Chemical or human connections

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 at the Polish Academy of Sciences, 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 building lasting relationships. 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 the "Dobrze Powiedziane" program. My name is Andrzej Silczuk, and today I have the great pleasure of hosting Dr. Joanna Wojsiat in the studio, a biologist specializing in neurochemistry. She holds a degree in psychosomatics from SWPS University 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—and we’re doing it again today. Welcome, Joanna.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Hi, Andrzej. I’m so happy to be here, thank you for the invitation. This is a real intellectual feast and a pleasure for me, because we always end up talking endlessly.

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: I’ve read a few times that there’s a bit of "chemistry" visible 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 how passionate you are about that.

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: We’re 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 perhaps one we treat a bit too 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 worse, or perhaps more guarded, in the presence of others? It’s all tied to these biological connections. We’ll likely 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 the result of our biology and our neurochemistry. And here, despite my great love for the humanistic way of viewing people—and without denying that we are something 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 perhaps someone excites us, and the conversation with them leads us somewhere, and we want it to continue. That is, for example, 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 thinking more in terms of "distress," as we call it today—that is, negative stress. Whether our anxiety or cortisol levels increase, it’s all truly an effect of this resonance between people.

However, what I would like to point out at the beginning—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: Well, 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 certain people and their way of being—their projection of 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—a very interesting concept that is being developed extensively today, especially in the context of neuroatypical brains like autism spectrum disorders—tells us that we, as humans, have brains constructed in a specific way. For example, 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 is the case that we resonate more with some people and less with others. And that is the result of, among other things, how that person behaves toward us. Whether it’s something familiar to us, or something safe.

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, in a way, the most important, because it was always meant to protect us from danger. We strongly remember things—hence the sayings 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 protect ourselves from losing our lives. So sometimes it may be that, in an interaction with another person, we are very sensitive to warning signals or negative cues. We look to see if this 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. Also, 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 have more openness toward 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 related to that.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And let’s remember that chemistry is one thing—something that happens between us. That serotonin, that dopamine, oxytocin, which is also released between people if someone is open and warm toward us. It is also very strongly related to how we behave toward each other, but there is something that happens on a super-unconscious level, although I will add that this biochemical soup is not just generated. Okay, I really like this...

Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: the term biochemical soup.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Yes, let's produce some serotonin, because I want to feel good with Andrzej here. It happens on its own, but let's remember that at 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, specifically the amygdala. And that is our first signal. Okay, I am safe, so this signal, this 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 had such experiences before.

So you aren't 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, while greeting you, I shook your hand without controlling my strength, and at the same time, I had a stomach ache a moment earlier or something difficult happened—basically, by the book, everything that could go wrong did go wrong at the first meeting, the first impression. 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: The word "not good."

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: The word, because I'm not a fan of that term, but the fact that it is biological. It is also very strongly embedded in the context of a good life today. The most important research, I would say, from significant, reputable scientific journals—the favorites for scientists—like "Nature," "Science," and "Cell," shows that how people feel in life, how they define their lives—whether they are 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. There is also a good saying, I think, that it's not just the initial spark in a relationship that matters, but how it smolders nicely afterward and whether it is long-lasting. So it may be that there are indeed many psychosocial and biological-psychological factors that could have caused you to have a stomach ache today, or perhaps you had an argument with your partner, or the dog didn't behave well at home, or there was traffic.

It's a whole resultant, 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 can 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—regarding 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 cortices are 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 you don't like me and that there's no chance for that chemistry between us to develop.

This is the whole field of our openness, our mindfulness toward another person. That chance to actually enter into an interaction 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 and interpreting 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—started 88 years ago—and the book "The Good Life," the one with the white cover and balloons, talks about it. It covers that entire study and also points out that the quality of these relationships and their long-term nature, as we already mentioned, how long they last, is the indicator of a good life.

And now, given that fact, it is 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 am 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 is, as it were, the resultant 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 associated, among other things, with the functioning of our precuneus, our dorsal and ventral cortex, and also with 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 the lack of alcohol consumption—when we have a lowered level 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 calmness 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 certain dysfunctional states or neurodivergence, such as autism, we know that GABA levels may be inadequate, and we have trouble with social openness and correctly perceiving the intentions of another person.

I think this is very clearly 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 sensing 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—that is something we do have influence over.

Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: So, if I understand 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 do?

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Definitely, although I would leave it open-ended, meaning that if... well, I feel uncomfortable in the company of others, that's okay too. I want to say that we all feel that 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 prefer one-on-one dialogues or small groups of two or three people.

Dr. 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 anything wrong with them. Remember, we talk a lot about neurodivergence today in the context of change or dysfunction.

Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: Fortunately, we are finally talking about it.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And I believe we are all neurodivergent in a way, because no two nervous systems function exactly the same. 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 upbringing. We’ve already mentioned attachment theories and everything that has shaped how I see the world through my individual perception—those prisms of mine that are very heterogeneous and constantly changing. But if we don't perceive a person correctly from the start, I really want to emphasize that it’s not set in stone; we can give ourselves a chance to change that.

And I think that matters a lot, especially in relationships we don't necessarily choose, like with colleagues, building teams, or a larger group of friends where someone doesn't quite click with us. Family is a perfect example. In a family, we have different dynamics 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 see if I can change something in my approach to that person, rather than just blaming them for being a "Grumpy Cat" or being closed off, is crucial.

A lot can happen within us, and we can truly train ourselves in this.

Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: So you mentioned the genetic foundation, the material we are born with. You mentioned epigenetics, the modulation of that genetic material due to environmental influence.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: And…

Dr. 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 might want to connect, we are a bit afraid.

There are also those who are quite open—the people you just described—who, at a large gathering, are the life of the party, high-fiving everyone, talking to 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 tend to group ourselves in social circles based on various similarities. However, I’d like to say it goes beyond that. I think it’s also worth talking about this from the perspective of how we choose people in general. We are talking about team, partnership, or friendship relationships now, but we often perceive people as "smellers," excuse me.

We often perceive people as visual creatures because the world today is dictated by what we see. We are overstimulated primarily by visual stimuli, although noise plays a part too. With those…

Dr. 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 through which we used to recognize our mother’s scent or detect danger.

Dr. 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. Andrzej Silczuk: of the brain. Yes.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Well, Andrzej, we’re heading into our territory here. Exactly, and I’m fascinated by the sense of smell in general. I also love aromatherapy. I identify people very strongly by their scent; I feel like I have this sense more developed than others.

However, what I want to say is that even though we know a lot today—though you know how it is in science—I feel like there’s 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 says a lot about the so-called MHC complex, class I. 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.

And I’ll just add that, at the moment, this is probably most extensively studied in the context of heterosexual couples—men and women. We know that couples who have the healthiest offspring, or who feel the most chemistry, are actually the most diverse from one another. And that’s interesting, because on a conscious level, we don’t see it—we can’t perceive it through sight—but we feel it very strongly.

There are also studies—I was talking to Michał about this before we started—that indicate that if women are not on hormonal contraception, meaning their entire menstrual cycle is left to its biological balance, men are better at sensing women who are ovulating. Or, 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, and women actually pointed to the shirts whose wearers—that might sound bad, but the owners of those shirts, or the men who wore them—had higher testosterone levels. So, there are mechanisms we can’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 main cortisol regulation.

Dr. hab. 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’ve just said. Oh, okay. And are pheromones a myth or the truth? Well…

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly.

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: You mentioned perfumes with pheromones.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I have to admit that, at the moment, while I was doing research for this episode, it’s hard for me to believe that we secrete pheromones like animals do. But, if we do sense each other and choose partners based on these scent compounds, as you mentioned, and if these are substances or molecules that could be analogs—or have a structure biochemically recreated like our endogenous compounds—then why not?

Because, you know, it’s receptor and ligand—the molecule simply attaches to the binding site. But I admit I haven’t delved into that topic deeply. To me, it’s a bit like—and I’ll tell all the ladies this—don’t fall for creams with telomerase or treatments that supposedly restore our telomeres and have anti-aging effects, because we haven’t gotten that deep into genetic engineering yet. Absolutely not. We can ensure telomerase activity and slowed aging primarily through stress reduction. With pheromones, I think I’m not quite convinced that it’s really happening. But it is…

Dr. hab. 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. You talked about scent and different impressions. We know that, for example, a situation can occur where, meeting someone in a setting like a workplace, we smell their perfume. It strongly reminds us of a specific name, we can recognize it, but it happens to be associated with a person from our past who perhaps wasn’t a very positive character. And does that influence the building of a potential relationship?

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: The first impression, definitely, because as you mentioned, scent, the olfactory system, the limbic system—that’s our first warning signal, our emotions. But fortunately, if we are well-rested, relaxed, and have strong rationalization and proper functioning of our prefrontal cortex—that is, the evolutionarily newest structure that, you could say, makes us human in terms of decision-making and judgment—we don’t just act on affect. I can rationalize my 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 was a pain in the neck throughout college." That’s exactly why being in touch with ourselves is so important. And the role of rest or self-care is crucial here. That we have…

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: ...resources.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: We, 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 capabilities 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 like that.

It’s similar in terms of cognitive biases, or so-called heuristics, when we assign certain attributes to people that aren’t entirely true. Because if a person sits a certain way, or I don’t know, dresses a certain way, we label them, or we fall for the so-called halo effect.

If I know that a handsome man is always a great speaker and is wonderful at taking care of other people, then, as a rule, according to the halo effect, all handsome men are great. So it’s not quite like that, and we must also pay attention to the fact that our brain, in terms of perceiving reality and thinking about people, will take shortcuts, and it will usually take those shortcuts to avoid energetic expenditure. Because all of this requires processing, reconsolidating facts and events, and assigning meaning to that perception, so we think in shortcuts quite a lot.

That’s why I believe that mindfulness—the constant stress reduction I’m trying to talk about here—is real. Reading various studies on the intersection of meditation and mindfulness, people who perceive their lives as rather calm, in a state of well-being, are able to form better, more lasting relationships and not depreciate the fact that someone might behave in a certain way, which doesn’t necessarily define them in one way or another.

Dr. Andrzej Silczuk: I think of it this way: we have innate traits, and our brain develops in a more or less typical way. In the sense of the neurodivergence 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.

And here we are, in the here and now, and I hear that two wonderful people might meet who, under particularly good circumstances, could greet each other, high-five, and form a great 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 we are generally under a lot of strain. Can the environment really spoil our relationships?

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Very much so. And now, besides this external environment, let’s also mention the internal environment—that is, how we feel within ourselves. But starting with the external one: if we are in an environment that is generally stressful—and by stressful environment today, we mean, well, here we are in the city center, we have this image behind us, and I hope we will try to soften the city a bit and talk about the fact that we are biological, open beings. This…

Dr. 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, a café without a huge racket, is definitely more conducive to getting to know each other 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 stressors associated with industrialization, and it 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. Andrzej Silczuk: Okay, so the chance has sort of vanished. That means circumstances can influence that first impression, which means that if we had another 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, of course, on that person, how we feel with them, and how they look in our eyes. You know, these are those biological subtleties, and 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 me 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 and takes away the possibility of building relationships. Because there are also people—we know there are people who thrive in such hustle and bustle, at least 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 that, others worse. And 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 and maybe I’m not myself, maybe I’m talking nonsense, or these sounds are somehow detaching me a little from my rational part. 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 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—am I hungry? We know, I don't know about you, but most of my friends and men in my environment—dads, partners—if someone is hungry, if a guy is hungry, as they say, he isn't himself.

And indeed, in the context of people I know closely, it is true that you don't talk about important things, you don't 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 that 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 these issues, such basic physiology, certainly matter. But how we feel in terms of our emotionality and simply the condition of our mind also has a very strong influence—that is, stress regulation. Am I rested? Did I eat a good breakfast? Which, well, we could open another folder of issues here, Andrzej, but we know that diet and what we eat every day really builds our neurochemistry. Serotonin isn't produced from a vacuum, and dopamine isn't produced from nowhere either. Endorphins, which we release in response to some reaction, can also be stored in us, for example, when we sleep or engage in physical activity or sports.

All of this, in a way, cooks this biochemical soup for us in advance, so we have the means to create that proper regulation toward the relationship—that is, to simply react appropriately. So if I am hungry, tired, sleep-deprived, or pissed off by a previous experience, I will 90% likely perceive this person differently than if I had my internal environment nicely cared for and managed with such calm.

Dr. 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. Andrzej Silczuk: Various official matters that one would like to talk about. However, there is a much greater risk that a small catastrophe might happen there, precisely around what you talked about. We function in a relational network, some in a much larger one, others in very small groups. However, in these groups, we have representatives of different generations.

I have a question: whether between these representatives—of course, like you, when I look at a person, I primarily think about that brain and I see that beautiful organ in that person—there are differences between generations. It’s too short a process for evolution, but do we really have a difference between the generation of seniors, mature people, 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 topic. 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 these various Gen Z generations; we have various acronyms and abbreviations now. Generally, I mean that today's youth might have a completely different sense of the meaning of establishing 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 think it was "Dajemy Dzieciom Siłę" (Empowering Children), called "Dopamine." I also had the great pleasure of writing and talking a little bit about that dopamine. Those were also conversations with young people who indeed establish these 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 contact through touch; it already creates our perception of that person, and we "oxytocin-ly" like to feel the other person. Well…

Dr. 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, of course, saying I’m not an expert on the subject, although I know there are many different experts who talk about this community among young people, or about what gaps such people really see now, for example after COVID. However, what definitely differentiates us in the age context is that I think we, people over 30 or 40, grew up more in an environment—at least that’s how I remember it—where there were no mobile phones, there was sitting in the yard somewhere, going out to the climbing frame. A more "here and now" relationality, not online, which, as research and books touching on this topic also say, makes those relationships stronger and deeper.

I don't want to dismiss relationships that start online, because I won't deny that I have many friends and close people here—Andrzej, we also know each other from the "internets," and I feel that in terms of our in-person relationship, it actually works out quite well. But we moved that relationship, let's say, from the digital world to what we call the real world, or to that face-to-face, biological level where we can actually feel each other's presence, and that, to me, is the big difference. However, what is visible and, I think, 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 collective, Asian societies, for example. Of all the countries I've visited, I think I've grown to love Vietnam the most.

Indeed, people there live, have the lowest obesity rate, and a relatively high level of social connectivity. This doesn't necessarily translate to the same level of happiness as in Bhutan, for example, which is often talked about, but being raised in multi-generational families likely also 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 cheap dopamine hits, as we call them today. And it’s certainly true—I might not have typical PubMed studies here, but I, for one, really value being around older people. For me, it’s that Gandalf-like wisdom, that "wisdom" as opposed to "knowledge," as we say in English—just simple life wisdom.

It’s also a different perception of reality, and I think placing more emphasis on neighborly relationships is key. I’ve just 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 to engaging with a person and 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 highest productivity or that professional peak of life in big cities—but I think we can learn from older people and the social connectivity in older generations. Perhaps a greater openness, more calm, and more of that "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 these relationships well and not surrender completely to digitalization, gives me hope that we will be able to stop it. Because we see in reality—and you and I both mentioned this, 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 course of events that these workplaces change from time to time. And now, our conversation ties in very nicely with that difficult moment that starting a new job can be. 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, an instinctive perception of people meant to give us a signal, mainly about safety. But let’s remember that it’s an emotional thing. It’s something that isn't always true, and sometimes it’s far from the truth once we get to know the person deeper. Once we give ourselves time, saying, "Okay, that was just the onboarding."

Today I have my first 3-4 days at work, everything terrifies me, people only talk to me very superficially, and I have had such experiences myself, whether it was going to Spain for a postdoctoral internship or working for a moment in a large corporation. How deceptive—really, dear listeners, let’s look at our own lives—how often those first impressions were deceptive when we start opening up to another person, giving them a chance to talk about themselves, to strike up a calmer conversation, for example, outside of work, to open up to that other person. More in the mode of mentalization, trying to feel 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 is a first signal, let’s say—I don’t want to call it "alertness" or a switch of attention—but these are subtleties that I think each of us encounters in our lives, and they can transform as we get to know that person more deeply and calmly. 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, perhaps—maybe more emotionally, and yes, although we don’t know if animals communicate with as developed a language as we do—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, breaking up—all these things, as measured on scales, are indicators that predispose us to anxiety and neurotic reactions.

A solid blow, 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, hydration, and reducing additional sources of stress.

Of course, that’s not always possible, but we are in a new place. Sometimes there is this hype, actually, of a mythical experience, 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 harder to connect.

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, again, that first impression effect. Let’s remember all those heuristics, all those cognitive biases that we can project onto people, because we create our perception of another person very strongly 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, feeling anxious and terrified by the fact that the Spaniards were so closed off, that no one was talking to me in English, everyone in Spanish. Back then, not knowing the language, I spun a whole story about how I was disliked, unwanted, and that everything was against me.

But then, a few weeks passed, and after a deeper conversation with a colleague from the lab, I found out that she was also stressed, she was also afraid, she also closed herself off because she had such and such previous experiences. So I am still an advocate of "let’s give 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 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 thinking along the lines of Jung, 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 have a certain level of reserve to maintain 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 kind of reserve, you know, like there’s a little imp sitting on my shoulder whispering, "No, no, she’s not kind at all." But to remember that we all play roles in society in some way, and I think everyone here would agree with me on that.

I agree, that’s my belief as well. I’m not a psychologist, especially when it comes to relationships, but I do believe we wear various masks and filters in our interactions. However, I think this is the million-dollar question: what do you do if the job is wonderful, the research project is fantastic, or you’re in the dream role you’ve wanted your whole life, but the team just doesn’t feel right—and that feeling persists and lingers for months?

Well, Andrzej, I think that level of stress and mismatch means our minds won’t function efficiently, and our creativity will plummet. We’ll start showing up with a lump in our throats and a knot in our stomachs, and we might even start developing psychosomatic symptoms—those little smoldering fires that can later turn into, for example, an anxiety disorder when it comes to the thought of going to work.

Because you have Kasia, Basia, and a colleague who isn’t kind to you. It seems to me that unless we address this through conversation, leveling the playing field, and clearing the air, it’s unlikely to work out. So you’re saying…

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: About the costs, right? But I think those costs could potentially be balanced out by, for example, talking to an attentive manager. Someone who might find the right tools, but who also has their own responsibility for building that 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 and everyone is great. I heard "idealization"—the experience of a psychological tool that builds things up.

In general, we usually feel great with things that look familiar, even if they aren’t pleasant for us. So, 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, asking questions, checking in with "How are you?", "How was your weekend?", "How are you feeling today?", "Do you need anything?"—can create uncertainty, even if every single word they say is truly wonderful.

And my point is that this idealization, on one hand, builds up our interpretation, because if we’ve idealized something, we assume it’s perfect.

And 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 faces, we wear the masks you mentioned, and we try to cover our deficits with those masks so that we are perceived as the ideal people fitting into an ideal environment.

This inevitably leads to the experience of conflict, because either someone will disappoint us... or we will disappoint someone, or worse, we will feel the depth of the fact that everything around us has become fake. Conflict arises, and what happens in our neurochemistry?

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: You know, I think it’s a total feedback loop—a spiraling cycle of stress and losing our sense 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—because I don’t believe that if someone constantly has to pretend and adapt—and this is very interesting and, I think, important, what you said—even if something isn’t beneficial for us, like "I feel calm, I feel safe, I feel accepted," but it’s familiar, so I have an element of associating it with memory and recalling past experiences. It’s familiar to me, but not exactly adaptive. We also talk about this in the context of choosing partners or being in difficult, toxic relationships because, for example, we have a pattern from home, but we stay in it because it’s familiar, meaning it’s safe, and we’re afraid to step out of our comfort zone.

That’s also an important element of human nature, I think—that we prefer what is known and, let’s say, tamed, rather than something completely new. For example, we don’t leave relationships or quit a job where we’ve been miserable for 20 years because it’s known and safe. We have this crisis—there’s a lot of talk about the "crisis of comfort" today, and simply the beauty of discomfort that we don’t want to treat ourselves to.

On the other hand, constantly forcing yourself to adapt—there’s no way that forced adaptation can create peace within us, or that sense of tranquility, that serotonergic contentment. The feeling that I don’t have to constantly strive or pretend. We are in these situations all the time. We are constantly flooded with stress—that quiet, cortisol-driven killer, that chronic, persistent stress. Every time we go to work, every time we look in the mirror, we know it’s not an environment where I can talk about everything, ask what someone had for breakfast, how they spent their weekend, or just chat about nonsense—meaning I feel like I’m among my own, which is, evolutionarily speaking, a conserved signal of safety. Just like early humans sitting around campfires, where we had those much smaller social groups—which is very important—where we felt like "us," with our own kind. With our own pack.

Simply put, our brains start to become "leaky." There is atrophy of the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus, so both memory issues and emotional regulation become very, let’s say, agitated. In that balance between the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system, everything shifts more toward emotionality. When that scale is tipped toward anxiety and affectivity, we are, once again, not ourselves.

And that affects how we perceive ourselves, but also how we perceive reality, even outside of those relationships. Because, as a rule, we see the world as rather bad, rather unfriendly—meaning everything is fake, people have bad intentions. But really, everything depends on those relationships and how we feel in contact with another human being.

I would say that all well-being is woven through that very relationality. Yes, as you said, it’s very important—if we are already at work, we have this team, and we are trying to build that relationality, let’s not give up if it isn’t going as well as we’d like. The key, the detail, lies in the person who is overseeing the team, for example, or who is responsible for how people coexist in given groups, for instance, while performing tasks.

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: So, relationships can be managed.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Absolutely. And here, I think—I’m not a specialist in this—but HR in general, or selecting people based on their skills, their cognitive abilities, or—I don’t want to talk about "neuro-segregation," but rather "neuro-adaptation"—that we are able to match introverts. We can…

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: "Neuro-recruit"? Do you think it would be possible for us to have a tool in the future that would allow us to build—I don’t want to use the word "ideal," but a functional, cohesive team based on biological parameters?

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: I think so. And, of course, I don’t work on this topic because I’m more into brain biochemistry, but even just by identifying points from a Gallup test, or how people behave in specific situations—whether someone is, I don’t know, a better scholar, or someone who can sit in silence and analyze data. So…

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: talent management.

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: I think it’s already happening. But leaning into this even more will help eliminate the costs that stem from misunderstandings at the most basic level. For example, someone gives me a task that I just don’t connect with, or they have high, rigid expectations of me. They might also communicate in a way that doesn’t resonate with me—perhaps I’m a more reserved person who finds being in a large room overstimulating. We should also be very mindful of neurodivergent individuals—a group we are fortunately talking about more and more—who react very differently to certain tones of voice or word choices. I think this is a powerful tool for the future, helping teams function more efficiently. But this efficiency should be secondary to the individual's well-being. When a person’s biology is in harmony, it naturally leads to more effective teamwork.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Is it possible that we’ll be able to choose our partners this way, too?

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: I just hope we don’t end up with, you know, screening tests. Like, uploading all your preferences, your entire medical history, a panel of all your parasites and various parameters—I think that would take away the romance of choosing a partner. I’d leave that part to biology; we sense each other through certain attributes. A good conversation can definitely do the rest—giving another person time to get to know us, and vice versa, instead of building an entire vision of the future or the relationship based on a first glance or a first impression.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Love at first sight. That was a popular concept, but I understand it might relate to what we discussed earlier—that initial spark, that stimulus that makes things "click" right away or not.

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: And I’ll just add, Andrzej, 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 nurture our relationships and provide ourselves with various forms of delayed gratification, if we keep stoking the fire of connection—as the wonderful professor wrote in "Wytulani w neuroerotyce" or as Zbigniew Lew-Starowicz mentioned—we can maintain that plateau phase, and those peaks are possible. But, of course, that initial reaction to the 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 relationship.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: I’m very careful to make this program as inclusive as possible. Of course, it’s not perfect, but I’d like to address those who are natural "lone wolves." The gray, solitary wolf living in their own head, in a little cabin in the middle of the forest, inaccessible to anyone. Someone who feels most comfortable in a completely different discourse than the one we’ve been having. They feel healthy and mentally integrated, but not necessarily in relationships. How do we function with such people? How do we support them? How do we manage the collaboration process?

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: I actually know people like that who, as a rule, prefer to spend most of their time solo. I know such people very well from my own life, because I’m someone who loves people. I love teaching students, I love meetings, lectures, and so on. But afterwards, I need a lot of time to go for a solo walk or just be by myself to integrate everything.

So, I’m definitely not someone who could meet with a large group of people day after day and function well. You’re looking for balance. But I’ve observed that, yes, I have a rather introverted way of being, which doesn’t mean I don’t love people. It’s just that, in my case, I’ve realized my relationships are deeper, but there are definitely fewer of them than I once thought I should have. 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, relating this to your life—I’m not a hermit in a forest cabin, 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? Their heart? Do they develop Alzheimer’s? I don’t know of any N=1 studies like that.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: One person—there are very few people like that.

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 not to feel excluded and to feel like a member of a community. That is something hardwired into our brains in terms of human evolution and development.

It’s mandatory. But again, we have to distinguish how a person perceives it, because temporary solitude by choice is different from the feeling of loneliness. Being among a thousand…

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: people and feeling extremely lonely.

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: You can be married, you can be in a relationship, you can be in a social group, but feel completely lonely. Or you can be someone who doesn’t have close people around but feels okay. For example, you see those people occasionally, phone calls nourish you, you meet less often, and that’s fine for you because that’s your personality type. But you can also be someone who doesn’t have that and feels lonely—someone who really wants it, misses it, feels the deprivation of those relationships, and that really fuels the stress spiral. So, from the perspective of evolutionary and relational biology, we absolutely need relationships, but we can approach them in different ways.

For some, it’s a higher frequency of meetings; for others, it’s lower. I think we have to sense for ourselves when we feel cognitive or emotional overload, when we just dream of coming home, curling up under a blanket with a book—and that’s okay if that’s how we feel. It’s worse—and I think this is a topic to be addressed more psychologically—when we cut ourselves off from relationships because, for example, we have a dose of anxiety, exclusion, low self-esteem, or trauma. That’s when it’s worth heading toward psychotherapy, because relationships are absolutely nourishing for us.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: You answered my question beautifully. A word came to mind that ties it all together: regardless of what happens to us and how we evolve, building self-awareness—reaching the knowledge of what I need and how I can compensate when things get difficult—is a developmental goal for every individual.

I was thinking—because I like to make rhetorical pivots—that our science, which says relationships are necessary for mental health, is based on trials conducted exclusively on people who function within relationships.

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly. And that’s what I said—we don’t know how it is for loners. So we are…

Dr hab. 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 any need to initiate interactions, but still work. I think 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 maybe our task isn’t to try to fit everyone into a certain mold, but that this inclusivity—which consists of accepting the diversity in our environment—is also a form of relationship. Yes.

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: Absolutely. And the more space we give for this diversity, allowing people to be themselves—within reasonable boundaries, of course, as we all know there are certain ways to behave in communities and work structures—the more that mindfulness toward diversity will allow people to come to work with less anxiety.

It certainly boosts their creativity because, again, when we have to keep ourselves in check and stay on guard all the time—remember, as The Big Lebowski said, nothing kills creativity and blocks life like being uptight. Being uptight blocks everything except itself. And if a person comes to work constantly uptight, and they are assigned to groups, teams, or pairs... I always remember from school that I would pray to be paired with a specific friend. Because I knew there would be laughter, creativity, and that the work would be great, rather than with someone we don't resonate with at all. Maybe I would have resonated later, but in the moment of solving a task, we always have those preferred connections. Remember…

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: as I was saying about how what is familiar seems more attractive and better to us. Because it’s possible that growth would happen if you tried working with people who are a bit more difficult to deal with. And…

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: it would be harder for me. And ultimately, it would lead to that "eureka" moment faster. And I think we can observe this in our own lives. Remember that when we have to hold ourselves back all day, we are constantly on an internal leash, and that cortisol, and all that decision-making—that’s why we talk so much about not making difficult decisions in the evening.

We shouldn't go home very hungry or go to sleep hungry, because we’ll likely open the fridge and start eating everything, as we no longer have our self-control in check. All because we were uptight at work all day, for example.

Dr hab. 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, when I really don't want to drink them, but then McDonald's happens in the evening.

It’s all about that biological act of keeping that "mask" on, as you mentioned. So, the less pretending there is, and the more flexibility we have in choosing our teams and paying attention to that heterogeneity—to that biological diversity—the better our relationships will be, whether they are romantic, friendly, or professional. And it seems to me—I don't know how it is in corporate structures—but I remember during my PhD, we had journal clubs every week, or meetings in the lab where both the PhD students and the professor would talk about what happened that week, what didn't "click," about experiments, or how things weren't good or good enough in terms of communication. And that makes things so much easier—just talking and being open. A status update, let's call it that, or just a conversation that allows us to sense intentions, whether something didn't go quite as we wanted, but the intentions were good, and just listening to the other person.

We make so many assumptions; these cognitive biases rule us. We take mental shortcuts because we simply want to save time and brain energy. Because the world is what it is, and everything is fast and very demanding, and relationships also require our engagement.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: Well, we are at that status level. Whether it’s doctoral, academic, or at work in an organization, or a home status, like a meeting at the dinner table. We sit in a group, we exchange different experiences. There’s usually small talk, right, but also conversations about what we actually managed to achieve regarding our shared goals.

A manager in such a micro-organization—whether it’s a household, a family business, or an actual organization where you manage your team—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. And they notice that, let’s put it in quotation marks, the "chemistry" of the team is disturbed, that something unpleasant is happening. How can one…

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: manage that? You know, Andrzej, I would 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, the point of view of each person, listening to their needs, what is good, what is bad, how that person feels, and also inferring what kind of psychophysical condition—which we both talked about—that person is in. And trying, I think this is how mediators work, to patch those holes first at the individual level, and then finding out what didn't "click" between those people. Just an individual conversation with everyone. That’s what I would think, at least—meaning one-on-one…

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: one-on-one, so-called.

Dr Joanna Wojsiat: In my opinion, yes.

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: So, a diagnosis of what is happening in the team. Great. We have that done. I’ll tell you what is often organized in organizations. These are either integration meetings or some kind of games that are supposed to make the team able to exchange different things together, also in a different setting than the daily one.

There are also things like experiences. Shared experiences. Meaning we are in a situation where we have to, for example, deliver a goal by the end of the billing period, and that is 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 fun and that lack of "must-ism," meaning when we remove the goal-oriented nature. No "must-ism," right? We remove the goal-oriented nature because, obviously, in a company, at work, and sometimes in a family, everything is dictated by some goal. Our whole work is generally like that, right? We look for that result. But shared fun, a little bit of "letting your hair down." And here I absolutely don't mean—and I think you’ll agree with me—that parties don't 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, and real coherence of the heart and brain of a given person, but just spending time together outside of work. So, integration trips, which don't have to be a typical party, but can be sports activities, or activities that engage us artistically—meaning we totally detach from, I don't know, our strict or analytical programmer mind, and we start coloring, doing collages, or mind maps.

I’ll add that relatively recently I was on such a retreat for women, together with a friend. She leads training sessions, I give lectures for women, although also for men who somehow reluctantly come to such gatherings. But, generally, a co-ed environment, and as part of the practice of getting to know each other, we do circles where we talk about ourselves, but we try not to speak or introduce ourselves from the perspective of what we do professionally.

That we couldn't care less about that. Who I am, what I do in life outside of work, what interests me—not defining myself by work, but defining myself by what excites me in life, what I’m passionate about, what I like to do when I have free time, or even doing those dream maps. And by the way…

Dr hab. Andrzej Silczuk: being a great programmer or manager.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Exactly. By the way, that’s a bit of a passion of mine—doing things that engage us in a way that triggers, in quotes, our "creativity," as well as a childlike curiosity. When we’re children, we approach others differently, with less rationalization from the cortex; we’re more direct, more open. Play and intuitive activities are what really bring us closer together.

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: That immediately sparked a thought, and since I have the opportunity, I’m going to ask: what happens to our brains that makes that childhood ability to lose ourselves in play 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 that caused us to lose that childlike immersion in play at some point.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: It’s definitely 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 often described as the quintessence of being in the here and now; we become totally rooted in the process.

It’s a bit of a prototype for the flow state we try to achieve in work that we find fascinating, where we lose ourselves completely and focus more on the process itself. 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, rather than rationalizing everything through the 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. That...

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 wound up to analyze, absorb, and recall—are vital. You know, I even catch myself doing it.

I read a book, usually a popular science one. And if I’m reading it, I want to remember it. So now I’m shifting toward poetry, nonfiction, 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? Looking up when a poem was written to interpret why the poet had that in mind.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: But exactly what you said—what happens to us—is also the whole story of 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. Yes.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: They just walk for the sake of walking. There’s a lot of return 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 ease the stress that floods the hippocampus, which is linked to memory. When we let go of the reins of fantasy and just drift frivolously around what is, playing and not constantly dictating purpose to ourselves. And it seems to me that what you said about uncoupling dependencies in systems, institutions, and companies would definitely do some good—as long as it’s not just alcohol-fueled parties, in my opinion.

Dr. hab. Andrzej Silczuk: As long as it’s not that. But we can replace that with quite a few other sources of pleasure that can allow us to free ourselves from that sense of purpose.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: A richer 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 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 it applies regardless of whether it concerns the work environment...

The team we manage, the team we work in, but also all our daily relationships. Not to enter the position of someone who creates prejudices—that is, accepting an impression as a closed figure—because it might be the result of many other factors, many other experiences, including our own. It’s about embracing purposelessness.

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 voyage. But even within the Mindfulness program, I highly recommend delving into the topic of meditation and mindfulness in life.

I’m not talking about the formal practice of sitting on a cushion, though I recommend that too; I’m talking about mindfulness—simply perceiving reality at a slower pace, noticing various subtleties more clearly. In the entire eight-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) course, which was pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn and is, of course, rooted in Buddhism, there is a whole pillar dedicated to mindful relationships, mindful communication, listening to oneself, asking questions, and being curious about the other person. This is something that I think is somewhat systemic for us today—we listen to someone, but our brains are already busy formulating the next question or response before we’ve even fully heard what they have to say.

Or, as you just said, we come in with a background of biases or major mental shortcuts because so much is going on inside us. It seems to me that a word that could frame our entire conversation is this: if we want to change things and are looking to connect with another person, we should first 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 attitude toward the other person so that the relationship can truly succeed. And even if the first meeting isn't perfect, it could 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 the brain functions within its specific structures. I can see you smiling as you talk about it. Because 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, part of the Multi.Life space. See you again soon.

Dr. Joanna Wojsiat: Thank you very much.

‍