When I quit my job in mid-2022, I had no idea what was going to happen, and I was anxious about how I'm going to support myself during the period that I would be unemployed and looking for a job. That whole situation was exacerbated by the fact that I'm living abroad and would also have to deal with the ramifications of being unemployed while applying for a residence visa.

Now, it would have been a relief if I had some financial support from the government as I ventured into the unknown in search for another job. However, I was pretty much left to fend against the world all on my own, and that took a lot of hoping and searching to get through, but in the end, I was able to find another job that fit my needs at the time, and so, I didn't have to burrow through my savings too much.

I also had the option of having my folks back at home to wire me some of my money just so that I could survive for a couple more weeks, but thankfully, I didn't need to resort to that option. My case is a bit different than those in the US, since the US has what is called "unemployment insurance" or UI, which can be summarized as financial aid or support for those who got laid off of their jobs.

Focusing on the part where it only applies to people who were laid off, that meant that people who voluntarily quit aren't eligible. Thus, it forces people who may be working in low-wage jobs to continue working at their less-than-ideal job just so that they don't have to face the brutal reality of the current job market.

Despite this, a handful of economists are suggesting that perhaps they need to revisit the UI system, which they think requires a major overhaul, one in which people who voluntarily quit their jobs would be able to apply for UI and receive the benefits. That seems a bit counterintuitive to the ethos of the program itself, but some economists have argued that giving people the incentive to quit their jobs will actually be beneficial to the economy as a whole as it helps in the efficient matchmaking of workers to jobs.

I'm not really an economist so I won't be able to explain the nitty-gritty details of the concept, but in essence, the reason behind this idea is the assumption that there are many people who are mismatched to their jobs, or basically have awful jobs and whose skills are being under-utilized. But since it would be more disadvantageous for them to quit and try to look for another job, they just endure and stay at their current jobs.

This also assumes that these people will go on a search for better employment when they do quit, and that they're not simply taking advantage of the unemployment benefits out of laziness. In theory, the idea makes sense. You're giving individuals a sort of safety net that would allow them to look for better, higher-paying jobs that match their skillset which should make the economy better off as a whole. 

You might ask whether this is what would happen in reality. Well, the pandemic actually gave us an avenue to test that theory out, as many people were either laid off or quit their jobs voluntarily, and were given increased UI benefits. With the dataset provided by the unique circumstance of the pandemic, it showed that, despite the moral hazard of giving people financial aid for quitting their jobs or being unemployed, studies found no connection between the boosted UI and laziness or joblessness.

The truth of the matter is people want to work and given the stress and pressure being heaped upon them by the hard-pressed economy at the moment, they don't see being unemployed as an option. People will continue to look for work, but what they need is the kind of work that fits their skills, their goals and career path, and their threshold for satisfaction.

Now, even the country I lived in for four years had that kind of program. I knew someone who became a naturalized citizen, and after she became unemployed, the government sent her support every month for the next six months while she was looking for a more stable job. And it didn't diminish her desire to look for a job, rather, it pushed her even more to find employment. Given, she was a single mother of two, whose children were already going to college.

Of course, we cannot haphazardly overhaul the entire system simply because it's outdated. We still need to identify the proper eligibility criteria and closely monitor whether the unemployed are actually looking for jobs, but in a capitalistic system, people should be given the freedom to choose what they think would be better for them. The whole idea of capitalism is predicated on allowing individuals to let their preferences dictate where the market should go. And so, stifling that freedom makes the market less efficient.

Should people who quit their jobs be given an incentive? It's a complex issue but one in which these alternative perspectives should not be ignored.

(Image credit: Saulo Mohana/Unsplash)

In the past few years, we've grown familiar with the term "nepo baby" (short for nepotism), referring to Hollywood stars who got their start because their parents were Hollywood stars first. Sure, they wouldn't have made the big time without talent, but they came by that talent naturally, or else were raised with it, plus they had name recognition. What you probably haven't heard of are the many stars who had notable -or notorious- parents outside of Hollywood, or even show business of any kind. Did that help them in their careers? Only for the fact that most didn't have to struggle to survive until they got noticed, for the most part. Maybe they were able to handle fame a little better than the average Joe, but acting wasn't a part of their upbringing. Weird History takes a look at the unlikely stories of ten actors and singers who had parents with surprising stories outside of the business as scientists, politicians, war heroes, athletes, and criminals. And they managed to complete the list without Woody Harrelson.

The viral photo shows the Abraham Lincoln statue's melted head and right foot, and the legs separated from its torso. #AbrahamLincon #USA #Weather #SocialDiaryMagazine pic.twitter.com/M7uJVHYm9K

— Weekly Social Diary (@SocialDiaryMagz) June 26, 2024

A 3,000-pound statue of Abraham Lincoln sits in front of Garrison Elementary School in Washington, DC. The replica of the president's statue in the Lincoln Memorial is made of wax, installed by artist and art professor Sandy Williams IV. It's titled 40 ACRES: Camp Barker. There are ten candle wicks installed in the statue, which students and visitors were encouraged to light for short periods of time.  

This all worked out fine in February, when the statue was erected. It was scheduled to stay in place until September. But last week's record-breaking heat wave did a number on Abe, melting the wax so much that his head fell back, and is now completely gone. His legs separated from his torso. And the resulting photographs became a meme. Williams has made quite a few wax statues, and has never had one fail so spectacularly. The rest of the wax mess will be removed before students return on August 26. However, the story behind the statue and the history of its location gets a boost from the unfortunate destruction, and you can catch up on all that at Hyperallergic. -via Nag on the Lake

Grandma would rather stay in bed all day, but she's got things to do, places to go, and people to see. So she takes the show on the road with her motorized bed! Grandma is just being her usual sassy self, all from the comfort of her own bed. The first two minutes of this video are just plain crazy, with Grandma showing off her decadent lifestyle in her comfy bed. The rest is how Ross Smith made her this motorized bed out of a go-cart and a bed. Ross is underneath, doing the driving. Grandma has it easy, being chauffeured around the country without having to get dressed or even get out of the bed to use the bathroom! Well, until her bed hits a ditch at an unsafe speed. I don't believe it was 80 miles an hour, but it was certainly unsafe. And, admittedly, somewhat entertaining.  -via Born in Space

When I try to recall the times when I heard the word "please" being used as a means of being polite toward someone, especially when asking for a favor or requesting for something, I only imagine it being said by a mom or another family member who's asking one of the other members of the family to pass something from the other side of the dining table, i.e. "Could you please pass the salt?" or something along those lines.

However, upon reflection, I also realized that you can still say that sentence without using the word "please", and it would still be acceptable. Although we were taught as children to use the word "please" whenever we ask someone to do something, as I grew older, I found other ways of making requests without having to use the word, as I found them softer or gentler than simply adding the word "please" in the sentence. In fact, some experts say that using the word "please" may come off as pushy or intrusive.

A new study from a team at UCLA has found that people use the word "please" only 7% of the time when making requests. Tanya Stivers, a sociology professor at UCLA and one of the researchers in the study said that people only used the word "please" when they expected their requests to be turned down as a means to convince or coerce the other person to actually do the request.

As an example, it would probably be excusable for a child to say "please" when making an unreasonable request or one to which they know that their parents wouldn't agree. And, to drive the point home a bit further, we often see a scene in which a child will even go so far as to say "pretty please" in order to convince their parent or the person being asked to acquiesce to their request. At that age, it's cute, but it's not something that well-adjusted adults usually do whenever making a polite request.

In other words, whenever people use the word "please", it can come off as condescending. Even outside the context of making requests, we often hear "please" being said in a sarcastic or patronizing tone. Furthermore, they found that this isn't a recent trend, but rather, research has shown that the same is true going back as far as the '70s.

Perhaps, the only context or scenario I can think of in which "please" becomes acceptable and less pushy is when somebody pairs it up with the phrase "excuse me", i.e. "Please excuse me" when apologizing for a certain behavior or when trying to leave a certain situation, such as when an awkward scene happens in a room, and you don't want to witness it any further.

Of course, we should still teach our children to be polite, and say "please" in the proper context. But it will also be a good idea to teach them alternative phrases or methods we can use to express politeness.

Oftentimes, using the words "would", "could", or "mind" can express the thought as these words imply that you're giving the listener the power to decide whether or not they want to do the thing you're asking them. They are less forceful and more considerate of the listener's circumstances and position.

Another way is to phrase your question as a suggestion with expressions like "How about..." again giving the listener the option of choosing what they want to do, instead of forcefully telling them what you want them to do.

And finally, leading with words of gratitude or appreciation also help soften the request, and so expressions like "I'd be so grateful if..." or "I would love it if..." can also ease the request into the conversation. Of course, tone and body language can also help get your point across further, and could show the listener our sincerity and humility in asking them a favor.

At the end of the day, it's not as though saying "please" automatically makes somebody sound rude or condescending, and it doesn't necessarily mean that adding it onto one's request will make it polite. It's about the attitude, demeanor, and the way we present our request to the other person, whether we respect their agency and willingness in doing the request.

(Image credit: Jennifer Latuperisa-Andresen/Unsplash)

Brian Wilson was a senior at Hawthorne High School in 1960 when his music teacher, Fred Morgan, gave their class a final project in which they had to compose a piano sonata consisting of 120 measures with five key changes. Instead, Wilson wrote 32 measures with chords. Given that it wasn't exactly what Morgan had asked, the teacher gave Wilson an F. Despite this, Wilson was unfazed, and used this experience as inspiration to write the first song of their soon-to-be formed band, the Beach Boys.

According to Wilson, although the assignment was about writing classical music, it changed his perspective on music and got him to thinking about the different ways music could work. And so, the failed project transformed into the first song of the Beach Boys, "Surfin'".

Wilson had been playing the piano since he was a child, and he first started composing music in his teen years. Even though Wilson was quite a popular kid at school and according to his music teacher, "the quietest one in the class", that didn't stop Mr. Morgan from failing him on the project for not following the instructions.

Still, with this newly composed music, his brother Dennis suggested a title and theme for the song, while Mike Love, another member of the band, co-wrote the lyrics for the song. With "Surfin'", the Beach Boys were able to get a contract with a record label, which was soon released as a single, then becoming a hit with 50,000 copies sold, thus propelling the group to stardom.

Going back to that fateful day when Wilson failed his project, he recalled that he failed the class, although it is uncertain whether Mr. Morgan just failed him on the project or on the class. Still, Wilson never held any grudges against the failing grade as it started their journey as one of the most successful rock bands in history.

(Video credit: rainbow4121/Youtube)

Sir Ernest Shackleton is quite a legendary, spectacular figure. He led three Antarctic expeditions, originally with the desire to be the first person to reach the South Pole, but was beaten to it by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. At which point, Shackleton decided on a new goal: to be the first person to cross Antarctica through the South Pole.

In all three of his expeditions, everybody remarkably survived except on the third expedition aboard the Endurance, when he and his crewmen became stranded in ice and were forced to make the toughest decision to survive. They had several sled dogs as well as the carpenter's cat on that expedition, but due to the conditions they found themselves in, some of those dogs and the cat had to be sacrificed.

Still, the incredible ending to the story is that all 28 of the crew returned safely to London after two years and several grueling experiences at sea and on the ice. After that, Shackleton went on his last trip to circumnavigate the South Pole. Unfortunately, it was on this fourth expedition that he died from a heart attack at sea. He was aboard the Quest, which was later used as an exploration vessel by Norwegian explorers before it sank in 1962.

Now, 40 years later, a group of divers, historians, and oceanographers from the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, have finally found the wreckage of the Quest. By looking through historical data parsed with modern technology, they were able to locate the ship's possible coordinates based on currents, weather conditions, and other factors.

The surprising thing about the discovery of the Quest was that Shackleton's granddaughter, Hon. Alexandra Shackleton, was a co-patron of that expedition that discovered the Quest. Later this year, the explorers plan on making a second expedition to document the wreckage and the artifacts.

(Image credit: Royal Canadian Geographical Society/X)

Video credit: CBC News

Grief is physical as much as it is emotional and psychological. It manifests itself in symptoms that affect the normal functioning of our body. Erich Lindemann had looked into the somatic manifestations of grief and he saw how people who were grieving exhibited physical changes in their behavior such as having tight throats, heavy and persistent sighing, and inexplicable pain.

Different people process grief differently, and I would argue that the intensity at which people experience grief can also require different methods of dealing or managing it. Now, there have been several therapists who have used laughter as a means of helping people cope with or process grief, particularly the physical symptoms of it.

The idea first gained much prominence when Annette Goodheart, a painter and therapist, began to develop laughter techniques in the late 1960's and '70s for therapy. What she wanted to target was how people going through painful experiences or heavy negative emotions like grief struggle to find healthy outlets or means of release for the accumulated stress and negativity in their bodies.

Due to the fact that we have been taught to suppress our emotions, whether directly or subtly, through expressions like "Stop crying" or "You've cried enough about that", people have internalized the idea that showing emotion is unhealthy or bad. However, bottling up our emotions or having a lot of pent-up emotions is quite unhealthy because, as it continues to build up, it will try to find a way for release, otherwise, we will simply implode which is what happens when people experience breakdowns due to a prolonged suppression of their emotions.

In order to combat that, Goodheart advised people to find a means of achieving catharsis, whether it be through crying or laughing. And, according to her, we should make time to laugh more in order to remove our barriers to vulnerability. As we open ourselves up, the body is able then to release all of that accumulated stress, pain, and heaviness. Much like how a four-year-old lives its life without a care in the world, and being stress-free, laughing at least five hundred times a day, when we start to unleash the pent-up emotions, we can start to feel lighter.

Of course, laughter is not the panacea for all psychological pain or emotional distress. We still need to take the proper medication, to eat right, have enough sleep, and exercise. But laughter does open a pathway for the emotions to rise from within and find its way out.

As Cody Delistraty discovered for himself, no matter how much physical exercise he did or how long he slept, he just wasn't able to get over the grief brought about by the death of his mother. At a certain point, his body just broke down. And so, he tried out the laughter therapy sessions, and found some relief in being able to go through a cathartic exercise. He also recounts several other "grief cures" in his book The Grief Cure: Looking for the End of Loss.

(Image credit: zoo monkey/Unsplash)

It has been almost 75 years since the Korean War was sparked, and for the most part, we are convinced that Kim Il Sung had been the instigator for the attacks on South Korea with the view of unifying the whole Korean peninsula. But, according to records, Kim wasn't actually acting alone in making his decision, as it would become apparent that the other two Communist superpowers at the time - Russia and China - had also been involved in the discussions of taking military action against South Korea.

According to messages between Kim and Stalin, Kim had been proposing a possible invasion to the South given that American troops were being pulled out, and seeing that the South Koreans were against a pro-American regime at the time, Kim had thought that the best time to make a move was the soonest possible. Initially, Stalin had been hesitant to approve of this proposal and advised Kim to wait, instead of jumping the gun and launching an offensive right away.

Stalin's concern at the time was actually the opposite of what Kim Il Sung had been saying. Stalin had feared some form of aggression from the people of the South and so he wanted Kim to be patient, and advised him to simply wait for the time for a counterattack instead of making the first move. Furthermore, Stalin saw that the northern army would not be strong enough to overwhelm the southern army, not just in numbers but in military strength with the possibility of reinforcements from the US.

On the other hand, Kim had suggested a partial operation in the Ongjin peninsula in order to demoralize the opposing forces before storming with their troops and achieving a rapid victory. Still, Stalin was cautious and wanted Kim to simply prepare for any contingencies that might occur.

Midway through their discussions, Stalin started to sing a different tune. When once he had advised caution and merely preparation, he started to communicate to Kim that he would be willing and ready to send reinforcements whenever they launch their attack on the South. What changed Stalin's mind was mainly the success of the Chinese Community Party against the Kuomintang, which paved the way for an attack on South Korea to be successful. However, Stalin also calculated that this would only be possible with the intervention of China. He urged Kim to present this to Mao Zedong, which the latter reluctantly approved.

So, on 25 June 1950, the North invaded the South and was quite successful. However, Stalin had not foreseen the intervention of the United Nations in the fray, as well as the swift response of MacArthur to launch a counterattack, when American troops landed at Incheon in September. Kim and Stalin found themselves in a bind, with Kim requesting Stalin for aid in the battle, meanwhile Stalin ran to Mao to send reinforcements to the 38th Parallel.

Three years later, after Stalin died, the offensive against the South was dropped and all the collaborators sought a formal end to the conflict. So, who exactly started the Korean War? At the end of it all, although Kim Il Sung was the main instigator, he definitely had support, mainly from Stalin and to a lesser extent, Mao.

(Image source: Franz Kratschmer/Linkedin)

Three weeks ago, my dad and I were out for a drive and we decided to go get some food at a McDonald's drive-through. Everything went as smoothly as it could and we got our food. What happened after that was perhaps one of the most awkward and uncomfortable experiences we've ever had in recent memory.

The car in front of us, as they were about to exit the drive-through, suddenly broke down. It was a tight lane and there was not enough space for us to drive around the car in front, so we were basically caught in a jam. It was probably about five minutes in when I realized what had happened, so I told my dad to go and see what the issue was. I suspected that their car's battery died, and so it needed to be jump-started.

Once my dad returned to our car, he was able to maneuver our car so that we could possibly help them jump-start their car. After about 15 minutes of unsuccessful attempts, a few other people decided to just help them push the car onto the side of the road, since it was already causing a massive traffic jam. And that whole time, I felt really uncomfortable because the whole incident was holding everybody up, the people behind us in the drive-through queue, as well as those on the road. And, in hindsight, I think that the best thing we could have done, was simply to help them push their car to the side of the road in the first place.

There are certain instances like this when we try to do the kind or polite thing but actually, that may not be the most polite thing to do. Granted, this was an unforeseen circumstance, both my dad and I were tired, we had a long day, it was already evening, and we just wanted to get home. So, my brain wasn't really working at its peak form, and my dad probably didn't know exactly what to do as well. I only suggested what I thought was the most helpful thing, not just for the family in front of us, but for everybody else who was going to encounter this traffic incident.

In any case, we often want to do something polite or kind to the people around us or even to the fast food workers or cashiers, but those people may find our acts of kindness a bit off-putting, annoying, unnecessary, or even an inconvenience. Charlotte Hilton Andersen shares 15 of these "polite habits" which we may be doing but fast food workers actually dislike on Reader's Digest.

To summarize some of these habits into categories, I found that several of them have to do with holding up the queue, similar to what happened to my dad and I, although that was unintentional on the part of the car in front of us, and so one could say that it was understandable.

However, we may do things like trying to pay exact change so that it would be easier for the cashiers. That's well and good as long as we already have the cash ready on hand and we're just going to give it to the cashier. But if we're still going to rummage through our wallet or change holder in the car, then we're just holding up the people waiting in line, and the cashier will have to deal with the possibly irate customers who have been waiting more than they had wanted in line.

Making unnecessary comments or remarks under the guise of being sympathetic toward the workers may also be under this category, because it just wastes time. As I have observed, and as common sense should dictate, a fast food chain needs to do everything fast, because that's what they were designed for. So any moment of slack or waiting time can disrupt the whole system. For example, queuing up without knowing what you're going to order or having to ask the cashier what they would recommend is a huge time-waster. And putting the cashier on the spot like that just makes it inconvenient for them and for the other customers in line.

I would consider other acts on the list as either misplaced sympathy or simply crossing the boundaries. For example, giving tips when these establishments generally have a policy for not accepting tips is just one way of getting the workers in trouble. Trying to pay it forward by paying for the person behind you or the car behind in the queue can be misconstrued, and it also makes things confusing for the cashier.

Other things we might say to sound polite may also come off as condescending or even downright insulting. Essentially, when we order at fast food restaurants, we give our order, pay for it, and then get our food. The addition of self-ordering kiosks actually helps to make the process a lot faster and less prone to mistakes.

Even though we have the best intentions at heart sometimes, it's best to just go with the natural flow of things without having to do all the extra stuff, and reserve them for when the conditions are ripe for some act of kindness, which won't inconvenience the people around us. For the more detailed list of fast food ordering do's and don'ts, check out Andersen's article on Reader's Digest.

(Image credit: Blake Wisz/Unsplash)

Rhinoceros poaching continues to be a big problem in South Africa. Poachers take the rhinos' horns because they are used in traditional medicine in many parts of Asia. The number of rhinos killed by poachers has been growing year by year, 499 of them in 2023. Conservationists have tried to stop poaching by removing rhinos' horns, but they grow back in about 18 months. Poachers could do this, too, but it's easier to just kill the rhino and then take its horn. Conservationists have even tried poisoning the horns, but poachers don't care, since the effects come after the sale.

A new initiative called the Rhisotope Project involves tagging a rhino's horn with small radioactive chips, two in each horn. The radiation emitted is not dangerous to the animal, and should last five years. The reason behind the scheme is because international airports, seaports, and many national borders are equipped with radiation detectors as part of the fight against the smuggling of nuclear materials. Sure, the rhino would already be dead at that point, but it would help bust the smuggling rings that support the poachers. Read how this is done and what it might mean for the survival of rhinos at AOL. -via Damn Interesting

If you had to name a mime, the only name that most of us could come up with would be Marcel Marceau. After all, it's a pretty niche talent. Marceau, who was born Marcel Mangel in 1923, admired Charlie Chaplin from a young age, but the first time he used miming skills was to thwart the Germans who occupied his country. When the Nazis invaded France in 1940, Marceau was sixteen years old. He changed his name to Marceau to hide his Jewish identity, and joined the French Resistance.

Marceau's job was to lead groups of Jewish children through forests across the Swiss border. The journey required absolute silence, and Marceau would mime his instructions to the children. During downtime, he would also entertain them. And so a unique career was launched. Read about Marceau and his World War II exploits at Messy Nessy Chic. 

(Image credit: the White House)

When I think of a really deadly disease, I think of rabies, because it's not only virtually 100% fatal, it is a horrible way to die. But "deadly" in this video doesn't mean the rate of death, but the number of people who die. Rabies is horrible, but it's not all that easy to catch. You might guess what the "white death" is, but since the video strings you along, I won't mention the exact disease. In this video, Kurzgesagt provides the art and John Green provides the commentary as we learn how the white death infects a human body and makes its way past our immune system. Of course, our immune systems always have a plan B, but that in itself can make us sick or even kill us. This slow, sneaky disease killed 1.3 million people last year. And that's a problem, because it's so slow and sneaky that we tend to ignore it despite the number of deaths. But there is hope on the horizon.

I have heard stories of people who have had near-death experiences going through out-of-body experiences (OBEs) simultaneously and although it's inconceivable in my mind, since I cannot imagine how that would work, except when it's being reenacted or visualized on film or the screen.

Oftentimes, we imagine some immaterial part of ourselves, the soul, coming out of the physical body and becoming separate for a time, giving it the ability to perceive the surrounding area as if from a third-person perspective. And, usually, these types of experiences are described as somewhat spiritual, both in the literal and the metaphorical sense, in that, people who have gone through them have reported to have undergone changes in their outlook in life or even worldview.

A team of researchers, led by neuroscientist Marine Weiler from the University of Virginia, have looked into studies regarding OBEs, and have gathered that many people who have had OBEs have an increased sense of empathy toward others, which can be connected to this process of ego dissolution or ego death, in which a person's sense of self gives way to a feeling of interconnectedness with others, and in particular, those around them.

I would imagine that anybody who has had a near-death experience would definitely consider that a life-changing experience, as they would feel that they had been given a second chance at life. But perhaps the added bonus of having an out-of-body experience in that moment might have given them a profound realization of how precious life is, and being able to look at other people without their being conscious of one's presence, thereby shedding the pretenses and showing their vulnerability must have been an eye-opener for these people.

In any case, the researchers conducting the survey suggested that the reason why people are experiencing increased levels of empathy after going through OBEs might be due to the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) in the brain which helps us in information processing and perception.

The researchers also point out the fact that the TPJ is tied to the ego as this part also handles the processing of self-reflection and internal narratives about ourselves, which can get disrupted when a person is having an OBE. For future research, the team wants to explore OBEs either by using virtual reality or having participants who can induce OBEs on demand, so that they can find out methods on how to enhance empathy.

(Image credit: Warren/Unsplash)

As a guy standing at 160cm (5 feet, 3 inches), anybody who stands at a height of at least 5 feet, 8 inches is already gigantic from my perspective, let alone anybody who stands at a height of at least six feet. We have heard legends and tales of giants, perhaps even when we were children, such as Jack and the Beanstalk, and of course, there are the Biblical stories of Goliath, or the Nephilim. Then there's the mention of the Cyclopes and the Titans in Greek and Roman mythology.

In more recent times, we have seen a few people in sports and entertainment who can be categorized as "giants" who are at least seven feet tall, towering over much of the general population. People like Andre the Giant and the Great Khali in entertainment wrestling, Yao Ming, the center for the Houston Rockets until he retired in 2011, and Matthew McGrory, the giant portrayed in the film Big Fish, who stood at 7 feet, 6 inches, and sadly passed away in 2005 at the age of 32, due to congestive heart failure.

The existence of giant humans has always been a spectacle for people because they're rare. Most of the time, we only hear about them in stories, especially in legends. However, very tall human beings have been around on the earth since time immemorial.

Marta Korbonits, an endocrinology professor at Queen Mary University of London, cites the case of an ancient Egyptian pharaoh who has been alleged to have stood at 6 feet, 1.6 inches, as well as many Irish giants who lived around 2,500 years ago, according to her research.

Records like these show that many people throughout history have been considered giants by their peers, despite standing at around six feet, which would be considered about average today.

Even the tallest person recorded in history, Robert Wadlow, only stood at 8 feet 11 inches. I say "only", but that's relative to how people have mythologized giants. In reality, such a height is shocking in and of itself, and completely unimaginable for me, and perhaps for a lot of people as well. Despite the fact that Wadlow had been "gifted" with such a physical "advantage", it actually came at a great cost.

According to Korbonits, many giants actually have a growth hormone problem. Wadlow's height stemmed from a medical condition called gigantism caused by a brain tumor which elevated the levels of growth hormone that the pituitary gland produced. It also affected his health, having to wear braces to support his stature. Because of complications with his condition, he only lived to be 22 years old, succumbing to septic shock, after a blister in his ankle popped, brought about in part by the poorly-fitted iron brace he had to wear to support his legs.

Of course, not all giants have this medical condition. Bao Xishun, who was formerly the world's tallest man, stands naturally at 7 feet 9 inches. Currently, Xishun is 72 years old, and lives in Mongolia with his wife.

Further research is looking into whether there were more giants in human history. Pavel Grasgruber, an anthropologist from Masaryk University, has been looking into the Gravettian culture, which he believes to have inspired the myths about giants. From the fossils that they have excavated from the Grimaldi cave system in Czech Republic, they found several skeletons who are estimated to have stood at least 6 feet, 5 inches.

Some factors that could have contributed to their height may be the abundance of food due to the low population density of the area. Although genetics also plays a large role in our height, these environmental factors can positively affect our physical build, frame, and stature. So, giant humans were not just myths, but there have been real ones in history, and perhaps they are the ones on whom the stories were based.

(Image credit: Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons)