All language subtitles for The Brain with Dr. David Eagleman - 01x04 - How do I decide.WEBRip.English.orig.Addic7ed.com

There's a lot of
noise in this operating theater,

but I want you to
listen out for something.

In preparation for this
patient's neurosurgery,

doctors have put
electrodes into his brain

to record the activity.

Through a speaker, we can hear

the firing of
individual neurons.

He's agreed to help me with

an experiment about
decision making.

Ok, can you tell me
what you're seeing,

so it's very simple.

Without him knowing it,

his brain will decide whether
this is a rabbit or an ostrich.

It could be seen as either.

What do you say?
An ostrich?

As his brain comes
to a decision,

there's a subtle change
in the audio.

It's buried
in that pop-pop-pop.

This is the sound of
a decision getting made.

We're eavesdropping
on single neurons,

working in concert with
billions of other neurons

to land on a choice.

This is what every decision

in the history of
the human species looks like.

Every marriage proposal,
every declaration of war,

every leap of imagination,
every mission we've launched,

every bit of human magic
looked just like this.

Our brains are constantly
making decisions.

Some we're aware of.

Most we're not.

Deciphering what we hear,
or see, or smell.

These are decisions.

So is being afraid, falling in
love, giving in, resisting.

Decision-making
is what allows us

to navigate a course
through life.

And your lifetime of choices
has sculpted you into

the person you are right now.

No matter how easy
your day seems,

your brain is always
hard at work...

making choices, weighing up
different options.

And it's often in
a state of conflict...

locked in a great power
struggle... with itself.

Let me show you what I mean.

Right now, I have to make
a momentous decision.

Mint frozen yogurt?
Or lemon?

This is serious business...
because I like both.

Inside my brain,
this choice unleashes

a whirlwind of activity.

Neurons are wildly getting
in touch with one another.

They're forming
competing networks.

One favors the zing
of the zesty lemon,

the other the freshness
of the mint.

When I finally go for the lemon,

I have no real idea
why I chose it.

But if I could see under
the hood, I would find that

the lemon network has
fought harder and won,

squelching my mint network.

And it's not just
mint versus lemon.

I'm wondering whether
to eat this yogurt at all,

because part of me wants it but

part of me knows
that it's fattening.

And it's because of
this sort of conflict

that we can get
angry at ourselves

and cuss at ourselves
and cajole ourselves.

Who's talking with whom exactly?

It's all you, right?

But it's different parts of you.

These rivalries are with us
in every decision that we make.

They're usually
so easily resolved

that we're unaware of them.

But in some situations,
they show themselves.

We can feel the tug
of different networks.

I'll show you what I mean... if I
can find a willing volunteer.

Excuse me, do you want to
participate in an experiment?

I don't think so.
Ok.

Excuse me, do you guys want

to participate in an experiment?

This will only take 30 seconds.

Sorry, we're late.
Ok. Ok.

Would you participate in
an experiment for 30 seconds?

Ok. Ok, so here's
what you're gonna do.

Put your hands out.
Ok.

And I'm going to ask you
to name the color of the ink.

Ok, so what color is that ink?

Red.
Good. Ok.

What color is that ink?
Blue.

This is a pretty easy task.

Red. Blue.

But introduce
a conflict... Between

the word and the color of the
ink, and the situation changes.

Blue... Yellow... Orange...

Orange... Blue...
Green..., uh, blue.

Ok.

Orange... Green...
Blue... Red...

Orange... Blue...
Green...

I had to close my eyes!

Yeah, I saw that.

It's hard because of rivalries

playing out inside the brain.

One network is involved
in naming colors,

another has a lifetime of
training in reading words.

Red... Blue.

With both networks
battling it out,

you can directly
experience the conflict.

To get the right answer,
you have to actively suppress

the word reading
to name the color.

There are occasions when rival
networks can't be reconciled,

and those offer
a special insight.

In this rare footage,
we can see conflict

in the brain expressing itself
in the body.

Psychologist Matt roser
is a specialist

in a condition known as
alien hand syndrome.

This is a rare side-effect
of a split brain surgery

which is sometimes used
to treat epilepsy.

A split brain surgery
is the disconnection of

the two hemispheres
of the brain,

the two halves of the brain.

By cutting the brain in half,
you control the epilepsy better.

In this patient, it has further,

disturbing consequences.

It affects all her motor skills,

particularly the movement
of her hands.

She can do what the doctor asks
with one half of her body...

Can you lift
your hands up in the air?

But she has no conscious control

of the other half.

Can you give me a thumbs
up with this hand?

Give me a thumbs up.

Show me the index
finger of your...

Her right brain takes
control of her left hand

and fights for attention.

What's going on?
Tell us what's going on.

Can you show me your pinky?

Ok, good.

Can you take your pinky and
touch your forehead, please?

The hand just doesn't
respond to commands,

it seems to have
a will of its own.

Because now there
are almost like

two half-patients
inside one body.

Can you show me your thumb?

Show me your thumb.

For this patient,
her alien hand syndrome

was eventually
brought under control.

Yeah, I can't stop it.

But the disorder
reveals something

that's normally hidden,

giving us a window
into the struggle

that's waged inside
our heads every day.

Can you show me... Can
you show me your thumb?

Show me your thumb.

In the business
of decision-making,

two big systems that
often come into conflict

are those we can summarize
as reason and emotion.

These systems work together, so
we're generally not aware that

more than one thing
steers our decisions.

But some situations
can tease them apart.

Consider the trolley dilemma.

- Hi.
- Hi.

I'd like to invite you to
step into this booth here,

and we're gonna show you a video

and just ask you a question
about what you would

do in this sort of scenario. Ok.

You see a train
trolley whose brakes are broken.

It's barreling down
the track out of control.

In its path, you see 4 workers.

They're too far away to warn,
but if you don't do something,

they face certain death.

Then you see a lever.

If you pull it, you'll divert
the trolley onto another track

and those 4 workmen
will be saved.

But here's the thing:
Another man

is working on the other track.

If you pull the lever,
he will definitely die.

So do you pull the lever?

Probably now.

Ok, did you pull the lever?

I pulled the lever.
Ok. Great.

Now here comes scenario two.

There's one more scenario here.

Ok, great...
here we go.

This time, the dilemma
is slightly different.

There are still
4 workers in the path

of the out-of-control trolley.

But now there's no lever...

No way to divert the trolley.

Instead, there is a large man

standing on a water tower
next to the track.

Push him off, into
the trolley's path,

and his weight will be enough
to stop the trolley.

You'll be sacrificing one
to save the others.

So do you push the man?

Ok, did you push the man off?

Absolutely not.

Ok, what did you do
in the first scenario?

Did you pull the lever?

I pulled the lever.

Because it's trading
one life for 4 lives, right?

So what's the difference
between the two scenarios?

The physical contact
of causing death...

even though I can see where
they were the same thing,

they would have
the same result...

my gut feeling was...
Was averse to that.

Everyone I ask
makes the same choice.

They'll pull the lever,
but they won't push the man.

- No.
- Ok.

It's the same ethical
dilemma in both cases.

Would you trade one life for 4?

In the first scenario,
it's just a math problem.

In the second one, you have to

physically interact
with the man,

push him to his death,
and that recruits

other networks in the brain
involved in emotion.

So what's going on
behind the scenes?

The conflict is being
played out across the brain.

At first, the logic
system dominates,

but introduce the idea of killing
a man with your bare hands

and the emotion system comes
online, tipping the balance.

You're caught between competing
drives, with the result that

your decision can
change entirely.

The trolley dilemma sheds light
on real-world situations.

Think about modern warfare.

When you launch a long-range
missile or pilot a drone

or program a cyber attack,

these cause damage
at a distance.

The rational networks
are at work,

but not necessarily
the emotional networks.

Detachment reduces
internal conflict.

It's more like pulling the lever
than pushing the man.

War is easier to wage
at a distance.

If we're capable of bypassing
our emotional systems,

why do we have them at all?

So often in neuroscience,
we learn most about the brain

when things go wrong.

For two decades,
tammie Myers had

a successful career as an
engineer and a happy marriage.

Then, two years ago,
there was an accident.

That morning we got up
and rode about an hour.

From what my friends tell me,

we went into a 90-degree turn
that was not marked.

And, um, tried everything we
could to get around the turn.

The bike went down.

From there I don't
remember anything.

Tammie recovered from the crash,

but one problem remained.

We're gonna need 4,
'cause it's...

She now struggles to make
even the simplest decisions.

I don't...
i don't...

I don't...
i don't care.

I'm going to start crying.

I don't want to cry.

But there's too many
things in there.

There's good days
and there's bad days...

and you don't necessarily know
what day it's gonna be

when you wake up in the morning.

You know, I'm waiting
for the day that...

Water, 2 cups.

You know, that she's normal.

I can't make any...
It's too many things

for my brain to process that's
just absolutely stupid.

Tammie's brain damage
is in the pre-frontal cortex.

Her logic and emotion systems
have become disconnected.

They're still working...
but her emotions are

no longer linked
to her intellect.

Tammie's injury reveals that

even in the most
basic situations,

emotion is a necessary
component of decision-making.

To understand the damage,
tammie's neurologist Dr. eslinger

has brought her here
to the grocery store.

to drape them over the ham.

Tammie still experiences

some level of
emotional expression.

It's just that it's very
kind of elementary in a way

and it's not linked into
the logical system.

I don't understand
what the difference is

of all these things.

Right, if I forget things, I'll get
my husband to pick them up, 'cause...

Eslinger wants to see
how Tammy copes with

the most basic of choices...
what should she buy for dinner?

So here you have some choices.

How do you decide
what it is you would like?

Um, I just look

at different things
that are here

and the different prices,

and, uh,

I don't want big potatoes.

I'd probably just pick
up a bag of, like...

Maybe the gold potatoes or...

She was taking in
the information accurately

about what she was seeing
and the fact there was cost

and there was size and color.

So her brain was processing
all the logical information

but the emotion system
wasn't coming into play,

linking to that logic system.

There is so many.

Why do you need
so many potatoes?

That's right.

My chest is all tight,
thinking about all this.

Well, why is that?

Because it's stress,
it's a decision,

it's, um... there's a lot
of stuff laying here.

Tammie quickly became
overwhelmed with information

that she couldn't prioritize.

The route that she took was,

"well, let me take that one
and get out of here."

I can't process the information.

It's too much.

Now, was that true
before your accident?

No, no.
I was an engineer.

I could do everything,
but now I can't,

can't pick a ham, let alone...
Make 10 decisions

at work within the next hour...

10 decisions maybe in the week.

The situation
makes tammie stressed

but she can't make herself
care about her choices.

To make a decision,
she needs to somehow

value one option over another.

It's a lot of
information to process.

That's what it is...

And that can only be done with

the help of the emotions.

It's information
that you have to put

into your head, I guess...

The logical brain
system still is very strong

and we want to force it to
tap into the emotion system.

So one of the things
we do day to day

is we discard things that
are not so important.

And sometimes it's
our emotions that

help us do that separation.

By having that logical brain
system work on the process,

we may be able to break through

at least in some ways
to reconnect those.

I... i... I just sit...

I don't know what tomorrow is...

am I gonna be better,
am I gonna be worse?

Yeah.

It seems like the pieces
of the puzzle

could be coming together
in a gradual fashion,

but it's really slow... as far as

my past being
would have accepted.

Tammie's story
shows how important

emotions are in
making decisions.

But here's the thing.

Emotions don't just happen
inside the brain.

Our emotional systems interact
with the rest of our physiology.

When we're faced with choices,
our muscles imperceptibly tense,

our hormone levels fluctuate.

These are automatic, physical
reactions... gut feelings.

And we need them.

I'm trying to decide
what kind of soup I want,

but it's a really
difficult choice.

There are so many details
for my brain to compute.

There is calories and price and
taste and salt and packaging.

There are a million
details here,

and I'm gonna be
paralyzed all day

under this mountain of data,
so what I really need is

some sort of summary,
a quick read,

and that's what the physiologic
states of my body give me.

It allows me to put
a value on this choice

and a value on that choice

and that's what allows me
to make the decision.

This conversation between the
body and the brain never stops.

But it really comes to the fore

when we're stressed
or in danger.

Take this situation.

Before I think rationally
about what's going on,

I react physically.

My sweat glands open...

My heart rate increases...

My pupils dilate.

My body's screaming
a simple message...

"Get me out of here!"

Every day, we experience
emotional states like this

but because they're mostly
subtle and unconscious,

we're not typically
aware of them.

But it turns out these states
are crucial for navigating

all the decisions in our life.

Most of us tend to distrust
decisions based on feelings,

rather than intellect.

So it can be surprising to learn

just how much insight
feelings can give us.

Richard tunney is
an experimental psychologist.

He studies the formation
of unconscious decisions.

Just gonna connect
these electrodes...

He's running an experiment
known as the Iowa gambling task.

I need you to
keep your hands still

'cause that will affect the
measurements that we make.

A volunteer chooses to
draw a card from one of 4 decks.

Each time she draws a card,

she wins some amount of money
and she loses some.

Her task is to earn
as much as possible.

As she plays, she's
hooked up to a machine

similar to a lie detector.

It monitors tiny changes in
the sweat glands in her skin.

What she doesn't know is that

the decks are not random
but rigged.

If she keeps choosing
from decks a and c,

she'll end up making
the most money.

The question is, how long
before she figures that out?

The participant
will explore the decks

in the first instance and
they'll choose from all 4 decks,

but doesn't really begin to
choose from the good decks

consciously until they're
in the region of 20-30 cards.

The monitor indicates that

volunteers figure out
which decks

are good and bad much earlier.

After only 10 tries, there is
a spike of activity...

a warning sign... whenever
she reaches for the bad decks.

She doesn't realize it,
but that's the beginnings

of a hunch... an understanding
that her body registers

before her conscious mind.

What we're seeing here
is we're seeing some

physiological response
prior to making the decision.

This spike here in effect
predicts the choice

the participant
is going to make.

As her hunch grows
stronger, she marries logic

to what her body's
been telling her...

which decks to draw from
and which to avoid.

Ok, Elena, can I stop
you there for a moment

and can I ask you
if you had to choose

any one of those 4 decks for
the rest of the experiment,

which one would you choose?

I think I would choose deck c.

Ok. Right, carry on.

It may feel
like a logical deduction,

but it's built on
a physical foundation.

The body and the brain
are all integral to one another.

It's all part of
the same system.

If physiology
always plays a part

in our decision-making,
what does that say about us?

Do we ever act in
a purely rational way,

or is that simply an illusion
that we cling to?

Well, consider this.

If you ever come before a parole
board, keep an eye on the clock.

We would all hope that
lady justice is impartial,

but studies say otherwise in
a way that might surprise you.

Two men come up for parole on
the same day but 3 hours apart.

They've committed
the same offense

and served the same sentence.

So what does the judge decide?

Now, here's what happened.

The first prisoner
was granted parole

and the second
was denied. Why?

Given the crime was the same,

what influenced the decision?

Was it race?
Age? Looks?

Well, one study analyzed

a thousand rulings
from different judges

and they found it wasn't
about those factors.

It was about this.

According to the research,
prisoners were

3 times more likely to be
given parole just after lunch...

when board members
were well-fed...

than just before lunch when
they were feeling hungry.

Having to make decisions all
morning is mentally taxing,

and the judges
were suffering from

what's known as
"ego depletion."

Their brains were
running low on energy

and that especially affects
the prefrontal cortex,

which is involved in
decision-making.

Traditionally, we assume that

humans are rational
decision-makers.

They take in information,
process it,

and come up with
the best answer.

But real humans...
even judges...

don't operate that way...
they're biological creatures.

The court system sets out
to be rational and balanced,

so it's a disturbing thought
that it could be hijacked

by the basic chemistry
of our bodies.

Even judges can be imprisoned
by their biology.

The story's the same with some
of life's other big choices,

where the decisions we make

aren't necessarily
conscious ones.

Instead, we're tugged along
by hidden biological forces.

Evolutionary psychologist
Geoffrey Miller has come up with

an interesting way to show this.

His team recruited the help of
18 lap dancers in new Mexico

and got them to record their
earnings over 3 months.

We know that lap dancers'
earnings fluctuate a lot.

Some nights they earn $800,

other nights they
might earn only $150.

Um, and they're very conscious
of how much they earn.

So it seemed like
an ideal set-up

for being able to ask them
how much

have you earned night by night,
shift by shift,

and to be able to
track that in relation to

where they are in
the menstrual cycle.

Miller wanted to know
if a woman becomes

more attractive to a man
when she's ovulating.

At that point in her cycle
when she's most fertile,

a surge of the hormone estrogen
makes her skin softer,

her features more symmetrical,

and her hip to waist
ratio larger.

The changes are subtle,
but men's brains

pick up on those cues
unconsciously.

The results
were surprisingly strong.

When women are ovulating,
they're earning about

twice as much as
they were earning

when they were menstruating.

But they were also earning a lot
more than before menstruation.

So the real pattern is...
if you're ovulating,

you're a lot more
attractive to men.

You're earning higher tips,

you're getting called over
for more lap-dances,

and we thought that was
a pretty cool way

of quantifying female
attractiveness to males.

Your hidden biological drives

help you to select a partner.

But what makes you choose
to stay with a partner?

It has something to do with your
values and your morals, right?

Actually, your
hormones are doing

a lot of the deciding for you.

One of them is this.

It's called oxytocin.

Sometimes called
the love hormone,

oxytocin strengthens
the bonds we feel

when we're in a relationship.

In a recent study, heterosexual
men who were in love

were given a dose of oxytocin.

They were then asked to rate

the attractiveness
of different women.

The men who were given oxytocin

found their partners
to be more attractive,

but not other women.

In fact, with other women,
they kept

a slightly greater
physical distance.

So, an attractive woman
walks into the bar.

Lots of men clock her arrival.

But not this guy... he's in love
with his partner...

and pumped up with oxytocin,
his attention doesn't wander.

From an evolutionary
perspective, you might expect

that you don't want monogamy.

You want to have as many
offspring as possible.

So why do we have chemicals in
the brain that enhance bonding?

Well, for the survival
of the children,

having two parents around
is better than having one.

It's so important
that our brains

make this decision for us.

In fact, the evidence suggests

that some of our most
complex decisions...

the ones we like to think of
as carefully thought out...

are pre-programmed...
influenced by our DNA...

almost no choice at all.

If you feel the least bit
uncomfortable,

just squeeze the squeeze bulb
that's in your hand

and we'll stop and take you out.

Read montague uses
neuroscience to analyze...

and predict... voting patterns.

It turns out that
political ideology has strong

biological underpinnings
which you can

inherit from your parents.

Montague has found a
link between a person's politics

and one basic
reaction: Disgust.

He has volunteers go
into an mri scanner

where they look at
a series of images.

I show them somebody with

a knife to somebody
else's throat,

physically threatening
stimulus, a dead corpse.

Something that was gross,
like flies on a salad

or something like this.

These things elicit responses
in your nervous system

and we record their
brain activity.

Then we ask them... and not
everybody agrees... we ask them,

"hey, we have this other
experiment we want you to do,"

and they go into a booth
and they answer

a political ideology survey.

How do you feel about
gun control, abortion,

pre-marital sex,
things like that.

Montague's results are striking.

The greater the disgust
response in the brain,

the more conservative
the person is likely to be.

A smaller response correlates
with a more liberal outlook.

The link between
your neural response

and your political affiliation
is not conscious,

but it's powerful.

I think if you ask 9
out of 10 people on the street,

how did you decide
to vote for candidate x,

they would give you
a long narrative about

what they cared about,

the issues that
candidate x supported,

which side of those issues
you were on

and how that person
represented them,

but that is only half the story.

The shocking part
is that your response to

a single disgusting image can
predict your score on that test

with 95% accuracy.

That kind of prediction
is uncanny.

I show you a disgusting image,
I know how

you're gonna vote in 2016.

We may refine
our political arguments,

they may become
more sophisticated,

but the decision about our basic
persuasion... that's already made.

So far, we've been looking at
decisions in the here and now.

What soup do I want?

Do I pull the lever?

Who do I vote for?

Orange. Green.

But there's another aspect

to the story of decisions...

predictions about the future.

We have to weigh
different options

and guess how things
might turn out

at a time that
doesn't yet exist.

How does your brain
pull off that trick?

I have one hour
of free time today

and I'm trying to
decide what to do.

I know I have to get
to the grocery store;

on the other hand, I need
to get to a coffee shop

to work on a Grant deadline,

and I'd like to be able to play
with my son at the park today.

So how do I decide?

Well, ideally, I'd like
to be able to know

what each of these possible
futures would be like...

but I can't time travel.

Or can I?

It may sound like the plot of a
movie, but wouldn't it be great

if we could make decisions by
looking back from the future?

Well, that's exactly
what our brains

are trying to do all the time...

running simulations
of the future

and giving each of them
a different value.

Think of valuations
like neural price tags

that tell us how much we think
something is going to be worth.

So going grocery shopping
will put food in my fridge.

Let's say that's worth
10 units to me.

Writing a Grant will fund
my lab, but it's difficult.

Let's say that's 25 units.

I love spending time
with my son at the park,

so let's say that's 50 units.

Now, here's the thing... Those
prices can change through time.

If we get there
and we run into friends

and it's better than expected,
that ups my price tag

for the next time around.

If we get there and the swings
are broken and it's raining,

that lowers my price tag
for the next time.

And that's important.

That's what allows us
to prioritize

how we make our decisions
based on the brain's

best guesses for the future.

And it turns out there's a tiny,
ancient system in the brain

whose whole job is
to keep updating

our assessments of the world.

I'm talking about
the dopamine system.

The chemical dopamine typically
has a constant rate of release,

but when something turns out
better than expected,

there's a burst of dopamine.

That tells other
parts of the brain

they should increase the value
of that option.

When something is
worse than expected,

the dopamine drops
and the value goes down.

In most of us, this system
works pretty well,

but it's delicately balanced.

Too much dopamine, and that
loop of positive feedback

gets out of control.

This is the root of addiction.

Neuro-psychiatrist Valerie voon
studies addictive behavior.

She's interested in patients
with Parkinson's disease.

They're producing less dopamine
than normal

so they're routinely
put on medication

to raise their levels.

What happens with
dopamine medications

that the patient with
Parkinson's is on

is that it can potentially
hijack the system.

Patients who were previously
moderate in their behavior

suddenly develop addictions

to gambling or food or sex.

These dopamine stimulating
drugs are overstimulating

the regions involved in
reward and motivation.

You see the cue and your
expectation of the reward

becomes much larger
than it should be.

When you take the medication
away, they are always

a bit dumbfounded
about how they ended up

acting the way they did.

As long as
there's nothing wrong with

our dopamine systems,
it should be straightforward

for us to control
our impulses, right?

Don't be so sure.

Take the sub-prime
mortgage meltdown of 2007.

Between bankers hunting
a quick profit,

and borrowers hunting their
too-good-to-be-true dream homes,

it turned into a storm
of disastrous decisions.

As a neuroscientist,
what fascinates me is how

everyone involved gave less
weight to future consequences

and were instead seduced by
what was right in front of them.

The very low interest rates
plugged right into

the I-want-it-now circuitry.

The idea is "take
this house right now."

Live better than you
thought you could."

At some point in the future,
the interest rates will go up,

but that's a long way away.

Because the pull of the now
is so hard to resist,

the world economy almost tanked.

This present moment is a rich
multi-sensory experience

that's hitting me right now, but
the future, that's just an idea.

That's a simulation that takes
place in my neural circuits

and it's a pale shadow
compared to

immediate experience.

It has less emotional pull
than whatever is

right in front of me.

So once again, the brain
is in conflict.

Different networks
are battling it out

between the present
and the future.

Instant gratification
or long-term reward?

When faced with these sorts
of decisions, what do we do?

We rely on our willpower.

Think of willpower
as that thing that

allows you to pass
on that cookie

or at least the second cookie

or the thing that allows you to
hit that deadline even though

you want to be
out in the sunshine.

We all know what it's like
to have strong willpower

and we also know
what it feels like

when you just don't
have enough of it.

In one experiment,
people watch a wildlife film

about animals in distress.

Half the audience has been
told to react normally,

to cry if they feel like it.

The other half are instructed
to curb their emotions,

using their willpower
to squelch their feelings.

The key is what happens next.

After the movie, participants
were given one of these...

A hand exerciser.

And they were asked to squeeze
it as long as they could.

The people who
curbed their emotions

give up squeezing
sooner than the others.

They've exerted so much
mental effort not to cry,

they actually have reduced
physical strength.

This kind of self-control...
it takes energy.

And it turns out that
resisting temptation

or making hard decisions
or taking initiative...

all of these draw from
the same well of energy.

So willpower isn't something
that we exercise,

it's something that we use up.

It's like a tank of gas.

So there's a good reason
why we can't always

rely on our willpower to
make us stand by our decisions.

Our willpower might
be running on empty.

We all know that it's
hard to get ourselves

to do certain things...
like going to the gym.

I want to be in shape,
but when it comes down to it,

there's usually something
going on right in front of me

that's more enjoyable.

So the pull of what's happening
right then is more powerful than

the abstract future
notion of fitness.

So to make certain that I come
here, I take inspiration from

a man who lived 3,000 years ago.

In classical mythology,
the hero Ulysses

lashed himself to
the mast of his ship

so that he could hear the
bewitching song of the sirens

without steering into the rocks.

Ulysses knew that
his future self

wasn't gonna be in any position

to make a good decision,
so he structured things

so that he couldn't
do the wrong thing.

This sort of deal
that's struck between

your present and your
future self

is known as a Ulysses contract.

My own Ulysses contract
is to arrange with a friend

to meet me here at the gym,

and that way the social pressure
lashes me to the mast.

My friendship is collateral
in the deal that

I'm making with my future self.

This allows me to be
the person I want to be...

making good decisions... resisting
the seductive power of now.

Come on, come on.
Yeah.

Oh, yeah, nice.

Our prisons are full of people

who struggle with this.

They're unable to lash
themselves to any mast,

to avoid the rocks.

Attention.

For 7 out of 10
prisoners jailed in the U.S.,

their ability to make long-term
decisions is compromised.

They are there because of drugs.

For 4 decades, we have
waged a war on drugs.

The U.S. invests $20 billion
each year into this fight,

but there's no sign of victory.

And destroying the crop

before the opium could be
harvested from it.

The difficulty with drug supply

is that it's like
a water balloon.

If you press it down
in one place,

it'll come up somewhere else.

So instead of attacking supply,

a better strategy is
to address demand.

And demand is in
the brain of the addict.

So if the problems
lie in the brain,

maybe the solutions do, too.

A couple of miles
from my laboratory,

there's a crack house.

It's abandoned now,
but this was once

a regular hang-out... for Karen.

It brings tears to my eyes.

Because this was part of
the lowest part I hit

when I smoked crack.

And I can't believe that
I was part of that crowd.

If you're not strong enough,
you just can't handle it.

It kind of draws you in.

Karen has had
an addiction to crack cocaine

for many years.

I thought I was
in control of everything,

but that was the drug.

I mean, I wasn't
in control of anything.

I was a mess.

Dirty, hair matted up,
clothes look like

they were in a mud fight.

I couldn't believe it,
and then I stepped back

and think, "damn,
how did I drop so low?"

Karen's story
makes her an ideal candidate

for a new program we're
running in my laboratory.

Rather than simply forcing
drug addicts to go cold Turkey,

we're trying to treat them
with neuroscience...

Getting the brain to take
control of its own addiction.

Inside the mri machine,
Karen watches

images of drug use
and drug paraphernalia.

We ask her to go ahead
and feel her cravings.

We measure the networks
in her brain

associated with that craving.

Then we switch and ask her
to suppress the craving.

Ok, Karen, when you're thinking
about suppressing your craving,

think about the costs this has
had to you in terms of money,

in terms of relationship,

in terms of
employment opportunities.

Ok.

We show her the same images

and measure the regions
in her brain that are active

when she's trying to resist
the desire to use.

These are the networks that
become active in Karen's brain

when she's craving cocaine.

Now, when she thinks about
all the reasons to resist it,

then these networks
come online here.

And these networks, the craving
and the suppressing,

are always locked in battle.

Here's the key... we now
superimpose a Gauge...

which tells Karen how
the battle is going.

Her job is to move it
by tipping the balance

of the suppressing
over the craving.

They show you pictures
of different things.

You have to do suppress
and then not suppress.

It was like a little meter.

When it got... the first time,
I couldn't do it at all.

Then the second time,
I got wind of it.

And I had to really concentrate
and say, "hey, this is it."

"This is what I've been missing,

"that your brain is the one
who told you you needed crack,

"so why can't you
train your brain

to tell you it's
not time for crack?"

I mean, I can suppress
other things.

Why can't I suppress crack?

At the moment, she's looking at

this background picture
of cocaine

and she's working her way over
to suppressing that craving

and holding it there
successfully.

Now, the idea is that she can
practice this in the scanner

and learn how to get
better at it,

and the key is when she's
back out in the real world

and somebody offers her
crack cocaine,

she'll have the tools available
to know how to resist.

I'm not gonna say I'm cured,

because how do you get
cured of something

that your brain conjures up,
your subconscious conjures up?

So I take steps to when
the thought goes through,

I push it out, I suppress it.

You know, I'm not gonna
say 3 months from now,

a year from now, I'll be clean,

but that's what
I work towards daily.

For me, Karen offers
a glimpse of how neuroscience

can help people with addiction.

She's re-wiring her circuitry.

She's shaping her brain
to be better aligned

with who she would like to be.

The future is
filled with promise.

I'm married, I have a great
husband, I have a great life,

and I don't want to jeopardize
that just for a hit of crack.

So I mean, it is even more of
a reason why I quit crack.

It helps my suppression state
because I can actually stop

and I'm doing it for myself,
but I'm doing it for others...

my husband, my dogs, my family,

and that's what's
important to me.

Karen has hope
for resolving the conflict that

constantly rages in the hidden
world of her neural networks.

I think a biological
approach stands

a better chance of working
than mass incarceration.

As we learn more
about our own brains,

we can break away from slavery
to our impulses

and earn the freedom that comes
with having greater choice.

Decision-making lies
at the heart of everything...

who we are, what we do,
how we perceive the world.

Without the ability to decide,
we would be stuck in limbo

between conflicting desires.

We wouldn't be able to navigate
the now or plan for the future.

Neuroscience shows that
you are not an individual...

you're made up of multiple
competing drives.

And by understanding how choices
battle it out in the brain,

we can learn how
to make better decisions

for ourselves and for society.