Lisa Feldman Barrett Links Depression to Body Budget Deficits

Lisa Feldman Barrett 将抑郁症与身体预算赤字相关联 抑郁症源于长期的代谢能量亏空而非化学失衡，需要通过行为与环境的改变来恢复大脑具有预测性的身体预算。 Lisa Feldman Barrett 博士解释说，大脑并非被动反应的器官，而是一个预测引擎，它持续结合过去的经验与当下的感官输入来调控身体的代谢预算。她阐释了重新解读身体唤醒、调整生活方式以维持身体预算以及采取果断行动如何能帮助个体克服创伤、焦虑和抑郁。在讨论过程中，Barrett 与主持人 Steven Bartlett 探讨了社会支持的神经生物学机制，打破了关于化学失衡和面部表情的常见误解，并强调身份认同是由实时的能动性不断塑造的动态构建过程。 大脑作为一个预测引擎而非被动反应的器官运作，在感官输入被完全处理之前，就利用过去的记忆和经验来构建当下的感知、行动和情绪。 (13:55) 情绪并不具备固定的生理本质或普遍通用的面部表情；心率和皱眉等身体指标会根据具体情境以及正在准备采取的身体行动而大相径庭。 (10:48) 创伤并非物理事件的固有属性，而是由传入的感官输入、过去的记忆与文化框架交汇所产生的关系性属性。 (24:13) 人的身份认同及过往事件的意义是在当下被动态构建的；先于思考采取行动有助于个体建立新的预测，从而转变未来的自动化反应。 (38:54) 学习和情绪调节是通过处理预测误差（即与内部预期相矛盾的感官信息）来实现的，这通常需要渐进式的接触，而非单靠意志力。 (44:11)

Neuroscientist Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett argues that the brain operates not as a reactive organ, but as a predictive engine that constructs emotions, perceptions, and identities by combining past memories with current sensory signals to regulate the body's energy budget. The Predictive Brain and Emotional Construction (0:00) Traditional psychology long assumed that humans possess innate, universal emotional circuits. Barrett challenges this view, noting that meta-analyses in urban cultures show people scowl only about 35% of the time when angry, while half of all scowls reflect states such as deep concentration or physical discomfort. Instead of passively reacting to incoming stimuli, the brain functions as a predictive system, synthesizing memories and physical states to forecast outcomes and prepare physical movements before sensory signals fully register. For instance, dehydration thirst dissipates almost immediately upon drinking water due to learned prediction, even though physical hydration takes roughly 20 minutes to reach the bloodstream. Allostasis and the Body Budget (68:23) From an evolutionary perspective, Barrett asserts that the brain's primary job is allostasis: predictive metabolic regulation framed as managing a daily "body budget." This budget is divided into sustaining vital functions, cellular growth and repair, and effortful tasks such as work, exercise, and managing stress. When psychosocial stress occurs within two hours of eating, the metabolic penalty equates to consuming an extra 104 calories, which can total nearly 11 pounds of weight gain annually under identical caloric intake. Barrett also disputes "chemical imbalance" narratives of depression, describing serotonin, dopamine, and sex hormones primarily as systemic metabolic regulators rather than straightforward emotion switches. Cultivating Agency Through Prediction Error (38:54) Because sensory signals carry no intrinsic psychological meaning, the brain assigns significance based on memory and intended action. Barrett emphasizes that personal identity is not a static internal essence, but a fluid construct assembled in the moment of action. To alter automated responses, trauma associations, or phobias, individuals cannot rely purely on conscious willpower. Instead, they must dose themselves with "prediction error"—deliberately placing themselves in novel physical contexts or adopting scheduled behavioral routines that contradict internal expectations and force the brain's predictive models to update. Interpersonal Co-Regulation and Social Media Ambiguity (58:49) Barrett notes that human beings serve as social caretakers of one another's nervous systems, directly altering each other's metabolic and physiological states through language and physical proximity. For example, married individuals suffering heart attacks exhibit a 14% higher survival rate, and walking with a trusted friend reduces the perceived metabolic exertion of carrying a load. Conversely, digital environments like social media strip away vocal tones and facial cues, creating severe ambiguity that prompts the brain to fill voids with negative guesses. Barrett cautions that passively consuming unvetted online content surrenders agency and rewires predictive habits. Barrett stresses that taking responsibility for one's predictive patterns does not imply culpability or blame for past harm. Instead, agency emerges from recognizing that present choices—such as prioritizing sleep, hydration, structured routines, and controlled exposure to prediction errors—seed the predictions that automate future behavior and health.

神经科学家莉莎·费德曼·巴瑞特（Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett）指出，人脑并非被动响应刺激的反应器官，而是一个为了高效管理机体代谢“身体预算”而持续运转的预测引擎；人类的情绪与身份认同并非天生固化的生理回路，而是大脑结合过往记忆与即时感知主动构建的产物，这意味着个体拥有通过调整行动与生理环境重塑自我的主动权。 预测性大脑与被打破的普遍情绪神话 (13:55) 传统西方观念常将心智描绘为理性与感性相互搏斗的战场，并假设人类存在固定、先天的情绪回路。但巴瑞特的研究表明，大脑在演化中发展出的是预测机制而非反应架构：在感官信号完全抵达之前，大脑便根据以往经验提前预测并调配行动，随后生成预期的知觉模拟。例如，人在口渴饮水时会瞬间感到解渴，但水分进入血液并向大脑传递补水信号实际上需要约20分钟；在脑中想象咬下一颗青苹果（Granny Smith apple）时，大脑的视觉和听觉皮层会产生合成激活，并在食物进嘴前预测性地刺激唾液腺分泌；长期规律喝咖啡的人，其大脑会在预定时间的五分钟前预测性地舒张血管，若未摄入咖啡便会因血管过度扩张引发戒断性头痛。 巴瑞特指出，科学界从未找到特定情绪的固定生理指纹。针对城市人群的大量实证研究元分析显示，个体在愤怒时皱眉的概率仅约35%，其余65%的时间表现为其他面部表情；同时，半数皱眉行为出现在高度专注或消化不良等非愤怒情境中。此外，心率和血压的波动主要取决于身体正准备采取何种具体运动，而非情绪标签本身。这证明大脑并非先接收外界信号再做反应，而是依据行动预测去构建感知与情绪经验。 身体预算与心理健康的代谢生理机制 (68:23) 大脑的核心演化任务并非思考或感受，而是进行被称为“非稳态平衡（allostasis）”的代谢调控，即管理由葡萄糖、氧气、水与盐分构成的“身体预算”。该预算主要分为三类支出：维持生命的基本生理运转、组织生长修复，以及应对压力与学习的高能耗任务。当身心承受持续压力时，身体预算将被迫透支。巴瑞特援引研究指出，进餐后两小时内经历社交压力会使机体代谢效率显著受损，效果等同于多摄入104卡路里，且压力会使健康脂肪以不健康脂肪的方式被处理与储存；若每餐后均处于压力中，一年内仅此项代谢损耗便可累积近11磅体重。在临床抑郁症患者中，约70%伴有系统性慢性炎症，持续耗费大量能量。 巴瑞特批评了将抑郁症简化为“化学失衡”或将青春期困境归咎于“认知与情绪失控”的论调，强调多巴胺和血清素本质上是广泛调控代谢和驱动付出努力的信使。结合其女儿罹患重度抑郁症后的康复过程，巴瑞特倡导从代谢精神病学角度进行干预：一项覆盖100万女性的大规模流行病学研究显示，口服避孕药与抑郁风险高度相关，复合避孕药使年轻女性重度抑郁发作风险增加约40%，单纯孕激素药物更可增加高达70%。为此，她停用了女儿的避孕药物，并实施严密的代谢重置方案：晚间7至8点后完全移除屏幕以保护视网膜神经节细胞并维持昼夜节律；清晨5点半规律进食未加工全食；引入高强度普拉提与长距离步行以迫使神经系统重新校准生理稳态；并在医疗监督下补充高剂量欧米伽-3脂肪酸和低剂量阿司匹林改善炎症，最终促成了抑郁症状的彻底缓解。 创伤建构、预测误差与重塑身份的行动 (24:13) 巴瑞特阐述道，创伤并非客观存在于某个外在事件中，而是源于大脑记忆中的过往经验与当前感官信息交互构建的关系。正如埃默里大学人类学家研究的少女玛利亚，在其社会群体将男性暴力常态化的背景下最初并未表现出临床创伤体征，直到后续文化认知框架发生转变，创伤才被建构出来。外界感官刺激和身体感觉本身并不携带内在心理意义，大脑如同根据用途将金属杯定义为饮具、武器或花瓶一样，通过准备采取的行动来赋予意义。因此，个人的身份并非固定不变的本质属性，而是人在当下行动中的动态体现。 若要改变自动化的预测模式，巴瑞特提出两条路径：一是通过心理咨询重新审视并修改对过去事件的记忆意义，但这往往十分艰难；二是利用当前行动为大脑输入“预测误差（prediction error）”。巴瑞特以自己克服蜜蜂恐惧症为例，单纯的理性说服无法消除预测性恐慌，但通过故意靠近蜂丛、在蜜蜂旁静坐甚至忍受蜇咬，迫使大脑吸收与内在恐惧预测不一致的新感官信息，从而促使预测模型更新。由于学习新事物、移动身体和应对不确定性是大脑最耗费能量的三大活动，吸收预测误差在代谢上极为昂贵。因此，建立新行为模式必须依赖具体的日常日程规划和微小的循序渐进步骤（baby steps），而非依赖瞬时动机。 神经系统的互联性与语言的生物学力量 (89:11) 人类在生物学上扮演着彼此神经系统看护人的角色，社交互动能直接带来代谢充能或造成代谢负担。研究表明，在完成高压任务时，安全型依恋伴侣的葡萄糖代谢效率显著高于独自应对；背负重物登山时，信任的朋友在旁陪伴会使个体主观感知的体力负荷明显降低；医学统计亦显示，已婚的心脏病发作患者存活率较未婚者高出14%。人际间的词汇交流同样具备直接的生理影响力，言语能够切实改变听者体内的心率、呼吸模式、神经化学物质释放乃至蛋白质合成过程。 相比之下，缺乏丰富物理线索的数字化环境带来了严重的负面效应。社交媒体剥离了面部表情和语调等关键信号，使大脑处于高模糊度状态，容易自动代入负面与焦虑的猜测，长期被动消费算法推送实质上是在无意识中让渡自主权。针对青少年社交媒体心理问题，巴瑞特援引谢尔顿·科恩（Sheldon Cohen）的病毒暴露实验指出：即使在严格控制睡眠和饮食的条件下向受试者鼻腔植入相同浓度的呼吸道病毒，最终也仅有20%至40%的人发展出临床感染症状。这证明外在文化潮流或社交传染虽是诱因，但并非充分条件，个体内部免疫状态与生理预算才是决定性防线。巴瑞特明确区分了“责任”与“罪责”：承担责任并非承认过错，而是主动确立改变自身受苦境况的行动力。 巴瑞特总结认为，诸如ADHD或抑郁症等临床诊断仅是对症状特征的分类描述，将其视为固定病因属于“心理本质主义”的逻辑谬误；个体应将情绪视作自身“身体预算”的晴雨表，通过睡眠、全食营养、体力挑战和有边界的信息摄入来恢复代谢平衡。尽管巴瑞特从神经预测模型论证了人在30天内重塑行为与身份的可行性，但这种依赖高自律日程管理、严苛饮食与稳固社会支持的代谢修复路径，对身处资源匮乏或系统性压力环境下的群体而言，在实际执行中仍面临巨大的现实约束。

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 4 月 17 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目邀请了顶尖神经科学家、心理学教授兼畅销书作家莉莎·费尔德曼·巴瑞特（Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett），围绕大脑如何主动构建现实、情绪的底层运作机制以及重塑自我的可能性展开深度对谈。 ## TL;DR 巴瑞特博士颠覆了“大脑被动对外界刺激做出反应”的传统认知，指出大脑本质上是一台结合过去记忆与身体预算（Allostasis）进行主动预测的预测机器。身体的生理唤醒本身是中性的，主观情绪体验与痛苦创伤其实是大脑对生理信号赋予意义的构建产物。抑郁症与焦虑症等心理问题往往根植于长期的代谢预算透支与系统性炎症，而非单纯的神经递质化学失衡。通过主动打破既有循环、向大脑按剂量注入“预测误差”、重建昼夜节律与营养运动，并在当下采取微步行动，个体完全能够重塑大脑预测模型，夺回人生的自主掌控权。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话兼具前沿严谨的硬核科学锋芒与真挚深沉的人文关怀，彻底打破了传统学院派的晦涩感。史蒂文的提问层层递进、充满好奇与实践探索欲，而巴瑞特博士则兼具科学家的犀利与母亲的温情，在风趣幽默地打破大众心理学迷思的同时，毫无保留地剖析帮助女儿走出重度抑郁的至暗岁月。对谈氛围深刻、从容且充满启发性，既有对脑机能底层逻辑的理性重构，又传递出令人重获掌控感的笃定力量。 ## Bulletin - [13:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=835s) 现代神经科学推翻了“先感知后反应”的传统认知：大脑本质上是一台预测机器，依据过去的记忆先准备身体行动，进而构建出主观情绪与感官感知。 - [01:08:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4103s) 大脑的核心任务并非思考，而是对机体进行“身体预算”（Allostasis）管理；约70%的抑郁症患者伴有高代谢成本的系统性炎症，抑郁症状本质上是大脑在能量透支时被迫采取的“成本削减”策略。 - [01:21:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4873s) 流行病学数据显示，服用复合口服避孕药会使年轻女性患重度抑郁的风险上升约40%，而服用单纯孕激素避孕药的风险激增达70%。 - [42:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2561s) 情绪与身份不存在固有本质，而是行动的副产品；通过在当下微步行动为大脑注入“预测误差”，个体能够有效脱敏恐惧、重塑神经回路并改写自我定义。 ## Key takeaways - [13:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=835s) 大脑是主动预测而非被动反应的器官，真实的神经逻辑是“先预测行动，进而生成感知与体验”。 - [10:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=647s) 科学界未发现情绪的专属性物理指纹：在愤怒情境中皱眉的比例仅约35%，心率与血压变化取决于预备采取的具体行动而非情绪标签。 - [24:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1453s) 创伤并非客观事件本身，而是过往记忆对当下感官输入赋予特定负面意义的产物；改变创伤体验的责任在个体自身，因为只有个体能够重塑对事实的解释。 - [31:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1887s) 文化传承与外部信息（如脱口秀、社交媒体）直接作为养料塑造大脑的预测模型，未完成的人类大脑在后天教养中完成神经回路的布线。 - [42:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2561s) 意义源于物体属性与行动信号之间的交互关系；思维并非走在行动之前，而是为行动服务并由行动反向派生出的副产品。 - [46:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2799s) 吸收外界未被预期的“预测误差”（Prediction Error）是认知学习与暴露疗法的生理本质，但它需要消耗极其高昂的代谢能量。 - [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3246s) 高度生理唤醒（如心跳加速、去甲肾上腺素升高）本身是中性的能量调动，可被刻意重新诠释为“坚定决意”而非“焦虑瘫痪”。 - [58:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3524s) 社交媒体通过剥夺现实线索制造大量不确定性，诱使大脑不断负向猜测，本质上是在自愿放弃个体能动性并陷入社会传染。 - [01:04:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3866s) 慢性疼痛往往是一组未被更新的神经错误预测，即使身体组织已经愈合，代谢赤字的大脑仍可能持续重播痛觉。 - [01:08:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4103s) 大脑的核心生理首要功能是异态平衡（Allostasis）或“身体预算”，负责预先调配葡萄糖、氧气等资源以维持生存。 - [01:12:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4364s) 进餐后两小时内经历社交压力会导致代谢效率骤降，等同于多摄入104卡路里，高压环境可在摄入不变的情况下使体重年增近5公斤。 - [01:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4500s) 青春期抑郁绝非单纯的情绪失控或“化学物质失衡”，血清素与多巴胺本质上是探索动力与能量调度的代谢调节剂。 - [01:24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5047s) 针对重度抑郁的系统干预需从身体预算切入：包括戒除夜间蓝光、规律营养早餐、间歇性高强度普拉提运动以及抗炎补充。 - [01:29:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5351s) 人类是彼此神经系统的照看者，亲密依恋与真正的共情倾听能直接物理性改善彼此的血糖代谢效率并减轻代谢负荷。 - [01:41:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6072s) 饮酒虽然常被用作调节心境的捷径，但会严重钝化大脑的预测功能并阻断预测误差学习，导致身体预算发生系统性赤字。 - [01:45:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6349s) ADHD 等精神病学诊断是对特定情境下行为特征的“描述”而非病理病因的“解释”，症状的困境很大程度上源于个体神经特征与社会制度规范的不匹配。 - [01:48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6481s) 语言拥有直接调节对方神经系统的生理力量，情绪词汇在微观层面上能够瞬时改变他人的心率、呼吸以及神经递质释放。 - [01:59:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=7172s) 不存在一成不变的内在自我本质，“你就是你在当下所做的事”；唯有跳出对过去履历的固执执念，才能通过当下的行动重新定义自我。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=0s) 导言：大脑构建的情绪与改写自我的可能性 神经科学家莉莎·费尔德曼·巴瑞特（Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett）指出，实验室的经典实验证明，人们完全可以通过训练，把原本体验为“焦虑”的生理唤醒状态重新体验为“坚定与果断”（determination）。身体在生理层面的唤起状态几乎完全一样，但主观体验却能被塑造得截然不同；这一转变起初十分艰难，但通过反复练习，最终会变成极度自动化的反应。传统观念总以为人类天生就配备了一套固定且无法控制的情绪回路，但现代脑科学表明事实并非如此——大脑并非在被动对外界刺激做出“反应”，而是在持续进行“预测”（predicting）。 每一个行动、每一种感受，都是大脑结合过去的记忆（包括创伤）所做出的主动预测。因为这一过程比眨眼还要快，我们往往误以为自己缺乏掌控的主观能动性。改变创伤与情绪反应的关键，在于意识到“你对改变负有责任，并不是因为你是造成问题的过错方，而是因为你是唯一能够改变它的人”。巴瑞特博士结合自己曾经帮助患有重度抑郁症、学业下滑至只能拿 D 且难以入睡的女儿实现康复的亲身经历，强调理解大脑运作的基本底层逻辑，是掌握自我掌控权、重构有意义人生的关键钥匙。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 大脑情绪构建模式转变 accDescr: 对比传统被动刺激响应模型与现代预测型大脑构建模型 subgraph Legacy["传统认知模式（错误观念）"] L1["外部刺激 / 创伤事件"] --> L2["激活先天固定情绪回路"] L2 --> L3["被动产生情绪（如失控焦虑）"] end subgraph Predictive["预测型大脑模型（现代神经科学）"] P1["身体生理唤醒状态"] --> P2["大脑调用过去记忆与概念进行预测"] P2 --> P3["构建主观情绪体验（焦虑 vs. 坚定）"] P3 -.->|"刻意练习重新归因"| P2 end ``` --- ### [02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=142s) 科学传播的使命：将前沿科学转化为普通人的生活工具 谈及自己的职业生涯与科研使命，巴瑞特博士表示，她作为科学传播者的核心目标，是将极其复杂晦涩的神经科学与心理学前沿研究，翻译成所有人都能直接运用的实用知识。这种应用可以大到帮父母把深陷临床抑郁症的孩子拉出泥潭，也可以体现在提升职场效率、管理团队，甚至是餐桌聚会上与朋友交流的谈资。她深信科学的终极意义在于帮助人类过上更好的生活，普通人无需拥有博士学位，只要掌握了正确的信息与认知工具，就能实实在在地改变自己的现实。 从科学探索的本源来看，巴瑞特博士毕生致力于解开一个深层谜题：一个像人类这样被包裹在特定肉体之中、浸润在特定现实环境里的大脑，究竟是如何创造出“心智”（mind）的？人类拥有相似的大脑结构和身体机能，但在截然不同的物理和文化环境中“完成布线”（wiring）之后，却能诞生出形态完全不同、思维与情感体验差异巨大的心智模式。 --- ### [04:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=254s) 理解大脑能为日常生活带来什么？夺回人生的控制权 当主持人提问，理解大脑与情绪机制能给日常普通人的生活带来何种具体价值时，巴瑞特博士的回答坚定有力：“它带给你在生命中拥有更多主体能动性（agency）的机会。”这意味着你将拥有更多选择权、控制权，并成为自己生活的真正构架师。虽然人无法掌控世上发生的一切突发变故，也无法精准控制当下的每一个细微感受，但每个人对自己感受和行为的控制力，都远比自己想象的要大得多。 - **隐秘的控制机制**：这种掌控力并不像按开关那样直观立竿见影，驾驭它往往比人们预想的更具挑战性，但每个人都有机会去学习并掌握它。 - **掌控与责任的共生**：掌控权的另一面是“对自己的生活方式承担更大的责任”，在动荡不安、外界事件频繁冲击的世界中，这种主体性是让人重获定力与希望的基石。 - **告别木偶心态**：如果不理解大脑的构建机制，人很容易将自己视作外界环境的提线木偶（例如“下雨了我就必须悲伤”、“别人发来冒犯的消息我就必然暴怒”），唯有理解大脑原理，才能夺回主动权，活出有意识、有规划的生活。 --- ### [06:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=394s) 昂贵的大脑与身体调控：从情绪切入神经科学的底层逻辑 大脑是人体代谢成本最昂贵的一块器官，占据了惊人的能量消耗比例。巴瑞特博士强调，传统科学界在很长一段时间里都犯了一个重大错误：将大脑与身体割裂开来研究，忽视了大脑始终紧密连接着肉体。在每一个活着的瞬间，我们体内都上演着错综复杂、剧烈动荡的生理调节“风暴”，但大脑在健康状态下将这些内部剧烈活动屏蔽在意识之外，正是为了让人类能够集中注意力应对皮肤之外的外部世界。 - **研究范式的彻底倒置**：过去上百年来，心理学常采用“从概念找肉体”的传统范式——先主观定义什么是情绪、记忆或思维，再去脑中搜寻对应的物理回路；经过一个世纪的摸索，这种方式被证明走入了死胡同。巴瑞特博士的团队将问题彻底倒转过来：“鉴于我们拥有这样构造的大脑，它在正常维持身体运转的基础功能中到底在做什么？它又如何在这个过程中衍生出心智现象？” - **文化对心智的重构**：西方自柏拉图时代以来，就流传着“理性与感性在心智战场中交战”的叙事模型——如果理性思考获胜，你就是道德、理性且健康的；如果情绪兽性获胜，你就是幼稚、堕落甚至精神失常的。然而在其他文化中，思想与感受根本不是两件独立的事物，而是同一心智体验的复合特征；在某些文明里，生理感觉与心理感受甚至没有界限。并不存在单一不变的“人类本质”，文化环境参与了大脑神经网络的最终塑造，造就了千姿百态的人类心智形态。 ### [10:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=647s) 情绪测量的误区与“本质论”的破灭 当谈及大脑如何构建现实以及神经科学领域的核心认知时，史蒂文·巴特利特询问丽莎·费德曼·巴雷特博士（Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett），她是否曾有过某个“顿悟时刻”（Eureka moment），意识到大众对大脑构建现实的方式存在根本性的误解。丽莎坦言，顿悟确实存在，但它并非灵光一闪，而是一场“漫长且缓慢的燃烧”。 读研究生期间，丽莎最初研究的课题并非情绪，而是“自我”（the self）——人们如何看待自己、自尊水平如何、以及如何构想自我。在实验设计中，她将情绪作为一个结果变量进行测量。然而，实验数据屡屡碰壁，测量指标始终无法自洽。当时她一心想找到一种客观、纯粹的方法来衡量一个人究竟何时感到愤怒、悲伤或快乐，而不是依赖受试者自我报告，因为“他们自己可能会弄错”。但她很快意识到，这种提问方式本身就带有一种先入为主的预设：即假定存在一种名为“愤怒”的客观状态，且在任何人身上、任何情境下都表现一致。 科学界至今未能在生理或面部表情中找到情绪的“本质”（essences）。丽莎指出，近年来针对数百项实验进行的元分析显示，即便仅在现代都市文化背景下，人们处于愤怒状态时，皱眉（scowl，即皱起眉头、拉长脸）的概率也只有约 35%。这意味着在 65% 的愤怒情境中，人们脸上展现的是其他表情；而在人们皱眉的时刻中，有一半甚至根本不是出于愤怒——他们可能在极度专注、刚听了一个烂笑话，或者只是肠胃胀气。人类的生理指标也是如此，在愤怒或悲伤时，心率与血压可能上升、下降或保持不变，因为身体内部的生理变化本质上是大脑在为特定的行为做准备，并不存在针对某种情绪专属性的固定生理指纹。 - **表情与情绪的错位**：都市文化人群在愤怒时，皱眉的比例仅约 35%，其余 65% 表现各异；且有一半的皱眉反应源于专注或生理不适，而非愤怒。 - **生理反应的多样性**：心率和血压的升降取决于应对具体情境所预备的行动，而非由情绪标签统一定义。 --- ### [13:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=835s) 什么是“预测性大脑”？行动先于感觉 史蒂文指出，他所了解的“预测性大脑”（Predictive Brain）这一概念几乎全来自丽莎的理论。在日常体验中，多数人坚信感知世界的逻辑是“先感知，后反应”（sense and then react）——正如当下我们听到对方说话、在大脑中形成知觉，然后做出应答。丽莎强调，这种直觉虽然真切，但大脑在“引擎盖之下”（under the hood）的实际运转机制却截然相反：大脑不是在做出反应，而是在不断进行**预测**。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 预测性大脑的处理循环 accDescr: 展示大脑基于过去记忆预测行动并生成感官预期的闭环流程 subgraph Memory ["过去经验的调用"] A["当前大脑状态与情境"] --> B["检索相似的过去经验"] end subgraph Action ["行动指令与副件"] B --> C["预测并准备下一刻动作\n(眼动、心率、呼吸、血管舒缩)"] C --> D["动作准备信号的副件\n(生成预期的感官体验)"] end subgraph Perception ["感知与修正"] D --> E["提前激活感官神经元\n(听觉/视觉/味觉体验)"] E --> F["比对现实输入并修正误差"] end ``` 如果将时间瞬间定格，大脑所做的是调取与当前情境相似的过往经验，以此预测下一步该做什么：眼球接下来是否该转动、心率是否该升高、呼吸模式是否该改变、血管应当舒张还是收缩、身体是否需要准备站立。神经系统在准备这些动作指令的同时，会将这些动作信号的“副本”（copies of those signals）转化为关于感官体验的预测——即预测你即将看到、听到、嗅到、尝到、想到和感受到什么。丽莎总结道，真实的生理逻辑是：“你先行动，然后才感知。你并不是先感知再做出反应，而是先预测行动，进而产生感知。” --- ### [16:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=968s) 生活中的预测实例：语言、解渴与假想的苹果 为了生动阐述大脑的预测机制，丽莎列举了若干日常场景： 在两人对话的过程中，听者之所以能跟上节奏，是因为大脑在经历了数以万亿次的语言训练后，已在实时预测讲话者嘴里即将吐出的每一个词语。丽莎开玩笑道，如果她说出某个单词时替换成了“人体上的其他孔窍”，听者会感到极度突兀，正是因为大脑的预期落空了。大脑不仅时刻在预测，更在不断校准那些错误的预测。她指出，预测绝非抽象的思维活动，大脑实际上在提前改变自身感觉神经元的放电活动，让人在外部信号真正抵达之前，就已经提前在主观上产生了体验。 ``` “你甚至在世界将那些信号提供给你之前，就已经开始体验到它们了。” ``` 另一个经典例证是“解渴”。当一个人极度口渴时，仰头灌下一大杯水，口渴感几乎会立刻消失。然而从生理机能来看，水分被肠胃吸收进血液循环、再流经大脑并通知神经系统补水完成，需要整整 20 分钟。之所以能瞬间感到解渴，是大脑基于数百万次的经验记忆，提前生成了渴意消退的感受。 丽莎接着让史蒂文做一个思维实验：眼睛看着她，在脑海中想象一个麦金托什（Macintosh）苹果。史蒂文构建出了一个酸甜多汁、清脆欲滴的青苹果形象。丽莎解释说，此时如果使用功能性脑成像扫描史蒂文的大脑，尽管眼前空无一物，他的视觉皮层信号已发生明显改变；脑中并未真正响起咀嚼声，听觉皮层同样被激活。史蒂文连连赞同，表示自己甚至已经开始分泌唾液。丽莎指出，每当你坐下来准备进餐时，甚至在坐下之前，大脑就已经指示唾液腺分泌唾液，为进食和消化做好准备。以“预测与纠错”的方式运转神经系统，其能量消耗远低于被动应对外部世界。 --- ### [20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1232s) 身体的提前代偿：咖啡戒断头痛与肌肉记忆 大脑基于预测展开的代偿机制，也解释了许多常见的生理习惯与药物依赖反应。史蒂文提到自己每天基本在同一时间喝咖啡，如果不喝有时就会头痛。丽莎表示这在神经生理学上极为典型：长期保持规律习惯时，大脑会对摄入的化学物质形成强烈的代偿预期。 咖啡因具有收缩全身及脑部血管的作用。大脑为了维持颅内血流的恒定，会在每天喝咖啡的前几分钟（例如习惯在早晨 8:00 饮用，大脑可能在 7:55 左右）主动扩张脑血管，以此对冲咖啡因即将带来的血管收缩。如果此时咖啡未能按时摄入，提前扩张的脑血管便会导致血流量骤变，引发剧烈的“戒断性头痛”。 | 现象 | 大脑预测的行为 | 实际生理表现 / 结果 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **喝咖啡习惯** | 预期 8:00 摄入咖啡因导致血管收缩 | 7:55 左右提前舒张脑血管；若未喝咖啡则引发严重血管扩张性头痛 | | **定点闹钟** | 依据生物钟规律预测即将清醒的时刻 | 常在闹钟响起的 5 分钟前自然醒来 | | **体育训练** | 大脑优化肌肉动作指令与生理调配 | 动作越发熟练敏捷，能量消耗减少；所谓“肌肉记忆”本质是大脑预测记忆 | 这种提前运作的机制同样体现在运动和日常习惯中。很多人在闹钟响起前五分钟自然醒来，就是大脑对清醒周期的预测。而在网球或跑步训练中，通过千百次反复练习使动作更高效、消耗更少能量的现象，常被通俗地称为“肌肉记忆”（muscle memory）。丽莎纠正道，肌肉本身并不存储记忆，其本质是大脑神经元对肢体运动指令的精确预测与高效掌控。重复练习正是在不断雕琢大脑的预测模型，使身体能够以最低的代谢成本做出最迅速的响应。 ### [22:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1376s) 间歇训练与预测误差：打破大脑的自动节律 重复练习相同的动作会使大脑的预测系统愈发精准高效，但如果健身的目标是减脂或增进体能，这种高度的预测效率反而是不利的。当大脑能够准确预判下一个动作时，身体消耗的热量就会大幅减少。为了打破这种过度适应，健身教练往往采用间歇训练（interval training）：每隔30秒发布一个全新的动作指令。在无法提前预知动作的情况下，大脑生成的预测接连落空，不得不持续调动资源修正误差。这种状态在生理学上被称为破坏了“动态平衡”（allostasis），机体陷入短暂的调节紊乱，大脑必须全力运转以使身体重新恢复平衡，从而显著增加了卡路里的消耗。 这两种截然不同的训练方式揭示了大脑适应外界的深层机制：有时我们需要强化预测以形成近乎本能的自动化熟练度；而在另一些时候，我们需要主动制造干扰，迫使系统从失衡中快速归位。这种从外界汲取未预测到的信号并实时修正的过程，正是神经系统消化“预测误差”（prediction error）的核心学习机制。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 预测效率与间歇训练的机制对比 accDescr: 对比重复动作带来的预测效率与未知动作引发预测误差的生理过程 subgraph HighlyPredictive["高度可预测（常规重复练习）"] A["重复单一动作"] --> B["大脑精准预测下一步"] B --> C["神经与代谢效率最大化"] C --> D["能量消耗减少（减脂效果递减）"] end subgraph HighPredictionError["高预测误差（间歇训练/随机指令）"] E["突发未知指令"] --> F["原有预测失效，产生预测误差"] F --> G["打破机体动态平衡 (Allostasis)"] G --> H["大脑全力调控重回平衡，燃烧更多热量"] end ``` --- ### [24:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1453s) 创伤的本质：记忆中的过去与感官中的现在的交汇 面对大脑由模式识别与过往经验驱动的运行规律，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了一个直击痛点的问题：童年创伤、焦虑和抑郁等心理问题，是否本质上是大脑预测机制的“失火”？如果一个人幼时每次有成年男性进屋都会遭受殴打，哪怕到了35岁，当普通男性走入房间时，大脑依然会调用过往的负面模式发出危险预警，从而形成难以摆脱的男性恐惧症。 丽莎·费德曼·巴瑞特对此给出了肯定的回答，但她同时指出了一个颠覆性的认知：创伤从来不是客观世界中直接发生在人身上的“实体事件”。人类的所有体验，在本质上都是“记忆中的过去与感官中的现在”相互交织的产物。世界上确实存在地震、亲人离世或遭受暴力等逆境事件（adverse events），但这并不意味着这些事件必然会自动转化为创伤。如果一个人没有调用特定的过往经验将其解释为创伤，它就不会成为创伤；相反，一件在旁人看来微不足道的日常小事，一旦与个体内心的痛苦记忆产生勾连，就会演变成彻头彻尾的创伤。因此，创伤并非一个纯粹的外部客观事实，但它也绝非凭空臆造的“全在脑子里”，它实则是“过往历史与当前现实之间的一组动态关联属性”。 --- ### [26:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1577s) 玛利亚的故事：从殴打到创伤的意义重构 为了阐明这一神经机制，巴瑞特教授讲述了一位埃默里大学（Emory University）人类学家记录的真实人类学案例。主角是一名生活在特定部落文化中的青春期女孩玛利亚。在该文化背景中，成年男性对女性施加肢体暴力是一种普遍的社会常态。玛利亚经常被继父扇耳光，虽然她觉得很不愉快，但起初她并未表现出任何创伤症状。她对这一行为的解读极其质朴：“男人就是这样不可理喻的生物”。她将暴力的根源完全归咎于对方的蛮横，而非自身的问题。因此，玛利亚依旧能睡得安稳，学校成绩保持优良，拥有正常的朋友圈，生活机能运转自如。 然而，转折发生在她收看了奥普拉·温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey）的脱口秀节目之后。电视里的女性向观众哭诉遭遇男友、父亲或丈夫家暴的惨痛经历。玛利亚惊讶地发现，这些受害者所处的物理遭遇与自己如出一辙，更重要的是，她观察到了这些女性所展现出的典型创伤反应。在此之后，玛利亚的生活轨迹迅速崩溃：她开始失眠、注意力涣散、学业成绩断崖式下滑，并走向了深度的社交退缩。 主流观念往往试图用因果链条将其包装为“潜伏在体内的创伤被外界偶然触发唤醒”，但严谨的神经科学证据表明事实完全相反：外界的物理动作没有丝毫改变，改变的是玛利亚对动作赋予的“心理学意义”。原本被她视为一种倒霉但与自己无关的物理折磨，经由电视节目的示范，被重构成“正是因为我自己有问题，才招致对方如此对待”。这种赋予物理动作全新负面意义的心理认知，催生了此前并不存在的创伤体验。 - 物理动作本身没有心理学属性，心理学体验取决于过去的记忆与当下的物理输入如何结合。 - 玛利亚从电视节目中无形习得了“受害者应该如何产生反应”的行为脚本与认知框架。 - 现代心理创伤治疗的本质恰恰是在逆转这一叙事逻辑：重塑来访者对过去物理事实的认知体验。 - 面对心理困境的哲学态度："并非因为这是你的错，你无需为你受到的伤害负责；但有时在生活中，改变它的责任落在了你身上，不是因为你有罪，而是因为你是唯一能够改变它的人。" --- ### [31:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1887s) 文化传承与未完成的大脑：知识如何塑造预测 史蒂文对这种现象深感震撼：人们竟然会通过观察他人的归因方式，来反向定义自己过去的创伤，这就像是一种文化病毒般的传染（cultural contagion）。巴瑞特解释道，这种现象在演化生物学中被称为“文化传承”（cultural inheritance）。过去以现代综合演化论（Modern Synthesis）为主的传统观点认为，代际遗传仅由DNA基因编码决定，自然选择筛选基因序列。然而，当代绝大多数演化生物学家早已摒弃了这一狭隘视角，转向表观遗传学以及文化代际传递的研究。 巴瑞特精辟地概括道：“人类所拥有的先天特质，天然就需要后天教养的参与。”人类极少有单靠基因就能独立决定的神经特征。一个神经发育正常的人类婴儿在出生时，其大脑在结构上是“未完成的”。成年人的大脑已经与身体和物理环境高度接轨（wired to its world），但婴儿的大脑并不是微型版的成人大脑，而是一台亟待外部世界和自身肉体输入“接线指令”的机器： - 大脑神经回路在发育中必须精确适配两眼之间的实际物理间距；如果将一个大脑移植进另一个头骨中，它根本无法通过另一双不同间距的眼睛正常视物。 - 听觉神经通路的成型，必须经由个体特定形状的外耳道轮廓所过滤的声音信号进行物理塑造。 肉体器官的物理发育如此，对世界物理信号的认知理解更是如此。从婴儿时期起，我们就通过文化传承被教会了如何赋予物理信号以含义。19世纪和20世纪的西方探险家踏入极地后往往在短时间内丧命，而因纽特人却能在严寒绝境中代代相传、繁衍生息，其根基正是依赖文化传承的生存知识系统。人类无时无刻不在彼此之间传递着文化概念，这些知识直接成为了大脑进行未来预测的核心养料。个体的预测模型，绝不仅仅来自自身经历过的物理现实，更来自于所看过的电视节目、与他人的交谈以及身处的文化环境。 ### [35:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2102s) 身份不是过去的枷锁：《被讨厌的勇气》与意义的创造 人类大脑拥有一项非凡的天赋：它能调取零碎的往昔经验，以全新的方式拼装重组，让人体验到从未真正经历过的崭新感受。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个话题分享了自己在圣诞节期间阅读《被讨厌的勇气》（*The Courage to be Disliked*）的心得。他指出，现代社会、大众文化以及社交媒体上普遍弥漫着一种弗洛伊德式的宿命论——“童年遭遇了什么，就注定会变成什么样的人”。然而那本书彻底颠覆了他的认知：**发生在我们身上的事实并不能塑造我们，是我们主动为这些遭遇赋予的“意义”，决定了我们当下的行为与身份。** 史蒂文深刻地意识到，我们平日里对自己是谁的定义、所谓的“核心身份”，甚至每天那些高效或消极的行为习惯，本质上都是自己在给过去赋予特定解释时做出的“选择”。人们往往以为自己只是被过往经历操控的提线木偶，但实际上，身份只是大脑为了服务于当下的某种目的，而对过去构建出的一套解释框架。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 弗洛伊德决定论与阿德勒意义建构论对比 accDescr: 对比过去决定论与现代神经科学意义生成论的逻辑流转差异。 subgraph Determinism["被动宿命模式（弗洛伊德式）"] A["过去发生的遭遇"] --> B["固化的人生剧本"] B --> C["被动接受的身份与行为"] end subgraph Agency["主动意义建构模式（神经科学视角）"] D["过去的事实与感觉信号"] --> E["大脑主动赋予意义"] E --> F["产生行动与当下身份"] F --> G["重构未来的预测种子"] end ``` --- ### [36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2211s) 大脑是意义生成器：银杯隐喻与关系的本质 对于史蒂文的领悟，莉莎·费德曼·巴瑞特（Lisa Feldman Barrett）教授给予了高度认同，并从神经生物学角度给出了更精密的解释。莉莎指出，在感官的当下时刻，眼睛看到的图像、耳朵听到的声音、鼻子嗅到的气味，以及体内器官传递的信号，本身没有任何固有的心理学、情绪或精神意义。是大脑中的记忆在赋予它们意义——“你本身就是一个意义制造器（meaning maker）。” 莉莎随手以身边的银色杯子为例展开阐述：词典可能会将杯子定义为一种金属器具，但从神经科学的角度来看，“杯子的意义取决于你在这一刻拿它做什么”。它可以是一个饮水器具、一件防身武器、一个插花的花瓶，或者一个厨房量杯。意义并不孤立地存在于物体之中，也不仅仅停留在脑海里，**意义产生于物体属性与大脑行动信号之间的交互关系中**。 - **坚固性（Solidity）的相对性**：即便物理层面的“硬度”与“坚固感”，也不是杯子单方面的固有属性，而是因为人类拥有特定构造的身体和感知系统，两者交互才产生了坚固的感知体验。 - **自动化的控制权**：人类所经历的一切，都有自己参与构建的成分。虽然大脑合成意义的速度比眨眼还要快，让个体几乎察觉不到自主意志的存在，但这并不意味着我们没有责任。 - **重新找回主观能动性**：莉莎科普的核心使命，就是让人们明白自己对身心状态拥有远超想象的掌控力；你没有一个固定不变的永恒身份，“你在采取行动的瞬间，才成为了你自己”。 --- ### [40:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2442s) 重塑未来的两条路径：回溯治疗 vs 播种当下预测 如果过去的记忆与感官信号共同决定了预测与行为，那么想要改变自我、改写情绪反应，通常有两条截然不同的路径： 1. **回溯重释（心理治疗路径）**：回到过去，重新审视并修改那些历史遭遇的意义，从而在未来调用记忆时做出不同预测。这就是传统心理咨询或深夜与挚友推心置腹所做的事情。然而，强行扭转根深蒂固的历史叙事难度极大，且往往成效有限。 2. **当下播种（行为实践路径）**：清醒地认识到“当下的每一个新体验，都是未来预测的种子”。不必执着于纠缠过去，而是主动在当下为自己创造全新体验——接触完全不同的群体、阅读全新观念的读物、刻意练习某项新技能。只要这些体验被反复练习，它们就会沉淀为未来大脑自动化调用的全新预测模型。 史蒂文用手中的银杯打了个生动的比方：与其接受心理治疗反复向自己解释“这不仅仅是一个喝水杯子”，不如在当下直接采几朵鲜花插进杯里。当他在现实中完成了把杯子当作花瓶的动作，大脑就建立了一条新的神经预测回路；下一次再看到银杯时，大脑自然不仅会跳出“拿来喝水”的念头，还会自动涌现“插花当花瓶”的新选项。 --- ### [42:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2561s) 行动先于思维：底层神经预算与意义的诞生 莉莎进一步纠正了一个认知常识：**在神经机制层面，思维并非走在行动之前，思维其实是行动的副产品。** 当史蒂文走向一张摆放着银杯的桌子时，大脑在毫秒级别内最先启动的是“内脏运动控制”（Visceromotor Control）。大脑会率先预测身体即将面临的需求并提前调配资源：心率是否需要改变？血管是否需要舒张？呼吸频率是否需要调整？这些为了支持走动、伸手、剪切花枝等肌肉运动所需的葡萄糖和氧气，必须在行动发生前数毫秒就被调动到位。 > “在引擎盖底下，大脑的真实运作方式是：绝非你想了什么决定了你的感受，而是你准备采取什么行动，决定了你的所思、所感以及感官所体验到的世界。意义是行动的后果，进而演化为你所体会到的感受与思想。” --- ### [44:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2651s) 恐惧脱敏实战：用“预测误差”治愈蜜蜂恐惧症 针对如何利用第二条路径（行动重塑预测）克服具体恐惧，史蒂文抛出了难题：“如果我极度害怕蜘蛛，该如何打破僵局？” 莉莎坦言，预测是无法单凭主观意志力去强行掐灭的。她分享了自己真实的童年阴影：五岁时经历的一次创伤事件让她对蜜蜂产生了深入骨髓的恐惧。尽管她如今是园艺爱好者，深谙蜜蜂的演化生物学知识，甚至能客观讲授昆虫知识，但一旦有蜜蜂在耳边嗡嗡作响，她的神经第一反应依然是浑身僵硬或拔腿狂奔。“哪怕我对自己讲道理讲到口干舌燥，也无济于事。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 预测误差脱敏循环机制 accDescr: 展示面对恐惧时，通过打破原有行动循环喂食大脑预测误差的干预流程。 subgraph OldCycle["既有恐惧回路"] M1["蜜蜂靠近"] --> M2["大脑预测危险"] M2 --> M3["逃跑或身体僵直"] M3 --> M4["强化恐惧预测"] end subgraph NewCycle["预测误差干预"] N1["蜜蜂靠近"] --> N2["微调行动（驻足观察）"] N2 --> N3["未发生灾难性后果"] N3 --> N4["产生预测误差（Prediction Error）"] N4 --> N5["重构大脑安全行动模型"] end ``` 破局的真正核心在于**为大脑注入“预测误差”（Dosing Yourself with Prediction Error）**： - **禁止激进休克疗法**：直接穿上防蜂服去蜂箱工作这种超负荷暴露只会击溃神经系统，造成二次创伤。 - **微步调整行动方案**：当下一次蜜蜂飞来时，刻意抑制逃跑的冲动，尝试站定原地远远观察；下一次尝试靠得稍微近一点。 - **重塑环境交互**：她在花园里亲手栽种招引蜜蜂的花草灌木，刻意让自己坐在群蜂环绕的花丛中，静静感受它们的振翅与忙碌。 - **证伪大脑的生存假警报**：甚至在后来的某一次，她刻意让自己被蛰了一下。大脑在危机时刻往往同时准备了多套行动预案，你必须通过创造真实安全的物理情境，用无可辩驳的事实行动态度向大脑证明：“原先对致命威胁的恐怖预测是完全错误的。” ### [46:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2799s) 预测误差与学习的代谢代价：大脑为何会“困在自己的世界里” 当面对极大的不确定性时，大脑可能会同时调动上百种潜在的行动方案而无从抉择。此时，来自视网膜、耳蜗、皮肤表面以及体内肌肉细胞的大量感官信号源源不断地涌入，它们的核心功能并非被动记录外界，而是充当“筛选器”，决定哪一个预测信号最终被落实为具体的行动与鲜活的切身体验。如果一个人主动置身于一个全新或意想不到的环境中，涌入的感官数据便无法匹配任何既有预测，这些未被预测到的信号在心理学与神经科学中被称为“预测误差”（prediction error）。吸收预测误差的过程，正是“暴露疗法”（exposure therapy）的底层逻辑，也是所有“学习”的本质所在——要么是接收到了大脑未曾预测到的信号，要么是大脑预期存在的信号并未出现。 然而，吸收预测误差并建立新的预测模型需要耗费巨大的生理能量。在人类大脑的日常运转中，有三项任务的能量消耗最为昂贵：驱动身体运动、学习全新事物，以及应对持续存在的不确定性。当一个人在代谢层面上背负沉重负担时——例如深陷抑郁症、焦虑症，或患有心脏病、糖尿病，亦或长期处于慢性压力之下——身体便缺乏足够的生理储备（即所谓的“勺子”）去吸收预测误差并更新认知模型。处于这种状态下的大脑会选择节能的“捷径”：直接固守既有预测，对外部世界的真实反馈视而不见，使人彻底被“困在自己的思维牢笼”中无法自拔。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 预测与感官输入的代谢循环 accDescr: 展示大脑在代谢充裕与代谢匮乏时如何处理外界预测误差与既有经验的机制。 subgraph Inputs ["外部与内部输入"] Sensory["感官信号 (视网膜/耳蜗/体内脏器)"] Past["记忆与过往经验"] end subgraph BrainProc ["大脑预测机制"] Predict["生成行动与预测方案"] Diff{"代谢能量是否充裕？"} end subgraph Outcomes ["行为与认知结果"] Learn["吸收预测误差 (学习/暴露疗法/更新认知)"] Stuck["忽略现实信号 (困在思维牢笼/固守旧模型)"] end Past --> Predict Sensory --> Predict Predict --> Diff Diff -- "充裕" --> Learn Diff -- "匮乏 (抑郁/慢性压力)" --> Stuck ``` - **大脑最昂贵的能量消耗三要素**：驱动身体动作、学习全新知识/经验、应对持续性的不确定性。 - **经验的组成公式**：每一个当下行动与体验，都是“被记忆的当下/过去”（内部预测）与“感官现实”（外部输入）结合的产物；感官现实的主要作用是帮助大脑挑选该沿用哪一段记忆来行动。 --- ### [49:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2987s) 社会传染与受害者心理：病毒实验揭示的痛苦真相 史蒂文·巴特利特顺势提出了一个尖锐的社会观察：在当今社交媒体（如 TikTok 和 Instagram）盛行的环境下，大众似乎陷入了一种“社会传染”（social contagion）。人们不断通过屏幕吸收他人对经历的负面解读，将原本平常的生活波折冠以“创伤”之名，通过疯狂自我诊断抑郁症与焦虑症来“迎合流行”，进而让自己深陷痛苦之中。面对这种群体性的心理现象，史蒂文甚至半开玩笑地感叹，从大脑预测的角度来看，当今社会简直有些“疯癫”（bonkers）。 对于这种现象，丽莎·费德曼·巴瑞特坦言自己确实常常感到无奈与受挫。她解释道，人类是一种天生寻找并制造意义的物种，绝大多数生活意义并非客观独立存在，而是我们在与周遭世界及他人互动的过程中“构建”出来的。理解大脑的预测运转机制虽然无法消除世间所有的苦难，但足以减轻相当一部分无谓的折磨。她特别强调，必须严格区分“有责任”（responsibility）与“该归咎”（culpability/blame）的差异：指出人们在制造自己的痛苦绝不意味着责备他们是罪魁祸首，而是强调每个人都有能力通过承担起解释意义的责任，来减少不必要的受苦。 为了说明环境与个体内部状态在“传染”中的关系，巴瑞特引用了心理免疫学家谢尔顿·科恩（Sheldon Cohen）在大约15至20年前开展的一系列严谨的经典实验： - **隔离环境**：研究人员将受试者统一隔离在酒店房间内，严格控制他们的作息时间、睡眠时长与饮食摄入。 - **相同暴露**：科研人员将完全相同剂量与浓度的呼吸道病毒滴入每位受试者的鼻腔内。 - **精密指标**：实验精确测量了受试者的各项生理指标，甚至通过称量他们擤鼻涕所用纸巾的重量来量化排毒与分泌物反应。 - **实验结果**：在完全相同的病毒攻击下，最终仅有 20% 至 40% 的受试者真正表现出了呼吸道疾病的临床症状。 这项实验证明，病毒是患病的“必要条件”，但绝非“充分条件”。另两项关键的决定性因素是人体免疫系统的当下机能以及大脑的中枢状态。巴瑞特指出，心理痛苦与焦虑的“社会传染”同理——即便外界充斥着负面文化环境与焦虑诱因，如果你的大脑与认知状态没有为其提供恰当的滋生土壤，那份痛苦便不会真正侵入并击垮你。 --- ### [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3246s) 重新定义生理唤醒：从考试焦虑到“让胃里的蝴蝶排队飞行” 在现代文化语境中，人们习惯于将特定的躯体信号本能地解读为“焦虑”。例如，当面对剧烈的不确定性时，大脑内部的去甲肾上腺素水平升高，伴随心率飙升与呼吸急促。绝大多数人会自动将这种高度生理唤醒（high arousal）诠释为消极的焦虑状态；然而从生理机制来看，这完全相同的躯体反应完全可以被解读为“破釜沉舟的决意”（determination）或纯粹的“面对未知”。赋予生理信号何种意义，直接决定了接下来会采取何种行动。 以严重的“考试焦虑”（test anxiety）为例，这种状态往往导致学生无法顺利完成学业甚至大学辍学。统计表明，大学毕业生一生的平均收入往往比辍学者高出数十万美元，因此考试焦虑绝非轻微的情绪不适，而是严重限制人生潜力的现实阻碍。相关心理学干预实验表明，只要对学生进行系统训练，让他们把狂跳的心率和紧绷的神经重新解读为“身体在为战斗提供能量的决意”，经过反复练习后，这种重新赋义就会如同开车一样形成肌肉记忆与自动化反应，从而帮助他们顺利通过考试并扭转人生轨迹。 巴瑞特分享了一个发生在自己家庭中的亲历故事。在她的女儿12岁那年，正在参加空手道黑带考核。女儿的师父是一位身怀绝技的十段黑带大师，气场逼人，甚至给人一种“仅凭眼神就能劈断木板”的威严感。当时女儿身高还不足五英尺（约1.5米），身材非常瘦小，却必须在一连数天的严苛考核中，与那些身材魁梧、年龄在15至18岁的青少年男孩进行真刀真枪的实战对打。 坐在台下的巴瑞特和丈夫紧张万分。这时，黑带大师缓缓踱步走到女孩身边，没有像普通人那样说“放轻松，小姑娘”——巴瑞特指出，让人在这种生死对决的关头冷静下来是最糟糕的做法，因为身体此刻极度需要高唤醒能量来防御和攻击——这位大师俯身对女孩轻声说道： > "Sweetheart, get your butterflies flying in formation." > （“宝贝，让你的蝴蝶排队整齐飞行。”） 这句话让巴瑞特惊叹不已。这并非否定身体翻江倒海的紧张感（Butterflies in the stomach），而是赋予这股冲动全新的行动导向：“利用它，指挥它，让这股能量为你列阵冲锋。”巴瑞特总结道，控制感与行动力永远存在，即便外界环境严苛、选项受限，只要能够主动掌握对身体生理反应的解释权，人就能重塑自己的现实，这正是走向心智自主与生活意义的核心关键。 - **重构生理唤醒的意义**：高唤醒反应（心跳加速、去甲肾上腺素激增）本身是中性的能量调动，既能被定义为瘫痪行动的“焦虑”，也能被定义为赋能行动的“决意”。 - **自主掌控权（Agency）的本质**：掌控感从来不是绝对的，但通过重构身体状态与外部现实的关联，个体始终可以在任何逆境中争取到更多选择权。 ### [58:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3524s) 社交媒体如何剥夺人的自主权与制造不确定性 在探讨社交媒体是否正在把人们“编程”成焦虑、抑郁与悲伤的状态时，莉萨·费尔德曼·巴瑞特（Lisa Feldman Barrett）给出了极其肯定的回答。她指出，社交媒体充斥着极其有害的不确定性。即便是面对面交谈，人类虽然拥有对方的面部表情、语调等各种线索，但身体动作从来不是可以被简单阅读的“语言”，大脑自始至终都在利用感官信号进行“猜测”；而当人们置身于社交媒体时，环境中的真实信号极其匮乏，充斥着大量的模糊性与不确定性。用户唯一能做的，就是用自己的脑补去填补这些空白，而这种猜测往往走向负面。 更为严重的是，频繁刷 TikTok 等社交平台的人，实际上是在“自愿放弃自己的自主权（volitionally giving up their agency）”而不自知。他们主动选择被引导、被影响。莉萨以自己为例说明了批判性消费者的态度：当她出于好奇去听关于新陈代谢或护肤的播客时，大约 90% 的内容她听到 10 分钟左右就会果断关掉。她强调，你选择关注什么、放弃什么，本质上都在决定什么内容会被大脑保留下来，并在日后自动调用。这几乎等同于一种“自我选择的洗脑”。 莉萨带着强烈的共情提到，人们本可以生活得更好，但往往困在有害的算法与网红信息中。她谈及自己的女儿曾患有临床抑郁症，那是她人生中最痛苦、最令人心碎的经历之一。过去谈及此事她总会忍不住落泪，如今虽能平静叙述，但她深知关键转折点在于女儿自己做出“想要获得帮助”的决定。在此之前，任何外部力量都无法强加改变。如今在健康养生（wellness）行业和社交媒体上充斥着五花八门的说辞，其中许多内容不仅无益，甚至极具破坏性。 --- ### [01:02:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3728s) 商业决策与行动力（Shopify 赞助） 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插播了赞助商内容。他分享了自己的商业洞察：在商业世界中，最大的成本往往不是失败，而是犹豫不决、过度思考和空等“完美时机”所浪费的时间。 他在 20 岁创立第一家公司时，既没有经验也没有资金，唯一拥有的就是想法和快速行动的魄力。他借此推荐了电商建站平台 Shopify，该平台提供数千种可自定义的模板，无需编程或设计基础即可串联独立站与各大社交媒体销售渠道，并一站式处理后端支付、物流配送与税务核算，帮助创业者专注于业务增长。 --- ### [01:03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3783s) 改变生活的首要步骤：微步前进与有意识的日常规划 回到对话中，史蒂芬提出一个核心疑问：莉萨作为顶尖神经科学家拥有海量知识指引决策，但普通人往往缺乏这些认知，甚至被错误信息误导；那么对于那些感觉深陷算法泥潭或生活困境的人来说，迈出改变的第一步究竟是什么？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 习惯改变与打破旧循环的微步机制 accDescr: 展示从设定日常安排到微步行动，再到大脑形成新预测模型的路径。 subgraph Trigger["触发与决策"] A["拒绝等待动力<br/>不再凭情绪做事"] --> B["列入日程安排<br/>强制执行固定行为"] end subgraph Action["微步实践（Baby Steps）"] B --> C1["每周断网一天"] B --> C2["与朋友外出散步"] B --> C3["改变所处环境脉络"] end subgraph Brain["神经重塑"] C1 & C2 & C3 --> D["持续输入新行为体验"] D --> E["大脑更新预测模型<br/>逐步替代自动化旧模式"] end ``` 莉萨给出的法则极为务实：“采取微步（baby steps）”。试图一蹴而就推翻原有生活方式的做法极少奏效。她给出的具体建议包括： - 设定明确、可执行的微小界限，例如每周刻意挑选一天彻底远离社交媒体； - 用替代行为填补时间空白，例如和朋友相聚或出门散步； - **将改变列入日程表**：永远不要等“想要去做”的时候才行动，因为习惯的改变必须靠有意识地强迫自己执行。改变任何习惯的本质，都在于主动改变所处的环境脉络（context），并通过重复实践来建立全新的行为回路。 --- ### [01:04:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3866s) 慢性疼痛的本质：未能更新的神经预测 为了阐明大脑的预测机制与行为重塑，莉萨分享了自己经历的一次严重的大型脊椎手术。她深知术后身体必定会出现前所未有的异样感觉。她打了个形象的比方：就像去看牙医补牙后，舌头总是忍不住反复去舔那个刚补好的牙洞，这并不是因为你有意为之，而是大脑在“觅食信息（foraging for information）”，在主动寻找**预测误差（prediction error）**；随着大脑不断校准预测，发现这些信号并不具备危险意义，它最终就会选择忽略这些感觉。 莉萨在术前就制定了周密的计划，精准地为自己“按剂量摄入预测误差”，以此防止术后演变成慢性疼痛。她对慢性疼痛的神经机制做出了颠覆常识的剖析： - **慢性疼痛是一组未被更新的错误预测**：在损伤已经愈合、体内已无组织损伤的情况下，大脑依然固执地认为组织处于受损状态。 - **疼痛并非凭空捏造的“幻觉”**：不能用“全是你脑子瞎想出来的”这种轻蔑态度来看待疼痛。莉萨强调，“所有体验都是由记忆中的过去与感官中的当下共同构建的”。就像视觉发生在脑内（眼睛只是接收信号的器官）、听觉发生在脑内（耳朵只是接收振动的器官）一样，疼痛同样是大脑的产物。 - **代谢赤字阻碍神经学习**：从重大创伤或疾病中恢复需要耗费巨大的代谢成本。当大脑的“代谢预算”被过度消耗时，能够调拨给“学习与更新预测”的能量就所剩无几。大脑因此卡在旧有的预测模型中，即使伤害性感受信号（nociceptive signals）已经消失，大脑仍在重播过去的疼痛感知，其机制正如幻肢痛（phantom limb）或耳鸣（tinnitus）一样。 --- ### [01:08:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4103s) 大脑的首要任务：身体预算（Allostasis）与抑郁症的生理根源 在深入探讨抑郁症前，莉萨颠覆了大众对脑功能的传统认知。她直言，大脑最重要的核心任务**根本不是思考、不是感受、甚至不是看清外部世界，而是调控身体的内部代谢**。大脑必须精准预测身体下一秒的需求，并在这些生理需求真正发生之前提前调配资源。 在神经科学中，这种预先调控身体生理平衡的机制在专业学术界被称为**异态平衡（allostasis）**。莉萨的实验室将其通俗地比喻为**身体预算（body budgeting）**： - **大脑是人体的财务总管**：它掌管的不是金钱，而是盐分、葡萄糖、氧气、水分、钾离子以及各类激素与神经递质。 - **维持运转的高昂代价**：人体是一台极其耗能的生物机器，身体预算的首要支出用于维系最底层的生命维持功能（心跳、体温、呼吸等）。 - **修复、生长与学习的消耗**：当一个人长高、细胞修复，或是大脑在学习新事物并使神经突触加厚时，都会直接消耗大量的代谢预算。一旦身体预算长期陷入赤字或“破产”，大脑的预测与调节功能就会出现系统性崩溃，而这正是抑郁症等身心疾病的底层生物学根源。 ### [01:09:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4188s) 身体能量预算与抑郁症的本质：削减开支与炎症重税 大脑调控身体所需消耗的能量预算（Energy Budget）主要被三大部分瓜分：维持基础生命功能、组织的生长与修复（如髓鞘形成、神经元维护以及生长更多受体），以及任何需要付出“努力”（Effort）的活动。所谓的努力，既包括去健身房锻炼、工作、早晨挣扎着从床上爬起来等身体行为，也包括学习新事物、应对不确定性等认知负荷。从神经科学的角度来看，人们所感受到的“压力”（Stress），本质上是大脑预测到即将发生某种需要付出动机与努力的行动，因而正在准备进行大规模的新陈代谢支出。 作为有机体，人类每天所能产生的能量——即细胞从葡萄糖和脂肪中转化的三磷酸腺苷（ATP）——是存在生理上限的。虽然每个人的消耗处于一定区间内，但绝无无限拓展的可能。当一个人遭遇长期的心理社会压力，或者身体受到慢性疾病侵蚀时，预算的大头就会被迅速耗尽，留给其他日常活动的能量所剩无几。此时，大脑为了防止彻底破产，不得不启动“削减成本”（Cost-cutting）策略。临床抑郁症的许多核心症状，正是大脑削减代谢开支的直接表现：极度疲倦、动力丧失、专注力障碍，以及对所处环境缺乏敏感性与反应度。 与此同时，抑郁症还伴随着极高的代谢惩罚。约有 70% 的抑郁症患者伴有全身系统性炎症，而免疫系统运转起来极为昂贵。长期的系统性炎症就像对身体预算征收了一笔沉重的“持续性税收”，使各项机能的运转成本居高不下，将身体推向恶性循环。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 身体代谢预算与抑郁机制 accDescr: 解释固定能量预算在面临压力和炎症时，如何导致大脑削减开支并诱发抑郁症状 subgraph 能量预算的分配 A["每日有限 ATP 能量总额"] --> B["生命维持与组织修复"] A --> C["需要付出的努力与压力"] end subgraph 资源枯竭与削减成本 C -->|"压力过大 / 慢性疾病"| D["可用预算耗尽"] D --> E["大脑启动削减成本"] E --> F["抑郁症状：疲劳、迟钝、注意力丧失"] end subgraph 额外代谢负担 G["系统性炎症（约70%患者存在）"] -->|"高昂免疫支出"| D end ``` --- ### [01:12:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4364s) 压力如何扭曲代谢机制：隐形的热量与体重增长 压力不仅消耗心理能量，还会直接破坏消化系统与能量代谢。丽莎分享了一项让她作为科学家感到着迷、但作为普通人感到“有些毛骨悚然”的研究发现：如果在进餐后两小时内遭遇社交压力，身体代谢的效率会急剧下降，效果相当于额外摄入了 104 卡路里的热量。即便食物中包含优质健康脂肪，在压力状态下，身体也会把它们当成劣质脂肪来分解代谢并储存起来。 如果把每次餐后压力积累的这 104 卡路里累加，一年下来相当于在进食完全相同的食物、没有任何额外摄入的情况下，体重凭空增加近 11 磅（约 5 公斤）。这充分说明了环境压力对生理代谢的直接生理性改造。 在抑郁症病理中，皮质醇（Cortisol）往往严重失调，而皮质醇本身就是一种核心的代谢调节激素。抗抑郁药（如 SSRI 或 SNRI）主要作用于神经元突触间隙中的五羟色胺（血清素）和去甲肾上腺素，这两种化学物质同样是基础的代谢调节剂。丽莎强调，抑郁症具有深厚的代谢基础并不是一种虚无的理论假说，关键问题在于：究竟是哪种代谢影响的“混合药剂”（Elixir），最终将个体推向了临床抑郁的深渊。丽莎坦言，自己之所以深入研究代谢与抑郁的关联，最初完全是为了拯救身陷重度抑郁的女儿。 - **餐后社交压力代价**：用餐两小时内经历社交压力，身体代谢效率大幅降低，等同于额外摄入 104 卡路里。 - **长期体重效应**：持续处于高压环境中，即使摄入热量与往年完全一致，一年下来也会额外增加近 11 磅体重。 - **神经递质的代谢角色**：血清素、去甲肾上腺素和皮质醇并非单纯掌管情绪的信号，而是机体能量调控的重要调节剂。 --- ### [01:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4500s) 破除迷思：青春期抑郁不是“情绪失控”，更非单纯的“化学失衡” 青春期是人体遭遇代谢脆弱性的“完美风暴”。人类大脑被封闭在头骨这个黑暗无声的骨盒中，它无法直接感知外部世界或体内的变化，只能接收各种生理信号的“结果”，并通过过去的经验预测去反推其背后的“原因”。体内激增的激素变化通常需要 20 分钟左右才能将信号传递至大脑，随后大脑再尝试推测其意义。 精神病学和医学界长期流传着一种叙事：把大脑描绘成“战场”，认为人一生下来就具备先天情绪回路，但缺乏认知控制能力；到了青春期，由于前额叶认知控制不足，狂暴原始的情绪脱缰而出，才导致了情绪障碍。丽莎毫不留情地将这种观点斥为“神经胡说”（Neurobullshit），指出根本没有任何充分的科学证据支持“大脑内置独立情绪回路”的假设。 针对公众普遍深信不疑的“化学物质失衡论”——即血清素代表快乐、多巴胺代表奖励的说法，丽莎直言这种解释“简化到了连错都算不上的地步”（not even wrong）。多巴胺绝非单纯的奖励物质，在神经元面对惩罚刺激时多巴胺也会激增；越来越多的神经科学家认为，多巴胺实际上是“付出努力”（无论是脑力还是体力）所必需的化学催化剂。而血清素在动物实验中展现的核心功能，是让动物在看不到即时代谢回报（没有立竿见影的收益沉淀）的情况下，依然愿意耗费能量去进行探索、觅食和学习。 --- ### [01:18:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4710s) 丽莎女儿的坠落：从活泼聪慧到被误解为“懒惰”的临床抑郁 丽莎谈起了女儿患病的痛心经历。在发病前，她的女儿是一个极其热情洋溢、社交活跃、在学校表现优异的女孩。她并非完美无瑕，但充满朝气，八岁时就能兴致勃勃地解初级代数题。然而到了十年级（高一阶段），女儿整个人发生了天翻地覆的骤变：开始自我封闭，成天缩在房间里，学业成绩直接滑落至 D，注意力彻底涣散，整夜失眠，放弃了所有的课外活动，情绪极度痛苦且暴躁。 起初，父母完全没有意识到这是心理疾病，反而误以为女儿只是在“偷懒”。丽莎回忆道，当时他们心里想的是：“拜托，打起精神来，加把劲啊（Come on, man. Step up），你为什么变得这么懒？”因为女儿童年时期从未表现出任何情绪障碍的征兆，如今却看起来对什么都提不起劲、逃避作业、与现实脱节。 直到后来，丽莎才逐渐察觉异样：女儿开始记不住彼此间的日常谈话。最初丽莎以为女儿只是心不在焉，但很快发现女儿甚至无法复述自己一天当中具体经历了什么，完全丢失了生活细节。这种“情景记忆细节丧失”（Episodic memory loss）是抑郁症的典型特征——患者失去了整合与巩固短期信息的能力，只能粗略地谈论事情的“大意”，无法准确提供时间、地点和事件的具体细节。当曾经数学天赋出众的女儿拿着数学 D 的成绩单回家时，全家人终于意识到情况失控，立即带她前往专业机构评估，最终被确诊为临床抑郁症。此外，丽莎还提到，女儿当时还饱受极为严重的痛经困扰。 ### [01:21:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4873s) 口服避孕药与青少年抑郁风险 很多年轻女孩由于严重的痛经（menstrual cramps），临床上常被建议服用口服避孕药，通过平抑全月体内的激素剧烈波动来缓解生理疼痛。然而，当时的医学界并未充分意识到避孕药与抑郁症之间的危险关联。Lisa 指出，现有的流行病学数据非常明确：服用避孕药的年轻女性，患严重抑郁发作（major depressive episode）的风险会显著提升 40% 到 70%。若服用的是雌激素与孕激素的复合避孕药，抑郁风险约增加 40%；若为了减少某些常规副作用而选用单纯孕激素避孕药（progesterone-only pill），患重度抑郁的风险骤增 70%。 Lisa 谈到一个令她终生难忘的“闪光灯时刻”（flashbulb moment）。当她在一项涵盖上百万名女性的大规模流行病学研究中读到这个结论时，她的女儿已经被确诊抑郁症大约一年了。Lisa 立即给女儿的儿科医生打电话，语气坚决地要求：“今天就停药，立刻停掉。请告诉我停药会有什么不良反应，还是我们可以直接断掉？”儿科医生试图用“根据我的个人行医经验……”来辩解，Lisa 当即打断对方：“我根本不在乎你的个人观点，我眼前是一份涉及 100 万名女性的大型流行病学研究，她今天必须停药。” 后来，Lisa 在科学史学家娜奥米·奥雷斯克斯（Naomi Oreskes）所著的《为何信任科学？》（Why Trust Science?）中发现，科学界其实早就发现了这一激素与情绪的关联，但这恰恰属于公众与临床未能及时信纳科学证据的典型案例。从演化生物学的角度来看，雌激素（estrogen）、孕激素（progesterone）和睾酮（testosterone）最初演化出来的核心功能其实是代谢调节剂（metabolic regulators）。在长期割裂心智与肉体的二元论文化中，人们极少将代谢与视觉、情绪或基础心理现象联系起来，而这也正是代谢精神病学（Metabolic Psychiatry）如今正在掀起的核心革命。 - **避孕药类型与抑郁风险关联**：复合型避孕药（雌激素+孕激素）使重度抑郁风险增加约 40%；单纯孕激素药片（常被认为副作用更少）使风险激增 70%。 - **核心演化功能**：性激素的演化本质是体内重要的代谢调节剂，对大脑能量分配与神经机能起着直接调控作用。 --- ### [01:24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5047s) 重建代谢预算：多维度的身心修复日常 面对女儿深陷重度抑郁的痛苦，Lisa 内心充满了自责与遗憾，感慨自己没能更早看清这些生理机制。彼时“代谢精神病学”尚未成为主流，常规治疗往往将抑郁归结为脑内化学失衡，但 Lisa 决心从“身体预算”（body budget）与新陈代谢的每一个通路入手，与女儿共同制定并执行了一套极其严格的每日生活重塑计划。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Lisa 针对女儿身体预算的系统干预方案 accDescr: 图表展示了从昼夜节律、饮食营养、运动弹性、抗炎补充以及情绪共情五个维度全面修复神经系统代谢预算的具体举措。 subgraph Rhythms["节律与环境控制"] A1["晚间7-8点后禁用电子屏幕<br/>(保护视网膜神经节细胞)"] A2["退出社交媒体平台<br/>(降低社交压力与不确定性)"] end subgraph Metabolism["代谢输入与营养"] B1["早晨5:30起床共进早餐<br/>(杜绝加工假食物，补充优质营养)"] B2["补充高浓度 Omega-3 脂肪酸"] B3["低剂量阿司匹林抗炎<br/>(需医嘱支持)"] end subgraph Resiliency["代谢弹性与恢复"] C1["高强度普拉提核心床训练<br/>(类间歇性代谢挑战与自愈)"] C2["长距离步行"] end subgraph Relational["神经系统外源调节"] D1["睡前一小时家庭陪伴<br/>(读书、谈心、肢体拥抱)"] D2["纯粹倾听与共情<br/>(克制给出建议的本能)"] end Rhythms --> Budget["修复身体预算<br/>(Body Budget)"] Metabolism --> Budget Resiliency --> Budget Relational --> Budget ``` 这套方案首先着手解决严重的生物钟紊乱。女儿同许多青少年一样习惯深夜刷手机，但人眼视网膜上的神经节细胞（retinal ganglion cells）对屏幕发射特定波长的蓝光极度敏感，会直接扰乱视网膜向大脑投射的昼夜节律信号，让大脑误以为仍是白昼。缺乏高质量的深度睡眠，大脑就无法清除代谢毒素，也无法完成白天的记忆巩固，导致身体预算赤字急剧恶化。为此，Lisa 严格规定晚上 7 到 8 点后彻底停用一切屏幕，并让女儿退出社交媒体，以根除社交比较与不确定性带来的慢性应激。 在日常饮食与生活起居上，Lisa 每天清晨 5:30 准时起床为女儿烹饪营养早餐，陪她一起进食，坚决杜绝果酱夹心饼干（Pop-Tarts）等超加工的“伪食物”（pseudo food）。同时，她们重新引入了高强度的身体锻炼。女儿不仅进行长距离步行，还加入了极为严苛的普拉提核心床（Pilates Reformer）训练。之所以选择这种高强度的间歇性运动，是因为运动的生理本质是主动让身体脱离代谢平衡，迫使大脑重新学习如何调动资源恢复稳态。这相当于向大脑持续注入“预测误差”（prediction error），通过代谢挑战重建神经系统的生理弹性。在医生指导下，女儿还大剂量补充高纯度 Omega-3 脂肪酸，并随餐服用低剂量婴儿阿司匹林以扑灭体内的慢性系统性炎症。 - **屏幕蓝光机制**：视网膜神经节细胞对特定屏幕光线波长敏感，夜间暴露会导致生理性昼夜节律紊乱，破坏深度睡眠期间的脑部代谢排毒与记忆巩固。 - **运动的神经代谢意义**：剧烈间歇运动通过制造代谢失衡，训练大脑快速自我调平，恢复生理系统应对压力的弹性。 - **抗炎干预措施**：高比例 Omega-3/低 Omega-6 补充，配合医生准许的每日单片婴儿阿司匹林（饭后服用），降低机体与神经系统的系统性炎症。 --- ### [01:29:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5351s) 彼此神经系统的照看者：共情与外源调节 除了物质层面的代谢干预，Lisa 特别强调了人际依恋对神经系统的强大生理调节作用。在女儿幼年时，家庭一直保留着睡前拥抱、讲故事的温馨习惯，虽在青春期初期曾被女儿拒绝，但此时 Lisa 与丈夫重新恢复了这一仪式。每晚入睡前一小时，父母会轮流或一同陪女儿阅读，静静坐着听她倾诉学校里遭遇的痛苦与委屈。Lisa 坦言，这对自己是极其艰难的考验：作为一名母亲和资深学者，她的第一反应总是忍不住想要介入、给出具体建议去“解决问题”，但她必须极力调用自己作为临床治疗师的自制力，逼自己仅仅坐在那里承受痛苦，全然地理解与共情。 在 Lisa 看来，如果父母在孩子倾诉霸凌或恶意对待时急于评判或提供方案，孩子感受到的只会是“自己的痛苦未被听见”。只有当孩子感到真正被理解时，紧绷的神经系统才能卸下防御。人类从演化上就是彻头彻尾的社会性动物，Lisa 总结道：“我们是彼此神经系统的照看者（caretakers of each other's nervous systems）。”无论文化如何宣扬个人主义，个体的生理机能始终与其他人类交织在一起——“对人类神经系统最好的良药是另一个人；而对人类神经系统最坏的毒药，也是另一个人（错的人）。” 这种相互调节并非心理隐喻，而是具有确凿的生理代谢证据。Lisa 援引其实验室前博士后的一组前沿研究：通过对比母亲与婴儿在独立完成任务及共同互动时的血糖代谢，发现依恋关系良好的母婴在共处时，双方的葡萄糖代谢效率会发生物理层面的显著优化，这一现象在恋爱伴侣中同样得到了印证。早在过去的经典心理物理学实验中就已发现，当一个人身背沉重的背包面对陡坡时，如果身旁陪伴的是知心好友，其大脑评估出的坡度与实际消耗的热量，都远低于身旁是陌生人的情况。人类无时无刻不在物理和代谢层面互相影响，社会支持正是对抗身体预算破产最强大的生理蓄水池。 - **社交支持的代谢实质**：人际互动直接构成生理预算的“存款”或“税负”；良好的人际连接能直接改善血糖利用效率。 - **依恋对代谢的优化效应**：紧密联结的母婴与伴侣在协作时，机体葡萄糖代谢效率明显优于单打独斗状态。 - **经典的负重爬坡实验**：有朋友在侧时，面对同一斜坡的感知负担与实际热量消耗均大幅下降，直观证明他人存在对神经代谢预算的调节功能。 ### [01:32:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5552s) 社交联结与父母的沟通智慧：如何帮助青少年调节神经系统 元分析研究表明，如果一个人拥有值得信赖且彼此互信的社交圈，其平均寿命能够延长数年。社交支持不仅关乎心理安慰，更在生理层面上直接协助调节个体的神经系统与身体预算（Body Budget）。在谈到自己如何帮助抑郁的女儿时，巴雷特博士（Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett）分享了一个家庭细节：女儿有时会直白地要求：“你能不能只做我一分钟的朋友，而先不要做我妈妈？”巴雷特虽然觉得切换角色非常不易，但仍会努力答应并做到。 此外，巴雷特向所有家有青少年或成年子女的父母分享了一条她自创的“育儿黄金法则”。每当她忍不住想要管教或唠叨时，她会主动向女儿征求许可：“我现在正经历一个‘母亲时刻’，极度渴望对你唠叨一件事。如果能让我唠叨一分钟，我保证之后绝不再提。我知道这纯粹是我自己的需要，不是你的问题，但如果你能忍受我一分钟，那真是帮了我大忙。”大多时候女儿会宽容地允许她倾诉，但有时女儿也会果断回答“今天不行”，这时作为母亲就必须真正学会尊重与倾听。 巴雷特特别强调，她并不是精神科医生或全科医师，这些记录只是她以科学家身份查阅海量文献后为自己女儿定制的应对经验，绝非放之四海而皆准的医学处方。更关键的现实是：父母无法强迫青少年做任何事（除非动用极端暴力的威胁），改变最终必须来自于孩子自身的意愿与选择。 - **社交与寿命关联**：大量元分析证实，身处相互信任的社交网络中，能够显著延长个体寿命。 - **育儿沟通技巧**：通过坦诚表达自身冲动并“征求孩子许可”，化解青春期逆反与说教冲突。 - **医学免责声明**：巴雷特将自己记录的方法提供给听众参考，但明确强调这属于个人科学探索，不可替代专业医疗诊断。 --- ### [01:35:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5726s) 女儿的康复：将情绪重新定义为“身体预算的晴雨表” 谈到女儿如今的恢复状况，巴雷特欣慰地表示她已经走出了抑郁的阴霾。女儿并非永远不会再产生情绪低潮，关键的转变在于认知框架：她不再将坏心情看作自己心理出了问题或性格有缺陷，而是将其理解为一种生理信号，是衡量自身“身体预算”透支程度的“晴雨表”。 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有共鸣。他提到在阅读巴雷特的研究成果时，最大的收获就是学会了在情绪变糟时按下暂停键：当人心情不好时，若不加觉察，很容易迁怒他人或把事情搞砸；但若从身体预算的角度审视，就会反思“我身体究竟缺少了什么？是昨晚没睡好，还是血糖太低没按时吃饭？”这种视角的转换会彻底改变随后的行动决策——比如果断取消当天的非必要安排，上床睡个好觉，从而逆转恶性循环的发展轨迹。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 身体预算认知与行为回路 accDescr: 展示将不良心境视为身体预算信号如何改变个体的后续决策与状态 subgraph 传统视角["传统归因模式（心理化）"] A1["负面心境 / 情绪低落"] --> B1["自我怀疑或怨天尤人<br/>'我出了问题' 或 '世界太糟'"] B1 --> C1["冲突、烦躁与精神内耗"] C1 --> D1["身体预算进一步透支"] end subgraph 身体预算视角["生理信号模式（巴雷特理论）"] A2["负面心境 / 情绪低落"] --> B2["觉察身体预算赤字<br/>'我缺水、缺觉还是少吃了饭？'"] B2 --> C2["采取生理修复行动<br/>补充能量、推迟会议、补觉"] C2 --> D2["神经系统平衡恢复<br/>打破情绪恶性循环"] end ``` 两位对谈者进一步讨论了这种理念对职场与现代社会的启示。史蒂芬分享了自己两年前做出的重要改变：利用自主权规定“上午11点前不排任何会议”，这让他彻底告别了闹钟，每天都在身体完全充饱电时自然醒来。巴雷特指出，社会制度和工作节奏完全可以重新设计。统计表明，决定员工工作效率的最核心预测指标首先是**睡眠与水分摄入**，其次是运动。企业管理者与商业领袖应当认识到，保障员工的身体预算并非单纯的福利，而是具备极高经济回报与商业价值的理性决策。 --- ### [01:39:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5952s) 酒精、身体预算与大脑预测的失控 针对史蒂芬提出“饮酒是否会破坏身体预算并增加抑郁风险”的问题，巴雷特首先说明自己并非酒精代谢专家，但从神经科学与生理学机制来看，两者存在紧密的相互作用。 很多人最初饮酒是为了口感、社交氛围或模仿吃巧克力般的享受，但酒精最终常常演变成一种“心境调节（Mood Regulation）”工具。巴雷特阐释了心境与情绪的区别： 1. **心境（Mood）**：是意识的基本属性，每时每刻都在伴随着我们。大脑时刻在调节内脏等生理器官，身体也在持续向大脑反馈神经信号，大脑将这些内在生理信号汇总成了基础心境（如舒畅、烦躁、平静、疲惫）。 2. **情绪（Emotion）**：当大脑为了指导具体行动，将内在心境与外部世界的特定情境联系起来进行意义构建时，才形成了我们所体验到的具象情绪（如愤怒、恐惧、欣喜）。 许多时候，人们饮酒或滥用阿片类药物，本质上是在试图干预内分泌与新陈代谢，以此平抚糟糕的心境、减轻痛苦，这正是成瘾的温床。此外，酒精对认知预测机制具有严重破坏性： - **钝化预测与阻断误差学习**：酒精会让大脑的预测功能变得极其粗糙（sloppy），并关闭大脑吸收“预测误差（Prediction Error）”的能力。换言之，大脑在醉酒状态下不再根据外界反馈进行纠错和学习。 - **行为失调与预算恶化**：由于丧失了对环境的精准校准，个体会做出脱离情境的荒唐举动，不仅在当下引发各种连锁问题，更会在代谢和生理层面上造成严重的后续赤字，使未来的身体预算管理更加艰难。 ### [01:42:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6170s) 赞助商插播：智能追踪钱包与日常细节优化 节目中段插入了一则赞助商 Ekster 智能钱包的介绍。Steven 提到，大家早已习惯通过苹果的“查找”（Find My）功能追踪丢失的 iPhone，而 Ekster 与苹果合作，将这一防丢追踪功能引入了实体钱包中。该产品曾与梅西（Lionel Messi）合作推广，采用回收铝材质制成，不仅极致轻薄，还内置 RFID 防盗刷技术以保障财产与身份安全，用户只需轻轻一按即可快速弹出卡片。Steven 借此分享了他常挂在嘴边的“1% 边际提升”理念，认为这款钱包正是传统日常用品在细节上不断实现微小精进的代表作，并为听众提供了专属折扣与 100 天试用权益。 --- ### [01:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6240s) 微笑真的能带来快乐吗？面部反馈效应的真相 广告过后，Steven 向 Lisa Feldman Barrett 提出了一个在播客嘉宾中流传已久的流行心理学假说：人们是否能单纯通过“强行微笑”来改变自己的情绪感受？在预测脑模型（Predictive Brain）的语境下，如果一个人刻意露出大大的微笑并做出振奋的姿态，大脑是否就会自动预测并生成良好愉悦的情绪体验？ Barrett 给出审慎且带有幽默色彩的回答：“可以这么说，但也不能完全这么讲。”她指出，现实生活中人们微笑的原因千奇百怪：有人在愤怒时微笑，有人在“密谋除掉死敌时”冷笑，还有人在恐惧时也会露出笑容。微笑与快乐之间绝非单一的因果锁合。面对 Steven 追问“纯技术层面而言，微笑能否让人变得更快乐”，Barrett 引用了相关的元分析（Meta-analysis）证据：这种面部反馈带来的情绪提升确实存在，但其效应量（effect size）微乎其微。 两人在现场打趣起来，Barrett 示意 Steven 试着咧嘴、眯起眼睛露出眼角皱纹，甚至模仿心理学经典实验里“嘴里横咬一根铅笔”来牵动笑肌的动作。尽管 Steven 笑着表示自己确实“感觉更快乐了”，Barrett 却一针见血地调侃道：“那是因为我让你做了件滑稽的蠢事！”她强调，科学界对于微笑调节情绪的宣传普遍被过度夸大了。元分析表明其效应极其微弱，这意味着它既不适用于所有人，也无法在所有情境下奏效。 --- ### [01:45:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6349s) 重新审视 ADHD：诊断是描述而非解释，能力取决于情境 话题随后转向当下的热门公共议题——注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）。Steven 分享了自己被确诊为 ADHD 的个人经历，并观察到身边被诊断的朋友各具差异，困惑于当今社会自诊断与临床确诊激增背后的神经机制，以及它与预测脑模型之间的关联。 Barrett 提出了一个极具颠覆性的科学视角：**医学诊断只是一种临床症状的“描述”（Descriptions），绝不是原因的“解释”（Explanations）。** 当大众或患者把 ADHD 诊断当作自身行为的终极解释时，本质上陷入了“心理本质主义”（Psychological Essentialism）的误区——即主观认定大脑内部必然存在某种恒定不变的“缺陷本质”导致了所有问题。她直言不讳地指出，精神病学现存的大多数分类标签，最核心的实际用途其实是方便医疗机构计算治疗账单工时，而非精准描绘大脑的生物学结构。针对“ADHD 是由于血清素或多巴胺失调引起”的通俗解释，她驳斥道：大脑和身体分布着多种不同的受体亚型，这些神经递质在不同通路中发挥着截然不同的功能，根本不能简单归结为单向的多与少。 更关键的是，Barrett 强调所有心理困难和抗挫韧性都离不开“隐形情境”（Context）。现代社会与学校制度要求一个人必须长时间静坐并保持注意力高度集中，当个体无法顺应这一人为设定的场景时，就会被盖上“疾病”的印章。然而，无法长时间锁定注意力的特质，在另一些需要警觉、快速切换视角的生存情境中反而可能具有显著优势。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 行为特征与情境适应性模型 accDescr: 解释 ADHD 诊断为何是情境匹配度问题而非个人本质缺陷 subgraph Society ["社会与环境情境"] A["主流规范要求<br/>(例如：长时间静坐、单一注意力)"] B["非传统/高警觉情境<br/>(需要快速反应、发散性注意)"] end subgraph Individual ["个体神经特征"] C["注意力易发散 / 多动特征<br/>(症状表现描述)"] end subgraph Outcome ["评估结果"] D["被贴上病理标签<br/>(ADHD 诊断 / 不适应)"] E["展现演化或生存优势<br/>(高度敏感、多任务敏捷)"] end C -->|"置于"| A --> D C -->|"置于"| B --> E ``` - **诊断的本质**：诊断并非病理学根源，而是对特定情境下一组高频共现行为特征的命名与汇总，不同个体的症状图谱高度异质。 - **去病理化视角**：个体并不存在所谓的“损坏”，仅仅是其神经认知特质在特定的人为社会框架下被评判为“不匹配”。 - **实用主义科学态度**：Barrett 强调这不是出于政治立场的同情包容，而是纯粹从生物学与演化实用主义出发得出的客观结论。 --- ### [01:48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6481s) 语言的生理力量：我们如何用词汇共同调节彼此的神经系统 谈及人际连结，Steven 引用了一项涉及 25,000 人的医学研究：心脏病发作患者如果处于已婚状态，生存率会提升 14%。他由此引出 Barrett 曾经参与的一项核心研究——评估“语言促进与诱发情绪的力量”，探讨人类如何通过言语相互调节对方的生理机能。 Barrett 解释道，情绪是人类大脑根据外部情境对“身体内部感受”所赋予的意义构建。因此，**每一次我们使用情绪词汇，本质上都是在向对方发出一种意义构建的“邀请”。** 当 Steven 询问这是否意味着科学“证明”了特定词汇能够平复我们的神经系统时，Barrett 严谨地修正了措辞：科学家从不说“证明”，也极力避开“事实”（Fact）这个词，因为“事实”意味着在任何情境和条件下绝对成立，而科学只在特定情境下展示证据。 她通过极为平实的日常生活场景展现了语言惊人的生理杀伤力与治愈力：每个人每天都会发送无数条简讯，仅仅给伴侣或朋友发送几个简短的词语，就足以在瞬间改变对方的心率、呼吸频率，甚至直接驱动其体内各类神经递质的释放与蛋白质的合成。人类是高度社会化的动物，即便在倡导言论自由的社会中，也必须正视自由背后的生理责任——“无论你喜欢与否，我们都在时刻调节着彼此的神经系统，无论走向更好还是更坏”。 --- ### [01:52:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6746s) 身体预算视角下的压力：良性压力与慢性损耗的界限 受此启发，Steven 总结了 Barrett 先前阐述的“代谢预算”（Metabolic Budget）理论。如果将人的生命状态比作一张能量资产负债表，压力就是对这一预算的重大生理支出。当外部压力缺乏节制，机体就会严重“超支”，为了维持基本生存，大脑将不得不从其他关键系统中强制削减成本——比如直接压制免疫系统的代谢配额，从而引发连锁病变。 Barrett 对此表示赞同，但进一步澄清了大众对压力的认知误区：人类绝不可能完全脱离压力而生存，因为没有压力就意味着彻底放弃任何生理与心智上的“努力”（Effort）。在神经科学与生理学中，真正的区分在于“良性压力”与“有害/慢性压力”： - **良性压力（Planned Stress）**：指有计划、有预期的代谢投入，机体在大量支出能量后能够及时获得充分的休养与补给。 - **有害慢性压力（Pernicious / Chronic Stress）**：持续不断地单向透支代谢资源，且身体长期无法获得补给与充能，最终将整个生理预算推向崩溃破产的边缘。 ### [01:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6798s) 神经科学、上帝与无神论：复杂的大脑是否需要造物主？ 在谈及压力会议对身体代谢预算的实质消耗后，史蒂文·巴特利特将话题引向了终极问题：深入了解大脑运作的一切之后，这是否动摇或改变了巴雷特博士对宗教、上帝、灵性以及是否存在更高力量的看法？毕竟，任何站在现代科学视角的观察者凝视大脑时，都会为其巧夺天工的复杂性所震撼，许多人也因此推论出背后必然存在一位全知全能的“造物主”；加之两人整场对话始终围绕“意义”展开，史蒂文好奇这是否让她相信了某种神圣力量。巴雷特博士干脆利落地给出了否定回答：“没有。” 当被问及这让她变得更倾向于不可知论还是无神论时，巴雷特直言自己是“一位非常坚定的无神论者”。在她看来，自然界、大脑乃至整个人体神经系统的惊人复杂性，根本不需要一个预先设定的设计师来解释。由“复杂精致”直接推导至“必有造物主”，这种逻辑在科学和理性上对她而言是完全站不住脚的。 ### [01:54:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6865s) 生命的意义与真正的科学传承：留下比发现时更美好的世界 既然排除了神学意义，生命的终极意义何在？难道除了繁衍后代之外便毫无内在意义可言？巴雷特博士分享了自己近期正在二读一本探讨苏格拉底哲学的书籍。苏格拉底曾提出，追问“何为意义”至关重要，但绝不能以 15 分钟为单位狭隘地碎片化审视，而必须置于整个人生跨度中去丈量。作为一名神经科学家，巴雷特长年研究大脑如何与身体、与他人、与物理环境持续对话并塑造出千差万别的意识形态（包括典型的西方心智），这反而让她愈发重视哲学。她认为哲学与宗教试图解答的本质上是同类问题，但哲学提供了一条更为舒适、理性的探索路径。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科学家的传承与影响力流动 accDescr: 展示从科学好奇心到培育后辈实验室，再到公众科普赋能个体的传承过程。 subgraph Research["科研初衷与产出"] A["探索求知的渴望与好奇心"] --> B["顶尖科研论文与学术引用"] end subgraph Legacy["真实的生命传承"] B --> C["培育新一代学者与实验室"] C --> D["走向公众科学教育传播"] D --> E["赋能普通人获得自主掌控力"] end ``` 谈及终极的人生目的，巴雷特将其形容为“约翰尼·阿普尔西德（Johnny Appleseed）式的哲学”——让这个世界因自己的存在而比最初发现它时稍好一点点。科学家投身科研大多不是为了金钱，而是源于最纯粹的求知欲与探索欲。随着阅历增长，每个人都会思考自己的“遗产”（Legacy）。尽管史蒂文在现场朗读了她耀眼的学术履历——“情绪与神经科学领域的先驱、全球排名前 0.1% 的最高被引科学家之一”，巴雷特却对这些冷冰冰的数字指标表现得极其坦然。她坦言绝大多数学者都不会成为达尔文、威廉·詹姆斯或海森堡那样名垂青史的人物，自己真正的传承从来不是论文数量： - **真实的科研遗产**：在于亲手培养的几代年轻学者、与无数杰重心智的碰撞交流，以及那些因她的启迪而从无到有建立起来的全新实验室。 - **讲台与教育的初心**：早年在大学执教时，她给自己的底线标准是——“只要能改变课堂中哪怕一个人的生命轨迹，我的工作就算完成了”。 - **公众科学教育的意义**：走向公众、撰写科普，如果能让某位读者掌握知识、获得人生自主权（agency），从而更明智地影响自己的生活、爱人与孩子，这就实现了终极传承；这种传承最艰难的部分在于“你永远无法亲眼丈量自己带来的全部涟漪，但这本就是这场追求的一部分”。 ### [01:59:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=7172s) 前位嘉宾的提问：没有固定本质的“自我”，你只是你当下的所作所为 节目的闭幕传统是由上一位嘉宾留下一个未知受众的盲盒提问。本期的提问来自一位少林黑带武僧：“如何过一种不追求/达成任何东西的人生？”巴雷特敏锐地指出，即便遵循不执着、摒弃财富与权力的佛教徒，本身也在追求并达成“开悟”与“内心平静”。史蒂文随即协助将问题微调为更具实践意义的命题：“如何生活才能不让自己的‘身份认同’带来痛苦？” 巴雷特给出了一个极具颠覆性的神经科学解答：人类根本不存在一个脱离具体当下时刻、孤立固化的“内在本质”（Essence）。你所体验到的每一个瞬间、做出的每一项行动，都仅仅是“记忆中的过去”与“感官接收到的当下”相互交织碰撞的产物。 - **重塑自我的双重路径**： 1. **改变记忆与预测**：重构头脑对过去的解释框架，更新大脑用来指导行动的内部预测模型。 2. **改变感官当下**：直接改变物理环境（如起身去户外散步），或者通过正念调整注意力焦点。巴雷特现场举例：在此之前史蒂文根本不会注意椅子抵靠背部和双腿的物理压迫感，但只要语言一经点破，这些潜伏在背景里的感官信号立刻跃升为注意力核心。 - **行动定义存在**：“你就是你在当下所做的事（You are what you do in the moment）。”不存在一个在所有情境中一成不变的固有本质；执着于维持虚妄的固定人设，正是陷入渴求与痛苦的根源。 史蒂文对此产生了强烈共鸣。他反思大众极易坠入“我过去的履历定义了我（I am what I did）”的惯性陷阱，而“我由当下的行动所定义（I am what I do）”赋予了每个人摆脱过去羁绊、随时重新决策的自主能动性。尽管他自嘲可能“十分钟后走下楼梯又会重新跌回‘我是做了32年某事的史蒂文·巴特利特’的思维套路”，但他真诚地感谢巴雷特彻底颠覆了自己的思维认知。在充斥着短视频碎片化信息的时代，一位顶尖科学家走出象牙塔、承担起面向公众传播严谨知识的社会责任，这本身就是一份改变无数人思维方式的珍贵馈赠。 ### [02:04:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=7459s) 推荐书籍与对谈致谢 对谈接近尾声，主持人 Steven Bartlett 极力向观众推荐嘉宾 Lisa Feldman Barrett 教授的著作，并笃定地表示这些书将会改变无数人的人生轨迹。他特别推介了经典之作《情绪的秘密》（*How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain*），并表示会将购买链接附在视频下方；同时，对于希望阅读篇幅稍短、同样通俗易懂的读者，他则推荐了《关于大脑的七又二分之一堂课》（*Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain*）。在真诚热烈的致谢与相互道别声中，本次关于大脑、情绪与心智模式的深度长谈正式画上句号。 ### [02:04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=7475s) 演播室的香气细节与“1%复利”手账 访谈结束后，Steven Bartlett 向观众透露了一个团队内部的幕后小秘密。他笑着打趣道，大家听完可能会觉得他和团队有点“小怪癖”——他至今仍清晰记得团队成员 Jemima 在办公协作软件 Slack 上发了一条消息，说自己更换了这间演播室里的香氛气味，结果消息刚一发出，整个公司的同事们立刻在 Slack 频道里纷纷排队鼓掌致意。Steven 直言，外界或许会觉得不可思议，但这正是《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）一直以来所践行的理念：追求每一个 1% 的微小改进。正是这种近乎执拗的细节打磨，成就了节目如今的高品质水准。 Steven 进一步阐述，人生的真正蜕变从来不依赖于急功近利的速成或惊天动地的大动作，而是源于理解并善用“1% 的复利力量”。正是那些日复一日、看似微小却持之以恒的行动，最终会在时间发酵下彻底改写人生的结局。基于这一理念，团队在两年前便启动了一个项目，精心打造出一本精美的手账日记（The 1% Diary）。 - **日记内容与结构**：内页包含丰富的视觉图片、激发灵感与动力的名言格言，以及精心设计的互动模块。 - **设计初衷**：帮助使用者理清思绪、保持专注，并在日积月累中建立起持续践行那关键 1% 改变的自律习惯。 - **获取途径**：适合个人使用或赠予朋友、同事及团队成员，可通过 thediary.com 平台或节目简介下方的链接获取。 ### [02:05:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=7539s) 53% 未订阅者的支持呼吁与创作承诺 随后，Steven 分享了一个一直令他感到十分震惊的后台数据：在长期规律收听该节目的忠实观众中，居然有高达 53% 的人至今尚未点击订阅。面对这庞大的收听群体，他真诚地向大家发起了一项举手之劳的请求。 他恳切地表示，如果观众喜欢这档节目、认可团队的付出并希望给予支持，最简单且完全免费的方式就是随手点击一下“订阅”按钮。与此同时，Steven 也代表个人及全体团队向所有订阅者做出了郑重承诺：“只要你们动动手指订阅，我和我的团队必将倾尽全力，确保这档节目在未来的每一周都变得更加出色。”他们将持续聆听观众的每一条反馈，全力以赴邀请观众最渴望见到的各领域重磅嘉宾，不忘初心，矢志不渝地把这档对话节目做得更加深入与精彩。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=0s) 你对改变负有责任，并不是因为你是造成问题的过错方，而是因为你是唯一能够改变它的人 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [13:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=835s) 你先行动，然后才感知。你并不是先感知再做出反应，而是先预测行动，进而产生感知。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [16:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=968s) 你甚至在世界将那些信号提供给你之前，就已经开始体验到它们了。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [31:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=1887s) 人类所拥有的先天特质，天然就需要后天教养的参与。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [42:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=2561s) 在引擎盖底下，大脑的真实运作方式是：绝非你想了什么决定了你的感受，而是你准备采取什么行动，决定了你的所思、所感以及感官所体验到的世界。意义是行动的后果，进而演化为你所体会到的感受与思想。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=3246s) Sweetheart, get your butterflies flying in formation. — 空手道黑带大师 > [01:08:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=4103s) 大脑最重要的核心任务根本不是思考、不是感受、甚至不是看清外部世界，而是调控身体的内部代谢。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [01:29:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5351s) 我们是彼此神经系统的照看者（caretakers of each other's nervous systems）。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [01:29:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=5351s) 对人类神经系统最好的良药是另一个人；而对人类神经系统最坏的毒药，也是另一个人（错的人）。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [01:45:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6349s) 医学诊断只是一种临床症状的“描述”（Descriptions），绝不是原因的“解释”（Explanations）。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [01:48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=6481s) 无论你喜欢与否，我们都在时刻调节着彼此的神经系统，无论走向更好还是更坏 — Lisa Feldman Barrett > [01:59:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE&t=7172s) 你就是你在当下所做的事（You are what you do in the moment）。 — Lisa Feldman Barrett ## Mentioned Lisa Feldman Barrett, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain, How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, The 1% Diary, Shopify, Ekster, Oprah Winfrey, Sheldon Cohen, Naomi Oreskes, Why Trust Science?, The Courage to be Disliked, TikTok, Instagram, Slack, Apple ## Video description Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett is a Professor of Psychology and among the top 0.1% of most cited scientists for her revolutionary research in psychology and neuroscience. She is also the author of books such as ‘Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain’. 00:00 Intro 02:22 Lisa's Mission 04:14 Why Is It Important to Understand How the Brain Works? 10:48 Measuring Emotions 13:55 What Is the Predictive Brain? 16:08 Examples of the Brain Making Predictions 24:13 Is the Predictive Brain at the Root of Trauma? 31:27 Cultural Inheritance, Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression 36:29 How Reframing the Meaning of Past Events Can Change Identity 42:41 Meaning as a Consequence of Action 44:11 How to Overcome Fear by Taking Action 45:43 Prediction Error 47:37 Learning Through Exposure 49:47 Dangers of Social Contagion 54:06 Anxiety in the Context of Social Contagion 58:33 Is Social Media Programming Us to Be Sad? 1:02:08 Ads 1:03:03 First Step to Making Life Changes to Overcome Mental Issues 1:05:18 Chronic Pain 1:08:23 What Is Depression? 1:09:17 Body Budgeting and Body Bankruptcy 1:12:26 What Stress Does for Weight Gain 1:15:00 Depression in Adolescents 1:17:02 Is Depression a Chemical Imbalance? 1:18:30 The Story of Lisa's Daughter 1:21:09 Oral Birth Control as a Risk Factor for Depression 1:24:07 How Lisa Helped Her Daughter Out of Depression 1:29:11 Social Support 1:35:26 Lisa's Daughter's Recovery from Depression 1:39:12 Does Alcohol Impact the Body Budget and Increase Depression Risk? 1:42:45 Ads 1:44:00 Can People Change Their Emotions by Smiling? 1:45:49 Lisa's Perspective on ADHD 1:48:01 The Power of Words to Facilitate Emotion 1:52:26 Stress as a Burden to the Metabolic Budget 1:53:27 Lisa's View on God and Religion 1:54:25 What Is the Meaning of Life in Lisa's Opinion? 1:59:32 Question from the Previous Guest Follow Dr Lisa: X - https://g2ul0.app.link/JlkAHKXhCSb Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/TWOO6vZhCSb You can purchase Dr Lisa’s book, ‘Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain’, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/35oJGs4hCSb Sign up to receive email updates about Diary Of A CEO here: https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt Ready to think like a CEO? Gain access to the 100 CEOs newsletter here: https://bit.ly/100-ceos-newsletter The 1% Diary is back - and it won’t be around for long, so act fast! https://bit.ly/1-Diary-YT-ad-reads Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Independent research: https://lisafeldmanbarrett.tiiny.co Sponsors: Ekster - http://partner.ekster.com/DOAC and use code STEVEN to get an extra 10% off on top of their current Spring sale Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtvAvZtJyE)

[0:00] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 你对改变负有责任，并不是因为你是造成问题的过错方，而是因为你是唯一能够改变它的人 [13:55] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 你先行动，然后才感知。你并不是先感知再做出反应，而是先预测行动，进而产生感知。 [16:08] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 你甚至在世界将那些信号提供给你之前，就已经开始体验到它们了。 [31:27] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 人类所拥有的先天特质，天然就需要后天教养的参与。 [42:41] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 在引擎盖底下，大脑的真实运作方式是：绝非你想了什么决定了你的感受，而是你准备采取什么行动，决定了你的所思、所感以及感官所体验到的世界。意义是行动的后果，进而演化为你所体会到的感受与思想。 [54:06] 空手道黑带大师: Sweetheart, get your butterflies flying in formation. [68:23] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 大脑最重要的核心任务根本不是思考、不是感受、甚至不是看清外部世界，而是调控身体的内部代谢。 [89:11] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 我们是彼此神经系统的照看者（caretakers of each other's nervous systems）。 [89:11] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 对人类神经系统最好的良药是另一个人；而对人类神经系统最坏的毒药，也是另一个人（错的人）。 [105:49] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 医学诊断只是一种临床症状的“描述”（Descriptions），绝不是原因的“解释”（Explanations）。 [108:01] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 无论你喜欢与否，我们都在时刻调节着彼此的神经系统，无论走向更好还是更坏 [119:32] Lisa Feldman Barrett: 你就是你在当下所做的事（You are what you do in the moment）。

[49:47] Karate Sensei: Sweetheart, get your butterflies flying in formation. [63:03] Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett: She made the decision that she wanted to be helped, and then we completely changed her life. But she had to make that decision—I couldn't force her to do it. [72:26] Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett: Within two hours of eating a meal, if you encounter stress—social stress—it's as if you ate 104 more calories than you actually ate... If you add up 104 calories at every meal for a year, that's almost 11 pounds. [89:11] Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett: We are the caretakers of each other's nervous systems. [93:05] Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett: barometer of her body budget [99:12] Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett: Your predictions become sloppier and you don't take in prediction error. You don't learn... and your behaviors are not necessarily well calibrated to the situation that you're in... [105:49] Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett: Diagnoses are not explanations of anything. They're descriptions... To treat a diagnosis like it's an explanation is a form of essentializing... [119:32] Shaolin monk: How to live a life without attaining anything?

[0:00] There are these experiments where they [0:01] trained people to experience anxiety but [0:04] as determination because exactly the [0:06] same physical state could be experienced [0:09] completely different. And what they [0:10] discovered is that at first it's really [0:12] hard but you practice practice practice [0:14] and then eventually becomes really [0:15] automatic. So the first thing to [0:17] understand is that Dr. Lisa Feldman [0:19] Barrett is a worldleading [0:20] neuroscientist. Her groundbreaking [0:22] research reveals that emotions like [0:24] anxiety and trauma are built by the [0:26] brain and we have the power to control [0:28] them. The story is that you're born with [0:30] these innate emotion circuits, but [0:32] you're not born with the ability to [0:33] control them. That's false. Really, [0:35] what's happening is that your brain is [0:37] not reacting. It's predicting. And every [0:40] action you take, every emotion you have [0:42] is a combination of the remembered past, [0:45] including any trauma. And so, you don't [0:47] have a sense of agency about it because [0:49] it happens really automatically, faster [0:51] than you can blink your eyes. How does [0:53] this change how we should treat trauma? [0:56] Sometimes in life, you are responsible [0:58] for changing something. Not because [1:00] you're to blame, but because you're the [1:02] only person who can. I mean, I had a [1:04] daughter who was clinically depressed, [1:06] was getting D's in school, she wasn't [1:08] sleeping, she was miserable. At first, [1:10] she was so resistant, but then she made [1:13] the decision that she wanted to be [1:14] helped. And did she recover? Yes, she [1:16] did. So, if you want to change who you [1:18] are, what you feel, understanding these [1:21] basic operating principles is the key to [1:24] living a meaningful life. So, what is [1:26] step one to being able to make that [1:27] change? So, [1:31] this has always blown my mind a little [1:32] bit. 53% of you that listen to this show [1:35] regularly haven't yet subscribe to the [1:37] show. So, could I ask you for a favor [1:39] before we start? If you like the show [1:40] and you like what we do here and you [1:42] want to support us, the free simple way [1:43] that you can do just that is by hitting [1:45] the subscribe button. And my commitment [1:47] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [1:48] everything in my power, me and my team, [1:50] to make sure that this show is better [1:52] for you every single week. We'll listen [1:53] to your feedback. We'll find the guest [1:55] that you want me to speak to and we'll [1:57] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [2:02] much. Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, you have [2:06] a really remarkable twisting career [2:10] journey. It's almost quite difficult to [2:13] uh encapsulate in a particular mission [2:15] or a particular uh summary of the [2:17] journey you've been on and the the [2:19] twists and turns you've taken. But if if [2:22] I were to ask you now what mission [2:24] you're on with the work that you're [2:25] currently doing, are you able to [2:28] summarize [2:29] that? My goal is as a science [2:32] communicator is to try to take really [2:33] complicated science and present it in a [2:36] way that people can use. You know, maybe [2:39] they use it to entertain their friends [2:40] at a dinner party. Maybe they use it to [2:44] um help their kid who's, you know, [2:46] struggling with depression. That was [2:48] certainly in my case something that I [2:50] had to deal with. Maybe they're using it [2:52] to improve their workplace or improve [2:55] the productivity of their of their peeps [2:58] or whatever. The point being that that's [3:01] ultimately that's what science is for. [3:03] It's for, you know, living a better [3:06] life. And average everyday people [3:10] without PhDs can do that if they have [3:14] the right information. [3:16] I'm probably attempting to understand [3:20] how it is that a brain like ours that is [3:23] attached to a body like ours that is [3:26] pickled in a world like ours produces a [3:31] mind. What is it? What is happening that [3:35] allows you to have thoughts and feelings [3:39] and memories [3:41] um and and [3:44] actions and somebody from another [3:47] country, another culture also has a [3:50] mental life which looks nothing like [3:52] yours. How is it that the same kind of [3:56] brain plan with the same general kind of [3:59] body plan can produce such different [4:02] types of minds when they are when those [4:05] brains are wired in a sense finish [4:09] wiring themselves in cultural and [4:11] physical contexts that are so widely [4:13] different. [4:15] when you just talked about your pursuit [4:17] of understanding how a brain like ours [4:20] creates the mind and the reality that we [4:23] have. If I'm able to understand all of [4:25] that as many people who read your book [4:27] about the brain and emotions were able [4:29] to understand, what is it that it offers [4:31] me in my everyday life? Oh my god. It [4:33] offers you the opportunity to have more [4:35] agency in your life. And what does that [4:37] mean? It means you have more choice. It [4:39] means you have more control. It means [4:41] that you can architect your life. I [4:42] mean, you can't control everything that [4:44] happens to you. You can't control every [4:47] moment of feeling. Um, but you have more [4:50] control than you probably think you do. [4:52] Everybody has more control over what [4:55] they feel and what they do than they [4:57] think they do. That control doesn't look [5:01] the way we expect it to. It's much [5:04] harder to harness than we would like it [5:07] to be. Some people have more [5:10] opportunities for that control than [5:13] other people do, but everybody has the [5:15] opportunity to have more control. And of [5:19] course, the flip side is also more [5:20] responsibility [5:22] um for the way they live their lives. [5:25] And I think that's a really good thing. [5:28] And I think it's a really good thing now [5:30] when you know world events are swirling [5:33] around you and you feel like, you know, [5:35] you're just being buffeted around. Even [5:37] within that craziness, there is there [5:41] are opportunities [5:43] to to be more of an architect of your [5:46] own experience and your own life. I [5:50] think a lot of people find that um [5:54] optimistic and helpful. Yeah. Because [5:57] life can feel like we are a puppet and [5:59] we are just responding to what happens [6:01] around us. And if it rains outside then [6:04] we're sad. If person sends us a message, [6:06] then we're annoyed and that we're just [6:08] these sort of reactive creatures [6:10] reacting to whatever happens around us. [6:11] But you're telling me that if I have a [6:12] greater understanding of the brain and [6:14] how it works and emotions, then I can [6:16] seize back some of that control and live [6:18] a more intentional life. Yes, exactly. [6:20] And I think for me, I mean, I started [6:23] um I started my career studying the [6:27] nature of emotion, but really it became [6:29] a flashlight into understanding how a [6:32] brain works. [6:34] Why do we even have a brain? It's a very [6:37] expensive organ. That piece of meat [6:39] between your ears is the most expensive [6:42] metabolically the most expensive organ [6:44] you have. Um, so what's it good for? [6:47] What's its most basic function? How does [6:50] it work in relation to the body? I think [6:53] that certainly on your show, you've had [6:55] a number of people who talk about the [6:57] relationship between the brain and the [6:59] body in some way, but I think scientists [7:01] for a long [7:02] time forgot or ignored the fact that the [7:07] brain is attached to a body, right? [7:09] Because we don't feel all the drama like [7:11] right now in each in you, in me, in all [7:15] of our listeners, right? We all have [7:17] this like drama going on. It's really [7:20] quite intense and there's a lot of going [7:22] on and none of us are aware of it. I [7:24] hope if you are aware of it, I'm really [7:26] sorry. It probably means that something [7:28] is, you know, you're not feeling well [7:31] today. But it's a good thing that we're [7:33] not aware of what's going on inside our [7:34] own bodies most of the time because we'd [7:36] never pay attention to anything outside [7:37] our own skin again, right? But the [7:39] problem is that in science, it often [7:42] begins with starting with your own [7:43] subjective experience and then trying to [7:45] formalize that. And I mean, if you look [7:47] at any science, physics is like that, [7:49] too. You just have to go back several [7:51] hundred years or maybe a little longer [7:53] to to see it. And so, it turns out that [7:56] a lot of what you experience as [7:58] properties of the world, of the way the [8:00] world is, really is very rooted in your [8:03] brain's regulation of your body. Um, and [8:07] so I guess I'm I started with emotion, [8:11] but it really became a much larger [8:13] project to try to understand, well, what [8:16] is a brain? How is it structured? How [8:18] did it evolve? How does it work? What's [8:20] its most basic function? And where do [8:23] thoughts and feelings and actions, [8:26] perceptions, what role do they play in [8:28] that function? So, it's a bit flipping [8:31] the question, right? Most people start [8:33] with what is an emotion? What is a [8:36] thought? What is a memory? They define [8:38] it and then they go looking for its [8:40] physical basis in the brain or in the [8:43] body. That's a pretty bankrupt [8:46] perspective from I mean after a hundred [8:48] years there weren't really good answers. [8:51] So we flipped it around and we said okay [8:54] well given that we have the kind of [8:57] brain we [8:58] do what can it do? What does it do? And [9:02] in its normal functioning, how does it [9:05] produce mental events that in our [9:07] culture our thoughts and feelings and [9:09] perceptions and actions? In other [9:12] cultures, they're different [9:14] conglomerations of features. Right? So [9:16] for us, a thought and a feeling are [9:18] super distinct. We experience them as [9:21] very separate. In fact, really since the [9:24] time of Plato, we've had this kind of [9:26] narrative where, you know, the mind or [9:28] the brain is a battleground between your [9:31] thoughts and your feelings, right? In [9:34] for control of your action. If your [9:36] thoughts win, you are a rational [9:38] creature. You are a healthy creature. [9:42] You are a moral creature. If your [9:45] instincts and your emotions win, you [9:47] know, your inner beast, then you are [9:50] irresponsible. You are childish. You are [9:54] immoral. You are mentally ill. That's [9:57] the narrative that we work in. In some [9:59] cultures, thoughts and feelings are not [10:02] separate. They are [10:05] really, it's not that you have them at [10:07] the same time. It's that they are one [10:09] thing. They are features of the same [10:12] mental event. In some cultures, your [10:15] body and your mind are not separate. [10:18] There are no separate experiences for a [10:22] physical sensation versus a mental [10:24] feeling. They're really one thing. So [10:26] our minds are not the human nature. It's [10:30] just one human nature. And there are [10:31] other human natures too. And we have to [10:33] figure out [10:34] how general brain plan, a general body [10:38] plan for a neurotypical human produces [10:42] such wide variation [10:44] um depending on the cultural context in [10:47] which it grows. as it relates to [10:49] neuroscience and understanding the brain [10:51] and the way that we create reality. Was [10:53] there a Eureka moment for you where you [10:55] realize that most of us have it wrong or [10:59] that there's an underlying misconception [11:01] about the way that our brain creates our [11:03] reality? I would say yeah sure there was [11:06] a Eureka moment but it was a long slow [11:09] burn. When I was a graduate student, I [11:12] wasn't studying emotion. I was [11:15] studying the self. How do you think [11:19] about yourself? What is your self-esteem [11:21] like? How do you conceive of yourself? [11:24] Right? This is a an important topic in [11:27] psychology. And I was measuring [11:30] emotion as an outcome variable. And the [11:35] measurements weren't weren't the [11:37] measures weren't working. And I thought, [11:39] well, I need to be able to just [11:41] literally objectively measure when [11:43] someone is angry or when they're sad or [11:46] when they're happy. I don't want to have [11:48] to ask them because they could be wrong. [11:50] And in that phrasing of the question, [11:53] there's a presumption, right, that there [11:55] is an objective state called anger. That [11:58] generally most instances of anger will [12:01] look the same regardless of person and [12:03] context. And I very quickly realized [12:07] that there are no essences that [12:11] anybody's been able to discover. Right? [12:13] So recently in the last couple of years [12:16] um researchers did a metaanalysis which [12:19] is a big statistical summary of of [12:21] hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of [12:23] experiments. And what they discovered is [12:26] that and this is just in urban cultures, [12:29] right? We're not even talking about [12:31] remote cultures now. Just in urban [12:33] cultures, when someone is angry, they [12:35] people scowl about 35% of the time when [12:37] they're angry. A scowl is like a like a [12:41] scowl like a right like you know you [12:43] knit your eyebrows, you you frown, [12:46] right? So it's okay. But that means 65% [12:49] of the time when people are angry [12:51] they're doing something else that's [12:52] meaningful with their [12:54] face. And half the time when people [12:57] scowl, they're not angry. They're [12:59] feeling something else. They could be [13:02] concentrating really hard. You could [13:04] have just told them a bad joke. They [13:06] could have a bad bout of gas. You know, [13:09] a scowl is not the expression of anger. [13:13] It is an expression of anger in some [13:16] contexts and it's also an expression of [13:19] other states in other contexts. [13:22] So what this means is that you know [13:25] there's no really strongly reliable [13:29] expression for anger that is specific to [13:31] anger. And the same is true for every [13:34] other emotion that's ever been studied. [13:37] It's really clear that you're in anger [13:39] or sadness or pick an emotion. You know [13:41] your heart rate can go up, it can go [13:42] down. It can stay the same. Your blood [13:44] pressure can go up. It can go down. It [13:46] can stay the same. the physiology that [13:49] is occurring in your body is related to [13:51] the your your brain's preparation for [13:54] particular behaviors. So let's start [13:56] with that then. So the the predictive [13:58] brain is this idea that I only pretty [14:00] much know from you. I'd never heard it [14:02] before. When we say the predictive [14:04] brain, what does that mean and what does [14:06] it not mean? So when you are living your [14:11] everyday life? Yeah. Like right now? [14:14] Like right now. So, right now, I'm [14:16] guessing that I'm saying things to you [14:19] and um you're perceiving what I'm saying [14:22] and then you're reacting to it. That's [14:24] how it feels to you, right? Yes. Okay. [14:26] And that's how it feels to me, too. So, [14:28] we sense and then we react. That's the [14:32] way most people experience themselves in [14:35] the world. That's not actually what's [14:38] happening under the hood. Really what's [14:40] happening is that the brain, your brain [14:43] is not reacting, it's [14:46] predicting. And what that means is if we [14:50] were to stop time right now, just freeze [14:52] time, your brain would be in a state and [14:56] it would be [14:59] remembering past experiences that are [15:03] similar to this state as a way of [15:07] predicting what to do next. Like [15:10] literally in the next moment, should [15:12] your eyes move? Should your heart rate [15:15] go up? Should your breathing change? [15:18] Should your blood vessels dilate or [15:20] should they constrict? Should you [15:22] prepare to stand? Right? Movements. And [15:26] these movements, the preparation for [15:28] movement, literal copies of those [15:32] signals become predictions for what you [15:35] will see and hear and smell and taste [15:39] and think and feel. [15:43] So under the hood, your brain is [15:45] predicting what movements it should [15:48] engage in next and as a consequence what [15:51] you will experience because of those [15:54] movements. So you act first and then you [15:59] sense. You don't sense and then react. [16:02] You predict action and then you sense. [16:08] So give me a example which brings this [16:10] to light of how my brain is predicting [16:14] and then taking action. Okay. So right [16:17] now you and I are having a [16:19] conversation and I'm speaking and you're [16:22] listening [16:24] and you're what what what's really [16:27] happening in your brain is that based [16:31] on many gazillion [16:36] repetitions of listening to [16:39] language. Your brain is predicting, [16:42] literally predicting every single word [16:45] that will come out of my [16:50] Yeah. Okay. And how surprising would it [16:54] have been if I didn't say mouth, I said [16:57] some other orifice of my body that words [17:00] were coming out of. That would have been [17:01] pretty [17:02] surprising because your brain is [17:04] predicting [17:05] that. your brain is always predicting [17:09] and it's correcting those predictions [17:11] when they're [17:13] incorrect. And you know, I I have this [17:16] um video that I often show when I'm [17:18] giving a talk to scientists or to [17:21] civilians, giving a talk and I I it [17:26] creates a situation where they can [17:29] predict something and they can they can [17:32] feel that a prediction is not just this [17:34] abstract kind of thought. It's your [17:37] brain is is literally changing the [17:40] firing of its own sensory neurons to [17:44] anticipate incoming sensation. So you [17:47] start to feel these sensations before [17:50] the signals actually arrive for you to [17:53] perceive them. You start to have the [17:55] experience before the world gives you [17:57] those signals. I read I think it was in [18:00] your book but it might have been [18:01] elsewhere about the example of being [18:03] thirsty. [18:04] Yes. So, um, when you, um, drink, so say [18:09] you're super thirsty and you drink a big [18:13] glass of water, when do you stop being [18:15] thirsty? Almost [18:17] immediately. But actually, it takes 20 [18:19] minutes for that water to be absorbed [18:22] into your bloodstream and make its way [18:24] to the brain to tell the brain that you [18:28] are no longer in need of fluid. Because [18:32] across millions of opportunities, you [18:35] have learned that certain movements now [18:39] and certain um sensory signals now will [18:43] result in that mental state. Or here's [18:47] another [18:48] example. So right now, keep your eyes on [18:51] me. You're looking right at me. And in [18:52] your mind's eye, I want you to imagine [18:55] um a Macintosh apple. Like a not a [18:59] computer, but like an actual piece of [19:01] fruit. Okay. Can you do it? Yeah. Can [19:04] you see it? Yeah. Um what color is it? [19:07] Green. Okay. Does it have any red? No. [19:10] Okay. So, it's a Granny Smith apple. [19:13] Yeah. Okay. What does it taste like? [19:15] Like, imagine imagine grabbing it. Yeah. [19:19] biting into it, hearing the crunch of [19:21] the apple. What does it taste like? It's [19:24] like sweet. Like a little tart, maybe. [19:27] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is it juicy? It's very [19:29] juicy. Yeah. Okay. So, if I were imaging [19:32] your brain right now, what I would see [19:34] is I would see changes in the signal [19:37] that is um related to neural activity in [19:40] your visual cortex even though there is [19:42] no apple in front of you. And I would [19:45] see a change in activity in your um [19:48] auditory cortex even though you didn't [19:51] really hear the crunch. My mouth is [19:53] watering as well. And your mouth is [19:54] watering. And in fact, every time you [19:57] sit down for a meal, your um brain [19:59] directs your saliva glands to produce [20:03] more saliva to prepare you to eat and um [20:07] digest the food. So that usually happens [20:11] in advance of even sitting down to a [20:14] meal. That is all prediction. That's all [20:17] of that is your brain preparing itself [20:20] for what's coming. Um because predicting [20:24] and correcting is a much more efficient [20:26] way to run a nervous system, really any [20:29] system, than reacting to the world. [20:32] Here's another example. Do you drink [20:34] coffee? Yes. Okay. Do you drink coffee [20:36] every day at the same time? Usually. [20:39] Yeah. Okay. And are you one of these [20:41] people that if you miss having coffee at [20:44] that time, you get a headache? I mean, [20:46] it's happened before. Yes. Well, I used [20:49] to be a person who drank a lot of [20:52] coffee. And um and I love coffee, but I [20:55] don't drink it anymore. But I loved it. [20:56] And I drank it always at the same time [20:58] every day. And if I didn't drink it, I [21:02] would get a at that time of day, I would [21:04] get a massive [21:05] headache. And the reason why, and this [21:08] is true really of every medicine you [21:10] take, every everything which anything [21:12] which affects your physiology, if you do [21:14] it on a regular basis, your brain will [21:16] come to expect it. And what that means, [21:19] come to expect it, is that coffee has [21:23] chemicals in it that will constrict your [21:26] blood vessels um everywhere. But in the [21:30] brain, the brain is attempting to keep [21:33] its to keep the blood flow pretty [21:37] constant and even. And so if every day [21:40] at 8:00 in the morning, you're drinking [21:44] something that's going to constrict your [21:45] blood vessels, then at 7:55 [21:48] approximately, I don't know the exact [21:50] timing, but a little bit before uh you [21:52] know, 8, your brain will dilate the [21:55] blood vessels in preparation for that [21:58] constriction. So they remain constant [22:01] and if you don't drink that substance [22:03] then you have this big dilation and you [22:06] get a very very bad headache. [22:09] I was just wondering then about as you [22:11] were talking I thought you were going to [22:12] talk about how sometimes when I set an [22:15] alarm I seem to wake up like 5 minutes [22:16] before the alarm. Yeah, sure. That's an [22:18] example. Here's another example. [22:20] Exercise. Okay. If you wanna if you want [22:24] to play tennis better, if you want to [22:26] run a a faster mile, what do you do? [22:30] Train. Train. And you do the same thing [22:32] over and over and over and over again. [22:34] And you get better and faster and you [22:36] burn fewer calories. You get more [22:38] efficient. Why? Because your brain is [22:40] predicting really well. That's what [22:43] muscle memory is. It's not literally a [22:45] memory in your muscles. It's a memory in [22:47] your brain. Your brain is controlling [22:49] your muscles. And so if you practice the [22:53] same set of movements over and over and [22:56] over again, you just get really [22:57] efficient at them because your brain is [22:59] able to predict better. Now, if you're [23:02] somebody who's exercising because you [23:04] want to become healthier or you want to [23:06] lose weight or you right, you don't want [23:09] to practice the same exercise over and [23:12] over and over again because you will be [23:14] burning fewer calories because you're [23:17] being efficient. That's the goal, right? [23:19] So instead, you do interval training, [23:22] right? If somebody's calling out to you [23:24] every 30 seconds a different set of [23:26] movements and you can't predict what [23:28] they are, then your your brain will make [23:31] a prediction. It'll be wrong. You'll [23:33] have to adjust and so you end up burning [23:36] more calories and you end up throwing [23:38] yourself out of balance um which we call [23:41] alostasis. So you become disregulated [23:43] and then you your brain has to work to [23:45] get itself back in again. And so that's [23:47] a different kind of workout. These two [23:50] different kinds of workouts are [23:51] completely predicated on the fact that [23:54] sometimes you want to be able to predict [23:56] better. Sometimes you want to be able to [23:58] disrupt yourself and get back into the [24:00] pocket quickly. Right? So basically [24:04] you're learning how to um take in [24:08] prediction error things signals you [24:10] didn't predict and adjust to them. [24:13] What does this say about the nature of [24:16] trauma and other mental health illnesses [24:19] like depression, anxiety, etc. Because [24:22] is this a misfiring of my predictions? I [24:25] say this because predictions reliant on [24:27] something happening in the past and [24:29] forming a pattern like a pattern [24:30] recognition system. So if I grew up and [24:32] there were certain patterns that are now [24:36] not the case, so if I grew up and every [24:38] time a man walked into the room, he hit [24:39] me. And now when a man walks into the [24:41] room and I'm 35 years old, I'm getting [24:43] that same sort of prediction in my [24:45] brain. So I've got a fear of men, for [24:47] example. Is this does this somewhat [24:49] explain childhood trauma and why it's so [24:52] hard to shake and why as adults we can [24:54] sometimes have dysfunctional lives? [24:58] I would say as a general principle, yes. [25:02] Um there are a lot of you know the devil [25:05] is in the details, right? But yeah, [25:07] sure. Um, so trauma is not something [25:10] that happens in the world to [25:13] you. Everything you experience is a [25:16] combination of the remembered past and [25:17] the sensory present. So there could be [25:20] an adverse event that occurs. You're in [25:22] an earthquake. Someone dies who's close [25:25] to you. Something bad happens to you. [25:28] Someone hurts you in some way. Um, there [25:31] could be an adverse event that is not [25:34] traumatic to you because you're not [25:38] you're not using past experiences to [25:40] make sense of it as a [25:43] trauma. On the other hand, something [25:46] that is could be like an everyday [25:49] experience to somebody else to [25:52] you, it links to a a set of memories [25:57] that are very traumatic. We're very [25:59] traumatic. those events were very [26:00] traumatic. Um, and so to you it is a [26:03] trauma. So trauma is not an objective [26:06] thing in the world. It's also not all in [26:08] your head. It's a rel trauma is a [26:11] property of the relation between what [26:13] has happened to you in the past and what [26:15] is occurring in the present. So here's [26:17] an example. There is an anthropologist [26:20] who works at Emory University and she [26:23] studies um people um in in a lot of [26:27] different cultures and she studies [26:28] trauma in a lot of different cultures. [26:30] And there was this one girl that she she [26:33] wrote about, a case study of a girl [26:35] named Maria um who was a young [26:38] adolescent [26:39] girl and she lived in a culture where it [26:44] was more normative for men [26:48] to [26:50] physically be very physical with women [26:54] and and girls. [26:56] So in our culture, we would we would say [26:59] it's physical abuse, but in her culture, [27:03] this is just what men did. She didn't [27:06] exper would slap her around and she [27:10] didn't like it, but she didn't show any [27:12] sign of trauma. The way she made sense [27:15] of it was that men are just It [27:18] was very much a this is not about me, [27:21] this is about them. It's not pleasant. [27:25] But she slept okay. Her grades were okay [27:28] in school. She had friends. She didn't [27:31] have any signs of trauma at [27:34] all. Then she watched [27:37] Oprah and she heard all of these women [27:40] talk about having been the subject of [27:45] physical abuse from their boyfriends or [27:49] their fathers or, you know, their [27:51] husbands. [27:53] And [27:54] she recognized the similarity in the [28:00] physical circumstances of these women's [28:03] descriptions and and her physical [28:05] circumstances. And she also observed [28:09] them [28:10] experiencing traum traum like you know [28:13] symptoms of trauma. And all of a sudden [28:16] she started to um have difficulty [28:20] sleeping and she her grades dropped and [28:23] she had trouble concentrating and she [28:26] became socially withdrawn. [28:29] her way of making [28:31] meaning, her way of, if you think about [28:36] physical movements as actions, she made [28:40] different meaning of those actions and [28:43] she experienced [28:45] trauma where she didn't before. Now, if [28:49] you're somebody who believes that there [28:50] is an objective world out there where, [28:54] you know, cause and effect, Yeah. that [28:57] that really there was some kind of [28:58] latent trauma in her and she didn't [29:01] experience it before but then it was [29:03] like triggered and then she be you could [29:06] tell a whole story like that and people [29:08] do tell whole stories like that but [29:10] that's not what the best scientific [29:12] evidence suggests is happening. What's [29:14] happening is that the [29:17] physical movements were the same. The [29:21] psychological experience of those [29:23] movements was different because [29:26] experience is a combination of the [29:30] sensory present, the physical present [29:32] and the remembered past. And the you [29:37] need both in order to have a particular [29:40] kind of experience. So the way to [29:42] describe what happened to Maria's [29:44] trajectory was that she experienced [29:48] something as an [29:50] unfortunate aspect of like physical life [29:55] and then it became about her. It became [29:59] something not not this person was doing [30:01] something bad but this person was doing [30:04] something bad to her because of who she [30:07] is. And she was also shown how she [30:09] should be responding to that by watching [30:11] Oprah's show and watching these other [30:12] individuals responding in a certain way. [30:14] Right? So it became about her as a [30:18] person, not just about, you know, her [30:20] stepfather was an And if you [30:23] think about it, what we do in this [30:25] culture when when people go into therapy [30:27] for trauma, right, is we're attempting [30:29] to to actually reverse the narrative. [30:33] So, we try to teach people that it's not [30:36] when something traumatic happens to [30:38] them. It's, and I want to be really [30:41] clear what I'm saying, right? I'm not [30:43] saying that when people experience [30:45] trauma, it's their fault. I'm not in any [30:48] way saying they're culpable for what's [30:51] happened to them. But sometimes in [30:55] life, you are responsible for changing [30:58] something, not because you're to blame, [31:02] but because you're the only person who [31:05] can. The responsibility falls to [31:08] you. And so in this culture, we try to [31:12] teach people who've experienced trauma [31:15] that they can experience those physical [31:17] events that happened to them in the past [31:19] in some other way. [31:22] And when they do, they no longer feel [31:25] traumatized anymore. My mind's a little [31:28] bit blown for a number of different [31:30] reasons because it's a real paradigm [31:32] shift to think that we are giving [31:34] meaning to the thing that happened in [31:35] our past and sometimes that meaning is [31:37] coming from watching other people give [31:38] it meaning and we're inheriting that [31:40] meaning that oh yes, that's called [31:42] cultural inheritance. It's like a [31:44] cultural it's like a contagion. [31:47] So it turns out that you know there's [31:50] there's one kind of old evolutionary [31:52] theory right this is called the modern [31:55] synthesis where inheritance is really [31:58] your genes you inherit in you whatever [32:00] you inherit you inherit by your genes [32:02] and then natural selection you know [32:05] chooses some gene patterns and not [32:08] others and and that's really how [32:10] inheritance works across [32:13] generations. Most evolutionary [32:15] biologists don't don't hold to that view [32:18] anymore because for the most part there [32:21] are many many ways to inherit things and [32:23] a lot of what we think of as inheritance [32:25] is really more what's called epigenetic [32:29] meaning it doesn't really involve DNA [32:31] very much and I would say the way I like [32:34] to say it is that we have the kinds of [32:37] nature that requires a nurture we have [32:39] the kind of genes that require [32:42] experience [32:43] before anything is wired into our [32:45] brains. And most of our characteristics [32:48] work that way. Very few characteristics [32:51] work just by genes alone. What always [32:54] happens in a neurotypical uh brain is [32:57] that you're born with your brain [32:59] incomplete. Right? An adult brain has [33:03] has this we we say that it's wired to [33:06] its world. That world includes its own [33:08] your own body. Um, but a baby um is not [33:12] a baby's brain is not a miniature adult [33:14] brain. It's a brain that's waiting for [33:16] wiring instructions from the world and [33:19] from its own body. So your brain is [33:22] wired for you to see out of eyes that [33:25] are the exact distance of your eyes from [33:28] each other. If somehow, you know, [33:31] magically we could transplant your brain [33:32] into somebody else's skull, you would [33:35] not be able to see out of that skull. [33:37] You would not be able to see out of [33:38] those eyes because they're not in the [33:40] right place. You hear with ears. You [33:45] your ability to hear comes from signals [33:48] that are shaped by the shape of your [33:51] ear. So your brain is wired to hear out [33:54] of these ears. Not any ears, these ears. [33:58] Similarly, you as a baby, you are taught [34:02] the meanings of physical signals. You're [34:05] taught how to make sense of these [34:07] things. That's called cultural [34:09] inheritance. Many things that we think [34:12] of as hardwired into the brain are [34:15] actually culturally inherited across [34:18] generations. That's how people survive [34:21] in a [34:22] particular environment. You know, so [34:25] like in the 1800s and 1900s when [34:28] explorers would go off and they would go [34:30] off to Antarctica or here or there and [34:32] they would very quickly die. The Inuit [34:35] live there, they live perfectly fine. [34:36] How? Well, because they had culturally [34:38] inherited knowledge. We're [34:41] always transmitting [34:45] um knowledge to each [34:47] other and that knowledge becomes fodder [34:52] for our own predictions. So your [34:54] predictions don't just come from your [34:57] personal experience. They also come from [34:59] you watching television, you talking to [35:02] guests, you reading books, watching [35:05] movies. Um also your brain like most um [35:10] human brains can do something really [35:12] fantastic which is you can take bits and [35:15] pieces of past experience and put them [35:18] together in a brand new way so that you [35:21] can use the past to experience something [35:25] new that you've never experienced [35:26] before. [35:28] You talked a second ago about therapists [35:30] try and make you think about the past [35:32] differently, but I do think there's an [35:35] underlying belief in our culture and [35:36] society and on social media that if [35:40] something happened to you, almost like [35:41] this Freudian approach of if this [35:42] happens to you, this is who you become. [35:45] And I was reading that book, The Courage [35:47] to be Disliked over Christmas. And it [35:48] kind [35:49] of it changed my view on this quite [35:53] profoundly and in an important way [35:54] because it helped me to understand. And [35:56] I think it basically says that what [35:58] happens to us doesn't create who we are. [36:00] We use what happened to us and we apply [36:02] meaning to it which then determines the [36:04] behavior we have. And really [36:06] interestingly in that it means that many [36:07] of the beliefs I have about myself, who [36:09] I say I am, my identity and therefore [36:11] like the ways that I behave every day, [36:13] whether they're productive or [36:15] unproductive are actually [36:17] just choices I've made to apply meaning [36:20] to the past. Does that make sense? It's [36:24] completely makes sense. And this is [36:26] really this is such like a profound I [36:28] don't know if the whoever's listening [36:29] now understands what I'm saying here but [36:32] we said at the start of this [36:33] conversation you go through life [36:34] thinking you're a puppet and you're [36:35] being controlled by what happened to you [36:37] who you are your identity but actually [36:39] your identity is just this this [36:42] construction [36:44] of meaning that you've given to the past [36:47] so to serve your purpose now as it says [36:49] in the book. Yes, I would say it [36:51] slightly differently, but the message is [36:53] the same. I think [36:56] um there are in the sensory present, [37:00] right? There are sightes, there are [37:02] sounds, there are smells, some stuff's [37:04] going on inside your own body, right? [37:07] And these signals are are going to your [37:10] brain. They have no inherent [37:12] psychological meaning. They have no [37:14] inherent emotional meaning. They have no [37:16] inherent mental meaning. [37:18] What gives them [37:20] meaning is the are your memories from [37:24] the past. You are creating you are a [37:27] meaning [37:28] maker. Meaning isn't a set of features [37:32] like a dictionary definition. So meaning [37:35] the meaning of this cup isn't that it [37:38] it's made of metal and that I mean we [37:41] certainly can talk about those features, [37:42] but the meaning of this cup in this [37:45] moment is what I do with it. So it could [37:48] be a vessel for drinking. It could be a [37:50] weapon. It could be, you know, a flower [37:53] holder. It could be uh a measuring cup. [37:57] It the meaning of the vessel is what I [38:02] do with it in the moment. That's its [38:05] meaning. And so the meaning of the [38:09] vessel isn't in the [38:11] vessel. And it's also not only in my [38:14] head. The meaning is the transaction. [38:18] It's the relationship between this the [38:21] features of this vessel, this object and [38:25] the signals in my brain which are [38:28] creating my actions. In fact, even the [38:30] fact that this is a solid [38:34] object, the property of [38:36] solidity is not in the object. It's [38:39] because I have a body of a certain type [38:43] with certain features that makes me [38:47] experience this as solid. The solidity [38:49] isn't in me and it's not in the object. [38:52] It's in the relationship between the [38:54] two. That means everything everything [38:58] you experience is partly of your own [39:02] making. You don't have a sense of agency [39:04] about it because it happens really [39:06] automatically. It's happening [39:08] automatically now as we're talking. It's [39:11] happening faster than you can blink your [39:13] eyes, [39:15] but it's still happening. And that means [39:19] if you are partly even if you even [39:22] though you don't have a sense of [39:24] agency you are [39:28] partly in [39:30] control and also therefore responsible [39:34] for the meaning that is being [39:38] made. And when I said at the outset of [39:40] our conversation that my goal was to try [39:43] to, you know, as a science communicator [39:45] was to try to explain to people [39:49] that they have more control over their [39:52] lives. They have more control over who [39:55] they are in any given moment than they [39:58] think they do to give them more agency [40:01] in their lives. This is this is exactly [40:04] what I mean. [40:07] You you don't have an enduring [40:10] identity. You are who you are in the [40:13] moment of your [40:15] action. And actions are a combination of [40:18] the remembered past, so stuff your brain [40:21] is using to [40:22] predict that's how it's that your [40:24] brain's assembling super [40:27] automatically and the sensory present. [40:30] Right? So if you want to change who you [40:32] are, you want to change what you feel, [40:35] you want to change what your impact is [40:36] on someone [40:38] else, you have a couple of choices. You [40:42] can try to go back into the past and [40:45] change the meaning of what's happened [40:47] before so that you'll remember [40:50] differently. You'll predict differently [40:51] in the future. That's what psychotherapy [40:53] is. That's what you know, heartfelt [40:56] conversations at two o'clock in the [40:58] morning or with your friends or [40:59] whatever. That's really hard [41:02] Doesn't doesn't always work so well. The [41:05] other thing that you can do though is if [41:07] you realize that whatever you experience [41:10] now becomes the seeds for predictions [41:13] later, then you can invest in creating [41:18] new experiences quite deliberately for [41:20] yourself. Now you can expose yourself to [41:23] new ideas. You can expose yourself to [41:26] people who are different than you. You [41:28] can practice cultivating particular [41:30] experiences like you would practice any [41:33] skill. And that [41:35] will any [41:38] new concepts you learn, new experiences [41:41] you have in the moment, if you practice [41:44] them, they become automatic predictions [41:47] in the future. So let me take that and [41:50] try and apply it to this example of this [41:52] silver cup in my hand. So psychotherapy [41:56] would try and go back into the past and [41:59] explain to me why this actually isn't [42:01] something I should drink out of and that [42:03] it could be other things. Whereas what [42:05] you're saying is another approach is if [42:07] I go and get some flowers right now and [42:09] I put them in there, I'm creating a new [42:11] prediction for the future because I've [42:13] created a new pattern in the present of [42:14] this actually being a vase for flowers. [42:18] And I can start to create a new pattern [42:19] that silver cups like this one aren't [42:22] just for drinking out of. They are also [42:24] vasees for flowers. Exactly. Okay. So, I [42:27] can either go back in the past and try [42:28] and convince myself that the cup isn't a [42:30] cup. Or I can in the present moment [42:32] create a new pattern which will mean [42:35] that in the future my brain will predict [42:36] next time it sees a silver cup. It won't [42:38] just think drink out of it Steve. It [42:39] will think pop some flowers in it. [42:40] Right? And remember it's it's actually [42:43] the thinking comes after the action. [42:45] Right? So what will happen is the next [42:48] time that you are approaching a table [42:49] where a silver cup might be your brain [42:51] will already be starting to prepare the [42:54] actions to go get the flowers and then [42:56] you will think oh right I can use this [42:59] as a oh look there's a great vase right [43:02] so in your brain it's action your first [43:05] your brain is controlling it's [43:08] preparing the actions of the visca what [43:11] we call visceral motor so does your [43:13] heart rate need to change do your blood [43:15] vessels muscles need to dilate? Do you [43:16] need to breathe differently? It's [43:18] basically anticipating the needs of the [43:20] body and attempting to meet those needs [43:22] before they arise. That supports your [43:25] physical movements, right? So, if you're [43:27] going to if you're walking over [43:29] somewhere to pick up some flowers and [43:32] cut the stems and whatever that those [43:34] are all physical movements that require [43:35] glucose and oxygen and like so all [43:38] of that has to get prepared in advance, [43:40] milliseconds before the actions start to [43:43] be prepared. So it's not what you think [43:45] determines what you feel. It's what you [43:48] prepare to [43:49] do determines your thoughts and your [43:52] feelings and the sights and sounds and [43:54] smells and sensations. That's how it [43:56] really works under the hood. So meaning [43:59] is in terms of what you [44:02] do and then as a consequence of that it [44:06] meaning is a a consequence it becomes [44:08] what you feel and what you think and so [44:10] on. So let me give you some specific [44:12] examples then. So if I'm scared of [44:14] spiders, how would I go about overcoming [44:18] that fear of spiders using route number [44:21] two that you described there? [44:24] So one of the ways that you change to [44:27] change predictions, you can't just will [44:29] yourself to change a prediction. I am [44:31] really afraid of [44:33] bees. I I had a traumatic experience [44:37] when I was five. I'm afraid of bees. I [44:40] know a lot about bees. I'm actually a [44:43] gardener and I I and I know a lot about [44:47] the evolutionary biology of bees. But [44:50] when I am outside, if a bee comes [44:53] around, my first reaction is to either [44:55] run or to freeze. Right? I'm afraid of [44:59] bees. I could talk to myself until the [45:02] cows come home. It won't matter. I [45:04] can't. Right? So, what I have to do is [45:06] dose myself with prediction error. [45:09] Meaning I have to interact with bees in [45:13] a way that changes my [45:16] actions which will change my lived [45:19] experience. And I can't just do it all [45:21] at once. It's not like a good idea would [45:24] not be for me to say would not have been [45:26] for me to um go to like um somebody who [45:29] has beehives and you know put on a suit [45:32] and go work. I mean that would be like [45:34] overwhelming, right? So [45:36] instead, maybe I don't [45:39] run. Maybe I stand and watch. Maybe I [45:43] get closer to a bee. Maybe I plant [45:47] bushes and flowers that bees like a lot [45:50] to bring bees to me so that I can sit [45:54] and just be around them while they're [45:56] buzzing and doing their thing. Maybe I [45:59] deliberately let myself get [46:01] stung at some point, which I did. But [46:05] you know you're dosing yourself with [46:08] your brain is making a set of [46:09] predictions. Those [46:11] predictions there are a set of [46:14] predictions. That means your brain isn't [46:16] preparing one action. It's preparing [46:18] multiple actions. So you need to prove [46:21] to your brain that those predictions [46:24] are wrong. Yes. So exactly you need you [46:28] are setting up circumstances so you can [46:30] prove to yourself that your predictions [46:32] are wrong. If you're predicting well you [46:35] have a few action plans. If you're [46:38] predicting [46:39] poorly let's say overgeneralizing maybe [46:42] you have a hundred plans. It's like if [46:43] there's tremendous uncertainty your [46:45] brain doesn't know which action plan to [46:48] so there might be many of them right [46:51] sensory signals are coming into your [46:54] brain from the sensory surfaces of your [46:56] body from your retinas from your cookia [46:58] you've got sensory surfaces on your skin [47:01] inside your body in your muscle cells [47:03] all these signals coming to your brain [47:04] they help [47:06] select which prediction signal will be [47:10] completed as action [47:13] and lived [47:15] experience. Okay. So let's say you put [47:19] yourself deliberately in in a situation [47:21] where the incoming signals will [47:25] not select any prediction because [47:28] there's too much unpredicted signal [47:31] there. It's error. There's another name [47:33] in psychology for taking in prediction [47:36] error. Exposure therapy learning. Oh [47:41] okay. Yeah. Exposure therapy which is a [47:43] kind of learning. All learning all [47:46] learning is you taking in prediction [47:50] sign prediction error signals you didn't [47:53] predict or there's no signal that you [47:56] did predict. You predicted a signal it's [47:58] not there. So what you do is you set up [48:01] situations for yourself that you will [48:05] take in signals that are novel. Right? [48:09] And this seems like an easy thing to [48:12] do. We people actually sometimes seek [48:16] novelty. All right. But too much [48:20] novelty, it it is not necessarily a good [48:23] thing all the time. Particularly if you [48:27] know you're [48:29] metabolically it's expensive [48:30] metabolically to take in prediction [48:32] error and learn something new. Like the [48:34] biggest costs that your brain expends [48:37] energy on are moving your body, learning [48:41] something new, and dealing with [48:43] persistent [48:44] uncertainty. Those are really expensive [48:47] things for us. So, if you're [48:49] metabolically encumbered in some way, [48:52] say you're depressed or you have anxiety [48:55] disorder or maybe you have heart disease [48:58] or diabetes or you're living under [49:01] chronic stress, you don't have the [49:03] spoons necessarily to take in prediction [49:06] error. You're just going to go with your [49:08] predictions. You aren't going to learn. [49:09] You aren't going to be able to update [49:11] those predictions. You're going to be [49:13] stuck. You're going to be stuck in your [49:16] head, right? [49:18] every experience, every action a [49:20] combination of the remembered present, [49:22] the remembered past, the predictions and [49:24] the sensory present. But the sensory [49:27] present is there just to select which [49:31] remembered past you're going to act [49:34] on. And [49:36] sometimes under in moments of great [49:40] metabolic [49:41] load, the brain just goes with its own [49:44] predictions and ignores what's out there [49:46] in the world. I was thinking earlier on [49:48] as you were speaking about this sort of [49:51] social contagion where we can apply [49:54] meaning to our lives and what happened [49:56] to us and then consequently make [49:59] ourselves sad because we see how other [50:01] people on Tik Tok or Instagram are [50:03] feeling. And it made me think that you [50:06] must you must think the world is crazy [50:08] to some degree. You must see social [50:10] contagion in the world where suddenly [50:12] everybody becomes traumatized because [50:14] trauma's become almost popular, you [50:16] know, to think about what happened to [50:18] you and create meaning to it and then [50:19] suffer that meaning. But there's other [50:21] types of social contagion where which [50:24] are spreading through society. I mean, [50:26] young people are getting more and more [50:27] anxious. They're getting more and more [50:28] depressed. We're self diagnosing [50:30] ourselves with different illnesses and [50:32] different things. [50:34] But now you've explained to me how the [50:36] brain works, I'm thinking, gosh, as a [50:38] society, we are bonkers. [50:41] Well, well, we're living out lies. Yeah. [50:44] I think I guess the way I I I do I do [50:48] find it frustrating at times, but but [50:50] but only because I think we are meaning [50:54] makers as an animals are meaning maker. [50:57] We create meaning. We create meaning by [50:59] virtue of living like by virtue of [51:02] interacting with with things in the [51:04] world by interacting with each [51:06] other. Very few meanings are [51:10] given that that is that they exist [51:12] independently of us. And so what I find [51:16] frustrating is that there's a lot of [51:19] suffering [51:22] and understanding these basic operating [51:27] principles of the brain will not remove [51:31] all [51:32] suffering but it it could ameliate it [51:35] could remove some. And people don't [51:38] understand that they are [51:46] sometimes making their suffering worse [51:49] than it has to be. You pulled on the [51:51] word responsible. Well, I want to be [51:54] really clear that again I'm not saying [51:57] people are are to blame. Culpability and [52:00] responsibility are not the same thing. [52:03] Culpability is blame. Are you blamew [52:05] worthy? Right? You can nobody I'm not [52:10] saying people are to blame for their own [52:11] suffering. I'm saying that people can be [52:15] more responsible in by taking more [52:18] responsibility they could reduce their [52:21] suffering some. That's not the same [52:23] thing as saying you know that they that [52:26] it's their cause their cause to begin [52:27] with. So I'll give you an example. [52:29] Social contagion. Contagion is an [52:32] interesting word. It means that you are [52:34] infected by [52:35] something even a virus. There are these [52:39] experiments that were done 15 20 years [52:41] ago where um these are done by Sheldon [52:44] Cohen who is a psychoimmunologist which [52:47] means he's a psychologist and he studies [52:48] how immunology [52:51] um that is your immune system is related [52:53] to your psychological state. And so what [52:56] he did across a number of experiments is [52:58] he took people and he sequestered them [53:00] in hotel [53:02] rooms. And then he took the same dosage, [53:07] the same concentration of virus and he [53:10] put it in every person's nose. And then [53:13] he controlled how much they slept, how [53:15] much they ate. He measured their [53:17] symptoms. He like weighed their tissues [53:20] after they blew their nose. I mean like [53:22] he did right just really really really [53:24] really careful metrics and across these [53:27] experiments somewhere between 20 to 40% [53:30] of [53:31] people became symptomatic with [53:33] respiratory [53:35] disease. That means the virus is [53:40] necessary but it is not sufficient to [53:43] cause illness. Another necessary but not [53:47] sufficient cause is the state of each [53:49] person's immune system. That is your [53:53] brain and your immune system have to be [53:55] in a particular state in order for you [53:58] to be infected by a virus in these [54:01] experiments. So the point that I'm [54:03] making here is exactly the same about [54:05] suffering. Al so let's take anxiety for [54:09] example. [54:10] You know, we in a as this in a culture, [54:15] we automatically make meaning of certain [54:19] types of signal patterns as anxiety. [54:21] When there's a lot of uncertainty, [54:23] um there's an increase in in [54:25] norepinephrine and some chemicals in the [54:27] brain. Um that often goes with an [54:30] increase in um heart rate and so on. And [54:34] we automatically make meaning of this [54:37] physical state as anxiety. [54:40] But exactly the same physical [54:42] state could be [54:44] determination. It could be just pure [54:47] uncertainty. Again, meaning making is [54:50] about action. Right? So when you are un [54:53] when you are experiencing high arousal, [54:56] even if it's super unpleasant as as [54:59] determination, you do something [55:01] different than if you experience it as [55:04] anxiety or uncertainty. So here is an [55:07] example. There are people who experience [55:10] test anxiety. Really serious test [55:13] anxiety prevents people from finishing [55:16] courses or graduating from college. [55:19] People who graduate from college have a [55:22] lifetime trajectory of earning that is [55:24] hundreds of thousands of dollars more [55:26] often than somebody who drops out of [55:29] college. So test anxiety over the long [55:32] run, it's more than just a bit of [55:34] discomfort. you know it has serious [55:36] implications for o your earning [55:38] potential across your life. There are [55:41] these experiments that were done where [55:43] they trained people to make sense of [55:46] high arousal [55:49] uh physical states not as anxiety but as [55:54] determination. And these people learned [55:57] to do this first they practice like a [55:59] skill. It's like driving. At first it's [56:01] really hard. you have to give a lot of [56:02] effort to it, but you practice, [56:04] practice, practice, and then eventually [56:05] becomes really automatic. And then what [56:08] happens? They are able to take tests. [56:10] They're able to pass tests. They're able [56:12] to continue taking courses and so on. I [56:15] watched this actually happen right in [56:16] front of my eyes. My daughter, when she [56:18] was 12 years old, she was testing for [56:20] her black belt in [56:22] karate. Her her sensei was a 10th degree [56:26] black belt. This guy, a 10th degree [56:29] black belt is the highest you could be. [56:31] Mhm. This guy could break a board like [56:33] by looking at it. He was a scary scary [56:36] dude. And my daughter was like not even [56:39] 5t tall when she was 12. And she's she's [56:43] this tiny little thing. And she's got to [56:46] spar with like these hulking like 15, [56:49] 16, 18 year old boys. She's got to [56:51] actually spar with them. And so, you [56:55] know, she's and this is across several [56:57] days. She's got to do this really. And [56:58] so I'm sitting there, her, you know, I'm [57:00] her dad and me were sitting there. We're [57:02] watching her. And so her sensei, you [57:04] know, saunters up to her and he says, [57:08] "Sweetheart, get your butterflies flying [57:10] in [57:13] formation." And I was like, "That's [57:15] amazing. Get your butterflies [57:18] flying in formation." He's not saying, [57:20] "Calm down, little girl. That would [57:22] actually be bad. You don't want to be [57:25] calm. You need that arousal. It's there [57:27] for a reason. It's uncomfortable, but [57:30] you need it. He's saying, "Use it." That [57:34] to me was like a perfect example of find [57:37] a different [57:38] meaning for that [57:40] arousal. And that meaning is the action [57:44] that you will engage in. No matter how [57:47] hard it [57:48] is, no matter how much it doesn't really [57:50] look like what it's supposed to, the [57:52] control is there. It's there. It's not [57:56] there all the time. It's harder to get [57:58] all, you know, yada yada, but it's [58:00] there. And it means [58:03] that you have more [58:06] agency. You have more control. You're [58:10] never going to have as much control as [58:11] you want. It's always going to be harder [58:14] to get. [58:16] Your options aren't always going to be [58:18] the [58:19] same, but you can always find a little [58:21] more [58:23] control over what you [58:26] do and what you experience and that's [58:30] the key to living a meaningful life. Are [58:33] you somewhat concerned about the world [58:35] that young people are growing up in [58:36] where they're scrolling on social media [58:38] and social media is telling them what [58:41] certain feelings are? So they are just [58:44] being programmed [58:46] constantly. Yeah, they are to be [58:49] anxious, to be depressed, to be sad. [58:51] They are. Yes, they are. And think about [58:53] it too. Social media is pernitious [58:57] uncertainty there. You know you first of [59:01] all even when we're sitting face to [59:04] face we have all of these cues we have [59:07] all these signals I can see your face I [59:10] can hear your voice even when all this [59:13] information is there's still some [59:16] uncertainty right we're not reading each [59:18] other bodily movements are not a [59:21] language to be read it's a bad [59:25] metaphor right we're guessing we're [59:28] always guessing [59:29] And we're using a lot of signals to [59:32] guess. But when you're on social [59:35] media, you have have very few signals. [59:39] There is a lot of ambiguity. There is a [59:42] lot of [59:44] uncertainty and the only thing that you [59:46] can do is fill in that uncertainty with [59:49] your own guesses which could be [59:52] bad. Right? So people who go on Tik Tok [59:57] and [59:59] whatever are giving up, they're [60:03] like volitionally giving up their agency [60:06] and they don't know it. What do you mean [60:09] by that? They're choosing to be led. [60:12] They're choosing to be [60:17] influenced. I I'll give you an example. [60:20] I've listened to podcasts [60:22] about metabolism. I've listened to [60:25] podcasts about, you know, skin care. [60:28] I've listened to, you know, I'm curious. [60:30] I'm curious about like what kind of [60:32] information people put out there. I [60:34] probably turn off 90% of the I get like [60:37] 10 minutes into something and I will [60:39] turn it [60:42] off. That's what it means to be a [60:44] consumer. You have choice. I think [60:47] people are they don't realize that by [60:50] virtue of what they do and what they [60:52] don't do, they are making choices about [60:56] what will be retained in their heads [60:59] that will then be used [61:02] automatically later. Brainwashing a [61:06] little bit except that you're you're the [61:09] one who's you're you're choosing it. You [61:12] know, I'm empathic and I'm not blaming [61:14] people, but they could things could be [61:17] better for them. You [61:18] know, I mean, I had a an a daughter who [61:22] was clinically depressed. That was one [61:24] of the most frustrating experiences I've [61:27] ever had in my life in addition to being [61:28] really tragic. I mean, I can talk about [61:30] it now without breaking into tears. That [61:32] took a long time. But at first, she was [61:36] so [61:37] resistant. Eventually, you know, she [61:39] made the decision that she wanted to be [61:41] helped and then we completely changed [61:44] her life. But she had to make that [61:46] decision. I couldn't force her to do it. [61:48] And I feel like a little bit it's the [61:51] same kind of situation now where there's [61:53] so much out there in the [61:55] wellness industry. There's so much, you [61:58] know, um, swirling around on Tik Tok and [62:01] on other areas of social media and not [62:05] all of it is useful and some of it's [62:07] really harmful. Do you mind if I pause [62:10] this conversation for a moment? I want [62:11] to talk about our show sponsor today, [62:13] which is Shopify. I've always believed [62:15] that the biggest cost in business isn't [62:16] failure, it's the time you waste trying [62:18] to make decisions. Time spent [62:20] hesitating, overthinking, or waiting for [62:22] the right moment. When I started my [62:24] first company at 20 years old, I had no [62:26] experience and no money. What I did have [62:28] was an idea and the willingness to move [62:30] fast, and that made all the difference. [62:33] If you've been thinking about starting [62:34] your own business, Shopify makes this [62:36] entire process so much easier. With [62:38] thousands of customizable templates, you [62:40] don't need coding or design skills. You [62:42] just need a willingness to start. [62:43] Shopify connects all your sales channels [62:45] from your website to social media. and [62:47] it handles the backend payments, [62:49] shipping, and taxes, too, so that you [62:51] can stay focused on moving forward and [62:53] growing your business. If you're ready [62:54] to start, visit [62:56] shopify.com/bartlet and sign up for a£1 [62:59] per month trial period. That's [63:02] shopify.com/bartlet. The advantage you [63:04] have as a objective on Looker is you [63:06] have a huge amount of information and [63:09] knowledge, which is guiding you to make [63:11] better decisions. But a lot of people [63:12] don't have that information and [63:13] knowledge. In fact, they have counter [63:15] information and knowledge. So, when I [63:17] think about what it takes for someone to [63:19] make a change in their life, um whether [63:22] it was your daughter or whether it's [63:23] someone else who feels like they're [63:24] stuck and they feel like they're trapped [63:26] in an algorithm or trapped in a life [63:27] that they want to break out of based on [63:30] everything you know and based on the [63:32] experience you had with your daughter. [63:34] What is step one to being able to make [63:37] that change? Because I'm really curious [63:38] as to what it was about your daughter [63:40] that made her decide that she wanted the [63:42] help. [63:44] Well, I think that the the general [63:48] answer is baby steps. It rarely works to [63:52] completely change everything all at [63:54] once. I'm not saying it never works, but [63:56] it rarely works that way. Um it so for [64:00] example, you know, you could [64:04] deliberately get off social media for [64:08] one day a week or do something else [64:12] instead with a friend or go for a walk [64:15] or just and build it into it. Build it [64:18] into your day as a scheduled thing. So [64:20] that's the other thing is that you can't [64:22] do things because you want to do them. [64:24] You have to force yourself to do them. [64:26] So for example, I had major back [64:29] surgery, major back surgery, very [64:31] serious. And um I knew that um after I [64:36] had back surgery that I was going to [64:38] experience sensations I had never had [64:41] before. Just like you know if you go for [64:43] a filling in your tooth, right? And then [64:46] you know something's there that wasn't [64:47] there before and then your tongue is [64:49] like constantly poking at the tooth and [64:52] you're not supposed to but you do [64:53] anyways because your brain is foraging [64:56] for information. It's foraging for [64:58] prediction error. Mhm. And then [65:01] eventually it adjusts its predictions [65:04] and then it ignores the sensations [65:07] because they're not relevant. Right. So [65:09] that was going to happen on a massive [65:11] scale for me and I knew that I had made [65:15] a plan before surgery to dose myself [65:19] appropriately with prediction error so [65:22] that I would not develop chronic pain [65:24] because chronic pain is like a set of [65:26] bad predictions that that don't update. [65:28] Right? So your brain still believes that [65:30] there's um tissue damage in your body [65:34] when there's no more tissue damage. So [65:36] does that mean that pain often is just a [65:39] figment of your imagination? No, that's [65:41] the wrong way. That is the wrong way to [65:43] think about it. The way to think about [65:45] it is every [65:48] experience remembered past and sensory [65:51] present. So pain is in your [65:54] head, vision is in your head, [65:58] hearing is in your head. You don't hear [66:00] in your ears, you hear in your head in [66:02] your brain. You don't see in your eyes. [66:05] You need your eyes. You need your ears. [66:08] But you don't see in your eyes. You see [66:13] in your brain. So pain is a combination [66:18] of the just like vision is a combination [66:21] of the remembered past and the sensory [66:24] present. Okay. Okay. So it's both. So [66:26] chronic pain happens [66:29] when your brain was receiving signals [66:34] from the body that there was tissue [66:36] damage, no susceptive signals they're [66:39] called, and it was making sense of them [66:41] as [66:43] pain. And when you're recovering from an [66:46] illness, that's metabolically taxing. So [66:50] there's not as much metabolic re there's [66:53] not as much of your metabolic budget [66:55] devoted to [66:57] learning. So you can be in a situation [67:00] where your brain doesn't update itself [67:03] and you still [67:05] experience pain even though the the um [67:10] the tissue damage is no longer there. [67:13] It's just like seeing a a green apple in [67:16] your mind's eye when there is no apple [67:18] in front of you. It's not all in it's [67:21] not all in your head in the in the you [67:25] know insulting sense. It's just it's a [67:28] normal consequence of how brains work. [67:32] The injury is gone though but the signal [67:34] of the injury is still replaying itself. [67:36] Yeah. Exactly. Just like um it's like a [67:38] phantom limb. It's like tinidis is also [67:40] like that. Oh gosh. Yeah. I had that for [67:42] a little while. Yeah. So, um, so I I [67:45] tried really hard to set a schedule for [67:48] myself, [67:49] um, you know, um, that would allow me to [67:54] sort of like optimally dose myself, but [67:56] with prediction error, but that [67:58] meant, you know, that I I had to follow [68:01] that schedule. And I think if you're [68:03] committed to changing your habits, this [68:06] is how you change any habit really. you [68:09] change the context and you um and then [68:13] you practice you practice new um new [68:19] behaviors. So with my [68:22] daughter, depression, we think about [68:25] depression in our lab um as um let me [68:30] back up and say your brain's most [68:32] important job really is not thinking. [68:35] It's not feeling. It's not even seeing. [68:37] It's regulating your body. It's [68:39] regulating your metabolism. Basically, [68:42] that's your brain's most important job. [68:44] Your brain's most important job is [68:45] anticipating the needs of your body and [68:48] preparing to meet those needs before [68:49] they arise. The metaphor that we use for [68:53] this predictive regulation of the body, [68:56] which is the formal term is [68:58] calledasis. Um that's the scientific [69:01] concept, but the but the metaphor is [69:04] body budgeting. It's running a budget [69:06] for your body. Your brain is running a [69:08] budget for your body. It's not budgeting [69:10] money. It's budgeting salt and glucose [69:12] and oxygen and um potassium and like all [69:16] of the nutrients and chemicals that are [69:19] necessary [69:21] um to um run an energetically costly [69:25] body. You know, you've got all these [69:27] really low-level kind of processes. You [69:30] can just think of them as vital parts of [69:32] to keep yourself alive. Mhm. So, some of [69:35] your energy budget goes to [69:37] that. Some of your energy budget goes to [69:40] repair and growth. So, you get if you [69:44] get taller, you need more cells. When [69:46] you learn something, you have to thicken [69:48] up your myelin and your your neurons. [69:51] You've got to grow more receptors and [69:53] stuff. That's, you know, the kind of [69:56] growth and and repair. And then the rest [69:58] of it is all for anything effortful. [70:01] What is effortful? like work or going to [70:04] the gym, dragging your ass out of bed in [70:06] the morning is effortful. Yeah, learning [70:08] something new is effortful. Dealing with [70:12] uncertainty is effortful. Everything we [70:15] call stress. Stress is just really your [70:18] brain is predicting a big metabolic [70:20] outlay because there's some effort [70:23] involved, right? Some motivated effort [70:26] involved. So those are the three things [70:30] that make up your energy budget. And the [70:32] really important point, you as an [70:36] organism have a fixed amount of energy [70:38] that you can produce in a [70:41] day. [70:42] Meaning ATP, like these little chemicals [70:46] that these little protein things that [70:48] you know your cells use as literal [70:51] energy that come from glucose and and [70:53] other things like fats and so there's [70:56] nothing I can do to increase it. Well, [70:58] you're in a range. Okay. But there is a [71:01] finite limit upper limit for that range [71:06] because you are a because you're a human [71:09] organism and you've got to do these [71:11] three things these right vital [71:15] functions growth and repair and then [71:18] everything else. If you got a lot of [71:20] psychosocial stress going on or you have [71:22] some kind of disease that's taking up, [71:26] you know, much of the budget, then you [71:28] don't have a lot of budget left for [71:30] other stuff that you need to do, right? [71:32] So, what your brain will attempt to do [71:34] is to cut costs. If you look at the [71:37] symptoms of depression, they are um [71:41] symptoms of um that are related to [71:44] cutting costs. distress, fatigue, [71:48] problems concentrating, [71:50] um lack of sensitivity to the context [71:53] that you're in. All of these things are [71:56] indicative of um reduced um metabolic [72:00] outlay. And then depression also has [72:04] symptoms that are related to increased [72:07] costs like 70% of people who are [72:11] depressed have uh inflammatory problems. [72:13] So they have enhanced inflammatory [72:16] um systemic inflammation and and your [72:20] your immune system is a very expensive [72:24] system to run. So if you have persistent [72:28] and um systemic [72:32] inflammation, you're that's like a [72:34] persistent tax on your budget. you're, [72:37] you know, meaning things are costing [72:39] more than they necessarily need to. And [72:44] even, you know, like there are these [72:46] really interesting studies. I think [72:48] they're interesting as a scientist, as a [72:49] person, I find them like slightly [72:51] horrifying, but you know, like if you [72:53] within two hours of eating a meal, if [72:56] you encounter stress, social stress, [72:59] it's as if you ate 104 more calories [73:03] than you actually ate. So you're so [73:06] inefficient in metabolizing that it's [73:08] like it's like having eaten 104 more [73:12] calories than you did. [73:14] And the your even good fats will be [73:17] metabolized as if they're bad fats and [73:20] potentially stored as Yeah. So if you if [73:23] you add up 104 calories at every meal [73:27] for a year, that's almost 11 pounds. [73:29] That means that if you are in a [73:31] stressful [73:33] environment and um for a year and you [73:36] ate exactly the same thing as you ate [73:39] the year before, you would gain 11 [73:40] pounds. In depression, we know for [73:42] example that um there's cortisol [73:45] dysregulation in depression. That means [73:47] there's dysregulation in um metabolism [73:51] because cortisol is a metabolic, you [73:54] know, it's it's a metabolic chemical. Um [73:56] people who take uh SSRIs they take for [74:00] depression anti-depressants are SSRIs [74:03] usually or SNRIs that means they are [74:06] acting on serotonin to keep more [74:09] serotonin in the in the juncture uh [74:13] between neurons. Serotonin is a [74:15] metabolic regulator. Norepinephrine is a [74:18] metabolic regulator. These are um [74:21] chemicals that are directly involved in [74:25] your [74:26] metabolism. So it's not an a belief that [74:30] depression is a metabolic has a [74:32] metabolic basis to it. I think the [74:34] question is what is the elixir of all [74:38] these metabolic influences that would [74:40] lead somebody to um develop a depressive [74:44] state. Um, [74:47] but the point, the simple point that I [74:50] was making is I actually came to this [74:52] idea about metabolism and depression [74:54] because I was doing a ton of [74:56] reading trying to figure out how to help [74:58] my kid. What were her symptoms at that [75:00] time? Just if there are any parents that [75:02] listening right now that can relate or [75:03] anybody that's listening that could [75:04] relate. Yeah. Well, I will tell you that [75:07] I've given this talk before um about [75:09] depression in adolescence. Adolescence [75:12] is a um it's like a it's like a perfect [75:16] storm of metabolic u vulnerability for [75:19] many many reasons. You know your brain [75:22] is trapped in a dark silent box called [75:24] your [75:25] skull. It's receiving signals from the [75:28] body and from the world. It doesn't know [75:30] what the causes of those signals are. [75:33] It's receiving the effects. It has to [75:35] guess at the causes. What are the [75:37] guesses? Predictions from the past. [75:40] Right? So it doesn't know about hormone [75:43] surges immediately as they happen. It, [75:47] you know, it takes 20 minutes or so or [75:50] sometimes a little less depending on [75:51] where the hormonal changes are and what [75:53] their origin is for the brain to receive [75:56] the signals of those changes and then it [75:58] has to guess at what the causes are. The [76:01] narrative that's used in [76:04] psychiatry and medicine is a narrative [76:07] that goes something like this. It goes [76:09] back to this like your brain is a [76:11] battleground, right? So the idea is that [76:14] you know you're born the the story is [76:16] that you're born with these innate [76:19] emotion circuits. You're not you don't [76:21] have innate emotion circuits. You don't [76:23] have any emotion circuits actually, but [76:24] the narrative is you're born with these [76:26] innate emotion circuits. They work, but [76:28] you're not born with the ability to [76:30] control them. That has to develop over [76:32] time. [76:34] So in adolescence, the idea is that [76:37] um mood disorders arise because you're [76:41] you don't have enough cognitive control [76:44] and you have too much emotion. So you've [76:46] got this unbridled emotion and that's [76:48] the problem. That's a [76:52] really compelling narrative. It's [76:55] just neurobullshit basically. There's [76:58] not a good evidence for that narrative. [77:01] I I heard it was a chemical imbalance. [77:04] Yes. Well, the sometimes people talk [77:07] about that chemical imbalance in terms [77:09] of serotonin being a happy chemical and [77:13] dopamine being the reward chemical. And [77:16] that's also uh that's such a [77:18] simplification that it's not even wrong. [77:22] Okay? Dopamine is not a reward chemical [77:24] and serotonin is not a happiness [77:26] chemical. They're both metabolic [77:28] regulators. [77:30] You see increases in dopamine in some uh [77:34] neurons during episodes of [77:37] punishment. And [77:40] serotonins does many things in your body [77:43] in many places. But one of the things [77:46] that it does in controlled experiments [77:49] is it allows animals [77:52] to spend to forage to engage in activity [77:57] physical activity and learning when [78:00] there is no immediate metabolic uh [78:04] reward at the end. There's no there's no [78:06] deposit at the end. Mhm. [78:09] Um so dopamine is seen more I think now [78:14] by many neuroscientists as a a chemical [78:18] that is necessary for [78:21] effort whether that is a physical effort [78:23] or learning something a mental effort of [78:26] learning something it's not really [78:28] specific to reward per se. So, at first [78:32] with with my daughter, you know, she [78:35] went from being a a really [78:38] exuberant, engaged, socially, very [78:41] socially connected kid, um, who, you [78:44] know, she did great in school. And it's [78:46] not like she had, you know, it's not [78:47] like she was a perfect kid, but she was [78:49] pretty in enthusiastic and pretty [78:52] exuberant and had a lot of friends. And [78:55] and then, you [78:58] know, by the time she was in 10th grade, [79:03] she was withdrawn. She was getting D's [79:05] in school. She couldn't concentrate. She [79:08] wasn't sleeping. She um she was [79:11] miserable. She was really suffering, but [79:14] she was miserable to be around. And and [79:16] to be honest, at the beginning, we [79:18] thought she was being [79:20] lazy. We thought, you know, she didn't [79:22] want to do anything. She wanted to spend [79:23] all this time in her room. She didn't, [79:26] you know, she wanted to get rid of all [79:27] of her activities. And we thought, come [79:29] on, man. Step up. Like, why are you, you [79:33] know, we thought she was being lazy. I [79:34] mean, really, it just never occurred to [79:36] me in a million years because she had no [79:39] mood symptoms as a kid. Like, none. And [79:43] then all of a sudden, she just she [79:45] appeared to have no energy to do [79:46] anything. But it to us it looked like [79:48] she was being lazy and she didn't want [79:50] to do her homework and she seemed really [79:51] disengaged and and [79:54] and it it took me a while to realize, oh [79:58] no, this is something else. She was [80:01] having trouble remembering conversations [80:04] that we had. And at first I thought, oh, [80:06] you're not paying attention to me. But [80:08] then it seemed really clear that even in [80:13] day-to-day conver she couldn't tell me [80:15] what was happening in her day. She just [80:16] had no details. That's also a sign of [80:19] depression where you lose the episodic [80:22] memory of details of the day. You can [80:24] only talk in gists. You can't give [80:27] specifics about times and places and [80:30] events. You just lose, you don't retain [80:32] that information long enough to be able [80:34] to remember it later. There's no [80:36] consolidation of that information. And [80:39] um when she was in 10th [80:43] grade, you know, she came home with D's [80:47] in school, D's in mathematics. And this [80:49] is a kid who was doing fun, you know, [80:51] she was doing rudimentary algebra when [80:52] she was eight. And [80:55] um we told her that we she had to be we [81:00] had to have her assessed [81:02] because we just didn't know what was [81:04] going on. And that's when we realized [81:06] that she was clinically depressed. [81:08] The other thing I I should say is that, [81:11] you know, she had very bad menstrual [81:13] cramps. And so a lot of one [81:18] um one treatment for bad menstrual [81:22] cramps is to put girls on birth control [81:25] pills because it it evens out the um [81:29] hormonal fluctuations of the month and [81:31] it does actually improve menstrual [81:34] cramps. But it's pretty well known now. [81:36] It wasn't so much known then that um [81:40] there is somewhere between a 40 and 70% [81:43] increase in the likelihood of major [81:45] depressive episode in young women who [81:48] use birth control pills. If it's a [81:51] combination estrogen progesterone pill, [81:54] it's more like 40%. If it's a [81:56] progesterone only pill, which a lot of [81:58] young women take because it has fewer [82:01] side effects, you have a 70% increase in [82:04] in a ma in major depressive episode. And [82:06] this is in the first study that I read [82:09] about this was in a million women. And [82:12] when I read that [82:14] study, I remember exactly where I was. [82:16] It was like a flashbulb moment. I read [82:18] the study. I called her pediatrician, my [82:21] daughter's pediatrician, and I said, [82:22] "She's coming off pill [82:24] today, today. So, tell me if there's [82:27] anything. Are there any side effects or [82:29] can we just stop it?" And he's like, [82:30] "Well, in my opinion," and I'm like, "I [82:33] don't give a about your opinion. I [82:35] have just read a study that is like, you [82:37] know, it's a large-scale epidemiological [82:39] study of a million women today. She's [82:43] coming off today." And this was after or [82:46] before she was experiencing depression. [82:48] This was after it was it was um [82:53] maybe a year after she was diagnosed. [82:57] Much later I read um I was reading a [83:00] book by uh Naomi Orescus the historian [83:03] of science and she wrote a book called [83:05] Why Trust Science? And it's a wonderful [83:08] book. But in the book she talks about [83:10] she gives examples of places of [83:13] phenomena where the public didn't trust [83:16] science and they should have and this is [83:18] one of them. Apparently it's been known [83:20] for a really long time. And I just want [83:23] to point out that [83:25] estrogen, progesterone, [83:28] testosterone evolved as metabolic [83:32] regulators. I'm highlighting it because [83:35] in a lot of because in a culture that [83:38] separates mental from physical, we don't [83:41] think about the role of metabolism in [83:44] vision or in even in mood. That's a [83:48] really recent thing. In our lab, we one [83:50] of the things we study now is the role [83:53] of metabolism in in really basic really [83:57] really basic psychological phenomena. [84:01] um like just as a fundamental building [84:04] block of your mind basically. [84:06] So your daughter exhibits those [84:08] symptoms. I'm really curious to hear [84:11] what conventional medicine at that point [84:13] told you you should do with a daughter [84:15] in that situation at that time versus [84:17] what you did. You have this wealth of [84:19] information. You you have a medical [84:20] background. Yeah. So I should say this [84:22] was you know this was um some years ago, [84:26] right? So currently there is a kind of a [84:30] revolution going on where um there's [84:33] actually something called metabolic [84:35] psychiatry. Now back when this was when [84:38] you know when I was reading about this [84:40] it sounded crazy when I saw what my [84:43] daughter [84:45] was what that she was suffering like [84:47] really suffering. It's really hard for [84:49] me to talk about this because as I'm [84:52] talking to you about this, I'm thinking [84:53] I I just I wish that I, you know, I wish [84:57] that I had figured this out earlier. [84:59] But, um, but anyways, what we did was I [85:05] we found I found every possible route [85:07] that I could think of to target her um [85:12] her body budget. So, basically target [85:14] her metabolism. And then we we we [85:18] basically came up with a a daily routine [85:21] which she participated in making um to [85:25] see if we [85:28] could put her on a different trajectory, [85:32] you know, and that involved everything [85:35] from getting off social media [85:38] because first of all, she was using like [85:40] a lot of kids do, she was using [85:43] um her screens late at night and at that [85:49] point and again this was something I [85:50] just happened upon right but it actually [85:53] at an at a NCI at a national inst cancer [85:56] institute meeting um you know we have [86:00] retinal ganglen cells we have cells in [86:03] our retina that um regulate circadian [86:06] rhythm and they're sensitive to light at [86:10] the wavelengths that comes from your [86:12] screen from a screen. So if you look at [86:15] those screens at night, your brain [86:18] thinks it's daytime, like your circadian [86:21] rhythm. You give yourself a circadian [86:23] rhythm disorder basically. And it will [86:25] be harder to get um into a regular sleep [86:28] cycle. And you need that regular sleep [86:31] cycle in order for toxins to clear and [86:33] in order to consolidate um what you've [86:36] learned during the day so that you can [86:38] remember it later. And there a whole [86:40] bunch of restorative things happen [86:42] during deep sleep that you really need. [86:44] And if you can't get enough deep sleep, [86:47] that will make your budgeting problems [86:49] worse basically. So we targeted her. We [86:52] got her off social media. Well, first of [86:55] all, off screens after, you know, like [86:58] 7:00, 8:00 at night, no screens. Um, off [87:02] social media to reduce social [87:04] uncertainty, social stress. I got up [87:06] with her at 5:30 every morning. made her [87:09] breakfast, sat with her while she ate [87:11] breakfast. So, made sure that she was [87:14] eating nutritious food, not pseudo food [87:17] like, you know, Pop-Tarts and like [87:19] that. We had to start [87:21] her like exercising again. So, she [87:25] started to walk long distances. We she [87:28] started doing Pilates like not not [87:30] Pilates on a map, but like Pilates with [87:32] a reformer that would make anybody cry, [87:35] you know. Why exercise as it relates to [87:37] this budget and the metabolic functions? [87:40] Because [87:41] exercise um basically [87:45] um exercise throws your throws your it's [87:49] like your brain it's like you're you're [87:51] throwing yourself out of uh metabolic [87:54] balance so that the brain can learn to [87:56] get itself back in. you're basically [87:59] improving the resilience of your of your [88:02] physical systems is is basically the way [88:04] to so she's not you know she needed [88:09] something more like interval training [88:11] which is what these Pilates classes were [88:14] as opposed to you know practicing to [88:17] play tennis or whatever something that [88:19] would would where she you know after a [88:23] certain period of time she'd be [88:24] disregulated metabolically and then [88:27] she'd drink water and you know eat [88:30] something healthful and um and then her [88:33] system basically was learning to become [88:35] more flexible again not so stuck. Mhm. [88:40] So again it it was like dosing with [88:42] prediction error or like showing the [88:45] providing the brain with opportunity to [88:46] learn that it was wrong. And then um [88:50] omega-3s. So we we took I can't remember [88:54] the exact dose, but I I do it out high [88:57] omega-3s, low omega sixs. With her [89:01] doctor's permission, we also used a baby [89:03] aspirin once a day with on a full [89:06] stomach to reduce systemic inflammation. [89:10] um before bed. I mean, before bed, we [89:12] had always done um like a cuddle, you [89:16] know, like when she was little, we would [89:17] read a story or whatever. And in her [89:20] early adolescent years, you know, she [89:23] rejected that and then we brought it [89:26] back. So an hour before bed, we would [89:30] either me or her dad, sometimes all [89:32] three of us, we would read a book [89:34] together or, you know, he would read a [89:36] book to us or we would I I she we would [89:38] sit and talk and she would tell [89:41] me, you know, all the things that were [89:43] happening at school that she could [89:45] remember and sometimes they were really [89:47] horrible and I just had to empathize. [89:49] That was really hard for me because I [89:51] just wanted to fix it. I just wanted to [89:53] fix it. And it was really I had to [89:56] really draw on my own um experience as a [90:00] therapist to just sit with the distress [90:05] and empathize rather than say do this, [90:09] do this, do this, do this. It took me a [90:12] long time to learn that and I'm still [90:14] sometimes struggling with that. Why was [90:15] that important? because then she feels [90:18] heard and and she feels understood. And [90:23] when you It took me a long time to learn [90:24] this. When she when she would tell me [90:26] that, you know, someone had done [90:28] something terribly [90:30] mean. If I did anything other than [90:33] empathize, she would feel like I hadn't [90:36] heard [90:37] her. And social support is a [90:41] major I mean, we are the caretakers of [90:44] each other's nervous systems. Humans are [90:46] social animals. It's hard to [90:49] believe. Uh I think in a culture like [90:51] ours where we're so individualistic, [90:54] right? And it seems like a political [90:56] statement or something. It doesn't [90:57] really matter what your political views [91:00] are. We evolve the way we evolve, man. [91:03] We are social animals. We affect each [91:05] other metabolically. We can add savings [91:09] and we can add taxes. And you know the [91:12] best thing for a human nervous system is [91:15] another [91:16] human. The worst thing for a human [91:18] nervous system is another human. The [91:21] wrong one. There are so many experiments [91:25] showing such I mean I just saw a set of [91:28] experiments from one of my former [91:29] postocs that was just amazing. [91:32] um where she looked at glucose [91:35] metabolism in mothers and babies and I [91:38] think she also did it in dating partners [91:40] if I'm not mistaken and she looked at [91:42] them alone and like and then together [91:46] like alone during a task and then [91:48] together during a task and mothers and [91:50] babies that are attached well they're [91:53] actually their glucose metabolism is [91:55] more efficient like literally more [91:58] efficient and I believe she I I believe [92:02] she also showed this with dating [92:04] partners too. You know there are these [92:06] studies these old studies showing that [92:08] um that you know it's like less [92:13] calorically demanding to walk up a hill [92:15] with a backpack if you're with a friend [92:17] than if with you're with a stranger. And [92:19] I mean there's all these really batshit [92:22] crazy findings that if but if you [92:24] realize that humans are literally [92:26] affecting each other on a physical basis [92:28] whether they're aware of it or not [92:30] whether they intend it or not it's [92:32] completely irrelevant or it's [92:34] unnecessary I would say to have that [92:36] effect um to have the effects be there [92:39] um then it starts to it starts to make [92:42] sense you know like the idea that and [92:44] again meta analyses show that you will [92:46] live years longer years on average years [92:50] longer if you are in if you have a a [92:54] social um life filled with people who [92:58] you trust and who trust you. [93:03] So is that why you got the family around [93:05] just before bed because it was [93:07] regulating her nervous system, her her [93:10] body? Yeah. Sometimes she she sometimes [93:13] she still says this to me actually. [93:14] She'll say, "Can you just be my friend [93:16] for a minute and not my mother? [93:19] I'll be like, "Yes, I can." And then I [93:21] actually have to do it, which is [93:22] sometimes [93:23] hard. Or I will say to [93:26] her, this is for parents, anybody who [93:29] has an adolescent or an adult um child, [93:33] this is this is like one of my I I don't [93:35] know how I came up with this, but it's [93:36] like golden, right? I say to [93:38] her, "Can I I'm having a mother moment [93:43] where I feel the need to nag you about [93:45] something, and if I can just nag you for [93:47] a minute about it, I I won't need to [93:49] tell you again." So, I'm basically [93:52] asking her permission. Can I tell you [93:54] this thing, which I really want to tell [93:56] you, and I know you don't want to hear [93:59] it, but you would be being doing me a [94:01] real kindness if you would just listen [94:02] to me for a minute. And I know it's me. [94:04] It's all me. It's not you. It's all on [94:06] me. this is me, but I just I would be [94:10] better if you could just let me. And [94:13] most of the time she says, you know, [94:16] with great forbearance, right? Like, [94:18] sure, mama, go ahead. Sometimes she [94:21] says, "Not [94:23] today." And then I actually have to [94:25] listen, you know? So, yeah. But there [94:29] were probably other things I'm not [94:30] thinking of right now. I've written them [94:32] all down because a lot of people have [94:33] asked me this question. And what I like [94:35] to say is this is I'm not a physician. [94:38] This I'm not a psychiatrist. This is not [94:40] a recommendation or recipe for your [94:43] children. I'm just telling you what I [94:45] did as a scientist. And you wrote down [94:48] what you did. You still have a copy of [94:50] that. So I can link it below for anyone [94:51] that does want to read what you did. [94:54] Yes. But it's again it's I it's what you [94:58] did for your daughter at that time. [94:59] Yeah. just as a person who had read the [95:02] literature I it's not a it's not [95:05] um this is not medical advice it's I'm [95:08] really [95:09] strongly and also I should say I you [95:13] can't force your adolescent to do [95:16] anything you can't even force your kids [95:18] really to do anything unless you [95:20] threaten them with physical harm they [95:22] have to make that choice themselves [95:24] right and did she recover [95:28] yes she [95:30] And I think one of the reasons why she [95:33] is good now, it's not that she never has [95:36] challenges with her mood, but she [95:38] understands them in physical terms. She [95:41] doesn't understand her mood as being a [95:45] psychological problem. She understands [95:47] it as [95:50] a symptom or a barometer of her body [95:54] budget. This is something I learned from [95:56] your work while I was researching which [95:58] was really really helpful to me. And [95:59] it's pretty much exactly what you just [96:00] said, which is sometimes I'm in a not so [96:03] good mood. [96:04] And if I'm not conscious about that, [96:07] then the bad mood can wreak havoc, [96:09] right? It can I can be short with people [96:11] or whatever. And when I was reading your [96:12] work and thinking about bad or good [96:15] moods through the context of this body [96:17] budget, it makes you pause for a second [96:19] and go, what am I missing? And it makes [96:22] you very conscious of what you then do. [96:24] It almost makes you suddenly take hold [96:25] of the wheel and go, "Okay, so there's a [96:28] problem here. It's a physical problem. I [96:29] didn't get sleep last night. I haven't [96:30] eaten." Whatever it might be. Be really [96:32] aware of what this makes you do or feel [96:35] or think and hit and the actions you [96:38] need to take are maybe cancel everything [96:41] you were planning today and go back to [96:42] bed. Well, but I think that you just put [96:45] your finger on the really important [96:46] thing. It's that it changes what you do [96:50] next. Yeah. And that changes the [96:52] trajectory of what happens. And I think [96:55] this is this is really it's not like a [96:57] magic cure. But it and again, you know, [97:00] but when someone is when when you feel [97:03] really distressed, you either look to [97:05] the world like what is wrong with the [97:07] world or you look to yourself. What is [97:09] wrong with me? And really it could be [97:11] maybe there is something wrong with the [97:13] world. Maybe there is something wrong [97:14] with you. But most likely it's something [97:18] there's a body budgeting [97:20] problem. Even if it's the case that [97:23] there's something wrong with the world, [97:24] you're better equipped to deal with that [97:26] thing. If you [97:27] are managing your body budget, you [97:30] really do need to design your calendar [97:32] as much as you possibly can in the [97:33] confines of the profession you have [97:35] around that body budget. And for me, the [97:37] big a big change I made two years ago, [97:39] super privileged that I get that [97:40] everyone can do it. I couldn't do it [97:41] when I was working in call centers was I [97:44] implemented a rule where there's no [97:45] meetings before 11:00. And it just means [97:47] for me that I never set an alarm. So I [97:50] wake up when I'm fully recharged. And it [97:53] was like the most profound thing. I [97:54] should have done this way sooner. But [97:56] it's had such a big impact on my life [97:58] because you can almost guarantee that [97:59] it's very very rare for me to be [98:01] underslept. Although it happens because [98:02] I have to travel and stuff a lot. But [98:04] that really had a profound impact on my [98:06] life. Yeah. And I think you know and as [98:08] a leader and as a Exactly. And I think [98:11] honestly if [98:13] leaders take this [98:16] seriously then the hope is that there'll [98:20] be [98:21] some realization that this is also [98:24] important for for everybody and you know [98:28] we have a society that is structured in [98:30] a particular way but there's no [98:31] requirement that it's structured in this [98:33] way. There's, you know, the biggest [98:37] predictor of work productivity after, [98:40] you know, is sleep and hydration. And [98:43] after you take away sleep and hydration, [98:45] I think exercise is up there, too. You [98:47] know, some of us have more choices than [98:49] others, right? But it's important I [98:53] think for people who are people who are [98:57] CEOs, who are who are leaders, who are [99:00] business leaders to understand that um [99:03] there's there are good business reasons, [99:06] there are good economic reasons to take [99:10] this seriously. Am I right in [99:12] thinking that [99:13] alcohol impacts your body [99:16] budget and it therefore makes it harder [99:20] for you to exhibit all the other [99:22] behaviors and expend energy in other [99:24] areas and also therefore increases the [99:27] probability that you'll be depressed. [99:31] So [99:32] um I should say that I am not an expert [99:35] in the metabolism of alcohol. [99:38] So I'm going to extrapolate based on [99:41] what I do know. And what I would say [99:43] there is that sometimes people will [99:46] drink alcohol like they will eat [99:48] chocolate or um you know they doing it [99:51] for the taste or for the experience of [99:55] you know the ambiance and experience of [99:56] it, right? But a lot of people end up [99:59] using alcohol. They might start that way [100:02] or they might start because they're [100:04] doing something with friends but then [100:05] they realize that it has a mood um it [100:08] affects their mood. Anything which [100:11] affects your mood like people talk a lot [100:12] about emotion regulation but it's [100:14] actually mood regulation. Again you know [100:17] your mood is this these simple feelings [100:20] that are with you all the time. You know [100:22] your brain is always regulating your [100:25] body. Your body is always sending [100:26] signals back to your brain which it out [100:29] of which it makes mood. So mood is a [100:34] property of [100:35] consciousness. It's with you [100:37] always. Sometimes in moments you will [100:40] make sense of the signals and the mood [100:43] that goes with it in terms of the [100:45] outside world and that's when you [100:47] experience emotion, right? Where your [100:49] actions are relating the two together in [100:52] terms of your mood. But a lot of the [100:55] time we don't we we just experience mood [100:59] as a property of consciousness. You [101:01] know, this is a delicious drink. That [101:03] guy is an You're very [101:05] trustworthy. The mood is embedded in the [101:08] perception of the world. And when [101:11] people, it's just like actually [101:13] sometimes o opioids have this effect [101:16] also. They are they're mood altering, [101:18] meaning they're they are if they're [101:21] manipulating your mood, they are [101:22] manipulating your [101:26] metabolism. And when people get [101:29] addicted, they often get addicted [101:32] because they're regulating their mood. [101:34] They're attempting to reduce their [101:37] suffering. the problem with or a problem [101:42] I shouldn't say the problem because I [101:43] don't know exactly how mood h exactly [101:46] how alcohol affects [101:49] metabolism my my expectation is that [101:51] it's not just one it's not just in one [101:54] way and also I do know there are context [101:56] effects actually so you can drink [101:58] exactly the same amount of alcohol and [102:00] it can have different effects in [102:01] different contexts that totally blew my [102:03] mind when I saw that research so I'm [102:05] thinking it's not a simple relationship [102:07] but one thing I do know is that your [102:10] predictions become [102:13] um [102:15] sloppier and you don't take in [102:18] prediction error. you you don't learn. [102:22] You you won't you you won't update any, [102:25] you know, so there and so and your [102:29] behaviors are not necessarily well [102:32] calibrated to the situation that you're [102:34] in, which can have all kinds of [102:36] downstream difficult problem. You know, [102:37] you can make things uh in the downstream [102:40] worse for yourself um and make it harder [102:43] to do budgeting later. Isn't it [102:45] incredibly annoying when you're in a [102:46] rush to leave your house, but you can't [102:48] find your phone or your wallet? Now, [102:50] because of Apple, if you have an iPhone, [102:53] you can usually track it using Find My. [102:55] But until recently, the same hasn't been [102:57] possible if you've lost your wallet. But [102:59] that has now changed because of today's [103:01] sponsor, Extter. Extter is the first of [103:04] its kind. By partnering with Apple, [103:06] they've created a trackable wallet so [103:08] that if you ever lose yours, you can [103:10] find it within seconds. And this is it. [103:14] And you might recognize Extter from [103:17] their collaboration with Leon Messi. [103:19] It's super slim, made from recycled [103:21] aluminum with built-in RFID blocking [103:24] properties to protect from identity [103:26] theft. And with one click, all your [103:30] cards pop up so you can tap and go. I [103:33] often talk about 1% improvements. And [103:35] when I look at Extter, to me, it's the [103:38] culmination of so many 1% improvements [103:40] on the traditional wallet. So, if you're [103:42] looking for an upgrade, head to [103:44] extra.com and use code Steven for an [103:47] additional 10% off their spring sale, [103:49] which ends on May 19th. Head over there [103:52] now and check it out. And you also get [103:54] free shipping and a 100day trial. That's [103:57] extra.com with code Steven. I wanted to [104:00] um ask you about something I heard you [104:02] say and I've I've actually had other [104:04] guests on my podcast say it and I wasn't [104:05] ever sure if it was true until I heard [104:07] you say it which is that we can change [104:09] our emotions [104:11] by [104:13] smiling because if if the brain is [104:17] predicting then presumably if I do a big [104:19] smile and I go yes then the brain is [104:22] going to predict good feelings and going [104:25] to cause good feelings etc etc and going [104:27] to cause me to feel nice about self. [104:30] Well, yes and no. I think um you know [104:33] people smile when they're not happy too. [104:37] People smile when they're angry. People [104:39] smile when they're plotting the demise [104:41] of their enemy. You know, people smile [104:43] for all kind. People smile when they're [104:45] when they're afraid. But can I make [104:47] myself happier technically by smiling? [104:49] The metaanalytic evidence suggests that [104:52] there is a slight effect that it's that [104:55] there's um that there's a [104:59] small Yeah. Yeah. Crinkle your You have [105:02] to crinkle. There you go. It's like [105:04] putting put a pencil between your [105:06] teeth. Go. Go ahead. Yeah. Now smile. [105:09] Now crinkle. Okay. So, it's like that. [105:13] And I And the the the So, what I would [105:15] say is it's a it's a minuscule effect [105:17] size. It's like it's very small. I do [105:19] feel happier. Do you? Yeah. But that's [105:21] because I made you do something silly. [105:23] Maybe. Maybe. Okay. But anyways, the [105:25] point being that it's overblown as a as [105:28] an effect. Um I think [105:32] um there's a small my recollection is [105:36] that the meta the last meta analysis I [105:38] read was that there was a small effect, [105:40] but a small effect means it doesn't work [105:43] for everyone and it doesn't work always. [105:45] it it's just really really a very very [105:47] small effect. You must have a [105:49] perspective on ADHD which has become a [105:51] huge topic of conversation in society. I [105:54] I was diagnosed with ADHD. I don't [105:56] necessarily take it to mean anything [105:58] because I've seen so many variations of [106:00] ADHD my friends but there's been this [106:02] big rise of [106:03] ADHD and linked to the work that you've [106:06] done on the brain being a [106:08] predictive tool. So my general response [106:13] is the following that um people there's [106:16] a rise in people self- diagnosing and in [106:20] using diagnosis as an explanation [106:24] for behavior or for their why people [106:27] experience what they experience or [106:28] whatever. Diagnoses are not explanations [106:31] of anything. They're [106:33] descriptions. They don't explain [106:36] anything. And to treat a diagnosis like [106:39] it's an explanation is a form of [106:42] essententralizing which is not a good [106:44] thing. Okay? It means that you're [106:47] assuming that there's some kind of [106:50] underlying unchanging essence which is [106:53] responsible for in fact there is [106:56] something called psychological [106:57] essentialism where you don't even know [106:58] what the essence is. You just assume [107:00] it's there and that it's the cause of [107:02] all these symptoms. But a diagnosis is [107:05] just a description of symptoms. And [107:08] diagnosis are mostly useful for [107:11] billing hours of treatment. They're not [107:15] optimized [107:17] for pockets describing pockets of [107:20] behavior that are, you know, or [107:22] collections of behavior that tend to go [107:24] together because people sometimes think [107:26] that serotonin and dopamine are the [107:27] reason why someone has ADHD. That's like [107:30] one of the theories that I've So, there [107:32] are multiple serotonin receptors. There [107:34] are multiple dopamine receptors. They [107:36] don't all do the same thing. Serotonin [107:38] doesn't do one thing. Dopamine doesn't [107:41] do one thing. Does different things in [107:43] different places of the bo in the body [107:45] and the brain depending on what the [107:46] receptors are. And also, every resource [107:51] of [107:52] resilience and every symptom of [107:55] difficulty has a context to it. There [107:58] are requirements the way our society is [108:02] structured. There are requirements for [108:06] sitting and paying attention to [108:07] something for long periods of time. Mhm. [108:11] And that requirement is hidden in the [108:14] background. It's there so frequently [108:16] that we forget that that's the [108:19] conditional that's the condition upon [108:22] which diagnoses are made. [108:26] So [108:28] whatever first of all ADHD is not one [108:31] set of symptoms. It's a variety. It's [108:33] like it's a you know there's a lot of [108:37] variation in the way that in you can [108:40] have different symptom profiles and have [108:41] the same diagnosis because it's just [108:43] descriptive and there are lots of [108:45] symptoms. Some of those symptoms also [108:47] occur in they overlap with other [108:50] syndromes, other diagnostic clusters. [108:53] But the point is that they all when you [108:56] diagnose someone it makes it sound like [108:58] that's a property of that person. Yeah. [109:00] But it's not. It's a property of a [109:02] person in the context that they're in [109:05] and social expectation by by many [109:09] respects like can he pay attention in [109:11] school? Well, right. And the way that [109:13] school is organized is, you know, you [109:16] sit for long periods of time. Well, it [109:19] it may be that um there are other [109:22] circumstances in which not holding your [109:26] attention on one thing for a long period [109:28] of time could be advantageous. So my [109:30] point is that there are very few things [109:32] that are just categorically good or [109:35] categorically bad. There's always a [109:37] hidden condition. There's always a [109:39] hidden context. And so I think it's [109:41] really important to foreground that [109:43] context. You're not broken. you're just [109:46] your suitability to a certain context [109:49] has been deemed to be un like doesn't [109:52] fit. It's not productive for that [109:53] context and that may sound like weasel [109:56] words or it may you know but it's not [109:58] because because it's important that [110:01] competencies are by context and the and [110:05] again I would say this is not you know [110:08] being me being a bleeding heart you know [110:10] progressive or whatever. I mean I am a [110:12] bleeding heart progressive but this is [110:14] not an example of that. This is an [110:16] example of me being pragmatic. [110:19] You can regulate each other. Something [110:21] you talked about earlier on which I [110:22] found really really interesting. Um I [110:24] was reading about a study where of [110:26] 25,000 people and they found that people [110:28] having a heart attack were 14% more [110:30] likely to survive if they were married. [110:33] Um, but the other thing that I found [110:34] interesting is that we can we regulate [110:35] each other with words and I think you [110:37] did a [110:38] study on assessing the power of words to [110:41] facilitate [110:43] emotion. You were co it was a study you [110:45] co-authored. Well, we've studied the [110:48] power of words in many contexts, [110:52] including words as invitations to make [110:55] sense of, you know, so if if a an [110:58] instance of emotion is you making [111:00] meaning of what is going on inside your [111:02] body in relation to the [111:05] world, then you can you invite pe every [111:08] time you use an emotion word, you invite [111:10] people to make meaning in that way. So [111:13] you've proven then that certain words [111:15] can calm us down. Well, yes, but I [111:18] wouldn't say I've proven anything. [111:20] Scientists don't, you know, shown, [111:22] demonstrated. Yeah. Demonstrated in a, [111:25] you know, in a context, right? Like we, [111:27] you know, scientists don't like the f [111:29] word, the fa fact. I like the other f [111:32] word, but that fact. Fact. That's a [111:34] tough one because it means something [111:36] that holds under all circumstances in [111:38] all contexts and that's very rarely the [111:41] case. So, but yes, we have. So, and I [111:44] mean so if you've done it probably a [111:46] million times, you text things to [111:50] people, do you not? Yeah. Yeah. And when [111:52] you text a couple of words to your [111:56] partner or your friend, you can change [111:59] their heart rate, you change their [112:01] breathing rate, you can change all kinds [112:03] of chemicals, all kinds of protein [112:05] synthesis just with a couple of words. [112:08] Again, you know, we live in a we, you [112:10] know, free, you know, free speech is [112:12] important, freedoms are important, but [112:14] freedoms come with responsibilities. [112:18] Like it or not, we regulate each other's [112:21] nervous systems in all kinds of ways, [112:23] including with [112:25] words. And um for better or for worse. [112:28] For better or for worse. Exactly. So you [112:31] you really made me think differently [112:32] about stress as well generally because [112:34] if I think about my life through the [112:36] lens of this metabolic budget and stress [112:40] is a burden to this budget then if I [112:44] don't limit my stress I'm much more [112:46] likely to go over budget and if I go [112:48] over budget my immune system might be [112:50] the thing that I cut the costs of or [112:54] uh something else right I mean I mean [112:57] there's good st you can't be without [112:59] stress that would mean you'd be without [113:01] effort. So you know sometimes scientists [113:03] will talk about good stress and bad [113:05] stress which really just means stress [113:07] that is planned and where you replenish [113:10] what you spend and stress that is [113:12] pernitious and you don't chronic stress [113:15] then chronic stress or you know so what [113:18] I would say is just you know if you're [113:20] in a stressful [113:22] meeting a meeting where it's affecting [113:26] your mood that means you've there's been [113:28] some metabolic impact [113:31] take into account what that means. With [113:33] all that you know about the brain, I [113:34] wondered if you if it's changed your [113:37] view at all [113:38] on religion and God and spirituality and [113:42] if there is a higher power at all. The [113:44] brain is such a wonderfully complex [113:45] beautiful thing. You know, as the [113:47] objective observer in 2025 looks at a [113:48] brain goes this is fantastic. Many [113:51] people then conclude that there must be [113:54] a creator of that brain. But also we've [113:56] talked so much today about meaning and [113:57] the point of it all. So, everything [113:59] you've learned about the brain and [114:00] neuroscience and psychology, has it made [114:02] you believe in a god? No. [114:06] Has it made you more atheist or [114:08] agnostic? I'm pretty firmly an [114:13] atheist. [114:15] Um, I don't think that the wondrous [114:19] complexity of nature or or the brain or [114:24] the nervous system requires a designer. [114:28] And that logic doesn't make sense to me. [114:30] So this is obviously a terrible leap, [114:33] but do you therefore think that there's [114:34] no inherent meaning to life outside of, [114:37] you know, the like reproduction? And [114:40] I'm just reading for the second time [114:43] this book. It's called Open Socrates. [114:46] Okay. And it's a really wonderful book [114:50] and I've learned a lot about Socratic [114:53] philosophy that I didn't know. And one [114:56] of the [114:57] things that Socrates thought was [114:59] important was asking this question of [115:01] what is meaning and that you shouldn't [115:04] be asking this question in 15minute [115:08] increments. You should be really asking [115:10] this question about the expanse of your [115:14] life. And so I think if [115:17] anything being a scientist who [115:21] studies how a brain in in constant [115:25] conversation with a body and the other [115:27] brains and bodies in our world and even [115:31] the physical nature of our world. How [115:35] that creates lots of different kinds of [115:38] minds including our very western [115:41] mind. that makes me um think uh more [115:45] about the importance of philosophy [115:47] actually because I think philosophy is [115:50] asking the same kinds of questions that [115:52] religious belief tries to answer and for [115:55] me that's a better path. I think it's a [115:59] more comfortable path. I've often been [116:01] asking questions like this my whole life [116:03] actually. So it makes me feel more like [116:06] what's the point? Like what is the [116:08] ultimate point? I think the answer for [116:10] me, the ultimate point is to leave the [116:15] world a little better than I found it. [116:18] It's like the Johnny Apple Seed, uh, you [116:21] know, [116:22] philosophy. Um, you know, like as a [116:24] scientist, scientists often, you know, a [116:27] lot of us, we don't do what we do for [116:29] money. Money is not bad, but we don't do [116:31] what we do for money. We do it for other [116:33] motivations, right? To know, to be, to [116:35] be curious, to try to discover things. [116:39] And at some point we start to think [116:41] about well what's your like what's your [116:43] legacy right most of us are not Darwin [116:47] um we're not William James we're not you [116:50] know Heisenberg we're not you know most [116:53] of us are not those [116:55] people so what's your [116:59] legacy and in the end I realized that [117:02] I've published a lot of peerreview [117:04] papers when people introduce me you know [117:06] they give some kind of like you know [117:08] about my citation you know people [117:10] whatever Dr. Lisa is one of the most [117:12] influential figures in the field of [117:14] emotion, neuroscience, and the nature of [117:17] the brain. She is among the top 0.1% [117:20] cited scientists in the world for her [117:22] revolutionary research in psychology and [117:23] neuroscience. Yeah, that's all nice, [117:26] super nice. Um, but actually my legacy [117:29] is really the people who I've trained, [117:33] the [117:34] minds that I've had the [117:37] opportunity to engage with. And if I [117:42] were going to be bean counting, I might [117:45] be bean counting the number of [117:47] laboratories that now exist that didn't [117:50] exist before. [117:52] um gener several generations of [117:54] scientists who I [117:56] trained or who who you know and also who [118:00] trained me I mean along the way. So [118:02] that's my legacy in some ways really. [118:05] It's the people. It's the people and the [118:08] ideas. And I would like to think just to [118:11] actually to just wrap up to where we [118:13] started. [118:15] Um, you know, when I when I used to do a [118:18] lot of classroom teaching, I I would [118:20] feel like what I told myself is if I can [118:24] change the the trajectory, the outcomes [118:27] of just one person in this class, just [118:30] one, then I will have done my job, you [118:34] know. And I kind of feel that way a [118:36] little bit sort of the same about the [118:39] public the public face of what I'm [118:42] doing, right? public uh educa public [118:45] science education. [118:47] If I can [118:49] help, if something that I've learned or [118:52] something I've communicated can help [118:54] somebody [118:56] else live a more [119:03] intentional life of agent with agency [119:06] where they're choosing and they're [119:09] impacting [119:11] their loved ones or their [119:14] children, then then That's my then I've [119:18] done my job. That's my legacy. And the [119:21] hard thing about that kind of a legacy, [119:24] a legacy of ideas impacting people's [119:27] lives, is that you don't ever know what [119:30] your impact [119:33] is. But that's part of the [119:38] deal. We have a closing tradition on [119:40] this podcast where the last guest leaves [119:41] a question for the next guest not [119:42] knowing who they're leaving it for. [119:44] question [119:45] is how to live a life without attaining [119:49] anything. I have some context on this [119:52] person. They are a black belt shaoling [119:56] monk. So they talk a lot about identity [119:59] being sure and they and living without [120:01] um encumbrances and attachments and so [120:03] on. Right. It's it's it's it sounds like [120:05] a very Buddhist question. Yeah. The the [120:08] problem is that I think even a Buddhist [120:10] attains something. They attain [120:12] enlightenment. So they don't have [120:14] attachments necessarily. They don't have [120:16] wealth. They don't have power. They [120:17] don't But they attain something. They [120:19] attain [120:21] enlightenment. They attain tranquility. [120:25] How about then how to live life without [120:27] your [120:30] identity making you unhappy? [120:34] Well, I think it's important to [120:37] remember that you don't really have an [120:40] identity that is separate from the [120:43] moment that you're in. It's not like [120:45] there's an essence to you. [120:49] And what I would say is that every [120:53] everything you experience, everything [120:55] you do is a combination of the [120:57] remembered past and the sensory present. [121:00] That means to change who you are, you [121:03] can [121:05] change what you remember or how you [121:08] predict or you can change the sensory [121:11] present. You can change the sensory [121:13] present by literally getting up and [121:14] moving somewhere else like going for a [121:16] walk or or you can change the sensory [121:18] present by what you pay attention to. [121:21] Mindfulness for example, right? you [121:23] there are there are some sensory signals [121:26] that are front and center in your [121:27] attention and there are some that are in [121:29] the background lurking for example you [121:32] can right now you're not paying [121:34] attention to some sensory signals but [121:36] the minute that I say them point them [121:38] out you will be like the pressure um of [121:41] the chair against your back and your [121:44] legs now they're in the forefront of [121:46] your attention because I just mentioned [121:47] them so what I would say is that there [121:51] is no essence to who you are you are [121:54] what you [121:55] do in the moment. You are what you do [122:01] and you can change what you do. You can [122:04] change what you experience the [122:06] consequence of the lived experience [122:08] which is the consequence of what you do [122:10] by what you [122:12] remember and what the context is. So [122:18] that's my answer. If you always remember [122:20] that you will never be [122:23] attached, you will never crave or [122:26] strive, you know, to have things and [122:29] like all of these artificial things [122:30] which prop up the illusion that you are [122:32] and you have an essence to you that you [122:34] c that you know is unchanging across [122:37] situations. Yeah, we um I we um are very [122:41] quick to fall into the trap of thinking [122:42] we are what we did and that's um I much [122:46] prefer I am what I do because that means [122:49] that I have agency to make a different [122:50] decision in the moment irrespective of [122:52] what I did in the past. But it but [122:54] that's the trap we fall into. In 10 [122:56] minutes time I bet I'll be downstairs [122:57] and I'll be back into the trap of [122:58] thinking that I am Steven Barllet who [123:01] did this thing for 32 years or did you [123:05] know Lisa thank you. Thank you so much [123:08] for um thank you for everything that you [123:09] do. I've I've you've changed my mind in [123:11] a really profound way and that's quite [123:12] hard because I sit here quite a lot so [123:14] have lots of conversations about the [123:15] brain and about lots of lots of new [123:18] studies that have come out etc etc but [123:20] you've completely changed my my mind and [123:22] made me think from in a completely [123:25] different way which I'm really grateful [123:26] for. So, thank you so much because [123:28] that's a gift and that's not a gift that [123:30] I always get doing this job, but um it [123:32] really is a gift and it's one that I [123:34] think will help me to live a better life [123:35] ultimately. But hopefully also for [123:37] everybody that's listening and thank you [123:38] for stepping into the uh public [123:41] communication side of your life [123:46] because I was going to say it's um [123:49] someone that knows what you know and [123:50] that has done the work that you've done. [123:53] It is so important to the to the extent [123:55] that I almost consider it to be like a [123:57] really critical responsibility because [123:59] there's people like us that sit on these [124:01] podcasts who aren't in the laboratory [124:03] that are getting our information from [124:04] social media, Tik Tok or any any odd [124:06] person that says anything and it's [124:08] really really important that people like [124:09] you step out more and share what you [124:11] know. Um and thank you so much for [124:13] writing these books because they are [124:15] absolutely brilliant and just like [124:17] you've changed my mind today. I think [124:19] these books will change a lot of [124:20] people's lives. I highly recommend this [124:22] book. how emotions are made. I'm going [124:23] to link it below. The secret life of the [124:25] brain and also for something a little [124:26] bit shorter but equally accessible. Um [124:29] this book here, seven and a half lessons [124:31] about the brain. [124:33] Thank you so much. We're done. Thank you [124:35] so much. I'm going to let you into a [124:37] little bit of a secret. You're probably [124:38] going to think me and my team are a [124:39] little bit weird, but I can still [124:40] remember to this day when Jamaima from [124:42] my team posted on Slack that she changed [124:44] the scent in this studio. And right [124:46] after she posted it, the entire office [124:48] clapped in our Slack channel. And this [124:50] might sound crazy, but at the Diary of [124:51] SEO, this is the type of 1% improvement [124:53] we make on our show. And that is why the [124:55] show is the way it is. By understanding [124:58] the power of compounding 1%s, you can [125:00] absolutely change your outcomes in your [125:03] life. It isn't about drastic [125:04] transformations or quick wins. It's [125:07] about the small consistent actions that [125:10] have a lasting change in your outcomes. [125:12] So, two years ago, we started the [125:14] process of creating this beautiful [125:15] diary, and it's truly beautiful. Inside [125:17] there's lots of pictures, lots of [125:18] inspiration and motivation as well. Some [125:21] interactive elements. And the purpose of [125:23] this diary is to help you identify, stay [125:26] focused on, develop consistency with the [125:29] 1% that will ultimately change your [125:31] life. So if you want one for yourself or [125:32] for a friend or for a colleague or for [125:34] your team, then head to the diary.com [125:36] right now. I'll link it below. This has [125:39] always blown my mind a little bit. 53% [125:42] of you that listen to this show [125:43] regularly haven't yet subscribed to the [125:45] show. So, could I ask you for a favor? [125:47] If you like the show and you like what [125:48] we do here and you want to support us, [125:49] the free simple way that you can do just [125:51] that is by hitting the subscribe button. [125:53] And my commitment to you is if you do [125:54] that, then I'll do everything in my [125:56] power, me and my team, to make sure that [125:58] this show is better for you every single [126:00] week. We'll listen to your feedback. [126:01] We'll find the guests that you want me [126:03] to speak to, and we'll continue to do [126:04] what we do. Thank you so [126:08] [Music] [126:09] much. Heat. Heat. N. [126:13] [Music] [126:19] [Music]