Michelle: For centuries, we've been told to master our emotions, to let reason be our guide. What if that's terrible advice? What if the key to making better decisions, even life-or-death ones, isn't to suppress your feelings, but to listen to them more closely? Mark: Okay, that's a bold claim. My whole life I've heard 'don't make emotional decisions.' You're saying that's wrong? That my gut feeling is actually smarter than my spreadsheet? Michelle: That’s exactly what today’s book argues. We're diving into Emotional: The New Thinking About Feelings by Leonard Mlodinow. And what’s fascinating is that Mlodinow isn't a psychologist; he's a theoretical physicist who co-wrote a book with Stephen Hawking. Mark: A physicist writing about feelings? That’s an unexpected twist. Michelle: It is, but it makes sense when you learn his story. His parents were both Holocaust survivors, and he grew up watching them process the same unimaginable trauma in vastly different emotional ways. That personal history, combined with his scientific rigor, gives this book a unique power. He’s trying to decode the very source code of our feelings. Mark: Alright, I'm hooked. A physicist's guide to emotions. Let's get into it. Where does he even begin to unravel something so messy? Michelle: He starts by blowing up the biggest myth of all: the idea that our minds are a battleground between a logical, rational self and a chaotic, emotional self.

Michelle: We all know the stereotype, right? The cool, logical Mr. Spock versus the passionate, impulsive Captain Kirk. For the longest time, science and culture have told us to be more like Spock. Mlodinow says that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how our brains evolved. Emotions aren't a primitive glitch; they are a sophisticated guidance system. Mark: I can see that in theory, but in practice, strong emotions usually feel like they lead to bad decisions. Panic, anger, anxiety... these don't exactly scream 'good judgment.' Michelle: They can certainly feel that way, and Mlodinow uses a truly harrowing example to show what happens when that system is put under extreme stress. He talks about the crash of Virgin Galactic's Enterprise spaceship in 2014. Mark: Oh, I remember that. It was a test flight that went horribly wrong. What happened? Michelle: The ship was on its way up, everything looked normal. But the co-pilot, Michael Alsbury, unlocked the air-braking system 14 seconds too early. At that speed and altitude, the atmospheric forces were so immense that they ripped the ship apart. Alsbury died instantly. Mark: A simple human error, 14 seconds too early. That’s devastating. Michelle: It was. And when the National Transportation Safety Board investigated, they didn't just find a procedural mistake. They concluded that Alsbury's thinking was likely impaired by anxiety. The intense vibration of the new rocket, the G-forces, the pressure of the timeline—all of it created a high-stress emotional state that made him act prematurely. Mark: Whoa. So it wasn't a technical failure, but an emotional one? It feels like the company's 'move fast' culture, which the book notes was a point of pride, created the very anxiety that led to the error. Michelle: Precisely. It's a tragic case of how an unmanaged emotional state can lead to catastrophic failure. But here’s the flip side, and this is where Mlodinow’s argument gets really interesting. Mark: Okay, so anxiety can cause a disaster. But can an emotion like that ever lead to a good decision? Michelle: It can. He tells a much more personal story about a friend who lost his job and, with it, his health insurance. The friend became consumed with anxiety about getting sick and not being able to afford it. Mark: That’s a very relatable fear for a lot of people. Michelle: Absolutely. And this anxiety made him hyper-vigilant about his health. He started noticing every little ache and pain. One day, he noticed a mole on his back that he’d ignored for years. Because of his anxiety, he went to a dermatologist immediately. It turned out to be an early-stage melanoma. They removed it, and it never came back. His anxiety, this supposedly 'negative' emotion, literally saved his life. Mark: That's a powerful contrast. The same type of feeling can lead to a spaceship disaster or a life-saving diagnosis. It’s not that the emotion is good or bad, it’s about what it makes you pay attention to. Michelle: Exactly. Emotion is the brain's way of flagging what’s important. It’s a data point, just as crucial as logic. The problem isn't the emotion itself, but our lack of understanding of what it's telling us.

Mark: That makes sense. It seems like these feelings aren't just abstract thoughts in our heads. Where does the book say they actually come from? Michelle: This is where it gets really wild. Mlodinow introduces a concept called 'core affect.' You can think of it as your body's internal weather report. It's a constant, low-level feeling that's always running in the background, telling your brain how you're doing. It has two dimensions: valence, which is the good-to-bad spectrum, and arousal, which is the calm-to-agitated spectrum. Mark: So it's like a biological mood ring? It’s just a summary of my physical state? Michelle: A very sophisticated one. It's taking in data from your immune system, your metabolism, your stress levels... and it powerfully, and often unconsciously, influences your decisions. And the book has a truly shocking example of this in action. Mark: I'm ready. Hit me with it. Michelle: Researchers in Israel analyzed over a thousand parole board rulings. They wanted to see what factors influenced a judge's decision to grant a prisoner parole. Mark: Okay, I'm guessing things like the severity of the crime, the prisoner's behavior, their remorse... Michelle: You'd think so. But the single biggest predictor was the time of day. The study found that judges granted parole to about 60 percent of the prisoners who appeared before them early in the morning. But for those who appeared right before the judges' lunch break? The parole rate dropped to almost zero. Mark: Hold on. You're telling me a person's freedom literally depends on a judge's blood sugar level? That is terrifying. It completely undermines our entire idea of rational justice. Michelle: It's deeply unsettling. After their lunch break, the judges' approval rate shot back up to 60 percent, only to fall again as the afternoon wore on. Their core affect—their physical state of hunger and fatigue—was making them more risk-averse and punitive, and they were completely unaware of it. Mark: That’s incredible. So if our body's state is this powerful, what's the main channel of communication? Is it just being 'hangry'? Michelle: It goes much deeper. Mlodinow dives into the gut-brain axis. He talks about the enteric nervous system, which is a network of neurons in our gut so complex that scientists call it our 'second brain.' In fact, about 95% of the body's serotonin—the famous mood-regulating neurotransmitter—is produced in the gut, not the brain. Mark: A second brain in my stomach? Come on, is that a real thing or just a cool metaphor? Michelle: It's very real. And the microbes living in that gut can influence our personality. He cites a study where scientists took gut microbes from timid mice and transplanted them into mice raised in a sterile, germ-free environment. Those mice became timid. They did the reverse with microbes from adventurous mice, and the sterile mice became adventurous. Mark: They transplanted a personality! That's mind-bending. So my gut feelings are... actual feelings from my gut.

Mark: Okay, so our bodies are constantly feeding our brains this emotional data that shapes our decisions. But what about our drives? Our motivations to go after things? Is that the same system? Michelle: This was my favorite part of the book, because it explains so much about modern life. Mlodinow breaks down the work of neuroscientist Kent Berridge, who discovered that motivation isn't one simple thing. It's actually two completely separate systems in the brain: 'wanting' and 'liking.' Mark: Wanting and liking? Don't we want the things we like? Michelle: That's what everyone thought for decades. The 'wanting' system is our motivation, our drive, our craving. It's powered by the neurotransmitter dopamine. The 'liking' system is the actual pleasure, the enjoyment we get from something. That's powered by opioids and endocannabinoids in the brain. And the bombshell discovery is that these two systems can be completely disconnected. Mark: How did they figure that out? Michelle: Through some fascinating and, frankly, kind of dark experiments with rats. Berridge took rats and chemically knocked out their entire dopamine system—the 'wanting' circuit. These rats would no longer seek out food. They would literally starve to death, even if delicious food was placed right next to them. Mark: So they didn't want the food. Michelle: Right. But here's the crazy part. If a researcher put a drop of sugar water directly on their tongues, the rats would show all the facial expressions of pleasure. They still liked it. They just had zero motivation to get it. They had liking, but no wanting. Mark: Wow. And I'm guessing they tested the reverse? Michelle: They did. They overstimulated the 'wanting' circuit with electrodes. The rats became hyper-motivated. They would frantically work to get food. But when they gave them the food, even a bitter quinine solution they normally hate, the rats would eat it voraciously while making facial expressions of pure disgust. They wanted it desperately, but they didn't like it at all. Mark: That is one of the most fascinating and disturbing things I've ever heard. It perfectly explains addiction! The 'wanting' system goes into overdrive, driven by dopamine, even when the 'liking'—the actual pleasure—is long gone. Michelle: Exactly. And it's not just hard drugs. Mlodinow talks about 'supernormal stimuli.' This is where modern food science, for example, has learned to engineer products that are perfectly calibrated to hijack our 'wanting' circuit. The combination of salt, sugar, and fat in a potato chip isn't just tasty; it's designed to make you crave the next one, and the next, completely independent of whether you're actually enjoying it or are even hungry. Mark: It's my entire relationship with the snack aisle at the grocery store. I want it, but do I like how I feel after eating a whole bag of chips? Definitely not. It's a motivation trap.

Mark: So, after all this, what's the big takeaway? If our emotions are this powerful, this physically-rooted, and this easily hijacked by everything from a missed lunch to a potato chip, are we just puppets on a string? Michelle: That's the core of it. We're not puppets, but we are playing an instrument we were never given the manual for. The book's ultimate message is that understanding this system is the first step to mastering it. Emotion isn't the enemy; ignorance of it is. Mark: So it’s about developing emotional intelligence, not just for dealing with other people, but for dealing with ourselves. Michelle: Precisely. By recognizing our core affect, by understanding the 'wanting' versus 'liking' trap, we can move from being driven by our emotions to being guided by them. We can start to notice the subtle signals our body is sending our brain. Mark: So the first step is just to pause and ask yourself: 'How am I feeling physically right now?' before making a big decision. Am I tired? Hungry? Stressed? And to recognize that feeling isn't a distraction—it's a critical piece of data. Michelle: Exactly. And maybe the most powerful question the book leaves us with is this: Are you chasing what you want, or what you'll actually like? Knowing the difference might change everything. Mark: A profound question to end on. This has been incredibly insightful. Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.