lost in the fog of a cosmic storm floating on
whimsical wavelengths is the norm dancing through
the stars chasing spectrums of light It's been
two weeks, and well, it's time for a little bit
of whimsical wavelengths on your Monday morning.
I'm always learning new things, and trying new
things, and yes, making new episodes. This time,
I got the opportunity to have a slightly different
kind of guest. Well, maybe not that different.
Not different at all. I mean, still a researcher,
still talking about a paper they've recently
published. The discipline, that's slightly different.
We're going to look at education and STEM. At
the people who choose science and technology
bachelors. And more specifically, astronomy.
Usually, we look outwards to the stars. But this
week, we're turning the telescope around. The
scientists are the ones under observation. So
don't worry, it's all ethically approved. Understanding
why people choose a specific career is an important
thing for anyone with the eye to the future.
Let me give you an example. In geoscience, i
.e. my discipline, we've been feeling the tremors
of change for a while. Low enrollment in universities,
programs closing, and yet a massive cohort nearing
retirement. There's also projective growth, but
not enough space or sometimes support to train
that next generation. So if a government or institution
wanted to build that capacity, how would they
do it? How would they attract new students? How
would they make sure it is diverse and a resilient
community? Not just another rock cycle repeating
itself. These questions aren't unique to geoscience.
They ripple across all disciplines. Even in trades,
we see efforts to reimagine how people see themselves
in a role. How identity becomes part of that
belonging. To reiterate, this episode is different.
Because it flips the usual script. We're turning
the scientist from the observer to the observed
or the subject. And that's what I find fascinating
about today's episode. It's a window into understanding
who we are as scientists and how we identify
with our chosen profession. For me, it started
with volcanoes. And the images and videos from
Katya and Maurice Kraft, a fearless duo who chased
eruptions all around the world with more enthusiasm
than perhaps self -preservation. Their work delivered
awe -inspiring footage and probably inspired
a few raised eyebrows at home when I said I wanted
to study volcanoes too. It was also about encouragement
from family to teachers and maybe even a touch
of amused tolerance, if you will. During my undergrad
at UVic, every single term paper I wrote in geoscience
was some aspect of volcanism. But identity in
science isn't just about passion or curiosity.
It's shaped by mentorship, community, representation,
and those subtle cues about who belongs. For
students stepping into STEM, those early experiences,
the classes they take, the people they see succeeding.
The stories told about what it means to be a
scientist, an astronomer, a geologist, a physicist,
a biologist. They all influence whether they
see themselves as part of that universe. And
for those already in the field, identity evolves
too. Especially when we become mentors, educators,
collaborators. The next... guiding stars for
others. So to help us explore this topic, please
welcome a researcher who started out with a bachelor's
of science and a master's of science in physics.
Before, when doing his PhD, got it in science
education. Currently a research associate at
the American Museum of Natural History and a
faculty member at the City University of New
York, York College, Dr. Zachary Richards. Hey,
thank you so much for having me. Before bringing
up the paper, let's first turn the lens towards
you. Started with a physics bachelor's of science,
then you got a master's of science titled the
Detection and Characterization of Extrasolar
Planets. So I guess, what was that like? I mean,
what was your personal evolution up to that point?
In the words of one of my past physics professors,
did the mathematics speak to you? Yeah, so in
high school, I was not much of a physics person
to begin with. I got by the skin of my teeth.
And when I went to college, I took an introductory
astronomy class to fulfill a general education
requirement. On the first night, I went to the
observatory, for extra credit, of course. I just,
I fell in love, you know, with astronomy. I was
up at the observatory until 3 a .m., maybe, just
hanging out with my professor and, you know,
looking at the stars. Between that and the way
that he taught, it was very animated. and very
engaging. It was that kind of a moment where
I started to think that I really wanted to do
astrophysics. And at the end of the semester,
I asked my professor, how do I do what you do?
And he said, you need to major in physics, to
which at that time I said, well, shoot. Oh, dear
bleep. Yeah. And so Right after that, I went
down to my advisor and I said, I'm going to major
in physics. And that's kind of the short story.
And so I spent a lot of time doing outreach with
the observatory after that. I really wanted to
teach at the college level and, you know, become
a professor. So that was that portion. So I guess
it was more of a... pushing the boundaries of
what we know or exploring the unknown, like Star
Trek would say, instead of letting the math as
a language write the cosmos. Because there's
definitely multiple ways to get into physics
and astrophysics, and I'm sure we're going to
get into that in a moment. But I guess that's
kind of the tact, you could say. Yeah, it was
more just pure wonder. What's out there? It was
a completely new world to me, and I just fell
in love with it. It's fair. Any of us who have
gotten a PhD in sciences have things along our
journey that kind of take us there for sure.
But then you shifted from just pure research,
discovering the cosmos, to science education.
So how did that all come about? Yeah, so after
I received my master's degree, so I'm originally
from New York City, and I moved back to New York
City, and I was a little bit... well, not a little
bit, a lot of bit, burnt out, and I needed a
job. At that time, the only thing that really
I saw myself doing was teaching, and so I got
a job as an adjunct instructor teaching astronomy
as well as a life in the universe course in physics,
and I started teaching, and through that time,
I met, well, then my supervisor, now colleague
and friend, Ali, and Teaching kind of reinvigorated
me to want to go back and actually get my PhD
in astrophysics, because that was the goal the
whole time. However, living in New York and needing
to make money, most of my time was spent teaching,
and I also made ice cream on the side. Ice cream
on the side? Yeah, yeah. Did you happen to listen
to an earlier episode of this season where we
did ice cream science, too? No, no, I did not.
But that's a really funny coincidence. So I was
basically an ice cream chef while I adjuncted.
The days that I wasn't teaching, I was making
ice cream. And I started to apply to graduate
schools again. And I kept on getting rejected.
And the feedback that I was getting was I was
not doing enough research in my own time. And
I was too focused on teaching. And by the end
of it, I think I applied four times where everybody
said, you're teaching too much and not doing
enough research. I could not do research, that
much research for free. I did a little bit. But
because I was teaching a lot and I had many conversations
about this, on the fourth time around, it was
recommended that since I really just wanted to
teach at the time, I should maybe... consider
going for a PhD in science education. And at
the time, I begrudgingly considered the idea
because it wasn't what I wanted to do initially.
But over time, I came to terms with it and then
I applied and I got in. So I went. Because I've
always wanted to teach. When I thought of professor,
the real thing that I was interested in was teaching.
Is that partly because that professor that got
you into all of this made such an impact on your
life? You're like, that's kind of the impact
that I want to make? Yeah, that's a big part
of it. Yeah. But also, when I look back, education
is a world that I know really well, because my
mother was a teacher, and her father was also
a teacher. Oh, so it runs in the family. a really
lovely lesson about life has a way of working
out for you as long as you're willing to go for
it yeah as long as you're willing to go for it
life has a tendency to work out for you yeah
it just may be slightly different than the way
you envisioned and so now i uh right now i'm
doing a lot of research in astronomy education
what we'll talk about later is you know how students
start to build an identity as an astronomer.
I'm also doing work on how can we detect students
at risk of failing their astronomy classes, specifically
their introductory classes, so that we can implement
some sort of strategy for them, an intervention,
so that they can pass their course. Specifically
because introductory astronomy classes are the
only Usually the only science class a regular
student will take. We have words for those courses
sometimes and jokes, I should say, in the different
universities I've had. Like rocks for jocks,
death and dinos, moons for goons. Yeah, actually,
I don't know if we have, or at least I don't
know of any of those for astronomy. But, you
know, a lot of people are genuinely interested
in astronomy. And, you know, if we can have more
positive experiences, maybe we can have more
individuals. you know, switch to some sort of
STEM major. Yeah. And I'm also now, you know,
we're starting to make my way back towards exoplanets.
So, you know, things kind of... You can go for
a circle for sure. Yeah. You deviate from the
path a little bit and then you find your way.
Okay. Well, that really brings us neatly, because
you've already mentioned it, to the paper at
hand and what were the main topic of today. Astronomy
Identity Framework for Undergraduate Students
and Researchers. And there's no better place
to start than the first phrase I came across
that I had no idea what it meant. And it's also
one of my fun things that I like to do on the
podcast, which tells you I'm really nerdy. The
first sentence of the abstract had this phrase,
transcendental phenomenological. I have no idea
what that meant. I spent probably an hour trying
to figure it out. And I kind of came to, I think,
the right answer. But it's way outside my field.
Can you break it down? Sure, yeah. So this paper,
as doing research in science education, research
can be broken down into two parts. The quantitative
section, which is where I thrive, and then there's
the qualitative aspect. In this particular scenario,
qualitative means interviewing participants or
basically having a conversation with them. And
so one of the approaches to qualitative... research
is phenomenology, which is what you essentially
do to break it down in like 50 words or less.
You interview up to about 15 or so people who
all have experienced the same event or the same
phenomenon. So in this case, the paper was about
individuals majoring in astronomy or doing research
in astronomy. So that was the phenomena that
we were examining. So phenomenological is just
the process of taking verbal or interview or
writing and then breaking it down into its individual
word parts? Yeah, exactly. So we start with people
having the same experience. In this study, the
data itself were the recordings or the transcripts
of our interviews. And from there, we take the
transcripts and we break it down. into specific
quotes, and these quotes basically act as little
nuggets of information that we can analyze. All
right, what's the other word then? How does that
modify it? Transcendental. Yeah, so it's just
the specific kind of phenomenology, but they
all essentially focus on just gathering people
with a shared experience. I ask these questions
because it's always important for people trying
to understand peer -reviewed papers. Like, how
do we get the data? Like, so understanding where
the science and the data comes from is really
important. Okay, so I think the next step for
everyone following along is the word identity
and what that really means. And let's try to
broaden it out for science more in general, and
then we'll get more into the paper. So like,
we have our own personal identity. and who we
think we are, what we wear, what we eat, and
our beliefs, but what does it mean in this context?
Yeah, so in the terms of the research, identity
is how one sees themselves as a specific person.
So for example, for this paper, right, well,
just to stick with it, right, identity, we're
looking at how individuals see themselves as
an astronomy person. How do they see themselves
as an astronomer? Okay, but I mean, are there
like different identities and different scientific
disciplines? I'm going to be really silly here
and just lean on my Bachelor of Science here
when I knew nothing about the world. I still
don't, but I pretend I do for this podcast. So
in geology students, they knew how to party.
Like they just, I mean, their pub crawls were
legendary and a good time. Physics, we went to
the brewery, we skipped the tour and just drank
as much beer as we possibly could in the paid
hour and then went home. The engineers, they
did. Engineering things? Okay. Well, it's a poor
showing, but it shows the stereotypes for a university
I went to, which is kind of like an identity
or at least a perceived one anyway. Do factors
like that pop out in analysis like this? Do people
who have the mathematics speak to them have different
qualities than those that are like looking for
exploring the unknown? Yeah. So in the paper
itself, we've... We've put together a framework
which tells us what certain things lead to somebody
seeing themselves. And in total, we actually
have six different parts, and they are broken
up into... internal influences and external influences.
And on the external influences side, one of those
parts is actually socializing. So the pub crawls,
the brewery tours, the random pranks engineers
pull, like putting cars on top of buildings or
whatever the heck they do. But the informal parts
of socializing did not really come out. in this
study. But one could take a guess that that does
play a part. But the socializing that informal
socializing definitely played a part. Details
were not explored about that part. However, socializing
with peers and with other faculty members definitely
plays a role because socializing One allows you
to see that whatever struggles you're having,
you may not necessarily be alone. And that's
something that actually did come out with our
participants. And so that helps. But also talking
to professors, let's say, or other faculty members,
this allows you to see what it's like to be an
astronomer, which can lead to career expectations,
which is also part of the framework. And you
can also get recognition from... from faculty
members as well, which are all the other two
of the external parts. So that would be career
expectations. So what do you expect your career
or future to be like as an astronomer? Do you
see yourself doing these tasks? And recognition
is getting recognized as the astronomy person,
let's say. For example, in an informal recognition.
And that would be your family and friends, you
know, thinking you are the astronomy person at
any time. You know, there's something on the
news, they go and ask you, right, about it. And
then, you know, there's a formal recognition,
you know, being recognized, you know, getting
recognition, let's say, from doing a good job
on your research project, right, from other peers
and faculty members. And so between career expectations,
recognition, and socializing, that's the external
part. And then the internal part is being interested
in astronomy, competence, so do you think you
can do the work of an astronomer, and a sense
of belonging within the astronomical community
as a whole. And those are the six components.
What we see is, at least for getting interested
in astronomy, some people become interested in
their general education classes. One participant
noted that they had no idea that they could get
a job in astronomy took their intro astronomy
course at a community college. But what we also
see is that people become interested in astronomy
usually at young ages because there's some connection,
a familial connection. Maybe one of their parents
took them out and showed them some of the constellations.
And what's great about astronomy is that unlike
most sciences, you don't really need any equipment
to do it. All you need to do is... is look up.
So it's really accessible. For sure. I have a
couple more questions that I'm going to try to
remember to get back to round two as we get a
little further in. But I think it's kind of important
to jump into some of the more technical parts
of the paper. So this paper focused on marginalized
communities in astronomy. So by focusing on this
subset of people, what was your broader goal?
Well, so it was not intentional. Wait. Yeah.
Yeah, it was not the initial intent to study
individuals who came from an underrepresented
group. So the way we recruited by reaching out
to physics and astronomy majors from two universities
in New York State, and I cannot say which ones,
I need to protect identities and all that jazz,
and so this was open to anybody of any gender,
any ethnic group. It just so happened the individuals
who responded and wanted to participate in the
study all happened to be from one of the underrepresented
groups. So I think you would call that self -selection
bias, kind of? Kind of. Like, I mean, the people
are choosing to volunteer and they're choosing
to volunteer from underrepresented groups. And
I'm wondering what that says about the process
in and of itself. I'm pretty sure this takes
it beyond the paper because this wasn't really
talked about. But the fact that underrepresented
groups were more likely to reach out, even though
there's less of them, than the well -represented,
like I would represent a well -represented group.
Why the disparity there? I know this goes beyond
your paper, but... The questions come up, so
are you willing to opine on it? Yeah, so I guess
maybe you were going to ask this later, but I'm
just going to say this. Just go for it, go for
it. So one way that studying identity, one of
its implications is, one, it helps understand
how people start to see themselves as astronomers
or how do they feel like they belong, for example,
right? It can help develop or guide, I should
say, policy changes to make departments or the
community more diverse more inclusive and I think
these individuals they've had negative experiences
and nothing has been done about their experiences
so telling their story right can help get it
out there and we can use that to help change
the policies and you know make everything more
welcoming more inclusive more diverse for sure
and I Didn't put this in my show notes to give
to you because I wasn't sure I was going to bring
it up. But you've kind of touched on it right
here is that I think when I was reading the paper,
I read one line that a professor at one point
told a young woman, like, don't bother with physics
because you're a woman. And I was just read that
and went, oh, boy. Like, wow. Like, I probably.
I mean, me as an adult today, not the 20 -year
-old in school, would very much instantaneously
turn around and complain about this person to
the highest echelons of a department. I don't
know if I would have when I was 20, but, you
know, with age comes wisdom. So that's kind of
what you're saying by negative experiences, that
they feel one of the best ways is through engaging
something like this in the hopes that their story
can be told and things can be changed. yeah yeah
and yeah that is definitely one um yes i yeah
um it's speechless it's hard to even say anything
about because you're just like holy smokes like
i thought this isn't what you know pick an age
in the past like we're come on yeah there's surprisingly
there's still a lot of um gender and uh racial
bias that that goes on, you know, and sometimes
it's just ignored. Yeah, I have my own, I don't
want to call it a background, but experiences
because I was part of the teaching support staff
union at my university. So we would get a lot
of the dirt that was coming through the university
of things like this. And again, it's all on,
you know, backstory of you're not allowed to
really talk about it because it's these personal
things, right? So yes. For the listener, these
things really do happen. And being able to bring
these to light in ways that keep people protected
and perhaps change policy is really, really important
to the health of our individual disciplines as
well, for sure. That was kind of an unplanned
dark turn, but I think that's part of what the
research is really all about and why this paper
or research avenues are really important. Yeah,
the science is... We need a change, maybe a first
step or continuing step, you know, in order to
help make astronomy, you know, more inclusive,
you know, more comfortable for people of different
backgrounds, maybe even extends past astronomy
and into other sciences. Yeah, for sure. This
is not an astronomy only problem. I guess. Just
to kind of move on a little bit, I recognize
this study is qualitative, so descriptive in
its nature, but I also noticed that the sample
size is quite small. I have no idea what a large
sample size would be for a study like this. So
is this a small, medium, large? Yeah, so literature
suggests for a study like this, a sample size
will be between 10 and 15 individuals. So it
is... Right on target. Usually with qualitative
studies, the sample size is much lower than any
sort of quantitative study. You know, in quantitative,
you can have thousands, hundreds of thousands
of data points. But it's really difficult to,
I cannot stress this enough, how difficult it
can be to actually recruit people for a study.
And there are definitely studies out there that
have 30 people. let's say, that they've interviewed,
which is quite high. And the issue really is
getting people to commit to it because you can
have an email exchange with somebody who has
agreed to be interviewed and they decide to cancel
or decide not to show up. And, you know, that's
kind of the, that's part of it. So usually double
digits is pretty good. Fair. So we've already
mentioned, just to reiterate off the top, that
the data is just so that we don't lose it in
the churn of everything. Because this was my
next question, but we've already covered it.
The data is collected by having these interviews,
recording those interviews, and then analyzing
that. But playing with data sets that are not
just numbers, how do you achieve a standardization?
look at how effective drugs are, you would do
like a double blind study with the real thing
and a placebo. In some sciences, they use statistical
measures. So how do you determine or talk about
what is actually, you know, really important
out of this data set? Yeah. So the way that we,
I'll start with how we analyze the transcripts.
So we use something called open coding, which
basically means We don't know what we're going
to find. And as we go through the transcripts,
we are going to make up our codes. For example,
an example of a code would be showing interest
in astronomy, for example. And so we do that
and we look at all the different possible codes
that can come up. And then we go back and we
refine those codes. And then what we did was
axial coding. So what we did was we looked at
what the codes were saying, and we looked at
if they were having a positive, negative, or
neutral effect. So, for example, going back to
the participant you mentioned before, that was
coded as faculty interaction, and then it was
coded as negative. Well, obviously. Right. And
then we go back. And we refine this again to
break it up into overall themes. So that's the
very general way that we go about analyzing the
transcripts. And so how do we, now to actually
answer your question, so they're analyzed separately
by, in our case, there's two of us. So they were
analyzed separately. And then we would come back
and have discussions about the open codes, the
axial codes, the themes, right? And we would
see where we would agree and disagree. And then
we would go back, do it again, and come back
and discuss what was different, why was it different.
Until coded everything, the whole idea is to
get an inter -rater reliability score of 90 %
or higher. And so we did that until we hit the
score of 90. I forget the exact number. It doesn't
matter. Question, though. You said this is an
iterative process. So I guess there's two parts
to this. First off, the simple one. Was there
ever a time where you guys were within the threshold
immediately and you didn't have to repeat it?
That would have been the last one. Yeah. So it
took us, I think, about maybe six or eight times.
Okay. Yeah. Wow. And part of what you just described
is also part of the explanation, I think, for
the next question. is dealing with bias. Because
you have two people here, and how do you remove
a personal bias from it? There must be a little
bit more to it than just two people doing it
separately. Yeah, it can be up to, there could
be more people involved. Was one of the people
doing the analysis also doing the interviewing?
Yeah, we both interviewed as well. Okay. not
to make it overly biased. So usually in these
kinds of unqualitative work, let's say, the authors
explicitly state what their biases are. So we
have a section in the paper stating what our
biases are. What subjects do we teach, for example,
because that can have an effect. I read that.
To be fair, I read that and was kind of confused
why that was there, and now I know. Yeah, or
did we happen to know any of them beforehand?
For example, as a way to be clear and transparent
about the biases and how they play into the research.
So if you read the paper, you'll see what their
biases are and how they kind of play into...
how the research was conducted. But the important
thing is to be very explicit and state your biases,
which would make you, you know, you have to be
very honest with yourself and very self -aware
of the decisions you make while interviewing.
For sure. I guess this is another question. I
feel like I'm going down a rabbit hole. Knowing
oneself sometimes is not... something academics
are particularly good at. So how often does that
not get done properly in your field? That's an
excellent question. To be honest, I'm not 100
% sure. So within the field of astronomy education
research itself, there is not much qualitative
work that's compared to the amount of quantitative
work because most of the time the individuals
performing their research are trained astronomers
who have gained some interest in the education
side. And so they are trained astronomers first.
Right. So they're using the mathematics to speak
for them. And you're trying to let the words
speak. Yeah, yeah. I guess. Yeah. So the transcripts
and everything that you put together into this
paper, what's the takeaway home message out of
it all? And I guess... kind of tangentially as
a touchy -feely type sort of thing. How did doing
this research make you feel about astronomy writ
large in your neighborhood? Yeah, well, there
were a lot of things that hit home. I did find
that there were a lot of similarities with myself
and what everybody was talking about, specifically
with how they got interested in astronomy. One
participant made mention of their introductory
astronomy course. That was me. People, I should
say participants, also made mention of looking
up or having a family member show them something
of the night sky. When I was a kid, for example,
my father used to show me the Big Dipper and
the Little Dipper, or just looking up. Astronomy
is great because... It's the most accessible.
All you need to do is just, you know, look up.
It's there. So, yeah, I did find a lot of similarities,
and it definitely inspired me to continue doing
this kind of, you know, pursuing this area so
that we can make changes and also get, for me
specifically, get back out to doing outreach.
Because a lot of the time, most of the times
people interact, the way that people interact
with astronomy is not formal. It's not really
part of any educational curriculum. It's usually
lumped in with earth sciences, let's say. So
most of the people interact with it in an informal
environment. And if we want to start to recruit
more individuals, or we want to be able to make...
To diversify, we need to start doing more outreach
to get people excited about astronomy and then
to bring them in. Because sometimes it's just
it's a little bit hard in once you're in college,
you know, a multitude of reasons. In other words,
getting to the people before they get to college,
like your high schoolers or even elementary school,
right? Like get them thinking that this is even
a possibility. before they get to that stage.
Yeah, it would be nice to have it known that
they can actually pursue this. And if we can
get the parents on board through informal outreach
events, let's say, have them doing stuff with
their children. It's almost like you need a museum
that you work at to really be able to do something
like this. Yeah, almost, yeah. So that's a segue
is like, okay, the future, where does this go?
Like, can you use the museum to help get this
goal moving as some respects? Yeah. Yeah. So
this focused on, yeah, like undergraduates. Yeah,
we can definitely use the museum and expand on
this. I do have ideas. I don't want to necessarily
get scooped. Yeah, it's funny how that works.
It's always a problem when you have a whole bunch
of other people and you know you have a pretty
good story and you want to talk about it, but
you're like, oh, if I talk about it too loudly
and I'm not quite ready to put pen to paper,
I'm potentially sabotaging my own work. It's
rough because science is built on this ability
to share results, but the reality of it is that
you also want to be able to take these ideas
to as far as you can. It's a tricky thing, for
sure. Oh yeah, most definitely. I think people
under -appreciate that when you're not in sciences.
Yeah, but the research can definitely be expanded.
It doesn't necessarily have to always be qualitative.
There is a way to do this quantitatively. Yeah,
is that going to be your next step, is to broaden
this into quantitative spheres? Yeah, that's
currently... currently working on that awesome
yeah okay so now we've covered everything and
we're almost to the traditional last question
time um feared and celebrated last question but
before we do that um is there anything you want
to call out or make mention of i don't know Anything
at all, future work, past work, colleagues, anything?
Oh, I mean, sure. I mean, look, I could definitely
not have been where I am now without my family.
My parents, specifically, they've done more than
they can ever know. And I can't necessarily put
that into words, you know. Also definitely want
to thank my friend and colleague, Allie, because
she was, you know, kind of the one who... really
got me to move this way. None of this would have
been possible without her either. And also my
PhD advisor, Angela. So this was actually part
of my dissertation. Angela is an amazing advisor.
12 out of 10. Absolutely fantastic. She's great.
Awesome. Okay. So now for the traditional last
question. Tell us your favorite. Science joke.
Okay. My favorite science joke. So, what did
the sun say when the moon leaned in to kiss it?
I don't know. Eek! Lips. Oh, these are so great.
Some of them, they're so terrible. They're awesome.
And some of them are so awesome, they're terrible.
Yes. It always takes people. I tell this to my
students all the time. Hopefully you get more
laughter than I ever got. Every time I told a
joke in front of 300 people, you could hear a
pin drop until I say it was like, oh, come on,
guys. I know it was bad, but was it really that
bad? And then everybody would start laughing.
And I never understood that. That's my favorite.
All right. Well, thanks for being on. And thank
you so much for having me. Check out the show
notes for the access to the paper and the museum
and everything else. So. I'll see you guys again
in two weeks. This is the normal time of the
show when I say, if you haven't already done
so, subscribe, leave a rating, poke me on social
media. In fact, just hopefully, I may have gotten
a really cool guest that'll come on in the new
year from social media interaction. Amazing.
And next one is a Christmas special of sorts,
but don't worry, it's not actually about Christmas.
I'll see you in two weeks. In the world so chaotic,
so misbehaved. Echoes of melodies remind us it's
always. Colors weave stories painting the sky.
Swaying to rhythms as the galaxies fly by. our
bones through this melodic maze our minds explore
chasing down wonders always seeking