transcript
Speaker 1:
[00:01] Hello, Sam here. Before we begin, I wanted to remind you just how much we appreciate you as our listeners because we wouldn't be able to make this show without you. Now, if you've got a second, we'd love it if you could leave a review or a comment on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. We do read all the reviews, and if you leave a question, we'll try to answer it on an upcoming show. But those genuine reviews help spread the word about Curiosity Weekly, and ultimately, they help keep us going. So don't forget, leave a review. Thanks so much. Greetings, science seekers. Welcome back to Curiosity Weekly. I'm Dr. Samantha Yammine. Lately, there's been a lot of talk about social media and how much time we should spend on it. On the flip side, we talked about the analog movement in our last episode. What's the right balance? How much and what kind of socializing is actually good for our brains? Well, in this episode, we'll get some answers from neuroscientist and science communicator, Dr. Ben Rein. He literally wrote the book on why our brains need friends, like that's the actual title. And then later, tardigrades, those cute little microorganisms that look like a cross between a caterpillar and a cuddly bear. You may have seen them in science textbooks and know them as water bears. But if not, just trust me, they're super cute. They're also incredibly tough. And it turns out that may come at a price. We'll find out. But first, raccoons. If you ever walk around the night before garbage day, you might just pass some raccoons scaling garbage bins and scheming how to get inside and feast. I've always known they're cunning, but a new study published in the journal Animal Behavior found that their skills aren't just about finding food. Turns out they just really love a good puzzle, and they're pretty good at them too. The researchers were collaborators from the University of British Columbia and the National Wildlife Research Center in Colorado. They designed a custom puzzle box made from clear plexiglass and three removable panels, each with different locking mechanisms. They started with the three easiest versions of the locks, a simple door, sliding latches and pull down windows. The researchers placed a single marshmallow inside the clear box and gave the raccoons up to 20 minutes with it. If the raccoons could consistently open the box at least 15 times, then they gave them harder locks, like a hook and eye closure. When they learned that, then they'd go on to the harder level, like a knob that turns like a doorknob. The 14 raccoons in the study almost always got to the marshmallow through one of the openings. Here's the surprising part, though. They kept trying to figure out the other openings, even though they could see there was no more food inside the box. This test suggests raccoons don't just forage for food, they also keep exploring and learning from their environment. This curiosity may be why it's so hard to keep raccoons out of your bins. Every new latch or bungee cord that we add is just another puzzle for them to solve. But who am I to begrudge them their curiosity? Actually, maybe they should be the new mascot for the pod. When was the last time you had a really good conversation? Like when were you walked away feeling genuinely energized? I feel like it can be really rare, especially when life gets busy. Meanwhile, we're increasingly learning that our social lives can have a profound impact on our brains and overall health. Some research even shows chronic loneliness is linked to a higher risk of death by any cause. Yet by many measures, we're lonelier than ever. To learn more about the importance of socializing for our brain health and what we can do about it, we have neuroscientist and science communicator, Dr. Ben Rein on the show. Dr. Ben Rein is the author of the book, Why Brains Need Friends. You may know him across TikTok and Instagram, where he goes by the name at dr.benrein. Welcome to the show, Ben.
Speaker 2:
[03:50] Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1:
[03:52] The first thing I want to ask just to set the stage here, are we in a loneliness epidemic?
Speaker 2:
[03:58] Yes, we are. In fact, it's not just our lived experiences that feel this way. I'm sure a lot of people do feel that. Maybe ever since COVID, we never really recovered to our pre-pandemic social lives. But if you look at the data on this, it's very striking. Basically, every possible metric you could look at, the number of friends people have, the amount of time they spend with others, how lonely they report feeling, the level of emotional support, all of those metrics are headed in the wrong direction. The reason that is concerning is because, as I'm sure we're going to dive into, there are significant health consequences to not getting enough interaction.
Speaker 1:
[04:39] What are the health consequences for being lonely or not having a social support?
Speaker 2:
[04:45] Well, being isolated or lonely is linked to a higher risk of dementia, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, anxiety, depression, suicide, a wide range of things. Basically, over time, being lonely can really have a pronounced impact on our overall health and our resilience. What's really concerning especially is that the time in life where people tend to be the most isolated is at the end of their life. They're not working anymore, they're not seeing their family all the time. Maybe their friends and some loved ones have passed, and so they're spending a lot of time alone. All those risk factors I just mentioned, associated with isolation and loneliness, are now being superimposed on top of the increased risk associated with just being older. I think that this is maybe the largest, most unspoken health crisis of our time that we're not appreciating just how much we're predisposing ourselves to health conditions at a time when we're already not very resilient.
Speaker 1:
[05:49] Why are social connections so important, even in the brain?
Speaker 2:
[05:52] So the overall reason why we need interaction is actually, presumably because of our ancient history, that humans are a social species. We exist very well and survive very well in groups. We're really good at working together and so our ancient ancestors, when it came to survival of the fittest, the fittest were actually the most social humans, that the ones who were happier in groups naturally wanted to be in groups. So this kind of selection pressure, this evolutionary force chose humans that wanted to be around each other. Now, millennia later, we have these systems built into our brains that being around others, basically tells us this is good. We have this drive of dopamine and serotonin and oxytocin, these really reinforcing and reassuring neurotransmitters that tell us what you're doing is good for your health and make you feel good. And on the other hand, when we're isolated, it triggers a stress response. And presumably, that is an ancient mechanism to say, oh, you're out here on your own. That's not a good thing. You could die without your support of your community. So get back to your friends and family. But these are really hardwired into our brains. And so now, when we look around at a world where we're not spending as much time with each other for a number of reasons, and we all kind of feel a little bit different, I think there's a lot of anxiety in the air nowadays. It's tough to say, point to the isolation and say that's it, but that's definitely not helping. There's some studies on cancer survival that show that one of the strongest predictors of surviving cancer is being married. And for several forms of cancer, being married was actually a better predictor of survival than getting chemotherapy. But that doesn't of course mean that chemotherapy doesn't work. In fact, it turns out that part of the reason married people were more likely to survive is because they had a social support system. They had a partner who told them, hey, you need to get the top line gold standard of therapies. And so they were more likely to receive high quality treatment, including chemotherapy. So, there's multiple layers to this. There's of course the baseline kind of neurobiology of the social support. And then there's also this sort of, your community looks out for you factor.
Speaker 1:
[08:13] One thing I'm curious about is, we're talking about social supports, friendships, but there's lots of different ways, especially lately, to interact with people. So, do we know how, let's say in person, get togethers versus virtual or texting or social media related interactions? How different are they in terms of getting that benefit?
Speaker 2:
[08:34] Yeah, it's an emerging field. We don't have too many years of data on this, but there's enough to make some strong guesses about what's going on. Here's the way I look at it. When we interact in person, we have a lot of information for our brains to soak up. We have facial expressions and their tone of voice and their body language. And there's just all this content that your brain can take in and use to understand what the other person is thinking and what they're meaning. And that's kind of an exercise for the brain, right? It involves all these different brain areas to do that. Now, when we go from in-person to like one step down this ladder and we go to a video call, we can still see them, we can still hear them, but there's a few things that are missing. We can't make eye contact, we can't smell each other, we can't see our full body language. Now if you go another step down to phone call, you lose even more of that texture. Now you can't see any facial expressions at all. You definitely can't see body language. And so this is kind of the way I see our virtual interactions we have all these different levels with different levels of texture, different fidelity to the real thing. And what the research seems to show is that the further you get away from real life, the less lifelike the interaction becomes, the less we benefit from it or the less we enjoy it at least. And if you think about it, like taking the data out of it and just thinking about real life, of course it's way more pleasant to hang out with your friends in person and to text them, it doesn't feel anything like the same thing. And so I think what I worry about is in a world where it's increasingly like accepted and normal and definitely more convenient to interact virtually, we may be kind of supplementing these really important nutritious interactions with these kind of low calorie snack versions that don't really do the same thing in the brain and certainly don't leave us feeling quite as good after.
Speaker 1:
[10:34] It's a really good analogy because it does kind of feel the same way.
Speaker 2:
[10:37] Yeah, it's, I mean, personally, I always try to level up whenever I can. Like I described that kind of ladder. And if I'm texting someone and I have the time to give them a phone call, I'd much rather interact that way. If it's a phone call, sometimes jump to a video call. And if we have a video call scheduled for a work meeting or anything, and we live in the same city, I'll just say, come over to my house. Let's just get together in person.
Speaker 1:
[11:02] That's really nice. I really like that.
Speaker 2:
[11:04] It's funny. It's like old fashioned now, but it's also like, maybe that should be the new thing.
Speaker 1:
[11:09] When it comes to social media specifically, I know you co-authored a piece about how that changes empathy. Can you tell us a little more about that?
Speaker 2:
[11:19] Sure. So I think many people who have been on social media have experienced the unfair wrath and hostility of social media, unfortunately. Sometimes we just get comments, especially people like you and I, Sam, who are posting content and the world is engaging with it. You'll just get a comment that's horrifically mean for virtually no reason. I was getting comments like that all the time while also studying empathy at Stanford in my postdoc, and I clicked for me, I'm like, whoa, wait a minute. The people on the other side of the phone have no reason to care about my emotions because they can't see my emotions, they can't feel my emotions. The brain areas that are responsible for empathy, the ones that make you feel bad when you see someone else in pain and so on, they respond to social cues. They see a frown and they say, oh, that's negative, now you feel bad. They smell maybe the tears or they can see the tears or hear the wails and that fires up those empathy areas and allows you to step into what the other person is feeling. But on social media, for a ton of reasons, those cues are not represented. On Twitter or X, for example, you can't see the person's face when you're interacting with them. You can't hear their tone of voice. Why would those empathy areas engage? Even if you are able to see their face or hear their voice, you can on Instagram or TikTok, it's asynchronous. You're not there at the same time in a live stream talking. So the analogy here is, if you put down a tack in a classroom as a child, and then trying to prank one of your classmates, and then you leave the classroom, and a couple of days later, another student steps on the tack, they scream, and they cry, and they go to the nurse, you're not there. Do you feel bad? Of course not. It's kind of like it does a tree that falls in the woods by itself making noise. You can't experience empathy if you have no information to empathize with. I think this could be the reason why we are so prone to hostility online, and why the rates of online harassment and cyberbullying are so incredibly high because it's just not the way our brains are really formatted for interaction.
Speaker 1:
[13:43] The other layer here is we've talked about the environment where you can have social interactions, but what about the quality of the social interaction? For example, small talk with a stranger versus a couch hang with a good friend, which is one of my favorite things to do.
Speaker 2:
[13:59] Yeah, I mean, certainly the quality of the interaction and the quality of the relationship with the person matter a lot. The way I think about this myself is our brains have systems that make us feel good around others. And the main driver of that is oxytocin. Oxytocin is this social bonding, love hormone thing that really functions like social glue. It makes us feel good around someone and then you want to be around them again. This is why you fall in love with people and you have fun with your friends. So the more that you enjoy being around someone, presumably the more oxytocin you will have released and signaling in your brain. And there's evidence for this from relationships that couples with higher levels of oxytocin tend to stick together and so on. And what's important to mention here is that oxytocin is also very good for you. So oxytocin has all these incredible sort of healing properties. And the dose of oxytocin that you get from an interaction is probably going to correlate with the quality of the interaction. So when you have that good couch hang with a really close friend, most likely you're releasing a lot of oxytocin. Whereas when you interact with a stranger very briefly, you're getting sort of a smaller hit of oxytocin. And so that's kind of the way I like to think about my social life neurobiologically is like, I actually picture this pool of like a swimming pool of oxytocin and you can kind of get in at the shallow end and you can like dip your foot in. And as you're passing the neighbor on the street, you can say, howdy neighbor, good morning. And that's just a little toe touch and you're probably getting a little something. Your brain is detecting community or you can dive deep into the deep end and have a really significant heart to heart with a loved one or a friend. So, and now you may be wondering why is this? Why is it that oxytocin is good for us and has all these like unexpected benefits? The two relationships that trigger the highest release of oxytocin are romantic relationships and parent-child bonds. And so the time in your life when you are probably going to have the highest level of oxytocin and therefore experience all these health benefits is around the time of mating and child rearing. And so to me, it seems like it's a evolutionary mechanism to keep us healthy and capable of reproducing and raising our children so that we don't have a heart attack or stroke or something during that time. And we can be healthy enough to sort of complete the mission of evolution in terms of reproduction and carrying on our genes. That's, I think, why it has all these other benefits is, it's really important to be healthy during that time of life.
Speaker 1:
[16:54] What about AI relationships? In theory, these chatbots can feel like they know you really well, right, and be very layered and deep and intimate. And you could share things that you don't share with other people. So where does that sit in the social ladder?
Speaker 2:
[17:12] Well, I'll start by saying this. I think interacting with the chatbot is at best as good for you as text messaging with a friend, because it is only a text-based interaction, right? We're not getting all those social cues that we do.
Speaker 1:
[17:27] It could be voice.
Speaker 2:
[17:28] That's true.
Speaker 1:
[17:29] Probably video. I don't know if there's video, maybe.
Speaker 2:
[17:33] Yeah, and I do think that in the coming years and maybe even weeks, we will see more and more hyper-realistic humanoid AI companions. Gosh, I have so many thoughts on this. Where do I start?
Speaker 1:
[17:48] I know, I had to.
Speaker 2:
[17:50] I think there is a time and a place. There are certain settings and scenarios where having an AI companion can be really useful. For instance, there's a bit of research looking at how AI interactions can be used for recovery after sexual abuse that for those who've been sexually assaulted, having these simulated AI date interactions can help establish comfort in those types of scenarios. That's amazing. I think that's awesome. On the other hand, going on an actual date with an AI chatbot, which is a realistic scenario nowadays, there are services that offer this where you can pay for an AI companion. I think one of the reasons why it's concerning is interaction is one of the only therapies like behavioral therapies that exists that helps multiple people at once. When you exercise or when you get a good night of sleep, it's just really good for you. But when you go and you socialize with a friend, you're both benefiting. If we replace one of those parties with an AI chatbot, we are eliminating half of the benefit. I think that's one reason that's concerning. Another reason why is for young people, having social interactions is really important for establishing this moral understanding of the world and how people behave and building things like empathy. You have to learn through experience how your actions impact others' emotions. So if we allow early life interactions to be replaced by chatbot interactions, I think we are missing out on some really important social learning. It also begs the question, do we trust the character of AI chatbots to shape our children's understanding of the world? I mean, I have a very young daughter, she's five months old, and the thought of her having an AI friend or companion instead of a human definitely worries me. And I also think, given that AI chatbots can be very, very accepting and kind of this yes man mentality. I worry that people can, young people, if they're bullied, for instance, or ostracized, they might find that the only companion that really understands them is an AI chatbot. And so they can kind of veer off course and befriend these comfortable AI models instead of looking for social support in a human companion. And we haven't, like right now, this is the first generation to ever have that ability. Like we've never really offered that for kids before. And I worry a bit about what the long-term implications of that could be.
Speaker 1:
[20:35] Yeah. And I just saw a study recently about the sycophantic nature of AI chatbots kind of making people double down instead of, I think it was, have less empathy and go back being less understanding to other social interactions. I think your point about it being so one-sided when otherwise social interactions involve multiple people is really, really important. Right.
Speaker 2:
[21:01] I mean, it's important to learn that you make a really distasteful or insulting joke and someone gets offended and someone cries. I mean, we have to learn through our mistakes and that's how we understand the kind of boundaries of what's acceptable in society. And there's real evidence for this and that if you're not interacting enough, if you're isolated in childhood, then the development of the prefrontal cortex becomes underdeveloped, basically, that these experiences are really important for shaping it. And children who are isolated have also shown higher rates of conduct issues and basically violating those boundaries. So again, it's like you can't really learn that from an AI chap out interaction. You can maybe attempt to establish those boundaries, but I think more often than not, it's going to let you get away with whatever you do.
Speaker 1:
[21:54] What about for people who are introverted and maybe find social interactions a bit taxing? How, like what level of, like how do these things apply to them?
Speaker 2:
[22:05] I'm so glad you asked. So I have a really, I have a metaphor that I like to use here, analogy, to explain like the science on this. So every human is sort of like a plant, a potted plant, and some potted plants need a lot of water. Other potted plants only need to be watered every once in a while. You can maybe see where I'm going with this. Introverts are like those plants that only need water watering every month or so. Extroverts are the very thirsty plants. The reason this analogy works really well is because it really reflects what the science says, that we all have some cadence of interaction that is right for us, depending on where we stand on that continuum from introversion to extroversion. While introverts need less interaction or are comfortable with less interaction, every plant needs to be watered at least once in a while. The evidence suggests that if an introvert is asked to go socialize, even to act very outgoing and pretend to be an extrovert, if it's like 10 minutes or an hour, they actually report feeling better after. This is like your one-time watering, right? A little bit of water goes a long way. But if you keep on watering, if the introvert has to continue interacting like this for several hours or a week, they start to feel very exhausted, just like those plants can be easily overwatered. Extroverts, on the other hand, they can be watered all day. They can keep on interacting for a whole week, socializing every opportunity they get. By the end of that week, while the introverts are completely exhausted and drained, the extroverts feel better than ever. What I think is the most important thing about all of this is, when the health effects start to come into play, the detriments, is when the soil dries out. An extrovert that's really, really thirsty is going to achieve that point much, much faster than an introvert. Because it needs so much water that maybe after a couple days without socializing, extroverts start to feel bad. Whereas an introvert might start to feel bad after a couple of weeks. And I think what also I want to point out is I think introverts are much less likely to identify that, oh, I'm not feeling so well right now. It's because I haven't seen my friends. I think that is something humans are just generally pretty bad at. Like we can easily tell when we're overwatered, when we've been at the party for too long. But the periods of isolation in modern life tend to correspond with a lot of other things. Like we're not socializing because we're not sleeping well, and we don't want to go out, or we're really stressed with work, and we're working late. And so when we start to feel stressed, it's so much easier to say, oh yeah, it's because I'm not sleeping well, and I've been working all this. When actually it's because we're isolated, but we would never notice that, we would never pull that out, especially for an introvert. So what I encourage everyone to do is to try to figure out what is the cadence of watering for your plant? How often should you be socializing? Because if you can figure that out, then it's easy enough to look at the calendar and say, whoops, I missed a watering. I should really go see my friends. Let's get that couch, oh my gosh, let's get that couch hang going on.
Speaker 1:
[25:22] For a listener who might be feeling chronically lonely or underwatered, and they're worried their soil is drying out, what are the most evidence-backed, practical first steps to improve social connection? Are there any?
Speaker 2:
[25:36] Well, I get asked this question a lot, and I'm always disheartened to provide the seemingly obvious, no fun answer of interact more. However, I think there are a couple layers to this to think about. One is interaction. Using interaction for well-being can feel a little bit daunting because one, interaction can be anxiety provoking. But also, it's like it's one of those things that's always there. And it's like, I don't want to socialize every day or, you know, it seems like it could be like I can never get enough of it. Like, when is it? When is enough enough? And I think there's two things to consider there. One, what is your social cadence? You know, if you can figure that out, then you can stop putting the pressure on yourself and just try to make sure you're interacting enough for yourself. The other thing is this social pool that I described. You know, we don't always have to dive into the deep end. Yes, it might be the best way to connect, or the most kind of nutritious and satisfying way to connect. But also, if you're a person who works from home, and you're never really getting a chance to get out, and you just go and walk around your neighborhood, and you pass a neighbor, and you have a two-minute conversation with a neighbor or you talk to the cashier at the grocery store, these are steps into the shallow end, but they still count. Those are still important. I think it doesn't always have to be as daunting as diving in the deep end day after day. It can be just one day if you just step into the shallow end, that's perfectly okay. It's much, much better than nothing.
Speaker 1:
[27:19] Thank you so much for being on our show. That's Dr. Ben Rein, neuroscientist, science communicator and author of the book, Why Brains Need Friends. You can follow him on socials at doctor.benrein. That's Rein, R-E-I-N.
Speaker 2:
[27:33] Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1:
[27:39] Tardy grades, lovingly known as water bears, are one of the cutest microscopic organisms. With their eight stubby legs and chubby body, they look like a cross between a cuddly bear and a caterpillar, but like with the face of the dune sandworm. They can survive extreme temperatures, intense radiation. They are hardy. Scientists have been studying them to learn their genetic tricks for survival. A group at the University of British Columbia found that its protective power comes at a cost. There's a protein in tardigrades that is aptly named damage suppressor, or DSUP for short. If it's added to cells in a dish, there are about 40% fewer DNA breaks from X-ray damage. So this protein on its own seems to have some capabilities to protect DNA, which is great because DNA damage is what often starts and propels many cancers, whether from the sun's UV rays, cigarettes, or other toxins. But if it sounds too good to be true, you might be right. To better understand how DSUP works, the researchers engineered yeast so that they'd also produce DSUP protein. The team exposed their DSUP-equipped yeast to a whole panel of agents that damage DNA, things like hydrogen peroxide, carcinogens, and even cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. And DSUP did offer the cells some protection, anywhere from 5 times to over 3,000 times improved survival rate, depending on the stressor. But when they looked more closely at the cells themselves, that's where the cracks started to show. The DSUP yeast grew more slowly, got stuck in the cell cycle, and became more dependent on their own DNA repair machinery. Knock out a repair gene in a normal yeast cell? That's fine. The other repair programs can compensate. Knock out a repair gene in a DSUP cell? The cell dies. In other words, DSUP yeast need all their DNA repair systems to stay alive. See, DSUP sits on top of the protein that DNA is wound around, physically shielding DNA from damage. But those same proteins are where the cell's repair machinery needs to land to fix damage. Think of it like a bodyguard who parks themselves in front of a door. That's great for keeping threats out, but if the bodyguard just keeps standing in the doorway, an emergency crew can't get in. Of course, yeast aren't humans, and this is a preprint still, so it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. But the fact that a single protein from a microscopic organism can so dramatically rewire how a cell handles DNA damage is pretty cool. Now, the researchers have a detailed genetic map of what trade-offs need to be solved. If they can crack that, DSEP could one day be a tool for engineering stress-resistant crops or microbes, protecting healthy cells during radiation therapy, or even slowing DNA damage in diseases like cancer. For Warner Brothers Discovery, Curiosity Weekly is produced by the team at Wheelhouse DNA. The senior producer and editorial correspondent is Teresa Carey. Our producer is Kiara Noni. Our audio engineer is Nick Charisme. And head of production for Wheelhouse DNA is Cassie Berman. And I'm Dr. Samantha Yammine. Thanks for listening.