Something You Should Know - The Bizarre World of Product Testing & Understanding Highly Sensitive People

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

When the power goes out, how long will food in your refrigerator and freezer stay safe? And how bad is it to open the door and check? Consumer Reports has some useful answers that could save you from throwing out perfectly good food—or eating something you shouldn’t. https://www.consumerreports.org/home-garden/emergency-preparedness/what-to-feed-your-family-when-the-power-is-out-a4425760304/ Before you trust an airplane, a child’s toy or just about anything else, it has probably been subjected to some serious testing—and some of those tests get wonderfully weird. Engineers have fired chickens into jet engines and enlisted real bears to test bear-proof containers. Alex Davies takes us inside this strange, mostly invisible world of product testing. He is a senior editor at Amazon and author of Kobuk the Destroyer: And Other Tales from the Wild, Unseen World of Test Engineering (https://amzn.to/3UR4YEg). You may not consider yourself especially sensitive—but chances are you know someone who feels things more intensely than others. Criticism can really sting, rejection can linger, and an offhand remark can hit surprisingly hard. Why are some people wired this way, and is it something they need to change? Psychiatrist Dr. Sasha Hamdani explains the science of sensitivity, rejection and resilience. She is author of Too Sensitive: Rejection, Resilience, and the Science of Feeling Deeply (https://amzn.to/4c9bgFn). When you are suspicious that someone is lying to you, watching them for clues may be counterproductive. Those commonly believed visual giveaways are often inaccurate. But there is another way to help confirm whether someone is lying that can be much more accurate and it easy to do. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/may/14/hidden-secret-to-spotting-a-liar-voice-inflections PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS MONARCH: Write your own money story with Monarch! Use promo code SYSK at ⁠https://Monarch.com⁠ to get your 1st year of Monarch Core half off at just $50 AQUATRU: Head to ⁠https://AquaTru.com⁠ now and get 20% off your purifier using promo code SYSK AquaTru even comes with a 30-day best-tasting water guarantee or your money back! WAYFAIR: Ready to upgrade your home for way less? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now to shop all things home and get your space ready for less.  QUINCE: Find your next Fall favorites at Quince! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! DELL: Built for those who want better. The Dell XPS, built for you! INDEED: Get a $75 Sponsored Job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Indeed.com/PODCAST⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is one word, I think, gets people in trouble with money. It's probably. I'm probably spending about this much every month. I'm probably saving enough. I'm probably on track for retirement. Probably is not a financial plan. I've been using Monarch. It's a personal finance app that puts your whole financial picture in one place,

and it replaces probably with actual numbers. For example, Monarch showed me that, our spending last month jumped about 30% from the month before. 30%. We had some home repairs, but none of the bills seemed like a big hit at the time, but put them all together and, wow. But I didn't realize how much our spending had jumped until Monarch showed me. And I think that's how money can get away from you.

It's not necessarily one giant expense that sets off alarm bells. It's all the things that add up that you don't really notice. That's what I like about Monarch. You can see your spending, accounts, investments, and savings goals all in one place and see what's really going on with your money. If you're operating on probably, maybe it's time to find out, write your own money story with Monarch. Use code sysk at Monarch.com to get your first year of Monarch core half off at just $50. That's 50% off your first year at Monarch.com. with code SY-S-K.

Today on something you should know, when the power goes out, how long will your food last in the fridge and the freezer? Then the weird ways products are tested, jet engines, for example. Now, before a jet engine can be certified, you have to put it in front of a cannon and shoot a dead chicken into it.

What the jet engine has to do is it has to either be able to keep running safely or it has to shut down safely. Yeah, it's called the chicken cannon. Also, how to tell the difference between hot and cold water by the sound it makes. And being too sensitive, is it a flaw or something to embrace? I would say that there's an incredible strength in being emotionally sensitive. I think emotional sensitivity makes you a better person. It makes you a better parent.

I wouldn't trade that emotional sensitivity. I like being emotionally sensitive. I just don't want to drown in it. All this today on something you should know. I did something the other day, I don't think I've ever done before. I ordered plants for the yard online. Actually, I ordered a little bit of everything. Plants, bushes, a tree.

It's coming from Trees.com. You may have heard of them as fast-growing trees, but now they're Trees.com. America's largest and most trusted online nursery, with thousands of trees and plants and over 3 million happy customers. What surprised me was how easy it was. You tell them where you live, and they help you find things that actually work for your climate and growing zone. And there is a huge selection. So rather than driving around to different nurseries, loading everything into the car and then hauling at home, I sat at my computer, picked out what I wanted, and now it's all coming right to me. And I'm

really looking forward to seeing it all show up. Plus, they're a live and thrive guarantee promises your plants arrive happy and healthy. Right now, they have great deals on planting essentials, up to half off on select plants, and listeners to our show get 20% off their purchase when using the code S-Y-S-K at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at Trees.com, using the code S-Y-S-K at checkout. Trees.com, code S-Y-S-K. Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use S-Y-S-K to save today. Offer it's valid for a limited time, terms and conditions may apply. Something You Should Know. Fascinating Intel. The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life. Today, something you should know with Mike Carruthers.

When your power goes out, one of your first concerns is, the food in the freezer and the refrigerator. And for good reason, because if the power stays out a long time, that food could spoil. And that's the topic we're going to start with today. I'm Mike Carruthers. Welcome to something you should know. So without power, an unopened refrigerator generally keeps food safe for only about four hours. But a full freezer is a completely different story. If you leave the door shut, it can maintain its temperature.

for roughly 48 hours. A half-full freezer lasts about 24 hours. And there's a useful trick you can do before the next outage. Empty space makes a freezer warm up faster. So if your freezer is only partially full, freeze containers of water and then use them to fill up the empty space. The extra frozen mass helps everything stay cold or longer and gives you emergency ice and water as a bonus.

So when the electricity goes out, resist the urge to keep checking the freezer. The less you look, the longer your food will last. And that is something you should know. Before you trust your life to a car, or get on an airplane, or hand a toy to a child, or even use something as ordinary as a screwdriver, somebody has probably tried very hard to make that product fail. They've shaken it. It, frozen it, overheated it, overloaded it, dropped it, and sometimes subjected it to things you would never imagine.

Like throwing a chicken at it, which you're going to hear about. And it's all to discover what could possibly go wrong before it goes wrong for you. Welcome to the strange and largely invisible world of test engineering. It turns out figuring out how to break things safely is a fascinating science all its own. and some of the tests that engineers devise and the lengths that they go to are ingenious, bizarre, and occasionally spectacular. Here to take us behind the scenes is Alex Davies. He's a senior editor at Amazon,

and he's author of a book called Co-Book the Destroyer and Other Tales from the Wild, Unseen World of Test Engineering. Hi, Alex, welcome to something you should know. Hey, it's great to be here. So the title of your book, Cobuck the Destroyer, this is of interest to me because where I live, we have a bear problem. Bears get into the trash, and it's been getting worse lately. So we've all been told to get bear-resistant trash cans, which we did,

and the bears try, we've seen them try, they can't get in it. But I wonder, well, how do the people that made those trash cans know that bears can't get in it? do they actually test it on bears? And Copac, the Destroyer, the title of your book, is a bear who tests bear-resistant products. So how did that come about? So before bear-resistant products were actually tested on bears, and they were run through a couple of mechanical tests.

They would drop a metal spiked object onto objects that was meant to simulate the bite of a grizzly bear, and they would push on them with mechanical, you know, hydraulic pistons. And then someone said, sure, this is mimicking the strength of a bear, but bears aren't just pure strength. Bears are intelligent creatures. And we're not testing whether or not a bear can figure out how to open this thing.

They might not just bite it. They might not just push on it. They might twist it around or flip it upside down. And so they turn to a place that's outside Yellowstone National Park, which is a sanctuary for what are called problem bears. Bears that have gotten too accustomed to eating human food, bears that have had too much human contact and thus become a danger to people

and in becoming a danger to people become a danger to themselves. And sometimes these bears are relocated, sometimes they're euthanized, but the lucky ones get sent to this bear sanctuary. Now, it's not just a life of pleasure. They do have to sing for their supper, and they sing for their supper by testing supposedly bear-resistant products. So if a manufacturer has a new trash can or cooler or backpacking canister,

they'll bring it to the sanctuary, and the keepers essentially fill it with bear-friendly treats, with fish and honey and all sorts of good things, and they just give it to a bear. And if the bear spends an hour trying to get into it and can't crack it open along the very certain parameters. So coolers, if they can't open it more than an inch or so, and like trash can, if they can't flip it open, then the product is considered to have passed. I would have never guessed that. I would have assumed that testing bear resistant products was about mechanical tests that mimic a bear, not a real bear. That's a great story. And so when I think about product testing, the place that comes to mind is Underwriters'

laboratories, that they've been around forever and that they've tested. My sense is it's mostly electrical things. That's who I think of when I think of product testing. Yeah, they got started after the Chicago World's Fair. So Underwriters Labs was founded by a guy named W.H. Merrill. and he was one of the first graduates of MIT's electrical engineering program at the end of the 19th century. And he was hired by the insurers putting on the Chicago World's Fair, where electricity was going to be one of the big attractions. But electricity was very exciting and very scary because it had a habit of causing fires and burning down lots of things.

And he was brought in to help make sure that all of the electrical connections, were safe. And after that, he had the idea of, hey, maybe there's, maybe there's a business here. Electricity is becoming a big thing. And all of these products are going to start going into consumers' homes. And I can be the guy. I can start the company that actually makes sure that these things are safe and usable. And that was a huge intellectual coup for him. That was really the birth of testing as a profession and as something you can make money doing. because before that you didn't really need it and you didn't have electrical appliances in the home, right?

Before what you think of as a close iron, you had a chunk of iron that you put in the fire to heat it up. That's why we call it a close iron. But then all of a sudden there's electricity in that thing and you have to test it to make sure that if you drop it or pull on the cord or just use it a lot, it's not going to start a fire. And that's where Underwriters Labs really got started

and created what's now. a whole global profession of test engineering. So take us inside the world of product testing, of test engineering, because I just don't know much about it. So I think if you want to understand what actually shapes the products in your life, all of the things that make them functional and reliable and safe, that all comes less from inventors and more from test engineers. Because it's once the product is created and starts being tested, that's where you figure out where all of the problem points are, where all of the pain points are, and that's where you start making fixes to them. And it's a really interesting job because it relies on this blend of creativity, rigor,

and also paranoia. So you have to be paranoid to the point where you can think of everything that might happen to a product within the reasonable realm of, what humans can do and what the world can do to a thing. Then you have to figure out, okay, what of those things do we actually want to protect against? What's worth protecting against? Then you have to be creative enough to figure out how to simulate those things happening in a laboratory setting. But you need to be rigorous enough to create a test that you can repeat reliably.

So your data is good. and then you also have to have a real sense of judgment about it. And that comes into, well, how do you set your standards? How safe is safe enough? How do you balance progress against risk, against safety, against hesitation? And it's a very heady, for lack of a better word, way of thinking about things. It's thinking about how will they fail and how do I make them not fail. And so if you have a product, who are these people you go to?

Do you Google test engineers and a whole list of people comes up? Or how do you find these people? Or are they just, they're people who are engineers and they say, well, let's put on our testing hat now and let's go test it? It's a little bit of both. So if you've created a new toy that you think is going to be great for a three-year-old and you actually want to sell it, you'll have to get it certified first and the way to get it's certified is to bring it to a professional testing laboratory. And there are a handful of these

around the country and around the world, and they know exactly what the standards, a toy for a three-year-old, will have to pass. It has to be this strong. It has to have pieces that are at least this big if they break off to prevent any risk of choking. It can't have any contaminants or any chemicals that might be harmful to a child. These are all very carefully listed out in legislation. And if you go into this lab, They look like torture laboratories where they'll take a toy frog and they'll literally put its feet to the fire to see whether or not it's flammable. And they'll have little mechanical arms that mimic the strength of a two or three-year-old pulling on the thing to see whether or not it comes apart. I think a lot of the more interesting testing comes from products where we don't necessarily have all of those laws written out. And that's because testing and invention are in a continual arms race, where when you invent something new, then you have to figure out how you're going to test it.

This is something we're trying to figure out with generative AI right now, which is how do you test that to make sure it's safer than it currently is? And we're figuring out new ways to do that. So in some cases, it's professional testing laboratories that have very specific tests. They know they need to run on a given product. And in other cases, it's a company's own engineers or maybe the inventors themselves who are thinking, now what are all the ways in which this might fail? How can I recreate those in a recordable way? And how do I figure out where my product is failing and how to make it better?

And then how do I test it again? But in the testing world, how good is good enough? because any product can be destroyed somehow. I mean, sooner or later, even just electronics. If you put electronics in a bowl of water, it's going to fail, but you're not supposed to put your smartphone in a bowl of water. So you can't, you know, proof that. But how do you decide we've tested this for enough things?

The term we're talking about for foolproofing products is reasonably foreseeable misuse, which are, What are all of the things that I can think of that a person might reasonably do? And it doesn't mean that that's how I want them to use it. It might even say in the instructions, don't do this, but I have to know that someone might well do it anyway. And one classic example is a screwdriver. If I make a screwdriver, I'm intending for people to turn screws with it. But another very common use of a screwdriver is to open paint cans.

It's not made for that, but because you know someone's going to use a screwdriver to open a paint can, I actually don't know of another way to open a paint can. You have to build a screwdriver that's strong enough that it won't shatter if you're levering it in that way. But on the other hand, someone could conceivably use a screwdriver to clean out, to clean the wax out of their ears. But that's not really reasonably foreseeable. There's no real pattern of people doing that. so you don't have to make a screwdriver safe to stick up your ear. And it's always finding that balance.

There are some products, though, that are just inherently dangerous. Chainsaws, kitchen knives. I mean, you can't make them completely safe. I want to ask you more about that in just a moment. A big thank you to today's sponsor, Vinted. I think most of us have what I call someday clothes. I'll wear that someday. That'll fit better.

Someday. Someday I'll have a place to wear that. Meanwhile, it's been hanging in the closet for three years. Vinted offers another possibility. Sell it. Every day, people can sell clothes they're no longer wearing and make some extra money. And they've made the process pretty painless. Take what you don't wear. Listed on Vinted. Listing is quick and simple. And when an item sells, Vinted creates the prepaid shipping label for you. Importantly, there are no seller fees on Vinted. So when you sell something, you keep everything you earn. I like this whole idea, because instead of clothes just taking up space, somebody else gets to wear them and you get some money out of the deal. Your closet looks better too. I mean, everybody wins, even the closet. So maybe it's time to stop waiting for someday.

Download the Vinted app for free and start listing with no. No seller fees. So you keep everything you earn. Hear that? It's your money calling. It wants a promotion. Elevate your savings with the Scotia high-interest savings account. Always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest.

Conditions apply. Visit scotiabank.com slash h-I-SA to learn more. Scotia Bank. You're richer than you think. We're talking about test engineers and what they do, My guest is Alex Davies. He's author of the book, Co-Book the Destroyer and Other Tales from the Wild, Unseen World of Test Engineering.

So, Alex, there are products that are just inherently dangerous. I mean, a kitchen knife is a kitchen knife or a step ladder. I mean, you go up on a step ladder, you're up high, people fall off of them. I don't know how you prevent that. So that's a tricky one, right? because it's reasonably foreseeable that someone's going to climb to the top step when it says don't stand on the top step. But some products, I think, are simple enough. Like, take a kitchen knife, for example.

It's very foreseeable that someone's going to cut themselves. And there's really nothing you can do. And there is a limit to what you can test for. A step ladder only works because it puts you at a greater height than who would otherwise be. sometimes the danger elements of a product are so fundamental to it that you just have to say, this is what the product is. So there is a limit to what we can test. So tell me a story from the annals of product testing that would be great to hear.

So if you think about the story of the miracle on the Hudson flight with Captain Sully, who had both engines of his plane taken out by a flock of geese and managed to safely, land on the Hudson River, those jet engines were able to shut down safely and not catch fire or explode or damage the airplane itself because they had been run through the bird ingestion test. Now, this is a test that FAA created because bird strikes were a problem from the beginning of aviation. The first person to have a bird hit his plane was one of the Wright brothers. The first person to die in a bird strike happened in the 19th teens. And there have been more catastrophic ones, including a plane that crashed into the Boston Harbor after all four of its engines were taken out by birds.

In the 1960s, and that killed several dozen people. And after that, the FAA said, okay, we actually need to get a handle on this. So what they did first was they did a big study of all of the kinds of birds that are hitting planes. and in what kinds of situations. And the result is that now, before a jet engine can be certified, you have to put it in front of a cannon and shoot a dead chicken into it. And that's the test. And if it passes that test, it's okay?

It's okay. What the jet engine has to do is it has to either be able to keep running safely or it has to shut down safely in that test. and we use a cannon because it's much safer than actually flying a plane into a flock of birds. This is a way of recreating that on the ground. And yeah, it's called the chicken cannon test. And the birds are fired at about 230 miles an hour, which is roughly the speed of a jet on takeoff,

which is one of the times when bird strikes are most common, takeoff and landing. But it seems like one of the potential problems with, all of this is the test itself could be flawed. The test might not be a real test. That I think is one of the most interesting things I discovered in researching this world is that anytime you see a warranty on something or you hear me talk about a jet engine that can handle being hit with a chicken, you have to think, well, what compromise lays behind that specific standard? What compromise lays behind that standard? So that one's actually very interesting

because there's a real critique you can make of that test. The standards to which jet engines are tested are based on compromises between federal regulators and international regulators and also the airplane

makers and the jet engine makers. And they have to balance well this is pretty safe, but it's also something we can do a affordably and something we actually have the technology to do. But if you take a really close look at the chicken test, it has some, it has a few holes you might be able to poke in it, one of which is that chickens don't fly, and there's never been

a recorded incident of a chicken being sucked into a jet engine. Another is that geese are actually much bigger than the biggest bird we test jet engines on, right? And goose can be 10, 12, 15, 20 pounds. and it's geese that brought down the miracle on the Hudson flight, but we don't test with anything bigger than a four-pound bird. And the four-pound bird, we only test one. Only one gets shot into the engine, but geese fly in flocks. I think people should know about testing because it's a way of becoming a more informed consumer.

The most amazing story to me in your book is the guy who tested ejector seats, And we're almost out of time, but you've got to tell that story. That's Air Force flight surgeon, Colonel John Stapp, who in the 1950s at a time when planes were getting faster and faster and breaking the sound barrier, wanted to figure out whether or not pilots could safely eject from a crashing plane at hundreds of miles an hour, whether or not the Air Force needed to build restraints that were strong enough, because if a human ejects at that speed and they just die, it's not worth probably building the ejector seat

or building restraints that can actually do it. And so the way he tested that was he built a rocket sled that ran on rails. He did this in the desert at what's now Edwards Air Force Base. And this

was a guy who really put himself on the line by actually sitting himself on this rocket sled, put on goggles, his test engineers, his fellow test engineers, tied his wrist together and put a bite block in his mouth and put a helmet on his head and rocketed him to more than 600 miles an hour. And it wasn't just hitting that speed.

What he needed to test was deceleration. So then the rocket sled hit this area where it was filled with water that stopped it almost instantaneously. And so from 600 miles an hour, he went to a stop, zero miles an hour in under two seconds. And one of his fellow engineers compared it to driving a car at 250 miles an hour into a brick wall. John Stapp came away from that test blind for eight minutes. Fillings flew out of his teeth. He broke ribs.

He broke his wrists. And he survived. And that was the most important thing. What he wanted to prove was that the human body can survive extreme, if brief, bounce of deceleration. And so it was, in fact, worth building a detector seats that could shoot you out of a plane flying that fast because you could survive it. I love hearing stuff like this. Things I've wondered about and never knew. And test engineering is one of those things. Like, how do they, how do they test this stuff? I've been speaking with

Alex Davies. He's a senior editor at Amazon. And he's author of a book called Cobuck the Destroyer and other tales from the wild, unseen world of test engineering. There's a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. And Alex, great. Thanks for sharing. Yeah, thanks so much, Mike, for taking the time and helping me get the word out. Hear that? It's your money calling. It wants a promotion. Elevate your savings with the Scotia high-interest savings account.

Always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest. Conditions apply. Visit scotiabank.com slash h-I-SA to learn more. Scotia Bank, you're richer than you think. You probably know someone who's been told they're too sensitive. Maybe it's you. A text goes unanswered, someone's tone seems a little off, a casual remark feels like criticism, and while one person shrugs it off,

another person can't stop thinking about it. We tend to see that kind of sensitivity, as a weakness. You take things too personally. You need a thicker skin. But what if some people really are wired that way to feel these more intense feelings? And if they are, what's actually going on?

And can they learn to keep those feelings from taking over? Dr. Sasha Hamdani is a psychiatrist who specializes in emotional regulation and something called rejection-sensitive dysphoria. She's author of a new book called Two-Sensitive. sensitive, rejection, resilience, and the science of feeling deeply. She's here to explain why some people feel things so deeply, why seemingly small events can hit so hard, and what you can do about it.

Hi, Sasha. Welcome to something you should know. Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here. So I guess a good first question about people who are too sensitive is why are people too sensitive? Why are some people just more sensitive than others? So I think when you are looking at emotional sensitivity, you need to understand that they are literally wired to process emotions very quickly, very deeply, and for a long time. And they are born that way? Or where did that

wiring come from? So the thing that's interesting is because this is such an up-and-coming area of science. We don't have great data. It's not something that is widely discussed because for a long time, emotional amplitude, I would say, was just kind of a part of your personality. You were the sensitive kid. You've kind of grown up and been that person. Instead of looking at it as truly a difference in how you process emotions. And generally, the telltale signs of someone who's too sensitive are what?

They are feeling things and maybe having a hard time getting over things that seems disproportional to what actually happened. I think that's a very important distinguishing factor between whether something was situationally appropriate or not. I also think that they may get into patterns where they have compensatory behaviors. Like maybe these people are working so hard to protect that emotional sensitivity that maybe they are in relationships that they might. might not be best suited for it. Maybe they are the people pleasers. It's difficult for them to say no to things. Maybe they're overcompensators.

They're the people who are being perfectionists at work because they don't want to risk getting in trouble or getting criticism. So there's that compensatory component as well. And all of the things that you just said are often viewed as flaws. Get over it. Stop being so sensitive.

Yeah, that this is not a good, these things are not good things. These are things to fix. Yeah. Are they? I would say that there's an incredible strength in being emotionally sensitive. And I truly mean that. I think also looking at my dad who was incredibly emotionally sensitive, I think emotional sensitivity makes you a better person.

It makes you a better parent. It makes you a better physician. I think it is one of those things that, with that heightened emotional sensitivity, you also have this capacity to be more empathetic. You can tell what's going on in a room, even before someone says something to you. You can figure out and problem solve other people's kind of emotional climates,

maybe better than the average person would be able to. So I think that I wouldn't trade that emotional sensitivity. I like being emotionally sensitive. I just don't want to drown in it. but are these things things to mitigate or get over in other words is the goal to live with it or is the goal to fix it

change it the goal is not to become less sensitive the goal is to be more in control of your emotions what does that mean you know as you go through these big emotional responses it is more about trying to manage how you navigate through them rather than suppressing the feelings in the first place.

Give me an example. Okay. I'll give you an example that happened two days ago. I've been doing a lot of podcasts and I got an email because I was supposed to travel and do this podcast that they canceled and it was two days before the podcast. And I immediately took that upon myself as, like I read the email, was so overwhelmed by this thought of I wasn't a big enough deal. They didn't. didn't feel like they should keep me. They didn't like what I was talking about. They thought the book was stupid. Maybe the book is stupid. And I just was spinning, spinning, spinning. And that is a place that I have been in numerous times and it has consumed me. And it is, you know, it's messed up my sleep. It's messed up

my appetite. It's messed up my mood. But in that moment, I recognize I know I'm spinning. I know I'm restless. I know I'm having a hard time. I had gotten up. My husband and I were sitting on the couch. I'd gotten up from the couch and started pacing. And so I said, okay, well, I need to kind of use a tool to bring myself down from this because what I'm hoping is that I'll be, if I can just think a little bit more clearly, maybe I'll see it in a different way. So I then started doing a little bit of exercise. I just seen on Instagram like a little while before that. And so it was fresh in my head that, you know, I don't know if you've seen this, but doing squats and how that, you know, is great for brain health. So I'm like, all right, fine. So I start to make these squats.

Within like a minute or two, I'd calm down enough that I was like, okay, let me look back at the email. Then I look back at the email. And as you're going, as I went through it the second time, the second time I read the phrase due to an emergency. And so I was like, oh, okay, this actually doesn't have anything to do with me. And then shortly after, there was a request to reschedule. So I feel like that was a moment I could have just completely been consumed by it because it has happened before. But instead, I had to, I use skills, I use tools and I tried to navigate through the moment to come out on the other side and reduce my distress in that moment. You see, that's what I think people think is the flaw. you put yourself through a totally unnecessary living hell over that,

and wouldn't it have been better not to have done that? Yeah, of course it would have been nice to not have done that. But let me tell you the flip side, there are times where because of that same emotional sensitivity that I'm able to kind of my amygdala, that emotional cortex of my brain is picking up on things, appreciating that it's a threat or that there's something wrong, I can go. My kids are sitting absolutely quietly. They haven't said anything. I can go. I can look at my son's face. I can figure

out something is going wrong with him. I can kind of work through those moments with him because I can see that. So I feel like that is an incredible asset to have, especially within psychiatry where you know, it's such an intimate relationship you have with your patients. So learning how to navigate their emotional climate is such an advantage. Well, it's interesting that people who are sensitive or too sensitive or so sensitive or however you want to describe them, I think they often wish they weren't that way or they weren't so that way that they were a little more able to take the punches of life easier. I don't think I hear a whole lot of people who take those punches easier, wishing they were more

sensitive, that they felt things more? Oh, so I definitely can relate to the first part of that. I've had numerous times where I have felt like that my emotions are out of control. I wish I was a little bit more even keel. But I have had numerous people that have said, I wish I could see the world the way that you do. I wish I could feel things the way you do. I know you said at the beginning that this is all wiring, but are there like identifiable differences in the brain between someone who you would consider too sensitive and someone who's not? Yeah, so if you actually go and look at the brain, for people that are highly emotionally sensitive, there are two areas of the brain that are different. And there's many other factors, but this is kind of one of the most striking differences. is the amygdala, that emotional center of the brain, which is your threat detector,

that's a little bit more hyper-responsive. Then you look at the prefrontal cortex, the very smartest part of your brain, in charge of judgment, decision-making, processing. That's a little bit under-responsive. And the connection between the two is weak. So what happens is that for these highly emotionally sensitive people, you have this very overactive emotional center

and this under-responsive logical center. So you're feeling emotions more deeply, and it's hard for you to use logic to pull your way out of it. So I think when you look at that, then number one, that makes sense. Number two, if you actually look at from a neurochemical perspective, and you look at dopamine, which is a great regulator of mood and attention and alertness, and it helps with emotional regulation in the moment and over time, When you're looking at brains that are highly emotionally sensitive, and a lot of this early

research was done with ADHD, you can see that there was a dysregulation that's happening. And it's not even a deficit. It's not that dopamine is just not present in the brain or at significantly lower amounts. It's that it just isn't in the right place at the right time, which makes it more difficult to manage mood. And then you look at the component of the hormonal side. things with dips in certain hormones, you get the subsequent dip in dopamine. And so if you are getting, which would lower your ability to emotionally regulate, which would make emotional sensitivity

worse, which now you're kind of facing the situation where, you know, at certain points in a month, some people may feel highly emotionally sensitive. So there's good science kind of pointing out these patterns, I just don't think that we've put them all together in that way. Well, the way you just described it makes it sound much more of a biological difference than it is some sort of emotional, neurological. Like if parts of your brain are not developed the same way, well, there's nothing you can do about that, I don't think. Well, I think what you can do is that if your brain is developed in slightly different ways,

like that emotional part is a little bit more robust and the frontal lobe is a little bit less reactive. You can work on when that amygdala does get triggered. How do I calm down that response? How do I give my brain enough time that that frontal lobe can kick on? Like what can I do to actually help this process and this transmission of information? And I think that's very valuable. And there are tools that you can use and there are skills that you can use that are effective and they work in the moment and they work over time to help build resilience like what what's a tool so one of them and they're all tools you've heard before it's just been annoying when you've heard them the first time so i mean there's there's stuff like movement is a huge one movement you're pushing that oxygenated

glucose to your frontal lobe and so you are getting this capacity to let that amygdala quiet down a little bit and get more resources to the part of your brain that you are, that you can process your way through it. You can do things like deep breathing to kind of pull into that mindfulness. There's good research showing that with that deep breathing and with that mindfulness and that grounding practice, you can calm that amygdala response and allow your brain to kind of recalibrate. You can do things like just from a psychological person. perspective, actually trying to challenge the thought in the moment. So if you're faced with a situation where you're feeling a little bit too sensitive, instead of just accepting, that's how it is,

I feel too sensitive. This is just going to be how it is. You can gently kind of challenge, like, is there anything else that could have been happening? And a lot of people, by the way, that step does not happen. Because if they feel something and their body is sending off these alarm chemicals and confirming to them that this is proof that something bad is happening, they don't even do that step of like, could there be an alternative explanation? So there's things that you can do. So comment on this, because I have a sense that this is true, and I don't know if there's science, and you may have some experience, but I'm curious if there's any science about this, that people who are too sensitive and they have one of those moments, like you did with that podcast that

canceled on you, they have a... tendency to later on say why did I get all worked up about this like the the sensitivity doesn't last it it clarity comes later but it does seem to come yeah well if you're thinking about that from that neurobiological perspective once those alarm chemicals have started to clear from the amygdala kicking them off then you start to get this reallocation of resources to that frontal lobe and the frontal lobe is it then gets to reassess the situation and it's like that actually wasn't that big of a deal that was kind of an over response to the situation and then the unfortunate thing that

happens is that you get kind of piled on with shame and guilt in that moment afterwards right yeah what was i thinking wow that was so stupid to think that way and and then now you feel bad because you did it so yeah do do sensitive people do you think and this would be a kind of a science question if anybody's done this. The reason that they're sensitive, does it have anything to do with environment were their parents likely, or one of them sensitive, or grandma was sensitive?

Or, like, is there any hereditary genetic thing to this at all? I think so. I mean, if you look at just neurobiology in general, I think you start to see patterns. And, you know, again, this, a lot of, of this was stemming from initial research that was done in ADHD. And ADHD is highly heritable. So when you look at these kind of patterns, you see that there is, you can trace it back

in the family a long way. So I think it's, I think there is a heritable and a family component to it, definitely. And is there any kind of age component to it, and this is what I mean, is, does it tend to diminish over time? Do people as they get older and have more life experience under their belt realize that maybe they've overreacted enough that maybe they're not going to do that so much anymore? I'm done now. I think it does burn out a little bit with age, but I don't think that the neurological response necessarily extinguishes completely. Is an empath that you typically too sensitive and are too sensitive people typically empaths? Are they basically the same?

thing? I think there's a lot of crossover with empath to some degree. I feel like they're very good at reading other people's emotional climates. But I think highly sensitive people, what is also true for them, because I think there is that crossover, is a way that they interpret their own internal environment. So maybe an empath has no difficulty with like, something that is emotionally charged, but they're really good at feeling things for other people. You know, I think that with highly emotionally sensitive people, they, you know, things that happen to them are just, it takes them a long time to kind of navigate and build that self-trust around those feelings. Is there any, has there been any studies or polls? I should have asked you

this in the beginning. Like what percentage of the population fits this definition? I wish I knew. I wish I knew, but here's what I will tell you, Mike. I think it's much higher than, than we assume. Because this isn't in the diagnostic statistical manual, which is the DSM-5 is the, it's basically where for everything in psychiatry, you have the diagnostic criteria. So this is where physicians and therapists and mental health professionals really lean on to get their diagnoses. But because the way that we talk about emotional sensitivity, it's not present in criteria, even within different areas, like for example, with ADHD where a lot of the preliminary research was done, emotional dysregulation isn't included in our criteria as it stands right now.

we just don't factor in emotional processing in a way that I think a lot of people recognize within themselves and then subsequently report. Well, I think your message is so important because there are a lot of people who have been told their whole life, you're too sensitive, you need a thicker skin, as if it's a flaw that needs to be fixed. and you've brought a whole different perspective that I think is very comforting to people. I've been speaking with Dr. Sasha Hamdani. The name of her book is Too Sensitive, Rejection, Resilience, and the Science of Feeling Deeply. And there's a link to that book at Amazon and the show notes. Sasha, thank you for spending the time with us. Thank you so much, Mike.

When we're trying to decide if someone's telling us the truth or not, We naturally watch them closely. Are they looking away, fidgeting, acting nervous? But surprisingly, taking away the visual information may sometimes make people better at detecting deception. Research discussed recently in The Guardian found that people judging deception perform better when they could hear a person but couldn't see them. One reason may be watching someone gives your brain a lot of extra information to process. including supposedly suspicious body language signals that aren't actually reliable signs of lying.

When you're listening only, subtle changes in rhythm, pitch, and intonation may become easier to notice. This certainly doesn't turn anyone into a human lie detector. There's no single vocal giveaway that proves somebody's lying, but it does suggest something wonderfully counterintuitive. If you're trying to figure out whether someone's story is True, closing your eyes and listening may tell you more than staring them in the face.

And that is something you should know. I'm sure if you think about it, you know somebody who would enjoy this podcast, this episode in particular. And if you do know somebody who would enjoy this podcast, I hope you will tell them about it, share it with them, and get them to listen. It's a great way to support this show. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know.