Podcast Page Sponsor Ad
Display ad placement on specific high-traffic podcast pages and episode pages
Monthly Rate: $50 - $5000
Exist Ad Preview
Passion Struck with John R. Miles - Dr. Emily Falk on How to Rewire Your Brain for Better Choices | EP 596
Episode Date: April 10, 2025In Episode 596 of Passion Struck, host John R. Miles sits down with Dr. Emily Falk, a leading neuroscientist and expert in the science of behavior change. Falk is the Vice Dean of the Annenberg School... for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and the author of the Next Big Idea Club Must-Read book What We Value: The Neuroscience of Choice and Change.This powerful conversation explores how our brains weigh choices, how our values shape behavior—often unconsciously—and what it takes to truly live in alignment with who we want to become. From decoding the “value calculator” in our brain to understanding how identity, connection, and purpose influence decision-making, Falk offers deeply practical insights on how to shift your behavior and build a better life.Full Shownotes here: https://passionstruck.com/emily-falk-rewire-your-brain-for-better-choices/What You’ll Learn in This Episode:How your brain calculates value—and why that system often favors short-term rewardsWhy your future self can feel like a stranger, and how to build empathy toward themHow self-transcendent values like compassion and purpose reshape behaviorWhat brain synchrony is and how we build it in conversation, relationships, and societyThe psychological toll of “not mattering”—and how to fix itTools to overcome defensiveness and embrace growth, including values affirmationHow seemingly small changes—like biking to visit a loved one—can reshape identityWhy connection, not control, is the key to lasting behavior changeConnect with Dr. Emily Falk: https://www.asc.upenn.edu/research/centers/communication-neuroscience-labSponsors:Factor Meals: http://factormeals.com/factormeals50off and use code “FACTOR MEALS 50 OFF”Rosetta Stone: Unlock 25 languages for life at “ROSETTASTONE.com/passionstruck.”Prolon: Reset your health with 15% off at “ProlonLife.com/passionstruck.”Mint Mobile: Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at “MINT MOBILE dot com slash PASSION.”Hims: Start your journey to regrowing hair with Hims. Visit hims.com/PASSIONSTRUCK for your free online visit.Quince: Discover luxury at affordable prices with Quince. Enjoy free shipping and 365-day returns at quince.com/PASSIONNext on Passion Struck:In the next episode of Passion Struck, John sits down with Anne Marie Anderson, an Emmy Award-winning broadcaster, sports journalist, and leadership expert. Anne Marie has spent years breaking barriers in sports media, navigating high-stakes environments, and coaching top athletes and executives on leadership, resilience, and communication. In our conversation, we'll dive into the mental frameworks of high performers, the art of storytelling, and how to build confidence in any field.For more information on advertisers and promo codes, visit Passion Struck Deals.Join the Passion Struck Community!Sign up for the Live Intentionally newsletter, where I share exclusive content, actionable advice, and insights to help you ignite your purpose and live your most intentional life. Get access to practical exercises, inspiring stories, and tools designed to help you grow. Learn more and sign up here.Speaking Engagements & WorkshopsAre you looking to inspire your team, organization, or audience to take intentional action in their lives and careers? I’m available for keynote speaking, workshops, and leadership training on topics such as intentional living, resilience, leadership, and personal growth. Let’s work together to create transformational change. Learn more at johnrmiles.com/speaking.Episode Starter PacksWith over 500 episodes, it can be overwhelming to know where to start. We’ve curated Episode Starter Packs based on key themes like leadership, mental health, and personal growth, making it easier for you to dive into the topics you care about. Check them out at passionstruck.com/starterpacks.Catch More of Passion Struck:My solo episode on 4 Powerful Trust-Building Exercises for Strong Teams and RelationshipsCan't miss my episode with Gabriella Rosen Kellerman on Thriving in the Future of WorkMy episode with Ethan Mollick on the Impact of AI on Life and WorkCatch my interview with Morgan Housel on How to Use the Past Wisely to Forge the FutureListen to my interview with Jacob Morgan on the Vital Power of Leading With VulnerabilityIf you liked the show, please leave us a review—it only takes a moment and helps us reach more people! Don’t forget to include your Twitter or Instagram handle so we can thank you personally.How to Connect with John:Connect with John on Twitter at @John_RMilesFollow him on Instagram at @John_R_MilesSubscribe to our main YouTube Channel and to our YouTube Clips ChannelFor more insights and resources, visit John’s websiteWant to explore where you stand on the path to becoming Passion Struck? Take our 20-question quiz on Passionstruck.com and find out today!
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Coming up next on Passion Struck.
The importance of social connection to us as humans is baked into our biology.
And so it makes sense that we have an alarm system that helps us tell when we're at risk of losing
those connections, right? So we're sensitive to signals of potential rejection or actual rejection,
because it then motivates a bunch of useful behaviors to help us reconnect either with the person if we've done something
that causes harm or with other people if we've been excluded or rejected.
Welcome to Passion Struck. Hi, I'm your host John R. Miles and on the show we
decipher the secrets, tips, and guidance of the world's most inspiring people and
turned their wisdom into practical advice for you and those around you. Our the secrets, tips, and guidance of the world's most inspiring people and turned
their wisdom into practical advice for you and those around you. Our mission is
to help you unlock the power of intentionality so that you can become
the best version of yourself. If you're new to the show, I offer advice and
answer listener questions on Fridays. We have long form interviews the rest of the week with guests ranging
from astronauts to authors, CEOs, creators, innovators, scientists, military leaders,
visionaries, and athletes. Now let's go out there and become Passion Struck. Hey, Passion Struck fam,
welcome to episode 596. Whether you've been with us for a while or you're joining us for the first time, thank you
so much for being here. You're now part of a global community of change makers committed to living
with purpose, leading with intention, and igniting a life that truly matters. Let me ask you this,
why do we share the things we do? Why do some ideas spread like wildfire, while others fall flat, no matter how important
they are?
And what if the key to lasting behavioral change isn't more willpower, but understanding
how the brain assigns value?
That's exactly what today's guest, Dr. Emily Falk, explores in her groundbreaking
new book, What We Value, The Neuroscience of Choice and Change.
Emily is a pioneering neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania.
She's also the vice dean of the Annenberg School of Communication,
director of the Communication Neuroscience Lab and leads the Climate Communication Division
at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Her work sits at the intersection of psychology,
communication, and the science of change. In this fascinating conversation, we dive into the hidden processes that shape our
decisions, how self-relevance and social connection influence everything we share
and what it really takes to inspire change from individual habits to global
movements. Emily's insights are essential for anyone who wants to understand,
influence, improve communication, and create messages that move people, not just in
theory, but in the real world. We also explore how small acts of sharing are foundational to human
connection, how algorithms and culture shape our values and attention, what neuroscience teaches
us about motivation, empathy, and identity, and how to align what we value with the change we want
to create. But before we dive in, let's reflect on my episode earlier this week.
On Tuesday I was joined with Humble the Poet to impact one of the most widespread and misunderstood
emotional experiences of our time, anxiety.
It's an unfiltered look at identity, self-worth, and finding calm in a chaotic world.
And if you're new here, don't forget to check out our curated episode Starter Packs at spy or passionstruck.com slash starter packs. They're a great way to
explore themes like neuroscience, purpose, emotional mastery, and more. Want to go even deeper?
Subscribe to the PassionStruck YouTube channel to watch today's episode and sign up for my
live intentionally newsletter at passionstruck.com. Now let's dive into the fascinating conversation
with Dr. Emily Falk.
Thank you for choosing Passion Struck
and choosing me to be your host and guide
on your journey to creating an intentional life.
Now let that journey begin.
I am absolutely honored and thrilled today
to have Dr. Emily Falk on Passion Struck. Welcome, Emily.
Thanks for having me, John. For those of you who are watching, I'm putting up Emily's brand new
book, which is a Next Big Idea Club must read for April. It's called What We Value the Neuroscience
of Choice and Change. And this is your first book. How does it feel for this to be coming out into the world?
Yeah, I feel excited.
I feel like it's been a long journey
and really excited for people to get to read it
and to get to have conversations about what resonates,
where people have questions, where people disagree.
So yeah, especially looking forward
to conversation with you today.
Yeah, I'm not sure if this book is like my books,
but people say,
I can't believe how quickly you turned out a book.
And when I wrote Passionstruck,
I'm like, that was a seven year journey
to the time that thing came out.
And then when I'm working on now,
I've really been studying the subject matter
of mattering now for over a decade.
So I just feel I've achieved enough expertise in it. And I don't
consider myself an expert, but I've achieved a certain level that I now feel like I can
proclaim it to the world, so to speak. But it took time to get there.
For sure. It's been a whole career of thinking about how we can use neuroscience to help people
be happier and healthier and more purposeful in their decision-making.
And so it's really fun to get to this point where I get to talk to so many people about it.
Let's talk about what we value.
And you open up with a story about your grandmother, whose name is Bev, asking
you how you spend your time, basically.
And this hits home for me because my parents are now in their mid 80s.
My mom has just turned 80 and every time they come to visit, that's the fundamental
thing that she's always saying is we're here, you need to be focused and give us
your presence and she's right.
But there's so many things today that are pulling us away from moments like that.
How did that moment for you shape your exploration of our daily decisions and honestly what truly
matters? Yeah, Bev is one of my very favorite people. She's just a phenom. So right now she's
a hundred years old or if you ask her, she'll tell you she's a hundred and a half. She'll be a hundred and one on July 4th. So there's
always fireworks for her birthday. And so it's pretty special that I still get to have her in my
life and that she lives in Philadelphia where I also live. And so the story that I tell at the
beginning of the book is about how great it is that she can come over and spend time at my house.
is about how great it is that she can come over and spend time at my house. And often my kids will be jumping on the couch and shoving Legos in her face and trying to play their latest musical tunes
on the guitar or the piano for her. And it's lively, chaotic, depending on whose perspective
you're taking. And I often will try to get her outside for a little walk around the block just to get a little bit of time.
And on one of these occasions when we were outside, she said, when I come over to your
house, we're not really spending time together.
And when she said that to me, it just hit me like a ton of bricks.
I was like, yes, we are.
Like you're here and we're in the same space, we're in the same room.
But what she was really saying was
we're not really spending quality time together, right?
Like when she's there and we're in the same room
but we're not actually telling each other stories
or connecting about the things that matter most to us,
that feels different than when I make the time
to go to her house, which is across town.
And I was thinking about that
in terms of why would I make that choice? I know that our time
together is finite. And I know that it's a really special thing that I have this person in my life
I love so much. But as I started to unpack that, I realized this is a special case of the kind of
thing that my lab has been studying for a really long time, like how do we make decisions? How do
we make decisions that are aligned with our bigger picture goals and values with who we really want to be? And so that allowed
me to unpack it in a different way. I'm a huge fan of Katie Milkman's work and her book, How You
Change, I think is one of the best out there on the topic of how to use behavior science principles
to help you change.
But if I were talking to her right now, I would say you and Emily are like the
perfect tag team to come in and cover this from a neuroscience perspective, a
behavioral science perspective, a connection perspective.
It's really incredible how much the two books compliment each other.
And one thing your book really gets into
is the concept of the brain's value calculation.
What surprised you the most through your research
about how the brain weighs our choices,
especially when those choices go up against
what we know is good for us? Well, I think that idea of what we know is good for us is an interesting choice of words because
although when we take a step back and we think about things in a more planful, deliberative way,
we might have one set of goals. In the moment, the way that our brain calculates value prioritizes immediate rewards, typically. So when we think
about the different things that might go into our value calculations, we have this system
in the brain that takes all of these different inputs from emotional processing systems and
rational processing systems, from our self-relevant system that helps us understand what's me
or not me, our social relevant system that helps us understand what's me or not me, our social relevant system that helps us understand what other people are thinking and feeling,
and it integrates all of that information to come up with this common currency so that we can compare
apples and oranges or would I rather go for a walk around the block with my grandmother right now
or be a little bit more prompt in responding to work emails or get dinner on the table for my kids.
And as we think about these different kinds of choices, often they're not inherently comparable,
and yet we can still make those choices relatively seamlessly. And in the moment, as we're doing that,
a lot of the time we don't have the attention, we don't have the resources to necessarily weigh those things
as carefully as we might want.
And so then the things that are shouting the loudest
or most salient in the calculation get more weight.
And going back to that example with my grandmother,
the next day after she brought up that idea
of maybe I could come to her house more often,
I started thinking about what was getting in the way for me there. And there were a lot of things.
Like one of the things is that getting to her house is pain. There's no good transit that goes
there. And there's often a lot of traffic and it's hard to park. And on the other hand, I'm directing
Penn's Communication Neuroscience Lab and I'm directing the Climate Communication Division of
the Annenberg Public Policy Center,
and the Vice Dean of the school here.
And so there are a lot of people who I want to serve
here at work, and who give me immediate positive feedback
when I respond to them quickly,
and when we're exploring new and exciting ideas.
And that's really important for my identity, right?
To be the kind of mentor and boss and
scientist that serves other people in those ways. And when she said that one little thing
to me, it threatened all kinds of, like, defenses about the kind of family member, the kind
of granddaughter I want to be. And so the next day, when I finally got to think about
it a little bit more and take a step back and think, like, why am I being so defensive
about this? What is it that I actually care about? I realized, like, I need to think about it a little bit more and take a step back and think like, why am I being so defensive about this? What is it that I actually care about? I realized like I need to figure out a way to make spending time with Bev
feel good and feel like the right decision because when I really take a minute to think about my
sort of big V values, like certainly she would be high on that list.
And so one of the things that kind of tipped the scales for me was this episode of a podcast
that I was listening to called How to Save a Planet, where they try to unpack different
kinds of ways that everyday citizens can make traction in the climate mitigation arena.
And there was this delightful episode about people biking.
And what I loved about the episode was that they really didn't focus on
moralizing or about like how it's going to stave off cancer 20 years in the
future, but really about the joy that people are feeling biking in the moment.
And that just clicked for me that there's this other option that I hadn't considered.
So when we think about how the value system works, there are these phases where first we identify what are the options that we're
choosing from in the first place. And initially, I didn't think of myself as somebody who was like
biking in the crazy Philly traffic. I'll tell you, I did that last night to go to Center City and
it's wild. But it just hadn't even occurred to me until this podcast put that on my radar.
And then the next thing the podcast did was it said, you know what, that could be
joyful in the short term, like you could get a benefit right away if you did it.
Like you could be having fun, like the people on this podcast.
And the more I thought about it, the more I was like, yeah, I could try this out.
And I tried biking to bevs and it was great.
And so sometimes it's these little things that can tip that calculation from
something that feels hard and effortful.
And I never regret it once I do it, but just getting there felt like so much.
And then the second part of that value calculation is like putting a
weight onto all the different options.
Should I go visit BEV right now?
Should I spend time with my kids?
Should I do work and so on?
Then we choose.
So in that situation, choosing to go visit Bev
and biking over there,
there's what's called reward prediction error,
which is basically, was this better
than I thought it would be
or worse than I thought it would be?
And when things are better,
then our brains anticipate that they're gonna be,
we get a positive prediction error, which makes it more likely that our value system will up
weight those choices in the future.
On the other hand, if something is worse than I thought it would be, like, I don't know
if you've ever gotten really excited about say like a cake that you saw at the supermarket
and you bought it and like you have all these positive associations from childhood going
to birthday parties, oh, that cake is going to be so fun and delicious and joyful and then like you
eat that supermarket sheet cake and like sometimes it's just gross right and so you might get a
negative prediction error of oh man I thought that cake was going to be great because of my
childhood memories and it turns out this particular one is like not that great. Maybe it's dry and nearly or whatever.
And so then the next time you're at the supermarket, that negative prediction
error has updated your value calculation so that maybe you're a little less
likely to make that impulse purchase.
Yeah.
In terms of the value calculation, I think it's really incredible and
amazing that we have this system in our brain, which can take all of this
complicated information about the world around us and take into account our that we have this system in our brain, which can take all of this complicated
information about the world around us and take into account our past experiences,
our current context, what's going on around us, who's there and what are the
potential pros and cons and then our future goals.
And it can help us bridge where we are and where we want to be.
Yeah.
So I'm just going to comment on your cake comment
because when I was around seven years old,
I used to love space and wanted to be an astronaut.
And my mom made me this homemade rocket cake
that was in the shape of a rocket.
And to this day, I can't ever get it out of my head.
But shortly after that year, my parents
both went to the University
of Michigan and we started going to the Michigan alumni camp. So every week we would go.
Yeah, love Michigania.
Yes, yeah, up and off Walloon Lake. And we would always go during my birthday week. And so the
cakes up there weren't very good. So I always remember the rocket cake because nothing else
as a child ever lived up to it.
Yeah, it is pretty cool to be in a place where the food just appears at meal times.
I will say when they're producing in bulk for all the campers, I totally can see where you'd feel that way.
One thing I wanted to ask you about, you were just talking about how the value system integrates. Our current attention, our past experiences, future dreams.
And one of the things I get asked about a lot is how do you go from where you are
to where you want to be?
And I, I always try to use self-descrptancy theory to talk about this because there's
your current self, the self you think you should be in the self that you could be.
And I remember having a discussion with Hal Hirschfield, I love him and his work, and we
were talking about the future self and how do you become that ideal self you've always wanted to be.
But I think what you're talking about here with this value system is incredibly important because
it really gets into things that about self and how we can reshape them.
And I was hoping you could give your perspective on that.
There's so much to say about that.
And one thing related to Hal's work is that the kind of self that's here in the
moment is treated differently than the future self.
And so he's done lots of really fantastic work in that domain.
The other thing is that there's been a lot
of behavioral science work that I'm sure you're familiar
with and that folks watching might also be familiar with
related to the ways that self-relevance
and value are integrated in our brains.
And so our self-relevance system helps us understand what's me and not me,
make judgments about whether things are self-relevant or not. And that substantially
overlaps with the brain's value system. And so when we're making value calculations,
self-relevance is a key input. Whether I think that this is me or not me, whether this is identity
congruent or not, is going to weigh into whether I think it's good or bad, whether I think that this is me or not me, whether this is identity congruent or not, is going to weigh into whether I think it's good or bad, whether I think that an option is a good
option for me or not.
And on the other hand, when I think that things are self-relevant, then I tend to evaluate
them more positively.
Behavioral scientists looked at this a long time ago and termed the idea that we tend
to value things that are mine more highly than things that are not mine,
the endowment effect.
And so the endowment effect has been demonstrated
in lots of different areas.
For example, when college students in a classroom
are randomly assigned to either be gifted a mug,
so now the mug is mine,
or the person sitting next to me wasn't gifted that mug.
Now I'm asked how much would I price the mug to sell it?
How much would I be willing to accept in monetary terms
in order to give the mug to the person sitting next to me?
The person sitting next to me is asked
how much would they be willing to pay for it?
And there's a gap between those two numbers on average.
So people who think of things as theirs
value them more highly than people who are looking at it
maybe more objectively.
This would all be well and good if it were limited
to silly objects in behavioral science studies,
but there's just such a wide range of things
where what we think of as mind, objects, but also ideas, behaviors,
we hold on to those things tightly. And we have a hard time sometimes with the idea that
the thing that I was doing in the past might not be optimal. So we get defensive, we come
up with reasons why, well, maybe it would be good for other people to get more physical activity, or maybe it would be good for other people to take this feedback from
their supervisor.
When I'm in my own mind and body, I know all the reasons why I did the thing, right?
And there are a number of different kinds of techniques that we can use to let go of
some of that kind of defensiveness.
And one of them is to zoom out and really get in touch
with our bigger picture goals and values, the things that we really care the most about. So
values affirmation is a really simple technique that psychologists use to help reduce some of
that defensiveness. So if you let somebody first identify values that matter a lot to them, which
for many of us is stuff like friends and family,
or for some people it's their spirituality or their creativity. Really, what are their
core values, passions, and let them write about that for five minutes, like these very
brief interventions, then allow people to zoom out enough to see that the particular
thing that you're asking them to change or that we
want to potentially change about ourselves isn't what defines us. It's not, it doesn't make me a bad
person because I haven't been getting enough physical activity or following my blood pressure
medication regimen or because I have thought about some political question in a way that now that I
have new information,
I might think about differently, right?
And so after people have that chance to zoom out
and really reflect on their core values,
they're more open to new information
that could be helpful for them,
to coaching, to behavior change interventions.
And in the brain, what we see is that when we do
this kind of values affirmation exercise first, so half of the participants in this kind of study would be randomly assigned to reflect on values that matter the most to them.
The other half are randomly assigned to reflect on values that don't matter that much to them. And what I like about this paradigm is that it's literally the same words and pictures,
like exactly the same coaching materials that everybody's seeing.
And so you might expect that their brains should all respond similarly.
And instead, what we see is that mindset that they're coming in with, whether they've been
affirmed or not had that chance to affirm their values, changes the receptivity in the value
and self-relevance system.
So we see more activation in those systems when people come in primed with these values affirmations.
So that's one tool. I don't know if you want to talk about more. I know there's a lot of things
that we have as, as mutual interests to talk about. So I wanted to actually ask you a follow-up
question on social relevance because it just popped in my head as you were talking. And
you a follow-up question on social relevance because it just popped in my head as you were talking. And before we came on, I was telling you about Professor Gordon Flett, who wrote the book,
The Science of Mattering. And he wrote an article for the New York Times this past year on the topic
of anti-mattering, which is really the experience of not mattering. But what my question is this concept of anti-matter
simply a misfire in the brain social relevance system
or does it reflect something deeper and more systemic
from a societal standpoint?
Is anti-mattering a concept that is internally generated
or it's something that we perceive
that other people don't think we matter?
It's both. It starts with self and then becomes a reciprocal loop.
So many things are like that, right? Like the self-relevance and social relevance systems
in our brains overlap in some ways. And as we develop in childhood through adolescence, we often use what we think other people think about us
to shape our sense of self. And our social connections are some of the most powerful and
important things that happen in our lives, right? So loneliness is terrible for our health,
for our well-being, that sense that other people that were connected to other people in
meaningful ways is so crucial for our well-being. And one of the things that my lab has been
interested in and studied some of the work led by Yuna Kang is a sense of purpose. We know that sense
of purpose varies between people. So people who have a stronger sense of purpose tend to live longer, they have healthier lives,
their mental and emotional function is sharper than people who have lower sense of purpose.
But I think the thing that's really hopeful there is that wherever our kind of baseline is as individuals,
we fluctuate around it.
So we all have days where we feel more purposeful or less purposeful. And in neuroimaging studies that we've run, we've seen that sort
of people who tend to feel more purposeful as they're being exposed to those coaching
messages, for example, show less activation in brain regions that track conflict. So maybe
they're having an easier time
making certain kinds of decisions.
We don't have the data to fill out this full causal chain,
but I think it's possible that could be part of
why they're making more of these kind of healthier choices
to adhere to their medications
and to take care of their bodies in particular ways.
And when you're bringing up an idea
about the kind of pernicious feeling of not mattering,
it strikes me as being really related to those days when we feel less purposeful.
And I think there are a lot of inroads that we can consider there.
There are techniques, like I was mentioning, around reflecting on our core values,
like taking a step back, writing, journaling, that sort of thing.
But I know that's not for everybody. And so one thing that I also think is useful that we've seen on our core values, like taking a step back, writing, journaling, that sort of thing. But I know that's not for everybody. And so one thing that I also think is useful that we've
seen on our team and other people have found is that since that sense of purpose, that
sense of mattering, that sense of self clarity is related to taking care of our physical
bodies as well, we can approach it from other angles. Like getting a
good night's sleep helps us feel more connected to other people and more purposeful. Or like getting
better physical activity boosts our mood and helps us with these sorts of things. And I really think
about it in terms of kind of a web of wellness where there are all of these different potential
inroads. So if you're somebody who isn't looking to do a couch to 5k, but it's going to be hard to convert from
that decision into a habit.
Thank you for sharing that.
And today I am talking to Emily Falk and we're talking about her brand
new book, What We Value, which I'm holding up here again, and I'm
going to jump back into this.
In chapter one, one of the most vivid stories I
thought in your book was about Jenny Radcliffe, the people hacker. And something you don't know
about me, Emily, is I, when I came out of the Naval Academy, I worked for the NSA while I was
in the service. And then when I got in the private sector, I worked for Accenture and I ran the
cybersecurity practice for one of their major areas.
So I'm very familiar.
I was also the chief information security officer of a couple of Fortune 500s.
But what Jenny did is she bypassed the bank's fingerprint scanner
just by triggering a guard's discomfort.
And I wanted to ask, what does the story reveal about how quickly and unconsciously
our brain value system can be
hijacked in the moment? Yeah, one of the things that I loved about that story is on the podcast
where I originally heard it, Darknet Diaries, which is a really fun podcast. Jenny talked about
the way that she doesn't necessarily need to be an incredible computer hacker in order to
get into a system that there's
always a person who she can get access to and then once she has access to the
human that there are so many sort of ways that that she can do her job of
testing a bank security system and so in this particular story she did a really
planful job of getting ready to make herself somebody who a guard might let in.
So she bandaged up one of her hands and she brought a big box full of papers as a prop.
And she's in Germany where people value order very highly.
And she goes up to the guard in order to be able to penetrate the bank, to get into the bank where she's gotta find a particular computer
and she's supposed to insert a USB drive.
And the guard, of course, doesn't let her in right away.
And so she puts her finger on the fingerprint scanner
and she's posing as a bank employee
and acting as if she is entitled to be let in.
And the guard was saying, well, try again.
And she drops the box of papers and she starts swearing really loudly and making a scene.
And in chapter one, I talk a little bit about, we might be tempted to judge the guard who
decided to wave her through and let her in because we know as a reader that she's a
penetration tester who's testing the bank's security system.
that she's a penetration tester who's testing the bank's security system. But of course, in reality, the past experience that the guard probably had is most people who are asking to
be led into the bank in that situation are employees. And most of the time that would be
a helpful thing to do. And when we're weighing being a helpful, kind person versus having a scene go down in the lobby where
everybody else is in an orderly fashion, it actually makes a lot of sense that as a human,
you might make that choice. And so we can take a step back and ask, well, what are the things that
the bank might do in order to help put future security guards in a different position? Like,
maybe the bank could create a situation
where the guards know the employees
in a little bit more personal way
and get that kind of social reward
of a little bit of interaction from knowing one another
or lots of other things that could be helpful
in that kind of situation.
But you were asking me about what does this tell us
about the speed of our decisions?
And what I think Jenny really highlighted when she told the story was about the
ways that the people trying to be helpful can be exploited for these other kinds of
means. And as we think about our own experiences as individuals, like think
about interacting on the internet.
Most people in the world are kind and good and often when you read news it's by
journalists who are very dedicated to hunting down the truth but our tendencies, our natural
tendencies can also be exploited to sell us false information or to have us fall prey to
bots or other folks who don't have our best interests at heart, right?
I will also say in terms of your past experience that you were describing, I'm married to a
cryptographer and there's questions about privacy and data security are salient in my mind as well.
Oh, it also made me think of how does our perception of others value, especially in
not only the environment you talked about
on the web, but in social media environments distort the choices that we make about who
we are and how we show up.
I think, yeah.
There's so much evidence that what we think other people's preferences and behaviors
are shape ours.
So our social relevance system helps us understand what other people are thinking and feeling,
and what other people are thinking and feeling influences our value calculations. So there have been a number of brain imaging
studies that have looked at, for example, when people look at photographs of other people's
faces, we might think that we have our own unique tastes and preferences. Like for example,
that when we fall in love, it's really unique. But scientists have shown that when
people are given information about who other people think
are more or less attractive, that
shapes the value calculations of the people looking
at the photographs.
So our judgments of beauty are shaped
by other people's preferences, even when those preferences are
secretly randomly assigned by a computer
and have nothing to do with
any objective traits that might infer attractiveness. Likewise, our judgments of foods,
like how tasty different foods are, how much we want to eat them, are shaped by norms like that,
other people's preferences. Our judgments about how much electricity is reasonable to use. In
California, some researchers did this incredible research
where they looked at people's energy use at their houses
and what people thought was influencing that.
So people reported to the researchers what they thought was actually influencing
their energy use.
And they did not say anything about norms or about what their neighbors were doing.
But in reality, their neighbors' energy use was relevant.
And when the researchers gave different houses, different persuasive messages,
one of the most effective ones was highlighting the efficiency of neighbors.
So they're just a really wide range of situations.
I could go on and on because there are so many of these studies.
So, Emily, this has been a great year for books from your field. So they're just a really wide range of situations. I could go on and on because there are so many of these studies.
So Emily, this has been a great year for books from your field. And I've had Adam Golinski on the show.
I've had Shige Ueshi.
But another one of your peers I had on the show was Alison Wood Brooks, who came
out with a great book called Talk, and she teaches communication skills at Harvard.
In our conversation, we were discussing this idea
of active listening and how active listening
is really a social mirror of us reflecting ourselves
and the person we're talking to.
And I wanted to explore this because in chapter three,
you write, our brains care a lot about
what other people think about us.
And that even subtle social cues like peer approval
can deeply shape how we calculate value.
Why is that social feedback loop so sticky?
And how can we tell when it's guiding us
versus the other side when it's hijacking us?
There's a lot in what you're asking, John.
I don't ask the simple questions here on Passion Struck. We go after the big ones.
Great. Love it. So why is it so sticky? I think part of that is probably because we need other
people for our survival. So our social relevance systems help us understand what other people are
thinking and feeling, which is very useful if we want to predict what they're going to do next. So my friend and colleague Diana Tamir has done a ton
of beautiful work about the ways that people's thoughts and feelings predict their actions
and how well our brains can make those links. If I know that you're feeling hungry right now, I might predict that you
might next feel grumpy if we don't get you a snack, and that you might do things to try
to find some food if you're feeling hungry. Or if you're feeling happy that you might
behave in a totally different way, right? Understanding how other people are thinking
and feeling is really useful for coordinating and collaborating
like those sort of positive generative things.
It's also useful for trying to compete with other people
and connecting with other people is totally essential
for the survival of human babies and children.
And then as we grow,
really fundamental to our wellbeing as well.
So I think that's probably one of the most common
explanations for why we care so much
is that evolutionarily speaking,
and also in terms of our modern world,
our effectiveness as people in surviving
and now in the society that we live in now
and collaborating and competing is really essential.
And then the second part of your question was,
how do we know when that sort of susceptibility
to other people's thoughts, feelings, preferences
is guiding us versus what was the sort of-
I use the word hijacking.
Hijacking. And I think those are not really scientific terms, right?
Those are value judgments about one person's guiding
might be another person's hijacking.
It depends what our goals are and on some other assumptions
that we make about what's good and bad, right?
But I would say that being aware of how attuned we are to other people and to what they're
doing can help us tune in to our susceptibility to those kinds of things. So as we're scrolling
through social media thinking about is this really what I want to be exposing myself to right now?
And then maybe more deliberately who are the people in my life who I really respect and admire? Because we know that we're going to soak up
the behaviors and habits and preferences of the people that we're close to and our kids are going
to do the same thing, right? So our peers matter a lot. If I want to get to be a better runner,
hanging out with people who are good runners is more likely to get me there
than hanging out with people who are excellent at something else, but really couch potatoes.
On the other hand, thinking about when we're hiring for our teams, like choosing the people that we
work with to have high levels of integrity, to have high levels of kindness or collaborative traits,
because we know that it's not just in the local interactions that those things are going to have an influence,
but also that they spread. So there's a really lovely study where
people interacted with peers who
tended to
collaborate or to compete. And so that was the first part of the study.
And then when people were in new contexts, they brought those norms with them.
So the norms that develop in one place can spill over to other places.
Is that answering the question that you were asking?
Yeah, it is.
And I had another question from this chapter.
You had this great passage where you wrote negative social feedback or
rejection activates a kind of social pain that works like an alarm system, pushing
us to repair our social ties.
And I liked it because I think so many people can relate to that.
How even something small, like you're with a group of friends and you tell a joke and it falls flat, or you give a weird look, can spiral into shame or self-doubt.
Why is that loop so sticky?
Again, I think the importance of social connection to us as humans is baked into our biology.
And so it makes sense that we have an alarm system that helps us tell when
we're at risk of losing those connections, right? So we're sensitive to signals of potential rejection
or actual rejection, because it then motivates a bunch of useful behaviors to help us reconnect,
either with the person if we've done something that causes harm or with other people if we've been excluded or rejected.
So there are a lot of behavioral science studies
in addition to neuroimaging studies
about what happens when people are rejected or excluded.
So for example, a lot of studies have looked
at a game called Cyberball where people are playing catch
in a little video game environment. So there's you
and there are two other players and your little hand can throw the ball to this person or throw
the ball to that person. And in the cyberball game during the first round everybody plays the game
the way you'd expect. But what the participants don't know is that those other players are not
actually other players. They're controlled by a preset computer. Then the second round of the game starts off just like the
first round, but then the other two players just throw to each other and you never get the ball
back. And that might not sound like that big of a deal, but for many of us, even that kind of small
But for many of us, even that kind of small exclusion feels bad. And in the brain, the activation in these systems that detect conflict,
and which some neuroscientists call social pain, like Naomi Eisenberger,
has done a lot of work on this idea of social pain.
And the value, you said, why is that so sticky?
I think part of it is that it motivates us to do
other things that are really useful, reconnect with other people, and it signals like maybe we
should do things differently in the future. So we talked at the beginning of this conversation
about the idea of reward prediction error, where we learn from what happened in the past. And so
if I say something to you and it lands differently than I thought it would,
and so you give me that negative feedback either by walking away or making a face or directly
telling me like that hurt my feelings, then that's going to register for me and maybe shape what I do
next time. Or it might trigger defensiveness where I could have a whole other range of less helpful reactions.
And all of these things that we're talking about in the conversation today are interrelated.
I absolutely are.
And I'm going to go back to something we talked about earlier, just to use it as a bridge.
Because we were talking about, when we were talking about Hal Hirschfeld,
going from where we are and where we want to be and what it actually takes to
get there. And I'm going to jump into chapter four of your book, because you describe how
people's brains often treat their future selves almost like a stranger, which leads us to
prioritize the immediate rewards that we were talking about. Why does it become so difficult for our brains to care
about future me? And if you're someone here who's listening to
this, and maybe they're stuck in a hard moment, like a rejection
or failure, how do you begin to reframe things when it just
feels like an emotional loss to you right now?
Yeah. Well, first of all all for people feeling that way,
like that's such a common thing to feel right and so we're certainly not alone when we feel that way.
And one of the tools that I think is really helpful is what scientists call reappraisal,
where we can change the way that we're thinking about a particular situation or scenario
by focusing on different aspects of that situation
or scenario, or by taking a step back.
There are a number of different ways that we can reappraise,
but we can think about the situation in a different way,
and that changes how we feel about it.
So scientists sometimes study this by showing people photos
that are scary or disgusting or elicit negative
feelings and then teach people how to think about the situation in a different way. For example,
if I show you a picture of a very scary looking spider and you're scared of spiders,
I might teach you how to think about, well, it's a fake spider that's on a movie set,
or the spider actually is not venomous.
And so it's cute and fuzzy rather than being large and scary.
My relationship to spiders has changed a lot.
There's a research coordinator in my lab named Anthony who loves spiders and just thinks
they're so cute.
And Anthony's sort of positive feelings about spiders
rub off in reframing all of these things
because Anthony's constantly sharing interesting facts
and like almost humanizing them
in this really interesting way.
But back to the situation of if you've gone
through something that that's tough to deal with,
for example, there are small things like the apartment
that you're trying to rent gets rented
to somebody else first.
And in that situation, maybe when you got excited about it,
you were focused on the beautiful bay window
and the view of the park across the street.
But when you lose out on it,
maybe you want to stampen down those positive feelings
and dial up your negative feelings about the apartment. Like it was next to a really loud trolley line and the
landlord is notoriously known in this neighborhood for being unresponsive. And so by focusing
on different aspects of the situation, we can make ourselves feel better about the situation
or worse about a particular thing. And both of those things can be valuable.
So like in the example I just gave, I think sometimes people don't always think of dialing
up their negative feelings as a superpower. But if you're about to enter a job negotiation,
like not going in totally over the top, I'll take anything right away first offer, right? Might be
good for you thinking about the value of other options as well.
So that idea of reappraisal, I think can be really powerful for people to shift
where their focus is in the decision-making process and in the
process change how they're feeling.
Okay.
And I'm going to just grab something here because I use this book all the time.
One of the things you talk about in the book is self-transcendent values.
And I love SPK Scott Barry Kaufman's work on transcendence, but you write
that these self-transparent values are a key to change.
How do these values help shift our brain's value calculation, especially
when we're talking about these stuck periods and
habits or self-doubt. Well, we talked a little bit about values affirmation earlier, and in a study
that Yuna Kang led in our lab, where we did that kind of values affirmation with people, she went
a next layer deep and looked at which values people chose. And so when people were thinking about what
their top values were, the self transcendent values are things that go beyond ourself,
our sort of individual selfish view of things and compassion and kindness, connecting with
friends and family spirituality, like these things that sort of expand who we are and
what those possibilities are, we call self-transcendent values because they transcend our immediate and bounded sense of self.
Whereas values that are more focused on our individual power or fame or things like that are more self-focused values. And when people tended to choose those more self-transcendent values
and ranked those more highly,
then it dampened certain like negative emotional systems
in their brain.
Like they tended to have less of these threat
kind of responses when they were exposed to messages
that people who maybe had less of that self-transcendent values experienced.
And in that chapter, I talk a little bit about two different approaches to reducing defensiveness.
So one is to take a step back and think about what's actually at our core, like what really matters to us,
which I think values affirmation partly helps us do.
And then the other is to let go
of that really bounded notion
of who we are in the first place,
to recognize that our brain's self-relevant system
isn't just painting like a totally objective photograph
of who we are that's fixed
and that is objectively true,
but rather this kind of biased social media profile version
of who we are.
And when we can let go of that fixed notion of our identity
and expand it to be connected to other people,
to be in relationship with other people
and community with other people, then there's much less there to defend. And so then that can open us up to all
kinds of new possibilities of what we could be and how we can be in the world, I think.
I just had an interview yesterday with Yonge Minkuar-Rempocet, who's one of the
probably top experts in mindfulness in the world today. And
we were having this exact discussion about love, kindness, and compassion.
And it really did relate from his practice into this value creation system that we're
talking about today. It's really interesting to hear it come from a spiritual standpoint.
Now, hear you talk about it
from a scientific one. Neuroscientists have looked at what happens in the brains of
monks who meditate extensively for many years and found that they show different patterns of
activity within the brain's self-relevance and value systems than people who don't who aren't
those serious meditation practitioners.
And some related work that I really love is from another friend and colleague, Molly Crockett,
who has studied these kinds of transformative experiences that people have. So Molly and
their team have gone to festivals like Burning Man and places where people often have these transformative experiences that sometimes involve drugs,
sometimes involve other ways of letting go of that bounded notion of who we could be and connecting with other people
or the rest of humanity in these deeper ways. And what you were just saying, Molly is a serious meditator and student of Buddhism and really brings together those parts in a really wonderful, fruitful
way, scientifically and spiritually, I think.
So I really admire that a lot.
That reminds me of the work of a neuroscientist you might know, David
Yaden, because I got his PhD at Penn, but that's what he's doing at Johns
Hopkins now, as well as he's in their lab where they're looking at psilocybin and other types of drugs, primarily to how do they help with transcendent types of experiences and what do those experiences trigger inside of us?
And how do we get to them without the use of drugs in everyday life.
So to me, it's really fascinating,
the work that they're doing,
and it's like to our spiritual self.
So your book is divided into three sections,
and we've been talking about the first two so far,
and I wanna ask you a couple of questions from part three,
which is on connection.
And in chapter seven, you write that when people are more in sync
physically, emotionally, even neurologically, they tend to understand each other better.
What are the simplest, most powerful things we can do to create that sense
of brain to brain synchrony in daily life?
Great question.
So there are a lot of things like when people move together with the same physical movements,
like a drum circle or some of those sorts of things can elicit that type of brain synchrony.
When people watch the same media, then our brains synchronize.
For example, when people watch little silly videos of an astronaut in space or a comedic video.
Carolyn Parkinson's research has shown that friends tend to show more of that
similarity than strangers and Yuri Hassan's lab has shown that even
strangers tend to show relatively synchronized responses when directors
and artists capture our minds and our imaginations
in these common ways through film, let's say.
But I think it's also important to recognize that we're not always in sync, right?
A long time ago, like early in this research program, Ralph Schmaltz, I had a paper where
strong political speeches tended to capture
people's imaginations in common ways and bring their brains into sync with one another.
And I think in the current moment, you might think, well, what counts as a strong political
speech?
Like for one person, what counts as a strong political speech might be abhorrent to somebody
else, right? And that media environment segregation that we experience now,
where people tend to watch Fox News or CNN, let's say, brings our brains into sync with people who
share our prior assumptions. And so just taking it out of the political sphere for a minute,
there's a really great study where they brought people into the lab and they randomly assigned half the people to hear one backstory
for a fictional story, a JD Salinger story, and the other half to hear a different backstory. So
people have different assumptions going in to the brain scan and then they all hear the exact same
narrative. So they're hearing the same words and sentences and paragraphs,
but they're making different meaning of it.
And so the people who were given the same backstory as one another,
their brains are in sync and they're out of sync with the people who heard the
other backstory. Now, bringing it back to our current political moment,
like when we look at the brains of American Democrats
and Republicans watching the exact same news clip,
there's often more synchrony with people's in groups
than with their out groups.
And you might think, well, okay, we're doomed.
If we are watching the same news
and our brains are out of sync with one another,
how can we possibly get on the same page?
And I think that there's hope in the idea that like
surfacing some of those background assumptions, there's a lot of behavioral science that shows
that at least right now in the US, people's assumptions about what the other side thinks of
me are more negative than what the other side actually thinks. So we probably have more in common
and dislike and dehumanize each other less
than people tend to assume.
And in other research where people actually get in the room
and have cross party conversations,
they enjoy them more than they think they're going to.
And starting with these small things
of like things that help us build common ground,
like boring small talk about the weather and about our kids' soccer game and about
the things that are immediately in common can help us build up the synchrony that
then can make it maybe more possible for us to explore.
And also just an openness and curiosity to why do you think what you're thinking?
What are the assumptions that are behind that idea rather than
that immediate defensiveness or judgment?
So I wanted to hit on two things there.
First is something Emily just said is really important.
We, as people underestimate the power of tiny acts that we could do
every single day to build connection.
And if we could be more intentional about using them, it could so strengthen so many of the
relationships that we want to strengthen. I think that's at the core of what you were just talking
about. And then I just wanted to pay tribute to Emil Brunot, because I wish now more than ever he was still around because his work on dehumanization
and seeing the other side differently is needed so much in the world. I just interviewed Kurt
Gray as well and I really think both of their work that they were doing on morality, etc. is
so needed right now. Yeah, I miss Emil so much, man. I miss Emil so much. He came to Penn and I was so thrilled
when we were able to hire him here.
And then as you maybe know, he set up his own lab after,
he was technically a postdoc in my lab,
but he always had a vision for what he wanted to do
in terms of bringing science
and putting science to work for peace.
And he really was fantastic
at bringing other people together. And maybe you also read Jamil Zaki's beautiful recent book,
Hope for Cynics, that really does a beautiful job paying tribute to Emil. But Emil had such an
openness and a curiosity about other humans and about why we think the way that we think
and what our brains are doing that makes it easier for us to connect or harder for us to connect
and then how we could scale that in interventions. And two of Emile's students, post-docs Samantha
Moorberg and Boaz Miri are now both faculty running their own labs like the Peace and
Conflict Neuroscience Lab. And I actually just got a
message from Samantha earlier today that she's going to be
doing a big public talk at the University of Utah, honoring a
bunch of that work on awesome meta perceptions and
dehumanization. And yeah, thank you for honoring Emil in that
way. He was such a special person.
Well, I did a whole episode, a solo episode on it.
And I ran up by Jamil before I put it out just to make sure I was getting it right.
But I'll send it to you.
And if you can get it to them, that would be fantastic because I really
wanted to honor his work.
Well, Emily, you write that the choices we make together create the world we live.
In this polarized time that you were just mentioning, what kind of choices would
create a world where people feel seen and valued?
John, you really do go for those big questions.
And that question makes me think about some work that my grad student,
Torian Butler has been doing with Dartmouth business,
professor Adam Kleinbaum and with me.
And in it, Torian is trying to systematically think about
in our organizations, like our workplaces, for example,
what are the things that give us a sense of belonging?
What are the things that make us feel like we're part
of that whole that we're included?
And he has really broken it down into three ingredients
that I think are really useful
and that I think about a lot
in my day-to-day leadership roles.
One is value, like the sense that we are valued
by the people that we work with, by the organization.
The other is a sense of reciprocity
so that we get out of things,
what we put in, in our relationships,
in the work that we're doing, and so on. And then the third thing is fit, that we belong, that we fit,
and that there are other people who we can go to who might have shared experiences or similar roles.
And what's really useful about the way that Torian conceptualizes this, I think, is that he
distinguishes between inclusion as like the practices that an organization puts in place, the structures that are set up,
that have everything to do with like from how we do our hiring and our onboarding to what happens
day to day in our workplace environments. And then that individual feeling or experience of belonging that results. And so as individuals, as we gain more power in the organizations that we're part of, like
that could be a workplace, it could also be within our communities, keeping those things
in mind, like what are the systems that we are contributing to or putting in place that
are going to make other people feel valued, that they're going to make people feel like
they're getting out of it, what they put into it, that they're going to make them feel like they're getting out of it what they put into it.
That they're going to make them feel like they fit
and like they really belong.
I think Torian's framework is really powerful in that way.
And then more broadly, remembering
to take other people's perspectives
and to gather information from people who are like us
and, as importantly or more importantly,
people who are not like us.
So we know that diversity in our teams
leads to more innovation.
Like when we have different perspectives,
different ways of thinking about things,
different experiences that people bring to the table,
that makes better science.
It makes more innovative products,
like people who bridge different groups
that don't know each other and their organizations
get paid more and promoted faster
because they're coming up with these ideas. And so how can we audit what's coming into our own
calculations? Whose voices do we have access to? And how can we approach a wider range
of perspectives with curiosity to allow us to really serve our communities in the world
in the ways that we want to.
I think there are so many layers to what you're asking about.
And I'm really glad you're asking that question because I think just asking it and asking
it of ourselves is so important in being deliberate about the choices that we're making related
to it.
Absolutely.
And thank you for answering it in such depth.
So Emily, I have one final question for you. If you could whisper one
insight about what we value and choice into everyone's mind, what would it be?
I think it would be to have a little bit more compassion for ourselves and others. Because
I think once we understand the way that those value calculations are unfolding. It's wild, right?
There's so much that's going into those calculations that can feel so seamless in the moment.
And then later we look back and we have different information or maybe we would weigh things
differently.
And so I hope that after people read the book, after they read what we value, that it gives
them an appreciation of the complexity and
of the places where there might be more possibility to make choices that give ourselves a little bit
more room or that make a little bit more space for other people to do things in a different way.
So I think that's what I would whisper. Fantastic. Well, Emily, it was such an honor to have you today
and thank you for all the work that you've been doing
to bring this science into people's hands
and help people live lives that are better
and choices that are gonna take them in life
to where they wanna go.
It's such an honor to have you on the show.
Thank you so much for having me.
And back to you of thanks for doing the work
of bringing this work to so many people.
To me, it doesn't feel like work. It just feels like I get to constantly learn to you of thanks for doing the work of bringing this work to so many people.
To me, it doesn't feel like work.
It just feels like I get to constantly learn and practice neuroplasticity every single
day.
Thank you so much.
Great.
And that's a wrap.
What an incredible conversation with Dr. Emily Falk.
Her research sheds light on something we all feel but rarely examine, why we care about
what we care about.
From how we build connections to how we decide
what's worth our time, energy, and voice,
Emily's work is a master class in understanding
human behavior through the lens of value.
As we reflect on today's episode,
here are a few questions to take with you.
What do you share most often?
And what does it say about what you value?
How might you use the science of self-relevance
to drive change in your own life?
What ideas or causes are you ready to amplify,
not just because they matter,
but because they reflect who you are?
If you found this episode meaningful,
please take a moment to share a five-star rating and review.
It helps us grow the show and bring these insights
to more people around the world.
You'll find all the resources we discussed today,
including Emily's phenomenal book,
What We Value, in the show notes at passionstark.com. And if you want to watch the full conversation,
head over to JohnRMiles.com YouTube channel and hit the subscribe button.
Coming up next on Passion Struck, Dr. Gordon Flett joins me to explore the science of mattering.
Why feeling like you matter is essential as belonging and how it shapes our mental health,
motivation, and resilience.
If you've ever felt invisible or questioned your worth, this is the episode you don't
want to miss.
I'd say just as a quick snapshot, if you feel like you're not just a non-essential worker,
you're a non-essential person.
Now everybody's essential, everybody matters, and you have the potential to make a difference
in people's lives.
But if you're walking around feeling like that, you've probably got this sense
of anti-matter.
And the other thing that we've been studying lately
as an extension of that is the fear of not mattering.
So that you feel like you matter now,
but you anticipate maybe you won't matter down the road.
Thanks for being part of the Passion Strike Movement.
Your pursuit of growth, meaning, and impact
is what makes the community so powerful.
And remember, the fee for this show is simple.
If something resonated with you,
share it with someone who needs it.
Until next time, live life PassionStruck.