• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
the-one-you-feed-podcast-eric-zimmer-logo-dark-smk
  • About
    • The Podcast
    • The Parable
    • Eric Zimmer
    • Ginny Gay
  • The Podcast
    • Episodes Shownotes
    • Episodes List
    • Anxiety & Depression
    • Addiction & Recovery
    • Habits & Behavior Change
    • Meditation & Mindfulness
  • Programs
    • Overwhelm is Optional Email Course
    • Wise Habits
    • Free Masterclass: Habits That Stick
    • Coaching Consultation
  • Membership
  • Resources
    • 6 Sabotuers FREE eBook
    • Sign Up for Wise Habits Text Reminders
    • Free Masterclass: Habits that Stick
    • Free ebook: How to Stick to Meditation Practice
    • Free Training: How to Quiet Your Inner Critic
    • Anti-Racism Resources
    • Blog
  • Contact
    • General Inquiries
    • Guest Requests
  • Search
Wise Habits Reminders

Featured

From Loneliness to Belonging: Small Steps That Change Everything with Jillian Richardson

April 11, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Jillian Richardson discusses the journey from loneliness to belonging and shares the small steps that can change everything. She delves into why friendship takes more effort than we expect and how we can actually get better at it. Jillian also explores what gets in the way of connection, why it’s not just about putting yourself out there, and how real community is less about finding perfect people, and more about staying when things feel a little uncomfortable.

Key Takeaways:

  • Challenges of forming friendships as adults
  • The impact of loneliness on social interactions
  • Importance of intention in building connections
  • Strategies for fostering deeper relationships
  • Role of vulnerability in authentic friendships
  • The significance of consistency in maintaining friendships
  • Practical advice for initiating and nurturing friendships
  • The influence of societal factors on feelings of isolation
  • Encouragement to engage in uncomfortable conversations


Jillian Richardson is one of LinkedIn’s top ghostwriters and the Amazon best-selling author of Unlonely Planet: How Healthy Congregations Can Change the World.   She has written more than 400 articles on everything from the future of AI to the neuroscience of changing your mind and how female executives can find pleasure in their day-to-day life. Jillian has been published in outlets like NBC, Quartz, AdWeek, and The Content Strategist. She’s also been the voice of brands like MOO, Ellevest, Convene, Percolate, Trello, and ExecOnline. Outside of being a writer, Jillian has grown her own personal brand as a community builder and coach. Her thought leadership has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and NPR. Her work has also been shared by luminaries like Esther Perel, Priya Parker, the founder of Meetup, and— somehow— Chris Voss, the famous FBI investigator.

Connect with Jillian Richardson:  Website | Instagram

If you enjoyed this conversation with Jillian Richardson, check out these other episodes:

How to Find Joy and Community with Radha Agrawal

Belonging and Connection with Sebene Selassie

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Jillian Richardson 00:00:00  So many people share the struggle and just don’t necessarily realize that they don’t have a tolerance for having any sort of uncomfortable conversation.

Chris Forbes 00:00:17  Welcome to the one you feed. Throughout time, great thinkers have recognized the importance of the thoughts we have. Quotes like garbage in, garbage out or you are what you think ring true. And yet, for many of us, our thoughts don’t strengthen or empower us. We tend toward negativity, self-pity, jealousy, or fear. We see what we don’t have instead of what we do. We think things that hold us back and dampen our spirit. But it’s not just about thinking our actions matter. It takes conscious, consistent, and creative effort to make a life worth living. This podcast is about how other people keep themselves moving in the right direction, how they feed their good wolf.

Eric Zimmer 00:01:02  Have you ever noticed how making friends is an adult? Feels weirdly complicated. We say we want more connection, but then we don’t go to the thing. Don’t follow up and decide that Netflix just sounds easier.  In this episode, I talk with Jillian Richardson, author, coach and creator of the Joy list, about why friendship takes more effort than we expect and how we can actually get better at it. We explore what gets in the way of connection, why it’s not just about putting yourself out there, and how real community is less about finding perfect people, and more about staying when things feel a little uncomfortable. I’ve seen this in my own life. I say I want community, but then I wait for it just to happen. It doesn’t. Connection takes practice. You build it, you show up, you go to the event, you send the text. And in Jillian’s case, you even start a monthly dinner party. I’m Eric Zimmer. And this is the one you feed. Hi, Jillian. Welcome to the show.

Jillian Richardson 00:02:03  Thank you so much for having me.

Eric Zimmer 00:02:05  I am really happy to have you on. We are going to be discussing your book, which is called UN Lonely Planet, and you do a lot of work around connection and building friendships and lots of things that I think are really important. We’ll get to all that in a minute, but we’ll start like we always do with the parable. In the parable, there is a grandmother who’s talking with her grandson, and she says, in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandson stops and he thinks about it for a second. He looks up at his grandmother. He says, well, grandmother, which one wins? And the grandmother says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Jillian Richardson 00:02:54  For me, what that parable means is who you choose to focus your attention on. I find it really interesting that there are the sorts of people who genuinely believe that people are good, and then there are other people who genuinely believe that most people are bad. And I often think about what the difference is between those two types of people. And I’m really fascinated by the moments when I kind of can get stuck in that headspace of just like, dating is terrible or people are bad, these kind of black and white statements. And I find that the more caring energy and attention I give myself, the more caring and attentive people I magnetize in my own life, and also the media that I consume, kind of what I choose to put my attention on will then also reflect in my experience of the world.

Eric Zimmer 00:03:54  I love that and it makes me think of something that you talk about in your book. You were quoting a study I don’t remember who it’s from, but basically says protracted loneliness makes it difficult for us to evaluate other people’s intentions. Lonely people often feel attacked in situations that are actually neutral. I thought that was a really interesting insight. Like the more often you’re alone by yourself, the more you almost start to do what you said, which is we start to look at other people’s intentions more suspiciously.

Jillian Richardson 00:04:26  Yeah, like you’re at a party and someone just glances at you from across the room and your brain might think, oh my God, that person was giving me the side eye because I look bad or because they’re judging what I said, when in reality they might just be looking at you. But you’re so alert and looking out for signs to confirm you’re already biased, that people don’t like you or people are judgmental, whatever that inclination might be.

Eric Zimmer 00:04:52  Yeah, I just thought it was interesting that the more lonely you are, the more that exacerbates itself. You know, we talk a lot about upward and downward spirals on this show. And that’s a definite downward spiral. Right. So I’m somewhat lonely, but I’m like, all right, I’ll push myself to get out there. And I get out there and I interpret everybody as negative. So I want to do it less. So now all of a sudden I take another downward cycle towards like, all right, I don’t want to go back out. Nobody likes me.

Eric Zimmer 00:05:19  Then I push myself. Finally I get up the moxie to do it another time in similar experience. And so all of a sudden you go, all right, that’s it, I quit.

Jillian Richardson 00:05:27  Yeah. And that leads to so many people saying, oh, it’s impossible to make friends as an adult. For example, how many times I’ve heard people say that when in reality I know so many adults who are yearning for deep friendships, but they’re just not matching each other.

Eric Zimmer 00:05:46  Let’s go right into that, because I think that’s the heart of what, when you and I met and we started talking, I was most interested in because I’m really interested in this idea of loneliness. I’m really interested in the idea of adult friendship, and I think it is harder to form friendships as an adult than say it was when you were at college or as a fourth grader. But to your point, it’s certainly possible. So let’s talk a little bit about what are some of the barriers that get in the way of making adult friendships.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:15  And then maybe we could go into some of the strategies for how to do it. And I know this is something you, in addition to writing about, you actually coach people on. So I’d love to hear some of you know what you find first getting in the way and then secondly, some strategies we could use.

Jillian Richardson 00:06:30  Yeah, well, I think the biggest thing is having the intention and sticking to it. Yeah. I think in one of your earlier podcasts, you mentioned how no one gets fit by accident, or maybe it was one of your guests that you didn’t just wake up one day and you’re super fit, like you’re putting conscious intention and energy into it every day. And I think the same thing goes with making friends as an adult to actually set that as a goal. And it’s so interesting to me how many people find that really strange that someone would set that as a goal, because a lot of people can tell themselves, it’s just something I should know how to do. I should just have friends.

Jillian Richardson 00:07:14  I shouldn’t have to put this much thought into it. There’s something wrong with me because I’m trying to make friends. It feels embarrassing, almost like cringing. And it’s the same as anything else to say. You know, I’m going to go to a new event two times this month, and I’m gonna have my awareness open for people. I might want to be my friend.

Eric Zimmer 00:07:39  Yeah, I think you’re right. You hit on something really important there when we’re young. It’s I mean, not for everybody, but for a lot of people. It’s easier to make friends because everybody is in a similar circumstance. We’re all arriving at college together. Okay. We’re. By and large, we’re all looking for friends. Yeah. So it seems to happen somewhat more naturally when we get older. And it doesn’t happen. Like you said, I often think we think there’s something wrong with me or that it shouldn’t take this much work. So I think that’s a big barrier. I think the second thing I was thinking about this recently, I was like, it seems like there’s a lot of mismatch among adults.

Eric Zimmer 00:08:14  And what I mean by that is, again, when we go to college, we are all roughly 18 years old. And I didn’t go to college, but I’m I know people who did.

Jillian Richardson 00:08:23  I hear you’re I.

Eric Zimmer 00:08:24  Heard about it. I watched my son do it. I’m just using it as an example. But we could say the same thing for fourth grade, right? You show up, you’re all roughly the same age. Your lives all look roughly the same as in, like, your primary responsibility is going to school, hanging out, you know, not everybody, but but most people. But when you’re an adult, you can run into real mismatches. Like, I go to an event and I meet somebody and that person is 15 years older than me and our life circumstances might look very different. They’ve got three kids and a full time job, and I am underemployed and no kids. It’s not that those circumstances are unbridgeable, it just means that sometimes there isn’t room in the same way for friendship, for both those people.

Eric Zimmer 00:09:12  Right. Like, I’ve seen this happen a lot. People are like, I can’t make friends. People don’t like me. And I’m like, well, it might be just that some of the people you’re talking to just don’t have open social calendars. So I think as we get as we get older, it gets harder to find people who social needs meet ours, as well as the basic things that go into making what a friendship would be. So I do think it’s harder as an adult, but it’s certainly not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

Jillian Richardson 00:09:38  It’s not impossible. And I think also all those factors you just said of how many things need to be in alignment for you to become deeper friends with someone, to hold that in mind. And then when you find someone who actually has the space to deepen friendships, get excited about that person. I think people really hold themselves back from being earnest in friendship, and if it’s okay, I would love to give an example of some friends that I recently made.

Jillian Richardson 00:10:07  Yeah, because I talk to people about this stuff all the time, and I know how magic it is when the things actually line up. So what happened was I had someone he reached out to me on Instagram and said he was doing a storytelling show. I went to the storytelling show and we talked a little bit, and he invited me to a party that him and two friends host every month. I go to the party, I love it, I love the energy of the people there. It’s just this really warm, sweet group of people. I decide I’m going to go to this party every month. After the party message both of the hosts and explicitly say, I had so much fun at your party. I think the energy of the people at parties matches the hosts. So I didn’t really get to talk to you about that much, but I really enjoyed being in your space, which is vulnerable to say that. It’s like kind of putting myself out there a little bit. That’s right. And it’s just a whole long process of I keep going to this party every month.

Jillian Richardson 00:11:08  Start to become friends with the hosts. Say just explicitly say, I would like to hang out with you. Start hanging out with them at their house and start to kind of meet their friends. And we’re all having dinner this Sunday, and I’m so earnest, like, we just started a group chat and I literally said, oh my God, I’m so excited we’re in a group chat. Yeah, this is so sweet because most people don’t want to seem too excited, like it’s lame to want friends. But I think it’s really brave to say to someone that you’re excited about getting to know them more.

Eric Zimmer 00:11:45  I think so too. And you mentioned three sort of relationship strengthening tactics. The second one is we really have to practice positivity, the reward and enjoyment of each other. You know, we did a episode recently where Jenny interviewed Chris and I, and Chris is the editor of the show, and him and I have been friends for, I don’t know, a long time. 25, 2830. I don’t know, a lot of years.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:11  No. Yeah.

Jillian Richardson 00:12:12  Wow.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:12  32, 33 years. Something like that. Best friend.

Jillian Richardson 00:12:15  Longer than I have been on this earth.

Eric Zimmer 00:12:17  Oh my goodness. Yes. But we talked a little bit about how, for whatever reason, when we first became friends, like we were so excited about being friends and we talked about how excited we were to be friends. And we share. I mean, we’ve just always shared this positivity, which I think is part of what has contributed to making it such a close friendship for so long.

Jillian Richardson 00:12:40  It’s so nice to know. And it’s really a skill I think, to be able to do that with people. For me, when I when I meet someone who’s able to also offer that vulnerability and say, you know, I had a lot of fun hanging out with you tonight, I would love to do that again. I know, like this is a person I really want to spend time with, because I’ve looked at friendships long enough to realize that’s a really special quality in somebody.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:06  You talk a lot about vulnerability. That was kind of the first in these relationship strengthening tactics. You know, in order to feel seen, we have to practice vulnerability, the sharing of who we are. Is there a line for you where vulnerability crosses into neediness? We’ve all had an experience of somebody who is so desperate to be liked that they’re hard to like. Yeah, and there’s a difference between that and being vulnerable. And I’m just curious if you have any thoughts on what that difference is or how you navigate that.

Jillian Richardson 00:13:37  I can’t give a one size fits all answer, but what I would invite people to do is check in with themselves about their intention behind sharing something and to say like, okay, am I sharing about some really traumatic childhood experience super early on with this person so they feel bad for me? Or just to be honest with yourself about what? Why are you sharing this thing? Because that’s something I’ve definitely done before of kind of oversharing and then afterwards feeling embarrassed. I’m like, why did I say that? Why? Why did I say that to this person? And I think underneath it is just a really strong desire to connect.

Jillian Richardson 00:14:22  Yeah. And but at the same time, by sharing too much too soon, I’m kind of creating a power imbalance and I’m putting too much on the other person in a way that isn’t fair.

Eric Zimmer 00:14:36  Yeah. And it seems to me that if we think about this, it’s probably good to know your tendency and to be aware of it and correct for it. So yes, in the Spiritual Habits program we talk about the middle way. It’s one of the core ideas and principles. And it basically says, look, any virtue so to speak, is a middle point between two vices. Right. Courage is a middle point between being, you know, rash and idiotic and a coward. Right. So knowing which of those sides do I have a tendency to just sit back and be way too stoic when I meet new people and not share and not be vulnerable and not express that I’m excited to be friends with them. If that’s my tendency, maybe I want to work on course correcting a little bit more towards the vulnerable side.

Eric Zimmer 00:15:20  If, on the other hand, I have a tendency of, you know, ten minutes after meeting somebody, telling them about, you know, my deep, dark abuse secrets and saying, I love you. I hope we spend every day the rest of our lives together. Right. I might want to dial that tendency down a bit. And so it’s useful to know, like what is my tendency and to correct for it. But my experience with most adults is that our tendency is to be much less vulnerable. To not take a chance of deepening a conversation, of deepening a relationship. That’s been my experience of, you know, being an adult for 30 years now, almost as long as you’ve been on the planet. I suppose you’re about to tell me again. I know from your writings you believe in cultivating the voices of elders, so I’m glad I can. Glad I can fill that role. But my experience with most adults is we’re more on the whole back side than we are on the be vulnerable side.

Jillian Richardson 00:16:14  Totally. I find there’s a specific type of person who is craving this more open, vulnerable friendship and who also has the capacity to foster that. And I find that when we meet each other we’re so stoked. Yes. I heard someone recently say it’s like we’re in the same graduating class. Like we understand each other’s kind of just way of being in the world. And I loved that way of phrasing it so much.

Eric Zimmer 00:16:41  Yeah. And while I don’t specifically coach people on creating friendship in the way that you do, that has been something that a number of my clients over the years have said, you know, they would they would like more of and and we talk a lot about that basic idea of like, at some juncture somebody has to take quote unquote, the next step. In the same way in a dating situation, somebody’s got to sort of say, all right, I’m going to I’m going to take a chance of seeing where does this go if I take the next step. I think the same thing happens in friendship for sure, where even if that next step is just to drop one level deeper in intimacy of conversation, to say, all right, we’ve been hanging out here on the surface.

Eric Zimmer 00:17:24  I’m going to take the chance to go one level deeper. And I’ve shared this on the show before. I used to do that at work all the time. Like, I mean, I just in the beginning, after I got sober at 24, I would just walk into a room and be like, hey, I’m a, I’m a heroin addict. You know, I got sober six months ago and I, you know, over time I was like, all right, we need to dial that down a little bit. But I always had that tendency of I would just go a little bit deeper than most people would. And I just found that over and over that paid dividends for me in that it made me much better at my work. A because people trusted me more. And b, I just made more friends that way, more authentic friendships that way, by simply just being willing to be a little bit more open about what mattered.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:07  Yeah, because I imagine the people who are really uncomfortable with you sharing those parts of yourself weren’t comfortable with the parts of themselves that were struggling.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:16  And those aren’t people that you want to be friends with.

Eric Zimmer 00:18:18  That’s right. Yeah. You’re just like, well, I mean, I never really found it to be that damaging. I mean, maybe I had good enough self-esteem that I was just sort of like, well, not everybody has to like me.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:27  Yeah.

Eric Zimmer 00:18:28  But yeah, I just I think that is such an important piece is to sort of just recognize, like, if I want this relationship, I’ve met somebody that seems like I like them. How do we take it to the next level? And I think your suggestions in the book of being more vulnerable, practicing positivity. And then the third one you talk about is consistency. Share a little bit more about that.

Jillian Richardson 00:18:48  Yeah, I think especially if people live in a big city, it can be difficult to find the time to see someone consistently. This is a problem I will still run up against of having so many people I really, genuinely love and want to spend time with, but then we just don’t have the time and energy to coordinate our schedules and figure out the spot and do the whole thing.

Jillian Richardson 00:19:08  And so to have these kind of central meeting places, for example, it could be a dance party or a house party or a meditation class that you go to or a yoga class say, okay, I’m doing this thing every week or every month, and I know if you want to find me, I will be there. Or if I want to find you, you’ll probably be there. And it’s a great way to just consistently see people be around the types of people who value the same things that you do, and also to start to deepen those relationships a little bit.

Eric Zimmer 00:19:39  One of the things that I’ve noticed we may be working with slightly different demographics, potentially, as we’ve already sort of laid out, the the age difference between us, right, is that a lot of people that I work with say they want more community, but their lives are very, very full and they just tend to not make time for it. That’s something that I found very interesting. And somebody who’s trying to build a community is that people say, yes, I want that, yes, I want that.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:07  But then they don’t show up that often for it. Totally. A lot of the people that are sort of in our communities are going to be people who are deep in career and deep in family, so that’s part of it. But do you see that also where people say, I want friendships, I want community, but then they just simply don’t put the effort or the time in. They just default to Netflix and hanging out.

Jillian Richardson 00:20:31  Totally. And I think it’s especially that people don’t want the uncomfortable parts that come with community, which is there’s going to be conflicts and there’s going to be maybe some people you don’t like, or you’re going to be jealous of someone, or someone’s going to mirror something in you that feels awkward or uncomfortable. And it’s so easy to just be like, well, I guess I’m never going to hang out with these people again. Or I guess I just won’t communicate what’s going on. And then I feel disconnected from these people, and then I kind of just drift away and I tell myself, oh, we just drifted apart.

Jillian Richardson 00:21:08  But really, I haven’t been communicating the truth of my heart and I’ve been creating this distance myself. That was a lot. I had a lot of energy behind that, but it really feels very annoying to me because I think so many people share this struggle and just don’t necessarily realize that they don’t have a tolerance for having any sort of uncomfortable conversation.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:57  I am not a good group joiner. I think I’m decent at fostering individual relationships, but I’ve never been a group joiner, particularly over the last five years. I’ve gotten clear that a lot of it is what you were just saying. I’m looking for the perfect community. I’m looking for the community where I like everyone. So if I’m thinking of a Buddhist community or a spiritual community, I’m like, yeah, those couple people seem all right, but I don’t like those three people, so this isn’t the place for me.

Jillian Richardson 00:22:24  Yeah. So I’m never coming here again.

Eric Zimmer 00:22:26  Yeah. Which is what I would do over and over and over. And so I heard somebody say once and use words a little bit.

Eric Zimmer 00:22:32  I don’t remember exactly which ones, but you alluded to it a little bit, which was that part of the point of community, is to rub off our rough edges, that by interacting with these other people, it smooths us out and allows us to integrate more harmoniously into a group. And I thought once I heard that, I went, oh, that makes a lot of sense. The point here isn’t that I like everybody and they’re all my best friends. The point is, I’m interacting with a variety of different people and that there’s benefit and beauty in that.

Jillian Richardson 00:23:01  Totally. There’s benefit in me being around people who I wouldn’t choose to be my friend, but the sheer nature of our differences is actually good for us just to be able to be in that.

Eric Zimmer 00:23:11  Yeah. How do you work with people who are saying, yeah, I want community, but aren’t putting the effort in to get it? It’s very similar to somebody who says they want to be in shape, but they’re not putting the effort to get into it.

Eric Zimmer 00:23:24  What sort of things have you found helps unblock?

Jillian Richardson 00:23:27  I think the biggest thing is to start by asking questions around their fears, say, well, okay, there’s clearly something that’s preventing you from doing this, because if you are 100% in, you wouldn’t need anyone to help you. You would just be doing it. So a lot of times I’ll ask people, what’s been your experience with communities in the past? And oftentimes something really awful will come up like, oh, I was part of this group and a girl in the group, like cheated on my boyfriend. You know, I’m trying to say that. Yeah, my boyfriend cheated on me with this person in the group. There was a terrible experience, or I got bullied or I didn’t feel like I fit in there. Anything along those lines were unconsciously there thinking, well, I had a really bad experience in a community before, so why would I want to put myself through that again? But just don’t take the time to reflect on it, because I think even in the world of personal development, where we reflect so much on all these elements of ourselves constantly, rarely think about our relationship to group and kind of in-group outgroup.

Jillian Richardson 00:24:28  What’s my experience with community? Because culturally we don’t care about it very much. So why would we think about it consciously?

Eric Zimmer 00:24:35  Yeah, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So if I am a person and I say, okay, I’m lonely, I want to change that. Where do I start? You know, what are some things I can start doing? Let’s just say I’m like, well, I’ll give you a little bit more than that to go on. I work from home. I have 3 or 4 other people that, you know, I interact with in my company, and I’ve known them for a while, and they’re fine. But we’re not going to be great friends. I don’t have a church that I want to go to. I’m lonely and I’m not sure where to start. What are some initial steps I can take? And you can tailor this answer to ways you can tailor it towards New York City, which is, or a big city, which is where you are.

Eric Zimmer 00:25:13  And you’ve created something called the Joy list, and lots of great things. But we could also talk about people who are in a place that’s not quite so vibrant.

Jillian Richardson 00:25:19  Yeah, I’ll go a little more general. Okay. And I feel very excited about this question. The first question I always ask people is, what kind of person do you want to be? Who do you want to be just in life. And also, how do you want to exist within the place where you live? Could be New York City, could be somewhere else. Because you might not want to be a group person. You might say, you know, my ideal vision for my friendships and my community is maybe I’m kind of the hub for parties in my neighborhood. I have dinner parties, people come to me, I have an awesome backyard. I’ve got a core group of ten friends, and we host stuff once a month. That might be your vision for yourself, and that’s awesome. Like already having just a vision for what you want, and especially the qualities you say, I want to be around people who care about spirituality.

Jillian Richardson 00:26:14  I want to be the kind of person who’s a generous host. I want to care for my body, even say, okay, what types of people care about those things? Where can you meet those types of people? Because if you want to meet spiritual nerds who love working out. Just go into the bar every Friday night. You’re probably not going to meet those people. Or if you do meet those people, you don’t know that you’re meeting those people because you’re not in that context.

Eric Zimmer 00:26:42  Yep. Let’s run with this example. So let’s say I live in a mid-sized community somewhere in the US, and I’m like, yeah, that is what I want. I just moved to this new town. I’d like to have a small group of friends. I do have a wonderful backyard and I’ve got a great patio. I love to cook dinner. I just love to have a group of friends that gets together once or twice a month in my backyard, and we hang out and we have dinner and we just have some nice conversation.

Eric Zimmer 00:27:06  Like, that would be amazing for me compared to where I’m at now. What do I do if someone came to you with that’s what I want.

Jillian Richardson 00:27:12  So I have some friends. They are nomads and they’re constantly traveling, but they’re somehow also always hosting things themselves, even in countries where they don’t really know people. And it’s wild. And I ask them, how do you manage to pull this off? And they’ll say, okay, well, I know three people in this town, and I tell them I want to host a dinner party. Can each of you invite three people? And you could even say, can you invite three people you know who might love spirituality? If you want to get a little more specific, suddenly you have a ten person dinner party, and then at the end of that say, you know, I’m going to do this again next month, same day next month. Would love it if you guys could invite some people. I want to make this a monthly thing, and even having the next day and saying to people, I’d love for you to come again.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:00  I have two friends who do this every month, and they have an incredibly vibrant community that comes to them. It’s a pretty sweet deal.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:07  Yeah. So you take whoever you know and you use those people to sort of network out from there.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:14  Totally. And even if you wanted to be as vulnerable as saying, I want to create a deeper community for myself here, it’d be so helpful if you guys can invite some folks that’d feel really good for me, because I find when people know why you’re asking them something, they’re more likely to do it instead of you just being like, oh yeah. Invite some friends if you want. Like there’s a reason why you’re asking them to do.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:35  That, right? You’re taking that step of being a little bit vulnerable and asking for what you want.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:41  Because it’s like, oh my God, who doesn’t want to say like, oh yeah, let me invite my three coolest friends so you can meet them. Yeah, this is great.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:46  So what if I’m not even in that place where I know much of anybody in that town? So, yeah, I moved here for my job.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:54  I’m a shy person. I just don’t really know anyone. Where do I start? There.

Jillian Richardson 00:28:59  So something that I recommend that is very simple but definitely not easy is posting on social media if you have it, or sending an email and saying, hey, I just moved to wherever you live. I’m looking to meet people who are interested in blah blah blah. Who do you know? And this is something that is so simple, but folks love this kind of post on the internet because all they have to do is tag somebody and they get to feel great about themselves. And it takes two seconds and you might have three, five, ten people who all of a sudden you can reach out to. And all you had to do was just let people know that you’re looking for that.

Eric Zimmer 00:29:37  That’s a great idea. What about starting to attend gatherings or volunteer events? All right. I’m willing to put myself out there a little bit. Yeah. In order to meet some new people. What does that look like? How do I go about finding things? What do I do when I get there? When I attend them? Again, if you’re in New York City, you get on Jillian’s joy list.

Jillian Richardson 00:29:58  Yeah you do.

Eric Zimmer 00:29:59  I see that joy list every time I’m like, I am jealous. That is so cool. So much great stuff there.

Jillian Richardson 00:30:05  Lots of weird stuff going on in New York City.

Eric Zimmer 00:30:07  Totally. But what do I do if I don’t have that? Where are some places I can turn to that are more broadly accessible ways to find gatherings, things that I’m interested in, etc.?

Jillian Richardson 00:30:18  Yeah. So first of all, I would start on Meetup and Eventbrite. On Eventbrite, there’s a filter that you can look for. There’s there’s different event categories, and there’s one called community. There’s literally an event category called community. So you can say, okay, what are the community events happening in my neighborhood this week? Or you could filter for fitness events. You could filter for religious events. You can even filter by a keyword. You could look for a women’s circle, for example, or the word sober and just see what pops up. And to then commit to yourself to say, okay, I’m going to go to this group at least twice.

Jillian Richardson 00:30:56  Like, even if the first time I don’t like it very much, or even if the first time I feel so nervous and I don’t talk to anyone and I feel really weird to go twice. And also, you said the magic word before, which is volunteer. I think, honestly, this is the biggest hack for making friends in a new place is to go to an event that has the kinds of people that you think you’d like. Like, for example, in New York City there’s this big meditation event called medi club, and I would volunteer at this event every month because the people who volunteer are more likely to want to make new friends. That’s a big reason why people volunteer. But also, it gives you direct access to the organizers of the event, and the organizers of events are usually community hubs who are more than happy to introduce you to whoever you want.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:09  So find events and if you can volunteer at them. And I think the other thing you said there’s really important is to go at least twice, you know, if not more.

Eric Zimmer 00:32:19  Right. I’ve started recently doing this thing in Columbus. I love doing so. Volunteer is called Food Rescue and it’s basically there’s an organization there all around the country, but they basically find food that’s going to be thrown away somewhere, whether it’s from a restaurant, a grocery store or whatever. And then they match that up with a place that needs it, and you basically go get it from one place, take it to another. But they’ve had this thing where they distribute these like thousands of boxes of produce every Friday. And so I was like, all right, I’m going to start going. And I am not actually very good at plot. Me in a new environment with a bunch of people I don’t know. I don’t do well in that environment. I am sort of shy. I’m sort of quiet. I’m sort of withdrawn. And it’s interesting. It’s not even that I notice that I’m shy and withdrawn. That’s part of it. But but what’s interesting is my defense mechanisms kick in enough that I don’t even feel like I want to get to know anybody in that environment.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:12  It’s so interesting. It’s like, if you ask me on Wednesday night when I’m going to this thing on Friday, would you like to meet some new people there? I’m like, of course I would. That would be great. Put me there Friday. And all of a sudden I’m like, my phone is really interesting to me right now.

Jillian Richardson 00:33:25  Right. You’re like, look at my shoes. I’ve got really cool shoes.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:28  Oh, man. Maybe I should just sit in the car and listen to this book on tape. It’s so interesting to me the way that happens. My defense mechanisms rise up so quickly, I don’t even see them. And then they’re like, you don’t really? Who cares? You don’t need to make anything so interesting anyway. I’ve been going to this thing on Fridays, and, I mean, I think it took like five times before I started actually getting into conversation with people like I was there. We were friendly. Hey, how are you doing? Good. Let’s load these boxes.

Eric Zimmer 00:33:55  Like. But after about the fifth time, something in me just shifted and I naturally started to just sort of emerge from my shell a little bit. And so I just know that about me, that it takes me a little while. And so I know if I’m going to embed myself in something like that, I’m going to have to go multiple times. But I imagine there are things that I could do if I wanted to accelerate that process. What might be some ways of getting into the conversational flow or meeting somebody or again, just going from sort of standing there to engaging a little bit more.

Jillian Richardson 00:34:28  Well, I think you are definitely not alone, or I know you’re not alone in your experience of going to an event that’s not facilitated and not being sure how to go deeper with people because you don’t know the norms of the space, you don’t know what’s acceptable there. You don’t really know who these people are. It’s like going to a giant happy hour. That’s a networking event where no one tells you what to do, and you’re just like, yeah, we’re supposed to connect with each other.

Jillian Richardson 00:34:53  What the hell is this? Like, this is awful. Which is why and I’m such an extroverted person, but I hate things like that with a passion, because it’s such a draining environment for me to be in, where there is no understanding of what you’re supposed to do in the space. You’re kind of just thrown into this giant room of people talking over each other. So the biggest thing I would say is that if you can find an event that has facilitation, try that. So for example, in New York City, And this is a very New York City thing. But there’s this thing called vulnerable AF that this woman named Veronica runs. It’s like a great name. And now she she goes on tour and she does it, and it’s so great, but it’s essentially just facilitated conversations where she’s giving you prompts to say to strangers, and there’s some group exercises, and there’s no way you’re not going to leave that event without having had a deeper conversation with someone. And the people who show up at that event are obviously looking to have deeper conversations with new people.

Jillian Richardson 00:35:53  So you’re kind of already all in the same space.

Eric Zimmer 00:35:55  That’s a great event, and I think that’s really good advice. Go to something that is sort of facilitated. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve always been grateful to have been a member of AA. Yeah, I’m not real involved now, but I’m like, if I move to a new city, like, how easy is it? I just start going to meeting the meetings, have conversations that are already structured. You get to hear a bunch of people talk and be like, I like what that guy had to say. I like what she had to say, okay, those are the kind of people I got my eye on. It makes it happen so much easier than what you described, which is like this food rescue situation where I show up and again now, this organization is not designed to help people meet each other. It’s designed to get food to the places it needs to go. So if my food rescue friends are listening, none of this is criticism.

Jillian Richardson 00:36:40  It’s like no shade, you guys, right?

Eric Zimmer 00:36:41  Like, yeah, it’s not what it’s about. But you describe this sort of event that a lot of us show up to. We go, all right, I’m going to volunteer somewhere. And I think you make a really good point that where we’re volunteering puts us in proximity to the people, but there are no real rules for interaction, and there’s no guided interaction. It kind of falls all on your own moxie. And again, what I’ve learned about me is that my moxie will grow over time. You know, there’s just something that naturally thaws in me if I’m around the same people enough times. But I love that idea of going to things that are facilitated as a way of that naturally happening in our Spiritual Habits group program. I think we break the big group up into small groups that meet every week, and there’s been a lot of really great deep relationships formed there. And I think to a large extent it’s where we train the facilitators. But secondly, there is a facilitated conversation about things that matter to you right away.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:37  So immediately there is a way to engage and make deeper connection because it is, as you said, a sort of facilitated event. Questions are asked. There’s conversation. It happens.

Jillian Richardson 00:37:49  Yeah. I think this is why these question card games have suddenly blown up in popularity. Like, everyone under the sun has a set of question cards that they’re selling.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:58  I don’t.

Jillian Richardson 00:37:59  Because.

Eric Zimmer 00:37:59  I think I need some question.

Jillian Richardson 00:38:00  You should make some question cards. Esther Perel just came out with a game based off of her podcast. That’s entirely questions that increase in vulnerability, and they’re all questions about storytelling so that you tell a story. You should have her on your podcast. She she’s promoting this new game right now, but I’ve had a few friends say that at their dinner parties. They’ve actually played her game. Interesting. And it’s so great because I find that when we’re around the same people a lot, we lose curiosity about them. Like they kind of just become something that they’re just they’re like, oh yeah, this is my friend I’ve known since I was five.

Jillian Richardson 00:38:38  What else is there for me to know about this person? And then you ask them a question like, oh, what’s one of your favorite memories of being with your grandma? Like, when have you ever talked about that with them before? Probably never. Never. And so you’re gonna get this whole new thing.

Eric Zimmer 00:38:50  I’ve been friends with Chris, as I said, for a really long time. I couldn’t tell you the first thing about his grandparents.

Jillian Richardson 00:38:55  Yeah, I find grandparents is a really interesting thing, because most adults that would never come up in conversation. But there’s so much you can learn about someone’s family and their culture from talking about that.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:08  With Chris, it’s probably going to end up being a conversation about like, drunk uncles or something if I if I know anything about that family. But yeah, same thing. My family too. No, not not.

Jillian Richardson 00:39:19  I mean, that’s a family culture for sure.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:21  Total family culture. I have a uncle who who died from alcoholism, so I am just in it myself.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:26  Before we maybe change directions a little bit for for the last few minutes. What else about making friendship, creating community? What else should people know? Or what are some really important things from your coaching practice that you would share with people?

Jillian Richardson 00:39:39  I think the biggest thing is to really be kind to yourself in this process. Folks can be so brutal to themselves and so judgmental just being like, man, it’s pathetic that I don’t have friends. Like, what kind of loser doesn’t know how to make friends? Like, these mean vicious things people will say to themselves when in reality, the average American hasn’t made a new friend in five years. Wow. And 75% of Americans are not satisfied with their friendships. So more likely than not, any person you meet is looking for new friends and is looking for deeper connection. And the people who have really rich friend groups are in the vast minority, and that’s so important for people to keep in mind.

Eric Zimmer 00:40:27  Yeah, that’s a really good point. And you say early on in your book that loneliness is systematic.

Eric Zimmer 00:40:33  It’s not an individual problem. It’s systematic. Right. So to your point, if we don’t have as rich a friendship or community life as we want, we are like you said, we are far from alone. Matter of fact, we are in the majority and the way our society is set up makes it harder and harder to do that and have that. And so it’s not an individual failing.

Jillian Richardson 00:40:53  Totally not an individual failing at all.

Eric Zimmer 00:40:55  I think the second thing there is kind of what I just did a little bit not to be like, oh, look how great I am. But if you know it, hey, you’re great. I’m great. No, but but when I talked about going to this food rescue thing, right, like 15 years ago, I’d have been really hard on myself. Like, why are you not talking to people? You’re not meeting people. What’s wrong with you? And now I’m just a lot more kind with myself. And I go. I know my process.

Eric Zimmer 00:41:19  Yeah, it takes me a few times, so. Okay. Yeah, that’s the way I am. So I know I just need to go a few more times. I’ll get there instead of being like walking in the first time and being like, if I don’t walk out of here with three friends, I failed. Yeah. And I think that’s how a lot of us orient towards this. I want more friends. I’m going to go to this event. I walk out, I don’t have any friends. I failed, and so I’m not going to do it again because who wants to keep failing?

Jillian Richardson 00:41:42  Totally. And how many people have that mindset in all sorts of things, like a job interview or going on dates be like, well, this one was bad, confirms what I already thought. So I’m just not going to do this again.

Eric Zimmer 00:41:55  Yeah, that’s a really good point. You had some funny things I saw on social recently. You know, I think you’re dating and you and your friends were riffing on reasons that somebody might not be getting back to you.

Eric Zimmer 00:42:06  the different reasons. And I was laughing because because the interpretation is they’re not getting back to me because they don’t like me. And you’re like, well, they might be tripping on LSD. They might be high AF, you know. They might. I thought it was funny, like just riffing. Like, here’s all the different reasons.

Jillian Richardson 00:42:20  Yeah, I was talking to a female friend because we’re both dating. And how funny it is that if, like, we’re at a party and someone’s being kind of weird with us or they’re not responding to our text, our assumption is, well, they think I’m gross and bad and I’m just awful. And that’s why they’re not asking me out or whatever. And then we started talking about actual reasons when we’ve misinterpreted what was going on. And she told the funniest story of how this guy was sending her text that didn’t make sense, and she thought that he was trying to avoid going on a date with her, when in reality he was just tripping super hard.

Jillian Richardson 00:42:58  You know, it was like the best story. That’s so great. Like, keep your phone off. That’s right. Your phone on airplanes might not be making. Maybe they’re drunk or maybe they’re high or I don’t know. I also thank you for supporting my internet life. It feels good.

Eric Zimmer 00:43:14  You know, you’re in the middle of the psychedelic renaissance when you have to be like, well, we’re no longer talking about drunk dialing. We’re talking about tripping, texting. Don’t do it. I want to shift directions for a second and talk about something that you have done. One program you did was called Allied, although you’ve done several others. Allied was a seven week training for white leaders to skillfully engage in conversations about race, and we’ve had a bunch of conversations around race on this show. We’re primarily a white audience. I’d love to know some of what you’ve learned through those various trainings you’ve done. I know I’m asking you a huge topic with, you know, like four minutes left in the conversation.

Eric Zimmer 00:43:54  So but yeah, but any any things that really stood out to you that gave you like, okay, as a, as a white person, if I want to be a better ally, here are some of the things I’m going to do.

Jillian Richardson 00:44:05  Yeah I can quickly say so. Allied was led by this teacher named Harry Pickens, who is a black man who wanted to work with white leaders, and the biggest thing I got from that was, how can we train our nervous systems to be okay in conversations where we are not comfortable, especially with people who do not agree with us? And a case study we were looking at a lot is Darryl Davis, who is a black man who famously befriended members of the Klu Klux Klan and then actually got them to leave because he was in relationship with them. And the process took a very long time. And, of course, that’s not an approach that a lot of people agree with, but it’s one that is really interesting in that that’s the ultimate example of being comfortable across lines of difference and being with people who might not like you at all.

Jillian Richardson 00:44:59  And so I have really tried. And of course, as I’m saying this, I’m judging myself for not doing better, but to be with folks like who are white conservatives, for example, to talk about their beliefs or to be comfortable, because I can really fall into people pleasing, to be comfortable enough to challenge people. And just to say, just having these sentence stems in my back pocket like, oh, why do you think that? Or oh, has that been your experience? And to just give people the space to kind of talk out this thing they might think of without without questioning it? So that was one thing. And the second thing I’ll quickly say is that I did this training called Bridges and Boundaries, which was three days. primarily white folks, but there are also some black folks in the room. And it was a very intense, super in-your-face training about looking at your own racism. And really, the main point that I got from that was that white people are racist. And we do think that we’re better than other races, and we have to acknowledge that in ourselves in order to move forwards and to just.

Jillian Richardson 00:46:11  And I feel hot even saying that out loud. But to be like I think I’m better. I have to tell myself that I’ve been so programmed my entire life, and our country’s been programmed to think that I’m better. And people of color know that. We think that. And if we can’t say that to ourselves, we can’t do any work. I mean, that weekend kicked me in the face. It was not fun.

Eric Zimmer 00:46:36  I bet. You know, it makes me think my initial like instantly that uncomfortableness raises a defense in me where I want to go, but people of other races think they’re better than that. There’s an in-group outgroup thing, right? But the difference, of course, is that our race is controlling everything and is in in charge of everything. Yeah, we interviewed Ibram X. Kendi on the show, and one of the things that he talked about that I found so valuable was to move away from saying, I am or I am not a racist, or you are or you are not a racist.

Eric Zimmer 00:47:11  And instead to say I have some racist thoughts. I have some racist beliefs. I did a racist thing, and I found that a really interesting switch, because it’s a little bit like the difference between shame. I am bad. I am a racist too. I do think racist things, oh, I have behaviors, actions, etc. that are that way and thusly I can work on changing them. For me, that was a way of sort of being able to walk into the ground you’re talking about and go, yes, I do. I have racist thoughts. I think things that are racist, I have done things that are racist, thoughts that run through my head was really helpful, because then I was able to sort of, again, step out of the shame of, I’m this awful person to I have these behaviors, right? Which is sort of the difference between, I think healthy guilt and shame. Shame is I’m bad. Healthy guilt is I’m doing things that don’t match my values. I want to change.

Jillian Richardson 00:48:10  And I think a part of this training that was so impactful of having it be a mixed race group, was to realize, okay, it’s so uncomfortable for me to look at these racist parts of myself, and if I don’t, I’m going to keep unintentionally hurting these other people in the room. Yeah. So which which one am I going to choose? Because we’re we’re being forced to choose, like look at ourselves and say, okay, if I don’t examine this stuff, which I have the full power to never examine and never look at and never think about because it’s deeply uncomfortable, I will, for the rest of my life, hurt people more. And of course, I’m still going to do racist stuff for the rest of my life because it’s just I’m a human, but I’ll probably do it a little bit more. Or at least I’ll be able to apologize more skillfully in the future. If I look at this stuff.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:59  That’s really powerful and and really difficult work. We’re at the end of our time.

Eric Zimmer 00:49:04  You and I are going to go into the post-show conversation, and I actually want to explore something you said a few minutes ago in more detail. You talked about challenging people or having open conversation with people who think different things than us, particularly maybe around a topic like race. As we head into the holidays, many people are going to about to get some great opportunities for this. Yes. And so let’s talk about some skills, because I do think there’s there’s a difference between term, my Thanksgiving dinner table into a nuclear war versus actually engage in dialogue with people who think differently than me in a hope of increasing understanding. So we’ll talk about that in the post-show conversation. Listeners, if you’d like access to the post-show conversation, you can go to one you feed join. You’ll get this post-show conversation. You’ll get ad free episodes. You’ll get a special episode I do every week called Teaching Song, and a poem where I share a song I love, a poem I love, as well as a teaching and lots of other great benefits of being a member.

Eric Zimmer 00:50:04  When you feed, Net join. Gillian, thank you so much for coming on. I have really, really enjoyed this and and it’s been a pleasure to get to talk with you for everyone.

Jillian Richardson 00:50:13  Thank you for having me. I feel super energized.

Eric Zimmer 00:50:31  Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better. And that’s you just hit the share button on your podcast app, or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the one You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

What If You’re Wrong? How Uncertainty Makes Us More Human with William Egginton

April 8, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, William Egginton invites you to ask the question, “What if you’re wrong?” as he explains how being uncertain makes us more human. William explores the surprising overlap between a physicist, a philosopher, and a poet—each of whom came to the same unsettling truth: that we mistake our model of reality for reality itself. But this isn’t just about subatomic particles or dusty old philosophy books. It’s about how certainty—especially in our relationships—can blind us. What if embracing uncertainty is actually the doorway to wisdom, compassion, and a more connected life?

Key Takeaways:

  • Exploration of the intersections between philosophy, literature, and quantum physics.
  • Discussion of the nature of reality and the limitations of human knowledge.
  • Examination of biases and their impact on perception and understanding.
  • Importance of interpretation in both science and philosophy.
  • Relational understanding of identity and its formation through interactions.
  • Analysis of free will versus determinism and its philosophical implications.
  • Concept of “degrees of freedom” in understanding human agency.
  • Implications of quantum mechanics on our understanding of reality.


William Egginton is the Decker Professor in the Humanities, chair of the Department of Modern
Languages and Literatures, and Director of the Alexander Grass Humanities Institute at Johns Hopkins
University. He is the author of multiple books, including How the World Became a Stage (2003),
Perversity and Ethics (2006), A Wrinkle in History (2007), The Philosopher’s Desire (2007), The Theater of Truth (2010), In Defense of Religious Moderation (2011), The Man Who Invented Fiction: How Cervantes Ushered in the Modern World (2016), The Splintering of the American Mind (2018), and The Rigor of Angels (2023), which was named to several best of 2023 lists, including The New York Times and The New Yorker. He is co-author with David Castillo of Medialogies: Reading Reality in the Age of Inflationary Media (2017) and What Would Cervantes Do? Navigating Post-Truth with Spanish Baroque Literature (2022). His latest book, on the philosophical, psychoanalytic, and surrealist dimensions of the work of Chilean director Alejandro Jodorowsky, was published in January 2024.

Connect with William Egginton:  Website | X

If you enjoyed this conversation with William Egginton, check out these other episodes:

How to Find Zest in Life with Dr. John Kaag

Unsafe Thinking with Jonah Sachs

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Eric Zimmer 00:01:02  You know those moments when you’re absolutely certain you know why your partner did something that is driving you crazy? What if quantum physics proves you can’t be that certain about anything? Today, philosopher William Eggington joins me to discuss his book, The Rigor of Angels, where a physicist, a philosopher, and a storyteller all stumbled upon the same unsettling truth.

Eric Zimmer 00:01:25  We mistake our model of reality for reality itself. What really stuck with me in this conversation is how quantum mechanics doesn’t just challenge what we know about particles. It challenges what we think we know about ourselves and each other. And as it turns out, learning to live with that uncertainty might just be the key to feeding the good wolf within us. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is the one you feed. Hi, Bill. Welcome to the show.

William Egginton 00:01:55  Hey, Eric. It’s good to be here.

Eric Zimmer 00:01:56  I’m excited to have you on because we’re going to be discussing your book, which is called The Rigor of Angels Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality, which is pretty heady stuff for the one you feed, but I’m pretty certain we’re still going to make a great conversation out of it. But before we start, I’d like to start by asking you about the parable that we use. And the parable goes like this. There’s a grandfather who’s talking with his grandson. He says, in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle.  One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops. They think about it for a second. They look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandfather says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

William Egginton 00:02:53  The beautiful parable and honestly tell you I had not heard it before, but I find it very meaningful. It resonates with some of the biggest philosophical influences for me, in particular psychoanalysis, Freud, this idea that we have that the self is not unitary, but the self is divided. And some of the ideas that I work through in the rigor of angels is not only is it not unitary, but that we are down at the deepest core of ourselves, relational, and without those relations we wouldn’t even be a self in the first place.

So often we have, in what we call Western metaphysics, this idea of, at the core of ourselves, some kind of a unified identity that then fights its way out into the world. And you can think about Descartes, this idea of a thinking substance that works its way out and influences the world of things, of extended substances in the world. And what your parable and my reference to psychoanalysis tries to remind us all the time is that that thinking substance isn’t a substance. It’s not one thing. It’s a set of relations at all times and that it can never really be closed and become one. I also like the side of the parable where the child is asking which side wins, because really we are always struggling. The great French philosopher Jacques Derrida and the last interview, or one of the last interviews he gave with the Le Monde, actually gave its titles. I’m at war with myself, and I do find who we are often at, at our heart and some sort of an expression of a struggle, struggle between impulses, struggle of which of ourselves is going to win out in the end. And I love the fact that that’s where your title, your podcast comes from.

Eric Zimmer 00:04:31  That’s a great and beautiful response, and I’m tempted to dive right into the deep end of the pool there. Around what the nature of the self. But I’m going to resist. But we’re going to get there. I want to start, though, by talking a little bit about your book, and in your book you are bringing together three different thinkers. Tell us about who the three different thinkers are.

William Egginton 00:04:52  Yeah. So the book really is sort of a braided, if you will, intellectual biography of three extremely important people to me. The Argentine poet and short story writer Jorge Luis Borges, whose life spanned the 20th century. He’s almost exact contemporary, the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who first was the main force behind the invention of quantum mechanics, and the 18th early 19th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who’s in some ways the most important figure of modern European philosophy just because of the number of areas that he touched. And, you know, the story behind this book was an idea, if you will, that all of these three great thinkers from three radically different fields philosophy, poetry and literature, and quantum physics of the hardest physics of the natural world, all converge upon this idea that when we are trying to understand the world, what we’re trying to truly understand is a model of the world that we make ourselves as humans, and that we can be led astray by the belief.

And yet it’s a core belief that returns over and over again that in fact, we’re not understanding some image we make of the world as humans. We’re understanding the world itself. And as as simple a mistake as that seems, it can have enormous consequences.

Eric Zimmer 00:06:14  You say in the book that this book is in many ways a cautionary tale about the danger of assuming that reality must conform to the image we construct of it, and the damage that our fidelity to such a seductive ideal can wreak. So I want to just make sure we put a fine point on what this danger is. And you say elsewhere that these three thinkers shared an uncommon immunity to the temptation to think they knew God’s secret plan. So talk to me about what you mean when you say our attempts to understand actual reality and the limits to our knowledge?

William Egginton 00:06:55  Absolutely. So I like the idea of cautionary tale. I think I got that ultimately from Borges, since he’s a tale teller and I, after years and years of reading, began to realize that there was a common theme to many of Borges stories, and that common theme was a searchers out trying to find some sort of an ultimate answer. And he’s tempted by this ultimate answer, drawn towards it, and then ultimately either falters in that quest or in fact, thinks he it’s often a he succeeds in that quest, but that success leads to the destruction of himself or the destruction of the world. And what Borges is trying to show us over and over again is that knowledge is inherently faulty. Knowledge of the world is inherently limited. The shortest parable since we started this show with a parable is a beautiful. He has also parables. He has a beautiful one called the parable of the Palace that I sometimes cite, but this one is just called a rigor in Science. I have a recording. In fact, it takes him 55 seconds in his old age and his faltering, slightly wheezy voice to read this story, and it just tells of an emperor who has control over an entire realm and sends out his cartographers to map the realm. And the first time they come back with an enormous map, say, the size of a small city. And he says, it’s a good map, but it’s just not accurate enough. So he sends them out again, and then they come back with a much bigger map. And this covers the size of a state in his, in his realm. And he says, this is really a much better map, but it’s still not as accurate as I want. And when they come back the third time, they come with a map. That point for point corresponds in actual size to the realm itself. And then Borges finishes the tale by saying the the map, and in fact the realm itself are nothing but the dusty remnants that blow across the desert of what was so the idea that knowledge, what we’re seeking of the world, can’t be perfect. Because if it’s perfect, it’s as useless as a map that corresponds. Point for point in actual size to the realm that it’s supposed to be mapping. You know, the old days, we used to go on road trips and carry paper maps. Well, imagine you’re doing a road trip to the United States, but your paper map is the size of the United States. Not very helpful. It’s completely debilitating in every possible way.

Eric Zimmer 00:09:07  Yeah. How does that tie to or does it tie at all to what we’re starting to see in the world today, which is that information has become, in many ways, almost infinite to us. You know, the number of things that we can. I’m going to use this word loosely, know is almost infinite. And it sounds a little bit like what you’re saying, because I think at a certain point, all this information that we keep absorbing and consuming is a useless map at a certain point.

William Egginton 00:09:37  I think that’s a really good way of thinking about it, because Borges is just such a great author to think through these issues with, and I’m far from the first one to make this this comparison. But he had the story. The Library of Babel, which is again, it’s a kind of a parable, but it’s a parable about about information. And the idea of the Library of Babel is sets up a scenario in which every possible book exists in the library, only one copy of every possible book exists, and every possible book is the result of a generative mechanism that involves the 22 and in the case of the Spanish language, letters of the Spanish language, and a certain number of constraints, how many shelves and the library, and in each room of the library, etcetera, et cetera, and so forth. But the idea there is, is you can imagine a scenario in which a very limited set of signs conspire with each other, mix with each other, intermingle with each other to create every possible word, every possible meaning, every possible story we’ve ever told. But of course, within all of that maze and it’s inconceivably large. And I talk about the size of this library in the book. Truly, inconceivably large. To give you a sense, our actual known universe would be about the size of a proton in comparison with the universe that Borges imagines. But it’s not infinite. So it’s this absurdly large maze of rooms upon rooms, upon rooms filled with books you can actually find, in theory, every meaningful sentence ever created by the history of humanity, conceivably in every possible language as well. But the chances of any one person finding a book that, from beginning to end, makes any sense whatsoever, are calculable at zero. Because the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the books will be jumbles of signs that don’t mean anything at all. And I think in some ways, you know, as I said, I’m not the first to say this, but the world of information, of just raw data that’s out there and and available and that we comb through on a, on a daily basis is in some ways like that library. It’s just jumbles upon jumbles of I don’t even want to call it information. That’s why we distinguish right between information which which has applicability and utility, and data which is this sort of empty mess. But we’re surrounded by prophets, by interpreters who take it upon themselves to point the way to us or point out what, in this jumble, it should be paid attention to what is meaningful. And of course, those prophets, more often than not now, are in fact algorithms that are programmed to be the prophets that guide us towards certain sets of data and identifies this as information and hence useful to us, but under which definition, and as determined by whom, usually by corporations who are intending to get profit out of our following that way.

And I think that’s exactly right, that we are being guided at all times. And the reigning ideology behind this is that we’re touching ground on something real when the vast, vast majority of the time we’re not touching reality at all. What we’re touching is someone’s take on reality, someone’s interpretation of reality. I think that goes back to this cautionary tale that I’m describing the book as. This is also a cautionary tale about that. It’s about our relationship to and our belief in our faith in all of the different stories that are coming our way across these screens on a minute by minute, second by second basis.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:01  The parable ties in perfectly. I love that you’ve given two sort of parable stories so far. Let’s go a little bit deeper here into what all three of them sort of intuited. And Heisenberg more or less sort of proved on a level right, is that there is a limit to our knowledge, limit to human perception. So talk to me a little bit about the limits to our knowledge. And how is quantum physics showing us that there are limits to that?

William Egginton 00:13:31  Absolutely.

William Egginton 00:13:32  So Heisenberg did a lot of great science in his life, but he was respectively 24, going on 25 and 27 when he made his two greatest discoveries. And those discoveries are intimately linked.

Eric Zimmer 00:13:44  That blows me away, by the way, that a 25 year old did that. It just doesn’t make sense.

William Egginton 00:13:49  No, I mean, it’s extraordinary. And as I make, you know, pains to point out in the in the book, he’s was not just a wunderkind in math and science, which he absolutely was, but he was well read, could have been a concert pianist, incredible abilities in music and in language. His father was a professor of Greek so he could read philosophical classics in the original Greek. Well, so he’s, you know, and and Einstein, which is who is another great character in the book. You know, these were what we would call as well, great humanists. Yeah. Right. And, you know, they play interesting, I think, roles in this book and in history as being at odds around this fundamental philosophical question.

William Egginton 00:14:24  And obviously I come down hard on the side of Heisenberg, but there’s no lack of just admiration and respect on my part for everything that Einstein did.

Eric Zimmer 00:14:32  And you make the point with Einstein that although he may have been perhaps on the wrong side of the debate, his insight into the questions to ask moved the whole field forward. He was still a genius in the way he thought through these questions and the challenges that he posed.

William Egginton 00:14:51  That’s exactly right. No one could formulate a thought experiment with more clarity than Einstein, and he would do so to poke holes in what was emerging as the consensus around the you know, what ultimately, then, is proven over the century of science since then to be the case, which is the weirdness of the quantum world. But his attempts to poke holes in it, use of these thought experiments, in fact, as you just said, very correctly, drove the whole enterprise forward in a way that perhaps it never could have gotten without his constant provocations. So he played an enormous role in this.

He was born at the beginning of the century. Heisenberg was and so, respectively, in 1925 and 1927. The papers that he published, what they respectively did, was, on the one hand, show that every attempt to extract knowledge from the world involved an active intrusion on the world, on the part of the knower, in a way that registered itself in the events that that were being measured, and that this could be mathematically shown. And in fact, what he had to come up with was, for him, a new kind of mathematics. It turned out that the mathematics actually existed, we call linear algebra. But he created matrix mechanics. And one of the mathematical curiosities is, unlike in the normal algebra or normal arithmetic, that we learn of addition, for example, and multiplication, which have a property that’s known in math, is computing. These are commutative operations. What that means is that whatever you do in one direction, you can reverse and do it in the other direction. In matrix mechanics, multiplication does not commute.

William Egginton 00:16:28  It means that A times b does not equal. B times A, which is mathematically weird. But to very quickly translate this into the philosophical point that’s at hand. What it also means is that if your first operation A and your second one B, has to do with a measurement of either, for example, position or momentum of a particle, what you choose to begin with actually affects the outcome that you’re going to have. And this is extremely important because it means that the choice of the observer affects the outcome of. This could be as simple a choice as which operation am I going to measure? First is going to have an indelible outcome, an irreversible outcome or effect on the outcome of the observation. So this is weird enough to begin with the 1927 paper, which then ended up introducing into physics this term. Right. So where quite so on blurriness, Indeterminacy and ultimately uncertainty, which is how it’s translated in the common parlance, becomes the uncertainty principle. And there he actually comes up with a number basically.

William Egginton 00:17:37  And that number is essentially the distance that we can drill down into reality, the closeness that we can get to measuring something before we lose all control on it. It’s an equation that actually Paul Dirac derived from all of this complex mechanics, but I like to put it up on a board when I’m giving talks about it and call it Heisenberg’s poem. And he does one of the 1925 theory. But the Heisenberg’s poem, The Uncertainty Principle, is written out in an equation, and I like to think about it as a kind of pivot. What it does is it takes two values, which is the difference in your measurement of momentum and the difference in your measurement of position. And it says if you reduce the differences down to zero, which would be in essence, knowing exactly where something is or knowing exactly how fast something is is going and you multiply them together, you’re not going to get zero. And that’s a very strange thing in mathematics again, because as we know from high school math or from junior high school math, anything multiplied by zero should be zero.

William Egginton 00:18:36  But you can. In fact, in this new mathematics that’s required by the universe, as discovered by Heisenberg, you can reduce the difference in positions, in theory, of where a particle is to zero and what you’re going to have on the other side of the equation when you multiply it by the difference in measurements of momentum, is a number that, as long as there’s a positive value on one side or the other, is always very, very small, which is why we don’t see it in normal measurements. But if you reduce your difference to zero on the part of the position, which means, you know, with exactitude, hyper exactitude, absolute reality where something is, you now know absolutely nothing about its momentum and vice versa. If you know exactly with absolute precision how fast something is going, you have no idea where it is. It could be literally anywhere in the universe. And what this means is that the vast majority of the time we know roughly where things are and how fast they’re going.

William Egginton 00:19:32  But it is actually physically impossible to know exactly how fast they’re going, and also know where they are, or know exactly where they are and how fast they’re going. And again, it’s something that we don’t usually run into because we live in this macroscopic world in which we don’t need to know reality exactly. But this gets back to the parable from Borges. What Heisenberg showed, as you pointed out, with scientific exactitude of its own, is where the limit is, how close we can get to reality no matter how precise our instruments are. We’re ultimately not going to get a picture that gets those deltas, those changes down to zero, because then we’ll ultimately know nothing. Or to go back to the parable of the map. The map that’s absolutely perfect will ultimately not be a map at all. It won’t show us anything.

Eric Zimmer 00:20:20  So if we at a fundamental level can’t understand, we can only get so accurate in our view of what reality actually is. Right. This is what Heisenberg is showing, right? Borges is telling us that through some parables, and then Kant is sort of bringing this together from a philosophical position and ultimately where I want to tie this back to the sort of work that we do here at the one you feed is this idea that, you know, you’re talking about the cautionary tale of when we assume we know what reality is and what that does to our science, right.

Eric Zimmer 00:21:02  In our day to day life. Though, I think the same principle applies, which is when we think we are seeing reality as it is, we are in trouble. Very often I think we’re likely to wander into some trouble, right? If I go home and I assume that I know exactly why my partner did a certain thing. Yes. Yes. I’m in danger of really messing things up. And so talk to me a little bit about this idea that we’re always seeing everything through some perspective.

William Egginton 00:21:36  That’s exactly right. That perspective or that filter that we carry around with us necessarily carries biases with it. We’re going to try to do our best to diminish those biases. But the absolute certain way of not diminishing biases, but rather buying into them completely, is to think that you don’t have any to assume that your your knowledge. Take the example that you are giving what another person is thinking or feeling your interpretation in a moment of conflict with them. Nails it. You got it right. There’s no more room for questioning.

William Egginton 00:22:06  I know exactly what this person’s intention was, or something like that. Yeah, right. And so Kant’s view of the world was we’re always going to be tempted to think of the world this way and that we need to have. In fact, this is why he called his philosophy on the great three volumes that formed the core of it, the Critical Philosophy. And they consist of three critique of Pure Reason, of practical reason, and of the Power of judgment. These critiques are all about trying to find, you know, 100 years ahead of the fact or a little bit more of 100 years ahead of the fact that version in moral philosophy, in scientific philosophy or philosophy, the real and aesthetics, that version of what Heisenberg will ultimately run into as this kind of limit of what human reason can do, the limit of our ability to know the world and concepts in a similar way to Borges is realizing, through kind of pure thought, thinking his way through these problems as opposed to wrestling with, you know, turning into equations, the result of observations of nature.

William Egginton 00:23:04  He’s going to realize that, yes, those limits are there, but also those limits are fundamentally necessary to being the kind of creature that we are. So the kind of creature that we are is a creature that is Dialogic that is in relationship with other creatures that’s trying to know the world, albeit imperfectly, and trying to make the best decisions possible in the world. And one of the surefire ways of mistaking the world, of getting it wrong, of falling into error, or even more dangerous than error for fanaticism, fundamentalism is precisely to make that category mistake where we think that our knowledge isn’t a picture, isn’t through a filter, isn’t through a mirror, darkly, but rather is the world itself. We’re always tempted by that, and at the same time most likely to be led astray. When we fall to temptation.

Eric Zimmer 00:24:20  What we know about cognitive biases is that just knowing about them doesn’t necessarily make them go away. And I hear that argument and I believe it. And yet I’m convinced it’s still better to know about them than not.

Eric Zimmer 00:24:35  I teach about perspective a lot, and one of the things I teach is you can’t not have a perspective. Don’t expect that you’re going to come from a completely unbiased perspective is not possible. So if we just start there, which is just then we can open ourselves up to maybe I don’t know the answer, you know. And a question that I love is, you know, kind of what am I making this mean? And what else could it mean? Like that question. And I think you can take that out of what’s happening with my partner. Or you could take that down to the core scientific level. Right. Like, even when you get to quantum mechanics, there are people who are interpreting what all this means, and I think that the math ends up being sort of undisputed. But the question of what it means has been disputed for a long time.

William Egginton 00:25:26  That’s so important to point out. Stephen Hawking very famously said at one point, we don’t really need philosophy anymore because we have, you know, fundamental physics and the answer to the world are all in physics. And as my friend and one of my influences, in terms of my understanding of the physical world, the great Italian cosmologist and physicist Carlo Rovelli once wrote about that is the problem with that point is that Hawking wasn’t making a scientific point. He was making a philosophical point. Right. So he’s entered into the world of interpretation already? Yeah. Philosophy is the world of interpretation. Literature is the world of interpretation. And yes, scientists interpret the world. Einstein was entering into the world of interpretation when he was Dialoguing and debating with Heisenberg and those of the school of interpretation of quantum mechanics about what their discoveries meant. How best to understand their discoveries. There’s something along the lines of seven sort of dominant interpretations of quantum mechanics that are out there today. You know, there’s no final decision, right? These are all pictures of the world that try to make sense of what is ultimately a very difficult picture of the world to make sense of. And one of the sort of points that I’m trying to make in this book is you can be a scientist, you can be a physicist and have these interpretations, or you can be a non-scientist who’s done his best to understand the mathematics and the physics behind it, and learn from my fellow intellectuals and physicists about how to understand it and then use, for example, philosophical perspectives or even literature and stories to come up with and to reason your way to one or another, interpretation. We shouldn’t be surprised that this is the case, considering that the greatest physicists, in particular Einstein, use stories to come to the truths that they discovered about the physical world in the first place, right? So I’m famously told himself stories in order to understand, to have the breakthrough that led to relativity, especially 1905 paper special relativity and then general relativity in 1915. His happiest thought was what became known as the equivalence between gravity and acceleration occurred to him when he thought about a story which he put into his mind an image of a person in an elevator like box or chest, being accelerated at a constant rate through space outside of a gravitational field, and realized that for their perception, there would be no distinction between that and being in a gravitational field. And he did some very similar work to lead to his breakthroughs with special relativity. So we shouldn’t be surprised that stories can help us interpret the mathematical explanations of the physical world that are at the basis of physics.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:24  Yeah. As I was reading, I couldn’t help but think about how all this ties to areas that I’ve probably done the most study, which is Zen Buddhism, and then also Daoism.

Eric Zimmer 00:28:36  And Zen Buddhism is basically what happened when Daoism met Buddhism, right? That Zen emerged out of that. And these same insights are all the way back in those traditions. And largely the way those conclusions were reached was by people trying to very much this is me paraphrasing, but slow down the processes of the mind enough through meditation to apprehend things in a slightly different way, and I would say. Daoism in particular, which then went on to influence Zen. Has this idea at the core of it that our field of experience is always construed from one perspective or another? As I’ve heard someone say about Daoism before, and I just love this line, there is no view from nowhere. Right? Right. And I just love the fact that we can sort of tie those things in as well. And I think that in Zen there’s also an idea of emptiness, right. And emptiness as we hear it in the West, we think it means nothingness, but it more means that everything exists in relation to something else, to everything else.

Eric Zimmer 00:29:51  And this is what you mentioned when you just mentioned Carlo Rovelli, who I believe his interpretation of quantum physics is called relational. And so let’s talk about this idea that everything only exists in relation to something else.

William Egginton 00:30:07  That’s right. And this idea. We can tie that back to the one that you just mentioned, that there is no such thing as a view from nowhere. I mean, one of the whole sections in the book, The Rigor of Angels, is divided into four sections, and each of those sections is based on one of the four fundamental ways that we can get things wrong by overstepping the bounds of reason, according to Kant. I give them different names. These are called antonyms in his work, but one of those, the way my interpretation of it for the sake of this book is called The Question or the Imperative Not Being God. So one way of thinking about this is that we have an idea that there is a way the world is in and of itself, and it exists kind of as if it were an object that could be seen by an all knowing, all seeing being.

William Egginton 00:30:52  But that implies an outside to everything, and there is no such thing as an outside to everything. The universe is everything, so there is no outside to it. Which means that any of us, at any time can only ever be positioned within the universe. And that also means in relationship to other beings in the universe. So the idea that somehow there is a self that is meaningful, that is consistent, that is self-contained, and then enters into relationships to other cells and then develops out of that. If you think about that very carefully, that implies that if you took all of those other things away and imagined just nothing, you could still have that self, that entity. But the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics that I fully buy into, and that is Rovelli actually denies that. It says if you accept the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, everything results from what is at core a relation. So a measurement is a relation, an observation is a relation. It always involves coming together of things, but the things that are coming together don’t precede in any logical or chronological sense the coming together, because that would imply that there is such a thing as a view from nowhere.

William Egginton 00:32:08  A view from outside. But since there isn’t, since all there is is this network of relations. That is why at core there are relations rather than things. And this in fact, despite Einstein’s resistance to accepting it, this is highly compatible with his theory of relativity, which says the same about velocity and time and simultaneity, that there is no such thing as God’s clock that’s ticking away in the background of Newton. That tells us that no matter when you see it, or how long the information took to get to you and someone else, that there was a time when this event took place. No, relativity says there’s only time, as measured by you, in a particular inertial framework in relation to whatever was happening. And the same thing with gravity and with, as I say, the biggest question of where the universe is. The great poet Dante’s words, it has no other where than here and his. Here was the eternal mind, the mind of God. But the here there is that the universe holds itself.

William Egginton 00:33:11  It contains itself. There is no outside from which to look at the universe, as if it were some object, and say, and measure it, and weigh it against something else. You are only ever in. It is an outside that you are only ever in itself. There is no outside to it. And this is exactly what general relativity allows, in fact demands, which is that there’s no framework from which to measure everything in the universe and say, and everything else exists or is measurable with regard to this. There’s no standard, perfect framework that’s itself immobile. Every measurement everywhere, including of acceleration, including of gravity, always is in relationship to other things. So again, it’s the same thing as with that one particle. If you took away everything else in the universe, we can’t even say that the particle exists. The same thing with this wonderful thought experiment, which is Newton’s bucket, where Newton imagined a bucket of water spinning. And if we spin a bucket, we know that the water is going to glide up the sides because of the centrifugal force.

William Egginton 00:34:09  And then Newton asked this really excellent question, which was, well, what happens if that bucket is just spinning in the middle of nothing? How does the bucket know that it’s spinning? And his answer was because it spins in relationship to absolute space. And so yes, it will feel it. And Einstein’s answer was exact opposite, which was Einstein said no, it spins in relationship to everything else in the universe. So if there is no everything else in the universe, it’s not going to feel it, it’s not going to know it. And there is no such thing as spinning if there’s no other object to spin against.

Eric Zimmer 00:34:40  Right. And I think that we can take this really small and then kind of back up to the everyday level on the really small level, you sort of just addressed it. But when you get down to a small enough, you know. Level. The quantum level. One of the implications of quantum mechanics is, as you said, until you measure the thing, in a sense, it’s not quite there, which makes no sense.

Eric Zimmer 00:35:08  But yet again seems to be the truth. And that measurement, as you said, is a relation. You know, we talk a lot in the quantum world about an observer, and again, an observer observing something creates a relationship between those things. And then we can sort of jump all the way, kind of back up to the day to day level with this and realize that we often think that we or let’s just go back to a discussion with me and my partner, I think that I bring who I am to those discussions, and I think she brings who she is to those discussions. But the reality is we are a certain way in relation to each other. I relate to you differently than I relate to her. It’s not saying I’m fake, that I have like multiple faces. It’s just a simple fact that the relationship between you and me is a different thing than my relationship between me and her. But we often don’t take that into account. We think that what we see from someone is who they are, without realizing that who they are in that moment is partially because of who we are.

William Egginton 00:36:18  Yeah, you said it very beautifully, and I think that it is very legitimate to make this comparison between the quantum level and the relational level at the, at the human level as well, despite the fact that one is is as macroscopic as you can get and the other is as microscopic as you can get. Heisenberg had a very famous sentence in a letter to Wolfgang Pauli as he was working out the uncertainty principle, and he said, basically the result of this is the following the path that a particle, in this case an electron takes doesn’t exist until we measure it. Right? And that’s a revolutionary statement. And that’s precisely the statement that for the rest of his life, Einstein couldn’t accept. Just think about it a little bit. What is a path? What is the path that something takes? It only exists over time, right? And it only exists from some kind of a perspective. So a path without a measurement, it’s an empty category. It’s a nonsensical thing. So anything that has a path, it’s a connection, if you will, of dots through space, time of moments or.

William Egginton 00:37:20  All right. That then retrospectively, necessarily retroactively connects certain dots. Heisenberg figured that out, right? Heisenberg figured out the mathematics of it, but he also figured out in some ways the philosophy of it. And he said, we’re always applying some kind of a theory, a bias of the world in order to decide in advance what kind of a path, what kind of an entity we’re producing after the fact. So your connection to who we are when we’re in a relationship with another person is exactly the same. What is a personality? Personality has potentially some consistency, but it’s only a consistency that, if you will, is constructed among the various relationships that we are in now. They’re very complex. They last over a long period of time. We have many different manifestations that go back from our youngest ages, our earliest memories, our earliest encounters with other human beings, with other places and things, but that infinitely intricate and complicated network over space time that we then ultimately call a personality. The hubris to then think that this is just some sort of a self-contained, pure essence that then expresses itself differently over time.  I think that’s, in a way, part of the problem. We have to recognize that, no, we actually are constantly constructing it and having it constructed for us by all of these infinitely complex web of relations that constitute us over time and in our lives.

Eric Zimmer 00:38:54  So let me ask you a question about that in relation to psychoanalysis, because on one hand, psychoanalysis is like you’re saying, it’s making the point that we are not unitary, right? There’s a lot of stuff going on, and yet it tends to sort of make a story out of something. You’re this way because of this thing, right? You know, Freud famously kicked us off, right, by telling us all these that we now know are kind of crazy theories that, like, we’re this way because we have penis envy, or we’re this way because we have whatever, right? And it’s often seemed to me that at a certain point in my life, I think recognizing and making stories out of how what happened in my childhood turned me into who I am could be useful.

Eric Zimmer 00:39:43  But I also, at a certain point, started really wrestling with this idea that you’re talking about, which is that I am made up of countless causes and conditions. And to say that I’m this way because my father was that way is in many ways, a vast oversimplification. 100% of a lot of variables that we don’t know. And so I’m just curious how you think about that and psychoanalysis, because I kind of go back and forth with my feelings about it as an approach.

William Egginton 00:40:14  100%. There’s no question that the idea that somehow our identities are set in stone at an early age, I think is highly problematic. I think also, it’s very likely that certain relationships early on have a kind of precedence that may set us in a certain way, but the idea that we overcome, that we can’t change, that we, in fact not in fact changing all the time is also ultimately wrong. I think that new relationships can overcome old relationships they can build on, or change or transform the imprint of early relationships at the same time.

William Egginton 00:40:48  Freud, I think, was a visionary. But also Freud had his own limitations. Like any human who invents a theory. And those theories are always subject to revision. I’m more influenced by a post Freudian psychoanalyst, a Frenchman by the name of Jacques Lacan. But then he himself, you know, when I read Lacan’s writings, which are famously difficult and themselves intentionally, I would say subject to, you know, necessary interpretation. You know, my version of it is going to be slightly or in some cases very different from interpretation of others. And there’s no question that my interpretation of this particular kind of psychoanalytic philosophy is itself going to be subject to the very variety of relationships that have created me as the interpreter and reader and and thinker that I am. So, yeah, I do believe there’s primordial relationships and experiences that are going to perhaps be more formative than others, I don’t sure. Absolute leveling of formative experiences and relationships. But I also believe that there’s a good deal of change and fungibility that happens over time.

William Egginton 00:41:47  We talk about plasticity in neuroscience as well, right? That the brain is an extraordinarily plastic and changing and evolving organ as all of our embodied attributes.

Eric Zimmer 00:42:12  Let’s pivot to what I believe is the last of Kant’s antonyms. He talks about free will versus determinism. We just touched on it a little bit here, right in what we were just talking about, which is, you know, to what extent am I the way I am because of things that came before? And to what extent am I making free choices? Talk to me about Kant’s view on this, though, and what view emerges from the work that you did in this book about free will and predetermination?

William Egginton 00:42:43  One of the best ways that I think, and often is challenging a way of thinking about and challenging our notions of what it means to be a free agent. An agent who decides in the world is to ask the question, could you have decided otherwise? That seems to be kind of the bellwether for understanding whether a being is a freebie. We say a rock that falls off a cliff could not have decided otherwise.

William Egginton 00:43:07  It rolls down with the force of gravity. Then perhaps we look at an antelope running from a cheetah and a cheetah following in certain ways and either getting or not getting the antelope. And we say, could the cheetah have decided otherwise? And perhaps we decide, no they didn’t. And in legal jurisdiction, when we say was someone acting, you know, under the influence of, for example, chemical or drug or perhaps a mental illness? Yeah, they couldn’t have decided otherwise. And as a result they were less responsible if they were legally inebriated while they were, you know. Who was the person who decided to take the drug that inebriated them led to the vehicular homicide, for example? Would that makes them then responsible? So we asked this question could you have decided otherwise? And if we say in a big philosophical sense, well, no one could have decided otherwise, because from the beginning of time until the end, we live in a physical universe, and every single one of our atoms is subject to the laws of physics.

William Egginton 00:44:07  Right? And so many of the arguments against free will take precisely that size, that, that, that form which say, well, free will is complete chimera. How could it possibly exist where physical world we’re inserted into the mechanistic chain of being in the universe. So we could not have decided otherwise. The Kantian perspective is to say, well, sure, in some kind of a vast metaphysical sense. That may be true, because Kant did not believe in the idea of a kind of deus ex machina deciding soul who sits behind our eyes. And makes these decisions, says, well, now you go left, now you go right. And how would that solve? As Daniel Dennett famously asked, how would that solve the the problem anyways? Because what’s deciding what that decider decides, right? Right. That’s not the point. Conscious point is how overwrought metaphysical can you get then to assume that there is an answer, or someone who knows who could have decided otherwise, right? Because that person or that perspective would precisely have to be standing outside of the chain of being, would have to be situated at the beginning of time, outside of time and space, and to say, oh well, in this universe, Eggington would have made a different decision or could have made a different decision.

William Egginton 00:45:19  But in this one he didn’t know. Kant’s point is, like all other beings, we are in time and space, and some beings, namely beings endowed with what we call reason, we hold responsible for their decisions. And the great story that you know, that I find as a way of explicating exactly how Kant goes about this comes from hundreds of years earlier than Kahn, and it’s the story of Boethius in his cell awaiting execution, who’s asking the exact same questions. And what Boethius asks is the question that the theologically minded, ever since him and before him Augustine was asking as well, if God knows everything from the beginning of time to the end of time, if God knows ahead of time every single decision that I’m going to make, how can it possibly be that I’m making free decisions? And the answer is the realization that when we imagine God having that kind of a perception that God who’s having that kind of perception isn’t inhabiting time the way that we do, he’s collapsing time. There’s no difference between before and after.

William Egginton 00:46:19  All of eternity is smashed down into one moment. But if all eternity is smashed down into one moment, then everything that I’ve decided has already been decided. But that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t deciding when I was doing the deciding. Right. I’m still in space and time making those decisions. Right? And this is really from a theological perspective, from a very old theological perspective. They already worked out the problem and said there actually is no incompatibility between something like your supposition or your imagination of what a perfectly knowledgeable, infinite being knowing everything that you have done or will have done and free will. And if that’s the case, if not even a perfect your imagination, your ideology of a perfectly omnipotent and omniscient God, if not even that contradicts free will, then certainly AI is not going to contradict free will. Certainly all the electrodes we put in your brain and tell us that our decisions big surprise, take time because we’re beings in space and time that doesn’t contradict free will, right? Predictability doesn’t contradict free will.  It just means that some decisions take time and occur in in bodied, wet brains. That’s all that that tells us.

Eric Zimmer 00:47:35  It’s a fascinating question because it sounds like if I understand what Kant is saying, I’m going to vastly oversimplify this. He’s basically saying, look, that perspective that could know everything and know the way things are going to unfold doesn’t really exist. So this question just doesn’t even make sense.

William Egginton 00:47:55  Exactly. Imposing one way of thinking about the universe on a different way of making talking about the universe. The language of freedom is the language that pertains to our beings as deciding ethical beings in the world, not the language of mechanistic determination. Right, right. It simply doesn’t apply. And it’s a dangerous way of thinking about the world, because then you start saying that you don’t have responsibility for your actions, when in fact you should have responsibility for your decisions.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:21  And we’ve talked about how everything is relational and that we are indeed the result of countless causes and conditions. And so I think about this question a lot, because I sort of would be a little bit more like Kant and say, you know what? Free will, whether we have absolute free will or no free will.

Eric Zimmer 00:48:43  Seems to me you can’t know the answer to either of those things. Really. And so let’s be more practical, right. And so the practical side is, you know, how much choice do we have. And I think about this. I’m a former heroin addict. Right. And I think about the amount of choice that I had once upon a time in picking up drugs and the amount of choice I have now, they feel radically different. And I think we all fall somewhere in this spectrum. And I think this is what gets to be sort of so hard, because on one hand, if you buy that there’s no free will, then, like you said, there should be no consequences for anything because you couldn’t have chosen differently. Right. And yet it seems like in our justice system, we have sort of tried to wrestle with this question by saying, well, if you’re insane, we’re not going to hold you responsible in the same way. Right. How do you think about this in a day to day sense? The degrees of freedom that we actually have.

William Egginton 00:49:41  Degrees of freedom. Eric, are a terrific way of thinking about it, because I think from this continent perspective, you’re absolutely right. What it does is it basically says these absolute extremes are irrelevant to the actual question at hand. The extreme of on the one hand, you are some sort of a disembodied ghost in the machine who has perfect ability to decide everything at all times is a fantasy that has no impact in the real world. And the idea that you’re simply a cog in the machine at any particular moment is a scientific view that assumes a God’s eye view. That, again, has no relevance for what am I going to do right now? Right. What is the right thing to do given the situation that I’m faced with right now? What is very Relevant is the question of how much duress am I under? What are the circumstances that are constraining my actions right now? Something like addiction is going to be one that has a great deal to tell us about the range of freedom, the degrees of freedom, of our actions.

William Egginton 00:50:38  Something like coercion would be one as well. Right. You’re perfectly free when given the choice of your money or your life. But really, it’s a forced choice, right? That right? If you choose your money, you’re not going to get your money. You’re going to lose your life as well. Right. So so under those situations, it’s a so-called false choice. And there’s many such situations in life where we’re presented with something as if it were a choice, when it’s not a choice, because in fact, we’re under duress, under coercion, under the influence of something. So then the question becomes when. And obviously standards change over time. Yeah, you’re absolutely right. Legal jurisprudence wrestles with this, as it should. It’s extremely important the standards change over time. What used to be called the reasonable battered woman standard has become the reasonable battered person standard because it carried a certain bias to it that was highly sexist, misogynist, for example, that only a woman would be battered, but that a man under similar circumstances in an abusive relationship would clearly have the agency and spine to be able to make decisions that would be different.

William Egginton 00:51:43  So the very language that we convey these standards in tells us some of the biases that come along with it. But you said the right thing. There are degrees of freedom. And I think if we take a Sam Harris view about human freedom, that’s simply a negation view that it’s a straw man, that there’s no such thing as free will, and let’s sort of get rid of it. What you’ve done is you’ve thrown out the baby of actual notions, meaningful, pragmatic notions of of responsibility and freedom with the bathwater that you wanted to get rid of, of some sort of metaphysical idea of an ultimately free agent, which I think anyone who’s thinking about these things in a rational, reasonable way. Never really bought to begin with.

Eric Zimmer 00:52:25  Is there anyone in the philosophical world or that you know of that is sort of talking about these degrees of freedom in a useful and coherent way?

William Egginton 00:52:35  Oh, totally. In fact, I quote her in my book. But my colleague here at Johns Hopkins, when I was actually writing the book, she wasn’t yet here, but we hired her, and I’m delighted for that.

William Egginton 00:52:43  Janine Ishmael, who’s a philosopher of science, whose book How Physics Makes Us Free. In her book, she makes a really, really good argument, a bunch of really good arguments that I find, you know, highly simpatico with my own view and I just couldn’t agree more with.

Eric Zimmer 00:52:57  All right. I’m going to ask you to end with something that is an example you give in the book about understanding the relation of space time to each other, which is the first time that I feel like I was able to sort of see in some way this relation of space time, which constantly I read about and I just feel like my mental picture is blank. I’m like, I don’t get this. Give me that example just because I found it so useful. Maybe our listeners will too.

William Egginton 00:53:26  Do you think about Relativity’s limit on how fast we can go in the following way that there’s this ultimate speed limit, and the speed limit is the speed of light, but that if something is in fact moving the speed of light like photons do, photons are the only thing that can well, massless particles like photons can move at the speed of light.

William Egginton 00:53:46  They’re not experiencing time, so time isn’t actually taking place if you’re, in theory, moving at the speed of light. And the way to think about this, and I believe that some version of this I borrowed from from Brian Greene. So giving credit where it’s due, I think he helped me understand this as well, is to think about my image. Was a cart like a golf cart that’s driving down. It has a maximum, obviously much slower velocity than than the speed of light, and it’s trying to get from one end of a football field to the other. And if you think about that one end of the football field to the other as being one of the axes of space time, and the other being sort of the width of the football field, and you have this maximum velocity. You soon realize that if you’re trying to veer off the straight line with a maximum velocity, you’re going to make less progress. You might get more. So if you called the width of the football field speed.

William Egginton 00:54:36  For example, if you wanted to maximize your speed, you can veer off in the direction of the other line, but you’re not going to make any progress in space. So I think about that or the other way around, right. So I think about the photon traveling at the speed of light is like the cart veering completely off in one direction and not making any progress anymore in time, but crossing vast distances of space. Right. And you can choose and do one or the other. And of course, most of us are making some progress through space and progress through time simultaneously. But if we keep on increasing our speed and we can’t, because relativity tells us that we become more and more massive the closer we get to the speed of light. But you can still accelerate massive objects. The more you accelerate them, the slower they’re going to perceive time from their perspective.

Eric Zimmer 00:55:24  I just found that a really helpful way of thinking about it can go either straight ahead or straight to the side. And those are sort of the maximum, you know, the speed of light.

Eric Zimmer 00:55:34  But once you want it to do both, those things start to. I’m using a word velocities.

William Egginton 00:55:40  They start to impact each other. Exactly. And like with quantum mechanics, we don’t really notice it because the vast majority of our time we’re not living at high velocities.

Eric Zimmer 00:55:48  All right. Last question. How do particles become entangled?

William Egginton 00:55:51  Anything that interacts with each other has the possibility of being entangled. Restate that this is more important to get particles to be entangled in the sense that they’re separated way apart from each other, and then you affect one infect the other. After their initial relationship to each other, they have to be kept in pristine isolation from anything else because anything else comes in contact, then that entanglement breaks and.

Eric Zimmer 00:56:16  Okay, perfect. I’ve always wondered quantum entanglement is one of the weirder quantum physics things. Listeners, you can look that up, but I’ve always been curious how they become entangled. All right, Bill, thank you so much. I had a great time reading the book and preparing for this and talking with you, so I appreciate you taking the time.

William Egginton 00:56:34  Thanks, Eric. It was great to talk to you as well.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode Tagged With: Borges stories, cognitive bias, Eric Zimmer, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, how to understand reality, Kant and free will, nature of perception, personal growth through philosophy, philosophy and science, quantum physics explained, relational self, The One You Feed podcast, The Rigor of Angels, uncertainty in life, William Egginton

The Beatles, Lennon and McCartney, and the Truth We All Share with Ian Leslie

April 4, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Ian Leslie discusses the history of the Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and the truth we all share in their story. Ian explores how two young men from Liverpool created something together than neither could have made alone, not just music, but a shared consciousness that changed culture forever. John and Paul’s story isn’t just about music. It’s about how we all navigate loss, love, and connection.

Key Takeaways:

  • [00:01:44] John and Paul’s connection
  • [00:06:12] Lennon and McCartney dynamics.
  • [00:08:17] Paul McCartney’s complex persona.
  • [00:12:16] Vocal parts and shared consciousness.
  • [00:16:10] John and Paul’s musical chemistry.
  • [00:20:26] Intense male friendships in music.
  • [00:22:27] Relationship dynamics between John and Paul.
  • [00:28:11] Communication and miscommunication in relationships.
  • [00:39:23] Lennon and McCartney’s complex relationship.
  • [00:45:37] McCartney’s reaction to Lennon’s death.
  • [00:51:19] McCartney’s emotional process after loss.

Ian Leslie is a writer and author of acclaimed books on human behaviour. Ian’s first career was in advertising, as a creative strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York. He now writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, the Economist, the Guardian and the Financial Times. He co-hosted the podcast series Polarised, on the way we do politics today, and created and and presented the BBC radio comedy series Before They Were Famous. He advises CEOs and CMOs on communication and workplace culture. Ian is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. His new book is John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs.

Connect with Ian Leslie:  Website | Instagram | X | LinkedIn

If you enjoyed this conversation with Ian Leslie, check out these other episodes:

A Journey of Music and Friendship with Colin Gawel & Joe Oestreich

Music as Medicine: How Rhythm and Melody Transform Wellness with Daniel Levitin

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Ian Leslie:
Right from that very young age, when they first start getting into it as teenagers, they pour their feelings into pop songs. And they were very intense young men. They were of a generation where you didn’t talk about your feelings that much. You didn’t go around kind of gushing, right? Let’s put it that way. And you certainly didn’t go to therapy. That wasn’t a thing.

Chirs Forbes: Welcome to The One You Feed. Throughout time, great thinkers have recognized the importance of the thoughts we have. Quotes like, garbage in, garbage out, or you are what you think, ring true. And yet, for many of us, our thoughts don’t strengthen or empower us. We tend toward negativity, self-pity, jealousy, or fear. We see what we don’t have instead of what we do. We think things that hold us back and dampen our spirit. But it’s not just about thinking. Our actions matter. It takes conscious, consistent, and creative effort to make a life worth living. This podcast is about how other people keep themselves moving in the right direction, how they feed their good wolf.

Eric Zimmer: At different points in my life, I’ve been anywhere from just loving the Beatles to being unhealthily obsessed with them. As a recovering heroin addict at 24, I bought into the whole John Lennon is troubled genius with Paul McCartney, sort of his shallow sidekick narrative. But what if those stories we tell ourselves about people are just that, stories? What if the truth is always more complex, more human, and ultimately more beautiful? Today I’m talking with Ian Leslie about his wonderful book, John and Paul, a love story in songs. We’ll explore how two young men from Liverpool created something together that neither could have made alone. Not just music, but a shared consciousness that changed culture forever. John and Paul’s story Ian’t just about music. It’s about how we all navigate loss, love, and connection. So join me as we have a conversation about the Beatles that’s really about all of us. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is The One You Feed. Hi, Ian. Welcome to the show. Hi, Eric. Very nice to be here. I am really excited to have you on. We’re discussing your latest book, which is called John and Paul, a love story and songs, and it’s about John Lennon and Paul McCartney. And I have been at different points in my life, anywhere from just loving the Beatles to unhealthily obsessed with the Beatles. And so this book I really wanted to read and I’ve really, really enjoyed it. It’s one of my favorites that I’ve read in a while. It’s a great subject matter. You’re a great writer. And I’m going to be tasked with making this an interview that appeals to people who don’t even love the Beatles. So we’ll see how we do with that. But before we start, we’ll do the parable like we always do. And in the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with his grandchildren. He says, in life, There are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love. And the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops, thinks about it for a second, and they look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Ian Leslie: Well, in the work that I do, it’s fascinating for a couple of reasons, or it makes me think about a couple of different strands of my work. My last couple of books have been about human behavior and human psychology. So I wrote a book about curiosity and how that works. And the book I wrote after that, my last book, is about conflict and disagreement. And I’m really interested in the dynamics of disagreement and how we have better more productive disagreements and more productive conflicts. So immediately these two wolves which are kind of opposed to each other and which kind of struggle for domination of a person’s soul at any one time rings bells with me. And then the other reason is of course because i’m writing this book i have been writing this book about two very strong personalities who are very very close but also often in conflict with each other it also makes me think about how sometimes we externalize our internal struggles so that conflict that we have within us between our drive to be kind and empathetic and our drive for jealousy and fear to pull people towards us and to push them away. You could see it playing out in the drama of these two guys. But I think you often see it dramatized in groups and externalized within people. And I think that’s a really interesting dynamic.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, the other thing I was thinking about as I thought about this question and about the book is in many ways the parable is exactly that. It’s a story that loosely maps on to reality and I would use the term loosely there. And I was thinking about how people like to divide things into this and that. And one of the points you make throughout the book is we’ve done that with Lennon and McCartney. We’ve made those guys very binary in a public consciousness kind of way. You know, John Lennon was the brilliant tortured artist and Paul McCartney was the cute commercial success who was very light. And while through one lens some of those things are true, the book does a really good job of pointing out that they are both. far more multifaceted than that easy character of each other. And it really struck me because I’m someone who had bought into that narrative at one point in my life about the Beatles.

Ian Leslie: Yes, you’re absolutely right. That was a sort of central concern of my book was to, if you like, get over this culture war that we’ve invented around John Lennon and Paul McCartney where you’re meant to be for one or for the other. One of them is either the great genius of the band and the other one is is a lesser being of some kind. As you say, more often than not, it’s been presented as John Lennon being the great creative genius and Paul being his accomplished but shallow sidekick. That’s clearly completely wrong. Well, I think so anyway. But I didn’t want to write a book which overturned that and just switched the binary around. And just said, look, you know, Paul McCartney was a real genius. John was just this angry, difficult guy who happened to be on Paul’s coattails. Of course, neither of the binary interpretations are true. And the most wonderful and most complex and interesting and fascinating and beautiful thing about this relationship was that they both supported and effectively created each other. Through their intimacy, through their friendship, you know, John is as much a product of Paul as Paul is as much a product of John. So actually trying to break it down into John versus Paul, it just doesn’t make any sense.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, you won’t know this about me, but listeners do. I was a heroin addict at 24, so I was very much drawn into John Lennon and that whole narrative and McCartney was sort of the, you know, shallow. So I had bought all that hook, line, and sinker at one point in my life. I’ve reversed a lot since then and your book really helped me also. I knew John Lennon really well, but I did not know Paul McCartney as well. And I think you do a great job of giving him more depth than at least the public narrative usually has.

Ian Leslie: The truth about people who are as talented and complicated as these two is always much more interesting than the myth. So the myth of Paul McCartney, that he’s just this, at best he’s this kind of like slightly idiot savant kind of figure, just like has these amazing melodic talents, but is otherwise rather kind of shallow and dull and twee and sentimental and all these other things that get attributed to him. The truth is much more interesting. He is both tougher, maybe a little meaner at times than that suggests, but he’s also more thoughtful, more generous, more loving. And he’s also just this kind of relentless torrent of creativity. Lennon, we know that he’s difficult and he’s often tortured and self-torturing. We know that he could be very mean and sort of amusingly sardonic and witty. Perhaps we are less familiar with how uncertain he was, how vulnerable he was, and how sentimental he could be at times, and how warm and loving and empathetic he could be. So I really kind of enjoyed painting these much more fine-drawn portraits of these guys in the book.

Eric Zimmer: And I think that the next thing that happens in the book, at least for me, that I really enjoyed was let’s first move away from seeing them or anyone as sort of these characters of a person. right? That’s, I think, good. We can apply that in lots of areas of our lives. The second was how clearly these two influenced each other. And as you said, they were the product of each other. And you even say at a certain point, they almost share the same consciousness. The two of them come together into this thing. And I think, again, sort of applying that to us in general, it shows how in all of our relationships, the thing that is created between us is different than each of the people individually. And that we’re actually different people to different people, meaning John and Paul were a certain way with John and Paul and a certain thing got created there. But John and Ringo might have created a different thing.

Ian Leslie: That’s absolutely right. And I think the extraordinary thing about the John, well, one of the many extraordinary things about John and Paul’s relationship is that, let me put the literal truth about them, which is that their voices blended beautifully. It’s an extraordinary fact that you get these two melodic geniuses living about a mile and a half from each other. Both turn out to be great songwriters, right, once they start working together. That’s one thing. But the fact that they also happen to be two of the greatest singers of all time, I mean, people kind of underrate that. That needn’t have happened, right? One or neither of them could have been a mediocre singer or a terrible singer. No, they’re both great songwriters, great musicians, and they’re great singers. And Their voices blend in a perfect manner. So they sound really good together. They sound just similar enough to blend and just different enough so that the blend is much richer than they’re just sort of singing double tracking themselves. And so you end up with just these incredible metaphors. I don’t know even if they’re metaphors, because it’s just really part of the same thing, which is when they’re singing harmonies, just the two of them, you get this third voice, which is the two of them together, which Ian’t something that exists with just one and couldn’t be. And this third voice, which is even bigger and more beautiful than either of them alone, is part of the reason that they take over the world, because they sound so good together. And of course, that was true of them as a whole, that the sum was much, much greater than the parts. This is true of all four, but just because those two were so close and because their talents were so immense, they’re kind of at the center of the group. That’s why I wanted to write about them.

Eric Zimmer: Right. And regards to that vocal, you tell a story how early on their producer George Martin had them switch vocal parts. I don’t remember who it was, but they found out that John sang better lower in the range, Paul sang higher in the range. And so they switched vocal parts. And you say the effect was two men who share the same eye, the same consciousness. It became an expression of the group’s camaraderie that also evoked how two people can slip in and out of each other’s subjectivity, the way we internalize the voices of those we know and love. I just love that.

Ian Leslie: I think it was a very unusual thing for the group, for anyone to do, really. The Beatles were very unusual to begin with because there were almost no other groups like them at the time for several different reasons, but one of them was that almost all groups had a leader. There weren’t many groups full stop, but when you did have groups, they tended to be Johnny and the Beatles. There would be Cliff Richard and the Shadows. There would be X and the Ys. So there was always a lead. People always thought there needed to be a focal point because you have pop stars like Elvis. If you’re going to have a group, it’s got to be the singer plus the guys around them. you And the Beatles, right from the beginning, always refused that model. John and Paul were always equals. Neither of them wanted to step out and say, no, actually, it’s me, because they saw themselves as a pair. And when they were first recording songs, they start to sing these love songs. And usually, in a love song, you sing, I love you, I’m this, love me do, right? You’re singing in the first person. I am this, you are there, I love you. And to have a song like Love Me Do, and then they do it with others as well, where two different singers are singing the song, not harmonizing, but they will take different lines in the song. George Marshall was the first to make them do this in Love Me Do, and then they kind of develop it from there. So you take different lines in the same song, and you’re both singing I. So that means you’re the same person inside the song. Do you see what I mean? So inside the song, the consciousness of these two individuals merge, and they’re different expressions of the same consciousness. I think that’s a really beautiful thing. Once they discover this trick, almost by accident, the reason they do it, just to quickly say, is that in Love Me Do, Just as they come to the end of the chorus, please love me do, there’s a mouth organ solo, right? And John had been singing the song. And when he says love me do, he’s got a straight into the mouth organ solo. And it just sounded really too abrupt. I mean, it didn’t work. So George Martin said to them when he first heard them play it, wouldn’t it make sense if Paul comes in and says love me do at that point? And they go, yeah, OK. And I think the reason they hadn’t done that until that point, because it makes sense, is that they maybe thought it was a bit odd to have one person singing Love Me Do earlier on in the song and then another person come in. And from that point on they realised that actually this is a really interesting trick. They could kind of swap the I, in inverted commas, between them in a song and actually it sounds even cooler and there’s something amazing about it. And you hear it in, say, A Hard Day’s Night, right? So John sings that hard-driving verse. So the verse is like, you know, it’s been a hard day’s night and I’ve been working like a dog. And then Paul comes in on that middle A and says, when I’m home. So it’s the same guy in the song. It’s the same narrator. But you’re hearing that same narrative consciousness expressed by these two similar but different voices. And that is kind of a thrilling effect for anybody that’s listening to it. Obviously, nobody’s going to express it like the way I did it, just intuitively. But you hear how special and strange that is, I think, when you hear A Hard Day’s Night. I really think it only works because John and Paul are so close in every way. And that’s what gives it its power.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, it is sort of thrilling. One of the best parts of the book, it’s in the title, you’re exploring John and Paul through songs. And so, you know, every chapter is a song. And I have to say, I think I said this to you in the email I sent you partway through the book where I was like, oh, I’m I’m loving this is listening to their music is joyful enough for me. But then reading some of the ways that you describe it as I’m listening to it was just overwhelming emotionally for me. There’s something about the way you’re describing certain parts of their songs. You talk about how in She Loves You, how it goes from the relative minor and then through two majors. And of course, everybody’s like, yeah, OK, if you don’t know what music that is. But you talk about how it’s sort of dizzying and disorienting, like tumbling down a hill without being sure when you’ve hit the bottom. I really enjoyed that part of the book a lot and unfortunately this is just me and you talking. We’re not really hearing their music but adding that into it makes all the difference in the world.

Ian Leslie: That’s great to hear and I want to say a couple of things about that. One is why I wrote it like that and the other is how I went about it. So, as you know, but in case you’re listening, I’d like a quick summary of how the book works. I basically tell the story of their friendship, chronologically, from when they meet as teenagers in 1957, through the Beatles, and then beyond, right? So we take it right until 1980, when John is killed. And so I wanted to kind of make it accessible both to Beatles fans who know this story well, but are looking for a fresh version of the story. There’s millions of people out there who know a little bit about the Beatles, but don’t know much, and are maybe kind of intrigued. And I wanted to write the book for them as well. So we’ve got these kind of two audiences in mind. I tell the story in a way that feels fresh for people who know the story well, but is also accessible to everyone else. And why do I do it through songs? So each chapter in the narrative is a song that’s meaningful to both of them. And I did it that way because these two guys lived their life, especially their emotional life, in music, in songs. Right from that very young age, when they first start getting into it as teenagers, they pour their feelings into pop songs. And they were very intense, emotionally intense young men. They were of a generation where you didn’t talk about your feelings that much. It wasn’t the done thing. They were English from the north of England. It was a bit, you know, you didn’t go around kind of gushing, right? Let’s put it that way. And you certainly didn’t go to therapy. That wasn’t a thing, right? So where do they put all these incredibly intense feelings, including their feelings for each other? They pour them into the lyrics of pop songs. Of course, pop songs are full of love and loss and yearning and desire and anger sometimes, right? They’re very emotional little vessels. Somebody described them to me as an emotional panic room. You can put all your emotions into that three-minute container and they kind of stay up there. These guys learned to do this intuitively and almost compulsively from when they were teenagers. So it struck me when I was thinking about telling the story of the relationship. You cannot tell this story except through the songs because the songs say so much about what’s going on in their heads and in their hearts. Equally, you can’t understand the music without understanding the relationship between these two guys and you can’t understand the relationship without the music. Then how did I do it? It’s interesting you mentioned the major and the minor. So there is some musical analysis of the songs, but again, I’m really writing it in a way where you don’t need to know any of that in order to understand what I’m saying about the song. So I do want to make people understand or help people understand why these songs are special, why they work so powerfully on you, and to highlight the creativity and the innovation of these guys and to show you amazing things they were doing really from very early on. So I’m glad you brought that up because weaving together the narrative and music was really the central challenge of the book.

Eric Zimmer: So the book is also very much oriented, as you said, around this incredible friendship between these two guys. And friendship is something that we’ve had, you know, whole episodes on this show dedicated to friendship. This show started because my best friend Chris and I started it as something together. And so like male friendship has been really, really important to me. over the years and it’s something I think a lot about. And you’re exploring how, you know, to talk about John and Paul as just a friendship is in some ways perhaps to misunderstand it or our term that we generally glom on to friendship is insufficient to talk about how intense and how big such a thing can be, particularly we don’t talk about it in regards to men in the same way.

Ian Leslie: I think that’s absolutely right. I think we find these relationships, and they’re quite unusual, these kinds of relationships, very intense. passionate, almost romantic relationships between two men that aren’t homosexual affairs, right? So, I mean, some people speculate, did Lennon and McCartney have a sexual? I don’t think so. And I certainly don’t argue that in the book. And I think people ask the question almost because they’re confused about what this is, because this relationship And there’s a few other examples. We can talk about one or two. Doesn’t fit any of the normal boxes, right? They weren’t just normal friends, you know, two blokes, you know, having a beer down the pub. I’m sorry, guys. Paul sometimes talks about it like that. No, Paul, it was not like that. Come on, it’s a lot more intense. And they weren’t brothers. They say, oh, they were like brothers. I mean, I don’t know. It’s nothing like the relationship I have with my brother. I don’t think there were many brothers who have this kind of relationship. And neither were they competitors and rivals, because that’s the other place people go to. They’re like, oh, they must have really hated each other and that’s been incredibly competitive with each other. Well, no, not really. Not in that sense. I don’t think they wanted to do each other down, put it that way. So we could talk about the competition between them, but it wasn’t like that. So because it didn’t fit any of those boxes, We’ve misunderstood it, and I think that’s a big part of the reason it’s turned into this silly kind of, oh, John is better than Paul, Paul’s better than John kind of culture war, because it kind of blurs the boundaries between love and romance and friendship and everything else. And of course, it’s also bound up with creativity. You know, they’re creating stuff together. It wasn’t just a thing they did at work, you know. It was absolutely central to every aspect of their relationship. It’s what they found so exciting about each other. It’s what really kind of turned them on about each other, if you like. And it was this very intense and very inherently volatile relationship. And the fact that they ended up falling out towards the end of the Beatles career should not be a surprise because they were very willful, headstrong, emotionally engaged young men. And, you know, when creativity is involved, you know, that adds another level of kind of volatility.

Eric Zimmer: And money and fame and, you know, all those things add levels of volatility. Yeah. You talk about a relationship between the essayist Montaigne. He’s talking about a friendship he had with someone And he says something along the lines of, we found ourselves so taken with each other, so well acquainted, so bound together, that from that moment on nothing could be as close as we were to one another. And when I talk about my friend Chris, that’s how that felt when we met. It was just this… intensity of friendship that was very different than most of what I had experienced. And there’s a line also that Montaigne goes on to say, and I love this, when he was trying to sort of talk about, like, why? What was it about it? And I just think this is beautiful. He says, because it was him, because it was me. And I think that speaks to John and Paul so much too, like why was it the way it was? It’s because it was John and it was Paul and what they were to each other.

Ian Leslie: It is beautiful and it’s beautiful because it acknowledges the essential mystery at the heart of a relationship like that. You know, Montaigne was a great 16th century writer and philosopher. He was good with words, right, and he tried to define what it was because his friend died. He was heartbroken by this. He wrote this essay to try and work out what it was that made their friendship so special and so intimate and so intense and he found that he couldn’t articulate it. He kept trying to write this piece and he couldn’t quite define the essence of the relationship and he had a few goes and he kind of crossed things out and at the end he just settled on that formulation. Why did we love each other? Because it was him, because it was me. And I think it’s something beautiful and sort of humble and accepting about that. So I wanted to kind of weave that into the book because, you know, I said we find these friendships hard to categorize as a society, right? We don’t quite know what to do with them. Now imagine being in that friendship. You sound like you’re part of one of yourself. It’s hard for the people in it to understand as well because society Ian’t helping them. So it’s kind of baffling and confusing. And so that’s what that is about, I think.

Eric Zimmer: I think today’s day and age is very different. Like, I think that that intensity of friendship between men is better understood. I’m not saying it’s well understood. I’m saying it’s better understood today than it was however long ago it was I met my friend 20, 30 years ago. And let alone go back to McCartney and Lennon, right? A generation before that.

Ian Leslie: Yeah, and you see the insecurity about it and the bafflement about it in Lennon in particular. I mean, McCartney was always less insecure generally as a person. Lennon, partly because he had a very difficult upbringing, was full of insecurities. And one of the things he was insecure about was whether or not his feelings for McCartney meant that he was gay. It wasn’t just the McCartney, he was slightly kind of baffled and confused by his sexuality throughout his life. I think the evidence suggests he was predominantly heterosexual, perhaps with some homosexual feelings. Now, I think today it’s much easier to accept that and even to say that it would not be a big deal, particularly for a musician, an artist. But for Lennon, I think he was kind of tortured by it and just didn’t know what to do with it and worried at it.

Eric Zimmer: At one point, you describe as the friendship between them becomes more strained. You make a point about communication in general between people. And the point is more or less and you put a finer point on it after I’m done here. is that we form impressions of other people early in relationships and we build sort of a model of that other person and of our relationship and then time passes and those models don’t get updated in the same way as people are changing. And so we end up with trying to apply an old model of who you are or how our relationship is to a different version of you, let alone a different version of me. And that’s where we end up in a lot of communication trouble. Say more about that.

Ian Leslie: You put it very well. I’m actually drawing on research I looked at for my last book, which was about disagreement and conflict. And as part of that, I looked at how couples argue and how they handle conflicts and why they argue. And when I was writing about John and Paul, of course, a lot of that became very relevant again. because in some ways it did resemble a very kind of torrid marriage. And there was this interesting research at the show that actually couples who’ve been together for a long time, they become more empathetic in the first couple of years. In other words, they can kind of read each other’s minds. better and better and really well. And then they become oddly, counter-intuitively perhaps, sort of less intuitive in the years after that. They start to misread each other. And the underlying theory is the one you just laid out very well, which is As you’re getting to know someone, and you’re getting to know them fast and intimately, you build this incredibly sophisticated model of their mind, of how they think. And you’re able to kind of predict what they’re going to feel and what they’re going to think about something. And that often means that you don’t need to communicate very much, because you just kind of get it. Or you’re talking code, you’re talking your kind of private language. Or they just say a couple of words and actually you know the rest of the sentence, right? Which is a wonderful and incredibly impressive feat of human communication. It’s a marvelous thing. But, over time, people change, right? And they change slowly, perhaps. but each member of the couple has different experiences and has their own thoughts and their minds kind of develop still somewhat in alignment but different directions but you don’t necessarily update the model because you have this sense that oh i know this person really well i don’t need to update the model so you’re still working with this kind of five ten years into the marriage with a model you developed in the first year and it’s really Bad. Or at least it’s developed lots of faults. And a lot of arguments and difficulties and conflicts stem from us misreading each other at that point. Because I’m saying things that you’re misinterpreting and you’re saying things that I’m misinterpreting because our models are outdated. It’s like we need to upgrade the software. We’re still working with some old version of Windows. You can see this happening with John and Paul, both stages at extremes. So in that first stage, they really are extremely close. They really do communicate extremely quickly and intuitively. They just kind of have to look at each other, glance at each other and know what’s going on. So the people around them would talk about this. They’d say John and Paul just finish each other’s sentences. They had this telepathic connection. That’s often how people described it. And then they, particularly in the mid to late 60s, as they grow up, you know, they move into their mid and late 20s, they meet their partners, you know, Linda and Yoko, they’re changing, right? Which is completely natural. But the two of them are still working with this model. And that’s where the real damaging rows and damaging conflict starts to creep in, because they’re just miscommunicating. And by the end, a lot of what they’re saying is just hitting the other person in the wrong way. And it becomes very difficult. And it takes them a long time to get over that.

Eric Zimmer: Before we dive back into the conversation, let me ask you something. What’s one thing that has been holding you back lately? You know that it’s there. You’ve tried to push past it, but somehow it keeps getting in the way. You’re not alone in this, and I’ve identified six major saboteurs of self-control, things like autopilot behavior, self-doubt, emotional escapism. that quietly derail our best intentions. But here’s the good news. You can outsmart them. And I’ve put together a free guide to help you spot these hidden obstacles and give you simple, actionable strategies that you can use to regain control. Download the free guide now at oneufeed.net slash ebook and take the first step towards getting back on track. You know, you talked earlier about how they didn’t know how to talk about emotion. Most people didn’t in that day and age. That it all kind of went into their songs and came through their songs. And we are all the beneficiaries of that.

Ian Leslie: Yeah, in a sense, we’re all the beneficiaries of emotional male repression. Thanks a lot for screwing us up, Second World War and everything else, and the Victorians, because these guys weren’t used to talk about their emotions. They put it into the music. Yeah.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah. But you read some of it now and I couldn’t help but thinking like if these guys could have just articulated a point or two of what they were feeling for each other, things might have gone very differently. Right. But that just wasn’t in either of their skill set. Right. And it didn’t work. But it doesn’t seem like it was, you know, by any stretch, irreconcilable differences. Right. It was an inability to talk about this strange thing they had between them.

Ian Leslie: Beautifully put. I think that’s exactly right. And, you know, particularly towards the end of the group and the kind of rupture in the friendship that accompanied it, they thought each other wanted different things. Paul thought that John was trying to reassert his control over the group and was kind of eager to give that to him. You see in some of the conversations that are recorded right towards the end, Paul is saying, you know, you should absolutely be the leader, you know, you should be driving things forward. Don’t let me kind of get in the way. And John, although he doesn’t say it, it’s pretty clear I think from the way he behaves and the way he acts, is not actually interested in leadership if he ever was very much. He wants Paul to acknowledge him and that he needs him emotionally, I think. And he doesn’t know how to say that. Paul doesn’t know how to give it either. And so you get this kind of fundamental miscommunication, this fundamental clash. I think, as I put it in the book, that Paul thought John wanted power, but what John wanted was love. And so, you know, they go their separate ways, effectively.

Eric Zimmer: Yeah, you make another point in the book that I think is very interesting, is that Paul seemed to be, to everyone else, the really put-together one, the driven one. He was clearly the most sort of across the board in all different ways of musical genius. Like, he could play all the instruments better than most anybody could play them. Like, he was at a slightly different level. And that the thing that John never could really understand, and maybe even the other Beatles had a hard time, was how their behavior towards Paul could make Paul feel bad. They almost thought he was impervious to that. And that’s also heartbreaking.

Ian Leslie: Yes, so the worst part of the rupture of the friendship, this is after the group have split up. They start recording solo albums and solo songs and John records this really horrible song about Paul and it’s pretty clearly about, he doesn’t say Paul in the song, but there are strong hints that it’s about Paul and it becomes clear to everyone that it is. It’s called How Do You Sleep and it is a full-on pretty mean assault on his friend or his former friend at that time. And you could interpret it different ways. But one of the questions I had about it as I was thinking about it was, how could John have done that? Why would you want to do that to anyone in public? It’s such a horrible thing to do. Had he stopped liking or loving Paul? And the other thing about it was that George Harrison played on this track and was around there when John was writing it. Ringo was around too. And I just thought, how could any of them do this to their former bandmate and their former friend? What a thing to do. And I think the reason why is that what you just said, which is they thought Paul was invulnerable. So actually, when kids are mean about their parents, it’s because they can’t imagine their parents would ever care. They can’t imagine their parents would be hurt by something like that, because their parents are the authority figures. Parents are always going to be OK. and paul played a similar role in the beatles at least in the last couple of years he was that invulnerable figure who was always gonna be okay sprint everything pick up any musical instrument and make it saying it was the most organized the most thorough the most relentless and methodical the most energetic. He was good at everything. He could play cards really well. He used to beat them all with cards. He could make furniture, things like that. He was just that guy. He was just good at everything. And so for them, I just thought, we could throw anything we want at this guy. It’s going to roll off him anyway. So why not just have some fun? And of course, it’s not true. It was really hurtful to Paul. Very hurtful. And the other things that John said about him in the press and interviews, again, some of them quite mean. Paul was really, really hurt by that. You know, he wasn’t invulnerable at all. Yeah, I think there’s just a lesson there about how sometimes you think those people who are just always going to be fine, you should be careful of them too, because they’re not always fine.

Eric Zimmer: As the book went on, as I was reading it, I had a vision of how it ends. I mean obviously I know Lennon gets assassinated in 1980, obviously we all know that’s kind of the end of a story that’s got John in it. But I had another view of it and it was how hard they fell out and that they really hated each other. And so as I was reading the book I was getting sad as I went. in anticipation of what was coming. And one of the things that I really liked about the book was that it wasn’t exactly as clear that they hated each other. They had had some degree of reproach, maybe not a ton, but there was still warmth and love in that relationship. And they expressed it to each other. And this is going to be melodramatic, right? Because it just is going to sound that way. But it healed something in me. that was so saddened by the fact that, in my mind, the story was Lenin died before they ever got to have any sort of rapprochement. And it sounds like, based on what you’re saying, is there was some of that. It’s not as bad as I thought it was.

Ian Leslie: Oh, absolutely. And you don’t have to apologize for being emotionally engaged in it, because me too, you know, that’s why I wrote the book. Yeah. And so I know exactly how you feel and where you’re coming from. And I too felt that when I kind of found out about what happened in the 70s. So, yeah, they fall out pretty badly in the early 70s, but they never stop being interested in each other, even at the worst times, right? There are relationships that end because one or both of the partners are just tired of the other one, right? They’re just bored, exhausted. Just don’t want to see this person again. Life is going to be a lot simpler when I don’t have to deal with this person anymore. And it often happens in pop groups when they split up. That’s often the reason why. That was never the case with Lennon and McCartney. They were never bored of each other. They were never cold, really, in their hearts towards each other. They were really angry at each other and very confused by the other one. and there were always feelings and they had the foresight to kind of fix the relationship to patch it up to some degree. So they meet kind of quite early on 1972 or something like that and they have dinner with their wives and they basically say let’s just stop being mean about each other in public and let’s try and be friendly again. Now, you can’t restore the closeness and the intimacy and that special chemistry that they had quickly, if you could do it at all. And they spend the rest of the decade friendly, but it’s quite a fragile relationship and they’re sort of walking on eggshells a bit. The nice thing about it is that when they talked on the phone, They really did get on, well it was just the two of them. When they met in person it was always with their families and it was just a little bit different. But there’s a really great anecdote of somebody who worked on one of Lennon’s albums in the mid to late 70s and there’d be a phone call in the studio and it was, oh it’s Paul and John would just stop the session and he’d go and talk for like a couple of hours. It was kind of annoying for the other musicians. But he said, you know, we could hear laughter, we could hear this constant stream of chatter and John was telling stories. You know, when they talked on the phone, they were still getting on really well, right? And they were also writing songs about each other. John wrote some actually very, in contrast to How Do You Sleep, some songs that John wrote were pretty clearly veiled messages of affection towards Paul.

Eric Zimmer: Let’s talk about Yoko Ono because there’s a certainly popular narrative that Yoko broke up the Beatles. I’m not going to ask your opinion on whether that’s true. I just want to read something that you wrote and then let you elaborate. And you said, it’s not that John and Paul split up because they found the loves of their lives so much as they found the loves of their lives in order to split up. explain that?

Ian Leslie: Well, this is really kind of one of the surprises for me, anyway, of looking in more depth and detail at the timeline of what happened with regard to their respective spouses, right? You know, Paul gets together with Linda and that’s it, right, until unfortunately Linda dies of cancer at the end of the 20th century. John gets together with Yoko. They have a bit more of an up-down relationship, you know, and kind of split up for 18 months and so on and get back together. But certainly she is the love of his life, really. And they’re certainly still very much together when John is killed. In typical, like, weirdly symmetrical fashion, they both meet these women at the same time, get married within two weeks of each other. you know early 1969 and it’s always been presented as oh the reason they split up is that John fell in love with Yoko and then to a lesser extent Paul fell in love with Linda and therefore they couldn’t be in the band anymore they couldn’t be with each other anymore so they left each other for these women And actually when you look at it, it’s not quite like that because Yoko had been around and John and Yoko had been friendly for quite a while, since late 1966, you know, a couple of years. And so it wasn’t this kind of great coup de foudre, as they say in France, you know, it wasn’t this great instant love affair where John was like, oh, now I’ve got to be with this woman. It’s more like he got to a point in his relationship with the Beatles and with Paul where he was like, this Ian’t working, this is almost psychologically damaging for me. I think he felt it was just too intense in a way and he needed to kind of escape. And I think he then, to Yoko effectively, said, right, Let’s go. I want to be with you now. And she was around and she was up for it. And they do. And she becomes the love of his life. But it’s almost like he chose her to be the love of his life, rather than just sort of falling for her and then saying, well, I’ve got to go now. Do you see what I mean? And similarly with Linda, Paul, again, it wasn’t a complete break from what was going on. He’d been seeing – I mean, Paul saw a lot of women all the way through the Beatles’ career. He was an extremely promiscuous guy until he suddenly became very monogamous. But there was this period in between where he was seeing Linda, he was also seeing other women, like other girlfriends that he was seeing regularly. Linda was one of them. And when John gets together with Yoko in a big way, then Paul makes his move for Linda and says, right, OK, it’s you and me now. And this is going to be exclusive. You know, he doesn’t use those words, obviously, but that’s basically the gist of it. And so again, he was reacting, he was kind of finding a way to kind of push himself away from John and towards Linda, as John was pushing himself away from Paul and choosing Yoko. Yeah, I just thought that was a really kind of fascinating dynamic. I think they’d got to the stage where they were like, we’ve got to make quite a hard break from each other. At the moment, we’re just sort of too entangled in each other and it’s not sustainable.

Eric Zimmer: So I’d like to wrap us up with the place that you both begin and kind of end the book, which is McCartney and how he reacts after he finds out that Lennon has been shot. And I’ll let you tell that however you would like.

Ian Leslie: Sure, so there’s quite a famous interview that the press do with Paul the day after John’s murder. He comes out of a building, he’s been recording all day and there’s a group of journalists, they stick microphones in his faces and turn the lights on and they say, how do you feel about John being killed? And Paul is very weirdly, matter of fact, doesn’t show any emotion. He’s chewing gum. And he says, yeah, it’s pretty bad, Ian’t it? The phrase that made headlines was, it’s a drag. It’s a drag, Ian’t it? It’s a drag, says McCartney, about death of his best friend. And it was a terrible moment for him, just from a reputation point of view, because everyone said, oh, this is just what we thought about McCartney. He’s this weirdly kind of cold, ambitious individual. And he’s just not responding to his best friend’s death in a human way. I wanted to start the book with that because the question that people were raising was whatever happened to John and Paul? We saw these guys together, they seemed to be so happy together, they did these wonderful things together. Did they hate each other at the end? Because it certainly seems like that if you see Paul’s reaction to John’s death. I leave it there and then I go back to the beginning in 1957 when they meet. When they meet, Paul’s mum is dead. She died just eight months before he met John Lennon and started making music with him. The year after they meet, John’s mother is killed, of course. So this is one of the things that bonds them together is this terrible symmetry of bereavement. They both lose their mothers. They don’t talk about it much. Another thing they don’t talk about much But my God, they know each other, felt it. And it brings them closer together and makes the relationship even more intense. Now, I wanted to come back to that moment when McCartney learns about John’s death at the end. Once we know everything we know about John and Paul, as in the book. So we know by the time the book ends that Paul was not cold and that he never really hated John. He still loved him. And so I wanted to kind of look at it in a new light and say, well, what do we know about it now? How can we understand it differently? And one thing it really kind of chimed with was the reaction that Paul had as a kid to his mother’s death, which he’s told and his brother has told. His aunt and uncle pull him aside and his brother aside, and they say, your mom’s dead. It was a big surprise to them. She’d just gone into hospital, died very quickly, and they didn’t know what happened. So your mother’s dead and Paul says, well, what are we going to do about money? And again, the anecdote is told because it’s so oddly kind of like cold. Now, Paul loved his mother so much, you know, he wrote, let it be about her. You can hear the love in his songs about her. And there’s no question how much they loved each other. So do we really think that when Paul says, you know, what are we gonna do about money, he wasn’t feeling anything inside? No, of course, he was absolutely shocked to his core, and he was trying to deal with that shock, the best way a 14-year-old kid knew how to deal with it, right? So now let’s go back again and look at what happened with Paul when he finds out about John’s death, and he says, it’s a drag, Ian’t it? Do we think that’s because Paul had no feelings about his best friend being shot? No, of course, it’s completely the opposite. He’s terrified. He’s trying to avoid this shattering psychological blow. He’s got microphones stuck in his face by people he doesn’t know shouting at him. He is just trying to shut down emotionally, get out of there, get into his car. And sure enough, Linda says, when I saw him driving up the driveway and I could tell as soon as he got out of the car, he was absolutely broken. And he just falls into Linda’s arms and is sobbing. So I wanted to kind of bracket it that way, just because I think by the end of the book, we have a much deeper and richer understanding of Paul and John, of course, and the relationship. And that was just a way of illustrating that.

Eric Zimmer: Before we wrap up, I want you to think about this. Have you ever ended the day feeling like your choices didn’t quite match the person you wanted to be? Maybe it was autopilot mode or self-doubt that made it harder to stick to your goals. And that’s exactly why I created the 6 Saboteurs of Self-Control. It’s a free guide to help you recognize the hidden patterns that hold you back and give you simple, effective strategies to break through them. If you’re ready to take back control and start making lasting changes, download your copy now at oneufeed.net slash ebook. Let’s make those shifts happen starting today. oneufeed.net slash ebook. I love that as a, just a writing device in general is a good way. And also just to sort of show about how there still was a lot of love there. And you tell some other stories before that about McCartney at different points where you can see, or someone else will tell an anecdote about just how shattered he was by John’s loss and how long it stuck with him.

Ian Leslie: Yeah, I think it haunted him and he was sad about it. I think he just missed his partner and his friend. Yeah. Probably still does. I think he’s come to terms with it very slowly, but it was almost like his second self had just disappeared. Because even when they weren’t together, I think he was in dialogue with him, especially when he was making music and he said this himself. He said even now, I’ll go, well, what do you think about this, John? talking to his spirit. So, yeah, I think it’s been a long process of coming to terms with John not being there.

Eric Zimmer: Well, Ian, thank you so much. I loved the book. I think anybody who loves music will love the book and anybody who loves good writing and a lot of emotional depth in a story is going to love the book. And you and I are going to continue in the post show conversation where we’re going to change directions here. And we’re going to talk about does being left wing make you unhappy? And maybe some of your rules for life, your Occam’s razors. So listeners, if you’d like access to this post show conversation, to add free episodes, to a special episode that I record each week just for you, called Teaching Song and a Poem. You can go to oneufeed.net slash join, become part of our community, and support the show. Again, Ian, thank you so much. It’s been so fun reading your book and getting to talk with you.

Ian Leslie: Eric, thank you so much. This was a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate it.

Eric Zimmer: Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought-provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better, and that’s you. Just hit the share button on your podcast app or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the One You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

Why You Can’t Think Your Way Out of Overthinking with Adam Mastroianni

April 1, 2025 Leave a Comment

Why You Can’t Think Your Way Out of Overthinking
Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Adam Mastroianni explains why you can’t think your way out of overthinking. He unpacks why the thoughts that feel the most important are often the ones that keep us stuck. We also explore what it means to have a “skull full of poison,” how anxiety disguises itself as insight, and why real change isn’t about breakthroughs—it’s about repetition, action, and feeding the right wolf.

Key Takeaways:

  • [00:06:07] Anxiety and its misconceptions
  • [00:08:21] Overcoming obsessive thinking patterns
  • [00:16:25] State of psychology as science
  • [00:25:04] Building blocks of psychology
  • [00:27:06] Emotions as control system signals
  • [00:30:43] Basic vs. constructed emotions
  • [00:40:44] Context matters in psychology
  • [00:44:31] Mental heater and air conditioner.
  • [00:47:01] Happiness set points and variance
  • [00:50:42] Control systems and mental states
  • [00:54:11] Changing set points in life


Adam Mastroianni is an experimental psychologist and the author of the popular science blog Experimental History. He studies how people perceive and misperceive change over time, both in themselves and in the world around them, and his research has been featured everywhere from Nature to The New York Times to The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. He’s also the director of Science House, the world’s tiniest alternative research institution. He holds a PhD from Harvard, an MPhil from Oxford, a BA from Princeton, and a certificate of completion from over 160 escape rooms. He’s originally from Monroeville, Ohio (pop. 1,400).

Connect with Adam Mastroianni:  Website | X | Substack

If you enjoyed this conversation with Adam Mastroianni, check out these other episodes:

The Purpose of Emotions and Why We’re Not Wired for Happiness with Anders Hansen

How to Find Peace and Balance in Managing Anxiety with Sarah Wilson

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

# Swell AI Transcript: 2025-04-01 (T) Adam Mastriani FINAL.mp3

Adam Mastroianni:

I wasn’t worried about things I shouldn’t be worried about. I was thinking very hard about important things. And then I realized like, oh, maybe that’s why anxiety is anxiety. Like if you felt like you were worrying about something that you shouldn’t worry about, it would be much easier to stop doing it when instead it feels like you are spending your time wisely considering all the things that might be wrong or go wrong. That’s why it’s difficult to escape.

Chris Forbes:

Welcome to The One You Feed. Throughout time, great thinkers have recognized the importance of the thoughts we have. Quotes like, garbage in, garbage out, or you are what you think, ring true. And yet, for many of us, our thoughts don’t strengthen or empower us. We tend toward negativity, self-pity, jealousy, or fear. We see what we don’t have instead of what we do. We think things that hold us back and dampen our spirit. But it’s not just about thinking. Our actions matter. It takes conscious, consistent, and creative effort to make a life worth living. This podcast is about how other people keep themselves moving in the right direction, how they feed their good wolf.

Eric Zimmer:

Do you ever feel like your brain is running some kind of cruel experiment on you? Today’s guest, psychologist Adam Mastriani, calls it having a skull full of poison. And let’s be honest, we’ve all been there. The thoughts that won’t quit, the anxiety that doesn’t seem like anxiety because this time it’s really important. The endless loop of trying to think your way out of a problem caused by thinking too much in the first place? In this episode, we talk about why our minds trick us, how mental health is like a broken control system, and why real change isn’t about epiphanies, it’s about action. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is The One You Feed. Hi, Adam, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks for having me. I’m really excited to have you on. Your newsletter or your sub stack is called Experimental History. And it’s one of my favorite ones out there. And it’s really a lot about science and psychology. And we’re going to dive into a lot of those things here in a minute. But let’s start like we always do with the parable. In the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with their grandchild. And they say, in life, there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love. And the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops, thinking about it for a second, they look up at their grandparent and they say, well, which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s meant a lot of different things at different points. And I think what it has meant most recently is, how do you tell the wolves apart? It seems like it should be easy, right? One’s the good one, one’s the bad one. But it is easy to find yourself inside value systems and to create one for yourself where you get rewarded for doing things that aren’t good. And I feel like this has been the story of the past few years of my life of realizing that like, for me, academia was one of those value systems that I was getting rewarded for doing things that I didn’t actually think were good. And I could see that like, oh, everyone was cheering when I feed the bad wolf. And so maybe the bad wolf is actually the good wolf. And it took a long time to be like, no, the bad one’s actually the bad one. And I need to go somewhere where I get rewarded for feeding the good one.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, I think the other thing to continue your point about knowing which one is, you know, a lot of listeners are hearing this and they’re thinking about their internal world. And as your work points out, it’s really confusing in there. And the so-called experts sort of maybe know what they’re talking about some of the time. And our own intuitions sort of maybe sometimes know. It’s just very tricky to know how to respond, I think, to difficult internal circumstances. And I want to start by going to a post that you talked about where you talked about having a skull full of poison. So set up for us kind of what got you there and maybe also set up just very briefly an intro the type of psychologist that you are.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, so I’m trained as an experimental social psychologist, which means I’m not the kind that you go to for therapy. If I help people, it’s only through a few steps and I’m not licensed to talk to someone one on one unless it’s on a podcast. So the skull full of poison story is that in the high point of the pandemic, I just started to feel really bad. And at the time I was a resident advisor, a graduate student living in a dorm, and I had been in the discourse about mental health for a long time. And it didn’t feel like that to me. Like that felt like a very euphemistic way of talking about the way I felt, which is just like undifferentiated bad for no reason all the time. The whole post is about like all the things that are really weird about feeling bad, like things will seem extremely important that aren’t important. things will happen for no reason. It was about like navigating that, which I’m happy to report that I feel like I’m out of now. But I feel like it was this whole story that it’s not the way I thought it would have unfolded.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. So to sort of say that differently, you had some degree of professional training as well as, you know, talking to a lot of people about mental health and you were a little bit shocked by how this thing happened and how its experience was different than what you thought it might be like when you observed it from the outside.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, yeah, totally.

Eric Zimmer:

And so looking back, I want to get more into some of the weird things, but looking back, do you have any sense, would you be able to, and I know you’re not a clinical psychologist, but would you be able to give it a diagnosis at this point with the hindsight of time and knowing what you know?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, one of the more surprising and weird things that happened was when I ended up working with a psychotherapist, which is sort of its own story. At one point, she was like, oh, this sounds like anxiety. And it had never felt to me like anxiety, that I always thought anxiety was people being like, worried about things that they shouldn’t be worried about. But I wasn’t worried about things I shouldn’t be worried about. I was thinking very hard about important things. And then I realized, like, oh, maybe that’s why anxiety is anxiety. Like, if you felt like you were worrying about something that you shouldn’t worry about, it would be much easier to stop doing it when instead it feels like you are spending your time wisely considering all the things that might be wrong or go wrong. That’s why it’s difficult to escape.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, you say something that I think is really profound. You say, I wonder if this is the secret behind a lot of skull poisons. You secretly think you’re not sick at all and you believe that what you’re thinking about is actually extremely important. And I think that’s really very insightful to what happens to a lot of us because I’ve always said that one of the biggest problems with mental illness or skulls full of poison or addiction like my background or depression or whatever it is, is the thing that is trying to figure it out is the thing that’s, I’ll just use the word broken for now. I don’t like that word in general, but it’s easy to use. The thing that’s trying to solve the problem is the very thing that is malfunctioning. It makes it extremely difficult from your own side of things to sort it out. because the thoughts seem really, really true and real.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. And so to overcome them, to deal with them, you’re going to eventually have to do something that feels crazy. The idea of, I don’t need to think about this, it feels stupid. It feels like, no, this is the most important thing to think about in the world. And even if part of you knows that like, no, it’s actually, it’s the thinking about it over and over again, that’s making me feel really bad. Those thoughts go like, no, no, we really need to get to the bottom of, well, why are we thinking about it over and over again? Let’s think about that.

Eric Zimmer:

Right, right. And so what did you find that helped you? Because I think a lot of people do get to the point where they recognize that this rumination, we’ll call it that, is problematic, right? They now suddenly are like, okay, these thoughts are intrusive. I don’t like them. They’re probably, they’re not good for me. I want them to go away. And it’s not that simple. So what worked for you? 

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, a few things. One was accepting a longer timeline. So at the beginning, I always felt like something’s broken, but it could be fixed immediately. And so all solutions are going to be solutions that work right away. Obviously, none of those end up working. And even when people would tell me this, I’d be like, no, you think that because you haven’t found yours. I’m just looking for mine. And instead when I was like, you know, what if the way that I deal with obsessive thinking is like each time it happens, I go like, oh, there it is again. I’m going to stop and do something else. And even if like half a second later, I start doing it again, then I have to respond the same way again. And what if I have to do that a thousand times in 10 minutes? And what if I have to do that over and over again for three months before I start to feel even a little bit better? But that was the only way ultimately that it felt like I ratcheted toward feeling like it wasn’t important to think about that over and over again.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, I’m writing a book that right now is loosely titled, How a Little Becomes a Lot. And it’s based on that very idea, particularly with thought patterns, that the good news is I do believe you can change them. The bad news is it often takes a long time. And the longer you’ve had them, the longer that time period might be. And so it’s just that repetition. And I think you’re right. This desire that we are going to have an insight or epiphany of some sort that is going to suddenly fix it keeps a lot of us really stuck and not buying into what you’re saying, which is, okay, I kind of know the issue. There’s no blinding insight to come. There’s just a really hard work.

Adam Mastroianni:

The insights and epiphanies I think can help, but they’re not the final moment. So there was a moment where I had a really long drive back from my campus to home, like Boston to Ohio. And as I was like an hour into it, I had sort of this moment where it kind of the clouds opened up and I was like, wow, my thinking has been really obsessive and repetitive recently. And even in that moment, I felt like, wow, it’s so helpful to have this moment of realization and it’s going to come back again. Like my head’s above the water for a second. This is what it’s like up here. I got to get back here again.

Eric Zimmer:

Totally. I think the insights or the realizations are critical to know what direction to go. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Like until you have that, you don’t even know what direction to go. But once you have it, there’s still a ways to go. But again, I love that that’s what worked for you was just a little bit by a little bit changing those things.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. Yeah. And I worked with a psychotherapist too that it was also helpful for pointing these things out and was helpful too for like giving me a kick in the pants a couple of times where I had sort of thought because of the discourse that we have around mental illness that like, now the way you need to treat it is with, you know, sensitivity and that’s true. But also sometimes I needed to be told like, no, stop, like stop doing this. But like, you know, I care about you, but like this thing that you’re doing, you do need to stop doing it. It is unacceptable.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, I think about this a lot because on one hand I think we have become a lot more sensitive and we’re a lot more understanding and we recognize that people need to feel seen and heard and understood. But I sometimes wonder if we’ve gone too far in that direction. or we just stop there. And my experience, and I got sober 25 years ago in a pretty hardcore 12 step area program. And there wasn’t a lot of, I mean, the sensitivity could have been dialed up and it certainly is part of what eventually made me not want to go. But also just being told very directly, like, here, do this, do that, turned out to be really, really helpful. And I think sometimes somebody just needs to be heard culture. I think sometimes we also need the next step, which is yes, no one until they feel heard will listen to anything you say. So don’t bother to try and shortcut that step. But there are other destinations beyond that where we do need people who are on the outside to say, well, here’s something I see, or why don’t you try this?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, a big one for me was thinking less about myself and more about other people. The thing about obsessive thinking of any kind is it’s usually about you. And when I could realize that, like, wow, I feel better when I think about other people a little bit more and think about myself less. Or when someone could point that out to me, it was really helpful because I’m like, I don’t want to be the kind of person who is only thinking about how bad I feel all the time. I feel a lot better when I can when I help lift other people up.

Eric Zimmer:

Totally. I think this can sometimes take a interesting deviation, which is that the worry begins to be about people that are around you. And so it seems like it’s not self-referential, but it is in a way ultimately, right? Because whatever that person is happening or whatever they’re doing is causing an emotion in you that you don’t like. Yeah. And so it can be tricky.

Adam Mastroianni:

You think you’re thinking about other people, but really you’re thinking, do they like me? Did I hurt them? Rather than like, are they achieving their goals? Like, what do they need from me? And like, how can I help them do the things that they’re trying to do?

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. Yeah. This is funny. This is just coming to mind because a friend of mine, he’s much younger than me, told me recently he’s, they’re starting to try and have a kid. And it’s like, I think parenting just adds a whole new dimension of weirdness to dealing with your own mental stuff. Because on one hand, you are ostensibly thinking about someone else a lot, and yet it’s a weird space. One of the other things that I read, and it’s not exactly a secret, But as you have a tendency to do, you wrote about it in a way that makes it so obvious, is that you say, if you want to get a taco, the world comes rushing to your aid. Everybody’s got a taco. Everybody wants to talk about their taco. People will vehemently defend their taco stand versus that taco stand or whether al pastor is better than carne asada. But you need a therapist. You’re on your own.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s wild, but like, there’s no Yelp for therapists, at least not one that I found or that worked. Which ones take my insurance? Which ones will take me? When I was the person who was telling someone like, hey, have you ever thought of talking to someone? I had no idea that that’s the gauntlet that they had to face if they decided to do it. At the point where they are least equipped to do it, to deal with a system that makes no sense, is super annoying, doesn’t give you feedback, And then even when you start talking to somebody, they don’t tell you. I mean, a good one might that, like, we’re going to take a while to make any progress here. The first time we talk is maybe even just to see if I think I can help you. I’m not going to be able to do much for you the first time around. It might take a couple of months before we start working in a new direction, 

Eric Zimmer:

Which is really difficult when you have a skull full of poison. Yeah. Right. I mean, it’s the same thing I’ve dealt with my mother and chronic pain for years and years. And you, you finally find a new doctor who’s like, okay, we’re great at what we do. And you go and they’re like, well, now we’re good. I mean, and you’re just like, I could be months from any relief. It’s just really, it’s really challenging.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, especially when our level of understanding is so early and so rudimentary for anything psychological. We just haven’t been at this very long. And even though, you know, we produce these big book of diagnoses, like that book is going to be different or entirely gone, hopefully, you know, 50 or 100 years from now. And so the limit on what we can do for people is also often like not that high. And it really varies by what you present with. And a lot of things we can help a little bit, but few things do we know exactly what they are or what to do about them. And this is like a limit that you have to accept if you’re ever going to get better.

Eric Zimmer:

Right, right. I think that is a good segue here for us to sort of talk about the state of psychology as a science. And what we think about the state of psychology and what we know is very helpful in how we navigate the journey, right? And one thing that studies that seem to keep showing is sort of, I guess for lack of a better word, disconcerting. is that we don’t really know what makes a good therapist, or one type of therapy doesn’t seem to be better than another type of therapy. Sometimes it doesn’t even appear to be better than talking to a friend, and yet we know it can be. Talk to me about what we know about the role of therapy. I think you would say you were glad you did it,

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The way I think about it now, especially in retrospect, having had a good experience, was that, like, the part of it where I think of this person as a practitioner of science, like, didn’t actually add anything for me. I would rather think of them as someone whose job it is to help me navigate the issues in my life. And, like, they come from this tradition where they’re very interested in the inner workings of my mind rather than, say, theology or whatever else way that you could get there. But that doesn’t mean that we have all of these studies that are going to make it very clear what they should do with me and how I should accomplish my goals. We’re not there yet. But it did matter a lot to have someone whose job it was to pay attention and listen closely. But a lot of experience helping people navigate these kinds of situations was informed somewhat by some of the things that we know. But it isn’t like taking an antibiotic when you have an infection, like that’s just not the kind of result you’re going to get, because that’s not the level of understanding that we have. And so mentioned the study that I almost wish we could do again. Now the window is closed on doing this study. But in the 70s, there was this very small study where people got randomized either to go to a professional therapist or to a professor of history or engineering or whatever, who’d been selected for being empathetic. And this study is really small. It’s not very well conducted. But as far as they were able to tell, they couldn’t see any difference between the outcomes of the people who were assigned, you know, an older person who’s empathetic and understanding versus someone who is all those things, but also trained in the ways of psychology. And that was that was 50 years ago. But I think you’d get a pretty similar result today.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, and without going into the science to the degree that you do and are capable of, it seems to me that general thinking is that rapport is the name of the game, right? If you have a good rapport with your psychologist, that’s far and away the most important thing.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, I think especially if you don’t have that somewhere else in your life, that if you’re at a point where your relationship’s afraid, or you don’t have many of them, or there’s no one that you feel like you can talk about this stuff to, it’s a no-brainer that you could go and work with someone whose job is to do that. And then I think there’s plenty of things probably above and beyond that they can do, like be an outside observer on your life, note things that you do over and over again, just ask you the question, what have you done to try to solve this? and has that worked for you? All these things that seem really obvious you could conceivably do with a friend or with the mirror, and yet we don’t because we don’t have the structure around it.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. Well, there’s this idea, I believe, that Dr. Ethan Kross at the University of Michigan was one of the coiners of this term, Solomon’s Paradox, which is an idea based on King Solomon that we can have a lot of wisdom towards someone else. But it’s really hard to have it towards ourselves. And I find this to just be amazingly true. And I also have found, I had to write a little reminder to myself at one point that even if I think I know what somebody is going to say to me when I bring them a problem, They’re going to just pare it back my own advice to me or whatever. It still helps to talk to them about it. It still helps somehow to get it out of the squeamishness of my own brain. That’s the wrong word for it. Not squeamishness, just amorphousness of my own brain. And talk about it with someone else.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, yeah, that like your own thoughts are squishy. And when you have to express them to someone else, you suddenly realize like, oh, I really, I need to put this into words. I need to frame this in some way that makes it make sense. And when you do that, you can get it to a level of specificity that you couldn’t get to on your own. I mean, this is also what I find when I’m writing, that like, you can think the same thought over and over again. When you have to put it into a sentence, you suddenly realize like, oh, I didn’t get this, or I didn’t really know what I wanted to say. And I think these are all tools of nailing down the thoughts that you’re trying to have.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah, it’s funny. The book I’m writing is based on a program that I’ve taught for a number of years called Wise Habits. But in writing it, you know, sitting down and trying to write the book, I’m like, huh, I didn’t think that all the way through. Or, well, I’m saying this here, but then I’m saying something very like almost the opposite that like just inconsistencies that were not immediately apparent to me in putting it into presentations and talking it out loud.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s a way of dispelling what we call the illusion of explanatory depth, of this feeling that you know something when you don’t actually know it. But like, you know it as well as you need to know it for the purpose that you’re doing. But like, you know it at this level until you bump into something. that requires you to understand it better. And so like writing is a way of doing that. Talking to people is a way of doing that. Teaching is a way of doing that. Breaking through that superficial level of understanding to the level below.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. There’s that idea that if you want to learn something, try and teach it to someone else for that reason. And the fact that we have that illusion is enormously helpful in most areas of our lives. Yeah. You and I are both talking into a microphone. I couldn’t do the most basic job of explaining to you what is happening there. Despite having been around microphones, not just as a podcaster, but a musician my whole life, I have no idea. Now, I have friends that could take this thing apart and explain every bit of it and fix it, but I don’t because I’ve never needed to.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. If you didn’t have that illusion, if when you got to the studio, you were like, Whoa, what’s, what’s this? Like, how could I possibly use this thing if I don’t know everything about, or you’re constantly distracted by that? when you were in a world filled with things like that, like we could never survive or get anything done. If there was an alarm in your head that went off every time you didn’t understand something, because it would always be going off, like you’d never have any peace, right? And so it’s helpful to have this thin film of understanding. If what you want to do is get by if what you want to do is understand, then you have to puncture that envelope.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. So let’s use this idea of understanding to go back to psychology and the state of psychology because I, like you, believe we don’t fully know what is going on. in people’s brains. I mean, I’ve worked with enough people one-on-one into my programs to know that for some people, you say this, and for other people, they need the exact opposite thing. And these could be two people who demographically look the same, two 35-year-old men. But one of them has a problem speaking up. And so you’re like, hey, we need to work on that. And the other has a problem of just being aggressive in conversation. He needs something completely different, yet they look exactly the same. And so the number of variables that go into, even when we’re trying to blind control or control a study seems crazy to me. And it makes me doubt that we’ll ever get a lot further. And a lot of people share this view. The mind’s too complicated. We’re not going to get there, but you don’t share this view. You believe that, well, you say what you believe instead of me saying what you believe.

Adam Mastroianni:

Well, I certainly agree that it’s complicated and it will be difficult to get farther. And it’s also possible that we’ll never get farther. But the fact that it is difficult and is complicated is not, in fact, evidence that it is hopeless that we’ll get farther. And the examples that I take are from the rest of the history of every other science where there are plenty of periods where things seem like hopelessly complicated. How can we possibly make progress? And eventually we do because we discover the underlying structure of the system that we’re trying to work with. And so if you think about the alchemists who are trying to change elements into other elements, and they have no idea what an element is or what they’re made of, or that like the position of Venus does not affect the result of the reaction, but like some things that they consider one element are in fact a mixture of two things. If they don’t understand any of these things, there’s a real limit on how far they can get. But when you start getting those little building blocks of like, oh, there are things called elements that cannot be reduced further. Just from that, you start to be able to do a bunch of things. Now you can ask like, well, how many are there? How does each one react with the other ones? Are there ways that we can predict those reactions? What we don’t have for psychology yet is the equivalent of those elements. We don’t have a good idea of what are the units that make up the world we’re trying to study and what are the rules that govern the interactions of those units. I think we’re still in the prehistory of psychology.

Eric Zimmer:

That’s a really good point to think about the periodic table of elements as a reference because it’s not simple, right? We haven’t simplified it, right? There’s a lot of elements. And as you mentioned, how do they combine with each other? We begin to learn that. But by having a certain number of building blocks, we can begin to make progress. And it seems that perhaps with psychology, like you say, we don’t have even these basic building blocks. We have these diagnostic ideas that are, I use the word amorphous earlier, are very amorphous. Almost to the point of being useful to a point in some cases, I think is the best way I could say it for them. So where do you think if you were given the reins of psychological science, right? You talk a lot about how you think we should and shouldn’t do science. If you were just for some reason, I mean, our president’s doing all sorts of what seems to be kind of crazy things. So this would be no crazier. He comes to you and says, Adam, you are in charge of psychology for the next four years. You’ve got all the budget you want. What would you do? Two things.

Adam Mastroianni:

One would be diversify the budget, in that I have the things that I want to do, but I also want to hedge against it by trying to fund a bunch of other different crazy ideas. Because this is what I think we haven’t been doing, or what we’re really bad at doing in science, is diversifying the ideas that we’re working on. The one that I would want to work on, and I’ve been working with some friends on this, and they’re just starting to release the series now, is basically a cybernetic proposal for the way that psychology works. Cybernetics being the science of control systems, and control systems just being a few units that work together to try to maintain something at a certain level. So like a thermostat is a control system. It reads what the current temperature is, it has the desired temperature, and it tries to reduce the difference between them. And I have some friends working on a proposal for like a lot of psychology can be thought about in terms of control systems, that there are many things that humans have to keep at the right level or else they die. We need some salt, but not too much. We need some sugar, but not too much. We need to be at the right temperature. We need to interact with other people, but we can’t spend all of our time interacting with other people. And so when you start to think about that, You might think like, man, the error signal in each of these control systems, the thing that says when it’s out of whack, could be what we think of right now as an emotion. The feeling of hunger is an emotion, your nutrition intake control system saying it’s time to eat. The feeling of loneliness is a feeling from your sociality control system saying that I need to be around other people. And now we might start thinking, well, how many emotions are there? Which ones are stronger than other ones? Like which ones get to take precedence? You know, not all of these go from 0 to 100 quickly. Some go slowly. And now we can start to get something that looks a little bit more like a table of elements, because we start asking, how many? How do they interact? We can try to start filling in the ones that seem to be missing.

Eric Zimmer:

I love this idea of control systems because I’m a big believer in, I would just call it the middle way, meaning that, you know, you can look at most things in life and there is a too much and there’s definitely a too little, right? And when we’re at either of those, a really great solution is just, you don’t have to abandon whatever that thing is. You just have to turn it up or down a little bit. But even this idea of emotions, right? I mean, people have been arguing about what the core emotions are for a long time. How would we even get past that to a point that we could begin to say, here’s our periodic table? Because every book I read, there’s four, there’s 12, there’s 79 shades of blue.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, it’s a great question. And I think the cybernetic approach finally has an answer to it, which is first a conceptualization of what an emotion is in terms of like the units and how they work together. So when we talk about emotions, we’re usually like, you know, that thing you feel. But in this paradigm, an emotion is something very specific. It’s the error signal of a control system. If we don’t have a control system for it, we can’t have an emotion about it. And thinking this way leads to like calling some weird things emotions. In this system, the need to pee is an emotion. we don’t think about it that way. But obviously, sometimes you need to urinate. And that feeling is an error from your control system. That too is an emotion. It would also lead us to think about like, you know, this thing that we call hunger, that’s an emotion too. But it’s probably a confederacy of many emotions, because there’s many different kinds of nutrients that we have to intake. And so there’s probably something called salt hunger, or sugar hunger, or protein hunger, And this is easier to do in animals than in humans by depriving people of one thing and see if they feel hunger and eat another thing. It’s just one way. It’s a very schematic way of investigating this. And so I think the way we make progress is by treating this like we’re trying to figure out the rules of a board game by reverse engineering it. We don’t know exactly what the little tokens mean or what they can do, but we do believe there are tokens that can only go to certain spaces. And now we’re trying to figure out what those are rather than the squishy idea of like, well, you feel a certain way. What are the tendencies that you have or are they constructed? That’s the difference.

Eric Zimmer:

Okay. Because one of the core emotional theory disputes, and again, I’m a lay person in all this, is that there are these core irreducible emotions. Every human has them. They’re the same group. And then there’s the, as you just said, the constructed theory emotion, which is that there’s basically just a stimulus of some sort. And then from there, we build everything that goes on top of that. Do you have a feeling there? How does thinking through that issue tie into, you know, control systems?

Adam Mastroianni:

So this view, I think would be much closer to the idea that there are basic ones and all the labels that we apply to them are sometimes pointing to emotions that really exist and sometimes calling things emotions that are not productively called emotion. So also in this paradigm, happiness isn’t an emotion. It’s a thing that we feel, but it’s not an error signal. which means that whether it’s constructed or not now becomes a nonsensical question. It’s not part of the list of elements. Original attempts at a table of elements included things like light and heat, which didn’t end up being elements. And a moment of progress was when we realized those things are different. And so it’s possible that happiness is actually a different thing. In this proposal for a paradigm, happiness is actually not a signal that something’s gone wrong. It is the feeling that you get for correcting an error. So you really have to pee, you find a bathroom, happiness is the feeling that you get from your need to pee error signal going to zero. But the same thing you get for, you know, I feel lonely, I talk to someone, the happiness is the thing that you get for reducing that error. So it is a different thing. We don’t have a word quite for it yet. But there’s a weird way of thinking about it, which is part of what makes me excited about it, that like, it uses words in ways that are really counterintuitive, because it has a strong idea of what are the components of the system and how might they work together.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. And I would love to actually spend about an hour and a half on this because I am fascinated. However, I don’t want to make the whole interview about this, but I’m going to use it as a pivot point because one of the things that you say about psychology as a field is that we keep producing paper after paper, after paper, after paper, and that by and large, none of it moves the needle much anywhere. Yeah. And that the way that we’re going to make more progress than we have in the time we have so far is to begin to think about what you call alien ideas. And so I have a question. This relates to something else that you talk about strong link and weak link problems. One of the things about alien ideas is I agree with you, we need them. And when we’re in the middle of say something like a pandemic, they seem dangerous. And alien psychological ideas seem like they could be dangerous. So how do we allow ourselves to take some of the shackles off psychology so maybe we can make progress in a different direction, but maybe not loose a bunch of craziness into the world? Yeah, we need to do it all in secret.

Adam Mastroianni:

No, I think really what you’re pointing to there is there are at least two separable problems that we’re trying to solve at the same time. And that’s why there’s a tension here. When I say science is a strong link problem, which is to say that we proceed at the rate that we do our best work, not at the rate that we prevent our worst work is to say, I’m talking about science is like the process of trying to understand the structure and function of the universe. which is separate from how do you make sure that people believe the right things, which is a totally different thing. Science communication or public health dissemination or something else, the way that you make sure that people don’t believe crazy ideas that are wrong is different from and sometimes contrary to the way that we would discover truths about the universe. So recently when I brought that post back up again and someone was like, you know, but look, there is this paper about vaccines causing autism that like caused all this trouble before it was retracted 12 years later. And I’m like, totally. That’s a big problem from the standpoint of how do we solve the problem of making sure that people don’t believe the wrong thing? It is actually unrelated or mainly unrelated to the idea of how do we understand autism? So it wasn’t the case that when that paper came out, all the scientists who study autism were like, wow, vaccines must cause autism. Many people were like, oh, I don’t believe this paper at all. And at the time, it might have actually been reasonable to think about like, oh, is this a possibility? Like, it’s better for there to be more information rather than less. That is different from the kind of person who’s going to look at that and go like, oh, this means I should change my vaccine behavior.

Eric Zimmer:

Right. And I think part of that comes from something that I don’t think the genie goes back in the bottle on, which is the popularization of and the bastardization of science into the public consciousness. I mean, you don’t have to look very hard to suddenly start seeing that there’s a study. There are people whose job is go find a study and then write an article or a news article about it. And Sometimes they’re reporting the study relatively accurately even though there’s still a lot of nuance getting lost and other times it’s just near nonsense. And so I understand what you’re saying on one hand that science itself, the process of science needs to be a problem where we don’t worry about the bad ideas because the scientific process will eventually weed them out. And what we need to be focused on are the really big, good ideas. And the only way sometimes to get those is to venture way off course from what everybody else is doing. And then you have what’s done with that science. Is this just a problem we have to live with?

Adam Mastroianni:

That’s a problem that we can get better at. And where it starts is in how we teach students about science, like, from elementary school onward. Right now, when you get your scientific education, it’s like, oh, you know, we thought atoms were plum pudding, and then we thought they were this other thing, and then finally we discovered the real thing. not understanding how that process unfolded. For a long time, we went off in this direction, and then we did this other direction, and it took a long time for us to figure out what was true. And so when you see a scientific claim, you should go like, yeah, maybe. Precisely, yeah.

Eric Zimmer:

We don’t follow that with the thought of, and by the way, this current understanding could go through the same revision, right? We just take it as now we know. And if you look back at scientific history, you realize it’s kind of a silly position to take.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. Anybody should be able to trace this through like the evolution of nutrition recommendations over the course of their own lives, if you’re old enough, right? That like, I grew up when every cereal box had that pyramid on the back that was like, you should eat six to 11 slices of bread per day. And then like 10 years later, people were like, you should never eat a slice of bread. And like both of these extremes, and the next year, it’s going to be something else. And what this means is like, we’re still figuring out how nutrition works, like we’re very early on. And the only mistake that we’re making is being extremely certain at each stage that now we know for sure.

Eric Zimmer:

Yep. Before we dive back into the conversation, let me ask you something. What’s one thing that has been holding you back lately? You know that it’s there. You’ve tried to push past it, but somehow it keeps getting in the way. You’re not alone in this, and I’ve identified six major saboteurs of self-control. Things like autopilot behavior, self-doubt, emotional escapism. that quietly derail our best intentions. But here’s the good news. You can outsmart them. And I’ve put together a free guide to help you spot these hidden obstacles and give you simple, actionable strategies that you can use to regain control. Download the free guide now at oneufeed.net slash ebook and take the first step towards getting back on track. And part of the problem with nutrition is part of what we wrestle with in psychology is not everyone is the same. You know, my partner and I wore a continuous glucose monitor for a while. We just kind of wanted to see like what’s happening with blood sugar. Her mom had Alzheimer’s, my dad has Alzheimer’s. And one of the theories is that there’s a metabolic issue here. So, okay, we want to study our metabolism. And it was fascinating to see, like I can eat brown rice and it’s okay. She eats brown rice. She might as well have drank a Coca-Cola. It’s just insane. And so as people, you know, we keep saying like, you should eat this, but people are just very different. And we don’t know what constitutes the difference enough yet to be able to make any sort of like recommendation that I should eat the same thing as you. We just don’t know. But yet we think we do.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, this is a problem that I really wish that it were so much more apparent to people that like, whenever you want to make a universal recommendation, you need extremely good evidence. But like, we’re really willing to just like make universal recommendations.

Eric Zimmer:

I think it’s partially that’s a human tendency. And I think that people want it. I mean, I think that it goes back to what you were talking about, you know, when you had a skull full of poison, what you wanted, the desire that emerged from that was not to listen to an hour long nuanced conversation about the science of psychology like we are doing right now. You wanted somebody to say, here’s the one quick trick to get rid of your skull full of poison. Right. And so we’re just in a world that nuance is not incented. I find it personally semi painful. as a person who my brand is nuance, I think.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, and I also think it’s on the part of experts making the recommendations, there’s this fear that like, oh, people are too stupid to understand nuance. So we can’t give it to them, even though we know it might be there, we just need to tell everybody the same thing, or else they’ll get the wrong idea, or some of them will do the wrong thing. And so we just need to be really confident and conclusive about telling everybody what they should do, which ultimately just leads to the erosion of trust, because why would you trust someone? who’s going to knowingly tell you something other than the full truth of what they know.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. We sort of hit this and you may have already answered it, in which case you could say we’ve already covered that. What are some of the ideas in psychology that you find interesting, promising, new? So you’ve just mentioned one, which is this idea of control systems. Yeah. Are there any others out there that you currently are like, wow, that’s really interesting.

Adam Mastroianni:

That’s the one that I think is most promising. But I think it is worth looking back at the ideas that we have had that were productive and good. And now there’s a temptation to keep doing them forever, even though I think we’ve gotten out of them what they had to give us. So some of those dominant ideas in psychology were like, oh, people aren’t perfectly rational. They don’t obey the rules of optimal decision making. This is an idea that’s been so successful that it’s won the Nobel Prize twice. And I think it’s a great one, and it started all kinds of lines of research. I also think that now we’ve pretty much gotten everything out of it that we’re going to get out of it. Same thing with situations matter. So this is like a revolution in the 60s and 70s that at the time it was reasonable to think that like, you know, there’s just different kinds of people, and some people are good and some people are bad. And then people started creating these like little pantomimes and situations where you put someone in it, someone who seems normal, and like now they’re shocking someone to death in the other room, or at least they think they are. That was a really important point to make, but we can keep doing that forever. We can keep inventing new situations and showing like, wow, when you do this, like some people do that thing. And I think here too, we’ve gotten most out of it that we’re ever going to get out of it.

Eric Zimmer:

So these are both good. Let’s take that second one there, which is essentially is another way of saying context really matters. Yeah. I get on one hand how like we just said it, right? Context matters. Okay. Move on. Right. But are there useful ways of showing in what ways context informs or changes based on different things? Like, I still think like you and I know that. But a lot of people are going to take a personality test and they’re going to go off and believe that that personality test is telling them a lot about themselves. And I would argue the primary limitation to a lot of those is context matters. I hate these things. They drive me up the wall because it’s like, would you rather read a book or go to a party? And I’m like, well, I have nine questions I need to ask you before I make that decision. You know, what’s the party? Who’s going to be there? What book am I reading? Am I tired? Like, I mean, is it cold outside? And so it seems like on one hand, we know context matters and yet, broadly speaking, I’m not sure that most people do. But is that a communication versus a research issue again?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, I think so. I don’t know how many more demonstrations we can do. I mean, the Milgram shock experiments from 1963, this is the famous experiment where probably a lot of people have heard of it, but in case they haven’t, you get brought into what looks like a lab and you think that you are doing a learning task with someone who’s in a different room and you’re supposed to give them a little shock when they get the question wrong. And they set it up that like, oh, the person gets so many questions wrong that eventually it seems like you’re shocking them to death Even when you’re and there’s this whole like recording here, you think it’s real, where it seems like they have a heart condition and they maybe pass out, whatever. And like in that situation, two thirds of people kept shocking someone until they ostensibly died because the person behind them was like, no, no, it’s very important. You can continue. Like, I don’t know what better demonstration you can do. And by the way, people have tried to debunk this a couple of times, and I think it has survived the debunkings. A lot of great research from that era hasn’t. Like, I don’t know what else you can do to show people that, like, no, that you, a very normal person, could be put in a situation where you could do something that you look back on it and think that it is horrifying. Like, I think the only way that you can drive that point home better is by bringing that person into the lab and doing it to them. Right. Otherwise, it’s not going to land.

Eric Zimmer:

Yeah. Okay. So let’s go back to, for some reason, I don’t like the word cybernetic because it makes me think about a cyborg or something, but I get it. We’re talking about systems. And I’d love to talk about one of your posts that’s all about systems. And it’s really about the idea of us having a mental heater and a mental air conditioner. Kind of walk me through this idea.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. So this comes from my thinking about the control systems of the mind, that there’s this naive idea that we just want to be maximally happy. I mean, literally, psychologists will write this in their papers, like, well, obviously, people want to be happy and not unhappy. And they’ll give six citations for it. But I actually think that if you watch people, this doesn’t seem to be the case. People will do things all the time that do not seem to make them happy. Like, why do we go to haunted houses? Like, why do we watch movies about the Holocaust? If you ask people afterward, like, did that make you happier? People would be like, no. Okay, well, why did you do it? And I think part of the reason is we don’t actually desire maximum happiness. We desire the right level of happiness. It is dangerous and bad for us both to be too sad. It is also dangerous and bad to be too happy. Like we call that mania. And when people are stuck in that mode for too long, they end up doing things like thinking they’re the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, or they do a bunch of drugs, they spend all their money starting a stupid business, and they end up in the hospital. And so it is bad for us to max out this system. It is also bad for us for the system to be working at its minimum. This seems like a case in which we have a control system governing, trying to keep us at the right level. And so when we’re too high, it tries to bring us down. And when we’re too low, it tries to bring us up. And that’s the thermostat that runs with the furnace and the air conditioner.

Eric Zimmer:

So with mania, you know, my favorite example, what we’re not getting across well enough in this interview is how funny you are in your writing, right? Like, I mean, you’re genuinely hilarious. And one of the things you did when you’re writing about mania is go look at like Reddit forums for what people did when they were under mania. And my favorite was collected enough signatures to become mayor. And if you’ve seen it, and I’ve been close enough to people with addiction problems and severe psychological problems to have been on some psych wards visiting, and mania is terrifying. When you see somebody who’s in mania, it is genuinely frightening. So I get the idea that, okay, we don’t want to get too high. We don’t want to get too low, right? You get too low, you basically don’t move. And as humans, we need to move and do things. You also talk about how happiness doesn’t tend to change a lot over time. Do you then believe that we each have an individual happiness set point that we’re largely going to return to? And if so, why would mine be 40% and someone else’s would be 90%? And is the fact that I am reporting myself as unhappy simply my error system? To use your theory, my sense of unhappiness is simply my internal control system saying, you need to be up there. Because one of the things that I’ve found, I’ve said before about having depression, is one of the things I’ve done, I think, is get better at it. And what I mean by that is I often just don’t make a very big deal out of it. There are times where I’m like, it is what it is. No existential crisis needed.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, I mean, to your first question of whether I think different people have different set points, that seems to be true empirically, that you track people over time, that some people are consistently at a 6 out of 10, and some people are consistently at an 8 out of 10. And even when disturbances happen in their lives, even when they get a new job that they love, lose a job that they love, find someone they love, lose someone they love, they obviously go up or down, but they come back to that point. And so that seems to be empirically true. Now, why would it be that some people are stuck at 6 when they’d rather be at 8, or why can’t we all be at 10? I think for the same reason that we differ in all other kinds of ways, like other control systems also have different set points. So we think that weight is probably also governed by some kind of control system. Some people weigh 150 pounds and some people weigh 200. Why is that? The ultimate answer is genetics and then what you get exposed to in the environment. But from a broader sense, why would there be variance across humans? Like, because it is actually useful for people to be different, I think is the ultimate answer. The way that humans have succeeded is by producing a diversity of humans who have different ideas and behave differently so that we can benefit from the different strengths that different people have. And so, like, there may be a reason why we don’t all have the same level of happiness. That would be my guess. We don’t really know, but that’s my guess.

Eric Zimmer:

Now do you think that then what we might think of as extreme levels of high, which would be mania, but the opposite seems to be far more common, which is being very low. is a control system failure? Because when you talk about weight, right, yes, we all have a natural weight. We also know people who weigh 75 pounds and people who are way on the opposite end of that, that are not in what we would probably consider the natural range because we’re exposed to all sorts of different things. So is that what mental illness is, is a control system failure?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah, there are lots of ways that the systems can break that end up looking like different kinds of mental illnesses. So my friends who write under the name Slime Mold Time Mold are releasing a whole series about this. So hopefully by the time it comes out, it’ll be out there for people to read. They have a whole series of papers about how different ways that you break the system produce different things that look like depression or anxiety. So for instance, If you turn down the errors on all of your control systems so you get no error signal, you will look like someone who is extremely depressed. You won’t do anything because you have no errors to correct. This looks ultimately like that kind of bedrock depression where that person doesn’t move. Yeah. If you increase the sensitivity on all of your control systems, so you’re getting super high errors all the time. Now you start to look like someone who’s manic because you’re rushing around all the time trying to correct your errors and you’re feeling great about it because you’re always corrected and then they pop up again and correct them again. You’re playing whack-a-mole and it feels wonderful. There’s like 10 other ways that you can, you can break this system, but it starts to lead you to think about like, okay, when people feel bad or feel really good, like what is going on underneath? Like not necessarily the level of like chemicals, which is, I think has been a real dead end for us. Like what’s the software that’s running on the mind that could possibly produce this pattern of results.

Eric Zimmer:

obviously at the end of the day, the brain is firing off electrical signals and chemicals. Is your belief that that software is ultimately, that’s how it does what it does, right? Is through those things.

Adam Mastroianni:

Yes. So like often when I tell people about this, they’re like, Oh, okay. So you think all psychology is just neuroscience. And I’m like, no, ultimately it does have to work on the machinery of neuroscience. But this is just like saying, if you want to understand how a subway system works, You’re not going to talk in terms of atoms of carbon and oxygen moving around. You’re going to talk in terms of there’s trains and stations and passengers. And all those things are made up of smaller things. And whatever I say about a train has to be possible at the level of the elementary particles. But that it makes no sense to explain it in terms of like, oh, a massive carbon is moving. What you want to say is the train is arriving in the station. So there’s different levels of analysis that are useful for describing things that are happening in that system. The train and station and passenger level is the one that we’re trying to get to in psychology.

Eric Zimmer:

Got it. When we talk about happiness set points, sometimes people just take that as like, well, this is just where I am. I’m fixed. Right? We do know that if we follow your theory, it’s possible that you’re not at your actual set point of happiness. You’re at the point that you’re at because of these errors in the control system and we can do things to fix that. And so I can look at myself and be like, okay, 24, I was a homeless heroin addict, which I’m going to just make a grand interpretation here and say, I wasn’t doing so well heading into all that, right? Yeah. And I think I can look back and go, okay, there was depression happening and all of that. And so I think that I’ve changed obviously from there to here. And then within that, I think there’s this point where things get tricky and this gets back to kind of some of what we talked about with your skull full of poison. Let’s just say that I’ve got my control systems kind of working fairly well. and I’m a 6. If I keep thinking I have to be an 8, I might be then turning myself into a 4. From everything that we’ve talked about and from your own experience with this, how do you think about this in navigating your own internal world?

Adam Mastroianni:

Yeah. So I guess one thing to say is that like consistency over time is in itself like not necessarily evidence of a control system. It’s consistency against disruption. So if you put me in a cell for the rest of my life, I’d be pretty unhappy. And you could say like, well, you know, I came back and checked you 20 years later and you were a four. Four must be your set point. But actually to know that four is my set point, you have to put me in a cell versus like, you know, I have to dive into a swimming pool full of gold coins. Like if I’m a four across every situation, it’s just something that’s trying to keep me at a four.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah.

Adam Mastroianni:

So when you’re in a situation like situations can keep you at a four for a long time if they’re really strong. These things can change over time, and we can see this in some of the systems that we understand a little bit better. For instance, if you take lithium as a psychoactive medication, which usually they do for bipolar, for a lot of people that causes them to gain weight. For some percentage, they lose a lot of weight. On average, they gain weight, which is also interesting that there’s these paradoxical reactions. We know that it is possible to change the set point of people’s weight by introducing foreign substances. The fact that that works for one control system suggests it’s possible for other ones that you can change these set points either by like introducing chemicals that at the chemical level make things different, but you could probably also do it at the trains and stations and passengers level to make things different. So I think this is what a lot of us are trying to do when we’re trying to live a more balanced life is like, okay, this isn’t going to be a matter of what substances, I mean, some of it might be a matter of what substances I put on my body that change my set point, But what are the things that I might consistently do that could keep me artificially lower than I might otherwise be? For me, some of these things are obvious. Like, well, if I don’t sleep enough, if I eat poorly, I’m gonna be consistently at a low level.

Eric Zimmer:

Before we wrap up, I want you to think about this. Have you ever ended the day feeling like your choices didn’t quite match the person you wanted to be? Maybe it was autopilot mode or self-doubt that made it harder to stick to your goals. And that’s exactly why I created the 6 Saboteurs of Self-Control. It’s a free guide to help you recognize the hidden patterns that hold you back and give you simple, effective strategies to break through them. If you’re ready to take back control and start making lasting changes, download your copy now at oneufeed.net slash ebook. Let’s make those shifts happen starting today. Oneufeed.net slash ebook. Wonderful. Well, I think this is a good place for us to wrap up. You and I are going to continue in the post-show conversation because we need to talk about eating frogs and the statement that demons are real, which seems like an odd statement from a – I guess you wouldn’t call yourself a rationalist, but a guy who’s on that side of the spectrum. Listeners, if you’d like access to this post-show conversation with Adam, as well as ad-free episodes, and to support this show, then go to oneufeed.net slash join and become part of our community. We’d love to have you there. Adam, thank you so much. I’ve gotten so much pleasure out of reading your sub-stack. We’ll have links in the show notes to where people can get to it, and I highly recommend it.

Adam Mastroianni:

Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

Eric Zimmer:

Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring, or thought-provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better, and that’s you. Just hit the share button on your podcast app or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the One You Feed community.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

How to Stop Losing Your Mind (Literally): The Surprising Science of Attention with Amishi Jha

March 28, 2025 Leave a Comment

How to Stop Losing Your Mind (Literally): The Surprising Science of Attention
Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Dr. Amishi Jha explores how to stop losing your mind (literally) and the surprising science of attention. She shares how mastering your mind isn’t about more effort, it’s about understanding how attention really works. You’ll learn how to train the three systems of attention (the flashlight, the floodlight, and the juggler), why mindfulness isn’t just a trend but a mental upgrade, and how to reclaim your focus—12 minutes at a time.

Key Takeaways:

  • How your attention isn’t broken; it’s just overwhelmed.
  • Understand the three key attention modes
  • Embrace how mindfulness strengthens attention
  • Learn the concept of reframing and deframing and why this is so important
  • Discover the relationship between stress, mood, and attention
  • Uncover the micro-moments in your life and why they matter


Dr. Amishi Jha is a professor of psychology at the University of Miami. She serves as the Director of Contemplative Neuroscience for the Mindfulness Research and Practice Initiative, which she co-founded in 2010. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California–Davis and postdoctoral training at the Brain Imaging and Analysis Center at Duke University. Dr. Jha’s work has been featured at NATO, the World Economic Forum, and The Pentagon. She has received coverage in The New York Times, NPR, TIME, Forbes, and more.  Her book is Peak Mind: Find Your Focus, Own Your Attention, Invest 12 Minutes a Day

Connect with Dr. Amishi Jha:  Website | Instagram | X

If you enjoyed this conversation with Amishi Jha, check out these other episodes:

Stolen Focus and Attention with Johann Hari

How to Focus and Accomplish Goals with Emily Balcetis

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

00:00:00 Eric Zimmer 

Most of us live in doing mode, solving, planning, fixing. But what if the real key to clarity isn’t doing more, but knowing when to be? This is a lesson I can certainly learn. Dr. Amishi Jha calls this peak mind one that doesn’t just chase focus, but knows when to step back, observe and reset.  It’s not about forcing your attention. It’s about understanding how to work with it. In this episode, we explore why true mental mastery isn’t about more effort, but about balancing focus with awareness and how getting this right can change everything. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is the one you feed. 

00:01:49 – Eric Zimmer
Minutes a day hi Amishi, welcome to the show.

00:01:52 – Amishi Jha
So great to be here.

00:01:53 – Eric Zimmer
I’m really excited to have you on. We’re going to be discussing your new book, Peak Mind, find your focus, own your attention, invest twelve minutes a day. So we’ll get into that in a minute, but we’ll start like we always do, with a parable. In the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with their grandchild, and they say in life there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops and thinks about it for a second, looks up at their grandparents and says, well, which one wins? I and the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

00:02:36 – Amishi Jha
Oh, it’s such a great parable. And I love that it’s really so central to what you talk about on this podcast because it so much relates to what I think about and the work that I do in my lab, because it, frankly, is about attention, and what you feed in my mind reflects what you pay attention to, what you value. So to me, it’s entirely describing the power of attention and the vulnerability of mind when we do not attend to things that serve us best.

00:03:06 – Eric Zimmer
Yep, I agree totally. And attention is a big subject in the work that I do. I’ve got a program called Spiritual Habits, and attention is one of the core principles there because you quote William James in your book. There’s another statement that I don’t think you quoted in the book, although it’s possible I missed it, which is my experience, is what I agree to attend to. Fundamental attention really does describe, I wouldn’t say it’s the only thing, but it is a big factor in the type of life we experience.

00:03:37 – Amishi Jha
Absolutely. I mean, it’s funny, William James. I was the father of the field that I’m a member of, psychology, but sometimes I think he’s like an alien from the future because he had so much right about his wisdom and insight into things and couldn’t agree more with your kind of take on that whole thing, which is the centrality of our conscious experience is tied to the conduit for what becomes prominent in our minds, which is attention itself.

00:04:05 – Eric Zimmer
So where I’d like to start is with the title of the book, peak mind. You say a peak mind is a mind that doesn’t privilege thinking and doing over being. It masters both modes of attention. So say a little bit more about that, because a lot of the book is sort of talking about people who are in, for lack of a better word, mission critical type situations, you know, people who are trying to perform better in given circumstances. So there’s a fair amount of the book that’s devoted in that direction. But this statement really is speaking to something more broadly than how I perform.

00:04:39 – Amishi Jha
Yeah, absolutely. And part of the reason I wanted to make sure I made that distinction between thinking and doing is exactly because of the populations that make gravitate toward this book and toward the kind of projects that we do in the research we conduct, which are, as you call, a mission critical kind of folks, but also sometimes they’re referred to as tactical professionals. There is a task at hand, and we need to accomplish it, and there is a more successful and less successful way to accomplish it. And action is what it’s all about. And frankly, in my entire field, in the field of attention research, from the sort of traditional point of view, that is essentially what we see attention’s role as serving action and if we can’t pay attention, the chances of acting appropriately are going to not be there. But what I’m trying to highlight, which is part of the broader mission of a lot of contemplative practices and wisdom traditions, is that there is another way we can use our attention, use our mind. And there are aspects of even what sort of traditional attentional models within modern cognitive neuroscience described that can be amplified but aren’t currently amplified. So the being mode, from my point of view, is taking an observational stance, being receptive to what’s occurring, so that in between the action, there is reflection. And without that reflection, the chances to ensure that the action is appropriate are lessened. Because sometimes you can know sort of a ballistic orientation, like, this is what we’re doing, or the training that you have may guide you to say, this is what you do. But is it the right thing to do? How are you going to know unless you actually look at the circumstances? And, you know, a lot of times these tactical professionals or mission oriented folks talk about situational awareness as you got to know what’s going on around you. But what I’m highlighting with that statement of being mode, not just doing mode, is that part of the situation is what is occurring in your own mind, the set point you have, the expectations and stories and assumptions that you have. And the being mode allows you to take stock of what is present without taking any action in that moment, just allowing that to exist and percolating in it. And I think it’s highly undervalued, especially for a lot of the kinds of professionals that we end up working with. So it’s a new or novel aspect of what they might consider doing, which is being.

00:07:00 – Eric Zimmer
Yeah.

00:07:00 – Amishi Jha
And I put that in quotes because people can’t see me. So, you know, in some sense, the being new type of doing, if you want to approach it in that way.

00:07:08 – Eric Zimmer
You also say a peak mind. And this, to quote William James, again, which I had not seen this quote before, and I love a peak mind balances the flights and the perchings. He says, like a bird’s life, the stream of consciousness seems to be made up of an alternation of flights and perchings. Say a little bit more about that. That’s very poetic language, I think, to speak to some concepts that you’ve certainly backed up with neuroscience.

00:07:31 – Amishi Jha
Yeah. And I think it touches on what you were asking me about a moment ago. Right. The flights in some sense is the doing and the perching is the being, and that this can be broken down in sort of the micro level. So even if we’re in the middle of executing a complex task, to not forget that the flights are going to be much more successful if the perchings are actually taking place. And it’s that dance, it’s sort of the important aspects of what wisdom is, is both reflection and action.

00:08:05 – Eric Zimmer
Yeah. That quote made me think of. We interviewed a gentleman. I don’t know, and I’m going to get your opinion on this in a second. We interviewed a gentleman a while back by the name of Ian McGilchrist. He wrote a book called the master and his emissary. And it’s talking about right brain and left brain, and I’d like to get your opinion on that in a second. But one of the things he said was, and when he was talking about how the right brain and the left brain work, is that the right brain is more the perching. It’s watching everything that’s happening. It’s seeing the context. It’s, you know, and the left brain is more the flight, or he talked about like a bird pecking food out of a series of stones. I’m curious, in the work that you’ve done, has right brain, left brain shown up at all? I just kind of curious your thought on that theory. I don’t want to spend a lot of time there, but I can’t help but ask.

00:08:56 – Amishi Jha
Yeah, I mean, I don’t know that book, and I don’t know Ian at all. I don’t know how literally he was being or what research he was looking to. But frankly, from sort of a modern neuroscience perspective, the notion of right brain, left brain allowing for complex function to happen in a hemispherically specified manner, has been debunked. All complex functions, whether it’s a broad observational stance or an action oriented focusing, will involve coordination between the entirety of the brain, in particular both hemispheres. But I appreciate the concept of these are distinct from each other. And I would not describe them as based on hemispheres. I describe them based on mental modes. And when we think about a mode in the mind, it’s essentially a configuration of whatever brain networks are involved in a particular process being more prominent versus a different set of brain networks. So definitely it’s the case that, and, you know, I describe it in some sense as two aspects of attention. And, you know, this notion of a flashlight, meaning focusing, narrowing, selecting versus a floodlight, broad, receptive, not biasing some information over other information. And those are two different modes. And typically, you cannot be in both modes simultaneously. And we know this. Right. If you’re sitting there and reading a deeply entrenched in a good novel or a good book, any kind of a good book could be peak mind. So if you’re entrenched in reading a good book, somebody walks in the room and says something to you, you’re like, huh, what? You’ve no idea what was said, not because you lost the capacity to comprehend language, but because you’re full focus was so narrowed that the input coming in in your broad, receptive stance was not quite up to snuff to be able to break down the sounds into language. From the brain science point of view, we know that a lot of these aspects of attention are mutually inhibitory. When one network is active, the other one will be suppressed. So I again would say that do not get too literal with regard to the hemisphere that it’s involved in, but the modal aspects, the mind being in different modes, is certainly very, very important.

00:10:59 – Eric Zimmer
You mentioned the two different modes in your book. You actually have three modes. You’re a little bit like the Buddha in that you’re a list maker. There’s lots of lists of three in this book. I’m sure someone has pointed that out before, but I actually like it as a way of organizing. It helps, but. So you talked about two of the sort of, quote unquote, subsystems that work together.

00:11:21 – Amishi Jha
Right.

00:11:22 – Eric Zimmer
The flashlight, which is. We’re narrowed in, we’re focused. You talked about the floodlight, which is a more broad and open. And then the third mode that you talk about is the juggler. Say a little bit more about what the juggler is.

00:11:34 – Amishi Jha
Sure, sure. All three of these are really, as you said, subsystems of attention. And in the broadest sense, we can say this mental capacity of paying attention is really just about prioritizing some information over other information. It’s thankfully an evolutionary inheritance we get to enjoy, even though it has its own consequences. But it is the result of, we think, at least kind of going back in time, a big problem that the brain had, which is that everything could not be processed. The brain just lacked the computational power to do that. So if you didn’t prioritize some stuff over other stuff, there was no way you were going to be able to make sense of the world around you or even what’s occurring within your mind. So just to keep that in mind as the anchor, prioritize some information over other information. Now, the flashlight, you’d say, is prioritizing some content over other content. So wherever you direct that flashlight is going to be the privileged content. But it’s directed towards something, some object. And that object can be something in the external environment or an object in the mind, like a thought or a memory. When we go to the floodlight, we’re talking about prioritizing not so much based on the content, because you’re not supposed to really advantage one thing over another. It’s about being this broad, receptive stance, but it is privileging something, and that is the moment. Now. So, formally, this floodlight system is called the alerting system, and you’re not being alert to something in the past or the future, but right in this moment, so privileging the present moment. And then, as you mentioned, the third system, formally called executive functioning, but I describe it as a juggler for shorthand, is really regarding prioritizing based on our goals. So these are internally held goals, intentions, plans, whatever it is you want to call it, that is guiding the way we’re going to interact with our own mind and our environment. You know, just like a juggler, you’ve got to do this with sort of a multiplicity in mind. You usually don’t have one goal. So in this moment, my goal is to have a fruitful conversation with you, but my goal is also to publish the papers that I’m publishing and to be a responsible citizen and to enjoy my life and my family. Those goals don’t go away, but obviously, I’m not actively doing all of those simultaneously. So I’m kind of keeping all the balls in the air and ensuring that every action that I undertake aligns with my goals. And when the juggler is not functioning so well, balls drop. We forget the goal. We don’t inhibit irrelevant information. And this could be a micro goal. Right? So I want to have a conversation with you. That’s my goal. But my phone buzzes, and then I go and start reading my text messages in the middle of this conversation. Why did I do that? Well, I failed to hold the goal and then control my behavior aligned with it. So I think that maybe helps frame it more broadly, that all of it falls underneath attention, because it all has to do with prioritizing some information or other information. It’s just the nature of what that.

00:14:24 – Eric Zimmer
Information is differs is the executive function, or the juggler, as we would call it, the part that is choosing where to point the flashlight.

00:14:34 – Amishi Jha
Yes.

00:14:34 – Eric Zimmer
I think attention is very interesting because it’s similar to the breath. It’s something that happens automatically and is also controllable, correct?

00:14:42 – Amishi Jha
Yeah.

00:14:42 – Eric Zimmer
You know, so if someone lit a firecracker off behind my head, right? Now, like, my attention is going there. There’s nothing I’m going to do about that. But beyond that, is it the juggler that’s sort of trying to say, let me align my attention with, to use a different word for what you were talking about, my intentions, the things that matter to me. Is that kind of falling into the juggler’s role, correct.

00:15:06 – Amishi Jha
Yeah. Executive control is the thing that guides goals. Now, the goal could be, pay attention to what’s happening right now. Don’t privilege any content over other content. So you’re driving down the road and you see big flashing yellow light, like maybe by a construction site, and the juggler would say, probably best to check out what’s going on right now. And it essentially calls upon that particular floodlight orientation or mental mode to be in. Or it could be get narrow and focused right now. So you can actually understand this conversation or read this sentence or whatever it is, get focused and directed. But there’s always the kind of push and pull of what the juggler intends to do and then other stuff that may derail what’s going on. And, you know, in some sense, the flashlight is a great example of that, where you already said it, you can direct it willfully, but it can get yanked. And what it gets yanked by is also very interesting because in some sense, it’s like the baked into us juggler. Right? It’s like, why would it be that a firecracker would pull your attention? Because your survival may depend on it, right. So essentially, these, you know, are things that are salient, that are novel, that are fear inducing or threatening, that are self related, are all sort of privileged into the way that our brain functions. We don’t have to try to make it that way. It just is sort of, by default, built in.

00:16:31 – Eric Zimmer
Right. You say the three main factors that determine, you know, how this attention gets deployed is familiarity, something that’s new. I’m going to give more attention to salience. Right. How important it is to me. And then finally, our own goal, our own attention. And so attention is sort of being, as you said, pulled by those things. And one of the things that you say early on that I really liked Washington, that there’s nothing wrong with our attention. We talk a lot about having attention problems these days, you know, crisis of attention. But you say our attention is working just fine. Just say a little bit more about that.

00:17:04 – Amishi Jha
Yeah. That’s the kind of ironic part of this moment. People feel a sense of struggle, an overwhelm or crisis, and they want to blame their brain instead of the circumstances in some sense. So let’s just talk about social media or technology kind of more broadly. The fact that there are algorithms that can be built around our willingness to continue engaging with particular pieces of software or websites, etcetera, tells us that our attention is working completely in a regular, typical, predictable fashion. And you already mentioned the three biggies that might get us familiarity and salience, for sure, and goals also. But when you can finally tune the familiar because you’re being exposed to it over and over again, or you can finally tune the salience because it’s so self-related, or you can ensure that the goals are kind of kept in front of your mind. You know, like, at some point, you looked at, I talk about in the book, like, I was looking for this frying pan, like a, you know, pot or pan. And then I kept seeing pans all over the place because it was being forced onto me. Like, you look for pan. You must be interested in this.

00:18:15 – Eric Zimmer
Yep.

00:18:16 – Amishi Jha
So all of a sudden now, the goal that I had once is now kept at the front of my mind. It’s like, oh, yeah, I did want to get that pan. It’s like reminding your goals. So attention is doing what it does, but the circumstances are now aligning to tune up and really maximize engagement for the benefit of usually selling us a product, mining our attention to be exposed to potentially buying a product.

00:18:38 – Eric Zimmer
Right.

00:18:38 – Amishi Jha
So it’s totally driven by this whole structure. I just wanted to caution people that, first of all, don’t take it in. Like, it’s not like there’s something wrong with you. If you see your name and you want to click on it, that is, that’s the reason that your name and face are, or on every social media app, is because that’s the first step into hooking you in. And frankly, the other piece is that you can’t really fight against it because you’re gonna lose, because you’re not just dealing with your own kind of orientation toward social media content, but you’re dealing with very, very smart algorithms that are tuning up to you and a team of engineers that are programming it. So if we’re gonna take on this challenge, it cannot just be like, oh, my mind will not click on that bright yellow, shiny thing that’s saying, click here. Unlikely.

00:19:47 – Eric Zimmer
You say you can’t win that fight. Instead, cultivate the capacity and skill to position your mind so you don’t have to fight. Say a little bit more about that. I think that’s a really important point, is that if our goal is to bring our attention back to our own control and the things that matter to us. It does feel like it’s a fight. And like you, I tend to believe it’s a fight where we’re set up to sort of lose.

00:20:11 – Amishi Jha
Yeah. The way not to fight is to, at the kind of most fundamental level, pay attention to our attention to know where our mind is. Then there’s more sense of agency, just like anything else. Like I could have the most elaborate plans, but if I don’t know what the plans are are, and I’m not checking in with where I am relative to those plans, I’ll never be able to execute them. But what we lack, typically, is that checking in component or what we’d call monitoring. Right? We’re not monitoring ourselves and we’re not another kind of technical term, meta aware. We’re not aware of the contents and processes in our mind at play in any given moment. And we can cultivate the ability to be better at that. And that’s where mindfulness meditation can really be helpful, because it is a way in which we are better able to know our mind, not just in general, like I tend to be this way or that, but in this moment, what is occurring within me and around me so more fully, situationally aware.

00:21:08 – Eric Zimmer
I want to push on that a little bit and explore it a little further because I think it’s really important. I love the way you said in the book, we lack internal cues about where our attention is moment to moment in the spiritual habits program. What I say is, you know, if we’re trying to live a life, and basically I would say it would be living a life more based on principles that matter to us. Right. Living more by that goal orientation and the goal just be to be kinder. Right. So I think forgetting is the biggest problem. Your book advocates training, you know, twelve minutes in the morning with a couple different approaches and we can talk about what some of those are. I’m curious though, do you have suggestions on how else maybe during the day to get a little bit more of this? Because I do agree that a focused training period like you’re describing does help. And I know myself and a lot of people who do have morning mindfulness practice that we can still get pretty lost all day long and lose track of any of those internal cues. So do you have some ideas about how to weave those into more of the moments we have?

00:22:14 – Amishi Jha
Absolutely. First of all, I’d say that just to be clear about the prescription, it comes out of over a decade and a half of research, and the goal of that research is not how to maximize your spiritual fulfillment or life, but what is the minimum effective dose to protect attention in high stress circumstances? That’s a very different goal than other things. And that also that twelve minutes is not, in my view, the culmination or the be all, end all. It’s the starter.

00:22:42 – Eric Zimmer
Minimum effective dose.

00:22:43 – Amishi Jha
It’s the minimum effective dose. Thank you. Yes. And so I just wanted to mention that because people could say twelve minutes, what am I going to accomplish in twelve minutes a day? But it actually, we found, is beneficial. The other thing is that I don’t say when to do it. So do it whenever you’re going to do it still holds. The reason we do the formal minutes of day of mindfulness practice is so that the mental mode of mindfulness, which I describe as paying attention to our present moment experience without conceptually elaborating or emotionally reacting. We want to bring about more of that mode throughout the day because that is going to be the mode that allows us to connect with what’s happening in the moment and monitor the contents of our mind, as well as obviously taking stock of what’s happening around us, practicing so that we can just say we got it off our to do list. We’re practicing to elicit the more prevalence of that mode. But you’re right, there are ways in which we can advantage cueing ourselves to do that. So some of the things that we do, I’ll just give you an example from some of the research studies that we do, because we tell people what I just described to you, that we’re doing this so that we’re more mindful throughout the day. Not just that we’re olympic level breath followers. I mean, who cares, right? But how do you do that? So, for example, one of the practices that we give is these are all part of sort of the canon of what’s currently offered in the world of mindfulness training. And thankfully, that world is growing and more available to people. But something called the stop practice is a good one. And I recommend that people do this, and they use the cue of being stopped, meaning you’re stopped at a elevator, you’re stopped at a stop sign, you’re stopped at a crosswalk, you’re waiting in line. Anytime you stop and you notice the body is stationary, typically what happens in that moment? Pull out your phone, start doing stuff? No, use that as a moment to do this practice. And the practice is a mini mindfulness practice. So stop is an acronym for stop. You’re already stopped. Take a breath. And that’s just aware of one conscious breath, like you’re just. You’re not manipulating the breath or trying to take it more deeply. Just like we’ve been breathing this whole time but taking stock of it. Yeah, observe. So after that breath, you’re still kind of in that kind of mode of observing what’s occurring right now and then proceed. And, you know, I’ll tell you that one of the papers that we’re working on right now is a project we did in basic combat training with close to 2000 soldiers where they did this stop practice. They did a formal mindfulness practice, like we assign that I describe in the book. But then we asked them to do the stop practice, and we found benefited all kinds of things. Their sense of team cohesion, their ability to check out if the body was experiencing pain, to determine if they needed to take action. You know, like, for example, people talk about just fracturing their feet and legs and bones because they’re so negligent of taking stock of the body. But if you’re stopped in all these times and you’re just checking out what’s going on, and we actually guide them. Week one is the breath. Then it may be the environment, then it’s aspects of the body, then it’s people in your team. So it kind of follows different components of what the target of what you take stock of in that observe moment is, can really make a difference and cues people into that mindful mode repeatedly and multiple times a day. So that’s one thing that you could try.

00:25:56 – Eric Zimmer
I think that’s great. You know, I’m often thinking about triggers, like, what you use the word q q or trigger, like, how can we remember? And that’s a good one. I mean, I’ve talked about and heard about sort of like, if you’re stopped at a traffic light, but I love the idea of, like, stopped in any circumstance. That’s a great one.

00:26:12 – Amishi Jha
Yeah. And, you know, now I’m telling people more, like, if you feel the urge to pull out your phone, that’s a moment to practice. Stop.

00:26:19 – Eric Zimmer
Yeah.

00:26:19 – Amishi Jha
Because that’s giving you a sense of, like, something’s going on that makes you feel capable of doing that and maybe think, is that what I want to be doing now or my defaulting?

00:26:27 – Eric Zimmer
Yep. There are so many places I could take this, but we’re a little bit time limited. So I’m gonna. I’m gonna pivot to this place because it’s something I definitely want to talk with you about. And I think it’s important to reiterate sort of what? You said that the research you’re focused on is about improving attention. But you talk about attention, you say there are three major forces that degrade our attention. Stress, poor mood and threat. But it also sounds like early on you say that if we’re feeling cognitive fog, might be depleted attention. If we’re feeling anxious or worried, it could be hiJhacked attention. If we can’t focus, it might be fragmented attention. So not only are some of those things causes of degraded attention, but it sounds like degraded attention is also the cause of some of those things. Right. It seems like it’s a bi directional relationship. Would that be absolutely accurate?

00:27:19 – Amishi Jha
Absolutely.

00:27:19 – Eric Zimmer
Okay. So given that, whether most people who are not tactical professionals are going to say, you know what, I want better quality of life, right. I want to be a little bit happier. I want to spend less time ruminating and regretting. I want to be more present to the people I love, et cetera, et cetera. So given that this is a boy, this is a long setup for a question, isn’t it? But I’m going somewhere here.

00:27:40 – Amishi Jha
I trust you.

00:27:41 – Eric Zimmer
You talk about some strategies that people use for some of these things, like think positive, focus on the good, do something relaxing, suppress upsetting thoughts. We’ve got these series of strategies that I’m going to just put them under a bucket. I’ve heard you used this bucket before and tell me if you agree. Reframing. They are sort of reframing our experience. And then you used a term, maybe it was in the book and I missed it, but I heard it on another podcast. You said, well, there’s reframing and then there’s deframing. And I loved that idea. I was wondering if you could say a little bit more about those two. And then I want to talk a little bit about when might it be appropriate to do one versus the other, depending on what we’re trying to accomplish.

00:28:23 – Amishi Jha
Yeah, well, reframing, I think you’ve laid out very, very clearly already that essentially it’s a replacing of one kind of mental content with other mental content, and that can happen through even paying attention differently. So we’re still using our attention, but now I’m going to highlight different aspects of my experience to put different content at the center of my mind. It’s still using attention in that focused way, that narrowed way, that action oriented way. In some sense, deframing is saying, get back into that perching or being mode. It’s like we’re taking a look at the structure that we’re within, you know, a framework is an interesting thing. Reframing is almost like you’re ignoring the framework and you’re just filling it with new stuff. Like, you know, it’s a, it’s an apartment building and you’re just going to bring in new furniture. The apartment building still stands with the way it is, or even, let’s say, a particular room still has a sofa and a chair and a table, but they’re different. They’re a different kind of sofa, you know, a more fluffy one or genuine leather, whatever it is that you want, that you think is an improvement over the prior set of things. But the framework is the same. What I’m saying with deframing is first step is essentially be aware that you are within a framework, you are within a story, you’re within a set of contingencies and conditions and you’re acting within that. So if we can just even look around and say, oh wow, look at that. I have take by default that there should be a couch and a chair and a table in this. Do I have to? Like, that’s the first step of deframing and you can build back the same sort of components if you’d like, but at least you’re doing it with a will and with knowledge that I’m going to put everything back in a way that I’d like, or maybe I’m going to tear the whole thing down and build it up differently. So I just think most of us don’t understand that this is within our capacity to do it. Seems too hard. But when you understand with mindfulness practice, for example, that every time even we do something as simple as a breath awareness practice, or what I call the finder flashlight practice, noticing that the mind has wandered away from the goal is a little tiny moment of, oh, I wasn’t in that framework anymore. And, you know, moving towards something like an open monitoring practice, we’re really just kind of disregarding all of that, all the stories and concepts and just trying to kind of be in the raw moment to moment flow of our conscious experience, it’s also way to practice deframing. So I think that once we understand why we’re intending to do it, and I think that there’s a very important reason to intend to do it, is that sometimes frameworks are wrong, stories are wrong. More fundamentally, to get at what you’re saying regarding, you know, spiritual practice. In a spiritual life, replacing the couch is not going to make you happier. It’s going to mean you have a different couch. You know, that’s sort of the deeper issue is that maybe you want to take a look at the assumptions you’re holding of what it means to be able to achieve the happiness you’re seeking.

00:31:20 – Eric Zimmer
So deframing in this sense, would we say it’s similar to the acceptance and commitment therapy term of diffusing. And it’s a way of sort of stepping back out of thought. Right. And trying to observe that all these thoughts are happening. Is that the essence of it?

00:31:38 – Amishi Jha
It’s at the essence. Diffusion, decentering, becoming meta aware, all of that. And it does require stepping outside of what’s occurring, at least from the conceptual terrain or getting more embodied in our sensory experience so we’re not stuck in the concepts that are driving whatever’s going on in our mind in that moment.

00:32:22 – Eric Zimmer
One of the things you say with things like thinking positive, focusing on the good, suppressing upsetting thoughts, that the problem with a lot of those is that they do require attentional resources to implement. They use up attention, and instead of strengthening it, you call them failed strategies, because while we try to use them to solve our attention problems, they degrade attention even further. Say a little bit more about that.

00:32:45 – Amishi Jha
Yeah. And this is where it comes down to the context that I’m talking about now. Positive psychology, gratitude, journaling, a lot of things that fall within the umbrella of positive psychology, powerful things to do. There is a really strong evidence base that this is a helpful thing to do. But I’m specifically talking about people under high stress circumstances, protracted periods of demand. Like, for example, if you think about a critical care nurse, over the course of this pandemic, the notion of saying, think positive, think positive thoughts, that doesn’t even make sense. It’s like I’ve gone through what I’m seeing and the level of demand that I’m facing and utilizing my attention, I can’t even take a breath to do that. And I think trying to do that is where it becomes a failed strategy. You’re pushing against, against and utilizing fuel that you don’t have to expend. You don’t have it in your gas tank, you can’t use it.

00:33:38 – Eric Zimmer
Yes, yes.

00:33:39 – Amishi Jha
It can really make things more problematic for people because they somehow think they’re supposed to be able to do that. And what I wanted more fundamentally for people to understand is that that is not a cost free thing to do. It’s not like the default of your mind is to have positive thoughts, and you are going in the wrong direction to have negative thoughts. It’s that when things are occurring and the mind is filled with negative thoughts. It will take attentional resources to cognitively reframe, and that will be requiring you to have those resources available.

00:34:09 – Eric Zimmer
How do we get to the point where our deframing defusion mindfulness practices don’t feel effortful in the same way? Because it feels like for me to sit down and follow the breath and keep bringing my attention back to it and then back to it is also an attentional drain. But your studies seem to indicate that’s not really the case.

00:34:31 – Amishi Jha
Yeah, the studies certainly indicate that what we’re doing is bolstering core attentional resources and working memory resources. It can feel like it’s difficult, it can feel like it’s difficult, but that doesn’t mean that it’s actually draining attention in the same way that a very intense upper body workout can feel tiring, but you are actually working towards growing your muscles. It’s sort of like that idea. And I think that there are many ways in which you can practice so that it feels less draining in some sense, easing up, not having that. That kind of conflict that a lot of people can experience in practice, and a lot of that, I think, is optional. I don’t think you need to feel like a failure because your mind wandered. But people think somehow that if my goal is to pay attention to my breath, my mind should not wander. And what I’m saying is, the goal is to pay attention to your breath. The mind will wander.

00:35:28 – Eric Zimmer
Right.

00:35:28 – Amishi Jha
And actually remember that the moment you realize that your mind has wandered is a win.

00:35:33 – Eric Zimmer
Yes.

00:35:33 – Amishi Jha
And then, so instead of feeling that conflict and that effort and that drudge of like, oh God, my brain isn’t even staying stable. It’s what’s wrong with me? It’s like, ah, got it, I know where I’m off. I’ve got to get back. So even the way we orient to the practice at this more micro level can reduce that sense of dread and effort. But to kind of more broadly understand that something that feels effortful can still be building resources instead of depleting them.

00:36:01 – Eric Zimmer
Yeah, I love that. I think what you said there is so important, I’m kind of curious, does everybody naturally default to that sort of natural, like, oh, my mind’s wandering, so I’m failing. It just seems inherent with everybody I’ve ever talked to who’s taken up a practice like this. Do you come across people that don’t orient that way? Or is it just sort of natural to us to be told, if your job is to do this task, you just see that you’re not doing that task, you just go, oh, I’m not good at this.

00:36:29 – Amishi Jha
Okay. I think it’s even more fundamental than that. I think that this experience, this is what’s kind of interesting. Why are conflict states and negative emotion? Why do they co occur? Right? So anytime you have a mismatch between what you would like to have happen and what happens, there can be a slight dysphoria associated with it. That’s kind of interesting. So why is that? People have looked at this in cognitive neuroscience studies, where sometimes you just look to see if you impose a negative emotion on somebody, what happens to their cognitive control. And what you find is that sometimes the next thing that occurs, they’re better at it. It’s like that negativity can actually require us to bring more of our cognitive resources to solve the problem. So I think the yoking of conflict and what we call upregulation of cognitive control go hand in hand. It’s the signal that says, do something differently. Expend more mental effort to do this, bring more resources to bear. Even experiencing conflict is not a problem. But to realize that the conflict does not mean to translate into the elaborated notion that I’m a complete failure and this is never going to work out. That’s the mind doing something else. I think that it’s really interesting when you, especially when you talk to sort of long term practitioners, that conflict is seen with a neutrality that most of us don’t. When there’s a mismatch, it’s like, that’s data, that’s not, I suck. And I think that getting to that point, and especially, you know, within all of these kind of elite settings, I think people are trying to understand that, that if I add the layer of a conceptual story on top of the experience of conflict, it will slow me down in course correcting what the conflict signal is conveying.

00:38:13 – Eric Zimmer
Right, right. Yeah. And I just think it’s so important to work on not developing that aversive relationship with practice, because a lot of people, I think do, it’s that I’m failing at this, I can’t do this, I’m not any good at this. And I love that.

00:38:28 – Amishi Jha
I would even encourage people to just really break down the experience, like usually in our mindfulness practice. And, you know, and I talk about this too, it’s like you’re going to focus, you’re going to notice your mind wandering, and then you’re going to redirect back. But sometimes I will guide people to just hang out in the moment that they notice the mind has wandered away and really kind of get granular with that. What occurred first? What is the first thing that happened? Usually we’re having conflict, negative emotion. I suck. That’s a fast track. So what if it’s that whatever that visceral or, you know, feeling tone is of the mismatch? See if you can get more precise on that. Get cued into that mismatch feeling, and see if you can kind of take the elaboration that follows. And, you know, a lot of expert practitioners will talk about it. I remember talking to Mathieu Ricard, once, an adept practitioner, a buddhist monk, and he said it, and I thought it was so beautiful. He’s like, it’s not a storm. It’s like, I see slight undulations on the ripples of the pond. Whatever it is. It’s like, that would be awesome. If the slight movement of the water, the tranquility of the mind is disturbed, and you can say, ah, back on track.

00:39:38 – Eric Zimmer
Totally. Totally. Yeah. And I just wonder how much new practitioners have that ability to be that great.

00:39:45 – Amishi Jha
I think that it’s at least what we can do is say, observe it, see if you can track it. And it’s almost like what I would say to people, even when I think I do talk about this in the book, like, if you’ve ever had experienced or seen somebody experience a road rage, somebody gets cut off, and the next thing you know, somebody’s flipping somebody else the bird, or in, you know, terrible circumstances, there’s violence. What if you could actually grab ahold of the earliest moment that you. Whatever that initial inclination that I’m gonna have that feeling? And we know what that is. I mean, I always call it, as I noticed in my own practice when I was very early stages, is like, if there was a ballistic reactivity, I wasn’t gonna catch it. You know, if my kid did something and I was gonna shout, I was probably still gonna shout, but I would apologize more quickly.

00:40:31 – Eric Zimmer
Yes.

00:40:31 – Amishi Jha
Like, oh, I didn’t want to have that strong of a reaction. And I’m sorry, because even though I feel what happened was not okay, you didn’t need that extra stuff that just happened. You know, I don’t know if that gets at what you’re talking about, but that feels like part of the journey of what this is.

00:40:47 – Eric Zimmer
Yeah, well, you quote Lou Reed at one point in the book and said, between thought and expression lies a lifetime. I love any time the Velvet Underground shows up in a book, between thought and expression lies a lifetime. Reminds me of the Viktor Frankl quote, between stimulus and response, right? And I’ve said that I think sometimes the most practical thing a long history of different types of meditation practices given me, I think the most practical thing is that space between stimulus and response seems a little bit bigger. There’s a little bit more moment to be like, oh, hang on. You know, listeners couldn’t see that, but I sort of started to rise up in, like, a outrage and. But, you know, don’t get all the way there, you know. And to your point, then, yes, also learning to walk it back faster. And I love the idea that you just said about noticing that moment when your mind is wandered and really noticing what happens there, because in Buddhism, they talk about the five skandhas. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the five skandhas, but it’s describing a little bit of the way that we put together the sense of a self. There’s some initial, like vedana, like the very first thing, but they make a distinction between perception, like the raw sense data, and then all the layers that start getting added on top of that. Right. Positive, negative to the stories we might tell. Advanced practitioners say you can actually start to notice those extraordinarily fine increments. For most of us, it’s just like that. That whole process happens like that. But there is a way of breaking that down. I guess my question to you would be, what have you seen looking at the way our brains process data that might shed light on that or confirm that that’s kind of what happens. And do you see people being able to interrupt that pattern? Kind of the snap I just did. Do you see people being able to interrupt it or break it down?

00:42:46 – Amishi Jha
Yeah, I mean, I think the way that we look at it in my lab, there’s so many different people that are looking at this kind of thing. We can start to see even things like mind wandering. Let’s not even talk about sort of emotionally laden stuff. Obviously, mind wandering has that propensity. But what we know is that when people mind wander, for example, if we just have them do a simple task where they’re just pressing a button every time they see a digit on this screen, we know that the response times are going to become more and more variable when they are mind wandering. In fact, that’s the clue that they’re mind wandering, because usually a few seconds later, they’ll miss something or they’ll make an error or they’ll report back. Yeah, my mind was wandering so close in time to when we see a lot of variability. You see the costs of that variability on the consequential actions that need to be performed. And so what we know with mindfulness training is that there’s a reduction in that variability, and the performance is less prone to making errors like that. And people report mind wandering less. So I think that that’s a movement or that’s an insight that says, yes, the more you’re able to monitor moment by moment what’s going on, and you train your mind to do that through something like a breath awareness practice and the whole suite of practices. Now that I go into in the book, the more chances that you’re going to be able to course more quickly. And so even the windows, that’s the kind of thing we’re looking at now. It’s like the windows of variability. Can those shrink? Or what we know from, for example, the work that one of the postdocs in my lab, Tony Zinesko, is doing is we’re looking at what we call microstates. So these are essentially sort of the units of our kind of configuration of the brain, if you will, in a moment. And typically you can break this down into like 30 milliseconds. They’re small micro, micro kind of stability of the mind, these tiny windows. And what we know, for example, is that microstates tend to be temporally contingent. So the microstate you were in in one moment is likely to produce the next microstate. And we know what the microstates, at least the signature of what it looks like when people are completely off task or their mind is not on the thing they’re trying to do, or they’re highly variable. So if you’re in a highly variable kind of state, the next moment is likely to be highly variable. The question now is, with practitioners, can you see that the return back to a state of focus is more likely? So the temporal contingencies are actually being broken. And, you know, in some sense, it sounds, I mean, I’m going to leap now a lot, but if the mind is built for this kind of temporal contingency, which I think is definitely aligned with a lot of buddhist thought on, you know, sort of the contingent nature of reality.

00:45:31 – Eric Zimmer
Yeah.

00:45:31 – Amishi Jha
If you can train the mind to be less contingent, contingent so that there is kind of infinite potentiality from one moment to the next in the way that you can configure the brain.

00:45:41 – Eric Zimmer
Right.

00:45:43 – Amishi Jha
What are the benefits of that? And maybe that’s what we mean when we say even the term enlightenment is a non contingent mind.

00:45:50 – Eric Zimmer
It’s funny, I had up at the top of my notes, one of my favorite quotes by an old Zen master dogon, who said enlightenment is intimacy with all things. And I had that there because I think that speaks to attention. Intimacy is achieved by paying close attention to things. And what Dogon is saying is if we are truly that present, like you said, and that our micro states are not as conditioned to remain on the same thing. To your point, you’re starting to get towards something that looks more like enlightenment, which I think is fascinating, which is so interesting, right?

00:46:26 – Amishi Jha
Because in some sense there’s enlightenment and there’s psychosis when things aren’t in a contingent manner. So we’ve got to figure out the qualities that make it productive and warranted and worthy. And that’s where all of the other positive qualities and having an ethical orientation toward our existence can come into play totally.

00:46:45 – Eric Zimmer
Well, Amishi, thank you so much for coming on. I really enjoyed the book. It’s a great look into the neuroscience of attention. I read a lot of books about mindfulness. This is my job and yours stood out. I just found some of the ways you really dove into what’s happening to be truly fascinating, and we touched on a fraction of them. It’s a wonderful read and thank you so much for coming on.

00:47:07 – Amishi Jha
Oh, this is so much fun. Thank you for the great conversation.

00:47:27 – Chris Forbes
If what you just heard was helpful to you, please consider making a monthly donation to support the one U Feed podcast. When you join our membership community with this monthly pledge, you get lots of exclusive members only benefits. It’s our way of saying thank you for your support. Now we are so grateful for the members of our community community. We wouldn’t be able to do what we do without their support, and we don’t take a single dollar for granted. To learn more, make a donation at any level and become a member of the one ufeed community, go to oneyoufeed.net join the Oneyoufeed podcast would like to sincerely thank our sponsors for supporting the show.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

Debunking Brain Myths: What’s Really Holding You Back from Change with Sarah McKay

March 25, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Dr. Sarah McKay dives into debunking common brain myths and explores what’s really holding you back from change. She also discusses willpower and how it isn’t the magic bullet for behavior change. This conversation is all about separating fact from fiction when it comes to understanding your brain and how it works.

Key Takeaways:

  • [00:06:40] Neuromyths and neuroscience understanding.
  • [00:09:31] Lizard brain myth debunked.
  • [00:12:37] Constructed emotions vs. hardwired reactions.
  • [00:16:24] Language and emotional understanding.
  • [00:18:55] Change and brain plasticity.
  • [00:24:41] Willpower and self-control dynamics.
  • [00:30:36] Addiction vs. Habit Distinction
  • [00:33:21] Aging versus dementia distinction.
  • [00:38:24] Cognitive testing for memory concerns.
  • [00:40:43] Alzheimer’s disease research trends.
  • [00:44:47] Hearing loss as a risk factor.
  • [00:49:24] Sleep’s impact on brain health.
  • [00:51:20] Social connections and mental health.


Dr. Sarah McKay is a neuroscientist and science communicator, adept at making brain
science accessible for enhancing health, wellbeing and performance. She is the author of three books on brain health. The Women’s Brain Book: The Neuroscience of Health, Hormones, and Happiness, Baby Brain: The Surprising Neuroscience of How Pregnancy and Motherhood Sculpt Our Brains and Change Our Minds (for the Better), and Brain Health for Dummies

If you enjoyed this episode with Sarah McKay, check out these other episodes:

Understanding How the Brain Works with Lisa Feldman Barrett

Eating for Brain Health with Lisa Mosconi

How to Harness Brain Energy for Mental Health with Dr. Chris Palmer

By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

patreon

If you enjoy our podcast and find value in our content, please consider supporting the show. By joining our Patreon Community, you’ll receive exclusive content only available on Patreon!  Click here to learn more!!

Episode Transcript:

Eric Zimmer  01:10

What if I told you that some of the most popular beliefs about your brain, like the idea that you only use 10% of it, are completely false, and worse, these myths might actually be holding you back from real change. Today, I sit down with neuroscientist Dr Sarah McKay to debunk the biggest neuro myths you probably still believe. We’ll also explore why willpower isn’t the magic bullet for behavior change, and what actually is and Sarah shares a deeply personal shift. She’s making it 50 that might just change how you think about your own life’s pace. If you’re ready to separate fact from fiction when it comes to your brain, and maybe even rethink how you’re living, stick around. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is the one you feed. 

Hi Sarah. Welcome to the show. Thank you for inviting me. I am happy to have you on I first came across your work, I think because my partner, Ginny, subscribes to your email list. Oh, that’s cool. The thing that sort of hooked me and that I wanted to talk about was that you often talk about neuro myths. And so we’ll be getting into neuro myths. We’ll be getting into your latest book, which is called Brain Health for dummies and all of that in a moment. But first, we’ll start like we always do with the parable of the wolves. And in the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with their grandchild, and they say, in life, there are two wolves inside of us that are always at battle. One is a good wolf, which represents things like kindness and bravery and love, and the other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed and hatred and fear. And the grandchild stops think about it for a second. They look up at their grandparent and they say, Well, which one wins? And the grandparent says, the one you feed. So I’d like to start off by asking you what that parable means to you in your life and in the work that you do.

Sarah McKay  03:05

Yeah, it means quite a lot right now, I was thinking about this last night because I’m one of those sort of seasons of life. Let’s say my mother loves to talk about seasons of life where I think that kind of the balance and moments and places and people kind of working against each other. So I turned 50 at the very beginning of the year last year, it was a huge year. I wrote a couple of books. We had a lot going on. I had lots of great, exciting, fun things happen, but we also had quite a lot of stress in our family. And I decided that this year, turning 50, I was going to take, like, a gap year, I think growing up. So meant to call it a sabbatical, which is, I don’t want to be at my desk. I don’t want to be writing. I don’t want to be don’t spend too much time thinking. To be honest, I’m going to do podcasts and speaking, but I want to travel and I want to connect. I’m trying to sort of shift a balance. I think my oldest son, it’s his final year of high school, and he’ll probably go away to university next year. And I left academia many years ago when I had my boys, because I wanted to be at home with them. And I feel like it’s a really nice book end of his schooling to kind of be here. I mean, to be honest, he probably won’t notice whether I’m here or not, but he will notice the food and the baking, just to kind of shift my focus and just sort of slow down and live a bit of a slower linear like, I like to say, less of a 360 life. So I feel sometimes I can be in a tug of war between striving and achieving and trying to do all of the things and parent with trust, not anxiety, try and give up control and be a mentor. So I feel like I’ve purposefully decided this year, it’s not the word slow down, but perhaps anchor myself a little bit more. You know, people have a word of the year. Last year I had this word equanimity, and I think I’m going to. Reuse it again this year, because I think that’s about kind of being grounded and balanced. And when life is kind of rushing around, I’m going to try and be a little bit more like linear, choosing where to place my focus, yeah, in a calm away this year. I think I need that my body needs that. I want to give that to my family again. So that’s what that parable kind of it’s about not fighting between different ideas. It’s just about setting some aside and leaning into some others.

Eric Zimmer  05:27

Yeah, that idea of being away from your desk is one that sounds good. I’ve been working on my first book, and it’s due to the publisher in a month. So, Oh, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. So I spend a lot of time at my desk. Normally, you spend obviously, sitting down alone. Even, even more, yeah, and just lately, the last few days, I’ve just had this feeling like I get off. I’m like, I just need to go for a walk, you know, with no music, no audio books, no podcasts. I hate to say it, listeners. I don’t advise that. I think you should always have the one you feed on

Sarah McKay  06:08

to walk without a podcast. If you have a busy brain, I find it stops me thinking. As I say, I don’t like this. 360 my brain will just be going off in a million angles. So it’s

Eric Zimmer  06:18

I agree, and generally I felt like no stimulation for just even 30 minutes where it’s like there’s not something coming at me. So let’s move into talking first about neuro myths. What does that mean to you? And what are some of the most prevalent neuro myths out there? That’s interesting

Sarah McKay  06:40

because I haven’t thought, to be perfectly honest about neuro myths in quite some time. I feel like when I started, I sort of started the current phase of my career, which was very much about my background as a PhD neuroscientist, a research when I left academia and I was at home with my boys for a few years, and then I set up a practice, sort of teaching, talking, writing about neuroscience was probably at a point in time when I don’t know whether people, whether it’s gone backwards, people were as scientific literate as they are now, but then sometimes I wonder if that’s like, I say, changed again. Neuroscience wasn’t as popularized then as it is now, and I don’t think people had as clear understanding. And so there were lots of ideas people had about the brain that were reasonably whether they were widely shared or whether I just tuned into them, that as a neuroscientist, I’d never heard of, because when you’re in the neuroscience research world academia, you’re doing your thing, and you’re surrounded by other like minded people. And so then when I first stepped out, there were people saying things about the brain that I didn’t necessarily think were correct or I’d never heard of before. So I thought, I’m going to bust those myths. Let me show them and tell them. And so I started talking about some of these ideas, and honestly, it feels a little bit old fashioned for me now to talk about what some of them are, maybe these ideas around we have a right creative brain and a left analytical brain, and you’re either right brained or you’re left brained, or learning styles, either a kinesthetic or an auditory or a visual learner, we only use 10% of our brain. I think these are some of the more popular ideas that are out there about the brain, and initially I used to be I’m going to bust the myths, and I’m going to tell them. And I have learned a lot in the last sort of 17 years, I suppose, of doing what I do, that busting a myth isn’t a way of connecting with other people and educating them about neuroscience. No one wants to be told now what you think is wrong. In fact, that’ll make them dig their heels in, and that’s why I say when you say, what do neuro myths mean to me, this is what it means to me now. That’s not how I now approach their work that I do. It’s around taking ideas that are correct and are accurate and are based in the research, or at least our current understanding of where ideas about neuroscience are, and then sharing them in a way that will resonate with someone, that will land with someone. And then if they come to me and ask, Oh, what about this? Or what about that, then I might say, hey, let’s, let’s kind of take a look at what our latest understanding is. And often it will be kind of different. I suppose some ideas that have persisted over the years, and maybe not so much neuro myths, but might be just inaccurate ways of phrasing discussions about the brain. And perhaps the one that I still tend to rant on a little bit about would be the reptilian brain, or the lizard brain, and this, this gets thrown about as this kind of phrase, that we’ve all got this kind of lizard brain inside of us, kind of waiting to be scared, to freeze or to flee or to fight, where lizards don’t typically fight, and that kind of controls everything that could potentially go wrong. It controls our behavior. Here, and we don’t have a lizard brain, because we’re not lizards. We’re humans. Our brains are far more complex. We’re not born with this kind of fear hub inside us waiting for something to go wrong. So that is perhaps not a myth that I tell people is wrong, but I try and present different ideas instead, which I think are more contemporary ways of explaining how the brain works that I think are more useful and give people a bit more agency and a bit more to kind of move on with in a useful way,

Eric Zimmer  10:26

with the lizard brain. I mean, obviously I think that you’re right. We’re not lizards. Secondly, I think one of the things that you talk about in your book, and I think if you dig into neuroscience a little bit, you start to realize is that there’s a lot of connectivity among parts of the brain. So to think that one part of your brain is doing all of something is misleading. But is it safe to say that we have a part of our brain that is more I don’t even know if this would be safe to say limbically based, a part of our brain that is more reactionary, that is from older brain structures in creatures that we’ve evolved from and we’ve built on top of that, or is even that a misunderstanding? The brain

Sarah McKay  11:10

is complicated. It does a whole lot of things. This idea that we evolved from lizards, first of all, is inaccurate, because an evolutionary biologists will be able to tell you, we, you know, mammals didn’t evolve from lizards. If you kind of look at a kind of a an evolutionary tree, they branched off. We branched off. We kind of evolved along one kind of path, and they they evolved on the other. So this idea that we’ve retained some lizard part in us is inaccurate. On top of that, if we look at how the brain develops, this idea that there’s this kind of like layer by layer, kind of development of the brain, whereby these primitive, lizardy parts develop first and then the other parts grow on top, or develop on top. Again, that’s not necessarily how our brains develop, either. So the idea that they evolve and then develop in the same way has been set aside. The idea was really popularized many, many years ago, kind of back in the 1960s we’ve learned, let’s just say we’ve learned. We’ve learned a lot in the last five years, let alone a lot, from the 1960s when it was originally proposed this idea of this kind of lizard brain, or the limbic brain. It was proposed by this chap, Paul McLean, and when he was first describing the different parts of the brain, he didn’t even label the limbic brain, the so called limbic regions of the brain, as the lizard brain. He in fact, labeled them as the mammalian brain. The lizard part, or the reptilian part of the brain, was even kind of more sitting below. There was more parts of the brain that are involved with things like kind of respiration and heart rate and sleep and awake, etc. So if his description is accurate, people aren’t using his description accurately today. Yeah. And I think what’s kind of funny, what I always encourage people to do is do a Google Image Search for lizard brain, or reptilian brain, and look to see the diagrams that people have drawn of this. And you could get an array of 20 of them. And I guarantee every single one of them will label a different part of the brain as lizard or reptilian. And the reason they can’t label it is because it doesn’t exist. It’s not kind of a thing. What we understand now, the current contemporary neuroscience perspective, and this may change, is that we don’t have these kind of hardwired neurobiological basic emotions that are widened from birth, whereby every human on the planet is going to respond in an identical way, in the same way that every lizard on the planet does, like Elizabeth Morocco in New York and in my backyard here in Sydney, are all going to behave the same way where humans don’t. Instead, we talk about this idea of constructed emotions, and some of this has been popularized by various neuroscientists, whereby like everything else in our brain, like a thought or a memory or an expectation or a belief and emotion is also constructed from kind of multiple inputs, or we could think about them as like ingredients. So some of these would be from our bottom up, kind of physiological body, the sensations we feel in our body. Some of us are more consciously aware of what happens in our body than others, the situation we’re in, the context we’re in, the people we’re with. I mean, and there’s a whole lot of data coming in these days from like your mobile phone, so war happening on the other side of the world is now happening 30 centimeters away from your face. And that gets combined with our memories and our personal experiences, the language we’ve learned to describe these kind of feelings, and so there’s this kind of conglomeration of or this kind of a mix or construction of all of these different components that create this kind of feeling that we would have, that we would give a particular word to. And we know that this is the case because people can. To learn to experience new emotions as they have different experiences as they’re going through life, we gain a much broader kind of emotional vocabulary, so to speak, as we get older, we see this from small children to teenagers to adults, in terms of the nuance and the kind of shades of gray that we learn to understand and feel and experience. And we also know from say therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy or other types of sort of learning or training that we can learn to respond in different ways to situations by understanding all of these different inputs. If we had a lizard brain that controlled our emotions, where would be like the lizard in Morocco, New York or Sydney, there would be no variation, and that’s not the case in a human Do

Eric Zimmer  15:45

you think the lizards are insulted by us constantly talking about them in this way?

Sarah McKay  15:50

I don’t really think that lizards, you know, have that many deeper thoughts. I do. I do spend a lot of time. I’ve got a little lizards. Let’s say I’m very familiar with lizards. Have a little lizards. Sort of happening in my house. There’s lizards inside the house. Australia is a wild place to live. There’s a lot of wildlife in and out. My dog just thinks that they’re all meant to live in here with him. Is it learned that they don’t belong? What I really try to teach and encourage people to do is to think about the words and the phrases they use to describe neuroscience and, or the brain and or their behavior, because it can be very limiting if we use certain phrases, it almost dials us in to think that that is the only option. So I don’t even like using the word stress, and that’s kind of, I suppose, related to these ideas of lizard brains where we say the word stress, it’s a useless word the English language, because it could mean the thing that’s happened out there now, whether it be a natural disaster or something that you’ve seen on your phone, or it could be something that you’ve imagined. It could be a threat, it could be a challenge. It could be an opportunity. One event could be all those three different things, depending on who you are, we’ve got various sort of physiological response systems which have deployed over different sort of time scales in response to those threats, challenges and opportunities. We’ve got sort of our stress response systems, but they’re not only responding when something is scary or a threat, they’re also responding. You know, your heart rate rises as as you stand up, so you don’t faint. That’s controlled by your sympathetic nervous system. Some people like to call that your fight and flight system. Your heart rate isn’t rising as you stand up because you were once chased by a saber toothed Tiger. It’s just how your body is responding and engaging, right? And then we’ve got the feeling that we use, so we’ve got the threat, challenge or opportunity, the response systems. And then we’ve got this word that we would use to describe, you know, our physiological response in the context. And again, we like to use the word stress. So what I try and do with all of the neuroscience education I do is to give people a very clear biological understanding of what is happening, and then some more sophisticated language to describe that, and that blows open opportunities for them to act in different ways instead of focusing in or we’ve got a lizard brain in this fight or flight,

Eric Zimmer  18:17

yep. So let’s change directions just a little bit, because I’d like to get a neuroscience perspective on a couple of different things. So one of the things that this show is about, and one of the things that I help people do in various different ways, is to make changes in their lives of different types. But change is difficult. This may be me using a broad term like change, which is like using a broad term like stress that doesn’t isn’t helpful enough, but from a neurological perspective, is there a reason that change is so difficult for us?

Sarah McKay  18:55

Yeah. I mean, as a neuroscientist, bat that back and ask you to define change in a little bit more of a clear way. So if I was to reframe that question and think about change would be, you’re in place a, and you want to get to place B. Now that might be, you’re wanting to learn something new. So maybe you’re, you know, you’re 15 years old, and you’re the real example. You’re in high school, and you’re studying Shakespeare, and you’ve got to learn some quotes, but you know an essay that you’ve got to write in class coming up, that’s change. That’s you’ve got to read Shakespeare, which you find a struggle and really difficult. And then you’ll get to the point where you’ve learned those and you can understand and write about that. So that’s change. Learning something new is change having, perhaps a mood that you know you’ve got low mood, and you’ve been struggling with that for some time, and you want to have more upbeat mood. So perhaps you’ve been diagnosed with depression or anxiety, perhaps you’ve just got the blues, yeah, and you want to not be like that anymore. That’s that’s also changed. So we’ve got different. Types of scenarios, or perhaps you’re trying to learn a new skill. Like, you know, I’m in a musical theater group. I’m very untalented at singing and dancing, but I do like knocking about in the back row with the other mums and the ensemble. We’ve got to learn a new dance for the show coming up, and it’s like we first get taught it. And again, that’s change. I have to change something to be able to get from point A to point B, and if you are, you know, five years old or 10 years old, and it’s a context relevant type of learning that you’re doing or change that you’re trying to make it is a whole lot easier than it is when you’re 50 years old. Anything is easier to learn when you’re young versus old. And one of the principles around that is based on the degree of plasticity in which your brain kind of has, or the degree to which it changes by experience. And we know that there are certain times through life, particularly during infancy, childhood, adolescence, and then, interestingly, some context relevant plasticity takes place in pregnancy for women, where the brain is incredibly kind of receptive and can be shaped very, very easily by the experiences it has. And in fact, it often fundamentally requires those experiences to guide its development appropriately. And we might call these sensitive periods of development. And by and large, these kind of phases of life open, and then they close because you want to grow up and learn and adapt to the environment in the context in which you’re in and be changed and molded and shaped for it, and then an adulthood function within that. And so what we see is that the capacity for plasticity dialing down some types of different brain networks that are responsible for different types of behaviors we might perform will retain plasticity longer than others. So your hearing centers in your brain are very, very plastic when you’re very, very young in infancy, and then they kind of close down. So it’s much harder to learn languages later in life than it is earlier in life. And if you’re born profoundly deaf and you never hear spoken language, it’s going to be very, very hard for those brain centers to ever hear spoken language later in life, if there’s not an intervention straight away. However, we can still learn to solve a maths problem. We can still learn to play a new musical instrument. You can still learn new dance moves in your 50s. You know, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. It’s just whole lot harder than it was then. So again, it’s going to very much depend on what is this change that you are wanting to make, and what is the process by which you’re going to go through that change, if it’s learning a new motor skill, if it’s changing a thought process. Often, those are kind of two different things, because learning something new is often easier than trying to unlearn something old. Because typically say you have this thought that you’re always having, perhaps you’re berating yourself for being a useless mother. I used to do that. Now I think I’m a brilliant mother, but back in the day, when my boys were young, I used to think I was terrible. I was completely fine. I was just going through early toddlerhood years. It was very hard to unlearn that to stop that thought process. In fact, I had to figure out what triggered that thought process, and this is what we would do if we were talking about habit change. What is triggering or causing that particular thought, and what can I think or do instead, when I encounter that trigger, instead of trying to unwind a thought, I had to learn a new thought in its place. Yeah, so it’s very important, when we’re talking about change, to say, Am I just trying to learn something new? Do I need the skill development that someone could teach me. Am I having to learn something new? I really don’t want to like learning Shakespeare quotes. And so the problem isn’t the teaching and the skill development. The problem is like the kind of the motivation and the grit and the kind of emotional regulation required to perform the task even, and the absence of wanting to or is there some particular habit or learned skill that you don’t want to do anymore, so you need to kind of unpack the trigger for that and learn a new process in its place. And those are three different kind of brain networks and processes that would be involved for change

Eric Zimmer  24:41

in psychology studies, there is discussions about the idea of willpower or self control and in general, the behavior change lens on this is that you want to rely on these things as little as possible, right? You want to set up your environment. You want to. Get all the support that you can get, et cetera, et cetera. But neurologically, do we know where this idea of willpower or self control comes from, which I guess I’m just gonna define it as I’m in a moment where I need to make a choice, and I’ve got the two wolves going, right? And one wolf is the one that I’ve decided I want to follow, and the other is the other Wolf. Do we know what’s happening neurologically when somebody is sort of in a moment of wrestling with these questions and then making the right choice? Is it solely an executive function? Do we know

Sarah McKay  25:38

it probably depends how sophisticated your self awareness and executive functions are, and whether you’re able to kind of stand back and look at those choices from a distance and then consciously choose which one or the other to choose, or whether you know perhaps you’re very emotionally dysregulated and you know you’ll be driven to the right or the wrong decision, you’re listening to your emotions instead of being able to thoughtfully engage in that task. What I always try to explain to people is pretty much that one of the main things that the brain does is it draws from our past experiences and predicts what we should do next. So whether that be, you know, the construction of emotion, last time I was in this situation and my body was feeling this way, surrounded by these people, then this is what I felt. So I’ll feel that again. Or the last time I was in this situation, I made choice A, and that felt really good, so I’m going to do choice A again. Or last time I was in this situation, I chose B, and it did not work. I was very disappointed, or it was really scary or I really didn’t enjoy it, so I’m going to do a instead of B. So all your brain is doing is kind of gathering a lot of information as it goes along through life, and stores that information so that when you’re in that situation next, you can make that decision about what to do. And a lot of the time we will be making decisions based on did that feel really good last time, or did that not feel so great last time? And part of that learning process, the signaling process, for that, one component of that there’s a whole lot going on, is what we would call, like, kind of our dopamine system. People think that dopamine is released just when something feels great, but actually it’s a learning cue. It’s been constantly kind of dribbled out this kind of, like really sort of slow rate. And the reason the brain often sort of has these kind of baseline rates. It’s not going from zero to on it’s got a baseline rate that means it can dial up the release and it can dial down the release. So you’ve got far more kind of, you know, scope there for dopamine to act as a teaching signal. So if something was really horrible. Last time you did it, dopamine dropped off. If it was really good last time, dopamine went up. And that’s a teaching signal that didn’t work, that did work. And so the next time you encounter that in advance of you making the decision to act, you’ll be going, Oh, that felt really great, or that didn’t feel really great, and that’ll be part of the desire to do it again, or the kind of, oh gosh, the feeling of not wanting to do it again. Often the problem lies therein when last time you think you didn’t really enjoy it, but it’s kind of the smart choice, and then you’re trying to override that feeling of aversion or disappointment, or, you know, just, I don’t want to do that, but that’s the thing that you’ve got to do, and that’s really tough, yeah, and that’s all around dopamine acting as a teaching signal so our brain can predict what to do next.

Eric Zimmer  28:32

Well, you’ve got the other example also, which I think addiction is the extreme version of 100% you know, I’ve heard addiction framed as a learning disorder. I’m a recovering person. When I heard that, it made a certain sense to me, because in the beginning it was all good. It’s obvious to me why I did it and why I kept doing it, because it felt freaking great, and I loved it, and it made my life. That’s kind

Sarah McKay  28:55

of the unspoken, yeah. Thing about especially, they say drugs of addiction or it feels really good, that’s why you keep doing it.

Eric Zimmer  29:03

But over time, the adverse effects start to really add up, and it almost seems as if the brain is not getting the new learning information on a deep enough level, right? It almost just seems like that reward learning loop somehow has just been broken, yeah, but I think we can say this even on a much lesser level. Let’s say people who have a mild issue with eating more than they want to in the evening and when they do it now, what they end up with is shame and remorse, which seems that if reward learning was driving the whole show, your brain would be like, Oh, the last three times I did that, maybe it felt good for a minute, but I just then felt terrible for an hour. And yet, yeah, we continue, particularly

Sarah McKay  29:53

when we’re talking about drugs of addiction, but they have a psychoactive component, part of the. Problem there is they’re acting on the exact same neural pathways and synapses as that reward learning process. So that kind of makes it twice as hard because they’ve interfered with that process others. You know, it’s more like the act of doing them, the psychological processes acted on those pathways. So I don’t know enough about addiction and neuroscience to know how much we can sort of differentiate and tweak between those two, but I suppose one of the definitions, and there’s many definitions of addiction, is that you are compelled to keep on doing this behavior or activity despite the negative consequences, even if you’re not getting the high or the pleasure from it anymore. And that’s the difference between what we would call a habit or an automated behavior and an addiction. Because a habit, you can always intervene, you can consciously intervene. Whereas an addiction, you’re often compelled. Even if you don’t want to do it, you still appear to be compelled to do it despite the negative consequences. And that makes that very, very hard. And I mean, that’s why we have these, you know, support programs of people with problems, because, again, these circumstances change is so incredibly difficult,

Eric Zimmer  31:11

yep, and so a habit has aspects of that nature to it, though, right? I’m basically probing it an unanswered and probably unanswerable question, right, which is, where does something verge from being a bad habit into an addiction? And I don’t think we have to answer that, but there is something happening even with a bad habit. You sort of feel it right? You might technically yes, you can intervene, but I like to think of as like the habit energy, which is just the pushing forward. Yeah. It feels so strong,

Sarah McKay  31:46

yeah. And often, I mean, if it was a, as I like to call them, a true habit from a neuroscience perspective, which was very, very similar to an automated behavior. Riding a bike, for example, as some motor process that is learned, you have to be very conscious and aware about it, engage a lot of cortical networks to learn that process, and then eventually your brain goes right? I know how to do that. I’m going to store that down in the striatum, where I will just roll that motor program out when someone gets on a bike you don’t, you know, roll the motor program out when you’re not on a bike. So there’s a specific trigger or contextual situation in which that behavior is performed, and it doesn’t require, typically, motivation. You know, you don’t really need to think about how to do it. It’s a little bit like the analogy of brushing your teeth. I like to say, well, it’s a light brushing your teeth, but actually, it’s not just going and brushing your teeth. It’s that the way that you move your hand around your mouth, move the brush around your mouth. You probably do that the same every time, but you never really think about that. So again, that’s a stored behavior. But you can get on a bike and go, Well, I’m just going to not pedal. I’m going to stand here and not do that. So you can intervene consciously. Got it? Yeah, the addiction would be not being able to stop yourself from doing that despite not wanting to so that’s how we would differentiate a habit from an addiction. Addictions that compulsion despite the negative consequence.

Eric Zimmer  33:09

Let’s talk a little bit about some of the things in your brain health for dummies book, and the things that you talk about in that book are cognitive diseases, Alzheimer’s, dementia being some of the most common ones. I think there’s a section that’s called knowing what’s normal aging versus dementia. So talk to me about this, because those of us like you and me who’ve hit 50, right? We have to start to wonder about this stuff a little bit like, Okay, what’s normal here, and what’s this? What’s early mild cognitive impairment, and my dad died of Alzheimer’s. Jenny’s mom died of Alzheimer’s. So we’re on the lookout to a certain degree. So how do we know what is normal aging and what is a problem? Yeah, we

Sarah McKay  34:02

do get to a certain point in life when you have those sort of, like, tip of the tongue moments, or you used to be really, really quick and sharp. And I’m like, that, I used to be like, really, really quick and sharp, and now I’ve got like, quick, sharp teenage sons. And it drives me crazy, because I think I’m kind of a bit Dopey and slight. And I’m like, Excuse me, I’m very well qualified. I may be your mother, but that doesn’t mean I’m not capable. So we do get to these points in life when, when these things happen, or they can happen throughout life, it just may depend what we want to attribute them to. And to use the example of teenage boys who are very sharp and quick they I reckon at least two or three days a week. Now, still, they’ll come to me because they can’t find their school tie, or they can’t find their shoes, or one of them left their PE bag at school. Now, if I was doing that much forgetting of my personal belongings, I would be probably at the GP asking. For some kind of cognitive test, but we’re not assuming that there’s anything wrong with them. What’s probably going on there is attention. And when we think about memory, and we think about what we remember, a big part of the information that we take in and what we filter out is around attention, and that’s one of our most kind of precious resources, or we can kind of learn how to control that we’re kind of halfway there. So sometimes, when we are forgetting things, that we’re leaving things in places, it’s really just coming down to, what are we choosing to pay attention to, and what are we not we know through pregnancy and early motherhood, lots of women, many, many women, four out of five women will say, Oh, I’m really I forgetful. I can’t remember everything, like my brain’s not working the way it used to. And part of that is around attention, and just still trying to do it all, as well as trying to look after a whole new human so again, a lot of that is around attention, but other times in life, it may not be, you know, just that there’s a lot going on and we’re trying to remember things. You may genuinely feel that there is some kind of cognitive impairment with your brain, or you might just be noticing that things are sort of starting to slow down or change. And as we go through life, we know that one thing that does change is kind of the processing speed at which we’re kind of able to sort of sort through all of the information that we have with our brain and retrieve it. You know, part of that is not that the information is not there and it’s inaccessible. We might just be a bit slower at retrieving it. However, at the same time, we’ve learned, we’ve gained a whole lot of experience and a whole lot of wisdom. So, you know, we’ve also got this kind of treasure trove of content and information and learning that the young, Swift thinkers don’t necessarily have at hand. Forgetting where you’ve left things is probably an attention issue, and it’s pretty common and normal. Forgetting how to drive a car or getting lost when you’re driving that’s when we need to sort of start checking things out. So then you would head off to your general practitioner or your family doctor, or wherever you are in the world. I tried to write this book so everyone in the world could read it, because there’s different healthcare systems in different places, so people are going to have access to different resources. But essentially, then you would go and you might say to you, I would go down to my local GP, and I’d say, ruzica, I’m forgetting things. And then she would just look at me, because she’s this very tall Eastern European lady, and she’d be like, tell me a little bit more. I mean, she would be slightly skeptical knowing me. But then there’s various types of cognitive testing that can be done that would act as a good screening tool to help her decide we need to send Sarah off to say, a memory clinic to get this looked at in much more detail. Or we can reassure Sarah that this is completely normal, and there’s standard tests that are used in a lot of places in the world where, say, a perfect score might be 30 and test all different aspects of your memory and your reasoning and your being able to name objects and remember numbers, there’s a lot of kind of quick type executive skills that are tested in these and say, a perfect score is 30, if you got below sort of 2425 then that might be kind of cause for concern. And perhaps we’ll go away and do a bit more of an investigation to see are these cognitive symptoms the sign of something to be concerned about, something neurological. If you get above that, it might just be you need to kind of look at, you know, what’s your sleep like? What’s your mood like? Are you doing enough exercise, all the kind of typical health and well being things just to kind of get you back on track? Because it might not be neurological, it might be just lack of well being.

Eric Zimmer  38:38

So if you draw a clock and it looks like a Salvador Dali picture. That’s a good sign that maybe things are going wrong. Yeah.

Sarah McKay  38:44

So there’s lots of different kinds of tests in there, like here, copy this, or remember this, you know, we’ll name 10 animals, you know, be able to kind of perform those and and I guarantee that a teenager will be able to do that quite quickly. Someone in their 50s will be doing that slower. You probably get there. But you might not be quick, quick, quick, quick. But then, as I talk about in the book, there are lots of different types of mental abilities. And if I was going to go and have brain surgery because, you know, say, I had a benign tumor that I needed removed, for example, I would much rather have a 55 year old skilled surgeon who maybe sometimes was a bit slow at remembering names, versus the 22 year old trainee who’s super, super, super quick. Because obviously there’s a skill set involved there. So there’s, there’s a whole lot of different ways to think about mental capacity as we age. And there’s this lovely idea whereby, you know, perhaps we do need to be kind of quick and fast, and we’re building, and we’re kind of creating, and we’re kind of as we’re younger, we’re needing all of the quick fire, and then as those skills kind of lessen as we get older, that’s okay, because we need to be kind of still, and we need to be slow, and we need to be. They’d gather the information and mull over it and impart wisdom. So maybe becoming like, if you’re a female, a matriarch, isn’t about having that quick fire memory and remembering every single little item. It’s about the kind of the slower imparting of wisdom in a more thoughtful way

Eric Zimmer  40:22

you Is there much happening in the neuroscience world that you’re aware of that seems exciting on this dementia front, there’s

Sarah McKay  40:43

things that are happening and then the things that I’m excited about. So I think that people are desperate to try and find, like, a cure. If you’ve been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or frontier temporal dementia, or one of the dementia is like, what kind of medicine can we give that person and make them better straight away. And there’s lots of different people working on that problem, and it’s incredibly complex. Because, you know, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of unhealthy brain degeneration, typically seen as you’re older, but it’s kind of an accumulation of years, if not decades, of, you know, unhealthy brain aging, and so it’s not like if you’ve broken a leg, where you can kind of fix it. So it’s a very complicated problem in there. What I’m more interested in, which I think is more kind of population data science, I think, is taking a look like a really big like, kind of zooming out from the whole globe, looking at rates of dementia around the world, and looking at different kind of cohorts of ages of people going through because we’ve got a lot of throwaway statistics about dementia, like, two out of three cases of dementia are women. Why is it women? Is it something to do with female biology? Let’s look at menopause, and that must be the answer give women. HRT, we’ve solved Alzheimer’s disease. No one’s kind of going back to that original statistic and trying to interpret and understand that. And it’s interesting if you look at the difference between prevalence, which is the number of people with a diagnosed disorder at any kind of moment in time versus incidence, which is kind of always the rate in which you’re adding new cases in. We’ve also got, it’s like a pool of water. You’ve got incidence as the inflow, but you’ve also got people dying as they’re flowing out the bottom. And if we look at healthy, wealthy countries around the world, sometimes the US is included in that. Sometimes it’s not Australia, and you know, say the Nordic countries and some European countries, let’s just say to be more safe, we’re actually seeing the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias declining slightly. We’re seeing more prevalence, because this is less outflow, because people are living longer, but actually the inflows slowing a bit. So we’re starting to see that incidence coming down, and that gives us some clues to the cause. And we know partly the incidence is coming down because we’re getting much better at treating some of the diseases that predispose people to Alzheimer’s, like heart disease and metabolic disorders, diabetes, etc. So that’s slowing the incidence down in the healthy, wealthy countries, but we’re not seeing that in parts of the world that are less wealthy and more unhealthy, where there’s much lower socio economic support, where people are poorer but want a better language. So that’s interesting, because I think if we take that perspective, it gives us clues into where we could be intervening as well. Yeah, the two out of three cases of dementia. We need to have a look at Alzheimer’s disease, and again, prevalence versus incidence. And what we see in terms of Alzheimer’s disease, that males and females. When we’re looking at women in their sort of 60s, 70s and 80s, we’re looking at people in their 60s, 70s and 80s. There’s more females in there because they’re living longer. But are the incidence rates, the kind of the rates of inflow the same? It would be very easy to think, oh, it’s the rate of inflow of females is much greater. But actually, you don’t see a greater rate of inflow until you’re looking at people in their 90s. The men just kind of die off soon as they’re coming out of the pool. So the overall prevalence is higher. And so we’ve got to start to be a little bit more sophisticated with thinking about the stats, instead of assuming the statistic that you heard is correct and then trying to look at the causes. From there, I’m interested in taking this bigger picture perspective, because we must do that, or else we will jump to trying to solve a problem that may not necessarily be the right problem to solve midlife the greatest risk factor, which no one talks about because it’s very unsexy and it doesn’t make for good social media content is hearing loss. So untreated hearing loss, and then later in life, untreated vision loss, and no one wants to talk about them because they’re very, very boring and very unsexy. But what does that mean if. You can’t hear and you can’t see, your brain is not like interacting with the world. It’s not receiving input from the world. It’s almost shutting off one of the signals coming up from your body. It’s completely shutting off those senses to the world. And that’s how we kind of take in and make meaning of the world and navigate our way around and use our brain for what it evolved to do. So there’s lots of kind of points in which we can intervene. And I think unless we take this big picture perspective, that’s what I’m interested in, we’re going to be intervening in the wrong places. That

Eric Zimmer  45:31

makes a lot of sense. I mean, honestly, a lot of the things that you do to be more preventative of Alzheimer’s all fall into the not very sexy category. I mean, it’s the basic stuff, like eat, better exercise, get better sleep, yeah,

Sarah McKay  45:49

all of those things, yeah. And most health and well being advice is boring. It’s, you know, I like to call them the tech bros. I call them ice bath boys. They like to dial it on that top 1% and like tweak that is because they think that’s going to matter, but the vast majority of the population isn’t doing the 99% so the top 1% isn’t going to make any difference. They just popularize it. Yes, you know, we need to get all all of those basics right, and some of those basics are beyond the control of an individual, air pollution, education in childhood, you know, a lot of those. Or head injury. I mean, you can, like, try and prevent getting a concussion, but, like, you might just get knocked over by your dog and hit your head, you know, you know, we’ve got lots of contributing factors, either that are risk factors, individual risk factors, but the individual can’t necessarily do things about and then that overall metabolic health, heart health, metabolic health that we talk about, which is the diet and the exercise and keeping, you know, your blood pressure under control and your cholesterol down, and all of the boring things most people aren’t doing, and a lot of people just don’t have the education or the capacity or the kind of resources to be able to manage that Well, and particularly in parts of the world, you know, the low and middle income countries, is even harder to do that, and that’s where we’re seeing the cases of dementia rising. Yeah. I

Eric Zimmer  47:09

mean, I do think you make a really good point in the book, and you just made it there, which is that there’s a bunch of risk factors. There are some that are modifiable. And then even within the modifiable ones, right? There are some that are going to be easier given your geographic, socio economic type status,

Sarah McKay  47:32

yeah, health is this enormous kind of social factor embedded in it that people don’t realize. I live in the northern beaches of Sydney, one of the healthiest, wealthiest kind of you know, places to live in, Australia, if not the planet. And it’s very easy to be healthy when you are resourced and when everyone around you is fit and healthy. If I lived in a completely different part of the world, I’d be surrounded by a completely different social and resource environment, which would make it that much harder, and it perhaps wouldn’t occur to me, because everyone I know wouldn’t be behaving in a certain way. So I think we need to be very, very careful, and I know that there’s a bit of a shift without like trying to police language. It’s not about that, but if we’re talking about lifestyle choices, there’s a bit of shame in there, and it’s not always taking into account why people make a lifestyle choice, it may not just because they lack will power. It’s usually very, very complicated,

Eric Zimmer  48:27

yep, yep, which is why changing behavior can be so very challenging, because there are so many different factors. What are a couple of other things besides the things we just talked about around diet, exercise, sleep, that are risk factors that are modifiable. Let me even broaden it out a little bit, because I think that what we’re talking about is a healthy brain here at any age, right? And so we may choose to engage with these things more, because we’re like, oh, I don’t want to get Alzheimer’s. We may just choose to engage with them because we just want to have a healthier brain overall. What are a couple other strategies people could kind of walk out of here that they should be thinking about if they want a healthier brain? Yeah,

Sarah McKay  49:13

I think if I had to kind of choose a couple, and I would like to try and choose those which are most important, one would be sleep. Lots of people have problems with getting a good night’s sleep, and there’s lots of resources out there now to teach us about sleep hygiene and how to kind of manage sleep. And again, that’s kind of a bit boring, but it’s super important, because that’s sort of the foundation on which everything else can be built. If you miss one night’s sleep, you feel not great, weeks, months. And it increases, you know, mortality, yeah, and it increases poor brain health, and then lots of those kind of first signs and symptoms people might start to query about, is my brain working? May be around an adequate sleep, or you’re sleeping, but it’s not good, deep, healthy sleep. So if you can, you know, do all of the things. And to get your sleep sorted, that would be great. But again, don’t need to belabor that point. Yeah, the thing that I think perhaps always, always shows up in all of the research search I do and the teaching I do, is around it’s another s, it’s that social, you know, the sort of the social relationships and people that we have around us, and they can be the source of the greatest kind of, you know, neurological architecture and support that we need for a healthy brain, but they can also perhaps be one of the greatest sources of stress and stress, yeah, and I think if we look at the phases of life we go through when there’s probably these inflection points whereby our brains are most vulnerable, say, to develop mental health problems or later in life, neurological, you know, problems or diseases of unhealthy brain aging. So we look at puberty and adolescence, young people a bit more vulnerable to mental health disorders. But a large component of that is this, the social brain is going through this massive phase of reorganization from, you know, the focus towards family, towards friends, and the greatest vulnerabilities, there are kids who are lonely or socially isolated, or perhaps are being bullied or picked on. It’s the social component there that the greatest risk or the greatest kind of benefit, we see, that all throughout life, that the social architecture that we have around us is one of the strongest, and in some studies, it comes up almost top, is the strongest kind of protection for good health. The Biggest Brain reorganization that we’re seeing taking place is in the social networks of the brain. Because we’re, you know, we’re tribe animals, it’s fundamental to our health and well being to have good, strong, healthy social connections, you know, like, go out and make lots of friends. Sounds like a little bit of a trite piece of advice, but you might think about this, I actively chose to do this after I wrote my first book, because I spent, like, a year sitting down in my office alone with my dog, writing, and I got to the end of the year, and I had this book, but I felt terrible because I’ve been doing all of the opposite things that I should be doing to feel healthy. So I needed to get up, out in the world, move, connect, communicate, interact with other people, then you’re kind of using your brain for what it evolved to do. Didn’t evolve to sort of sit in a little room all alone, staring at a screen. Yeah, it evolved to be moving and navigating around the world with other people by your side.

Eric Zimmer  52:27

Excellent. Well, I think that is a great place for us to wrap up, Sarah, thank you so much for joining me on the show. It’s been a real pleasure to talk with you. You’re very welcome. Thank you so much for listening to the show. If you found this conversation helpful, inspiring or thought provoking, I’d love for you to share it with a friend. Sharing from one person to another is the lifeblood of what we do. We don’t have a big budget, and I’m certainly not a celebrity, but we have something even better, and that’s you just hit the share button on your podcast app or send a quick text with the episode link to someone who might enjoy it. Your support means the world, and together, we can spread wisdom one episode at a time. Thank you for being part of the one you feed community you.

Filed Under: Featured, Podcast Episode

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Footer

GET YOUR FREE GUIDE

Sign-up now to get your FREE GUIDE: Top 5 Reasons You Can’t Seem To Stick With A Meditation Practice (And How To Actually Build One That Lasts), our monthly newsletter, The Good Wolf Feed, our monthly email teachings about behavior change as well as other periodic valuable content.

"*" indicates required fields

Name*

The One You Feed PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR A BETTER LIFE

Quicklinks

  • Home
  • About Eric Zimmer
  • About Ginny Gay
  • About the Parable
  • About the Podcast
  • Podcast Episode Shownotes
  • Contact: General Inquiries
  • Contact: Guest Requests

Programs

  • Free Habits That Stick Masterclass
  • Wise Habits
  • Wise Habits Text Reminders
  • Membership
  • Coaching
  • Free ebook: How to Stick to Mediation Practice

Subscribe to Emails

Subscribe for a weekly bite of wisdom from Eric for a wiser, happier you:

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By submitting your information, you consent to subscribe to The One You Feed email list so that we may send you relevant content from time to time. Please see our Privacy Policy.

All Materials © 2025 One You Feed | Terms | Privacy Policy |  A Joyful Site