Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • (soft music)

  • (eerie sound)

  • - Hey Vsauce!

  • Michael here.

  • Every episode of Mind Field is now free to view

  • all over the world, all 24 episodes, all three seasons.

  • Whoa!

  • It is really exciting.

  • And it's why I've invited you hear to Vsauce headquarters.

  • Why watch Mind Field alone when you could watch it with me

  • and some of the researchers, writers, scientists

  • and teachers who are in the episodes

  • who made Mind Field what it is?

  • That's right,

  • we are about to have ourselves a Mind Field marathon.

  • We are going to watch three episodes in their entirety,

  • pausing throughout to talk more deeply

  • about the concepts in the episodes,

  • it's gonna be very exciting,

  • and it's all going to happen right in here, follow me.

  • After you.

  • (eerie sound)

  • We're going to begin with an episode

  • that helped new research happen and improved the lives

  • of some very special children.

  • Season Two, Episode Six, the Power of Suggestion.

  • (upbeat music)

  • This is McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

  • It boasts and enrollment

  • of more than 40,000 students from 150 countries,

  • the campus employs 1700 professors,

  • teaching 300 programs of study,

  • and it's proud to be home to 12 Nobel Prize winners,

  • it is considered

  • one of the finest research universities in the world.

  • Recently, researchers at McGill

  • have embarked on a study that uses a brain scanning device

  • to read people's minds and implant thoughts

  • into their heads, or so their subjects think.

  • Now the same device may be able

  • to help kids with ADHD, anxiety,

  • Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,

  • migraines, Tourette's, and more.

  • This study is not about technology.

  • The MRI machine behind me may look impressive,

  • but it's a sham, it's deactivated, non functioning.

  • What this study is really about is faith, in science.

  • It's about the power of thoughts to heal.

  • All you need is the power of suggestion.

  • (machine humming)

  • (upbeat music)

  • A placebo is something that shouldn't work,

  • but due to the power of suggestion,

  • and because of the strength of our belief, does,

  • but we don't fully understand yet how they work,

  • there could be an evolutionary explanation.

  • For example, if a small child hurts themselves,

  • negative symptoms like pain and crying can be good.

  • They keep the child safe and still,

  • while signaling adults to come help.

  • When help arrives, even if it has no active effect.

  • The child's brain may feel it has permission

  • to redirect resources away from seeking help,

  • and on to actually healing.

  • Modern medicine has found a way to harness

  • this power by prescribing placebos.

  • But not all placebos work the same.

  • For example, a sugar pill will help your headache more

  • if given to you by a doctor than by a poker buddy,

  • and the color of the placebo matters too.

  • A blue pill will work to make you feel calm,

  • better than a white pill,

  • because blue is a more calming color.

  • And a red pill will keep you awake

  • and give you more energy than a blue pill will.

  • A capsule will work better than a pill

  • because it looks more important.

  • (upbeat music)

  • And we're gonna stop right there

  • because one of my guests already has a comment.

  • Let me first introduce who the guests are.

  • Daniel Toker is a PhD candidate at Berkeley

  • who has been writing and researching for Mind Field

  • at least season two and three.

  • - Yep. - Yeah.

  • - Yep, and the Fear episode season four.

  • - And the Fear episode, which isn't even out yet,

  • but it might be by the time you watch this,

  • in which case, it's out already!

  • Thanks, Daniel.

  • On the far right side, we have Elisabeth de Kleer,

  • who worked on season three as a producer, writer.

  • She's a science communicator, science documentary filmmaker,

  • but I save the middle for last

  • because Dr. Samuel Veissière

  • from the Culture, Mind and Brain lab at McGill University,

  • one of the CO directors is here.

  • And he's also going to be featured

  • quite prominently in this episode.

  • You'll see him soon.

  • And he is the one who told me, Stop let's talk,

  • because we're gonna talk about placebos.

  • And I just mentioned in the episode that the color of a pill

  • affects how it can make you feel.

  • A blue pill will tend to be more calming

  • because so many of us associate blue with calming.

  • However, we need to be,

  • when you put a star on so many of us.

  • - Yeah, so reportedly in Italy,

  • blue pills don't have a calming effect

  • because people associate the color blue

  • with the soccer jersey of the national soccer team.

  • So they tend to associate it

  • with a kind of a feeling of arousal and not calmness.

  • So it's interesting to try to parse out,

  • the different effects of some colors.

  • Red seems fairly universal

  • as something that triggers high arousal, but not blue.

  • - Is that because red is the color of blood, you think?

  • - I'm really not sure.

  • I mean, as you know,

  • we seem to have some inbuilt attentional biases towards red

  • like say the little buzzing red lights on smartphones

  • works really well that way

  • because we tend to automatically attend to them.

  • It could be blood, yeah, could be fire even

  • because we also have an attentional bias towards fire.

  • - Wait, but how universal is this?

  • Have studies looked at Papua New Guinea

  • and populations there that don't watch the movies

  • and don't have the stories

  • that we have in America or in Europe?

  • I mean, is this something that, you said in built?

  • Is it really?

  • - I'm not aware of all the studies,

  • I think red for sure is something

  • for which we have a relatively innate attentional bias,

  • red processeses salient in the environment.

  • - This is so much of it depends on the person,

  • like there could be a person here in America

  • for whom red is really calming

  • because of their particular circumstances.

  • - Yeah, it's actually funny,

  • I just got back from China yesterday.

  • So I flew in.

  • And one of the things you notice even from the sky,

  • looking down over Chinese cities

  • is how much red lighting there is, big red LEDs.

  • And so I associate red with stop, like if red,

  • it's meant to catch my attention, It's sort of alarming.

  • But in China actually, it's ubiquitous.

  • And it's more just like a color of good luck.

  • Most restaurants have their title

  • of the restaurant in red.

  • So it's also meant to catch your attention,

  • to simulate arousal but in less of like a negative way

  • that it can sometimes be here in the United States,

  • so red street sign isn't necessarily gonna be.

  • - So probably the emotional valence is conditioned

  • and culturally contingent on some level.

  • But that red is gonna be salient,

  • is gonna be something that we can automatically attend to.

  • That's fairly universal.

  • - And once we attend to it, how we feel may depend a lot

  • on the culture that we're from.

  • - Right.

  • - But I think the point is that even things like the color

  • and size and shape of a pill

  • and who gives it to you will affect how it works.

  • It's not just the chemical properties of the medicine,

  • there's so much more, so much in the mental world.

  • - Well, I mean, but that also is chemical ultimately, right?

  • Because if it's a blue pill or red pill,

  • that's gonna affect your neuro chemistry in some way.

  • - And you know what, why is it red or blue?

  • Because of the physical shape of the molecules,

  • The shape? - Right.

  • - Wow!

  • So, right, I guess this is gonna be a question

  • I wanna keep coming back to

  • how do we really define a placebo?

  • Because I think in the episode,

  • I say something like there's no active ingredient

  • that should cause that effect.

  • But yet, if a pill is calming,

  • because it happens to be blue,

  • because its molecular structure

  • reflects blue light the best,

  • then there is something chemically in that pill

  • that works in calming you.

  • And it's not because the ingestion helps,

  • it's just the color alone.

  • - Right, right.

  • I guess it's easier to define what's not a placebo,

  • as something that works better than a placebo?

  • - Well, that's why another term for placebo effects

  • are nonspecific effects, or nonspecific factors.

  • So whatever factors involved in healing

  • that we cannot attribute to the chemical substance

  • that is targeted in the treatment.

  • And there are also non specific effects in psychotherapy

  • even that are, so tone of voice setting, waiting times.

  • So placebo is really a filler term

  • for all these different psychosocial symbolic ritual factors

  • that we don't fully understand,

  • but that we know contribute to a cure somehow.

  • - Right?

  • So those are called non specific, the specific ones.

  • How are they defined they are.

  • - So the specific one would be

  • the actual analgesic property of a pill,

  • for example, has been well studied in RCT,

  • we know it produces that effect.

  • But then we know that there are other effects around

  • and beyond that, that also contribute to healing.

  • And in the case of an actual placebo procedure,

  • where we know that specific molecule

  • is not actually present in the pill,

  • but healing will still happen, then we need to investigate

  • these different effects, these different factors.

  • That are nonspecific.

  • - Maybe this works, a nonspecific,

  • non placebo effect of a medicine would be what works,

  • even when it's administered to someone in a coma,

  • who doesn't know what's happening,

  • doesn't know who's administering it.

  • But we know that that molecule in the blood

  • causes blood pressure to go down,

  • or whatever, causes pain to be felt less, I don't know.

  • - But be careful because there are,

  • placebo effects have been found, for example,

  • in nonverbal autistic children,

  • who for sure cannot understand the nature of the suggestion,

  • because, of course, if you have some kind of an idea

  • about a therapeutic target and a mechanism of action,

  • so I have a headache,

  • and this one pill removes the headache,

  • then that will greatly help in the placebo effect.

  • But what about the case of autistic nonverbal children

  • who have no idea, who don't expect anything,

  • and yet there's an effect,

  • there's a social cognitive component to placebo effects,

  • you have to be able to expect

  • what other people expect of you even implicitly.

  • So probably in the case of the nonverbal autistic children,

  • it's also say, the reassuring tone of voice of the parent,

  • the parents shifted expectations,

  • the sort of contagious hope that might work.

  • And the same mechanism, same social mechanism

  • might be involved in dogs and in advanced social species

  • through observation and kind of social emotional contagion.

  • - Very cool.

  • All right, guys, let's get back into the episode.

  • You ready?

  • Here we go.

  • Also, an injection will work better than a capsule,

  • because it seems more serious and potent.

  • There's even evidence that fake

  • or Sham surgeries have positive effects.

  • It may be fake medicine, but the effects can be real.

  • And not just because the patient

  • feels better psychologically,

  • we're talking real physical healing,

  • thanks to the power of the brain.

  • - [Dr. Samuel] So again, briefly,

  • can I say something Michael?

  • - [Michael] Yeah, let's stop.

  • - Well, I'm really glad you're pointing out

  • all these different dimensions of placebo effects

  • the take home point here is that

  • the more elaborate the procedure, the better it works.

  • And by elaborate I mean, so technologically elaborate,

  • but also motivationally elaborate.

  • So if it hurts a little bit,

  • if you have to wait a long time for it,

  • if it seems really symbolically prominent also.

  • So whatever prestige might be attached to a procedure

  • that will tend to work better and also socially elaborate.

  • So if you can notice improvements in other people,

  • preferably people like you, people from your in group,

  • you can talk to them, that will also help

  • prepare you for the placebo response.

  • - It's amazing.

  • It makes it feel like why even study real medicine,

  • when so much of just the way people think about it,

  • can make a difference.

  • Clearly, there are limits to that.

  • And I wanna revisit that when we start looking

  • at the actual study that we did in this episode,

  • because talk about

  • making it feel technologically interesting.

  • We've got a whole film crew there.

  • Why would a film crew be here unless it's gonna work well?

  • We'll talk about that soon.

  • We'll get right back into it, The Power of Suggestion.

  • I traveled to Montreal to meet local children

  • struggling with debilitating behavioral

  • and neurological conditions, who would soon find out

  • whether their afflictions could be cured

  • by the power of suggestion.

  • - This is Malaya.

  • - Malaya, I'm Michael Nice to meet you.

  • 12 year old Malaya suffers

  • from a common skin ailment, eczema,

  • but she has also developed a skin picking disorder.

  • Dermatillomania.

  • And you're starting High School.

  • What like this year? - Early September?

  • - Wow, that's a big step.

  • So what kind of things worry you?

  • Given the symptoms that you have?

  • - Probably the picking-- - Of your skin?

  • - Yeah, I don't know, I find it satisfying to pick.

  • It's kind of gross.

  • - Why do you can't stop?

  • - I'm not sure.

  • - Have you tried different things that will help you stop?

  • - Yeah, like in my mind,

  • I'm just like, today, you won't pick.

  • You are gonna get rid of this eczema.

  • And then after I'm just like,

  • Oh, wait, my face was bleeding.

  • - Yeah, is it embarrassing?

  • - Yeah, I like to wear long sleeves

  • because my arms are like, if they're really bad,

  • I'm gonna try to wear long sleeves.

  • - How are your arms now?

  • - It's like really bad, so, as you can see.

  • - And that's all just from scratching and picking.

  • - Yeah.

  • - 12 year old Nicholas was troubled

  • by debilitating migraine headaches.

  • So what do you wanna be when you grow up?

  • - Like I really, really wanna be

  • probably a NHL and MOV player, one of those two.

  • - Nicholas's love of sports

  • is unfortunately also the original source of his suffering.

  • Nice.

  • - My first head injury which was concussion,

  • I hit my head on a soccer post,

  • and then I hit my head in a game of hockey.

  • After that I had headaches every single day.

  • I was throwing up having auras.

  • They're like colors that you seen

  • before you have a headache.

  • I wasn't able to go to school,

  • and then we went to the hospital

  • and into their concussion program.

  • - Can I see his migraine chart?

  • - Oh sure, yeah, we have almost two years worth.

  • severe headaches here.

  • Severe migraines. - Every day.

  • - Every single day, this has turned his world upside down.

  • - Nathan was diagnosed with ADHD

  • and impulse control disorder.

  • I'd love to hear especially about you, Nathan.

  • First of all, how old are you?

  • - Nine. - Nine.

  • - How old you are? '

  • - [Michael] How old do you think I am?

  • - 30.

  • - That's a very good guess, I'm 31.

  • - Oh!

  • - So, tell me about like before Nathan's diagnosis.

  • What were kind of the symptoms you were seeing?

  • - Tantrums all the time.

  • Just an inability to reach him,

  • to communicate to him, to connect to him.

  • That was the main symptom.

  • - And what did you think of this Nathan?

  • Were you like, why are my parents not happy?

  • - 'Cause I was not listening?

  • - Why weren't you?

  • - I don't know, maybe because I had problems.

  • - And as far as like behavior.

  • - Impulsivity, hyperactivity,

  • you're always, always on the edge, always stressed.

  • What is he gonna touch?

  • Where is he gonna go?

  • What is he gonna do?

  • - These families had tried conventional methods

  • to treat their children with little success.

  • But they were about to find out whether their symptoms

  • could be alleviated using an accessory assisted placebo,

  • a fake non functioning MRI machine.

  • This groundbreaking study of the power of suggestion

  • in action is the brainchild of pioneering researchers

  • at McGill University's esteemed Raz Lab,

  • - We study a whole bunch

  • of different Mind, Body interaction topics

  • suggestion, hypnosis, placebo effects,

  • anytime the mind is regulating the body or vice versa,

  • that that's a topic that we study

  • - Now, you said the word placebo.

  • And the device that we are using is a sham scanner.

  • Tell me about the scanner.

  • - What we do with the MRI scanner is

  • we stack so many different layers of deception.

  • In their head, this is a proper neuroscience study

  • done at the Neurological Institute.

  • And that's why we wear a lab coats.

  • That's why we have all of this scientific looking equipment.

  • By the time they've actually started the study.

  • They've already in their mind built up

  • all these different layers of credibility.

  • They really believe that what we're doing is real.

  • - What's interesting is that children

  • they're not immune to the power of neuro enchantment

  • - Neuro enchantment? - Neuro enchantment.

  • - What does that mean?

  • - So it's this idea

  • that there is some kind of medical magic,

  • there is immense power that is attached

  • to the culture of neuroscience,

  • whereby neuro scientific props and accessories,

  • have more healing power, more physiological effects,

  • because culturally, people believe that they do.

  • I mean, the same kinds of cultural cognitive mechanisms

  • are at play in religious systems.

  • So here we are praying

  • to the gods of neuroscience, and biomedicine.

  • - Talk to me about the ethics of lying.

  • - The work we do with children

  • actually does not involve lying,

  • we tell them at first that everything that they see

  • and everything that we do in the lab

  • is a suggestion we explained to them,

  • that suggestion is a way to tap

  • into the power of their mind.

  • And we keep emphasizing even as they go in the scanner,

  • that it is their mind and their brain

  • that is doing the healing,

  • that they're basically reprogramming their own brain.

  • - The parents knew that the scanner was a placebo.

  • But for the study to work,

  • the children had to believe in the procedure.

  • So before they visited the lab,

  • I enlisted a few YouTuber friends

  • to help raise their expectations.

  • - Hey, guys, today, we have a huge surprise for you

  • about something brand new in science

  • that could affect your day.

  • - Oh, I know them.

  • - Well, today, we learned about this amazing new machine

  • that teaches kids brain how to heal super fast,

  • - We really hope that you get a chance in person

  • to see how this machine works.

  • - With a little help from the machine,

  • you can focus better, you can be more confident,

  • and it can even take away some headaches.

  • - Awesome.

  • - Not too many people get the chance

  • to have this awesome experience,

  • but we hear the scientists in Canada--

  • - I gonna have it? - Yeah, and it's very cool.

  • So what do you hope the machine allows you to do?

  • It makes you better at.

  • - Better at concentrating, better at focusing.

  • - I wanna heal faster, and this probably be a good idea.

  • - All right, so I wanna talk about a couple of things.

  • One, this episode is really different

  • from a lot of Mind Field episodes,

  • because we're treating people in it.

  • And we're following their stories.

  • A ungenerous way to look at this is that in this episode,

  • we're lying to children

  • and performing fake medicine on children.

  • Dr. Veissière, what are your thoughts?

  • - So if you carefully examine what we say, it is correct

  • that we never tell a lie,

  • that we explain the mechanism correctly.

  • However, to be completely honest,

  • we do probably rely on the children's

  • to some extent uncritical faith

  • in the healing power of the machine

  • on the one hand, and their own brain.

  • And this is because we know it is very effective for people

  • to be able to relax their worries

  • and their critical thinking and to surrender

  • to some kind of an idea that they have

  • of an external locus of control.

  • Now, note here how both the brain and the machine

  • are basically an agency other than their conscious self.

  • So we tell them,

  • the machine will help your brain heal itself,

  • it is your brain that is doing the healing.

  • But it is much more efficient,

  • for the children to at least initially

  • believe that the machine has some kind of special power.

  • - I think I even remember you telling me that you would tell

  • the parents flat out the machines not even plugged in.

  • And then the next day that they came in, they would say,

  • but is this safe?

  • Because how can it be safe?

  • We're in the basement of a neuroscience lab,

  • and this machine is really big and noises are being played.

  • - Not even that they would ask,

  • so did you find out what's wrong with my child's brain?

  • They wanted us to comment on neuro imaging results.

  • And we would have to pull them aside again

  • and say do to remember?

  • We're not doing actual neuro imaging,

  • we're not, you've competent to comment on findings

  • that are not even there, they would forget.

  • - They would forget,

  • - They would forget because all the queues are in place.

  • And I think it would demand so much mental effort

  • to remember that this is sham,

  • that people revert to a kind of adaptive self deception.

  • So this is also what we're aiming for.

  • We're aiming to tap into the children's ability

  • to self deceive, which we know can be very effective,

  • like say, if you're really, really nervous

  • before giving a talk, and then you managed

  • to convince yourself that you're not nervous,

  • then lo and behold, you start feeling confident.

  • Now initially, there might have been some self deception.

  • But then if the results are good,

  • then it's no longer deception.

  • - This is what I really love about all the episodes

  • and all the work that we've done together.

  • Because we also worked on the reverse exorcism

  • putting a spirit in someone that, okay.

  • In a way, we're almost finding some truth

  • to pseudo scientific practices.

  • If I have some mental block or some behavior I don't want.

  • And my mother takes me to a person who prays

  • to crystals and whatever,

  • that crystal has no chemical mechanism

  • with which to help me.

  • However, if I truly believe that this is significant,

  • and I noticed that I'm being cared for

  • that people care so much,

  • and I think so much more about my behavior,

  • because of all of that, I can actually get better.

  • And that's what we're doing here.

  • But instead of using crystals, and whatever,

  • we're using science looking stuff, lab coats, and an MRI,

  • and imaging of brains on the computer screens around

  • and it just feels like this must be serious and real.

  • But in reality, they may as well be laying on a bed

  • while someone sings nonsense words to them.

  • - And I like the parallel that you draw.

  • It's true that a lot of spiritual healing practices

  • they draw on these transitional objects,

  • you could call them so things like amulets,

  • or stones or rocks, or even magic,

  • crosses that people can sort of attribute healing power to

  • without having to worry,

  • it becomes a convenient way to instill hope in people.

  • - All right, let's get right back into it.

  • - I hope he heals me with my concussions

  • and now I hope my headaches go away.

  • - I was about to take part in something remarkable.

  • The very first use of accessory assisted suggestion

  • on children with these kinds of symptoms.

  • Mind Field would play an integral role in the study,

  • and the results could be new and significant for science.

  • (upbeat music)

  • On the day of the first session,

  • several measures were put in place

  • to heighten the children's neuro enchantment.

  • - Nathan.

  • - Nathan!

  • - [Michael] A friendly fake nurse,

  • a walk down a long, impressive hallway

  • (Malaya exhaling)

  • And a 10 minute anticipation building wait outside the lab,

  • then it was time for their first scan.

  • - [Doctor] Shall we?

  • - [Michael] While the hypothesis

  • of this study was grounded in science.

  • This was Dr. Veissière and Jay Olsen's

  • first time testing their theory

  • on real children with real disorders.

  • And they didn't know if it would work.

  • - You may lay down if you'd like.

  • - I have a question, so it seems to me that placebos work,

  • in part, because people these subjects

  • have a lot of faith in medical science.

  • Did you study that at all?

  • Or ask them at all about that?

  • I mean, and I guess my question is,

  • for somebody who's very skeptical of medical science,

  • who doesn't feel like doctors are working to their benefit,

  • would they still be as susceptible to a placebo?

  • - Well, a lot of people might say

  • they're critical of medical science.

  • But for example, if they have acute appendicitis,

  • their first intuition will be to rush to the ER.

  • And for belief to be really effective,

  • it needs to be culturally widespread.

  • And we happen to live in a historical moment

  • where most of the solutions to our everyday ailments

  • are deemed to be found in medicine,

  • and children are receptive to these kinds of cues,

  • even implicitly, even if they don't know that they know.

  • So I think, try it out at home for example,

  • if you have like a five year old niece,

  • show her a picture of a builder,

  • and then a doctor with a stethoscope

  • and ask your niece, which one is the smartest?

  • For sure they're gonna point to the doctor,

  • because they've picked up on a cultural consensus

  • that this is where, elaborate knowledge lies.

  • At the same time, I'm not aware of any studies,

  • testing medical placebos on people

  • who are really skeptical of medicine

  • who are completely into alternative medicine,

  • it may be that it wouldn't work with them.

  • I think it's a good hypothesis.

  • - Also, is there such a thing as an anti placebo?

  • Where (laughs) and what I mean by that?

  • - For sure. - Yeah okay.

  • So that's like somebody who's skeptical,

  • so even something that's potent,

  • even if you give them a potent drug, they don't react to it,

  • because they're so skeptical about it--

  • - Yeah, right, that's another thing,

  • nocebo is something different.

  • What is that, though?

  • Where, because of all the done specific crap surrounding

  • a chemical mechanism that should work, it works less well,

  • because of the context.

  • - That's really interesting.

  • Yeah, that might very, very interesting.

  • And it may be that people

  • who are a little too high in analytical reasoning,

  • people who are not very suggestible,

  • people who are not very prone to social influence,

  • may also reverse placebo themselves inadvertently,

  • because they're too critical

  • because they can't let the self regulatory magic happen.

  • But it could be that at the social level,

  • or naive beliefs in some things like say,

  • some categories of illness

  • that may not be scientifically validated.

  • But just because people believe they have these symptoms,

  • like say, certain food intolerances,

  • or certain allergies that appear to be on the rise.

  • Well, there's some psychogenic factors involved

  • in that and then might have something to do

  • with collective nocebo effects.

  • And then the next problem is also letting people know

  • that they're genetically at risk for a particular condition,

  • sometimes may trigger the symptoms,

  • or may even trigger the condition

  • in a way that not knowing might have been better.

  • - Ignorance is bliss--

  • - Ignorance is often bliss.

  • - I think it's very ethically tricky, then.

  • - It's very ethically tricky,

  • because you have to tell people,

  • but then there are also risks associated with telling.

  • - That's why you might not wanna do

  • a personal genetics test,

  • - Right?

  • Well, we're about to test that in the lab as well,

  • because we think there's interesting

  • neuro enchantment effects

  • associated with belief in genetics.

  • So we're about to do a study

  • with Sham personalized feedback.

  • So Sham, swab and genetic.

  • it's a placebo analgesia condition.

  • So we give people a shock and pain.

  • And we tell them that in one condition,

  • we've tailored the machine

  • to one particular genetic polymorphous that they have,

  • and we fully expect that is gonna work

  • better in that condition, but we haven't tested it yet.

  • And then eventually, one of our dreams

  • is to also test in a kind of,

  • three on trial to do Sham neuroimaging

  • versus Sham genetic testing

  • to see which one has the strongest effect.

  • - Ah!

  • What's your hypothesis?

  • Which do you think we as a society believe more in?

  • Neuroimaging or genetic testing?

  • - I'm really not sure,

  • I think we're moving towards

  • believing more in genetic testing,

  • but the belief might still be culturally new.

  • Whereas belief in the power of neuroscience

  • are very well installed culturally,

  • we're more than, two decades after the decade of the brain.

  • So I would say in 10 years,

  • it'll probably be genetic testing.

  • For now, it depends on levels of exposure.

  • But for sure, like say for children,

  • the idea of a gene is still very, very opaque,

  • very nebulous, very esoteric,

  • whereas putting them in this enormous machine

  • and this authoritative hospital might--

  • - Might always be better than just swabbing their mouth

  • and telling them something.

  • Let's get back into the episode, you guys ready?

  • Okay, here we go.

  • One of my roles was to help build up

  • the children's belief that it would work.

  • As you go into the machine, you'll relax more and more.

  • Would you like to relax slowly or quickly today?

  • - I can go in quickly,

  • - Quickly? - Oh, Wow, nice.

  • - Very good.

  • Although the MRI scanner was completely deactivated,

  • we needed the kids to believe it was fully functional.

  • So Jay played a series of realistic sound effects

  • to signify that the machine was working.

  • While Dr. Veissière planted the suggestion

  • that it would help the patient heal.

  • - You may notice some unusual feelings, perhaps a tingling,

  • your brain is continuing to learn and to heal.

  • And to help you find this constant feeling of confidence.

  • - [Michael] If all went well,

  • the placebo effect of the Sham brain scanner

  • would convince the children's conscious minds

  • that real neuroscience was at work.

  • - A deep, deep breath.

  • - [Michael] This would allow their subconscious minds

  • to harness the power of their brains to heal themselves.

  • - For people with migraines, it's often in the front

  • or the back part of the head but it could also be

  • like a feeling like outside the head.

  • So I'm not sure what it's gonna be like for you.

  • We'll find out afterwards.

  • So we'll now slide you in.

  • - Cool, it's like a roller coaster.

  • I love roller coasters.

  • - The deeper you go in, the more you'll relax.

  • - Okay, I wanna go all the way deep

  • I feel more stronger beeps.

  • - I know

  • this is because you're already at level three.

  • You might notice a deeper feeling of relaxation.

  • - [Nathan] Yes, I can feel it.

  • Can we go a little bit deeper please?

  • - [Michael] Yes.

  • - [Nathan] I want my whole entire feet

  • Nice.

  • - [Michael] The scientists at McGill

  • believe the children's brains have always had the ability

  • to control their symptoms.

  • The children just needed to believe it themselves.

  • (Nathan sneezing)

  • - [Dr. Veissière] Yeah, so the beeps

  • can sometimes make people sneeze

  • as a sign that they're relaxing just very deeply.

  • Right?

  • Very well, you did very, very well Nathan.

  • - [Michael] The children all appear to enjoy the procedure

  • and the researchers and I did our best

  • to reinforce their neuro enchantment.

  • - So when you heard the the first set of beeps

  • and the second set of beeps

  • Did you notice feeling them in different parts of your body?

  • - Well, the first time I went in the machine,

  • I kind of felt the hair.

  • - Okay, good.

  • - What level was she taken to today?

  • - Level two.

  • - Level two!

  • - [Dr. Veissière] Yeah, level two is great, yeah.

  • - [Michael] Yeah.

  • - When I was in the machine, I felt like

  • I was going backwards and forwards.

  • - Okay, that's very good, that's very good sign.

  • You might have noticed how you were yawning.

  • - I wanna go to sleep.

  • - That's great.

  • - [Michael] For a kid with hyperactivity,

  • Nathan was already appearing calmer.

  • But before our young subjects left the lab,

  • Dr. Veissière bolstered the suggestion that today's session

  • would help them continue their healing process.

  • - So I know for sure that you're gonna be more relaxed,

  • much, much less anxious, I would not be surprised at all.

  • If the scratching really diminished to no scratching at all.

  • The amazing thing about the brain

  • is that it has this fantastic power to heal itself.

  • But now what we've been able to do here

  • with the power of suggestion is to get your brain

  • to work faster and better all the time.

  • So how do you feel?

  • - Amazing.

  • - [Dr. Veissière] Oh, nice.

  • - [Michael] Mind Field provided the Raz Lab

  • with Octopus by Joy, Smartwatches.

  • - [Nathan] Lefty rules.

  • - [Michael] They were specially programmed

  • to remind the children in between visits,

  • that their brain was healing itself.

  • - Just having the watch with you will make you feel better.

  • But it's not the watch, or it's not the machine

  • that's making you feel good, it's your own brain.

  • - Okay, I just stopped it, because I wanna say,

  • at this time when this was filmed,

  • smart watches were like a whole cool brand new thing.

  • Everyone was excited, the kids were like Oh!

  • And we had to be like, it's not like an Apple Watch,

  • it's just for your brain health, which is better.

  • Tell me about the watches,

  • because I don't think in the episode,

  • we focused enough on what their role was.

  • - The idea was to work on placebo conditioning.

  • So first we enlisted a response in the scanner,

  • with a mixture of hypnotic suggestions,

  • anticipation and all the effects that you showed.

  • Now once we've found a target response, like say relaxation,

  • or self regulation some other way,

  • then we get the kids to expect that

  • when they receive a little buzz from the watch.

  • They're going to keep experiencing

  • whatever effect we were listening.

  • So usually respect, relaxation, focus, and so forth.

  • So then we programmed different delivery schedules

  • for the children where they would get a little buzz

  • and a little friendly icon

  • and then it would remind them Oh, I guess I'm doing great.

  • And then we had them come back

  • after two weeks in the library,

  • I would decrease the delivery schedule of the buzzes

  • because I didn't want them to become too addicted to them.

  • And eventually after a third week,

  • there would be no more buzzes.

  • So they could play around with the icons,

  • because I didn't want them to rely on the buzzes.

  • But then yeah, as you pointed out,

  • a lot of the kids still wanted to have the watch

  • as a kind of a transitional object like a little blanky,

  • that helps you sleep or an amulet

  • or a special ring that people have.

  • - You may have heard us say a few times.

  • Oh, you're at level three.

  • Today, you got to level two, is completely made up.

  • There were no levels.

  • But yet the kids really read a lot into that.

  • - And then they became more and more proud

  • each time they know they went deeper.

  • And they surrender themselves to the--

  • - Well, of course they did because no matter what happened

  • or how they felt they were told that's good.

  • Oh, wonderful, oh, really?

  • - We were validating everything they felt.

  • - Every thing.

  • - Was the level thing planned?

  • Or what that improvised on camera?

  • - No, we kind of I think we improvised it on camera.

  • And then we stuck to it.

  • Because we saw that it worked really well.

  • - Well, yeah,

  • I just allowed Samuel to guide the whole thing.

  • I sat there and I would just back him up.

  • I'm wearing a lab coat as well.

  • So I go, uh, oh wow.

  • And it was almost hard sometimes to not laugh

  • because he'd be like,

  • Ah, yes. Well, oh, you feel sleepy?

  • Oh, that means you're very advanced.

  • And I'd be like he said about everything.

  • (laughing)

  • It was so funny!

  • And I was always excited to see what level

  • he would say they reach because it gave me a sense

  • of how much further you wanted to go with them.

  • - Right, right.

  • And because as you remember, we had many more kids

  • than we what ended up showing on camera.

  • And we had great results with all of them.

  • - Right, so let's talk about that.

  • So you see three children featured here in this episode.

  • But I believe there were seven, eight or nine

  • that we actually worked with.

  • - There were 12,

  • - there were 12, Okay,

  • not all 12 could fit

  • into the time constraints in that episode.

  • That's partly why I wanna have this marathon

  • so we can talk more.

  • - You remember Mikey?

  • Really, really hyper,

  • really difficult to get him in the machine.

  • And still, there were lots and lots of improvements at home,

  • he was able to take a shower for the first time

  • he made a friend at camp.

  • And the watch in particular worked really well with him

  • because he was very focused on it.

  • And I made him work really hard to earn that watch.

  • So by the time he got the watch,

  • he was already going in the machine, he was calmer,

  • he was more respectful to his dad.

  • - I think I remember the parents,

  • the dad saying, okay, so we reached a point where your goal

  • was to get the watch off the kid

  • that you don't need to watch, after all, your own brain,

  • your own self can control this.

  • But people really want those accessories.

  • And the parents were like,

  • Well, I mean, could you tell them to keep it on?

  • Because it keeps the kid calm,

  • and it makes them more thoughtful.

  • And it makes them more aware of their behavior.

  • - You have kids, right? - Mm-hmm.

  • - Do you use any of these tactics on your own kids?

  • - Absolutely, our very first subject was my son Mathias

  • who suffered from chronic migraines.

  • And we did a lot of work on him.

  • And we had amazing results on his chronic migraines,

  • Mathias, he couldn't make it

  • in the final cut of the episode.

  • But he also helped in the initial study as a child mentor,

  • because we found that a lot of the kids were terrified

  • of getting into the machine.

  • But then if they could speak to another child

  • who had gone through the procedure,

  • and who could talk about how fun and safe it was

  • and how he'd gotten better,

  • then we were able to have much better results.

  • So we use this kind of peer mentoring strategy

  • that we're still using, actually, in the studies

  • that we're running now.

  • But yeah, for sure, I use these kinds of tricks.

  • And I give placebos to my children, all the time.

  • - And then you have your kids peddle the placebos to others,

  • because you're right, we don't show Matia, Mathias?

  • - Mathias, yeah.

  • - We don't show Mathias in the episode, but he was there.

  • And man, the kids believed him so much more than the adults.

  • If he said, Yeah, I get in their like every day,

  • or whatever his schedule was,

  • he was honest about all of this,

  • and he was honest about the good results he was getting.

  • Although let's be very clear,

  • this MRI is just a piece of plastic, it is not plugged in.

  • It does not have the liquid helium

  • in their magnets in anything, it's just plastic.

  • - And Mathias at the time he participated in this study,

  • was still blind to the condition,

  • meaning that he was still somewhat convinced

  • that there was something to the machine

  • even though he understood the language,

  • he understood the concept of suggestion,

  • but there's a part of him

  • that didn't wanna think about that fully.

  • - How can this only be a suggestion if I'm in the basement

  • of a neuroscience lab with this big machine?

  • Clearly, they're lying when they tell me the truth

  • that this is a placebo.

  • All right, let's get back into it, you guys ready?

  • Here we go.

  • In six weeks, we would return to the lab

  • to check in on their progress.

  • (upbeat music)

  • This high tech contraption is pretty much

  • what McGill university's

  • first Sham brain scanner looked like.

  • It was an old discarded hair dryer.

  • But the patients didn't know that.

  • In the original study, 56 undergraduate students were told

  • that it was able to reduce pain, cause amnesia,

  • influence sexual attraction

  • and produce various other impressive effects.

  • The labs new, more modern sham brain scanner

  • shows even more promise, and I was invited to participate

  • in its test on a whole new group of adult subjects.

  • (soft music)

  • - Okay, so you can come in here and just grab a seat.

  • - [Michael] These college students are fully aware

  • of what's possible today with neuroscience.

  • Could even they be neuro and chanted enough

  • to believe in the impossible,

  • that an MRI scanner could read their thoughts.

  • Now, we're looking at cutting edge psychological research.

  • - Okay. - Yes.

  • It's part of the neural activation mapping project.

  • We're gonna be putting you in an MRI.

  • So it's a modified one, it's called a CTMS FMRI.

  • - Okay.

  • - So Combined Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation,

  • Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,

  • which is a big word just meaning

  • it can both read and influence thoughts.

  • - All right, okay.

  • - So you'll be choosing a number from 10 to 99.

  • - Okay.

  • - And then from looking at your neural activation patterns,

  • Dr. Veissière here will try to infer

  • which number you're thinking.

  • - Interesting, okay. - Okay, great.

  • - [Michael] Most adults know the basics

  • about MRIs, so we made sure to cover every detail.

  • - In the scanner, the magnetism is a lot less.

  • this is good for the documentary team,

  • because it means they can bring cameras,

  • so that said, we do have to remove the metal gadgets.

  • - Got it, all these.

  • - [Michael] After this realistic,

  • but completely unnecessary step,

  • it was time to begin our fake mind reading experiment.

  • (eerie sound)

  • - So we're gonna start the calibration,

  • so try to stay very still.

  • - [Michael] Of course,

  • there was actually nothing to calibrate,

  • but we were conditioning our subjects

  • with the expected procedures,

  • sights and sounds of a real MRI study.

  • (beeping sound)

  • Okay, think of the number one.

  • - [Michael] The subjects were asked

  • to concentrate on the numbers zero to nine,

  • while the machine supposedly mapped parts of their brains.

  • - Think of the number nine.

  • - [Michael] Dr. Veissière and I

  • remained in character at all times,

  • pretending to analyze the subjects brain activity,

  • but the images on our screens were actually

  • old MRI scans from former patients

  • - [Jay] Is the calibration good?

  • - It looks pretty good to me.

  • - With our subject now primed, it was time to convince her

  • that the scanner could identify a number

  • she was thinking of, by reading her mind,

  • - You're gonna choose a number from 10 to 99.

  • - Okay.

  • - You're gonna hear a beep, then you'll hear a second beep.

  • So you're always making your decision

  • between the two beeps.

  • - Okay.

  • - Good? - Got it.

  • - So I'll slide you in.

  • (soft music)

  • (beep)

  • So hold on to that number for just a second.

  • - Okay.

  • - They're gonna print it out, and then we'll see.

  • - Okay.

  • - It was pretty clear.

  • - [Michael] we pretended to give Jay the results

  • of the MRIs analysis, but actually,

  • Jay was about to add the subjects number to the document

  • with a little sleight of hand.

  • - Okay, so you can say lying down just for a second.

  • What was the number?

  • - 31.

  • - 31, okay, cool.

  • So if you can set up here.

  • - What?

  • (laughing)

  • - So it's pretty close, but it's swapped, uh.

  • - Yeah, okay.

  • - [Michael] That miss was actually intentional.

  • So the results didn't appear to be perfect.

  • Adding to the realism.

  • - So you're doing well, we'll do another trial of this.

  • The same thing, okay, I'll slide you in.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - [Michael] Michelle thought of a new number

  • will the scanner get it right this time?

  • - Super clear.

  • - It's clear. - Really good this time.

  • - [Jay] All right, they think the signal is clear.

  • What was your number?

  • - 27

  • - Uh, 27 did you say?

  • - 27.

  • - Okay, great, yeah so if you can set up here.

  • - Yes, oh, wow.

  • What?

  • I don't understand, crazy.

  • - So you chose 27? - I did.

  • - And technician got 27 as well.

  • - Yeah, well okay. - Yeah.

  • (Mitchell laughing)

  • - Oh, wow, how does that feel?

  • - I didn't expect it to be so specific.

  • A lot of different areas in the brain could be lighting up

  • Just think of the concept of a number.

  • - [Michael] What do you know, it worked,

  • thanks to the wonders of science, or rather,

  • the skills of Jay,

  • who in addition to being a neuroscientist,

  • happens to be a professional magician on the side.

  • Well, Jay won't reveal the secret of the trick.

  • The mind reading illusion is very similar

  • to The Mentalist tricks

  • that have entertained audiences for over a century.

  • The only difference is that when audiences

  • see the stunt performed in a magic setting,

  • they think it's a great trick, not real science.

  • - The machine had 89.

  • (laughing)

  • - That's cool.

  • - [Michael] However, in the impressive

  • scientific setting of the Raz Lab,

  • these subjects thought our magic trick was real science.

  • - Oh my god (laughing)

  • - [Michael] They didn't realize

  • that the real science they were experiencing.

  • - It's pretty cool.

  • - [Michael] Was the power of suggestion.

  • - Wow.

  • - A dose of neuro enchantment this powerful

  • can make for a formidable and effective placebo.

  • I want some of the physical sensations.

  • - Sure.

  • - What was your experience?

  • - I felt like the headache was coming on,

  • I sort of felt like tingling through my head--

  • - Where?

  • - Just through this area.

  • Like this whole area felt more like full

  • - I felt like a sort of pressure or something like that,

  • a strange feeling.

  • - Back here a little bit.

  • - [Michael] In the back?

  • - Yeah, a little bit in the back.

  • - Somewhere in the back of the head, right, interesting.

  • - Some tingling inside my head.

  • - Okay.

  • - I wanna hear what it felt like to have your mind read.

  • - That was very strange.

  • I think I was probably skeptical, like going into it.

  • And then I couldn't figure out as I was thinking like, why,

  • how that would happen otherwise.

  • And so I'm just I think in a baffled state.

  • (laughing)

  • - Yeah, yeah.

  • It was time to clear up this baffling mystery.

  • So some deception has been going on today.

  • Dr. Olson is not reading your mind, neither is this machine.

  • This machine is deactivated.

  • All the noises were coming from a speaker.

  • - It was an illusion, oh, my God!

  • (laughing)

  • That's pretty cool.

  • - Dr. Olson is not reading your mind.

  • - Oh, no!

  • - The sounds you're hearing are not magnets.

  • It's just from a speaker.

  • The machine in there is actually deactivated,

  • it's not working.

  • - Well, it's like placebo.

  • - Yeah, that's exactly what it is.

  • Now imagine tapping into this power for other effects,

  • like healing, for example.

  • - Right, wow!

  • - I'm definitely believe the placebo effect

  • is alive and well.

  • (laughing)

  • - All right, so we just saw adults

  • being fooled and certainly lied to.

  • However, the cool thing is that, while we punked the adults,

  • we used that same phenomenon for good with the children.

  • And we don't deceive the children,

  • we just allow them to deceive themselves.

  • I still don't know how the magic trick is done.

  • And I never asked because it's his trick,

  • not mine to know.

  • But when the participants said the number

  • they were thinking of he managed to somehow get it written

  • on that sheet and the time it took him to be like,

  • yep, that's what it said, and it was phenomenal.

  • And then to hear people say,

  • Oh, yeah, no, I felt tingling, my head felt full.

  • It's like you were just laying on a bed.

  • Nothing was on, nothing was happening.

  • It's all in your imagination.

  • - Well, a little behind the scenes here,

  • you might remember that there was

  • a second condition to that experiment,

  • where we implanted numbers in people's heads.

  • So once we get them to believe

  • that the machine reads their mind.

  • So their minds are blown.

  • And then we inserted numbers in their head.

  • So one of the guys you might remember, say,

  • I thought of the number 45 I hate the number 45.

  • I would never myself, pick that number,

  • the number was just flying into my face.

  • And so it's in that second condition

  • that a lot of them reported,

  • kind of weird feelings like tingling and headaches.

  • - That's right, I totally forgot.

  • It didn't even make it into the episode.

  • But we also said now that we can read your mind,

  • we are going to implant thoughts into your mind,

  • you are going to have a number put into your head,

  • you'll close your eyes

  • and a number will appear that we have put there.

  • And of course, we use the same sleight of hand trick

  • to convince them that that's what happened,

  • whatever they thought they had.

  • Whatever they had thought was what we wanted them to think.

  • And,

  • obviously, that's crazy,

  • like that could be abused so much.

  • But yet we convinced neuro science postdocs

  • that we were able to do it.

  • - And you might remember we were toying around

  • with doing like just improvising a third condition

  • where we make people speak or like say things

  • or we induce the symptoms of Tourette's.

  • And in retrospect, if we had done that saying the behavior

  • in the reverse exorcism episode, remember,

  • like, we were able to induce all kinds of weird feelings,

  • like even an out of body experience,

  • but we couldn't really get people to speak.

  • We couldn't get the spirit to speak through their mouth.

  • But if you'd have taken them

  • through like two steps like this,

  • to really convince them

  • that this machine is doing something,

  • then we could have gotten participants

  • to do all kinds of wild things.

  • - Yeah, that we branded at time,

  • but I remember that day, you were like,

  • let's just go out on the street, recruit people to come in.

  • I can get them to say bad words.

  • And think that it's being,

  • like they're a puppet of the machine.

  • - Is that related to hypnosis?

  • - Yeah, sure, absolutely.

  • It is hypnosis, it's accessory, ritual assisted hypnosis.

  • - I think that hypnotism is often seen,

  • well, at least I can speak for myself

  • as a nothing but a trick, right?

  • I know that there are cases where it's used clinically.

  • Is it all placebo, though?

  • I mean, what are you really doing

  • when you hypnotize someone?

  • And they need to be susceptible to it.

  • - Have you ever been hypnotized?

  • - No, I think I could respond to being hypnotized like this.

  • Because while I don't have a lot of faith

  • in whoa, Hocus Pocus, hypnotizy,

  • instead, I will be like, this is an MRI,

  • you're wearing a lab coat,

  • whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen.

  • - Yeah, so is hypnosis like placebo

  • that depends what you mean by placebo?

  • But if what you're asking is, is hypnosis,

  • tapping into some, say, autonomic resources

  • that we typically

  • don't have access to volitionally effort fully, then yes.

  • So getting people to somehow relax their hyper vigilance

  • and being being able to tap into

  • or elicits physiological responses

  • that they themselves could not induce voluntarily.

  • Yes.

  • And I think you're correct.

  • The induction ritual

  • of surrendering to the set of suggestions

  • about falling into trance,

  • that's the kind of a cultural bound ritual

  • that works for some people, that may not work for others.

  • But I think that anyone can be hypnotized,

  • as long as you find the right set

  • of what we would call epistemic cues.

  • So you tap into the kind of knowledge,

  • the kinds of things that they're likely to believe in

  • as being authoritative, then you can definitely get people

  • to relax their critical thinking.

  • - So, I'll say I've actually been hypnotized before.

  • And I was very, very skeptical going in.

  • And as the hypnotist was telling me,

  • oh, when you open your eyes,

  • you're gonna forget the number three.

  • I remember thinking to myself consciously,

  • there's no way I'm gonna fall for this.

  • And then he say, Okay, now count to 10.

  • And then I would get to three, and then I would pause,

  • even though I'm telling myself, in my head, I'm saying,

  • I can see the number three, but I just couldn't get it out.

  • - Wow, I need to do this, I need to get hypnotized,

  • because I've always seen it as just a party trick

  • where I'm gonna make you bark like a dog on stage

  • for at a kid's birthday party.

  • And they do, and I'm like they're all faking it.

  • - But you may not be susceptible.

  • So there's a pretty Gaussian distribution of susceptibility.

  • So most people will fall for some things, but not all.

  • Some people will fall for nothing.

  • - Some fall for all - Exactly.

  • - So it's interesting because it is a relatively

  • stable psychological trade, and that's well studied.

  • It doesn't change much throughout the lifetime

  • except in childhood.

  • So between the ages of seven and 14

  • is when people are more hypnotizable.

  • And some people are so we say their highs or lows,

  • high hypnotizables, low hypnotizables,

  • and there is a normal distribution.

  • - But it's really weird.

  • Actually, I don't know if I'd recommend it.

  • It was a kind of an unpleasant experience to be hypnotized.

  • - I've done more unpleasant things.

  • I think, I wanna talk about that after this episode,

  • kind of talk through some of the more uncomfortable

  • and scary moments, but for now,

  • let's just get right back into the episode.

  • All right, here we go.

  • (soft music)

  • There's evidence that the power of suggestion

  • even works on animals.

  • A study at North Carolina State University

  • found that 86% of dogs receiving real seizure medication

  • had a reduction in seizures,

  • but almost as many a full 79%

  • experienced the same effect from just a placebo pill.

  • Now, we don't know how a placebo effects a dog's brain.

  • But it could be that dogs have learned

  • to associate vet visits and medicine from humans

  • with feeling better.

  • So giving them a placebo

  • could help a dog's brain heal itself.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Quick note, we

  • recorded the scene with that dog so many times.

  • There were so many takes, were you there, Dan?

  • - I was there.

  • - Oh, man, first of all,

  • I don't think a lot of people don't know this.

  • But all those rooftop scenes

  • from season one and two were shot at night.

  • We did a whole week of overnight shoots

  • from 5:00 in the evening to 5:00 in the morning.

  • And so I don't know what time of night that was.

  • But we're all exhausted. - It's like 3:00

  • in the morning, the dog would climb up to you--

  • - The dog would jump on me yeah.

  • it was hard to get the dog to wait.

  • And the trainer was like, look,

  • the dog doesn't understand its cue.

  • It just knows that you're gonna give him cheese.

  • It doesn't know what you're saying,

  • And he doesn't know when it's a good moment.

  • The dog was not a great actor.

  • Shall we continue?

  • Here we go.

  • - So first, I'll ask you to lay down again.

  • And of course, you're a total pro at this.

  • - [Michael] For several weeks,

  • the children had undergone sessions in the Sham scanner

  • at McGill University.

  • - Your body continues to relax

  • as we keep unleashing this healing energy.

  • - [Michael] Each time they were reminded

  • that through concentration and relaxation,

  • they were helping heal their own brains.

  • - There we go.

  • Finally, after six weeks of receiving the placebo sessions,

  • it was time to get a report on the results.

  • Malaya suffered from anxiety

  • and a compulsive skin picking disorder.

  • Had she experienced any level of success?

  • It's good to see you. - Good to see you.

  • - Go ahead and take a seat, you're wearing

  • not even, I thought maybe they'd have short sleeves on

  • you've just got a tank top on.

  • Your arms look fantastic.

  • They've really gotten better.

  • And your face I mean, all of it.

  • Why do you think you're better?

  • - I'm guessing it's the machine.

  • - [Michael] Yeah, what about it?

  • - Ah, I'm not really sure how it works.

  • But I'm picking a lot less,

  • sometimes if I see like a tiny flake,

  • I'll just leave it there.

  • - That's a pretty short amount of time for such a big change

  • in the way you think and behave, that's awesome.

  • - I don't really feel the urge to do it

  • as much as I did before, so it's a big improvement I guess.

  • - Yeah, that definitely feels like

  • and sounds like your brain being powerful.

  • - It's obviously doing something,

  • because my arms are better.

  • - Well, you seem a lot more confident

  • holding your head up higher, would you agree Anne Marie?

  • - Yes, she seems less anxious.

  • She's more positive, (mumbles) I was hoping for this.

  • It's more than nice to see her.

  • - Yeah, good work.

  • And ask for Nicholas and his migraine headaches.

  • Hey, it's good to see you again, Nicholas.

  • Tell me about the procedure and how you felt afterwards,

  • - It accomplished things that I wanted it to.

  • I haven't had a migraine at all.

  • - [Michael] That's awesome.

  • - And concentration is a big thing that it helped.

  • - Wow!

  • And can I see the symptom charts?

  • - For sure.

  • - So these go back to February.

  • - Yeah, and they're really telling.

  • - And you can see not good, lots going on.

  • But then recently, no migraines at all.

  • That's incredible.

  • - Yeah.

  • - So you said you went to the neurologist.

  • - They thought it was quite remarkable.

  • He hasn't needed any rescue medication

  • and he hasn't needed the preventer.

  • And he's not having migraines.

  • - I'm actually really excited for high school.

  • - [Michael] Both Malaya and Nicholas

  • attribute their improvements to the Sham scanner.

  • They believed it was working for them, and indeed it did.

  • So how did Nathan who suffered from ADHD

  • and impulse control disorder fair over the last six weeks?

  • Well I received a home video from Nathan's mother,

  • with an update on his progress?

  • - So the best part about going through the treatment

  • was just what it did to our son, we noticed a difference

  • in Nathan immediately after the first session,

  • and do you remember what happened?

  • - I slept?

  • - Yeah, he slept something he doesn't do

  • very often during the day, he slept for two hours.

  • He was refreshed, it was just incredible to see it.

  • And then what happened was the entire summer

  • we had him off the medicine, and he did great.

  • He thought about stuff before he did it,

  • we were able to talk things out and it's been fun.

  • So overall, we're very pleased.

  • And we just had such a great experience,

  • so thank you very much.

  • - [Michael] The Children's results are encouraging,

  • and a powerful sign of how effective suggestions

  • and our willingness believe them can be.

  • In time, the kids will understand

  • how all of the power was within them,

  • and not in the scanner.

  • This work is truly cutting edge it hasn't been done before.

  • - Correct.

  • We also think of this as a great new way

  • to do science and to collaborate.

  • - So much more of the public will see what's being done.

  • - Yes, science isn't just about publishing

  • a paper that nobody reads.

  • It's about spreading the ideas that you find.

  • - 100%.

  • - As far as I'm concerned, you're already a co author

  • in our scientific experimental paper.

  • - Wow, very cool.

  • Thank you.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - [Michael] The Children's improvements

  • were caused by the placebo effect.

  • And no deception was used to mask that.

  • The parents knew the machine was deactivated.

  • And the children were only told that it had the power

  • to put a suggestion in their brain,

  • a suggestion that ultimately came from themselves.

  • But surely, the more people learn about placebos

  • and their lack of intrinsic power,

  • the less effective they'll be, right?

  • No, studies show that even when subjects learned

  • that their treatment was a placebo,

  • the positive results do not go away.

  • What the subjects have learned about how to heal themselves,

  • remains with them.

  • It was an honor to have been a part of this study.

  • I think this is Mind Field at its best.

  • Using our resources to help researchers with their work

  • and helping the public see how the brain is studied.

  • Placebos can't fix everything.

  • But these kids always had the power to start healing.

  • All they needed was the power of suggestion.

  • And as always, thanks for watching.

  • All right, so that's the episode.

  • Dr. Veissière I have dismissed Elisabeth and Daniel

  • so that we can talk one on one, honestly.

  • - I miss them.

  • - Do you feel the pressure?

  • What are your thoughts now two years after that episode?

  • - Well, my thoughts are we are to take this further.

  • And so I'm thinking lots of directions.

  • One of them is practical.

  • It's kind of unfortunate that the general public

  • is really interested in this.

  • But it's still hard to convince

  • the scientific community and the clinical community,

  • there's something worth pursuing there

  • because it's so weird.

  • So it's been difficult to get research funding,

  • it's been difficult to get our research papers accepted

  • for publication when we try to present

  • this particular project,

  • - How do you do a control in a study

  • on the effectiveness of placebo?

  • Like, do you test it against a different placebo?

  • - Yeah, and that's been one of the comments from reviewers

  • when we try to submit this from publications.

  • And I think it was a really good comment

  • they're asking, okay,

  • so it seems you're doing this really cool,

  • really amazing procedure,

  • you're giving these kids a lot of attention,

  • a lot of positive reinforcement.

  • But what exactly works?

  • And what doesn't work?

  • Is there anything in that intervention

  • that is absolutely necessary or essential?

  • For example, do you actually need the scanner?

  • Could you just go and, give kids

  • lots of positive suggestions about how they can use

  • their hyperactivity to be really focused and strong?

  • Or could you do us just a watch,

  • so I can tell you something we're doing right now is,

  • we're beginning to test in a randomized trial,

  • just the watch versus just the machine

  • to see if one of them works better.

  • - Huh, okay, that sounds really nice and precise.

  • - Precise or not?

  • Because even then there's so many other factors,

  • as you know, so say, the charisma,

  • or the reassuring tone of the experimenter.

  • Like I'm sure you're interested

  • in the replication crisis in psychology.

  • So one of the hypotheses is also that well,

  • it could be that some labs are trying to replicate a study.

  • Well, the experimenters are just not as charismatic,

  • there's just not as good or not as authoritative.

  • And there's lots of other factors that are going on.

  • And it's not just a mechanism itself that doesn't work

  • is that this one team is not able to reproduce it.

  • - Man, it's so hard to control for all of those things,

  • a bunch of different people need to run this,

  • but they all have to have the exact same charisma.

  • And every day, no matter what their mood is

  • different from day to day, it can't be.

  • Because we really only wanna look at watch versus machine,

  • when we know that the charisma can play such a big role.

  • - Mm hmm, or also, the setting of the study,

  • is it in the hospital?

  • Or is it like right now

  • we're gonna replicate it in a school.

  • Because it turned out that logistically,

  • now that Mind Field is not there

  • to handle recruitment for us, then we just could not manage

  • to bring all the participants in the hospital.

  • And we have a contingent from the school.

  • So it's a lot easier to do it there.

  • And as such, we also have to use a simpler mock scanner.

  • - Right, you know what that brings brings up

  • a big limitation of how Mind Field can help.

  • Because if you said okay,

  • I've got a different experimental design

  • that I think is gonna work really well.

  • But it's very similar.

  • Could you do another episode

  • that will look almost exactly the same?

  • I would love to,

  • but I don't know if YouTube would pay for that.

  • So I hope that Mind Field

  • can at least bring what's being done,

  • and its importance to the public,

  • so that they know what to support and they know what to,

  • I don't know what kind of good things are being done

  • and why it's important for us to have research institutions

  • that are investigating things that might seem I don't know,

  • a little still fuzzy,

  • but yet can lead to amazing discoveries.

  • What are you working on that I don't know about

  • that might be interesting.

  • for future episodes of Mind Field of Vsauce,

  • I know that you were working with tulpamancers.

  • That's still going on?

  • And if so explain what that is.

  • - Sure, so before talking about tulpamancers,

  • we're also doing lots of stuff related

  • to suggestion and placebo studies.

  • So we're testing like, say fake Adderall, fake psychedelics.

  • - [Michael] Fake psychedelics.

  • - Fake psychedelics--

  • - There's an episode in the first season of Mind Field,

  • where we give people a short acting and psychedelic,

  • and we have Confederates in the room

  • that pretend like, Whoa!

  • Everything's echoing.

  • And sure enough, you can make people think they're tripping.

  • - Absolutely, and we also use Confederates,

  • just like you guys, and we had really good results.

  • - So what are you specifically like,

  • what variables are you kind of tweaking and studying?

  • - Well, we're also interested in the whole battery

  • of non specific psychosocial effects

  • beyond the chemical properties of the substance themselves,

  • including the particular cultural expectations

  • that this psychedelic experience

  • should yield this particular effect.

  • So we're looking at, social proof, social conformity,

  • emotional contagion, but also,

  • testing particular cultural beliefs.

  • We're also going to be testing, Sham genetic testing

  • to see how convincing that might be, and at some point,

  • one of your dream is to compare that to Sham neuroscience,

  • so to see, different kinds of neuro enchantment.

  • - What's the point?

  • Okay, so we learn that people are neural enchanted,

  • and they're, I don't know DNA enchanted,

  • what's the word for that, our faith and genetic research?

  • - We think they're really big ethical implications,

  • particularly when we start thinking about potential,

  • nocebo effects and culturally widespread nocebo effects.

  • So, genetic testing also generates a lot of anxiety.

  • A lot of the times it's not done

  • under proper clinical settings and clinical guidance,

  • and people start worrying immensely,

  • because they have a particular gene

  • that is thought to correlate

  • with a particular condition like say,

  • Alzheimer's, for example.

  • And that can bring about all kinds of negative experiences,

  • including sometimes perhaps precipitating early onset

  • of diseases that may not otherwise have been triggered.

  • So we think there's lots of important implications,

  • particularly in terms of, debunking,

  • dangerous pseudo medical and pseudo scientific idea.

  • So if we're able to demonstrate

  • that there's a lot of authority,

  • a lot of placebo nocebo effects associated with,

  • say, genetic testing, then we're better able

  • to inform clinical practice, for example, or policy--

  • - And the public cannot be quite so enchanted by it

  • or perhaps misled, needlessly panicked.

  • Wow, it's important stuff.

  • - And so to answer your questions,

  • yes, we're still working with tulpamancers.

  • As you recall, I did a cyber ethnography years ago,

  • with just delivered a psychological testing

  • on these really cool, weird young people

  • who conjure imaginary friends

  • that they come to experience as basically

  • as auditory visual hallucinations, except they're not crazy.

  • And they report an increase in well being in their life,

  • even in social adjustment as a result

  • of having picked up the practice.

  • So people wanna say, well, they're crazy,

  • they're hearing voices, and we think we're able to show that

  • No, in fact, there's lots of context

  • in which you can hear voices and be a very healthy person.

  • So now, under the leadership of Dr. Mike Lifshitz,

  • and Dr. Tanya Lerman at Stanford University,

  • we're in the process of doing neuro imaging

  • of tulpamancers and comparing them also

  • to evangelical Christians who speak in tongues.

  • And so we're interested in seeing what happens in the brain

  • when either spirit or tulpa

  • sort of takes over and starts talking.

  • And we're interested in the

  • motor areas of the brain as well.

  • And we wanna see if something different is going on.

  • When say, an agency other than itself a tulpa or a spirit

  • is sort of in control.

  • - Yeah, what does it look like in the brain

  • when you aren't in control of your thoughts and behavior?

  • If we can tease out the difference,

  • then are we literally finding like that is your agency

  • that is your consciousness, your will?

  • And if it's gone, then you feel like you're possessed.

  • Which, by the way, brings us to

  • our reverse exorcism episode,

  • which you guys should all check out.

  • Keep me up to date on what you're doing,

  • because I really wanna help in any way that I can.

  • And, communicate all the cool work that you're doing.

  • So Dr. Veissière thanks. - It's always a pleasure,

  • - Always a pleasure. - Thanks for having me.

  • - Now, we're gonna turn to a darker topic.

  • My own death.

  • Should I die?

  • Let's find out.

  • (eerie music)

  • Someday,

  • I

  • will die.

  • But should I?

  • If I was offered a longer life,

  • I would take that in a second.

  • But how long is too long?

  • Is death something I should deny forever?

  • Or is death and the role it plays in the universe,

  • something I am better off accepting?

  • (upbeat music)

  • I wanna start by looking at a particular way

  • death affects how we live and treat one another.

  • Terror Management Theory proposes that people

  • like you and me manage the terror of death's inevitability

  • by embracing cultural values.

  • That the more aware a person is of their own mortality,

  • the more vehemently they will enforce their particular views

  • of the world on to others.

  • Created by social psychologists Sheldon Solomon,

  • Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski

  • Terror Management Theory,

  • or TMT suggests that often we are afraid of change,

  • because we're afraid of death.

  • Each one of us has a worldview, a set of beliefs,

  • customs and norms we identify with that can live on

  • after our business physical bodies die.

  • TMT suggests that rises in nationalism and prejudice

  • are correlated with rises in the salience of mortality,

  • but is how present the inevitability of death

  • is in people's minds.

  • This role that death plays fascinates me

  • and two have TMT originators Jeff and Sheldon

  • have agreed to work with me on a pilot study

  • of Terror Management Theory

  • and real life reminders of death.

  • (soft music)

  • What's your hypothesis today?

  • Well, I think we're gonna hope for the participants

  • who are reminded of their mortality to be more punitive,

  • and their assessments.

  • - Let's see what happens.

  • - Good morning.

  • - [Michael] For our study, we created a fake Research Center

  • staffed by actors and invited participants

  • to be a part of what they were told was a focus group

  • about the criminal justice system.

  • During the actual study, each group will hear

  • a list of several different crimes that have been committed,

  • and will then be asked to propose a punishment

  • for each offender with a severity level

  • ranging from one to seven, with one being the most lenient,

  • and seven being the most severe.

  • The control group will simply enter the survey room

  • and be asked to answer the questions.

  • The experimental group, however, will first be exposed

  • to reminders of their own mortality

  • with strategically placed posters in the lobby.

  • Also, the questionnaires they fill out

  • will include questions about their own death.

  • Decades of TMT research have shown that when presented

  • with violations of common worldviews,

  • those who are more aware of their own deaths

  • will recommend bigger punishments for the crimes presented.

  • But will our real life reminders of death,

  • not just the survey questions usually used

  • make a difference?

  • Well, first, let's look at the control participants.

  • - Thank you so much for being here.

  • Now, I cannot emphasize this enough,

  • there are no right or wrong answers.

  • This is just about your gut level reactions.

  • All right, let's begin.

  • After raising millions of dollars

  • in grant money to fund education for needy children,

  • a fundraising manager unhappy with this life

  • fled with all the money

  • and was arrested months later in Tasmania

  • where he was living under a different name.

  • So one, his punishment three months in prison,

  • seven is most severe, 10 years in prison.

  • Please answer now.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - This is one that I think does has views on both sides.

  • - Yeah.

  • (bell ringing)

  • - [Michael] That is a lot of sevens.

  • If our control group is already maxing out like that,

  • well then our scale has no room in that direction

  • to show any effective mortality salience.

  • Discovering issues like this,

  • learning how to better isolate mortality salient's effect

  • is exactly what a pilot test is for.

  • Hey! - Hey.

  • - Personal differences, huh?

  • - Yeah.

  • - An imposter with no medical training posed as a surgeon

  • and bungled a minor operation to remove a child's tonsils.

  • The patient recovered fully after additional treatment.

  • One is six months on probation, seven is 10 years in prison.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - Okay, if you are taking on the persona of a doctor,

  • we expect good behavior.

  • (bell ringing)

  • - The surgeon botched the operation

  • and was found to be under the influence of narcotics,

  • causing her to have permanent hoarseness

  • and ruining her career.

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • A 16 year old girl who had just received her license

  • drove through a red light hitting another car

  • that was being driven by a talented pianist.

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • A couple was taking their two children to the playground

  • when they saw a woman sunbathing nude.

  • - Look at that

  • there could be a gender gap.

  • We're also learning a lot about the world views people have.

  • - [Jeff] Yeah, absolutely.

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • - An anti government protester was arrested

  • for spring painting profanities at the Lincoln Memorial

  • in Washington, DC.

  • One, 40 hours.

  • - Wow, she went one right away.

  • - Five years in prison. - She's not a fan

  • of authority and rules. - Yeah.

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • - Okay, thank you so much for your time.

  • I really appreciate it.

  • - All right, so here's the results

  • and the mathematical analysis.

  • These are averages per question.

  • These are the averages and medians per participant.

  • - The fours are great, the three is great.

  • - But this is grounds for optimism, at least.

  • - Seven was the max sentencing value

  • and our control group gave an average of 4.5.

  • I'm really happy with that as a control group.

  • - Absolutely.

  • - [Michael] Now, our experimental groups.

  • Remember, they will be seeing posters

  • that remind them of their own mortality

  • and will be asked different questions in their questionnaire

  • for example, please describe the emotions

  • that the thought of your own death arouses in you.

  • And write down as specifically as you can,

  • what you think will happen to you physically as you die.

  • The point is to prime their mortality salience.

  • Let's see if this group

  • is more punitive towards worldview violations.

  • - After raising millions of dollars to fund education

  • for needy children, a fundraising manager

  • fled with all the money

  • and was arrested months later in Tasmania.

  • One, three months in prison,

  • seven, 10 years in prison, please answer now.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - He's thinking about it.

  • - Please hold up your answers.

  • All right, thank you so much.

  • - Ah, okay.

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • - An imposter with no medical training posed as a surgeon

  • and bungled a minor operation to remove a child's tonsils.

  • One, six months on probation, seven, 10 years in prison.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - They are thinking a lot more.

  • - Yeah.

  • (upbeat music)

  • (laughing)

  • - A 10, I'm pretty sure she knows that seven is the highest.

  • - We'll call it a seven yeah.

  • - It's funny to see when people feel bold enough,

  • even though I'm like breaking the bounds

  • and the rules of the task.

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • - An anti government protester was arrested

  • for painting profanities

  • at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - I really do appreciate the way they clearly

  • seem to be taking a bit more time to deliberate.

  • - Yeah.

  • (upbeat music)

  • (bell ringing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • - Okay, they can put the papers down

  • and tell them that we will be in shortly.

  • - Okay, thank you so much.

  • We finished with this part of the study.

  • So if you don't mind just hanging out for a moment.

  • And our researchers will be in here in a moment

  • to ask you a couple questions.

  • - Let's find out if the reminders of mortality,

  • we showed our experimental group were salient enough.

  • - Let me ask you about one thing,

  • out in the waiting room,

  • did you all notice the posters at all?

  • - [All] Yes.

  • - Okay.

  • - I was surprised as soon as they walked in the door,

  • and I saw the gravestones.

  • - Yeah, that's right.

  • - I wondered what did I get into?

  • - So we are looking into something

  • that's called Terror Management Theory.

  • And it's the idea that your own awareness of your mortality

  • can affect the behaviors that you exhibit,

  • that we all manage the terror that we feel

  • knowing that we are mortal, by behaving in certain ways,

  • especially in ways that reinforce our own worldviews

  • because we can kind of live on through the societies

  • and cultures and identities that we have today.

  • - Did any of you feel like you were still thinking

  • a little bit about death

  • when you were came in here?

  • - I was definitely going after people

  • who transgressed against my worldview to use your terms.

  • Yes, I noticed that.

  • Yes, I was definitely doing that.

  • - So this was incredibly helpful.

  • Thank you very much for your participation.

  • It looks like our experimental stimuli were successful.

  • They were salient, but they didn't cause the participants

  • to think they were related to the study.

  • - The control participants averaged about 4.5.

  • The experimental participants were close to 4.7.

  • So there's a slight tendency for the experimental people

  • to be leaning in the direction that we predicted.

  • But we're talking about relatively

  • inconsequential differences.

  • - That's right.

  • It just makes me hungry to run more people.

  • And with the number that we had,

  • That's statistically insignificant.

  • Do you think that we did see any effects

  • of mortality salience today?

  • - I feel like the mortality salient groups

  • tended to take a little longer before responding

  • - Yeah me, too.

  • - And they seem more thoughtful.

  • they really put more effort into trying

  • to do the right thing.

  • - The difference was dramatic enough

  • that we picked up on it.

  • - Absolutely.

  • - [Michael] Although our stimuli might need to go through

  • a couple more passes and some more vetting,

  • we did find an interesting difference in the time

  • it took for our groups to respond.

  • Our control group took an average of four minutes

  • and 46 seconds to decide on their punishments.

  • But our experimental group took an average

  • of seven minutes, 18 seconds.

  • - In a sense that really is the prediction,

  • the right thing by their own worldview.

  • But by the same token, when we think about death,

  • we wanna do what's right.

  • And if we're acting like jurors,

  • we wanna make the right decisions.

  • - As we very much learned today,

  • the goal isn't to prove one thing one way or the other.

  • It's just to reduce uncertainty.

  • In the most careful way possible.

  • - Absolutely.

  • To know a little bit more today than we did yesterday.

  • - Whoa, okay, we have a lot to talk about.

  • And luckily, I've got just the person here with me

  • to talk about all of this with Judy Ho

  • a clinical neuropsychologist,

  • tenured professor at Pepperdine, you run your own practice,

  • you work with ethics a lot.

  • What is your actual position?

  • - So I'm the chair of the institutional review board

  • at Pepperdine University,

  • which is how we first started working together

  • because you were doing the trolley experiment.

  • And that was an interesting thing to talk about.

  • - Yes, if you have seen the trolley problem episode

  • of Mind Field you have seen Judy there

  • helping us with the ethics

  • of can we make people think they've committed murder?

  • Is that okay?

  • Maybe it's not okay for the university to do,

  • but can a TV show do it?

  • Bottom line is we learned a lot.

  • And so, Judy, I wanted you here today to talk with me

  • about running experiments on people, okay.

  • But also running experiments on people for a TV show.

  • Because there are all kinds of limitations

  • and issues that come up.

  • And I think that what we just saw is a great example

  • of all the different things that happen,

  • that are both good and bad,

  • challenges and opportunities for Mind Field

  • when it comes to psychological experiments.

  • - Sure.

  • - So the biggest problem we have is,

  • it's not possible for us to run

  • enormous numbers of participants.

  • We have a very tight schedule,

  • and we have a whole crew working with us,

  • we cannot run hundreds or thousands of people,

  • we can run like a couple dozen.

  • And sometimes that's not enough to really get

  • a statistically significant result.

  • - Right.

  • - Also, I think it's very clear here.

  • The kinds of participants who come on to the show,

  • they don't even know they're on a TV show,

  • by the way until the end when we debrief them,

  • but the kinds of people who are available here in LA,

  • in the middle of the day.

  • - Right.

  • - Is a both a very narrow

  • and a very wide group of people.

  • - Right.

  • - If we were running this at a University,

  • and we needed people to be free in the middle of the day,

  • we would get a very homogenous group.

  • - Yeah.

  • - They would be predominantly young people

  • between like 19 and 22,

  • their worldviews would be pretty similar.

  • I mean, they're all at the same institution,

  • they're probably socio economically pretty well off,

  • because they're at this university.

  • Their cultural backgrounds might be much more similar

  • than what we find working in TV,

  • where we might get retired people and immigrants

  • and really young people and actors, a lot of actors.

  • - Right, yes.

  • - Oh, my gosh, the number of people in LA,

  • who were free to do studies in the middle of the day,

  • who part time actors is a huge,

  • which that always leads to the issue of the audience at home

  • goes, wait a second, and they Google up something

  • and they go, that person was on a TV show, right?

  • Is this all just fake?

  • And it's like, that's what it's like

  • to just grab who's available in LA.

  • But because of the diversity that we get,

  • I think our populations represent the country better.

  • But also, we have way more noise.

  • - Yes.

  • - Questions about how bad is it to deface

  • an American monument are going to have

  • very different answers from different people.

  • - Absolutely.

  • - And in this particular study, we had that problem.

  • We're trying to see if you'll enforce your worldview,

  • more or less if you're reminded

  • that you're going to die someday,

  • and the issue was that everyone showing up

  • had very different worldviews.

  • - Yes.

  • All right, so I've just thrown

  • a whole bunch of stuff at you,

  • - A lot of stuff to talk about.

  • Well, first of all, I thought it was fascinating

  • the way that it was set up.

  • And it was a really, really good episode to watch.

  • And, just to see the reactions of the proponents

  • of the theory that was so cool

  • that you got them to be in it.

  • 'Cause they are invested in the theory.

  • - That was so cool.

  • And both of them wrote all of those scenarios.

  • And it was truly science in action.

  • They came up with scenarios,

  • we found out Wow, some of these are just so extreme,

  • even to a control group that we don't see any room

  • for any other variables to change in that direction.

  • So we had to rewrite them in between days,

  • and gosh, it was true science.

  • - Yeah, no, it was really cool to see it in action.

  • And it was really cool to see how different

  • the control group and the experimental group was

  • in terms of the latency and even their facial responses,

  • as they were considering all of this.

  • I certainly saw that being a significant effect

  • that they just seemed like they were taking

  • their roles so much more seriously, right.

  • Whereas sometimes when you get these people

  • to come in for an experimental study,

  • they're just here for their whatever,

  • $10 or whatever you're offering them for their time.

  • And, they're more haphazard about it.

  • And I certainly saw that with a second group,

  • there was just this real pronounced sense of gravity

  • to their considerations.

  • - Yeah, we thought,

  • what the severity of punishment dealt out, that will be

  • the variable that will change based on mortality sale.

  • But it turned out to be disposition and thoughtfulness.

  • - Totally.

  • - Luckily, we recorded the whole thing.

  • So we could go back and say, how long did they take?

  • That wasn't originally measured,

  • but because of the footage, we could time.

  • And we found out that it took almost twice as long

  • for the group that came in thinking,

  • I've just written an essay

  • about what I think death will be like.

  • Punishing people for violating cultural norms.

  • This is a heavy thing, too, and they reacted differently.

  • - Yeah, and I think that it may not be

  • I mean, I understand the original tenants

  • of Terror Management Theory.

  • But I can also imagine when somebody is really,

  • really very cognizant of their mortality,

  • that they might actually be more lenient,

  • like life is short, I want this person

  • to have a second chance.

  • And so I think part of what wasn't measured

  • that might have been helpful

  • is actually trying to counterbalance the two groups

  • in terms of do you have the same types of belief systems,

  • and ideologies, right?

  • Because if we don't have that,

  • then they're kind of just going at their own values.

  • And if we don't know very much about it,

  • you can see why that noise could contribute

  • to the average being 4.5 and 4.7 in the two groups.

  • - Exactly, which is basically no difference at all right?

  • - Right, yeah.

  • - But yes, I think in hindsight, and this is, again,

  • the whole point of science is to be like,

  • all right, what can we learn?

  • And how can we keep at all times

  • the uncertainty on this track down and down?

  • And right, if we kind of knew

  • what people's worldviews were ahead of time,

  • like if we had interviewed them a couple of weeks before,

  • long enough ago, that they don't remember it anymore, right?

  • Make them somehow not think that it matters

  • too much that the questions are related,

  • then the test, I think, could have given us better results

  • in terms of the punishments dealt out and all of that.

  • And it can be frustrating when you wanna do a show,

  • and you wanna show results and teach,

  • but you also want to experiment.

  • And sometimes the experiment won't always leave you

  • with everything nicely tied up.

  • - Right.

  • - And that's a good lesson to give people

  • but it has been frustrating to do experiments

  • where you need a big population of people,

  • it's easier on the Mind Field,

  • to make myself the guinea pig.

  • Or focus on a topic where

  • we just need to see it happen one time.

  • - Right, right.

  • - Like can I get someone to falsely confessed to a crime?

  • If I get one person to do it, then we're done.

  • But if I wanna see a tendency for people

  • to be more punitive to worldview,

  • their worldview violations, if they're reminded of death,

  • I really need to run hundreds of people.

  • So I mean, what do you what do you think?

  • Do we need to remind the audience of that every time?

  • - Honestly, I don't think so.

  • And I would say, first of all,

  • that social psychology experiences (mumbles) especially,

  • are built on the backbone

  • of very homogenous populations,

  • it's tended to always involve undergraduate students

  • who are given the option of either doing

  • this 10 minute experiment or writing a 15 page paper.

  • It's not really very ethical, actually.

  • Because you're kind of coercing them towards the experiment.

  • And so you're gonna get lots of first

  • and second year psychology students.

  • And, again, it's still for a class.

  • So how honest are they really being?

  • Because what if the professor discovers

  • what their answers are?

  • And so there's all kinds of things

  • that are already inherently an issue,

  • and even the published studies and social psychology.

  • And I think what a TV experiment really does

  • that I don't think any more kind of,

  • planned out research study with hundreds

  • and thousands of participants will do,

  • is a really lively and visual demonstration.

  • And that in itself is really useful.

  • Because if somebody actually says,

  • Now, I wanna take that study protocol,

  • and apply it to 500 people,

  • they now have a template to do that--

  • - Which they should do, by the way,

  • please do that, that would be,

  • Mind Field would have done its job.

  • But yeah, I think the responsibility

  • I have with Mind Field is to document how science is done,

  • and what results might look like

  • and what the protocols can be.

  • And then the comments

  • might have been full of people with different ideas,

  • how it would have been a differently and I'm like, perfect.

  • - Awesome that people wanna weigh in and be so engaged--

  • - Exactly go off and do that,

  • we really didn't know how that experiment would go.

  • And I still don't know how it would go

  • if you change one little thing in one way or the other.

  • - Well, and I think it also shows

  • the beauty of what an ad hoc analysis can do.

  • Like oftentimes you have your hypotheses,

  • like, for example, your hypothesis was that you would go in

  • and you would see that there was gonna be more severity

  • in terms of ratings of punishment in the experimental group.

  • But actually, you didn't see that.

  • And then you thought that something else was happening,

  • because we saw the videotape.

  • And, oh, it's how long they took.

  • And you were able to go back and call that data

  • and to make a statement about that.

  • And that difference was significant.

  • It was almost doubled the amount of time

  • that the experimental group, it was cool to see that.

  • - It was cool.

  • And you could feel a difference in the mood

  • which it's hard to measure.

  • But you know what, when you are recording

  • everything from multiple angles, you have that evidence,

  • right, you have that documentation.

  • - They seem stressed.

  • Like, when I was watching them, I felt bad for them.

  • They they just looked so upset.

  • - They weren't fun scenario,

  • it's like hey, this person botched a surgery

  • because they lied about their qualifications.

  • Or this doctor got drunk and hurt someone.

  • There are pretty bad things to think about, anyway,

  • - This really just brings up though, kind of the spirit

  • of why we do experiments in the first place,

  • because it's always a cost benefit analysis.

  • And I think we talked about this

  • also on the trolley episode.

  • It's really about what kind of information you're getting.

  • Are you just torturing people for fun

  • and using your hidden cameras for fun?

  • Or are you providing some kind of educational value or a way

  • that people can process important issues like mortality?

  • When I first saw you in the casket,

  • I gotta tell you, that's one of my worst fears.

  • We talked about this on the most recent episode I worked on

  • with you that, that is my biggest fear, is death.

  • So that you are providing some value and insight

  • to people who are thinking about how do I make the most

  • of my time on this earth?

  • And does it mean if I take my moral decisions

  • a little bit more carefully,

  • that I'm gonna feel better about myself in my life

  • at the end of the day?

  • Because that could be providing some kind of insight

  • for people to better their lives.

  • - Yeah, that's my favorite part of every experiment we run,

  • the debriefing where I get to say,

  • here's what we're studying.

  • And people they've never gone,

  • "Okay, cool, can I get my money now?"

  • They're always like, well, they want the money.

  • But also, of course, they're like, wow, oh, yeah.

  • 'cause I was feeling this, and, they're excited,

  • to think about it on the on the car home,

  • and they're gonna tell their friends about it that night.

  • And I hope it does a lot of good for them,

  • even if sometimes,

  • they may have been a little bit scared halfway through.

  • - Yeah, yeah, exactly.

  • And I think that that is really the core

  • of why the experiments are important on TV,

  • because, you are gonna get a more engaged audience.

  • And if it encourages people to think about themselves,

  • and to encourage personal development to tell their friends

  • and family, then I think you've done a great job.

  • So I don't think that you have to necessarily say,

  • and by the way, maybe this experiment,

  • will turn out different if you had 500 people running it,

  • because the visual aspects of the experiment,

  • as it is built is what's triggering these people

  • to really do that self evaluation

  • versus reading it on a page.

  • I mean, that's part of the problem with experiments

  • is that they're in these journals that you have to be

  • a psychologist to subscribe

  • or just a really interested person who's not a psychologist,

  • that you wanna pay your $500 a year.

  • - Because you're getting like a weekly thing, and it's huge.

  • Oh, my gosh!

  • - No one's gonna read that.

  • So this is a great way for people to understand experiments

  • and not feel afraid, a lot of people will tell me,

  • I'm afraid to run experiments.

  • That seems like a lot of work to do.

  • Well, the way that it was broken down in the episode,

  • it doesn't really look like people

  • can't do a version of it themselves sometimes.

  • - It did take a lot of work.

  • We have the best crew ever-- - You made it look easy.

  • - Yeah, we made it look easy, love to hear that.

  • I also think what we just saw is a good way

  • to talk about hidden camera shows.

  • - Yeah.

  • Because a common question I get is,

  • how do the people not know they're on TV?

  • How do they not see the cameras?

  • And they don't, we do a really good job.

  • I mean, we're in LA,

  • and I'm working with the best hidden camera people.

  • I mean, I go into the room, and I'm like,

  • but aren't we gonna film this?

  • And they're like, we're filming it right now.

  • - From five cameras.

  • - Yeah, the ways they have the disguise cameras,

  • I've always said we need to cover that on the show.

  • So that people know how well hidden the cameras were.

  • - Yeah, 'cause they were excellent angles too--

  • you got really good-- - I know, but guess what

  • the producers are like, no,

  • because then people will know the secrets,

  • and they'll know what to look at.

  • Trade secrets, but also,

  • they don't want future participants to go.

  • You know what?

  • If I see that pattern,

  • there's probably a camera behind it.

  • It works because people don't know

  • how we're hiding them so well.

  • If you look at the projectors screen,

  • you can see that there's a band across it

  • of a different texture.

  • And that is something that a camera can see through.

  • But in the room, you don't think anything of it.

  • It's just this boring feature, and no one notices.

  • And then when we tell them, they're on TV,

  • they're all like, what?

  • So there's a whole other permission form they have to sign

  • after they learn that,

  • 'cause we can't tell them beforehand,

  • or else people will act different if they know

  • that there's going to be an audience

  • out there watching later.

  • - Yes, absolutely.

  • And we see that a lot in social psychology studies,

  • I mean, even just the presence of more people in the room

  • can already impact how they respond.

  • So in this particular scenario, there was one experimenter,

  • it feels less like an audience.

  • But sometimes you'll have three or four experimenters

  • and it does like really,

  • like in a big way affect how people start to deal

  • with themselves, deal with each other,

  • you can sometimes see them being more polite,

  • a little bit more ginger with things.

  • And it's only because they think that other people

  • are watching and taking notes about them.

  • - You know what?

  • It makes me wanna bring up something else,

  • we really need to get back into the episode,

  • but like, come on, I can do whatever I want, right?

  • So Mind Field began,

  • as this idea I had for a show

  • that at the time I called Prankology,

  • because when I was a student in high school

  • and college psychology professors

  • would often show Candid Camera clips,

  • and then talk about the social psychology

  • that was evident in those clips.

  • The clips were entertaining, the science was cool.

  • I'm like, let's do that.

  • and pranks were kind of a thing because of Punked.

  • This was a while back, right?

  • But all of the pranks that like networks wanted to do

  • essentially only taught one thing, fight or flight.

  • They just wanted people to get really scared

  • and freaked out and pee in their pants.

  • Luckily, YouTube saw that there was value

  • in something like this.

  • We're like, so is anyone gonna scream?

  • Is anyone gonna think their car was totaled?

  • And I'm like, no, they're just gonna respond

  • to a question with a number.

  • Interestingly, you have to make that interesting.

  • How do you have someone fill out a survey

  • and have it be good visually?

  • Well, we came up with the idea of having them write

  • their number and then show it to the proctor of the study,

  • so that the camera could see what number they wrote.

  • That's the whole reason they did it that way,

  • rather than fill it in and turn the paper.

  • - Which of course changes results too.

  • Because if it's a private opinion,

  • versus one that they're showing their showing somebody.

  • - They're showing, then their face is associated with it.

  • But last at the last minute,

  • we had to put those blinders up.

  • So they couldn't see what other people

  • next to them were doing.

  • Because we knew that that would affect it.

  • So we had to walk the line of, okay,

  • we want them to put the number up

  • next to their face for the camera,

  • but we don't want that to affect

  • how they answer the question.

  • So how do we make sure that it still feels

  • as private as possible?

  • - Right.

  • - A lot of thinking goes in this.

  • - A lot of thinking, a lot of thinking.

  • And I also wonder to just even the characteristics

  • of the experimenter in the room,

  • the actor that you guys hired.

  • Again, with certain of those questions,

  • there could also be a response,

  • of well, this person might judge me if I rate this a seven,

  • just based on their own perception

  • of what that person might be thinking--

  • - Exactly, that is something that is worth investigating

  • more experimenting with more.

  • What I can say is that during those trials,

  • the direction we gave Trin, who's our wonderful actress,

  • she's just perfect at this kind of role, and many others,

  • but we told her, you have to kind of act bored.

  • Like you've been doing this all day,

  • and you don't care what they write down.

  • - Yeah, no gasps of surprise.

  • - Yeah, you're not gonna be like, oh, you gave it a one?

  • Also, she just read a script, she read each word off a page.

  • So it was always the same language.

  • And it was just monotone, which is a funny direction to give

  • someone who is in a like a really talented actress.

  • To be like, we need you to-- - As boring as possible.

  • - Be as boring as possible.

  • And it's the least acting as possible.

  • - Right, right.

  • - As a little acting as possible.

  • Judy, thank you so much. - Thank you so fun.

  • - Always a pleasure. - Awesome.

  • - All right, we're gonna continue watching this episode,

  • when we come back, I will have a new guest,

  • but not new to you or me.

  • So actually not a new guests at all,

  • but I'll have a different guest.

  • Let's get ready to learn more

  • about whether Michael should die.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Our pilot test shows that there's still a lot to discover

  • about terror management, and many promising ways to do it.

  • I'm particularly intrigued by our observation

  • that for all the closed mindedness,

  • mortality salience appears to cause it also led

  • to what looked like increased consideration, and thought,

  • I'd love to see more research on that idea.

  • But the point is this.

  • If death's effects aren't all entirely bad,

  • what if, instead of, or at least, at the same time

  • that we hope for the abolition of natural death,

  • we also find a way to accept it.

  • Now, obviously, I don't want to die, at least not soon.

  • But accepting the inevitability of my own death

  • and being less afraid of it feels powerful, and honest.

  • I'd like to learn what that looks like.

  • And I have a friend who can help.

  • (soft music)

  • I'm paying a visit to Caitlin Doughty, a mortician,

  • author and death positivity activist

  • who has made an entire career out of discussing

  • the aspects of death that most of us prefer to ignore.

  • What do you say to someone who comes to you?

  • and says, I think death is terrifying.

  • It's,

  • so scary and sad that

  • I'm just here now,

  • - Is this person dying?

  • Or is this person--

  • - This person is me in front of you right now.

  • - This person is you, okay so (laughs)

  • I would tell you a couple things.

  • First, you're dealing

  • with the primal existential quandary of human existence.

  • - Yes.

  • - And you are one of,

  • the many billions of people who have felt this,

  • so you're not alone in feeling this way.

  • So we go through life, we reach a certain age,

  • and we begin to understand that someday,

  • ourselves, and everyone we love will die.

  • And that's powerful, painful knowledge.

  • And I think from that moment,

  • we have to start developing

  • defense mechanisms to handle that,

  • and to integrate that into our lives.

  • - So what are those defense mechanisms?

  • - I think that the more obvious ones would be having a child

  • writing a book, making a TV show,

  • creating a legacy of some kind,

  • but there's also a more insidious version, which is war,

  • taking other countries, being rich

  • and being okay with other people being poor.

  • I think those are all signs of death denial,

  • they're all saying, but I'm okay

  • because I have this money, or I have this power,

  • or I have these kind of dark impulses that allow me to say,

  • at least I can outrun death in that way.

  • And of course, that's not true, no one can outrun death.

  • But you can trick yourself into believing that.

  • - So how would you characterize

  • the western relationship to death?

  • - Take America 150 years ago,

  • if you were my husband, and you died,

  • I would be entirely in charge of you,

  • I would wash your body, I would get the neighbor

  • to make a wooden coffin for you,

  • we would put you in the coffin and carry you

  • on our shoulders to the grave

  • which someone had dug themselves.

  • It would have been an entirely self sufficient process.

  • But what happened around the turn of the 20th century

  • is really three big things in my mind.

  • One, you had the rise of hospitals,

  • so people were no longer dying at home,

  • you had the rise of funeral homes,

  • which means that we are now outsourcing our death.

  • Third one is slaughterhouses,

  • so all of a sudden, all food production,

  • and the killing of animals is also hidden as well.

  • And we live in our suburban houses

  • where all those things are outsourced.

  • And it's just these little layers and layers

  • and layers of denial around death.

  • - But what does it mean to accept death?

  • - I don't think that you ever truly accept death.

  • But I believe that the movement toward accepting death

  • involves really true self awareness

  • about where you're hiding your fears of death.

  • That's where real awareness and acceptance can come from.

  • - For me, the thing that's just such a bummer about death

  • is that I just I'm done.

  • I don't get to continue learning things

  • and seeing what happens,

  • and I'm just not part of Earth anymore.

  • - Isn't death kind of what gives you that passion

  • when you think about it?

  • When you think about like, I love learning, I love ideas.

  • If you didn't have an endpoint,

  • Are you gonna come in here today with all these cameras

  • and do the huge amount of legwork

  • that creating a show requires?

  • - No.

  • - No, right?

  • Because you're like, I don't know, maybe I'll do it,

  • 200 years from now, whereas right now

  • you're taking in information left and right,

  • because you wanna produce content,

  • you wanna produce exciting things

  • and share with other people.

  • - Because this is my one chance to do that.

  • - This is your one chance, the passion and the realness

  • to life comes from it ending.

  • That's the great gift that death gives us.

  • - What's an unhealthy relationship

  • to have to your own mortality?

  • - The pursuit of immortality,

  • and the pursuit of, "I will stay alive

  • "until I can upload my brain into the cloud."

  • That worries me, the idea that everyone

  • is just allowed to live forever,

  • from here on out, is not environmentally sensible.

  • It's just not a sensible position to take.

  • (upbeat music_

  • - [Narrator] We are seeing the dawn of a new era,

  • of possibilities unfold on planet Earth.

  • What more amazing will be like in say 80, 100

  • or even 200 years from now?

  • Wouldn't you like the possibility of finding out?

  • (upbeat music)

  • - To understand why some people feel like death

  • shouldn't be inevitable. I've come to Alcor,

  • one of the world's leading life extension facilities.

  • Linda.

  • - Hi, how are you?

  • - Great to meet you.

  • - Nice to meet you too, welcome down Alcor.

  • - Thank you for having me here.

  • I'm meeting Linda Chamberlain,

  • who co founded Alcor nearly 46 years ago.

  • So this facility that we are in right now

  • is where you both cryo preserve people and store them.

  • - Yes, we have 160 patients.

  • - Wow.

  • - And we have 1190

  • something members, it changes.

  • - A member is someone who is alive today.

  • - Alive today, they've made the arrangements for this.

  • Once they are cryo preserved, they become patients.

  • - You're using the word patient.

  • - Yes.

  • - Okay, tell me about why you use that word.

  • - For us, death is not something

  • which is like an on off switch.

  • One second, you're alive the next second you're dead.

  • What we are trying to do is to slow down

  • and stop the dying process.

  • - To become a patient at Alcor.

  • First you have to pay between 80 and $200,000,

  • then you have to die or more specifically

  • be pronounced clinically dead.

  • This generally means that your heart and lungs

  • have stopped functioning.

  • At that point, Alcor can begin their work.

  • - Now there are two ways that a person

  • could sign up for this procedure.

  • There's a whole body patient or as a neuro

  • - Oh, and does neuro just mean head?

  • - It means yes, the cephalon actually,

  • which is all the structures down to about the clavicle.

  • I'm a neuro, everybody in my family,

  • who's now in staces is a neuro.

  • Most of the people who really understand

  • the technology are neuros.

  • The primary reason that people choose whole body

  • is the emotional.

  • - Of course.

  • - And they're not comfortable with the idea of their body

  • being removed and discarded.

  • So let's say that our patient, is whole body,

  • the moment the patient is pronounced,

  • they go into an ice bath.

  • And this is just crushed ice,

  • and its water in there as well.

  • Their heart is started again, with a mechanical thumper,

  • they're intubated and their lungs are functioning again

  • being ventilated circulating the cooler temperature.

  • - Yeah, yeah, yeah.

  • So you need the veins, the arteries, the vasculature,

  • the heart, you need all of those

  • continuing to pump and circulate.

  • - This is our operating room.

  • So basically,

  • when the patient comes in through the door there,

  • they'll go into this specially developed operating table,

  • it is going to be circulating nitrogen gas over them

  • to help cool them externally.

  • And if its whole body patient,

  • then the surgeons open the chest

  • and then we begin circulating

  • the organ transplants solution.

  • - Once in the operating room,

  • the patient's blood is replaced

  • with cooled organ transplant fluid

  • and circulated through the vascular system

  • to rapidly cool down the internal

  • and external temperatures of the body.

  • Now, just before the water within the body tissue

  • reaches its freezing point.

  • Cryo protective fluids are introduced.

  • These act like anti freeze preventing the formation

  • of ice crystals that could damage soft tissue.

  • This is called the vitrification process.

  • - Now let's say that it is a neuro patient.

  • So they come in first here--

  • - Yep their whole body.

  • - Right the surgeons will do the neuro separation first.

  • - Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

  • - To separate the cephalon,

  • which is all of the structures down to about the clavicle,

  • bring it over here to

  • this operating field.

  • Wash the blood out and we introduce

  • the organ transplant solution.

  • - I'm imagining a person's cephalon

  • essentially their head in here,

  • I can see how it's going to get clamped in.

  • That looks like I'm sure

  • a crazy sci fi movie, but it really happens.

  • - It really happens.

  • - [Michael] After the verification process is complete.

  • The patients are placed inside bags

  • that are attached to open metal cases,

  • which are then placed inside cylindrical tanks

  • filled with liquid nitrogen called dewars.

  • - So this is our patient care bay.

  • We have 159 patients

  • - In these tanks right here.

  • - In these tanks.

  • There are approximately nine patients

  • and each one of these four whole bodies and five neuros.

  • This one right here

  • is where my husband

  • is currently housed. - This one right here.

  • - Right, this is where Fred is at the moment.

  • My mother and my father in law are

  • in this one.

  • - Wow, it's so weird because I am right now,

  • not in a graveyard. - No.

  • Alcor is very much like an ambulance

  • taking their loved ones to a hospital, not down the street.

  • that a hospital in the future,

  • when technology can help them.

  • - They're not being transported

  • through space but through time.

  • (upbeat music)

  • To see what drives this time traveling ambulance,

  • I'm going to sit down with Max More,

  • Alcor's CEO and a future neuro patient.

  • So Max, what's the status of the technology needed

  • to revive cryo preserve specimens?

  • Are we getting closer?

  • - We are getting closer,

  • it's gonna be decades at least before we can bring back

  • human beings, whole human beings.

  • But we already cryo preserved eggs, sperm,

  • we cryo preserved skin corneas, heart valves,

  • all kinds of things.

  • So these are single tissues and we can reverse that process.

  • Now you move from that to an organ,

  • things get more difficult.

  • But we actually did an experiment a few years ago

  • took this little tiny worm we used certain chemicals,

  • So it would learn that,

  • oh my foods over here and not over here.

  • And we cryo preserved them, and then we just waited,

  • brought them back and then we tested them,

  • we were able to demonstrate

  • that the memory test that the ones

  • that had received the training retained that memory.

  • So it was the first time in an organism

  • we've proven survive with memory.

  • So now we're asking, okay, what's the next step?

  • Because whole organisms are difficult to reverse right now,

  • but step by step, the more progress we can make,

  • the more convincing this is.

  • - Now, when it comes to extending life,

  • some questions come up, like should people die?

  • I know we don't like the idea of death, but

  • do we lose something?

  • - I know what you're getting at--

  • - By getting rid of death.

  • - Yeah, I think we will lose something

  • like we lost something when we got rid of slavery or smallpox,

  • So I think people, people find themselves

  • in knots to rationalize death.

  • I believe that.

  • Right now we're kind of in this tragic situation

  • where over time, hopefully you kind of learn

  • your wisdom grows over time,

  • but the same time your cognitive

  • and physical health is declining, that's really sucks.

  • That's a bad situation.

  • What if they both could keep going up indefinitely,

  • so you could live hundreds of years

  • or longer and get smarter and more knowledgeable and wiser,

  • and hopefully more mature, and have more foresight,

  • because you got a much longer planning horizon.

  • What we'll have is a world of like ultra mature people,

  • which I think will actually be a better world

  • than the one we have today.

  • And if they say well,

  • and it just comes up all the time, they say,

  • well, death is what gives life meaning.

  • Bullshit.

  • If that was true, then would they also advocate people

  • who live to 90 should be killed off at 45,

  • will that double the meaning of their life?

  • In fact, I think life gets more meaning,

  • the longer you live, because you can build

  • on what you've done before.

  • So if anything it increases

  • the meaningfulness of life, my view.

  • - You're making me realize that in many ways,

  • I

  • am rationalizing death.

  • I'm looking for ways to excuse it and accept it.

  • I don't think it's unhealthy to accept that you are mortal.

  • - Well, I have to accept it

  • because I could get killed at any time.

  • One thing I'm have to stress because every article written

  • they always have to use the word forever, or immortality.

  • And that's not on the table here.

  • We're just offering a chance people to be revived

  • in the time when we've beaten aging.

  • But eventually something's gonna get you

  • so we're not offering immortality,

  • we're offering an unknown extension of human lifespan.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - Okay, so, Elisabeth, welcome back.

  • - Thanks.

  • - Pretty heavy stuff.

  • You have a connection to Alcor.

  • In fact, you were the one who got us that interview.

  • - Yeah, I set up the visit.

  • - So how did you come into contact with Alcor?

  • - Well, I grew up in near San Francisco in the Bay Area.

  • So I think Alcor has always been in my consciousness,

  • and my awareness since I was a kid.

  • I was familiar with the philosophy of it.

  • And I probably have a dozen friends or so who are members.

  • - I think you even are friends

  • with the couple on the brochure about Alcor.

  • - That's right. - That people get.

  • - And Max is a friend as well.

  • - Right. - Yeah, the CEO.

  • - So I guess the next question is, are you a member?

  • - I'm not a member yet, but I intend to be at some point.

  • - So what's keeping you from doing it the cost?

  • - It's just the cost right now,

  • Yeah, that's it, and also the fact that honestly,

  • if I were to die right now,

  • the chance of being cryogenically frozen is pretty low

  • because the way I would die would probably

  • be in a motorbike accident in India or something like that.

  • So it'd be hard to get this cephalon

  • back to the Alcor lab in time.

  • - Yep, the best.

  • It's weird to talk about this the best way to die,

  • to be cryogenically frozen is to die,

  • right there near their facility.

  • I think they've said that they have a lot of members

  • who near the end of their life move to the Scottsdale area,

  • so that when they die,

  • they can be taken right away or actually,

  • an Alcor team can be at your deathbed.

  • Now, the best way to be frozen.

  • And this is kind of what makes me feel

  • like we have a long way to go,

  • is that the best way for me to be cryo frozen

  • and then brought back later is for someone

  • to literally kill me right now.

  • Stick me in the ice bath right now start pumping in

  • the fluid to cool my body down and kill me by cooling me.

  • If I die in any other way,

  • there will be too much cell death

  • or at least there will be some,

  • because for a split second,

  • while the law decides whether I'm dead or not,

  • my cells are already dying.

  • - Right yeah.

  • And also, I suppose by that logic,

  • you would also wanna do it

  • as early in your life as possible,

  • when your brain is in the best possible state.

  • - Exactly, I wonder if they've ever had a member say,

  • all right, I have cognitive decline.

  • And it's happening to the tissues in my brain.

  • If you preserve me when I finally am pronounced dead

  • by an authority, what brain will I have left?

  • That's what I'm stuck with.

  • They may believe that in the future,

  • we can just reconstruct an entire consciousness

  • by just knowing a little bit

  • about some of the brain connections and structures,

  • but I guess all of this brings us to

  • what Caitlin was saying,

  • she really was uncomfortable with that idea.

  • That it seems what were her words?

  • Non sensible.

  • - Well, I think living forever

  • immortality is pretty nonsensical.

  • And even Alcor will say and even Max says

  • that what they're striving for is not immortality.

  • It's just extending the life that we have.

  • And there's many ways that we do that already.

  • We have antibiotics and vaccinations and things like that.

  • - Right, just wearing a seatbelt

  • is a life extension protocol.

  • What Alcor does,

  • seems much more sci fi.

  • And, I also understand a lot of the criticisms

  • around the cost,

  • the cost filters out

  • only a certain kind of person to be preserved.

  • If we can bring back frozen people in the future,

  • those from now in history will predominantly be high.

  • I'm a Silicon Valley millionaire or billionaire.

  • And I'm back and now it's the year 8000, and I'm back.

  • - Right and certain personality traits--

  • - [Michael] Only personality traits?

  • - Yeah.

  • - Yeah, so is that possibly not gonna represent

  • our arrow well in the future,

  • if only those with the means to extend their life

  • in that way, do so.

  • - And the other thing that goes along with that

  • is I think that people who have abundance

  • are also more likely to want to extend their life,

  • not just because they can,

  • but because they're living a good life.

  • And so Alcor is not, I mean at least for me,

  • it's not about denying death,

  • it's not because I'm terrified of dying.

  • It's because I actually love life.

  • I enjoy every moment of it.

  • And the only tragedy is, like you said that I won't,

  • at some point, I won't be able to keep learning,

  • I won't be able to keep growing,

  • I won't be able to keep discovering new things.

  • So people who enjoy life who have the fortune of being able

  • to do all of that naturally want that to continue.

  • - Now I get some of the reactions people have like,

  • well, but it's not environmentally sensible.

  • And we only have a finite amount of resources,

  • I get all of that, I hope that that ceases to be a problem.

  • I think more human lives is just better.

  • And to think any other way is ridiculous.

  • We need to make sure we can sustain all of those lives

  • and give people good lives--

  • - And that could take us about overpopulation.

  • - Is what I'm saying, yeah.

  • I feel like any negative side effects of overpopulation

  • could be fixed by the time we're also able to literally

  • bring back a frozen brain.

  • Okay, we should be working on both.

  • But I'm basically throwing that off the table,

  • because I don't really care.

  • I think it's not going to be an issue in the future,

  • so long as we keep focusing on it,

  • problems of overpopulation.

  • Well, we need humans to die,

  • or else we're not gonna have enough beef for everyone,

  • and it's like, all right, let's fix that.

  • But assuming that that's fixed,

  • I still feel like there's

  • a kind of hubris that turns me off

  • to the idea of extending your life like this.

  • Why do you think that you get to live longer in this?

  • I hate to say artificial because seat belts are artificial,

  • they're technology we invented to make us not die

  • so often and quickly.

  • - Yeah, yeah, I get what you're saying I mean,

  • it does feel kind of self indulgent, to be able to say,

  • Here I am, I'm so special,

  • I get to be one of the few that survived in the future.

  • And I guess my counter argument to that is whenever,

  • with any new technology,

  • it's always initially only limited to a subset of people

  • who are risk takers, early adopters,

  • who have the financial means to do it,

  • who have the sort of foresight

  • or sort of long term perspective

  • to wanna do that in the first place.

  • And just because that's a small set of the population

  • doesn't mean that those people shouldn't do it.

  • In fact, on the contrary,

  • that's the first step to making it accessible to everyone.

  • - I brought up a point to Max

  • that I think is in the bonus footage,

  • but didn't make it into the episode about social progress.

  • And how if we wind up with five, six,

  • 700 year old, super mature people,

  • what if their ideas about the way society is organized,

  • doesn't change, and we wind up getting stuck,

  • not making progress,

  • because the population wants to keep living

  • the way they lived in their 20s,

  • which, in 600 years might not be the way.

  • Which I don't think any system right now

  • is the best system.

  • But if we start having people not die out,

  • does that mean that we stopped making progress?

  • It's a weird argument.

  • Max then points out.

  • So what are you recommending we do,

  • genocide people when they're old?

  • I'm like, no, not that.

  • What do you think?

  • Am I making sense here?

  • - Yeah, definitely.

  • I mean, I think that the brain

  • does tend to become sort of ossified.

  • As we get older, people tend to be more conservative,

  • more traditional, be more set in the routines.

  • But I think by the time we have the technology to,

  • and cryonically free somebody and revive somebody

  • we'll also have age technologies to make the brain

  • more flexible again and reverse

  • the aging process in the brain.

  • So it might not actually be an issue anymore.

  • And the other counter arguments I have to that is,

  • okay so maybe that is true.

  • But let's see how it plays out.

  • We're still gonna be having children, right.

  • And so there are still gonna be fresh ideas,

  • new generations, the generational dynamic

  • is gonna be very different.

  • Because it won't just be boomers versus millennials.

  • (laughing)

  • - Yeah, there will be like four or five generations

  • around to be battling it out.

  • There will be 20,

  • 30.

  • And man, we will learn so much.

  • I think a lot of that fear you have as you get older

  • about things changing is an evolutionarily designed process

  • of like, Look, I lived long enough to reproduce,

  • therefore, the way I was raised must be good enough.

  • anything different could risk that not happening again.

  • So of course natural selection will choose people

  • who have developed a mind that doesn't like things

  • to change, it doesn't want the kids be too different,

  • but imagine living to be 600 years old,

  • and you see so many generations of kids

  • that like different kinds of music

  • and do different kinds of hobbies

  • and things and they're all okay.

  • - Yeah, think about how much wisdom

  • you'd have after 600 years.

  • - I think what we should do now is go back to the episode

  • and look at the decision that I make.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Do I think that someday we will be able

  • to cryonically freeze an entire person and then revive them?

  • Yes, I do.

  • I believe that cryo preservation

  • will change the meaning of death, and lead to breakthroughs

  • and medical technology that will improve all of our lives.

  • But do I

  • want to extend my life indefinitely?

  • Well, on the one hand, obviously, death is a bummer.

  • But on the other, the universe managed fine

  • without me for billions of years.

  • Am I really so important

  • that it should never not have me again?

  • Should I be around as long as possible?

  • Or do those who will come later deserve their own world?

  • Should I try to extend my life?

  • Or should I decide to die

  • when my time comes and return all this matter

  • I'm borrowing back to the world?

  • Well I don't think there's a right answer.

  • It's a personal choice we each get to make

  • and should be able to make.

  • And I've been thinking about it a lot.

  • (upbeat music)

  • So I'm going to speak again with my friend Caitlin

  • the mortician to confront my own mortality.

  • Well, Caitlin, Thanks for meeting with me again.

  • I've been surrounded by death lately, spoke to you.

  • I visited Alcor and,

  • if we never invented technology to bring people back

  • then the Alcor patients are dead.

  • But they have that hope.

  • I worked on Terror Management Theory.

  • And I even had a loved one pass away just two weeks ago,

  • my grandmother.

  • - I'm sorry to hear that.

  • - She was cremated, as well as my father.

  • And I realized,

  • I've never made a clear decision

  • about what should happen to me.

  • Because I just figured I'll figure that out when I'm older,

  • but I could die at any time.

  • - You sure could.

  • - So I wanna be prepared, and I want my wishes to be known.

  • So I've decided, when that moment comes,

  • I want it to be my final moment of existence,

  • I wanna give all my atoms and molecules

  • back to the universe, and I've decided that I want to die.

  • - I'm so glad you've made that decision.

  • And you've come to the right place.

  • - I want to be

  • naturally buried, I wanna have a green burial,

  • become worm food and plant food

  • and I want it all to go back to Earth.

  • But I kind of want a place where people can come to be like,

  • that's where he was buried.

  • - So there's everything from just little discs in the ground

  • where you are, to GPS that locates you to natural cemeteries

  • that are trying to reintroduce native plants.

  • - Yeah, yeah, yeah.

  • - So you can have your own Joshua Tree.

  • So the first thing I'm gonna give you to give a look over

  • is what's called an advanced directive.

  • And everybody needs to have one of these.

  • And why it's so important is that it's you,

  • not only designating someone to be in charge of your body

  • as you're dying, right after you die,

  • and then with however you decide to dispose of it,

  • but also who that person is.

  • - So this isn't just about burial, this is dying.

  • - Oh, no, it's about death dying death

  • and after death. - Interesting.

  • A choice like this is extremely new to humans.

  • It used to be that your only options

  • upon death were cremation, embalming or rotting away.

  • But today, you can choose to pause yourself

  • at death's door until the door

  • has been moved somewhere else.

  • But I've decided not to do that.

  • So I'm ready to make this official.

  • - Fire in the hole. - Okay.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - Whoa, all right. - How do you feel?

  • - Weirdly, I feel very relaxed and good.

  • It was kind of life changing,

  • but what it really was was death changing.

  • - Huh, well, thank you,

  • and I'm glad you've decided to die.

  • - Thank you.

  • Jeff and Sheldon, thank you for showing me

  • the power of death's influence.

  • Caitlin, thank you for helping me accept it.

  • Max, thank you for the work you are doing

  • and the opportunities you are offering humanity.

  • And all of you out there,

  • as always, thanks for watching.

  • All right, Elisabeth,

  • I decided

  • and still believe

  • I should die.

  • - You're still happy with that decision?

  • - I'm still happy with that decision.

  • And I'm really happy for you to make whatever decision

  • you want about yourself,

  • you're you, you own you.

  • So I don't care what people decide to do.

  • I just I don't know,

  • the main part was that I just feel like I

  • want one turn

  • at this game.

  • And I don't wanna be around forever,

  • being like, well, I'm older than you, so.

  • But I also don't feel like I can criticize

  • other people's decisions about this.

  • I don't know, what do you think?

  • - I think it's interesting.

  • When people talk about immortality,

  • they always think of it in terms of

  • there's some sort of costs that comes with it.

  • Like, there's no way that you could have something

  • so wonderful as life extension

  • without some sort of drawback.

  • And all this sort of fantasy and sci fi about it

  • even stories about vampires.

  • There's always like,

  • it comes with some sort of terrible burden.

  • And

  • why?

  • That's just something that we culturally have created,

  • doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

  • And I

  • I'm perfectly inclined to think

  • that we can extend our lives it probably be,

  • won't be like an all of a sudden we find

  • some sort of magic drink that we're gonna live forever.

  • Instead, it's gonna be a very incremental process

  • of first it's gonna be normal to live 100 years

  • and then 110 years, and 120 years and hundred like that.

  • And, yeah, probably without some kind of crazy

  • cause for not gonna be some abomination

  • or freak of nature or something like that.

  • - Yeah, I think it is really important

  • the points that you've made about,

  • we're not talking about a drink that makes you immortal,

  • like a vampire in that sense of whoo,

  • but to strive for immortality is something against God.

  • talking more about extending life,

  • you could still get hit by a bus

  • at any time and literally be dead.

  • Your brains connections are completely lost,

  • and we can never recreate them.

  • That's why I think that what Alcor is doing,

  • to help us understand how to preserve tissues

  • and extend people's lives is so important.

  • If a drink was invented, that allowed one to stay

  • exactly as healthy mentally, and physically

  • as they were that moment they drank it, I wouldn't drink it.

  • Because again,

  • I want my song to have a final note.

  • I don't like the end being

  • kind of like punted down the road.

  • - I wonder if people would have said the same thing

  • back, before antibiotics,

  • if they were looking at the horizon,

  • and somebody described to them, antibiotics

  • and this could extend your life by 40 years

  • and this ear infection you have

  • doesn't have to cripple you and kill you.

  • - Right, right.

  • Well, I mean, but I would still say the same thing today.

  • If someone said, okay, you're gonna die like in a week,

  • unless you take this medicine, I'll be like, sure.

  • I don't know if I'm just feeling like

  • there is like a right time to die.

  • Like, the way it's sort of been.

  • When it's time your family can move on and you've

  • led the way and now it's time for them to lead the next

  • and everyone gets a turn as the leader.

  • - Yeah, I mean, I'm one of my goals right now.

  • And I guess another reason that I haven't done Alcor yet

  • is I think there's other ways of extending life

  • that are a little more accessible.

  • I mean, Alcor is a pretty big risk,

  • the chances of actually being revived are extremely low,

  • but it's sort of a Pascal's Wager,

  • it's like, what's the alternative?

  • - Yeah, what do I lose?

  • I may as well.

  • - Well, one of the things I'm doing now,

  • actually, next week,

  • is getting my stem cells cryonically preserved.

  • So yeah, I'm going to a company

  • called Forever Labs in San Francisco.

  • They actually think they're based in Michigan,

  • but they have a clinic in San Francisco,

  • they're gonna extract the stem cells,

  • and then bank them for the rest of my life.

  • - So you can use those for therapies or?

  • - Exactly, yeah, yeah.

  • So say, I have an organ down the line that needs repair.

  • Now I have stem cells from my younger self,

  • that we could use, or maybe they'll develop

  • age reversal technologies down the line.

  • And then I could use those stem cells,

  • they've already done that in rodents.

  • And done some very basic, clinical studies with humans,

  • where they've given human stem cells from younger donors.

  • And actually, older adults are able to be

  • they show more physical fitness, more cognitive sharpness,

  • after the stem cell injection.

  • But also, there's, with that particular study,

  • when they receive too much of the stem cells,

  • they actually have negative side effects.

  • But that's probably because their immune system

  • is reacting to somebody else's stem cells,

  • which is why there's a benefit in banking your own.

  • - Wow, banking your own stem cells.

  • I think that sounds brilliant, I would love to do it--

  • - And they do with kids, with babies now.

  • - Take the baby stem cells,

  • and you've got like the freshest best stem cells.

  • And then when you're super old, and you're like,

  • Oh, my liver could use some help.

  • They'll be like, when you were a baby,

  • we took these things out and they've been frozen.

  • So they're still fresh.

  • Well, it seems to me like I should go, when I naturally go.

  • - I think maybe you're feeling a sense of fairness,

  • or just what's socially, the right thing to do.

  • Because if everybody around you,

  • if the technology were available to everybody,

  • and everybody you knew was living to 100 or 120,

  • I think it would be it would feel more okay.

  • But it feels sort of unfair to say,

  • Okay, I'm entitled to this new technology,

  • or I'm entitled to more life and other people,

  • the rest of the world isn't--

  • - I'm so good. - And I find that

  • really admirable actually. - The world needs me forever,

  • not forever, but the world just needs me.

  • If I would left the world, oh, that'd be such a tragedy.

  • to the world, wow!

  • - But it kind of feels like

  • you're breaking some sort of like,

  • agreement that the whole human race has accepted,

  • like, I'm going to defy something

  • that we've all sort of mutually agreed

  • is the way things are.

  • But if we all mutually agree something else,

  • because it becomes so widespread or ubiquitous,

  • then it doesn't feel like

  • you've sort of transgressed

  • or is nothing to feel, weird about.

  • - Right, it's a really interesting way to frame it.

  • I wanna point out, though,

  • that although Max really emphasized

  • that he's not selling immortality,

  • they're very much is a belief in immortality

  • that you'll hear from their members,

  • especially in a sort of digital way

  • where their consciousness can be recreated in a computer.

  • And at that point, it doesn't seem

  • like there's still this inevitable,

  • but you could get hit by a bus, but you could,

  • be in an accident, at that point it's like,

  • No, but I never will be because I will exist

  • and be replicated as digital conscious.

  • And that I don't wanna do,

  • I don't care if other people do it.

  • I just feel like I'm not gonna burden the world

  • with more of me than it needs.

  • - I have trouble wrapping my mind around that one,

  • in the area I wanna say yes, I'll do it, like why not?

  • I wanna try everything.

  • But to me somehow there's a disconnect

  • where that doesn't feel like me anymore.

  • Maybe I'm so embodied, that feels a little bit like

  • he was describing people want to preserve their entire body

  • because it's hard to conceive of yourself

  • as just a head or just a consciousness.

  • So it's just hard to imagine, if I can't experience

  • if I don't have a physical, like,

  • visceral experience of the world.

  • And that constant feedback, what is life even?

  • - It's kind of lonely in a weird way

  • - Yeah. - Right, lonely.

  • I guess you could have a robot body.

  • - It's like, how do you even have a thought

  • really without this input?

  • - Well, I think the idea is that you would have inputs

  • from some kind of like, Cyborg body that they built you

  • that they injected your consciousness

  • into through the wire right?

  • But at that point, you were talking about true immortality.

  • Because you've come up with a way to solve any accident

  • that ever happens to you, you will never die.

  • And that's very different than a bring me back

  • when you have a cure for this cognitive problem

  • that I'm developing.

  • Bring me back, cure it, and then I get to live

  • for another like, I don't know, a couple of decades or what?

  • I don't know.

  • Wow, this is all fascinating, and very important stuff.

  • Lisbeth Thank you very much. - Thanks Michael.

  • - Thank you.

  • And without further ado, we're gonna keep bulldozing on

  • through here we are with your Brain on Tech,

  • not your brain made out of tech, but your brain on tech.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Oh, hello.

  • technology isn't just changing our lives.

  • It's changing our brains.

  • Not just how they think, but how they look.

  • It's been shown that playing certain video games for hours

  • can improve your memory for details,

  • your ability to navigate space, in video games,

  • and can make your brain well certain parts of it bigger.

  • But scientists want to know if exploring digital worlds

  • can change our brains in ways that improve our ability

  • to navigate the real world.

  • To find out, we've built a giant maze to test their theories

  • for the first time ever, outside the world of computers.

  • Now my job.

  • I'm the lab rat.

  • (upbeat music)

  • (vacuum cleaner humming)

  • Our brains have been profoundly transformed

  • by our interactions with technology.

  • A lot of the information that I used to have to store

  • in my brain is now stored in my phone,

  • my contacts, my schedule.

  • In many ways, I've delegated

  • what used to be done by this organ,

  • to this new external organ.

  • Doing that frees up my brains resources

  • for other things that matter,

  • or that technology can't quite do for us yet.

  • So while we all don't have implants in our brains, yet,

  • technology has already found a way into our heads,

  • which is why you may find it deeply disturbing

  • to see me do something like this.

  • Studies show we can improve our brains

  • by having enriching experiences,

  • like playing a new challenging video game.

  • To learn more about this, I came to UC Irvine Stark lab

  • to speak with experts in the field of learning and memory.

  • So Dane and Craig, you guys work on learning and memory,

  • What about them?

  • - So the lab is trying to figure out how memory works,

  • how it works in the brain, and one brain structure

  • and the temporal lobe

  • that we know is important to memory is the hippocampus.

  • - So what does the hippocampus do?

  • - We know it has a role in memory

  • and really a certain kind of memory.

  • The hippocampus is really involved when you need

  • to rapidly form new arbitrary associations

  • in remembering what you did yesterday,

  • definitely needs the hippocampus.

  • Maybe we'll go to the store, we park our car in the lot.

  • And we need to be able to remember,

  • not just I parked my car in the lot,

  • I parked my car in this exact spot in the lot.

  • And those details, that's what the hippocampus

  • seems to really be helping us out on.

  • - And you keep looking down at this piece

  • of chewed bubblegum on the book, is that a hippocampus?

  • - [Dr. Dane] Yes, this actually is my hippocampus.

  • - Is this the whole thing?

  • - That's it.

  • - Oh, there's one on the other side--

  • - That looks just like this.

  • - Yeah, mirror image of it.

  • - [Michael] In 2015, Dr. Stark and Dr. Clemenson

  • conducted a study to show how video games affect the brain.

  • They gathered participants

  • who normally didn't play video games

  • and split them up into three groups,

  • a control group who didn't play

  • any video games for two weeks,

  • and active control group who played

  • two dimensional games for two weeks,

  • and an experimental group who played

  • 3D games for two weeks.

  • Beforehand, they had all the participants

  • perform two virtual tasks

  • on computers to measure their spatial memory.

  • - As soon as they came back,

  • we re administered those two tasks.

  • And what we found was that the people who played the 3D game

  • saw an improvement in their test scores,

  • whereas the control group and active control group did not.

  • We didn't do brain scans, but we can speculate

  • that there were changes

  • to the experimental groups hippocampus.

  • - So what are we gonna be doing to me here?

  • - So we're gonna do everything that we've done before

  • in our past studies, except we're gonna add two new things.

  • The first is we're gonna add some brain scans

  • to see if we see a change

  • in the structural side of your hippocampus.

  • I mean, we've never actually looked

  • at somebody's brain scans

  • before and after they play video games.

  • And the second thing we're actually gonna do

  • is we're gonna put you through a real world space.

  • - You're gonna be the rat in a maze.

  • - [Michael] This is truly untested territory.

  • The effect of video gaming on spatial memory

  • has never been studied in a physical environment.

  • On a scale this big and comprehensive,

  • I will have to navigate my way through

  • a 3600 square foot physical maze,

  • will playing video games improve my mental skills

  • in the real world?

  • If so, society will have a whole new way to look at gaming.

  • First, we had to get baseline measurements of my brain.

  • - Welcome to the MRI center,

  • we're gonna be taking a whole series of scans of you

  • as the before scan to then see what's gonna be happening

  • to your brain as a function of actually doing the gaming

  • - Cool, what kind of things are you looking for?

  • - Changes in the size and shape of your hippocampus

  • and also changes in the connectivity between brain regions.

  • - My brain was scanned using diffusion MRI

  • with a special emphasis on my all important hippocampus.

  • Diffusion MRIs, I'd never had one before.

  • I had a bunch for this episode.

  • By the way, Daniel, welcome back.

  • - I'm glad to be here.

  • - I'm glad you're here too,

  • what the heck is a diffusion MRI, I had like five of them.

  • They're different, they would make my chest twitch.

  • Yeah, interesting. I'm actually not sure why that happened.

  • And actually had my first ever diffusion MRI

  • done a few weeks ago.

  • - Was it for a health reason or for a study?

  • - My lab mate wanted to test his scanning protocol.

  • And he actually just asked if I could sit in there

  • so I was watching Star Trek

  • while I had my diffusion MRI done.

  • - That's not bad.

  • I mean, they're they're loud.

  • - Yeah, yeah.

  • - But how was, well I guess we should even start with

  • like an MRI, basically how that works, and then diffusion.

  • - So an MRI is using magnetic fields

  • to image various kinds of molecules in your brain.

  • And depending on the scanning protocol,

  • you can pick up on different kinds

  • of structures in your brain.

  • And what diffusion MRI specifically is doing

  • is looking at the direction of water flow in your brain.

  • So if you look at a really big white matter tract,

  • so white matter is the sort of big wires

  • that bridge different areas of our brains together.

  • So you have a cortex, actually, may I?

  • - Please, yeah, visual aids.

  • - So they actually don't really show it here.

  • But all this stuff on the inside would be white matter.

  • So it's like if I have some area here that needs

  • to send a signal to some area over here,

  • there's a large basically white wire,

  • - And it's a white because it's myelinated.

  • - Exactly. - It's covered in fat.

  • - Exactly, yeah.

  • Which helps the signal transaction.

  • - So if this was a real person's brain,

  • we would we would see a more white color

  • on the inside than we do on this model.

  • - Yeah exactly, it would literally be gray up here,

  • and white on the inside.

  • - Gray matter white matter. - Yep.

  • - And so diffusion MRIs

  • are looking at that white matter, because what?

  • It has more water content, and there--

  • - So it's that the direction

  • of the water flow is more consistent.

  • So there's water flowing

  • in a bunch of directions in the brain.

  • But let's say you look at a little chunk of gray matter,

  • there's not gonna be a consistent direction,

  • it's gonna be going in all directions.

  • If you average them out, there's not a single,

  • like trajectory for water for.

  • - Sure, what does the trajectory of water flow mean?

  • Like, why is water flowing in my brain?

  • - Well, your brain has tons of water in it, right?

  • - Yeah.

  • - And water is flowing along these white matter tracks,

  • and it's going along that direction.

  • And so if you are tracking

  • the direction of water flow in the brain,

  • and you can see a consistent sort of vector of water flow

  • from here to here to here to here to here to here,

  • it tells me there's probably

  • a white matter tract going this way.

  • - Right, Okay, so are we looking at actual functions,

  • like the fact that water went from there to there

  • when you had this particular experience,

  • Or thought means that what the two brain regions

  • were communicating, or one?

  • - No, so that would be what we call a functional scan.

  • So this is a structural scan?

  • It's a way of looking at the--

  • - So you're saying diffusion is just structural.

  • - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - Got it.

  • - It's an anatomical scan of basically, your connectum.

  • - Right, it's showing what's connected to what?

  • - Exactly. - Not why they're connected,

  • and what causes their connection to be important.

  • It's just physically,

  • I need the plans to make a great model of your brain,

  • diffusion MRI would give me a really great looking map of.

  • - Exactly, it's literally a wiring map,

  • a large scale wiring map.

  • So what you're missing is a lot of the miniature wires

  • of the brain, because if you're looking at

  • like a little chunk of gray matter here,

  • there are lots of microscopic wires

  • connecting those neurons.

  • Diffusion MRI can't pick that up.

  • But what it can do is pick up on the really big wires,

  • - The large scale wires from through white matter.

  • Okay, perfect.

  • And is the hippocampus,

  • it's counted in that because we're really looking

  • at the hippocampus's size in my brain

  • through this diffusion MRI.

  • - So I think that was probably more for the connectivity

  • of the hippocampus, a hippocampus would be gray matter,

  • but it's gonna be talking to other regions

  • of the brain via--

  • - Via white matter, got it.

  • Okay, perfect.

  • We're gonna go back to the episode right now.

  • - Let's do it.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - So this first test is a standard memory test that we do,

  • it's called an object recognition memory test.

  • - This test began by showing me

  • a series of random objects,

  • I did my best to commit every one of them to memory.

  • Okay, finished.

  • - All right, what we're gonna do now, though,

  • is we're gonna test your memory for those objects.

  • And this is actually where it starts to tap

  • into the hippocampus that we know is so important

  • for things like spatial memory.

  • - This time, I had to view another series of objects

  • and identify any that were identical to the ones

  • I'd seen previously.

  • The catch?

  • Some of the items were very similar to the earlier ones,

  • but not exactly the same.

  • This tested my memory for details, and very slight changes.

  • Okay.

  • Next up a virtual version of a water maze,

  • normally used by rodents.

  • - [Dr. Stark] The idea is that you are trying to locate

  • a hidden platform in a pool of water.

  • - Oh, man, so glad I'm not a lab rat.

  • This task really put my spatial memory to the test,

  • I had to find the same invisible underwater platform

  • over and over again,

  • using only the shapes of the mountains as my guide,

  • but at least I didn't have to get wet.

  • Ay, that was more difficult than I expected.

  • - So these are the sorts of tasks

  • that we've been able to do,

  • because we can put them on a computer,

  • and we're gonna revisit them

  • after you've done the video games.

  • But we also have a really great opportunity here now

  • to be able to try to take it out

  • of just doing it on the computer

  • and actually get it into the real world.

  • - Have you guys done this before?

  • - No, we don't get to do this kind of thing.

  • - Well, welcome to the Mind Field.

  • - Awesome.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - [Dr. Stark] So this is it.

  • - [Michael] It's huge.

  • - This is what we brought you here for

  • to have a real world test of memory,

  • you're gonna be a lab rat in a maze.

  • So this is a big first for us.

  • It's a big first really for memory research.

  • - [Michael] So how do you think that'll affect

  • what you guys have already seen,

  • which is that moving around in a 3D environment

  • in the video game can actually physically affect your brain,

  • - We would expect that

  • if we can somehow kind of train your hippocampus

  • to be better at spatial memory and spatial navigation,

  • we would see improvements in some of these areas.

  • - And it's not just gonna be running a maze,

  • you've got objects embedded inside here.

  • And we're gonna be testing your ability

  • to remember where everything is.

  • - And build a mental map of whatever is inside there.

  • - So you have five minutes, go on in explore,

  • learn the maze and learn the objects.

  • - Go.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - Because the walls were six feet tall,

  • I was unable to get a bird's eye view.

  • My task was to create a spatial memory

  • based entirely on the angles and turns of the white walls

  • I could see at eye level and a few tall trees

  • and light poles outside of the maze.

  • Okay, so I've oriented myself, the entrance is that way,

  • there's an exit over there.

  • I'm considering this the right side that the left side,

  • I've got a vague idea of where things are

  • that I feel like exist along the outside edge,

  • but I don't know about a lot of this stuff inside.

  • - And time.

  • All right, so now you've had a chance to explore the maze,

  • find out where the objects are.

  • Now we're gonna test your memory.

  • and we'll be timing you and seeing where you go.

  • - Okay. - Okay, you ready?

  • - I'm ready.

  • - [Dr. Clemenson] So first object is the bicycle pump, go.

  • - Pump, okay.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Pump was just always making right turns.

  • hugging the right most part of pump.

  • (laughing)

  • Yes, easy, okay.

  • Now, I guess I do the opposite to get out.

  • Left side.

  • Yep, I think I should make this turn.

  • There it is.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Yes for a pump.

  • - All right, item two the basketball.

  • - Later, Dr. Stark and Dr. Clemenson would evaluate

  • my performance on how fast I was,

  • the number of errors I made

  • and whether I took the most optimal route each time.

  • - [Dr. Stark] And time.

  • - Third item is the cat, go.

  • - Here kitty, kitty kitty.

  • - Got it.

  • - The fourth item is the pillow.

  • - [Michael] Retracing my steps.

  • - The crab. - Easy.

  • - The book. - Okay.

  • - The boot.

  • Last item is the water bottle, go.

  • - Water bottle.

  • (upbeat music)

  • I think.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Yeah, it was back here.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Maybe on the other side of this wall?

  • No?

  • Oh shit!

  • Okay, maybe it's down here.

  • Oh wait, that's no.

  • That's the central cube.

  • It was down some sort of a long corridor

  • like this in this area, oh man.

  • Until this point, things had gone pretty well,

  • but now it felt like my hippocampus was failing me.

  • With most of the items now gone

  • I couldn't use them for reference

  • and it was difficult to distinguish the differences

  • between the various white corridors.

  • Oh dang it!

  • I went about, through, got it.

  • Bottle coming up.

  • - All right, there you go.

  • Got it, that was a little tougher, huh?

  • - Yeah, that was tougher.

  • - So we found all eight objects.

  • Now we're gonna make it a little bit more difficult.

  • So we're gonna move on to the next phase.

  • And that's gonna be from the other side.

  • - [Dr. Stark] Navigating the maze in reverse

  • will be an even bigger test of your spatial memory.

  • We're gonna give you a list of four things to get in order.

  • - So the first sequence is the book,

  • the bottle, the crayon and the boot.

  • Go.

  • - Book.

  • I think,

  • that's the ball.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Got it.

  • Yeah, bottle was that hard one.

  • But now, I remember which alley to go down.

  • Perfect.

  • Crayon

  • Boot, don't want that.

  • There it is.

  • Okay, now I need the boot.

  • Oh I just saw the boot.

  • But how did I?

  • Got it.

  • I'm done, I'm coming back.

  • Got them.

  • - All right.

  • - [Dr. Clemenson] So then the next for the pump, the pillow,

  • the basketball and the cat.

  • - [Dr. Stark] All right, excellent.

  • - [Dr. Clemenson] Good job.

  • - Okay, so that was really fun,

  • but I can't be the only subject.

  • This experiment could use a control.

  • How else will we know that me enriching my life

  • with daily video game playing

  • really causes a change in my spatial memory?

  • Right?

  • Well, luckily for that,

  • we've got a nice matched control, guys similar to me.

  • Okay, one of them has too much hair.

  • But you guys look good.

  • You ready?

  • - [All] Ready.

  • - In this experiment,

  • it was important to have a control group,

  • my look alikes had to go through the exact same tests

  • that I did to establish their individual baselines,

  • the difference would be that they would play

  • absolutely no video games for the next 10 days,

  • then any change in my performance

  • would be compared against any changes in theirs.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Next, I began my gaming regimen,

  • starting from an ideal baseline

  • since I hadn't played video games in years.

  • Would 10 days of gaming really make a difference?

  • Now Daniel, on YouTube, I'm known as a pro gamer, right?

  • Every day, I'm like, Zelda!

  • You know what I mean, you get it.

  • Any Who?

  • I think a lot of people might be wondering

  • what video game was Michael playing during this test?

  • Well we couldn't tell you during the episode

  • because the makers of the game didn't give us permission

  • to ever mention or show any footage from the game.

  • So we had to replace my screen

  • with like generic stock footage.

  • I don't know outerspace looking stuff,

  • which was very annoying, because a lot of commenters

  • are like, that's not a game.

  • Here's the secret, I'll tell you now.

  • I played

  • League of Legends.

  • (laughing)

  • And Daniel, let me tell you, I was terrible.

  • And people made that very clear to me.

  • I've never been bullied so much in my life,

  • - By people online or?

  • - By people online.

  • Because I would join a game, right?

  • And I play and I'm still kind of learning

  • how the game works.

  • And then when it was over, people could like comment,

  • and they'd be like, I hate you.

  • And like you, I'm gonna flag you for being so bad.

  • - Yeah,

  • I mean the point here wasn't really good at the game so much

  • as it was to explore three dimensional space.

  • - Exactly, I did not get good at the game.

  • But I did explore 3D spaces I normally wasn't exploring.

  • - Right, because the game involves a lot of strategy.

  • I'm assuming, I haven't played

  • League of Legends so I don't know.

  • - Well, luckily, I'm a pro gamer.

  • So let me just tell you--

  • - As established. - As a pro gamer,

  • I would probably say, League of Legends

  • is basically like Mario meets checkers.

  • And

  • I didn't get better at the game.

  • But by playing it every day,

  • I really was investigating 3D spaces in a new way every day.

  • - Which is what matters,

  • - Which is what matters for this test.

  • - Right, I mean, I guess, if they were testing

  • something like visual working memory, for example,

  • then maybe your performance wouldn't matter.

  • Because it's your ability to,

  • hold various things in the map in your head at once

  • or your attention, for example,

  • but all they really cared about was your ability

  • to learn a new space.

  • - Exactly.

  • So let's get back to the episode

  • and explore some new spaces ourselves.

  • For many of you out there because some of this footage

  • is from my house where I used to live.

  • And you'll get to see my kitties, corn and pickle.

  • All right, here we go.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Technology isn't just affecting the way we remember things.

  • It's also playing with the empathy

  • and social circuits of our brains.

  • In fact, in many cases, we are more comfortable

  • relating to machines than we are to people.

  • Just think about how much we care about our phones.

  • roboticist, and MIT Media Lab alum,

  • Alex Reben invented the blab droid,

  • a miniature robot equipped with a camera

  • and an innocent little voice

  • that asked very personal questions

  • of unsuspecting pedestrians.

  • - [Robot] If you could take back one mistake,

  • what would it be?

  • - Oh, gosh, I only get to take back one?

  • - [Michael] The majority of people

  • instantly shared intimate details

  • - [Robot] Tell me something

  • that you've never told a stranger before.

  • - I'm scared I won't be able to love

  • and to let myself go in a love relationship.

  • - In many ways, we are more comfortable

  • talking to a machine than a human.

  • But what about talking through a machine?

  • I mean, it's often easier to say difficult things

  • to a person by a text instead of in real life, isn't it?

  • Well, what if the person on the other end

  • wasn't a friend or a significant other, but was a therapist?

  • A mental health care startup called Talkspace

  • allows adult users who pay a weekly fee

  • to text therapists for advice.

  • - [Advertiser] At Talkspace.

  • We believe that therapy should be anonymous.

  • Stigma free, simple, affordable and comfortable.

  • - Texting can give users the distance

  • they need to be open and honest.

  • And messages can be sent when the user wants,

  • not during an appointment or business hours only

  • - [Advertiser] Talkspace, therapy for how we live today.

  • - How am I?

  • Better now that my phone is working?

  • (laughing)

  • Sometimes, however, we aren't looking

  • for technology to comfort us.

  • We're finding ourselves wanting to comfort technology.

  • This is a ROBOTIS OP2, cute little fella, isn't he?

  • So how did that make you feel?

  • Bad?

  • Well why?

  • Robots are just machines,

  • metal and wires and computer chips,

  • but we spend a lot of time with technology.

  • We depend on technology and we care about it.

  • But the degree to which

  • we empathize with it depends on context.

  • (upbeat music)

  • Recently, my Vsauce was invaded by bugs,

  • robot hexbugs that is.

  • These bugs are made of plastic,

  • metal electronic circuitry, they aren't alive,

  • but could certain conditions

  • cause them to inspire empathy in humans?

  • A 2015 MIT study found that giving a robot movement,

  • a name and a personal backstory

  • tends to increase its anthropomorphic effect,

  • which can lead to an emotional can with humans.

  • We decided to see this in action.

  • I'm Michael. - Nice to meet you.

  • - Thank you for your help today.

  • - Of course pleasure.

  • - [Michael] In our demonstration our subjects

  • think they're focused testing

  • a new user friendly technology.

  • In this case, they're given a lifeless hexbug

  • and then asked to describe it.

  • - This thing kind of looks like a bug

  • only I don't know what it does.

  • It has a switch on the bottom.

  • - It's light.

  • - It's sort of a rectangle, but the ends are like hexagon,

  • - Then it was time to test their empathy

  • Akrino, what I would like to do now

  • is place the item in the middle of that block,

  • there's a magnet that will hold it

  • and I would like for you to take this mallet.

  • And please smash it.

  • - Yeah, really?

  • Okay, that's cool.

  • - Our participants demonstrated

  • no resistance to smashing this lifeless object.

  • Many of them even seemed to enjoy it.

  • Do you feel bad for breaking it?

  • - Not really, I felt indifferent to it.

  • - Not really, because it wasn't real.

  • - Not really.

  • - While these subjects exhibited

  • no empathy to the inanimate bugs.

  • Look what happened when we gave

  • the exact same bugs names and movement.

  • This is Margaret.

  • Okay.

  • I'm gonna place Margaret down here.

  • I just want you to take a moment to watch Margaret.

  • All right.

  • And you can feel free to pick her up.

  • She's really well behaved.

  • She's honestly one of our favorites.

  • - [Woman] Okay.

  • - So how would you describe Margaret's personality?

  • - A little erratic right now.

  • But I think if I pick her up, she calms down.

  • - [Michael] Notice how the subject

  • has already anthropomorphized the object

  • referring to it as she.

  • - Maybe she feeds off my energy.

  • - Could be.

  • - Go towards the light, go towards the middle.

  • - [Michael] Do you think Margaret likes you?

  • - Yeah.

  • Maybe that's why she's doing this.

  • And maybe when I go like that she doesn't act or all eratic.

  • - That's Aaron.

  • - Hi, Aaron.

  • - He can be a bit of a pistol.

  • - No way.

  • - Yes, it really depends on who's holding him.

  • (laughing)

  • Oh, yeah, he's got a lot of energy.

  • Aaron.

  • Hi.

  • - [Michael] Now that you've interacted with Eli a bit more,

  • how would you describe his personality?

  • - Oh, he's just nervous.

  • He's scared, he doesn't know what's going on.

  • - Hey, Joe.

  • - Will these subjects be just as willing

  • to smash their bugs?

  • Amy, I'm gonna place Margaret right here.

  • And then I would like for you to take this mallet.

  • And I'd like you to smash it.

  • - No.

  • I don't wanna hurt it.

  • - Just take this mallet and smash Aaron.

  • I'm gonna ask you to take this mallet,

  • and I'd like for you to smash it.

  • - Smash him?

  • Hit it.

  • - Chris.

  • - Do you want me to kill Joe?

  • - [Michael] Please smash Joe.

  • - Joe, I'm sorry.

  • Oh Joe, Joe!

  • And how did it feel to smash Aaron?

  • - It didn't feel good.

  • after spending time with him and getting to know him.

  • Even though it's lifeless

  • and doesn't have a mind of its own,

  • instantly, I grew attached to it.

  • Because when I put it in my hand, I felt its energy.

  • - I'm sorry, Joe.

  • - Do you feel bad?

  • - I do, I do feel bad about Joe, he's pretty cool.

  • - He's back.

  • - He's back!

  • - Would you smash him again

  • to make sure he doesn't come back?

  • (laughing)

  • - No.

  • - Why not?

  • - He survived, he survived it once.

  • I'm not gonna

  • do it again.

  • - [Michael] Clearly, it doesn't take much

  • for humans to become emotionally attached to technology.

  • But after my 10 days of video gaming, nice.

  • I was about to find out if technology

  • had affected my spatial memory and my physical brain.

  • All right, it's been 10 days.

  • - Exactly, so we're gonna look at the difference

  • between your test 10 days ago

  • and your test now to see do we see any change?

  • - First, I had to retake

  • the object recognition memory test

  • and the Morris water maze task,

  • both of which had been revised with different content

  • than they had the last time.

  • I think I did better.

  • - Well, Dane and I will analyze all this data

  • see how you did, but now,

  • we gotta go back to the full size maze.

  • (ubpeat music)

  • So we've got a new maze, tore down the old one

  • built a new one to try to be ISO morphic.

  • So it has sort of the same level of difficulty,

  • the same number of choice points,

  • the same number of turns, the same total distance

  • to each one of the objects to try to have a similar maze,

  • but that's new.

  • Three,

  • two,

  • one,

  • go.

  • - Right around here we got a bonds eye.

  • As before I was given five minutes to familiarize myself

  • with the maze and where the new objects were.

  • Now this is where I was before I hugged that wall.

  • So if I hug the second right wall

  • and stay all the way right, a vase.

  • Was my hippocampus working better?

  • At this point, it was hard to tell.

  • - 30 seconds.

  • - I'm not even sure I've discovered

  • all the objects hidden here.

  • - [Dr. Stark] And time.

  • - [Michael] Then my test began.

  • - First object is a rubber duck, go.

  • - The rubber duck was way over here.

  • (laughing)

  • How you like that?

  • Got a duck.

  • - Second item, is the hat go.

  • - With this maze, I found myself instinctively

  • using a different approach.

  • Top hat

  • instead of thinking of the overall geography of the maze,

  • like I did last time.

  • This time I was remembering specific details.

  • Second, right of the turn, got it.

  • Literally recalling certain corners, turns

  • and straightaways.

  • Bonsai.

  • - [Dr. Clemenson] Now, blue base.

  • - Oh, wow, it's actually a cool vase.

  • But would this improves my overall performance?

  • Got your backpack. - All right.

  • (laughing)

  • So we've gotten all the objects.

  • But of course, we have another memory test

  • that we're gonna do here.

  • We're gonna go around to the other side of the maze

  • and test your memory from there.

  • - All right. - So your first sequence

  • is the blue seahorse, the flashlight,

  • the rubber duck and the bonsai tree, go.

  • (upbeat music)

  • - [Michael] With the multiple item tasks.

  • Even though I was working from the opposite entrance,

  • I continued to recall various details of the maze,

  • which seemed to serve me well.

  • From there, it's just a little spiral.

  • Nice.

  • - [Dr. Clemenson] All right, your next sequence

  • is the blue vase, the hat, the backpack

  • and the baseball glove.

  • - Did it. - And time.

  • - [Dr. Clemenson] Awesome.

  • - So how was it?

  • - That was not as hard as I expected,

  • It was about details.

  • I was literally thinking Oh, okay, there's that turn,

  • and I could do one or two things,

  • the gloves the first one, the bonsai even before

  • I didn't even plan that at all,

  • it just kind of happened.

  • My look alikes were also tested in the new maze.

  • Have you been playing video games?

  • - [All] No, sir.

  • - [Michael] Again, their non gaming condition

  • would be the control

  • with my performance measured against theirs.

  • - All right, we're here for scan number two.

  • - Finally, my brain was scanned once again,

  • to determine whether any physical changes had occurred.

  • Dr. Stark and Dr. Clemenson would analyze the MRI

  • along with all the other data and report their findings.

  • Did you see my cats?

  • - I did there's corn and what's the other one?

  • - Pickle.

  • - Corn and Pickle.

  • - Pickle, pickle.

  • Pickle's the younger one.

  • But we're not here to talk about my cats.

  • We're here to talk about my hippocampus.

  • Memory, comes in lots of different forms.

  • The hippocampus seems to be very involved in spatial memory.

  • - So the hippocampus is involved in the spatial memory.

  • And more broadly, what we call short term memory.

  • So it's not things that you're keeping in your head at one.

  • So if for example, you're rehearsing phone number

  • in your head over and over again,

  • that's what's called working memory.

  • So it's stuff that it's consciously in your head,

  • whereas short term memory

  • is stuff that you just encountered.

  • So if you're thinking about

  • what you had for breakfast this morning,

  • that's the hippocampus that store that new information.

  • - Where I parked my car, where I put my water bottle,

  • but like three weeks from now,

  • I might not even remember that I drink water

  • in a bottle today.

  • - Exactly.

  • So what happens actually is that while you're asleep,

  • the hippocampus over the course of days and weeks

  • is actually offloading its new memories into your cortex

  • for long term storage for long term memory,

  • and actually kind of erases

  • the recent memories that you can store new ones.

  • - How does it decide what to store

  • in long term memory and what to delete?

  • - Well, it's not so understood, actually.

  • And it's not well understood how it even does this,

  • what we know is that when you're asleep,

  • there's hippocampal replay what we call.

  • So let's say for example, you have some sort of pattern

  • of activation in hippocampus

  • that we know course bonds to your memory,

  • we can literally see those neurons

  • firing in the same pattern when you're asleep.

  • - So does that kind of

  • explain what dreams might be at least partially?

  • - That is one theory for what dreams are.

  • So one worry if, for example, your hippocampus is playing

  • your new memories to your cortex is that you might erase

  • similar memories that had been there for a long time.

  • And again, this is not well established science.

  • This is just one theory

  • that's emerged largely from modeling work.

  • But one idea is like let's say, two days ago,

  • you went to the park with your wife.

  • But you also went to the park with your wife,

  • let's say, a year ago,

  • and there are some similarities there.

  • And so one idea is that dreaming could be the reactivation

  • of those old memories in your cortex

  • so as to basically keep them from getting overwritten.

  • - Wow, interesting.

  • - [Daniel] Which is one theory.

  • - It's just a theory, sure, but I like that idea.

  • And if you don't get enough sleep,

  • your memory will be affected.

  • - Yeah, long term memory for sure.

  • So if you're sitting for a test,

  • you really do need to sleep.

  • So that those memories can be

  • what we call consolidated in your cortex.

  • And also, this is why you don't remember your dreams,

  • because the thing that would be doing the short term

  • remembering is your hippocampus.

  • But if it's playing your memories to your cortex,

  • while your dreaming, it's not recording

  • what's happening in your cortex.

  • - Right, because it's playing it for the cortex.

  • - Exactly, so that the direction

  • of information flow has been reversed.

  • So normally, it's the cortex getting sensory inputs,

  • and it goes to the hippocampus, and that's storing it.

  • But when you're dreaming that information flow

  • goes the other direction.

  • - Fascinating.

  • - Yeah. I mean, it's still very theoretical.

  • because dreaming, it's a pretty hard thing to study

  • because people aren't awake, and you can't really test it.

  • So, a lot of this comes from making inferences

  • from fMRI scans of people who are asleep.

  • And also studying the effects asleep and dreaming on memory.

  • - Just for clarity sake.

  • Are you saying that this theory posits

  • that dreams might be the hippocampus plane

  • memories from short term to cortex?

  • - Yes, yeah.

  • - Not cortex playing long term memories back

  • to the hippocampus.

  • - Right, or maybe even the cortex

  • playing old memories to itself

  • so it doesn't forget them or get over written.

  • - Okay, could be either, right.

  • - [Daniel] Yeah, it's not really well understood.

  • - Of course, wow, how exciting.

  • Maybe one of you out there will become

  • the final dream conqueror

  • to answer all questions about dreams.

  • Probably not, though, just to be honest,

  • like, it's probably a tougher nut to crack then.

  • Or is it?

  • - I mean, neuroscience is advancing pretty fast.

  • - Yeah.

  • - So maybe one day soon.

  • - Do you imagine someday being like,

  • dreams used to like, be weird.

  • And people be like, Wow, that's so crazy--

  • - I mean, there's so much in the brain

  • that people used to think of as mystical.

  • So I think one great example,

  • which isn't totally related to this is epilepsy.

  • People used to think that was being possessed by a demon

  • Whereas now we're like, how do people ever think that?

  • - Well, I've got a dream,

  • and that dream is for us to continue watching this episode.

  • Are you ready? - Let's do it.

  • - Here we go.

  • I feel like my hippocampus is a little bit bigger.

  • Yeah, actually, no, I don't know.

  • (laughing)

  • I'm anxious to see what your results are.

  • - I guess let's start off first

  • with the object recognition task.

  • And it's important to know that in our control tests,

  • without video gaming, people do not improve on this task.

  • But your memory got better.

  • You went up by 10 points.

  • 10 points is actually 20 years worth

  • of what happens to us as we age.

  • - Oh, wow, that's about what you might see

  • in someone who's getting really old,

  • but they might go down by 10 point.

  • - Exactly.

  • - So the second one we did was the virtual version

  • of the water maze task,

  • and you actually performed 30% better

  • the second time that you did it.

  • - Aye, not bad, I could tell

  • that I was using better strategies.

  • - Yeah.

  • - We also had the real maze, as you know we made two mazes.

  • Despite our efforts to try to equate them.

  • the second maze was a little bit

  • more difficult than the first maze,

  • if we took a look at things like how quickly

  • you got the objects, how many errors you made

  • and we looked at the control subject performance,

  • and pre versus post.

  • So on all of them, they actually got a little bit slower

  • in maze two, and all that one of them made more errors.

  • We took a look at your performance, you didn't get slower,

  • from maze one to two, you actually got faster.

  • - [Michael] Really.

  • - And you made the same exact number of errors,

  • so they don't improve, and you did.

  • And even though this experiment

  • had a small number of subjects,

  • the results are really consistent

  • with our virtual maze, study with 70 test subjects.

  • - Thank you video games, what about inside my brain?

  • - Inside your brain, it's a little tougher to really tell,

  • we would expect that any effect of this

  • is going to be small.

  • I mean, we couldn't take your hippocampus

  • and make it twice as big,

  • because then it would have to be pushing something else out.

  • So it's just not going to be a large change.

  • So where we did find a difference

  • is actually in the shape of the hippocampus,

  • what we saw is there were some regions in the hippocampus

  • on both sides that appeared to have changed shape

  • from day one before gaming to day 10, after gaming.

  • - What's really surprising to me is that as an adult,

  • my brain is still changing,

  • that makes me wanna take better care of my brain.

  • Exercise it more,

  • because it is a thing that can change it.

  • So I'm not just stuck with what I have now, today.

  • - I mean, in all of this, I think that the big takeaway

  • is that doing things, giving your brain something to learn,

  • something to do, something to figure out,

  • this is what we think is actually keeping your brain sharp.

  • - One way to do that is to keep watching Mind Field.

  • - [Dr. Stark] Exactly.

  • (laughing)

  • (upbeat music)

  • - As our relationship with technology becomes ever stronger,

  • people are bound to worry

  • about what it will do to our brains,

  • will offloading memory and computing

  • to our machines make us dumber?

  • Will our empathy for machines have negative consequences

  • for how we interact with each other?

  • Well, let's look back to another time,

  • a new kind of technology threatened

  • to fundamentally change our brains.

  • Two and a half thousand years ago,

  • the Greek philosopher Socrates worried

  • that the wide use of writing

  • would have a negative impact on people's minds.

  • He said that writing would to quote his student Plato,

  • create forgetfulness,

  • because people will not use their memories,

  • they will trust the external written characters

  • and not remember themselves.

  • Socrates was right.

  • Written language did fundamentally change our brains.

  • But it's also one of the cornerstones

  • of everything modern civilization has accomplished.

  • One of the defining characteristics of being human

  • is that this is not the boundary of my body.

  • And this is not the boundary of my mind.

  • And as always, thanks for watching.

  • There you go.

  • Episode is over, how do you feel?

  • - I feel good about it.

  • I liked what we covered about the hippocampus

  • and kind of getting at that slightly counter intuitive idea

  • that the hippocampus is not just short term memory,

  • but also spatial memory and spatial navigation

  • and how in our own cognition,

  • those two are very tied together.

  • - Whoo, right.

  • You had mentioned earlier about memory palaces?

  • - Yeah, yeah.

  • So have you ever watched Sherlock?

  • - I love Sherlock,

  • I've written plenty of fanfiction about that show.

  • - There is this recurring trope in the show where he goes

  • into I think he calls it his memory palace, right?

  • - Right. Right, right.

  • - Memory palaces comes

  • from this very ancient memorization technique,

  • that's actually it's been used since ancient Greece,

  • where I think they call it the method of low side.

  • And the reason it works.

  • So I should explain the method is basically,

  • you imagine some two dimensional three dimensional space

  • that you're familiar with, like your house,

  • and you place an object to be remembered

  • in different locations in the house.

  • So for example, let's say you walk into the kitchen.

  • So in the kitchen, there's these set of facts,

  • and you go into your bedroom.

  • And there's these set of facts.

  • And the reason this works is because your hippocampus

  • is very spatial, it organizes information spatially.

  • And this actually has an impact on our cognition.

  • So it's also involved in, for example, our sense of time,

  • which is tied to our sense of space.

  • So do you ever like walk into a new room

  • and then you forget why you're there?

  • - Oh, totally, yeah.

  • - That's because of your hippocampus,

  • your hippocampus, tied that mental context

  • and certain memories to the room you're in before,

  • now you walk into a new room,

  • you're in a new spatial context,

  • and that context isn't attached to this memory.

  • - Wow!

  • Fascinating, yeah.

  • Because it's always kind of you realize that you don't know

  • why you're there at the same moment

  • that you realize you're there.

  • Then you're like, all right, new place,

  • and we lost everything that was associated

  • with the last place, didn't we shoot, why am I here?

  • - Yep, and there's also research,

  • showing that this can warp your sense of time.

  • So this actually research I did

  • back when I was an undergrad,

  • on how the hippocampus and other related regions,

  • they encode our sense of the passage of time,

  • or at least our memory for how much time has passed.

  • And so if you constantly switch context,

  • for example, by changing rooms, or even changing the kinds

  • of things you're thinking about,

  • you're gonna remember more time as having passed.

  • - Huh, interesting.

  • Really?

  • - Yeah, and you can manipulate this

  • by even having someone walk into a new room,

  • which is a way of changing context.

  • - Right, and so they will think that it's been longer.

  • - They'll remember, more time as having past.

  • So your memory of time passing

  • isn't exactly the same as your current experience

  • of time passing.

  • - Of course, yeah, I couldn't feel like man,

  • this is so boring, later on.

  • I basically feel like it took a second

  • because I've got so few memories from there.

  • That's what it was like being in isolation,

  • in season one episode one of Mind Field.

  • I have like, no memories from those three days,

  • because nothing happened,

  • I just stared at white walls all day.

  • - And how do you remember time passing

  • when you were in there?

  • - It didn't pass, that was the other weird thing.

  • There's this whole soliloquy I gave halfway through,

  • I believe my stay in that room that isn't in the episode.

  • But it was something like, wow,

  • I'm not even scared of death anymore.

  • Because there's nothing to look forward to

  • every moment is the same.

  • I wonder if this is how a bug feels that you just exist,

  • and there's now and that's all there is.

  • And so death isn't scary.

  • It was a crazy experiment.

  • - A data bug would be having those though.

  • - I know, I know but I'm just thinking,

  • what is the consciousness of a bug?

  • Like if it exists, and it might not plan for the future much

  • It might not remember how long ago

  • it did that other thing in the past.

  • So it's just kind of the world exists right now.

  • But yeah, because I have no memories from that.

  • It just felt like it happened like this.

  • But if I look at what I've done in the last three days,

  • especially now as a new dad,

  • it feels like that's so much time passed

  • forever has passed, since three days ago.

  • - Yep.

  • So we actually did, this wasn't the hippocampus,

  • but it was a region right next to it

  • called the internal cortex, which is kind of the,

  • that's

  • the part of the cortex

  • that feeds information into the hippocampus.

  • So we looked at how activity there predicts

  • people sense or memory for time passing.

  • And so what we did is we put people in the scanner,

  • and they listened to a short story.

  • And after they left the scanner,

  • we then would play two clips from the story

  • and we asked them how much time do remember

  • passing between clip A and clip B?

  • And what we found was the more activity changed

  • in their internal cortex in that period,

  • the more time they remembered passing between those two.

  • - Wow, fascinating.

  • - The idea being literally

  • there was more stuff changing in their head, in that period.

  • - So the perception of time passing,

  • the memory of time passing, dreams,

  • we've got a lot of material for a season four,

  • what do you say YouTube?

  • (laughing)

  • - All about the hippocampus,

  • - All about them, I would love to do a themed season.

  • Just every episode is about fear,

  • or every episode is about the hippocampus.

  • Or the cerebellum, I don't care.

  • But there's a lot of cool stuff out there.

  • And Daniel, it's always a pleasure to have you

  • come and share all of your ideas.

  • Thanks for joining-- - Always fun to be here.

  • - That concludes our Mind Field marathon, for now.

  • Will there be a second installment?

  • I hope so.

  • So many incredibly talented people worked on this show.

  • I couldn't have done it without them.

  • You met some of them today.

  • I'm so grateful to their intelligence and their knowledge

  • and their passion for teaching.

  • If you haven't seen every episode of Mind Field yet,

  • please go check them out.

  • Right now they are free to view all around the world.

  • There's 24 of them, there's playlist on my channel,

  • check them all out, I recommend all of them.

  • The mind is a wonderful place.

  • A wonderful field.

  • It's sometimes scary as a Mind Field.

  • Any who, you know the name of the show, go check it out.

  • And as always, thanks for watching.

  • (upbeat music)

  • That was a blast.

  • I hope you had as much fun as I did.

  • Because you're still watching

  • I got a little bit of a secret to show you okay,

  • this remote I was using the whole time.

  • doesn't even have batteries in it.

  • (laughing)

  • Hollywood magic, everything is smoke and mirrors

  • except Mind Field, it's a very serious show

  • I'm very proud of it.

  • To watch all of the episodes,

  • you don't have to do too much,

  • all you have to do is click here

  • for season one, here for season two.

  • And here for season three.

  • Have fun and as always, thanks for watching.

(soft music)

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

私は専門家&研究者とのマインドフィールドの3つのエピソードを見る (I Watch 3 Episodes of Mind Field With Our Experts & Researchers)

  • 1 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語