Cheer your brain in 90 seconds: Ex-Google executive shares Harvard expert's hack to beat stress and find happiness
Mo Gawdat, who once served as the chief business officer at Google X — Google's moonshot innovation lab — has spent over two decades analyzing happiness through a mix of logic, philosophy, neuroscience, and lived experience. One of his most powerful discoveries, he recently said on the High Performance podcast, is what he calls the '90-second rule' — a simple mental habit that could dramatically shift how we process negative emotions.
In 2014, Gawdat's world came crashing down when his 21-year-old son, Ali, passed away due to medical negligence during a routine appendix surgery. The devastating blow would be enough to leave anyone broken, but Gawdat chose to channel his grief differently. Seventeen days after the tragedy, he began writing Solve for Happy, a book that would go on to become a global bestseller on the science of happiness. It was his way of honoring Ali, and a promise to share what he had learned about living meaningfully despite suffering.
The rule is rooted in neuroscience. Gawdat credits Harvard-trained brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor, who found that when we feel stress or anger, the chemical storm — involving hormones like cortisol and adrenaline — usually flushes out of the body in about 90 seconds. After that, we're essentially replaying the emotional loop in our heads.'But then what happens is, you run the thought in your head again, and you renew your 90 seconds,' Gawdat explained. 'While in reality, what you get after those 90 seconds is a buffer ... [which] allows you to say, 'Now, what am I going to do?''In other words, we extend suffering by reliving painful thoughts over and over. Gawdat encourages using that 90-second biological window to fully feel the emotion — and then decide to move on.
Picture this: you're cut off in traffic. Your blood boils, you mutter some choice words, maybe slam the horn. Most people let that irritation simmer for hours — retelling the story, replaying the moment. But what if, as Gawdat suggests, you simply took a deep breath, blasted your favorite song, and focused on something else instead?The 90-second rule doesn't mean suppressing emotion — it's about honoring your reaction, but refusing to be trapped by it.To reinforce the habit, Gawdat relies on three powerful questions that serve as a mental audit during moments of distress: Is it true?
Can I do something about it?
Can I accept it and move forward despite it? 'Ninety percent of the things that make us unhappy are not even true,' he told High Performance. He gives a relatable example — a partner says something hurtful, and suddenly your mind spirals into believing they no longer love you. But often, it's just an emotional misfire. If the answer to the first question is no, he says, let it go. If it's yes, move to the next. And if there's nothing you can do, accept it — not passively, but with 'committed acceptance,' a term he uses to describe intentional action despite circumstances.
Of course, forming a habit like this doesn't happen overnight. A 2009 study by researcher Phillippa Lally found that it can take anywhere from 18 to 254 days to develop a new behavior, depending on the person. But Gawdat believes that even being aware of how we respond to difficulty is a crucial first step.'Life doesn't give a s--- about you,' he said bluntly in another interview on Simon Sinek's A Bit of Optimism podcast. 'It's your choice how you react to every one of [life's challenges]… It's your choice to set your expectations realistically.'For Gawdat, life is not about avoiding pain — it's about learning to live with it, think through it, and choose joy anyway.
Mo Gawdat is not just a tech executive and author, he's one of today's leading voices on emotional intelligence in the age of AI and hyper-productivity. After stepping down from Google X in 2018, he authored multiple books including Solve for Happy, Scary Smart, That Little Voice in Your Head, and Unstressable. Across all his work, a central message remains: You may not control what happens to you, but you can absolutely control what happens next.So the next time you're hit by life's curveballs, remember the rule. You've got 90 seconds to feel it. After that, it's your move.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
10 hours ago
- Economic Times
Cheer your brain in 90 seconds: Ex-Google executive shares Harvard expert's hack to beat stress and find happiness
iStock Mo Gawdat's 90-second rule offers a powerful hack to manage negative emotions. Based on scientific insight, it suggests that feelings like anger last only 90 seconds—unless we keep replaying them. (Representational image: iStock) Mo Gawdat, who once served as the chief business officer at Google X — Google's moonshot innovation lab — has spent over two decades analyzing happiness through a mix of logic, philosophy, neuroscience, and lived experience. One of his most powerful discoveries, he recently said on the High Performance podcast, is what he calls the '90-second rule' — a simple mental habit that could dramatically shift how we process negative emotions. In 2014, Gawdat's world came crashing down when his 21-year-old son, Ali, passed away due to medical negligence during a routine appendix surgery. The devastating blow would be enough to leave anyone broken, but Gawdat chose to channel his grief differently. Seventeen days after the tragedy, he began writing Solve for Happy, a book that would go on to become a global bestseller on the science of happiness. It was his way of honoring Ali, and a promise to share what he had learned about living meaningfully despite suffering. The rule is rooted in neuroscience. Gawdat credits Harvard-trained brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor, who found that when we feel stress or anger, the chemical storm — involving hormones like cortisol and adrenaline — usually flushes out of the body in about 90 seconds. After that, we're essentially replaying the emotional loop in our heads.'But then what happens is, you run the thought in your head again, and you renew your 90 seconds,' Gawdat explained. 'While in reality, what you get after those 90 seconds is a buffer ... [which] allows you to say, 'Now, what am I going to do?''In other words, we extend suffering by reliving painful thoughts over and over. Gawdat encourages using that 90-second biological window to fully feel the emotion — and then decide to move on. Picture this: you're cut off in traffic. Your blood boils, you mutter some choice words, maybe slam the horn. Most people let that irritation simmer for hours — retelling the story, replaying the moment. But what if, as Gawdat suggests, you simply took a deep breath, blasted your favorite song, and focused on something else instead?The 90-second rule doesn't mean suppressing emotion — it's about honoring your reaction, but refusing to be trapped by reinforce the habit, Gawdat relies on three powerful questions that serve as a mental audit during moments of distress: Is it true? Can I do something about it? Can I accept it and move forward despite it? 'Ninety percent of the things that make us unhappy are not even true,' he told High Performance. He gives a relatable example — a partner says something hurtful, and suddenly your mind spirals into believing they no longer love you. But often, it's just an emotional misfire. If the answer to the first question is no, he says, let it go. If it's yes, move to the next. And if there's nothing you can do, accept it — not passively, but with 'committed acceptance,' a term he uses to describe intentional action despite circumstances. Of course, forming a habit like this doesn't happen overnight. A 2009 study by researcher Phillippa Lally found that it can take anywhere from 18 to 254 days to develop a new behavior, depending on the person. But Gawdat believes that even being aware of how we respond to difficulty is a crucial first step.'Life doesn't give a s--- about you,' he said bluntly in another interview on Simon Sinek's A Bit of Optimism podcast. 'It's your choice how you react to every one of [life's challenges]… It's your choice to set your expectations realistically.'For Gawdat, life is not about avoiding pain — it's about learning to live with it, think through it, and choose joy anyway. Mo Gawdat is not just a tech executive and author, he's one of today's leading voices on emotional intelligence in the age of AI and hyper-productivity. After stepping down from Google X in 2018, he authored multiple books including Solve for Happy, Scary Smart, That Little Voice in Your Head, and Unstressable. Across all his work, a central message remains: You may not control what happens to you, but you can absolutely control what happens the next time you're hit by life's curveballs, remember the rule. You've got 90 seconds to feel it. After that, it's your move.
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Cheer your brain in 90 seconds: Ex-Google executive shares Harvard expert's hack to beat stress and find happiness
Mo Gawdat , who once served as the chief business officer at Google X — Google's moonshot innovation lab — has spent over two decades analyzing happiness through a mix of logic, philosophy, neuroscience, and lived experience. One of his most powerful discoveries, he recently said on the High Performance podcast, is what he calls the '90-second rule' — a simple mental habit that could dramatically shift how we process negative emotions. In 2014, Gawdat's world came crashing down when his 21-year-old son, Ali, passed away due to medical negligence during a routine appendix surgery. The devastating blow would be enough to leave anyone broken, but Gawdat chose to channel his grief differently. Seventeen days after the tragedy, he began writing Solve for Happy , a book that would go on to become a global bestseller on the science of happiness . It was his way of honoring Ali, and a promise to share what he had learned about living meaningfully despite suffering. The 90-Second Rule The rule is rooted in neuroscience. Gawdat credits Harvard-trained brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor, who found that when we feel stress or anger, the chemical storm — involving hormones like cortisol and adrenaline — usually flushes out of the body in about 90 seconds. After that, we're essentially replaying the emotional loop in our heads. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mercado Libre CFD: gana hasta 2.700$ a la semana trabajando desde casa TradeLG 'But then what happens is, you run the thought in your head again, and you renew your 90 seconds,' Gawdat explained. 'While in reality, what you get after those 90 seconds is a buffer ... [which] allows you to say, 'Now, what am I going to do?'' In other words, we extend suffering by reliving painful thoughts over and over. Gawdat encourages using that 90-second biological window to fully feel the emotion — and then decide to move on. You Might Also Like: Billionaire Mark Cuban predicts 'who will be the world's first trillionaire?' And it is not Elon Musk Everyday Example, Everyday Escape Picture this: you're cut off in traffic. Your blood boils, you mutter some choice words, maybe slam the horn. Most people let that irritation simmer for hours — retelling the story, replaying the moment. But what if, as Gawdat suggests, you simply took a deep breath, blasted your favorite song, and focused on something else instead? The 90-second rule doesn't mean suppressing emotion — it's about honoring your reaction, but refusing to be trapped by it. Three Questions That Can Break the Loop To reinforce the habit, Gawdat relies on three powerful questions that serve as a mental audit during moments of distress: Is it true? Can I do something about it? Can I accept it and move forward despite it? 'Ninety percent of the things that make us unhappy are not even true,' he told High Performance. He gives a relatable example — a partner says something hurtful, and suddenly your mind spirals into believing they no longer love you. But often, it's just an emotional misfire. If the answer to the first question is no, he says, let it go. If it's yes, move to the next. And if there's nothing you can do, accept it — not passively, but with 'committed acceptance,' a term he uses to describe intentional action despite circumstances. You Might Also Like: Harvard doctor's simple tip can boost your happiness in one minute. A startup CEO is already practicing it Building a Habit for Happiness Of course, forming a habit like this doesn't happen overnight. A 2009 study by researcher Phillippa Lally found that it can take anywhere from 18 to 254 days to develop a new behavior, depending on the person. But Gawdat believes that even being aware of how we respond to difficulty is a crucial first step. 'Life doesn't give a s--- about you,' he said bluntly in another interview on Simon Sinek's A Bit of Optimism podcast. 'It's your choice how you react to every one of [life's challenges]… It's your choice to set your expectations realistically.' For Gawdat, life is not about avoiding pain — it's about learning to live with it, think through it, and choose joy anyway. — alvinfoo (@alvinfoo) Who Is Mo Gawdat? Mo Gawdat is not just a tech executive and author, he's one of today's leading voices on emotional intelligence in the age of AI and hyper-productivity. After stepping down from Google X in 2018, he authored multiple books including Solve for Happy, Scary Smart, That Little Voice in Your Head, and Unstressable. Across all his work, a central message remains: You may not control what happens to you, but you can absolutely control what happens next. So the next time you're hit by life's curveballs, remember the rule. You've got 90 seconds to feel it. After that, it's your move.
Economic Times
12 hours ago
- Economic Times
AI makes science easy, but is it getting it right? Study warns LLMs are oversimplifying critical research
Think AI is making science easier to understand? Think again. A recent study finds large language models often overgeneralize complex research sometimes dangerously so. From misrepresenting drug data to offering flawed medical advice, the problem appears to be growing. As chatbot use skyrockets, experts warn of a looming crisis in how we interpret science. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads From Summarizing to Misleading Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads When a Safe Study Becomes a Medical Directive Why Are LLMs Getting This So Wrong? Part of the issue stems from how LLMs are trained. Patricia Thaine, co-founder and CEO of Private AI, points out that many models learn from simplified science journalism rather than from peer-reviewed academic papers. (Image: iStock) The Bigger Problem with AI and Science Guardrails, Not Guesswork Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads In a world where AI tools have become daily companions—summarizing articles, simplifying medical research, and even drafting professional reports, a new study is raising red flags. As it turns out, some of the most popular large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, Llama, and DeepSeek, might be doing too good a job at being too simple—and not in a good to a study published in the journal Royal Society Open Science and reported by Live Science, researchers discovered that newer versions of these AI models are not only more likely to oversimplify complex information but may also distort critical scientific findings. Their attempts to be concise are sometimes so sweeping that they risk misinforming healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the general by Uwe Peters, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bonn , the study evaluated over 4,900 summaries generated by ten of the most popular LLMs, including four versions of ChatGPT, three of Claude, two of Llama, and one of DeepSeek. These were compared against human-generated summaries of academic results were stark: chatbot-generated summaries were nearly five times more likely than human ones to overgeneralize the findings. And when prompted to prioritize accuracy over simplicity, the chatbots didn't get better—they got worse. In fact, they were twice as likely to produce misleading summaries when specifically asked to be precise.'Generalization can seem benign, or even helpful, until you realize it's changed the meaning of the original research,' Peters explained in an email to Live Science. What's more concerning is that the problem appears to be growing. The newer the model, the greater the risk of confidently delivered—but subtly incorrect— one striking example from the study, DeepSeek transformed a cautious phrase; 'was safe and could be performed successfully', into a bold and unqualified medical recommendation: 'is a safe and effective treatment option.' Another summary by Llama eliminated crucial qualifiers around the dosage and frequency of a diabetes drug, potentially leading to dangerous misinterpretations if used in real-world medical Rollwage, vice president of AI and research at Limbic, a clinical mental health AI firm, warned that 'biases can also take more subtle forms, like the quiet inflation of a claim's scope.' He added that AI summaries are already integrated into healthcare workflows, making accuracy all the more of the issue stems from how LLMs are trained. Patricia Thaine, co-founder and CEO of Private AI, points out that many models learn from simplified science journalism rather than from peer-reviewed academic papers. This means they inherit and replicate those oversimplifications especially when tasked with summarizing already simplified more critically, these models are often deployed across specialized domains like medicine and science without any expert supervision. 'That's a fundamental misuse of the technology,' Thaine told Live Science, emphasizing that task-specific training and oversight are essential to prevent real-world likens the issue to using a faulty photocopier each version of a copy loses a little more detail until what's left barely resembles the original. LLMs process information through complex computational layers, often trimming the nuanced limitations and context that are vital in scientific versions of these models were more likely to refuse to answer difficult questions. Ironically, as newer models have become more capable and 'instructable,' they've also become more confidently wrong.'As their usage continues to grow, this poses a real risk of large-scale misinterpretation of science at a moment when public trust and scientific literacy are already under pressure,' Peters the study's authors acknowledge some limitations, including the need to expand testing to non-English texts and different types of scientific claims they insist the findings should be a wake-up call. Developers need to create workflow safeguards that flag oversimplifications and prevent incorrect summaries from being mistaken for vetted, expert-approved the end, the takeaway is clear: as impressive as AI chatbots may seem, their summaries are not infallible, and when it comes to science and medicine, there's little room for error masked as in the world of AI-generated science, a few extra words, or missing ones, can mean the difference between informed progress and dangerous misinformation.
