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 ophthalmology
at Stanford School of Medicine.
Today, I have the pleasure
of introducing Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
Dr. Sapolsky is a professor of biology and neurosurgery
at Stanford University.
His laboratory has worked on a large variety of topics,
including stress, hormones,
including testosterone and estrogen,
and how the different members of a given species interact
according to factors like hormones,
hierarchy within primate troops,
and how things like stress, reproduction,
and competition impact behavior.
One of the things that makes Dr. Sapolsky’s work so unique
is that it combines elements from primatology,
including field studies, with human behavior,
in essence, trying to unveil how humans,
as old world primates,
are controlled by different elements of our biology,
as well as our psychology.
Dr. Sapolsky is also a prolific author of popular books,
such as, Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers,
The Trouble With Testosterone,
and Behave, The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.
During the course of our discussion today,
Robert also revealed to me
that he is close to completing a new book
entitled, Determined, The Science of Life Without Free Will.
And indeed, we discuss the science of life
without free will during this episode.
We also discuss stress and how best to control stress,
and how stress controls us
at both conscious and subconscious levels.
We talk about testosterone and estrogen
and hormone replacement therapy,
and how those impact our mind, our psychology,
and our interactions with others.
As with any discussion with Dr. Sapolsky,
we learn about scientific mechanisms
that make us who we are.
And today we also discuss tools
and how we can leverage those scientific mechanisms
in order to be better versions of ourselves.
I should mention that unlike most guest interviews
on the Huberman Lab podcast,
this one had to be carried out remotely
due to various constraints.
So you may hear the occasional audio artifact.
Please excuse that.
We felt that the value of a conversation with Dr. Sapolsky
was well worth those minor, minor glitches.
And indeed, the information that he delivers us
is tremendously valuable, interesting,
and in many cases, actionable as well.
Before we begin, I’d like to emphasize
that this podcast is separate
from my teaching and research roles at Stanford.
It is, however, part of my desire and effort
to bring zero cost to consumer information about science
and science-related tools to the general public.
In keeping with that theme,
I’d like to thank the sponsors of today’s podcast.
Our first sponsor is Athletic Greens.
Athletic Greens is an all-in-one
vitamin mineral probiotic drink.
I’ve been taking Athletic Greens since 2012,
so I’m delighted that they’re sponsoring the podcast.
The reason I started taking Athletic Greens
and the reason I still take Athletic Greens
once or twice a day
is that it helps me cover
all of my basic nutritional needs.
It makes up for any deficiencies that I might have.
In addition, it has probiotics,
which are vital for microbiome health.
I’ve done a couple of episodes now
on the so-called gut microbiome
and the ways in which the microbiome interacts
with your immune system, with your brain to regulate mood,
and essentially with every biological system
relevant to health throughout your brain and body.
With Athletic Greens, I get the vitamins I need,
the minerals I need,
and the probiotics to support my microbiome.
If you’d like to try Athletic Greens,
you can go to athleticgreens.com slash Huberman
and claim a special offer.
They’ll give you five free travel packs
plus a year supply of vitamin D3K2.
There are a ton of data now
showing that vitamin D3 is essential
for various aspects of our brain and body health,
even if we’re getting a lot of sunshine,
many of us are still deficient in vitamin D3.
And K2 is also important
because it regulates things like cardiovascular function,
calcium in the body, and so on.
Again, go to athleticgreens.com slash Huberman
to claim the special offer of the five free travel packs
and the year supply of vitamin D3K2.
Today’s episode is also brought to us by Element.
Element is an electrolyte drink
that has everything you need and nothing you don’t.
That means the exact ratios of electrolytes are in Element,
and those are sodium, magnesium, and potassium,
but it has no sugar.
I’ve talked many times before on this podcast
about the key role of hydration and electrolytes
for nerve cell function, neuron function,
as well as the function of all the cells
and all the tissues and organ systems of the body.
If we have sodium, magnesium, and potassium
present in the proper ratios,
all of those cells function properly
and all our bodily systems can be optimized.
If the electrolytes are not present
and if hydration is low,
we simply can’t think as well as we would otherwise,
our mood is off, hormone systems go off,
our ability to get into physical action,
to engage in endurance and strength
and all sorts of other things is diminished.
So with Element, you can make sure
that you’re staying on top of your hydration
and that you’re getting the proper ratios of electrolytes.
If you’d like to try Element, you can go to drinkelement,
that’s lmnt.com slash Huberman,
and you’ll get a free Element sample pack
with your purchase.
They’re all delicious.
So again, if you want to try Element,
you can go to elementlmnt.com slash Huberman.
Today’s episode is also brought to us by Thesis.
Thesis makes what are called nootropics,
which means smart drugs.
Now, to be honest, I am not a fan of the term nootropics.
I don’t believe in smart drugs in the sense that
I don’t believe that there’s any one substance
or collection of substances that can make us smarter.
I do believe based on science, however,
that there are particular neural circuits
and brain functions that allow us to be more focused,
more alert, access creativity, be more motivated, et cetera.
That’s just the way that the brain works.
Different neural circuits for different brain states.
Thesis understands this.
And as far as I know,
they’re the first nootropics company
to create targeted nootropics for specific outcomes.
I’ve been using Thesis for more than six months now,
and I can confidently say that their nootropics
have been a total game changer.
My go-to formula is the clarity formula,
or sometimes I’ll use their energy formula before training.
To get your own personalized nootropic starter kit,
go online to takethesis.com slash Huberman,
take a three-minute quiz,
and Thesis will send you four different formulas
to try in your first month.
That’s takethesis.com slash Huberman,
and use the code Huberman at checkout
for 10% off your first order.
I’m pleased to announce that the Huberman Lab Podcast
is now partnered with Momentus Supplements.
We partnered with Momentus for several important reasons.
First of all, they ship internationally
because we know that many of you are located
outside of the United States.
Second of all, and perhaps most important,
the quality of their supplements is second to none,
both in terms of purity and precision
of the amounts of the ingredients.
Third, we’ve really emphasized supplements
that are single ingredient supplements
and that are supplied in dosages
that allow you to build a supplementation protocol
that’s optimized for cost,
that’s optimized for effectiveness,
and that you can add things and remove things
from your protocol in a way
that’s really systematic and scientific.
If you’d like to see the supplements
that we partner with Momentus on,
you can go to livemomentus.com slash Huberman.
There you’ll see those supplements,
and just keep in mind that we are constantly expanding
the library of supplements available through Momentus
on a regular basis.
Again, that’s livemomentus.com slash Huberman.
And now, without further ado,
my conversation with Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
Great, well, thank you so much, Robert,
for joining us today.
I’ve been looking forward to this for a very long time
and I appreciate it.
Well, it’s glad to be here.
There’s an enormous range of topics
that we could drill into,
but just to start off,
I want to return to a topic
that is near and dear to your heart, which is stress.
And one of the questions that I get most commonly
is what is the difference between short and long-term stress
in terms of their benefits and their drawbacks?
And the reason I say benefits is that,
obviously stress and the stress response can keep us alive,
but stress, of course, can also sharpen our mental acuity
and things of that sort.
So how should we conceptualize stress
and how should we conceptualize stress
in the short-term and in the long-term?
Well, basically sort of two graphs that one would draw.
The first one is just all sorts
of beneficial effects of stress short-term.
And then once we get into chronicity,
it’s just downhill from there,
short-term because it saves you from the predator,
short-term because you’re giving a presentation
and you think more clearly or your focus is better,
all sorts of aspects of that.
And what then winds up being an argument
is how long does it take to go from short-term to long-term?
And that’s somewhat arbitrary,
but the sorts of chronic stressors
that most people deal with
are just undeniably in the chronic range,
like having spent the last 20 years daily traffic jams
or abusive boss or some such thing.
The other curve that’s sort of perpendicular to this
is dealing with the fact
that sometimes stress is a great thing.
Like our goal is not to cure people of stress
because if it’s the right kind, we love it.
We pay good money to be stressed that way
by a scary movie or a rollercoaster ride.
What you wind up seeing
is when it’s the right amount of stress,
it’s what we call stimulation.
And the basic curve there
is here’s an optimal level of stimulation
and too little and function goes down
with what we would call boredom and too much
and function goes down with what we would call stress.
And the optimum is what all of us aim for.
In terms of the benefits of stress in the short-term,
one thing that’s really striking to me
is how the physiologically the stress response
looks so much like the excitement response
to a positive event.
And we can speculate that the fundamental difference
between short-term stress and short-term excitement
is some neuromodulator like dopamine
or something like that.
But is there anything else that we know about the biology
that reveals to us,
what really creates this thing we call valence
that an experience can be terrible or feel awful
or it can feel wonderful, exhilarating,
depending on this somewhat subjective feature
we call valence.
Do we know what valence is or where it resides?
On a really mechanical level,
if you’re in a circumstance that is requiring
that your heart races and you’re breathing as fast
and you’re using your muscles and some such thing,
you’re going to be having roughly the same
brain activation profile,
whether this is for something wonderful
or something terrible,
with the one exception being that
if the amygdala is part of the activation,
this is something that’s going to be counting as adverse.
Whether that’s the circumstance,
an adverse circumstance recruiting the amygdala into it
and how much it’s the amygdala being involved
biases you towards interpreting it as even more awful.
The amygdala in some ways is kind of the checkpoint
as to whether we’re talking about excitement
Let’s use the amygdala as a transition point
to another topic that you’ve spent many years
working on and thinking about,
which is testosterone and other sex steroid hormones.
I heard you say once before that
among all the brain areas that bind testosterone,
that where testosterone can park and create effects,
that the amygdala is among the most chock-a-block
full of these parking spots, these receptors.
I realize there’s a lot here,
but how should we think about the role of testosterone
in the amygdala,
given that the engagement of the amygdala
is fundamental in this transition point
between a exhilarating positive response
and a negative stressful response?
Or maybe just broadly,
how should we think about testosterone
and its effects on the brain?
And pertinent to the transition
from whether this is a stressor that’s evoking fear
or evoking aggression in terms of that continuum also,
because the amygdala is in the center
of all four points on those axes.
Basically, almost everybody out there
has a completely wrong idea as to what testosterone does,
which is testosterone makes you aggressive
because males in virtually every species out there
have more testosterone and are more aggressive
and seasonal maters have testosterone
surging at the time of year.
They’re punching it out over territory
and you take testosterone out of the picture.
You castrate any mammal out there, including us,
and levels of aggression will go down.
And the easy thing then to conclude
is that testosterone causes aggression.
And the reality is testosterone does no such thing.
It doesn’t cause aggression.
And you can see this both behaviorally and in the amygdala,
what does testosterone do?
It lowers the threshold for the sort of things
that would normally provoke you into being aggressive
so that it happens more easily.
It makes systems that are already turned on,
turn on louder rather than turning on aggressive music
or some such thing.
What does that look like behaviorally?
You take five male monkeys, put them together,
they form a dominance hierarchy.
Number one is great, number five is miserable,
number three is right in between.
Now take number three and shoot the guy up
with tons of testosterone
and he’s gonna be involved in more fights.
Aha, testosterone uniformly causes aggression.
But you look closely and there’s a pattern to it.
Is number three now challenging numbers two and one
for their place in the hierarchy?
He is brown nosing them exactly as much as he used to.
What’s going on is he’s just a miserable terror
to poor number four and five.
And in that case, what testosterone is doing
is amplifying the pre-existing patterns of aggression,
amplifying the social learning that’s already gone into it.
Now on sort of the more reductive level,
so how does that translate into the amygdala?
Does testosterone make amygdaloid neurons
have action potentials?
Does it cause those neurons to suddenly speak
about fear and aggression spontaneously?
What they do is if the amygdala is already being stimulated,
it increases the rate of neuronal firing.
What it’s worth, it shortens after hyperpolarizations.
So the theme there exactly is it’s not creating aggression,
it’s just upping the volume
of whatever aggression is already there.
And once you factor that in,
it’s impossible to say anything about what testosterone does
outside the context of what testosterone related behaviors,
how they get treated in your social setting.
Yeah, and in terms of status
and the relationship between individuals,
either non-human primates or humans,
can we say that testosterone and levels of testosterone,
or I should say, can we say that relative levels
of testosterone between individuals
is correlated to status within the hierarchy?
Yes, but in a way that winds up being totally uninteresting.
Like you go back, I don’t know,
whatever number of decades to endocrinology texts,
and there were two totally reliable findings in there.
Let’s see, I have a dog in here that’s so good.
We like dogs at the Huberman Lab podcast.
He’s jingling a bit.
They are welcome.
They are absolutely welcome, yeah.
And there’d be two truisms,
which is higher levels of testosterone
predict higher levels of aggression
in humans and other animals.
Higher levels of testosterone
predict higher levels of sexual activity.
Whoa, testosterone causing both.
And the correlation is there.
And when you look closely, we’ve got cause and effect stuff.
Sexual behavior raises testosterone levels.
Aggression raises testosterone levels.
Your levels beforehand are barely predictive
of what’s gonna happen.
So it’s a response rather than a cause.
When you look at that though,
in terms of making sense of individual differences,
they don’t matter a whole lot.
You can like spend an entire career
on the social circumstances that produce 3 1⁄2%
more testosterone in the circulation
and expect to see all sorts of interesting implications.
And that’s not really the case.
It’s somewhat of a yes or no modulator
of the much more subtle social stuff that’s already there.
You know, I think that there are a lot of misconceptions
about human biology,
but testosterone seems to be one area where,
at least from what I can find on the internet,
there’s a sort of at the peak of misunderstanding.
Maybe we could just ask a few more questions
about testosterone and sexual behavior,
because there’s an interesting story there
about castration versus non-castration
and the causality again.
But before you address that,
I just want to highlight something that you said
that I think is so vital,
which is that behaviors such as aggressive behaviors
and sexual behaviors can actually increase testosterone.
Did I hear that correctly?
And the reverse is sort of true,
but not in a causal way.
Is that right?
The opposite direction of the causality?
So if I were to increase somebody’s testosterone by 30%,
male or female, doesn’t matter,
their sexual behavior may or may not change.
Essentially zero effect at all.
Your brain is not that sensitive
to fluctuations in testosterone levels.
In terms of things like aggression,
raising testosterone is a great footnote.
If you have the right type of willing to die
in the trenches devotion sort of thing,
watching your favorite team play a sport
will raise your testosterone levels
as you sit there with the potato chips in your armchair.
So it’s not the physicality of aggression,
it’s the psychological framing of it.
So yeah, testosterone is not causing that.
A great way to appreciate that is,
okay, so you had all these testosterone
sexual behavior correlations,
and you do the definitive endocrine intervention,
which is you do a subtraction study,
you remove the testes,
and as I said before,
levels of sexual behavior goes down.
We’ve just shown that testosterone is somehow causative.
Critically, they go down, but not down to zero,
whether you are a rat or a monkey or a human, whatever.
And what predicts how much residual sexual behavior is there?
How much sexual behavior there was before castration?
What that’s telling you is by then,
that’s behavior that’s being carried
by social learning and context,
rather than by a hormone.
Exact same thing with aggression.
Drops after castration doesn’t go to zero.
The more prior history of it,
the more it just keeps coasting along on its own,
even without testosterone.
Can we say that there’s an exception
in terms of the early organizing effects of hormones?
Like for instance, if a developing animal
is deprived of testosterone or estrogen
or aromatized testosterone into estrogen,
there’s a whole story there, as you know,
but then I could imagine that the circuits of the brain
that are responsible for initiating sexual behavior
in the first place might not emerge
and therefore not be sensitive to testosterone
later in life.
Is that right?
And a great way of seeing that
is this totally nutty biological factoid,
which is the second to fourth digit ratio in hands.
Totally obscure thing.
The ratio of one to the other,
in some way reflects levels of testosterone,
androgen exposure during fetal life.
And I can’t remember which way it goes.
And it’s minuscule.
I mean, you need a thousand people in your sample size
to be able to see anything,
but you see it in other primates.
It’s already there in fetal sonograms, all of that.
So that’s a readout of subtle differences
in prenatal exposure.
And that winds up being a predictor
of a whole range of subtle stuff in adult behavior.
So yeah, at the fetal end,
when you’re still building everything,
testosterone and the amount of it
is making a huge difference.
By the time you’re an adult,
it’s just somewhat of an all or none signal.
I have a confession,
which is that I was a master’s student at Berkeley
in Mark Breedlove’s arena.
So I’m an author on that paper,
although I’m deep within the author line
and you got the description of it exactly right,
that it’s the D2,
the index finger to the ring finger ratio
is more similar in females than it is in males.
In males, the index finger tends to be shorter.
And for people out there who are listening to this,
who are now freaking out or measuring,
there’s a proper way to measure this,
which is eyeballing it doesn’t work all the time
unless at the extremes.
And there’s some interesting stories there.
It actually has been replicated
no fewer than five times, Mark Breedlove tells me.
But yes, in terms of these early organizing effects,
those seem very robust in most studies.
These later effects are a sort of activation
of neural circuits by hormones.
I’m absolutely fascinated by this.
And I do have a couple other questions,
which is we normally associate testosterone with males,
but of course, females make testosterone as well
from the adrenals.
And presumably elsewhere too.
I’m guessing if we looked hard enough,
we’d probably find that there were other sources
of androgens in females.
Can we say that these general contours of effects
on aggression also pertain to females?
And I suppose I should ask in particular
about female-female aggression,
which does exist in many species,
female-male aggression, as well as maternal aggression,
which is a robust aspect of our evolution, of course,
that the mother will, an angry mother animal of any kind
protecting her young is truly dangerous
in the best sense of the word.
And that type of post parturition,
period after birth aggression is all about estrogen,
progesterone, those sorts of things.
Female aggression the rest of the time
has testosterone as a major player
at a much lower level on the average.
On the average, one always has to say,
but it’s basically the same punchlines.
In females, the lower levels of testosterone
are essential for typical levels of aggression
and sexual behavior.
None of us, they’re not causing it.
It’s not sensitive to small individual differences.
Same exact thing.
You can get way over impressed
with the importance of androgens in females
just as readily as in males.
So in line with that,
how should we conceptualize testosterone?
I realize there isn’t a single sentence
or that can capture a hormone and all its effects
because hormones have so many different slow
and fast effects on the brain, on other glands,
on their own, on the very glands that produce them.
But as I’ve heard you talk about testosterone today
and over the years, I start to get the impression
that as the most misunderstood molecule
in human health in the universe,
it has, it’s clearly doing something very powerful.
It’s shifting the way that certain neural circuits work,
adjusting the gain on the amygdala as you described
and certainly other things as well.
Is there any truism about testosterone
like in its relationship to effort
or its relationship to resilience
and in a way that maybe will help me and other people
sort of think about how to think about testosterone?
Yeah, maybe three separate answers to that.
The first one is, I think it’s a fair summary
to think that when it comes to motivated strong behaviors,
what testosterone does is make you more
of whatever you already are in that domain.
Sexual arousal, libido, aggressiveness,
spontaneous aggression, reactive aggression,
things of that sort.
It’s upping the volume of things
that are already strongly there.
Second way to think about it is,
well, here’s like my favorite finding about testosterone.
And this was some wonderful work by a guy, John Wingfield,
who’s one of the best behavioral endocrinologists out there
and about 20 years ago,
he formulated what was called the challenge hypothesis
of testosterone action.
What does testosterone do?
Testosterone is what you secrete
when your status is being challenged
and it makes it more likely that you’ll do the behaviors
needed to hold on to your status.
Okay, so that’s totally boringly straightforward
if you’re a baboon.
If somebody is challenging your high rank,
the appropriate response on your part
is going to be aggression.
All right, so we’ve just gotten through the back door
to testosterone and aggression again.
But then you get to humans
and humans have lots of different ways of achieving
or maintaining status.
And all you need to do is go to like some fancy
private schools annual auction
and you will see all these half drunk alpha males
competing to see who can give the most money away
as a show of conspicuous like,
property that they have.
And in a setting like that,
I mean, I haven’t been able to take urine samples
at those times, unfortunately,
but that shows the flip side of it.
If you have a species that hands out status
in a very different sort of way,
testosterone is going to boost that also.
Okay, so that generates a totally nutty prediction.
Take people in a circumstance,
say playing an economic game,
where you get status by being trustworthy
and being generous in your interactions with the game.
If you give people testosterone,
does that make them more generous?
And that’s absolutely the case.
Totally cool finding.
Showing you, I don’t know,
basically if you took a whole bunch of Buddhist monks
and shot them up with testosterone,
they’d get all competitive with each other
as to who could do the most random acts of kindness.
And if we have a societal problem with too much aggression,
the first culprit to look at is not testosterone.
The first to look at is that we hand out
so much damn elevated status
for aggression in so many circumstances.
So I find that finding to be fantastic.
Third thing about subtlety of testosterone.
Okay, so like some subtler behavioral effects.
You give testosterone to people
and they become more confident.
They become more self-confident.
Well, that’s good.
People pay to take all sorts of nonsensical self-help courses
that will boost your self-esteem.
And that’s a good thing,
unless testosterone makes you more confident.
That is inaccurate.
And you’re more likely to barrel into wrong decisions.
What’s shown in economic gameplay
is that testosterone, by making you more confident,
makes you less cooperative.
Because who needs to cooperate?
Because I’m on top of this all on my own.
Testosterone makes people cocky and impulsive.
And that may be great in one setting.
But if in the others, you’re absolutely sure
your army is gonna overrun the other country in three days.
So hell, let’s start World War I
and you get a big surprise out of it.
Testosterone altering risk assessment beforehand
probably played a big role in that kind of miscalculation.
I always think about testosterone and dopamine
being close cousins in the brain,
not just because of their relationship
through the pituitary and hypothalamus, that of course,
but also because of dopamine’s salient role
in creating this bias towards exteroception.
You know, when somebody takes a drug
that increases dopamine
or they’re chock-a-block full of dopamine,
they tend, I want to highlight tend
because this is, I’m really generalizing it,
but they tend to focus on outward goals,
you know, things beyond the boundaries of their skin.
And testosterone seems to do a bit of the same.
It tends to put us into a similar mode
of perceiving the outside world
in ways that we’re asking questions like,
how do I relate to this other of my species?
How do I relate to these goals?
Is there anything that we can do
to better conceptualize the relationship
between testosterone and dopamine and motivation?
Or would that just take us down the alleyways
of neural pathways and the hypothalamus,
which was fine too?
Well, I think it’s got lots to do
with sort of this massive revisionism about dopamine.
Everyone since the pharaohs got brought up
being taught that dopamine is about pleasure and reward.
Turns out it isn’t, it’s about anticipation of reward.
And it’s about generating the motivation,
the goal-directed behavior needed to go get that reward.
And before you know it,
you’re using like elevated dopamine your entire life
to motivate you to do whatever is going to get you
like entry into heaven, afterlife,
kind of, you know, it’s doing that sort of thing.
So it’s really about the motivation
and what testosterone does,
even in individuals who are not aggressive
and why testosterone replacement
is often a very helpful thing for aging males
is it increases energy.
It increases a sense of there-ness,
of presence, of alertness.
It increases motivation.
So that’s a whole aspect,
which then takes us into,
is your motivation to get up and like go,
you know, hand out lots of soup
in a soup kitchen for homeless people,
or is it to get up and go ethnically cleanse a village?
It’s got much to do with what your makeup was
before the testosterone got on board.
So it’s activating in an energetic sense.
Testosterone within minutes
increases glucose uptake into skeletal muscle.
You’re just more awake and alert and all of that.
And that has a lot to do with what dopamine does.
And as one might predict then,
getting just the right levels of testosterone
infused into your bloodstream feels great to lab rats.
They will lever press to get infused into the range
that optimizes dopamine release.
So there’s, you’re absolutely right.
They’re deeply intertwined.
Yeah, such beautiful biology there.
And I love the way you encapsulate their relationship.
I want to ask about estrogen.
You know, we don’t hear as about estrogen as often.
And it’s always interesting to me now
doing some public facing education, you know,
that testosterone is this very controversial molecule,
just to say it is almost controversial.
But estrogen doesn’t seem to hold
the same controversial weight.
And yet estrogen has a very powerful effects
on both the animal brain and on the human brain
of males and females.
Men do not want their estrogen to go too low.
Terrible things happen.
They will lose cognitive function.
Libido can drop.
So men need estrogen as well,
but perhaps maybe we can put the same filter on estrogen
as we did on testosterone.
Are there any general themes of estrogen
that people should be aware of,
or that you think that are generally misunderstood?
Is it really all about feelings and empathy
and making us more sensitive?
I sense not.
No, and it’s once again, very context dependent.
And if estrogen after giving birth is playing a central role
and you wanting to shred the face
of somebody getting too close
to your kittens kind of thing,
we know it’s not just warm, fuzzy,
you know, empathic kind of stuff.
Estrogen, you know, in lots of ways
could be summarized by if you had a choice in the matter
between having a lot of estrogen
in your bloodstream or not,
go for having a lot of estrogen.
It enhances cognitions, exactly as you said.
It stimulates neurogenesis in the hippocampus.
It increases glucose and oxygen delivery.
It protects you from dementia.
It decreases inflammatory oxidative damage to blood vessels,
which is why it’s good for protecting
from cardiovascular disease
in contrast to testosterone,
which is making every one of those things worse.
This brings up this minefield of the question,
which is so what about postmenopausal estrogen?
And all sorts of lab studies with non-human primates
suggested that you keep estrogen levels high
after a monkey’s equivalent of menopause,
and you’re gonna keep brain health a lot better,
decreasing the risk of dementia, stroke, every such thing.
Estrogen is a great antioxidant, all of that.
So in the 90s, I think, when Healy,
I’m forgetting her name,
but when there was the first female head of the NIH,
Bernadette Healy set up this massive prospective human study
what was gonna be the biggest one of all times,
looking at the pluses and minuses
of postmenopausal estrogen.
And tens of thousands of women,
and they had to cut the study short
because what they were seeing was
estrogen was not only doing the normal bad stuff
that you expect in terms of some decalcification stuff,
but it was increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease,
and it was increasing the risk of stroke,
and it was increasing the risk of dementia.
And this ground to a halt, and everybody,
they stopped the study in front page news,
and everybody panicked at that point,
and nobody could make sense of it
who had been spending the last 20 years
studying the exact same thing in primates
and seeing all the protective effects.
And the explanation turned out to be one of those things
where like law of unexpected consequences,
okay, menopause in women last different lengths of time,
that may be a factor that’s gonna come.
You know what?
Let’s not start giving our study subjects more estrogen
until they’re totally past menopause.
And when you’ve got that lag time in between,
you shift all sorts of estrogen receptor patterns,
and that’s where all of the bad effects come from.
All of the monkey studies had involved
just maintaining ovulatory levels
into the post-menopausal period.
And you do that, and you get great effects.
Estrogen is one of the greatest predictors
of protection from Alzheimer’s disease, all of that,
but it needs to be physiological.
Just keep continuing what your body
has been doing for a long time
versus let the whole thing shut down
and suddenly like try to fire up the coal stoves
at the bottom of the basement kind of thing
and get that going,
there you get utterly different outcomes.
And that caused a lot of human health consequences
when people suddenly decided that estrogen
is in fact neurologically endangering post-menopausal age.
Wow, that’s fascinating.
And I never thought that these steroid hormone receptors
could, you know, by not binding estrogen,
being devoid of estrogen binding, I should say,
could then set off opposite biochemical cascades.
I guess it raises the question
about testosterone replacement too,
whether or not people should talk to their doctor
before too long,
men and women talk to your physicians before too long
to avoid whatever is happening in these periods
where there isn’t sufficient testosterone and or estrogen.
Sounds like it could cause longer term problems
even when therapies are introduced.
Two additional miseries slash complications.
So, okay, you’re trying to understand,
you look at women with a history
with or without post-menopausal estrogen replacement,
where it’s done right.
And you’re seeing 20 years later,
estrogen is a predictor of a decreased risk of Alzheimer’s.
Then you gotta start trying to do
the unpacking prospective type studies.
How much estrogen?
At which times?
Estrogen is just a catch-all term for a bunch of hormones,
estrone, estradiol, estreal.
How much of each one of them?
Natural or synthetic?
Go try to figure all of that out.
And the second complication is,
it’s often hard to say anything about what estrogen does
outside the context of what progesterone is doing.
And often it’s not the absolute levels of either,
it’s the ratio of the two.
This is such a more complicated endocrine system
And because you have to generate dramatic cyclicity,
that no male hypothalamus ever has to dream of.
It’s a much, much more complicated system.
Thus, it’s a lot more complicated to understand,
let alone figure out what the ideal benefits are of it.
Ken, I don’t know what to make of the literature
on dropping rates of testosterone and endocrine disruptors.
You know, I was at Berkeley when Tyrone Hayes
published his data on these frogs that were drinking water
from various locations throughout the United States,
not just in California,
and seeing very severe endocrine disruption
through blockade of androgen receptors
and all sorts of issues.
And you hear this all the time now
that sperm counts are dropping,
that there are all these endocrine disruptors,
that there’s birth control in the water,
in the drinking water.
It all starts to sound a little crazy.
And yet I’ve also been fooled before by, you know,
I guess a good example would be,
there’s a lot of crazy stuff in the world online
about all the terrible stuff in highly processed foods.
And yet you’ve got very respectable people,
endocrinologists at UCSF, like Robert Lustig saying,
yeah, a lot of these hidden sugars
and these emulsifiers, they’re causing real problems.
So I’ve become more open-minded about the question.
And so are we suffering from drops in sperm counts
and testosterone and estrogen and fertility
as a consequence of endocrine disruptors
in the environments and food,
or because of social reasons?
Is there anything that we can hang our hat on,
like real data that you’re confident in,
or is it just a mess?
No, the phenomenon does appear to be quite real.
Cross-sectional studies, human populations,
or I still don’t understand why this was one
of the first things that Hayes spotted,
decreasing testicle size in crocodiles.
Go figure why that was one of the first contributions
to this, and I think the phenomenon is absolutely real.
And what you’re then left with is two classic challenges,
this is correlated with something broad,
environmental toxins, which ones, how much, when, et cetera.
And the other one always being, well, okay,
dropping, is it dropping enough to make a difference?
How big of an effect is this?
And those are where the juries are still out.
Yeah, it’s an area that I know there’s a lot of interest in,
and you’ve got groups of people
who won’t touch a receipt at a store
because of the BPAs that are on the inks of the,
and then you’ve got people
who don’t care about those things.
It is a fascinating area,
and I hope that more biology will be done there soon.
I’d like to briefly return to stress.
You described a study once about two rats,
one running on a wheel voluntarily,
one who’s basically stuck in a running wheel
and is forced to run anytime rat number one runs.
So in one case, the rat is voluntarily exercising,
and in the other case,
the rat is being forced to go to PE class, so to speak,
but really, and seeing divergent effects on biology.
And I’d like to just touch into this
and use it as kind of a case study
for stress mitigation in general.
I’m rather obsessed in our colleague, David Spiegel,
Associate Chair of Psychiatry at Stanford,
is obsessed with this question of how humans
can start to mitigate their own stress.
What do you think about stress mitigation
and what should we do as individuals and as families
and as a culture to try and encourage people
to mitigate their stress,
but in ways that are not going to turn us
into rat number two,
where we’re being forced to mitigate our own stress
and therefore becomes more stressful?
And what you see is rat number one
gets all the benefits of exercise.
Rat number two gets all the downsides of severe stress
with the same exact muscle expenditure
and movements going on, perfectly yoked.
Great example that it’s the interpretation in your head.
And I haven’t kept up with that literature,
but I’ll bet you rat number two
is having a whole lot more activity in its amygdala
than is rat number one.
Okay, so stress mitigation.
Anything I should say here,
I should preface with I’m reasonably good at telling people
what’s gonna happen if they don’t manage their stress,
but I’m terrible at actually like managing stress
or advising how to manage it.
I’m much better with the bad news aspect of it.
But what you see is by now just a classic literature,
half a century old,
sort of showing what are the building blocks of stress.
Not, ooh, you step outside
and you’ve been gored by an elephant
and can you grow from your experience
and what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
You could have a stress response,
but you’re in the realm of the gray zone
of ambiguous social interactions, that sort of thing.
Some people have massive stress responses,
others not at all in between, enjoy it.
Like what are the building blocks
of what makes psychological stress stressful?
And the first one is exactly what is brought up
by that running study.
Do you have a sense of control?
A sense of control makes stressors less stressful.
And the running wheel shows that
or studies where you, you lab rat
or you college freshmen volunteer
have been trained that by pressing a lever,
you’re less likely to get a shock.
And today you’re at the lever,
they’re working away and unbeknownst to you,
the lever has been turned off
and it has no effect on shock frequency,
but because you think you have some control,
you have less of a stress response.
If you were a rat and doing this day in and day out,
you’re less likely to get an ulcer.
So a sense of control.
Related to that is a sense of predictability.
Rat gets shocked, human gets shocked, whatever.
And the scenario either is the shocks come now and then
or the shocks come now and then
and 10 seconds before a little warning light comes on.
And when you get the warning light,
the shocks aren’t as stressful.
You got predictability
because if you’re not getting warning lights,
any second you could be a half second away
from the next shock, you get a warning light
and you know that if there isn’t one,
you’ve got at least 10 seconds worth of relaxation.
You know what’s coming,
you can prepare your coping responses.
And best of all, afterward,
you know when you’re finally safe,
when you can recover from it.
And that’s enormously protective.
Others, outlet for frustration.
You take a rat who’s getting shocked
and if it could run on a running wheel,
that’s a protective thing.
If it’s doing it voluntarily.
If you’ve got a rat and it can gnaw on a bar of wood,
a stressor is less stressful.
Unfortunately, if you have a rat or primate or human
and they’re stressed,
the ability to aggressively dump
on somebody smaller and weaker
also reduces the stress response
and the fact that displacement aggression reduces stress
accounts for a huge percentage of Earth’s like unhappiness.
So all of those variables get social support as well.
That’s a good one.
Interpreting circumstances as being good news
rather than bad.
So you’ve got this very simple sort of like take home recipe
of go out and get as much control
and as much predictability and as many outlets
and as much social support as possible.
And you’re gonna do just fine.
And you go out and do that
and that’s a recipe for total disaster.
Because it’s much, much more subtle than that.
One great example.
Okay, so you’re getting shocked.
You want a warning beforehand.
Get a little warning light 10 seconds before each shock.
It’s wonderfully protective.
Get a warning shock.
Get a warning light one second before the shock.
It doesn’t do anything.
There’s not enough time for you
to get the psychological benefits of the anticipation.
Now instead, get the little warning
coming on two minutes before each shock
and it’s gonna make things worse
because you’re not gonna be sitting there
like reveling in sort of your sense of predictability
and it’s soon gonna be over.
You’re gonna be sitting there for two minutes
saying, damn, here it comes.
Predictive information only works in a narrow domain.
Do you wanna have a sense of control in the face of stress?
And the answer is only if it is a mild to moderate stressor
because what’s happening then,
your sense of control is completely independent
of the reality of whether you have control or not.
But in the face of mild to moderate stressors,
a sense of control gets interpreted as,
wow, look how much worse things could have been.
Thank God I have control.
I’m on top of this mastermind fate.
In contrast, if it’s a major stressor,
all that arbitrary sense of control does
is make you think, oh my God,
look how much better it could have been.
I could have prevented it.
And we all know that intuitively,
like we do that in the face of people’s worst stressors.
Nobody could have stopped the car
the way the kid suddenly jumped out.
It wouldn’t have mattered if you had gotten them
to the doctor a month ago instead of now.
It wouldn’t have made me,
you didn’t actually have any control.
And what you see is,
you absolutely wanna have a huge sense of control
over mild to moderate stressors,
and especially ones that result in a good outcome.
Hooray for me.
And in the face of horrible stressors,
what you wanna do is like self-deception
and like truth and beauty don’t necessarily
go hand in hand at that point.
And that’s why stress management techniques
about control and predictability
wind up being far worse than neutral
if you’re preaching that to somebody homeless
or somebody with terminal cancer
or somebody who’s a refugee.
Tell a neurotic middle-class person
that they have the psychological tools
to turn hell into heaven.
And there’s some truth to that.
Do the same thing to somebody
who’s going through a real hell.
And that’s just privileged heartlessness to do that
because that doesn’t work.
More and more, outlets, if your outlets are damaging,
that’s not a good way to mitigate stress.
Social support, if you’re confusing mere acquaintances
for real social support,
you’re gonna have the rug pulled out
from under you at some point.
If you’re mistaking social support
for being going and bitching and moaning
and demanding supportiveness from everyone around you,
rather than you doing some of that reciprocally,
that’s not gonna work very well either.
So, you know, it’s not simple.
It’s not for nothing that lots of us are really lousy
at being good friends and things like that
and why it takes a lot of work to do it right
because you do it wrong
and it may temporarily seem like a great thing,
but when it turns out to be completely misplaced faith,
you’re gonna be feeling worse than before you started.
These days, there’s a lot of interest
in using physical practices to mitigate stress,
you know, trying to get out of the ruminating
and to some extent, take control of neural circuits
in the brain by using exercise and using breathing
and hypnosis and of course,
hypnosis has a mental component as well.
What are your thoughts on stress mitigation
from the standpoint of,
okay, so we don’t want to be rat number two,
we want to select something for ourselves.
So we have to take the initiative for ourselves.
Being forced into exercising is not,
it could actually have negative health effects, perhaps.
So we need to pick something that we like,
we need to take control of it.
In terms of supporting other people,
you touched on that a bit.
What is the best way to support other people?
Is it to talk about the stressful thing?
I mean, I’m not asking you to play psychologist here,
but I find divergent data on this.
You know, we can spin ourselves up into a lather
by ruminating on something and language seems to me
like it’s a wonderful tool,
but it’s also a fairly deprived tool
because it doesn’t really get into the core
of our physiology like something like breathing would.
So what are your thoughts on more,
for lack of a better way to put it,
more head-centered cognitive approaches
to stress mitigation versus kind of
going at the core physiology?
Cold showers now are even a thing to some extent,
you know, just to get people stress acclimated,
voluntarily taking cold showers, you know?
That makes some sense physiologically preconditioning
for when the real stressors come.
In terms of what you bring up,
transcendental meditation, mindfulness, exercise, prayer,
sort of reflecting on gratitude, all that sort of thing.
Collectively, they work on the average.
They work in terms of they can lower heart rate
and cholesterol levels and have all sorts of good outcomes,
but they come with provisos.
One is exactly the caveat that comes out
of the running wheel study is it doesn’t matter
how many of your friends swear
by this stress management technique.
If doing it makes you wanna scream your head off
after 10 seconds, that’s not the one
that’s gonna work for you.
So, you know, read the fine print and the testimonials,
but it’s gotta be something that works for you.
Another one is the stress management type techniques
that work, you can’t save them for the weekend.
You can’t save them for when you’re stuck on hold
on the phone with Muzak for two minutes.
It’s gotta be something where you stop what you’re doing
and do it virtually daily or every other day
and spend 20, 30 minutes doing it.
And what you see coming out of that
is this like 80-20 rule from economics.
80-20, 80% of the complaints in the store
come from 20% of the customers, things like that.
What you see is if your entire life consists
of every single thing on your shoulders
that you can’t say no to 24-7,
if you’ve stopped that and finally said,
my wellbeing is important enough
that I’m finally gonna say no to some of the stuff
that I can’t say no to,
and I’m gonna do it every day for 20 minutes,
whatever stress management technique you then do
in those 20 minutes, short of who knows what,
you’re already 80% of the way there
simply by having decided your wellbeing is important enough
that you’re gonna stop every single day
and have that as a priority.
And that’s exactly the same finding
that you find people with chronic depression untreated
that merely calling and getting an appointment
to see a mental health professional,
people start feeling better already
because it’s evidence that you’ve been activated
and you matter enough to do this
and you could conceive that this would actually
have a good outcome rather than a hopeless one.
Just doing something meditative or reflective
every day or so,
and it hardly even matters which one you’re doing.
And what comes out of that is thus another warning,
which is do not trust anybody
who says it has been scientifically proven
that their brand of stress management
works better than the other ones.
Just watch your wallet at that point.
I think one of the core goals of my lab
and David Spiegel’s lab,
and I know you’ve worked with David
and published papers with David as well,
is to really try and find out
what are the various entry points to this thing
that we call the autonomic nervous system
and the stress system and these systems
that when gone unchecked
really can take us down a dark path.
And the idea that there are so many entry points
is really the one that keeps,
what the data keep telling us over and over again.
So there’s no magic breathing tool or exercise.
It’s any variety of those or one of those.
And again, we come back to this idea
that it’s the one that you select
and the one that you make space for,
and it’s the one that you hopefully enjoy
that’s going to work best in terms of physiology.
I am one that’s benign for those people
who were stuck around you.
Right, right, absolutely.
And that brings me to this question of,
I find it amazing that how we perceive an event
and whether or not we chose to be in that event or not
can have such incredibly different effects
on circuitry of the brain and circuitry of the body
and biology of cells.
And in some ways it boggles my mind.
Like how can a decision made presumably
with the prefrontal cortex,
although other parts of the brain as well,
how can that change essentially the polarity
of a response in the body?
And I mean, you’ve talked before about type A personalities
and we don’t have to go into all the detail there
for sake of time,
but it is interesting that the effects of endothelial cells,
I mean, literally of the size of the portals for blood
are in opposite direction,
depending on whether or not somebody
wants to be in a situation as a highly motivated person.
Maybe you could just give us the top contour
of that because I think it really illustrates
this principle so beautifully.
And then maybe if you would,
you could just speculate on how the brain
might have this switch to turn one experience
from terrible to beneficial or from beneficial to terrible.
It’s really fascinating.
Well, I mean, all you need to do is like tonight
before you’re going to sleep and you’re lying in bed
and you’re nice and drowsy
and your heart’s beating nice and slow,
you’ll start thinking about the fact that,
that heart isn’t going to beat forever.
And imagine your toes getting cold afterward
and imagine the flow of blood coming to a halt
and all of you clotting.
And if you’re,
you’re gonna be doing something with your physiology
at that point that 99% of mammals out there
only do if they’re running frantically.
And you’re gonna be turning on
your sympathetic stress response with thought,
with emotions, with memory.
And the measure of that is just how much the cortex
and the limbic system sends projections
down to all the autonomic regulators in the brain.
You can think autonomic regulatory neurons into action
in ways that only other animals can do
with like extremes of environmental circumstances.
Given that and the autonomic role,
I mean, the other big challenge in understanding it
is gigantic individual differences.
And that’s, you know,
we talk about the optimal amount of stress
that counts as stimulation.
And in general, that stress that’s not too severe
and doesn’t go on for too long
and is overall in a benevolent setting.
And under those conditions,
we love being stressed by something unexpected
and out of control and predictability
like a really interesting plot turn
in the movie you’re watching.
That’s great, but you get the individual differences
that somehow has to accommodate the fact that
for some people, the perfect stimulatory amount of stress
is like getting up early for an Audubon bird watching walk
next Sunday morning.
And for somebody else,
it’s signing up to be like a mercenary in Yemen.
Tremendous individual differences
that swamp any simple, you know, prescriptions.
Yeah, the prefrontal cortex,
this thinking machinery that we all harbor,
it’s such a double-edged sword.
And what’s remarkable to me is how the areas of the brain,
like the hypothalamus and the amygdala,
they’re sort of like switches.
I mean, there’s context and there’s gain control.
You talked about the gain control by testosterone,
et cetera, but they’re really like switches.
I mean, if you stimulate ventromedial hypothalamus,
you get the right neurons,
an animal will try and kill even an object
that’s sitting next to it.
You tickle some other neurons,
it’ll try and mate with that same object.
I mean, it’s really wild.
I think there are probably rules to prefrontal cortex also,
but it sounds like the context plural
from which prefrontal cortex can draw from
is probably infinite,
so that we could probably learn to perceive threat
in anything, whether or not it’s another group
or whether or not it’s science
or whether or not it’s somebody’s version
of the shape of the earth versus another.
I mean, it’s like you can plug in anything to this system
and give it enough data.
And I think it sounds like you could drive a fear response
or a love response.
Is that overstepping?
Or a mixed, horribly ambivalent one
that does changing by the millisecond
and then mutually contradictory?
No, that’s absolutely the case.
The prefrontal cortex,
I more than once have regretted
having wasted 30 years of my life studying the hippocampus
when I should have been studying the prefrontal cortex
because it’s so much more interesting what it does,
and it’s all this contextual stuff.
It’s all the ways in which it’s not okay to lie
in this setting, but it’s a great thing in another.
It’s not okay to kill unless you do it to them,
and then you get a medal.
It’s not all of this social context and moral relativity
and situational ethics stuff.
That’s the prefrontal cortex that’s got to master that.
And that winds up meaning that’s the place in your brain
more than anywhere where you say your perception of things
can powerfully influence the reality
of what’s coming into you.
Great example, just harking back to testosterone.
Okay, so exercise boosts up testosterone levels.
Does exercise and success do it more than exercise?
And failure of literature back in the 80s or so,
looking at outcomes of marathons,
did testosterone rise more in the people who win
than the losers?
Wrestling matches, things of that sort,
with a simple prediction, and the answer wound up being
you didn’t see a simple answer.
Okay, you win the marathon.
That’s not necessarily an increase,
a predictor of increased testosterone.
What’s that about?
And then you find the winner, testosterone decreases,
and you find out the guy who came in 73rd
is having a massive testosterone increase.
Whoa, what’s that about?
What’s that about is far more human subtlety.
The guy who won the race has a decline in testosterone
because he came in three minutes later
than he really, really was expecting,
and everybody now is gonna be writing it up
about how he’s over the hill.
And the guy who came in 73rd is having a boost of testosterone
because he was assuming he’d be dead from a heart attack
by the third mile, and instead he managed to finish.
It’s this interpretive stuff going on in there,
and that’s what prefrontal cortex is about.
Amazing, it raises this question of cognitive flexibility.
Can we tell ourselves that something is good for us
even if we’re not enjoying it?
And can we wriggle around these corners
of choosing the exercise or doing the…
I personally am not a big fan of long bouts of meditation,
but I’ve benefited tremendously from things
like dedicated breathing and shorter rounds of meditation.
Can I tell myself that it’s good for me
and wriggle around the corner
and get my physiology working the way I want?
Do we have cognitive flexibility?
Can I be that third place runner and tell myself,
well, at least I came in, I wanted to win so badly.
That was my primary goal,
but another goal was to beat my previous time,
and I did do that.
And so, I mean, to what extent can we toggle
this relationship between the prefrontal cortex
and these other more primitive systems?
Oh, an enormous amount.
For example, being low in a hierarchy
is generally bad for health
and like every mammal out there, including us,
but we do something special,
which is we can be part of multiple hierarchies
at the same time.
And while you may be low ranking in one of them,
you could be extremely high ranking in another.
You’re like have the crappiest job in your corporation,
but you’re the captain of the team softball,
of the softball team this year for the company.
And you better bet that’s somebody
who’s gonna find all sorts of ways
to decide that nine to five Monday to Friday
is just stupid paying the bills.
And what really matters is the prestige on the weekend.
You’re poor, but you’re the deacon of your church
and so we can play all sorts of psychological games
One of the most like consistent, reliable ones
that we do and need to use the frontal cortex like crazy
is somebody does something rotten
and you need to attribute it.
And the answer is they did something rotten
because they’re rotten.
Always have been, always will be
this constitutional explanation.
You do something rotten to somebody
and how do you explain it afterward?
A situational one.
I was tired, I was stressed in this sort of setting,
I misunderstood this.
We’re best at excusing ourselves from bad things
because we have access to our inner lives
and we’ve got prefrontal cortexes
that are great at coming up with a situational explanation
rather than, hey, maybe you’re just like
a selfish rotten human and you need to change.
And that’s all prefrontal cortex
and we do that every time we don’t let somebody
merge in the lane in front of us,
even though you curse somebody
who does the same thing to you endlessly.
I love it.
Your statement about the fact that we can select
multiple hierarchies to participate in,
to me seems like a particularly important one nowadays
with social media being so prevalent.
I know you’re not particularly active on social media,
although you might be pleasantly or I don’t know,
unpleasantly surprised to find out
that there’s a lot of positive discussion
about you and your work.
So you don’t even need to be on there.
We’ll just continue to discuss your work.
But what’s interesting about social media I found
is that the context is very, very broad.
I mean, one could argue that who one selects to follow
and which news articles you’re reading, et cetera,
can create a kind of a funneling of information
that itself can be dangerous.
More verification of crazy ideas
or even just less exposure to new ideas.
But there’s also this idea that social media
is an incredibly broad context.
So as you scroll through a feed,
it’s no longer like being in your eighth grade classroom
or your office or your faculty meeting.
You are being exposed to thousands,
if not millions of contexts.
This meal, that soccer game, this person’s body,
this person’s intellect.
YouTube is another example.
It’s a vast, vast landscape.
And so the context is completely mishmash.
Whereas I’m assuming we evolved, I think we did evolve
under contexts that were much more constrained.
We interacted with a limited number of individuals
and a limited number of different domains.
Seasons tended to constrain us all.
And of course, then we got phones and televisions
and this started to expand.
But now more than ever, our brain,
our prefrontal cortex, and our sense of where we exist
in these multiple hierarchies
has essentially wicked out into infinity.
How do you think this might be interacting
with some of these more primitive systems
and other aspects of our biology?
Well, I think what you get is in some ways,
the punchline of what’s most human about humans,
which is over and over, we use the exact same blueprint,
the same hormones, the same kinases, the same receptors,
the same everything.
We’re built out of the exact same stuff
as all these other species out there.
And then we go and use it in a completely novel way.
And usually in terms of being able to abstract stuff
over space and time and dramatic ways.
So, okay, you’re a low ranking baboon
and you can feel badly because you just like killed a rabbit
and you’re about to eat and some higher ranking guy boots you
off and takes it away from you.
And you feel crummy and it’s stressful and you’re unhappy.
We are doing the exact same things
with like our brain and bodies
when we’re losing a sense of self-esteem.
But we can do it by watching a movie character on the screen
and feeling inadequate compared to like how wonderful
or attractive they are.
We can do it by somebody driving past us in an expensive car
and we don’t even see their face.
And you can feel belittled
by your own socioeconomic status.
You can watch like the lifestyles of the rich and famous
or read about what Bezos is up to.
And for some reason decide your life is less fulfilling
because you didn’t fly into space for 11 minutes.
And so you can feel miserable about yourself
in ways that no other organism can,
simply because we can have our meaningful social networks
include like the party you’re reading about on Facebook
that you weren’t invited to
because it’s taking place in Singapore
and you don’t know any of those people.
But nonetheless, somehow that could be a means
for you to feel less content
with who you’ve turned out to be.
Do you take steps in your own life
to actively restrict the context in which you think
and live and contemplate in order to enhance
your creative life, your intellectual life?
Are those steps that you actively take?
Well, I very actively don’t know how to make use
of anything with social media.
So I guess that counts as my having thus actively chosen
not to learn how.
So that’s the case certainly for the last year and a half,
like lots of people, I’ve gone through stretches
where I’ve managed to sort of enforce a moratorium
on looking at the news.
And that was wonderfully freeing.
I think in the larger sense though,
in addition to me being a neurobiologist,
I sort of spent decades spending part of each year
studying wild baboons out in a national park in East Africa.
And I’d spend three months a year without electricity,
without phone calls, with going 12 hours a day
without saying a word to somebody.
And when I finally would, it would be somebody,
nomadic pastoralist guy in a different language.
Yeah, I did 90% of my like insightful thinking
about anything in the laboratory
during those three months each year
and not when in the lab and not when inundated with stuff.
Well, I think there’s sort of a shifting trend
towards trying to create a narrowing of context
that people, and I like what I see.
I have a niece, she’s 14 years old
and she and her friends are very good
at putting their phones away.
They say, we’re not going to have our phones
for this interaction, especially after,
and I realize we’re still somewhat in this,
it’s unclear where it’s headed,
but at 2020 was so restrictive
and she was so separated from her friends.
Now it’s, let’s really focus on being together
and not bring in all these other elements from our phones.
And that brings me great hope for that generation.
Maybe they will, or who knows,
maybe they’ll run off and study baboons.
We need more field researchers.
So along the lines of choice,
I’d like to shift gears slightly and talk about free will,
about our ability to make choices at all.
Well, my personal way out and left field inflammatory stance
is I don’t think we have a shred of free will.
Despite 95% of philosophers,
and I think probably the majority of neuroscientists
saying that we have free will
in at least some circumstances,
I don’t think there’s any at all.
And the reason for this is you do something,
you behave, you make a choice, whatever.
And to understand why you did that,
where did that intention come from?
Part of it was due to like the sensory environment
you were in in the previous minute.
Some of it is from the hormone levels
in your bloodstream that morning.
Some of it is from whether you had a wonderful
or stressful last three months
and what sort of neuroplasticity happened.
Part of it is what hormone levels
you were exposed to as a fetus.
Part of it is what culture your ancestors came up with
and thus how you were parented when you were a kid.
All of those are in there
and you can’t understand where behavior is coming from
without incorporating all of those.
And at that point,
not only are there all of these relevant factors,
but they’re ultimately all one factor.
If you’re talking about what evolution
has to do with your behavior,
by definition, you’re also talking about genetics.
If you’re talking about what your genes
have to do with behavior,
by definition, you’re talking about
how your brain was constructed
or what proteins are coded for.
If you’re talking about like your mood disorder now,
you’re talking about the sense of efficacy
you were getting as a five-year-old,
they’re all intertwined.
And when you look at all those influences,
basically, like the challenge is,
show me a neuron that just caused that behavior
or show me a network of neurons
that just caused that behavior
and show me that nothing about what they just did
was influenced by anything from the sensory environment
one second ago to the evolution of your species.
And there’s no space in there to fit in
a free will concept that winds up being in your brain,
but not of your brain.
There’s simply no wiggle room for it there.
So I can appreciate that our behaviors
and our choices are the consequence
of a long line of dominoes
that fell prior to that behavior.
But is it possible that I can intervene
in the domino effect, so to speak?
In other words, can my recognition of the fact
that genes have heritability, there’s an epigenome,
that there’s a hormonal context,
there’s a historical context,
can the knowledge of that give me some small,
small shard of free will?
Meaning does it allow me to say, ah, okay,
I accept that my choices are somewhat predetermined
and yet knowing that gives me
some additional layer of control.
Is there any philosophical or biological universe
in which that works?
All of that can produce the wonderfully positive belief
that change can happen.
Even dramatic change, even in the worst of circumstances,
most unlikely people, and change can happen.
Things can change.
Don’t be fatalistic, don’t decide,
because we’re mechanistic biological machines
that nothing can ever, change can happen.
But where people go off the rails
is translating that into, we can change ourselves.
We don’t, we can’t, because there’s no free will.
However, we can be changed by circumstance.
And the point of it is, like, you look at an aplesia,
a sea slug that has learned to retract its gill
in response to a shock on its tail.
You can do, like, conditioning,
Pavlovian conditioning on it,
and it has learned its behavior
has been changed by its environment.
And you hear news about something
like horrifically depressing going on,
and, you know, refugees in wherever,
and as a result, you feel a little bit more helpless
and a less of a sense of efficacy in the world,
and both of your behaviors have been changed.
Okay, okay, yeah, I guess that,
but the remarkable thing is,
it’s the exact same neurobiology.
The signal transduction pathways that were happening
in that sea snail incorporate the exact same kinases
and proteases and phosphatases that we do
when you’re having mammalian fear conditioning,
or when you’re, it’s conserved.
It’s the exact same thing.
It’s simply playing out in, obviously,
a much, much fancier domain.
And because you have learned that change is possible,
despite understanding mechanistically
that we can’t change ourselves volitionally,
but because you understand change is possible,
you have just changed the ability of your brain
to respond to optimistic stimuli,
and you have changed the ability of your brain
to now send you in the direction
of being exposed to more information
that will seem cheerful rather than depressing.
Oh my God, that’s amazing what Nelson Mandela
and Martin Luther King and all these folks did.
Wow, under the most adverse of circumstances,
they were able to do, maybe I can also.
Maybe I can go read more about people like them
to get even more data points of change to neurochemistry
so that your responses are different now.
And you’re tilted a little bit more in that direction
of feeling like you can make a difference
instead of it’s all damn hopeless.
So enormous change can happen,
but the last thing that can come out of a view
of we are nothing more or less than the sum of our biology
and this interaction with environment
is to throw up your hands and say,
and thus it’s no use trying to change anything.
So we can acknowledge that change
is extremely hard to impossible,
that circumstances can change,
and yet that striving to be better human beings
is still a worthwhile endeavor.
Do I have that correct?
Absolutely, because simply the knowledge
either from experience or making it to the end
of the right neurobiology class has taught you
that change can happen within a framework
of a mechanistic neurobiology.
You are now more open to being made optimistic
by the good news in the world around you.
You are more likely to be inspired by this or that.
You are more resistant to getting discouraged by bad news
simply because you now understand it’s possible.
Yeah, as somebody who spent much of his career
working on the hippocampus,
I have to assume that you are a believer in neuroplasticity,
that neural circuits can change in response to experience
and that some of the same so-called top-down mechanisms
of prefrontal cortex that we were talking about before
can play a role there,
that the decision to try and change
and the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of experience
can shape our circuitry
and therefore make us different machines, so to speak.
Yeah, and not only can, say, prenatal hormone exposure
change the way your brain is being constructed,
but learning that prenatal hormone exposure
can change the construction of your brain
will change your brain right now
and how you think about where your intentions came from.
Wow, maybe that had something to do with it.
The knowledge of the knowledge
is an effector in and of itself.
That’s such an important and powerful statement to hear.
I think that many people think that if a tool,
it doesn’t involve a pill or a protocol that it’s useless,
and certainly there are pills and protocols
that are very useful in a variety of contexts
for a variety of things,
but the idea that knowledge itself,
or as you put it, knowledge of knowledge is itself a tool,
I think is a very important concept
for people to embed in their minds.
And listen, I’m so grateful for this discussion
and for you raising these topics.
I think that people,
many people know your work on testosterone, on stress,
and we’ve covered some of that today.
The work on free will and this idea that we are hopeless
or that we are in total control,
I think I’m realizing in listening to you
that neither is true
and that the solution resides in understanding
more about free will and lack of it and also neuroplasticity.
You’re working on a book about free will.
Are you willing to tell us a little bit about that book
and where you are in that process
and what we can look forward to?
Yeah, it’s going really slow.
Title is determined,
A Science of Life Without Free Will.
And essentially the first half of the book
is trying to convince a reader,
okay, if not that there’s no free will whatsoever,
but at least there’s a lot less than is normally assumed.
And I’m going through all the standard arguments
for free will and why that doesn’t make sense
with 21st century science.
And that has led to reading a lot
of very frustrating philosophers
who basically are willing to admit
that stuff is made out of like atoms and molecules
and like there’s a physical reality to the world.
They’re not just relying on magic,
but that they believe in free will for magical reasons
and where it doesn’t make sense.
Okay, so the first half of the book
is to hopefully convince people
that there’s much less free will than we used to think.
And then the second half is this gigantic juncture
built around the fact that I haven’t thought
there’s any free will since I was like an adolescent.
And despite thinking that way,
I still have absolutely no idea
how you’re supposed to function with that belief.
How are you supposed to like go about everyday life
if anything you feel entitled to isn’t true,
if any angers and hatreds you feel aren’t justified,
if there’s no such thing as appropriate,
blame or punishment or praise or reward,
and none of it makes any sense.
And somebody like even compliments you on your haircut
and you’ve been conditioned to like say,
oh, thanks as if you had something to do.
How are we supposed to function with that?
And so the second half is wrestling with that.
And what the punchline there is,
is it’s gonna be incredibly hard.
And if you think it’s gonna be hard
to subtract a notion of free will
out of making sense of like serial murderers,
it’s gonna be a thousand times harder
of making sense of when somebody says good job to you.
And because it’s the exact same unreality
of sort of our interpretations,
it’s gonna be incredibly hard.
But nonetheless, when you look at the history
of how we have subtracted the notion of agency
out of all sorts of realms of blame,
starting with thinking that witches caused hailstorms
500 years ago to the notion
that psychodynamically screwed up mothers
cause schizophrenia, we’ve done it.
We’ve done it endless number of times.
We’ve been able to subtract out a sense of volition
in understanding how the world works around us.
And we don’t have murderers running amok on the street
and society hasn’t collapsed into a puddle.
And in fact, it’s a more humane society.
So the good news is it’s possible
because we’ve done it repeatedly in the past,
but it’s gonna be hard as hell.
And it’s hard as hell to try to write
about that coherently I’m discovering.
So it’s going slowly.
Well, I speak for many, many people
when I say that we’re really excited
for the book when it’s done and we will patiently wait,
but with great excitement for the book,
Determined, you said is the title, correct?
Yeah, Determined, the Science of Life Without Free Will.
Seems like you can’t publish a book these days
without a subtitle, so that’s it.
Fantastic, well, very excited to read the book.
Very grateful to you for this conversation today.
I learned a ton.
Every time you speak, I learn.
And for me, it’s really been a pleasure
and a delight to interact with you today
and over the previous years, I should say, as colleagues.
And thank you again, Robert, for everything that you do
and all the hard, hard work and thinking
that you put into your work,
because it’s clear that you put a lot of hard work
and thinking and we all benefit as a consequence.
Thanks, and thanks for having me.
This was a blast.
Thank you for joining me for my conversation
with Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
If you’re enjoying this podcast and learning from it,
please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
In addition, you can leave us comments and suggestions
for future episodes and guests
in the comment section on YouTube.
Please also subscribe on Apple and on Spotify.
And on Apple, you have the opportunity
to leave us up to a five-star review and a comment.
In addition, please check out the sponsors
that we mentioned at the beginning of this podcast.
That’s a terrific way to support us.
And for those of you that are interested
in supporting research on stress, on sleep,
and how to better access sleep and combat stress,
you can do that by supporting the research
being done on those topics in my laboratory.
You can go to hubermanlab.stanford.edu,
and there you’ll see a tab entitled
Support Research in the Huberman Lab.
So that’s for work at the Huberman Lab at Stanford,
not the Huberman Lab Podcast.
And there’s a Make a Donation tab
where you can make a tax-deductible donation.
And as mentioned at the beginning of today’s episode,
we are now partnered with Momentus Supplements
because they make single ingredient formulations
that are of the absolute highest quality,
and they ship international.
If you go to livemomentus.com slash Huberman,
you will find many of the supplements
that have been discussed on various episodes
of the Huberman Lab Podcast,
and you will find various protocols
related to those supplements.
And if you’re not already following
the Huberman Lab on Instagram,
please check out Huberman Lab on Instagram and on Twitter.
On both those channels,
I post information about science and science-related tools,
anywhere from one to five minutes.
Some of that information overlaps with the podcast,
but a lot of it is unique and different
from the information on this podcast.
And last but not least,
thank you for your interest in science.