The Re-engineered You

Are “Grief Bots” an A.I. skip-button for feeling bad after a death? Or are they just another A.I. grift?

In this episode we examine the growing trend of “Grief AI,” aka chatbots, voice models, and digital replicas trained on the texts, recordings, and memories of people who have died. From parents rebuilding lost children, to entrepreneurs “calling” their dead mothers, we ask a disturbing but unavoidable question: are these tools helping people heal? Or are people using them to avoid negative feelings like grief and loss? Feelings that are necessary to process for the human mind to mature.

We start by taking a zoomed-out approach to death in general, and how long we’ve been fixated at bringing back the dead. We take a look at elephants carrying the bones of their dead, to sky burials, to ancestor celebrations and spiritualism, and we’ll discuss why grief isn’t about intelligence, morality, or culture, but about how the brain rewires itself when someone who “should be here” suddenly isn’t.

From there, we explore what grief actually does. Rather than being a flaw in the human experience, does grief help us grow in some necessary way? Can pressing the “skip button” on grief actually damage us in the long-term? And are these A.I. grief tools a source of spiritual comfort? An unhealthy fixation? Or just another type of digital con, amidst a landscape of other A.I. driven subscription apps?

Links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7b_qYCJOUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5udOx8-QxtE

Can curiosity be trained, or is it something you’re born with?

In this episode we explore why curiosity isn’t a personality trait — it’s a discipline. We begin with the famous teaching method of 19th-century Harvard professor Louis Agassiz, who handed students a single dead fish and told them to examine it. No microscopes, no tools, just stare at the dead fish for days, sometimes weeks. With no tools and no lectures, students were forced past boredom and frustration until patterns, systems, and deeper understanding finally emerged. This lesson wasn’t about biology, it was about learning how to look longer than comfort allows.

From there, we break down the neuroscience of curiosity. We explain why dopamine spikes before an answer, not after. And why anticipation, not consumption, is what locks information into long-term memory. This helps explain why trivia, puzzles, and near-miss questions are so engaging, and why modern internet scrolling quietly kills curiosity through instant answers and what researchers call premature closure.

Finally, we offer a practical framework for rebuilding curiosity in everyday life: noticing gaps in your understanding, forcing yourself to “look again” just a little longer, and resisting the urge to immediately Google answers your brain is already reaching for. Because learning and curiosity doesn’t require genius-level intelligence. It requires patience, frustration tolerance, and the willingness to stay interested after others move on.

todd_lemense

Jan 08, 8:13 AM

Can curiosity be trained, or is it something you’re born with? Show Notes: In this episode we explore why curiosity isn’t a personality trait — it’s a discipline. We begin with the famous teaching method of 19th-century Harvard professor Louis Agassiz, who handed students a single dead fish and told them to examine it. No microscopes, no tools, just stare at the dead fish for days, sometimes weeks. With no tools and no lectures, students were forced past boredom and frustration until patterns, systems, and deeper understanding finally emerged. This lesson wasn’t about biology, it was about learning how to look longer than comfort allows. From there, we break down the neuroscience of curiosity. We explain why dopamine spikes before an answer, not after. And why anticipation, not consumption, is what locks information into long-term memory. This helps explain why trivia, puzzles, and near-miss questions are so engaging, and why modern internet scrolling quietly kills curiosity through instant answers and what researchers call premature closure. Finally, we offer a practical framework for rebuilding curiosity in everyday life: noticing gaps in your understanding, forcing yourself to “look again” just a little longer, and resisting the urge to immediately Google answers your brain is already reaching for. Because learning and curiosity doesn’t require genius-level intelligence. It requires patience, frustration tolerance, and the willingness to stay interested after others move on.

Links:

https://firstdrafts.net/physicalscience/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Scudder1879_The-Student-the-Fish-and.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-science-of-curiosity-boosts-learning/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-reboot/202311/the-psychology-and-neuroscience-of-curiosity

Can talking about yourself in the third person re-wire your brain to be more stoic, and more self-aware?

In this episode we explore a psychological tool that sounds strange, even arrogant at first: talking about yourself in the third person. We start by unpacking how this practice works, and why referring to ourselves by name, (What is Todd feeling right now? What does Joe actually need?) can help us create enough psychological distance to lower anxiety, reduce impulsive reactions, and think more clearly. Especially when the stakes are high, like career decisions, relationship troubles, and addiction recovery.

Then we outline several practical exercises for emotional self-distancing, including speaking to a younger version of yourself, using third-person questions to identify emotions with greater precision, and breaking feelings down beyond “angry” or “sad” into their true sources: fear, betrayal, exhaustion, or loneliness. We connect this all to Stoic problem-solving, and the idea that reacting less often means cleaning up fewer emotional messes later.

Finally, we close with one of history’s most extreme examples of emotional self-distancing: Viktor Frankl, psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, who used future-self visualization to endure concentration camps. Frankl’s ability to step outside his immediate suffering becomes the ultimate case-study in how distance can preserve humanity under unbearable conditions.

Links:

https://psychology.msu.edu/_assets/pdfs/toolbox/PSY%20Toolbox%20-%20Self%20Talk%20Infographic.pdf

https://positivepsychology.com/psychological-distancing/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning

Toxic lovers will “neg” you, tease you, lovebomb you, and act surprised when you demand attention. So why does inconsistency keep us “hooked” for so long?

Today we delve into the psychology of toxic relationships through one of history’s messiest love stories. In 1812, poet Lord Byron and aristocrat Caroline Lamb ignited an affair so chaotic it scandalized all of England. She called him “mad, bad, and dangerous to know,” and still couldn’t stay away. He courted her with passion, then vanished for weeks. She sent him letters sealed with blood. We ask: what drives people to love the ones who hurt them?

From that 19th-century drama, we pull the thread forward to intermittent reinforcement, the behavioral pattern where unpredictable rewards keep people hooked longer than consistent affection ever could. We explore how Byron’s hot-and-cold affection mirrored the experiments of Pavlov, showing that humans are wired to chase inconsistent rewards. We connect this principle to modern dating and emotional manipulation: the boss who alternates cruelty with praise, the partner who love-bombs and ghosts in cycles, and the friend who weaponizes attention. Then we discuss how this dynamic masquerades as passion, when in fact it’s dopamine chaos disguised as love.

Finally, we share tools for awareness and recovery. We propose a deceptively simple fix; track behavior, not feelings.

Links:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-after-50/201701/love-me-love-me-not

https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-woman-who-loved-lord-byron/

The Biggest Loser did permanent harm to its contestants, allegedly. But it’s okay, because the show producers were trying to save the lives of obese people…right?

Two decades after The Biggest Loser made national entertainment out of obesity, a new documentary, Fit for TV: The Reality of The Biggest Loser, revisits the damage left behind. In this episode, we take a hard look at how the show turned “saving lives” into a spectacle of humiliation, starvation, and long-term metabolic harm.

We’ll also discuss our original Biggest Loser episode, and judge how closely our podcast hit the mark several years before the documentary came out. We’ll look at the hormone tidal wave that hits contestants after they leave the show several hundred pounds lighter. Then we’ll discuss how Ozempic and Wegovy are changing the landscape of obesity, and ask the question; could this show even exist today? Would any sane person compete to lose weight in a national spectacle if the alternative is quietly taking a dose of semaglutide at home?

Finally, we’ll discuss how to approach weight loss the self-aware way, and investigate why both the Biggest Losers, and Ozempic patients, are statistically more likely to gain the weight back than to keep it off.

Links:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

https://www.netflix.com/title/81670924

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/big-food-strikes-back-why-did-the-obamas-fail-to-take-on-corporate-agriculture/

What does it really mean to be the best version of yourself? Lambos? Tigers? Cigars and women?

Two hundred episodes in and it’s time for us to take a victory lap. Not by bragging about downloads or sponsors, but by asking ourselves the question that started the whole show: what does it mean to be the best version of yourself?

In this milestone episode, we dig into the difference between becoming “peak human” and pretending to be one. Rather than focusing on self-help gurus and wealthy CEOs (our usual subjects) instead we’ll talk about Benjamin Franklin’s 13 virtues, Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, and the ancient idea that greatness isn’t a moment on a mountaintop, it’s a daily practice.

Along the way we’ll dissect the modern self-help industry’s obsession with outrage and optics, from YouTube “rise-and-grind” culture to tech billionaires trying to buy immortality. Then we contrast these false idols with real historical examples of peak humans; Navy heroes who turned submarine warfare into art, prisoners like Douglas Hegdahl who outwitted their captors through humility, and lovers who built stairways of devotion one stone at a time.

This episode isn’t about six-pack abs, political domination or “alpha male” status. It’s about recognizing that the climb never ends, and that the most “peak” moment in life comes from temperance, community, and a stubborn commitment to self-awareness.

Links:

https://positivepsychology.com/eudaimonia/

https://www.gottman.com/

https://www.suzywelch.com/

When every decision is framed like a war, how can we decide what’s important?

This week we look at the hidden cost of always “choosing sides” in our daily lives. From sports rivalries, political teams, family, work, and religion, everyone wants us to pick sides, and do it quickly. The pressure to declare our allegiance is everywhere. But is all this “picking” really about our preferences? Our identity? Or are outside forces pushing into picking sides, so they can profit off instinct to be “in the right”? What happens when every choice you make becomes another trench in a cultural war you didn’t even sign up for?

We start with the way brands trick us into thinking we must choose a team, even when the stakes are low. Then we discuss how that instinct spills over into friendships, family, and work, where people become more defined by what they’re against than what they’re for. We’ll also look at the psychology of picking sides, and how tribal instincts once meant survival, but now mean constant stress, anxiety, and a shrinking ability to empathize with people outside our group.

Finally, we ask the uncomfortable question—what are we losing by seeing the world in binary terms? Could letting go of sides actually give us more freedom, better relationships, and a less stressful way to live? And how do you step out of the endless cycle of choosing sides, without feeling like you’re betraying your values?

Links:

https://medium.com/swlh/stop-picking-sides-play-the-game-808fcb0c85

https://www.ei-magazine.com/post/the-pitfalls-of-choosing-sides

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.3.189

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201501/some-thoughts-side-taking

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/gray-areas/202002/picking-sides-how-judging-each-other-serves-the-common-good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ck-H8WTdN4&ab_channel=BritishHistoryDocumentaries

https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/mary-i-bloody-facts-life-death-legacy-illiegitimate-henry-viii/

If being famous on the internet pays less than minimum wage, why are millions still chasing it?

This week we wade into the decaying waters of the influencer economy, where being liked, followed, and algorithmically blessed doesn’t guarantee rent money. We’ll start with a look at the early promises of the social media boom (back when YouTube and Instagram offered a clear path to monetizing creativity). But what about now? Now, the platforms are saturated, the money is drying up, the big tech companies are sharing less with the creators, and most “influencers” are quietly drowning in debt or burnout.

We’ll also explore how the golden age of influencer culture collapsed into a gig economy built on illusion: TikTokers with millions of views who can’t afford groceries, “viral” stars being evicted, and stars like Mr Beast and Liver King who pander to teenagers and young impressionable males with access to their parent’s credit card. Meanwhile, companies are demanding more content for less pay, and platforms keep shifting the rules to maximize ad dollars at creators’ expense. The result? A rotting pyramid scheme where the top 0.1% thrive, and everyone else is stuck churning out content no one sees.

Finally, we unpack the psychological wreckage of chasing online fame in a post-influencer world. What happens when your identity, your income, and your sense of purpose are tied to metrics you can’t control? Why do so many creators stay in the game even when it’s killing their confidence and their art? And if being an “influencer” is just a new form of unpaid labor…what comes next?

Links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5yXuHJX2Nk&ab_channel=HowMoneyWorks

https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/halley-kate-hamptons-house-b2549607.html

https://nypost.com/2023/11/11/lifestyle/21-year-old-influencer-slammed-for-celebrating-buying-her-new-home/

https://www.publicist.co/the-spin/the-inside-scoop/is-instagram-dying#:~:text=Instagram%20as%20a%20company%20won,and%20making%20money%20from%20it

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03336-6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjna7PROMZ8&ab_channel=JarrettMoore

Sherlock has his ‘Memory Palace’ and Mike Ross from Suits has his photographic memory. But what’s the real-life equivalent to these skills, and how do we get them?

Last month, on the advice of a friend of the show, Joe applied for his private investigator’s license - something that usually requires a year’s worth of full-time investigative experience. Or, if you’ve been listening to the show, a year’s worth of digging into research about stress, classism, toxic relationships, and Killdozers. But was all that research enough?

Then, after we find out how close Joe got to being a private detective, we’ll get into the science of memory and photographic recall. Then we’ll ask the question: how much do we naturally pick up from our surroundings? How does memory storage itself work? And is there a hack we can use to master subjects more quickly? Then we’ll discuss the best memory techniques we’ve learned over the years, and why one good hour of meditation might be worth more than four hours of college-style cramming.

History:

https://filevinefireside.libsyn.com/using-comedy-to-win-court-cases-with-mitra-shahri

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/secrets-sherlocks-mind-palace-180949567/

Science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V91KET8Y0Nw

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncir.2017.00086/full

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/9-volt-nirvana

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/aoakon/is_the_radiolab_episode_9volt_nirvana_real_why/

https://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_foer_feats_of_memory_anyone_can_do?language=en

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

Why are we evolved to be brave, especially if being too brave could get you pruned from the evolutionary tree? And who was the gritty ‘Mulan’ of the Revolutionary War?

If two men charge uphill against a hale of musket fire, who’s braver - the man who quells his shakes and conquers his fear, or the man who never felt fear in the first place? Better yet, is James Bond brave, even though he knows he has the skills to overcome anything? Or is he just cocky? That’s our subject today on The Re-Engineered You - the many flavors of bravery, and why they exist in mankind in the first place. We want to know what factors make up a brave person. How we can summon up our own bravery. And who’s braver, men or women?

We’ll also take a look at the life of Deborah “Molly” Sampson - a woman who was so gung-ho to square off with the British during the Revolutionary War, she sewed her own uniform and faked being a man to get into the army...twice. We’ll also discuss how “Molly” became part of the elite army unit known as Washington’s Light Infantry, and how she ended up as the first woman to receive an army pension.

History Links:

https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/deborah-sampson

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/deborah-sampson/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Deborah-Sampson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Sampson https://www.lottie.com/blogs/strong-women/deborah-sampson-biography-for-kids

https://study.com/academy/lesson/deborah-sampson-biography-facts.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/arts/design/the-woman-who-sneaked-into-george-washingtons-army.html

Science Links:

https://phys.org/news/2008-09-tribal-war-drove-human-evolution.html

https://hbr.org/2020/05/how-to-find-and-practice-courage#:~:text=This%20is%20not%20an%20easy,the%20person%20and%20the%20situation

https://www.menshealth.com/health/a18918454/this-is-why-some-people-are-braver-than-others-according-to-science/

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935291.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935291-e-36

http://www.fearlessleadersgroup.com/the-science-of-courage

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/significant-results/201205/women-are-braver-men

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/7b6484fb-3b00-46d6-a557-ac2a0b6f8591

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1978/americans-see-women-emotional-affectionate-men-more-aggressive.aspx

https://www.sciencedirect.com