My response to people who say, while else to sleep when I'm dead is yes, you'll be dead a lot sooner and a lot stupider in the meantime, because that's what the science says.

My response to people who say, while else to sleep when I'm dead is yes, you'll be dead a lot sooner and a lot stupider in the meantime, because that's what the science says.

Welcome to One Day University talks with the world's most engaging and inspiring professors discussing their most popular courses. This podcast is your chance to discover some of our top rated lectures on your own schedule. I'm Stephen Shregis. The National Institutes of Health calls the brain the crown jewel of the human body. It's the most complex organ we have, controlling our behavior, memories, emotions, movements, and much more. There's quite a lot we don't understand about the brain, and even more surprisingly, some of the things we thought we knew are actually myths. That's according to Notre Dame psychology professor Jessica Paine, she has to talk for One Day University called What we Know about the Brain and What We Don't. Jessica directs the Sleep, Stress and Memory Lab at Notre Dame, and before dispelling misinformation about the human brain, she first explains the field of cognitive neuroscience.

Welcome to One Day University talks with the world's most engaging and inspiring professors discussing their most popular courses. This podcast is your chance to discover some of our top rated lectures on your own schedule. I'm Stephen Shregis. The National Institutes of Health calls the brain the crown jewel of the human body. It's the most complex organ we have, controlling our behavior, memories, emotions, movements, and much more. There's quite a lot we don't understand about the brain, and even more surprisingly, some of the things we thought we knew are actually myths. That's according to Notre Dame psychology professor Jessica Paine, she has to talk for One Day University called What we Know about the Brain and What We Don't. Jessica directs the Sleep, Stress and Memory Lab at Notre Dame, and before dispelling misinformation about the human brain, she first explains the field of cognitive neuroscience.

The way I like to explain it is it's a blend or a hybrid really of classical cognitive psychology, where we're trying to understand cognition, meaning memory, emotion, decision making, attention, concentration, and then neuroscience, which is really the study of the physical cells that make up the brain, and cognitive neuroscience is still a relatively new field where we're trying to put the two things together. So when we talk about I'll just use memory as an example because that's my area of expertise. As you're trying to remember things, what regions of the brain are you leveraging to do that. So we're trying to get at not just the behavioral experimental aspect of what is a memory, how does it operate, what can people retrieve, and why how long do memories last, But we're also trying to understand the systems and the structures in the brain that are going to participate in those types of tasks.

The way I like to explain it is it's a blend or a hybrid really of classical cognitive psychology, where we're trying to understand cognition, meaning memory, emotion, decision making, attention, concentration, and then neuroscience, which is really the study of the physical cells that make up the brain, and cognitive neuroscience is still a relatively new field where we're trying to put the two things together. So when we talk about I'll just use memory as an example because that's my area of expertise. As you're trying to remember things, what regions of the brain are you leveraging to do that. So we're trying to get at not just the behavioral experimental aspect of what is a memory, how does it operate, what can people retrieve, and why how long do memories last, But we're also trying to understand the systems and the structures in the brain that are going to participate in those types of tasks.

Not that many years ago, something called an fMRI was invented and now it's used all the time. What is that and why is it so important in this field?

Not that many years ago, something called an fMRI was invented and now it's used all the time. What is that and why is it so important in this field?

Well, and it's related to what I just said. So when we studied cognitive issues back in the day, I mean even as early the eighties the nineties, we didn't have tools that could help us understand where things occurred in the brain. So fMRI and other neuroimaging tools allow us to image the brains at work. So while you're performing memory task, for example, or maybe it's a language task. Maybe you're bilingual and you're speaking in one language and flipping to the other, we can look inside the brain and determine what regions are active when you're performing these different cognitive tasks. So we really didn't have the ability to look inside the brain before that, at least not an intact neurotypical brain. We were reliant on quote, normal human subjects in psychology tasks and had to deal with this black box in place of the brain. We just didn't really know how to talk about the brain because most neuroscience studies at that time were going on in animals or in patients, and so we were able to derive some conclusions from animals and patients. But now we're able to study the neurotypical brain because fMRI is not dangerous. You're using a magnet, there's no radiation or anything like that, and so we're able to image the brain at work on these different cognitive tasks that really brought the neuroscience into cognitive neuroscience, at least in part.

Well, and it's related to what I just said. So when we studied cognitive issues back in the day, I mean even as early the eighties the nineties, we didn't have tools that could help us understand where things occurred in the brain. So fMRI and other neuroimaging tools allow us to image the brains at work. So while you're performing memory task, for example, or maybe it's a language task. Maybe you're bilingual and you're speaking in one language and flipping to the other, we can look inside the brain and determine what regions are active when you're performing these different cognitive tasks. So we really didn't have the ability to look inside the brain before that, at least not an intact neurotypical brain. We were reliant on quote, normal human subjects in psychology tasks and had to deal with this black box in place of the brain. We just didn't really know how to talk about the brain because most neuroscience studies at that time were going on in animals or in patients, and so we were able to derive some conclusions from animals and patients. But now we're able to study the neurotypical brain because fMRI is not dangerous. You're using a magnet, there's no radiation or anything like that, and so we're able to image the brain at work on these different cognitive tasks that really brought the neuroscience into cognitive neuroscience, at least in part.

I've got a few questions now regarding so called facts that a lot of people believe that perhaps aren't really true. So I'll start with this one. Most people only use ten percent of their brain.

I've got a few questions now regarding so called facts that a lot of people believe that perhaps aren't really true. So I'll start with this one. Most people only use ten percent of their brain.

It has me crazy. Yep, you know, I honestly don't even know where that came from. I've tried to trace it back. It's very clearly misinformation. We are utilizing most of our brains most of the time. So even if you look at one of these language tasks, now that we can use fMRI, you see that you're using a whole bunch of different regions of the brain to produce or comprehend language. Even when you retrieve a memory, you're going to preferentially activate a region of the brain called the hippocampus, which is probably the most important structure we think for learning and memory. But it's not as if it's the only structure. It collaborates with other structures all over the place. In the frontal lobe, which is the most recently evolved part of our brain, the at a lobe, other regions of cortex to complete the act, say of retrieving a memory. So I can't really think of any example, even during sleep where you're not utilizing quite a bit of your brain.

It has me crazy. Yep, you know, I honestly don't even know where that came from. I've tried to trace it back. It's very clearly misinformation. We are utilizing most of our brains most of the time. So even if you look at one of these language tasks, now that we can use fMRI, you see that you're using a whole bunch of different regions of the brain to produce or comprehend language. Even when you retrieve a memory, you're going to preferentially activate a region of the brain called the hippocampus, which is probably the most important structure we think for learning and memory. But it's not as if it's the only structure. It collaborates with other structures all over the place. In the frontal lobe, which is the most recently evolved part of our brain, the at a lobe, other regions of cortex to complete the act, say of retrieving a memory. So I can't really think of any example, even during sleep where you're not utilizing quite a bit of your brain.

You're telling me it's not true that when you sleep your whole brain turns off and nothing much is happening, not at all.

You're telling me it's not true that when you sleep your whole brain turns off and nothing much is happening, not at all.

In fact, I like to say nothing could be further from the truth, because when you're asleep, and particularly when you're in rapid eye movement sleep, some of these regions that I was just talking about, like the memory and surrounding cortical structures that are important for memory, they're just wildly activated. Same with the amygdala, which is so important for emotion and emotional learning and memory. They're in some cases even more active than when people are wide awake.

In fact, I like to say nothing could be further from the truth, because when you're asleep, and particularly when you're in rapid eye movement sleep, some of these regions that I was just talking about, like the memory and surrounding cortical structures that are important for memory, they're just wildly activated. Same with the amygdala, which is so important for emotion and emotional learning and memory. They're in some cases even more active than when people are wide awake.

Jessica, you mentioned that our brains are never shut off. Is that always a good thing? Is that sometimes a bad thing?

Jessica, you mentioned that our brains are never shut off. Is that always a good thing? Is that sometimes a bad thing?

You know? It's a good question. I think it's a good thing in the sense that the brain has a lot of information to process, needs to not just encode do information and store it for later reference, but it needs to transform information in interesting ways so that we can come up with these creative solutions to problems, as I was saying, but I think the potential downside of our active brains is when that activity turns into something maladaptive, like rumination. And that's why I think it's better to try to redirect our cognition in more useful ways, because it can it really can backfire on people if you can't stop thinking about something, can't stop flashing back on something. This is pretty characteristic of a lot of different mental health disorders. By the way, rumination or flashbacks when it comes to negative events. You see that in anxiety disorders like PTSD. You see rumination in anxiety and in depression. So there's something really interesting about the brain being unconstrained and sort of running a muck on you when the content that's going through your head is negative.

You know? It's a good question. I think it's a good thing in the sense that the brain has a lot of information to process, needs to not just encode do information and store it for later reference, but it needs to transform information in interesting ways so that we can come up with these creative solutions to problems, as I was saying, but I think the potential downside of our active brains is when that activity turns into something maladaptive, like rumination. And that's why I think it's better to try to redirect our cognition in more useful ways, because it can it really can backfire on people if you can't stop thinking about something, can't stop flashing back on something. This is pretty characteristic of a lot of different mental health disorders. By the way, rumination or flashbacks when it comes to negative events. You see that in anxiety disorders like PTSD. You see rumination in anxiety and in depression. So there's something really interesting about the brain being unconstrained and sort of running a muck on you when the content that's going through your head is negative.

Next one right brain versus left brain. Except we've all heard about what's the basis for it and is there a reason there is?

Next one right brain versus left brain. Except we've all heard about what's the basis for it and is there a reason there is?

And in that case there's at least a good reason. It turns out again, in neurologically normal people, there just aren't that many interesting differences there. I mean, there's a big one, which is language. And so for the majority of people, something like ninety five plus percent of right handers, and I think over seventy percent of left handers have language lateralized to their left hemispheres, and that is true in most people. But where the real you know, drawing on the right side of the brain. And a lot of these oversimplifications and the media came from, I think, are based in what are known as split brain patient studies. So these are fascinating patients who are quite rare that actually have their hemispheres separated from one another. There's a big white matter track that's called the corpus colosum that connects the two hemispheres, and it's like an information super highway. Its whole job is to really make sure the two hemispheres communicate together all the time, and due to intractable epilepsy, in some very rare patients, they will actually sever that so that they separate the two hemispheres from one another so that the seizures can't spread from one hemisphere to another. And this is obviously only in very very rare cases where medication isn't working, nothing else is working. But those patients, if you meet them, and I've had the pleasure of actually meeting one, you would never know that they actually have two hemispheres that don't talk to each other. They're very quote normal seeming, But if you design the right kinds of tasks, that's where you see some of these asymmetries where the right side of the brain tends to be much better when it comes to visual and spatial information and the left brain much more specialized when it comes to language. Now, those types of strict asymmetries, though, you just don't see in an intact brain where the two hemispheres are communicating. So there's a little bit of truth to it. I mean, certainly language is lateralized. The right hemisphere may be a little bit better at dealing with global processing, gestalts and this visual spatial ability I'm talking about. But when I hear about consultants who are on the road, you know, teaching people to be more less right or left brain, there's just nothing to that. It's real pop psychology.

And in that case there's at least a good reason. It turns out again, in neurologically normal people, there just aren't that many interesting differences there. I mean, there's a big one, which is language. And so for the majority of people, something like ninety five plus percent of right handers, and I think over seventy percent of left handers have language lateralized to their left hemispheres, and that is true in most people. But where the real you know, drawing on the right side of the brain. And a lot of these oversimplifications and the media came from, I think, are based in what are known as split brain patient studies. So these are fascinating patients who are quite rare that actually have their hemispheres separated from one another. There's a big white matter track that's called the corpus colosum that connects the two hemispheres, and it's like an information super highway. Its whole job is to really make sure the two hemispheres communicate together all the time, and due to intractable epilepsy, in some very rare patients, they will actually sever that so that they separate the two hemispheres from one another so that the seizures can't spread from one hemisphere to another. And this is obviously only in very very rare cases where medication isn't working, nothing else is working. But those patients, if you meet them, and I've had the pleasure of actually meeting one, you would never know that they actually have two hemispheres that don't talk to each other. They're very quote normal seeming, But if you design the right kinds of tasks, that's where you see some of these asymmetries where the right side of the brain tends to be much better when it comes to visual and spatial information and the left brain much more specialized when it comes to language. Now, those types of strict asymmetries, though, you just don't see in an intact brain where the two hemispheres are communicating. So there's a little bit of truth to it. I mean, certainly language is lateralized. The right hemisphere may be a little bit better at dealing with global processing, gestalts and this visual spatial ability I'm talking about. But when I hear about consultants who are on the road, you know, teaching people to be more less right or left brain, there's just nothing to that. It's real pop psychology.

Let's keep going. Our memories are accurate snapshots of what really happened in our past. Is there a reason to doubt that?

Let's keep going. Our memories are accurate snapshots of what really happened in our past. Is there a reason to doubt that?

There's every reason to doubt that. In fact, we know that they're not and I'm on the record just to be controversial. At some memory conferences saying there's no such thing as a memory. There's no such thing as a real, true, verritical memory. In most cases, insofar as we're talking about episodic memories or memories for the episodes and experiences of our past, we know that we're incredibly biased as human beings even when we're encoding or acquiring new information, and that sort of bias only gets worse as you are processing information over time. And I think it's much more helpful to understand the memory system as a system that really evolved more to help us figure out how to problem solve in the future than it did to accurately reflect the past. So it's not that it can't do that. I mean, anybody who's been a student knows that you're going to have to have a fairly accurate memory system in order to perform well on tests. So it can perform those tasks up to a point, especially with very simplistic materials, But when it gets into you know, the real world memories of people's pasts, they're not at all accurate. And I don't think that they necessarily should be, because I think the goal of that system is to encode and store information in a flexible way, so that you can use what you've learned, not just to spit it back out in some high fidelity version of the way you originally learned it, but to be able to use it creatively and flexibly in this unpredictable world that's constantly changing on us.

There's every reason to doubt that. In fact, we know that they're not and I'm on the record just to be controversial. At some memory conferences saying there's no such thing as a memory. There's no such thing as a real, true, verritical memory. In most cases, insofar as we're talking about episodic memories or memories for the episodes and experiences of our past, we know that we're incredibly biased as human beings even when we're encoding or acquiring new information, and that sort of bias only gets worse as you are processing information over time. And I think it's much more helpful to understand the memory system as a system that really evolved more to help us figure out how to problem solve in the future than it did to accurately reflect the past. So it's not that it can't do that. I mean, anybody who's been a student knows that you're going to have to have a fairly accurate memory system in order to perform well on tests. So it can perform those tasks up to a point, especially with very simplistic materials, But when it gets into you know, the real world memories of people's pasts, they're not at all accurate. And I don't think that they necessarily should be, because I think the goal of that system is to encode and store information in a flexible way, so that you can use what you've learned, not just to spit it back out in some high fidelity version of the way you originally learned it, but to be able to use it creatively and flexibly in this unpredictable world that's constantly changing on us.

I'm going to follow up a little that I've heard you speak a bit about memories made during highly significant emotional events. So, for instance, I'm one hundred percent sure I know where I was when the innocent verdict in the OJ Simpson case was released. Is my memory of that probably accurate?

I'm going to follow up a little that I've heard you speak a bit about memories made during highly significant emotional events. So, for instance, I'm one hundred percent sure I know where I was when the innocent verdict in the OJ Simpson case was released. Is my memory of that probably accurate?

It's probably not. And this is what's fascinating. I mean, I'm convinced that I can tell you exactly where I was and what happened to the detail during nine to eleven. But we have run studies and multiple labs have done this confirming that we are very confident in those memories. But they're not much more accurate than any other types of memories. They're just more vivid and more detailed, which makes us more confident in them. And the way we know that is because there have been studies done on nine to eleven where people have been asked immediately after the event what they remember, and then they've been followed up later, and the memories change over time, just like most normal memories do. So that's a fascinating finding that the confidence we have in our most emotional memories is high, but we're not necessarily much more accurate.

It's probably not. And this is what's fascinating. I mean, I'm convinced that I can tell you exactly where I was and what happened to the detail during nine to eleven. But we have run studies and multiple labs have done this confirming that we are very confident in those memories. But they're not much more accurate than any other types of memories. They're just more vivid and more detailed, which makes us more confident in them. And the way we know that is because there have been studies done on nine to eleven where people have been asked immediately after the event what they remember, and then they've been followed up later, and the memories change over time, just like most normal memories do. So that's a fascinating finding that the confidence we have in our most emotional memories is high, but we're not necessarily much more accurate.

After the break. How words actually can hurt you, and why sleep deprived people make Jessica mad I'm just going to ask for a couple of sentences about two other concepts, mind wandering good or bad, and meditation good or bad, or both.

After the break. How words actually can hurt you, and why sleep deprived people make Jessica mad I'm just going to ask for a couple of sentences about two other concepts, mind wandering good or bad, and meditation good or bad, or both.

Wandering and actually mind wandering the answers both. Mind wandering gets a bad rap, and in some sense deservedly so, because most people think about mind wandering in the context of say a student in a classroom who can't concentrate because his or her mind is wandering, or an employ at work who's not getting as much done because his or her brain is mind wandering. So it can be tied to distractability, and that makes it quote bad. But mind wandering also is tied to creativity. So if your mind is wandering about a problem that you're trying to solve, or even just wandering when you don't have thoughts that need to be constrained, you can come up with some really cool and unusual ideas. So I think it's all about the affective tone, the valance, whether it's positive or negative, and sort of the regimented nature of your thoughts, whether there's something happening in a repetitive way, which is again more along the lines of rumination, or if what you're being distracted by is completely unrelated to anything in your life versus something that could be right. So it really just depends on the context about whether that's good or bad, whether that's distraction or whether that's the brain problem solving in a way that could yield some useful insights.

Wandering and actually mind wandering the answers both. Mind wandering gets a bad rap, and in some sense deservedly so, because most people think about mind wandering in the context of say a student in a classroom who can't concentrate because his or her mind is wandering, or an employ at work who's not getting as much done because his or her brain is mind wandering. So it can be tied to distractability, and that makes it quote bad. But mind wandering also is tied to creativity. So if your mind is wandering about a problem that you're trying to solve, or even just wandering when you don't have thoughts that need to be constrained, you can come up with some really cool and unusual ideas. So I think it's all about the affective tone, the valance, whether it's positive or negative, and sort of the regimented nature of your thoughts, whether there's something happening in a repetitive way, which is again more along the lines of rumination, or if what you're being distracted by is completely unrelated to anything in your life versus something that could be right. So it really just depends on the context about whether that's good or bad, whether that's distraction or whether that's the brain problem solving in a way that could yield some useful insights.

And meditation and meditation there's.

And meditation and meditation there's.

A downside to everything. I mean, there are some stet that have been looking at the downside of meditation, but I'd say on the whole, especially if you're doing it the way most Americans do, which is probably no more than ten twenty thirty minutes a day max, it seems to be extremely beneficial. There's evidence out there that suggests that meditation even changes the brain, not just functionally, meaning the way you process information that we can see using fMRI, but even structurally, and you're building new neural tissue in key emotion and emotion regulation areas of the brain like the ventral medio prefernal cortex and the insula. So meditation to me is one of the more interesting topics in the neuroscience field right now, because what we know from our research on stress is that stress can if it's elevated for long enough and it's chronic enough, especially exposure to stress hormones like cortisol. If it's really really high and really chronic, you end up with problems, and you end up with some neural deficits, including a reduction in plasticity and even shrinkage in certain brain areas like the hippocampus being so important for memory, and regions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex as well potentially. But when you do something like meditate, which involves a relaxation component and a breathing component, which is very helpful for dropping those stress hormones, and then most, if not all, meditation techniques have an attentional component where you're focusing over and over again on the breath and if your mind wanders, you catch that, but you nonjudgmentally come back to the mantra or to the breath, and there's something about I believe the combination of the breathing and the relaxation and the reduction in andreenergic and tone of cortisol in addition to that attentional piece that seems to create these beneficial again not just functional, but structural changes in the brain, which makes it I think, stronger and potentially more resilient to future negative emotional events and threats in the future.

A downside to everything. I mean, there are some stet that have been looking at the downside of meditation, but I'd say on the whole, especially if you're doing it the way most Americans do, which is probably no more than ten twenty thirty minutes a day max, it seems to be extremely beneficial. There's evidence out there that suggests that meditation even changes the brain, not just functionally, meaning the way you process information that we can see using fMRI, but even structurally, and you're building new neural tissue in key emotion and emotion regulation areas of the brain like the ventral medio prefernal cortex and the insula. So meditation to me is one of the more interesting topics in the neuroscience field right now, because what we know from our research on stress is that stress can if it's elevated for long enough and it's chronic enough, especially exposure to stress hormones like cortisol. If it's really really high and really chronic, you end up with problems, and you end up with some neural deficits, including a reduction in plasticity and even shrinkage in certain brain areas like the hippocampus being so important for memory, and regions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex as well potentially. But when you do something like meditate, which involves a relaxation component and a breathing component, which is very helpful for dropping those stress hormones, and then most, if not all, meditation techniques have an attentional component where you're focusing over and over again on the breath and if your mind wanders, you catch that, but you nonjudgmentally come back to the mantra or to the breath, and there's something about I believe the combination of the breathing and the relaxation and the reduction in andreenergic and tone of cortisol in addition to that attentional piece that seems to create these beneficial again not just functional, but structural changes in the brain, which makes it I think, stronger and potentially more resilient to future negative emotional events and threats in the future.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. My mother used to say that, I thought it was true. Not so true, huh, not so true.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. My mother used to say that, I thought it was true. Not so true, huh, not so true.

Now, I don't think it's the worst thing for a mom to say to her kid. If for kids, you know, being bullied, I think you've got to do something. And bullying is its own topic obviously, but that's not true. I mean we know, in fact, in order to understand social exclusion, in order to understand bias, I mean, even getting into really difficult topics like racism, words are hurtful, and I think there I'm drawing on social exclusion experiments where what you see is that when people experience social pain, okay, being teased, being bullied, being excluded, you actually see pain regions of the brain becoming activated in very much the same way, or at least a similar way to the way they become activated when you're in physical pain. So social pain is real, and it's experienced very similarly by the brain to the way pain is. The reason for that, I think is because we're a highly social species. We evolved in social groups. We're incredibly dependent on our social networks, and it's tough to feel excluded or to feel less than and the brain data show that quite convincingly, I think. So it's all the more reason we should care about things like bias and discrimination and bullying, even when it's verbal.

Now, I don't think it's the worst thing for a mom to say to her kid. If for kids, you know, being bullied, I think you've got to do something. And bullying is its own topic obviously, but that's not true. I mean we know, in fact, in order to understand social exclusion, in order to understand bias, I mean, even getting into really difficult topics like racism, words are hurtful, and I think there I'm drawing on social exclusion experiments where what you see is that when people experience social pain, okay, being teased, being bullied, being excluded, you actually see pain regions of the brain becoming activated in very much the same way, or at least a similar way to the way they become activated when you're in physical pain. So social pain is real, and it's experienced very similarly by the brain to the way pain is. The reason for that, I think is because we're a highly social species. We evolved in social groups. We're incredibly dependent on our social networks, and it's tough to feel excluded or to feel less than and the brain data show that quite convincingly, I think. So it's all the more reason we should care about things like bias and discrimination and bullying, even when it's verbal.

You explain that taking advil or aspirin when you're feeling very badly about how you've been treated is sometimes as effective as taking it when you have actual pain.

You explain that taking advil or aspirin when you're feeling very badly about how you've been treated is sometimes as effective as taking it when you have actual pain.

Yeah, those studies are fascinating, and I think the phenomenal logical experience of the participants is still a little bit up for debate whether they actually feel better. I think in some studies they suggest that people do actually say they feel better, at others they don't. But what it definitely seems to do is reduce the pain that people experience as a function of social exclusion or other types of social pain. So again, I think the message underlying these studies that's so important is that social pain and physical pain are very, very similar when it comes to the way the brain processes these two different types of pain. Meaning it's very real. It gets under the skin. These words that supposedly can't hurt you really can get under the skin to activate the same networks in your brain that you activate if you put your hand on a hot stove, and in the same way. Part of what supports that is that if you take aspirin or advil or senemtapin something like that, you end up reducing the amount of brain activity that you typically see activated when somebody is subjected to its socially painful stimulus.

Yeah, those studies are fascinating, and I think the phenomenal logical experience of the participants is still a little bit up for debate whether they actually feel better. I think in some studies they suggest that people do actually say they feel better, at others they don't. But what it definitely seems to do is reduce the pain that people experience as a function of social exclusion or other types of social pain. So again, I think the message underlying these studies that's so important is that social pain and physical pain are very, very similar when it comes to the way the brain processes these two different types of pain. Meaning it's very real. It gets under the skin. These words that supposedly can't hurt you really can get under the skin to activate the same networks in your brain that you activate if you put your hand on a hot stove, and in the same way. Part of what supports that is that if you take aspirin or advil or senemtapin something like that, you end up reducing the amount of brain activity that you typically see activated when somebody is subjected to its socially painful stimulus.

Here's something I know a lot of people wonder about dreaming. Some people remember their dreams or seem to. Some people never do, some people do sometimes Why is that? And does everyone dream?

Here's something I know a lot of people wonder about dreaming. Some people remember their dreams or seem to. Some people never do, some people do sometimes Why is that? And does everyone dream?

So we think most people dream? I mean there are certain stroke patients who may genuinely not dream, but most people who think they don't. I love getting a hold of them because we can bring them into the research laboratory, hook them up to EEG electrodes, so we can see whether they're sleeping or not and what stage of sleep they're in. And if you wake people up periodically, especially out of rapid eye movement sleep, people who usually don't remember their dreams will invariably report dreams, and they surprise themselves and it's really fun to see. So most, if not virtually all of us dream, but there does seem to be this very interesting difference in how regularly people remember them. Some people remember them a lot, some people less. There's some evidence that people who don't tend to remember their dreams at all are better and deeper sleepers. But I've also met people who remember their dreams periodically that sleep quite well, and they report sleeping well, and their EEG tells me the same thing. So I think there's just natural human variation in that, just like there are in so many of these domains, and it's a fascinating area to study. It's one of my great passions for sure.

So we think most people dream? I mean there are certain stroke patients who may genuinely not dream, but most people who think they don't. I love getting a hold of them because we can bring them into the research laboratory, hook them up to EEG electrodes, so we can see whether they're sleeping or not and what stage of sleep they're in. And if you wake people up periodically, especially out of rapid eye movement sleep, people who usually don't remember their dreams will invariably report dreams, and they surprise themselves and it's really fun to see. So most, if not virtually all of us dream, but there does seem to be this very interesting difference in how regularly people remember them. Some people remember them a lot, some people less. There's some evidence that people who don't tend to remember their dreams at all are better and deeper sleepers. But I've also met people who remember their dreams periodically that sleep quite well, and they report sleeping well, and their EEG tells me the same thing. So I think there's just natural human variation in that, just like there are in so many of these domains, and it's a fascinating area to study. It's one of my great passions for sure.

Speaking of passion, there's something I've seen you get real worked up about, and it's those people who talk about denying themselves sleep. You call them the a sleep when I'm dead group. Yes, why did they upset you so much? What's going on there?

Speaking of passion, there's something I've seen you get real worked up about, and it's those people who talk about denying themselves sleep. You call them the a sleep when I'm dead group. Yes, why did they upset you so much? What's going on there?

Yeah, and you're right, you have a good eye, because I think I've nearly like followed off the stage thrown my microphone. And my response to people who say, well, else, just sleep when I'm dead is yes, you'll be dead a lot sooner and a lot stupider in the meantime, because that's what the science says. Yes. And I get angry about that because it's a myth, it's a cultural myth. It's not backed up by data. These people who seem to think that they're not just find but great on three and four hours of sleep are so difficult to find. I have had many people tell me they're that person, but I haven't actually found one of these short sleepers yet. I mean they exist. Again, the amount of sleep we need seems to be normally distributed, so most of us need somewhere between seven and nine. But if you go out, you know, to standard deviations on this, you know, normal distribution or Bell curve, you can find people who probably really only need four. But again, they're just so satistically rare that I can't find them. And yet I find plenty of people who brag about it. Right, it's the CEO who's you know, constantly working. It's the student at Notre Dame or prior to that, Harvard who thought they were doing the right thing by sleep depriving themselves to learn more. And I'm a memory researcher. The two worst things you can do for your ability to learn and remember are one cram and two sleep deprive yourself while you're doing it. So the two best things to do or distribute or stagger your practice across multiple study episodes and to sleep on it. It's frustrating to me because it's based, I think in this cultural ideology that we have where we really think that we're only worth as much as our human capital, you know, and so we need to be using every single ounce of our time and energy to produce. And I have a lot of issues with that just socially, but I have a big issue with the fact that if you want people to be more productive, you need to do the revolutionary thing of let them sleep, let them have time with their families, let them have down time, let them exercise. It's about efficiency, and the brain simply can't perform very well if it's highly stressed out and sleep deprived. That's the world we're living in We've got most companies out there thinking that that's a good thing, when the truth is it's a bad thing, which is why I've gotten into so much corporate work and doing a lot of leadership trainings in across domains, but especially in healthcare, where it's particularly upsetting because I feel like they ought to know better. So sleeping is one of the best things you can do for your cognitive performance. I think it's one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal. I've just been waiting for our kind of corporate culture to catch up with what the neuroscience facts say.

Yeah, and you're right, you have a good eye, because I think I've nearly like followed off the stage thrown my microphone. And my response to people who say, well, else, just sleep when I'm dead is yes, you'll be dead a lot sooner and a lot stupider in the meantime, because that's what the science says. Yes. And I get angry about that because it's a myth, it's a cultural myth. It's not backed up by data. These people who seem to think that they're not just find but great on three and four hours of sleep are so difficult to find. I have had many people tell me they're that person, but I haven't actually found one of these short sleepers yet. I mean they exist. Again, the amount of sleep we need seems to be normally distributed, so most of us need somewhere between seven and nine. But if you go out, you know, to standard deviations on this, you know, normal distribution or Bell curve, you can find people who probably really only need four. But again, they're just so satistically rare that I can't find them. And yet I find plenty of people who brag about it. Right, it's the CEO who's you know, constantly working. It's the student at Notre Dame or prior to that, Harvard who thought they were doing the right thing by sleep depriving themselves to learn more. And I'm a memory researcher. The two worst things you can do for your ability to learn and remember are one cram and two sleep deprive yourself while you're doing it. So the two best things to do or distribute or stagger your practice across multiple study episodes and to sleep on it. It's frustrating to me because it's based, I think in this cultural ideology that we have where we really think that we're only worth as much as our human capital, you know, and so we need to be using every single ounce of our time and energy to produce. And I have a lot of issues with that just socially, but I have a big issue with the fact that if you want people to be more productive, you need to do the revolutionary thing of let them sleep, let them have time with their families, let them have down time, let them exercise. It's about efficiency, and the brain simply can't perform very well if it's highly stressed out and sleep deprived. That's the world we're living in We've got most companies out there thinking that that's a good thing, when the truth is it's a bad thing, which is why I've gotten into so much corporate work and doing a lot of leadership trainings in across domains, but especially in healthcare, where it's particularly upsetting because I feel like they ought to know better. So sleeping is one of the best things you can do for your cognitive performance. I think it's one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal. I've just been waiting for our kind of corporate culture to catch up with what the neuroscience facts say.

I've got one more untrue statement. We're born with a certain number of neurons in our brain, and that's all we're going to get, right.

I've got one more untrue statement. We're born with a certain number of neurons in our brain, and that's all we're going to get, right.

And isn't that great that that turned out to not be true. Yes, it used to just be like it was all downhill, And so now we know. There are two main types of plasticity in the brain, and one is called neurogenesis, and that's the one you're referring to. That's the literal birth of new brain cells which seem to become functionally active and relevant, especially in memory systems. And neurogenesis seems to continue even into the eighties. At least some studies really strongly suggest that the other type of plasticity is the dendrites, which are sort of part of the neuron that has a lot of different connections, and it goes out and makes connections with other neurons that sort of form our ability to have thoughts and store memories and do everything else. That also can change, can shrink or grow in the same way neurogenesis can sort of be reduced or increased, and the things that inhibit that those two to different types of plasticity seem to be quite similar. So, for instance, if you're highly sleep deprived and extraordinarily stressed for a long time, you're actually going to get hit on both of those fronts. So the good news, though, is that we do have plastic abilities throughout the lifespan, unlike we once thought. The bad news is we are still, i think, living in social conditions which aren't always benefiting those two types of plasticity.

And isn't that great that that turned out to not be true. Yes, it used to just be like it was all downhill, And so now we know. There are two main types of plasticity in the brain, and one is called neurogenesis, and that's the one you're referring to. That's the literal birth of new brain cells which seem to become functionally active and relevant, especially in memory systems. And neurogenesis seems to continue even into the eighties. At least some studies really strongly suggest that the other type of plasticity is the dendrites, which are sort of part of the neuron that has a lot of different connections, and it goes out and makes connections with other neurons that sort of form our ability to have thoughts and store memories and do everything else. That also can change, can shrink or grow in the same way neurogenesis can sort of be reduced or increased, and the things that inhibit that those two to different types of plasticity seem to be quite similar. So, for instance, if you're highly sleep deprived and extraordinarily stressed for a long time, you're actually going to get hit on both of those fronts. So the good news, though, is that we do have plastic abilities throughout the lifespan, unlike we once thought. The bad news is we are still, i think, living in social conditions which aren't always benefiting those two types of plasticity.

Okay, I've got one more question for you. What's something we still don't know about the brain that you'd really like to know because you'd find it fascinating, but we just can't answer it.

Okay, I've got one more question for you. What's something we still don't know about the brain that you'd really like to know because you'd find it fascinating, but we just can't answer it.

I mean, there are so many things. Really, I would like to know definitively how memories actually work. I would like to know what dreaming really is. There's new literature suggesting that there's such a phenomenon as local sleep, where you've got certain patches of the brain sleeping or sleeping differently than other patches of the brain. What I love about neuroscience and what I love about the brain is I think it's by far the most complex system in the world, certainly the most complex biological one, and we just don't have a huge amount of understanding yet. So I'm always trying to recruit people into science to help us figure it out. And there are literally probably an infinite number of questions to ask about it that we're not even really asking yet.

I mean, there are so many things. Really, I would like to know definitively how memories actually work. I would like to know what dreaming really is. There's new literature suggesting that there's such a phenomenon as local sleep, where you've got certain patches of the brain sleeping or sleeping differently than other patches of the brain. What I love about neuroscience and what I love about the brain is I think it's by far the most complex system in the world, certainly the most complex biological one, and we just don't have a huge amount of understanding yet. So I'm always trying to recruit people into science to help us figure it out. And there are literally probably an infinite number of questions to ask about it that we're not even really asking yet.

Now, say, Jessica, thank you so much for doing this. We really appreciate it. I love learning about this stuff, and I know our listeners do too.

Now, say, Jessica, thank you so much for doing this. We really appreciate it. I love learning about this stuff, and I know our listeners do too.

You're welcome, wonderful seeing you, Stephen.

You're welcome, wonderful seeing you, Stephen.

Thanks for joining us here at One Day University. Sign up at our website one dayu dot com to become a member and access over seven hundred full length video lectures from the world's finest professors. You can also download our app. There you can watch Notre Dame Professor Jessica Pain's lectures on the brain, the science of sleep, and more. Join us next time. When we talk about the wives of Henry, ye, I.

Thanks for joining us here at One Day University. Sign up at our website one dayu dot com to become a member and access over seven hundred full length video lectures from the world's finest professors. You can also download our app. There you can watch Notre Dame Professor Jessica Pain's lectures on the brain, the science of sleep, and more. Join us next time. When we talk about the wives of Henry, ye, I.

Think that they can be easily summed up or described in one word. You know, one's the temptress, or one's the loyal wife, one's the saint. They're too often talked about just sort of as these wives who are only understood in relationship to Henry and their mostly terrible ends, when in fact they have these rich lives that go beyond that.

Think that they can be easily summed up or described in one word. You know, one's the temptress, or one's the loyal wife, one's the saint. They're too often talked about just sort of as these wives who are only understood in relationship to Henry and their mostly terrible ends, when in fact they have these rich lives that go beyond that.

One Day University is a production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans. If you're enjoying the show, leave a review in your favorite podcast app. You can also check out other Curiosity podcasts to learn about history, pop culture, true crime, and more. School of Humans

One Day University is a production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans. If you're enjoying the show, leave a review in your favorite podcast app. You can also check out other Curiosity podcasts to learn about history, pop culture, true crime, and more. School of Humans