• 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
  • 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

Podcast Episode

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

Unlocking the Wisdom of Dogs: What They Know About a Good Life with Mark Rowland

March 21, 2025 Leave a Comment

Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Mark Rowland attempts to unlock the wisdom of dogs and discusses what they know about living a good life. He takes on some of life’s biggest, weightiest questions, like, what is meaning, how should we live, and explores them through the lens of our four-legged companions. It’s about philosophy. It’s about dogs, and it’s about the age old question of how to live a good life.

Key Takeaways:

  • Dogs live without the burden of reflection, which allows them to be fully present and undivided.
  • Meaning in life is more important than the meaning of life—it’s found through alignment with who we are.
  • Dogs are natural philosophers, offering insights through their simplicity and joy in daily life.
  • Humans live two lives—lived and examined—while dogs live one, leading to greater contentment.
  • Dogs embrace small pleasures with full-hearted joy, something humans often overlook.
  • Love is central to a meaningful life, whether expressed through connection, passion, or presence.


Mark Rowland is professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Miami. He is the author of twenty-three books, including the international bestseller The Philosopher and the Wolf. He lives in Miami, Florida.

If you enjoyed this episode with Mark Rowland, check out these other episodes:

How to Find Zest in Life with Dr. John Kaag

Shamanism and Spirituality with John Mabry

How Perception Creates Reality with John Perkins

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

If you know me, you know that I love dogs in many ways, it seems that the secret to a good life might be something that our dogs already know. Today, we’re talking with philosopher and author Mark Rowlands, whose book, The word of dog, does something remarkable. It takes some of life’s biggest, weightiest questions, like, what is meaning, how should we live, and explores them through the lens of our four legged companions. For me, this conversation hit right at the heart of when you feed sweet spot. It’s about philosophy. It’s about dogs, and it’s about the age old question of how to live a good life. That’s a phrase I first uttered in the show’s intro over a decade ago, and one I’ve been chasing ever since. Mark argues that reflection, the very thing that makes us human is both our greatest strength and our biggest trap. We talked about why meaning in life matters more than the meaning of life, and how dogs, those blissfully unaware Joy chasing creatures, might just be the natural philosophers we all need. By the end of this episode, you might just see your dog as more than a best friend, but as a mentor. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is the one you feed. Hi Mark, welcome to the show

Mark Rowland  02:24

Thanks, Eric. I’m delighted to be here. Thanks for inviting me. I’m excited

Eric Zimmer  02:27

to talk to you when I saw the title of your latest book, which is called The Word of dog, what our canine companions can teach us about living a good life, I knew I wanted to talk to you right away, because A, we love dogs. B, the book has some philosophy, which we like. And when I recorded the intro to this show, oh God, 11 and a half years ago, at this point, I actually used that phrase in it, how to live a good life, so you sort of just hit the absolute Venn diagram for one you feed guests. And I really enjoyed the book, which we’re gonna get to in a second. But before we start, we’ll start like we always do with the parable. In the parable, there’s a grandparent who’s talking with her 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. They 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.

Mark Rowland  03:35

What’s really interesting about that parable is, and this is the philosopher me now coming out. So I apologize for that. Who is the feeder? So the feeder is the one who chooses which wolf to feed. But then the question is, well, why would he or she choose one wolf rather than the other? If they choose the Bad Wolf, then it seems they’re already in some way aligned with that wolf. If they choose the Good Wolf, then they’re already in some way aligned with with that wolf. So in that sense, the feeder collapses into the wolf because the feeder is already aligned with one of the walls, and so there is no feeder independently of the walls.

Eric Zimmer  04:12

It’s a very interesting idea. I think we can jump off and sort of talk from there. Most of us, though, will have the experience of we’re at a decision point or a choice point of some sort, and we recognize these two things, right? It could be the old classic devil and angel on your shoulder, or whatever it is, but this feeling of being divided seems very common, yeah, to being human. So talk to me about alignment, in that sense, the

Mark Rowland  04:41

feeling of being divided. I mean, I think the crucial question is, how much significance do you allot to that feeling? Does it show that your choice is a free one? You exist independently of a choice is you can choose the Good Wolf, you can choose the Bad Wolf, or are your choices already made? By who and what you are. That’s interesting.

Eric Zimmer  05:02

In another of your books, it might have been the philosopher and the wolf. You talk about memory, and you say that there’s a common way of thinking of memory, as in what we actually remember. And you say that these are not really the key. There’s a deeper and more I’m just going to read what you said, a deeper and more important way of remembering, a form of memory that no one ever thought to dignify with a name. This is a memory of a past that has written itself on you in your character and in the life which you bring this character to bear. So that’s what you’re talking about here. Right To what degree in the moment we think we’re making a choice? How free is that choice? Because it is certainly influenced by and conditioned by everything that’s come before. Yeah,

Mark Rowland  05:44

that’s right. I mean memory. I mean, don’t get me started on memory. Actually, my next book is on memory. But so memory is fascinating and much, much stranger than we ever thought in the context. It is parable, though. I think the question is, to what extent are we defined by choices versus do we exist independently of our choices? So the parable suppose is that there’s a person who can choose one or the other Wolf. If that’s right, then it seems we would have to exist prior to and independently of our choices. We exist and then we make the choices. Now the alternative view is, well, we’re made up. We are constituted by our choices. There’s no real choice in that second sense, I suspect,

Eric Zimmer  06:28

is there a middle ground, though, at least it seems to me, and I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of free will, right? But a middle ground seems to me to be absolutely I am deeply influenced by my past, by my memories, by my conditioning, they actually very much constrain the choices that are available to me, actually in the physical world, based on what’s happened before, but also inside of me to a certain degree. I talk about this a lot, or think about this a lot, because I’m a recovering drug addict, and the discussion about this seems to bifurcate into a couple camps also. One is the addict has no choice. They are completely in the grips of this thing. The other is, this is all just a choice. The addict should just stop doing this right. And for me, I found that a middle ground is what allows me to function right, that I can say, well, yes, I am, you know, at the moment, many, many years away from it. So now my level of choice is completely different to what I had then. So I seem to have had less choice, but there was still some choice.

Mark Rowland  07:34

It certainly seems that way. It’s a very strange view, you know, that, in fact, choice is an illusion. There’s no such thing. I don’t know. I really don’t know. It’s a tricky question, and it depends on what we mean by choices. The underlying idea, maybe, is that there’s a difference between you know your past, fixing what you do when you passed, influencing what you do. Yes, right? That’s distinction. So that then the question is, well, how do we understand the influencing and is there a way of understanding it? Because the worry right is always well, okay, on the one hand, you’ve got your past fixes what you do. It determines what you do. Is you have no choice. The other view is, oh no, the past just influences what you do. But what does influence mean? Because what we don’t want right is fully influenced simply to mean random. Okay? Some people think, for example, that we’re free to the extent that our actions are not caused by anything. Now, I think that’s a very strange and troubling view, because, I mean, imagine what it would be like, okay, for your actions not to be caused by anything. You just simply find yourself doing something, right? So the actions have to come from you to be free in some sense, yep, yep. Then the worry is, well, if that’s right, how do we understand what it means for an action to come from you without you determining that action? Because if the actions simply emanate from you in the sense that what you are, who you are, makes those actions inevitable, then there’s no freedom there either. Yeah. So we need some kind of middle ground between what you are, who you are, making you act, determining your actions. That’s the idea. But we need to understand what influence means without appealing to randomness. That isn’t gonna work, right? It’s one of the hardest problems of philosophy.

Eric Zimmer  09:16

I think it is. I mean, this is how I think about it. And again, I’m a dabbler in philosophy, and I also recognize that my arguments, ultimately, for me, end up trying to be what’s useful in living a life, not what’s technically, theoretically true. Yeah, but I don’t think it’s random, but I also don’t think you can unwind it enough to really be clear. So for example, I could say when I’m around men of you know, my father’s age, and they look a little bit angry, I get really afraid, right? And I can make a story that says that’s because my dad was angry when I was a kid. And there’s probably some truth in that, but there’s probably a whole lot else going on in there that I just like, to your point memories that I can’t even recall. I don’t know what things shaped me in what way, because I think everything is doing a very subtle shaping. So I don’t think it’s exactly random, but I also don’t think you can solve the equation backwards and actually sort out all the variables completely. 

Mark Rowland  10:19

Yeah, well, I mean with memory. I mean, since I wrote that passage that you quoted, I discovered that I’d been anticipated by the German speaking poet Rilke Rainer, Maria Rilke, who had this fantastic passage in a book called the notebooks of Malda Lawrence Brig. It was his only excursion into the art form of a novel. He was a poet by Drake, and he talks about the most important memories are the ones you have to have the patience to forget them. Once you have the patience to forget them, then eventually they’ll return, but they’ll return in a different form. They won’t return as memories. They’ll return as something else. So he talked about memories being glance and gesture of blood, not to be distinguished from who we are. I think there’s something deeply right about that memories of the standard sort so called episodic memories, don’t we? So I remember this. I remember doing this. I remember doing that. They’re just the sort of tip of an iceberg, and a far more significant way we’re linked to our past is by way of things that used to be memories, but have now come back in the different in a different form. So moods, for example, emotions, you’re not quite sure where they’re coming from. They’re coming from somewhere. They’re coming from memories that you once had, but they become something else. Yeah, I call them real in memories, but it’s not clear that they’re really memories. We could think of them as post memories, if you like. That’s, I think, is the most significant link to the past. Now, where that leaves us with the question of free will is, again, just another very tricky question, I don’t know.

Eric Zimmer  11:51

Yeah, I’m gonna pivot us towards your book, and we’ve been doing some philosophizing here to start this episode off. And one of the core ideas in the book is that dogs are natural philosophers. Talk to me about what you mean by that. 

Mark Rowland  12:07

Well the claim that dogs are natural philosophers, it was originally made by Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, but he was joking. He didn’t take it seriously. Basically, it was a bad pun on his part, bad dogs liking what they know and not liking what they don’t know he wasn’t really being serious. But I think there’s actually something to it. It’s not entirely clear why that is, but I expect that the philosophical worries and anxieties are sometimes a bit like diseases, diseases that we suffer from. And dogs being dogs, not human, they don’t suffer from the same diseases as us, the disease model of philosophy is associated with Ludwig Wittgenstein. So, you know, dogs get Pavo. We don’t. We have philosophical worries. Dogs don’t. And so that was one of the kind of intuitions that drove the writing of the book. I suppose I was struck by this initially, when everyday Shadow was a German Shepherd of Shadow and I go for a walk on the canal that runs behind a house, and in the mornings, lined up along the back of the canal will be scores of iguanas lined up at fairly regular intervals, and only Shadow he takes off hundreds of yards north of the iguanas just peel off into the water, swim to The Other Side and climb up the other back and stay there for the rest of the day. So the very next morning, right? They’re back again. A Shadow stop begins this process of exiling the iguanas all over again. And it struck me eventually. I mean, took me a long time, but, you know, wheels turn slowly sometimes. And it struck me eventually, this was a bit like the myth of Sisyphus, where Sisyphus was a mortal who offended the gods. The gods punished him by making him roll a large rock up a hill for all eternity. When he gets to the top, the rock slips from his grasp, rolls back down to the bottom, and he has to start all over again. So the idea is, if you replace the rock with the iguanas, then you’ve got pretty much the same sort of situation here. Now Sisyphus, when, when philosophers talk about this myth, he figures in two ways. The first is as the epitome of a meaningless existence. So all we’ve got is just repetitive activity. It aims only at its own repetition. There’s nothing that we’re kind of success or failure, so a meaningless existence. But secondly, Sisyphus is also taken as an allegory for human life. We fight our way to work in the morning, maybe. And then we spend eight hours or so in this place where we do various things with mixed results, probably quite modest results, and results that will soon be wiped away by time’s passage. Then we fight our way home again in the evening, perhaps at home, waiting for us to children, perhaps not, you know, but if there are, then in a few years time, they will have grown up and will probably do the same kinds of things that we did. And so every day in our life seems like one of Sisyphus steps up the hill. We leave it eventually to our children, but it’s the same overall idea.

Eric Zimmer  14:59

Cheery stuff, cheery stuff, yeah,

Mark Rowland  15:03

and this is the challenge of sis. Was that sis was his life is meaningless and our lives are recognizably Sisyphean. But it struck me that actually, this, again, was having probably the most significant intuition which guided me writing this book at all, was that Shadow was immune to this problem. This was probably the most meaningful part of his day. And so I said, Well, I suppose that’s right, because this was just an intuition on my part. This is the most part of his day. How would things have to be in order for that to be true? And this basically started the various themes I talk about in the book,

Eric Zimmer  15:35

yeah, it’s a fascinating way of looking at things. And I do think this is a deep philosophical question for all of us, or a spiritual question. Some people would frame it as but it is in the face of the fact that pretty much everything we do will be erased by the sands of time. And you know, how does anything actually matter within that? And you talk about Socrates in a second way, and you say, you know, Socrates supposedly said The unexamined life is not worth living. Yeah. And then you sort of challenge that idea by saying, well, is a dog’s life not worth living? And you come to a very different conclusion,

Mark Rowland  16:13

yeah, yeah. So I suspect that there are certain aspects of a dog’s life that make it just as meaningful and perhaps more meaningful than than our lives. But by meaning, I mean, there’s two ways. I think what we’re going to get clear is what this talk of meaning. So, I mean, when people talk to meaning laughs, they used to think of some kind of external purpose, yeah, let’s suppose it was supplied by God. God says, right? You know, this is why I’m creating you humans. This is what you’re here for. That’s your purpose. It’s not meaning in that sense, right? That the book is talking about. It’s what some people call meaning in life, rather than meaning of life. So the idea is what’s required for you to experience your life as meaningful. And this is the problem with Sisyphus. When you look at our lives from a suitable vantage point, then it seems our lives are going to be meaningless. Why would we think this repetitive activity, that in the end, achieves very little or nothing, is going to be the basis of a meaningful life? That, then is the basic question, what’s required for there to be meaning in life? And dogs differ from us in certain ways. I think the fundamental difference is that dogs have one life and we have two. This results from our developing a capacity or ability that is present in dogs, I think, only minimally or not at all. This ability is reflection, understood as the ability to think about yourself, about what you’re doing, about why you’re doing it, and your life as sort of a whole. And once you have this ability, and it’s, I think it’s a characteristically human ability, it’s not present in other animals, but kind of this way, it’s much more present in us than other animals. We’re the world heavyweight champions of reflect, once you have this ability, then your life kind of splits into two, right? There’s the life that you live in the standard way, and there is the life that you think about, that you scrutinize, that you evaluate, that you judge, that you agonize over, and so on the road less traveled, for example, is a standard human anxiety. Or I I made this choice, but should I have made this other one? I don’t think dogs do that. You know, I picked up this stick on the walk. Should I have picked up that other I don’t think they do that kind of thing. So we have two lives because of this ability to reflect, and the dog just has one. I think it’s probably more or less inevitable the dog’s gonna love its one life more than we love our two lives.

Eric Zimmer  19:00

So I want to spend a minute on reflection here, and then I think we should go back to meaning this ability for reflection. We have Socrates, saying, supposedly, saying, or coming out of that school of thought that the examined life is the only life that’s worth living. But we have another pillar of Western thought that actually argues kind of the opposite, which is the biblical story of Adam and Eve and the fall. And you say in the book that you find yourself, strangely enough, siding more with the Adam and Eve view of our ability to have reflection versus the Socrates view.

Mark Rowland  19:38

Yes, it did strike me as ironic. You know, someone who spent his life doing philosophy, and here I am saying, wait a minute. I mean one thing we can take away from the story the fall, you know, and I start the book with Milton’s, Milton’s account of Adam and Eve. They become self aware, and consequently, very quickly, become ashamed, right? If they were a God, then it’s pretty clear. What his view of reflection would be, right? I mean, this is the whole banishment from the Garden of Eden, the angel with a flaming sword to make sure you don’t get back in that, that kind of thing. So it’s clear what his view of reflection would be. I tend to think of stories like this as attempts to say something, not describe something that’s literally true, but to say something that’s nevertheless important, yes, and I think what’s what’s important is that existence is always a game of swings and roundabouts. What you gain from some things you also inevitably lose. Yeah. So reflection has been great for us. You know, it’s allowed us to do all the things we’ve done, you know, dominate the planet, all these sorts of things, in large part because we are reflective creatures. But there are also drawbacks, and there are certain things that we’ve lost because of this ability to reflect. And that’s what the book is about, I suppose. I mean, you could see this just from looking at any dog having a remotely good day. Is they take a sort of joy, a delight in the marginally positive that seems to be beyond us. So for example, I mean every day, a certain point in the afternoon, I will go and pick up my younger son from school, and I’ll say the Shadow, he’s not around, so I can say it now without any repercussions. Do you want to come with? Right? And then he will explode into a sort of paroxysm of delight, running, jumping on sofas, grabbing his leash and trying to insert his head through the slipknot. And he knows he’s a smart dog. Been doing this for years and years. He knows nothing much is gonna happen. We’re gonna get in the car, we’re gonna drive to the school. We’re gonna pick up my son, drive back, come back in the house. There’s no dog parks. There’s no chasing iguanas or any kind of at best, it’s marginally positive. Getting out of the house and seeing things as he drives past this is slightly better, marginally better, than being in the ass. But he takes such a sort of delight in the marginally positive. This is something that we humans just can’t do, no,

Eric Zimmer  22:00

Not very well. Yeah, as I read your book, I was thinking a lot about, I’ve done a lot of training in Zen Buddhism, and if I were to summarize what Zen is trying to get at, I think, and certainly, what my teacher emphasized was a line that you said, which is basically not being divided like that. Your whole being is pointed in a direction and more so that that emerges somewhat naturally. And the Zen idea is, if you achieve enough, I don’t know what word we want to use, insight, wisdom, that you’re now not in this constant self doubt game, the constant reflecting, weighing everything, right? Yeah. And your actions emerge out of a place of wholeness, and you engage in them in a whole hearted way, right, which ideally points you closer to where a dog is than where maybe the average anxiety ridden human is, right?

Mark Rowland  23:00

No, that’s very interesting. I wish I knew more about Zen Buddhism. It does sound like the kind of thing I wanted to argue in the book. Yeah, yep,

Eric Zimmer  23:07

I said we would hop back to meaning. And here’s where I kind of want to hop back, because this is the phrase that you used in the book, and it was one of the ones that you know, rang my internal Zen alarm, which is that meaning in life arises when what you are and what you do coincide, which is a slightly different way of saying what I just said. Do you see dogs pointing a direction for us in how we actually begin to have who we are and what we do become more together, or for us to be less divided. Yes,

Mark Rowland  23:42

there’s the optimistic me and the pessimistic me, and usually the pessimistic me wins. So the pessimistic me says, No, we can’t be dogs, right? There’s nothing, right? There’s no possibility we’re irredeemably banished from the Garden right because of our capacity to reflect. And so the very best we can do, right is just what’s important to you is dependent on what’s necessary, and this is kind of dependent on our index to certain things happening in your life, depending on where you are in your life, you know. But there are certain sorts of moments where you can just incorporate a little bit of dog into your life. Here’s one example. Again. It’s part of the marginal positivity theme, but it’s it’s slightly more grim than the other one. So back in April last year, Shadow and I were out for a run. We’re a few miles from home, and he gave out a loud shriek and dropped to the ground. His back legs were completely paralyzed. The vet thinks it was a spinal embolism, a stroke, that where a bit of cartilage from his spine has somehow worked his way into his blood supply. So the blood supply was cut off to the spine, and as a result, he was completely paralyzed in his back legs. And this lasted five to 10 minutes. I’m not sure of the exact time, because I was, you know, panicking, but. Yes, there’s one thing he did when he was in that state, which I suspect it’ll always stick with me precisely, because it’s the sort of thing I need now. And it’s when he fell. He was lying in the sun, right? And for a dog in Miami, yeah, you don’t want to be lying, really. So, so what he did, he wouldn’t let me help at all, because he was, he was very frightened, I think, you know, but he used his front legs to drag himself into the shade, about 20 feet into the shade. He did that. I thought this is a fantastic lesson, right? Because what’s the operating idea? Well, the idea is, this is awful, right? This is absolutely awful. What’s happened, but at least now in this moment, I’m slightly better off than I was in the moment before, sort of, I was talking about, you know, what people need at different parts of their life. When you go to a certain age and I’m there, pretty much, you kind of understand your strengths and weaknesses. And so the overall possible end games start to appear, right? Oh, perhaps this will get me, you know, this is more likely to get me than that. Probably something else might get me, you know, but, but it’s something, you know, you start to see the general outline of the end. And that can be overwhelming. It’s a difficult realization, but one kind of antidote to it is this, well, okay, let’s try and make each moment just a little bit better than the one before, and then let the end, sort of, you know, take care of itself eventually.

Eric Zimmer  26:22

Yeah, I’ve often said, if there was a God and I got a moment with God after I got through some of the biggest questions, or if I had a wish, I would say, can I just be a dog for like, an hour? I just want to know what is it like to be a dog? Because they do operate. It seems in such a very different place than we do, and yet they completely co exist with us. Every once in a while, I’m struck by the strangeness of it. I’m like, this is this is a completely different species. Who is my best companion? Yeah, it’s an unusual thing.

Mark Rowland  26:59

Yeah, it certainly is, and I don’t know how we manage it, and I don’t know how they manage it. Really, it all depends on similarity and difference, and what’s driving everything. Is it because they’re so similar to us that we can be best friends with them? Or is it, is it precisely because they’re different from us that they supply something that’s missing that we could be best friends. Maybe it’s a bit of both. I don’t know. Yeah,

Eric Zimmer  27:23

I think it probably is a bit of both. But I do think, you know, pointing to their being natural philosophers and not being reflective, it’s one thing I can say is that my relationships with my dogs feel very straightforward. Yeah, you know, I lost my baby about year and a half, two years, I don’t know. I think it’s actually been just about two years a little over, and it’s interesting. Like, grieving a dog for me has been a different experience, because it’s very straightforward, it’s very sad. There’s a lot of grief, but there’s not a lot of complicated feelings around like, did we say the right things to each other? Should we have done more of this? You know, it’s just simple, but our human relationships are not that way. Even really good ones are not simple in that way. And so I think that’s one of the things about dogs that I love, is that the relationship with them seems very simple, but you say something in the book early on, and then you come back to it much later. And I think it’s sort of the core argument ultimately. And you say, the more love there is in a life, whether through relationships, passions or experiences, the more meaning that life contains. And that that’s the language dogs are speaking. Say more about that? Yes.

Mark Rowland  28:40

So the book was on one level, at least, it was a sort of extended exploration of the idea of meaning in life. And the conclusion I arrived at, you know, spoiler alert, was the war what meaning is, is when happiness erupts, or is a direct expression of what you are. I imagine a case of Sisyphus, who was happy because the gods decided to be a little bit more merciful, right? So the rock the hill, all non negotiable. They kept that. But what they did, they messed with his head to make him like doing this. So he loved nothing more than rolling rocks up hills. I don’t think that’s a good way of thinking about meaning, and if that’s right, it shows the meaning is not simply the same thing as happiness. So happy Sisyphus is also a deluded dupe or stooge of the gods. And the reason this is not meaningful is that his happiness is not an expression of who he is. The gods have messed around with him, and that’s where the happiness is coming from. It’s not an expression of who he is. I argue in the book that meaning in life exists wherever happiness is an expression of an individual. So when Shadow is chasing the iguanas along the canal, this is an expression of what he is. I mean, because, because of his nature and. Generations, the history that have gone into making him this happiness he seems to exude when he’s doing this is an expression of who he is, where who he is has been determined or shaped or influenced by his history. Whenever you have this eruption of happiness that stems from your nature, I think that’s what meaning in life is. 

Eric Zimmer  30:47

You’re positing that meaning comes together when both happiness and that happiness emerging naturally from your nature, yeah, is together to tweeze this apart, you gave the example of happiness that you think is meaningless, which is the equivalent of somebody messes with your brain to make you happy. You know, someone comes into my brain, puts an electrode in that just keeps hitting the happiness button. And that’s not particularly meaningful. I will be happy, and whether I would choose to do that or not, I might, yeah, I’m not sure on this question, depending on the day, but it’s not meaningful, but we also see people who appear to be acting out of their nature, like when I was an addict, I was, on some level, acting out of what my nature was at that moment. Right? Yeah, now again, this would get into the question of, what’s my true nature? What’s my condition nature, what’s my wounded nature? But I wouldn’t argue in any way, shape or form, that that was a meaningful life. I really think your definition is really interesting. I often think about meaning in this way. It is a non intellectual way of doing it, which is that if you and I were to engage in a debate right now about whether one dog getting run over by a car is an important thing, I mean, some part may be like, Well, yeah, but then you’d go, but look, there’s billions of dogs on the planet. There’s always been billions of dogs. We’ve got more dogs than we need. Like, this is trivial. This is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, intellectually, and I can’t best that argument. Ultimately, I kind of have to be like, Well, yeah, I guess really it doesn’t. But if I walked outside right now and I saw a dog that had been hit by a car laying in front of me, you couldn’t talk me out of believing that me taking care of that dog was the most important thing. And so I think that’s pointing at what you’re talking about, where, where the meaning is emerging from who I am, not from my intellect.

Mark Rowland  32:49

Right, I think the problem for we humans, right, is that there is such a thing as who I am, as who you are, but it’s a lot more slippery. It’s a lot more attenuated than it is in the case of animals, because we’re always these two different things, I think you you articulated what these are very, very nicely. Actually, on the one hand, we’re creatures who can take the big picture, right, you know. And from this perspective, the medieval philosophers used to call it perspective of eternity, subspec, yeah. Eternity. From this perspective, you know, you and I were just insignificant extras in this whole cosmic play. You and I were both sort of unremarkable people living unremarkable lives, just like everybody else. And so when we die, well, that’s just one death amongst sort of billions, you know, what does it matter? So that’s the view from the outside, if you like, but the view from the inside was no you know, life matters. We we’re hubs of meaningfulness, significance, all these sorts of things. And the case of the dog that you described is the difference between taking an outside view of this is just one more dog. You can take exactly the same sort of view of human beings, just one more Totally, yeah, but there’s a view from the inside, and then from the inside, things matter in a way they can’t matter from the outside. So the reason we’re so confused, I think, is because this was a point made by the philosopher Thomas mayor, a long time ago, 50 years ago, we know both of these views can’t be true, right? Either we’re significant or we’re not, we can’t be both. So these views can’t both be true, but it seems to us strongly that both of them are true, and therefore we can’t find a way, respectable way of abandoning either one.

Eric Zimmer  34:30

This is another area where Zen is interesting, because Zen talks a lot about this idea of the relative and the absolute. The absolute would be sort of that, that big view of everything, right? It’s just all dust in the wind, to quote another thing, right? Yeah, right. But Zen would posit there’s actually a beauty and a freedom to be found in that it also talks about the relative, which is our day to day lives as we experience them and live them. And Zen makes the point of they actually believe they are both true, and they are both actually different sides of the same coin. And that to be able to move back and forth between them fluidly is an attribute, yeah, to be able to take both those perspectives, the big perspective, which is like, well, you know, we’re all gonna die, and the Earth’s gonna get engulfed by the sun at some point. So literally, how this interview with Mark is going is completely unimportant. And at the exact same moment, it’s important to me, it’s important to you, hopefully somebody listening, it’s important to and it feels that way. So it seems like maybe philosophers don’t like that kind of answer because it feels like a cheat. 

Mark Rowland  35:44

I think they would like that kind of answer is finding a way to live. The answer is, it’s always difficult to sway two sides of the same coin. But what exactly does that mean? Yeah, yeah. Totally, totally. So I can see the value of the attempt. Yeah, this is what the human condition is, because we’re reflective creatures, because we’re such creatures, we have these two different views. They’re very difficult to reconcile, but the key to living is to try and find a way of reconciling them. Right? Dogs don’t have that problem because they just have one view.

Eric Zimmer  36:16

Do you think that reflection has become more ingrained in us as time has gone on, because certainly we can look back to you were referencing the medieval period, and we could say that from what we know, most people believed a certain set of things and didn’t spend a whole lot of time debating whether those things were true. They went about trying to live them. But today, we live in a very different world where I would say that the average person, I’m not gonna say average person, there are a whole lot of people who don’t know what to believe or what they believe, which opens up an existential crisis of meaning, because I can’t say that life means this, because God said it means this, right? And so have we become more reflective? Have we just had more ideas dropped into our space? Like, how do you think about that? 

Mark Rowland  37:07

I’m one of those people that I don’t really know what I’m thinking until I write it down. That’s why I became a writer. Basically, I wanted to know what it is I was thinking. I think the ability to put things in a stable, external form. Writing is a sort of obvious example. Expands our capacities to reflect on ourselves, because most obviously, we can remember what we were thinking about ourselves yesterday, and then we can add things to it, and so on and so on. So I think probably external systems of information storage, where the information can be about ourselves, as well as other things, enhances our ability to reflect. So that would be a difference between us and the Middle Ages, where people’s grasp of writing was a lot less,

Eric Zimmer  37:53

yep. So ultimately, I think that you arrived in a place where you felt that the meaning of life that dogs arrive at is that love is really the thing. So share with me a little bit more about coming to that and and how you think about and how you try and bring that into your own life.

Mark Rowland  38:13

When I see Shadow chasing the iguanas up and down the canal, he loves what he’s doing in a way that’s very, very difficult for me to replicate, generate that level of delight. It’s something he does every day, routinely. That’s love. It’s a love of what you do, and thereby the love of life. So whenever this kind of love erupts from you, is an expression of what you are. That, I think, is where we find meaning in life, and that’s ultimately the connection between meaning and and love. It doesn’t necessarily mean love of others, that’s, that’s, that’s certainly part of it, but it’s the love of life, where life is a series of things you do.

Eric Zimmer  38:53

Having that realization and seeing that in Shadow. How have you found ways to bring that into your life? I mean, again, knowing you’re not going to be Shadow right, what sort of one thing you do that helps you get closer to that,

Mark Rowland  39:07

I try to find periods of time in any any week, say where I will find things that I love doing and do just because I love doing them. Because the guiding thought is that if you think of work right as an activity that you do for something else, you work because you get, you want to get paid, right? So that’s an activity that has an external reward, yeah. And what dogs are really, really good at is picking up on the things that have internal rewards, where the reward is the activity itself. Yeah. And the way we live. Many of us, our lives are kind of outposts of our work. Our lives are dominated by activity, where we’re doing something in order to get something else. So I think probably one of the keys to our happy life, and this is something I’ve learned from dogs over the years, is to try and find ways what we’re talking about is playing. Yeah, this way, right where play is is activity. And. Whose reward is internal to the activity itself. Yep, the more you can bring little bits of this into your life, the less your life becomes dominated by work, I think probably the happier and more meaningful your life, or

Eric Zimmer  40:14

to the extent that you can internalize what you’re doing for work and do it out of a different place. That’s kind of the ultimate, right? And again, a lot of people don’t have that luxury. I think it is a luxury, but I think there are always ways to imbue what we do with a slightly different spirit, back to Zen, right? One of the things we do in Zen is called Work Practice, where you do something like washing the dishes or sweeping the floor, but you try and do it with single, pointed attention. And those things actually can go from being rote and tedious to kind of enjoyable when you orient that way.

Mark Rowland  40:51

Yeah, put it in the terms I sort of defined then, that what you’re doing is converting what ordinarily would be work into play. Yes, that’s, I think what we should try and do

Eric Zimmer  41:01

Mark That’s a beautiful place to wrap up. I really enjoyed your book, and we’ll have links in the show notes to where listeners can get it. And thank you for joining us.

Mark Rowland  41:12

Thank you, it was great pleasure. Thank you very much for inviting me. 

Eric Zimmer  41:15

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

Redefining Wealth: The Truth About Money & Happiness with Sahil Bloom

March 18, 2025 Leave a Comment

Redefining Wealth: The Truth About Money & Happiness
Watch on YouTube
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcast

In this episode, Sahil Bloom explores the idea of redefining wealth and the truth about money and happiness. He also shares a different definition of wealth – one that goes beyond financial success and taps into time, purpose, and relationships. Learn how to start finding the balance between striving for more while appreciating what’s right in front of us.

Key Takeaways:

  • The trap of “more” and the power of “enough”
  • Why time is your most valuable currency
  • How to create a “Life Razor” that guides your biggest decisions
  • The hidden cost of success and how to redefine it on your own terms
  • How to balance ambition with presence and joy

Connect with Sahil Bloom Website | Instagram | LinkedIn


Sahil Bloom is an inspirational writer and content creator, captivating millions of people every week through his insights and biweekly newsletter, The Curiosity Chronicle. He is a successful entrepreneur, owner of SRB Holdings, and the managing partner of SRB Ventures, an early-stage investment fund. Bloom graduated from Stanford University with an MA in public policy and a BA in economics and sociology. He was a four-year member of the Stanford baseball team. His new book is 5 Types of Wealth: A Transformative Guide to Design Your Dream Life.

If you enjoyed this episode with Sahil Bloom, check out these other episodes:

Finding Joy in Your Relationship with Money with Elizabeth Husserl

How Relationships Shape Our Happiness and Well-Being with Robert Waldinger

How to Discover What Matters Most in Life with Tami Simon

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  01:06

What if everything you’ve been told about wealth is missing the point? For years, we’ve chased more money, success, achievement, only to find it doesn’t always bring fulfillment. Today’s guest saw Hill bloom, had everything society says should make you happy, but it wasn’t until a quiet morning with his newborn son that he understood what true wealth feels like. So how do we balance striving for more with appreciating what’s right in front of us? Can we redefine wealth beyond dollars and status? What happens when we start treating time as our most valuable currency? That’s what we’re going to explore today. I’m Eric Zimmer, and this is the one you feed.

Sahil Bloom  01:50

Hi Sahu, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me thrilled to be here.

Eric Zimmer  01:54

I’m really excited to talk with you about your new book, which is called the five types of wealth, which is really a holistic way of looking at the different ways in our lives than which we can be wealthy. And I think it’s interesting to look at a as a way of seeing where we might want to be more wealthy, but also as a way of really recognizing there’s a lot of places we already are wealthy, and I think recognizing that is really important, because self improvement is part of the game, but so is self acceptance, you know, and appreciating what we have. And we’re going to get into all that after the parable, but let’s start there. 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. 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,

Sahil Bloom  03:00

it really is an important representation to me of a simple fact, which is that you have the power to choose. Each day. We have a choice in which wolf will feed. We can feed the dark Wolf and be filled with anger, fear, hate, jealousy, envy, or we can feed the light Wolf and be filled with hope, kindness, joy, love, optimism, and at the end of the day, that choice is fundamentally yours.

Eric Zimmer  03:34

Wonderful. I’d like to start with a quote that you use at least once in the book, if not a couple of times. Which is, you say, Never let the quest for more distract you from the beauty of enough. Let’s start there. I’m

Sahil Bloom  03:50

glad you pulled this out, because this is such a fundamental and important concept to the entire book, the entire idea, and really my life in general. The genesis of this was a very personal experience, which was that, shortly after my son was born, you know, after a two plus year journey with infertility that my wife and I had faced, we were blessed with a little boy, and I was walking him around outside early one morning, and an old man came up to me on the street and said, I remember standing here with my newborn daughter. She’s 45 years old now it goes by fast. Cherish it. And I took my son home, and I brought him into bed. My wife was still asleep, and the son was kind of coming through the windows, and he had this little smile on his face. And I just had this sensation that for the first time in my life, I had arrived, but there wasn’t anything more that I wanted. That moment was truly enough, and that was when that line came to me of never let the quest for more distract you from the beauty of enough, because it is so easy in life. Life to allow the things that you prayed for to become the things that you complain about. We see that over and over again in our own lives. The house that we prayed for becomes the house that we complain is too small. The car that we prayed for becomes the car that we can’t wait to trade in. The relationship we prayed for becomes the relationship with the person that we criticize. Today’s version of more becomes tomorrow’s version of not enough, if we allow it to, if we don’t stop, pause, catch ourselves and pull ourselves back into that moment and recognize that sometimes you are literally living out your prayers. So that is what that quote, what that line is all about, to never allow that Chase, that quest for the more, whatever it is, whatever more we are searching for to distract us, to pull us away from the beauty of enough in the present moment. Yeah, that’s so beautifully

Eric Zimmer  05:49

said, and so very true. We adapt to nearly anything and start to take it for granted, and then you’re even, you know, going a step further, which is we then see it as a burden, which is a really fascinating thing, and is a sure fire way to never be happy in life. And so there’s this balance, and I think I’ve been exploring it on this show for a decade, and I mentioned it kind of in the beginning, and you’re getting to it right in this question, how can I both strive for more, whether that be financially, in my relationships, etc. How can I do that? Because I do think that’s a natural human thing. It seems built into us, and also be satisfied with exactly where I am. And doing both those things is at the same time, turns out to be the thing that’s an art, far more than it’s a science.

Sahil Bloom  06:42

The fundamental tension there is an important one to wrestle with, and the way that I wrestle with it is to say that the quest for more needs to be grounded in the right things. Yeah, it is dangerous if it is about something as surface level, as money or fancy things. If you are chasing more because you just want a bigger number on your scoreboard, you want more fancy things to try to impress other people. For whatever reason, you are going to end up losing sight of the things that are more important along that journey. If you are chasing more because it’s your purpose to go and build something big, because you really feel fundamentally that you want to grow, that you want to develop yourself. You’re trying to get better at the things that you’re working on that is a very well grounded and important pursuit. And there’s nothing wrong with that, one where it goes awry for people and where they lead themselves on the road to the rich yet miserable existence that we know a lot of people are living is when that chase for more is just about these things like money or fancy things.

Eric Zimmer  07:49

I agree with you that that’s a fundamental distinction, and I have found even in my own life, even if my striving for more is pointed in the right direction. You know, I want to become a kinder person. Or, you know, it’s about growing this show, which is kind of the way that I try and put love into the world, that even within there, I can get caught in this more more more, which pulls me out of the moment. So I think what you’re saying is, first off, we’ve got to be really clear about what we’re striving for, and if that’s misguided, we’re always going to be off track. And then the second part comes to, even when I’m on the right track, how do I relate to being on that track? And how do I relate to being on a journey that, you know, there’s not a destination on?

Sahil Bloom  08:37

Yeah, I think that this comes back to a really beautiful quote. I believe it’s Viktor Frankl, who said that our power exists in the space that we can create between stimulus and response. And that concept of space is really essential to the whole book. It’s one of the pillars of what I think of as mental wealth, is the ability to create space. And the reason that space is so important is because that is where you actually get to choose your response. To go back to the wolves parable, the ability to choose every single day, you actually need to have the space to choose. You need to be able to stop and pause so that you can choose your response. Which Wolf are you going to feed? The same applies to this never ending Chase. If you’re able to pause on a daily basis and appreciate the things that you have while still pursuing the things that you don’t that are grounded, hopefully in the right reasons. That is where you find your sort of Goldilocks, like your sweet spot from a life standpoint. I think it was Kurt Vonnegut in 1997 he gave a commencement speech at Rice University, and he talks about his uncle, Alex, who had this tendency when things were going nice and, you know, the day was really pretty out, he would just stop, he would pause, and he would look up at the sky and he would say, if this isn’t nice, what is? And that idea of forcing yourself to pause and appreciate those moments literally said. It Out Loud say, if this isn’t nice, what is on a more regular basis, I guarantee you will find new joy in the journey in your life.

Eric Zimmer  10:07

Yeah. Vonnegut also has that classic story about enough of where he’s at a party with Joseph Heller, the author of catch 22 and they’re looking around and seeing all these people who have way more than they do. And Joseph Heller, basically, I think I’m paraphrasing, says something like, Yeah, but I have something they don’t, which is, I know what enough is, yeah, exactly

Sahil Bloom  10:28

the knowledge that I’ve got enough. It sort of all relates to one of my favorite stories of the fishermen and the investment banker. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard this, but like this investment banker goes down to an old Mexican fishing village, and he comes across this old boat, and the fisherman is in the boat and has caught a few fish. And the banker says, How long did it take you to catch those fish? And the fisherman says, Only a little while. And the banker asks, Why didn’t you fish for longer? The fisherman says, Well, I have everything I need. In the morning, I fish for a little while, then I go home, I have lunch with my wife, then I take a nap, and then in the evening, I go into town and sing and dance with my friends. And the banker is like, you got this all wrong. What you need to do is you need to fish for longer so you can catch more fish. Then you can buy a second boat. Then that boat will make money. You buy a third boat, a fourth boat, a fifth boat. Eventually, you build a fishing boat enterprise. You move to the big city, you take the company public, and you’ll make millions. And the fisherman says, and then what? And the banker says, and then what? Then you can retire and move to a small fishing village. You can fish for a little while in the morning, and then you can go home. You can have lunch with your wife, take a nap, and in the evening, go into town and play music and dance with your friends, and the fisherman kind of just smiles and walks off. And that story, it’s interesting, is common interpretation is to say that the banker is wrong and the fisherman is right. I actually think it’s more nuanced than that. I really think this is about the two of them having a fundamentally different definition of what enough looks like. The banker may be grounded in this purpose of building something big, creating jobs, creating this growth, pursuing his definition, and he’s trying to apply that map of reality to the fisherman’s terrain, which is fundamentally very different. The fisherman is already living his enough life. And so for the two to be seen as in conflict is very interesting, because that’s what happens when we spend all of our time on our phones, comparing our lives to other people, we start getting obsessed with someone else’s life and starting to apply their map to our reality, which is a recipe for discontentment. Absolutely,

Eric Zimmer  12:33

I had an experience of this not too long ago. We spend a lot of time in Atlanta. My partner, Ginny, is from there, and I’ll be driving around Buckhead. And one of the most noticeable things about certain areas of town are the houses are enormous on these giant plots of land, like, it’s a lot of money that you just see kind of right out there. And as if I spend enough time driving around there, my brain starts going like, gosh, maybe I should have a house like that. Why don’t I have enough money to have a house like that? And then at the same moment as I was thinking that, I turned my attention back to what I was listening to on the radio, and it was a band called The Gaslight Anthem. They’re kind of a punk type band a little bit. And then it reminded me of, like, what my ethos actually is. And I was just able to see right in that moment, how easily I was getting turned away from my ethos to buy what I was surrounded by and what was attractive, and I needed help to be reminded of where my true values are. And I think that’s kind of what you’re speaking to here. And the and the problem is sometimes we don’t get those reminders often enough, and so we just get more and more sucked into this idea of someone else’s success. 

Sahil Bloom  13:45

Yeah,and it’s so governed by the environment that you are in, the people that you’re surrounded by, I will say anecdotally, my friends that live in New York City or Los Angeles struggle with this much more than my friends who live in a small town in the suburbs, it is very much like a cultural indoctrination if you’re surrounded by people who measure their worth in terms of how expensive their kids school is, or how many weekends they get to spend in the Hamptons, or what charter plane they’re taking to X, Y or Z. It is very, very difficult to opt out of that game when you’re surrounded by it. The environments that we operate in really do govern our reality. They really shape the way that we view the world. And so I have often said to people that your environment that you spend time in, it’s sort of a it’s a two way feedback loop, because you shape your environments for sure, but your environments, then in turn, are shaping you, and you really want the environment that you operate in to be a reflection of your core values, because it will be very difficult for you if the two are in tension.

Eric Zimmer  14:52

Yeah, and I think a lot of people find themselves in this spot. I know a lot of our listeners certainly do, because I’ve just heard from enough of them. And worked with enough of them over the years where they’ve achieved some degree of conventional success, at least in the way that, like they’ve got a home, they’ve got retirement savings, they’ve had children, and then somewhere in there, something wakes up in them and starts desiring more. And yet they’re firmly embedded in this place that had these different values, rightfully so they’re very hesitant to be like, Well, I’m just gonna blow my whole life up here, right? Because they may have, you know, a good family and a wonderful spouse, but they need something else. And I think that’s why it can be so helpful to try and seek out, even in smaller doses, people who align with your values. It’s so important in being able to stay the course with anything. I think,

Sahil Bloom  15:47

Yeah, I mean the people you surround yourself with fundamentally determine your outcomes. There is clear scientific evidence that the expectations of the people that you surround yourself with actually determine whether you are kind of rising or falling to meet those expectations. The Pygmalion Effect is the name of this psychological phenomenon whereby we rise to the level of the expectations that others have for us. So if you’re surrounded by people who believe you are capable of more and sort of lift you up, you will actually rise to meet those expectations. But similarly, if you’re surrounded by people who make you feel bad, who put you down, who tell you you don’t have enough, or who show you that with their actions or their behaviors, you will fall to the level of those expectations in the way that you engage with the world. And it is fundamentally a call to action to be very, very careful about the people that you allow into your energy, into your reality, because they really will have a profound impact on your happiness or misery in life.

Eric Zimmer  16:47

Let’s talk through that in a little bit more depth. I’m curious how you would think about this, because you clearly value family and loyalty to family to some degree. And so let’s take my scenario, where somebody is middle aged at this point, and they find themselves surrounded by maybe their family and people that maybe do have lower expectations or don’t support their values, and yet, one of their core values is to be of support and love to the people that are around them. You know, how would you go about thinking about honoring those two values, one which says, Hey, I do recognize that the people that I’m around affect my trajectory. And one of my values is I don’t only see the people in my life that I love as an instrument for making me more successful.

Sahil Bloom  17:35

Yeah, I think that there’s a big difference between people who are sort of a neutral force in your life versus a truly net negative in your life. And at the end of the day, the person that you need to be most loyal to is yourself. Yeah, and I don’t mean that in the sense that you just, you know, cast everyone else off, and you’re like, you know, fundamentally selfish, but you do need to protect yourself in certain ways from people who consistently drain you and pull you down. And the way that you do that does not have to be cutting people off. The most traditional way that people talk about this is like, Oh, if you know, if you have a family member that treats you poorly, you have to just cut them off. You never see them again. And that’s easier said than done, and it’s frankly unrealistic in a lot of cases. Like, you know, I have family members who have not been a positive force in my life, fortunately, not direct blood relatives, but family members who I see it every holiday, or close family friends who are the same. And the way that I always advise people to manage that, which is the way that I have come to terms with it, is just because you are around someone physically does not mean you have to open up to them energetically or spiritually. If you believe in that you can be closed off to someone. If you know that someone is a toxic force on your life, if you know that they happen to say things that are negative or they put you down in certain ways, you don’t have to open up to allow them to put the knife in. And by the way, this is the reason that scientifically ambivalent relationships, relationships that are sometimes supportive and loving and sometimes demeaning are actually more negative for your health, yes, than purely toxic ones. This has been shown over and over again, like that. You know, you put someone up on stage to give a talk if the audience is purely toxic versus if the audience is ambivalent, sometimes booing, sometimes cheering, the blood pressure spikes and stress levels of the speaker actually are worse when the audience is ambivalent, because it opens you up when they’re really nice and so then the knife on the demeaning part really hurts the toxicity. And I think that with relationships and family members. That really applies. We need to really monitor who and how they are impacting our energy in those ways, so that we can create those level of boundaries that just allow us to continue in our own flow.

Eric Zimmer  19:52

Yeah, that’s such a great point, and I agree, ambivalent relationships like that are really difficult to sort out, because. Sometimes they’re good, and you’re like, Okay, this is great. And then sometimes they’re really bad, and you’re like, Oh, God, maybe, you know, if it was just always bad, it would be clear what to do. You’d be like, All right, you know, I really need to minimize my time with this person, or, you know, put them out of my life. And if it were only good, you wouldn’t be having the struggle. I think that so many things in life we end up with ambivalence about, and that ambivalence is really challenging. Yeah,

Sahil Bloom  20:22

absolutely, completely agree. I sort of ascribe to the wisdom that you should give everyone a second chance, but never a third. And I think that that is kind of a healthy way to approach these things, when it comes to relationships, and when it comes to relationships that are sort of on the edge for you in your life. Life is too short to allow people into your energy that are truly a consistent negative force over and over again. The first time someone’s that way, I personally default to empathy. I assume person’s having a bad day, even when I, like, encounter a stranger and they do something that is sort of negative, like, you know, treat you in a certain way. It’s like something is going on in this person’s life that caused them to act this way, give someone a little bit of grace. But when it becomes a consistent pattern, it’s no longer something that’s just a one off. 

Eric Zimmer  21:10

So I want to get into the different types of wealth here in a second. But before I do, I’d love to talk about the life razor. Tell me what the life raiser is. 

Sahil Bloom  21:19

So the life razor is this concept of having a simple, single statement that is an identity defining rule for your life. A razor, just as a term, is a sort of rule of thumb that allows you to simplify decision making. So a life razor is a rule of thumb that allows you to simplify decision making across your entire life. The way that I articulate it in the book is best brought to life through a story which is Mark Randolph, the first CEO, the founder, co founder of Netflix, has this thing that he has talked about and written about in the past, that throughout his entire technology career, he had a hard rule that on Tuesdays, at 5pm he was leaving the office to go out on a date with his wife, and he talks about the fact that what he is most proud of from his entire career, which founded all of these incredible companies, built these incredible things, is not that he achieved those amazing successes, but that he was able to do that while still remaining married to the same woman and having kids Who, as far as he can tell, love to spend time with him. And I thought that it was such an interesting thing after I spoke to him, In reflecting on it, because what I understood was that it didn’t really have anything to do with any one date or the date in and of itself. It had everything to do with the identity that it established in his life, that he was the type of person that never missed a 5pm Tuesday dinner with his wife. It means something about how he shows up in the world, and it sends a clear signal ripples to everyone around him about the things that he holds most dear and about the way that he is going to show up in these different situations in his life. To all have our own version of that Tuesday 5pm dinner rule, some single identity, defining statement for your own life that allows you to cut through the noise in the various situations that you encounter is very powerful. So on my desk, I have a little sheet of paper that says, I will coach my son’s sports teams. That is my life raiser. That is the idea that I am going to be the type of husband, type of father, type of community member, type of individual who is always going to put those things first, who is going to make sure that whatever decisions I have to make in life, they are not going to come into conflict with that ideal version of myself, how that version shows up in the world. You

Eric Zimmer  23:59

so I love this idea of a life raiser, and I have one of my own. I want to dig a little deeper here, though. I’d love to see how you think about this right, like you’ll coach your son’s sports teams. It’s a good overall framing. But even with that clarity, you’re going to be faced with lots of decisions about where time goes right? Do I put it towards one of my professional pursuits? Do I put it towards my son’s development? And you’re not always going to choose your son’s development, because if you take that to its extent, you could spend your entire life doing nothing but focusing on your child, which would be fine. How do you think about applying that? Like the Netflix guy’s rule was pretty straightforward, like, I just have to make sure for an hour and a half on Tuesday I show up. There’s a lot of latitude around that. How do you think about taking that I will coach my son’s sports team and practically applying it as you go through your day to day life?

Sahil Bloom  24:56

To me, it is about the statement about the time. Type of person you are. I mean, my son is two and a half, so he’s not even on sports teams yet, so this is very much a wide statement already. No, no, and I’m far from that type of parent, because my parents weren’t like that with me. But this is about the type of person that I believe I am when I show up as my best self. Let’s take an example. Someone comes to me and offers me a new business opportunity, and I’m looking at it, and it’s exciting. They’re going to pay me a bunch of money, but it’s going to require me to be on planes for 100 days out of the year, going around and doing a bunch of things. I can look at this card and say, well, this seems exciting, but what does the type of person who coaches his son’s sports teams do in these situations? Well, I probably can’t be away that much and still be the type of person who will be there for my family in this way. So that means I might need to go back and adjust the opportunity. It doesn’t mean I’m just gonna blanket say no to it, but maybe I need to make adjustments to the construct of how it exists. Similarly, if someone comes and offers me a bunch of money, but it might jeopardize my integrity or morals the way that we’re going to be making it. It’s a hard No. I can immediately look at this and just say there’s no way, because I cannot jeopardize my relationship with my son or wife, because for me to coach that team, that’s not just my choice. That’s his choice that he wants to have me around. That’s my wife’s choice, that she’s proud to have me out in the community with other people. So I cannot take actions that would jeopardize that if I’m the type of person who does these things. So it’s really important to understand the ripples that that one statement creates into other areas. And in Mark’s example of the 5pm Tuesday dinner, yes, it’s just this dinner, it also creates a ripple to all of his employees, because his employees see the CEO of the company creating these boundaries and prioritizing his family and having a life outside of work. Well, they’re empowered to now do something similar. It’s not to say that, you know, if you’re a junior person, you can do the exact same thing, but they can create something because they know that there’s a core value now, and that makes them more loyal to the company, that makes them want to stick around and work together, and it creates value for everybody involved. So it’s really those ripples that extend off that single statement that become very interesting.

Eric Zimmer  27:07

Yeah, I love that idea that is really good. And I also love the idea of having a statement, because life happens fast. It gets confusing, and having something that’s that always at hand can be so valuable, mine is just that I try and leave every situation, whether that a person a place better than I found it like that’s just kind of my life. Razor just sort of orients me in general. Doesn’t solve every decision making quandary I come up with, but it does point me in a direction, and it’s simple enough that it consistently can be useful. 

Sahil Bloom  27:43

I love that one. That’s a very, very good one. Yeah, there’s several examples in the book that I go through from people in sort of different walks of life, and that’s a really important piece to this idea of the life razor too, to recognize that your life raiser will change across the different seasons of your life. My son is young now this is clearly a key focus when he goes to college or when our children are no longer in the house. It obviously doesn’t serve in quite the same way. So recognizing and assessing sort of pressure testing whether the life raiser that you have is still one that suits the stage that you’re in in life is also just a healthy kind of natural process. Over and over again.

Eric Zimmer  28:20

My son is now 26 so you know, if he was your son’s age, I might have a very different focus. The stage of life I’m in and the stage of life you’re in are very different. Yeah, I think that’s exactly right. So we just alluded a little bit to stages of life, and how you spend your time in different stages of life might be different. So let’s move on to the first type of wealth that you talk about, which is time wealth. And my favorite part from this is just this very simple question, Would you trade lives with Warren Buffett? Talk to me about that question, because that is such a great and illuminating question. 

Sahil Bloom  28:57

I love asking young

people this question, yeah, it is such a simple articulation of a very important point, which is that time is your most precious asset. If I ask a young person, would you trade lives with Warren Buffett, it’s a hard charging young person just starting their career, and I tell them he’s worth $130 billion he flies around on a Boeing Business Jet. He has access to anyone in the world. He basically reads and learns for a living. Sounds pretty good, but you would never trade lives with him for one simple reason, he is 95 years old. There’s no way that you should agree to trade the amount of time that he has left for all the money in the world. And on the flip side, he would do anything to be 22 again, he would give up every single dollar that he has to be 22 and to have the amount of time that you have. So in that articulation, what you’re recognizing is that your time has quite literally incalculable value, incalculable value, and yet, on a daily basis, are you really wasting it? I mean, we’re spending all this time scrolling on our phone. Comparing ourselves to other people, stressing about the past, anxiety about the future, all of these things that are fundamentally disrespecting this one most precious asset that we have, the one asset that we can never get back once it’s gone. I love

Eric Zimmer  30:14

that question too, because you first hear it and you think, Well, of course I would, until you get to the 97 you know, he’s 97 years old piece. And I think then it kind of wakes you up to this idea. And as you were talking, I was thinking a little bit about, you know, we talk about spending time. If we really applied that idea of spending time the way we did money, there’s a lot of ways I spend my time that I would not spend money on. It’s really interesting to think about, like, I do this thing, but would I pay to do that thing? Of course, I wouldn’t. That’s a

Sahil Bloom  30:46

really interesting way of thinking about it. I’ve actually never articulated it that way in my mind, but it is an important framing. It is just really interesting. What changes you start to make when you recognize that time is really the thing that you have, and that all of these moments, these windows of time, are actually in a little bit more of your control than you think that is a really important piece, is to just recognize that you can actually create time for the things or with the people that you really care About in your life. You can make decisions. You can take actions that actually create more of these moments with the people that you want to spend time with, or for the things that you really enjoy, for the experiences that you really want to have. You can take actions that fundamentally create time in that sense. And once you realize that you start living differently in a lot of ways, but it all comes from that awareness of the fact that time is the really precious asset, not the money, right? And

Eric Zimmer  31:47

I think there’s a second level to this. The first level is being intentional about where I put my time. I think the second level is being intentional about what I bring to the things I’m doing. And this gets back to where we started. You said, you know, certain things that we used to pray for, we now see as a burden, right? It can be easy when you’re trapped in the just the word I use there describes the mind state that we’re in, even though I don’t believe in that word in this way with your two year old for four hours, and it can begin to feel overwhelming. So your time is in the right place, but what you’re bringing to that time is also an important part of what makes that time valuable or non valuable.

Sahil Bloom  32:29

I think what you’re hitting on is a really important concept, which is that your ability to direct your attention and energy into the moments or windows of time that really matter is where you achieve the greatest successes and outcomes in life. There are these particular windows of time during which certain people or certain opportunities present themselves, and they are weightier, they are more textured than others. The ancient Greeks actually had two different words for time. They had Kronos, which was the idea of chronological, kind of linear, quantitative time. And then they had Kairos, which was the idea that not all time is created equal, that there are certain moments or windows that have more texture, that have more meaning or more importance, and your ability to direct attention or energy into those is actually amplified in terms of the outcomes that you can create. So those moments with certain people that are really important, those business opportunities that are time sensitive, that if you just lean into and really sprint at you can generate these incredible outcomes for your life. It’s sort of like the Lionel Messi version of playing soccer, where he walks around the field the entire game and then he sprints in the exact right moment to achieve the incredible outcome that he’s going for. It’s taking the approach that to life, rather than the consistent jog, finding those moments of time and deploying your attention and energy into them. 

Eric Zimmer  33:53

I want to do a thought experiment here with you, which is the business stuff I totally get right. Like this is the time you go hard, if we’re talking about time with family, let’s say, you know, you recognize that the first 10 years of your son’s life, you call him, I think the magic years. I’ve always said the glory years of parenting are like five to 11. But you’re right. The first 10 years are so critical, you can’t just pick a couple of moments to sprint there, right? Because that would be the equivalent of what, you know, people call the Disneyland dad, right? You drop in and you take your kid to Disneyland, you create these great moments, but day to day, your wife is doing kind of all of the work. And one of the things that I found is that sometimes training my attention in non important moments to be prepared for the important moments is valuable. I mean, I think in many ways, this is what meditation is. Meditation, I think, is training your attention in a moment that theoretically isn’t that important, right? Because you’re just sitting there with the goal, at least my goal is the ability to act. Actually really inhabit the important moments.

Sahil Bloom  35:02

I love that articulation training your attention in the unimportant moments for the important moments. It’s not dissimilar from my articulation of the reason we do hard things like I, you know, I am an avid cold plunger, way past the point where it’s no longer trendy like it once was. And the reason I believe in doing that is because I fundamentally believe that when you take on voluntary struggle, you are more well equipped for the involuntary struggle that inevitably comes into your life. And you’re sort of articulating the same thing when it comes to these moments which I love. I do tend to think of life more on a season basis than on a day’s basis. And I think that balance as a concept, attention as a concept, is actually more well thought of on a kind of waves, versus specific tiny moments like the Disneyland trip, because that is a really helpful framing, at least for me, that has provided a lot of comfort, and it’s provided a lot of security, and how we think about our son and this journey. I mean, like, just to be fully transparent, the last three, four months, I’ve been in a season of unbalance, like truly sprinting to put these ideas out into the world that I care deeply about, that I think are going to impact a lot of people, and being able to do that without stress and anxiety, knowing that it is in service of a season of balance to come, yes, that my wife and I are going to be able to zoom out and spend tons of time together with our son, present moments energy there, because of the fact that I sprinted and really leaned into this thing and was able to create that That is a really important reframing of these things, because what it tells you is that you don’t have to stress over a lack of balance in the days, as long as you understand on the Zoomed Out View that you’re working towards the balance in the seasons. 

Eric Zimmer  36:54

I agree 100% with that idea, because people talk about work life balance, and I think when you look at it in short chunks, you might see that it’s really out of balance. If you’re looking at a day or a week, you know, if your kid is sick, that week may be way more child than work, because you’re at home and, you know, you’re taking days off to take care of the child, and suddenly work is out of balance. But I think the trick comes like, I think you’ve been real intentional about, okay, once I get through this time, which is a book launch, right? A book launch demands a ton out of someone, once I get on the other side of that, I’m going to be very intentional about how I’m rebalancing this. I think the problem that a lot of people fall into, and I did this, I think, for a number of years, was I kept believing that, just on the other side of this project, I was in the software world, once we get this release out, then I’m gonna dial it back. And the reality was, particularly if someone else is setting your priorities like the gas pedals all the way down all the time. And so I think in those situations, it did become more important to recognize, like, Okay, I have to watch a little bit closer that I don’t get stuck in the belief that, okay, I’ll balance this out later, and the next thing you know, three years have gone by. 

Sahil Bloom  38:12

Later is the most dangerous word in the dictionary. We say I’ll spend more time with my kids later, I’ll spend more time with my partner or my friends. Later, I’ll invest in my health. Later, I’ll find my freedom and purpose later. And the sad thing is that later just becomes another word for never, because those things are not going to exist in the same way. Later, your kids are not going to be five years old. Later, your partner, your friends won’t be there for you later if you’re not there for them now, your health won’t be there for you later if you don’t invest in it now, you won’t magically wake up with freedom and purpose later if you don’t build those things now. And so the idea is that you have to design these things into your life in some tiny way. Today. It doesn’t have to be dramatic. We know that life has seasons, and you’re not going to be able to massively focus on all of these things at all points in time, but they need to be designed in in some tiny way on a daily basis, otherwise you’ll just end up regretting it later. 

Eric Zimmer  39:27

You talk about these five types of wealth, I’m just going to put them out there, just real quick time, wealth, social wealth, mental wealth, physical wealth and financial wealth. But you have a concept in there of we tend to think about these things as like, I’m investing in this, or I’m not, and you talk about trying to take a dimmer switch approach to these five different areas of wealth. I think this piggybacks on what you just said. Talk to me about that mentality.

Sahil Bloom  39:54

I’m glad you brought this up, because I do think that this is probably the single most important idea. Idea to understand in your own life for building the life you want. The traditional wisdom around creating change in your life is that you have to pick an area that you’re going to focus on. You turn the light switch on, and then every other area of your life gets turned off while you focus on the one. So if I’m going to be trying to build my career, build my finances, I turn that switch on. And too bad relationships, too bad health, too bad mental health. Those all get switched off, and I’m just gonna be hard charging. And we actually pat a lot of people on the back for saying things like that. We say like, oh, obsession is good and grit and like, we use all these positive words for sacrificing all these other areas of your life to build the one I fundamentally reject the idea that you have to do that all of these areas of your life exist on dimmer switches, and you can, and probably should have one area turned up. That is the area that you are focusing on during this season of your life. But it doesn’t mean the other ones are turned off. It just means they’re going to be turned down. And the important point here is that down is infinitely better than off, yes, because anything above zero compounds positively. We know that when it comes to money, if you put $50 or $100 in the s, p5, 100 today, that’s better than zero, because it’s gonna stack up and compound over long periods of time. The exact same thing applies to these other areas of your life, your relationships, sending the one text to the friend when you’re thinking about them is better than doing nothing. Going for the 10 minute walk is better than doing nothing. But what happens is that ambitious people allow optimal to get in the way of beneficial. So they say, Oh, I don’t have an hour to work out, so I’m just not going to work out. I don’t have an hour to go on a coffee date with this friend, so I’m just not going to talk to them. That is the worst mentality. That is the light switch being turned off. And if you allow those light switches to be off for too long, you can’t turn them back on, or they will be very difficult to turn back on. So what we need to do is just have them down low design, a tiny investment on a daily basis in those areas into your life on a daily basis, send the text to the friend when you think about them, call your mom for two minutes in the car, get the group together for the annual trip once a year. Do the 15 minute walk even when you don’t really feel like it. Journal for three minutes in the evening. Breathe for three minutes in between meetings. Whatever those tiny things are, they stack wins, because anything above zero compounds,

Eric Zimmer  42:25

I love that line. Anything above zero compounds, I used to say to coaching clients all the time, a little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing. It’s this core idea. The other thing that I think speaks to why this is such a useful strategy is that these things tend to amplify each other, right? Like, if you are taking good care of your physical health or decent care of it and your mental health, your professional world is probably going to do better. So again, I think there’s these ways that not only are they each important individually, they work together to a certain extent. I have a friend, Jonathan fields. He wrote a book a number of years ago. The main idea was we have these different areas of life buckets similar to what you’re talking about, and that the lowest level of one of them can end up being a cap on all the others, if you’re not careful.

Sahil Bloom  43:17

I love that. I have often thought about that in the context of physical, wealth, your health, that the reason I harp on it so much, the reason I think it’s so important, is because it is a catalyst for all of the other types of wealth. When you take an action in your physical wealth and you see an outcome that rewires your brain to remind yourself that you are capable of creating change in your world, that you are capable of doing something and getting the desired outcome that has ripple effects into everything else that you do, because you start to see yourself that way, you start to recognize that you are capable. So if you’re ever feeling down and you start doing that, you start to remind yourself of that fact, suddenly you have this new energy to go and take on other things, because you recognize that you have that power, you remind yourself of that power that you have.

Eric Zimmer  44:06

I agree and for me, exercise is sort of this Keystone type habit, right? And it is because of what you just said, but it’s also because doing it actually does give me more energy, and that energy then can be deployed to these different areas of wealth, right? If I have enough energy, then I’ll go out after dinner to see a friend, versus just collapsing on the couch and watching Netflix, if you know, if I have energy to do it. And so for me, that is the keystone that unlocks a lot of other things.

Sahil Bloom  44:36

That’s absolutely right, completely agree.

Eric Zimmer  44:39

All right, let’s move on to social wealth for a minute, which, again, I love this idea of just having a question that anchors this whole thing, which is, who will be sitting in the front row at your funeral? And this comes from an exercise I learned in the seven habits of highly effective people like 25 years ago, where you imagine. Funeral, and you imagine what people get up and say about you as a way of orienting what’s important to you, but you’ve given it a slightly different spin. So talk to me about this front row idea. 

Sahil Bloom  45:12

The idea is to visualize your funeral, but not in a morbid sense, in an empowering one, which is to say at your funeral, there will be a lot of people that will show up, and certain people will sit down in the front row. The recognition that those people hold a very special place in your world, and the recognition that you need to ask yourself whether or not you are cherishing those people, whether you are cherishing your front row people, making sure that they know that special place that they hold in your world, and whether you are being a front row person to someone else out there. 

Eric Zimmer  45:52

Yeah, I love that idea. I love the funeral thing in general, because it allows you to step back from your life and think about what’s important. But I had never thought of it in this sort of front row way of really thinking about who would be in that for us. And also, I love what you said, where it’s, am I being a front row kind of person? Am I being the sort of person that would would deserve to sit in the front row for these people?

Sahil Bloom  46:18

Yeah, I think that that’s the important piece. Is like flipping these things on yourself and recognizing your own actions and how your actions are either creating or pushing you away from that future that you want. In a lot of the visualizations that I run through in the book, there is this idea of identify and visualize the future that you want. Then ask yourself whether your actions in the present are bearing out that future, and if they’re not, you can change your actions in the present. That’s great news. You can actually do something different today that will create the future that you want. But recognizing that there is that gap between what you want your future to look like and what it is likely to look like if you don’t change is the important first step, that awareness, that self awareness, which most of us are afraid to confront. Yes, the reason I talk about, I bring up all these questions in the book, is because I fundamentally believe one important fact, which is the answers you seek in life are found in the questions that you avoid, the questions that you avoid asking about your life, that is what we need to dig into. If we can sit with those questions, then we’re able to actually uncover and act on these answers that will change our world. That’s

Eric Zimmer  47:30

a great way of thinking about I’ve led groups of people through the funeral exercise before without the front row edition. For some people, it’s a really difficult thing. It’s a really difficult thing, because they are forced to see, indeed, the way in which they are not living according to what they want their, you know, quote, unquote, legacy to be. And a lot of us have a tendency when we when we come face to face with something that’s uncomfortable, a question that’s uncomfortable is to run away from,

Sahil Bloom  48:01

and it’s very easy to do. Yeah, I mean, look, there is nothing forcing you to confront these questions. It’s much easier to just sit around, scroll on your phone. You know, avoid asking these questions, avoid making the changes that are hard all like everything in the world today is about reducing friction. All of the technology we’ve developed over the last 20 years has reduced friction in your life. It’s made it easier to press the eject button out of these challenging situations. You have more choices than ever before. Everything is easier if you want it to be. And unfortunately, what you find is that the friction actually created a lot of meaning the friction actually was a good thing, because on the other side of that friction was the most beautiful things in life, and on the other side of the friction of asking yourself these hard questions is the life that you actually want to build for yourself? 

Eric Zimmer  48:51

Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. Let’s talk a little bit about mental wealth. What does mental wealth mean to you?

Sahil Bloom  48:58

Mental wealth is all about purpose. It’s about growth. It’s about creating the space necessary to actually wrestle with some of the big, unanswerable questions in life, whether through spirituality, meditation, solitude, what have you, mental wealth is fundamentally about allowing yourself to pay the price for your distinctiveness in the world, I talk about this shareholder letter that Jeff Bezos wrote where he says that the fight against normalcy is the most important fight of your life. You have to every single day, pay a price to maintain your distinctiveness, to walk your path, rather than the one that was handed to you. That is really what mental wealth is about it’s about paying that price, about doing the things, pursuing your curiosity, pursuing your growth, to allow yourself to live your life rather than consent to the default that was handed.

Eric Zimmer  49:51

That line jumped off the page to me. It’s a life that pays the price for its distinctiveness. Such an interesting way to think. Think about what we’re trying to protect. You say that the mental wealth is a life of victory in the fight against equilibrium. And that’s another way of, you know, sort of pulling us back to what is kind of, well, that’s not the right way to say it, because distinctiveness is actually what is its normality as you say it or average?,

Sahil Bloom  50:22

Yeah, that’s exactly right. And I just think that this is not about that being grand or impressive to anyone else. You know, there’s this important idea of dharma, ancient Hindu idea of your sacred duty. And the most important part of that is that your dharma does not have to be grand impressive to other people sound so incredible or big, it just has to be yours, and doing your dharma imperfectly is better than doing someone else’s perfectly. That is so liberating to understand that your purpose, your pursuits, the things that you are excited about or doing, the path that you’re walking, does not have to be impressive to other people. You don’t need to go off and do these grand things or feel like you need to build the billion dollar company or be the biggest you know best at whatever it is. You just need to live your life. You need to walk your path, not one that you’ve been handed by default. You need to live by your own design. 

Eric Zimmer  51:19

Yeah ,going back to what we talked about earlier, which is that even if you have your life pointed in the right direction, you can still get caught up in the concept of more, more, more, versus Enough, enough, enough. And I think that this happens to us in these Dharma, purpose type things, because we think that, you know, if we’re not starting like a charity that eliminates hunger. In Africa, we’re not doing anything valuable or important, but as we’ve talked about, seasons of life like for a parent, that’s a pretty critical it’s a pretty critical Dharma right there, which is in the years that your children are little, raising them to be good people,

Sahil Bloom  51:56

amen. Amen. Could not agree more. 

Eric Zimmer  52:00

We’re near the very end of our time here. But I would love to just end with one idea that you talk about, which is that falling in love is easy. Growing in love is hard. 

Sahil Bloom  52:10

This goes back to that idea of friction. Falling in love is what you see on social media. It’s the beautiful, manicured photos, the filtered moments, the perfect honeymoon phase, all of those fancy things. But that’s not reality. Real, beautiful, deep, loving relationships are built through shared struggle. They’re built through the growing, through the periods of crawling through the mud with someone, through embracing the friction and finding your way to the other side. And until you embrace that, until you recognize that we need to focus more on the growing than the falling, and recognize that that idea applies to much more than relationships in life, you will never find the things that you are actually seeking beautiful.

Eric Zimmer  52:55

Well, I think that is a wonderful place for us to wrap up. Thank you. Saw Hill. I really enjoyed the book, and I’ve really enjoyed this conversation.

Sahil Bloom  53:04

Thank you so much for having me. This was a thrill. I can’t wait to get to chat again soon.

Eric Zimmer  53:08

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

« 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

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

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