches. Our stress hormones go through the roof when we watch intense matches by up to about 50 %. In fact, research shows that cardiac events, that is, heart attacks, It spiked by about a quarter in home fans during defeats. But that doesn't apply to women, so it only applies to men. So sport, in fact, can be dangerous for men in some situations.

Well, and in The other thing that I find interesting, and it really obviously relates to the tribal thing that you're talking about, is to watch a game, to watch a baseball game or a football game, you get more information and you understand the game better if you watch it at home, you get the stats put up and the commentator tells you why and what happened. But people like to go to the game because that's a whole different experience. It's not the best way to see the game, but it's the best way to maybe experience whatever that is, the phenomenon of the game.

In a strange way, we're addicted to sport and that crowd environment because it gives us this incredible sense of belonging and connection to the people around us, we also get this outcome in terms of bonding and trust and affection through sport. It connects us to the team in a way where we can no longer differentiate in an unconscious sense. Us and the team, we are part of this collective sense of identity. And meanwhile, our brains are in on the action. All of that euphoria, the neurochemicals, the dopamine creates this credible concentration. Even in some of the research suggests that those crowdlike situations can create a brainwave synchrony, where our brain waves come into a flow state that lead to a greater memory imprinting. Neuroscientists call this a hippocampal imprinting, which means that all those euphoric experiences get then linked to meaning over time. And this, of course, is exactly the way we work. We talk about those great sport experiences that we had.

My perception is that most big sports fans have a favorite. They're a baseball fan, mostly, and they like the Dodgers, but they also follow the Lakers and maybe another team. But there's one dominant sport for them. Is my perception true or is it just my perception?

No, your perception is exactly right. That's borne out in research. We tend to have one particular favorite club or team or association or sometimes athlete. It depends on the sport a little bit. For example, NFL fans are very much connected to the team itself and that sense of identity. Nfl Well, fans have the highest level of loyalty in terms of never missing a game, whereas NBA fans are more connected to the athletes and players themselves. So it's possible, Mike, that what you can have is one preferred club or team, but at the same time have a couple of players that you follow as well?

In cases where the sport itself is not about a team, but it's about individuals, golf, tennis, those things. So when a Tiger Woods comes along, it seems like there are more people into golf because of him. And then when he fades away, what happens to those people? Do they latch on to another golfer or was their connection to golf so Tiger Woodsy that when he's gone, I'm gone?

That's a brilliant question. It appears that for most of those individuals, there's something about the particular player themselves that forges a sense of resonance or narrative. There's just something, some angle, some connection. That is what connects the fan to the sport, it's via the player. And so when that player perhaps concludes their winning run or retires or even in some instances leaves the sport altogether, there tends to be a significant drop off to that sport. So it's connected through the individual themselves.

Has this whole thing of fandom and everything you've been talking about, does it go back real far? Is this a relatively recent thing that maybe life in earlier times on Earth was so perilous that we didn't have time for being a sports fan or not?

This That's an interesting question. We have evidence going right back to, well, 776 BC with the first Olympics that there were fans of athletes in those times. And we've got historical examples of play becoming sport-like throughout history. I mentioned earlier, and it wasn't entirely tongue in cheek to say that across human history and civilization, sport has been inevitable. Sport has proven to be a cultural universal in every historical civilization across the globe. For as long as we've got recorded history, there's evidence that sport and organized play has been present, and that in order for that play to propagate, there's been fans. And so it's become codified in a way where there are rules. And as you know now, our rulemaking is quite extraordinary. Our ability to create all of these codification and rules.

I've noticed over the past several years that not only do people like sports, but there are so many shows on TV that talk about sports that you could watch on various streaming services and on regular television, that it's not just the sport anymore, it's the talking about the sport has become its own sport and analyzing it and talking about statistics and comparing players. It's a whole other thing.

Yes. Well, I mean, Fandam is part of an entire social ecosystem, of course. And that same sense of identity fusion that produces our interest in sport can also then become part of our co-creation of meaning, the way in which we experience life and receive interest and satisfaction from it. And And because we become so knowledgeable about sport, we need to consume. And that's also connected to our sense of that neural reward system, that addiction we have from sport, the dopamine connection. So just being that constant exposure to sport gives us a content that allows us to continually feel good. So it's also part of the anticipation that comes with sport. So it's not just about the consumption, it's about anticipating that consumption, which is incredibly powerful in terms of the way that we feel about ourselves and the way we regulate our emotional patterns. And of course, the great thing about sport, of course, is that there's always next season. So there's always the next game. There's always the next thing that we can think about and hope for the best. There's always hope.

Yeah, that's the great thing about sports. Well, tomorrow's another day. There's another game. Tomorrow. Yes, exactly. Well, I think clearly, sports fans themselves are interested in the world of fandom and how it all works. But maybe even more importantly, are people who aren't sports fans who are baffled and fascinated by the whole thing. I've been talking with Aaron C. T. Smith, who is a professor of management at New Castle Business School at the University of New Castle, and he's author of the book, The Psychology of Sports Fans. Friends. There's a link to that book in the show notes. Aaron, thank you. Thanks for explaining all this.

Thank you so much for having me on the show, Mark. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Who would you say wakes up grumpier? Men or women? Well, it turns out it's women. Women are grumpier in the morning than men are. That's because sleep, or lack of sleep, has a much bigger impact on women than men, both mentally and physically. The A study from Duke University woke up both men and women and determined that women experienced more anger, depression, and anxiety in the morning if they didn't get enough sleep. Sleep experts say that women need about 20 more minutes of sleep than men do. The primary function of sleep is to give the brain some downtime, and because women tend to multitask more than men, they'll need some more shut-eye to recover. That is something you should know. The podcasting world is pretty competitive. There are lots of podcasts to listen to, which is why we always appreciate your help in spreading the word about this podcast and telling people about it and asking them to give it a listen. It's easy to share it. Just use the share function on the player you're listening on right now. I'm Mike Kerrothers. Thanks for listening today to something you should know.