第 140 期·中文精讀

莉莎·費德曼·巴瑞特:愛、進化與人類大腦

Lisa Feldman Barrett: Love, Evolution, and the Human Brain

神經科學家談情緒的建構、大腦如何預測世界,以及愛與進化如何塑造人類的社交本能。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

1992年,網際網路還沒有網頁,沒有圖片,連"上網"這個詞都還沒流行起來。一個剛離過婚、在賓州州立大學當助理教授的女人,在本地BBS上發了一條徵友帖。她忘了寫自己在哪兒,也忘了寫自己多大。24小時之內,她收到80多封回信。

她把所有回信列印出來,叫上朋友,燉了一大鍋秋葵湯,開了好幾瓶酒,一群人邊喝邊讀。大多來信都挺真誠,也有幾封很怪:有一對夫妻說她是他們倆的靈魂伴侶,想找"第三個人";有個自稱在NASA工作的科學家,後來發現是虛報職位;有個住在新加坡的銀行家,把她比作《源泉》裡那個被強姦的女主角;還有一個人打電話來,說自己想找一個dominant的女人,她以心理學家的專業素養理解成"喜歡強勢女性",還挺高興,聊到後來才發現對方說的是另一回事。

最後她挑了一個人。週四到週五,兩天時間,兩個人來回發了一百封郵件,純文字,沒有照片。他約週日晚上通電話,她週日晚上本來有個約會,就想著乾脆週六先打過去。電話接通,一個女人的聲音。

她愣了一下,剛想說"我找一下……",對方先說:"我只是個朋友。"過了一會兒他接過電話,第一句話也是:"她只是個朋友。"

她當場取消了週日那個約會。那天晚上他們聊了八個小時,第二天又聊了六個小時。再往後他直接買了機票飛過去,中間還出過岔子:她託秘書用優先郵件寄照片,照片一直沒到,他在機場起飛前一小時打電話來,語氣不太對,她聽出來了,問你是不是收到照片了,你是不喜歡吧。他說沒有沒有,我上飛機。她說你不用來。他說我一定要來。

機場在一片玉米地中間,特別小。她開車去接,回程十五分鐘,車裡全黑,沒人說話。這個場景她後來想起來覺得特別熟悉,因為過去那二十幾個小時,他們就是在黑暗裡對著電話講話的。

第二次見面是她的三十歲生日,朋友給她辦派對,他們去爬山,坐在懸崖邊的觀景臺上。她說了一句話:

"我認識你還沒多久,但我感覺自己在愛上你。這不可能發生,一定是投射。可它確實有這個感覺。"(莉莎·費德曼·巴瑞特)

他說,我懂你意思。之後三四個月,兩個人都用"我感覺我在愛上你,但是……"這個句式講話,講著講著變成了玩笑。真正的轉折在一個冬天,他們去緬因州看海。她喜歡冬天的海,那種藍灰色的、強大的、赤裸的美。兩個人坐在一塊巨大的礁石上,冷得要命,她說她記不清當時誰說了什麼,但記得那種感覺:我要和這個人在一起,如果人生裡沒有他,我不知道會是什麼樣。

二十年結婚紀念日,Dan把當年那些郵件往來列印出來,做成了一本皮面裝訂的書,送給她。

情人節禮物是六孔插線板

有一年情人節,Dan送了她一個六孔插線板。她得說清楚,這是她收過最浪漫的東西之一。

她的原話是,他能送我這個,是因為他太懂我了。她會一直抱怨電線亂、插座不夠、要插要拔,抱怨到天荒地老,但她絕不會想到自己去買一個六孔插線板。而他去買了,插好,把線理好,用膠帶固定,弄得整整齊齊。

還有一件事:他們搬家之後車庫只能停一輛車。她說我加拿大來的,不怕雪,你停裡面。結果每次下雪,他早起去把她的車清乾淨。她沒要求過,他就每天做。因為她早上出門的時間掐到秒,起床越晚越好,鍛鍊越久越好,進辦公室通常是會議開始前一分鐘,只要下雪耽誤十幾分鍾,她就完蛋。

Lex在節目裡感慨,這個六孔插線板大概是她人生中最豐富的浪漫表達。她笑著說,浪漫不只是巧克力和花,那些當然也好。有時候是這些。

Dan是個程式設計師、音樂人,電腦科學博士,現在在Google做工程教育,早年還在一家公司做過最早的知識管理系統之一。兩個人幾乎不吵架,唯一的戰場是車裡的導航。原因很有意思:她用的是自我中心的空間參照,會說"走到教堂然後左轉";他用的是絕對方位,腦子裡裝著東南西北。她說,在你那兒地球是宇宙的中心;他說,不,是你。

一見鍾情是預測,不是愛

巴瑞特不相信一見鍾情,但她的理由不掃興,是解剖學。

她承認人可以在瞬間和另一個人建立連線,認出"這個人的心智跟我相容",這種感覺真實存在。可大腦是預測機器,它拿你的過去去填補眼前資訊的空缺。你看到的很多東西跟對方沒多大關係,是你的大腦把空白處補完了。

她給了一個區分:一見鍾情是真的感受,但它撐不起愛的全部內容。愛情研究裡有個說法叫"最優錯覺邊際",處於戀愛關係裡的人,在解讀對方行為時傾向於挑那個正面的解釋,小事上給自己加一點濾鏡,但不能在大的事情上裝瞎。濾鏡太厚,遲早會崩。

她還有一句很鋒利的話:

"以我的經驗,人不會對你撒謊關於他們是誰,他們只是在你面前對自己撒謊。"(莉莎·費德曼·巴瑞特)

年輕時候有人對她說"你不是我以為的那個人",她的反應是:那是誰的錯?她說自己是個很直接的人,從頭到尾都是。Dan也是,兩個人都離過一次婚,反而把話講得很明白,所以她後來在他身上沒發現過任何讓她意外的不良特質。

這裡面有個能力問題。她受訓做了五年心理治療師,那五年的訓練方式是:你在房間裡跟來訪者談一個小時,就要跟督導談一個小時,督導全程坐在單面鏡後面看你的整場會談。你要覆盤自己說了什麼、沒說什麼、哪個念頭冒出來是訊號、哪個反應是自己的投射。五年被放在顯微鏡下,人不可能不瞭解自己。

知道大腦怎麼運作,會讓愛情褪色嗎

Lex問了一個很實在的問題:身為研究大腦的科學家,知道"香腸是怎麼做出來的",會不會毀掉愛情那種沉浸的魔力?

她的回答很明確:不會,而且反過來。

"對我來說,魔力的一部分就是過程本身。知道一件事怎麼運作,不會讓你從當下退開,它會把當下放大。"(莉莎·費德曼·巴瑞特)

她舉了嬰兒的例子。有一次她在紐約中央公園,看著滿地推嬰兒車的人,突然意識到每一頂遮陽篷下面,都有一個正在給自己佈線的小小大腦。她說從那一刻起,她再也沒法用同樣的眼光看嬰兒了。以前她覺得嬰兒可愛但沒什麼意思,得等到能互動才有意思;現在她知道,那些看起來像團軟肉的東西,正在做的事一點都不無聊。

她讀研究生的時候自己也在做心理治療,跟治療師約定了一個規則:她可以隨時叫暫停,問"你現在在幹什麼""我正在體驗什麼"。只要不是用暫停來逃避問題,治療師就不能拒絕。她說這個做法讓治療變得更有用,因為它把過程本身變成了可以觀察的物件。

Lex的說法不太一樣。他說自己有兩個房間,一間是工程師的房間,在裡面他從第一性原理出發,想這個東西是怎麼造出來的;另一間是浪漫的房間,他進去就不帶腦子,哭、寫歌、發火、發一堆簡訊、稀裡糊塗跑到拉斯維加斯。他要刻意在兩個房間之間切換,因為把工程師帶進浪漫的房間會毀掉它。

巴瑞特對這個說法挺寬容,她說也許這是年齡和經歷的問題。西方文化裡有一套理想化的浪漫劇本,人人都在照著演。她順手出了個測試題:情人節丈夫送了你一個六孔插線板,這算浪漫還是不浪漫?答案取決於他當時看你的眼神,取決於你們之前的那場對話,取決於他是不是真的懂你。

寫書最難的部分是刪掉什麼

她寫了兩本書:《情緒是如何形成的》(How Emotions Are Made)和《七堂半課:關於大腦》(Seven and a Half Lessons about the Brain)。前者三百多頁正文加近千條註釋,每條註釋後面還掛著一個網頁長注;後者是一本小書,短到可以在海灘上、浴缸裡、地鐵站裡讀完。她丈夫給這本書起了個外號,叫"第一本神經科學沙灘讀物"。

關於寫作,她總結了兩件事。

第一,如果你覺得這本書一年能寫完,它就會花你三年。哪怕你組織得再好也一樣。原因是很少有人真的先列好提綱然後照做,有些題目會長出自己的生命,你得讓它長,得順著線索一路追下去,直到你覺得自己真的處理完了。這個過程她非常享受,前提是你沒有同時管著一個實驗室和一個家。

第二,也是最重要的一條:知道該刪掉什麼。學術寫作裡不該刪,所有細節都該在,她寫過或者參與寫過兩百多篇同行評審論文,處理細節是她的強項。但講故事的寫作裡,好作者必須知道該刪什麼,而且刪完之後不能損害論證的有效性。這件事非常難。

《情緒是如何形成的》她寫了三稿,最後從十五萬字砍到十一萬字。她自己說,簡潔不是她的強項,她每次跟人講這件事都當警告說。

她寫這本小書,動機來自安妮·法迪曼(Anne Fadiman)的散文集《At Large and at Small》。那種文體叫"家常隨筆",寫的是郵件、咖啡、巧克力這類日常題材,作者會把歷史、哲學、科學和自己的經歷織在一起,讀起來像在偷聽一個人的思路。她給法迪曼寫過一封粉絲信,問怎麼才能學會這樣寫,對方給了她一張書單,她全讀了。

她決定給自己出個難題:用極短的篇幅,每次只講一兩個神經科學的精彩事實,然後把它接到一個哲學問題或者一個關於人性的問題上,同時不損害科學的嚴謹性。這個挑戰的難度,恰恰撞上她第一本書裡做得最差的地方。

她的第一讀者是Dan,也是這本書實際上的編輯。Dan是兩人中更好的寫作者,講故事的時間感極好,而且很懂怎麼組織知識。她寫《情緒是如何形成的》的時候,每一章的第一稿都是先講給Dan聽,講清楚想說什麼、按什麼順序說,然後再落筆,寫完給他讀,他把所有可以砍掉的句子標出來。

兩人的分歧主要在一個問題上,Dan會問她:這是寫給誰看的?是寫給那1%嗎?這裡說的不是財富,是"學術界"和"普通人"的差別。他站在普通人這邊。有一次吵得非常兇,因為吵得太多已經影響到關係了,Dan做了兩塊小牌子,一塊寫著"Writing",一塊寫著"Science"。誰舉牌,對方就直接贏,爭吵當場結束。寫第一本書用了幾次,寫這本小書只用了一次。

大腦不是為了思考才進化出來的

這本書裡有一課講進化。問題聽起來很簡單:人類的大腦是進化來思考的嗎?

她先給了一個前提:為什麼大腦會進化出來,這種問題叫目的論問題,科學家一般應該回避,因為我們確實不知道那個"為什麼"。

但她可以指出的是,很長一段時間裡,進化被想象成一條向上的階梯:從簡單生物到複雜生物,層層遞進。把這個想法套到大腦上,就得到一個叫"系統發育階梯"(phylogenetic scale)的東西,從簡單動物裡的簡單大腦,一路爬升到複雜動物裡的複雜大腦。這個假設甚至嵌在達爾文自己的思想裡,而現代進化生物學已經對它提出了嚴重挑戰。

另一個更有意思的角度是看那些沒有大腦的生物。生物學家管一個動物生活的環境叫"生態位",要問的是這個環境裡哪些部分對這個動物重要。有些動物的生態位四億年沒怎麼變過,它們的生物學也就沒怎麼變,你可以從細胞分子結構深處那些基因裡驗證這一點。還有一種辦法是看發育中的動物,看胚胎,不看成年個體。

拼出來的另一個故事是這樣的:大腦是在捕食的選擇壓力下進化出來的。寒武紀,動物開始主動吃別的動物。在那之前,動物不僅沒有大腦,連像樣的感官都沒有。

她在書裡寫的這種動物叫文昌魚(amphioxus,也叫lancelet)。它沒有眼睛,沒有耳朵,沒有鼻子,只有幾個感光細胞用來感知明暗、維持晝夜節律;有一個前庭細胞讓它保持身體直立;觸覺極其原始;沒有內臟,只有一根管子。它移動能力很差,只會蠕動,蠕動到某個地方扎進沙子裡,過濾漂過的食物,食物濃度降下去就彈出來,隨機再蠕到下一個機率上食物更多的地方,重新紮下去。她的描述是:基本上就是一根棍子上長了個胃。

捕食出現之後,事情變了。你得知道前面那團東西是要吃你,還是你要吃它。這時候遠距離感官變得極其有用。在水裡,視覺是遠距離感官,聽覺和嗅覺也是,觸覺也算,因為你能感覺到振動。於是動物長出了頭,接著是頜,再接著是大腦。有些科學家認為,心智理論,也就是你推測別的生物內心活動的能力,也是在捕食壓力下進化出來的,因為它讓你成為一個更好的獵手。

Lex順著這個往下問:那我們是不是本質上就是聰明的捕食者?

巴瑞特說這是時代精神的問題。二十世紀,尤其是第一次世界大戰之後,"內裡的野獸"這個隱喻在西方思想裡佔據主導:人本質上就是暴力的動物,需要文化和龐大新皮層來約束。到了九十年代末,關於"我們是社會性動物"的書和文章開始變多。她說這兩種說法都不完整。人能很暴力,也能非常利他。別的動物也會互相幫助,會調節彼此的神經系統,會對自己養大的同類表現慷慨。人類特殊的地方在於,我們劃分"自己人"的方式不依賴物理關係,可以只靠一個抽象的觀念。而這個圈子一旦劃出來,我們對圈內人的偏愛有時候甚至超過家人。

沉積岩式的大腦是一個神話

關於大腦的起源,有一個流傳極廣的故事:大腦像沉積岩一樣一層層堆上去。最底下是本能,也就是所謂的"蜥蜴腦";上面一層是情緒,叫邊緣系統,limbic這個詞本身就是"邊界"的意思,因為它在解剖位置上包著本能那部分;最上面一層是新皮層,理性住的地方。

巴瑞特說這是虛構,是神話,能一路追溯到古希臘關於道德的寓言。她更喜歡的比喻是:把大腦皮層想成已經烤好的蛋糕上面那層糖霜,蛋糕本體是你內裡那頭野獸,沸騰翻滾的本能和情緒,全靠外面那層糖霜兜著,這個意象也是假的。

她強調,看科學記錄,你能講出完全不同的故事。

人腦唯一特殊的地方

她糾正了自己上次上節目時的一個錯誤。她當時興奮之下說,人腦相對身體並不比別的靈長類大,其實不對。人腦相對身體的比例確實更大一些,大致可以理解為能塞進去的東西更多。

但真正的事實是這樣的:人腦的皮層佔整個腦容量的比例,並不比預期的大。跟大猩猩、黑猩猩比,跟海豚、大象比,你的皮層就是它"該有的"大小。

她用一個類比講這件事。你走進別人家,看到一個特別大的廚房,你可能會想,這家人肯定是美食家,我以後要爭取來這兒吃飯。可你並不知道這個大廚房意味著什麼,除非你知道整棟房子多大。大廚房在大房子裡什麼也說明不了;大廚房在小房子裡,那才說明問題。

換個角度,鳥類有和人類皮層裡完全相同的神經元,只是它們不把這些神經元組織成皮層。烏鴉極其聰明,能做人能做的一些事。章魚的大腦也很複雜,結構和我們完全不同。她說,你可以在別的動物身上找到人類任何一種單獨看起來很了不起的能力,你找不到的是所有能力同時出現在一個大腦裡,並且以人類這種特定的方式互相咬合。

這句話同時帶著兩層意思,她自己也承認這是這本書裡的張力所在。一層是:人類不特殊,我們只是適應得好,細菌比我們成功得多,它們佔領的地方比我們多,只不過細菌不開播客。另一層是:人類的生態位大到離譜,我們不只適應環境,還在給環境加東西,憑空造出一個東西,給它起個名字,它就變成真的,別的動物做不到這個。

她的解法是把這兩層放在一起:任何一項能力都不獨家,可多項能力在這顆被特別調校過的大腦裡互相作用,結果就變得挺驚人。這個思路本身就是一種方法論,一旦你意識到多數現象都不是單一原因造成的,你問問題的方式就變了。

希特勒不是異類

Lex說他最近在讀斯大林和希特勒,問了一個很大的問題:從神經科學角度看,惡的本性是什麼?

巴瑞特先宣告,接下來她要脫掉白大褂,作為一個有觀點的人來猜測,因為神經科學家其實還不夠格回答這個。

她說她一直以來的想法是:沒有人能"成為希特勒",但絕大多數人有能力做很壞的事。真正的問題是,需要環境施加多大的推動,才能讓一個人去做那些事。

看希特勒的一生,你會看到很多個本可以干預的岔路口。他被藝術學院拒了,其實畫得還行,那是明顯的一個。他在維也納的經歷,那些小小的互動,都可能改道。而可能有成千上萬的人,具備被環境塑造成同樣東西的條件,只是在那個特定的時刻、特定的位置,長出了一個特定型別的領袖人物。

她的解釋框架是這樣:西方人推理因果有個習慣,總在找單一的、簡單的原因,找一件事的"本質"。希特勒有一個本質,寫在基因裡,或者很早就定型了,於是解釋了他整個可怕的人生軌跡。但更符合生物學事實的說法是,多數現象是"複雜"的。這裡說的複雜,指的是整體大於部分之和,跟"這事兒太難了"是兩個意思。多數現象由很多微弱的、非線性的、互相作用的原因共同決定。那些我們甚至注意不到的小事,可以把一個人的發展軌跡從這一條撥到另一條,然後滑向一整套完全不同的路徑。

她說這件事既不隨機,也不像嚴格的決定論那樣一開始就規定好一切,更接近"你在把一個人從一組可能性推向另一組可能性"。

硬幣的另一面同樣成立。她說自己剛看了新版《波拉特》,印象最深的反而是裡面普通人的善意。那兩個開皮卡的特朗普支持者,在疫情裡把一個陌生人帶回了自己家;那兩位猶太老太太對闖進門的波拉特有多好;那位保姆有多善良。她說我們當然會看到有人做壞事說壞話,但她也看到那個全程冷靜、在專業地做自己工作的人,你不知道他心裡在想什麼。

所以她的結論是:每個人都有善意,問題在於門檻有多高,環境是什麼樣。有人需要很多推動,有人一點點就夠。真正值得問的問題是,我們是不是在為下一代培育一種環境,讓更多人有機會往關心和善意的方向走。她說自己不是那種盲目樂觀的人,競爭和辯論都有空間,但她從來不把希特勒當成一個異類,這一點在她學神經科學之前就成立,現在只是多了一套說法:

"我們擁有的,是那種需要養育的本性。我們的基因讓嬰兒出生時大腦尚未完工,然後在二十五年裡用世界提供給他們的指令一點點佈線。"(莉莎·費德曼·巴瑞特)

她特意補了一句:他百分之百要為自己的行為負責,說這話不是替他開脫。她要說的是,環境也有一部分責任。

病毒是感冒的必要原因,不是充分原因

關於人性的多樣性,她講了一個研究方法上的問題。

大概十多年前有一批控制實驗,用的是普通冠狀病毒,不是新冠。研究者把病毒放進受試者的鼻腔,劑量對所有受試者嚴格一致,受試者被隔離在酒店房間裡,吃什麼由科學家稱量好。結果是,只有20%到40%的人發展出呼吸道疾病。

所以暴露於病毒不等於你會生病。你可能是攜帶者,可能把病毒傳給別人,但你的免疫系統處在能產生足夠抗體的狀態,你自己不出現症狀。病毒是必要條件,不是充分條件,還有別的原因。

接著她把話題引向文化。不同文化有不同的規範和做法,會讓病毒傳播得更快或者更慢。她的同事米歇爾·格爾凡德(Michele Gelfand)研究"緊文化"和"松文化",也就是規則極其嚴格的社會和更個人主義、更看重個人自由的社會。格爾凡德的研究顯示,面對大流行這種情形,緊文化裡的人反而活得更好。

這背後的邏輯是:放到物種的尺度上看,沒有哪種文化制度更好。差異本身就是適應優勢。人類發明了不同的群居解決方案,有的更強調等級,有的更平等,有的優先個體,有的優先集體。環境劇變的時候,總有一些方案比別人跑得快。如果新冠的致死率再高得多,比如帶走20%的人口,那麼擁有變異就是活命的關鍵,因為總有一部分人能撐過去。

她說很多人對"外星人入侵"有個想象,電影裡那種,外星人來了,人類就放下所有國家間的齟齬,作為同一個物種團結起來。新冠就是一個來自外太空的生物,現實完全不是電影裡那樣。

進化沒有方向,但有約束

Lex想給進化找一個方向。他的直覺是,如果地球重來一遍,是不是最終還是會走向同樣的終點,是不是有某種東西總在朝著更高的複雜度和智慧前進。

她的回答很乾脆:沒有方向。她強調自己只是在複述比她聰明得多的人的觀點。

準確的說法是:存在變異,但變異不是無界的。存在選擇者,存在壓力。不是什麼都有可能,因為我們生活在一顆有特定物理現實的星球上。基因的物理現實、身體的物理現實、這顆星球上生命的物理現實,共同約束了可能性的邊界。所以沒有方向,但不是無限可能,有些事永遠不會發生。

Lex追問,如果地球重放一遍,會不會每次都一樣。她說這問題沒有是或否的答案,只有一個機率分佈。碳基生命出現的機率大概不低。動物從海里爬上岸,大概機率也不低。但要精確復現同樣的生物組合,包括人類在內,她說機率不高,不會是0,也不會是100%,連50%都不到。有太多自由度了。宇宙學家甚至可以問,大爆炸重來一遍,還會不會有同樣的星系、同樣的太陽系、同樣的行星,她的猜測是大概不會。

"我們不是偶然出現在這裡的"這句話她認同,因為有約束;但"我們必然出現"她不認同。

一句話能改變你的心率

書裡還有一段被廣泛引用的話:詞語對生物學有支配力。她在美國給比利時的好友發一條"我愛你",對方聽不到她的聲音,看不到她的臉,可心率、呼吸和代謝都會被改變。反過來,一條含義模糊的簡訊,比如"你門鎖了嗎",也大機率會讓你的神經系統以一種不愉快的方式反應。

為什麼語言有這個能力?答案在解剖學。

處理語言的腦區,同時也參與控制你的主要器官系統,包括控制心血管和呼吸的自主神經系統,也包括內分泌系統和免疫系統。這在別的動物身上也能看到:鳥的鳴叫神經元同時控制鳥的身體系統。而且有科學家認為,控制鳥鳴的那套解剖結構,和人類語言系統是同源的。

結論就是:那些處理語言的腦區不為語言專設,它們幹很多活,其中一件是管你的內臟。

你只能靠文字愛上一個人嗎

順著這條線,Lex問了一個他一直被反駁的問題:人能只靠文字墜入愛河嗎?

她說人們已經這麼做幾百年了,過去人們就是靠寫信。她說你自己不就是這麼認識Dan的嗎。

她的判斷是,觸覺、嗅覺、身體的在場都有幫助,可不是必需。她還提了個補充條件:這樣一段關係裡,你的壽命大概會更短,因為你拿不到身體預算的那部分收益。

身體預算這個概念她講過很多次:大腦最重要的任務是控制身體,你可以把它理解成大腦在為身體記賬,有存入有支出。你不只在自己賬上記賬,你也在別人的賬上存取,這就是人和人之間的相互調節。跟一個不會回饋身體預算的物件相處,你少了這一份收益。

Lex用《荒島餘生》舉了個例子。Tom Hanks和一個排球Wilson,如果必須讓它成立,能不能成立?他的直覺是能,人可以跟一個排球建立很深的關係,只是床上的部分不好。他還補了一層:匱乏會催化深刻的連線,你擁有的越少,那種連線就越充實。

巴瑞特說這確實是個實證問題,也許可以從兒童和他們的毯子這類事入手研究,有觸感,有氣味,非常安撫人。小動物也一樣,小狗如此,貓她說不好,"貓是冷酷的"。Lex說有些貓很像狗。她回了一句,是的,它們是物種流動的。

"做你自己"是一句危險的建議

書裡有一句:談到人類心智,變異才是常態,我們稱之為"人性"的東西其實是很多種人性。

Lex順著問:那"做你自己"這件事可能嗎?值得追求嗎?這句話有含義嗎?

她的第一反應是,這個問題本身就帶著很重的西方色彩。哪個自己?你沒有單一的自我,沒有作為本質的自我,你有很多個自我。她引了社會心理學家海澤爾·馬庫斯(Hazel Markus)那句:

"你無法獨自一人做你自己。"(莉莎·費德曼·巴瑞特)

不同情境會調動你身上不同的特徵。有的情境把某些東西推到前臺,有的把另一些推到前臺。這又接回前面關於希特勒的討論:你有多個可以成為的自己。你可以在一定程度上選擇把自己放進什麼情境裡,不是每個人都有完全的擇權,但每個人都有一點點。

她給女兒的臨別建議就是這個:儘量選擇那些能讓你成為最好的自己的關係。她說原本應該用複數,"最好的那些自己"。

她對"做你自己"這句話最大的警惕是,它容易被當作藉口。"我就是這樣的人""我天生就這樣",這種說法她認為應該高度警惕。

Lex接了另一半。他說自己經常自我批評,常被自我懷疑填滿,別人總勸他別想太多,做你自己就好。可這句話不可操作。他想要的是完全真誠、完全開啟,可他也發現自己早上還快活得像個傻子,見到什麼都想笑,晚上就變得煩躁,什麼小事都能讓他不舒服。如果他把昨晚和今天早上的兩條推文發出去,那看上去就像兩個不同的人在說話。哪一個更像他?他不知道。

巴瑞特的回答是,這裡可以換一個更接近佛學的框架。你腦子裡並沒有住著多重人格。真實的情況是,你的大腦有一種驚人的能力:它儲存了你經歷過的一整套經驗,可以重新啟用、重新組合,甚至可以抽取其中零碎的部分拼成新的東西。它在做預測、在做行動規劃時用這套機制,走神和內部思考用的也是同一套機制。

我們常聽到一句話,改變想法就能改變感受。可大腦一直在和身體對話,大腦在控制身體的同時,身體也在往回送資訊。身體送回來的資訊跟來自外部世界的資訊一樣,會啟動下一輪預測。所以換個說法就是,你感受到的情緒和心境,來自身體預算的那份感受,會反過來影響你的想法。感受影響思想的力度,可能和思想影響感受的力度一樣大,甚至更大。整套系統並不穩定。

她補了一句:它是個動力系統,一個非線性動力系統。她還說正在跟一群工程師寫一篇關於這個的論文。真正困難的地方在於,怎麼從這個系統裡匯出心理特徵。從系統裡匯出一次運動,是一件事;匯出一種"被愛"的感覺、"覺得自己有價值"的感覺、"感覺自己糟透了"的感覺,是另一件事。

所以最終的答案是:你不是一個人,也不是很多人。你是你全部經歷的加總,而你在某一刻是誰、會做什麼,受你身體的狀態和你所處的世界的狀態共同影響。這兩個變數你都能改,其中一個比另一個好改。

改環境可以直接站起來走動,也可以只是換個注意力分配的方式。她說環顧Lex的房間,第一反應是這兒沒有一株綠植,因為綠植意味著有人住下來,而這房間應該是暫時的。她承認不是每個人都有條件控制自己的環境,噪音、溫度都不一定管得著,但每個人都有那麼一點控制權。你可以往環境裡放東西,照片、植物、任何對你有意義的東西,需要的時候當作開關。

改身體狀態更具體:喝水,不用非得瓶裝,多數發達國家的水龍頭水就行;儘量睡夠,不是每個人都有這個條件,但每個人都能做點什麼讓自己更"有餘量";每天運動,那是給自己的大腦做投資,過程中不愉快,代價真實,可存進去之後,你的大腦未來控制身體會更省力,也讓某些念頭更容易從那臺預測機器裡冒出來。這就是你能有的控制。

皮膚上沒有水的感受器

她講了一個小發現,說這事她最近才知道,講的時候眼睛發亮。

人的皮膚上沒有感受水的受體。那你怎麼感覺到雨滴?答案是溫度和觸覺的組合,是一個只在腦子裡計算出來的複雜感覺。

她說自己聽到這件事的第一反應是:當然沒有了,因為我們是在水裡進化的,為什麼要專門長一個感受水的器官。雪和冷雨、熱雨感覺不一樣,正是因為你的大腦在用溫度和液滴大小去推斷。

她講這個是為了說明一件事:你的大腦是預測機器,它在做的事情就是不斷把大量資訊結合起來,去推斷一個你自己都意識不到的過程。

意識是最難的那個問題

Lex問最老套的那個問題:從神經科學看,意識是什麼?她開玩笑說,你提前給我的問題我每個都做了筆記,只有這一個沒有,因為實在無從下手。

她的正經回答分兩層。第一層是身份宣告:她不是意識哲學家,也不是專攻意識問題的神經科學家。不過換個角度看,她確實在研究,因為她研究情緒和心境,而那正是意識最難的部分。

大腦在建模你的身體,在建模來自身體的感官狀態,這個模型持續被身體送來的資料更新,一輩子不停。你並不直接感受那些感覺,你感受到的是一種籠統的愉快或不愉快、舒適或不適、煩躁或平靜。心理學裡把這叫affect,也就是情感基調,多數人管它叫mood,心境。

於是核心問題就出來了:身體每時每刻都在上演一出你基本意識不到的戲,大腦收到的應該是一組極高維的資料,它憑什麼給你輸出一個低維的、單一的、說不清道不明的"感覺糟透了"?

而且這個狀態報告極其難用。你感到不舒服,它不告訴你原因,原因是多個因素疊加的,你的姿勢、你的腸道,而且腸道狀態不只受你五分鐘前吃的東西影響,還受一天前、兩天前的影響。時間尺度也是多層次疊加的。

她知道自己在繞,但她的說法是:這確實是所有問題裡最難的那個。

Lex問,我們最終會理解它嗎。她說,作為一個科學家,她的回答是:我們對它的理解,會達到我們對宇宙起源、對宇宙本質的理解那樣的程度。她確實認為能到達那個level,但前提是換一批問題來問,換一套做科學的方式來做。

她說的"換一套方式",指的是科學家的本體論承諾。科學家對世界是什麼樣的、自然是什麼樣的,有一些未必自覺的預設,這些預設會影響他們問什麼問題、測什麼、怎麼測。她這些年的立場跟不少同行不太一樣,她要走的路線更貴、更慢,而且很不好塞進現在這套科研激勵結構裡。

所以她的最終判斷很直白:如果按照現在做科學的方式做,用現在的經費,用現在的激勵結構,我們不會有答案。

她推薦的書

她給每個畢業的博士生都會送一小套書。她列的第一本是理查德·列萬廷(Richard Lewontin)的《三螺旋》(The Triple Helix),2000年出版的小書,講複雜性,講群體思維和本質主義的區別。本質主義相信每個人身上有一個本質,靈魂也好,基因也好;另一種觀點是,我們擁有那種需要養育的本性,你是基因和環境複雜共舞的產物,環境決定了哪些基因被開啟。書名是從雙螺旋來的,意思是生命這件事比雙螺旋能裝下的東西更大。她說這本書她讀了六七遍。

第二本是同一位作者的《生物學即意識形態》(Biology as Ideology),1991年寫的,講科學實踐本身帶著一整套有問題的本體論承諾。她用了一個比喻:就像魚在水裡,你意識不到水的存在。這本書的價值在於,它讓你意識到自己在水裡。

第三本是心理學史家庫爾特·丹齊格(Kurt Danziger)的《給心靈命名》(Naming the Mind)。這本書問了一個更根本的問題:我們關於"人心裡裝著思想、情感、知覺"這套理論是從哪來的?這些範疇從哪來的?因為不是所有文化都有。她給這本書的評價是,第一章讀完會讓人腦子一炸,跟雨滴那件事一個效果。她實驗室裡所有人都要讀這兩本。

寫作方面的推薦是斯蒂芬·金的《寫作這回事》。她從中得到的最大啟發是:你寫作的時候要在心裡裝著一個具體的人。她心裡那個具體的人就是Dan。

如果說哪一本書是好科學寫作的範本,她的選擇是《雀鳥的喙》(The Beak of the Finch,喬納森·韋納著),拿過普利策獎,兩條線索交織:達爾文在加拉帕戈斯群島的探索,和今天普林斯頓的研究團隊在同一片群島上繼續研究達爾文雀。她說書裡有真正一流的科學,是很多人不熟悉的進化生物學,而且講得極好。她的判斷是,所有好的科普書都是講故事,只是這個故事被證據約束著。

小說方面她偏愛愛情故事,正好呼應這期節目的開頭。她推薦海倫·西蒙森的《佩蒂格魯少校的最後之戰》(Major Pettigrew's Last Stand),講兩個你根本不會預期會相愛的人相愛,還有周圍的人如何克服自己的偏見。她說你能感覺到這段旅程,這段旅程不只屬於這兩個人,也屬於他們身邊所有人。另一本是《A.J. 費克里的故事》(The Storied Life of A.J. Fikry),一段收養關係和父女之愛,一個脾氣暴躁的書店老闆莫名其妙地接下照顧一個被遺棄在書店裡的嬰兒,整個社群因為這個決定愛上他,一整個人生從這一個決定裡長出來。

Lex問,最偉大的故事應該有好結局還是心碎的結局。她說這個問題本身就屬於俄羅斯傳統,因為俄羅斯悲劇就這麼寫,她的答案是必須有心碎。她說自己不喜歡心碎,她想要好結局,或者至少是一個有希望的結局。然後她提了《日瓦戈醫生》和《英國病人》,Lex在那邊抗議。

關於這段對話,還可以補兩句她的背景。她有一半家人是俄羅斯人,她說那是"好的那一半"。她給女兒的建議是選擇能讓你成為最好的自己的關係,而她自己那段關係是從一條沒寫地址、沒寫年齡的BBS徵友帖開始的,兩天一百封純文字郵件,八小時加六小時的電話,然後是一塊緬因州冬天的礁石。

下面這條清單,是這期對話裡可以帶走、也確實能用的東西。

  • 判斷一段關係值不值得投入,看對方是否記得你的小習慣,並且在不被要求的情況下替你處理那些你自己都懶得處理的事。一個六孔插線板比一束玫瑰花包含的資訊量更大。
  • 感覺糟透了的時候,先別急著分析情緒,先處理身體。喝水、睡夠、動一動,這三件事是在給自己的賬上存錢,會讓某些念頭更容易出現。
  • 想換心情,先換環境。站起來走動,整理桌面,往房間裡放點有意義的實物。環境變了,被調動出來的那個"自己"也會變。
  • 警惕"我就是這樣的人"這句話。它通常不是自我認知,是拒絕改變的擋箭牌。
  • 定期檢查你花最多時間相處的那幾個人。你沒有單一的自我,不同的關係會調出不同的你。
  • 對一件壞事找原因的時候,別隻找那個單一的"本質"。多數結果是多個微弱因素非線性疊加的產物,盯住變數比盯住壞人更有用。
  • 讀書單可以拿這幾本起步:列萬廷的《三螺旋》和《生物學即意識形態》,丹齊格的《給心靈命名》,以及《雀鳥的喙》。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Lisa Feldman Barrett, her second time on the podcast. She's a neuroscientist at Northeastern University and one of my favorite people. Her new book called Seven and a Half Lessons about the Brain is out now as of a couple of days ago. So you should definitely support Lisa by buying it and sharing with friends if you like it. It's a great short intro to The Human Brain. Quick mention of his sponsor, followed by some thoughts related to the episode, I thought of Greens, the only one drink that I start every day with to cover all my nutritional bases, eat, sleep a mattress that calls itself and gives me yet another reason to enjoy sleep master class online courses that I enjoy from some of the most amazing people in history and better help online therapy with a licensed professional. [00:00:52] Please check out these sponsors in the description to get a discount and to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that Lisa, just like Benoit, Kelis is a local brilliant mind friend and someone I can see talking to many more times. Sometimes it's fun to talk to a scientist, but just about their field of expertise, but also about random topics, even silly ones from love to music to philosophy. Ultimately, it's about having fun, something I know nothing about. [00:01:23] This conversation is certainly that you may not always work, but it's worth a shot. I think it's valuable to alternate among all kinds of dimensions, like between deeper technical discussions and more fun. Random discussion from liberal thinker to conservative thinker, from musician to athey, from CEO to junior engineer, from friend to stranger. Variety makes life in conversation more interesting. Let's see where this little podcast journey goes if you enjoy this thing. Subscribe on YouTube. Starting up a podcast following Spotify support on Patron. [00:02:02] Connect with me on Twitter. Elex Friedemann, as usual. I do a few minutes of ads now and no ads in the middle. I try to make things interesting, but I'll give you time stamps. So if you skip please to check out the sponsors by clicking the links and description. It's the best way to support this podcast. This show sponsored by Athletic Greens that all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. It replace the multivitamin for me and went far beyond that was seventy five vitamins and minerals. [00:02:32] I do intermittent fasting of 16 to 24 hours every day and always break my fast with of greens. I honestly can't say enough good things about these guys. It helps me not worry whether I'm getting all the nutrients I need. One of the many reasons I'm a fan is that they keep iterating on the formula. As an engineer, I love continuous improvement. Life is not about reaching perfection. It's about constantly striving for it and making sure each iteration is a positive delta. [00:03:00] The other thing I've taken for a long time outside of athletic greens is fish oil. Some especially excited now that they're selling fish oil and are offering listeners of this podcast free month's supply of wild caught omega three fish oil. When you go to a third of that council likes to claim the special offer so you can be lazy like me and get all your nutrients from the same company. Click the athletic dot com slash lacks link in the description to get the fish oil. [00:03:31] And the only one supplement I rely on for their nutritional foundation are my physical and mental performance. This show is also sponsored by Eat, Sleep, and it's part pro matches, it controls temperature with an app, is packed with sensors and can cool down to as low as 55 degrees on each side of the bed. Separately, it's been a game changer for me. I just enjoy sleep and power naps way more. Now I feel like I fall asleep faster and get more restful sleep. [00:04:01] Combination of cool bed and warm blanket is amazing. Now, if you love your current mattress but are still looking for temperature control, its leaves new pod cover as dynamic cooling and heating capabilities onto your current mattress. It can cool down to 55 degrees or like a very cold day in Boston, like today, heat up to one hundred and ten degrees and do so on each side of the bed separately. Also, you can track a bunch of metrics like heart rate variability, but honestly, cooling alone is worth the money. [00:04:38] Go to a city council that works, and when you buy stuff there during the holidays, you'll get a special savings. As listeners of this podcast that's a dotcom slash likes. This show is also sponsored by Master Class one hundred eighty dollars a year for an all access pass to watch courses from literally the best people in the world and a bunch of different topics. Let me list some that I've really enjoyed watching Chris Hadfield on space exploration, Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific thinking communication will right. [00:05:12] Creator of SIM City and Sims on game design. Carlos Santana on guitar. Garry Kasparov on chess, Daniel Nagorno Poker, Neil Gaiman, storytelling, Martin Scorsese and filmmaking is one of my favorite directors, Tony Hawk Skateboarding and Jane Goodall on conservation and many more. By the way, you can watch it on basically any device sign up at Masterclass. Dot com slash likes to get 50 percent off the first year of an annual subscription. That's Masterclass dot com slash Lex. [00:05:48] This show sponsored by Better Help spelled H-E LP Help. They figure out what you need, a match with a licensed professional therapist in order 48 hours, a chat with a person on there and enjoy it. Of course, I also have been talking to Mr. David Goggins over the past few months, who is definitely not a licensed professional therapist, but he does help me meet his and my demons and become comfortable to exist in their presence. Everyone is different, but for me, I think suffering is essential for creation. [00:06:23] But you can suffer beautifully in a way that doesn't destroy you. Therapy can help in whatever form that therapy takes, and so better help is an option worth trying. There is private, affordable, available, worldwide. [00:06:36] You can communicate by text any time, schedule weekly audio and video sessions. I know you didn't ask me, but my two favorite psychiatrists are Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, since in my youth I wanted to be a psychiatrist, their work was important in my intellectual development. Anyway, check out better health counsel. Lex, that's better help dot com slash Lex. And now here's my conversation with Lisa Feldman Barrett. Based on the comments in our previous conversation, I think a lot of people will be very disappointed, I should say, to learn that you are, in fact married, as they say, all the good ones are taken. [00:07:39] OK, so I'm a fan of your husband as well, Dan. He's a programmer. Musician, so a man after my own heart. Can I ask a ridiculously overromanticized question of when did you first fall in love with Dan is actually it's a really it's a really romantic story. [00:08:00] I think. So I was divorced by the time I was twenty six. Twenty seven, twenty six I guess. And I was in my first academic job, which was Penn State University, which is in the middle of Pennsylvania, surrounded by mountains. So it's four hours to get anywhere to get to Philadelphia, New York, Washington. I mean, you're basically stuck, you know, um. And I was very fortunate to have a lot of other assistant professors who were hired at the same time as I was. [00:08:32] So there were a lot of us. We were all friends, which was really fun. But I was single and I didn't want to date a student. And there were no and I wasn't going to date somebody in my department. That's just a recipe for disaster. Yeah. [00:08:48] So even at twenty, whatever you were, you're already wise enough to know that. [00:08:53] Yeah, a little bit maybe. Yeah. I wouldn't call me wise at that age, but anyways, I'm not sure that I would say that I'm wise now, but um. And so, um, after you know, I was spending probably 16 hours a day in the lab because it was my first year and as an assistant professor and there's a lot to do. [00:09:15] And I was also bitching and moaning to my friends that I hadn't had sex and I don't know how many months. And it was I was starting to, you know, become unhappy with my life. [00:09:26] And I think at a certain point they just got tired of listening to me bitch and moan and said, just do something about it then like, you know, if you're unhappy. [00:09:36] And so the first thing I did was I made friends with a sushi chef in town. [00:09:42] And this is a state college, Pennsylvania in the early nineties was there was like a pizza shop and a sub shop and actually a very good bagel shop and one good coffee shop and maybe one nice restaurant. I mean, there was really but there was a the second son of a Japanese sushi chef who was not going to inherit the restaurant. And so he moved to Pennsylvania and was giving sushi lessons. So I met this guy, the sushi, the sushi chef, and we decided to throw a sushi party at the coffee shop. [00:10:13] So we basically it was the goal was to invite every eligible bachelor really within like a 20 mile radius. We had a totally fun time. I wore an awesome crushed velvet burgundy dress with beautiful dress. And I didn't meet any I met a lot of front new friends, but I did not meet anybody. So then I thought, OK, well, maybe I'll try the personals ads, which I had never used before in my life. [00:10:39] And, um, I first tried the paper personals ads like a newspaper, like in the newspaper that didn't work. And then a friend of mine said, oh, you know, there's this thing called net news. So we're going this is like nineteen ninety two maybe. So there was this anonymous. You could do it anonymously. So you would you would read, you could post or you could read ads and then respond to an address which was anonymous and that was yoked to somebody's real address and. [00:11:16] And there was always a lag because it was this like a bulletin board sort of thing. [00:11:21] So at first I read I read them over and I decided to to respond to one or two. [00:11:29] And, you know, it was interesting to say this is not on the Internet. Yeah, this is totally on the Internet. But it takes there's a delay of a couple of days or whatever. Yeah. Right. Right. [00:11:37] It's 1992 and there's no web web pictures. There's no pictures. The web doesn't exist. [00:11:43] It's all done in ASCII format, sort of. And you know, but the real ASCII. [00:11:49] But the ratio of men to women was like ten to one. I mean, there were many more men because it was basically academics and the government. That was it. That's no, I mean, I think AOL maybe was just starting to become popular, but. And so the first person I met told me that he was a he worked he was a scientist who worked for NASA and. Yeah. Anyways, it turned out that he didn't actually make this holiday brag. [00:12:25] As you elevate your as opposed to saying you're taller than you are, you say like your position. [00:12:30] Yeah. And I actually I would have been fine dating somebody who was a scientist. [00:12:34] It's just that they have it's just that whoever I date has to just accept that I am and that I'm I was pretty ambitious and was trying to make my career. And, you know, that's not that that's not I think it's maybe more common now for men to maybe accept that in their female partners. [00:12:54] But at that time, not not so intimidating, I guess. [00:12:58] Yes, I that has been said. And so and so then the next one I actually corresponded with and we actually got to the point of talking on the phone and we had this really kind of funny conversation where, you know, we're chatting. And he said he's he introduces the idea that, you know, he's really looking for a dominant woman. And I'm thinking I'm a psychologist by training. [00:13:21] So I'm thinking, oh, he means sex roles. Like, I'm like, no, I'm very assertive. And I'm glad you think that. Anyways, long story short, that's not really what he meant. [00:13:31] Oh, OK. [00:13:32] I got it. Yeah. So I do you know, that will just show you my level of naiveté. [00:13:38] Like I was like I didn't completely understand. [00:13:40] I was like, well yeah, you know, no. [00:13:43] At one point he asked me how I felt about him wearing my lingerie. And I was like, I don't even share my lingerie with my sister. Like, I don't share my laundry with anybody, you know? No. [00:13:57] The third one I interacted with was a banker who lived in Singapore and. That that conversation didn't last very long because he made an announcement, I guess he he made an analogy between me and a. Character in The Fountainhead. The woman who's who's raped in The Fountainhead and I was like, OK, that's not that's not a good that's not a good no, that's not a good one. Not making it not that scene. [00:14:29] So then I said, then I was like, OK, you know what? I'm going to post my own ad. And so I did I post it. Well, first I wrote my ad and then I of course, I checked it with my my friends who were also assistant professors that are like my little Greek chorus. And then I posted it and I got something like, I don't know, 80 something responses in twenty four hours. [00:14:50] I mean, it was do you remember the pitch like how you, I guess, condensed yourself? [00:14:57] I don't remember it exactly, although Dand has it. [00:15:01] But actually for our 20th wedding anniversary he took our our exchanges and he printed them off and put them in a leather bound book for us to read, which was really sweet. [00:15:13] Yeah, I think I was just really direct. Like, I'm almost 30. I'm a scientist. I'm not looking, you know, I'm looking for something serious and, you know, but the thing is, I forgot to say where my location was and my age. [00:15:26] Yeah. Which I forgot. Yeah. [00:15:28] So I got lots of I mean I will say so I printed off all of the responses and I had all my friends over and we were, you know, had a big I made a big pot of gumbo and we drank through several bottles of wine reading these responses. [00:15:44] And I would say for the most part they were really sweet, like earnest and genuine. As much as you could tell that somebody was being genuine, it seemed, you know, there were a couple of really funky ones like, you know, this one couple who told me that I was their soulmate, the two of them. And they were looking for, you know, a third person. [00:16:03] And I was like, OK, but mostly super seem like super genuine people. And so I chose five men to start corresponding with and I was corresponding with them. [00:16:15] And then about a week later, I get this other email and OK, and then I post something the next day that said, OK, you know, thank you so much and I'm going to answer to every person back. But then after that I said, OK, I'm not going to answer anymore, you know, because it was they were still coming in. I couldn't you know, I have a job and, you know, a house to take care of and stuff. [00:16:35] So, yeah. [00:16:36] And then about a week later, I get this other email and he says, you know, he just describes himself like, I'm this, I'm this, I'm this. I'm a chef. I'm a scientist. Some of this, some of this. And so I emailed him back and I said, you know, you seem interesting. You can write me at my actual address if you want. Here's my address. I'm not really responding. I'm not really responding to other people anymore. [00:16:59] But you seem interesting. You know, you can write to me if you want. And then he wrote to me and I then I wrote him back and I it was it was a nondescript kind of email. And I wrote him back and I said, thanks for responding. You know, I'm really busy right now. I was in the middle of writing my first slate of grant applications, so I was really consumed and I said, I'll get back to you in a couple of days. [00:17:23] And so I did. I waited a couple of days. I my grants were, you know, safe grant application safely out the door. And then I emailed them back. And then he emailed me and then really across two days, we sent 100 emails. And text only with their pictures and the text only, text only, and then so this was like a Thursday into Friday and then Friday he said, let's talk on the weekend on the phone. [00:17:51] And I said, OK. And he wanted to talk Sunday night. And I had a date Sunday night. [00:17:58] So I said, OK, sure, we can talk Sunday night. [00:18:04] And then I was like, well, you know, I don't really want to cancel my date, so I'm just going to call him on Saturday. So I just called. I could call them on Saturday. [00:18:11] And a woman answered, Oh, wow. That's not cool, not cool. And so she says, you know, hello, and I say, oh, you know, is down there. And she said, Sure, can I ask who's calling? And I said it, tell them it's Lisa. And she went, Oh, my God, oh, my God. [00:18:30] I'm just a friend. I'm just a friend. I just want to tell you, I'm just a friend. [00:18:33] And I was like, yeah, this is adorable, but she doesn't. And then he gets on the phone, not, hi, nice to me. The first thing he says to me, she's just a friend, so. [00:18:45] I was just so charmed, really, by the whole thing, so it was it was Yom Kippur, it was the Jewish day of Atonement that was ending, and they were baking cookies and going to breakfast. So people, you know, as you know, fast all day and then they go to a party and they breakfast. So I thought, OK, I'll just I'll just, you know, cancel my date. So I did. And I stayed home and we talked for eight hours. [00:19:12] And then the next night for six hours, and basically it just went on like that, and then by the end of the week he he flew to state college and, you know, we'd gone through this whole thing where I'd said, we're going to take it slow. We're going to get to know each other, you know, and then really by I think we talked like two or three times these like really long conversations. And then he said, I'm just going to fly there. [00:19:36] And then so, of course, there's. I don't even know that there were fax machines at that point. I mean, maybe there were, but I don't think so anyway. So he we decide we'll exchange pictures. And so he you know, I take my photograph and I give it to my secretary and I say to my secretary. This I think that setting this priority mail priority, and he goes, OK, I'll send a priority, Madeleine, make this a priority like I know priority mail, OK? [00:20:06] And then so I get Dan's photograph in the mail and, you know, it's it's him in a in shorts. And you can see that he's probably somewhere like the Bahamas or something like that. And it's like cropped. So clearly what he's done is he's taken a photograph where, you know, he's been in it with someone else who turned out to be his ex-wife. So I'm thinking, well, this is awesome. You know, I've hit the jackpot. [00:20:31] He's he's, you know, very appealing to me, very attractive. And and then, you know, my photograph doesn't show up and it doesn't show up. And, you know, so like, one day and then two days and then, you know, he's he's like, you know, I said, well, I asked my secretary to send a priority. I mean, I don't know, you know, what he did. And and he's like I said, I'm like, well, you don't have to, you know, you don't have to come. [00:20:58] And he's like, no, no, no. [00:20:58] I'm going to I'm going to you know, we've had like five dates, the equivalent of five dates practically. And then so he's supposed to fly on a Thursday or Friday. I can't remember. And I get a call like maybe an hour before his flight supposed to leave and he says hi. And I say, and it's just something in his voice. Right. And I say, because at this point, I think I've talked to him like for twenty five hours, I don't know. [00:21:21] And he says, hi. And I'm like, you got the picture. And he's like, yeah. And I'm like, you don't like it. And he's like, well. [00:21:33] I'm sure it's not. I'm sure it's you're I'm sure just not, you know, it's just probably not your best. Oh, no. [00:21:41] You know, if you don't, you don't have to come. And he's like, no, no, no, I'm coming. And I'm like, no, you don't have to come. And he's like, no, no. I really want to I'm you know, I'm getting on the plane. I'm like, you don't have to get on the plane. He's like, No, I'm getting on the plane. And so I go down to my I go, I'm in my office. [00:21:57] This is happening. Right? So I go downstairs to my one of my closest friends who still actually one of my closest friends, who is one of my colleagues, and Kevin and I say Kevin and I go to Kevin, actually, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, he doesn't like to photograph. [00:22:12] And Kevin's like, well, which photograph did you send? And I'm like, well, you know, the one where we're shooting pool. And he's like. Huh? You sent that photograph. That's a horrible photograph. I'm like, yeah, but it's the only one that I had that was like where my hair was kind of similar to what it is now. And he's like, Lisa, do I have to check everything for you? You know, like you you should not have sent that, you know, but still he flew over. [00:22:36] So he flew from by the way he was in and he was in graduate school at Amherst at UMass Amherst. So he flew and I picked him up and. At the airport, and he was happy, so whatever the concern was, was gone. Yeah, and I was dressed, you know, carefully, carefully dressed me nervous. [00:23:01] I was really, really nervous because I I'm not I don't really believe in fate and I don't really think there's only one person that you can be with, but I think. [00:23:15] You know, people who some people are curvy, they're kind of complicated, and so the number of people who fit them is maybe less than I like it, mathematically speaking. [00:23:26] And so when I was going to pick him up at the airport, I was thinking, well, this could I could be going to pick up the the person I'm going to marry. Or not, I mean, like I really but I really, you know, like, our conversations were just very authentic and very moving and and we really connected and and I really felt like he understood me actually, um, in in a way that a lot of people don't. [00:23:57] And, um, and and what was really nice was at the time, you know, the airport was this tiny little airport out in a cornfield, basically. And so driving back to the town, we were in the car for 15 minutes, completely in the dark as I was driving. And so it was very similar to we had just spent, you know, twenty something hours on the telephone, sitting in the dark talking to each other. [00:24:27] So it was very familiar. And we basically spent the whole weekend together. And you met all my friends and we had a big party. And, um, and at the end of the weekend, I said, OK, you know, if we're going to give this a shot, we we probably can't we shouldn't see other people. So it's a risk, you know, commitment. [00:24:53] But but I just didn't see how it would work if we were dating people locally and then also seeing each other at a distance because, you know, I've had long distance relationships before and they're hard and they they take a lot of they take a lot of effort. [00:25:06] And so we decided we'd give it three months and see what happened. And that was it. [00:25:10] Such an interesting thing like, well, what is that? [00:25:15] There's several billion of us and we're kind of roaming this world and then you kind of stick together. If I can find somebody that just like gets you and it's interesting to think about, there's probably thousands, if not millions of people that would would be sticky to depending on the curvature of your space. But. What what is the cause you speak to the stickiness, like to the just the falling in love, like seeing that somebody really gets you maybe by way of telling. [00:25:50] Do you think do you remember there was a moment when you just realized, dammit, I think I'm like, I think that's this is the guy I think I'm in love. [00:26:00] We were having these conversations actually from the really from the second weekend we were together. So he flew back the next weekend to State College because my birthday was my 30th birthday. My friends were throwing me a party and we went hiking and we hiked up some mountain and we were sitting on a cliff over this, you know, overlook and talking to each other. And I was thinking and I actually said to him, like, I I haven't really known you very long, but I feel like I'm falling in love with you, which can't possibly be happening. [00:26:26] I must be projecto. [00:26:28] But it certainly feels that way, right. Like I don't believe in love at first sight. So this can't really be happening. But it sort of feels like it is. And he was like, I know what you mean. And so for the first three months or four months, we would say things to each other, like, I feel like I'm in love with you, but. You know, but that can't. But things don't really work like that, so but, you know, so and then it became a joke like I feel like I'm in love with you. [00:26:54] And then eventually, you know, I think but I think that was one moment where we were we were talking about just. [00:27:06] You know, not just all the great aspirations you have or all the things, but also things you don't like about yourself, things that you're worried about, things that you're scared of. And then I think the. That was sort of solidified the relationship and then there was one weekend where we went to Maine in the winter, which I love. [00:27:26] I mean, I really love the beach always, but in the winter, particularly because it's just beautiful home and whatever. Yeah. [00:27:35] And I also, I, I do find beauty in starkness sometimes, like, so there's this grand majestic scene of this very powerful ocean and it's all these beautiful blue grays and it's just it's just stunning. And so we were sitting on this huge rock in Maine and where we had gone for the weekend, it was freezing cold. And I honestly can't remember what he said or what I said or what. But I, I definitely remember having this feeling of I absolutely want to stay with this person like I and I don't know what my life will be like if I'm not with this person like I need to be with this person. [00:28:18] Can we from a scientific and a human perspective dig into your belief? The first love at first sight is not is not possible. You don't believe in it because there is you don't think there's like a magic where you see somebody in the Jack Kerouac way and you're like, wow, that's something that's that's a special little. [00:28:41] Oh, I definitely think oh, I definitely think you can connect with someone instantly in an instance. And I definitely think you can say, oh, there's something there, and I'm really clicking with that person romantically, but also just as friends, it's possible to do that. You recognize a mind that's like yours or that's compatible with yours. There are ways that you feel like you're being understood or that you understand something about this person, or maybe you see something in this person that you find really compelling or intriguing. [00:29:14] But I think, you know, your brain is predictive. Oregon, right? You're using your past. You're projecting, you're using your past to make predictions. [00:29:26] And I mean, not deliberately. That's how your brain is wired. That's what it does. [00:29:31] And so it's filling in all of the gaps that you. You know, there are lots of gaps of information that you don't, you know, information you don't have, and so your brain is filling those in and, um, but it's not what love is. [00:29:48] No, I don't think so, actually. I mean, to some extent, sure. You always you know, there's research to show that people who are in love always see the best in each other. And they you know, when there's a when there's a negative interpretation or positive interpretation, you know, they choose the positive ones. There's a little bit of positive illusion they're going on. That's what the research shows. [00:30:11] But I think. I think that when you find somebody who not just appreciates. Your faults, but loves you for them, actually, you know, like maybe even doesn't see them as a Faulds, that's. [00:30:34] You so you have to be honest enough about what your what your faults are, so it's easy to love someone for all the things that they. [00:30:47] For all the wonderful characteristics they have, it's harder, I think, to love someone despite their faults or maybe even the faults that they see aren't really faults at all to you. They're actually something really special. [00:31:00] But isn't that can you explain that by saying the brain kind of like you're projecting your you have a conception of a human being or just a spirit that really connects with you and you're projecting that onto that person. [00:31:17] And yes, just within that framework, all their faults then become beautiful, like a little maybe. [00:31:23] But you just have to pay attention to the prediction error. No, but maybe that's what love like maybe you start ignoring the prediction areas, maybe love is just your ability, like to ignore the prediction error? [00:31:39] Well, I think that there's some research that might say that, but that's not my experience, I guess. But there is some research that says I mean, there's some research that says you have to have an optimal margin of illusion, which means that you that you put a positive spin on on smaller things, but you don't ignore the bigger things. Right. And I think without being judgmental at all, when someone says to me, you know, you're not who I thought you were. [00:32:09] I mean, nobody says I said that to me in a really long time. But certainly when I was younger, that was you know, you're not who I thought you were. My reaction to that was, well, whose fault is that? You know? [00:32:19] Yeah, um, I'm a pretty I'm a pretty upfront person. Um, I mean, I will, though, say that in my experience, people people don't lie to you about who they are. They lie to themselves in your presence. Yeah, and so, you know, you don't want to get tied, tied up in that, tangled up in that, and I think from the get go, Dan and I were just for whatever reason, maybe it's because we both have been divorced already and, you know. [00:32:57] You know, he told me who we thought he was and he was pretty accurate as far as I can, pretty much actually. [00:33:04] I mean, I there's very I can't say that I've ever come across a characteristic in him that really surprised me in a bad way. [00:33:14] It's hard to know yourself. It is hard, you know, to communicate that for sure. [00:33:19] I mean, I'll say, you know, I had the advantage of training as a therapist, which meant for five years I was under a fucking microscope. Yeah. You know, when I was training as a therapist, it was our four hour supervision, which meant if you were in a room with a client for an hour, you had an hour with a with a supervisor. So that supervisor was behind the mirror for your session. And then you went and had an hour of discussion about what you said, what you didn't say, learning to use your own react your own feelings and thoughts as a tool to probe the mind of the client and so on. [00:33:58] And so you can't help but learn. A lot of you can't help but learn a lot about yourself in that process. [00:34:05] Do you think knowing or learning how the sausage is made ruins the magic of the actual experience, like using neuroscientist who studies the brain? Do you think it ruins the magic of, like, love at first sight? Or are you do you consciously are still able to lose yourself in the moment? [00:34:27] I'm definitely able to lose myself in the moment. Is why involved? [00:34:31] Not always chocolate. I mean, I'm kind of mind altering substance, right. But yeah. [00:34:38] Yeah, for sure. I mean, I guess what I would say, though, is that. For me, part of the magic is the process like so, uh, you know, so so I remember there was well, I was working on this on this on this book of essays. I was in New York. I can't remember why I was in New York, but I was in New York for something and I was in Central Park and I was looking at all the people with their babies. [00:35:06] And I was thinking. Every effort that each one of these are so tiny little brain that's wiring itself right now, and I and I, I just I felt in that moment I was like, I am never going to look at an infant in the same way ever again. And so to me, I mean, honestly, before I started learning about brain development, I thought babies were cute, but not that interesting until they could do interact with you and do things. [00:35:37] Of course, my own infant, I thought was extraordinarily interesting. [00:35:40] But, you know, they're kind of like lumps. That's, you know, until they can, you know, interact with you. But they are anything but lumps. I mean, like, you know, so and part of the. [00:35:52] I mean, all I can say is I have deep affection now for, like tiny little babies in a way that I didn't really before because of the I'm just so curious about the actual process, the mechanisms of the wiring of the brain, the learning, all the magic of the neurobiology. [00:36:14] Yeah. [00:36:15] And or, you know, something like, you know, when you make eye contact with someone directly, sometimes, you know, you you feel something, right? Yeah. And that's weird. [00:36:29] What is it and what is that. And so so to me that's not that's not backing away from the moment. That's like expanding the moment. It's like that's incredibly cool. You know, when I was I'll just say that when I was when I was in graduate school, I also. Was in therapy because it's almost a given that you're going to be in therapy yourself if you're going to become a therapist and I had a deal, you know, with my therapist, which was that I could call time out at any moment that I wanted to as long as I was being responsible about it. [00:37:04] And I wasn't using it as a way to get out of something. And he could tell me, no, you know, he could decline and say, no, you're you know, you're using this to get out of something. But I could call time out whenever I want and say, what are you doing right now? Like, what do you here's what I'm experiencing. What are you trying to do? Like, I wanted to use my own experience to interrogate what the process was and that made it. [00:37:32] More helpful in a way. Do you know what I mean? So, yeah, I don't I don't think learning how something works makes it less magical, actually, but that's just me, I guess. [00:37:41] I don't know. Would you? [00:37:44] Yes. I tend to have two modes, one is one is an engineer and one is romantic, and I'm conscious of like like the girl, like you like there's two rooms you can go into, the one, the engineer room. [00:38:00] And I think that ruins the romance. So I tend to there's two rooms. One is the engineering room, I think from first principles. How do we build the thing that creates this kind of behavior? And then you go into the romantic room where you're like emotional. It's a roller coaster. And then you're the thing is, let's take it slow and then you get married the next night. You just this giant mess and you write a song and then you cry and then you send a bunch of text and anger and and whatever. [00:38:30] And somehow you're in Vegas and there's random people and you're drunk and whatever, all that like in poetry and just mess of it. Fighting. Yeah. That's not those are two rooms and you go back between between them. But I think the way you put it is quite poetic. [00:38:45] I think you're much, you're much better that adult thing now with love than, than perhaps I am because there is a magic to children. [00:38:56] I also think. Like of adults as children, it's kind of cool to see it's a cool thought experiment to look at adults and think like they used to be a baby and then that's like a fully wired baby and it's just walking around pretending to be like all serious and important, wearing a suit or something. [00:39:18] But they used to be a baby. And then you think of like the parenting and all the experiences they had, like, it's cool to think of it that way, but then I start thinking, like from a machine learning perspective. But once you're like the romantic moments, all that kind of stuff, all that falls away, I forget about all that. I don't know what's the one thing. [00:39:39] Maybe, maybe. But I also think it might be an age thing or maybe an experience thing. So I think. We all I mean, if you're exposed to Western culture at all, you are exposed to the sort of idealized stereotypic, romantic, romantic, you know, exchange and what does it mean to be romantic? And so here's a test. [00:40:09] I don't see how to phrase it. OK, so not really test, but this this tells you something about your own ideas about romance. For Valentine's Day one year, my husband bought me a six way plug. Is that romantic or not romantic? Like, so secret plays that's second out like a yeah, like to put in an outlet. Is that romantic or not romantic? I mean, depends the look in his eyes when he does it, I mean, it depends on. [00:40:46] The conversation that led up to that point depends how much. It's like the music, because you have a very you're both from the my experiences with you as a fan, you have both the romantic and we have a very pragmatic like you cut through the bullshit of the fuzziness and there's something about a six way plug that cuts the bullshit that connects to the human. [00:41:11] Like he understands who you are. Exactly. [00:41:14] Yeah, exactly. Yeah. That was the most romantic if he could have given me because he knows me so well, he has a deep understanding of me, which is that I will sit and suffer and complain about the fact that I have to plug and unplug things and I will bitch and moan until the cows come home. [00:41:34] But it would never occur to me to go buy a bloody six way plug, whereas for him he bought it. [00:41:42] He plugged it in, he arranged, he taped up all my wires. [00:41:45] He made it like really usable. And for me that was that was the best. [00:41:54] It was a bad thing because he understood who I was and he did something very or, you know, just the casual like we moved into a house that went we went from having a two car garage to a one car garage. And I said, OK, you know, I'm from Canada. I'm not bothered by snow. Well, I mean, I'm a little bothered by snow, but he's very bothered by snow. So I'm like, OK, you can park your car in the garage. [00:42:18] It's fine. Every day when it snows, he goes out and cleans my car. Every day. Like, I never asked him to do it. He just does it because he knows that I'm cutting it really close in the morning. You know, when we when we all used to go to work, I have it timed to the second so that I can get up as late as possible, work out as long as possible, you know, just and make it into my office like a minute before my first meeting. [00:42:45] And so if it snows unexpectedly or something, I'm screwed because now that's an added an added 10 or 15 minutes and I'm going to be late anyways. You know, it's just these little tiny things that he's he's he's he's a really easygoing guy. And he doesn't look like somebody who pays attention to detail. [00:43:04] He doesn't fuss about detail, but he definitely pays attention to detail. And it's it is very, very romantic in the sense that he. You know, he loves me despite my little details and understands you. Yeah, it is kind of hilarious that that is the six we plug is the the most fulfilling, richest display of romance in your life. I love it. I love the performance. [00:43:37] Romance is really it's not all about chocolates and flowers and, you know, whatever. I mean, those are all nice, too. But sometimes it's about the sex, sometimes it's about the sex. [00:43:48] So maybe one way I could ask before we talk about the details, you also have the author of another book as we talked about how emotions are made. So it's interesting to talk about the process of writing. You mentioned you were in New York. What have you learned from writing these two books about the actual process of writing? And maybe I don't know what's the most interesting thing to talk about there? Maybe the biggest challenges or the boring, mundane, systematic like day to day of what worked for you, like sex or or even just about the neuroscience that you've learned through the process of trying to write them. [00:44:24] Here's the thing I learned. [00:44:25] If you think that it's going to take you a year to write your book, it's going to take you three years to write your book. [00:44:31] That's the first thing I learned is that no matter how organized you are, it's always going to take way longer than what you think. [00:44:44] Um, in part because, um, very few people make an outline and then just stick to it. You know, the the some of the topics really take on a life of their own. And to some extent you want to let them. You want to let them have their voice, you know, you want to follow leads until you feel satisfied that you've dealt with the topic appropriately, but I and that part is actually fun. [00:45:10] It's not fun to feel like you're constantly behind the eight ball in terms of time here, but it is the exploration and the foraging for information is incredibly fun for me. Anyways, I found it really enjoyable. And if I wasn't also running a lab at the same time and trying to keep my family going, you know, it would have been the whole thing would have just been fun. But I would say the hardest thing about the most important thing I think I learned is also the hardest thing. [00:45:37] And that for me, which is knowing what to leave out, a really good storyteller knows what to leave out in in academic writing. You you shouldn't leave anything out. You all the details should be there. Right. And. And I you know, I've written or participated in in writing. Over 200 papers, peer reviewed papers, so I'm pretty good with detail, knowing what to leave out, knowing what to leave out and not harming the validity of the story, that is a tricky, tricky thing. [00:46:23] It was tricky when I wrote How Emotions are made, but that's a standard popular science book. So it's three hundred something pages and then it has like a thousand and notes. And then each of the notes is attached to a web note, which is also long. So I mean, you know, it's, um, and it's start and I mean the final draft, I wrote three drafts of that book actually and the final draft. And then I had to cut by a third. [00:46:53] I mean or I mean, I, you know, it was like one hundred and. Fifty thousand words or something, and I had to cut it down to like one hundred and ten, so, um, obviously I struggled with what to leave out. You know, brevity is not my strong suit. I'm always telling people that it's a warning. [00:47:09] So that's why this book was I you know, I'd always been really fascinated with essays. I love reading essays. And after reading a small set of essays by Anne Fadiman called At Large and at Small, which I just loved these little essays. [00:47:26] What was the topic of those assets? They are they're called familiar essays. So the topics are like everyday topics like mail, um, coffee, chocolate. [00:47:38] I mean, just like and what she does is she weaves her own experience. It's a little bit like these conversations that you're so good at curating, actually, um, you're weaving together history and philosophy and science and also personal reflections and a little bit you feel like you're like. Eavesdropping on someone's train of thought, in a way, it's really the really compelling to me and even if it's just a mundane topic. [00:48:09] Yeah, but it's so interesting to learn about, like, all of these little stories in the. In the wrapping of the history of like mail, like that's that's really interesting and so I read these essays and then I wrote to her a little fan girl email. This was many years ago. [00:48:33] And and I said, I, I, I just love you. I love this book. And how did you learn to write essays like this? And she gave me a reading list of essays that I should read like writers. And so I read them all. [00:48:45] And anyway, so I decided it would be a really good challenge for me to try to write something really brief where I could. [00:48:56] Focus on know one or two really fascinating tidbits of of neuroscience, connect it to connect each one to something philosophical or, you know, just a question about human nature, do it in a really brief format without violating the validity of the science. [00:49:21] That was a I just sent myself this would I thought of as a really, really big challenge, in part because it was an incredibly hard thing for me to do in the first book. [00:49:29] Yeah, we should say that this is the seven and a half lessons, a very short book. [00:49:34] I mean, it's it's like it embodies brevity. The whole point throughout is just I mean, you could tell that there's editing like there's pain in trying to bring as brief as possible. As clean as possible. Yeah. [00:49:51] Yeah. [00:49:51] So it's either way I think of it is, you know, it's a little book of big science and big ideas, really big ideas and in brief little packages. [00:50:01] And, you know, I wrote it so that people could read it. I love reading on the beach. I love reading essays on the beach. I read it. I wrote it so people could read it on the beach or in the bathtub or a subway stop even if the beach is frozen over in the snow. [00:50:18] Yeah. [00:50:18] So my husband Dan calls it the first neuroscience beach read. That's his that's his phrasing. Yeah. [00:50:27] And like like you said, you learn a lot about writing from your husband, like you were saying. Oh, fine. [00:50:31] Well, he's he is one of the two of us. He is the better writer. He's a masterful writer. Um, he he's also I mean, he you know, he's a PhD in computer science. He's he's a software engineer, but he's he's also really good at organization of knowledge. So he built for a company he used to work for. He built one of the first knowledge management systems. And he's he now works at Google, where he does engineering education like he's he understands how to tell a good story, a just, you know, about anything really. [00:51:11] Um, he's got impeccable timing. He's really funny. And luckily for me, he knows very little about psychology or neuroscience. Well, now he knows more, obviously. [00:51:21] But so, you know, he was really when how emotions were made. You know, he was really, really helpful to me because the first draft of every chapter was me talking to him about what I would talk out loud about what I wanted to say and the order in which I wanted to say it. And then I would write it. [00:51:43] And then he would read it and tell me all the bits that could be excised. Yeah, and sometimes we would, you know, I should say, I mean, we don't he and I don't really argue about much except directions in the car. Like where that's where. [00:51:59] That's if we're going to have an argument that's going to be where it's going to happen, where what's and what's the nature of the argument about directions exactly. [00:52:06] I don't really know. It's just that we're very I think it's that spatially, you know, he he I use egocentric space. So I want to say, you know, turn left like I was. I'm reasoning in relation to, like, my own physical, corporeal body. So, you know, you walk to the church and you turn left and you then, you know, whatever, you know, I'm always like and his you know, he gives directions along centrally, which means organize around north, south, east, west. [00:52:37] So to you, the the earth is at the center of the solar system. And to him, no, I'm reasonably I'm at this. You're the center of the solar system. [00:52:46] OK, so anyway, so we but but here we you know, we, we had some really rip-roaring arguments like really rip-roaring arguments where he would say like who is this for, is this for the one percent. [00:53:00] And I'd be like one percent meaning not you know, not wealth but like civilians versus academics, you know. So are these for the scientists or for this is this for the civilians? So he speaks for the for the people, for the city, for the people. [00:53:13] And I'd be like, oh, you have to. [00:53:15] And so he made, you know, after one terrible argument that we had where it was really starting to affect our our relationship because we were so mad at each other all the time. [00:53:25] He made these little signs, writing and science, and we only use them. This this was like. When you when you pulled out a sign, that's it, like the other person just wins and you have to stop fighting about it. Yeah, and that's it. And so we just did that and we didn't really have to use it too much for this book because this book was in some ways, you know, I didn't have to learn a lot of new things for this book. [00:53:54] I had to learn some. But I a lot of. What I learned for seven and for how emotions are made really stood me in good stead for for this book. So there was a little bit each essay was a little bit of learning. A couple were was a little more than than a small amount. [00:54:12] But, um, but I didn't have so much trouble here. Um, I had a lot of trouble with the first book, but still even here, you know, you know, he would tell me that I could take something out and I really wanted to keep it. And I think we only use the signs once. [00:54:31] Well, if we could dive in some aspects of the book, I would love that the. Can we talk about. So one of the essays looks at our evolution. And let me ask the big question, did the human brain evolved to think that's essentially the question that you address in the essay? [00:54:54] Can you speak to. Sure. You know, the big caveat here is that we don't really know why brains evolved. The big why questions are called teleological questions. [00:55:06] And in general, scientists should avoid those questions because we don't know really what we don't know the why. [00:55:14] However, for for a very long time, the assumption was that evolution worked in a progressive upward scale, that you start off with simple organisms and those organisms get more complex and more complex and more complex. Now, obviously, that's true in some like really general way. Right. That that life started off as single celled organisms and things got more complex. But the idea that that brains evolved in some upward trajectory from simple brains in simple animals to complex brains in complex animals is called a phylogenetic scale. [00:55:56] And that phylogenetic scale is embedded in a lot of evolutionary thinking, including Darwin's actually, um, and it's been seriously challenged, I would say, by modern evolutionary biology. [00:56:13] And so, you know, thinking is something that rationality is something that humans, at least in the West, really prize as a great human achievement. [00:56:26] And so the idea that the most common evolutionary story is that know brains evolved in like sedimentary rock with a layer for instinct's, that's your lizard brain and layer on top of that for emotions. That's your limbic system, limbic meaning border. So it borders the parts that are for instincts. Oh, interesting. [00:56:53] And and then the neocortex or new cortex where rationality is supposed to live. That's the sort of traditional story you just keeps getting layered on top. [00:57:06] Right. By evolution. Right. And so you can think about, you know, I mean, sedimentary rock is the way typically people describe it. The way I sometimes like to think about it is, you know, thinking about the cerebral cortex, like icing on an already baked cake, you know, where, you know, the cake is your inner beast. [00:57:27] These like boiling, roiling instincts and emotions that have to be contained and that by the cortex and the it's just it's a fiction. It's a myth. It's a myth that you can trace all the way back to stories about morality in ancient Greece. But what you can do is look at the scientific record and say, well, there there's others. [00:57:53] There are other stories that you could tell about brain evolution and and the the context in which brains evolved. So when you look at creatures who don't have brains and you look at creatures who do. What's the difference? And you can look at, you know, some animals, so we call scientists call an environment that an animal lives in a niche, their environmental niche. What are the things what are the parts of the environment that matter to that animal? [00:58:29] And so there are some animals whose niche hasn't changed in 400 million years. So they're they're not these creatures are modern creatures, but they're living in a niche that hasn't changed much. And so their biology hasn't changed much. And you can kind of verify that by looking at the genes that lurk deep, you know, in the molecular structure of cells. [00:58:51] And so you can by looking at various animals in their developmental state, meaning not you don't look at adult animals, you look at embryos of animals and developing animals. [00:59:03] You can see you can piece together a different story. [00:59:06] And that story is that brains evolved under the selection pressure of hunting, that in the Cambrian period, hunting emerged on the scene where animals deliberately ate one another. And what so, you know, before the Cambrian period, the animals didn't really have well, they didn't have brains, but they also didn't have senses, really the very, very rudimentary senses. So the animal that I wrote about in seven and a half lessons is called an axis or a landslide. [00:59:45] And little anaphylaxis has no eyes. It has no ears. It has no nose. It it it has no eyes. It has a couple of cells for detecting light and dark for circadian rhythm purposes. So and it it, it can't hear it has a vestibular cell to keep its body upright. It has a very rudimentary sense of touch and it doesn't really have any internal organs other than this like basically stomach. It's like a just like a it doesn't it doesn't have an enteric nervous system. [01:00:23] It doesn't have like a gut that, you know, moves like we do. It just has basically a tube. [01:00:29] Yeah. So it's like a container. Like a little container. Yeah. And so and really it doesn't it doesn't move very much. It can move, it just sort of wriggles it doesn't have very sophisticated movement and it's this really sweet little animal. [01:00:44] It sort of wriggles its way to a spot and then plants itself in the sand and just filters food as the food goes by. [01:00:54] And then when the food concentration decreases, it it just it just ejects itself, wriggles to the some spot randomly where probabilistically there will be more food and plants itself again. [01:01:08] So it's it's not it's not really aware, very aware that it has an environment, it has a niche, but that niche is very small and it's not really experiencing that niche very much. So it's it's basically like a little stomach on a stick. That's, that's really what it is. And um, but but when animals start to literally hunt each other. All of a sudden, it becomes important to have to be able to sense your environment because you need to know, is that blob up ahead going to eat me or should I eat it? [01:01:48] And so all of a sudden you want distant senses are very useful. And so in the water, distant senses are vision and a little bit hearing olfaction, smelling and touch because in the water touches a distant sense because you can feel the vibration. [01:02:09] So it's so close in on air, on land know vision is a distant sense. Touch not so much, but for elephants maybe. [01:02:19] Right. The vibrations, vibrations, olfaction, definitely because of the concentration of, you know, the more concentrated something is, the more likely it is to be close to you. [01:02:31] So animals developed senses, they developed ahead like a literal head. So Anthrax's doesn't even have a head, really. [01:02:38] It's just a what's the purpose of a head? That's a great question. Is it to have a job? [01:02:45] That's a great question. So, Jordt. So, yes, Jaws are a major useful feature. [01:02:52] Yeah, obviously they're a major adaptation after there's a split between vertebrates and invertebrates. So Antioch's this is thought to be very, very similar to the animal that before that split. [01:03:04] But then after the development, very quickly, after the development of ahead is the development of a jaw, which is a big thing. And and what goes along with that is the development of a brain. [01:03:18] It's where is that just a coincidence that the thing the part of our body, of the mammal, I think body that we eat with and like attack others with is also the thing that contains the all the majority of the brain type of. [01:03:38] Well, actually, the brain goes with the development of a head and the development of of a visual system and an auditory system and an olfactory system and so on. So your senses are developing. And, um, and the other thing that's happening, right. Is that animals are getting bigger. Yeah. Because their and also their niche is getting bigger. Well, this is the culture. [01:04:01] Sorry to take a tiny tangent on. The new thing is it seems like the niche is getting bigger, but not just bigger, like more complicated, like shaped in weird ways, like predation seems to create like like the whole world becomes your oyster, whatever. But like you also start to carve out, like, the places in which you can operate the best. [01:04:24] Yeah. And in fact, that's absolutely right. And in fact, some scientists think that theory of mind, your ability to make inferences about the inner life of of other creatures actually developed under the selection pressure of predation. Because it makes you a better predator. Do you ever look at you just said you looked at babies as these wiring creatures, do you ever think of humans as just clever predators like that? There is under underneath it all is this. [01:05:00] The nation will to power in all of its forms. Or are we now friendlier? [01:05:08] Yeah, so it's interesting. I mean, there there are there are zeitgeist and how humans think about themselves. Right. And so if you look in the 20th century. You can see that the idea of an inner beast that we're just predators, we're just basically animals, baseless animals, violent animals that have to be contained by culture and by our prodigious neocortex, um, really took hold, particularly after World War One and really held sway for much of that century. [01:05:48] And then around, at least in Western writing, I would say, you know what? We're talking mainly about Western Western scientific writing, Western philosophical writing. And and then, you know, late 90s, maybe you start to see books and articles about our social nature, that we're social animals and we are social animals. [01:06:10] But what does that mean exactly? And, um, about it's just carving out different issues in the space of ideas. [01:06:19] It looks. I think so. I think so. [01:06:20] So, um. So. You know, do humans are can humans be violent? Yes. Can humans be really helpful? [01:06:34] Yes, actually, and humans are interesting creatures because, you know, other animals can also be helpful to one another. In fact, there's a whole literature, booming literature on how other animals are. You know, support one another, they regulate each other's nervous systems in interesting ways, and they will be helpful to one another, right. So, for example, there's a whole literature on rodents and how they they signal one another, what it's safe to eat, and they will perform acts of generosity to their con specifics that are related to them or or who they were raised with. [01:07:21] So if an animal was raised in a litter, that is that they were raised in, although not even at the same time, they'll be more likely to help that animal. So there's always some kind of physical relationship between animals that predicts whether or not they'll help one another for humans. Humans. You know, we have ways of categorizing who's in our who's in our group and who isn't by non-physical ways, right. By even by just something abstract like an idea. [01:07:54] And we are much more likely to extend help to people in our own group, whatever that group may be at that moment. Whatever your whatever feature you're using to define who's in your group and who isn't, we're more likely to help those people than even members of our own family at times. [01:08:15] So humans are much more flexible in their. In the way that they help one another, but also in the way that they harm one another, so I don't. I don't I don't think I subscribe to, um. You know, we are primarily this or we are primarily that, I don't think have humans have Essence's in that way, really. I apologize to take us in this direction for a brief moment, but I've been really deep on Stalin and Hitler recently in terms of reading. [01:08:50] And is there something that you think about in terms of the nature of evil from a neuroscience perspective? Is there some lessons that are sort of. Hopefull. About human civilization. That we can find in our brain with regard to the Hitlers of the world. Do you think about the the nature of evil? [01:09:21] Yeah, I do. I don't know that what I have to say is so useful from a I don't know that I can say is a neuroscientist will hear or here's a study that, you know what, I so I sort of have to take off my lab coat. [01:09:36] Right. And now I'm going to now conjecture as a human who just also who has opinions but who also maybe has some knowledge about neuroscience. But I'm not speaking as a neuroscientist when I say this, because I don't think neuroscientists know enough really to be able to say. [01:09:50] But I guess the kinds of things I think about are. What so I have always thought even before I knew anything about neuroscience, um, I've always thought that. I don't think anybody could become Hitler, but I think the majority of people can be. Can do are capable of doing very bad things. It's just the question is really how much encouragement does it take from the environment to get them to do something bad? [01:10:27] That's what I kind of when I look at the life of Hitler, it seems like there's so many places where something could have intervened and changed completely. [01:10:39] The person I mean, there's the caricature, like the obvious places where he was an artist. And if he wasn't rejected as an artist, he was a reasonably good artist. So that that could have changed. But just his entire life where he went in Vienna and all these kinds of things like the little InterAction's could have changed. [01:10:56] And there's probably millions of other people who are capable who the environment may be able to mold in the same way. Did this particular person to create this particular kind of charismatic leader in this particular moment of time? [01:11:13] Absolutely. And I guess the way I the way that I would say I, I would agree 100 percent. And I guess the way that I would say it is like this. [01:11:22] In the West, we have a way of reasoning about causation, which focuses on single simple causes for things, you know, there's a there's an essence to Hitler, there's an essence to his character. He was born with that essence or it was forged very, very early in his life. And that explains the, um, the landscape of his life, horrible landscape of his behavior. [01:11:54] But there's another way to think about it, a way that actually is much more consistent with what we know about biology, how biology works in the physical world, and that is that most things are complex, not as in, wow, this is really complex and hard, but complex as in complexity that is more than the sum of their parts and that most phenomena have many, many. Week, non-linear interacting causes and so little things that we might not even be aware of can shift someone's developmental trajectory from this to that, and that's enough to take it on a whole set of other paths that, you know that and that these things are happening all the time. [01:12:44] So it's not random and it's not really it's not deterministic in the sense that, like everything you do determines your outcome. [01:12:52] But it's a little more like, you know, you're nudging someone from one set of possibilities to another set of possibilities. [01:13:02] And I but I think the the thing is, the thing that I find optimistic is that the the other side of that coin is also true. Right, so look at all the people who risked their lives to help people they didn't even know. I mean, I just watched Borat, the new Borat movie, and the thing that I came away with, but, you know, the thing I came away with was. [01:13:32] Look at how like generous people were in the old days, he's making there are a lot of people he makes fun of and that's fine. But think about like those two guys. [01:13:42] Those are the Trump supporter guy, the transporter guys, those guys, those those kindness in them. [01:13:48] Right. [01:13:49] They took a complete stranger in a pandemic. Yeah. Into their house. [01:13:58] Who does that like, that's a really nice thing, or there's one scene, I mean, I want to spoil it for people who haven't seen it, but but there's you know, there's one scene where he goes in. [01:14:08] He dresses up as a Jew. [01:14:11] I laugh myself sick at that scene, seriously. But but he goes in and he and there are these two old Jewish ladies. [01:14:20] What a bunch of sweethearts. Oh, my gosh. Like, really? Yeah. [01:14:26] I mean, that was what I was struck by, actually. I mean, there are other ones or like the babysitter. Right. I mean, she was really kind and. [01:14:36] Yeah, so that's really what I was more struck by, like, you know, sure, there are other people who, you know, who do do very bad things or say bad things or whatever. [01:14:46] But, you know, we're like there's one guy who's completely stoic, like the guy at the who's doing the like, you know, sending the message that, well, if it's facts or whatever, he's just completely stoic. [01:14:59] But he's doing his job, actually, you know, like, you can't you don't know what he was thinking inside his head. You don't know what he's feeling. But he was totally professional doing his job. [01:15:08] OK, so I guess I just I had a bit of a different view, I guess. And I so I also think that about people. I think everybody is capable of kindness and but but, you know, it's the question is how much does it take and what are the circumstances? [01:15:26] So for some people, it's going to take a lot. And for some people it only takes a little bit. But, you know, are we actually. [01:15:35] Cultivating an environment for the next generation that. Provides opportunities for people to go in the direction of caring and kindness or, you know, I'm not I'm not saying that is like a Pollyanna ish person, but, you know, I think there's a lot of room for competition and debate and and so on. But I don't see Hitler as an anomaly, and I never have. That was even before I learned anything about neuroscience. And now I would say, knowing what we know about developmental trajectories and life histories and how important that is, you know, knowing what we know about, um, that the whole question of, like, nature versus nurture is a completely wrong question, you know, we have the kind of nature that requires nurture. [01:16:27] We have the kind of genes that allow infants to be born with unfinished brains, where the brains, their brains are wired across a twenty five year period with wiring instructions from the world that is created for them. [01:16:42] And so I don't think Hitler is an anomaly. You know, even if it's even if it's less probable that that would happen, it's possible that it could happen again, and it's not it's not like, you know, he's a bad seed. I mean, that doesn't I just wanna say, like, of course, he's completely 100 percent responsible for his actions and all the bad things that happened. So I'm not in any way this is not me saying. [01:17:09] But the environment is also responsible in part for creating the evil in this world. [01:17:15] So like Hitler's and different versions of more subtle, more smaller scale versions of evil. [01:17:23] But I tend to believe that there's a much stronger uh, I don't like to talk about evolutionary advantages, but it seems like it makes sense for love to be a more powerful emergent phenomena of our collective intelligence versus hate and evil and destruction, because from a survival, from a niche perspective, it seems to be a. Like in my own life and my thinking about the intuition, about the way humans work together to solve problems, it seems that love is a very useful tool. [01:18:03] I definitely agree with you, but I think the caveat here is that, you know, humans, the research suggests that humans are. Capable of great acts of kindness and great acts of generosity to people in their ingroup. And we're also tribal. Yeah, I mean, that's the that's the kitschy way to say it, where tribes were tribal. Yeah. So that's the kitschy way to say it would I would say is that. You know, there are a lot of features. [01:18:42] That you can use to describe yourself if you don't have one identity, you don't have one self, you have many selves, you have many identities. Sometimes you're a man, sometimes you're a scientist. Sometimes you're a you have a brother or a sister or brother. So sometimes you're a brother. You know, you you sometimes you're a friend because you're human. [01:19:02] So you can keep zooming out. Yes. Living organism on earth. Yes, exactly. [01:19:06] That's exactly that's exactly right. And so there are there are some people who there is research which suggests that there are some people who will tell you I think it's appropriate and better to help. [01:19:24] I should help my family more than I should help my neighbors and I should help my neighbors more than I should help the average stranger and I should help, you know, the average stranger in my country more than I should help somebody outside my country. And I should help humans more than I should help, you know, other animals. And I know there's a clear hierarchy of helping. [01:19:45] And there are other people who, you know, they are their niche is much more inclusive. Right. And that they're humans first. [01:19:56] Right. Or creatures of the earth first, let's say. [01:20:01] And I I don't think we know how flexible those attitudes are because I don't think the research really tells us that. But in any case, there are you know, and there are beliefs people also have beliefs about. [01:20:16] There's this really interesting research in really in anthropology that looks at. What are cultures particularly afraid of, like what the people in a particular culture are organizing their social systems to prevent certain types of problems, so what are the problems that they're worried about? And and so there are some cultures that are much more hierarchical and some cultures that are, you know, much more egalitarian. There are some cultures that, you know, in the debate of like getting along versus getting ahead. [01:20:51] There are some cultures that really prioritize the individual over the group, and there are other cultures that really prioritize the group over the individual. You know, it's not like one of these is right and one of these is wrong. It's that, you know, different combinations of these features are different solutions that humans have come up with for for living in groups, which is a major adaptive advantage of our species. Um, and it's not the case that one of these is better in one of these is worse. [01:21:20] Although as a person, of course, I have opinions about that. And as a person I can say I would very much prefer certain I have certain beliefs and I really want everyone in the world to live by those beliefs, you know, but as a scientist, I know that it's not really the case that for the species, any one of these is better than any other. There are different solutions that work differentially well, in particular. You know, ecological parts of the world, but for individual humans, there are definitely some systems that are better in some systems that are worse. [01:22:00] But when when anthropologists or when neuroscientists or biologists are talking, they're not usually talking about the lives of individual people. They're talking about, you know, the species. [01:22:10] What's better for the species, the survivability of the species and what's better for the survivability of the species is variation that we have lots of cultures with lots of different solutions, because if the environment were to change drastically. [01:22:28] Some some of those solutions will work better than others, and you can see that happening with covid versus some people might be more susceptible to this, this virus and others. [01:22:42] And some variation is very useful, say covid was much, much more destructive than it is. And like, I don't know, 20 percent of the population was died. You know, that is good to have variability because then at least some percent will survive. Yeah. [01:22:59] I mean, the you know, the way that I used to describe it was, you know, using, you know, those movies like The War of the Worlds or Pacific Rim, you know, where like aliens come down from outer space and they, you know, want to kill humans. [01:23:17] And so all the humans band together as a species like and they all like all the little squabbling from countries and whatever, all goes away. And everyone is just one big, you know, well. That, you know. That doesn't happen. I mean, because covid, you know, the via a virus like code, like covid-19 is like a creature from outer space and that's not what you see happening, what you do see happening. [01:23:49] It is true that some people I mean, we could use this as an example of essentialism also. So just to say like exposure to the virus does not mean that you will become infected with a disease. So, I mean, in controlled studies, one of which was actually a coronavirus, not covid. But this was these are studies from 10 or so years ago, you know, only somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of people were developed respiratory illness when a virus was placed in their nose. [01:24:20] Yeah. And so there's a dose question all those not in these studies, actually. [01:24:26] So in these studies, the dose was consistent across all people and everything. [01:24:32] You know, they were sequestered in hotel rooms and what they ate was, you know, measured out by scientists and so on. And so when you hold dose, I mean, the dose issue is a real issue in the real world. But in these studies that was controlled and only somewhere between 20 and depending on the study, between 20 and 40 percent of people became infected with a disease. [01:24:54] So exposure to a virus doesn't mean de facto that you will develop an illness, you will be a carrier and you will spread the virus to other people. But you yourself may not. Your immune system may be in a state that you can make enough antibodies to not not show symptoms, not develop symptoms. And so, of course, what this means is, again, is that, you know, like if I asked you, do you think, you know, a virus is the cause of of of a common cold or, you know, most people if I ask this question, I can tell you I asked this question. [01:25:38] So do you think a virus is the cause of a cold? Most people would say, yes, I think it is. And then I say, yeah, well, only 20 to 40 percent of people develop respiratory illness in exposure to a virus. [01:25:50] So clearly it is a necessary cause, but it's not a sufficient cause. And there are other causes. Again, so not simple single causes for things. Right. Multiple interacting influences. So it is true that individuals vary in their susceptibility to illness upon exposure, but different cultures have different sets of norms and practices that allow that will slow or or speed the spread. [01:26:21] And that's that's the point that I was actually trying to make here, that that. You know, when the environment changes, that is there's a mutation of a virus that is incredibly infectious, some cultures will succumb, people in some cultures will succumb faster because of the particular. Norms and practices that that they've developed in their culture versus other cultures. Now there could be some other. You know, thing that changes that. Where those other other cultures are, you know, would do better. [01:27:02] It's a very individualistic cultures like ours may do much better under other types of selection pressures, but for covid, for things like covid, you know, my colleague Michele Gelfond, her research shows that she she looks at like loose cultures and tight cultures or cultures that have very, very strict rules versus cultures that are much more individualistic and where personal freedoms are more valued. And she you know, her research suggests that for pandemic circumstances, tight cultures, actually, the people survive better. [01:27:41] She's still lingering a little bit longer. [01:27:43] We started this part of the conversation talking about, you know, that humans evolved to think that the human brain evolved to think, implying is there like a progress to the thing that's always improving? [01:27:58] That's right. We never. Yeah. And so the answer is no. But let me sort of push back. So your intuition is very strong here, not your intuition the way you describe this. [01:28:10] But is it possible there's a direction to this evolution? Like do you think of this evolution as having a direction? Like it's like walking along a certain path towards something. So, you know, what is it? [01:28:26] Uh, the Elon Musk said, like, the Earth got bombarded with photons and then all of a sudden, like a Tesla was launched into space or whatever rockets started, like, is there a sense in which even though in the like within the system, the evolution seems to be this massive variation, we kind of trying to find our niches and so on. But do you think there ultimately when you zoom out, there is a direction that strong that does tend towards greater. [01:29:02] Complexity and intelligence, no, so I mean, and I and again, what I would say is I'm really I'm really just echoing people who are much smarter than I am about this. [01:29:16] But see, you're saying smarter. I thought it doesn't there's not that I thought there's no smarter. [01:29:21] No, I didn't say there's no smarter. I said there's no direction. OK, so I think the thing to say or what I understand to be the case is that there's variation, it's not unbounded variation. And there are selectors. There are there are there are pressures that will select. And so not anything is possible because we live on a planet that has certain physical realities to it. Right. And but those physical realities are what constrain. The possibilities, the physical realities of our genes and the physical realities of our corporeal bodies and the physical realities of, you know, the of life on this planet. [01:30:07] So what I would say is that there's no direction, but there is it's not infinite possibility because we live on a particular planet that has particular statistical regularities in it and some things will never happen. [01:30:28] And so all of those things are are interacting with us, with our genes and so on and our, you know, the physical nature of our bodies to make some things more possible and some things less possible. Look, I mean, humans have very complex brains, but birds have complex brains. And so do you know, so do octopuses have very complex brains. And all three sets of all three of those brains are are somewhat different from one another. [01:30:59] You know, bird birds. Some birds have very complex brains. Some even have rudimentary language. They have no cerebral cortex. I mean, they admittedly, they have this is now less than two. Right? They have to listen to or listen one. Let me think now. This is lesson one. They have they have the same neurons, the same neurons that that in a human become the cerebral cortex. Birds have those neurons. They just don't form themselves into a cerebral cortex. [01:31:29] I mean, crows, for example, are very sophisticated animals. They can do a lot of the things that humans can do. In fact, all of the things that humans do that are very special, that seem very special. There's at least one other animal on the planet that can do those things to. What's special about the human brain is that we put them all together. So we learn from one another, we don't have to experience everything ourselves, we can watch another animal or another human experience something, and we can learn from that. [01:31:58] Well, there are many other animals who can learn by copying. Yeah. That we communicate with each other very, very efficiently. We have language, but we're not the only animals who are efficiently efficient communicators. There are lots of other animals who can efficiently communicate like bees, for example. You know, we cooperate really well with one another to do grand things. But there are other animals that cooperate too. And so every innovation that we have, other animals have to. [01:32:23] What we have is we have all of those together interwoven in this very complex dance in a brain that is not unique. Exactly. But that is, you know, it does have some features that make it useful, that make it particularly useful for us to do all of these things, you know, to have all of these things intertwined. So, you know, our brains are actually the last time we talked, I, I made a mistake because I said in my enthusiasm, I said, you know, our brains are are not larger, are relative to our bodies. [01:33:07] Our brains are not larger than than other primates. And that's actually not true. Actually, our our brains relative to our body size is somewhat larger. So an ape who's not a human, that's not a human. Their brains are larger than their body sizes than, say, relative to like a smaller monkey in a human's brain is larger relative to its body size than then. [01:33:34] That's a good approximation of your of whatever of of the bunch of stuff that you can shove in there. [01:33:41] But well, what I was going to say is. But our cerebral cortex is not larger than what you would expect for a brain of our of of of of its size. [01:33:49] So so relative to, say, an ape like a like a gorilla or a chimp or even a mammal like a dolphin or an elephant, you know, our brains are our cerebral cortex is as large as you would expect it to be for a brain of our size. [01:34:10] So there's nothing special about our cerebral cortex. [01:34:14] And this is something I explain in the book where I say, OK, you know, like by analogy, if you walk into somebody's house and you see that they have a huge kitchen, you know, you might think, well, maybe maybe this is a place I really definitely want to eat dinner at because, you know, these people must be gourmet cooks. [01:34:32] But you don't know anything about what the size of their kitchen means unless you consider it in relation to the size of the rest of the house. If it's a if it's a big kitchen in a really big house. It's not telling you anything special, right, if it's a big kitchen in a small house, then that might be a place that you want to if you want to stay for dinner, because it's more likely that that kitchen is large for a special reason. [01:34:55] And so. The cerebral cortex of a human brain isn't. In and of itself, special because of its size, however. There are some genetic changes that have happened in the human brain. As it's grown. [01:35:15] With to whatever size is typical for for the whole brain size, right, there are some changes that do give the human brain slightly more of some capacities. [01:35:28] They're not special, but there's just they just you know, we can do some things. Much better than other animals and, you know, correspondingly, other animals can do some things much better than we can't, we can't grow back limbs. We can't lift 50 times our own body weight. Well, I mean, maybe you can, but I can't live 50 ants without regard. [01:35:49] Very impressive. And then you're saying with the or the frontal cortex, like that's the size is not always the right measure of capability, I guess. So size isn't everything. [01:36:02] Size isn't everything. That's a quote. But, you know, people like it when I disagree. So let me disagree with you on something or just like play devil's advocate a little bit. So you've painted a really nice picture that evolution doesn't have a direction. [01:36:18] But is it possible if we just ran Earth over and over again, like this video game, that the final result would be the same? So in the sense that we're eventually there'll be an ajai type HAL 9000 type system that just like flies and colonizes nearby Earth like planets is always will be the same. [01:36:43] And and the different organisms and the different evolution of the brain, like it doesn't feel like it has like a direction. But given the constraints of Earth. And whatever this imperative, whatever the hell is running this universe like, it seems like it's. Running towards something, is it possible there will always be the same, thereby it will be a direction? Yeah, I think, you know, as you know better than anyone else, that the answer to that question is, of course, there's some probability that that could happen, right? [01:37:19] It's not a yes or no answer. It's what's the probability that that would happen? And there's a whole distribution of possibilities. So maybe we end up what's the probability we end up with exactly the same complement of creatures, including us? What's the likelihood that we end up with, you know. Creatures that are similar to humans that are but, you know, similar in certain ways, let's say, but not exactly humans or, you know, all the way to a completely different distribution of creatures situation, like if you were to bet money, what does that distribution look like if we ran Earth over? [01:38:03] So I would say, given the you're now asking me questions, that this is not science, this is not science. [01:38:09] So but I would say, OK, well, what's the probability that it's going to be a carbon life form? Probably high. Yeah, but that's because I don't know anything about. Really. [01:38:20] Yeah. You know, I don't I'm not I'm not really well versed that well. What's the probability that, you know, so what's the probability that the animals will begin in the ocean and crawl out onto land or the other way versus I would say probably high. [01:38:35] I don't know. But you know, but do I think what's the likelihood that we would end up with exactly the same or very similar? I think it's low, actually. I wouldn't say it's low, but I would say it's not it's not 100 percent. And I'm not even sure it's 50 percent. You know, I would say I don't think that we're here by accident because I think, like I said, there are constraints, like there are some physical constraints about Earth. [01:39:01] And of course, if you were a cosmologist, you could say, well, the the fact that the earth is if you were to do the big bang over again and keep doing it over and over and over again, would you still get the same solar systems? Would you still get the same planets? You know, would you still get the same galaxies, the same solar systems, the same planets? You know, I don't know. But my guess is probably not because there are random things that happen that can, again, send things in one, you know, make one set of trajectories possible in another set impossible. [01:39:32] So, um, but I, I guess my my my if I were going to bet something money or something valuable, I would probably say. [01:39:44] It's not zero and it's not 100 percent, and it's probably not even 50 percent, so there's some probability, but it will be similar. There would be similar. [01:39:52] But I don't think I just think there are too many degrees of freedom. There are too many degrees of freedom. I mean, one of the real tensions in writing this book is to on the one hand, there's some truth in saying. That humans are not. Special, we are just. You know, we're not special in the animal kingdom. All animals are well adapted. If they're survived, they're well adapted to their niche. It does happen to be the case that our niche is large for any individual human, your niches, whatever it is, but for the species. [01:40:35] Right. [01:40:36] We live almost everywhere, not everywhere, but almost everywhere on the planet. But not in the ocean, and actually other animals like bacteria, for example, have us beat miles, you know, hands down, right. So we're by any by any definition, we're not special. We're just, you know, adapted to our environment of bacteria, don't have a podcast. Exactly, exactly. So that's the tension, right. So on the one hand, you know, we're not special animals were just, you know, you know, particularly well adapted to our nation. [01:41:14] On the other hand, are niches huge? And we you know, we don't just adapt to our environment. We add to our environment. We make stuff up, give it a name, and then it becomes real. And so no other animal can do that. And so I think that the thing the way to think about it from my perspective or the way I made sense of it is to say you can look at any individual single characteristic that a human has. [01:41:40] That seems remarkable, and you can find that in some other animal. What you can't find in any other animal is all of those characteristics together. In a brain that is souped up in particular ways like ours is, and if you combine these things, multiple interacting causes, right? Not one, not one essence like your cortex, your big neocortex, but which isn't really that big. I mean, it's just big for it, for your big brain, for the size, your big brain. [01:42:17] It's that it's the size it should be. If you add all those things together and they interact with each other, that produces some pretty remarkable results. [01:42:27] And if you're aware of that. [01:42:30] Then you can start asking different kinds of questions about what it means to be human and what kind of a human you want to be, and what kind of a world do you want to create for the next generation of humans? [01:42:47] I think that's the goal anyways, right, is just to just to have a glimpse of. Instead of thinking about things in in a simple, linear way, just to have a glimpse of the some of the things that matter, it seemed that evidence suggests matters to the kind of brain in the kind of bodies that we have. Once you know that, you can you can work with it a little bit. [01:43:14] You right. Words have power over your biology. Right now, I can text the words I love you from the United States to my close friend in Belgium. And even though she cannot hear my voice or see my face, I will change her heart rate, her breathing and her metabolism. [01:43:32] Either way, beautifully written. [01:43:35] Or someone could text something ambiguous to you, like, is your door locked? And odds are that it would affect your nervous system in an unpleasant way. So, I mean, there's a lot of stuff to talk about here. [01:43:49] But just one way to ask is. Why do you think words have so much power over our brain? Well, I think we just have to look at the anatomy of the brain to answer that question. [01:44:04] So if you look at the parts of the brain, the whole the the the systems that are important for processing language, you can see that some of these regions are also important for controlling your major organ systems and your like your autonomic nervous system that controls your cardiovascular system, your respiratory system and so on, that, you know, these regions control your endocrine system, your immune system and so on. So and you can actually see this in other animals, too. [01:44:40] So in birds, for example, the neurons that are responsible for birdsong also control the systems of a bird's body. And the reason why I bring that up is that the there's some scientists think that the anatomy of a of a bird's brain that control birdsong are homologous or structurally have a similar origin to the human system for a language. [01:45:05] So the parts of the brain that are important for processing language are not unique in and specialised for language. They do many things. And one of the things they do is control your major organ systems. [01:45:20] We can fall in love, have arguments about this all the time. Do you think we can fall in love based on words alone? [01:45:26] Well, I think people have been doing it for centuries. I mean, they used to be the case that people wrote letters to each other. Yeah. Um, you know, and then that was how they communicated. And I guess that's how you and Dan. [01:45:39] Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. [01:45:44] So is the answer a clear yes there? Because I get a lot of pushback from people often that you need you need to touch and smell. And you know, the bodily stuff, I think the touch and the smell in the bodily stuff helps, OK, but I don't think it's necessary. [01:46:04] Do you think you're going to have a lifelong monogamous relationship with the A.I. system that only communicates with you on text romantic relationship? Well, I suppose that's an empirical question that hasn't been answered yet, but so I guess what I would say is. I don't think I could. Could any human could the average human could, you know, so so, um, if I. If I. I even I want to even I want to even modify that and say I'm thinking now of. [01:46:44] Tom Hanks and the movie Castaway. [01:46:47] Yeah, you know, with Wilson, yeah, I think if if that was if you had to make that work, if you had to make that work for the volleyball. Yeah. [01:46:56] If you had to make it work, could you you could you. Prediction and simulation. Right. So if you had to make it work could you make it work using simulation and you know your past experience. Could you make it work. Could you make it work, you as a human, could you could you could you have could you have a relationship literally with an inanimate object and have it sustain you in the way that another human could? Yeah, your life would probably be shorter because you wouldn't actually derive the body budgeting benefits from. [01:47:31] Right. So we've talked about, you know, how your brain it's most important job is to control your body. And you can describe that as your brain running a budget for your body. And there are metaphorical deposits and withdrawals into your body budget. And you also make deposits and withdrawals in other people's body budgets, figuratively speaking. So you wouldn't have that particular benefit. [01:48:02] So your life would probably be shorter, but I think it would be harder for some people than for other people. [01:48:08] Yeah, I tend to my intuition is that you can have a deep, fulfilling relationship with a volleyball. [01:48:15] I think I think a lot of the. The environments are set up, I think that's a really good example, like the constraints. Now, of your particular environment, defined like I believe like scarcity is a good catalyst for deep, meaningful connection with other humans and with inanimate objects, so the less you have, the more fulfilling those relationships are. And I would say a relationship with a volleyball, the sex is not great, but everything else, I feel like it can be a very fulfilling relationship, which I don't know from an engineering perspective what to do with that. [01:48:54] And just like I said, it is an empirical question. [01:48:57] But but there are places to learn about that, right. So, for example, think about children and their blankets. [01:49:05] Right, so there there's something tactile and there's something olfactory and it's very comforting. I mean, even for even for non-human little animals, right, like puppies, and so I don't know about cats, but but cats are cold hearted. [01:49:23] There's no there's nothing going on there. [01:49:25] I don't know. There are some cats that are very dog like. I mean, really. So some cats identify as dogs. Yes, I think that's true. [01:49:32] Yeah. They're they're species fluid. [01:49:37] So you also write when it comes to human minds, variation is the norm. And what we call, quote, human nature is really many human natures. Again, many questions I can ask here, but maybe an interesting one to ask is I often hear, you know, we often hear this idea of be yourself. Is this possible to be yourself? [01:50:04] Is it a good idea to strive to be yourself? Is it does that even have any meaning? [01:50:10] It's a very Western question, first of all, because which self are you talking about? You don't have one self. There is no self that's an essence of you, you have multiple selves. Actually, there is research on this. You know, to quote the great social psychologist, Hazel Marcus, you're never you cannot be yourself by yourself. You you know, you. [01:50:34] And so different contexts pull for or draw on different features of your of who you are or what you're what you believe, what you feel, what your actions are. [01:50:48] A different context, you know, will put certain things or make more some features be more in the foreground and some in the background, it takes us back right to our discussion earlier about, um, Stalin and Hitler and so on. [01:51:02] The thing that I would caution, in addition to the fact that there is no single self, you know, that you have multiple selves who you can be. [01:51:12] And you can certainly choose the situations that you put yourself in to some extent, not everybody has complete choice, but everybody has a little bit of choice. And I think I said this to you before, that one of the pieces of advice that we gave Sophia, you know, when she went our daughter, when she was going off to college was. Try to spend time around people, choose relationships that allow you to be your best self. We should have said your best selves, but this, you know, the pool of cells, given the environment. [01:51:47] Yeah, but I get the one thing I do want to say is that the risk of saying be yourself, just be yourself, is that, um, that can be used as an excuse. [01:51:58] Well, this is just the way that I am. I'm just like this and that I, I think should be tremendously resistant. [01:52:08] So that's one that's that's for the excuse. But, you know, I'm really self-critical. Often I'm full of doubt and people often tell me, just don't worry about it, just be yourself, man. And it's the thing is it almost it's not from an engineering perspective. [01:52:26] It does not seem like actionable advice because I guess constantly worrying about who. [01:52:35] What are the right? Words to say, to express how I'm feeling is, I guess, my self, there's a kind of line, I guess, that it might be a Western idea, but something that feels genuine and something that feels not genuine. [01:52:56] And I'm not sure what that means because I would like to be fully genuine and fully open. But I'm also aware, like this morning, I was like very like silly and giddy. [01:53:07] I go, this is just being funny and relaxed and light, like there's nothing that could bother me in the world. I was just smiling and happy. And then I remember last night was just feeling like very grumpy, like like stuff was bothering me, like certain things were bothering me. And like, what are those are those are different selves. Like what? Who am I in that and what do I do? Because if you know, if take Twitter as an example, if I actually send a tweet last night and tweet this morning, it's going to be very two different people tweeting that. [01:53:45] And I don't know what to do with that, because one does seem to be more me than the other. But that's maybe because there's a nerd. The story that I'm trying, there's something I'm striving to be like the ultimate human that I might become. I have maybe a vision of that and I'm trying to become that. But it it does seem like there's a lot of different minds in there. And they're all like like having a discussion and a battle of who's going to win, I suppose you could think of it that way. [01:54:14] But there's another way to think of it, I think, and that is that maybe the more Buddhist way to think of it. Right, or more contemplative way to think about it, which is not that you have multiple personalities inside your head, but you have your brain has this. Amazing capacity, it it has a population of experiences that you've had that it can regenerate, reconstitute, and it can even take bits and pieces of those experiences and combine them into something new. [01:54:52] And it's often doing this to predict what's going to happen next and to plan your actions. But it's also happening. This also happens just that's what mind wandering is, or just internal thought and so on, that it's the same mechanism, really. And so a lot of times we hear the saying, you know, just think if you think differently, you'll feel differently. [01:55:17] But. Your brain is having a conversation continually with your body and your body, your brain's, you know, trying to control your body while trying, your brain is controlling your body. Your body is sending information back to the brain and in part the information that your body sends back to your brain. Just like the information coming from the world. Initiates the next volley of predictions or simulations. So in some ways, you could also say. The way that you feel your I think we talked before about affective feeling or mood coming from the sensations of body budgeting, you know, influences what you think. [01:56:06] And as much as so, feelings, influence, thought as much as I thought, influence, feeling and maybe more, but just the whole thing doesn't seem stable. [01:56:17] Well, it's a dynamic system, Mr. Engineer. Yeah, right. It's a dynamic. It's a dynamical system. Right. Nonlinear dynamical system. And I think that's a I'm actually writing a paper with a bunch of engineers about them, about this, actually. But I mean, other people have talked about the brain as a dynamical system before. [01:56:35] But, you know, the real tricky bit is trying to figure out how do you get mental features out of that system. Like it's one thing to figure out how you get a motor movement out of that system. It's another thing to figure out how you get a mental feature, like a feeling of being loved or a feeling of being worthwhile or a feeling of, you know, just basically feeling like shit. How do you get a feeling, a mental mental features out of out of that system? [01:57:00] So I what I would say is that you aren't the the Buddhist thing to say is that you're not one person and you're not many people. You are. You are the sum of your experiences and who you are in any given moment. Meaning what your actions will be is influenced by the state of your body and the state of the world that you've put yourself in, and you can change either of those things, one is a little easier to change than the other, right? [01:57:31] You can change your environment by literally getting up and moving, or you can change it by paying attention to some things differently and letting other some features come to the fore and other features be backgrounded like I'm looking around your place. Oh, no. And I see something you should do. No, I'm not. [01:57:49] But I'm going to say one thing. Yeah. No green plants. No green plants, because green plants mean a home, and I want this to be temporary, fair, fair. But what's what's what goes through your mind when you see no green plants? [01:58:04] No, I'm just making the point that. [01:58:08] What if you again, you know, not everybody has control over their environment. Some people don't have control over the noise or the temperature or, you know, any of those things. But everybody is a little bit of control and you can place things in your environment. Photographs, yes. Plants, anything that's meaningful to you and use it as a shift of environment when you need it. Yes, you can also do things to change the conditions of your body. [01:58:41] When you exercise every day, you're making an investment in your body. Actually, you're making an investment in your brain to it makes you even though it's unpleasant and you know, there's a cost to it. If you replenish, if you invest and you make up that you make a deposit and you make up that what you've spent, you're basically making an investment in making it easier for your brain to control your body in the future so you can make sure you're hydrated, drink water. [01:59:12] You don't have to drink bottled water. You can drink water from the tap. This is in most places, maybe not, you know, maybe not everywhere, but but most places in the developed world, you can try to get enough sleep. Not everybody has that luxury, but everybody can do something to make their, you know, body, but just a little more solvent. And that will also make it more likely that certain thoughts will emerge from that prediction machine. [01:59:43] Because I think that's the control you do have is. Yeah. Being able to control the environment. That's really well put on the I don't think we've talked about this. So let's go to the biggest unanswerable questions of consciousness. [01:59:57] What is he just roll your eyes. I did. That was my. Yeah. So what is consciousness from a neuroscience perspective? I know you. [02:00:06] I mean, I made notes, you know, because you gave me some questions in advance and I made notes for every single. Except that one. [02:00:15] Yeah, well, that one I had what the fuck. [02:00:17] And I took it out. [02:00:20] So there's something interesting because you're so pragmatic. Is there something interesting to say about intuition, building about consciousness, or is this something that we're just totally clueless about that this is let's focus on the the body. The brain listens to the body. The body speaks to the brain. And let's just figure this piece out and then consciousness will probably emerge somehow after that. [02:00:46] No, I think, you know well, first of all, it'll just say up front, um, I am not a philosopher of consciousness and I'm not a neuroscientist who focuses on consciousness. I mean, in some sense, I do study it because I study affect in mood. And that's that is the, um, uh, you know, to use the phrase that is the the hard question of consciousness. [02:01:10] How is it that your brain is modeling your body? Brain is modeling the sensory conditions of your body? It's, um, and it's being updated. That model is being updated by the census data that's coming from your body and it's happening continuously your whole life. [02:01:27] And you don't feel those sensations directly, you what you feel is a general sense of pleasantness or unpleasantness, comfort, discomfort, feeling worked up, feeling calm, so we call that affect. You know, most people call it mood. [02:01:42] So how is it that your brain gives you this very low dimensional feeling of mood or affect when it's presumably receiving a very high dimensional array of census data and the model that the brain is running of the body has to be high dimensional because there's a lot going on in there. Right? You're not aware. [02:02:05] But as you're sitting there quietly, as your listeners or our as our viewers are sitting there, might be working out, running now or as many of them right there, they're laying in bed smoking weed with their eyes closed. [02:02:17] And that's fair. So maybe we should say that bit again. So if so, some people may be working out. Some people may be relaxing, relaxing. [02:02:27] But, you know, even if you're sitting very still while you're watching this or listening to this, there's a whole drama going on inside your body that you're largely unaware of, yet your brain makes you. Aware. Or gives you a status report, in a sense, by virtue of these mental features, of feeling pleasant, feeling unpleasant, feeling comfortable, feeling uncomfortable, feeling energetic, feeling tired and so on. [02:02:54] And so how the hell is it doing that? That is the basic question. Of of consciousness and like the status reports seem to be in the way we experience them seem to be quite simple, like. Well, it doesn't feel like there's a lot of data. Yeah, no, there isn't. So when you feel. When you feel discomfort, when you're feeling basically like shit, you feel like shit, what does that tell you? Like what are you supposed to do next? [02:03:24] What caused it? I mean, the thing is not one thing caused it, right? It's multiple factors probably influencing your physical state, your body posture. [02:03:33] Very high dimensional. Yeah, very high dimensional. And that and the there are different temporal scales of influence. Right. So, you know, the state of your gut is not just influenced by what you ate five minutes ago. It's also what you ate a day ago and two days ago and and so on. So, um. So. I think. You know, when I'm. I'm not trying to weasel out of the question, I just think it's a it's. [02:04:09] The hardest question, actually, do you think we'll ever understand it? Um, as a scientist, I think that we will understand it as well as we understand other things like the birth of the universe or the, you know, the nature of the of the universe, I guess I would say so. [02:04:34] Do I think we can get to that level of an explanation? I do, actually. But I think that we have to start asking somewhat different questions and approaching the science somewhat differently than we have in the past. [02:04:46] I mean, it's also possible that consciousness is much more difficult to understand than the nature of the universe. It is. [02:04:52] But I wasn't necessarily saying that it was a question that was of equivalent complexity. I was saying that I do think that we could get to. Some I am optimistic that I would not I would be very willing to invest my the time, my time on this Earth as a scientist in trying to answer that question, if I could do it the way that I want to do it, not in a way that is currently being done. [02:05:20] So, like rigourously. I didn't want to say on rigourously, I just want to say that there are certain set of assumptions that, you know, scientists have what I would call ontological commitments, their commitments about the way the world is or the way that nature is. And they these commitments lead scientists sometimes blindly without they don't scientists sometimes sometimes scientists are aware of these commitments, but sometimes they're not. And these commitments on the less influence, how scientists ask questions, how what they measure, how they measure. [02:05:53] And I just have very different views then a lot of my colleagues about the ways to approach this. Not everybody, but but the way that I would approach it would be different and it would cost more and it would take longer. It doesn't fit very well into the current incentive structure of science. And so do I think that doing science the way science is currently done with the budget that it currently has and the incentive structure that it currently has, will we have an answer? [02:06:22] No, I think absolutely not. Good luck is what I would say. [02:06:26] People love book recommendations. Let me ask what, three books? [02:06:31] You can't just like you can't just give me three. I mean, like, really three what? [02:06:36] Seven and a half books you can come up. So you're also the author of Seven and a Half Lessons about Brain, your author of How Emotions Are Made. [02:06:45] OK, so definitely those are the top two recommendations of all the two greatest books of all time. Other than that, are there books that technical fiction and philosophical that you've enjoyed, you might recommend to others? [02:06:59] Yes, actually, you know, every PhD student, when they when they graduate with their Ph.D., I give them a set. I like a little library, like a set of books, you know, some of which they've already read, some of which I want them to read or but I think non-fiction books I would read, the things I would recommend are The Triple Helix by Richard Lewontin, the little book published in Two Thousand, which is, I think a really good introduction to complexity. [02:07:35] And, um. Population thinking as opposed to essentialism. So this idea essentialism is this idea that, you know, there's an essence to each person, whether it's a soul or your genes or what have you, as opposed to this idea that you we have the kind of nature that requires nurture. [02:07:54] We are we are you are the product of a complex dance between an environment, between a set of genes and environment that turned those genes on and off to produce your brain and your body and really who you are at any given moment title for that triple helix. [02:08:15] So playing on the double helix where it's just the biology is bigger than the biology. [02:08:20] Exactly. It's a wonderful book. I've read it probably six or seven times throughout the year. He has another book, too, which is. It's more I think scientists would find it, I don't know, I loved it, it's called biology is ideology and it really is all about I wouldn't call it one of the best books of all time, but I love the book because it really does point out, you know, that science as it's currently practiced. [02:08:47] I mean, the book was written in nineteen ninety one, but it actually I think still holds that scientists, scientists currently practice has a set of ontological commitments which are somewhat problematic. [02:08:57] So the assumptions are limiting in ways that you it's, you know, it's like you're a fish in water and you don't like. OK, so yeah. So here it is possible. Yes. But you know but here's a here's a really cool thing I just learned recently. [02:09:11] Is it OK to go off on this tangent for a minute? Yeah. Yeah, that's great. [02:09:16] I was going to say that I just learned recently that we don't have water receptors on our skin. So how do you know when you're sweating? How do you know when when a raindrop, when you know when it's going to rain and, you know, like a raindrop hits your skin and you can feel that little drop of wetness. How is it that you feel that drop a witness when we don't have water receptors in our skin? [02:09:38] And I was when I was blown already? [02:09:41] Yeah, I that was my reaction to. Right. I was like, of course we don't because we evolved in the water. [02:09:47] Like, why would we need you know, it just it was just this like, you know, you have these moments where you're like, oh it's like, oh yeah. [02:09:54] So you'll never see rain the same way again. [02:09:56] So the answer is it's a it's a it's a combination of temperature and touch, but it's a complex sense that's only computed in your brain. [02:10:08] There's no receptor for it anyways. Yeah. [02:10:11] That's why I like snow versus cold rain versus warm rain. All feel different because you're you're trying to infer stuff from the temperature and the size of the droplets is fascinating. [02:10:22] Your brain is a prediction machine. It's using lots and lots of information, combining it anyway. So but so biology is ideology is I wouldn't say it's one of the greatest books of all time, but it is a it is a really useful book. [02:10:38] There's a book by if you're interested in psychology or the mind at all, there's a wonderful book a little it's a it's a fairly, fairly small book called Naming the Mind by Kurt Danziger, who's a historian of psychology. [02:10:54] Everybody in my lab reads both of these books. [02:10:58] So what was the book? [02:11:00] It's about the origin of where do where did we get the theory of mind that we have that the human mind is populated by thoughts and feelings and perceptions? And where did those categories come from? Because they don't exist in all cultures. [02:11:17] Also, this isn't that's a cultural construct, the idea that you have thoughts and feelings and they're very distinct is definitely a cultural construct. It's another mind blowing thing, just like the rain. So Kurt Danzinger is about the opening chapter in that book is. [02:11:40] Absolutely mind blowing, I love it, I love it, I just think it's fantastic, and I would say that there are many, many popular science books that I could recommend that I think are extremely well written in their own way. You know, before I maybe I said this to you, but before I undertook writing how emotions are made, I read, I don't know, somewhere on the order of 50 or 60 popular science books to try to figure out how. [02:12:14] To write a popular science book, because while there are many books about writing, Stephen King has a great book writing on writing and you know, where he gives tips interlaced with his own personal history. That was where I learned you write for a specific person. You have a specific person in mind, and that's for me. That person is my is down there. [02:12:39] I mean, that's a whole nother conversation to have. Like which popular science books like what you learn from that search. It is. I have something for me, some popular science books I like. [02:12:52] I just roll my eyes like this is to me it's the same with Ted talks like some of them go too much into the flowery and don't I don't I would say don't give enough respect to the intelligence of the reader. And but that's what this is my own bias. I, I completely agree with you. [02:13:12] And in fact, I have a colleague. His name is Van Yáng, who, you know, he produced a cinematic lecture of how emotions are made that we wrote together with Joseph Fredman. No relation. Yes. Or we're all related. Really? [02:13:32] Well, I mean, you and I are probably, you know, some. Yeah, yeah. [02:13:35] But it's the memories are in there somewhere. [02:13:39] Yeah. From many, many, many generations ago. [02:13:41] Um, my half my family is Russian so from the good half the good everything but. You know, he wanted his goal actually is to produce. You know, videos and lectures that are beautiful and educational and that don't. Don't dump the material down, and he's really remarkable at it, actually, I mean, just. But again, you know, that's that that requires a bit of a paradigm shift. We could have a whole conversation about the split between entertainment and education in this country and why it is the way it is. [02:14:27] But that's that's another conversation to be continued. [02:14:30] But I would say the if I were to pick one book that I think is a really good example of good science writing, it would be the beak of the finch. [02:14:41] Which one it won a Pulitzer Prize a number of years ago, and I'm not I'm I'm not remembering the author's name, I'm blanking. [02:14:52] But the I'm guessing is that is it focusing on birds and the evolution of birds? [02:14:58] Actually, there's also the evolution of beauty. Yeah, yeah. Which is also a great book. But, you know, the peak of the finch is it's a. It it has two storylines that are interwoven. One is about Darwin and Darwin's explorations in the Galapagos Island and then modern day researchers from Princeton who have a research program in the Galapagos looking at Darwin's finches and. It's just a really first of all, there's top notch science in there and really science like, you know, evolutionary biology that a lot of people don't know and it's told really, really well, it sounds like they're also there's a narrative in there. [02:15:50] It's like storytelling, too. Yeah. [02:15:52] I think all good popular science books are are storytelling know, but storytelling grounded, constrained by, you know, the evidence. [02:16:00] And then I just want to say that there are for fiction, I'm a really big fan of love stories just to return us to the topic that we began with. [02:16:11] And so my some of my favorite love stories are Major Pettigrew's last stand by. Helen Simons in. It's a it's a love story about people who you wouldn't expect to fall in love and all the people around them who have to overcome their prejudices and end them. I love this book. What do you like, what makes a good love story? There isn't one thing you know, there are many different things that make a good love story, but I think in this case you can feel you can feel the journey, you can feel the journey that these characters are on and all the people around them are on this journey to basically to come to grips with this really unexpected love, really profound love that develops between these two characters who are very unlikely to have fallen in love. [02:17:10] But they do. And. It's just it's very gentle, another book like that is the The Storied Life of A.J. Fear Key, which is also a love story. But in this case, it's a love story between a little girl and her adopted dad and the dad. Is this, like, real curmudgeonly, you know, guy. But of course, there's a story there and it's just a beautiful love story. And but it also it's like everybody in this community falls in love with him because he falls in love with her and he you know, she just gets left at his store. [02:18:00] His bookstore has this failing bookstore and he discovers that, you know, he feels like inexplicably, this need to take care of this little baby. [02:18:12] And this whole life emerges out of that one decision, which is really beautiful, actually very poignant. [02:18:22] Do you think the greatest stories have a happy ending or a heartbreak at the end? [02:18:30] That's such a Russian questions like Russian tragedies, you know, so I would say the answer to that for me, there is has to be heartbreak. [02:18:38] Yeah, I really don't like heartbreak. I don't like heartbreak. I want there to be a happy ending or at least. A hopeful ending, but the but, you know, like Doctor Zhivago, like or the English Patient. [02:18:54] Oh, my goodness. Like, why? Oh, it's just. Yeah, no. [02:19:01] Well, I don't think there's a better way to end it on a happy note like this, Lisa. Like I said, I'm a huge fan of yours. Thank you for wasting yet more time with me talking again. People should definitely get your book and maybe one day I can't wait to talk to your husband as well. Well, right back at you, Lexy. [02:19:23] Thanks for listening to this conversation with Lisa Feldman Barrett, and thank you to our sponsors, athletic greens, the all in one drink that I start every day with to cover all my nutritional bases, eat, sleep a mattress that calls itself and gives me yet another reason to enjoy sleep master class online courses that I enjoy from some of the most amazing humans in history and better help online therapy with a licensed professional. Please check out these sponsors in the description to get a discount and to support this podcast. [02:19:58] Enjoy the things, subscribe on YouTube, review it with five stars and a podcast. Follow on Spotify, support on Patrón or connect with me on Twitter Leks Friedemann. And now let me leave you with some words from Sun Tzu and the art of war. There are not more than five musical notes yet the combination of these five gives rise to more melodies that can ever be heard. There are not more than five primary colors yet in combination, they produce more hues that can ever be seen. [02:20:31] There are not more than five cardinal tastes, and yet combinations of them yield more flavors than can ever be tasted. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處