Neuroscience of Emotions & Tools for Improving Emotion Regulation| Dr. Ralph Adolphs

I see somebody come up behind me. They can see I'm trying to park. They can move over. No, they come right up behind me, go on the horn, and you know, you immediately feel just an immediate anger response, right? >> Well, after the ice bath, it's flat. So, there was an immediate automatic downregulation of my autonomic emotional response to a psychological stressor, to somebody honking at me that was trained and generalized from the ice bath. It's an experiment of one. I'm not claiming this as a published study, but so I think there's a there's a direct autonomic training component as well in terms of the strength and the automaticity, the ease with which you can regulate emotions that they can become kind of automatically regulated. You don't have to overthink it. It becomes smooth and effortless to some extent. And that's that's the place where where you where you want to get. Hey everyone. To celebrate the launch of my new book entitled Protocols, I'm pleased to share that I'll be hosting three live events very soon. The first live event is in New York City at Radio City Music Hall on September 17th. The second event is in Los Angeles at the Dolby Theater on October 8th. And the third live event is in San Francisco at the Masonic on October 28th. At each of these events, I'll be discussing topics from the book and my favorite part, taking questions directly from you, the audience. To get tickets, you can go to hubbermanlab.com/events and use the code protocols to get early access. Again, that's hubbermanlab.com/events and use the code protocols to get early access to tickets. Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life. I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor of neurobiology and opthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine. My guest today is Dr. Dr. Ralph Adolfs. Dr. Ralph Adolfs is a professor of psychology, neuroscience, and biology at Caltech University and a world expert in the neurobiology of emotions. Today, we discuss what emotions are, how they grow and shrink in our brain and body, and why some emotions seem to recruit our behavior and decision-m and some simply don't. We also discuss where and how emotions are mapped in the body. and we dispel common myths about the brain body storage of emotions from our past, which is a very commonly discussed topic that frankly, as you'll learn today, many, if not most people get wrong. We also discuss why some people are able to observe but not react to their emotions and what tools may assist in helping you build better emotion regulation. As you'll soon realize, Dr. Adolf is uniquely positioned to explain the real neuroscience and psychology of emotions and how to put that information to use. Today's conversation therefore ought to be valuable for people of every age and profession and for anyone interested in improving their emotional life and understanding of others. And now for my conversation with Dr. Ralph Adolfs. Dr. Ralph Adolfs. Welcome. >> Thank you, Andrew. Pleasure to be here. >> Longtime admirer of your work because you're one of the few people who has studied these things we call emotions, brain states, cognition, and much more in humans. There have been others in the field of neuroscience of course, but I would argue few people have combined a real grounding in neuroscircuits with an interest in what most people think of as a psychological set of issues in a way that also takes into account the animal data and really the broadest picture of this thing that we call emotions. I'm just going to start with a statement of gratitude. Thank you for doing that because it's so easy for people to stimulate a brain area, see an animal or a human behave or speak in a certain way and say, "Oh, this is the brain region for this." And you've long been pushing back on that. >> It's a tall order, you know, and one impetus for the work that I've been doing in the book that I co-wrote with David Anderson, the book uh that I have forthcoming with Princeton University Press, is precisely to do what you just said is to kind of integrate and pull together uh findings and emotion from animal studies, findings from social psychology. Typically, those people in those fields don't talk to one another. They do very different studies, very different methodologies. And so trying to integrate across disciplines that are that far apart to really try and get a get a sense for what are emotions in a sense that would satisfy psychologists and lay people about human emotions but they would also speak to the mechanisms that you can study in mice for example or flies as David Anderson does. >> So how do you think about emotions and how do they relate to brain and bodily states? The basic answer is that I think of emotions as functional states of a particular type. They should be understood by what they do, their function rather than how they happen to be constituted in the human brain or differently in an octopus nervous system or in an AI which we should talk about. Um and so the way to situate them is to think of control of behavior in response to particular types of environmental challenges. So at the sort of simplest level, you would have reflexes. You know, I put my hand out on a hot stove or you tap the patellar tendon on my knee and there's like a very rigid behavior that's adaptive that's very rigid, but just for that particular circumstance, I withdraw my hand. That's a reflex. At the opposite end, you would have, you know, goal-directed general valition and planning everything, you know, the stuff we do all the time that's extremely flexible. And so if you have a bear or a tiger, you know, something charging at you, that challenge requires a control of behavior that's intermediate between those two extremes. I can't have a reflex for a bear if it's far away or if it's close or if it's a rattlesnake or or or a tiger or all the different kinds of potential threats out there. Instead, I need something that's more flexible, which emotions are. So that's the sort of big picture that emotions are functional states that have particular features or operating characteristics for dealing with certain types of environmental challenges like running away from a bear. I mean first of all I think the question what is an emotion is a good and a valid question. It's not an illposed question. You occasionally run into the view that well emotions don't really exist or we don't really you can't really say anything about them. question is just ill-posed or meaningless. I don't think that's the case. Paul Griffith's philosopher wrote a book some years ago, I think 97 or so, what emotions really are, uh, where he first kind of made the claim that, well, they don't really exist, you know, and you could see how people come to that conclusion if you survey all the different theories that are out there, Joe Leoo or Lisa Feldman Barrett or Paul Ecman, they look pretty different. And so you might come away with the impression, look, even the experts can't agree on what emotions are. The words we have for emotions predate modern science. So it's just a confused concept. I don't think that's the case. I think I mean there's room for revision, but I think everybody kind of knows what emotions are and I think it deserves a straight answer that science should provide. I think the question is well posed enough to admit of an answer and then how could you start getting to an answer. So let's just start sort of from the simplest case would be to list some examples. So you could say well you know emotions are anger, fear, disgust. You could list specific examples that are uncontentious I would hope where pretty much everybody agrees. Okay, these are examples of emotions right? You could do the same if I asked you what's a car, right? And you would say, well, you know, it's a Mercedes and a Honda and a Toyota. Or if I asked you, what's a bird? And you would say, it's a robin and a hummingbird and an eagle. So you could list examples. That's not an answer yet. What you would then want to say is, well, what is it in virtue of which these examples, what makes them all instances of an emotion? What do fear, anger, etc. share in common? What features do they have that makes them emotions? just like what the cars or the bird species have in common that makes them cars or birds. And so David Anderson and I did that in our book a decade ago or so now the neuroscience of emotion where we listed some features of emotions that helps to answer the question and sort of get a handle on what is it that these all share in common. I elaborate on that and have a longer list and really go into detail and okay so what are the features of emotions in my forthcoming book? Maybe I'll just list a couple to go through them quickly. So, one feature of emotions is priority, which is that they can take over your behavior that they share in common with reflexes. If I put my head on a hot stove, you know, I can't help but withdraw it. And if you're suddenly confronted by the bear, you can't help but run away or crawl into a ball or whatever your adaptive behavior is. So they have priority and interrupt your behavior which is something that the the noble laurate Herbert Simon already pointed out in a paper back in the 50s or 60s that they're interrupt mechanisms of a certain kind. If you're just going about your business and normal goal- directed behavior you always need to be monitoring for the bear or the tiger the predator that's out there and if you detect that emotions have to take over or you're dead. So priority is sort of one that doesn't distinguish emotions from reflexes or fixed action patterns. They they share that. Another one is veilance that psychologists ubiquitously mention which is sort of the simplest dimension along which you can organize emotions in terms of their similarity. So anger, disgust, fear you might say are more similar to one another than either of those is with say happiness. There's some similarity structure. Some emotions cluster together. Some are further apart and the simplest dimension which is one that Charles Darwin already mentioned in his book the expression of the emotion in man and animals he called it principle of antithesis is veilance which is approach or avoid pleasant or unpleasant this basic veilance dimension. Are there any neutral emotions? I I ask this because your colleague at Caltech who I respect tremendously, Marcus Meister once wrote a review where he said, you know, a good way to think about sensory systems and maybe neural systems of all kind is that they're encoding for yum, yuck, or meh. >> And the me is a very interesting one. Just like an animal or including us can go forward, backward, or stay put. Now, we can go side to side, too, of course. Those are just different versions of forward in in this context. And I sometimes wonder because algorithms are repurposed across different neural systems if there is indeed a meh emotion or maybe the emotion is meh. I don't want to take us down a philosophical path but does that make sense because as as long as we're talking about veilance >> sure anger and happiness clearly you know sad and happy okay opposite ends of the spectrum but what was it apathy is there a state of prioritization of doing nothing? It's a really good question. I mean I think you know when you list these features um like priority veilance I I'll get to some others. One question is which of these are necessary? Um you know like a package of uh all of these features uh that emotions have. Do you need all of them or can are some of them sufficient? And I think the answer is some of them are sufficient but there's some that are necessary. I think priority is necessary. I think veilance maybe not as you were alluding to. I could imagine there's still veilance but it's at a neutral region of the of the spectrum. But then there's other ones which are the ones that David Anderson has studied in particular in the hypothalamus in mice and I think goes into great detail in the podcast that you had with them which are scalability and temporal persistence. And so scalability would be that an emotion can scale in intensity. uh one of the best examples of that has been is is for the case of fear and the bear coming at you. So typically it would scale from anxiety and monitoring you know there's the bear sort of out there to fear where you might run away or hide to panic. So that sort of threat imminence scalability and that's something where emotions are different now from reflexes because reflexes are binary. It's all or nothing. I either pull my hand away or nothing. The knee jerks or not. It's not there's not like some scalable package in there. And then temporal persistence is even more something that's essential to emotions and speaks to their function which is you have this internal state let's say of aggression or of fear that has to last some time because the the bear might be around for some time. So you might be running away or you might be attacking in anger. Those are phasic little bouts but the actual internal state that is motivating those persists for quite a long time. So temporal persistence is really important and it allows the person or the animal to incorporate lots and lots of information that's coming in and to have a motivational state that would be suited for that kind of environmental challenge. It's not like a hot plate where if you pull your hand away you're done. The bear is out there and it might might come back. It might still be lurking in the forest. So you better be afraid for some period of time. David Anderson studied this a lot in terms of what neural circuits, what properties of neurotransmitters in the brain could actually implement persistence. Would you have really slow neurotransmitters like neuropeptides for instance, which is what he studied. But my colleagues at the University of Iowa actually did a really cool study in humans that showed the temporal persistence of emotions independent of memory. So here's a study. They took patients with amnesia. So these were like four or five people who had medial temporal lo hippocample damage. They live in a time window of maybe a minute or so. I used to study these patients when I first started as a posttock at the University of Iowa with with Damasio. And you know, you can talk to them, you they can uh process information, but if you go to the toilet and you come back five minutes later, they would stand up and shake your hand, introduce themselves to you because they would have no recollection of having met you before. So just no memory, very strong antrograde amnesia as it's called. So they had those end controls. They showed them really sad movie clips in all cases. The patients can understand and watch the movie clip. They get really sad and weepy. Right after watching these sad movie clips, everybody rates, "How sad do you feel?" The amusement patients feel really sad. The controls feel really sad. You wait five minutes. You then ask the controls, "Well, how do you how sad do you feel?" And they say, "Yeah, I still feel a little bit of sad sadness in me because I remember having seen the movie." And if you ask them, "Why do you feel sad?" They say, "Well, because you showed me the sad movie 5 minutes ago." The amnesic patients, you ask, "How do you feel?" They say, "I feel really sad and I don't know why. I have no idea." and you ask them, "Do you remember seeing a movie?" Say, "Nope." There's like no declarative memory of the movie, but there's still the temporal persistence of the sadness. It lasts some time. >> So, I thought this was a really cool study because it showed very clearly that there is temporal persistence in emotions and sadness probably has one of the longest time constants as we know from personal experience. But it's separate from just declarative memory. It's not that you're remembering that the bear is there. That's going on too. But independently of that, the emotion state has its own temporal persistence. The state has to last some time. And again, that's something that reflexes don't have. It just goes straight through. There's there's no temporal persistence. >> I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, Helix Sleep. Helix Sleep makes mattresses and pillows that are customized to your unique sleep needs. Now, I've spoken many times before on this and on other podcasts about the fact that getting a great night's sleep is the foundation of mental health, physical health, and performance. When we aren't getting great sleep on a consistent basis, everything suffers. And when we are sleeping well and enough, our mental health, physical health, and performance in all endeavors improve marketkedly. Now, the mattress you sleep on makes a huge difference in the quality of sleep that you get each night. how soft it is or how firm it is all play into your comfort and need to be tailored to your unique sleep needs. If you go to the Helix website, you can take a brief two-minute quiz and it will ask you questions such as, "Do you sleep on your back, your side, or your stomach? Maybe you know, maybe you don't. Do you tend to run hot or cold during the night? Things of that sort. You answer those questions and Helix will match you to the ideal mattress for you. For me, that turned out to be the Dusk Dusk mattress. I've been sleeping on a Dusk mattress for more than four years now, and it's been far and away the best sleep that I've ever had. If you'd like to try Helix, you can go to helixleep.com/huberman, take that 2-minute sleep quiz, and Helix will match you to a mattress that's customized for you. Right now, Helix is giving up to 27% off their entire site. Helix has also teamed up with True Med, which allows you to use your HSA FSA dollars to shop Helix's award-winning mattresses. Again, that's helixleep.com/huberman to get up to 27% off. Today's episode is also brought to us by Rura. Rurora makes what I believe are the best water filters on the market. It's an unfortunate reality, but tap water often contains contaminants that negatively impact our health. In fact, a 2020 study by the Environmental Working Group estimated that more than 200 million Americans are exposed to PAS chemicals, also known as forever chemicals, through drinking of tap water. These forever chemicals are linked to serious health issues such as hormone disruption, gut microbiome disruption, fertility issues, and many other health problems. The Environmental Working Group has also shown that over 122 million Americans drink tap water with high levels of chemicals known to cause cancer. It's for all these reasons that I'm thrilled to have Aurora as a sponsor of this podcast. I've been using the Aurora countertop system for almost a year now. Roro's filtration technology removes harmful substances, including endocrine disruptors and disinfection byproducts while preserving beneficial minerals like magnesium and calcium. It requires no installation or plumbing. It's built from medical grade stainless steel, and its sleek design fits beautifully on your countertop. In fact, I consider it a welcome addition to my kitchen. It looks great, and the water is delicious. If you'd like to try Rora, you can go to roora.com/huberman and get an exclusive discount. Again, that's rura r o r a.com/huberman. It is striking to me that maybe 30 years or ago or so, there was discussion about whether animals have emotions based on these criteria, priority, veilance, scalability and persistence. Is it generally agreed upon that animals have emotions? I believe they do because I love my dog and other animals and I want to believe that. But as scientists, if we step back, do they meet the criteria for emotions that you're setting up here for us? >> Absolutely. Yes. So if you have those criteria, those functional criteria and you would add one or two others, many states in animals and certainly the states that we would ordinarily interpret as emotions in our pets, in our dogs, cats. By the way, I loved your dog in the in the waiting room there. They would meet those criteria and they would have functional emotions. >> Uh we should talk more about this is also the the claim now from anthropic that large language models have functional emotions as well. >> That's so wild. we have to return to that because I think it it kind of boggles the mind you know how could a machine have emotions but >> well but again these are functionally defined emotions and there's I think there's no problem assigning to AI to some extent and certainly to many animals uh those functional emotions where it gets complicated is that in us and also by assumption in animals I have no doubt they also have conscious experiences of emotions and most people take the conscious experience of the emotion as the ground truth for the emotion. Emotions without conscious experiences of emotions sound like an oxymoron. It's like you can't have that. They the conscious experience is the emotion, >> which is what William James said, which is what Joe Leoo says. And I think it's implicitly there across essentially every psychological theory is the assumption that emotions really are types of conscious experiences which I think is the intuition that if I ask you how do you know what's the ground truth right how do you know you're having an emotion you would say because it's a certain type of conscious experience because of how it feels. And if I asked you more specifically how do you know it's sadness versus anger versus fear you would say because of how they feel. They feel different. And so we take the conscious experience, our own introspective access to the conscious experience as the ground truth. That has a lot of problems associated with it. Deep philosophical problems. But just practically it has two big problems that I think science should avoid. One is it gets really problematic to know whether or not animals have emotions because we don't know how to test whether or not they have conscious experiences. I have no doubt that they do. It's just that there's no scientific way to test currently. So we should have different criteria. And the other question is if you tie emotion to the the conscious experience of emotion, that is you equate you conflate emotions with feelings. Well, then you're not studying emotions, you're studying consciousness. We spoke about Kristoff Kau earlier. Great respect for people that are studying consciousness, but I don't want to study consciousness. That's too hard. >> And there's lots and lots of debates and disagreements. So if we can avoid that and study emotions in the absence of needing to study conscious experiences of emotions, we can move forward with the science which is what every other discipline does. So if you're a vision researcher, right? So you study vision, you study consciousness. No, you don't you don't need to. I mean you can but there's a huge amount of work that people do studying vision and how that works in the brain studying memory you know any other cognitive process without needing to study conscious experiences they're typically accompanied in humans and if you if you talk to the lay person on the street and you say I'm a vision researcher they take you to be studying the conscious experience of seeing perhaps or if you say I'm a memory researcher they take you to be studying the conscious experience of recollection But scientifically most people working in those fields don't study consciousness and it's perfectly valid to study vision and memory you know in in in horseshoe crabs or alesia where nobody has any claims about consciousness. We should do the same thing with emotion and then we can have an integrated science across species that can move forward without needing to tackle the difficult problem of consciousness. Again, yes, for sure we and other animals have conscious experiences of emotions and that's very important. But we also have conscious experiences of seeing and memory. As a scientific discipline, we should separate the conscious experience from the process from the emotion and that's the way we make progress. That's the one of the main arguments that David and I had in our book and that I reiterate in the forthcoming book. At risk of taking us in a philosophical direction, I'd like to actually ask a biological psychological question. Given these criteria, you know, priority, veilance, scalability, and persistence, but really focusing mainly on priority. I think all of us have had the experience of an emotion coming on, but not in its kind of overtaking maximal form. Like, okay, we feel ourselves getting annoyed and we can observe the emotion growing. The arousal state is familiar to us. We understand. Let's assume in this example that we understand why it's happening. Maybe you're in line at the store and the person ahead of you is taking everybody's time by doing something that's really unnecessary and kind of obnoxious to us in that moment. And so our frustration is is rising and we are observing the emotion even though the emotion is us, right? It's within us. And then at some point we might blurt something out or we might feel compelled that we have to just say, "Excuse me, like could this maybe be taken care of?" >> But you have some control. >> You have some control. And and there's this almost like running together of two consciousnesses like there's like two of us in there at the same time observing self observing the outside world and then at some point the prioritization gets to the point where like we just do something and sometimes it's a decision and sometimes it overtakes us. Now at the opposite extreme, we've all observed I you can just go on X the social media platform and for some reason the algorithm likes to serve up a lot of examples of people like on planes losing it, people get going unhinged like you know I like people just like completely melting down and it's and it's very uh in our language hypothalamic, right? And so people are are drawn to that. >> I have an antidote to those people. >> They should take ice baths. I can tell you more. Take ice baths. I think this helps seriously. >> Yeah. Well, ice baths. Yeah, let's definitely talk about ice pass and ultra um ultra races because uh you you're training for one. >> No, but I think I think what you said is exactly right and extremely important for humans and probably unique to humans as opposed to other animals which is that we can be conscious of and monitor our own emotions and by doing so we can regulate them to some extent. So emotion regulation and control and monitoring emotion being aware of what emotion you have those two go hand in hand and your Stanford colleague you know James Gross start spawned this huge field in the '9s I guess when it started of emotion regulation that is now huge um I just finished my term as co-editor of this journal a effect of science and I would say like a quarter or so or a third of the submissions are about emotion regulation it is so important in in in humans and most of pathologies and difficulties about emotions are not about the emotion per se. It's about our ability or disability to control them to regulate them. >> If you don't mind, um because of your understanding of emotions and states and and neuroscience, but also your experience as a human in the world, has anything you've learned changed the way that you watch your emotions grow, decide when to step in, when not to step in? you don't seem like an impulsive person. So, we're not but most people aren't. We're not talking about uh pathology here. And I'll seed this question by saying, you know, I have a few friends who were in tier one special operations and you know, that's high-risisk, high consequence work. We've had Alex Honold on the podcast, high-risisk, high consequence endeavors. Um, and they all say the same thing, which are that emotions cloud logical judgment. So, they're somehow far from emotions or their emotions don't get prioritized. But of course these are this all of these people that come to mind have you know healthy marriages now you know healthy families they they're loving people they have anger they have they have emotions but they they've sort of categorized emotions as cloud judgment in the professional or you know peak performance context. Therefore they don't allow them to be prioritized. Sounds a little bit robotic sounds a little bit mechanical quote unquote on the spectrum. people like will say these things, right? But in some ways, provided they're allowed to allow themselves to be emotional emotional and let emotions quote unquote take over in the right context, that's kind of the ideal circumstance, right? So, so what do you know that allow that has impacted the way that you think about emotion regulation that perhaps people could consider if not benefit from? >> Yeah, I think it's, you know, it's a mixture. On the one hand, you absolutely need emotions. If you have no emotions as we know from Antonio Damasio's original work in his book Daycart's error uh which he put out just as I was starting as a posttock in Iowa 1994 I think you know if you have massive frontal lobe lesions that make it the case that you're no longer emotionally responding to stimuli the consequences are devastating which is that you cannot make decisions complex decisions in your life you can't organize your life you're not motivated to take the right path through life because you don't feel one one way or the other about the different options that are available. So, it's clear that not having emotions is very bad and certainly if you were out facing the bear, which may not happen to too many people these days, that would be very bad. On the other hand, being able to regulate them and control them um is definitely a human skill that's very important and that helps you a lot. The first part is what you were talking about first uh earlier which is the ability to uh monitor your emotions to identify your emotions. I think Lisa Felman Barrett actually first did the main work on this. It's a topic called emotional granularity. It's like at what how fine a grain can you conceptualize and be aware of your own emotions. >> And then once you're aware of them, you can bring em various emotion regulation strategies mostly cognitive reappraisal type of strategies to bear on the emotion and thereby to some extent control your emotions. How important is it to use language to provide that granularity? I've certainly experienced like feeling a bunch of things around a particular scenario and it if you can't separate out the elements, it can feel overwhelming. People always say if you can name the emotion, but I I find that a little tricky because sometimes it's not one emotion. It's a bunch of things. It's confusion. It's frustration. Are those the same thing? I don't know, you know. And and I think many people, >> myself included, sometimes just like it just feels like too much. Not because the emotion is so big, but because it's such a tangled jungle of of where there isn't really language to disinfect. >> Absolutely. Yeah. I don't think you need to put it into language. And I think people's strategies vary. Some people, you know, some people think in words, some people think in pictures, most people are a mixture. And if you look at different languages, you know, if you're French or German speaking like me, bilingual, we have different words for different emotions. But you need some sense of the concept which I think the concepts for emotions are pretty much universal across languages. Uh so you know there there all these different examples of emotion words from different languages like shoden fo is one that people know now you know joy at another person's misfortune from the German uh gigiel I think is often trumpeted as another example. I forget what the culture is but this is the emotion you feel if something is just unbearably cute. There's a great book uh Tiffany Watts Smith has a book I think it's called the book of human emotions which is basically like a little uh dictionary an entry from a toz of all the different emotion words in different languages but the fact that we don't have a word for gig or for shaden for in English you perfectly well have the concept I just described it to you you have no problem understanding what the emotion is and so I think as long as you have some kind some concept which need not be put into words some way to think about and differentiate the different emotions that are going on in you that gives you a purchase on your ability to to some extent evaluate them and say this is an emotion I want or this is an emotion that I don't want and then to act on it through various strategies cognitive reappraisal for example or acceptance depending on what your strategy is >> yeah the psychologists seem to disagree here because um many people some who've been on this podcast all of whom are experts will say you know if you don't allow yourself to feel the emotion then it grows and other people will say well if you focus on something then it grows and um and this is where I think neuroscience can be of great help because probably both things are true and it depends on the context but >> yeah that's exactly right >> maybe this is a good opportunity to talk about um sort of dynamic attractor states which is and I don't throw out that language to confuse people but but there is this idea in neuroscience right like if we if you and I both you know talk about this cup and I slide it forward and then we start looking at it and you know more and more brain brain circuits are going to be devoted to. We could spend several hours. It's not a very interesting conversation, but >> we if we do that about an emotion we feel because of something somebody said to us at work or online. I think we're all familiar with the idea that we can go down these rabbit holes within our own mind. >> Absolutely. >> And it's a very dangerous way to live >> and just knowing that it exists perhaps can be helpful but because it's almost like if you go far enough down a path, it's like a horror movie. If you go far enough down a path, it's very hard to extract yourself. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. I think I mean cognitive reappraisal or any other sort of complex reappraisal strategy for emotions it is a double-edged sword and it it's trainable. It's as you say if I really focus on okay now you know I'm starting to feel sad. I really don't want to feel sad. I really don't want to feel sad. I really don't want to feel sad. Well the more I think about it the sadder I get. Right. >> Um or same with anxiety. Some emotions are probably more prone to going down this rabbit hole than others. But again, it's a trainable skill that there are other ways of dealing with it where you can kind of just stop that process from going down at all. You want to stop it at the earliest front end. I mean, one quick answer to the question of what's the most successful strategy is the earlier you can stop that process, the better. And so, in the first place, don't get yourself into a situation where you're going to be anxious or guilty or sad or whatever emotion you want to avoid. So situational avoidance just in terms of structuring your environment would be one strategy and then once you're in it I think it's idiosyncratic to a large extent. So you would have to figure out what works for you but it's definitely trainable. Two parts are trainable. One is the specific strategy so you can do cognitive reappraisal without overthinking it and going down the rabbit hole and actually feeling the emotion even more. And the other one is just the strength and automaticity of control that you have. Which brings me to the ice bath. So briefly talk about the ice because this is relevant actually. So I I started doing these a while back. One of my former colleagues Justin Feinstein who now runs a a float clinic on Maui. Um I forget how it came about, but we were talking about floating ice baths and he mentioned you and he mentioned Wimhof and said, you know, take a look at these guys. And I saw, you know, whims swimming in some frozen lake. Looked kind of interesting. Anyway, so I started doing ice baths some time ago. They weren't that popular yet back then. And now my wife bought Amazon like a horse watering trough or some big thing. Insulated it, put on a lot safer than being out on a lake, too. >> Put on the talk about that. >> And I get, you know, these 40 lb ice bags every week. They know me very well at at Joe's Ice up there. Every time I go in, they say, "Hey, boss. Having a good party again tonight?" Yep. cuz I can eat a lot of ice. But so this is the interesting thing when I start first week it is terrible super painful. You know you go in it's like a whole body cold pressure task right second week it's also you know your breathing goes up your heart rate goes up but gradually and kind of with some automaticity to it. Now I go into the ice bath immediately my heart rate goes down my breathing goes down I beget I get super relaxed. So this is the interesting part that I propose of emotion regulation. It generalizes for me. This is an experiment of one, but for me it generalizes. So previously prior to the ice bath and driving around Pasadena and I don't know in the last year or two, this seems to have risen somehow. I'm trying to park on the street. There's a lane next to me. I have my signal out. There's a parking space. It's clear what I'm trying to do. I see somebody come up behind me. They can see I'm trying to park. They can move over. No, they come right up behind me, go on the horn, and you know, you immediately feel just an immediate anger response, right? >> Well, after the ice bath, it's flat. So, there was an immediate automatic downregulation of my autonomic emotional response to a psychological stressor, somebody honking at me, >> that was trained and generalized from the ice bath. It's an experiment of one. And I'm not claiming this as a published study, but so I think there's a there's a direct autonomic training component as well in terms of the strength and the automaticity, the ease with which you can regulate emotions that they can become kind of automatically regulated. You don't have to overthink it. It becomes smooth and effortless to some extent. And that's that's the place where where you where you want to get. I've known Whim a long time and um although I sometimes in my opinion unfairly get tacked to the the deliberate cold exposure as we call it thing a little too much because we talk about many things on this podcast not just that I do find it very useful and years ago my lab had collaborations with the special operations community and they'll tell you that the one of the reasons it's such a wonderful tool is it's so reliable. You always get an increase in adrenaline, norepinephrine in the brain, and to some extent, and this might surprise you, perhaps not, you get often reductions in cortisol, which is kind of paradoxical, but when people practice, it's very reliable, and provided it's not so cold or it's an open lake where you >> reliable and super efficient and safe unless you're doing it in a lake or you're doing hyperventilation. >> 5 minutes after a shower, it's extremely efficient. So, I >> was That's a lot. That's good. >> Well, after 5 minutes, you can look at my body mass index. After 5 minutes, I get hypothermic. So I can't stay in >> that's a good long while and even in a cold shower and there are now evidence of um improved resilience to subsequent stressors of the sort that you described there there's some okay papers I think it's a wonderful tool um especially for this uh buffering this immediate stress or anger response very powerful >> before we went on Mike we were talking about a different type of stressor which is the ultramarathons that you're currently training for a 100 mile race which is by the way super impressive even to shoot for it. I know you've done others. >> Trying is the operative word here. >> Well, I have I have confidence in you. >> Talk to me in two months. >> I will. I have confidence in you. You're going to finish this 100 mile race. But we were talking about something that I think is relevant to bring up now, which is uh you were describing how you know at some points during the these races you just feel like complete garbage, but then you start to feel better. And so then the next time you feel like complete garbage, you have the cognitive knowledge. Yeah. that you felt terrible then better again and so you're starting to integrate over longer periods of time. So here's another example of emotion regulation but over much longer time scales. It's a little bit harder to access for most people than a cold shower. >> No, but I think this is one thing one one reason there many reasons but there's one reasons that I that I love these ultramarathons and sort of identify as an as an ultra runner uh even though I didn't do it for decades and I'm just now getting back into it because of that nonlinearity. You have these major ups and downs and you know sort of mantra that ultra running has co-opted is you know relentless forward momentum but the sort of psychological equivalent is just relentless optimism like optimism in the face of adversity. You have to just keep that mindset and everybody there is like that you know you you come around like mile 40 mile 50 mile 60 you come around some curve and you look and feel like crap people go looking good looking nobody says looks like you're not going to make it. No, nobody says that, right? So, everybody is super positive. You're hanging in there and it is really hard and you know, you've just been going downhill, your knees are shot, you have blisters, you've been vomiting, super tired, and you extrapolate and you think this this is not going to work. But if you refuse to give up, doesn't always work, but about half the time or so, it levels out and it starts going back up again. You keep going. I mean, you feel wrecked at mile 50. I feel wrecked or earlier mile 30. So trying to think forward and say, "Wow, I have to do this over again. This is like not fathomable." >> Uh so it's a really interesting exercise in not giving up and being able to do something that you think is impossible to do. For that matter, all of your listeners would think it's impos if any any of your listeners went running with me, they would conclude two things. One is they're faster than I am. and two, I'm not going to be able to do a 100 miles, which means if I actually finished the 100 miles, all of you would be able to do so as well, which I think is true. I think anybody can do it. Anybody who's basically healthy if they only wanted to, which is the key, could actually do it. So, it's just a really interesting exercise. You know, it's only 30 hours. Well, only, but it's only 30 hours. It's not like, you know, years. How hard can it be? How bad? Well, it's it's hard, but it's doable. It's definitely doable. And so it's just in that sweet spot of something that seems impossible and is just unbelievably hard but doable and that's attractive somehow one if if you can do it which of course doesn't happen all the time. >> Yeah. And I don't know if there are any data on this, but there for people that have lived through really hard things and come out better or have pushed themselves to deliberately do hard things of the sort that you're describing, I do think that the memory of that >> can recall our body and brain's ability to lean into other hard things. I think so. I mean, it must be the case. I don't know of any good experiments on that, but you know, was that post-traumatic resilience, I guess they call it. You know, I mean, some people come out of very difficult circumstances. Maybe they do quote unquote the work they need to or not, and and they just say, "Okay, like I'm better for life cuz I'm out of it." Other people carry the wounds of that forward in a way that they, you know, their psychological and sometimes their physical health is a downward trajectory. It's a very interesting thing about like how do how should we conceptualize pain and pain ending? Like some people seem to live in the discomfort of the pain having even happened. >> Yeah, you can certainly persevere and overcome you know severe adversity if it's time limited and I think just your own sort of belief in yourself and your capability to overcome adversity as you were saying is one important component. Another one is something like gratitude or awe >> and you get to appreciate and just value you know just the fact that I'm here talking to you. I mean, I'm just I'm actually grateful and feeling some sense of awe right now at just existing. >> And so, G getting to that point where you're just every morning you wake up and you have this sense of I guess gratitude and awe or some combination of those emotions, I think that's a really valuable thing to carry out of all of this. And, you know, it takes time to kind of accumulate, but I like living that way. I want to get back to the emotion system, but I'll just I feel um inclined to um mention we had Dhacker Kelner on the podcast studies on awe and he defined it so beautifully. He said it's when we bring our attention from a small spatial scale to a large spatial scale or from large to small >> but then during the course of our discussion he added that this is also true in the time domain. So when we live our life dayto-day, we start to feel kind of lost in time. Yeah. And awe becomes less common. But when perhaps we run a 100 mile race across 30 hours, we realize how much can happen in 30 hours. One could say, "Oh, well then you finish the race and the rest of life seems trivial." But it seems the opposite is true that we realize that time is this very elastic thing, at least in our minds, and all of a sudden we have awe for the fact that we have so many days of life to live forward. It's very interesting and it almost speaks to the ice bath again like you have this very compressed stressful experience that gives you that gap that gap between stimulus and response that seems very hard to access unless we subject ourselves to these kinds of >> no and I think that capability the I mean people think you know chimpanzees maybe can feel awe but I think it it I think it's a uniquely at least as we have it it's uniquely human emotion and it's based on a broad sort of metacognitive ability we have which is to detach our conscious experience from the here and now and do like mental time travel. It's pretty derivative to the need to understand other people. So I could put myself into your shoes right now. I I can I can do that. I could imagine sitting where you're sitting and I'm seeing Ralph Adolf's here. You know, I could imagine zooming around and adopting another person's perspective in space. We certainly zoom around in time and reminisce, you know, stuff from the past, imagine things in the future. And I think a is like that too. We adopt a different perspective that's not just tied to the here and now, which I think is probably a crucial ability that distinguishes the nature of conscious experience in humans, which is that we have some control over it. I can simulate what it's like to be you. I can imagine being in the past or in the future. I can zoom out broadly when I'm feeling awe. And I think animals are more just stuck with whatever the senses are delivering to them right now. That's the content of their conscious experience. We can use it flexibly. And that's I think why we can plan and write novels and fiction and think about most of the time, right? When what if I ask you what's in your consciousness? What are you thinking about? It's not stuff that's in front of you. You're daydreaming. You're like all all kinds of places. And that really gives the human mind the power that distinguishes it from any other animals and is is is the reason we have everything that we have that makes us so so different. So awe I think is an example of a uniquely human emotion that deres from that that ability to adopt a vast point of view or a point of view that's not tied to just whatever the senses are delivering to you. >> I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor AG1. I'm excited to share that AG1 has just launched their newest formulation, AG1 Pro. AG1 Pro takes the clinically backed AG1 formula, which is a blend of vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and adaptogens, and adds three important new ingredients: creatine monohydrate, calcium HMBB, and zinc carnosine. Each serving has 5 g of creatine monohydrate to support muscle strength and performance, as well as brain health. calcium HMBB to support muscle recovery and reduce muscle breakdown and zinc carnosine to support and improve the lining of your gut. All three of these ingredients have compelling science to support them and therefore I love seeing them added to the existing AG1 formula. As most of you know, I've been taking AG1 every day for nearly 14 years now. I started taking it long before I even knew what a podcast was. It's a great product and it's now made even better with the new AG1 Pro formula. If you would like to try AG1 Pro, you can go to drinkaga1.com/huberman to get a special offer. AG1 is giving away a free bottle of omega-3 co-enzyme Q10 with your first subscription. Again, go to drinkag1.com/huberman to get a free bottle of omega-3 co-enzyme Q10 with your first AG1 subscription. As long as we're talking about assessing the emotions or the perspective of another, what are some favorite experiments either yours or others in the field about perception and assessment of emotions? You know, I've seen a number of studies like, oh, you know, people with lesions here or there see scary faces as not that scary. What's what's the sort of general conclusions about those studies now in 2026? Because I have a feeling a lot of what was in the textbooks when I was a graduate student may may not still hold up. When I started as a posttock in the early 90s with Damasio, I started my career on that topic by studying this uh this famous patient SM who had selective bilateral amydala lesions and the finding was that she's unable to perceive fear in emotional facial expressions and >> perceive fear. Could she feel fear? >> Subsequently, we also did that. It took for some reason because it's just harder to do. It took some years. Um Justin Feinstein who has the float uh clinic in Maui was the first author on that paper. So some years later we took that same patient to haunted houses. We took her to an exotic pet store where there were snakes and spiders. We showed her horror movies, a whole bunch of things and found also she doesn't seem to consciously experience fear either. So there seem to be this very specific deficit for fear tied to the amydala from one patient. So that's a big caveat. Does this generalize? Well, yes. The amiga is important for fear, but just saying it's a center for fear is overly simplistic. It's it's embedded in a big network of structures. There's individual differences and so on and so forth. The perception of emotions has been has been studied a lot and probably has been the topic of the most acrimonious debates to some extent. So Paul Ecman back in the 70s uh famous by the way I dedicate my forthcoming book to him because he probably had the biggest impact on modern emotion science of any single person. But his claim to fame was he went to New Guinea and you know these non-western cultures and claimed that universally across all cultures people recognize these so-called basic emotions from facial expressions. If you Google this now, you know, emotional facial expressions, you will find pictures of emotional facial expressions. Lots of AI companies and computer algorithms are predicated on the idea that you can read out the emotion from somebody's facial expression. He had six of them. Happiness, surprise, fear, anger, disgust, and sadness. Sometimes contempt um added in there. Well, it turns out it's more complicated than that. And actually Lisa Felman Barrett of all people co-authored a paper with me and three other people a couple of years back that uh the title was something like emotional facial expressions reconsidered. We took stock of the whole literature and asked is this really true? Is Ecman's claim really true? Can you tell how someone feels from their facial expression? And the answer is well not nearly as well as you would think and in general not. And the reasons are methodological and once you think about it, they make a lot of sense, which is that the emotional facial expressions that Ecman pioneered, I used them in the first 1994 nature paper with his amydala leion patient, >> those aren't actually what you normally see walking around the world. People don't have those facial expressions. They are posed facial expressions by actors. Yeah, they're very extreme. And then the task is like, well, here's a list of emotion words, happiness, fear, anger, disgust, etc. Pick the one that matches the face. That's the typical task. >> So, it's multiple choice. >> Look, if I gave you a bunch of emoticons and a bunch of emotion words and ask you to match them, you could do that very easily. Wouldn't show you anything about emotions. It shows you that there's by convention there's some association between these things and these things. That's it. So when you actually see real world facial expressions and when instead of giving a list you just ask people just generate freely a word that describes that you get something that's much has much more variation much more heterogeneity which then was part of the ingredient for Lisa's whole claim that variation is the norm and that in fact emotions are in some sense constructed rather than packages to be found in nature which I disagree with that part but emotional facial expression for the perception of emotions in others and in animals. Um, I was just talking before coming in here to one of your colleagues about your cute dog and they've done studies, there's several studies now where dog owners, if you ask them, can you tell if your dog feels guilty when you come home because it did something bad? Dog owners are pretty convinced they can tell. Well, if you do a control experiment, they're a chance. They think they can tell. So our conviction that we can tell something about people or animals, their their emotion states just from looking at the facial expressions, our conviction vastly outstrips our accuracy. We're pretty convinced we can do it. We're mostly not so accurate, which makes sense because ordinarily it's not the it's not just some facial, you know, if I see you now and you look sad, I wouldn't stop there and I but I would say Andrew Huberman is sad. I would ask you how are you feeling? What's going on? I would probe you and get a lot more information. Maybe you would say, "Oh, no. I'm just this drink I had tasted bad or something, you know, that caused me to make a certain facial expression." So, in general, these artificial lab situations where all you see is a picture of a face and asked for the emotion. We don't do that in the real world anyway. We would probe further. We would take into account the whole circumstances. We would ask the person and then you can disambiguate these emotions. So it's not that we cannot tell what emotions people or animals feel, but we don't do so normally just from a single slice like a facial expression. I feel like at least in the context of romantic partnership, so much more of our assessment of another person and their assessment of us is actually a mathematical integration of noticing when frequency of speech >> or frequency of text is heading in a negative direction relative to the mean, right, at a particular time of day. And I think the brain is really good at saying like like normally somebody's pretty communicative in the morning but less at night for sake of example. But suddenly they're like a little more tur with us in the morning but maybe not even harshness. There's fewer words exchange and then the the the brain doesn't think oh like they they looked angry or they looked frustrated. They you go oh like they were like a little little quieter this morning than than usual. And then if it's a very quiet person you have you have fewer data points to work from. But we become exquisitely tuned to this. >> Absolutely. much more than like, oh, they're they're carrying their shoulders differently. At the extremes, I think we see this. Somebody walks in the door and you can tell like they're sad. >> We're looking for change like it's a time series. The number of times or even just like if you've probably had this experience like in an email with a colleague, let's move it to a different domain. There's a certain kind of language that's used in an email that's different than the usual language. Like they've never really used these words before. You don't even identify which words those are. >> Yeah. years ago there was this chart that some graduate student or postoc put out that if the director of a lab signs off with their name it means one thing if they punctuate their email it means like let's meet you know like you're in trouble you know if there's just a dash with a first initial you know there's all this and you kind I laugh too and then you realize you go wow like they're really paying attention to all these subtle cues but those seem like the kind of cues that we rely on much more than than like do they look sad do they sound happy And I think we vastly underestimate this. I don't know if there are any good studies of this, but this feels like the >> more bunch of Yeah, we just finished a study like this where people texted. That's all they had. But it's dynamic. It's a conversation. There's like a whole transcript. And then the question is, what can you tell about a person both in terms of their stable personality and their current mood just from that text? It turns out you can tell a lot. So people did the study recently where people generated I think it's about a page or so of sort of diary type written text and asked just large language models like GPT or Claude to analyze that text without knowing anything else and just tell me the the personality profile and it's as good as the ground truth or as another person or a clinician would be >> as good as a clinician. It gets close to the ground truth and it's as good as like a a a good friend or a person who knows the person. So if you score the big five, which is what they did in that study, extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, etc., >> you can tell that AI can tell that just from a transcript of text quite well. So the information is there clearly in what we say, what we write and the order in which that progresses that tells a lot about a person enough that AI can basically diagnose your personality from just text. It's almost like our brain is very attuned to when we don't get what we were expecting to get in terms of the amount of interaction. Like I have some people that clean up the graffiti on the street where I live and there's always an exchange of hello or like a hi if one of us is on a call or busy >> and I can say with certainty because this happened the other day that if I looked over and the person saw me and then turned away even though we we I don't know their name. Well maybe I do now but that there's very little familiarity except with we always acknowledge the other's presence. Yeah. >> If they were to do that I would think gosh like this person's like maybe upset. One of the key ingredients of Lisa Feldman Barrett's thinking certainly in recent years which is prediction that the most of the information comes from the when there's a mismatch between what you're predicting about a circumstance and something that's just different because that carries information something changed right like what you were saying um and and Lisa's work Lisa's thinking on emotions incorporates prediction in a big way these days that there's something that you're predicting about the world but suddenly you know there's a tiger or something unexpected and you need to incorporate that and that carries important information but absolutely we're always predicting and there's we're taking into account things that change like the facial expressions you know the original studies like the ones I started doing as a postoc where you just show these static Paul Ecman pictures of facial affect well we never see that in people it's always dynamic the face is changing and so Philip Shins Rachel Jack colleagues in Scotland for instance have studied this in great detail and used dynamic actual videos of people making faces and asked at what point does the brain start to represent different emotions depending on not how the face looks but how the face is changing. dynamics are everywhere. It's super important >> because when we look at babies and they start to smile for the first time or they express what we think is, you know, humor or something like that, we are so tuned to faces because they they can't really do much. And whether or not they're interacting with us or not is really dependent on our behavior. There's a lot of control there. We're putting them in front of us. As they develop more autonomy, then these sorts of dynamics really emerge. Right. The face I mean the face is visible and the face the human face has way more muscles and control than other animals do. Great apes have similar sets of muscles but monkeys or your dog. You can't make those kinds of faces. It just side every once in a while and I project onto him what that's about. But he's a real sweetie. I had another bulldog mut. They're both mutza who is much much more coarse, less affectionate. This one is like pure butter. But of course I don't know what's going on in his head. He could be thinking like this guy's the biggest jerk in the world, you know, like I we should be walking right now. This patient SM who had bilateral amydala lesions, could she experience autonomic arousal? Could she experience stress? Could she experience anxiety under any conditions? >> She could. Um, and that and that's really important. So, it's you might think that, you know, it's just like the whole emotion system is gone. You just sort of denerated the entire autonomic nervous system and that's why you don't have emotions. But it's much more specific than that and fits with thinking about emotions as evolved functional modules for dealing with particular types of statistically recurring environmental challenges that share some some challenging feature in common. So she doesn't have fear to external stressors like we went with her into a haunted house. She poked the monsters and wanted to touch things. Same with the u the snakes and the spiders in the pet store. But we did a study again Justin Feinstein uh I think was the first author on this one as well with her and with a couple two maybe or three patients who had similar lesions in collaboration with Renee um Hurleman from Germany where we put a mask on them and in have had them inhale carbon dioxide. If you do that you get a panic attack in about half the population because it makes you feel like you're suffocating. So as soon as you get that carbon dioxide in, it changes the pH in your blood that's detected by the brain and it you get this massive air hunger like you suddenly can't breathe. That's what your so your brain goes into this alarm mode of some suffocation like a panic and she and the other amydala patients had a full-blown panic attack when they inhaled the carbon dioxide. So this intraceptive signal seems not to depend on the amydala and to depend on other brain stem circuits. Uh so we had a a very important association between different types of fear which is I think a bottom line story for the way that the science is informing our folk psychology which is these categories we have like anger or fear or disgust there many varieties. It's much more finely differentiated than that once you look at the science. And once you look at the brain systems, they're distinct brain systems in this instance for fear to something out there in the world versus panic of something happening inside you like having a heart attack or not getting enough air. >> I see. Yeah. >> Maybe we could talk a little bit about the bodily representation of these things we're calling emotions. Uh years ago, I posted on social media a picture of a figure from your paper with uh from your book, excuse me, with David Anderson, which was describing a study where people self-described, so it's purely subjective record reporting as I recall, >> where in their body they felt different emotions. So, it's kind of like a heat map in the forehead for certain um emotions and in the whole body for others. And and there were wide range of emotions. And admittedly, it's subjective report, but does this hold up? Like I think to myself like where do I feel sadness like heartache? Well I tend to feel it around my heart but maybe that's because it's called heartache. Where do I feel anger? Well extreme anger I'm going to feel as a whole body experience. Same thing with awe. So what if anything is important about the regularity andor the variation in kind of where in our body we feel emotions. Some people would say this is like their whole experience of life. They feel things in their body all the time. Some people feel I think are more cerebral. They they kind of think things more than they feel things. >> You know, I think it's a great it's a great question. I mean that figure that you're alluding to came from a paper I think in PNAS by Lowry Newman and colleagues in Finland and he and his colleague Haney Serimaki. They've done some of the great uh great recent studies also on uh experience of emotions in humans using functional MRI. But what you mentioned so the experiment is I just give you a word right I'm not actually making you feel the emotion I'm asking you sadness draw you know where on the body you think you would feel that emotion so if you think about it it's certainly not about actual physiological changes in the body nothing's measured in the body they don't have electrodes on the body or whatever there's people just drawing on a little mannequin where they think they would feel the emotion it's also not about conscious experiences of emotion I'm not making I'm not showing you sad movie clips or anything like that. I'm giving you a word, a single word. So, it's about concepts. It's about where in the body, people's concept of sadness or happiness or fear where that corresponds to changes in the body. Now, that's an interesting question, but you have to narrow it down to that which is a fundamental problem with most emotion, including that one. I think the title, I forget what the title is, but it's something like bodily maps of emotions or bodily maps of subjective experience. Maybe even it should be something like people's concept of where in the body emotion words are associated with changes or something like that. What's interesting about that study is that Lowry has gone on to look at it in different cultures. He's looked at it developmentally across children and asked how these concepts and where in the body you would feel emotion develop. So, it's super interesting work, but it's ultimately about people's concepts of how emotions correspond to changes in the body, not the real actual changes in the body. But then, as you were saying, of course, there are real changes in the body when you really feel an emotion as well. And that's harder to study, but people have studied it quite a bit with a focus on the part of the brain that gets a lot of input from the body, which is a part of cortex called the insula. And so there's lots and lots of work on the insula. It gets input from all the organs in your body, everywhere in your body. So you know, from your heart, from your liver, from your kidney. I had a kidney stone not too long ago. We should talk about the kid. Have you had a kidney stone? >> Don't. It's really interesting. You have to pass it. >> Eventually, it's passed. But it's uh it evokes very interesting adaptive behaviors. Well, just as an aside uh before I forget it. So normally for pain, extra receptive pain, like we were talking about the hot plate before, you know, you pull your hand away or there's some kind of reflex. >> For the kidney stone, that's not adaptive. There's nothing to pull away. So my wife, this was in Switzerland, we're in a remote little town in the middle of the night. My wife sees me curled up into a ball right on the floor just kind of breathing loudly and kind of curled up and making rocking motions and goes, "What's wrong?" And I tell her, "Well, I have a kidney stone." And then she asked me, "Can't you just stop that behavior? You know, can we get on a plane and fly to the US so you can get ultrasound, maybe get treated for the kidney stone? Can you stop curling up into a ball and, you know, making rocking motions?" And I was kind of thinking about that through my haze of pain and said, "Well, >> no, it's kind of like the hot plate and pulling away. It's a really strongly motivated behavior to just kind of withdraw basically." So it was a very interesting adaptive behavior. and she called, you know, the equivalent of 911. And in the middle of the guy of the night, some guy came down and uh, you know, put a bunch of opiates into me and he kept having the scale of, you know, on a scale from 0 to 10, how painful is it? I would sort of go from 10 to 9.5 and it was extremely painful. But eventually they got me to a clinic there. I passed the stone and it was an interesting experience. I mean, it's pain, but just like what we were talking about for emotions, pain is not pain. If you have a pain in your eye or you have a pain from a hot stove, this is a very different type of pain and one that's I would say worse than the hot stove. It's like because you can't escape >> when you can't rub it, >> you can't do anything. Just curl up into a ball and pray. I mean, it it was horrible. At any rate, so at that moment, had I been in an MRI study, my insula would have been strongly activated. So this you know this is a region of the brain that according to theorists but Craig was the first Antonio Damasio has theories in a similar vein this would be the substrate for the conscious experience of the emotion or of pain in your body. So it's getting all this input from your body and representing the changes in your body as a conscious experience. This was the original theory that William James had back in 1884. He wrote this paper in mind. what is an emotion? And his theory was that you see the bear, you run away, your heart rate goes up, and then you feel the emotion which is a consequence of you perceiving all the changes in your body that happened first. Now, that's I think the conscious experience of emotion. Yes. And a lot of that depends on representing perceiving everything that changes in in our body. But to my mind, that leaves the question of what the emotion is. That's still antecedent to that. You first have to trigger all the changes in your body and run away. What's doing that? Right? >> That's the emotion. The conscious experience may well come later and unfold over some time. But the emotion state separate from the conscious experience as I've emphasized would be the one that actually motivates all the behaviors and all the different changes in your body. So long answer to your question. There's there's two different ways of talking about the role of the body. The one that you alluded to in this figure from Loi Newman and colleagues that we reproduced in her book is about people's concepts of emotions and they're certainly tied to changes in the body. Whether or not those are accurate, I think we just don't know. So, is it the case that those drawings that they have uh in in in the figure that we were speaking about, if you put electrodes on, you measured blood flow changes, that's actually where things change when you have awe or anger. I think we just don't know. I think that's a set of studies that remains to be done. >> But then in addition there is the fact that all of the changes in your body are represented in your brain in the insula and that seems to be a big part of the substrate for feeling the emotion for the conscious experience of the emotion and other things nausea pain kidney stones. So it's not limited to emotions but the strong feelings that we have like you know you have a tightness in your chest uh if you're feeling really sad for example that would be represented in your insula >> because in eastern medicine there's strong beliefs about different organs being associated with different emotional states even like gall you know someone has a lot of gallbladder you know but then again I I I always have to remind people that a key feature of schizophrenia and psychosis of other kinds is clang associations. Two words sound alike and some and people link them. And so we also are subject to this in a much milder way in the world of of health and science and especially in the public discourse. People will say, "Oh, you know, a a walnut looks like a brain. Walnuts are good for your brain." Well, they have some fatty acids that are probably good for for neurons, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the walnut. It's amazing how these ideas can kind of perpetuate. >> Well, and I think there is some truth to them. I think it just has the honest answer is it has not been tested. Mhm. >> So if you ask someone like Lisa Feldman Barrett has has has made this point repeatedly that there really is no systematic association between specific emotions and specific changes in your body. Well, if you look at those studies, people put a few electrodes on and they measure, you know, heart rate changes, blood pressure changes, etc. It is extremely crude. You're looking at a tiny tiny slice of what's going on in your body. What you would want to do is have a detailed highdimensional readout of okay your your gallbladder and your liver and your kidney and your heart and changes all over your body and look at that and ask is there is there some kind of association between specific emotion states and changes some kind of complex change in your body and I would bet that there is but we just don't have those data yet so those studies remain to be done >> yeah they really should be done because I could make up a story where if someone or an animal feels extreme anger like of the sort that they would have right before they were in a fight that certain immune organs would deploy a bunch of things that prepare for wound healing or prepare for resilience in the in the aftermath. That that just stands to reason. I of course I have no data for that but >> well and the link between the brain and the body I mean we now understand that that is so detailed and so intricate that really brain and body are very very tightly coupled and we do know that there are signatures they're distributed they're complicated but Lisa Filman Barrett herself in collaboration with Tor has published neuroiming studies showing that for basic emotions like anger and fear and sadness and so on there are reliable signatures of brain activation. They're distributed. They're spread out. They're complicated. They're not just like in one place. But given that, given that association between emotions and patterns of the brain and the fact that the brain and the body are so intimately tied together, I think it's a completely reasonable hypothesis that you would find a similar highdimensional signature of changes throughout your body that are systematically associated with certain types of emotions. I had a thought spring to mind based on our earlier discussion. From the perspective of media and advertising, it makes perfect sense why all media and advertising is incentivized to get you to prioritize an emotion to the point where it takes over behavior to go click and buy something or to vote a certain way or to hate a certain group or to like a certain group. And so really what they're fighting for is this prioritization thing like like the the path to behavior is through the prioritization >> in attentional capture. It captures your attention >> which is what emotions are are designed to do. And once you've captured people's attention you have a captive audience and you can control them much more. >> And in some sense it's obvious right you get people emotional they're more likely to behave in a certain way versus another. I think we underestimate the extent to which all day long we are bombarded with these signals like like subtle advertising doesn't really work well someone said I don't know who said it but you know all AB testing leads to like you know sex or violence because if you really just look at what's likely to grab people's attention you know eventually you regress into the hypothalamus the more primitive states like inspire more attention which tells you a lot about the world you know and there and there are ethical lines and there there are societal lines where where you say, "No, no, that's that's too extreme, too much violence, too much skin." But it's all veering in the like toward the hypothalamus, so to speak. It's all getting more and more primitive. There's a lot of processing that goes on in all these subcortical structures and certainly what we understand best in terms of emotions are all these subcortical circuits and a lot of that is below the radar of our conscious awareness. >> I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, Function. Function provides over 160 advanced lab tests to give you a clear snapshot of your bodily health. This snapshot gives you insights into your heart health, your hormone health, autoimmune function, nutrient levels, and much more. They've also recently added access to advanced MRI and CT scans. Function not only provides testing of over 160 biomarkers key to your physical and mental health, it also analyzes these results and provides recommendations for improving your health from top doctors. For example, in a recent test with function, I learned that some of my blood lipids were slightly out of range. As a result, I decided to start supplementing with nattokinise, which can naturally help reduce LDL cholesterol, and it did. In a follow-up test, I could confirm that this strategy worked. My blood lipids are now back exactly where I want them. Comprehensive lab testing of the sort that function offers is just so important for health. I mean, how else are you going to know what's going on under the hood? And while I've been doing blood work for years, it used to be timeconuming, complicated, and expensive. In fact, I used to spend thousands of dollars per year trying to get this kind of data. And the data, frankly, were not all that good. But now with Function, it's extremely easy and affordable. A Function membership is only a dollar a day, $365 a year. And if you think about the information it provides and the health challenges it helps you avoid and the proactive things that it can do for you to enhance your health, I truly look at it as a savings. To learn more, visit functionhealth.com/huberman and use the code huberman for a $50 credit towards your membership. Again, that's functionhealth.com/huberman. At the opposite extreme, what happens when I go to like the mom and I see a piece of art that just for some reason makes me feel a certain way, maybe sadness, maybe happiness. Do you think that art of that sort is is able to capture the circuitry related to particular emotions across people? So not just about my unique experience and and art is subjective, right? So there's things related to taste, but let's assume this is abstract art. So there's no apparent faces or animals or no depictions of scenes. But let's say out of a hundred people, you know, more than half say, "Yeah, I look at that and I just feel peace." Is it the case that some art can tap into neural circuits or some music can tap into neural circuits independent of the lyrics? I mean, we don't have the brain imaging presumably, but there is a kind of a more sophisticated example. We're not regressing to the hypothalamus. Absolutely. >> But this is the stuff that like the richness of life is also about that. >> Sure. >> Right. And so the interesting question is which particular features in the music or in the abstract art is it that are driving those generalizable emotion responses? And they're certainly there. One of the earliest studies on emotion actually was done by Anne Blood and Robert Sattorii in the mid '9s or something I believe using I'm pretty sure using position tomography PET rather than fMRI at the time. And what they did was they played music to people and I think they set it up so that you and I could hear the same piece of music. In your case, the music really does something for you. And the particular measure was does it send shivers down your spine? Do you get like chills, goosebumps from listening to the music? And it does that for you, but not for me. And in your case, same auditory stimulus, different emotion. And from the imaging, they show that the insula, the structure we're just talking about, the amygdala, several of these emotion related structures are indeed activated when you have shivers, chills down your spine listening to music. For abstract art, my Caltech colleague John Doherty had a paper a little while ago where again he found something generalizable. decomposed abstract art into the constituent sort of visual features that you can feed it into a neural network and get a representation of all the different you know shades and colors and the basic visual composition basic visual features that constitute that and from that you can reconstitute whether or not it is liked or not liked whether it's a pleasant whether people find it pleasant or unpleasant so it doesn't come out of nowhere yes there's something about even if it's abstract, even if it's abstract music or if it's abstract art, there's some auditory or visual features there that are generalizable and that can be used to evoke emotions. And the big question then is, can we link that back? Obviously, the emotions didn't evolve in order to appreciate abstract art, but they evolved to detect tigers and bears and other things. Well, are there similar kinds of visual features? Presumably, there are. So there's some visual features in the real world that for which particular emotions evolved that can also then find find a place again in abstract art and evoke similar emotions. That's the basic story. But the answer to your question is yes. Even for these very uniquely human sort of abstract kinds of stimuli. Uh people have done work and found particular features in those stimuli that will trigger emotion states in humans and and they're great stimuli to use. talk a little bit about um hard wiring versus learned emotional states at the brain level. We know there are brain areas that process faces just the organization of two dots and a vertical line and a horizontal line below it. There are neurons that like that organization of features and I should know the answer to the next question, but I don't. Are there neurons that are tuned to a smiling face versus a frowning face at the level of like almost like like very sparse emoji like level? We call them units in the brain. Are there units that are tuned to frowning faces or smiling faces? And of course, you'd love to be able to do the experiment in somebody who was you had never been exposed to them for the first time, but that's impossible to do. So, right. Right. >> I have to assume the experiment has been at least thought about if not done. >> Yeah. I mean, it's a great question. I mean, you know, with respect to face processing in general, the sort of consensus is it's both hardwired and innate in some sense that there's something there in the brain already at birth that's that's experience independent. Uh but then it also depends on normal maturation and development and experience. And so people like Rebecca Saxs at MIT for instance has done functional neuroiming studies on on babies and shown them faces and asked the question how does this pulse system develop? It's always a mixture. People tend to think in terms of black and white. It's you know it's hardwired and innate or it's learned. Nothing is either or there it's always both. A good example is the visual word form area. So there's regions in the brain that like like the ones that my former Celtic colleague Doris SA studied that are specialized for faces, but there's also a region in the brain typically on the left in most people that's for recognizing words, letters. Now that couldn't have evolved because uh you know we we had a long history of brain evolution before language written language was was ever there. So the question is how does it come about? can't be hardwired or innate because there wasn't long enough evolutionary time to evolve a region of the brain for figuring out words. But if you take a look in preverbal infants at the connectivity of this region that's going to become specialized for processing words once the infant can read, it's already wired up in a way to other brain regions that predisposes it to be able to do those computations that with experience it can later be used in order to recognize words. I see. So there are certain preset innate uh systems. Coming back to your question, smiling versus frowning faces, there are two parts to it. The first part is I can find you a single neuron in the brain that responds selectively for anything you like. There's like no shortage of them. But those in general, those single neurons don't do anything. The re or aren't important to understand how the brain works because the rest of the brain that is getting its input from all these neurons and all the downstream processing is not like a reflex. It's not listening to only that one neuron. It's getting input from tens of thousands of neurons. So at the population level, if we record from thousands of neurons and we ask from that, is there information in a thousand neurons from which the rest of the brain listening to those thousand neurons or we as the scientist could decode smiles versus frowns? The answer is yes. We've done that in collaboration with Ulut Saer and Shu Wang and and colleagues where we can record from epilepsy patients like what Eddie Chang does. Same same kind of work. And so you can you have information and of course if you think about it there has to be information in the brain neurons that would distinguish frowns from smiles because you can distinguish them. So where else would it come from? It has to be there in the brain. But it's not there mechanistically at the level of single neurons. They're very noisy. Uh they typically respond to many different types of cues. So you always have to think about hundreds or thousands a large ensemble of neurons because that's really the kind of unit of relevant information because that's what the rest of the brain listens to. >> Yeah. I was thinking about how you know in a hierarchical system like the visual system like we have neurons that are tuned to circles more or less you know center surround. We we talk about circles, then bars, then oriented bars of a particular angle, then moving bars, etc., etc., and it's so built up from from simple stuff to more complex stuff. So, you can build feature detectors for lots of different things. I I guess I was wondering when we come into the world, are there cells in the fusifiform area that not just like faces but that are prepared to respond to two dots the eyes a vertical thing the nose and then a bar that is either you know bent up at the edges or bent down at the edges and then we build on that scaffold. I don't know that anyone's done these experiments >> that exact experiment but I think that in broad strokes the answer would be that at birth it's it's crude and it becomes more much more refined and more granular through experience and then indeed exactly what you said happens you know and coming back to emotions if you think about so how does the state of fear come about in the brain from seeing the the seeing the bear or or the tiger well at the level of the retina it's just a bunch of pixels it's some you know blobby black shape that is looming and coming closer etc. But then progressively you have to construct more and more abstract representations and you well know how this works in the visual system and artificial systems deep convolutional neural networks that do object classification do exactly that. They take just you know pixel-wise input but then build something abstract like right now I recognize Andrew Huberman there. If I look over here, you know, I can still recognize you whether you're on the left or the right, whether you're close or far away, I would be able to recognize you invariantly with respect to those details. Even though at level of the retina, like like a camera taking a picture, the detailed pixels can be vastly different. You can be left or right or close or lit in different ways. And you need to abstract from that an invariant representation regardless of the details. Same thing for emotions. Regardless of whether whether it's a bear or a tiger or a big armed pickup truck coming at you or lots of other kinds of stimuli, they all need to funnel in to a central abstract representation. That's another key feature of emotions. They require abstraction >> and that's what makes them so flexible and that's why you can get David Anderson and I have described it in our book as this sort of fan in fan out architecture. I can get to the emotion state from seeing a bear or smelling a bear or hearing a bear or hearing a twig snap, hearing somebody yell there's a bear. Zillions of different inputs completely unlike the rigid reflex which only has one input and that's it. They get the central state of fear and then the outputs are also diverse. I can hide, I can run away, I can defend myself. And so that flexibility that the central emotion state affords, you can get to it in many different ways because many different sensory cues are informative about a potential threat. And then you can behave in very flexible ways that are context dependent. That's exactly what emotions allow you to do and what makes them so different from reflexes. Reflexes is just a single path through. There's only one way to trigger it and there's only one behavior. Mhm. >> So if you had only those, you would have to have a separate reflex for the bear and for the tiger and for every possible, you know, large threat out there, which you couldn't possibly have. It's not efficient. Yeah. The fan in fan out uh visual is very, very useful. And it gets to the next topic I'd like to ask you about, which is building uh social intelligence and emotional intelligence because we define that different ways. people who seem unable to read the room, so to speak, versus people who are hyper sensitive to other people's emotions, not necessarily responding to them, but they're really in tune. I'll go out on a limb and say that some of the happiest, most functional, and when I say functional, I also include in that they take great care of the people around them, their families, their co-workers, people that I know and have observed are not super emotionally in tune with the emotions of others. meaning it doesn't seem like they're clocking every little nuance. And some of the more I'm generalizing here, less functional, more labile people that I've known are really in tune with like what everyone in the room is feeling, who did this, who didn't do that. And going back to our our earlier conversation that so much of how we gauge other people's emotions is an integration over, you know, how how often they tend to acknowledge us when they when we walk down the hall. If the first time I met you, you walked right by me, which who knows what would have happened. And the second time and the third time, and then the fourth time you say, "Good morning," I'd say, "Oh, Lex is a really delightful person." If you did the opposite, said hello, hello, hello three days in a row and stopped four times, just like looked looked at me and brushed right by, >> I'd probably think like that's weird, you know? So, there's some advantage actually to not being in tune with all the subtle cues of everyone around us. What in the brain is known about a social awareness, about reading the room? We talk it up these days because indeed empathy is important, but this is a tricky one. I'm going to get some heat for saying this, but there's also a lot to be said for like walking into a room, acknowledging, okay, great. And then like getting your work done. You don't want to be wrapped up into people's emotional states because unnecessarily because they're labile, they're all over the place. It's there's a cost. >> Well, I think it's extremely heterogeneous. And so this is not sort of one sizefits-all and there's not one type of sort of emotional intelligence skill that fits all occasions and many different kinds can work. They depend on the context. They depend on the circumstances. Initially when James Gross had emotional regulation, it was sort of focused on some basic mechanisms like suppression, reappraisal, acceptance. And now the big two topics in emotional regulation are variability and flexibility. So there's not just one way, but you need to be able to have many many different options and you can vary vary your emotion regulation responses. But the other big part of emotion regulation, which is obvious once you think about it for any any parent would think about it, is it's interpersonal. It's between people. You regulate other people's emotions and you have to pick up on other people's emotions and you influence other people's emotions. It's a birectional interaction. And so I think a big part of emotional intelligence comes from being able to read that probably in a fairly automatic way and in a context dependent way. And depending on the context, it can be the case that what's most adaptive is if you really get involved with other people and you really talk to them a lot, you're very empathic or you just take over and that can work too depending on the circumstances. So there are multiple strategies and I think for any of these social intelligence, emotional regulation, any of these sort of meta cognitive skills. The most successful skill is if you don't just have one, but you have variety and you can switch between them and you can use context to switch between those. Just like physiological heart rate variability, you don't want to train to just be able to have a low heart rate. You want to be able to train to have a variable, a big range. Same thing with emotions. What's most adaptive is being able to have a big range of emotions and being able to switch adaptively depending on the context between them. And I think that's where, you know, real long-term context dependent social intelligence for people that really come out ahead. It's not one tiny slice where they do well and don't do well in lots of other circumstances. It's the ability to be really adaptive and flexible and switch around >> which requires a a a keen sense of oneself like where we are in our internal state and a keen sense of of context. In fact, I observed a really impressive physician recently and like moving through the hospital environment. I mean he was just like all agency to to but then with the patient it was as if he dropped into a bubble. You know the patient was understandably a little nervous about what was to come and and it was remarkable. I was like, "Okay, that is superb bedside manner." But then it comes time to do the actual work and that's not a time for emotion. It's just like 100 you have to be able to 100% like I mean the life and well-being of the patient relies on being absolutely focused on the task at hand. I mean it's it's related again to the presumptive um association between emotional granularity what Lisa Fman Barrett pioneered decades ago the ability to differentiate and be aware of all the variety of emotions in you and emotion regulation flexibility that you're able to adopt many different emotion regulation strategies but in order to do so you need the emotional granularity to be able to be aware of all the different emotions that are going on in the first It's pretty two things. One is an ability to differentiate at a very fine grain and the other one is to step back and have some kind of metacognitive oversight and control. So you can see okay here's this full spectrum of things I could do and you can take a look at all of those incorporate the context and pick one the one path amongst many that you could take that's the most adaptive. It's interesting. Some of my favorite scientists are very emotive people. And then some of my favorite scientists, I'm thinking of one in particular when I was down at UC San Diego when my lab was there. Most people probably label as a little bit on the spectrum. I won't mention his name. He would walk into a faculty meeting where someone else was presenting and he would say out loud to me like sitting there like, "Is this any good?" And >> I have encountered people like that, too. >> And you know, >> it's very disconcerting when you're giving the talk. >> It's disconcerting when you're giving the talk. But I was going to say there's also something incredibly refreshing about it because it's almost like they're they're asking the questions that they they need to ask. You're a little embarrassed for them, but you're but it's liberating. You feel like ah we've broken the social mold here a little bit and someone would say excuse me so and so and so is presenting be like oh sorry and then we'll just sit down and then listen. I mean they're entirely polite very actively engaged in the conversation but I sometimes wish like how cool would that be? Like I'm sure there's a cost other areas in life, but how cool would that be? You lose a this person has a little bit less context dependent, you know, flexibility around emotions. And I have to imagine that they move through life in a way that's kind of like liberated. >> Well, they wouldn't have this huge cognitive load all the time. You know, if >> you extremely smart now, that's correlative, right? But like incredible actually a physicist >> turned neuroscientist. And I just thought, man, that's pretty cool. And then the more you go into engineering and science fields, the more of these people you encounter. This is true. You see fewer of these people in the performing arts for instance. >> Sure. >> My lab studies autism amongst other things. And you certainly would have the case that as a spectrum, yes indeed, you would have mathematicians, engineers, lots of people who are very successful who are on the spectrum to some extent. And I think, you know, coming back to what you were saying, it's sort of liberating or simplifying. If you had to really efforty, cognitively think about how to regulate your social behavior and make all the right moves and not offend anybody, you were worried about that all the time. It would be overwhelming. And I think it is overwhelming for many people with autism that you need to somehow internalize it and it has to be relatively effortless and automatic. It has to become automatic at some level and then you can move through life fairly smoothly in a socially very complex way. And that's what's difficult for many people with autism that they lack that part. They can compensate to some extent, but the cognitive load starts really being an impediment because if you have to track everything, you have to remember, okay, I should make eye contact, I have to remember turn taking, if you have to cognitively remember all those things, it's just overwhelming. So, you have to be able to somehow have it be automatic at some level. >> I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, Element. Element is an electrolyte drink that has everything you need and nothing you don't. That means the electrolytes, sodium, magnesium, and potassium, all in the correct ratios, but no sugar. Proper hydration is critical for brain and body function. Even a slight degree of dehydration can diminish your cognitive and physical performance. It's also important that you get adequate electrolytes. The electrolytes, sodium, magnesium, and potassium are vital for the functioning of all cells in your body, especially your neurons or your nerve cells. Drinking Element makes it very easy to ensure that you're getting adequate hydration and adequate electrolytes. My days tend to start really fast, meaning I have to jump right into work or right into exercise. So, to make sure that I'm hydrated and I have sufficient electrolytes, when I first wake up in the morning, I drink 16 to 32 ounces of water with an element packet dissolved in it. I also drink Element dissolved in water during any kind of physical exercise that I'm doing, especially on hot days when I'm sweating a lot and losing water and electrolytes. Element has a bunch of great tasting flavors. In fact, I love them all. I love the watermelon, the raspberry, the citrus, and I really love the lemonade flavor. So, if you'd like to try Element, you can go to drinkelement.com/huberman to claim a free element sample pack with any purchase. Again, that's drinkelement.com/huberman to claim a free sample pack. Let's talk about autism. And I'll just put the mention up front because this is a topic that sometimes gets people triggered. Let's leave out for the time being, not because it isn't important. It is important. Let's leave out severe cases of autism where people need lifelong care. They can't care for themselves and let's talk about the rest of the spectrum. Already in that statement, I'm sure I violated some of the newer nomenclature. But let's just liberate ourselves a little bit. Um, come at this from a place of benevolence and trying to understand social dynamics, social processing in the brain. So, we're not talking about people with severe stereotypes who just need lifelong care even, etc. We're talking about the rest of the category. So something like this former colleague of mine in San Diego a little bit on the spectrum. >> For all I know he would have been one of our participants maybe I mean a delightful person, happy marriage, happy family, everyone in his lab adored him and brilliant scientist and um >> by my read highly functional in all aspects of life but definitely not >> tuned in to what other people are thinking or doing and and context mattered, right? I mean, he understood what not to do in in a broad sense, but you know, he was free of this burden that you described. So, there's a lot of emphasis nowadays on kids who have autism of the sort that we're describing and the need, we're told, to train them to make eye contact and read faces. So, this lands square in your work. Maybe you could just fill out a bit of what's now known, what's thought, what's not known. >> It's a great topic. I mean the way that I personally have approached it is not with a primary interest in autism. I don't have a family member who has autism. I'm not don't have any personal experience. It's really been um just like with the amydala lesion patient. It's the my main motivation has been to just understand the mind cognition emotion in general and with respect to autism by understanding individual differences. Everybody's different from everybody else. And autism is one particular dimension that we just have a lot of tools to look at that is, you know, social interaction, social awareness, ability to read other people's emotions. And so that dimension of social variability maps onto one of the facets of of autism spectrum disorder. And so that's why we've looked at both people who do not have any diagnosis of autism. There's still there's a range of autistic like traits that you can quantify with questionnaires that are well regarded. And then once you get to a DSM5 diagnosis, you have more and more severe cases of autism with respect to social functioning that again you can quantify using tools like the etc. But it's a spectrum that I personally look at as a particularly interesting and important dimension of individual differences in social interactions with other people in my lab that have different motivations. They have family members with autism for instance. So they're personally interested in autism as a as a psychiatric category. But coming to your question, there's a lot of really interesting work and a lot of opportunities now that we've been actually using in our lab as well to look at the question of processing about faces, eye contact, etc. I mean right now how much eye contact are you making with me? How much eye contact am I making with you? It is extremely variable. I mean the eyes move around. They carry a lot of information. You know, socially there's a a gigantic range there. It's data that are now fairly easy to quantify and collect in hundreds or thousands of people using their webcams. And so we have a study going on where people watch for example a zoom video uh other people interacting talking and we use the webcam on their laptop to record where they are looking on the screen when they have that zoom video going on. So we can quantify along across large numbers of people and the basic finding has been that people who are further along have high who score higher on this dimension of the autism spectrum of social interaction with just questionnaire based measures or a psychiatric diagnosis make less eye contact and as well as other features. So we're looking at contact with the person who's talking distraction to other things. We have experimental features where there's a person talking, they're making eye contact, there's like TV or something that goes on in the background and we can quantify to what extent is your visual attention, your gaze that we can quantify from the webcam captured by somebody looking, somebody talking, somebody smiling or laughing, the TV going on in the background as a distractor. And we can put all of that into a big model and ask what is it that normally drives visual attention and what is it that distinguishes people with autism and where they would look. And the basic answer is that the social features like eyes or who's talking have less of a weight on where autistic people would look than the distractors, but they tend to be more distracted. And that that is we've been doing this study every month now for a year that seems to be a temporally stable personality traitlike feature of autism spectrum disorder. So it fluctuates to some extent and we're trying to quantify does it interact with whether you've slept badly the night before or you're stressed or other things that can change. Those do have an effect. But the answer seems to be it's fairly temporally stable and it's almost like a signature for individuals. There's some people that are real faceelookers and they look at faces a lot and there's some people that look at faces hardly at all and that seems to be stable across time and like a basic personality trait >> in this population of people diagnosed >> across the board for everybody. If I just take the general population on average it's the case that those people who would have a diagnosis of autism or who score higher on autistic traits even if they don't have a diagnosis look less at faces. But across everybody, it's the case that some people look a lot at faces, some people don't. And that that's temporally stable. So in general, right now, if you quantify it from this podcast, how often do I make eye contact or look at you? And then you ask, you know, like in a classroom or in a lab meeting, how often do I make eye contact? It would be similar proportion that I'm just like not a face looker or eye looker and you might be. It's like a stable personality trait and it's associated coarsely with this dimension in autism spectrum disorder. But of course the million-doll question is what else is it associated with? Is it predictive of career success? Is it predictive of anything else? And so we don't know. We're measuring everything else and getting lots of questionnaires on these people to ask what what are the associations and is there any causal hypothesis that we would come up with that if you don't look at faces a lot there's some consequences if you look at faces a lot there are other consequences if that were the case we're not there yet that would make very interesting predictions which mean well maybe I should be looking at your face all the time and uh you the podcast would get a million hits or who knows what >> just be you as What should we say? >> Well, that's I mean that that's another big question which which we're looking at in these longitudinal studies which is a question of to what extent can you change who you are and you know your emote we were talking about emotion regulation. You can regulate your emotions. You can have this metacognitive insight. You can have some control. Can you change if you're extrovert or neurotic? Can you change your personality? And the answer seems to be to some extent. Uh for some variables more than others but we're trying to quantify that. So we have this big longitudinal data set where we give people tons and tons of questionnaires about their personality, about their mood, about lots of things and are asking to what extent over time do they get pushed around and that can change and which ones stay constant and constitutes sort of the core of their personality that's unchangeable. But I think it's a super super interesting question. What parts of you can change and what parts of you cannot? >> Yeah, I think about this all the time. I feel like some people, this is pseudoscientific what I'm about to describe. They seem to have very high autonomic what I call like art RPM. I have a it's more of a former colleague because I haven't been working in that field for a while but um you ever see Bon Rosska >> from Basil give a talk like he moves a lot. He's very electric. He's also very thin and he moves and and his brain he's exceedingly smart has a high basil metabolic rate. >> High basil metabolic rate and >> like a hummingbird. >> Yeah. But he moves a lot. Right. And then other people they move less. I think about this all the time because I'm fascinated by and I love dogs. I go to this AKC meet the breeds thing every year. I don't go every year. They do it every year, but I highly recommend people go even if you don't want a dog because you get to see all the different genetic variation, which of course relates to body size, but also temperament and and just bulldogs are probably more on the on the slow mellow side compared to Yorkshire terriers that are more >> very little spontaneous movement. I think it's one of the reasons why people feel comfortable approaching a bulldog, whereas like a, you know, pit bulls are always kind of like winding around and moving, but some dogs it may relate to other things, cuteness and what, but some people just seem to have a lot of spontaneous movement. Other people are more stable in their bodily movements. And it does seem to relate to kind of how excitable they are or not excitable they are. So you can imagine like if you're if you're humming at a higher RPM, you can like more prone to action forcing. It's a super interesting observation because the question of course is to what extent does it relate to how their mind is working, right? I mean, as we're talking now and as you were just talking, you're, you know, we're moving our hands, we're moving our body, we're moving our face, you know, not just sitting there speaking. So, to some extent, all of these bodily movements are interfaced with thought. >> If I had to sit completely still and not, you know, move, it would be pretty hard to have this conversation, right? So, to some extent, bodily movements actually help us structure our thoughts. It's not just like a large language model. It's not just language going on. It interfaces with the body >> and it punctuates thoughts to some extent. So I think it's super interesting and it's it's certainly the case that the way that somebody moves their body does say something about how they're thinking as well. >> Yeah, I've been reading my audio book and I asked them uh the sound technicians to allow me to stand while I read it. Much easier to read an audio book and to put in flexion. You actually can lean in when you want to emphasize something and you can, you know, point to the words for a moment, but then when you need to work through a passage that needs to be very finely structured with little emotion because that happens too if you clasp your hands and do it. So >> our friend Eddie Chang tells me that um the hand representations in the brain are very close to the language center. So these were probably our first tools of language or at least they co-evolved. >> Well, your mouth and your hands are the most dextrous and over represented in the brain. you can, you know, control the world with them and you can move from the most. Yeah. When, you know, when the co pandemic started 2020, we weren't allowed to to go on campus at all. So, we sat around in our apartments. I sat at home, we had lab meetings on Zoom, only Zoom and lectures. All the classes were on Zoom. Prior to that and then then Zoom took off and now it's most meetings are hybrid. But before that point, everything was face to face. I would stand up and lecture. We would talk face to face and suddenly switching to just seeing a bunch of often little just black squares right for the for the whole classroom there on Zoom. That was a hard switch. That lack of an interactive nature which is something that we're looking at now. I think it's going to be super cool. I have a graduate student just starting this. The experiment is this. I would see your face on a screen and that's it. I would see a video of you. I would zoom with you right now and we could be having this podcast over Zoom. I actually thought we were going to have this over Zoom. So I'm very happy it's not over Zoom actually better in person and then then you're here if you're in person, right? And it feels different. It feels different. And so we we're sort of trying to parameterize that degree of social realness of social interaction. And then we're doing that with people with autism asking where does it change and how difficult is it for people with autism to interact with another person? Is it equally difficult over Zoom? Is it equally difficult over Zoom if you have the selfie camera turned off? the other person can't see you and you know that and so we're trying to look at the the degree of actual social interaction as a relevant dimension and I think it makes a huge difference. I mean it feels completely different being face to face that if you're on Zoom let alone if I just watch a video that's not actually aligned in time. >> The way I described the kind of higher or lower RPM before made it perhaps made it sound like one or the other was better. But I think sometimes about like Alex Honold who again who was a guest on this podcast and there have been claims that his amydala doesn't react as much. Anyway, we could we could talk about that. I think Alex kind of like maybe chuckles a little bit at those studies cuz he does experience anxiety and fear just not in the context of this like highly trained situation he's put himself in every single day for so long. But I do have to wonder whether people who go out on long runs, for instance, there's not a lot of talking going on. Or Alex, he's devoting his physical and mental energetic resources toward climbing and figuring out these how to navigate high-risisk, high consequence >> situations, totally just in flow. You're just like totally absorbed in what you're doing. If you're doing a type climbing >> once he he's got it, but like to work out the puzzle of like with ropes first of how to maneuver so that he can actually free solo it is is a remarkable thing. But I almost get the impression that if people speak less that they're able to devote more mental and physical resources to the thing they're doing. I never ran ultras, but I recall like running, you know, I used to run for like a long 8 to 10 mile run on Sundays used to be a thing. Now it's getting shorter and shorter run. I have to go get it back. But come back from those and there's a fatigue component that confounds what I'm about to say. But one is a lot less reactive when you spent a bunch of time just in your own head and you've learned to tolerate the voice in your own head. I find that I'm much calmer after I've spent a bunch of time alone because I've I've gone through that kind of initial stage of the mind fluttering and then you want to communicate with people and I'll lock up my phone in a box these days to do real work and I come out of it and things come my way and they're sort of out there and over there and unless they really demand my attention >> they kind of just don't grab me. Whereas I think when we're highly engaged with in in our own mental dialogue it's almost like we're trying to converse with the world. So I think there's real value to doing these solo treks and to devoting time to getting past that need to engage with the world. I think it's very very useful. >> Yeah. I mean I'm sure it's idiosyncratic. It'll vary. But I think that particular aspect that you mentioned that you can just be comfortable in your own mind and that that's beneficial. Uh I think that's a big part it's a big part of lots of training techniques and big part of lots of meditative techniques that you just but again it's very individual. It's not just sort of onesizefits-all, but the ability to not just be driven by sensory input and be comfortable with your own mind. It's not that you're doing nothing at all. You're training you're training your own mind to be comfortable. And I think the consequence of that is then subsequently when you encounter challenges in the world, you're actually better equipped to deal with those and better equipped to regulate your emotion. But when you're just at peace with yourself, if you're not doing nothing, your brain is being trained all the time and it's being trained in a useful way. And I think the ability to detach and decouple from the constant challenges and sensory information that's normally coming in, it's like sleep allows the brain to actually train itself and focus on particular internal regulation strategies that are then subsequently useful for dealing with the world later. Could we say that one form of potentially useful emotional intelligence or social uh intelligence training is to just spend some time in your own head either moving or not moving. You could do it meditating or you could do it running but to just resist the temptation to get pulled out into the world and just get good at just sitting with these things that we call emotions and thoughts. I think so, especially it's again it's going to be individual um and it's going to vary but I think so especially if you can get some kind of metacognitive or reflective awareness and work on what is going on in your mind and ultimately it's training control. It's training control of your emotions and training control of your thoughts. And if you're constantly bombarded and just dealing with stuff coming in, you don't have time to do that. It's called social media. >> Exactly. Yes. Of which I have none. Um, and so if you're just by yourself, you know, if you're running or if you're meditating or if you're trained up, if you're in an ice bath, uh, I think you actually get a particular type of internal training that you just don't have the leisure to get if you're bombarded by social media, for instance. Yes. You know, every beginning of my lab meeting now, people have their laptops open and their phones out. We put them down and we actually have five minutes of silence, a sort of meditative silence for to people to clear their minds at the beginning of Yeah. Five minute or three minutes. At the beginning of every lab meeting, we have a short meditative session. I put a picture up of some beautiful pe on the north shore of Kawaii and people in case people want to look at that, but many people just close their eyes. People can do whatever they want. It's but the idea is to clear your mind and focus and relax and get into a frame of mind where you're actually now most receptive to listen to the research presentation that's coming up because you you know you come in and your mind is all over the place and you know there's an email here and the phone is going and you just your mind is buzzing. So quieting that, finding some focus and then being able to engage subsequently much better with the real world, listening to the talk. I think that's that helps and we do that every lab meeting Mondays at noon seems to work for people. >> How long have you implemented this? >> We started it in uh 2020 when George Floyd was killed uh specifically to remember George Floyd. So it was a there was a very specific starting point because many people were upset and we figured we needed some kind of remembrance or just a moment of silence to to acknowledge things and then it morphed into you know you can remember whatever you like. you can just relax and then it sort of morphed into this idea. Well, you know, let's just have a moment of silence and just like recalibrate from the busy world and everything that's just been going on to now, you know, I mean, it's good to do on average every day in any case, but certainly right now before we launch into the research presentation at a lab meeting. So, we sort of morphed from a moment of silence to remember somebody to a short meditation essentially. >> I love it. that my neuroscience colleagues are doing ice baths, training for 100 mile races, and doing um >> the question is, is it helping my am I getting more nature papers as a consequence of any of these? >> That's a different metric. That's a different metric. Uh you seem like a happy vital person and and you're writing books and you're doing public education here. In addition to all of that, I'd like to actually stay on this meditation thing for a moment. Rick Rubin, famed music producer, came on this podcast. He also happens to be a friend of mine. And right as we sat down, he said, "Um, can we do some coherence breathing first?" He plays it's like a tone. You do some inhale, exhale, and you know, he >> he likes these transition >> breathing exercises are great. >> Yeah, these transition tools and and they will increase your heart rate variability and these kinds of things. Um, but I think that one of the most interesting and underststudied things in our field is task switching. Whether it's emotional task switching or cognitive task switching like we assume the brain operates in step functions like oh I'm out on the street I navigate traffic I park my car and I come in and I podcast and what you're doing at the beginning of this lab meaning in on the one hand is a meditation but it's you're pivoting the brain circuits >> toward what comes next. >> Yeah. >> I don't think we talk enough as neuroscientists about the fact that the brain doesn't just immediately switch over that you're carrying residual activity from whatever you were doing before. >> Yes. There's a there's a cost to that, a well-known cost. So, as soon as you switch into something, there's a cost carried over from the previous task, and you're much slower and more difficult for the couple of next trials on the new task. So, there's always a switching cost >> which shows you that switching >> is hard and some for some reason, and there's a couple of theories for why it should be hard. There's some residue, some sort of inertia being carried over previously. There's some reconfiguration in the brain required between what you were doing in the previous task and the new task. But all of those would seem to require some effort and it's definitely a skill and something that people are looking at a lot in brain recordings in humans and thinking a lot about how to design into AI. That ability to switch quickly and knowing how to switch, anticipating when to switch is a hugely important skill. >> Yeah. And we don't teach it like here we are talking about emotional intelligence, social awareness and these kinds of things. And I think most people would think, oh, we should sit down and look at a bunch of faces and learn to detect the subtle cues in faces or we should make more eye contact. And what I'm hearing today is while some of that might be true, most things are pointing in a different direction. We had a guest on this podcast, DJ Shipley, who's a former tier one SEAL team operator. That's another high-risisk, high consequence world. But then he's out now. He's no longer deploying. And he talked about his routine for coming home. It's like he knows, he's rehearsing as he comes out of the car, just like as if it were an op, you know? I'm gonna hit the door. My daughter's gonna come running from this direction. My other daughter's gonna come in. Py's gonna be in the kitchen. >> Dog's gonna come charging. >> Yeah. And but he's rehearsed it and he knows exactly where he'll set his bag so he can scoop his daughter up. People either chuckled or I think we're kind of taken aback by that until he said, "But this is the way that I know I can drop everything from the day >> and be at my best when I enter that environment." And you know, this is the kind of a quote unquote like hyper Y chromosome version of kind of of home and family life, but it was remarkable what the comments when we ran this clip on social media. The men were all kind of like in awe like you have a system, dude, and you follow it. And the women were like, "Yes, fantastic." Like, "This is somebody who's prioritizing how he shows up. He's leaving everything else outside." Which is a kind of, you know, it's a more of a 1950s version of >> that skill to switch is super super important. It was super important. >> It is trainable. It's largely trainable. And I think if you have meditative exercises, they train exactly that. It's a it's a huge switch, right? You're switching from like constantly being bombarded and dealing with stuff in the world to suddenly like putting all of that aside and just being inside >> and and it has health benefits. You know, Richie Davidson, for instance, I don't know if if you >> Yeah, we had him here. Phenomenal. Oh, he's he studied Tibetan monks and long-term meditators who've meditated 10,000 hours or whatever, which we can't afford to do. But he has a lot of studies on even for the rest of us, you know, short stretches of meditation, regular meditative exercises, you know, he's done well controlled studies have demonstrable health benefits for sure. So again, it comes back to this issue of variability. Being able to switch and having lots of variability and training that is definitely beneficial. It's beneficial for just basic physiology. It's beneficial for emotion granularity and emotion regulation. It's beneficial for control of thought is when you're being externally oriented versus meditating. All of those are to a large extent trainable skills in variability and and control. So the experiment I'd love to see done, maybe your lab will do this, would be what is the cost of task switching if you do or or do not insert this five minutes of silence like because you're you're spending 5 minutes and we know the transition is choppy into the next thing that you're doing. So there's some overlap there. But by introducing the period of silence, you reduce the amount of time in order to switch your brain over to this new mode. Presumably you're seeing positive effects in these lab meetings of doing >> yeah we should we should do a study it would be you know we would have to think about the right controls we are looking at task switching actually in these uh brain recordings in epilepsy patients we're looking at single unit recordings and how um those representations change when you switch between tasks it's it's a great study we're just working up the analyses now but we don't have the intervention that you were just speaking about so we don't have half the patients are getting meditative training and half are not but the extent to which an intervention ion like that can improve your ability to switch or some other concrete metric. I think that's yes, those are exactly the types of studies that should be done. I think Richie is probably doing studies like that. They did a a study of 5 minutes of meditation per day and showed that people experienced tremendous increases in anxiety during the initial phase of the study, like just having to sit there with your thoughts and let everything stir. I actually think of short meditations like that at least initially as another version of the ice bath. >> Well, it is and I think when we started and you know we have like new summer students come in on new people in the lab and say okay I don't usually say too much. Okay, we're going to just like three minutes of silence and everybody's like this and these summer students are looking around. What's what's going on? It's very stressful, right? And if you just tell them well just like don't do anything. I mean this is obviously extremely difficult for young children. Don't do anything, right? Just be completely silent and quiet for 1 minute or 5 minutes. It is hard to inhibit behavior. It's really hard to do, but it's trainable. It's completely trainable. And a big part of it, you know, we're in this same conference room that David Anderson has his lab meetings in, which is why you can always see that it goes on for hours and hours. It has glass walls and so people are walking around outside looking at us sitting there in silence pretty wonder not much progress being done in that that last meeting. So there's that whole social perception aspect, but again once you get over that and get used to it, it's it's very easy to to do these exercises and it's definitely a trainable skill for sure. >> Yeah, we were on the East Coast uh in Annapolis um at the Naval Academy. These are very accomplished students um almost 4,000 of them. And one of the most incredible things about that environment is everyone goes into the cafeteria for lunch and all of a sudden a bell sounds and you could hear a pin drop. But there's thousands of people around you. >> You hear a bell again. >> The meal begins. >> Walking into the auditorium, it's shuffle, shuffle, shuffle, talking, talking, talking, talking talking. Boom. It's a step function. They're training this in themselves. And the other thing, no phones. >> No one has phones during the day. They get I think they get an hour where they can access their phones. I I normally my my phone it's on right now because you guys wanted to text me, but normally my phone is off or I don't have a phone on me >> and and zero social media, not on X and not on social, not on uh Facebook. I'm not on Instagram. Zero. I just And you know, whenever people ask me, they say, "Oh, you know, can I hook you up with what's that thing? LinkedIn or whatever. I'm not on LinkedIn. I don't I don't care what LinkedIn." And they're always surprised and they say, "Well, why are you not on social media?" And I say, "Why would I be? I'm already above 100% in terms of people emailing me. I don't need more. So, I'm Yeah. zero. >> Love that you've given yourself permission to do that. Um, I put social media on a separate phone so that I can really track my time on there and I just use it only to post, read a little bit, and then I'm out. >> I just I can't take the mental noise. Before we started recording, you mentioned that you fortunately successfully overcame a bout of illness. >> Yes. I'm curious whether the process of going through that, the diagnosis, the treatment, and then emerging from it, thank goodness, healthy, had you at times thinking about the science of emotions. I mean, that's an emotional experience to say the least. You don't have to share with us exactly what it was, but were there times when what your knowledge of the brain's ability to process emotions for better or worse was a useful tool to you in that context? >> I guess so. I mean, you know, only in the most indirect sense, but uh I guess it's about emotional regulation. Well, it's about two things. I think it's about emotional regulation. So, you know, you know, initially when you get a diagnosis that reminds you of your mortality is sort of a mixture of, you know, fear, sadness, worry, you know, all these negative emotions. And so, you're regulating that and it's interpersonal for sure. So, interpersonal emotion regulation between me and my wife, us talking about it. So that's like a huge part of the process. If you're not regulating those negative emotions anymore, but you're um you're buying into you're getting more other emotions like awe, gratitude, acceptance, all of these emotions we were talking about before that I think are largely uniquely human uh that really make you appreciate and be just grateful for what you have. So that whole process of regulating the sort of you know immediate stressors and then coming to um having more gratitude and awe in everyday life. Uh and then you know also I mean I think one big consequence of anything like that is that you uh you have this metacognitive perspective on your your lifeline and you know where you are, how much time you have left and how to value that and what to do and what to plan uh and how to allocate your time to things that are worthwhile. And so in my case one of those components was you know signing up for this 100 mile ultramarathon starting to train for it and then just pushing through all of that. So, you know, one of the consequences of the of the therapy for this was I had lots of joint pain and lots of fatigue. So, I tell my doctor about that. You say, "That's that's great. That means it's working." It's like, "Yes, but the side effects are preventing me from training for a 100 mile race." And so, pushing through that, I think it just it makes you grateful for what you have and makes you just be in awe of the fact that, you know, we were briefly talking about consciousness before that there's a world there at all. You tend to have this perspective that physics gives us of the way the world works that you know the world is going on and when you die you get plucked out of that and everything else goes on. But from a neuroscience perspective it's kind of the opposite. You get this sense that the whole world is actually a construction of stuff in your brain. And as you get older little things drop out and various people die and you're unable to do things and eventually you lose the whole world. So rather than thinking of death as we normally do as the world loses you, the neuroscience perspective is the inverse which is you lose the world. So you have like you know a couple of decades left and then you're going to lose everything and that's coming. So live it up. >> I love it and thank you so much for being willing to answer that question. And I um throughout today's conversation, I I'm struck by the fact that your work plays such a prominent role in your life and your life in your work, even if uh we weren't necessarily connecting the dots in that way. The the fact that you do practices specifically to um tap into your autonomic nervous system emotion regulation and at the same time the fact that you look at neural circuits and and do extremely well-controlled studies to explore that the mechanics that translate to everybody. like this is a um in case anyone hasn't told you um and because I sit at a unique vantage point both having done academic research and now in public health communication people need to hear this and see and experienced scientists like you. So thank you so much for coming here today for um being willing to open up about some of this and frankly for doing the work that you do for so many years and such at such a high level and I'm so grateful that you're writing yet another book. Um, if it's not out yet, we can't put a link to it just yet, but when it comes out, I'll surely get a copy. And even though you're not on social media, uh, I'll be sure to, uh, to talk about it after I've read it because as I did the the prior book that you wrote with David. So, >> thank you very much, Andrew. It was a pleasure being here. We'll stay in touch and maybe at some point I can tell you that I finished the 100 mile race and the book got published. >> Excellent. I have no doubt that you will. Uh, whether I join you for that 100 mile race is a completely different story, but thank you so much, Ralph. Appreciate it. Pleasure. >> Thank you. Thank you for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Ralph Adolf's. To learn more about his work and to find links to his previous and forthcoming books, please see the link in the show notes caption. If you're learning from and or enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's a terrific zerocost way to support us. In addition, please follow the podcast by clicking the follow button on both Spotify and Apple. And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five-star review. And you can now leave us comments at both Spotify and Apple. Please also check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode. That's the best way to support this podcast. If you have questions for me or comments about the podcast or guests or topics that you'd like me to consider for the Huberman Lab podcast, please put those in the comment section on YouTube. I do read all the comments. For those of you that haven't heard, I have a new book coming out. It's my very first book. It's entitled Protocols: An Operating Manual for the Human Body. This is a book that I've been working on for more than five years and that's based on more than 30 years of research and experience. And it covers protocols for everything from sleep to exercise to stress control protocols related to focus and motivation. And of course, I provide the scientific substantiation for the protocols that are included. The book is now available by pre-sale at protocolsbook.com. There you can find links to various vendors. You can pick the one that you like best. Again, the book is called Protocols, an operating manual for the human body. And if you're not already following me on social media, I am Huberman Lab on all social media platforms. So that's Instagram, X, Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And on all those platforms, I discuss science and science related tools, some of which overlaps with the content of the Hubberman Lab podcast, but much of which is distinct from the information on the Hubberman Lab podcast. Again, it's Huberman Lab on all social media platforms. And if you haven't already subscribed to our neural network newsletter, the neural network newsletter is a zerocost monthly newsletter that includes podcast summaries as well as what we call protocols in the form of 1 to three page PDFs that cover everything from how to optimize your sleep, how to optimize dopamine, deliberate cold exposure. We have a foundational fitness protocol that covers cardiovascular training and resistance training. All of that is available completely zero cost. You simply go to hubermanlab.com, go to the menu tab in the top right corner, scroll down to newsletter, and enter your email. And I should emphasize that we do not share your email with anybody. Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Ralph Adolf's. And last, but certainly not least, thank you for your interest in science.