The Hacking of the American Mind

by Robert H. Lustig

  A Penny Saved Is a Penny Learned

  Now it’s time for you to do your own thought experiment. Don’t consider yourself a consumer, powerless to the whims of the next fad and latest marketing scheme. Contrary to what Las Vegas says, you’re more than your money. Think of yourself as an individual with unique morals and values, and who provides your own unique contribution to your family, to your work, and to the world in general. Think of yourself as an individual with superpowers unrelated to your wallet or your bank account. How does this make you feel? Any empowerment? Before buying the next product that you just have to have that is going to make you happy, engage your PFC first. Visualize yourself with this product three months into the future, six months, a year. Did you need it in the first place? Will it still make you happy? Will it help you to live your life in a better way? When you consider that product’s worth in this way, do you still need it? My cousin has an entire shelf of anti-wrinkle creams. Each purchase, she swears, will make her look younger and therefore happier. Now, if that face cream could improve her self-image to the point where she would be less self-conscious and more social, that would be a product worth the expenditure. Yet most of them haven’t even been tried before the next one is purchased.

  Kasser also showed how you can dissociate consumerism from capitalism. He developed a computerized financial education package designed to get kids to save rather than spend money.17 He randomized a bunch of adolescents to participate in a three-session intervention designed to decrease spending and increase sharing and saving, while another group served as the control. Both groups were followed up every six months for one year. Those who received the intervention demonstrated lower levels of materialism and higher scores on self-esteem (although anxiety remained unchanged). These various studies, while not proof, nonetheless argue that money is only worth the contribution it helps people to achieve.

  I’ll Show You Who’s Boss

  Contribution is the key concept here. Does contributing to the greater good or to society at large drive contentment? Can you derive contentment from meaningful work? Sociologists have wrestled with this for years, and the picture has now come into focus.18 There are jobs that make you feel good about yourself and others that destroy your self-esteem. If your job or your boss (1) disconnects you from your values (for example, pitting the bottom line against the quality of work), (2) takes you for granted, (3) requires pointless or redundant work, (4) treats people unfairly, (5) overrides your better judgment, (6) isolates or marginalizes people, or (7) puts people in harm’s way (physically or emotionally), then you have a job that will generate significant unhappiness. You come home stressed and exhausted and head straight for the chocolate cake or the liquor cabinet. Note that both sets of job characteristics that impact your mental health are exclusive of salary. But if you’re one of the lucky ones, you experience your job as (1) self-transcendent (i.e., it matters more to others than it does to you), (2) poignant (challenging at difficult times), (3) episodic (with peak experiences that vary), (4) reflective (you can see the role that the completed work product will have on society), and (5) personal (you are proud to have performed it), then you have a job that can provide both life satisfaction and contentment. Note that both sets of job characteristics that impact your mental health are exclusive of salary. No wonder unhappiness at work is so rampant, in part due to job stress, and has worsened over the last three decades, from 40 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2013.19 As the saying goes, “Find a job you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.” Until your position, your mandate, your location, or your boss changes.

  A friend of mine spent years as a guard in a maximum-security prison. She got a great paycheck but suffered immense stress and lack of sleep, and eventually became addicted to pills. Now she works in the floral department at a supermarket. She earns significantly less in dollars but has gained immense life satisfaction in creating arrangements and making customers smile. She sleeps better, has kicked her pill habit, and is much happier. Not all of us can quit jobs we hate, and not all of us would find inner contentment in cutting and wrapping flowers for little more than minimum wage. But what if you volunteered to do so or to create/participate in something that brought joy to others?

  On Moral Grounds . . .

  Obviously, individual personal achievements such as doing well in school or getting a varsity sports letter are great ways to derive personal satisfaction, and will rack up points on Kahneman and Deaton’s Life Satisfaction Index, but will those achievements drive contentment? It depends on what the underlying motive is. Altruism is the process of performing tasks that contribute to the “greater good” while deriving no personal gain or reward. Altruism doesn’t activate dopamine but instead drives serotonin. Many seemingly selfless acts aren’t necessarily completely altruistic, as there may be rewards in such actions, like becoming teacher’s pet, earning Boy Scout badges, receiving public service awards, tracking for faster promotion, etc. Rather, the question is: Does your achievement contribute to a goal—that is, a goal that’s bigger than you, that involves others? The answer uses what is commonly referred to as “moral decision making”—processes that govern thoughts of interdependence, egalitarianism, justice, charity, and empathy—versus those that govern thoughts of independence, aggression, punishment, and callousness. Is moral decision making anatomically and biochemically driven? There are two major classes of moral decision making, and our old friends the PFC (our Jiminy Cricket), serotonin, and dopamine take center stage yet again.

  Altruism vs. Spite

  First, have you ever cut off your nose to spite your face? Have you ever punished someone even though there were negative consequences for you as well? To wish others—and yourself—harm is the ultimate expression of lack of contentment. Known as altruistic punishment, or “spite” for short, this behavior stems from an impulsive and emotional reaction to what is deemed to be extreme unfairness. There are two routes to being spiteful.

  The first route to spite is to have a dysfunctional PFC. Psychologists examine this area of the brain by playing the Ultimatum Game, which is a popular experiment in behavioral economics. One person is the “Decider,” the other, the “Responder.” The psychologist offers the players $100, conditional on whether the Decider and the Responder can agree on the split; otherwise both get nothing. The Decider proposes whatever type of split he or she thinks is equitable, and the Responder has one chance: Agree or get nothing. If the Decider offers the responder 10 percent, and the Responder thinks the offer is petty, the Responder may well reject it, even if that means both players get nothing. Responders with damage (e.g., head trauma) to their PFC can’t see the benefit of anything but an even split; they have reduced capacity for compassion, shame, and guilt, and reduced frustration tolerance. So it shouldn’t be surprising that in the Ultimatum Game they invariably get nothing. They can’t see the prize because they can’t see their spite.20 Also, people with lesions to their PFC can’t differentiate honesty from self-interest.21 How happy can you be when you’re willing to screw both yourself and others, you can’t tell the difference, and you can’t even help it?

  The second route to spite is to lower brain serotonin levels. Normal volunteers played the Responder in the Ultimatum Game twice, either after consuming a tryptophan-depleting drink (which lowers serotonin levels in the brain; see Chapter 7) or a control beverage.22 During the tryptophan depletion, Responders couldn’t accept a deal; they showed increased impulsivity and vindictiveness, which was predictable based on the change in tryptophan levels in their blood. This shows that reducing the molecule of contentment biochemically resulted in more impulsivity and spite behaviorally. Even giving tryptophan to an ornery dude can acutely improve his mood.23

  A Benevolent Brotherhood of Man

  The second type of moral decision making is called aversion to harm, either to yourself or others. Most people would rather inflict pain on themselves than on others, in what is know
n as “hyperaltrustic” behavior. In a set of experiments, investigators looked at whether taking even just one dose of the SSRI citalopram (to increase serotonin) or the dopamine precursor L-DOPA (to increase dopamine) could alter this behavior.24 The subjects didn’t notice that they felt any different, but their behavior was. The investigators rigged a contraption that would unleash a series of shocks either on the subject or on an unwitting victim. The subject was the Decider in that they could hit a button or not, but half the time (randomly) they ended up shocking themselves, while the other half the time they shocked the victim. Only the Decider was paid, and received different amounts to hit the button or not. More shocks meant more money, while fewer shocks meant less money. The investigators found that in the presence of the SSRI citalopram, the Deciders increased their harm aversion while strengthening their hyperaltruism: avoiding harm to others meant more to them than the money they earned. Conversely, with L-DOPA, hyperaltruism was reduced, which meant that the money must have been more important than any remorse at shocking others (i.e., they turned a nice guy into an a—hole). More recently, investigators specifically targeted dopamine in the PFC (our Jiminy) by administering a drug that knocked out the enzyme COMT (their Pac-Man in charge of dopamine clearance; see Chapter 3), and then had them play the Dictator Game: similar to the Ultimatum Game, but the Responder has no say at all. By increasing dopamine in the PFC with the drug, the desire to be equitable increased. Even though they had nothing to gain, they still wanted to level the playing field. So it goes both ways. Our moral decision-making capacity is biochemically determined and potentially subject to influence, depending on where and how dopamine and serotonin are acting. Then bludgeon your Jiminy—inhibit the function of the PFC through stress, sleep deprivation, or psychoactive drugs, even temporarily—and the full moon will awaken the werewolf in any of us. Bottom line: contentment and altruism co-migrate, as they are both dependent on serotonin; while reward and spite co-migrate, as they are both dependent on dopamine. Change the neurochemistry—change the emotion—change the behavior.

  Property Management

  How do these moral decisions play out in real life? You just can’t go around giving people drugs and shocking them, but it’s not all that hard to determine whether people are cooperative with each other, in order to achieve the greater good. One seminal study looked at the psychology of almost 1,200 Han Chinese farmers based on one variable: Did they live north or south of the Yangtze River?25 North of the Yangtze they grow wheat, have their own plot of land, and are independent of other farmers and their travails; individuals within their societies demonstrate independence (“I’d rather die my way than live yours”). South of the Yangtze they grow rice, in paddies, where the water level is crucial. Since water runs downhill, the water level is not in your control. A drought or a flood in your paddy means a drought or a flood in everyone else’s. So the rice farmers have to band together and work for the greater good; thus individuals have become interdependent so that everyone is uplifted together (“a rising tide lifts all boats,” literally). Interestingly, the rice farmers demonstrate signs of East Asian holistic thinking and of contentment—e.g., greater loyalty and lower divorce rates—whereas the wheat farmers show more signs of Western reward thinking—e.g., rugged individualism and higher divorce rates.

  The Humanitarian Award

  So can we change our brain’s biochemistry? Of course we can, and without drugs. Jeez, that’s what this whole book is about. Although we don’t have the hard neuroscience behind it, one easy way to increase contentment and derive health benefits is through volunteerism. By offering your spare time to a cause bigger than yourself, without thought of personal gain, you can derive meaningfulness and contentment and eudemonia. Several mechanisms may explain the association between volunteering and emotional well-being. Those who volunteer have a larger face-to-face social network (see Chapter 16) and more opportunity to derive a sense of contribution and purpose.26 Physiological effects include reduced blood pressure and heart rate, suggesting reduction in anxiety or stress. A recent meta-analysis showed that volunteering improved depression, life satisfaction, and well-being, as well as resulted in a 22 percent reduction in risk for death.27 And a recent analysis of a large UK population survey corroborated improved mental well-being in middle-aged and elderly populations that volunteer.28

  Perhaps volunteering can even change adolescents for the better. In a randomized study of Canadian high school students, those who volunteered to tutor elementary school kids for four months demonstrated lower BMI, lower inflammatory markers, and improved cardiovascular risk factors.29 Analysis of the intervention group suggested that those who increased the most in empathy and altruistic behaviors and who decreased negative mood exhibited the greatest decreases in cardiovascular risk over time. So making the world a better place also tends to make a better you.

  The Benefits of Beneficence

  If you don’t have the time to make the world a better place yourself, pay someone to do it for you. It’s not the same thing, but it still works. Winston Churchill, brought up with all the advantages money had to offer, famously said, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” President George H. W. Bush in his convention’s acceptance speech in 1988 spoke about the “thousand points of light,” imploring Americans to take up charitable causes. The good news is that among young adults ages twenty to thirty-five, 75 percent gave something to charity last year, indicating that while they don’t volunteer their time, they still do subscribe to the notion of “making the world a better place.” In fact, philanthropy is a way to use wealth for achievement, to transcend oneself for the greater good. Then it should be no surprise that philanthropy is regulated by the same brain areas and neurotransmitters.

  Harvard psychologist Mike Norton likes to give away money to people who will also give it away.30 When research subjects are told to spend their “experimental charity” on themselves, their happiness index barely moves a notch. Yet when they are told to give that money to another person (prosocial spending), their happiness increases by the amount they gave. Of course, the question is whether they would have felt the same giving money out of their own bank accounts instead of Norton’s.

  Early brain scanning studies demonstrated that the reward pathway (NA) as well as the PFC both light up in response to either taxation (taking your money involuntarily) or donation (giving your money willingly),31 suggesting dopamine might play a role in both. However, these pathways have now been further teased out. Activation of the PFC appears to be the arbiter between whether a potential donation is considered altruistic or charitable as opposed to offensive or cloying.32 What role does serotonin play? In a small but ingenious experiment,33 thirty-two European students were randomly assigned to receive either an oral dose of tryptophan or a placebo. After rating their mood on a visual scale and doing some unrelated diversionary tasks, they were given ten euros for their participation. At the exit there was an opportunity to donate to one of several charities. Upon departure, those who received the tryptophan donated twice as much as those who received the placebo. Obviously, this is a small study and does not prove causation. Does this work in the opposite direction? Can giving make you happier? We don’t know for sure—but why don’t you “give” it a try?

  18.

  Cope (Sleep, Mindfulness, Exercise)

  Life is going to throw you fastballs, curveballs, screwballs, and every so often you’re going to get hit by the pitch. Despite your best efforts, your candidate loses, your kid gets sick, and you don’t get hired for that ideal job. So how do you cope without being a curmudgeon or throwing in the towel? I know you’ve heard it all before: Eat right, exercise, get enough sleep, and breathe. First, what do any of these things mean? How much is the right amount? Second, it’s not just about reducing your eye puffiness or fitting into those Lululemon leggings. There’s hard science behind it.

  One of the primary drivers of reward (C
hapter 4) and inhibitors of contentment (Chapters 7 and 10) is stress. Yet it’s not the specific stressor that matters, it’s the individual’s response to stress and how long it goes on that determines whether that particular stress is adaptive or maladaptive. For instance, most people would view studying for a test or running the one-hundred-meter dash in the Olympics as “good stress,” in part because the stress is acute, there are positive benefits to be had, and you can see yourself being happy past the end of the event. Conversely, most people would view high demands at work or caring for a parent with dementia as “bad stress,” in part because the stress is chronic, there are few if any benefits to be had, and there’s no expectation of being happy—no light at the end of the tunnel. But chronic stress doesn’t just wreak havoc on the individual; it costs everyone. A recent report from Harvard and Stanford Business Schools put the annual price tag of U.S. work stress at 120,000 lives and $190 billion.1 Jazz vocalist Bobby McFerrin beseeched us: “Don’t worry, be happy.” Great idea, but what drives worry and how do you reverse it?

  Throwing Jiminy a Life Preserver

  Tamping down anxiety is the function of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), your own internal Jiminy Cricket; yet it also tamps down the experience of reward. When it’s working properly, the PFC will reduce amygdala (the fear center) output (I don’t need to fear this) and increase hippocampus (the memory center) function (I’ve been here before), focus you, keep you to the task at hand, and reduce hypothalamic activation to maintain low cortisol levels, which keeps your metabolic function stable. But when the PFC is worn out or damaged from years of chronic stress, as can happen in communities where the population is food insecure (not knowing where the next meal is coming from, e.g., in Memphis or Sudan) or life insecure (fear of being in the cross-fire, e.g., in Chicago or Istanbul), then cognitive control is disinhibited and impulsivity is let loose.2 A dysfunctional PFC means less restraint on the reward pathway, with the prospect for non-stop reward seeking for ever-elusive pleasure and ultimately an increased risk for addiction. That’s not all: a crippled Jiminy also means an increase in cortisol, a suppression of serotonin-1a receptors, and an increased risk for depression (see Fig. 10-1). Nurturing our PFC should be our prime directive; unfortunately, our environment has claimed our PFC as collateral damage. We have three simple methods to give our PFC the rest it needs—sleep, mindfulness, and exercise—but unfortunately none of these are simple in modern society, although each is crucial to your physical and mental well-being. Let’s deal with them in turn.