.svg){kind=icon}
.avif)
.avif)
Did you know that the way you shake hands could be the reason you make a new friend?
Are you aware that your sense of smell might be the deciding factor in choosing your future partner?
Ever wonder if you were actually angry, or just hungry?
Today, we’re diving into the biochemistry of human relationships with Dr. Joanna Wojsiat—a biochemist, neurochemist, neurobiologist, lecturer, educator, and author of podcasts, articles, and popular science books. We’ll explore the power of first impressions (and what influences them), how to build a team where you can feel and work well, and why mindfulness is key to lasting connections. I’m Dr. Andrzej Silczuk, and I invite you to the latest episode of Dobrze Powiedziane.
- 00:00:00 Introduction
- 00:01:02 What is "chemistry" in relationships?
- 00:05:13 First impressions, biology, and the "biochemical soup"
- 00:09:09 Relationships as the foundation of well-being
- 00:13:09 Theory of mind and its importance in building bonds
- 00:16:29 Genes, epigenetics, upbringing, and our relationships
- 00:18:46 Bowlby’s attachment styles
- 00:19:55 Smell, hormones, and biology in partner selection
- 00:23:14 Facts and myths about pheromones
- 00:26:45 Heuristics and cognitive biases
- 00:31:25 The role of sleep, diet, and stress in relationship quality
- 00:34:35 Generational differences in forming bonds
- 00:39:54 First impressions at work and onboarding in new teams
Transcript:
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Welcome to the Multi.Life space and our show, "Dobrze Powiedziane." My name is Andrzej Silczuk, and today I have the great pleasure of hosting Dr. Joanna Wojsiat in the studio, a doctor of biological sciences specializing in neurochemistry. She holds a degree in psychosomatics from SWPS and studied sports nutrition at the University of Physical Education. She is an author, a podcaster, and, above all, someone I truly enjoy talking to—which is why we’re doing it again. Welcome, Joanna.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Hi, Andrzej. I’m so happy to be here, thank you for the invitation. It’s always an intellectual feast and a pleasure for me, because we could just keep these conversations going forever.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: I’ve read a few times that there’s a bit of "chemistry" between us during our podcast recordings.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: That’s certainly true, especially when we dive deep into the foundations of the neurobiological world, because I know you’re very passionate about that.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: We are connected by neurochemistry and neurobiology. I have a question for you. A question about relationships. What’s the deal with chemistry in relationships? Sometimes it’s there, sometimes it’s not. What is it linked to? Why does this chemistry spark between some people?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: That’s a very broad topic, and we often treat it a bit trivially. We say there’s chemistry or there isn’t, but from a biological perspective, it’s about our perception of another person and what truly resonates between people.
Why do we feel better in the presence of some people and a bit worse, or perhaps more guarded, around others? It’s all tied to these biological connections. We’ll be breaking this down into its component parts throughout our conversation today. But it is true: the way we perceive reality, ourselves within that reality, and other people is a result of our biology and neurochemistry. And here, despite my great love for the humanistic way of viewing people—and without denying that we are more than just a "bag of genes," as Richard Dawkins put it—it is simply a mutual correlation of interactions.
And now, considering the word "chemistry" you mentioned—which is my neurochemical hobbyhorse—it’s about whether we produce specific neurotransmitters in the presence of certain people. Like serotonin, which is known to be associated with feelings of calm and contentment, or whether someone excites us, and the conversation with them leads us further, making us want it to continue. In other words, our nucleus accumbens or reward system is activated, and dopamine is produced. Or, in the presence of some people, we might feel a kind of elevation, though I’m referring more to "distress," as we call it today—negative stress. Whether our anxiety or cortisol levels rise, it’s all an effect of this resonance between people.
However, what I want to point out right from the start—and I suspect you’ll steer the conversation in this direction—is whether this is some kind of final verdict. If there is chemistry or if there isn’t, is there nothing we can do about it? Well, we can—that’s a spoiler right there. But from a biological perspective, it’s simply a system that our brain sends us, both on a chemical level and through the functioning of brain structures that position us in a certain way in the presence of a given person.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Is it the case that we meet someone and this chemistry happens instantly? Are we somehow predisposed to it? I don’t know someone yet, I meet them for the first time, I see them, and suddenly something... It clicks, something happens.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes, we do say that chemistry is a "first impression" effect. I also know that from a psychological point of view—which is probably more your area of expertise—many aspects influence this. For example, our attachment styles, how we were raised, or perhaps the way certain people project their reality might remind us of something that wasn’t exactly a positive experience for us.
However, it is true—and the entire theory of mind, which is a very interesting concept being developed today, especially in the context of neurodivergent brains like autism spectrum disorders, tells us this—that our human brain is structured in a specific way. For instance, the medial or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, where specific parts of our brain and neurons perceive a person in a certain way. This is what we call mentalization, or assigning meaning to understanding a person and their intentions. Whether I am correctly predicting how this person feels—our brain is indeed responsible for that.
And it’s true that we resonate more with some people and less with others. This is a result of, among other things, how that person behaves toward us. Whether it’s something familiar or something safe for us.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Reminiscent.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Because our brain is also very sensitive to that. After all, the basis of our neuroplasticity is that we learn from both mistakes and good experiences. But from an evolutionary point of view, learning from mistakes is arguably the most important, because it was always meant to protect us from danger. We strongly remember things—hence the saying that "bad is stronger than good," or that the brain is like "Teflon for the good, Velcro for the bad." Namely, we try to remember bad emotions and warning signals just to keep us alive. So sometimes, in an interaction with another person, we might be very sensitive to warning signals or negative cues. We look to see if that person is truly sincere with us, if they have good intentions. We are like...
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: cats, catching every stimulus.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: More like cats than dogs. Although that also depends on our temperament and way of being. It also depends on our social openness, how we were raised, or whether we are just "Peter Pans."
I might add, from my own point of view and life experience, that I tend to be more open to people rather than sniffing out danger, but that might be the result of the fact that, as a rule, I tend to meet good people in my life. That is, good...
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: experiences, too.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes, exactly, so it’s very strongly linked to that.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And let’s remember that chemistry is one thing—something that happens between us. That serotonin, that dopamine, that oxytocin which is also released between people if someone is open and warm toward us. It’s very strongly related to how we behave toward each other, but there is something happening on a super-unconscious level, although I’ll add that this biochemical soup isn’t just generated. Okay, I really like that...
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: term, "biochemical soup."
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes, let’s produce some serotonin, because I want to have a good time with Andrzej here. It happens on its own, but let’s remember that on an emotional level—one that is very deeply rooted and networked in the brain—as I mentioned, the search for danger is driven by the emotional part, the limbic system, or the amygdala. And that is our first signal. Okay, I am safe, so this signal of the first impression—how we behave toward another person—is truly very important. Because, for example, if I had come here to record with you, and you had greeted me with nervousness, not shaken my hand, or squeezed it too hard, those are subtleties that I could perceive as a potential threat, regardless of whether I have any prior experiences.
So you’re not Andrzej with a tablet and a pen in your hand, but a person with a spear who just wants to kill me. A person with…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: a spear and a shield.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: I see. So, on one hand, we could say that if that first impression generates the neurochemical soup that allows us to form a positive association with the experience, it will be much easier for us to build trust.
What about a situation where, when greeting you, I shook your hand without controlling my strength, while at the same time I had a stomach ache or something difficult had happened just a moment before—basically, by the book, everything that could go wrong at the first meeting, the first impression, did. You felt tension, you felt discomfort, even if you weren't fully aware of it. I didn't intend to make a bad impression, but that’s how it turned out. So, what now? Are we able to salvage this somehow?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Of course we are. Because that is the very essence of relationality, of good relationships, which people are talking about more and more these days. And it’s actually great that we’re talking about it too, perhaps from the perspective of chemistry and, you know, total biology. "Total biology" doesn't sound good. Not good.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Not a good word.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: The word, because I’m not a fan, but the fact that it is biological. But it is also very firmly rooted today in the context of a good life. The most important studies from significant, reputable scientific journals—the ones scientists love, like Nature, Science, and Cell—show that how people feel in life, how they define their lives, whether they feel full or lacking that core, that significance—in other words, whether they perceive their lives as living in well-being—is filled with interpersonal relationships.
And these relationships don't always start off perfectly. I think there’s a good saying that it’s not just the initial spark in a relationship that matters, but how it smolders afterward and whether it’s long-lasting. So it may be that there are indeed many psychosocial and biological-psychological factors that caused you to have a stomach ache today, or maybe you had an argument with your partner, or the dog didn't behave well at home, or there was traffic.
A whole combination and a whole array of events that influenced why you might have felt worse. And now, if I were to permanently encode that experience—which my brain could certainly do, you know, in terms of long-term potentiation—thinking, "Gee, this Andrzej guy isn't great," then I think most of our relationships would fall apart. Because we are only human, and there is a range of traits, especially stress-related ones, which I think we will also talk about—how much our perception of reality and how we are toward others depends on stress. I think we just need to have that openness, and that’s what our prefrontal cortex is for: to rationalize. And also a very important point: don't take everything personally. That is, not everything is about me. If you behaved in a certain way in that one instance, it doesn't automatically mean that you don't like me and that there’s no chance for that chemistry between us to develop.
This is where our openness and mindfulness toward another person come into play. It’s about having the chance to interact and get to know each other better, rather than just following that primal, highly cautionary biological signal.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: You’ve decoded that a bit by mentioning the theory of mind, because we really do use that tool. Sometimes it functions incorrectly, and then we assume that what we have in our heads and our way of understanding the world is identical to the way the other person interprets the world, which very often leads to misunderstandings, especially in communication. About 115 years ago, Adler said that social relationships and building bonds with others are one of the main substrates of a good, healthy life and mental health in general.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly. And I really value Adler’s psychology. The Harvard study, which is still ongoing and was started 88 years ago—the book "The Good Life," the one with the white cover and balloons, talks about it—covers that entire study and also points out that the quality of these relationships and their long-term nature, as we mentioned, how long they last, is the indicator of a good life.
And now, given that fact, it’s never the case—and I think we all know this—that there are only good relationships or only good moments in our lives. Generally, life is dictated by suffering and toil. And here I’m speaking from the perspective of Buddhist philosophy, that our readiness for the fact that people are different, changeable, that we have mood fluctuations, and that in various types of relationships—whether romantic or friendships at work—there are moments of great closeness and also moments of distance. It’s like a result of our emotionality and how we function psychologically.
And now, this theory of mind, defined for the first time in '78, I believe, and later tested by Baron-Cohen, for example, showed us that it doesn't work the same way for everyone. And this is very strongly linked to the neurobiological component. The theory of mind is related, among other things, to the functioning of our precuneus, our dorsal and ventral cortex, and also to the default mode network, the so-called DMN, which tells us about our self, our identity, our ego. How much we project our thoughts or how we feel at a given moment onto another person. And it can also be, as I mentioned, impaired, or perhaps a more accurate term would be "functioning differently" in neurodivergent individuals.
And it’s similar in the context of building a gratitude practice, that we aren't able to learn how to read a person better. And here, mindfulness comes to the rescue, as does working with one's own affect and regulating our neurochemistry. Because we mentioned this biochemical soup, but I think it’s worth mentioning that it’s a very important element of our perception of another person. And you talk about this a lot in terms of alcohol—we both talk about it in the context of alcohol and not hearing things when we have lowered levels of the neurotransmitter GABA.
We know that this neurotransmitter is also linked to mentalization and the theory of mind, in addition to typical structures. If we don't have enough calm within us—for example, we are sleep-deprived, or generally not relaxed enough, or we consume alcohol in increased amounts, and this GABA neurotransmitter isn't produced in sufficient quantities—or in some dysfunctional states or neurodivergence, like autism, we know that GABA levels might be inadequate, and we have trouble with social openness and correctly perceiving the intentions of another person.
I think this is very visible in people who are chronically stressed or in people who are in such a constant rush of life, that we aren't able to open up, read intentions, and generally, we perceive most of the reality that surrounds us as something negative, or we simply don't pick up on the subtle signals that a person might be giving us, even eye contact, micro-gestures, etc. So, a person's psychophysical state, which, by feeling it, we are able to adapt to better. So I think the theory of mind is one thing, and we don't always have that much influence over it, but what happens to us on a biochemical and chemical level—we do have influence over that.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: So, if I understood correctly, we shouldn't blame ourselves for not being great at reading other people, but rather try to take care of ourselves, let go, and forgive ourselves for perhaps not having that specific talent "maxed out" like others?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Definitely, although I would leave an ellipsis here, implying that the topic isn't closed. Meaning, if... Gosh, I just feel uncomfortable in the company of others. And that’s okay, too. I want to say that we all feel this way. Even considering whether we are introverted or extroverted, some people thrive in a room of 30-40 people. They can strike up a conversation with anyone and feel very open.
There are others who aren't exactly "sharks" in that world and truly have a preference for one-on-one dialogue or small groups of two or three people.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: They hang back for a moment and need to scout the territory.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly, so it’s not that there’s something wrong with them. Let’s remember, we talk a lot about neurodivergence today in the context of change or dysfunction.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Fortunately, we are finally talking about it.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And I believe we are all somewhat neurodivergent because no two nervous systems function exactly the same way. This is also what Robert Sapolsky talks about, for example. I lean heavily toward biological determinism—that what is happening now, my interaction with people, and the way I perceive various stimuli is the result of what happened much, much earlier. Genes, epigenetics, and the way we were raised. We’ve already mentioned attachment theories and everything that has shaped how I see the world—through my individual perception, my very heterogeneous, ever-changing prisms. But if we don't perceive a person as we would like to from the start, I really want to deconstruct the idea that things are set in stone; we can give ourselves a chance to change that.
And I think that matters a lot, especially in relationships where we don't necessarily have a choice, like with colleagues, building teams, or a larger group of friends where someone doesn't quite click with us. Family. Family is a perfect example. In a family, we have slightly different correlations because we can afford more freedom and don't have to keep our behavior so tightly in check. But that openness and the attempt—which, in my opinion, we make too rarely—to change ourselves and look inward, to ask if I can change something in my approach to this person instead of just blaming them, saying, "Oh, they're just a Grumpy Cat" or "They're very closed off."
A lot can happen within us, and we can truly train ourselves in this.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: So you spoke about the genetic foundation, the material we are born with. You spoke about epigenetics, the modulation of genetic material due to environmental influence.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: we have our entire social life. 75 years ago, Bowlby. Attachment theories. It’s been 75 years since theories were conceptualized stating that every person develops a specific pattern for building relationships. In some cases, we are set to be very reserved; sometimes we don't feel entirely confident, and while we would like to, we are a bit afraid.
There are also those who are quite open, the ones you just described—people who, at a large gathering, are the life of the party, high-fiving everyone, chatting with every person, and energizing others. And then we have those little "Grumpy Cats" who need time to get used to the situation and might not feel comfortable there at all.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes. And I think Bowlby’s attachment theory was, until recently, more grounded in romantic and partnership relationships—secure, avoidant, anxious, and mixed styles. I don’t want to step into the shoes of a psychotherapist here, but it’s clear that we do indeed place ourselves in certain social groups based on various similarities. But I’d like to say it’s not just that. I think it’s also worth talking about this from the perspective of our selection process in general. We are talking about team, partnership, or friendship relationships, but we often perceive people as "smellers," excuse me.
We often perceive people as visual learners because the world today is dictated by what we see. We are overstimulated mainly by visual stimuli, although noise plays a part too. With those…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: I agree with the "smellers" part, because you mean the limbic cortex, I understand. I mean…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: the limbic cortex, I mean the rhinencephalon, I mean super-evolutionarily conserved atavistic mechanisms, thanks to which we recognized our mother’s scent or sensed danger.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: You see, those olfactory cells, right. Yes. The vomeronasal organ, pheromones…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: which we don't actually have. Through the cribriform plate…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: of the brain. Yes.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Andrzej, we are moving into our territory here. Exactly, and I am fascinated by the sense of smell in general. I also love aromatherapy. I get to know people very strongly through their scent; I feel that I have this sense more developed than others.
However, what I want to say is that even though we know a lot today—and you know how it goes in science—I have a feeling that there is still more to be discovered in this area. We don't have a typical vomeronasal organ, that Jacobson's organ, like dogs do, and we don't pick up pheromones in the same way, but we really do secrete a whole biochemical cocktail of neuropeptides and scent compounds that we are capable of sensing.
And this is particularly interesting in terms of partner selection. I’m talking about romantic relationships now, and at the moment, I know that research has a lot to say about the so-called MHC class I complex. It’s an immunological construct that allows us to identify a partner who is as genetically diverse as possible, at least in terms of their immune system cell profile.
I’ll just add that, currently, this is most extensively studied in the context of heterosexual couples. We know that couples who have the healthiest offspring, or who feel the most chemistry, are the ones who are most genetically diverse from each other. And that’s interesting, because we don't see this on a conscious level—we can't perceive it through sight—yet we feel it very strongly.
There are also studies—I was talking to Michał about this before we started—which indicate that if women are not on hormonal contraception, meaning their entire menstrual cycle is left to its natural biological balance, men are better at sensing women who are ovulating. Likewise, women who aren't on hormonal contraception are better at sensing men with higher testosterone levels. There was also a study involving sweaty men's t-shirts, where women actually identified the shirts worn by men—this might sound bad, but the owners of those shirts, or the men who wore them—had higher testosterone levels. So, there are mechanisms we don't fully understand through verbalization or description, but we feel them very strongly.
I also wanted to point out that this depends on our hormonal balance, which is highly dependent on stress levels. Our entire hormonal system hangs, as it were, on that primary cortisol regulation.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: I remember an interview with Professor Zbigniew Lew-Starowicz, where he said that people should choose their partners based on how they smell to each other.
That corresponds very strongly with what you just said. Oh, okay. And are pheromones a myth or reality? Well…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: You mentioned pheromone perfumes.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I have to admit that, as of now, while doing research for this episode, I find it hard to believe that we secrete pheromones like animals do, but then again... If we sense each other and choose partners, as you mentioned, based on these scent compounds, and if these are substances or molecules that could potentially be analogs—biochemically structured like our endogenous compounds—then why not?
I mean, we know how it works: receptor and ligand, the molecule simply attaching to the binding site. But I admit I haven't delved deep into this topic. To me, it’s a bit like—and I’ll tell all the ladies this so they don't get taken in—creams with telomerase or treatments that supposedly restore our telomeres and have anti-aging effects; we haven't reached that level of genetic engineering yet. Absolutely not. We can support telomerase and slow down aging primarily through stress reduction. Regarding pheromones, I’m not entirely convinced that it’s a real thing. But it is…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: ...very modern, because we are looking for simple, quick solutions that are, in quotes, "free."
I think that creams targeting telomerase would have to be smart enough to only reach healthy cells. But we have quite a few cells that need cleaning up, and such products won't necessarily help us then. You mentioned scent and different impressions. We know that, for example, a situation can occur where we meet someone in our environment, like at work, and smell their perfume. It strongly reminds us of a specific brand, we can recognize it, but it happens to be associated with a person from our past who perhaps wasn't a very positive character. Does that influence the building of a potential relationship?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: The first impression, definitely, because as you mentioned, scent, the olfactory brain, and the limbic system are our first warning signals—they are emotions. But fortunately, if we are well-rested and have strong rationalization and proper functioning of our prefrontal cortex—that evolutionarily newest structure which, you could say, makes us human in terms of decision-making and judgment, so we aren't driven by affect and can rationalize our views and thoughts—we are able to tell ourselves: "Hey Asia, it’s just a scent, it’s just Andrzej’s perfume; it doesn't mean this is the same, I don't know, bad person or someone who made your life miserable throughout college." That’s why being in touch with yourself is so important. And the role of rest and self-care is crucial here. We have…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: ...resources.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: If we have the resources to engage that rationalization. And taking care of the brain is super important, because since the brain gives us the biochemical and biological capacity for the mind to function efficiently, we can rely more on that theory of mind, or on rationalizing that it doesn't mean the person is actually like that.
It’s similar when it comes to cognitive biases or so-called heuristics, where we assign certain attributes to people that aren't entirely true. Because if a person sits a certain way, or dresses a certain way, we immediately label them, or fall for the so-called halo effect.
If I know that a handsome man is always a great speaker and is wonderful at dealing with other people, then, in principle, according to the halo effect, all handsome men are great. That’s not quite how it works, and we must also be aware that our brain, in terms of perceiving reality and thinking about people, will take shortcuts, and usually, it will take those shortcuts to avoid energetic expenditure. Because all of this requires processing, consolidating facts and events, and assigning meaning to that perception, so we tend to think in shortcuts.
That’s why I believe that mindfulness—the constant stress reduction I keep trying to talk about—is key. Really. Reading various studies at the intersection of meditation and mindfulness, people who perceive their lives as calm and in a state of well-being are able to form better, more lasting relationships and not be so quick to judge that someone’s behavior defines who they are.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: I think of it this way: we have innate traits, and our brain develops more or less typically. In the sense of the neurodiversity you mentioned, most of us possess certain traits, especially diverse ones. We function in a world where the immediate environment in which we grew up as children shaped our later competence for building bonds, in accordance with Bowlby’s theory.
We are here and now, and I hear that two great people might meet who, under particularly good circumstances, could greet each other, high-five, and form a fantastic duo. But external circumstances can ruin that. For example, bad weather, difficult conditions, or noise—like meeting someone at a concert where you can't exchange a few words and are generally under a lot of pressure. Can this environment really spoil our relationships?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Very much so. And now, beyond the external environment, let's also mention the internal environment—that is, how we feel within ourselves. But starting with the external: if we are in an environment that is generally stressful—and by a stressful environment today, we mean, well, we are in the city center here, we have this image behind us, and I hope we can soften the city a bit and talk about the fact that we are biological, open beings. This…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: people. You know, people driving cars somewhere, thinking about various things.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I just mean that, for example, a calm, intimate interior—like a cafe without a huge racket—is definitely more conducive to getting to know someone better and establishing relationships that aren't dictated by emotion and stress, even on a subconscious level. It won't be a city center that is just, you know, roaring with noise. Because I don't know if you listeners know, but noise today is perceived as one of the main factors associated with industrialization; it's a stressor that shortens our lives by about 10 years. So, if it's such a strong stressor, and we happen to be internally stressed ourselves, the other person might make a worse impression on us.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Okay, so the chance is sort of gone. That means circumstances can influence that first impression, which means that if we had a second chance under better conditions and circumstances, we could potentially save something.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes, of course. We don't know how it would have happened in a parallel reality—what it would be like to meet someone in the Kabaty Woods versus meeting someone at the ONZ Roundabout, because it also depends on the person, how we feel with them, and how they look in our eyes. You know, these are those biological subtleties, as I mentioned, the release of chemistry between people. However, let's note that yes, stressors and high noise—a term coined back in 1954 by Craig as "technostress"—mean that our phone rings, something stimulates us here; there used to be pagers, maybe not in Poland, but that's what I associate it with.
And street noise, too. It doesn't necessarily have to be conducive, which doesn't mean it depreciates or takes away the possibility of building relationships. Because there are people—we know there are individuals who thrive in such hustle and bustle, perhaps more in short bursts, because I don't believe anyone could stand on the street for 8 hours and hold a conversation—but some people find themselves better in it, others worse. It is also worth paying more attention to this interoception, this feeling of oneself. To look more closely at whether it's stressing me out too much, maybe I'm not myself, maybe I'm talking nonsense, or maybe these sounds are detaching me a little from my rational side. Because that will also affect the level of my neurotransmitters; high stress, high arousal, and noise increase our cortisol levels and lower the level of that GABA neurotransmitter I mentioned, which is responsible for social openness, so it definitely matters.
On the other hand, there is this environment, our internal home, this interoceptive feeling. As I said, feeling the body, feeling yourself—whether I'm hungry. I don't know about you, but most of my friends and men in my environment—as a dad, as a partner—when someone is hungry, when a guy is hungry, as they say, he isn't himself.
And indeed, in the context of people I know closely, it's true that you don't talk about important things or tackle difficult topics. It is a very physiological and primal trait in us to feel a full stomach. It's not about being overstuffed, because that can also affect our well-being, but when we are hungry, when we feel thirsty, when we need to take care of a physiological need, all of that will affect whether we talk to someone calmly, whether the conversation is open, whether I am truly listening to this person or already thinking about when I'll eat a sandwich or if I'm rushing to the restroom.
So those issues, that basic physiology, definitely matter. But how we feel in terms of our emotionality and the condition of our mind also has a huge impact—that is, stress regulation. Am I rested? Did I eat a good breakfast? We could open another folder of topics here, Andrzej, but we know that diet and what we eat every day really builds our neurochemistry. Serotonin isn't produced in a vacuum, and dopamine doesn't come from nowhere either. The endorphins we release in response to a reaction can also be stored in us, for example, when we sleep, engage in physical activity, or play sports.
All of this sort of pre-cooks that biochemical soup, so we have the resources to create the right regulation for the relationship—that is, to simply react appropriately. So, if I am hungry, tired, sleep-deprived, or annoyed by a previous experience, I will 90% likely perceive this person differently than if my internal environment were simply well-maintained and managed with a sense of calm.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: I once heard from a systemic therapist, someone who works with couples and families, that when a couple returns home, the first thing they should do is prepare a meal, preferably in silence, prepare drinks, eat that meal, and only then start talking. Well…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: and that makes biological sense.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Various official matters that one might want to talk about. However, there is a much greater risk that a small catastrophe might happen there, precisely because of what you mentioned. We function in a relational network—some in much larger ones, others in very small groups. But in these groups, we have representatives of different generations.
I have a question: between these representatives—of course, like you, when I look at a person, I primarily think about their brain and see that beautiful organ in them—are there differences between generations? It's too short a process for evolution, but do we really have a difference between the generation of seniors, mature adults, young adults, teenagers, and children? Do these brains differ from each other in terms of relational neurochemistry?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: That's a good question, because I haven't read such detailed research on this. But it suggests itself when thinking about the biology of our functioning—for example, looking at seniors, people aged 60-70, versus a person now. I admit I don't know all these different generations—Z, we have various acronyms and abbreviations now—but generally, I mean that today's youth might have a completely different sense of the purpose of building relationships. I mean that most of it happens, for example, in the social media space. They have different tools, and I remember there was a campaign by a foundation, I believe "Dajemy Dzieciom Siłę" (Empowering Children), called "Dopamine." I also had the great pleasure of writing and talking a little bit about dopamine. Those were conversations with young people who indeed build relationships in a completely different way.
Meaning, not through eye contact first, and not through touch either. We mentioned the very important aspect of oxytocin, which is released strongly when we touch and hug—like, I don't know, grandma, aunt, yes, an aunt's kiss, a pinch on the cheek, even shaking hands at a meeting, or behaviors that might be closer to southern cultures. But I also really like to hug someone, shake hands, or make that tactile contact; it sort of creates our perception of that person, and we "oxytocin-ly" like to feel the other person. Well…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: so how did teenagers cover that deficit? Today's generations of young people function primarily in a social, digital network, and they have a very large network, quite a few people they are in daily contact with. But you can't give a hug there. Yes…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I'm also speaking generally, of course; I'm not an expert on the topic, though I know there are many experts who talk about this community among young people, or what gaps such people really see now, after COVID, for example. However, what definitely differentiates us in terms of age is that I think we, people over 30 or 40, grew up in a different environment—at least that's how I remember it. There were no mobile phones then; there was sitting in the yard, going out to the jungle gym. A more "here and now" relationality, not online, which, as research and books on the subject say, makes those relationships stronger and deeper.
I don't want to depreciate relationships that start on the internet, because I won't hide the fact that many friends or close people here—Andrzej, we also know each other from "the internet"—I feel that relationally, in person, it actually works out quite well for us. But we moved that relationship, let's say, from the digital world to the so-called "real" world, or to this life of, let's say, body-to-body, and biologically we can even feel each other somewhere. That, I think, is the big difference. However, what is visible, and I think is quite interesting in terms of the overall well-being of people of different ages, are multi-generational families, and I think we observe this especially in those collective, Asian societies, for example. Of all the countries I've been to, I think I fell in love with Vietnam the most.
Indeed, people live there, they have the lowest obesity rate and a relatively high level of social connectedness. This doesn't necessarily translate into the same level of happiness as, for example, in Bhutan, which is often talked about, but growing up in multi-generational families likely fosters a sense of overall happiness even for the younger descendants. So, it’s not…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: does it need to be substituted, for example, with eating sweets or using alcohol? Regulation…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: of emotions through these dopamine-driven, cheap methods, as we call them today. And it’s certainly true—I might not have typical PubMed studies here—but I, for one, really value the company and environment of older people. For me, it’s like Gandalf’s wisdom, that "wisdom" as opposed to "knowledge," as we might say in English—just pure life wisdom.
It’s a different perception of reality, and I also think that placing more emphasis on relationships, like those with neighbors, is key. I’ve recently moved and am a "newly minted" country girl. I moved out of Warsaw, then Wrocław, to the Owl Mountains, and honestly, after ten days of being there, spending time mainly in the company of various older neighbors, local handymen, and people my own age, I see how different these relationships are. They aren't dictated by such haste; there’s a greater depth in engaging with a person, in talking. There’s no such pressure. Now, I don’t want to say this is only related to age—you know, during the period of greatest productivity or a professional peak in big cities—but I think we can learn from older people and the social connectedness in older generations. Perhaps a greater openness, more calm, and more of a "human-to-human" presence, which I feel we are losing a bit today. But I still believe we will wake up somewhere, and even this conversation today, which talks about how to build good relationships and not give ourselves over entirely to digitalization, for example, gives me hope that we will be able to stop it. Because we see it in reality—and you and I both mentioned this when thinking about the Harvard study—that this is something that can save us from a mental health crisis.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: We are embedded in social groups, and a large part of us works. We work in various places. It is a natural part of life that these workplaces change from time to time. And now, our conversation ties in very nicely with that difficult moment, which can be arriving at a new workplace. And there, you only have first impressions. How do you do it right?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly. And that’s what we mentioned earlier—that first impression is a cocktail; it’s that instinctive perception of people meant to give us some signal, mainly about safety. But let’s remember that it’s something emotional. It’s something that isn't always true, and sometimes it’s far from the truth once we get to know the person better. Once we give ourselves time, saying, "Okay, that was just the onboarding."
Today I’m in my first 3-4 days at work, everything terrifies me, people only talk to me very superficially, and I’ve had such experiences myself, whether it was going to Spain for a postdoctoral internship or working for a moment in a larger corporation. How deceptive—really, dear listeners, let’s look at our own lives—how often those first impressions were deceptive when we start to open up to another person, give them a chance to talk about themselves, establish a calmer conversation, for example, outside of work, and open ourselves up to that other person. It’s more about switching into a mode of mentalization, of empathizing with how that person might be feeling that day, rather than everything being immediately sealed and defined about that person based on what I see at that moment.
So, that chemistry and that feeling are a primary signal—let’s say, I don’t want to call it "alertness" or a switch of attention, but these are subtleties that, and I think each of us has encountered this in our lives, can transform along with a deeper, calmer, and more insightful understanding of that person. So, let’s just give ourselves time; let’s treat that chemistry and that first feeling as a biological signal.
That is exactly why we have these developed prefrontal cortices and why we have the ability to use language, to talk, and to enter into deeper relationships. Not like animals—well, maybe more emotionally, and yes, although we don’t know if animals don’t communicate with a language as developed as ours—but we have the possibility and the capacity for deeper perception through pausing and taking a more insightful approach.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Okay, so we are at work, we’ve gone through a series of first impressions. I understand that the event itself, because it falls into the category of neurotizing experiences, is in itself a huge stressor. Changing jobs, changing where you live, moving, a breakup—all these things, as measured on scales, provide indicators that predispose us to anxiety or neurotic reactions.
A solid struggle, a solid one. We are able to prepare for it, because you spoke about that context a moment ago. That means we reduce additional external stressors; that is, we try to take care of good sleep for a few days before starting a new job, we try to take care of eating in a proper, balanced way, of hydration, and of reducing additional sources of stress.
Of course, that’s not always possible, but we are in a new place. Sometimes it happens that there is this hype, actually, of a mythical experience, of a perfect fit. I am the perfect person, in the perfect place, among perfect people.
Of course, time passes, which makes everything more realistic, and we see that some small faux pas have occurred, or that with some people, it’s a bit more difficult.
I have a question. If I am in a place where it’s nice, but interpersonally, things aren't really clicking, is it worth staying in that group? Is it a developmental experience, or is it just torturing yourself and condemning yourself to suffering?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And that is the question. Actually, I’m very curious how you approach this, because, first of all, there’s that first impression effect again. Let’s remember all those heuristics, all those cognitive biases that we can project onto people, because we strongly create our perception of another person through the prism of ourselves. We feel bad, we feel anxious, something is wrong with us, we have, for example, some unresolved issues that psychotherapy might clear up, we have a lack of self-worth, a lot of insecurity, and we perceive other people as monsters with claws out for us, when that doesn't have to be the case at all.
And I remember myself, when I went to Madrid for an internship, anxious and terrified by the "closed-off" nature of the Spaniards at the time, that no one was talking to me in English, everyone in Spanish. Back then, not knowing the language, I spun an entire story about how I was disliked, unwanted, and that everything was a "no."
Yet, a few weeks later, after a deeper conversation with a colleague from the lab, I found out that she was also stressed, she was also afraid, and she had also closed herself off because she had such and such previous experiences. So, I am still an advocate for giving ourselves time, because things can turn out differently.
And then there’s that issue you mentioned, the wonderful first impression effect—someone just seems like a super cool person, everything clicks, we have the same dogs, we listen to the same music, everything seems almost, you know, just candy-coated. Exactly, yes, that can be reinforced, that we have a "perfect match," but let’s also remember that we really—and I think even toward ourselves, we can’t always trust anyone, not even ourselves—often put on different masks in different situations. But let’s say that in every relationship—maybe a little less so in family ones—but in every relationship, especially a new one, when we care about acceptance, when we care about people giving us good attributes, we, even following Jung’s thought, simply put on certain masks, certain personas, and that doesn't necessarily have to be true in the long-term development of that relationship, but it can all transform over time.
However, again, I say not to give in to that first impression; even if something is super wonderful, I would still maintain a certain level of reserve to keep some caution, so as not to get too lost in it all. Of course, as much as we can, because it’s not about suddenly closing yourself off from being a super open and optimistic person toward people, with some, you know, reserve that there’s a little imp sitting here whispering, "No, no, she’s not kind at all." But to remember that we all play roles in society, and I think everyone would agree with me on that.
I say that too, that’s my belief. I’m not a psychologist, especially not of relationships, but we do put on certain masks and different filters in relationships. However, that question, I think, is the million-dollar one. What to do if the work is wonderful, I have a fantastic research project, or I’m in a dream role I’ve dreamed of my whole life, but the group doesn't quite fit me, and it persists, persists, and lasts for months.
Andrzej, I believe that this level of stress and mismatch, combined with the fact that our minds won't function efficiently, will inevitably cause our creativity to plummet. We’ll simply show up with a lump in our throats and a knot in our stomachs, potentially developing psychosomatic disorders—those small, smoldering fires that can eventually flare up into anxiety, especially when it comes to the thought of going to work.
Because if you have Kasia, Basia, and a colleague who isn't kind to you, I don't think it will work out unless we address the issue through conversation, leveling the playing field, and clearing the air. So you're saying…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: About the costs, right? But I think we could try to balance those costs, for example, by talking to an attentive manager. Someone who might find the right tools, but also someone who takes responsibility for building the team. I’ll come back to that in a moment. However, I was thinking about another context you mentioned: arriving at a workplace where everything seems perfect. I heard an idealization there—the experience of a psychological tool that overlays reality with certain expectations.
In general, we feel great with things that look familiar, even if they aren't pleasant for us. If we have a series of past experiences that caused discomfort, but we know where it came from and the mechanisms behind it, it might be—in quotes—more "pleasant" because it’s recognizable.
But new things—an environment where everyone is super kind, open, and asks questions like "How are you?", "How was your weekend?", "How are you feeling today?", "Do you need anything?"—can create uncertainty, even if every single one of them is truly wonderful.
My point is that this idealization, on one hand, builds up our interpretation; since we’ve idealized something, we assume it’s perfect.
So we perceive reality and elevate it to a level of greatness. On the other hand, in idealization, we also want to idealize ourselves. We put on masks, as you mentioned, and use them to cover our deficits so that we are perceived as the perfect fit for an ideal environment.
This inevitably leads to conflict, because either someone will disappoint us, we will disappoint someone else, or worse, we will feel the depth of the fact that everything around us has become fake. Conflict arises, and what happens to our neurochemistry?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: You know, I think it’s a total feedback loop—a self-perpetuating cycle of stress and the loss of self-confidence. Our levels drop—you’re talking about neurochemistry, so we’re getting into neurotransmitters. But that lack of self-confidence in a relationship is key. I don't believe that if someone constantly has to pretend and adapt, they can feel calm, safe, or accepted. It’s very interesting and important what you said: even if something isn't beneficial for us, we associate it with memory and past experiences. It’s familiar, but not necessarily adaptive. We see this in the context of choosing partners or staying in toxic relationships because we have a pattern from home. We stay because it’s familiar—and therefore "safe"—and we’re afraid to step out of our comfort zone.
That’s an important element of human nature, I think—we prefer what is known and domesticated over something completely new. We don't leave relationships or quit jobs where we’ve been miserable for 20 years because it’s familiar and safe. There’s a lot of talk today about a "crisis of comfort," but there’s also the beauty of discomfort that we don't want to afford ourselves.
On the other hand, constant forced adaptation—there’s no way that forced adjustment can create peace within us, or that sense of serotonin-fueled contentment. The feeling that I don't have to constantly strive or pretend. We are constantly in these situations. We are flooded with stress—that silent, cortisol-driven killer, that chronic, persistent stress. Every time we go to work or look in the mirror, we know it’s not an environment where I can talk about anything, ask what someone had for breakfast, how they spent their weekend, or just chat about nonsense. Feeling like you’re among your own is, evolutionarily speaking, a deeply ingrained signal of safety. Just like early humans sitting around campfires in much smaller social groups—which is very important—where we felt like "us," with our own tribe.
Our brains simply start to fray. We see atrophy of the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus, so both memory and emotional regulation suffer. The balance shifts toward emotionality. When that scale tips toward anxiety and affectivity, we are no longer ourselves.
And that affects how we perceive ourselves and reality, even outside of relationships. Because, as a rule, we start seeing the world as bad or unfriendly—everything is fake, people have bad intentions. But really, everything depends on those relationships and how we feel in contact with another person.
I would say that all well-being is woven through those very relationships. As you said, it’s very important: if we are already at work and trying to build those relationships, let’s not give up if it’s not going as well as we’d like. The key lies in the person who supervises the team or oversees how people coexist while performing tasks.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: So, relationships can be managed.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Absolutely. And here, I’m not a specialist, but HR in general, or matching people based on cognitive skills—I don't want to call it "neuro-segregation," but rather "neuro-adaptation"—means we can accommodate introverts. We can…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: "Neuro-recruit"? Do you think it would be possible in the future to have a tool that allows us to build—I don't want to use the word "perfect," but a functional, cohesive team based on biological parameters?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I think so. And, of course, I don't work in that field—I’m more into brain biochemistry—but even just by identifying points from Gallup tests, or how people behave in specific situations—whether someone is a better scholar or someone can sit in silence and analyze data. So…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Talent management.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I think so, and it’s probably already happening. But a greater focus on this will allow us to eliminate the costs that arise from misunderstandings at the most basic level. For example, someone gives me a task I don't feel comfortable with, or has high, demanding expectations of me. They might speak in a way that doesn't resonate with me because I might be a more reserved person who gets overstimulated in a large room. We should also pay close attention to neurodivergent individuals—a topic we are happily talking about more often—who are affected differently by certain tones of voice or word choices. I think this is a major tool for the future to help teams function more efficiently. But that efficiency should be built on a foundation of individual well-being. Harmonizing a person's biology will certainly lead to more effective team performance.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Is it possible that we will also be able to choose partners in this way?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I just hope we don't end up with, you know, those kinds of tests, for heaven's sake, like screening. Where you provide all your preferences, all your diagnostics, a panel of all your parasites and various parameters, because I think we would lose a bit of that romantic partner selection. I would leave that part to biology—the fact that we sense each other through certain aspects and attributes. A good conversation can definitely do that for us; it’s about giving another person the time to get to know us, and for us to get to know them, rather than creating an entire vision of the future or the relationship based on a first glance or a first impression.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Love at first sight. There used to be a phrase for that, but I understand it might refer to what we were talking about earlier—that initial stimulus, the spark that makes certain things "click" immediately or not.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And, Andrzej, I’ll just add that this infatuation and falling in love can be sustained. That cocktail of anandamide, endorphins, and all that chemistry of love can be maintained.
Of course, we know there are fluctuations and it won't always be the same, but if we take care of our relationships and allow for various types of delayed gratification, if we make an effort to keep the fire of the relationship burning—something the wonderful professor wrote about in "Cuddled in Neuroerotica," or the aforementioned Zbigniew Lew-Starowicz—we are able to maintain that relationship at a plateau phase, and those peaks are possible. It’s just that, of course, our initial reaction, the relationship with that chemistry—the peak of falling in love—doesn't always have to happen the same way. That doesn't mean we can't build a very good, passionate, and lasting romantic, loving relationship.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: I am very careful to make this program as inclusive as possible. Of course, it’s not entirely possible because we aren't idealizing, but I would like us to address those who are natural lone wolves. A gray, lonely wolf, living a bit in their own head, in a small clearing, in a cabin in the middle of the forest, to which no one has access. In other words, a person who feels most comfortable in a completely different discourse than the one we have been conducting so far. Someone who feels a sense of comfort, mental health, and integrity, but not necessarily in relationships. How do we function with such people? How do we support them? How do we manage the process of working together?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes, I actually know people like that who, as a rule, like to spend most of their time solo. I know such people very well from my own life, because I am also someone who loves people. I love teaching students, I love meetings, lectures, and so on. But afterwards, I need to give myself a lot of time to go for a solo walk or just be by myself to integrate everything.
So, I am absolutely not a person who could meet with a large group of people day after day and function. You are looking for balance. But I have observed that, yes, I have a rather introverted way of being, which doesn't mean at all that I don't love people. It’s just that, in my own case, I’ve realized that my relationships are deeper, but there are definitely fewer of them than I once thought I should have. That is, a circle of three, four, or five very close people seems to be the most valuable thing compared to, let’s say, superficial relationships. And now, I relate this to your life—I’m not a hermit in a forest cabin, of course, but we all definitely need relationships. And you know, Andrzej, I don't know of any studies that show what the brain of a person who has sat in a cabin for 25 years like a hermit looks like. How does their immune system function? How does their heart function? Do they develop Alzheimer's? I don't know of any N=1 studies like that. Meaning, based on...
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: one person, that there are very few such people.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly, so I don't know, because what research on relationships or psychoneuroimmunology shows us is how important social support is, and how important it is that we don't feel excluded and that we feel like members of a community. Because that is something that is hardwired into our brains in terms of evolution, human development, and the development of our brain.
It is something mandatory. But now we have to distinguish how a person perceives it, because temporary solitude by choice is one thing, and loneliness as a feeling is another. Being among a thousand...
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: people and feeling extremely lonely.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: You can be married, you can be in a relationship, you can be in some social group, but feel completely lonely. Or you can be a person who doesn't have close people around, but feels okay. Because, for example, you see those people incidentally, phone conversations nourish you, you meet less often, and that is fine for you because that is your personality type. But you can be a person who doesn't have that and feels lonely—someone who really wants it, misses it, feels the deprivation of those relationships, and that then strongly fuels the spiral of stress. So, from the perspective of evolutionary and relational biology, relationships are super necessary for us, but we can approach them in different ways.
For some, a higher frequency of meetings is better; for others, less. I think we have to sense for ourselves when we feel cognitive or emotional overload, when we just dream of coming home and curling up under a blanket with a book—and that is okay if that’s how we feel. It’s worse, and I think this is a whole topic to be addressed more psychologically, when we cut ourselves off from relationships because, for example, we have a certain dose of anxiety, exclusion, low self-esteem, or perhaps trauma. And that is worth directing toward psychotherapy, because relationships are absolutely nourishing for us.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: You answered my question beautifully. Actually, a word came to mind that ties it all together: regardless of what happens to us and how we evolve, building self-awareness—that is, reaching the knowledge of what I need and how I can compensate when things get difficult—is a developmental goal for every person individually.
I was thinking, though—because I like to make these rhetorical pivots—that our science, which says relationships are necessary for mental health, is based on trials exclusively on people who are already in relationships.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly. And that is what I said—we don't know what it's like for loners. So we are...
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: biased. We think it's like that because the sample of people who function around us, who don't have great needs or don't have them at all to initiate interactions, but who do work, for example. Because I think that in many organizations, some of the people watching us can quickly identify such a person—someone you approach and communicate with, but the message is usually short, blunt, concise, but always to the point.
And I thought that perhaps our task is not to try to fit everyone into a certain pattern, but that this inclusivity, which consists of accepting the diversity in our environment, is also a form of relationship. Yes.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Definitely. And the more space we give to this diversity and allow people to be themselves—within the defined frameworks of how we behave in communities and work structures, of course—the more attention we pay to this diversity, the more it will allow people to come to work with less anxiety.
It definitely fosters their creativity, because again, when we have to keep ourselves in check and stay under control all the time, let's remember that nothing kills creativity—as The Big Lebowski said—and blocks life quite like tension. Tension blocks everything except itself. And if a person constantly shows up with that tension, and they get assigned to groups, teams, or pair work—I always remember in school, I used to pray to be paired with a specific friend. Because I knew there would be laughter, creativity, and that the work would be so much better than with someone we don't resonate with at all. Maybe I would have resonated later, but in the moment of solving that task, we always have those preferred connections. Remember…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: As I was saying, what is familiar seems more attractive and appealing to us. Because it’s possible that growth would happen if you tried working with people you don't quite click with. And…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: It would be harder for me. And ultimately, it would lead to that "eureka" moment faster. I think we can observe this in our own lives, too. Let's remember that when we have to hold ourselves back all day, when we're essentially on an internal leash, with all that cortisol and decision-making—that's why we say so often not to make difficult decisions in the evening.
We shouldn't go home very hungry or go to sleep hungry, because we'll likely just open the fridge and eat everything, since we’re no longer keeping our self-control in check. All because the day, for example, was spent under tension at work.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: If…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: We give ourselves more slack. I’m always an advocate for avoiding difficult conversations in the evening. Let’s not make any major, life-altering decisions when we’re tired. Let’s try not to starve ourselves all day or stick to rigid dietary rules—like drinking green shakes all day, even though I really don't want to, only to end up hitting McDonald's in the evening.
It’s all about that biological act of keeping a lid on things, as you mentioned—that mask we wear. So, the less pretending there is, and the more flexibility we have in choosing who we work with, while paying attention to that heterogeneity and biological diversity, the better our relationships will be—whether they are partnerships, friendships, or professional ones. I don't know how it is in corporate structures, but I remember during my PhD, we had weekly journal clubs or lab meetings where both the PhD students and the professor would talk about what happened that week, what didn't go right, or where communication wasn't good enough. Talking and being open makes things so much easier. It’s a status—or let’s just call it a conversation—that allows us to sense intentions, to see if something didn't go exactly as planned, even if the intentions were good, and simply to listen to the other person.
We make so many assumptions; cognitive biases rule us. We take mental shortcuts because we want to save time and brain energy. The world is what it is, everything is fast and demanding, and relationships require our engagement, too.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: So, we’re at that stage. Whether it’s a doctoral or academic setting, a workplace, an organization, or a home setting—like a dinner table meeting. We sit in a group and exchange experiences. Usually, it’s just small talk, right? But there are also conversations about what we’ve actually managed to achieve regarding our common goals.
A manager in a micro-organization—whether it’s a household, a family business, or an actual company—has the perfect opportunity to look from a spectral point of view at what is happening, what the dynamics are between people, and how they function in the group. They notice that, let’s put it in quotes, the "chemistry" of the team is off, that something isn't right. How can one…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Manage that? You know, Andrzej, I’d like to direct that question to people who actually manage, because it’s hard for me to say what the tools are here. But certainly, looking at each person's point of view, listening to their needs—what’s going well, what’s wrong, how they feel—and inferring what kind of psychophysical state they are in, which we both talked about, is key. Trying to mend those gaps—I think that’s how mediators work—first at the individual level, and then finding out what went wrong between those people. Just a one-on-one conversation with everyone. That’s how I would think about it, at least—one-on-one…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: One-on-one, as they say.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: In my opinion, yes.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: So, a diagnosis of what’s happening in the team. Great. We have that. Let me tell you what is often organized in organizations. It’s either team-building meetings or some kind of games meant to help the team exchange things in a setting other than the daily routine.
There are also things like experiences. Shared experiences. We’re in a situation where we have to reach a goal by the end of the billing period, and that’s a big event for the whole team. Do you think that can influence the reorganization of that chemistry?
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Definitely. And it’s about play and the lack of "must-ism"—when we remove the sense of purpose. No "must-ism," right? We take away the goal-oriented nature of things because, obviously, in a company, at work, and sometimes even in a family, everything is dictated by some goal. Our whole work is generally like that, right? We’re looking for results. But shared play, letting your hair down a little—and I absolutely don't mean, and I think you’ll agree with me, that parties have to be heavily fueled by alcohol. There are wonderful alcohol-free parties where people are genuinely themselves, where they don't have to numb themselves to produce more GABA for social openness. Because those aren't real relationships, real conversations, or real coherence between a person's heart and brain—it’s just spending time together outside of work. So, team-building trips that don't have to be typical parties, but could be sports activities, or activities that engage us artistically—where we totally disconnect from, I don't know, our strict or analytical programmer mind—and start coloring, making collages, or creating mind maps.
I’ll add that relatively recently, I was on a retreat for women with a friend. She leads training sessions, and I give lectures for women—though also for men, who are somehow reluctant to come to such gatherings. But generally, in a co-ed environment, as part of getting to know each other, we do circles where we talk about ourselves, but we try not to introduce ourselves from the perspective of what we do for a living.
Because we don't care about that. Who am I, what do I do outside of work, what interests me—not defining myself by my job, but by what excites me in life, what I’m passionate about, what I like to do when I have free time. We even made dream maps. And by the way…
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Being a great programmer or manager.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly. By the way. That’s my hobbyhorse, besides doing things that engage us in a way that triggers, in quotes, that "creativity," that childlike curiosity. Because when we’re children, we approach other people differently, with less cortex and rationalization; we’re more direct, more open. And play, doing intuitive things and activities, is something that brings us very close together.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: It just struck me, and since I wanted to ask someone this question and have the opportunity, I’ll make good use of it. What happens to our brains that causes that childhood ability to lose ourselves in play to disappear? We all remember a time when we could play with sticks, stones, or anything at all, and stories would unfold. They were vivid, like movies. Something happened, and at some point, we lost that childlike immersion in play.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: It’s certainly linked to this pervasive sense of purpose and productivity—the idea that everything must be for a reason, have a goal, and be result-oriented. Play, on the other hand, is very much about being in the here and now; we become completely rooted in the process.
It’s a bit of a prototype for the flow state we try to achieve in, say, fascinating work where we get completely lost and focus more on the process itself. And it’s true that children perceive reality and choose their activities on a different level. It’s not about us adults becoming overly emotional, but rather being guided by an instinct to act according to what we feel, following that need for emotionality instead of rationalizing everything with our prefrontal cortex.
Is it appropriate? Does it make sense? Do I have time? Maybe I should meditate? Or read a book? This is the whole story about something I’ve been writing about lately, which fascinates me more and more: boredom. Why is allowing ourselves to be bored and do nothing still so undervalued, dismissed as a waste of…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: time, supposedly. It’s…
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: a waste of time, so that even when I’m not working, I’ll meditate or read a popular science book. Such a…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: trap.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes. And today we see that these spaces—those moments when the nervous system doesn’t have to be constantly revved up to analyze, absorb, or recall—are vital. You know, I even catch myself doing it.
I read a book, usually a popular science one. And once I’m reading it, I want to memorize it. So now, I’m shifting gears toward poetry, non-fiction, or science fiction, where I can root myself in the way children do.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: You know, you can get lost in poetry too, right? Trying to see when a poem was written to interpret why the poet had that specific thought in mind.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: But exactly what you said—what happens to us—is also the whole story behind why we don’t move as spontaneously as children, who, you know, climb on furniture and run around all day. They get on…
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: a bike, instead of just riding 40 kilometers. Exactly.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: They just walk for the sake of walking. There’s a lot of returning to these early childhood practices in our adult, formed bodies, because it shows how much it opens the gates to productivity. We talk a lot about productivity, constantly pushing for a faster pace and absorbing new doses of knowledge. Meanwhile, it turns out that letting go of the structures we hold so tightly can make us even more creative—we might write a great program or create an outstanding work when we just let go and activate those networks in our brain. For example, the default mode network, our network related to the self, to perceiving reality, to our identity, or when we loosen the stress that floods the hippocampus, which is linked to memory. When we let go of those "reins of fantasy" and just drift frivolously around what is, playing and not constantly following the dictates of purpose. And I think what you said about loosening dependencies in systems, institutions, and companies would definitely do some good—as long as it doesn’t turn into alcohol-fueled parties, in my opinion.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: As long as it doesn’t. But we can replace that with plenty of other sources of pleasure that can allow us to break free from that sense of purpose.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: A richer kind of dopamine, one that nourishes us. Something that stays with us longer, rather than just being a spike that always carries a debt we have to pay back.
Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: The costs of the next day. Exactly, Asia. I heard a beautiful story today, in the context of the neurochemistry of relationships, about self-awareness. About building this competence in such a way that, regardless of whether it concerns the work environment…
The team we manage, the team we work in, or all the daily relationships we navigate, we shouldn’t enter the position of someone who forms prejudices—that is, accepting an impression as a closed, finished figure—because it might be the result of many other factors, many other experiences, including our own. It’s about embracing that lack of purpose.
It doesn’t have to be the best relationship in the world. And perhaps the fact that it didn’t work out the first time doesn’t mean it will be a disastrous relationship for life.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And you know, Andrzej, I suspect we’re reaching the end of our journey here. But even within the Mindfulness program, I highly recommend delving into the topic of meditation and mindfulness in life.
I’m not just talking about the formal practice of sitting on a cushion, which I also recommend, but about mindfulness—simply perceiving reality with more slowing down, with more noticing of various subtleties. And in the entire eight-week "Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction" (MBSR) course, which was pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn, based of course on Buddhist foundations, we have an entire aspect and pillar dedicated to mindful relationships, mindfulness in communication, listening to oneself, asking questions, and curiosity about another person—something that I think is already systemically ingrained in us today, where we listen to someone but our brain is already busy formulating the question I’m going to ask or what I want to answer, without fully listening to that person.
As you just said, we often come with a certain background of biases or major mental shortcuts because so much is happening inside us. I think a word that could frame our entire conversation here is that if we want to change something and are looking to connect with another person, we should first take a look at ourselves. We say this in the context of changing the world or changing relationships—to see what I can change and how I can adjust my approach to the other person so that the relationship can truly succeed. And even if the first meeting isn't perfect, it can later develop into something absolutely fantastic.
Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: I wanted to thank you very much for your attentiveness in this conversation and for the warmth with which you talk about all these complex topics related to how our brains function within their specific structures. I can see your face light up when you talk about it. I am also trying to be as attentive to you as possible.
Thank you for what you’ve shared in this episode. And thank you all for listening. This was the "Dobrze Powiedziane" program, brought to you by Multi.Life. See you again soon.
Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Thank you very much.
