Category: Uncategorized

  • Teaching Computers to Smell

    Alex Wiltschko got obsessed with perfume when he was 12 years old. He grew up to be an AI researcher at Google. Then he started Osmo, a company that fused his job at Google with his childhood obsession: Osmo is using AI to teach computers to smell.

    The company is getting into the perfume business, and it plans eventually to use scent to diagnose disease and detect security risks.


    Get early, ad-free access to episodes of What’s Your Problem? by subscribing to Pushkin+ on Apple Podcasts or Pushkin.fm. Pushkin+ subscribers can access ad-free episodes, full audiobooks, exclusive binges, and bonus content for all Pushkin shows.

    Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkin
    Subscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.com/plus

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  • #812: The Random Show — New Health Gadgets, Tim’s Latest Adventures, How to Drink Less, Zen Retreats, AI + Your Genome, and Colonoscopy Confessions

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 Hello, boys and girls, ladies and germs. This is Tim Ferriss. Welcome to another episode of
    0:00:08 The Tim Ferriss Show, where it’s my job to interview world-class performers from every
    0:00:12 imaginable discipline to tease out, you guessed it, the habits, routines, favorite books, and so on
    0:00:18 that you can apply to your own lives. This time, we have a very special episode. This is always
    0:00:23 a listener favorite, a recording with my close friend, Kevin Rose. Kevin Rose, for those who
    0:00:30 don’t know, at Kevin Rose. Everywhere, he is indeed a world-class entrepreneur, serial founder,
    0:00:37 investor in the smallest of seed rounds up to the largest of companies. And what we always do,
    0:00:42 we trade our latest discoveries, our latest findings, what our friends have sent to us.
    0:00:49 And I think it is one of our best. But first, just a few quick words from our sponsors who make this
    0:00:56 show possible. I don’t know about you guys, but I have seen a lot of crazy stuff in the last few
    0:01:03 weeks. I saw an AI-generated video. It looks like a video of an otter on a flight, tapping away on a
    0:01:08 keyboard, having a stewardess ask him if he would like a drink, and it goes on from there. And this
    0:01:16 was generated with AI, and it looks photorealistic, basically. I mean, it would have cost hundreds of
    0:01:21 thousands, millions of dollars to do in the past, taken forever, and now it’s, boom, snap of the
    0:01:25 fingers. It’s crazy. So AI is changing everything. We know that. It is also changing the way startups
    0:01:31 and small businesses operate. Things are going to get crazier. The rate of change is only going to get
    0:01:36 faster. And while a lot of good is going to come of that, it also means security and compliance
    0:01:42 headaches, for one thing. And that is where today’s sponsor, Vanta, comes in. I’d already heard a lot about
    0:01:48 them before they ever became a sponsor. Just like 10,000 plus other companies that rely on
    0:01:53 Vanta, my friends at Duolingo, shout out Duolingo, and Ramp, shout out Ramp, one of this podcast sponsors
    0:01:58 and an ultra-fast-growing company, use Vanta to handle security compliance. Why would they do that?
    0:02:06 Well, Vanta automates compliance for frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA, making it simple
    0:02:11 and fast to get enterprise-grade compliant. But what does that mean? It adds up to impressive
    0:02:18 results. Companies can save up to 85% of costs, get compliant in weeks instead of months, and complete
    0:02:26 security questionnaires up to five times faster. So check it out. Vanta.com slash Tim. That’s V-A-N-T-A,
    0:02:32 like Santa with a V. Vanta.com slash Tim to see how Vanta can help you level up your security program.
    0:02:39 My listeners, that’s you, can get $1,000 off. So check it out. Vanta.com slash Tim.
    0:02:46 If you ever use public Wi-Fi, say at a hotel or a coffee shop, which is where I often work, I’m doing
    0:02:52 it right now, and as many of you, my listeners do, you’re likely sending data over an open network,
    0:02:57 meaning there’s no encryption at all. A great way to ensure that all of your data are encrypted and can’t
    0:03:04 be easily read by hackers or captured by websites is to use this episode’s sponsor, ExpressVPN. It is so
    0:03:10 simple. It is one click. It is the easiest thing in the world. I use it overseas. I use it in airports.
    0:03:15 I use it everywhere. With ExpressVPN, you simply download their app onto your computer or smartphone
    0:03:21 and then use the internet just as you normally would. With just one tap, you secure 100% of your network
    0:03:26 data. ExpressVPN encrypts and reroutes your network traffic through secure servers. So even though your
    0:03:32 data is still physically passing through your internet provider, they can’t inspect it and they have no
    0:03:37 record of your browsing history. By the way, this is true even if you’re at home. Your ISP can snoop on
    0:03:43 all sorts of stuff, and I’ve seen that personally. It’s very, very spooky. Don’t like it. So ExpressVPN.
    0:03:50 ExpressVPN is the number one rated VPN by CNET, The Verge, and tons of other tech reviewers. I’ve been using
    0:03:55 ExpressVPN for years, and I love that it gives me that extra peace of mind. Knowing that no one else is
    0:03:59 looking over my shoulder, or even if they’re trying to, it’s going to be very, very, very hard.
    0:04:05 And as a bonus, I’ve also used it many times to unblock content from around the world. If you’re
    0:04:11 traveling and there’s a particular media website, there’s a particular, say, version of Amazon or
    0:04:16 whatever that’s blocked, or Netflix, whatever, with ExpressVPN, I can connect to servers outside the US
    0:04:21 or inside the US, depending on what you want to do, easily gaining access to thousands of shows and
    0:04:25 movies I wouldn’t be able to see otherwise. That’s been true for stuff I’ve wanted to watch in Japan.
    0:04:29 It’s been true for stuff I’ve wanted to watch in the UK, for instance, from the US that I haven’t
    0:04:34 been able to access. It’s super, super, super powerful as a tool. So check it out. Go to
    0:04:42 expressvpn.com slash Tim. You’ll get four extra months for free when you use that link. So be sure
    0:04:50 to check it out. That’s expressvpn, E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Tim for an extra four months
    0:04:50 for free.
    0:05:20 Kevin, good to see you, sir. Tim Tim, always a pleasure. Good to be here.
    0:05:26 So the ravages of childhood illness are ripping through your household at the moment.
    0:05:29 I mean, it was one of those things where I hit you up this morning. I was like, yeah,
    0:05:33 there’s a cold going around. Can we boot this podcast? You’re like, I have to have my colon
    0:05:38 examined. And so we decided to do it today. So I feel pretty good though, actually, all things
    0:05:38 considered.
    0:05:40 Yes.
    0:05:40 True story.
    0:05:46 True story. We have all of the fun things to discuss in our advancing years, but you know,
    0:05:51 one step at a time, one step at a time, by the way, I have a lot of pro tips for the
    0:05:55 colonoscopy. If you haven’t already done one, let’s do it. I have done a colonoscopy before.
    0:06:02 The reason that I am methodical about this is not to immediately start on a down note, but
    0:06:08 a friend of mine ended up getting terminal colon cancer, which metastasized, I guess, prior to
    0:06:15 that diagnosis to his liver. And so I have been very much on schedule with doing this type of
    0:06:22 checkup, even though it’s inconvenient, even though it’s unpleasant, you got to do it. You
    0:06:23 just have to do it.
    0:06:29 Yeah. I had a friend who actually had a big, massive chunk of his colon removed because of
    0:06:34 this. He had some cancer. So yeah, very important to stand on top of it. But I will say the drugs
    0:06:39 they give you when you’re going in, propofol, propofol. Yeah. That’s just, that’s what Michael
    0:06:42 Jackson died on. You know that? That’s what he died on.
    0:06:46 Well, that’s why I want self-administer. No, you don’t self-administer that. But I will
    0:06:52 say if you have a cool doc, and it’s typically the anesthesiologist that does this, they will
    0:06:57 do what’s called the slow ramp, where rather than push it all in and give you that bulls
    0:07:01 dose where it just knocks you out, they’ll let you just chill and ride it for about a minute
    0:07:06 or so. And I can see why Michael Jackson was hooked on this shit. Like I did that with
    0:07:12 them. I asked for the slow ramp when the last time I got it. Dude, you feel like you amazing
    0:07:13 when they give you that stuff.
    0:07:14 Yeah, it was crazy.
    0:07:21 That sounds like an anti-sales pitch. I think if it’s likely that I will just remember the
    0:07:25 bliss of that experience and want another bite of the apple, maybe I won’t ask for the slow
    0:07:29 ramp. I’ll just say, hey, just blow dart in the back of the neck. Take me out as quickly
    0:07:34 as possible. So that is, I think, where I’ll go with tomorrow’s lovely procedure.
    0:07:39 I didn’t tell you this. The last time I did my colonoscopy, it’s always hard when there’s
    0:07:45 a really attractive nurse in the room and they’re like, flip on your side. And you know what they’re
    0:07:51 going to do. And it’s just like, I don’t really feel like this is the right crew.
    0:07:52 The right setting.
    0:07:58 Set and setting was not right for me there. But I went through with it. There’s nothing you
    0:08:01 could do at that point. You just like flip on your side. Hopefully you don’t remember
    0:08:05 anything and you don’t and you’re good. So that is okay. But anyway, Godspeed tomorrow,
    0:08:06 Tim. Wish me the best.
    0:08:12 Godspeed. Well, you’re also, the reason we were comparing notes for self-care and how that can
    0:08:18 change over time is you said that you have a scan scheduled for this week, right?
    0:08:24 Yeah. I have a Prunovo tomorrow. So full body MRI scan done. I’d mentioned this on a podcast we did a
    0:08:30 while back, but they found basically a little tiny thing in my brain that could turn into a larger
    0:08:36 vessel rupture. And so they have to keep tabs on it. So I go back once a year and it’s been stable.
    0:08:41 It’s been totally stable for the last year and a half. So they’re like, yeah, you could have had this
    0:08:45 your entire time. That’s part of the problem with getting these full body MRIs, right? Because you go in
    0:08:52 there. And on the plus side, I’ve had a friend that found a tumor in his brain and he had it
    0:08:57 removed. It was a golf ball. It was crazy. It was fine. And you catch that stuff early and it’s
    0:09:02 amazing because it saves your life. And then on the downside, lots of false positives, like little
    0:09:06 tiny cysts and things that are just been there your entire life. Or just positive positives, but
    0:09:12 they’re small things that you can’t or won’t do anything about. So you just need to accept that you
    0:09:16 have. Exactly. Like a brain aneurysm, which is what I have. And now I know that I have it.
    0:09:23 One time. So there is that. Yeah. What are your suggestions for people psychologically if they’re
    0:09:30 listening? And for instance, I think of my parents who have been by and large, especially one more than
    0:09:38 the other, averse to getting comprehensive checkups in part because ignorance is bliss until it isn’t.
    0:09:45 If it’s something serious, then you just accidentally signed your death warrant if you take it to an
    0:09:51 extreme extent. But they are afraid of what they might find. What are your thoughts on this? My
    0:09:58 thought is step number one, honestly, for me is just develop a baseline of scientific literacy. You
    0:10:05 could listen to studying the studies or read that from Peter Uttia. There’s a book called Bad Science
    0:10:10 I actually excerpted for The 4-Hour Body at one point just to give you an idea of what matters
    0:10:16 and what doesn’t because a lot gets sensationalized in the news. And so you can train yourself to blow
    0:10:24 things out of proportion. And once you realize just how inert and unimportant, for instance, I have a
    0:10:28 number of, I don’t know if they’d be termed cysts or otherwise, but like one on my kidney and then one
    0:10:37 in another place. And it’s not fun to see those things. But I suppose having done so much in terms
    0:10:42 of medical checkups, blood draws and so on, there is also a conditioning over time where you become
    0:10:48 less sensitive. But if you only do it once in a blue moon, you’re more prone to overreacting. Any other
    0:10:48 thoughts on that?
    0:10:53 Yeah, I think you nailed it where it’s like, for me, it’s an annual thing. So I’m just like
    0:10:58 automatically going to do it no matter what. And once you get two or three of them under your belt,
    0:11:03 you’re much better off. But I would say that, you know, one of the things that I’ve heard time and
    0:11:07 time again is people don’t like going into MRIs because they put you in this little tiny tube.
    0:11:11 And a lot of people have claustrophobia around that. And I know that you can watch Netflix on some
    0:11:15 of them now and they got all these little displays, but it doesn’t help people. So I would say
    0:11:20 there’s two things that I’ve seen that people have done to sidestep this. One is if you talk
    0:11:24 to your doctor and you really do have a severe anxiety around claustrophobia, they’ll give you
    0:11:27 some kind of benzo and just kind of chill you out for a little bit. And you can go in there and just,
    0:11:32 and you’ll get through it. And the second thing is there’s another test called GRAIL. I don’t know
    0:11:37 if you’ve ever done the GRAIL test, but my physician does that as well. Yeah. And it’s just a blood test
    0:11:40 and it’s going to screen for a bunch of cancers as well. And so, you know, if you’re like, Hey,
    0:11:44 no way with the MRI, I don’t want to know about the cyst, but I still want some cancer screening.
    0:11:48 I think the GRAIL is probably the best to market for just general blood work, cancer screening.
    0:11:52 All right. And should we move on from old man roll call?
    0:11:54 Dying. Yeah, exactly.
    0:11:56 From death.
    0:12:01 From death. All right. I’ll kick us off with something that I think is pretty fun
    0:12:08 that I certainly was not aware of. And it’s a documentary. So this is a documentary. It’s
    0:12:14 called 32 sounds and people can check this out. If you’re going to watch it, watch it with a headset.
    0:12:21 It could be in ear AirPods, something like that. But certainly if you have higher quality headphones,
    0:12:26 I would use those. Here’s the description has 96% on rotten tomatoes.
    0:12:32 32 sounds is an immersive feature documentary and profound sensory experience from Academy Award
    0:12:38 nominated filmmaker, Sam Green, featuring original music by JD Sampson. The film explores the elemental
    0:12:45 phenomenon of sound by weaving together 32 specific sound explorations into a cinematic meditation on the
    0:12:50 power of sound to bend time, cross borders, and profoundly shape our perception of the world around
    0:12:58 us. It’s just a fundamentally different movie going or film watching, in this case, listening experience
    0:13:04 than anything I’ve ever seen. So from that perspective, I thought it was worthwhile, very
    0:13:12 worthwhile. And it will certainly lead you to, for a period of time afterwards, relate to the world of sound
    0:13:18 and this ability that sometimes we take for granted, which under the hood is pretty bizarre or at the very
    0:13:23 least amazing. So that’s a recommendation to get us out of deathland and into savoring lifeland.
    0:13:28 So walk me through this as someone that hasn’t even seen a trailer for it. Are we talking like
    0:13:32 sound bath action here? Like are we, are we seeing visuals on the screen? What is it?
    0:13:37 You’re seeing visuals. There are points in the documentary, for instance, where they’ll prompt
    0:13:45 you to close your eyes. If you are sighted, they don’t assume that everyone is. And it weaves the visual
    0:13:57 and the auditory together along with background context from the filmmaker into a documentary that
    0:14:02 is just unlike anything I’ve seen. So I, for that reason, thought I would throw it out there because
    0:14:08 as you know, Kevin, and maybe we’ll talk about this, but we spent some time together. My first time with
    0:14:17 Henry Shookman in New Mexico, we did a mini Zen retreat and you can really sharpen your awareness
    0:14:25 broadly speaking by honing in on the specific, right? So you might do a session where you’re focused just
    0:14:31 on breathing in and out and the sensation at the nostrils. For instance, you might also focus on
    0:14:37 soundscape. And when we were sitting, we did a lot of focusing on soundscape, different types of sounds,
    0:14:41 things that are intermittent, things that are one-off, things that are droning in the background.
    0:14:49 And this documentary can be a tool in the toolkit. I just think it’s a nice way to jumpstart that type
    0:14:52 or magnify the awareness that we already have.
    0:14:57 This is one of those things where I don’t know about you, but I found myself drawn to more
    0:15:04 kind of indie, weird documentary style stuff lately, just because there’s so much commercial shit out
    0:15:08 there where I’m like, I don’t need another show. I don’t need more violence in my head.
    0:15:13 I watched Flow not too long ago. I think we talked, we talked about that once before. That was fantastic
    0:15:15 movie. You didn’t like it though, right?
    0:15:22 I haven’t watched it yet. And I guess what I want to know is how long does it take for you to get
    0:15:32 accustomed to the lo-fi aesthetic of that particular animation, right? Because it looks, I’m not even
    0:15:38 sure how you would describe it, like a very polygonal, right? It’s very, if I’m getting the pronunciation
    0:15:39 right, something like that.
    0:15:40 Polygonal.
    0:15:45 I think I’m getting that. Low poly. Yeah. Which polygon, polygonal. There we go. Something
    0:15:50 like that. I’m getting too fancy for my own good. But how long does it take you to get accustomed
    0:15:56 to? And if my memory serves me right, it’s from a filmmaker somewhere in like Hungary or Lithuania,
    0:16:02 something like that. Animated film, all about animals. The visual, I guess, aesthetic, the look
    0:16:06 is what kept me from watching it. So maybe you could just speak to that for a second.
    0:16:16 Yeah. So it does have this very low poly kind of Nintendo type vibes to it where it’s like,
    0:16:20 it’s not the PS5. It’s like, it’s kind of like a crappier version where you can see some of the
    0:16:25 artifacts and, but there’s no speech at all. Like it’s just completely silent film. Well, not silent
    0:16:31 as it sounds, but there’s no talking at all. And it’s kind of post-apocalyptic vibes. This cat is
    0:16:37 trying to kind of make its way through this new world. It’s beautiful. I’d say about five minutes
    0:16:41 of that weird, like, where am I? Why is this low poly? And then all of a sudden you feel
    0:16:45 polyamorous. What is it when you get like used to something like that? Is it polyamorous?
    0:16:53 Low polyamorous. Yeah. Yeah. So you get used to it, whether you like it or not, but it was Latvia
    0:16:59 was where it came out of bed. It’s beautiful. Watch the documentary. Watch the trailer. It’s like a minute
    0:17:04 and a half long. It’s absolutely stunning. It’s like this cat forms these relationships with these birds
    0:17:09 and these dogs and they’re all trying to survive. And it’s 84 minutes of just good,
    0:17:15 fun, low poly documentary. Is there a minimum required amount of enhancement before you watch
    0:17:19 such a thing or were you watching a stone cold? Okay. Just make sure. Dude, I’m clean. I’m clean these
    0:17:24 days. That’s something I want to talk about. I’m so clean right now. Let’s talk about clean. Cause
    0:17:30 sometimes when I hear you say clean, that means that you’ve been clean for like 13, 14 hours. So
    0:17:34 what are we talking here? Let’s hop right into it. 24 hours. No, I’m just kidding. And I’ll watch
    0:17:38 flow tonight. I’ve been meaning to watch it and for whatever reason, I’ve kept pushing it. Don’t
    0:17:43 really have a great excuse. So since I’ll be up all night, shitting my brains out, drinking these various
    0:17:48 potions that the doctors prescribed me, I might as well try to watch something. So give you a, just real
    0:17:55 quick on the flow movie, $3.5 million budget to create this. So it was like very scrappy. 36 million in
    0:18:00 the box office, you know, was at the cans film festival. They premiered and it just won a bunch
    0:18:04 of awards. So anyway, I highly recommend checking it out. I think you can stream it for free, but
    0:18:11 yeah. On to, should we Kevin being clean? Yeah. Clean. Let’s do it. So dude, here’s the deal.
    0:18:17 Okay. We’ve had this conversation a few times and you and I will get on a phone call and I’ll be like,
    0:18:21 how are you doing? You’re like, Oh, dating’s hard. Cause you have to drink every night. And
    0:18:25 you know, I’m like, life’s hard. So you have to drink every night. I’m like being married’s hard.
    0:18:29 So you have to drink every night. You know? So it’s kind of like, you’re damned if you do,
    0:18:34 you’re damned if you don’t. No, but all jokes aside, one of the things that I realized is that
    0:18:39 earlier this year, I made this like very proud statement that I’m going to go 90 days without
    0:18:44 drinks. And everybody says 90 days is where the magic happens, you know, this and that, you know,
    0:18:51 classic Kevin bullshit where I fail after like a week. Right. And so I went close to a month.
    0:18:54 I had a couple of little things where I was like, well, I got this event. I’m allowing myself to have
    0:19:00 two or three drinks, whatever. So it was kind of cheating, but I did a month ish right around the
    0:19:07 holidays. And then after I lost my house in the fire, I realized that there was this moment where
    0:19:15 I just realized like what I’m doing is no longer serving me. And it’s really, I just didn’t feel
    0:19:23 like drinking was the solution to anything. I wasn’t having the same joyous kind of fun with
    0:19:31 friends type drinking. It was more out of habit and also continuous. So what I mean by that is like,
    0:19:36 rather than I’ve never been the like, Oh damn it. I had six drinks last night. Like those were,
    0:19:41 I mean, maybe a dignation or some stupid shit like that, but like outside of the random podcast once a
    0:19:46 year, it was more a consistency thing. And then I got some really scary blood work back from my
    0:19:50 doctor where I went and had my quarterly blood check and my liver enzymes were like one 50.
    0:19:54 And which is just insane. They should be like under 20.
    0:19:57 That’s like Barry Bonds and his peak level liver enzymes.
    0:20:03 Right. Exactly. Like I should have been jacked as shit from juicing, but instead it was just me
    0:20:08 hitting, you know, champagne or drinks like, you know, and I, the problems I would have two things.
    0:20:13 One, my liver is just not what it used to be as I get older. And two, you know, the consistency,
    0:20:18 like I said, two or three drinks, just like a lot of nights in a row. And it was really easy for my
    0:20:22 wife and I to crack a bottle and just finish it together and just call it a night.
    0:20:27 So long story short, I was like, I need to change something. And what I’m doing is not
    0:20:32 working. And if I really want to go 90 days, I have to surround myself with people that
    0:20:40 can help me here. Right. And so I have had now three friends that have done one version of a 12
    0:20:45 step program. One, I think it’s actually been on your podcast before, but like I called them all up
    0:20:50 and I said, Hey, I don’t think I can do 90 days by myself. Like I need some help. Like I need some
    0:20:55 support here. What can I do? What tools do you have at your disposal that I can lean into for
    0:21:00 support here? And they were super helpful. Each of them had a slightly different recommendation
    0:21:06 and I pulled some of those tools and I started applying them to my everyday life. And now,
    0:21:13 you know, as we speak, I’m 26 days, completely, perfectly sober, not a single drink. And it was
    0:21:16 freaking hard, dude, to get here, but I’m feeling really good now.
    0:21:21 Having known you a long time. And maybe if people are first time listeners, this is a remarkable
    0:21:25 stretch. Oh my God. Yeah.
    0:21:27 When was the last time you had 30 days, brother?
    0:21:33 I’m actually close to 30 days right now. I had two days probably where I had some drinks in the last
    0:21:37 almost 30 days. Really? So you’ve hit 30, you’re hitting 30 days.
    0:21:42 We can talk about it. It is almost entirely because of the people around me.
    0:21:43 Yes.
    0:21:48 I mean, that’s it. Right. And I, so I have some follow-up questions for you, but what were the
    0:21:56 tools or the things that you did, the things you tweaked that made it more successful this time around?
    0:22:01 Well, it’s ongoing, but I will get to three months and I have no doubt about that at this point.
    0:22:06 But I would say first and foremost is to reach out and connect with people that have done
    0:22:13 some type of assisted programs. And there are multiple different types of like, you know,
    0:22:21 12 step ish type programs that are out there. And I’d say that the first thing was that a friend of
    0:22:26 mine said, Hey, listen, one of the things that the tenants of kind of AA that it works quite well
    0:22:32 is it’s not about going 90 days. All it is, is about waking up that morning and saying,
    0:22:39 not today. It’s about 24 hours. It’s always about 24 hours. It’s about the recommitment every single
    0:22:44 morning to wake up and say, Hey, I can have a drink tomorrow, just not today. And then saying that over
    0:22:50 and over and over again. And when you’re someone that went through COVID and I didn’t drink a lot.
    0:22:55 And then all of a sudden I thought we were all going to die. So I drank a ton. And it’s this kind
    0:23:02 of itchiness that appears at around week one and a half or so. This kind of like, there’s a saying
    0:23:07 like a snake shedding its skin, like this kind of like withdrawal type thing that you have to go
    0:23:12 through. That is very challenging. And it’s at that point that you have to realize you’re in the thick
    0:23:16 of it. And I wasn’t having like DTs or anything crazy, you know?
    0:23:19 What is that? Delirium tremens? You’re talking about shakes?
    0:23:23 Yeah. Yeah. We get like shakes and stuff like that. Yeah. So this was more just like,
    0:23:33 how do I get to a point where I can be comfortable in my own skin and sit here and be okay with just
    0:23:39 being myself? And it’s a very weird thing to say, I wasn’t able to pull that off. And actually what
    0:23:44 it is, is it’s phone calls to these people. What happens in a lot of these different programs,
    0:23:47 and there’s two of them that I looked at specifically, is that one of the first things
    0:23:52 that happens when you join these various programs is they surround you with like-minded people
    0:23:57 and phone numbers, phone numbers of people to call. And you call them up and it’s not like,
    0:24:00 hey, talk me off the ledge here. I’m sure for some people it is. But for me, it’s just like, hey,
    0:24:05 help me get through this next half hour. And how should I be thinking about this? Right?
    0:24:05 Yeah.
    0:24:12 And so once you kind of build up enough of a runway here, and I’m finally at the point where
    0:24:18 I feel really, really good in a way that I haven’t in a long time, and I don’t want to go back on that.
    0:24:25 And so that support network, I think, is one of the strongest pillars of like a 12-step program is,
    0:24:28 like you said, surrounding yourself with people that are just going to be there
    0:24:32 to pick up the phone and have that conversation. And then it’s a bunch of hobbies to fill out the rest
    0:24:38 the time. And it’s not just people to, like you said, talk you off the ledge, which may or may not
    0:24:45 be the case, but people to whom you feel accountable also. Right? You just got on the phone and talked to
    0:24:52 someone. And if you drink, chances are you’re going to have to talk to them. And you don’t want to be the
    0:24:59 person who breaks rank, right? Or who doesn’t live up to your commitment. So that accountability is really
    0:25:04 powerful. You’ve said there were two organizations that you took a look at. What were the two
    0:25:07 organizations or groups?
    0:25:13 I would just say use ChatGPT and type in 12-step programs, not drinking. You’re not supposed to
    0:25:17 talk about these things when you go and check them out. It’s like Fight Club.
    0:25:21 Wait, well, you’re not supposed to talk about them? Why not? Because I know people, for instance,
    0:25:24 who have been like, yeah, I’m in Narcotics Anonymous or whatever.
    0:25:29 Well, I’ll give an example. So Brad Pitt got a bunch of shit for saying he was an AA. If you’re
    0:25:34 an AA, you’re not supposed to say you’re an AA. Oh, he got shit from AA people or people in AA.
    0:25:39 Exactly. I would think that would be a good thing because he would draw attention to-
    0:25:40 I would too.
    0:25:43 A lifeline for people who are having trouble with alcohol. That’s interesting.
    0:25:49 Right, exactly. Most of these organizations don’t want you chatting about them. And so it’s
    0:25:51 really fascinating. Weird.
    0:25:58 But not in a culty way. It sounds very culty-ish, but in reality, it’s just to protect who’s in them
    0:26:03 and also not make it be about the organization if someone fails. Because if I were to go back and
    0:26:06 say, hey, listen, I’m trying this thing out right now, or I tried this thing, or I went to two meetings
    0:26:11 of this thing, and then later you hear, I only made it 45 days. You’re like, oh, that must suck as an
    0:26:15 organization. And so it’s like you don’t associate yourself with any of these things because a lot of
    0:26:20 people might see that as a failure and then never try it. So that’s one of the other things that they
    0:26:20 say.
    0:26:26 Okay. Well, I don’t want you to come under the wrath of the spider web of AA.
    0:26:29 One thing that I can’t suggest is Lego.
    0:26:31 Lego.
    0:26:31 Lego.
    0:26:37 If you’re not watching the video, I’m holding up a massive Japanese wave called the Great Wave
    0:26:41 of Kanagawa, which is a wood block print that was done.
    0:26:41 Yeah.
    0:26:42 Hokusai.
    0:26:47 It was the Edo period, I think, right? When he did these wood block prints. But I spent
    0:26:55 three days making this with my oldest daughter, which is amazing. So much fun. So much fun.
    0:27:01 Just a quick note on that particular piece. So it’s very easy to find. Most people have seen it.
    0:27:07 A lot of people have seen it. If you just search Hokusai, H-O-K-U-S-A-I, Hokusai’s wave,
    0:27:13 you’ll see this pop up. But if you search evolution of Hokusai’s wave, you get to see
    0:27:20 over time, his prototyping and tweaking and changing of that particular wave until it landed
    0:27:25 on what we now recognize as this timeless, iconic piece, which is quite cool. So people
    0:27:26 can take a look at that.
    0:27:32 It’s so cool. Yeah. His stuff is amazing. And the fact that Lego makes adult Legos now,
    0:27:33 it’s so much fun.
    0:27:37 Are they just bigger for larger hands? What makes them adult? Or they’re just,
    0:27:40 instead of being the bat car, they’re Hokusai’s wave?
    0:27:46 Well, the pieces are smaller, so they tend to look a lot more realistic. Like you could
    0:27:51 hang this on the wall and actually be like art versus a Lego. And then they’re doing it
    0:27:56 with like little mini bonsai trees. And I did with the bamboo shoots and like, they’re actually
    0:28:00 pieces that you kind of want to have around your house. Oh, check this out. This one you’ll
    0:28:04 like too. I haven’t done this one yet, but this is one that you can only find in Japan,
    0:28:10 but I think you can find them on Amazon. This one’s called NanoBlocks. It’s like a Lego competitor.
    0:28:16 Yeah. So these are really tiny little pieces. I bought this one when I was in Tokyo, but this
    0:28:21 is a cherry blossom tree. And I can’t remember how many pieces this one is, but it’s like they
    0:28:25 can be in the, in the thousands. Yeah. This one’s 990 pieces for this little tiny tree.
    0:28:31 They’re fun to do, but it just gives you something. You know, I realized what I need
    0:28:36 is a friend of mine actually said he took up golf with his wife and he was like, Hey, I took up golf
    0:28:41 with her because all we did was drink or talk about our kids. It was one of two things. And you know,
    0:28:45 you need to have something that you go and do in the evening, whether it be rock climbing or
    0:28:50 some type of physical activity that is not that substance, you know?
    0:28:55 Yeah. The physical activity piece, I mean, I’ve always found super effective because you get
    0:29:00 punished if you’re drinking too much. If you’re doing something that’s really physically intensive,
    0:29:06 you mentioned this guy going to play golf with his wife. So my question for you, we can always cut
    0:29:15 this too, but since it is about your surroundings and so on, is Daria also on board with the not
    0:29:22 drinking or are you able to take that on yourself while she’s partaking? How is that working out?
    0:29:29 Yeah. So she’s still drinking. And I would say that the one nice benefit is the been that she’s cut
    0:29:37 back a lot just naturally, which was cool to see. So her consumption, she’s always kind of wanted to
    0:29:43 cut back, but I don’t know how much of it is a result of seeing just my general energy levels going up.
    0:29:47 And I feel a hell of a lot better. Oh, by the way, my liver enzymes are back down to like,
    0:29:53 you know, low thirties, which is great. So I’m starting to see like my complexion and like all
    0:29:56 these, these weird things are happening. They’re just getting better. Turns out not drinking is
    0:30:03 actually good for you. But, uh, it’s one of those things where I think that is inspiring her to drink
    0:30:07 less, which is fantastic, but she still drinks and it doesn’t bother me. It’s like, it is what it is.
    0:30:12 It’s like, she’s, she has a hard time with certain things around the house when it comes to the kids
    0:30:17 and noise levels and, and stuff that I think it’s easier for her to have a drink or two just to kind
    0:30:21 of calm the nerves a little bit. But I think it’s already showing, you know, it’s wearing off on her
    0:30:22 as well, which is great.
    0:30:30 Nice. Well, I’m excited to see what happens at day 90. It seems like a huge difference now as you have
    0:30:34 the phone a friend support system put in place.
    0:30:40 Yeah. The phone a friend is huge, but also there is this group of people that get together and they
    0:30:49 have a weekly zoom and I jump on that. And it’s a bunch of this one’s guys only as a bunch of guys
    0:30:57 that don’t really want to be drinking. And it is a bonding moment to just talk about how these people
    0:31:03 are showing up and to hear stories about people that are showing up as better dads in particular,
    0:31:09 like really hits home with me. Not that I was showing up as a bad dad, but like when I think
    0:31:15 about my father and how kind of, you know, some of the verbally abusive stuff and his wasn’t related
    0:31:21 to alcohol, but just like dads showing up as the best versions of themselves means a lot to me.
    0:31:27 Like it means a lot to be an awesome dad to my kids. And when I see these other dads that would
    0:31:32 have otherwise been alcoholics in their home talking about how much they love their children and how
    0:31:37 they have more patience for their kids now and patience for their partner because of the fact
    0:31:43 that they’ve stopped drinking or severely cut back on drinking is just like, it’s a blessing just to
    0:31:48 watch that unfold. And yeah, I’m seeing it in this large group of people that talk about these things,
    0:31:48 you know?
    0:31:53 Yeah. I’d be curious to know, we can also cut this, obviously we can cut whatever, but
    0:31:59 it’s top of mind because I had Terry real on the podcast a couple of weeks ago and his first book,
    0:32:05 which put him on the map is, I don’t want to talk about it, which is specifically focused on
    0:32:12 male depression. And he talks about covert depression, meaning men have these common
    0:32:20 modes of covering up depression, whether that be workaholism, alcoholism, sex addiction,
    0:32:26 fill in the blank, right? Typically some type of kind of compulsive, busying or dulling
    0:32:30 addiction. It could be drugs, I suppose. It could be cocaine. That’s not dulling, but
    0:32:36 it’s quite a laundry list of things that he discusses as coping mechanisms for depression,
    0:32:43 right? And I don’t think that substance abuse is always that. Some people just meet a molecule
    0:32:51 that is really not a good fit from an addiction profile perspective. I do think that it could be
    0:32:59 certainly a predisposition as simple as that. It’s like your body, your bloodline really shouldn’t
    0:33:03 play with this molecule. But then there are other cases where there’s other stuff under the hood.
    0:33:07 Do the people in your group talk about that at all? Does that come up?
    0:33:13 Oh, 100%. Yeah, absolutely. I would say that if I had to guess, it’s the vast majority of it is
    0:33:19 the under the hood stuff. It’s not addressing all of the childhood trauma or our kind of family of origin
    0:33:25 stories, where and how we grew up. And there’s almost always a bit of that. So kind of as we
    0:33:30 popcorn around the Zoom and talk about different things, one of the things that commonly comes up is
    0:33:36 just not only how are you showing up today, but some of these little bits get exposed around these
    0:33:43 traumas that were largely left unaddressed and so led to this kind of dependence or this escape that
    0:33:50 alcohol can provide, which is just this dulling of my general ease, being able to sit there and be
    0:33:54 comfortable in your own skin because of a lot of the things that occurred to you as a child and not even
    0:33:59 knowing it. And so addressing that stuff, I think, is a big part of a lot of these different step
    0:34:04 programs that are out there. They have different means and ways in which you can go and get that,
    0:34:10 put pen to paper, get out a lot of those things and address them and put them out there to the world and
    0:34:12 hopefully move on from them and heal from that.
    0:34:14 Yeah, totally.
    0:34:21 Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors and we’ll be right back to the show.
    0:34:26 About three weeks ago, I found myself between 10 and 12,000 feet going over the continental divide,
    0:34:31 carrying tons of weight, and I needed all the help I could get. And in those circumstances,
    0:34:37 I relied on Momentus products every single day and every single night. Now, regular listeners
    0:34:42 probably know I’ve been taking Momentus products consistently and testing them, the entire spectrum
    0:34:47 of their products for a long while now. But you may not know that I recently collaborated with them
    0:34:52 to put together my top picks. I always aim for a strong body and sharp mind. Of course, you need both
    0:34:57 and neither is possible without quality sleep. So I designed my performance stack to check all three
    0:35:02 boxes, Creapure Creatine for muscular and cognitive support, whey protein isolate for muscle mass and
    0:35:08 recovery, and magnesium threonate for sleep. All Momentus products are NSF and Informed Sports
    0:35:13 certified, which is professional athlete and Olympic level testing. So what’s on the label is exactly
    0:35:16 what you’re getting. Try it out for yourself and let me know what you think.
    0:35:24 So just head to livemomentus.com slash Tim. That’s livemomentus.com slash Tim or use code Tim at
    0:35:34 checkout for 35% off of your first subscription. That’s livemomentus.com slash Tim. Momentus is M-O-M-E-N-T-O-U-S.
    0:35:50 All right. So I just got back from the most travel I’ve done in quite a while, four to five weeks. I was in
    0:35:58 Taiwan for a week, which was spectacular. And I’ll come back to that. Japan, as always, fascinating,
    0:36:05 interesting, beautiful, frustrating, depending on which side of it you hit. We’ve talked about this
    0:36:12 before, but it’s kind of like Japan is like 20 to 30% blade runner and like 70 to 80% DMV in terms of
    0:36:20 like rules and paperwork and so on. But I love Japan. And then also spent a bit of time in the UAE,
    0:36:28 actually in Abu Dhabi unexpectedly. So lots of travel updates. I will say for Taiwan, I had not
    0:36:40 been back to Taiwan since 1999 or 2000. So 25 years. And I had had a very tough time when I studied
    0:36:47 abroad in Beijing. I studied at two universities and this was 1996. And it was a very, very rough
    0:36:51 experience at the time for a host of reasons. One was there was a lot of political tension between the
    0:37:00 US and China. And I had my head shaved and looked like military, particularly back then I was a bit
    0:37:09 bigger. And it was just not a particularly welcoming environment. Also, there were concerns about foreign
    0:37:15 students affecting domestic students, Chinese students. So we were put in a foreign experts
    0:37:21 dormitory. We were completely separate. So it was actually very hard to learn Chinese in the way that I
    0:37:26 was hoping to learn Chinese. My Japanese got better because there are a lot of Japanese students in the
    0:37:33 dormitory. And also met some great people who lived in Beijing. So it wasn’t exclusive, but I had a really
    0:37:38 rough time. And when I got back to the US, basically decided to stop studying Mandarin. And a friend of mine
    0:37:46 is a white guy born in the South of Japan. So he had perfect Japanese, Southern dialect. His English
    0:37:51 was a little unusual because he sounded like a Japanese person who had learned to speak English
    0:37:57 very well. This is a guy who looks like you or me. So there was something funky and really funny and
    0:38:01 awesome about that. He also spoke Korean really well and spoke Chinese really well. And he said,
    0:38:06 you have to at least go visit Taiwan before you lay down your pen and retire your Chinese.
    0:38:13 And so I ended up spending about a month in Taiwan. And it just blew my mind, right? Because
    0:38:19 without the cultural revolution in Taiwan, a lot of the older culture from China had been preserved.
    0:38:24 Also native, sort of indigenous Taiwanese culture and cultures had been preserved.
    0:38:33 very different from an interpersonal perspective. And just had the best time one could possibly imagine.
    0:38:38 And in fairness, I have been back to mainland China in other places more recently. And it’s a very
    0:38:44 different experience now. Although, once again, we’re back in tension city between the US and China.
    0:38:52 But what I would say is, if you have the chance to go to Taiwan, you should take the chance. And this
    0:38:59 might sound also, I don’t think it’s pessimistic. I think it’s inevitable that at some point, Taiwan
    0:39:05 will be reabsorbed by mainland China, and it’s going to change really dramatically. Culturally,
    0:39:11 linguistically, perhaps the ability to travel there will get more complicated. I don’t know how it’s
    0:39:17 going to change, but it will change a lot. And that I could see happening within the next
    0:39:23 few years. Very surprisingly to me, people on the ground, at least the Taiwanese locals I spent time
    0:39:28 with, and I was with locals the whole time I was there. I wasn’t with any expats. They’re completely
    0:39:35 unconcerned. They really don’t seem to be thinking much about this type of transition, either because
    0:39:41 they think it’s not going to happen or because they view it, as I just said, somewhat as an inevitability.
    0:39:45 So they’re like, yeah, it’ll change. Things will change, but so it goes. But there doesn’t seem to
    0:39:52 be a lot of hand wringing and fretting about it, which was super surprising to me. I will say though,
    0:39:57 if you want to visit a place that is really warm, where the people are really funny, where the food
    0:40:06 is outstanding, and it almost feels like there’s a blended courtesy that you might recognize also from
    0:40:10 Japan. And certainly Japan has a long history there. So there could be some of the influence.
    0:40:17 Really, I encourage people to check out Taiwan and do it soon. And I want to give a shout out to a
    0:40:25 restaurant there that two of the locals I know are involved with. And you’re going to love the name of
    0:40:32 this restaurant. It is customized, although I’m pretty sure it predates Google. The name of this
    0:40:36 restaurant is Really Good Seafood. That is the actual name.
    0:40:40 I mean, it’s very descriptive. You know where you’re going to get.
    0:40:47 Yeah, it’s very descriptive. Fantastic sculpture also, like bronze sculptures in this restaurant,
    0:40:52 strangely enough. But really good seafood. Highly recommend people check it out. And you just can’t
    0:41:00 go wrong in Taiwan. Try to get at least outside of Taipei for a short period of time. And there are
    0:41:01 amazing hikes in the mountains.
    0:41:06 Yeah, I was going to ask you, did you do any tea? Because obviously the oolongs out of Taiwan are just
    0:41:07 absolutely stunning.
    0:41:08 Yeah, they’re stunning.
    0:41:09 Did you do any tea tours?
    0:41:15 We drank a lot of tea. Did not do a tea tour. But actually, if you hold on for a second,
    0:41:19 let me go grab some tea. I haven’t even unpacked. I literally got back yesterday. So hold on one
    0:41:20 second. I’m going to go grab something.
    0:41:21 Yeah.
    0:41:28 All right. So I brought some tea back. And Taiwan has a lot of everything from a tea perspective.
    0:41:35 But certainly what gets the most airtime is oolong tea. You really hear about oolong.
    0:41:45 They have so many incredible teas. But this right here, cha cha te, which certainly is not Chinese,
    0:41:53 but they have these incredible teas. And this one in particular was recommended, which is called
    0:42:01 Oriental Beauty Oolong Tea. And there are a million different varieties. Certainly, if you spend time
    0:42:08 there, I would say, do not miss out on the tea. If you think tea is boring, if you think tea doesn’t
    0:42:17 really spark your interest, doesn’t capture you, I would suggest just going whole hog on as much tea
    0:42:23 as you can. And get out in the mountains. I mean, even an hour outside of Taipei, you can go on these
    0:42:32 walks in rainforests that are, to my eye, denser than the Amazon. I mean, it is so lush and so dense.
    0:42:39 Waterfalls, rivers, monkeys, you just get to see it all. It is really incredible from a biodiversity
    0:42:49 perspective. And I do think sadly, at least for ease of travel with Taiwan as it exists right now, the
    0:42:57 window could be quite narrow for a lot of tourism. So I would say maybe things will change. Maybe they
    0:43:03 won’t if and when the Big Red Dragon basically subsumes Taiwan. But I would say get there sooner rather
    0:43:11 than later. You will not be disappointed. And certainly check out really good seafood. I have to
    0:43:18 give a shout out to my friend’s restaurant. And then of course, going from Taiwan to Japan,
    0:43:24 pretty easy transition. It’s a very short flight. I guess somewhere between three and four hours.
    0:43:31 And instead of tea in Japan, just went on the rampage with coffee, actually, this time around.
    0:43:37 And one of the main reasons for the trip was to visit my host family, who I stayed with when I was
    0:43:43 15. I’m still very close to them. And so we were able to go out to this rambunctious local ramen joint
    0:43:50 and just act like old times and catch up as if no time had passed. It’s just so nice to have those
    0:43:56 deep relationships. And like everyone everywhere, they’re getting older, meaning my parents, my host
    0:44:05 brothers, their kids. And it was wild to see my oldest host brother’s older boy is now 16. He’s taller
    0:44:10 than I am. I remember seeing him when he was a baby, right? Because I went to my host brother’s wedding
    0:44:18 prior to that. And he is the age that I was when I was in Japan, which is just so wild.
    0:44:24 It’s so wild. And wanted to give a couple of recommendations for people if they want to try
    0:44:30 a bunch of coffee. There are a million options out there, but I don’t know how to explain it.
    0:44:37 And people are going to think this sounds really funny, but the latte at Glitch Coffee in Ginza,
    0:44:44 for whatever reason, a number of people had it. And we were all like, what did they do with this
    0:44:50 latte? I don’t know if it was how they blended it. Oh, dude, it’s Hokkaido milk, of course.
    0:44:55 Well, no, no, no. Well, that’s the thing though, because we had like 20 different lattes,
    0:45:01 but at Glitch in Ginza specifically, the way that they blended it and put the whole thing together
    0:45:07 was so obscenely good. It is very small. It’s a pain in the ass to wait outside, especially if it’s
    0:45:12 raining like it was when I was there. But I would highly recommend checking it out. But you’re right
    0:45:19 that Hokkaido milk is famous throughout the world, certainly without all of Asia. And it’s just a
    0:45:26 different thing. It just tastes so much better than the milk that I’ve had, at least here in the US.
    0:45:32 And I’ll give one more, which is Sendai, Sendai Coffee. And people can check that out as well.
    0:45:39 Very cute, different style. And there, I would suggest checking out, they have a few varieties of
    0:45:46 Colombian coffee, Colombian Kindio, wine yeast, peach-infused honey. Now there’s no sweetener in
    0:45:52 this, but all of these notes are super, super obvious. This stuff right here.
    0:45:55 They really know their coffee, man. They really do.
    0:45:57 Have you been to Coffee Mamea out there?
    0:46:03 I was going to go to Coffee Mamea, but we did not end up going. So I’ve not been.
    0:46:08 Okay. Mamea is by far my favorite in Tokyo. It is insanely legit. They have a couple of different
    0:46:13 locations, but there is one that they have. They serve the coffee in wine snifters.
    0:46:19 And, you know, it’s like $35 a cup. And they’re getting the world’s best geishas in there. And
    0:46:22 they’re just like making this fantastic varietal of coffee.
    0:46:25 Just for clarity, the geisha is the coffee, not the people.
    0:46:28 That’s right. Have you tried any of the aged coffees in Tokyo?
    0:46:33 I mean, I might have in the course of going to all these different places, but perhaps not.
    0:46:38 Mamea, I wanted to go to check that out. It’s a whole production, right? Like if you go to the
    0:46:44 one location where they give you the omakase, it’s like a whole three-hour trip. And I had just at
    0:46:49 that point in the trip with the amount of time we had, I was like, number one, because tourism has
    0:46:57 exploded. I mean, I have never seen even a quarter of the number of tourists in Japan that I saw this
    0:47:02 last trip because the yen is weaker and a lot of people are coming in from all over, not just China,
    0:47:09 but also Thailand and many other places. If you want to book a reservation, you need to do it far
    0:47:14 in advance. For instance, you want to go to like Ghibli Museum. I used to be able to do that a week or
    0:47:18 two in advance. Now you got to do it months in advance. Yeah. Last time I was out there, it was
    0:47:22 just insane how many tourists are coming over. And I saw Craig Mott out there, which is fantastic.
    0:47:27 He took me to a secret little coffee spot that I don’t want to blow up and ruin by mentioning on your
    0:47:37 podcast. But it was fantastic. Another one, just Google L-A-M-B-R-E, Aged Coffee Beans, Tokyo.
    0:47:42 And they have coffee beans that they’ve been sitting on for over 20 years. So they’ll serve you coffee
    0:47:47 beans that are 20 or 30 years old. It’s a different experience altogether. When you get these kind of
    0:47:53 like slightly fermented aged coffee beans, this little shop seats like eight people. It’s fantastic.
    0:48:00 Highly recommend. So that was my sort of deal with jet lag plus enjoy Japan this time around,
    0:48:03 which I hadn’t done. I’d done a lot of like we experienced it together, you know,
    0:48:09 sake tastings and things like that. Didn’t want to go the alcohol route. I was very tempted to go to
    0:48:11 Gen Yamamoto again, who’s incredible.
    0:48:12 Gen’s best. Yeah.
    0:48:17 But I didn’t want to do the booze. So I ended up doing the caffeine route and
    0:48:22 absolutely loved it. It’s also a great way to explore. There’s a place I want to say,
    0:48:29 look it up. I want to say it might be Nezu, Nezu Cafe, but it does not allow any photographs or
    0:48:33 social media or laptops. And I just thought that was so fantastic.
    0:48:36 There’s a handful of those out there. Did you go to Bear Pond Coffee out there at all?
    0:48:37 No.
    0:48:41 That’s a little bit further out. So Bear Pond’s amazing. There’s a guy there,
    0:48:47 he does the angel stain. There’s one cup of coffee he makes like this really highly processed
    0:48:54 over the top expresso, not processed, but like dense, dense, thick, rich expresso. And then they
    0:48:58 have Hokkaido milk there as well. I think it’s some of the best. Oh, it’s just unbelievable.
    0:49:00 But there’s no social media.
    0:49:04 I have to stage an intervention. If you’re going to be a coffee nerd, you can’t say expresso.
    0:49:05 So you got to say espresso.
    0:49:08 Okay. Espresso.
    0:49:11 Did I say ex-presso?
    0:49:13 You said it twice. Yeah.
    0:49:17 Okay. All right. Listen, cut that out, fucker.
    0:49:20 It’s too good. It’s too good.
    0:49:26 I have these sayings that like Daria always calls me out on where I say things where I think I pick
    0:49:31 them up from my parents and there’s like three or four things that are completely like not even close
    0:49:36 to the actual word. It was from my family and my upbringing. I think expresso was one of them.
    0:49:44 Well, my mom, her mom as a joke would say certain words totally incorrectly. Like instead of horizon,
    0:49:51 she would say the horizon. And then my uncle went into school to give a presentation when he was a little
    0:49:59 kid and he said horizon and just got like laughed at a class. And then his mom was like, oh yeah,
    0:50:02 no, I was totally wrong. I was just kidding. It’s like, oh, come on. Come on, mom.
    0:50:08 Oh, I got to tell you before we move on, people should know if they don’t get a chance to go out
    0:50:12 to Taiwan and something I desperately wanted to do. And I wholeheartedly agree. It seems that
    0:50:18 sadly tensions are rising. So there is a small window, but a friend that I met in San Francisco,
    0:50:22 have you ever been to that red blossom tea company in SF?
    0:50:23 Yeah, I have.
    0:50:29 So I think they are the best importer, domestic importer, at least in the United States of high
    0:50:34 quality oolong tea. So if you cannot make it out, and I have no affiliation with them at all,
    0:50:38 but if you can’t make it out to Taiwan, but you want to try some of these teas that Tim is talking
    0:50:46 about, red blossom tea company, just Google them. The website has fantastic oolongs and they’re
    0:50:48 reasonably priced. They’re pretty awesome.
    0:50:53 Yeah. And also just to be clear, guys, this doesn’t need to be expensive. These coffees,
    0:50:59 you might have to wait a little while or these teas, but they’re not going to cost necessarily. If you go
    0:51:04 to a super fancy place, sure. But 99% of what I had is going to cost less than what you had at Starbucks.
    0:51:06 Yeah. A hundred percent.
    0:51:12 It’s not expensive. It is not outside of reach. All right, man, where should we move next?
    0:51:16 Yeah. I mean, I definitely want to cover how you did on that meditation retreat. We can talk
    0:51:18 about that at some point, but I can also talk about some tech stuff as well.
    0:51:23 Why don’t we do a tech debrief? Then we can talk about the Zen retreat.
    0:51:28 Yeah. So the tech debrief, I would say for me, the latest and greatest is that the new Whoop
    0:51:33 finally came out, which is this little guy here on my wrist. It’s about, I think, 12% smaller.
    0:51:42 Now I’m Aura’d, Whoop’d, and Apple Watch’d up all at the same time. The Whoop band, the reason I like it,
    0:51:48 or I had historically liked it, is that it does not have a display on it. And so it’s not competing
    0:51:53 with your time in any way. You kind of check the stats in the morning or at night or whatever you
    0:51:59 may be. And they really maximized the hell out of this hardware because they had not updated the
    0:52:03 device in like four years. So it was the same hardware, but they kept doing firmware updates
    0:52:08 and the heart rate tracking got better. Everything was just continually getting better via these
    0:52:13 firmware updates. This is the first new device in like four years. This one is called the MG,
    0:52:19 which stands for medical grade. It does feel a lot smaller. And there’s some new features that I think
    0:52:24 are worth mentioning that are pretty awesome. Some stuff that the Apple Watch doesn’t do. So this one
    0:52:30 now has blood pressure monitoring as well. So you calibrate it with your cuff, which I did last night,
    0:52:35 and then it’s going to give me insights throughout the week. It will kind of give you a range or a score
    0:52:40 range. So it’s not going to give you exact cuff measurements, but it’ll generally let you know how
    0:52:45 you’re doing, whether or not you want to pay more attention or not. So it’s in beta right now,
    0:52:48 but it seems so far, it seems pretty good and pretty accurate. And granted, I’ve only had this
    0:52:54 for a few days now. The VO2 max tracking is awesome. The zone training is great. It’s gotten better.
    0:53:00 They have this feature called Whoop Age. The Whoop Age, I think is pretty cool because basically what it
    0:53:05 does is it takes a look at a bunch of different metrics across the board. So you can think of this as
    0:53:11 resting heart rate, sleep quality, heart rate variability, stress levels, which is getting through a
    0:53:15 a couple of different algorithms that they have, your VO2 max, a slew of different things. And it
    0:53:21 combines them all into this score. And it says, okay, how do we think you’re doing? Are you at an
    0:53:27 accelerated aging pace right now? Are you flat? Or do we think you’re actually below average and that
    0:53:33 you’re aging slower than most people, which is where you want to be. And so they give you this cool little
    0:53:40 Whoop Age Insight, which is fun. I would say out of all the devices that I’ve played with and own,
    0:53:44 the Whoop probably is the geekiest of them all. And then it gives you the most data points and the
    0:53:48 most insights. And now they have this little AI agent you can have a conversation with. You can say,
    0:53:53 hey, how did I do yesterday? Is there anything I should be paying attention to? And it’ll come back
    0:53:58 and pull from your real-time data that’s on your phone. So I like it. It’s a little bit pricey,
    0:54:05 but the one I have is $359 a year. And they do have some that are less expensive, but it’s early
    0:54:09 days. I’ve only had it for a few days, but it’s something to pay attention to in terms of the
    0:54:13 wearables out there, the track, everything as related to all the different metrics that you
    0:54:19 can pull from. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to do this, but I’ve really been increasing the
    0:54:25 frequency of my zone two training. And the way that I’ve typically calibrated that is with the talk
    0:54:31 test sort of per Peter Atiyah, right? Keeping it simple, like you’re on a bike and you could hold
    0:54:37 a conversation on the phone or with someone in full sentences, but you wouldn’t really want to,
    0:54:42 right? That’s my understanding of the simple way to measure it. Now I’ve talked to other people
    0:54:47 who are involved with like professional cycling teams and they’re like, well, actually you really
    0:54:52 want to do A, B, C, D, and E to calibrate it, which sounds very complicated. And I’m probably not
    0:54:59 going to do it. Have you had a chance to compare what the whoop says about zone two and something
    0:55:05 like the talk test to see if they correspond? It’s a great question. And I think one that I’m
    0:55:09 with you in that I want to get more zone two. I’m trying to get like a half hour in per day,
    0:55:14 at least. And Atiyah really pushes for, you know, close to an hour or tries to get to an hour.
    0:55:19 There’s an equation for this as well, which is like age divided by plus, you know, there’s like,
    0:55:23 there’s a few of these out there that are like, how do you figure out what zone two is for you?
    0:55:29 For me, this one is they’re using their own model. So they have their own model that they kind of give
    0:55:33 you a range. But one of the things that I do like, cause I was messing around with this last night
    0:55:40 is if you go in and you do a real legit VO2 max test where they’re actually hooking up to the full
    0:55:44 gear, they’re putting it in the treadmill. You can plug that in and it will feed it into the model,
    0:55:49 or you can manually define the zones as you see them. So you can go in there and type in what you
    0:55:54 want your zones to be. And it will use that versus their own internal tool, which is quite nice. But
    0:55:57 yeah, they’re using some type of model. I’m not sure which one they’re using.
    0:56:03 Okay, cool. Yeah. Maybe I’ll compare them since I’m in Austin. So I have access to,
    0:56:09 you know, the 10 squared facility and I can go in and I did a VO2 max test not too long ago with the
    0:56:15 whole kit and caboodle, the Bain mask on and everything, which is very uncomfortable as a
    0:56:22 first timer. So I’m curious to see what type of acclimating or practice effect there is on my next
    0:56:29 VO2 max training. Even if my capacity hasn’t increased, do I get better results because I’m
    0:56:34 just more comfortable with the gear and the settings and the cycling and so on? We’ll see.
    0:56:37 We’ll find out. It’s going to be hard to tease that out.
    0:56:41 The one thing I will say is that there is a great YouTuber that I like called the Quantified
    0:56:48 Scientist. And what he does is he goes in and he takes every single wearable, at least mainstream
    0:56:55 wearable that’s out there. And he has the hardcore, you know, VO2 max devices at his house. He has all
    0:57:04 the ECG devices that measure sleep. And he’s basically a statistician and comes in and gives you the data
    0:57:10 and says, how does this actually compare to the gold standard for these different measurements?
    0:57:15 And so he has yet to do that on the new Whoop, but in the Oura Ring and the Apple Watch and the
    0:57:20 Garmins and everything out there, he’ll actually put on the full VO2 max mask, like you’re saying,
    0:57:24 and then compare them and say, this is the closest to the gold standard without having to wear the mask.
    0:57:27 So Quantified Scientist is awesome.
    0:57:31 For sleep, I guess it could be any number of things. It might be EEG if we’re talking about
    0:57:33 brainwaves. The ECG is what it is.
    0:57:34 Electrocardiogram.
    0:57:36 That’s right.
    0:57:36 Yeah.
    0:57:42 Yeah. Sorry. This one does the ECG. If you like hold onto the side of it, it’ll tell me if I have any
    0:57:45 AFib or anything like that as well on the new Whoop, which is great.
    0:57:52 Yeah. All right. I’m doing a, literally getting another bike. Well, I should say bike. It’s more
    0:57:59 of an ergometer this week because I love so much about this company, but the Peloton seat
    0:58:07 is just completely breaking my cock. It’s so bad. And to like retrofit it or to try to modify it is
    0:58:12 really, really challenging. So I think that in the interest of reproductive health, and I’m not
    0:58:18 kidding about that actually. Like you can do with the wrong seat, you can actually do a lot of damage.
    0:58:22 You’re like, I’m so massive. The seat is just absolutely just destroying my junk.
    0:58:27 Well, when my, yeah, my elephant trunk, I need to wrap it around this pole in the front
    0:58:29 to make sure.
    0:58:31 Just loop it over the front bars. You’ll be fine.
    0:58:38 Safety first. I’m serious that if people are doing a lot of cycling and they’re having any type
    0:58:44 of sexual dysfunction or reproductive issues, it’s worth taking a look at the seat. Like this is
    0:58:48 something that got flagged to me, fortunately in advance, because I was like, huh, as I was doing
    0:58:54 some of my workouts, I noticed it seemed like almost a tingling or lack of circulation in one of my legs.
    0:58:59 And I was like, that can’t be good. So as it stands, I’ll test the new device before I give it
    0:59:04 any kind of endorsement, but I’m moving to another ergometer just so I can do that and have the ability
    0:59:11 easily swap seats if need be. So I might have more on that. Should I hop in with some new
    0:59:13 experiments or at least observations?
    0:59:17 Yeah. Actually, let me give you one more quick one that I think is going to be fun for people
    0:59:23 that a physician turned me on to that I have been using now when I travel, which is amazing. So
    0:59:28 again, no affiliation with any of this stuff, but there, it was a Stanford scientist that came out
    0:59:36 with this nasal spray called Profi, P-R-O-F-I and I bought it on Amazon. And so it’s essentially
    0:59:41 this spray that it’s like this hydro gel that goes up into your nasal cavity and you spray one
    0:59:50 per each side is in your nose. And it is like a gel that basically, if you just breathe in through
    0:59:53 your nose, when you’re on a flight or you’re traveling or in, you’re in a big room of people,
    0:59:58 it will trap and it holds all of the different viruses and bacteria that you’re inhaling
    1:00:05 into this gel and destroys them at the gel level. And people are like getting less sick. They’re not
    1:00:12 picking up the average cold when they’re in big rooms. They did a small study in a hospital setting
    1:00:17 around COVID. I’ll find it. It wasn’t with this particular brand, but the same, it was, I think it
    1:00:22 was another generic brand of the same type of gel. And they just showed that the odds of you getting COVID
    1:00:27 or the flu were severely reduced for people that were using this gel inside of their nose.
    1:00:32 So I was like, you know, it’s like 15 bucks or something. I was like, hell yes. And so I picked
    1:00:36 it up and I’ve been using it when I travel and knock on wood, I’ve been doing a lot of travel like you
    1:00:41 over the last few weeks, haven’t got sick at all. It was only when I didn’t do it at home when my kids
    1:00:46 were sick that I ended up getting a cold. Anyway, it’s pretty awesome. It was developed over at Stanford
    1:00:52 and recommend checking it out. Okay. So we’ll get a link to that. And actually for years now,
    1:00:57 I don’t know if I ever told you this, for at least 10 years, when I’m about to go on any extended travel,
    1:01:04 I will get a saline mist spray from CVS or Walgreens and just simply moisturize or hydrate inside my nasal
    1:01:12 passages, which seems to make a big difference also for the purposes of just avoiding my nemesis,
    1:01:17 which is sinus infections. If my nasal passages and my sinuses get dry, I’ve had issues with sinus
    1:01:25 infections since I was a very, very little kid. And if I’m consistent with this type of nasal spray,
    1:01:34 it seems to help. So maybe the next step up is the profi. Makes me think it’s, that’s a hell of a brand
    1:01:45 name. Espresso. Espresso. I literally saw a sign in a coffee shop in Romania. This was in Brasov and
    1:01:53 it said, dear Americans, espresso does not have an X in it. That’s amazing.
    1:01:54 You’re not alone. I feel bad.
    1:01:58 No, you’re not alone. You’re not alone. You’re not alone. Kind of makes sense. Express. You want to
    1:02:05 be in the express land? Yeah, exactly. Thank you. I’ll share a couple of just rapid fire,
    1:02:10 like Scooby snacks for people. And then I’ll talk about a recent experiment. So this is another one
    1:02:18 from Japan and this is not very expensive, but if you can find it online, you might be able to find it
    1:02:24 at something like a Nijia market or a Japanese market of some type. This is a dashi and it’s got dried
    1:02:32 bonito and dried anchovies and dried flying fish and sweet kelp, all this stuff. It’s from a place
    1:02:38 called Okume, which was established in 1871. And you can see here, it’s a little hard to see,
    1:02:46 but the package basically looks like tea package. You have these individual sachets that are full of
    1:02:50 this dashi and you put it into hot water so you can have it like tea in the morning.
    1:02:56 Without making it a big production. And this is just their classic dashi. They have a million
    1:03:05 different options, but man, I feel like a dose of dashi and broth a couple of times a week does a lot
    1:03:10 to keep the doctor away. So this is going to be a very easy, I have tea so many times a day already
    1:03:16 just to swap in one of these as part of the routine. We’ll make it more interesting. And also I think
    1:03:22 could potentially do some really nice things for health. There’s a book that I read on my travels,
    1:03:29 have been reading. I’ve read it at least 10 times. And every time I read it, particularly if I’ve taken
    1:03:36 a break of two or three years where I say to myself, this is why I need to read the book more often. And
    1:03:39 it’s this one. This is Awareness by Anthony DeMello.
    1:03:44 Oh, I love that book. Fantastic book.
    1:03:49 It’s such a good book and different things hit you at different times. I started reading this and
    1:03:57 we’ll get to it in a second after our Zen retreat. It talks about a lot that overlaps, even though
    1:04:04 Anthony DeMello was largely based, maybe entirely based in India, but he was a Jesuit priest,
    1:04:14 also a psychotherapist. And the density, I would say, of insights per page on this is just incredible.
    1:04:23 It’s effectively a cleaned up, organized version of his greatest hits given as lectures. And it’s very
    1:04:30 easy to read. It’s very funny. It’s very short. It’s only about 170 pages. And once again, I’m reading
    1:04:34 it and different things are popping out at different points in life. And I actually have
    1:04:39 multiple hard copies that I’ve highlighted at different points. And the highlights are different
    1:04:44 things. They’re really different. The passages that resonate at different points in time.
    1:04:44 Oh, man.
    1:04:53 Yeah. To anybody out there who, and it’s not exclusive to this, but if you suffer from anxiety
    1:04:59 or depression, or if you just feel like you have a little too much edge, you’re running a little fast,
    1:05:07 you feel a little over-committed, clogged, stuck at points, whatever it might be, this book is fast-acting
    1:05:14 medicine. And it’s not a panacea, but it’s really complimentary for almost anything else that you would do
    1:05:19 to help with the types of symptoms that I just described, which are really symptoms of modern living,
    1:05:24 ultimately, especially for people in urban environments. And even if you’re not in an urban environment,
    1:05:32 if you’ve got one of these phones, you are plugged into the anxiosphere, right? It’s like the world of anxiety
    1:05:38 anxiety because that is how you keep clicking and that is how platforms continue to gather data they
    1:05:44 can sell in one form or another. So Anthony DeMello, Awareness. Always recommend it. Haven’t read it
    1:05:48 myself in a while and long overdue. So I did want to mention that.
    1:05:53 Oh, man. Tim, thank you for reminding me about that book. I don’t have to keep coming back to this,
    1:05:59 but when my house burned down, I lost all my books. And it’s funny, I forgot that that was one of my
    1:06:03 favorites that I had on my bookshelf there. And like you, I know you do this as well. There’s like
    1:06:07 three or four books I would buy like five copies of. And I just leave them at my house because when I have
    1:06:11 a friend stop by, I’m like, oh, I need to give you this book, right? Like there’s ones that you absolutely
    1:06:15 love so much that you just want to gift out because you just like feel like you should give as many people
    1:06:21 as possible this book, right? This was one of those books. And I just ordered on Amazon. It’s 10 bucks
    1:06:25 on Amazon in the US. It said you first bought this in 2019, probably via your recommendation.
    1:06:29 But yeah, fantastic, fantastic book. Thank you. I just bought mine.
    1:06:34 Yeah, for sure. And do you want to talk about, actually, let me give a couple of other
    1:06:42 quick recommendations for folks. One is an oldie but goodie, much like awareness that I had not seen
    1:06:48 in probably, I want to say 10 or 15 years. Now, who knows, maybe the brand was different back in the
    1:06:57 day. But as a quick status update on my increasingly eclectic laundry list of injuries. So my right elbow
    1:07:02 has been a problem for 20 plus years. It started with an accident in jujitsu. My arm got hyperextended,
    1:07:09 pop, pop. And then over time, I’ve developed these tears in my extensors. So people think of tennis
    1:07:15 elbow, right? So if you kind of pull your fingers up on your arm towards your face where you’re looking at
    1:07:20 your fingernails, let’s just say you’re admiring a nice new manicure that you have.
    1:07:25 Yeah, yeah, exactly. So if you’re just pulling your fingertips back towards your shoulder,
    1:07:31 you’re using your extensors. And I have tears in both of those. It’s gotten bad enough that I had
    1:07:36 to stop rock climbing. That was the first indication. When I started to get to, say,
    1:07:43 five 11s in the gym when you’re crimping and starting to pull the knuckles back, I think I
    1:07:49 basically grabbed the paper tear and ripped it further. So I had a point where I almost certainly
    1:07:51 need surgery. And this is your right hand?
    1:07:53 This is my dominant side, yeah.
    1:07:55 Oh man, that’s extra brutal for you.
    1:07:57 Yeah, it’s my dominant hand.
    1:08:01 Yeah, you’re going to lose that one. That’s not the one you want to lose.
    1:08:07 Yeah. So unfortunately, the surgery is pretty straightforward. I don’t know what you’re
    1:08:12 thinking about, but I am not left-handed either.
    1:08:14 The stranger.
    1:08:26 Don’t underestimate the stranger. Oh, hello. If you get it, you get it. All right, let’s
    1:08:32 move on. So I will probably need two to three months of rehab before I’m able to get back
    1:08:38 to full force. And even now, for instance, using barbells for any kind of weight training
    1:08:44 creates too much torque and tension at the elbow, and it really ends up being incredibly painful.
    1:08:49 So I’m using a lot more dumbbells. The reason this is relevant is because of the back injury
    1:08:53 and the back compression. I don’t really like putting barbells across my shoulders.
    1:08:57 I won’t get into all the details, but I’m holding dumbbells for extended periods of time.
    1:09:03 And normally that’s not a problem, but if you’re doing most of your leg workout by holding onto
    1:09:07 kettlebells or holding onto dumbbells, the first thing that’s going to go is your grip, especially
    1:09:13 because my right elbow is really compromised right now. And to use standard
    1:09:20 basic lifting straps for dumbbells is really challenging. If anyone’s used these, you know
    1:09:26 what I’m talking about, to sort of wrap the strap around multiple times and to get it into some
    1:09:31 type of symmetrical position with both hands. So this thing right here is another option.
    1:09:38 What I’m holding is called Versagrips, V-E-R-S-A grips, G-R-I-P-P-S. And it’s a lifting strap,
    1:09:43 but really all you’re doing is folding it over once and then putting your hand on top of it.
    1:09:50 So it’s a lifting strap that is much more amenable, much more straightforward to use pretty much for
    1:09:56 everything, but particularly for dumbbells, which I’m going to be using not just to train,
    1:10:01 to do prehab to get myself as strong as possible prior to surgery, but also post-surgery.
    1:10:07 So I would say, if that’s of interest, you can check that out. I’ll give one more
    1:10:13 rec and then we can move on. This is a book that people have almost certainly not seen before.
    1:10:21 It’s called Everything is Its Own Reward by Paul Madonna. And it is a book of beautiful architectural
    1:10:27 drawings. You might think to yourself, boring. Most of it is in the San Francisco area or San
    1:10:34 Francisco Bay Area, but it’s the philosophical musings and the writing that Paul has in this book
    1:10:42 that is so deeply fascinating and weird and thought-stirring to me. And I came across this
    1:10:48 the first time in a hotel in the Bay Area. I was just sitting on the coffee shop and I was killing
    1:10:51 time before doing something. I picked it up and I ended up sitting there and reading it for about
    1:10:59 two hours. Completely forgot to have dinner. And I’ve once again, much like the 32 sounds documentary,
    1:11:06 never quite come across a book like this. It is so strange. And I feel like the combination of 32
    1:11:14 sounds, awareness, and this very, very weird, often funny, often profound, Everything is Its Own Reward
    1:11:19 by Paul Madonna, which is definitely going to sell out on Amazon. So the race goes to the Swift,
    1:11:25 create almost an extended psychedelic experience in the sense that things that you’re accustomed to
    1:11:32 seeing, things that you think or do or hear on autopilot most of the time, because that’s the only
    1:11:39 way you can survive is to have most things on autopilot. You see afresh as if you’re encountering
    1:11:47 them for the first time after taking in a diet, it doesn’t have to be very long, even for a day or two
    1:11:56 with some of these different books and documentaries and so on. It’s really just seeing, I don’t use this
    1:12:03 word lightly, it’s more of a metaphor, but seeing the miracle in the everyday and makes me think of some
    1:12:08 people who are really creative, who seem to have one foot in that zone all the time. For instance, I was
    1:12:16 watching an NHK, which is like the BBC in Japan, mini series on the creative process of Hayao Miyazaki,
    1:12:22 who’s the founder of Studio Ghibli, which has made pretty much every Japanese animated film most people have
    1:12:29 heard of. So My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, Ponyo, etc., etc. He’s sometimes called the Disney of Japan,
    1:12:34 which is a description he does not like because he says, Walt Disney was a businessman, I’m just a
    1:12:40 director, just a director, very Japanese. But in one of the episodes talking about his creative process,
    1:12:49 he takes a video camera, this is an older docuseries, and tapes it, affixes it to the headrest of his
    1:12:55 driver’s seat in his car because he says, I want to see what I’m seeing because effectively there’s
    1:13:01 magic hiding in the ordinary. He’s like, that’s what you want to find. And I feel like all of these
    1:13:11 tools help you to do that, which for me is deeply therapeutic, beautiful, stress-relieving in ways
    1:13:15 that are hard for me to put words to. But you don’t need drugs to get there. These are all things that
    1:13:21 can help recalibrate you just a few degrees to change your waking experience in that way.
    1:13:25 Tim, one other thing I’ll say is that you had mentioned a book that immediately sold out before
    1:13:33 called The Well of Being several episodes ago. And I’m actually rebuying it right now because it’s
    1:13:36 back in stock. I just want to let people, that is now back in stock because it was going for several
    1:13:42 hundred dollars a copy after you mentioned it and it sold out. So now it’s back for $35 again.
    1:13:48 But that’s still one of your favorites. Yeah. It’s a great book. It’s outstanding. Yeah. That’s the
    1:13:54 children’s book for adults. Yeah. Yeah. That is an outstanding book. I’m picking that up again as
    1:13:58 well. And the book you mentioned and the book that I just mentioned are books that you really want in
    1:14:04 hardcover if you can get them. That’s the intended medium for these two books, for sure.
    1:14:08 One thing I’ll mention as a quick throw out there, not everyone can travel to Japan. We get that.
    1:14:15 There are lots of artisanal Japanese goods that are absolutely phenomenal. A lot of websites that
    1:14:21 import do so with very limited supply. And then also they mark them up like crazy. So you’ll find
    1:14:24 some of these shops here, especially in LA, there’s some of these shops you go to and it’s just like,
    1:14:30 things are just outrageously priced. One place I found that I really like that, yes, it is a little
    1:14:38 premium, but is, I would say is one of the best curators of fine Japanese goods is a friend of mine
    1:14:45 turned me on to this. Uh, it’s called POJ studio.com POJ. Yeah. You got to check this out. I think
    1:14:51 you’ll really like it. So if you go to POJ studio and then click on shop at the top there and just go
    1:14:57 bestsellers kind of like shop all or whatever. And then look at some of these pieces is everything from
    1:15:04 like high end Japanese towels to incense to these beautiful tie dyed kind of door dividers,
    1:15:14 like the hanging things. What was the name of the URL again? It’s POJ studio.com studio.com. Yeah.
    1:15:19 In pursuit of perfection. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. They got all sorts of beautiful stuff.
    1:15:26 Absolutely stunning. Imported Japanese kind of small production artists and stuff from little tiny
    1:15:35 trays and containers to room dividers to throw pillows to you name it. If you like that vibe,
    1:15:41 Oh, they have these beautiful hand hammered little singing bowls that you can use for meditation.
    1:15:49 I got their Japanese Hinoki wood incense with smells amazing. Anyway, I think this is one of the best
    1:15:55 importers of small artists and Japanese goods that’s out there. So I highly recommend checking out.
    1:16:03 And also if you want to go low end or like mid tier, I mentioned Nijia market. They only have 12 stores
    1:16:08 across the U S mostly in California and Hawaii, but you can find Japanese markets and you can also find
    1:16:13 broadly speaking East Asian markets, right? If you find East Asian markets, whether that’s Chinese,
    1:16:18 Taiwanese, Korean, fill in the blank, chances are they’re going to have a lot of Japanese goods.
    1:16:25 And also they will have plenty of good stuff from their primary country in the sense that if it’s
    1:16:29 Chinese on, let’s just say China, if it’s Vietnamese on, although I would put them in the Southeast Asian,
    1:16:35 I guess, category, but Korean, et cetera, you can just find some amazing, amazing, amazing teas as an
    1:16:40 example, because culturally that is such a part of the lived experience of those places.
    1:16:45 Try it out. Walk through, pick up something you can’t read, make sure it doesn’t have any
    1:16:47 allergens that are going to kill you and then give it a shot.
    1:16:55 All right. So let’s talk about the Zen retreat in a second. I will tell you
    1:17:01 one interesting hypothesis that I have related to something we’ve discussed once before,
    1:17:09 which is accelerated TMS. So the compressed administration of basically a magnetic coil.
    1:17:15 Oh, you bastard. There’s a squirrel on my squirrel proof bird feeder, just trying to go to town right
    1:17:22 now. You rat bastard. I don’t think he’s going to succeed. He’s true. Oh, he is. Oh, you bastard.
    1:17:27 Squirrel proof. My ass pan over. I got to see this. Can you pan the camera? It’s not going to work.
    1:17:33 I’ll knock all my shit over. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, you bastard. I think he’s been. No, no, he’s,
    1:17:37 he’s really getting in there. All right. So I got distracted. Apparently accelerated TMS doesn’t help
    1:17:43 with, with that kind of distraction. I’ve just never actually seen my bird feeder getting pillaged so
    1:17:47 badly as it is right now by this squirrel. Nice work squirrel. I love this version of Tim. That’s
    1:17:53 like bird feeding, hummingbird feeders, little anti-squirrel devices. Oh, he just got sent for
    1:17:58 like a whirly gig spin though. So there’s, there’s something. You need to get a webcam out there.
    1:18:05 I do only squirrels. All right. Accelerated TMS. I feel like the dog in up squirrel. Yeah, exactly.
    1:18:10 Squirrel. So the accelerated TMS for people who are interested in learning more about this, I recommend
    1:18:16 listening to my podcast with Nolan Williams, who’s a scientist out of Stanford, who’s the head of their
    1:18:22 brain stimulation lab, but effectively different types of brain stimulation. In this case, transcranial
    1:18:30 magnetic stimulation, particularly when applied in this condensed format. In this case, it’s 50 sessions
    1:18:36 of brain stimulation. They’re about nine minutes long each. You’re doing 50 sessions in five days. So
    1:18:43 you’re doing 10 hours a day, every hour on the hour you were having this brain stimulation. And in my case,
    1:18:51 it’s for an anxio-somatic target. That just means it’s effectively to reduce symptoms of OCD
    1:18:57 compulsive rumination. I don’t wash my hands or flip the light switches and not to judge anyone who does,
    1:19:02 but it’s like my form of OCD, which I’ve been diagnosed with, and it’s not surprising at all,
    1:19:08 is this repetitive perseveration, a loop of thoughts that even though I’m aware it’s unproductive,
    1:19:14 even though I’m aware it’s unpleasant, I feel powerless to stop. That type of perseverating, which then of course
    1:19:21 engenders anxiety and sometimes insomnia, etc. Of all of the things I’ve tried, and you and I spoke about
    1:19:29 this, when I did my first five-day sequence of accelerated TMS, bizarrely, there was like a two-week
    1:19:34 delayed onset. Nothing really seemed to happen for about two weeks. And then boom, for three to four weeks,
    1:19:39 I had, let’s just call it complete remission of symptoms. Like all of that stuff just went away.
    1:19:47 And nothing has approached that in terms of amplitude and especially durability of effect.
    1:19:52 And that includes psychedelic therapies. But what’s interesting about this is after that five-day
    1:19:58 treatment, I went back and I did a single-day booster, which did nothing. And then I did a three-day
    1:20:03 booster, which also did nothing. Now, I’m not sure if I’ve talked about this publicly. Maybe I have,
    1:20:08 maybe I haven’t. Part of the reason I wanted to do lower dosing was after my first five-day
    1:20:15 sequence, I remember after a week or so, I was like, hey, doc, I can’t seem to ejaculate. Is that
    1:20:22 a known problem? And needless to say, that did not help my anxiety. I was incapable of-
    1:20:25 But you could still get the timber. You just couldn’t get the output.
    1:20:31 Yeah. Couldn’t get the output. Okay. And then the doc was like, oh, interesting. We haven’t seen that
    1:20:38 because this is still a very new treatment and particularly for anxiety and OCD. The depression
    1:20:42 has been much better studied. But he said, yeah, it kind of makes sense if we’re whacking down your
    1:20:49 sympathetic response. And he’s like, yeah, there’s this mnemonic in medical school, which is point and
    1:20:54 shoot, meaning parasympathetic to get the erection and then sympathetic to have the ejaculation,
    1:20:58 to have the orgasm. And he’s like, yeah, it makes sense. And I was like, okay,
    1:21:02 and is this fixable or am I totally screwed forever? And he’s like, no, it should just return
    1:21:09 to baseline. And it did. I have an addendum to that though. So I wanted to use lower dosing to avoid
    1:21:16 that. One day did nothing. Three days did nothing also. And then I was like, what the hell is going on?
    1:21:20 Okay, I guess I can do five days. You get nothing done for five days, right? Because you’re getting
    1:21:25 your brain zapped every hour. And it basically feels like you did an all-nighter for the LSATs
    1:21:28 10 times a day. I mean, you get very, very tired.
    1:21:29 When you say zapped, does it hurt?
    1:21:33 It doesn’t hurt at all. It feels like somebody lightly flicking the side of your head. It doesn’t
    1:21:38 hurt. So it’s basically for nine minutes, it’s like there’s nothing. And then it’s like,
    1:21:43 bop, bop, bop, bop, bop, bop, bop. And then there’s a pause for, I’m just making this up.
    1:21:49 Let’s just call it, I don’t know, 10 seconds, 15 seconds. And it’s a paddle that’s pushed against
    1:21:56 your head. That’s it. I don’t find it painful at all. This is with a MagVenture or MagVenture’s
    1:22:02 device. There are other devices that can have different types of effects, which have different
    1:22:07 types of helmets and caps that are used and so on. It doesn’t hurt in this particular case.
    1:22:12 So then I was chatting with the doctor before planning another round. And he was like, well,
    1:22:18 it is pretty strange that three days did nothing. And I was like, okay. And we’re trying to brainstorm
    1:22:25 strategy. And what I did is I went back in my calendar and looked at the preceding few weeks
    1:22:29 before every one of these treatments. And for the first treatment, the five-day treatment,
    1:22:36 I had had some psychedelic exposure. And I was like, interesting, because I’ve long assumed that there
    1:22:40 could be some type of synergistic effect with these two things. And there are people who are
    1:22:47 looking at this very closely right now. So this time around, the hypothesis is that actually the
    1:22:53 improved neuroplasticity and who knows, maybe it’s even anti-inflammatory effects could be a million
    1:22:58 different things from the psychedelic exposure worked synergistically with the five-day accelerated
    1:23:04 TMS to produce the effect that I then witnessed and experienced, which was incredible, right?
    1:23:10 If I could figure out how to replicate that, then I would do it, let’s just call it once a quarter,
    1:23:17 once every four months, something like that. Why wouldn’t I do it? And I will say that it took the
    1:23:24 edge off. And by that, I mean, I was less motivated to do a lot of types of work, maybe from tampening
    1:23:29 down the sympathetic nervous system. But what I found for myself was number one, at this point in my life,
    1:23:37 totally fine with it. And number two, I actually think it made me better at picking my targets and
    1:23:46 not doing work for the sake of movement. Because I didn’t have the underlying anxiety that perhaps I
    1:23:53 was subconsciously coping with by some type of frenetic activity or over committing to phone calls or work
    1:24:00 or creative projects or exercise or who knows what it was. So that extra space that was created by not
    1:24:10 having as much compulsive behavior across the board, I would say, is no discernible decrease over, say,
    1:24:16 three to four months in my sort of creative output. Like, totally happy with it. I’m very curious to see
    1:24:21 how accelerated TMS ends up being enabled or disabled, and I think it might depend on the dose,
    1:24:26 with different types of pharmaceuticals. And there’s one that’s been studied called Cetraline,
    1:24:32 with an S-E-T-R-A-L-I-N-E. People can find studies related to this. So that’s something I’m going to
    1:24:36 be watching very closely. Now, I have an update on the, because I know you’re, you want to know about
    1:24:37 my ejaculation, Kevin.
    1:24:40 No, it’s always, it’s my first thing I ask you whenever we talk. Yeah.
    1:24:49 Yeah, exactly. I don’t think it was the TMS. So I actually had a theory that I tested,
    1:24:55 and it’s NF1, so take it with a huge grain of salt. But I thought it might be the Trazodome,
    1:25:01 which some people use for sleep. And it’s interesting for sleep because it doesn’t seem
    1:25:09 to disrupt sleep architecture as much as other drugs. However, one of the less common but known
    1:25:15 side effects can be delayed ejaculation. And I was like, interesting. Well, let me take that
    1:25:20 off the table. And I did take it off the table. And lo and behold, no issues.
    1:25:22 So-
    1:25:22 Back to two minutes.
    1:25:25 Back to two minutes.
    1:25:26 Boom.
    1:25:28 Oh, God.
    1:25:28 Yeah.
    1:25:33 This never happens, I swear.
    1:25:36 I was like, you normally have Trazodome for this.
    1:25:45 But I thought that might be, if people are taking sleep medications, like you can end up
    1:25:49 treating the wrong thing very easily or pulling levers, forgetting about certain medications
    1:25:55 that you’re using where you haven’t taken a moment to look at side effects that are less
    1:26:01 commonly reported, but nonetheless statistically significant. So not saying that was definitively
    1:26:07 the cause because I couldn’t prove that. But so far, so good, I guess.
    1:26:11 So after these treatments are the ones that were successful. Was there anything else that was a
    1:26:14 positive? Like, were you sleeping better at night or no?
    1:26:20 Well, for the three to four months that I mentioned, for sure, my sleep was so much better.
    1:26:27 Now, is that because my rumination is less? Is it because I have maybe like someone taking a
    1:26:31 Munjaro or something? Less compulsive behavior across the board. So I’m not drinking as much
    1:26:39 caffeine as like a fixation? Maybe. I don’t know. But I did sleep much, much better. And I mean,
    1:26:46 the quality of life difference before and after was hard to overstate. I mean, it’s really, really
    1:26:54 incredible. I will say this time around, just like the first round of five days, if you were to ask me
    1:26:59 right now, what difference has it made, I would say it hasn’t made a fucking one iota of difference.
    1:27:05 I mean, I happen to be in the middle of a bunch of very stressful things related to family health
    1:27:12 emergencies and various other kind of time-sensitive situations that I think would contribute to almost
    1:27:20 anyone feeling quite anxious. But I am patient this time around because there was the delayed onset.
    1:27:27 If it takes two weeks, it takes two weeks. So I’m just going to cross my fingers, not drink. That’s a
    1:27:33 big part of the not drinking also was preparing for that. And then afterwards, wanting to ensure that
    1:27:39 I’m giving my brain the best chance possible to adapt in the way that I want it to adapt.
    1:27:47 So leaving out as many neurotoxins as possible seems like a good standard operating procedure,
    1:27:53 at least for the next little while. And we’ll see, man. Fingers crossed. But I remain very,
    1:27:59 very bullish on this technology. I really feel like for people who fit criteria that would exclude
    1:28:04 them from psychedelic-assisted therapies, let’s say people with a history of schizophrenia or family
    1:28:09 history of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, this treatment could be very, very interesting in addition
    1:28:14 to especially combining it with some type of metabolic psychiatry, which I had Chris Palmer from
    1:28:19 Harvard on to talk about a while back, use of whether it’s a ketogenic diet, exogenous ketones,
    1:28:23 maybe some combination. I think there’s a lot of promise. I think there’s a lot of promise.
    1:28:24 That’s awesome.
    1:28:29 That’s where the foundation is going to be spending more time also in addition to the psychedelic stuff.
    1:28:35 I’m curious when you think about how these are obviously very expensive treatments and you can’t
    1:28:39 find them in every city. Are you seeing any application of this technology at the consumer level
    1:28:44 that you have tried or you’ve heard good things about? I know it’s not the same, but Matt Walker,
    1:28:50 you’ve had him on your podcast, sleep scientist that ran the Berkeley Sleep Lab. He had a device
    1:28:56 called Somni, which I haven’t tried, which does transcranial electric stimulation 15 minutes before
    1:29:00 you go to bed. It’s supposed to increase your deep sleep. So he’s involved in that product. So I’m
    1:29:06 seeing more of these consumer brain stimulation devices pop up in the market. Anything worth playing
    1:29:11 with here? Or is it just not that just like all kind of not proven out yet?
    1:29:16 Not ready for prime time. Yeah. I can’t speak to Somni. Definitely people, if they’re interested in
    1:29:21 unpacking sleep. I mean, why we sleep, I believe is the title of Matt’s book.
    1:29:22 It’ll scare the shit out of you.
    1:29:27 It’ll scare the shit out of you in, I think, a productive way. And then he and I spoke on the
    1:29:34 podcast about things he might add to that or modify, update, et cetera. The consumer grade,
    1:29:40 it’s timely that you should ask me that. So right before recording this podcast, I actually had an
    1:29:46 investor deck presentation with a company that is working on something. So you and I should talk about
    1:29:51 that separately. I think it’s very interesting. As a category, it is incredibly hard to make work,
    1:29:59 both as a technology, so just scientifically, to show compelling cause and effect, I think,
    1:30:06 is very difficult in this category. And from a business perspective, there are a number of
    1:30:11 different reasons that it can be very, very challenging. But I do think there might be
    1:30:17 some interesting tools on the horizon. What I will say is, as a general rule of thumb,
    1:30:23 I can’t speak to Somni and Matt Walker is a credible scientist, so let’s exclude Somni from what I’m
    1:30:32 going to say. But almost every at-home brain stimulation device, or let’s just for simplicity
    1:30:39 sake, call it brain stimulation device, I’ve seen is at best a scam and at worst could do a fair amount
    1:30:45 of damage. These tools, if they’re used incorrectly, TMS, let’s just say, transcranial magnetic stimulation,
    1:30:50 if used incorrectly, can actually worsen. So exacerbate the conditions that you’re trying
    1:30:56 to treat. You see people online, you see people on YouTube or on Reddit who are just going to-
    1:30:58 Oh, with burn marks and shit too. Like they get burns.
    1:31:05 Just DIYing this stuff. I would strongly advise against that. The brain is really, really,
    1:31:11 really sensitive. You don’t want to fuck with it without some real bona fide creds behind the device
    1:31:17 and instructions. So I would encourage people to, as a general rule, steer clear of anything that is
    1:31:23 being sold direct to consumer. I’m sure there are some exceptions, but I would say for the most part,
    1:31:30 this is not across the board, but for the most part, you’re dealing with fly-by-night operations,
    1:31:37 and you should not trust the integrity of your brain to these devices. I’m sure there are exceptions,
    1:31:41 but just as a general rule, I would say that. Separately, I would say that, for instance,
    1:31:47 the therapy that I just paid for is very expensive because insurance doesn’t currently cover accelerated
    1:31:53 TMS, or at least I’m not aware of insurance that will cover accelerated TMS. But I was texting with a
    1:32:01 friend of mine who is seeing very good results for her PTSD, and it gets sort of comorbid with
    1:32:06 depression and other things. So it’s hard to untangle all of that. But she is doing TMS conventionally,
    1:32:13 which is less frequent, and her insurance is covering it. So I would say I’m optimistic that
    1:32:18 there is a future where insurance, at least some insurance carriers, will cover accelerated TMS,
    1:32:27 particularly when the, hopefully, cost-benefit is really made incredibly clear through patient
    1:32:33 results because some of the stuff you see is incredible, right? Like 70% plus remission of
    1:32:41 treatment-resistant depression after a week of treatment. These are the types of results that
    1:32:46 rival or exceed some of these psychedelic-assisted therapies. And when we’re talking about these
    1:32:52 intractable or very difficult to treat psychiatric conditions, these outcomes are really, really
    1:32:59 notable. The data sets are super small for a lot of the applications of accelerated TMS, but I’m
    1:33:06 supporting that through the foundation scientifically because I do feel like a lot of the issues we’re
    1:33:16 facing, we’re facing because of effectively modern civilization. And I don’t foresee it getting any
    1:33:22 easier. So I do think it’s important to try to support these technologies and interventions
    1:33:30 so that hopefully they can reach some level of scale. And I’m skeptical that taking people for a six-hour
    1:33:37 ride on a mind-bending psychedelic that takes them to the 17th dimension is scalable. I’m not even
    1:33:44 convinced that it’s a good idea to do that with incredibly large numbers of patients. So that’s yet another
    1:33:48 layer of why I am really supporting some of these other technologies.
    1:33:58 It’s super exciting. I think we’re about to enter into a golden age of tech meets life sciences and see a whole slew of
    1:34:04 different compounds and therapeutics that are just going to change the way that we live over the next five years. I didn’t tell
    1:34:12 you this, but I did my whole genome sequencing. So not the 23andMe, but did the whole thing. You spend, you know, I think it’s about $700 now to get your full genome done.
    1:34:15 It’s incredible how cheap it’s become, huh? Isn’t that nuts?
    1:34:18 Yeah. Compared to back in the day.
    1:34:22 Yeah. Back in the day was insane, right? It was like $20,000 or more or something just a few years ago.
    1:34:23 Oh, I mean.
    1:34:29 That was even if it was available, if you could find it. Yeah. Right. Because it was like really hard to even get someone to do it.
    1:34:44 But anyway, long story short, I have had the most stubborn homocysteine, which is a biomarker that it’s not known to be causal, but it is oftentimes correlated with many different types of cancers and mainly heart disease.
    1:34:51 And I have not, even with multiple physicians helping me out, I’ve never been able to get it back to healthy levels.
    1:35:06 So I took my whole genome, dumped it into AI, and we worked out a playbook together on where we could find methyl doters to, and which methylated B vitamins I could give to help fix the broken cycle.
    1:35:13 Because I have the MTHFR genetic mutation. It’s a very fancy way of saying one biomarker completely jacked up.
    1:35:17 My dad died of heart disease. I don’t want to have heart disease. How can we fix this shit? Right?
    1:35:22 So we worked through a way for me to supplement and start adding on supplements.
    1:35:31 I’m eight weeks in, and for the first time, my homocysteine is at normal levels after many years of trying to figure this out.
    1:35:38 And I was working through this process in tandem with my AI, which was crazy.
    1:35:46 And it ended up being NAC was the thing that we had to add to the mix as a methyl donor to get it to work and hack around my MTHFR mutation.
    1:35:55 Do you think any of that change in homocysteine could be a response to the cessation of drinking in the last, whatever it is, 27 days?
    1:35:59 I’ve done drinking bouts of not drinking before and tested and still completely elevated.
    1:36:01 So it had nothing to do with drinking.
    1:36:15 I thought the same thing, but yeah, this is because the only thing I changed that I’ve added on now is we slowly started adding on B, methylated B vitamins, but it was the NAC that was the methyl donor that got me over the hurdle here and dropped it down dramatically.
    1:36:18 So I’m way in the healthy zone now, which is nuts.
    1:36:20 My physician is like, what the hell did you do?
    1:36:22 And I’m like, talking to AI.
    1:36:25 But I’m just saying this is one of many things.
    1:36:37 We’ll have an announcement next time we do a podcast together where I just put 15 million in to a protein, this novel protein coming out of UCSF that is doing wonders around dementia and Alzheimer’s.
    1:36:40 I did this via True Ventures where I’m a partner over there.
    1:36:45 So I joined the board of this company and we’ve got some really interesting data coming out of that.
    1:36:49 It’s just a very fun time to be alive at the intersection of AI and life sciences.
    1:36:51 Yeah, it is.
    1:37:02 And just for reference, so Craig Venter back in the day, I always fuck up that name because I want to throw an extra N in there, but he of Venter, Craig Venter.
    1:37:12 So his personal genome sequencing, that was in 2007, and people can do more homework on this, but that cost $10 million, estimated to have cost $10 million.
    1:37:13 Wow.
    1:37:21 And you just look at where we are now, and you can imagine moving forward.
    1:37:32 And actually, this ties into my visit to the UAE and to Abu Dhabi specifically, because what they can do and what they are doing with AI absolutely blew my mind.
    1:37:39 I mean, they have, number one, I think it’s 70% of government services are administered through an app on smartphones.
    1:37:43 And there are AI assistants that people interact with.
    1:37:51 So for instance, if you’re driving, you want to report a pothole, you just take a photograph of it, it geotags it, deals with it, gets it to the right agency, and then off you go.
    1:38:09 And I suppose looking kind of down the pike also with genomics, I think they’re going to be a global leader in genomics because of just how much data they have, not only from a full genome perspective, but from a behavioral perspective and centralized electronic medical record perspective.
    1:38:18 Actually, very, very interested to see what they do specifically with life sciences and AI, because this intersection is going to be so fertile.
    1:38:21 I mean, it’s just unreal.
    1:38:24 If you look at AlphaFold and what AlphaFold has done.
    1:38:24 Yes.
    1:38:26 The new AlphaFold is amazing.
    1:38:31 I mean, we’re looking at eclipsing decades of human work in incredibly short periods of time.
    1:38:34 Have you done your full genome yet, Tim?
    1:38:39 I did my full genome a million years ago with a startup that effectively went out of business.
    1:38:42 So I should probably do it again just to boot that back up.
    1:38:47 I did delete all my data on 23andMe because I was panicked that they would get bought by someone.
    1:38:48 Which they did.
    1:38:48 Just got announced.
    1:38:49 Yeah.
    1:38:52 So I was able to delete mine just in the nick of time.
    1:39:01 But I saw a demo, this was years ago, of a company taking genome data and with a sufficiently large data set,
    1:39:09 creating basically like a suspect sketch of the person’s face based on their genome data.
    1:39:15 Like if they have photographs from multiple angles of these people, because this is what one of these companies was doing,
    1:39:19 And they have the full genome sequenced.
    1:39:20 And who knows?
    1:39:22 Maybe this is science fiction.
    1:39:23 They were peddling something in the future.
    1:39:33 But I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t think you can anonymize your genetic data in the way that we would hope to be able to anonymize it.
    1:39:34 Do you care though?
    1:39:35 Do I care?
    1:39:37 Are they really going to clone me?
    1:39:38 Are they going to clone you?
    1:39:42 I mean, they might make your Peloton seat fit better, like if they have the full picture.
    1:39:46 But outside of that, you know, like what are they going to do with it?
    1:39:51 Well, I mean, I run more on the hypervigilant side than you do, right?
    1:39:52 Yeah, I know you do.
    1:39:57 I would say for me, it’s not a question of why do you care?
    1:40:02 It’s a question of like, what are the reasons to not have a tighter hold on it?
    1:40:05 And if there are secure ways to share it, I’m all for it.
    1:40:11 But for instance, I mean, the 23andMe thing, I’m not the only person who deleted their data for sure, right?
    1:40:15 And I suppose my feeling is we don’t know what we don’t know.
    1:40:17 I don’t know how this data might be used.
    1:40:18 I really have no idea.
    1:40:23 So I would prefer to have as much control of it as possible.
    1:40:31 And also way back in 2010, when I was writing the 4-Hour Body, I guess it came out in 2010.
    1:40:32 So I was writing it prior to that.
    1:40:44 And I’m not sure if this conversation happened shortly thereafter, but it was with a very credible scientist who is at NASA at the time, working on all sorts of advanced physics and chemistry and so on.
    1:40:55 And he was commenting on the fact that it was very foolish for a very well-known billionaire at the time to release their full genome data.
    1:41:07 And he said, because if you wanted to develop a customized biological weapon to, say, walk up to that person in a crowd and blow a powder into their face at TED or wherever, he’s like, you could do that very, very easily.
    1:41:11 He’s like, it’s actually not hard to design something like that.
    1:41:12 So I was like, well…
    1:41:13 Okay, now you’re freaking me out.
    1:41:15 That is…
    1:41:21 And I also don’t have the technical chops to call bullshit on something like that.
    1:41:22 But it didn’t seem…
    1:41:24 This guy didn’t have a tinfoil hat.
    1:41:24 He had a real job.
    1:41:26 He was producing really good work.
    1:41:27 He was published.
    1:41:31 And that conversation stuck with me.
    1:41:32 That was around 2010.
    1:41:34 Think about this.
    1:41:44 If I have the resources and the power to build a custom gene-killing Tim Ferriss powder agent, I’m pretty sure I can hire someone just to walk up and shoot you.
    1:41:46 You have the resources.
    1:41:51 Like, you really don’t need to go that far to take somebody out with a custom, like…
    1:41:52 Or, you know what?
    1:41:57 The phlebotomist that leaves your house, I can just, like, pay them for a little dip of your juice and, like, go get it tested, right?
    1:41:59 There are ways to do that.
    1:42:06 I mean, but I guess what I’m saying is within 12 months, I mean, we’re going to have LLMs that are capable…
    1:42:14 I mean, hopefully they have the safeguards in place of enabling your average Joe or Jane to create biological weapons from household items, right?
    1:42:22 So, I’m just saying I’d prefer not to tempt fate as a public figure by keeping the reins too loose on that stuff.
    1:42:24 Do you remember that LifeLock guy?
    1:42:28 Remember that company LifeLock that he put his social security number on, like, a thing?
    1:42:30 And he’s like, I’m totally secure.
    1:42:32 And then he got all hacked and everything.
    1:42:33 Yeah.
    1:42:35 Because I did and he’s stolen and all this shit, you know?
    1:42:36 Yeah.
    1:42:37 It was amazing.
    1:42:50 And I will also say that something happened to me a couple weeks ago that is, like, the flip side of the Cambrian explosion of discovery with the intersection of healthcare and AI.
    1:43:04 And I’m not sure how humans cope with this, but in a sort of post-fact world where what you don’t touch and see with your own eyes in person is going to be a huge question mark.
    1:43:12 And the reason I say that is, a few weeks ago, I started getting all of these DMs and texts and so on saying, hey, is this you?
    1:43:14 I was like, hey, is what me?
    1:43:24 And I clicked through and there was a video of me saying, sign up for X, Y, or Z and I’ll tell you the three stocks that are underpriced right now that’ll make you rich.
    1:43:25 Basically, something like that.
    1:43:27 And it was a video.
    1:43:28 Your side hustle.
    1:43:30 My side hustle, yeah.
    1:43:36 And the video, I will say, was like 90% indistinguishable from me.
    1:43:42 The background, clothing, facial hair, everything was dialed.
    1:43:48 There were just a couple of max headroom movements for people who get the reference, like a couple of little glitches that raised questions.
    1:43:50 But in 12 months, that’s not going to be there.
    1:44:01 And I’m not sure, for instance, from a societal perspective, or let’s just say from a personal perspective, like, how will people know what is real Kevin versus fake Kevin?
    1:44:06 Do you have to train your whole audience to use private, understand private and public keys?
    1:44:07 Like, what do you actually do?
    1:44:12 Dude, this is top of mind for me right now in a way that you would never believe.
    1:44:12 Yes.
    1:44:15 I mean, I’m working on this exact problem.
    1:44:25 So, Alexis, the co-founder of Reddit, and I, you know, we mentioned this, we bought Digback, and we’re going to build a social platform for people to converse about a variety of different topics.
    1:44:40 And top of mind is that in an agentic world where AI agents can be spun up for pennies because the cost is going to zero, and they can have conversations with you, they can convince you of things, they can do all these different, both good and bad things.
    1:44:42 How are you going to know what’s real?
    1:44:57 Just as a test, what I did recently is I took a model, I picked a pair of $6 headphones on Amazon, and I got all the details about the Amazon, and I said, sell this to me as if they will out-compete and outperform a $500 pair of headphones.
    1:45:08 And it wrote this really detailed report about the craftsmanship and, like, how they were able to get this in for only $5, and it was super compelling and convincing.
    1:45:11 And I was like, it’s game over.
    1:45:15 Anything we read online can no longer be trusted, right?
    1:45:28 And so there is a handful of people right now working on this exact problem, and we’re trying to figure out how we can know both who – guarantee that there’s a human on the other end of the keyboard, number one.
    1:45:40 And number two, when you go out and you talk about something with authority, how can we have and prove that you actually have wisdom or authority that passes through to what you’re talking about?
    1:45:50 So, for example, I don’t want to get too geeky, but for example, and to your point about this needs to be something average consumers can understand versus private and public keys and everything else.
    1:45:54 But, like, you know, I’ve owned an Oura Ring for, you know, let’s call it five years now.
    1:45:58 Now, I could go on any forum online and say, hey, I love my Oura Ring.
    1:45:59 I’ve owned it for five years.
    1:46:05 Now, that could be an LLM that’s providing you complete bullshit, or it can be actually someone that’s owned an Oura Ring for five years.
    1:46:08 There are technologies out there.
    1:46:09 They’re really geeky.
    1:46:27 They’re called ZK proofs that can go out and they can work with service providers and say, we can guarantee with an algorithm and create a proof that this person is doing and saying what they’re claiming to say, which is that I’ve actually had a paying subscription for the last five years, right?
    1:46:30 And we’re going to need to have these proofs.
    1:46:38 Like, kind of a cheap way of thinking this is, like, sometimes you see these, like, trust pilot scores or whatever, or the Better Business Bureau scores.
    1:46:41 Or there’s going to need to be that around everything that we talk about online.
    1:46:57 So, including a Tim Ferriss’ verifiable checkbox that when I click on it, it will say, this was produced, created, published, and proven that it came directly from Tim Ferriss’ lips and not some AI-generated world.
    1:46:58 That has to exist.
    1:47:00 Otherwise, everything is lost online.
    1:47:01 Yeah.
    1:47:05 Well, keep up the hard work, folks working on that problem.
    1:47:12 I literally was, I was spent a half day over at World, which is Sam Altman’s other startup around proving humanness.
    1:47:15 And the way they do it is they actually scan your eyeball.
    1:47:23 And I had my eyeball scanned, and, you know, now I have an ID, a world ID, that is proof that I am that human.
    1:47:24 They don’t own that.
    1:47:25 They don’t have a copy of that.
    1:47:27 It lives on my device.
    1:47:32 And it’s sharded and kept separate, so it only can be reconstructed by me.
    1:47:40 But we’re entering into this really weird time where there is a trade-off between privacy and proving that it’s me.
    1:47:43 And, ah, it’s going to be messy for a few years.
    1:47:45 For a few years, yeah.
    1:47:47 It’s going to be messy for a few hundred years.
    1:47:49 It’s bad.
    1:47:51 Sounds like Minority Report, the eye scans.
    1:47:52 Yeah.
    1:47:57 I’ve got a buddy right now that is a hardcore technologist that looks at these things and studies these things.
    1:48:09 And he claims right now he believes that 30% of the internet’s traffic, whether it be people writing back to you on Twitter or, you know, any of these social networks, he thinks it’s all bots at this point.
    1:48:17 And he has proof of some of them that will friend you up, create long-term relationships with you only to convince you of that one thing that they were trying to do.
    1:48:20 And they spent six months building up rapport with you.
    1:48:22 And it’s all BS, dude.
    1:48:23 It’s all for pennies.
    1:48:23 Oh, God.
    1:48:24 It’s crazy.
    1:48:27 Have you seen a great movie, Ex Machina?
    1:48:28 Oh, of course.
    1:48:29 Fantastic movie.
    1:48:29 Oh, my.
    1:48:30 So good.
    1:48:31 So scary.
    1:48:33 We got to go revisit that.
    1:48:34 We also need to watch her again.
    1:48:36 You know, I haven’t watched her.
    1:48:37 Like, that’d be another one to watch again.
    1:48:48 I mean, watching her, I remember watching that and feeling like it was further off than it actually is right now.
    1:48:51 I’m just realizing, like, it’s basically here.
    1:48:52 Right.
    1:48:53 It’s basically right now.
    1:48:54 Yeah.
    1:49:08 Did you see that lawsuit that basically there was a bunch of guys that got together and did this lawsuit against OnlyFans saying that they were, they sued the platform because they found out that they were just talking to bots and not the actual models themselves.
    1:49:09 Did you see this?
    1:49:09 No.
    1:49:13 So they’re suing these creators.
    1:49:15 How much are you going to make from that, Kevin?
    1:49:15 27 bucks?
    1:49:17 But yeah, exactly.
    1:49:19 Well, here’s the best part.
    1:49:22 The number one upvoted comment on that was like, you were talking to models.
    1:49:24 You were just talking to large language models.
    1:49:25 Like, it’s so true.
    1:49:29 Oh, man.
    1:49:30 Yeah.
    1:49:32 Well, here goes nothing, right?
    1:49:35 This is like the click, click, click going up on the roller coaster.
    1:49:37 And it’s like, here we go.
    1:49:51 And it’s, yeah, I came back from my travels realizing like, wow, I really think it will behoove me to just take a few weeks to a month and do a very deep dive on what I can do with these models.
    1:50:04 Because a lot of what I saw traveling and just how prescient and invested and advanced certain places are, like Abu Dhabi, as an example, I was like, holy shit.
    1:50:08 From a geopolitical perspective, this is going to be the haves and the have-nots, right?
    1:50:09 Yeah.
    1:50:13 And it’s like, okay, I guess I’ll keep brushing up on my archery skills.
    1:50:17 That’s why I need the elbow surgery sooner rather than later.
    1:50:26 Well, real quick before we wrap, dude, let’s touch on the meditation thing because that is like in the I need more of, which is getting off the computer and actually disconnecting.
    1:50:27 You want to talk about your experience?
    1:50:28 Let’s talk about it.
    1:50:34 Let me give a quick update before we do that, like a quick commercial break, which is this guy.
    1:50:37 So you remember this guy, Coyote, the game we talked about?
    1:50:41 It hadn’t launched last time we were talking, or maybe it had just launched.
    1:50:49 Now, so this game, Coyote, which is kind of like rock, paper, scissors on steroids in a group dynamic where you can help or sabotage other players.
    1:50:56 The game has become one of the top-selling games at Walmart, where it is exclusively for a couple months.
    1:50:59 It’s been one of the absolute top sellers.
    1:51:10 It has produced two or three of the videos of gameplay, have become the most popular videos of all time from Exploding Kittens, which is the company I partnered with.
    1:51:11 Oh my God, that’s amazing.
    1:51:14 I mean, tens of millions of views of gameplay.
    1:51:18 So it’s all to say, like, it’s going super, super well.
    1:51:22 And there’s a lot more that I’m going to explore with this over the next couple months.
    1:51:33 But so far, including people with younger kids, they’ve modified the rules a little bit, but you can, I have friends who played, I mean, Hutchins, our friend, Chris Hutchins played with his like four or five-year-old, I want to say.
    1:51:37 He sent me a testimonial video from her, not for public use, but she is a big fan.
    1:51:39 So you can play with younger kids.
    1:51:43 And I would just say, couldn’t be happier with how it’s turned out.
    1:51:51 So many thanks to Alon Lee and the whole Exploding Kittens team for going on this two-year journey of working on this thing together.
    1:51:57 So if people want to check that out, tim.blog.com slash coyote, and you can find the game at pretty much any Walmart or order it online.
    1:51:58 Easy to find.
    1:51:59 That’s awesome.
    1:52:03 Dude, and thanks for giving it out to everyone that came out to the live Dignation at South by.
    1:52:04 That was awesome for you to do.
    1:52:07 Yeah, those are the first people to ever get their hands on one.
    1:52:08 My pleasure.
    1:52:11 Okay, Zen, getting offline.
    1:52:12 Yes.
    1:52:13 You want to kick us off?
    1:52:14 Tell us what it looked like.
    1:52:15 What was the format?
    1:52:25 If you do a classic Zen retreat, at least in this lineage of Zen called Sambo Zen, which is the lineage that Henry Schuchman teaches, you’re in for it.
    1:52:37 You’re in for a little bit of an ass kicking in that you get up at the crack of dawn, and you sit, and then you sit some more, and you do a tiny little walk, and then you sit some more, and then you have some mush in a bowl, and then you sit some more.
    1:52:39 And you do that until about 8 p.m.
    1:52:43 And then you do it all over again, completely silent for five to seven days.
    1:52:46 I’ve done a couple of these five and seven dayers.
    1:52:47 They’re no joke.
    1:52:52 They’re meant to be kind of slightly demoralizing slash brutal.
    1:52:57 They’re truly designed to break you down in a good way.
    1:53:00 Break down the ego, break down your willingness to live.
    1:53:03 They’re pretty hardcore.
    1:53:06 But you’re working on Zen koans.
    1:53:07 So you’re trying to crack a koan.
    1:53:12 Tim has a great interview with Henry Schuchman on his podcast to check out all about koans.
    1:53:14 But anyway, long story short, this was not that.
    1:53:30 We said, hey, if we get together a small group of people, we can talk at night, have some dinners, really intimate, call it like seven, eight people, small, and get Henry and Valerie, which are both Zen masters, to come in and kind of instruct us during the day.
    1:53:32 No early call times.
    1:53:33 I think we got there around nine-ish.
    1:53:35 That’s perfect.
    1:53:36 Which is perfect.
    1:53:44 You know, I got that morning coffee and ahead of time and had, you know, a great lunch and then afternoon sit and then we all went to a dinner at night.
    1:53:47 So did that for what was three days and it was fantastic.
    1:53:49 I loved it, but I’d love to hear what you got out of it.
    1:53:51 I got a lot out of it.
    1:54:01 And I think one upfront benefit was it was like a very warm bath re-entry to meditation retreat.
    1:54:03 You had a tough go at your first one, right?
    1:54:17 For people who want to deep dive into what happened in my first extended Vipassana silent retreat, which I made a lot harder by fasting for a very extended period of time and then also adding microdosing, neither of which I recommend if it’s your maiden voyage.
    1:54:30 They can listen to my interview with Willoughby B. Britton, B-R-I-T-T-O-N, on some of the occasional adverse events with meditation, which are very, very similar to those of psychedelics, actually.
    1:54:32 So if you want to check that out, you can check that out.
    1:54:37 I also did a conversation with Dan Harris of 10% Happier where we got into this in some length.
    1:54:51 Getting back on the horse and doing it in this way was very much a form of recovery for me, right?
    1:55:06 Getting back to a point where I feel like there are forms of meditation I can engage with, specifically extended meditation, that don’t necessarily run the risk of the types of issues that I ran into in my first salad retreat.
    1:55:18 Which, by the way, I’ve spent, let’s just say, a week in various jungles or mountains fasting before by myself, and the same types of issues crop up.
    1:55:19 Your mind really gets going.
    1:55:27 I think the fasting actually is the main culprit with increasing the intensity as much as it did, not the microdosing, but I’m sure they acted together.
    1:55:43 This particular format, and I think the type of meditation with a mixture of silence and intermittent guidance from Henry, was not only just a less strained, less risky way to go about it.
    1:55:56 I actually felt like it was very, very productive, and I know Henry and Valerie both commented on how it seemed that people made a lot of progress in a very short period of time in this smaller group.
    1:56:01 It could have been a function of the smaller group, because if you have 40 people, there’s always going to be somebody coughing or farting or fidgeting or whatever.
    1:56:08 In a smaller group, everyone’s on best behavior, and we’re also in a small group that was taking it very seriously.
    1:56:13 But much like with anything else, density of practice matters.
    1:56:22 And when you are sitting once a day, like I meditated earlier this morning, using the Way app, which we’re both involved with, that involves Henry.
    1:56:25 I sat this morning, I’ll sit again later today.
    1:56:33 But when you’re doing a few hours a day, you’re able to say to yourself, okay, in the next sit, I want to focus on this particular aspect.
    1:56:46 And then if you have a very uncomfortable meditation session, or you’re just thinking about popcorn and cats the whole time, or something stupid, and you’re like, ah, fuck, I kind of failed that meditation.
    1:56:50 You have another at-bat five minutes later, right?
    1:57:01 And psychologically, you can develop a certain level of not just confidence, but also momentum that you can take back into your daily less intense practice.
    1:57:05 So I found it really, really beneficial.
    1:57:09 So thank you for putting so much time and energy into helping organize that.
    1:57:11 And, you know, the group makes the difference.
    1:57:14 This was just an outstanding group, very different perspectives.
    1:57:19 Some people had never really meditated before, certainly never done meditation retreats.
    1:57:23 For others like me, sort of intrepid people dipping their toe back in.
    1:57:28 And I found it incredibly rewarding, and I would do it again, for sure.
    1:57:30 That’s awesome.
    1:57:43 Yeah, I had never done something with Henry that involved actually talking during the meditation, because it was always like, you get to sit with him in private interview once a day when you’re doing a silent retreat.
    1:57:51 So you go back into a room, and then you get, you know, five minutes to talk about, were there any hurdles or obstacles that came up, and how might we address these?
    1:57:53 That’s typically how you do it in Zen style.
    1:57:58 So to address those at length in real time was awesome.
    1:58:02 So, yeah, I mean, highly recommend trying to pick up a practice.
    1:58:05 It is challenging for monkey minds like myself.
    1:58:11 And, you know, after a few years, I’m just now starting to find my way.
    1:58:17 I mean, ever since then, Tim, I’ve been doing close to pretty much 50 minutes a day since we got back from now, which has been fantastic.
    1:58:19 It’s still a challenge.
    1:58:25 You know, there’ll be days where your mind just goes off the rails, and you say, hey, that was today, so it goes.
    1:58:27 You know, you can’t beat yourself up, I think, at the end of the day.
    1:58:30 Yeah, I was busy with really good seafood.
    1:58:32 Didn’t do as much meditating as I would like.
    1:58:32 Yeah, really good seafood.
    1:58:47 But I will give a shameless plug because the reason I got involved with The Way with Henry, this app that he has, is because most people are not going to have access to Henry directly in person.
    1:58:47 Right?
    1:58:49 That’s just not going to be feasible.
    1:58:52 But, I mean, look, I can call Henry.
    1:58:53 I can text Henry.
    1:58:58 And 99% of the time, I just use the app, which should tell you something.
    1:59:03 So, if you go to thewayapp.com slash Tim, you can get 30 free sessions.
    1:59:07 And I’m pretty sure you don’t need to, at least in the beginning, you didn’t need to use your credit card.
    1:59:14 So, you’re not in this, it’s not exactly a bait and switch, but this like boiling frog scenario is my understanding.
    1:59:16 Last time I checked, still didn’t require a credit card.
    1:59:19 So, 30 free sessions, you can try it out, thewayapp.com slash Tim.
    1:59:22 And I will literally be doing that in another, like, two hours.
    1:59:23 I’ll be doing another session.
    1:59:26 Kev Kev, anything else you’d like to add?
    1:59:28 No, I think that was great.
    1:59:34 People should know we did not plan to have that be a sponsor or anything like that for The Way.
    1:59:38 I know you have to say all that stuff, but also it’s just a fucking awesome app.
    1:59:44 So, it’s like, that’s the nice thing about being able to pick your sponsors and pick people that you work with, you know?
    1:59:46 I love that about podcasting.
    1:59:50 You know, we started that Dignation podcast again with me and Alex, and I do that every three weeks now.
    1:59:52 And we have all these sponsors coming.
    1:59:55 And it is so nice to be able to say no.
    1:59:58 You know, you’re like, no, I don’t want to do that because I don’t believe it.
    2:00:01 So, it’s like awesome that you’re in that spot.
    2:00:03 But I will leave you with one last bit.
    2:00:04 Are we wrapping up?
    2:00:06 Because I have one last quote of the day.
    2:00:11 So, my quote for you all would be one that a friend of mine that gave up alcohol said to me.
    2:00:14 And I don’t believe this originated with him, but I thought it was a great one.
    2:00:21 Which is, I had my first drink for the same reason that I had my last.
    2:00:23 And that is to be a grown-up.
    2:00:24 It’s a good one.
    2:00:25 It’s a good one.
    2:00:27 It’s a good one.
    2:00:27 Yeah.
    2:00:28 Well, keep it up, KevKev.
    2:00:29 I’m impressed.
    2:00:31 I say that very sincerely.
    2:00:33 That’s a very long stretch.
    2:00:36 And it sounds like you’ve cleared a couple of hurdles.
    2:00:37 You have the phone a friend option.
    2:00:40 And I’m rooting for you, man.
    2:00:41 I’m definitely rooting for you.
    2:00:48 And having this conversation also reinforces that I think I’ll just continue with my current cadence.
    2:00:50 Which is like, okay, maybe once or twice a month.
    2:00:52 Special occasion only.
    2:00:58 And outside of that, just really don’t feel the need to do it.
    2:01:01 And also with everything else I’ve got going on, I recognize that.
    2:01:03 I’ll give you another quote for booze.
    2:01:08 And this was actually something that a dear friend said to me at one point.
    2:01:09 And he likes to drink.
    2:01:13 He said, drinking is borrowing happiness from tomorrow.
    2:01:19 If you’re coping at night in some respect with alcohol, it’s not a free lunch.
    2:01:20 You’re going to pay for it tomorrow.
    2:01:22 And that’s also true with recreational ketamine use.
    2:01:24 Don’t think that’s a get-out-of-jail-free card.
    2:01:26 So don’t fuck around with that.
    2:01:28 Kevin and I have talked about that ad nauseum before.
    2:01:30 So we can leave that alone.
    2:01:37 But for me, very inspiring to hear you talk about this stretch and everything that has improved.
    2:01:38 So I’m going to keep going.
    2:01:44 I got to say, the main thing for me, man, that was unexpected, without a doubt, is the mood boost.
    2:01:51 In the last week, I’ve noticed that I’m just – I never considered myself depressed or anything like that.
    2:01:53 I was a happy person, pretty good.
    2:01:58 But I don’t take things as personally, which is weird.
    2:02:03 For some reason, I’m just getting a little 10% lift in mood, which I’m loving.
    2:02:04 I’ll take it all day long.
    2:02:05 It’s great.
    2:02:07 So last quote, last quote.
    2:02:08 I got one more good one, too.
    2:02:09 I love good quotes.
    2:02:13 Discipline is the strongest form of self-love.
    2:02:19 It’s ignoring what you want right now for a promise of a better future.
    2:02:22 That’s along the same lines as your quote there.
    2:02:23 Yeah, I dig it.
    2:02:26 Was that from your last fortune cookie, or do you have a source for that?
    2:02:27 I don’t know where I found that one.
    2:02:29 Also, this one’s good, too.
    2:02:31 Courage isn’t the absence of fear.
    2:02:33 It’s the ability to take action despite it.
    2:02:36 Yeah, I’ve got some difficult conversations coming up this week.
    2:02:39 So that’s a good one to end on.
    2:02:40 Yeah, yeah.
    2:02:42 Talk for another time.
    2:02:43 Yeah, I know.
    2:02:44 Where is this going?
    2:02:44 All right, brother.
    2:02:45 Good seeing you as always.
    2:02:46 All right, man.
    2:02:47 Yeah.
    2:02:48 Yeah, same to you, brother.
    2:02:49 Also great to see you.
    2:02:50 And actually, no, it’s not what you think it is.
    2:02:53 It’s something else, but we’ll catch up offline.
    2:02:57 Not the premature ejaculation stuff.
    2:02:58 Okay, that’s good.
    2:03:00 I need to up my level of Trazodone.
    2:03:02 Yeah, no, it’s not that.
    2:03:05 And that’s an amazing place to end an episode.
    2:03:09 And for people who want links to everything we’ve discussed, we’ll link to the Accelerate
    2:03:13 TMAS, to Nolan Williams, to the books, to 3D2 Sounds, to all the stuff that Kevin mentioned,
    2:03:16 the Profi spray for your nasal gel needs.
    2:03:17 Espresso.
    2:03:20 My favorite Espresso machine.
    2:03:23 Yeah, we’ll link to Kevin’s favorite Espresso machine.
    2:03:26 You’ll be able to find that all at tim.blog slash podcast.
    2:03:32 And until next time, be a little kinder than is necessary, not only to others, but to yourself.
    2:03:33 Thanks for tuning in.
    2:03:35 Hey guys, this is Tim again.
    2:03:37 Just one more thing before you take off.
    2:03:39 And that is Five Bullet Friday.
    2:03:44 Would you enjoy getting a short email from me every Friday that provides a little fun before
    2:03:45 the weekend?
    2:03:50 Between one and a half and two million people subscribe to my free newsletter, my super short
    2:03:51 newsletter called Five Bullet Friday.
    2:03:53 Easy to sign up.
    2:03:53 Easy to cancel.
    2:03:59 It is basically a half page that I send out every Friday to share the coolest things I’ve
    2:04:02 found or discovered or have started exploring over that week.
    2:04:04 It’s kind of like my diary of cool things.
    2:04:10 It often includes articles I’m reading, books I’m reading, albums perhaps, gadgets, gizmos,
    2:04:15 all sorts of tech tricks and so on that get sent to me by my friends, including a lot of
    2:04:21 podcasts, guests and these strange esoteric things end up in my field and then I test
    2:04:23 them and then I share them with you.
    2:04:29 So if that sounds fun, again, it’s very short, a little tiny bite of goodness before you head
    2:04:31 off for the weekend, something to think about.
    2:04:36 If you’d like to try it out, just go to Tim.blog slash Friday, type that into your browser,
    2:04:41 Tim.blog slash Friday, drop in your email and you’ll get the very next one.
    2:04:42 Thanks for listening.
    2:04:49 If you ever use public Wi-Fi, say at a hotel or a coffee shop, which is where I often work,
    2:04:53 I’m doing it right now and as many of you, my listeners do, you’re likely sending data
    2:04:56 over an open network, meaning there’s no encryption at all.
    2:05:01 A great way to ensure that all of your data are encrypted and can’t be easily read by hackers
    2:05:05 or captured by websites is to use this episode’s sponsor, ExpressVPN.
    2:05:07 It is so simple.
    2:05:08 It is one click.
    2:05:10 It’s the easiest thing in the world.
    2:05:11 I use it overseas.
    2:05:12 I use it in airports.
    2:05:13 I use it everywhere.
    2:05:18 With ExpressVPN, you simply download their app onto your computer or smartphone and then
    2:05:20 use the internet just as you normally would.
    2:05:24 With just one tap, you secure 100% of your network data.
    2:05:28 ExpressVPN encrypts and reroutes your network traffic through secure servers.
    2:05:32 So even though your data is still physically passing through your internet provider,
    2:05:36 they can’t inspect it and they have no record of your browsing history.
    2:05:41 By the way, this is true even if you’re at home, your ISP can snoop on all sorts of stuff.
    2:05:42 And I’ve seen that personally.
    2:05:44 It’s very, very spooky.
    2:05:44 Don’t like it.
    2:05:46 So, ExpressVPN.
    2:05:52 ExpressVPN is the number one rated VPN by CNET, The Verge, and tons of other tech reviewers.
    2:05:56 I’ve been using ExpressVPN for years and I love that it gives me that extra peace of mind.
    2:06:02 Knowing that no one else is looking over my shoulder or even if they’re trying to, it’s going to be very, very, very hard.
    2:06:07 And as a bonus, I’ve also used it many times to unblock content from around the world.
    2:06:15 If you’re traveling and there’s a particular media website, there’s a particular, say, version of Amazon or whatever that’s blocked or Netflix, whatever.
    2:06:21 With ExpressVPN, I can connect to servers outside the U.S. or inside the U.S., depending on what you want to do,
    2:06:25 easily gaining access to thousands of shows and movies I wouldn’t be able to see otherwise.
    2:06:27 That’s been true for stuff I’ve wanted to watch in Japan.
    2:06:33 It’s been true for stuff I’ve wanted to watch in the U.K., for instance, from the U.S. that I haven’t been able to access.
    2:06:35 It’s super, super, super powerful as a tool.
    2:06:40 So check it out. Go to expressvpn.com slash Tim.
    2:06:43 You’ll get four extra months for free when you use that link.
    2:06:45 So be sure to check it out.
    2:06:53 That’s expressvpn, E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Tim for an extra four months for free.
    2:06:58 I don’t know about you guys, but I have seen a lot of crazy stuff in the last few weeks.
    2:07:04 I saw an AI-generated video, looks like a video, of an otter on a flight,
    2:07:09 tapping away on a keyboard, having a stewardess ask him if you would like a drink,
    2:07:10 and it goes on from there.
    2:07:16 And this was generated with AI, and it looks photorealistic, basically.
    2:07:20 I mean, it would have cost hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to do in the past,
    2:07:23 taken forever, and now it’s, boom, snap of the fingers.
    2:07:24 It’s crazy.
    2:07:26 So AI is changing everything.
    2:07:26 We know that.
    2:07:30 It is also changing the way startups and small businesses operate.
    2:07:32 Things are going to get crazier.
    2:07:34 The rate of change is only going to get faster.
    2:07:39 And while a lot of good is going to come of that, it also means security and compliance.
    2:07:40 Headaches, for one thing.
    2:07:43 And that is where today’s sponsor, Vanta, comes in.
    2:07:47 I’d already heard a lot about them before they ever became a sponsor.
    2:07:52 Just like 10,000 plus other companies that rely on Vanta, my friends at Duolingo, shout
    2:07:57 out Duolingo, and Ramp, shout out Ramp, one of this podcast sponsors and an ultra-fast-growing
    2:08:00 company, use Vanta to handle security compliance.
    2:08:01 Why would they do that?
    2:08:08 Well, Vanta automates compliance for frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA, making it
    2:08:11 simple and fast to get enterprise-grade compliant.
    2:08:12 But what does that mean?
    2:08:14 It adds up to impressive results.
    2:08:21 Companies can save up to 85% of costs, get compliant in weeks instead of months, and complete
    2:08:23 security questionnaires up to five times faster.
    2:08:25 So check it out.
    2:08:27 Vanta.com slash Tim.
    2:08:30 That’s V-A-N-T-A, like Santa with a V.
    2:08:35 Vanta.com slash Tim to see how Vanta can help you level up your security program.
    2:08:38 My listeners, that’s you, can get $1,000 off.
    2:08:39 So check it out.
    2:08:42 Vanta.com slash Tim.

    Welcome to another wide-ranging “Random Show” episode I recorded with my close friend Kevin Rose (digg.com)! We cover dozens of topics: from the cutting edge of health tech to pro-tips for colonoscopies; AI; adventures in Japan and Taiwan seeking out perfect coffee and tea; tips for drinking less alcohol; powerful documentaries like 32 Sounds and books such as Awareness; the unexpected joys and therapeutic benefits of adult Lego; and much, much more.

    Sponsors:

    Vanta trusted compliance and security platform: https://vanta.com/tim ($1000 off)

    Momentous high-quality supplements: https://livemomentous.com/tim (code TIM for up to 35% off)

    ExpressVPN high-speed, secure, and anonymous VPN service: https://www.expressvpn.com/tim (get 3 or 4 months free on their annual plans)

    *

    For show notes and past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast.

    For deals from sponsors of The Tim Ferriss Showplease visit tim.blog/podcast-sponsors

    Sign up for Tim’s email newsletter (5-Bullet Friday) at tim.blog/friday.

    For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.

    Discover Tim’s books: tim.blog/books.

    Follow Tim:

    Twittertwitter.com/tferriss 

    Instagraminstagram.com/timferriss

    YouTubeyoutube.com/timferriss

    Facebookfacebook.com/timferriss 

    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timferriss

    Past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show include Jerry SeinfeldHugh JackmanDr. Jane GoodallLeBron JamesKevin HartDoris Kearns GoodwinJamie FoxxMatthew McConaugheyEsther PerelElizabeth GilbertTerry CrewsSiaYuval Noah HarariMalcolm GladwellMadeleine AlbrightCheryl StrayedJim CollinsMary Karr, Maria PopovaSam HarrisMichael PhelpsBob IgerEdward NortonArnold SchwarzeneggerNeil StraussKen BurnsMaria SharapovaMarc AndreessenNeil GaimanNeil de Grasse TysonJocko WillinkDaniel EkKelly SlaterDr. Peter AttiaSeth GodinHoward MarksDr. Brené BrownEric SchmidtMichael LewisJoe GebbiaMichael PollanDr. Jordan PetersonVince VaughnBrian KoppelmanRamit SethiDax ShepardTony RobbinsJim DethmerDan HarrisRay DalioNaval RavikantVitalik ButerinElizabeth LesserAmanda PalmerKatie HaunSir Richard BransonChuck PalahniukArianna HuffingtonReid HoffmanBill BurrWhitney CummingsRick RubinDr. Vivek MurthyDarren AronofskyMargaret AtwoodMark ZuckerbergPeter ThielDr. Gabor MatéAnne LamottSarah SilvermanDr. Andrew Huberman, and many more.

    See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

  • How economists (and TikTok) know if a recession is coming

    Lately we’ve noticed that something we think about all the time here at Planet Money is having a viral moment: recession indicators!

    From the more practical (like sales for lipstick going up and men’s underwear going down) to the absurd and nonsensical (like babysitter buns coming back into style?) — people are posting to social media every little sign they see that a recession is coming. And we LOVE it. Because between the trade war and the tariffs and the stock market, there has been a lot of economic uncertainty over the last few months and we want to talk about it, too.

    Today on the show — we dig into the slightly wonkier indicators that economists look at when they’re trying to answer the question behind the viral internet trend: Is a recession coming?

    This episode of Planet Money was produced by James Sneed. It was edited by Marianne McCune, fact-checked by Sarah McClure, and engineered by Cena Loffredo. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer.

    Find more Planet Money: Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.

    Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.

    Music: Source Audio – “The Shirt Still Fits,” “Chameleon Panther Style,” and “Nighthawk.”

    Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    NPR Privacy Policy

  • Hinge expert shares dating advice for ambitious nerds

    AI transcript
    0:00:04 All right. So our friend, Logan Urey, she’s a behavioral scientist turned dating coach.
    0:00:11 And according to the analytics on this podcast, 93% of you listeners, you’re men. And a lot of you
    0:00:16 are young. And according to the data, a lot of you are also single. And so we thought it’d be
    0:00:21 cool to have Logan come on to talk about dating. And it’s shockingly just like building a business
    0:00:25 in that there’s actually a process that you could follow. You can iterate yourself there.
    0:00:31 And Logan actually broke down how Sean and I met our spouses and gave a bunch of useful tips on how
    0:00:35 to meet someone. And it’s all backed by science. And honestly, it’s pretty hilarious. So check out
    0:00:51 this episode on how to meet your future spouse. All right. Logan is a behavioral scientist. I know
    0:00:55 you, Logan, as just my good friend, but you also had a book called How Not to Die Alone. And now
    0:01:00 you’re on this tear where you’ve become a little bit of an expert when it comes to dating, but also
    0:01:04 with masculinity. I just think you’re a great conversationalist and a wonderful person. And
    0:01:08 you’re really, really smart. And you have a lot of data to back a lot of your opinions.
    0:01:14 And you have a Netflix show. You’re the something, something, something high up on the research side
    0:01:16 at Hinge. Is that right?
    0:01:20 Yeah. The director of relationship science. But sometimes people just call me the something,
    0:01:21 something, something.
    0:01:28 Yeah. You can put that on your LinkedIn. Sam, I got to tell you a story. I think I’ve been sitting on
    0:01:34 this story for a little while. So I met Logan for the first, you know, Logan well, she’s your friend.
    0:01:40 I met Logan for the first time at a conference recently. She walks up to me. I reach out my hand
    0:01:46 to basically shake her hand. She goes straight for my face and just starts
    0:01:53 fixing my eyebrows. Logan doesn’t, we haven’t met. She hasn’t introduced herself. She’s just fixing my
    0:01:57 eyebrows for me because they’re all bushy and crazy. And then she’s like, oh, like, she’s like, my dad
    0:02:03 has crazy eyebrows. And then I just go, what? And by the way, I’m sitting down like a dog. I’m sitting
    0:02:08 at the lunch table. So I’m like a pet. She’s petting me. And I just thought the confidence that this
    0:02:13 woman must have, she must come on the show because nobody has that confidence to do that.
    0:02:14 Look, high, high agency.
    0:02:16 Isn’t that an insane move?
    0:02:18 That’s a high agency move.
    0:02:21 It was one of the craziest things anyone’s ever done. Logan, explain yourself.
    0:02:26 Wait, Sean, I think I did say, can I touch your face? But then you didn’t seem that into it. And
    0:02:28 then I was like, that was the weirdo thing to do.
    0:02:30 Well, did you feel more intimate with her?
    0:02:31 Did you think I was going to be into it?
    0:02:34 But Sean, I did make an impression on you.
    0:02:38 You did. Honestly, I never forgot. I went home and my daughter, since then,
    0:02:42 has just been coming up to me and doing it. And she’s like, you know what I’m doing? And I was like,
    0:02:44 yeah, you’re doing the thing that girl did. She goes, yeah. And this is my five-year-old.
    0:02:45 That’s so funny.
    0:02:49 I couldn’t be more happy about this intro.
    0:02:54 Well, I feel, Logan, I feel like you are incredibly confident, but you’re also like,
    0:02:58 in a good way, you’re like conniving. I don’t know a better word, where it’s like,
    0:03:03 you see like the end goal and you’re like, I’m going to experiment with this, this, this,
    0:03:06 and I’m just going to follow this process. I don’t know a better word to describe it.
    0:03:12 Calculating. You try things. And I think you said, you know, you, you had a bunch of clients
    0:03:15 where you would teach them how to date. And you said, men were the easiest ones because you would
    0:03:19 say like, look, you need to lose weight. You need to dress better. And then you need to get a haircut.
    0:03:24 And I need you to then go up and say these five words to this woman. And I need you to do that 50
    0:03:27 times. And they would go, yes, ma’am. And then you’d tell a woman the same thing.
    0:03:31 And she’d be like, well, you’re screwed up too. Or you know what I mean? Like there was
    0:03:34 like a difference of, uh, of like how people would react to your instruction.
    0:03:40 Well, I think that’s why I love my first million and truly am a fan of the show. Like have listened
    0:03:45 to it for years is that I think the way that the two of you see the world is that it’s a game.
    0:03:50 And if you know the rules, you can win it. And I feel like a lot of the show is just teaching
    0:03:55 people how to play the game. And that’s really the way that I like to think about the world.
    0:04:00 And so many times I’ll be like, okay, if Sam was on my shoulder, like, what would he say? Or Sam,
    0:04:05 I’ll ask you specifically for your advice on things. Because I think you sort of just like smile your way
    0:04:09 through life and are like, yeah, I could figure that out. Oh, I need to get 30,000 followers on
    0:04:15 Instagram. Like, duh, just do some like shirtless cold plunging videos. Oh, wait, that’s our other
    0:04:15 friend.
    0:04:26 But that’s how tweet. Yeah, we’re talking about South Hill blue. But that’s how that’s how but
    0:04:30 that’s how you live. And I think that’s that that’s interesting. I think it’s interesting also, because
    0:04:35 we have, you know, I think like we looked at our analytics the other day, 93% of our listeners are
    0:04:40 men and like the majority of them are young men. And they look at dating like this impossible thing.
    0:04:44 But they look at like engineering or building a businesses as very like systematic and process
    0:04:46 oriented. It’s kind of the same thing, though.
    0:04:51 Totally. Yes. And this is why I’m so excited to talk to the MFM audience, because I really feel
    0:04:56 like I can help them with dating. Because the way that I think about it is dating is a skill. So we’re
    0:05:01 born knowing how to love, we have these natural instincts, but nobody teaches you how to date. And
    0:05:06 dating is actually pretty new in the span of human history. So think about how people used to get
    0:05:11 married. So maybe your parcel of land touched somebody else’s parcel of land. So your dads would marry
    0:05:16 you off so that they would be combined. Or it was about economic institutions. But now starting in
    0:05:22 around 1800s, people started dating on their own and creating these partnerships. And so we don’t know
    0:05:26 how to date, we don’t know how to pick a partner for ourselves. And I think a lot of people are failing
    0:05:31 at it. And so that’s why I’m here to really help people understand that dating is a skill, and you can
    0:05:31 get better at it.
    0:05:36 So give us like, I don’t know, start, start with start, start with something here. So what’s the first
    0:05:40 interesting thing that that you think is less understood or misunderstood?
    0:05:47 Great. Yes. I’ve been thinking about your audience really as a lot of maximizers. So people who might
    0:05:52 feel like they want to find the perfect partner. And so they’re going to keep searching and searching
    0:05:58 until they find that person. And I too am a maximizer. It would take me months to even buy an espresso
    0:06:03 machine. And so that’s even worse when it comes to people finding a partner. But the mistake that a lot
    0:06:08 of people make, especially the MFM maximizer audience, is that they search for too long.
    0:06:15 And so what happens is that they think, okay, well, I want to find a partner who is the hotness of this
    0:06:19 girl and the ambition of this girl and the family background of this girl. And I’m just going to keep
    0:06:23 searching until I find that person. And what they don’t understand is that there’s diminishing returns
    0:06:28 over time. And so there’s this concept called the secretary problem. Have you heard of it?
    0:06:31 Yeah. I’m using it right now to search for an apartment.
    0:06:37 Perfect. Okay. So this comes from a line of mathematical inquiry called optimal stop theory,
    0:06:42 which is how long should you search and when should you stop? So imagine that you’re hiring a secretary
    0:06:47 and there’s a hundred candidates. You have to go through them one at a time. After each one,
    0:06:53 you have to say yes or no, and you can’t go back. So at what point should you stop? So what they say
    0:06:59 is you should go through the first 37 people and say, who is the single best candidate of those 37?
    0:07:05 And that person now becomes your benchmark. The next time that you find someone as good or better
    0:07:10 than that person, hire them. So the idea is you don’t want to go too long because then all the good
    0:07:14 people might be in the past, but you don’t want to go too short because you don’t know the pool.
    0:07:19 And so 37% is approximately the right amount of time. So how do you apply that to dating?
    0:07:26 So imagine hypothetically, you’re going to date from ages 18 to 40. What is this 37% mark? It’s
    0:07:33 about 26.1 years old. And so by the time you’re 26, you have already met, you know, a third of the
    0:07:38 people and you have your benchmark person. Next time you find someone who you like as much or more than
    0:07:43 them, marry that person. And this is such important advice for people, because I think that people have
    0:07:47 their benchmark and then meet someone they like as much and then say, well, if they’re great,
    0:07:53 I can find someone even better. And then they get to be 40, 41, 42, and all their friends are on their
    0:07:58 second or third kid. And they’re still there trying to, you know, go to Vegas for the weekend and no
    0:08:03 one’s available. And so I think that maximizers do really well in a lot of areas of life. But when it
    0:08:06 comes to dating, they can actually get left behind in their search for perfection.
    0:08:11 I think, Sean, she was at my house one time recently and like she was talking to Sarah and
    0:08:17 she was like talking about maximizers. And then she was like, but Sarah, you are a settler or
    0:08:17 something like that.
    0:08:19 A satisficer, satisficer, yeah.
    0:08:26 Yeah, she’s like, you are just okay with like, okayness, as we can see.
    0:08:32 First of all, Sam and I are both obsessed with Sarah. She is wonderful. So it’s not an insult at all.
    0:08:37 And actually the research shows that between maximizers and satisficers, satisficers are often
    0:08:42 happier because it’s not that they settle or have a low bar. It’s that when they find something that
    0:08:48 meets their bar, they just buy it or accept it or move in whatever the matter is. And so maximizers,
    0:08:53 it takes them longer to make a decision. And once they make it, they question it and satisficers know
    0:08:57 what they want. And then when they find it, they’re happy with it. And so I think Sarah really is a happy
    0:09:04 satisficer. This makes so much sense to me. When I was younger, I started a company with my two best
    0:09:10 friends. And on one hand, it was my buddy Trevor. And Trevor was like me where, now I know the word,
    0:09:15 he was a maximizer. We would always go try to try new food, new restaurants. So every time we’d go out
    0:09:20 to eat, we’d want to try a new place. Every time we’d try a new place, we would try to try a new dish
    0:09:24 at that place. And the reality is that when you do that, you have a lot of unsatisfying lunches,
    0:09:27 right? Because you try a bunch of stuff that you don’t actually like, and you’re just kind of
    0:09:32 hunting for that, the satisfying feeling of once in a while finding something great. And our other
    0:09:40 buddy, he would just eat kidoba all the time. And kidoba is like, aggressively mediocre. And so one day
    0:09:44 he was like, yeah, I’ll never try as many foods as you, but I’ll be happier every day for lunch. And it
    0:09:47 kind of stuck with me. It’s like, oh, wow, there really are two different approaches for life. I’m not
    0:09:51 sure which one’s better objectively, but there’s definitely a better for me and a better for him. You know
    0:09:56 what I mean? Yeah. So research from Adam Grant, the Wharton professor finds that satisficers are happier,
    0:10:00 and that they make just as good of decisions. So you might think, especially someone who listens
    0:10:04 to this podcast, no, no, no, but I’m going to make the better decision by searching for longer. And
    0:10:07 that’s not what the research shows. Yeah. But let me ask you a question. Okay. So the secretary
    0:10:12 thing makes sense to me because hiring a secretary is not like life or death stakes, but marrying the wrong
    0:10:20 person, that’s probably one of the hardest decisions to untangle yourself from. And this approach you have
    0:10:25 where you’re like, you should get to 26.1 years old and then marry the next best person you meet.
    0:10:31 It’s cool. Sounds cool. Like, did you do that? Does anybody actually do that? That sounds insane to do.
    0:10:35 I did. I mean, I did that. I shouldn’t do it. What year did you meet your wife?
    0:10:37 You didn’t do it intentionally. You might’ve happened to meet somebody when you were 26. You
    0:10:42 weren’t like, I’ve gone through 37% of the dating pool. I have a benchmark. All right. I’m going to,
    0:10:46 if anybody’s better than Rebecca, she’s it. That wasn’t the way you thought about it.
    0:10:51 What was your number of 37% though? Like, dude, I went on, I went on, I probably went on,
    0:10:56 I don’t know, 20 terrible dates. Um, you know what I mean? Like 20 terrible dates,
    0:11:01 two girlfriends on that, in that process. And then when I met my wife, I was like, oh wow,
    0:11:05 she is not just like as good as the benchmark. I wasn’t even thinking like that. I was just like,
    0:11:09 wow, she’s amazing. And I just went from, I just went to, oh, she’s amazing. I want to be with her.
    0:11:14 And then that was it. It was, it was like a simple caveman, like me, like me like this,
    0:11:18 you know, that, that’s how I was thinking. I wasn’t like, I wasn’t mathematic-ing my way there.
    0:11:24 You don’t become the world’s most valuable women’s sports franchise by accident.
    0:11:29 Angel City Football Club did it with a little help from HubSpot. When they started,
    0:11:35 data was housed across multiple systems. HubSpot unified their website, email marketing,
    0:11:40 and fan experience in one platform. This allowed their small team of three to build an entire
    0:11:46 website in just three days. The results were nearly 350 new signups a week and 300% database growth
    0:11:51 in just two years. Visit HubSpot.com to hear how HubSpot can help you
    0:11:53 grow better. All right, back to the pod.
    0:12:00 So I’ll respond to that, which is that people definitely get tripped up in what you just
    0:12:05 asked about, which is like, wait, I’m way past 26.1. Like, have I ruined it? It’s, it sounds very
    0:12:09 mathematical, but it’s meant to be a metaphor. The idea is that you likely have already met someone
    0:12:13 who would have been a great partner. Next time you find someone who you like as much, commit to that
    0:12:19 person. Don’t keep searching. So the 18 to 40 as the equivalent of the secretary problem, like this
    0:12:25 is very hypothetical. It’s like, no one knows how long they’ll be single for. And so the point is just
    0:12:30 that when you’ve met a bunch of people and you’ve sort of gotten a sense of your attractiveness in the
    0:12:34 market and what the people are like and where you live, that when you find someone great, commit to
    0:12:39 them. And I’m very happy to talk about this with both of you because both of you are married with kids.
    0:12:45 And there was a version of you that could have said, I’m going to wait until I’m peak fitness and
    0:12:51 peak wealth and then find the best possible person I could find at that point. But instead you found
    0:12:55 people when you were a bit younger, when you didn’t reach the level of success you’re at today. And that
    0:13:01 person’s been on the journey with you. I think people really underestimate the opportunity cost of
    0:13:05 not committing to someone when they’re younger, because when you have this partner that’s witnessing
    0:13:09 your life, where you’re raising each other, where you really know them from a younger age,
    0:13:11 I think there’s something so precious about that.
    0:13:16 Yeah, that’s definitely true. Now, the thing you just described, it’s like, I have a batch of
    0:13:19 friends in my head. I can, yeah, I’m not going to name them, but I can.
    0:13:21 Are you, what would the batch being what, wealthy single guys?
    0:13:26 Yeah, but basically the, um, kind of like they’re, they’re still looking and it’s like that you found
    0:13:33 a lot, but you’re still not committing. Right. So they’re becoming 37, 41, 44. And then they’re just
    0:13:37 not committing. And it’s sort of like, I don’t, I think they need to think more like the secretary.
    0:13:43 Peter pans. They’re Peter pans. Exactly. A little bit commitment phobic, a little bit
    0:13:47 like maximizer. Like, is there something better out there? Um, they might even be in a relationship.
    0:13:50 They’re just not, they’re neither in all the way in or all the way out. Okay. So I’ve
    0:13:54 definitely seen that. On the other hand, there’s a group of people who I feel like
    0:13:58 they might get to 26 and they have not actually gone through 37% of the daily pool. Cause they’re
    0:14:03 just not putting up numbers. There’s, they’re very low volume interactions with, uh, you know,
    0:14:06 with, with the, with the other sex. And I think there’s a bunch of studies about this right now,
    0:14:11 how like, you know, X percent of men under the age of 30, haven’t even asked anyone out. Like,
    0:14:16 you know, or they’re just like sort of haven’t dated in years or things like that. So what about that side
    0:14:20 of the, the, the, the barbell, the, the, the problem, what’s your kind of take or, or what have
    0:14:24 you learned for that, that group of people? Yeah, that’s a great segue. If we want to talk
    0:14:29 about what’s happening with modern men, which is a topic that I’m pursuing and that I’m really
    0:14:35 passionate about. And so it just reminds me Sean of this story where I was doing this Valentine’s
    0:14:40 day thing for good morning America. And I was talking to the, one of the participants and I was
    0:14:44 like, you know, how many dates you go on? This is like a really good looking guy. And he’s like, well,
    0:14:49 at night, I think I could either edit videos, which will help me achieve my career goals for YouTube,
    0:14:53 or it can go on a date that might be bad. So I choose editing the videos. And I was like,
    0:14:59 I am terrified about society. Like this guy who should be out there killing it is like, well,
    0:15:03 my YouTube views are more of a sure thing. So anyway, I think we have a lot of issues that we
    0:15:09 need to talk about, but what we’re seeing in the data is that young men are falling behind.
    0:15:15 There’s this report from the UK called the Lost Boys Report. It shows that among men in the UK,
    0:15:21 16 through 24, one in seven are NEAT, which stands for non-education, employment, or training.
    0:15:27 And this number went up 40% during the pandemic for men, only 7% for women across all of these
    0:15:31 metrics. Enrolling in college, graduating from college, earning money, young men are really
    0:15:36 falling behind. So this is an issue for people in this age group. And if you project it out to
    0:15:43 10 years from now, it’s going to be an even bigger issue because women are into hypergamous mating,
    0:15:49 which means that women want to find someone who’s equal or higher level of status and financial
    0:15:53 success than them. And for most of human history, that’s worked out well, right? Because the guys
    0:15:59 had the resources and the women married them. But now as women are out earning men and being more
    0:16:04 educated than men, there just literally isn’t this pool of men for them to date. And so there’s this
    0:16:10 mating crisis where women are like, where’s the guy on my level? And they just aren’t there.
    0:16:16 So right now, 60% of enrollment in college is women. Soon it’s going to be two thirds. So what
    0:16:21 that means is that when it’s two thirds women, half of those women won’t have an equivalent guy
    0:16:26 with a college degree. So you really have an issue where women want a certain type of guy and that guy
    0:16:32 doesn’t exist. And I’m already seeing this. So many of my friends are attractive, confident,
    0:16:36 successful women in their late thirties, early forties. They’re just not dating. They’re just
    0:16:42 aren’t guys. I live in the Bay area. You know, who’s available to them? Polyamorous guys who are
    0:16:47 like, yeah, you can have a third of me. And so this woman has to say, do I want zero of a guy or do I want
    0:16:52 a third of a good guy? And I truly think that this is part of the reason why we’re seeing the rise of
    0:16:58 poly relationships is that there’s just not enough great guys. And so we have this crisis and we’re
    0:17:04 already seeing the impact of it. So the marriage rate is nearing an all time low in the US. The
    0:17:09 fertility rate has dropped 20% in 20 years. And so truly, if fewer people are getting together,
    0:17:14 fewer marriages, fewer babies, this is actually a crisis for humanity.
    0:17:19 Did you see how, do you guys remember a six, four blue eyes trust fund? Remember that song?
    0:17:19 Six, five.
    0:17:20 Six, five.
    0:17:22 It’s somewhat like-
    0:17:23 Inflation. What are you doing here?
    0:17:29 And someone like, someone like did the math and they were like, this is like 20 men in New York
    0:17:34 City. Like, you know, if you like do the analysis of like, you need to have a trust fund, you need to
    0:17:38 be single, you need to be in your twenties, you need to be at least six, five, and you know, whatever.
    0:17:45 Work in finance, it was like 20 people. Is there a thing, I think I read somewhere, I think I talked
    0:17:49 to my friend Amanda, who ran the league. And then my friend Dawoon, who had a dating app called
    0:17:52 OkCupid. And she was telling me about how-
    0:17:53 Oh, she, yeah, she had Coffee Meets Bagel.
    0:17:58 Sorry, Coffee Meets Bagel. And she was telling me how, and I think you told me this at Hinge,
    0:18:03 and you have a lot of this data, that like, it’s basically just a few, like, women all get likes.
    0:18:07 It doesn’t matter if you’re like a two out of 10 or a 10 out of 10. It’s like kind of a binary
    0:18:12 system for men, which is like, yeah, I would. I would love to go out with you for-
    0:18:14 Is that what I would means?
    0:18:17 I would love to take you on a romantic date.
    0:18:21 Yeah. Like, I would love to, I would love to hang out with you. Uh, and for women or
    0:18:26 for men, it was like, you know, 5% or something like dominated. It was like a winner’s take
    0:18:28 all market. What’s that data behind that?
    0:18:33 Yeah. So one stat I can tell you is that a lot of women set their height filter at six
    0:18:39 feet or taller. And only 14% of the men in the U.S. are six feet or taller. So you have
    0:18:42 women coming up to me at dinner parties, holding up their phone saying, I’m on Hinge. Where’s
    0:18:46 my husband? Where is he? And I’m like, yeah, he can’t even get into your app because he’s
    0:18:52 five, nine and you’re filtering him out. It’s like your app is a bounce. Your app is a club
    0:18:56 and your filters are a bouncer filtering him out. And so I do think that apps have perpetuated
    0:19:00 this thing where, because you can set filters, which maybe you think about for 30 seconds,
    0:19:04 you’re like, yeah, six feet is good. And then you don’t even realize the implications of that.
    0:19:10 And then when you multiply that across millions of people who are using apps, then yes, a disproportionate
    0:19:14 amount of attention goes to these guys over six feet. And then the other guys are sitting there
    0:19:19 waiting to hear back from someone. I used to set my filter to like a really tall woman because I
    0:19:24 wanted to increase my odds. You know, like, have you ever seen, Sean, a, uh, have you ever seen
    0:19:31 like the odds of what? Like making a basketball player that and meeting someone? Have you ever seen
    0:19:36 like the, uh, the backend of like a woman’s app? Oh, you were like, I’ll go fishing over here.
    0:19:40 Yes. Not a lot of people over here. Yeah. Like there’s not a lot of people who set their default
    0:19:45 to five, 10 for a woman. Have you ever seen the bat? Like, have you ever seen a woman? I, you know,
    0:19:50 I haven’t dated in 10 plus years, but have you ever seen like Tinder? Like every person she clicks on
    0:19:55 is a yes. Oh, like when they swipe right, it’s a match, but for guys, you’re like, swipe, swipe,
    0:19:59 swipe, swipe, swipe, no match. It’s basically a math. 100% of the time, Logan, isn’t it?
    0:20:05 No, it totally depends on who the woman is. And it also, that’s not exactly how the algorithm works
    0:20:09 because they don’t only show you people who have already said yes to you. So it wouldn’t be like
    0:20:14 that. But I think like, certainly for certain women, they get so many more people interested
    0:20:19 in them than they could ever go through. And then I would swipe. Yes. I would do a hundred.
    0:20:25 Okay. Sam, we know, you know, hot women. You can just put your status as like, listen,
    0:20:32 if you’re seeing me, I’m interested. Yeah. And I would get no yeses. Like none. Yeah. Yeah. Dude.
    0:20:37 When I was on a dating app, it was brutal, but that was like, I was like, I was so old that like,
    0:20:40 it’s back in the day when you had to handwrite messages to each person. There was no swiping.
    0:20:48 I was on OkCupid. Handwrite. Yeah. So let’s play a game. If I’m, let’s start with, I’m a guy on the
    0:20:54 dating app and then we’re going to do, I’m a girl on the dating app. What, what are the simple things I
    0:20:59 should be doing differently to increase my odds of success? And you’re the director of relationship
    0:21:05 science at Hinge. So if anyone should know it’s you. Great. Yeah. I’m actually going to answer that by
    0:21:10 saying like what everyone should be doing. And then I have specific like guy things. Okay. So let’s just
    0:21:15 talk really quickly about a great profile. So your profile is far and beyond the thing that matters the
    0:21:19 most because it’s like you were buying a billboard on the one-on-one in the Bay area. Like what are you
    0:21:25 going to put on that expensive billboard? So you want to have a really good first photo that
    0:21:29 clearly shows your face, no filters, no sunglasses, and you should invest in a good photo. It doesn’t
    0:21:34 have to be a professional photo, but people want to see what you look like. And honestly, the quality of
    0:21:39 male profiles is so low that if you just follow these instructions, you’re going to be better off
    0:21:44 than 90% of guys. Are you talking like, it’s like you’re dressed up? Is it casual? Dog?
    0:21:49 It doesn’t have to be dressed up, but it’s like good lighting. Um, maybe have a friend take it in
    0:21:56 portrait mode. It should not be like inside grainy, anything like that. Have you ever just asked a
    0:22:00 friend to take a photo of you with good lighting? I have never done that in my life. So like my pool
    0:22:04 of pictures is zero. That’s why you need female friends. Dude, I’d rather go to the dentist than ask
    0:22:10 a friend to take a picture of me. That’s so funny. So, okay. At some point, your mom takes a good
    0:22:16 picture of you and you upload it. Then you want one picture of you with your friends because we need
    0:22:20 to see that you have a social life. It could be friends or family. Do you know this meme from a
    0:22:25 long time ago of like 10 white guys at a baseball game and each of them is like popping their head
    0:22:29 out a little bit more. It’s like, you don’t want a photo where you all look the same, but we should be
    0:22:33 able to see like, this is what your life is like. Then one of you doing an activity that you like,
    0:22:38 maybe you’re into hiking, cooking. I know this probably seems so awkward for guys. Like,
    0:22:44 how am I going to get these photos? But it really does matter. I heard this story about when this
    0:22:49 woman saw this guy’s app profile and it was like all Burning Man pictures. And she’s like,
    0:22:53 I’m not into Burning Man at all. And then she swiped left. And then a few years later,
    0:22:57 she met him and she really liked him. And now they’re married. And when they talked about it,
    0:23:00 he’s like, oh yeah, I only went to Burning Man once. I didn’t like it, but those were the only
    0:23:03 photos I had. Right. So he didn’t realize like that it was really sending him back.
    0:23:09 We have a photo crisis. Do you guys do just like, do you guys do a like Hinge just pop up? Like,
    0:23:14 hey guys, listen, we know, we know you got nothing. Okay. Just come, come here on Saturday morning.
    0:23:17 You’re going to get your picture for Hinge. Like, do you guys do that? Like, is there a thing like that?
    0:23:22 No, but at the next My First Million event, you should have a photographer there who’s taking
    0:23:23 app profile photos. That’s a great idea.
    0:23:35 What’s the ratio of photos that you have of you and your children versus your wife and your children?
    0:23:40 Because I know at my house, Sarah is always the one taking the pictures. And I would not in a million years
    0:23:42 pull out my phone and be like, here, let me capture this for you.
    0:23:46 Yeah. Well, she asks like all the time for me, like, hey, take this picture.
    0:23:50 That’s so funny. That’s like my main feedback for my husband. You don’t take enough pictures of me
    0:23:54 with my daughter. It’s so funny. Sarah’s like, I have no photos of me and our baby. Like,
    0:23:57 can you please start taking more photos? Yes. Seriously.
    0:24:02 Man, just don’t do it. So you’re saying profile matters the most. Get a good, get, uh, get
    0:24:07 your hero shot, which is you. You can see your face. Good lighting. Great activity picture. Great.
    0:24:12 You and your friends, but not you and five identical friends. Perfect. Like you got to have some,
    0:24:16 some, uh, diversity here. So get some, get, you want to stand out in that picture. Are we talking,
    0:24:19 you know, what’s that theory where it’s like, you know, you want to be the hottest out of your
    0:24:23 group or somebody, you know, like, Oh yeah. Are you like conniving like that? Can we go
    0:24:28 Machiavellian and just, there is a funny theory in behavioral science, which is that people don’t
    0:24:32 make decisions in a vacuum. They make decisions through comparison. Right. So if you have a friend
    0:24:35 who looks like you, but it’s slightly less attractive, then that’ll make you look even
    0:24:41 more attractive. But I wouldn’t say I’ve tried that in the wild, but there is some, uh, data to
    0:24:45 back that up. All right. So call over. We even told him, we were like, you’re the ugly friend,
    0:24:49 dude. You just got to come. It was like, dude, either I’m at the bottom or I’m going to the middle
    0:24:53 and guess what? Chaos is a ladder, baby. You’re going to the bottom. I’m in the middle now.
    0:24:59 And then on hinge, there’s these prompts that you fill out, which are icebreakers. And I really feel
    0:25:03 like this is a chance for a lot of guys to shine because so many profiles I look at are just pretty
    0:25:08 weak here. So you want to have a mixture of humor and vulnerability. So you can be funny. You can be
    0:25:13 sarcastic. You can give your hot takes, but then also have some where you show that you also have a heart
    0:25:19 and you’re not just silly. And hinge now has this AI profile feedback tool, which will say something
    0:25:24 like go deeper, say a little bit more. And so you can just really think about what are the three things
    0:25:30 that I want to get across in my profile? Maybe the fact that you’re family oriented, that you love the
    0:25:35 warriors and that you’re really into cooking. We’ll make sure through your profile pictures and your
    0:25:41 prompts that you’re getting that across. What else can a guy do to stand out on these? Yeah. So then
    0:25:45 the next thing is that, especially for people who aren’t getting a lot of matches besides your profile,
    0:25:49 which is the number one thing you should send comments with your likes because it really helps
    0:25:53 you stand out. So if you’re a guy who’s like, I’m just not getting that many matches. I’m just going to
    0:25:58 go for quantity. I’m just going to send a bunch of likes. Well, it’s much better to send a thoughtful
    0:26:04 comment with that because you’re more likely to stand out. Another insider tip that I’ve heard is that
    0:26:09 guys are often lazy and they only comment on like the first picture or the first prompt on a girl’s
    0:26:14 profile. So if you actually scroll down and you comment on something lower, you’ll have a higher
    0:26:19 chance of being more original because fewer people have just ever commented on that.
    0:26:24 And how do you comment without being just like totally thirsty or just lame? So what’s a good
    0:26:25 comment versus bad comment there?
    0:26:31 Okay. So there’s this line from Chris Rock, which is, if a girl’s name is Eve, don’t walk up to her and
    0:26:35 say, hi, I’m Adam. She’s heard that a million times. So in standup comedy, you might think like the best
    0:26:39 joke is like the third punchline you come up with because the first or second other people can come
    0:26:44 up with it. So the person has a picture of themselves skiing and says, where was this taken? Don’t say,
    0:26:49 I think it’s Whistler. It’s like, cool, you and everyone else. But like, if you can write back
    0:26:54 something witty about like, okay, I’m going to challenge you to a black diamond or whatever people
    0:27:00 who ski say, then it’s a much better way of getting into a conversation. And so really you’re trying to
    0:27:04 show your value here. You’re trying to show your level of wit and humor and you don’t have to
    0:27:09 overthink it, but just what is a way to get into a conversation with someone, especially something
    0:27:11 that not every other guy has already said.
    0:27:17 It seems so much easier. If I look at the math of you saying like, what was the stat? How many women
    0:27:22 have been approached in real life or how many men approach? Uh, what was it like? Most, most men
    0:27:29 zero. Yeah. In real life. So then wouldn’t it be just so much, like I met my wife in a real life
    0:27:34 setting. It just, and even back then when this was less common, but still common, it just seems so much
    0:27:39 easier to meet people by just kind of pretending that you’re confident. And like, even just say,
    0:27:44 like, like, she’s just saying hi to them. Like it just, it was so much easier that way. Can we just,
    0:27:46 shouldn’t we just teach guys to do that?
    0:27:51 I think this is a big issue in modern dating is almost everyone I talked to is like, I want to meet
    0:27:55 someone the old fashioned way. I’m romantic. I don’t want to meet someone on the app. But then
    0:27:59 if you ask them, if they’re meeting people in real life, they basically say no. And last summer there
    0:28:03 was like the run clubs, everyone’s meeting at run clubs. Like I haven’t met a single couple that met
    0:28:08 through the run club. So I think we’re having this issue with Gen Z where they don’t necessarily want
    0:28:13 to be on apps. They want to be meeting people in real life, but they don’t have the social skills to do
    0:28:18 it. And so there’s this huge problem with the younger daters that I talked to where they lack
    0:28:23 rejection resilience. So, you know, this goes down a whole pathway of parenting, but you know,
    0:28:28 they had these helicopter parents, they had these snowplow parents that kind of plowed the way for
    0:28:32 them and they never had to deal with issues. They had colleges that bended to every will. And if their
    0:28:38 dog had an ear infection, they didn’t have to turn in a paper. You have these workplaces where they can
    0:28:43 take a sick day, you know, for any random reason. And then you want the person to go up to someone at a
    0:28:47 coffee shop, be able to deal with rejection. Like they don’t have the skills to do that. And so, yes,
    0:28:53 if everyone listened to this, got really good at approaching women and making them feel both
    0:28:57 comfortable and flattered and had a good opening line, like bring on the babies, that would be great.
    0:29:03 But people are lacking the social skills right now to do that. And I think in a post Me Too era,
    0:29:07 there is this fine line between confident and creepy that people have not figured out yet.
    0:29:15 All right, folks, this is a quick plug for a podcast called I Digress. If you’re trying to
    0:29:20 grow your business, but feel like you’re drowning in buzzwords and BS, then check out the I Digress
    0:29:26 podcast. It’s hosted by this guy named Troy Sandage. He’s helped launch over 35 brands that drive $175
    0:29:30 million in revenue. So if you want to get smarter about scaling your business, listen to I Digress
    0:29:33 wherever you get your podcasts. All right, back to the pod.
    0:29:38 How did you meet your wife, Sean, in real life or app?
    0:29:42 Yeah, in real life. But she was, she was like best friends growing up with my cousin. And so
    0:29:46 through like, kind of like, I was there to do something for my cousin, she was there to do
    0:29:51 something for my cousin, we kind of bumped into each other that way. And then I was like,
    0:29:56 that was a much easier thing, because I didn’t have to like approach with a pickup line. It’s like,
    0:30:00 I had like an hour where we’re hanging out. And I just had to try to make her laugh. Like,
    0:30:02 sorry, if I get this girl to laugh three times in this hour, this is going to be,
    0:30:06 you know, that’s pretty good. All right, that’s my goal. And so I was just trying to be as
    0:30:08 entertaining and, you know, fun as possible for an hour.
    0:30:14 So there’s this concept called the power of weak ties, which is the idea that you’re much more likely
    0:30:19 to get a job from an acquaintance than from one of your close friends, because your close friends have
    0:30:24 such overlapping lives with you that they know the same opportunities you know. But an acquaintance who
    0:30:28 you met at a wedding a few years ago, and are still our Instagram friends with, they might know
    0:30:33 something that you don’t know. And the same thing is true with dating. So Sam, you didn’t meet or
    0:30:37 Sean, you didn’t meet your wife through, you know, your siblings, best friend, you know, it was your
    0:30:43 cousin. And so one thing that people listening to this can do is can they can expand their network. So
    0:30:49 leave your house, go out, make new friends, meet people, volunteer, join the boards of things,
    0:30:53 the more friends and acquaintances and wider the network is, the more chance that you will have a weak
    0:30:58 tie who will eventually introduce you to your spouse. And one of the reasons I was so excited
    0:31:04 for this conversation is that I love teaching people the strategies that Sam did to meet Sarah,
    0:31:08 which I can happily summarize or Sam, if you want to summarize, we can do that too.
    0:31:11 I think you should do it. I want to hear your take on this.
    0:31:16 Okay, this is my like Sam super fandom. But one thing that Sam did that I really like, because I think
    0:31:22 it shows vulnerability, but it also is very masculine is that Sam’s like, how can I be the most
    0:31:27 attractive mate possible? I’m going to make myself more interesting. And so Sam really planted a lot
    0:31:32 of seeds and really worked on being more interesting. So he was like, wow, like when I talk about my
    0:31:37 interest in denim, and then I’m going to a denim meet, then women seem to be into that. So he was
    0:31:41 genuinely passionate about it. But he also knew to talk about it. He was also like, well, I’m not making
    0:31:46 that much money right now. But I want to show that I have a growth mindset and that you know, I’m very
    0:31:51 ambitious. And like, you know, potentially, I’ll be successful long term. Sam also likes to test out
    0:31:55 his stories. Well, how do I know what the best story is? How do I know what the funniest story is,
    0:32:01 I’m going to practice it over time and get better at it. And so I think that if somebody is a super fan
    0:32:05 of both of you, they might think, oh, these guys are just so smooth. I bet it was so easy for them. But
    0:32:11 you were intentional, Sam, about being the best possible, most attractive mate. And then you snagged a
    0:32:11 baddie.
    0:32:18 Well, I want to say, first of all, I have three things to say. The first one is, thank you. The second one is that
    0:32:22 I realized that effort goes a long way. And that the best way to be attractive to a woman
    0:32:28 is to work on myself and bring them along with my life, which hopefully is full of interesting
    0:32:33 things. And even if it’s like something as nerdy as denim, the best thing about being a man when it
    0:32:36 comes to attracting a woman is if you’re passionate about anything, it doesn’t matter how lame it is.
    0:32:42 That’s kind of attractive. And the third thing is that you have to also, if you’re going to say all
    0:32:45 these positive things, you have to say the line that I use to meet her.
    0:32:47 No, I don’t want to bring it up.
    0:32:49 So you’re acting like I’m like…
    0:32:51 Quick, cut to a HubSpot commercial.
    0:32:52 Okay.
    0:32:54 Sean, do you know what this line is?
    0:32:56 I know this line. I can’t believe he’s voluntarily saying this right now.
    0:32:58 Me neither. I thought we were going to skip over this.
    0:33:03 No, I don’t mind saying it. And so basically my wife, Sarah, she walked into the…
    0:33:07 And we were at like a happy hour. She walked in. I was with my friend, Lily. I go, Lily,
    0:33:13 that woman, she looks fantastic. I’m not leaving until she talks to me. And as I was saying that,
    0:33:17 she comes up to me and I didn’t know what to say in time. And so I said, excuse me,
    0:33:22 what’s the difference between a chickpea and a lintel? And she looks at her friend and she’s like,
    0:33:27 I don’t know. And I was like, I don’t pay $500 to have a lintel on my face. And for those of us today,
    0:33:32 I’m talking about a chickpea on my face. And she like gasped. And I was like,
    0:33:40 classic hummus joke. Am I right? And hi, I’m Sam. Nice to meet you. And it absolutely helped.
    0:33:43 Oh my God. We need a warning label that says, do not try this at home.
    0:33:47 Yeah. But just say, just say you hit the skip button and move forward 30 seconds. If you just
    0:33:52 never want to change the way you look at Sam again, Sam, why did you say that? By the way,
    0:33:55 had you said that before? Why would that be the first thing to come to mind?
    0:33:56 I don’t remember reading that in the game.
    0:33:58 What an absurd line.
    0:34:00 I don’t, I don’t know. It just came to me.
    0:34:03 Like, where did you read that? Where did that even come from?
    0:34:08 I don’t remember how, a friend like told me that joke. I don’t remember, but I thought it would have
    0:34:09 worked. But here’s another thing.
    0:34:10 He’s a hummus sexual.
    0:34:17 Yeah. I’m a freak. I had just finished a cross country motorcycle trip literally the day before.
    0:34:23 And I had all these pictures. This was in 2014. I had all these pictures on Facebook of my cross
    0:34:27 country motorcycle trip. And so instead of asking for her phone number, I was like, here, let me friend
    0:34:33 you on Facebook and we’ll talk there. And I like, so I like front loaded, like my photos with all these,
    0:34:39 like where I looked cool. And so that also helped. But so I did try all those things that you said were
    0:34:44 true. And also I’m still a filthy, filthy animal. And I say things like I said, and it also worked.
    0:34:48 Let me give the postgame analysis of that. So I wouldn’t recommend that line because I think it
    0:34:52 could definitely be misinterpreted, but at least you had the guts to say something.
    0:34:55 Misinterpreted. I think it’d be interpreted perfectly.
    0:35:01 It’s true. I mean, Sarah knew what she was signing up for. I feel like you’re consistent, but I think
    0:35:07 so this is feels like a very of the moment thing, which is that if you just sit at home waiting for
    0:35:12 the perfect line, then you’ll never approach someone. Sam did not have the perfect line, but he just said
    0:35:16 something and it made an impression. And I feel like what you said about effort is exactly right.
    0:35:21 And so in a lot of the research I’ve been doing this year about how men and women are becoming
    0:35:27 increasingly polarized, right? So women are way more liberal than men right now in how they voted.
    0:35:32 People used to vote across racial lines and now they’re actually voting across gender lines. For
    0:35:38 the first time in history, men in the U.S. are more religious. They’re more likely to go to church than
    0:35:43 women. And we’re just seeing that men and women are really being polarized. So how do we actually get
    0:35:49 people to connect and create these couples, have babies, et cetera? So one thing through my research is
    0:35:53 that men think, oh, women expect me to be perfect. I have to be tall, financially successful, all these
    0:35:58 things. What the women are saying is like, we just want you to put some effort in. Just remember my
    0:36:03 coffee order, know the name of my best friend at work. And I feel like effort is just underappreciated.
    0:36:09 And as I said, if you have a good profile, that’s a seven out of 10, you’re still way ahead of a lot of
    0:36:15 the guys out there. And so I think when it comes to the basic things that men can do, here’s a list of a
    0:36:22 few of them. So a lot of women say to me, I go on dates that are ZQ, zero questions. They ask the
    0:36:27 guy tons of questions and the guys didn’t ask them a single question. And then when I talk to guys,
    0:36:31 hey, how did this happen? They say, well, she asked me a question. If she wanted to answer it,
    0:36:35 she should have just answered it already. And I was like, no, ask her the question back. Make her feel
    0:36:40 interesting. I think that’s a huge tip. Make people feel interesting.
    0:36:45 Have you guys seen Love on the Spectrum? All the autistic kids, they all say the same thing at
    0:36:48 first. And it’s the greatest line ever. I guess like they’re taught in a dating school or something
    0:36:54 and they say, so what are your interests? And they all say that. And it’s the best line ever. And it
    0:36:58 just, it’s just such a good interest. Or it’s just such a good line. I’m obsessed with Love on the
    0:37:01 Spectrum. So what are your interests? Like if I said that to someone or someone said that to me,
    0:37:03 I’d be like, how much time you got? I can go all day.
    0:37:12 So I think this goes back to like the Dale Carnegie stuff, but be interested, not interesting. People
    0:37:16 think I have to have the best stories. I have to have the Facebook photos of my motorcycle trip. No,
    0:37:20 you know what people actually want to do? They want to talk about themselves, ask them questions,
    0:37:25 seem very interested in them. And that will make the other person like you. There’s all this research
    0:37:30 that in conversations where one person is talking a lot and the other person is asking questions,
    0:37:33 the first person thinks, wow, that other person’s a great conversationalist. And what that actually
    0:37:38 means is they made me feel interesting and important. And so I think that there’s so much
    0:37:43 that men can do just by asking questions, asking follow-up questions, seeming really interested in
    0:37:49 somebody and remembering stuff. If a girl says on a date, I have a big project that’s due on Tuesday,
    0:37:54 then text her Monday night or Tuesday morning and say, how did that go? These little things go so far.
    0:37:59 Yeah. I think what I’m hearing is, you know, in this podcast, we talk about certain businesses where
    0:38:03 you go into a space and it’s just like, there’s like a sleepy incumbent, you know,
    0:38:06 that maybe everybody in that space is still operating on pen and paper. They don’t do any
    0:38:10 marketing. And it just feels like, oh man, you’re shooting fish in a barrel. Like if you just go and
    0:38:16 you just try, you just do the basics, you will clean up in that area. It basically sounds that like
    0:38:20 dating is like this. I think in most, most of my single friends, the way they talk about dating is
    0:38:24 almost like it’s this impossible game, but Hey, I’m still putting up, I’m still fighting the good
    0:38:29 fight. And then I hear what you’re talking about. I’m like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually
    0:38:34 nobody tries in a way that matters. So like, you know, my same friends who are talking about it,
    0:38:39 like it’s an impossible game. If I bet, if I asked them, I’m like, Hey, when’s the last time
    0:38:43 you updated your profile? Like, let me just see your profile real quick. How much effort did you put
    0:38:47 into this? And it’s like, yo, you know, this is the, this is your landing page. This is what
    0:38:51 everybody is seeing. This is how they’re making their decisions. And you put 14 minutes of work into it
    0:38:55 when you were signing up, just speeding through to get on the app and then you never really touched
    0:39:00 it again. Well, that’s the problem, right? Like you’re just not investing the effort in the simple
    0:39:04 things that are going to make a difference. And everything you said, like, even if you just throw
    0:39:08 out any of the specifics, it’s not about the good lighting or it’s not about the photo with the
    0:39:13 friends and whatever. It’s literally like, try on the things that matter. Sounds like, uh, you know,
    0:39:18 the biggest takeaway and that most people are either not trying or they’re trying on the things that
    0:39:21 don’t matter. They’re trying in things that like, they’re spending a lot of time swiping,
    0:39:24 but that’s not the thing that’s going to help you, uh, actually find somebody.
    0:39:29 Yes. Sean, I love your ability to really summarize and bring out the most important points. And I
    0:39:34 think try on the things that matter is an incredible headline for this because yes, if you are taller,
    0:39:38 will you have an advantage on the app? A hundred percent. That is a bias that is baked into these
    0:39:43 filters. But if you just give up because you’re not over six feet tall, then that’s a choice that
    0:39:48 you’re making. Why not have a better profile? Why not have a friend take pictures of you? Even if
    0:39:52 it’s, you know, more embarrassing or painful than going to the dentist, why not send comments
    0:39:56 with likes? If you really are serious about finding someone, then there are just basic things that you
    0:40:01 can do that will set you ahead of most other men. Right. And you only need one, which is my favorite
    0:40:05 thing about a lot of the best things in life. Like, you know, business success. I failed for nine years
    0:40:09 and then I had one and all of a sudden I was a millionaire. It’s like, oh, yeah, I only needed
    0:40:13 one. Like, I didn’t need all of these to work. I needed one to work. Same thing with dating. You only
    0:40:17 need one to work really to make it work. But it definitely, it definitely helps to put up numbers
    0:40:21 though. I think like I, I like, I remember dating and I was like, when it rains, it pours. Like I
    0:40:25 remember when I was able to get one person interested in me, I would be more confident that I’d go after
    0:40:29 more and more and more. And I was like, oh, I’m killing it. And I’m like, why did I do this
    0:40:33 earlier? And, but it’s hard to get to go for that first one. It’s really hard. Like the rejection.
    0:40:37 And Sam, you also knew where to stop because there’s a version where you were like, if I can
    0:40:41 get Sarah, who else can I can get? And instead you were like, I could get Sarah. Like, hell yeah,
    0:40:46 this is my wife. Logan, you have this thing called date, like a scientist. What does that mean?
    0:40:51 Yes. I definitely think that this is sort of the, my first million approach to dating. So date,
    0:40:56 like a scientist just means be willing to run experiments and see what works. So if the business
    0:41:01 equivalent is throwing up a landing page or running some Google ads, then that’s what this is in
    0:41:09 dating. So let’s say that I’m coaching a guy and he says, okay, well, I need a woman who has a graduate
    0:41:14 degree. Then I’ll say, okay, date like a scientist, date someone without graduate degrees. Maybe what
    0:41:17 you’re actually looking for is someone who’s intellectually curious and you’re using a graduate
    0:41:22 degree as a proxy for that. Let’s just have you date other types of people and see what happens.
    0:41:26 I do this for women around dating guys who have a different job than they expected,
    0:41:30 or shorter than they expected. And so the whole point is that as we get older,
    0:41:35 we get clearer and clearer on what we think we want in a relationship. And I have people that walk into
    0:41:40 my office and say, here’s a spreadsheet of all the women I’ve dated over the last 10 years. And I know
    0:41:45 exactly what I want. I want a five, seven skinny redhead who’s Jewish and plays tennis. And I’m like,
    0:41:50 I think you’re wrong. I think that’s what you think you want, but let’s actually test and see
    0:41:55 who actually makes you happy long-term. And so date like a scientist is being willing to
    0:42:00 run experiments, being proven right or wrong, and actually get clearer on who’s going to make you
    0:42:03 happy long-term instead of assuming that you know.
    0:42:09 Is there any science of, like I always, a lot of my friends are Indian and their parents had
    0:42:15 arranged marriages and many of them are just lovely couples and they’re very happy. And I’ve always
    0:42:20 thought life’s a lot better when you have less choice. And so the way that I went into marriage,
    0:42:25 it was like, this is forever. There is no such thing as like divorce, like, you know,
    0:42:28 cause I’m like Irish Catholic background and that’s just like what you’re taught.
    0:42:32 And for some reason, I think that you’re happier that way where you’re like, if I’m miserable,
    0:42:35 it’s just like, yeah, that’s fine. I’m going to be miserable and hopefully I’ll make it better
    0:42:40 versus like, well, I wonder, are there other options? Uh, there’s something about
    0:42:46 finality or like no other choice that I think makes me happier. Is there anything?
    0:42:52 Yeah, there is a lot of research on that. So when you compare love marriages versus arranged marriages,
    0:42:58 love marriages usually start off happier, but around the five year mark, arranged marriages are
    0:43:03 happier. And it’s exactly what you said, Sam. It’s the fact that you’re committed and you’re in it
    0:43:08 and you don’t consider failure as an option. Okay. So my husband’s working too much and I feel
    0:43:13 stressed out and I miss him. I’m going to commit to working out this thing with him versus giving up.
    0:43:18 And there are nuances to the data and it depends on whether or not the culture allows for divorce and
    0:43:23 things like that. But I think the point is that when you think about things as temporary, you just
    0:43:28 don’t commit to them as much. So I was at, oh, actually that dialogue conference. And this guy was
    0:43:35 like, I think that, um, marriages should be like cell phone contracts and every seven years you decide to
    0:43:39 recommit or not. And there should be a conversation. And I was like, that’s a cute thing to say, but
    0:43:44 that’s not what the research supports. Because if you have an apartment versus owning a home,
    0:43:48 are you going to put wallpaper on the wall? Are you going to get a new dishwasher? No,
    0:43:52 you’re going to be like, this is temporary. I have one foot out the door, but when you own your home
    0:43:56 and when you’re really committed, you invest a lot in it because you think about it as a forever
    0:44:01 investment. And so when you really think about I’m committed, I’m in this, I’m going to do whatever
    0:44:07 it takes to work. Then that really produces better long term results. I’m on this Warren Buffett kick
    0:44:10 because he just retired. And so I’m rereading a bunch of Warren Buffett books. And he’s got this
    0:44:17 thing where he tells his managers as well as to as any aspiring entrepreneurs. They ask him, how do I
    0:44:21 build a great company? Because Berkshire Hathaway is famous for buying great companies. And he said
    0:44:28 three things. I need you to act like this business is the only business that you own. You are not allowed
    0:44:34 to have any other business. The second thing you need to act and assume that your entire net worth
    0:44:40 is in this business. And number three, assume that you can’t sell this business for at least the next
    0:44:46 50 years. And if you do that, I think you’ll make better decisions. And it’s kind of funny how what
    0:44:50 you’re saying for dating and what Warren says for business and what I think a lot of us know for
    0:44:56 business is a lot of the similar things. I want to add one thing to that, which is that I was at a
    0:45:01 Jewish Indian wedding this past weekend. And it was really beautiful. And especially my friend who’s
    0:45:05 Indian, her parents live in Atlanta and they didn’t have any other family there, but they have built
    0:45:11 this beautiful, this beautiful community around them called potluck. And you can just see the power of
    0:45:15 the community. So during the Sangeet, so many people from the potluck community were dancing and
    0:45:20 the children of potluck are all friends. And I think people underestimate how important it is
    0:45:25 to have a community around you because we are not meant to just be married and just have this one
    0:45:31 person that fulfills all of our goals and every aspect of our lives. We need a community to support
    0:45:36 us, to talk shit about our partner with, to help us when one person is sick, to help us with child care.
    0:45:41 And so I think just watching this beautiful Indian community who really showed up for this wedding
    0:45:47 and really helped shape the bride into who she is, it really inspired me to invest even more in my
    0:45:48 community.
    0:45:51 What are you going to say, Sean?
    0:45:55 Well, I was going to ask about like, all right, so I’m just thinking about my friends who are single
    0:45:58 and I’m trying to think if I was going to send them this episode, how would I make it? What
    0:46:02 question would I ask to make it most valuable for them? All right, so here’s two scenarios.
    0:46:10 Scenario one, go on a date. It was good, but it wasn’t like, wow, I met the one that was my soulmate,
    0:46:15 right? You don’t have that level of absolute clarity and conviction. So what is the post-date
    0:46:21 psychology? So I went on a date. How should I be thinking post-date in order to, you know,
    0:46:26 I want to have, I want to give things a chance, but I also don’t want to string things along if I’m
    0:46:29 settling for something that’s not really what I want. Don’t you have a thing on that, Logan?
    0:46:34 Yeah, yeah, that is kind of my tagline. Go ahead. Yeah. So Sean, I have this sort of tagline called
    0:46:40 fuck the spark, which is this idea that through doing 10 years of coaching, I’ll talk to a guy,
    0:46:44 I’ll help him with the date. He’ll come over my house afterwards. I’ll say, how was it? And he’ll say,
    0:46:48 she was great. She was beautiful. It was fun. I’m never going to see her again. I’m like,
    0:46:52 are you crazy? What are you talking about? And he’s like, I just didn’t feel the spark.
    0:46:57 And so the spark has become my nemesis where people expect to show up and feel this rom-com
    0:47:03 moment of butterflies and rainbows, and they will give up if they don’t feel that. And so I’ve
    0:47:08 developed these three myths of the spark. So the first one is the myth is if I don’t feel it from
    0:47:13 the beginning, it can’t grow. And that’s absolutely not true. Only 11% of people experience love at first
    0:47:17 sight. And many people develop feelings over time, which is why people marry someone in their apartment
    0:47:22 building, marry someone at work. It grows over time. Second myth is if you feel the spark, it’s a good
    0:47:26 thing. That’s also not always true. Some people are just really sparky. They give that feeling to
    0:47:30 everyone. And then you’re like, oh my God, there’s something special between me and that person. It’s
    0:47:35 like, no, honey, he gives that feeling to everyone. He’s very sparky and he could also be narcissistic.
    0:47:39 And that’s why it’s happening. And then the third one is if you have a spark, then the relationship is
    0:47:44 viable. That’s also not true. You can start really hot and heavy, and then it fades over time.
    0:47:50 So my antidote to that is the slow burn. And I feel like I married the slow burn and Sam can attest to
    0:47:55 that where I don’t think my husband is the most charming person you’ll ever meet, but he’s really
    0:48:01 smart. He’s really funny, but he takes time to warm up. And so I feel like by giving him more time,
    0:48:07 I found this amazing lottery pick and I feel like I won the lottery. But if I had just been looking for
    0:48:12 the sparkiest person, we wouldn’t have wound up together. And so I think if you feel zero attraction,
    0:48:16 especially for men, don’t go on the second date, it’s not going to go from zero to something.
    0:48:22 But if you feel some attraction, then give that person another chance, especially if you don’t
    0:48:29 go on that many dates. And if you were okay, so like sometimes when you study a subject a lot,
    0:48:33 or you try to help a lot of people to that individual person, their problem feels very unique,
    0:48:39 very special, very hard. But like you’ve seen a hundred of these and maybe even to the hundred,
    0:48:43 you’re like, Oh man, I feel like I could help you so much. I don’t have all the time in the world,
    0:48:48 but there’s almost this, like, if I could just shake you and get you to like either do one thing
    0:48:53 or understand one thing or take on one mindset, what’s the one that if you could just like shake
    0:48:58 people and be like, all right, that’s like, they got that. And then that will have all these positive
    0:49:02 benefits. I don’t know if it’s different for men and women, you know, that you run into, but like,
    0:49:04 what’s the advice you just want to shake somebody and just be like,
    0:49:08 if you just really internalize this or did this action, it would really change your game.
    0:49:12 We talked about fuck the spark. We talked about date, like a scientist. So the last one left for
    0:49:17 this is my concept called the three dating tendencies. And people can take the quiz on my website and it
    0:49:23 tells you which tendency you are. And this really helps people have language for what’s going on with
    0:49:26 them. And so I just took it by the way. Do you want to, you want me to tell you my results?
    0:49:28 I assume that you’re a maximizer.
    0:49:32 I scored equally high on hesitator and maximizer tendencies.
    0:49:36 That’s so funny. Okay. Let me explain what all of those are.
    0:49:38 I mean, it’s obviously kind of like, I’m not dating. So like, I just kind of had like,
    0:49:44 I put myself back in the mindset of like, you know, 24 year old me. And, um, it says who you are as a
    0:49:48 hesitator. You don’t think you’re ready for dating because you’re not the person you want to be yet.
    0:49:51 You hold yourself to a high standard. You want to be completely ready before you start your
    0:49:55 project. And the same goes for dating. Um, your motto as a hesitator, I’ll wait till I’m a catch.
    0:50:00 And who you are as a, and then maximizer is you love doing research, exploring your options,
    0:50:03 turning over every stone until you’re confident you found the right one. You make decisions
    0:50:06 carefully and you want to be a hundred percent certain before you make your choice. Your motto
    0:50:12 as a maximizer is why settle? And then it gives you like advice on how to, um, like how to kind of
    0:50:18 operate knowing that that’s your tendencies. Right. And the last one is the romanticizer, which
    0:50:24 men do tend to score lower on this, but basically someone who’s obsessed with the, we met story.
    0:50:30 I want to find my soulmate. I’ll know it when I see it. And they’re so focused on kind of the rom-com
    0:50:35 element that they ignore a lot of great potential partners or when they actually hit a bump in the
    0:50:39 road, instead of thinking I’ll have a work it out mindset and I’ll work through it. They actually
    0:50:43 think, well, if it was my soulmate, then we wouldn’t have issues. And they end the relationship.
    0:50:48 And I think having this language is very helpful for people because I get emails from men all the
    0:50:51 time that are like, I’m a hesitator. I’m not putting myself out there. And I’m like, great. You just
    0:50:56 need to go from zero to one. You just need to be on dates. And for maximizer, my advice is what I said
    0:51:01 at the beginning of the episode, which is understand that you can keep searching forever to find the
    0:51:06 perfect person, but you’ll miss out on choosing someone great and building something together.
    0:51:13 What’s going to happen in like 10 years, 15 years, 20 years with a lot of the kids who are 25 right now
    0:51:17 and 20 years old. The fact, like, it’s pretty crazy that you’re saying, I mean, we already know this,
    0:51:23 that most women want someone who’s above them or like who provides. But amongst like my company,
    0:51:28 and I don’t know about you, Sean, the women are kicking the dude’s asses. Like if you take like
    0:51:34 a man and a woman who are both 25, the 25 year old woman is a better employee. Like she’s typically
    0:51:38 like, like, for example, we went to a, we had an event the other day and like the women dressed
    0:51:41 wonderfully. Like they looked presentable. And the men, I had to pull aside. I’d be like,
    0:51:45 dude, you got to like dress nicer at these things and at least tuck your t-shirt in.
    0:51:52 And like the men typically ask for more money, but are less good at their job. The men tend to be
    0:51:58 sloppier. They tend to like think it’s cool not to care. There’s like a, there’s like a bunch of issues
    0:52:04 that I’ve noticed themes. And this is a small sample size of dozens of employees. And, but what’s going
    0:52:09 to happen in like 20 years? Is it just going to be a bunch of single people and less children? Or is it just
    0:52:14 going to be a bunch of women who are married to old men who are richer than the, I don’t know what
    0:52:19 it’s, what is it going to be? Yeah. So first of all, I do my research through talking to people now
    0:52:23 and seeing patterns, recognizing that I think predictions are pretty hard, but I will throw
    0:52:31 some, some things at the wall and see if any of the like end up being true. So one of them is that I do
    0:52:35 think that we are going to continue to have this mating gap where, as you say, women continue to thrive
    0:52:42 in terms of education and employment. And then there just aren’t enough great guys for them.
    0:52:47 And I’m seeing at least among my friends, the rise of single mother by choice where women hit 40 and
    0:52:51 they’re like, I didn’t find the guy. I still want to be a mom. And they use a sperm donor or a known,
    0:52:58 a known donor. And they actually have kids on their own. Another thing is the rise of polyamory and a lot
    0:53:03 of these relationships where, you know, as I said, the woman is willing to have like less of a great
    0:53:09 guy than, you know, a guy that she’s not interested in. Another thing that we haven’t talked about yet
    0:53:15 is just the rise of AI and AI companionship. So I’m getting ads all the time from Replica, you know,
    0:53:19 get your perfect AI boyfriend. He always says the right things.
    0:53:24 Women love this, by the way, I think more than men. I think women are liking AI boyfriends more than men
    0:53:27 are liking AI girlfriends. I did not think it was going to be that way, but I know so many women
    0:53:32 who like, I feel like they are in love with their chat GPT. I haven’t seen the research on that yet.
    0:53:37 My hunch would just be that men are more early adopters here and like more desperate, but it could
    0:53:42 be the case. For Replica, it is more of the AI boyfriend use case than AI girlfriend. Oh, that’s
    0:53:46 very interesting. Okay. Well, there you go. Unlike VC Twitter, it was always like, oh, yeah,
    0:53:51 girlfriend’s going to be huge. But actually AI boyfriend has been the dominant use case so far.
    0:53:59 So imagine that you have some combination of AI glasses with really HD pornography. You have this
    0:54:06 sex robot that’s very realistic and you have companionship from your AI boyfriend or girlfriend.
    0:54:11 Like, why are you going to go up to somebody in a coffee shop and risk rejection? Why are you going
    0:54:18 to have a girlfriend who bugs you to pick up your socks when this person is, this chatbot is sycophantic
    0:54:22 tells you how great you are all the time. And so I think as the friction gets lower and lower and lower
    0:54:29 to having a digital spouse or partner, then the effort that’s required for human relationships just
    0:54:34 feels extra hard. And like, that is the thing that I’m worried about, because if you don’t have the
    0:54:38 motivation, if you’re just watching Twitch and watch other people live their lives and like,
    0:54:43 are people just going to slowly die off because we’re not actually dating and mating?
    0:54:45 Yeah, that’s so that’s your prediction.
    0:54:50 I think that’s just one of them. I think other things are that women are going to have to change
    0:54:54 their expectations and men are going to have to raise the bar on themselves. So women right now
    0:55:01 are saying, I’m going to earn as much or more than you. I also have to do a lot of the labor around
    0:55:07 having a kid, raising a kid. I have this double burden of domestic and work. And so no longer is a
    0:55:12 guy being a provider enough. And that’s what it was for a long time. So you now need to be emotionally
    0:55:18 intelligent. So emotional intelligence is the new currency in dating. But guys were not raised to do
    0:55:22 that. They were not told how to be emotionally intelligent. They were basically told from a young
    0:55:27 age, be successful, be a provider, make money. And now the game has changed. And they’re caught
    0:55:32 without those skills. Plus, we have the other side of it is that when they are vulnerable, women are
    0:55:38 like, Oh no, you seem weak. I’m turned off by that. So I think that the genders are overlapping
    0:55:41 more where women have to be more masculine in the workplace. Men have to be more feminine in
    0:55:47 relationships. And some of that blurring is making dating worse and it’s making relationships more
    0:55:54 confusing. And I think that the dating hasn’t caught up with the data that people just do not
    0:55:59 know how to act in this modern world. And we need, I don’t know the answer, but we need to figure out
    0:56:02 some changes to it so that people actually still want to be in partnership.
    0:56:09 New York City founders. If you’ve listened to my first million before, you know, I’ve got this
    0:56:14 company called Hampton and Hampton is a community for founders and CEOs. A lot of the stories and ideas
    0:56:19 that I get for this podcast, I actually got it from people who I met in Hampton. We have this big
    0:56:24 community of a thousand plus people and it’s amazing. But the main part is this eight person core group
    0:56:28 that becomes your board of advisors for your life and for your business. And it’s life changing.
    0:56:35 Now, to the folks in New York City, I’m building a in real life core group in New York City. And so if
    0:56:40 you meet one of the following criteria, your business either does 3 million in revenue, or you’ve raised
    0:56:45 3 million in funding, or you’ve started and sold a company for at least $10 million, then you are
    0:56:51 eligible to apply. So go to joinhampton.com and apply. I’m going to be reviewing all of the applications
    0:56:56 myself. So put that you heard about this on MFM. So I know to give you a little extra love. Now back to
    0:57:03 the show. I am so thankful that I don’t have to deal with this bullshit. Oh my God. Bring me back
    0:57:08 60s where I worked with asbestos and I had a high, you know, my average life fan was 66 years old and I
    0:57:14 smoked a pack of cigs a day because this sounds really hard. You remember when there was that like
    0:57:20 huge tsunami in like Southeast Asia? I don’t know if you know this, Sam, I was there the day before it
    0:57:24 hit and we happened to leave. And then the next day we turned on the TV and our hotel was floating in the
    0:57:29 ocean. I feel a little bit like that. I’m like, wow, we got out of there. I’m really glad I got out of
    0:57:33 there because all these shifts are sort of headwinds. None of the, none of the things you
    0:57:38 described as a tailwind that’s making it easier. Um, but you know, easy might not, might not be the,
    0:57:43 the only criteria here because the way you’re describing dating is that dating is a skill and,
    0:57:47 um, it’s, it’s an endeavor just like any of your other endeavors. It’s going to take some effort.
    0:57:51 It’s going to take some rejection. It’s going to take some resilience and it’s going to take you
    0:57:54 leveling up your skill if you want to be successful at it. Right. Just like in business,
    0:58:00 you can’t just go into business and be like, cool. I’ll face no, no, no obstacles, no rejections. I
    0:58:05 will not get knocked down. And my skills from day one are good enough for me to win. Like that’s just
    0:58:10 not how it goes. So if I wanted to level up my skills and it sounds like you’ve, you’ve mentioned
    0:58:14 a couple of them. You’ve talked about like emotional intelligence. You talked about conversationalists,
    0:58:19 like how to have, how to be interesting, interested, how to ask questions properly. Like if I just
    0:58:22 committed after listening to this and I was like, all right, I’m going to go level up in those. Is
    0:58:26 there like a killer book that you would recommend or like a way to actually develop that skill?
    0:58:30 Like what, what would be the fast track way to develop some of these skills besides the obvious,
    0:58:35 which is get practice. Yeah. So we talked about the idea of effort and that effort goes a long way
    0:58:42 and remember things, follow up with things. Women really love that. Develop your relational skills. So
    0:58:47 one thing that I’m really passionate about is men’s groups. And I’m very curious to hear what you
    0:58:51 both think about this. And as I was preparing for this episode, I was like, Oh, I kind of feel like
    0:58:57 maybe they’ll feel like it’s cringy, but I just feel like men’s groups are so powerful. So a year ago,
    0:59:02 my husband joined one, our good friend, David Clavin started it and it’s about six men. They meet once
    0:59:07 a month, they go around and they each silently write down on supposed to notes, what’s top of mind for
    0:59:12 them. Then they go around and whoever has kind of the things that are most present for them and really
    0:59:17 wants to take up space. They let those people talk, they give them feedback. And it’s really a
    0:59:23 great place for men to be angry, for men to be sad, for men to create this council of peers. And then
    0:59:28 they hold each other accountable. And I’ve seen so much growth in my husband, so much growth in the other
    0:59:34 guys in this group. And I think it’s better than therapy because most therapists are female. So having
    0:59:39 your wife or having your female therapist tell you what to do, I think that’s fine. But having a council of
    0:59:44 peers who can really relate to you and create a safe space for you to be angry and sad, I think that
    0:59:49 that’s creating a lot more growth. And I really hope that at least one person listening to this
    0:59:54 decides to create a men’s group. And it’s not that complicated. Find a few guys who you respect,
    0:59:58 commit to meeting once a month, create a space where they feel safe to discuss what’s challenging for
    1:00:04 them, and then just support each other in achieving those goals. Yeah, that’s great. Have you ever done
    1:00:08 one, Sam, not like business related? Like, have you ever done one that’s like an actual men’s group?
    1:00:13 I’ve done a few. Yeah, look, like the one that you and I did, or you led it, that was basically this.
    1:00:18 Because we were all early in our relationships at the time. And like, we were asking each other
    1:00:24 questions. But yeah, I have. And I like to make fun of it. But the reality is, it’s super useful and
    1:00:27 awesome. And like making fun of it, like normalizes it and like makes it cool.
    1:00:32 Yeah, yeah, I’ve done it. I’ve done. I’ve done it a few times. And it’s, it’s actually like the way
    1:00:38 you described it just now is kind of perfect. Like it’s much, much better. I haven’t done therapy.
    1:00:44 I’ve done coaching, but like, you know, we can tell. Yeah, I could, I could imagine how someone who
    1:00:50 needs that sort of thing would feel. But you know, in therapy, it’s an intense focus on self. I think
    1:00:55 one of the best things about these men’s groups is actually, it’s not about you. And because it’s a group,
    1:01:00 you get a lot out of it, even when you weren’t the one talking, you weren’t the one sharing,
    1:01:04 because like, there’s so much that’s either related, or just taking the focus off your own
    1:01:07 problems and helping somebody out with their problems, all of a sudden, you feel lighter.
    1:01:10 And you’re like, I don’t even, I didn’t even do anything. I didn’t even change my own situation,
    1:01:16 but I feel better. And so I think that’s a great, a great idea. Okay, so men’s groups is one way to
    1:01:21 get better. One more thing about that is that I don’t think there’s that many places for men to talk
    1:01:25 about shame. And I think in general, shame is just a very challenging feeling. And I heard this story
    1:01:26 example of a shame thing.
    1:01:29 This was a story and someone in different men’s group told me where it was like,
    1:01:35 they had been fired from their job like eight years ago, and they still carried this deep shame. I’m
    1:01:40 not good enough. I’m useless. I was fired because I’m a bad employee. And their men’s group happens to
    1:01:45 have this guy’s 40 people in this men’s group are 55. And when he shared that story as this deep trauma
    1:01:50 of his life, he heard from a bunch of other guys, Oh, yeah, that happened to me. That’s going to be a
    1:01:54 footnote in your life. I just thought it was such a beautiful story, because it took this thing that he
    1:01:59 felt deeply shameful about. I can’t provide for my family. I’m a problem, even those years ago,
    1:02:04 and he has a perfectly good job now. And having these older guys say to him, that happens to everyone,
    1:02:09 it doesn’t matter, kind of helped him just move on. And so I think it’s a thing where you can talk about
    1:02:14 the stuff that you sort of only admit to yourself, or maybe don’t even admit to yourself. And once you
    1:02:19 get it out there, it kind of goes away versus holding it in. And I think most men are just holding
    1:02:24 everything in. Is there anything someone can go read or watch or listen to right now?
    1:02:28 Is there anything easier you could do besides like being vulnerable and sharing and meeting
    1:02:35 people? You need like a gateway drug, you know, like starting a men’s group is not exactly the
    1:02:39 gateway drug, you know, for like people of our generation, Sean and I probably both the same
    1:02:44 thing. We read the book, The Game, which like has so many flaws in it. But the one thing that it did do
    1:02:48 was it encouraged me to go and talk to women. And that was like my gateway drug where I’m like,
    1:02:51 oh my gosh, people will respond to me if I act nice and interested.
    1:02:56 Sure. Yeah. So Alain de Botton, however you say his name, he has really good information out there.
    1:03:01 He has an episode of Diary of a CEO. He’s basically this British guy, philosopher who just has studied a
    1:03:02 lot of this stuff. School of life, right?
    1:03:06 Yeah. School of life guy. He’s amazing. I interviewed for him for my book. He’s really awesome.
    1:03:11 Esther Perel is one of the goats here and her book, Meeting in Captivity, has changed a lot of
    1:03:17 people’s lives. Really the godmother, godfather of relationship science, the scientific study of all this
    1:03:23 stuff are John and Julie Gottman. And they really set the bar for all of this information. And so
    1:03:29 much of the research that I and other people quote is really from them. And they are really the people
    1:03:34 who created this love lab. They actually tested out a lot of this stuff and they really defined a lot of
    1:03:42 this. Obviously, people can read my book, How to Not Die Alone. And I also have 12 coaches who work
    1:03:47 for me who a lot of them specialize working specifically with men. And Sam, going back to what you
    1:03:53 said earlier, it’s actually pretty easy for a lot of them to coach men because they are not doing some
    1:03:57 of the basic things. And when they get these guys just doing the basic things that make a difference,
    1:03:59 they start seeing success so quickly.
    1:04:03 I’m actually reading one of John Gottman’s books now. I think he’s the man.
    1:04:05 Which one?
    1:04:08 Seven things, seven principles to make a marriage work.
    1:04:08 I think that like-
    1:04:10 Yeah, yeah. That’s like the classic amazing one.
    1:04:13 To me, like reading some of these books, like I’ll tell people I’m reading them. I’m like,
    1:04:16 oh, do you have a problem with your marriage? I’m like, no, it’s pretty great. It’s just that
    1:04:19 like you don’t want to wait until you’re sick to start exercising.
    1:04:24 Like it’s kind of like good to like to do maintenance or like to do couples therapy if you’re
    1:04:28 like, oh, you guys are on the fritz. It’s like, no, it’s like I’m pretty fit and I still go
    1:04:32 to the gym all the time. You want to like maintain and keep things nice. Otherwise, when they do get
    1:04:34 bad, you’re like, oh, shoot.
    1:04:41 I think one of the big edges in life right now is people think that if you, let’s say you do therapy
    1:04:46 or you’re doing any kind of like mental health, it’s like, it’s literally the word mental health is,
    1:04:50 you know, basically implies some sort of sickness, right? Like why would you do that? Is something
    1:04:55 wrong? Is something broken? And it hasn’t shifted yet to something more like mental fitness
    1:04:59 where, you know, people who go to CrossFit, you don’t accuse, you know, you don’t look at them
    1:05:03 and be like, oh, it’s because you’re diseased and sick, right? It’s like, no, no, no. These people
    1:05:07 just, they actually care about maximizing where they’re, what they can do physically. And so
    1:05:13 similarly, I think in terms of your mindset, being as clear as you could be, being as positive
    1:05:16 as you could be, being as having a positive outlook on your own life and actually taking
    1:05:19 the time to do that is really important. And same thing with relationships. There’s an assumption
    1:05:23 that if you’re working on a relationship, it’s because it’s hurting or broken. I think that’s
    1:05:27 just like insane. There’s like a relationship fitness that that’s very different than, you know,
    1:05:31 just relationship health as in you’re, you’re sort of nursing back from some problem.
    1:05:36 Sean, I’ll add on to that and say, I actually think we’re halfway there in terms of the shift.
    1:05:40 So the language that we used to use would be mental illness. Now we say mental health.
    1:05:45 Right. And then I think going towards what you said, mental fitness makes so much sense.
    1:05:48 Yeah. It’s a lot better than say you’re just, you’re just, you’re off your rocket.
    1:05:52 Right. But my friend, Emily had a book that just came out about being emotionally fit. And it’s
    1:05:56 basically like, yeah, how can you go to the gym for your fitness? And it’s not like, oh,
    1:06:00 I worked out arms yesterday. I’m good for life. It’s like, you have to constantly work at it. And
    1:06:06 that’s actually the crux of what the Gottman say. And my favorite takeaway from their many years of
    1:06:14 research is this idea that relationships are not about the honeymoon or the trip to Hawaii. They’re
    1:06:19 about the daily life interactions. And so they talk about this concept of a bid. So a bid could be
    1:06:24 something really small. It could be that Sam walks into the room where Sarah’s on her laptop and she
    1:06:31 sighs. And that’s a bid from Sarah for Sam to say, oh no, what’s going on? And Sam can do one of three
    1:06:37 things. He can turn towards her and say, what’s happening. He can turn away from her or ignore it.
    1:06:41 Or he can turn against her and be like, why are you making so much sound? You know, I’m on an important
    1:06:47 phone call. And so life is really about these interactions. And so successful couples that have happy,
    1:06:55 long marriages, they turned towards each other 86% of the time. And the couples that break up or are
    1:07:01 the relationship disasters, they only turn towards each other 33% of the time. So it’s really about in
    1:07:06 these small moments, how you turn towards your partner. We should actually, Sean, do an episode
    1:07:13 on this John Gottman guy. He’s kind of crazy. Like he’s elderly now, but he has done this for probably
    1:07:18 50 years and he’s been doing it. Well, yeah, but you know, he’s been doing it forever, but there’s
    1:07:25 some crazy stats where like he, uh, he could predict within 90 or, uh, he could do it 90% of the time.
    1:07:28 He could predict if you’re going to get divorced or not. I think within like three minutes or something.
    1:07:33 Yeah. Something like insane. You know, he was like the, you should, uh, go look it up. He’s got this
    1:07:37 thing called love lab and he would have couples come in and essentially argue or fight and he would
    1:07:43 observe them and they would mark on a score sheet. Like every, like every second there’s an inner,
    1:07:47 like some, some mark of like what the interaction was doing. And they had this like sort of scoring
    1:07:53 system and basically they could score a couple’s interactions and just a couple of minutes and
    1:07:58 predict with a 90% accuracy, like what the, whether that couple’s going to sort of stay together or end
    1:08:02 up, uh, you know, breaking apart, which is, which is kind of amazing when you think about it. And, uh,
    1:08:08 it really shows you like life is in the micro. It’s not the, it’s not the macro. Like we think,
    1:08:11 I think you were talking about this with dating, right? Like, oh, I have a type and I have this
    1:08:15 idea of how we’re going to meet. I have a soulmate. I have the one. And it’s like all these like macro
    1:08:21 language when like a huge amount of life is just in the micro. It’s like, oh yeah, she, you know,
    1:08:26 she said she was training for, um, you know, an iron man or something like that. And then I just said,
    1:08:32 oh, me too. I did want, and this, instead of like asking her about it, I pulled the conversation to me
    1:08:36 instead of like leaning into what she was saying. And that is like the micro is the difference between
    1:08:40 a great date and an okay date. And then, and then how you think about it afterwards, right? Like
    1:08:44 each one of those is just like a bunch of micro decisions that lead to your actual result.
    1:08:49 Sean, this is, I feel like your superpower. I feel like you’re kind of like what I say,
    1:08:53 like 10 minutes worth of stuff. And then you just summarize the stuff that’s worth the takeaway.
    1:08:58 It’s kind of like your chachy BG just being like, here’s what she really meant. So I really
    1:09:01 appreciate that. And there’s a good term for what you’re talking about,
    1:09:06 which is a shift versus support response. I think a lot of people, especially men get this wrong.
    1:09:11 So let’s say a woman says, oh, I’m going to Lake Tahoe this summer. The guy’s like, cool. I’m going
    1:09:16 to seem interested and add onto that by saying, I went to Lake Tahoe last summer. That’s actually
    1:09:21 shifting the energy back towards yourself. What women and people in general like is when you help them
    1:09:25 go deeper and you say, how did you choose Lake Tahoe? Have you ever been there before? What are you most
    1:09:31 looking forward to? Have you ever traveled with your family before? Support responses help that
    1:09:35 person go deeper. And so you might think that they’re equal, but people actually appreciate the
    1:09:40 support responses more because it shows curiosity about the other person and it makes them feel
    1:09:41 interesting.
    1:09:47 Yeah. By the way, Logan, what’s your deal? So you got a Netflix show. You wrote a book. It’s
    1:09:52 great. You’re doing stuff at Hinge. You’re on this podcast. Like you’re kind of a superstar in the
    1:09:56 making here. What’s, or maybe you’re already are and I’m late to the party, but like, what’s your,
    1:09:59 what’s your deal? Are you trying to be like the love guru? What’s, what are you trying to do?
    1:10:06 I mean, I feel pretty happy right now. It’s like, I made a vision board about seven years ago. So I
    1:10:11 was, how I met Sam’s wife is that we worked together at Airbnb. We didn’t even overlap that long. And I
    1:10:15 was just like, I really have this passion for dating relationships. Everything’s telling me that there’s
    1:10:20 an opportunity here. People are lost and I can help them. And so I quit my job, not knowing what I would
    1:10:26 do. And I sort of just from scratch created this career. And it’s taken the form of a newsletter,
    1:10:33 a book, the job at Hinge, the Netflix show. I am hopefully going to have my own podcast this year.
    1:10:38 And so I’m just kind of like, how can I keep learning and how can I keep helping people find
    1:10:43 love? But I don’t feel like there’s like a next level that I need to get to. I kind of just want
    1:10:49 to enjoy where I am right now. And what’s your, uh, do you feel a lot of pressure? Cause let’s say
    1:10:56 you’re a relationship coach. The, the stupid, like kind of layman version of me is just like,
    1:11:00 so do they have it all figured out? Like, and I know that’s never the case, but like,
    1:11:03 I think there is like this weird expectation that people have, especially the further you
    1:11:08 are away from doing the work yourself, that if you’re talking about this, that means you
    1:11:12 need to be like fully self-actualized in some way. And so do you, do you feel pressure in
    1:11:16 that? And like, I guess like, I guess like what’s your, I don’t know, when did you, when
    1:11:18 did you get married? How did that go for you? I’m just curious.
    1:11:22 Sure. Yeah. So I will quote one of my mentors here. So Eli Finkel is one of the best
    1:11:27 relationship scientists in the country and he’s at Northwestern. And the dedication in
    1:11:31 his book is to my wife, Alison, who thinks it’s hilarious that I’m a marriage expert.
    1:11:37 And so I kind of, I kind of feel the same way, but what I will say is basically the thing that
    1:11:41 fascinates me the most, the thing that I feel like I always want to work on is the decision-making
    1:11:45 process of who do you marry? So I actually feel like I’m more of a dating expert than a marriage
    1:11:48 expert. So sometimes when people ask me about sex, I’m like, I don’t know shit about sex.
    1:11:53 I’m not a sex expert. What I’m actually really good at is who you should be with and
    1:11:57 why. And so I don’t feel as much pressure as someone who’s putting out there a book about
    1:12:02 marriage. But I would say like, of course I have my own issues. And of course there’s
    1:12:06 moments where I’m like, oh, my husband’s pretty introverted. My life would be easier if he wanted
    1:12:10 to go to this party with me. And then I just remind myself, like, here’s all the things that
    1:12:14 are great about him. And I also say to myself, here’s all the annoying things that are annoying
    1:12:19 about me. And by kind of like nagging myself, it also helps me be more understanding of my
    1:12:24 husband. One last thing I’ll say about that is that I think having a kid has changed our
    1:12:30 relationship so much more, so much for the positive, because in the past, if he did something that
    1:12:35 annoyed me, I might either say something about it or bubble it up and then it explodes later.
    1:12:41 But because I see what a great dad he is, my tank is so full with love for him that I can
    1:12:44 just let most things go. And that has been a really good development.
    1:12:48 Sean, her husband’s hilarious. And if I say anything that is too much, we can take this
    1:12:55 out. But basically, he he’s a vegan, like hardcore vegan, but he’s shredded. And you’re like, why
    1:12:58 do you? And he’ll tell you he’s going for the hungry wolf or hungry lion.
    1:13:04 Hungry warrior. So he like looks hungry, but he’s like trying to get after it in life. He’s
    1:13:09 shredded. And he he he’s an engineer. He works at a big AI company where he’s like brilliant.
    1:13:15 And also he lost his leg recently because of cancer a couple years ago. But he like laughs
    1:13:20 about it. And he’s just like a very principled, very interesting, almost strange guy in the best
    1:13:24 way. Like he doesn’t have any social media, everything about him. You’re like, that’s
    1:13:28 strange. And then you start hearing his reasoning and you’re like, oh, you’re you’re you live the
    1:13:33 right way. I’m the flawed one. It’s like it’s a very funny. He’s a very funny guy.
    1:13:38 Yeah, I think that’s a beautiful testament to my husband. And I think that I’m drawn to very
    1:13:43 extreme people. I think that’s one of the reasons why I love Sam. I love my first million. I think
    1:13:48 it kind of goes back to this thing of like, you can create the life that you want. You can create
    1:13:52 your own rules. You can live that way. And I’ve never met anyone more than my husband who doesn’t
    1:13:57 care what other people think. And so it is hard to be this hardcore vegan. We went to this wedding
    1:14:01 and there was basically no food for him to eat. Well, guess what? He brings packets of
    1:14:05 Justin’s peanut butter and he chugs it in the bathroom and he pregames with sweet greens. Like
    1:14:11 he just basically adapts. And I think he’s very extreme. Like, yeah, he’s super healthy. He works
    1:14:15 out every day. He meditates every day. He lost his leg to cancer. But a few weeks from now,
    1:14:21 he’s going to be climbing in the Paraclimbing World Cup Championship. And so he’s just an extreme
    1:14:25 guy who’s very disciplined and has been very successful. Oh, and he’s really funny.
    1:14:34 Amazing. Logan, this was great. To all you singles out there, you’re welcome. You’re welcome for the
    1:14:39 advice. You’re welcome for the tips. Go take some photos, get some good lighting. By the way,
    1:14:42 what’s a good first date spot? So somebody goes, somebody wants to do a first date with somebody
    1:14:46 they meet on an app. Should they be doing coffee, dinner? What’s the move?
    1:14:50 Dinner’s too intense. I think coffee feels too much like a job interview.
    1:14:55 What if you go get an interesting, maybe non-alcoholic drink somewhere and go for a walk?
    1:14:59 I think people have really great conversations when they don’t have to make this direct eye contact.
    1:15:06 Or just go do something fun. Go play pickleball and kind of shake out your sillies and take yourself a
    1:15:10 little less seriously. All right. Thank you so much. Logan, great to have you.
    1:15:12 Thanks a lot. See you. Thank you.
    1:15:34 Hey, everyone. A quick break. My favorite podcast guest on My First Million is Dharmesh. Dharmesh
    1:15:39 founded HubSpot. He’s a billionaire. He’s one of my favorite entrepreneurs on earth. And on one of our
    1:15:44 podcasts recently, he said the most valuable skill that anyone could have when it comes to making money
    1:15:50 business is copywriting. And when I say copywriting, what I mean is writing words that get people to
    1:15:54 take action. And I agree, by the way, I learned how to be a copywriter in my 20s. It completely
    1:15:58 changed my life. I ended up starting and selling a company for tens of millions of dollars. And
    1:16:03 copywriting was the skill that made all of that happen. And the way that I learned how to copyright
    1:16:09 is by using a technique called copywork, which is basically taking the best sales letters and I would
    1:16:14 write it word for word and I would make notes as to why each phrase was impactful and effective.
    1:16:18 And a lot of people have been asking me about copywork. So I decided to make a whole program
    1:16:23 for it. It’s called Copy That. CopyThat.com. It’s only like 120 bucks. And it’s a simple, fast,
    1:16:28 easy way to improve your copywriting. And so if you’re interested, you need to check it out.
    1:16:31 It’s called Copy That. You can check it out at CopyThat.com.

    Episode 709: Sam Parr ( https://x.com/theSamParr ) and Shaan Puri ( https://x.com/ShaanVP ) talk to Logan Ury ( https://x.com/loganury ) about how young men can be more successful in dating. 

    Show Notes:

    (0:00) Intro

    (6:28) The secretary problem

    (14:43) What’s happening with men right now

    (21:07) How to do the apps right

    (27:32) Meeting someone IRL

    (30:03) The power of weak ties

    (36:56) How to be a better date

    (40:37) Date like a scientist

    (45:44) Fuck the spark

    (49:02) What’s your tendency

    (51:00) AI partners

    (57:15) Pro tip: join a mens group

    (1:03:23) Mental Health vs Mental Fitness

    Links:

    • Logan Ury – https://www.loganury.com/ 

    • The School of Life – https://www.youtube.com/@theschooloflifetv

    • Mating in Captivity – https://tinyurl.com/bddrnw9c 

    • How to Not Die Alone – https://tinyurl.com/mupe2ntc 

    • Seven Principles for Making a Marriage Work – https://tinyurl.com/jvz9hhu6 

    Check Out Shaan’s Stuff:

    • Shaan’s weekly email – https://www.shaanpuri.com 

    • Visit https://www.somewhere.com/mfm to hire worldwide talent like Shaan and get $500 off for being an MFM listener. Hire developers, assistants, marketing pros, sales teams and more for 80% less than US equivalents.

    • Mercury – Need a bank for your company? Go check out Mercury (mercury.com). Shaan uses it for all of his companies!

    Mercury is a financial technology company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column, N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust, Members FDIC

    Check Out Sam’s Stuff:

    • Hampton – https://www.joinhampton.com/

    • Ideation Bootcamp – https://www.ideationbootcamp.co/

    • Copy That – https://copythat.com

    • Hampton Wealth Survey – https://joinhampton.com/wealth

    • Sam’s List – http://samslist.co/

    My First Million is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by HubSpot Media // Production by Arie Desormeaux // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano

  • Jeff Wetzler: The ASK Approach to Better Questions

    AI transcript
    0:00:04 In my years of entrepreneurship, I’ve seen countless startups.
    0:00:06 And here’s the truth.
    0:00:12 Smart spending drives growth, which is something Brex has championed.
    0:00:14 Brex isn’t just a corporate credit card.
    0:00:19 It’s a strategic tool to help your company achieve peak performance.
    0:00:22 Corporate cards, banking, expense management,
    0:00:30 all integrated on an AI-powered platform that turns every dollar into opportunity.
    0:00:35 In fact, 30,000 companies are trusting Brex to help them win.
    0:00:39 Go to brex.com slash grow to learn more.
    0:00:43 It turns out that people are not reliable readers of body language.
    0:00:48 Even trained TSA agents in the airport are barely better than chance,
    0:00:51 which doesn’t give you a lot of confidence flying, but it’s true.
    0:00:56 Another piece of common advice we get is try to put yourself in their shoes,
    0:00:57 but that doesn’t work either.
    0:01:02 Literally, the research shows there’s only one way that reliably allows mere mortals
    0:01:05 to find out what other people think and feel a no.
    0:01:08 Of course, that’s to ask them, but it’s so much easier said than done.
    0:01:16 Maybe we shouldn’t do this because I may disappoint you in real life.
    0:01:20 I have a feeling you’re going to surpass the bar.
    0:01:25 Oh, he writes a pretty good book, but man, he sucks at asking questions.
    0:01:27 You’re a professional question asker.
    0:01:34 Yeah, I’m not exactly a lucrative question asker.
    0:01:40 This is Guy Kawasaki, and this is another episode of the Remarkable People Podcast.
    0:01:42 We’re on a mission to make you remarkable.
    0:01:48 And after reading the next guest book, I figured out that if you can ask good questions,
    0:01:52 it’s a very important skill for being remarkable.
    0:01:55 So the guest is Jeff Wetzler.
    0:02:02 Now, he’s really a visionary leader in learning, really, and asking questions.
    0:02:08 And he has written a book called Ask, which I love one word titles, right?
    0:02:10 It’s like, what’s the book about?
    0:02:11 Duh, it’s Ask.
    0:02:16 He has spent decades, although he doesn’t look that old, helping organizations.
    0:02:23 He even had a stint at Teach for America, which I think is just a great idea that kids after
    0:02:28 they graduate serve one or two years teaching other younger students.
    0:02:35 So I want you to get ready to rethink about how you listen and you ask and you lead and work
    0:02:36 with those around you.
    0:02:39 So welcome to the Remarkable People Podcast, Jeff.
    0:02:40 Thank you, Guy.
    0:02:41 It’s so great to be with you.
    0:02:44 So let’s start with a very easy question.
    0:02:53 And the easy question is, do you believe in the concept of this great white male purple cow,
    0:03:01 black swan visionary who can intuit what people need or think what they need before they even
    0:03:02 know it?
    0:03:07 Which is to say that are there some people in the world, maybe people like Steve Jobs
    0:03:11 or Elon Musk, who don’t need to ask questions because they’re so gifted?
    0:03:19 I do believe that there are people who can take in signals and process those signals in very
    0:03:22 interesting, insightful kinds of ways.
    0:03:27 And, you know, across the spectrum, I think Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, other people have a lot
    0:03:28 of talent at doing that.
    0:03:30 Even they don’t always get it right.
    0:03:33 And I think the rest of us are mere mortals.
    0:03:39 And for us mere mortals, trying to guess, trying to go on our intuition, the research shows is
    0:03:41 quite often pretty unreliable.
    0:03:43 We end up with the wrong conclusion.
    0:03:48 And sometimes we end up with the wrong conclusion, even or especially in relation to guessing what
    0:03:53 the people who are closest to us in our lives actually know and think and feel, whether our
    0:03:55 longtime spouse or our business partner or our colleague.
    0:03:58 We get overconfident because we think, I’ve known them for years.
    0:04:00 Of course, I know what they think, but we don’t get it right.
    0:04:03 And why don’t we get it right?
    0:04:09 Because you would think with that amount of exposure and the duration of exposure, we should
    0:04:10 be able to get it right.
    0:04:15 I mean, I think at the simplest level, we don’t get it right because we’re not them.
    0:04:16 We’re us.
    0:04:17 We see the world through our lens.
    0:04:19 They have their own experience.
    0:04:20 They are not a static person.
    0:04:22 They’re changing all the time.
    0:04:27 There’s really interesting research that shows that even the best advice that we often get
    0:04:30 for how to do this doesn’t work.
    0:04:34 So, for instance, one piece of advice we often get is try to read their body language.
    0:04:39 If you can just read their body language, it turns out that people are not reliable readers
    0:04:40 of body language.
    0:04:45 Even trained TSA agents in the airport are barely better than chance, which doesn’t give
    0:04:47 you a lot of confidence flying, but it’s true.
    0:04:53 Another piece of common advice we get is try to put yourself in their shoes, but that doesn’t
    0:04:54 work either.
    0:04:59 Literally, the research shows there’s only one way that reliably allows mere mortals to
    0:05:01 find out what other people think and feel a no.
    0:05:04 Of course, that’s to ask them, but it’s so much easier said than done.
    0:05:12 Wait, but Jeff, you just blew a hole into a lot of business writing about you have to develop
    0:05:13 your skills of empathy.
    0:05:15 Are you saying empathy is overrated?
    0:05:21 Well, I’m not at all saying empathy is overrated, but I am saying that untested assumptions about
    0:05:23 what’s going on for people can be dangerous for us.
    0:05:28 So the idea of trying to imagine what they might go through, I think is super valuable.
    0:05:30 If we say to ourselves, I’m imagining it.
    0:05:32 And then what I’m imagining, I’m 100% sure is right.
    0:05:33 That’s what’s dangerous.
    0:05:37 We can imagine it to the point where we can actually have a conversation and ask them to
    0:05:40 tell us more about what you’re going through and what’s that like.
    0:05:41 And then we can, of course, connect emotionally.
    0:05:45 I think that is the kind of empathy that is deep and powerful and valid.
    0:05:49 But if it’s just, I’m guessing what you’re going through, I feel empathy for you.
    0:05:50 It’s risky.
    0:05:56 Is there a continuum where you have superficial empathy, where you’re guessing the next level
    0:06:02 would be you actually watch people as they drive their minivan or as they open up a bottle
    0:06:05 of pills and they can’t figure out how to open the bottle.
    0:06:10 And then the third level is where you actually are the customer.
    0:06:12 You are actually in the minivan.
    0:06:14 You’re actually open the bottle.
    0:06:16 So is that a spectrum that we can travel?
    0:06:18 I love that spectrum.
    0:06:23 And I think what I take from that is that the more information you have, the better your
    0:06:24 empathy is going to be.
    0:06:26 If you’re the actual user, you got all the information.
    0:06:28 If you’re watching the user, you got some of the information.
    0:06:31 If you’re sitting at a distance, you have less information.
    0:06:35 And so the more you can get to actually getting the information that’s right, the more accurately
    0:06:38 you’re going to actually have a chance of knowing what’s going on for the other person.
    0:06:40 So I might borrow that little framework.
    0:06:43 Feel free to rip me off.
    0:06:43 I’ll be flattered.
    0:06:44 I will credit you.
    0:06:51 But let me in a rare moment of openness and transparency, I came across this concept from
    0:06:53 a friend named Martin Lindstrom.
    0:06:55 He wrote the book Biology, B-U-Y.
    0:07:01 And he tells this story that he was retained by a pharmaceutical company because they wanted
    0:07:07 to get closer to the customer, which that’s like a signal to McKenzie to charge them $5 million.
    0:07:12 But anyway, so he had all the executives come in a room and they said, you know, we’re going
    0:07:14 to get closer to our customers.
    0:07:18 So he made them breathe through straws for a few minutes.
    0:07:21 And at the end, he said, your customers have asthma.
    0:07:24 That’s what it’s like to have asthma.
    0:07:28 And I thought that was such a brilliant story.
    0:07:29 Now I use that in my speeches.
    0:07:32 I pass out straws in my speeches.
    0:07:34 I think I read that story in your book as well.
    0:07:38 And I literally took a straw and I tried it myself because I wanted to know.
    0:07:41 I thought it was so brilliant and it’s really hard to breathe.
    0:07:43 And so I love that example.
    0:07:46 So now there’s going to be a run on straws.
    0:07:46 That’s right.
    0:07:47 That’s right.
    0:07:53 So why is it that people don’t ask better questions?
    0:07:58 I think most of us just assume we know how to ask questions.
    0:08:00 You know, we’re born, we learn how to talk.
    0:08:06 Most of us for a living, you know, talk, we make statements, we ask questions, we think
    0:08:06 we know it.
    0:08:09 So why would we even try to get better at it?
    0:08:10 I think that’s a piece of it.
    0:08:16 And I think the other piece of it is we often operate without the level of curiosity that we
    0:08:16 would truly need.
    0:08:20 We walk into situations, we size them up in split seconds.
    0:08:23 We don’t even realize that we’re sizing the situation up.
    0:08:25 We just think that’s reality of the way it is.
    0:08:28 And so if I think I know what’s going on here, I know what your motive is.
    0:08:29 I know what the right answer is.
    0:08:31 I know what I’m trying to do here.
    0:08:32 Why even bother asking a question?
    0:08:35 It would be illogical to even ask a question if I’m certain.
    0:08:40 And so we’ve got to figure out how to actually get ourselves more curious to open up the space
    0:08:41 for more questions.
    0:08:47 But couldn’t you make a case that it’s part of evolution that we had to make split second
    0:08:47 questions?
    0:08:48 A hundred percent.
    0:08:48 Right?
    0:08:53 If the saber tooth is chasing you, you don’t ask, are you trying to kill me or not?
    0:08:54 I mean, you get up.
    0:08:58 Even today, let’s say that you’re in a room and you’re starting to smell smoke.
    0:09:01 You don’t think to yourself, I wonder if someone’s cooking.
    0:09:04 I wonder if, you know, you just get the hell out of there or you put out the fire.
    0:09:11 And so this mechanism of walking into a situation that has a lot going on, zeroing in on what’s
    0:09:15 the one thing, quickly making meaning of it, quickly drawing a conclusion, quickly saying
    0:09:21 what’s the action I need to take is a very adaptive thing for high urgency, emergency kinds of situations.
    0:09:23 I’m sure that’s why it evolved in that way.
    0:09:27 The problem is that much of the time we’re in complex situations.
    0:09:29 We’re in fast moving situations.
    0:09:32 We’re in ambiguous situations where the first thing that we jump to may not be the right
    0:09:35 thing, where somebody else might see something different.
    0:09:39 And if we still operate in that same, you know, there’s the tiger mode, that’s when
    0:09:40 we get ourselves into trouble.
    0:09:43 So how can people learn to be curious then?
    0:09:44 Okay.
    0:09:48 So this is what I’ve been studying and it’s been just a fascinating journey.
    0:09:52 There’s what I would call a few different gateways into curiosity.
    0:09:59 One of the most powerful gateways is to actually slow down our thinking so we can recognize the
    0:10:00 narrative that we’ve just drawn.
    0:10:04 So if I, let’s say that I’m walking into a situation, somebody says, I really don’t think
    0:10:05 we should make that change.
    0:10:11 My saber tooth tiger brain, my lizard brain might say they’re being resistant.
    0:10:15 And the fact that they’re being resistant is because they are trying to thwart me as a leader.
    0:10:18 And the fact that they’re trying to thwart me as a leader means I need to get them off
    0:10:18 the team.
    0:10:23 Just as an example, that process can happen in less than a second outside of my own awareness.
    0:10:26 But if I can begin to realize this is how our brains work.
    0:10:28 I’m starting to construct the story.
    0:10:29 I’m selecting a small bit of data.
    0:10:31 I’m making it mean something quickly.
    0:10:36 I can begin to inject what I call curiosity sparks into that story.
    0:10:38 I can say, all right, what else might be going on here?
    0:10:40 What’s another way to look at the situation?
    0:10:42 What might they be overlooking?
    0:10:46 And that’s essentially a way of loosening the grip that our story has on us.
    0:10:51 Not to say we’re wrong, but to make room for more possibilities going on.
    0:10:58 But I would suspect that 99% of people listening to this would say, yeah, that’s true for most
    0:10:59 people, but not me.
    0:11:01 I am perceptive.
    0:11:02 I really know what to do.
    0:11:06 I would say, if that’s you, then you really need to learn.
    0:11:10 You really need to listen to this because every single one of us is human.
    0:11:12 We all have that evolution behind us.
    0:11:13 We all have to do that.
    0:11:17 And generally, what I tend to say is, if you’re getting all the results you want in your life
    0:11:20 and in your work and in your relationships, maybe you don’t change anything.
    0:11:25 But chances are, every single one of us has areas where we can actually be making better
    0:11:28 decisions, where we can prevent errors, where we can grow fast, where we can deepen relationships.
    0:11:32 And that’s the motivation to say, what can I learn from this other person?
    0:11:34 I will say, it’s not easy to do.
    0:11:36 Sometimes curiosity is a team sport.
    0:11:41 And it can be helpful to say, and I say this to my own business partner a lot, I’m really
    0:11:42 worked up about this person.
    0:11:44 I think this person’s not being a team player.
    0:11:45 I think X, Y, Z.
    0:11:48 And he’ll say to me, maybe take a little of your own curiosity medicine here.
    0:11:50 Let’s slow this down a little bit.
    0:11:53 And so sometimes we’re so in our own story that we don’t see it.
    0:11:57 So using colleagues, friends, mentors who are willing to challenge us a little can be
    0:11:59 a great way to make space for curiosity.
    0:12:05 It also turns out I’ve discovered in writing the book, and increasingly so, that friend can
    0:12:07 be your favorite AI chatbot too.
    0:12:13 You can take your rant about your least favorite politician or your enemy or whatever.
    0:12:16 You just dump it in and you say, how could anyone like this person?
    0:12:19 How could I, you know, and then you just write at the end, what might I be missing?
    0:12:25 And in the privacy of your own desk, your office, your phone, whatever, you get back some very
    0:12:29 interesting considerations, not to say that your story is 100% wrong, but to say, here’s
    0:12:31 some other ways to understand what’s going on.
    0:12:34 And those other ways of looking at it can give you some degrees of freedom to ask new questions,
    0:12:35 to learn more things.
    0:12:36 Okay.
    0:12:40 I’m typing Elon Musk into chat GPT right now.
    0:12:43 And add, what might I be missing?
    0:12:43 What else?
    0:12:45 That was another way to look at this.
    0:13:02 Every business is under pressure to save money.
    0:13:06 But if you want to be a business leader, you need to do more to win.
    0:13:12 You need to create momentum and unlock potential, which is where Brex comes in.
    0:13:15 Brex isn’t just another corporate credit card.
    0:13:17 It’s a modern finance platform.
    0:13:21 That’s like having a financial superhero in your back pocket.
    0:13:28 Think credit cards, banking, expense management, and travel, all integrated into one smart solution.
    0:13:35 More than 30,000 companies use Brex to make every dollar count towards their mission, and
    0:13:36 you can join them.
    0:13:43 Get the modern finance platform that works as hard as you do at brex.com slash grow.
    0:13:49 You built a case about slowing things down, using AI, getting your friends and colleagues
    0:13:51 to push back on you.
    0:13:55 But the next question is, who do we ask questions of?
    0:13:58 Because there’s a lot of people around me.
    0:14:00 How do I pick who to ask?
    0:14:00 Yeah.
    0:14:05 Well, so first of all, I’ll say, a lot of people say to me, it’s great to ask questions, but
    0:14:08 there’s a lot of people that I have no interest in asking questions to.
    0:14:10 I have no need to ask them questions.
    0:14:12 I just completely disagree with what they have to say.
    0:14:18 I think that they’re even dangerous, and my contention is there is something important
    0:14:19 and interesting to learn from every single person.
    0:14:24 If you’re talking to your enemy, someone that you actually think is quite dangerous, the thing
    0:14:27 you need to learn from them is what’s their next move going to be so that you can figure
    0:14:28 out what to do about that move.
    0:14:33 If you’re talking to someone that you deeply disagree with, the thing that you need to do
    0:14:35 is understand where did they get to their views in case you want to influence them.
    0:14:42 And it’s a very well-documented phenomenon in social science that you’re actually more influential
    0:14:46 at influencing someone else if you know where they’re coming from, if you demonstrate curiosity
    0:14:46 to them.
    0:14:51 They even perceive you as more reasonable, more likable, and more influential just by asking
    0:14:52 them questions.
    0:14:56 So even if you don’t care about learning from anything, from anyone, just by asking them
    0:14:58 questions and learning, you’re going to influence them better.
    0:15:03 But chances are there’s going to be something in there that’s also going to be interesting and
    0:15:04 important to you as well.
    0:15:09 So that’s why you can learn something from an Uber driver with a flag that is…
    0:15:11 Exactly.
    0:15:11 Exactly.
    0:15:14 You watch the TED Talk, I take it.
    0:15:16 Or maybe read the epilogue of the book.
    0:15:17 It’s both.
    0:15:17 It’s in both.
    0:15:18 Yeah.
    0:15:23 You think this is the kind of podcast where the producer hands the Wikipedia entry to the
    0:15:25 podcaster and says, OK, have at it, bro.
    0:15:27 You did your homework.
    0:15:28 I did my homework.
    0:15:29 Absolutely.
    0:15:36 So now, as the Japanese say, we have a word for this, as a maven, as a maven in asking
    0:15:38 questions, what do you think of polling?
    0:15:40 Because talk about asking.
    0:15:41 Polling is asking.
    0:15:44 I would say that anything is better than not asking.
    0:15:49 And so if you’re doing a survey, if you’re doing polling, that’s good.
    0:15:50 That’s better than the alternative.
    0:15:53 But it’s only going to get you the surface level.
    0:15:55 It’s going to get you, I like this person.
    0:15:56 I don’t like this person.
    0:15:58 I would buy this product again.
    0:15:59 I wouldn’t buy this product again.
    0:16:00 That’s really good to know.
    0:16:01 You could start to do that.
    0:16:05 But I would say to me, the poll is just the door that you have to open.
    0:16:06 And then you have to walk through the door.
    0:16:10 And walking through the door then requires, I think, a level of dialogue of like, how come?
    0:16:12 Tell me the story why.
    0:16:13 What would make it better?
    0:16:16 What would have to be true for you to actually change it?
    0:16:21 So there’s all kinds of deeper things that I think surveys and polls are less good at getting to.
    0:16:23 But they can be the opening for you to go deeper with someone.
    0:16:24 All right.
    0:16:29 So why don’t you just give me like the methodology for optimal asking?
    0:16:31 You gave us optimal curiosity.
    0:16:36 Just go down to the Jeff Wessler checklist for optimal asking.
    0:16:39 I will just give you the kind of at the high level what I call the ask approach.
    0:16:52 This is the five strategies or the five steps that essentially gives you the greatest possible chance of finding out the things that other people think and feel and know that they are likely to not tell you otherwise, but that you might otherwise need to know.
    0:16:53 And we can talk more about that.
    0:16:57 But at the highest level, number one, I call choose curiosity.
    0:16:58 And we’ve been talking a bit about this.
    0:17:04 But basically, nothing else I would say matters if you’re not genuinely curious to learn from the other person.
    0:17:06 It will just seem like a gimmick or a technique.
    0:17:06 It will not be authentic.
    0:17:17 On the other hand, if you’re genuinely curious, if you really want to understand someone, you will radiate an energy that they can tell you’re interested, that makes them more likely to want to actually share with you.
    0:17:22 And I don’t look at curiosity as a trait that some people lack and other people have.
    0:17:26 I look at it as a choice, as a decision that’s always available to us.
    0:17:27 So we can talk more about that.
    0:17:29 But that’s number one, choose curiosity.
    0:17:34 Number two is a recognition that let’s say even I am wanting to learn from you.
    0:17:35 I am curious.
    0:17:44 If you don’t feel safe to tell me your truth, especially if it’s a hard truth, and this is where a lot of Amy Edmondson’s research comes in, I’m not going to learn from you.
    0:17:46 I learned this the hard way as an operating leader.
    0:17:48 You mentioned I was an executive at Teach for America.
    0:17:52 I came in from the business world, and I figured if I have a question for someone, they’re going to tell me.
    0:17:54 If they’re struggling, they’re going to let me know.
    0:17:59 And I quickly learned, especially as I was working across many different lines of difference, people were intimidated.
    0:18:01 They didn’t actually feel safe.
    0:18:02 And I’m thinking, it’s just me.
    0:18:03 I’m here to help.
    0:18:06 And they’re thinking, this guy could fire me.
    0:18:07 Why would I tell him the truth?
    0:18:11 And we had some near collisions because of people not telling me the actual truth.
    0:18:19 So Make It Safe is all about lowering those barriers, making it more comfortable, easy, and appealing for people to share with you their real truth.
    0:18:20 And we can get into what that looks like.
    0:18:24 Number three is called pose quality questions.
    0:18:26 This is the heart of the ask approach.
    0:18:30 This is basically to say not everything that has a question mark is a quality question.
    0:18:35 My definition of a quality question is simply a question that really lets you learn something from someone else.
    0:18:39 And I distinguish between crummy questions versus quality questions.
    0:18:42 And in the book, and we can talk more, I share a set of strategies.
    0:18:44 And it’s not like there’s 50 or 100.
    0:18:51 If you can learn maybe a 10 or a dozen strategies, you will radically expand your repertoire of what you can actually learn from someone else.
    0:18:52 So that’s posing quality questions.
    0:18:57 Wait, before you go on to number four, give me an example of a crummy question.
    0:18:58 Isn’t that right?
    0:19:04 That’s one of my favorite crummy questions, because people will say something and they’ll be like, right, right?
    0:19:07 They may genuinely want to know, do you agree with them?
    0:19:12 But when you say it like that, it makes it much harder, especially if they don’t feel safe to tell you.
    0:19:15 I’ll give you another one that I talk a lot about with groups.
    0:19:16 I did this yesterday.
    0:19:19 Just to question this, does that make sense?
    0:19:23 So you give someone some instruction or some explanation.
    0:19:24 Does that make sense?
    0:19:27 And a lot of most people in the room say, I ask that question all the time.
    0:19:29 But it’s a crummy question for a couple of reasons.
    0:19:33 One is it can make someone feel stupid if they don’t understand it.
    0:19:35 Two is when someone says, does that make sense?
    0:19:39 Are they asking, do you agree with them or do you understand what they say?
    0:19:40 So if you ask, does that make sense?
    0:19:46 And someone nods, you have no idea if they’re just nodding because they agree, but they understand, but they disagree or the other way around.
    0:19:53 You can very easily redesign that question to make it higher quality by saying something like, so what’s your reaction to that?
    0:19:54 How does that land with you?
    0:19:55 What does that make you think?
    0:19:56 How does that sit with you?
    0:20:04 Any of those are questions that are much more likely to help you understand the other person’s thinking about your own thinking.
    0:20:11 So if they disagree, if they see gaps, you’re far more likely to be able to do that because it makes room for what the fancy term is disconfirming data.
    0:20:15 It lets disconfirming data come into you so that you can then have a conversation about it.
    0:20:20 Hey, Madison, do I ever ask you if something makes sense?
    0:20:22 Um, yeah, sometimes.
    0:20:28 Oh, that’s a lesson there.
    0:20:31 Be careful what you ask on a podcast recording.
    0:20:36 But anyway, I’ll tell you, I think it’s so common.
    0:20:36 We all do.
    0:20:40 When I first learned to redesign that question to say, what’s your reaction?
    0:20:46 I was a new manager and I had just given somebody a set of instructions for what I was hoping that he would do.
    0:20:47 And I remembered it myself.
    0:20:48 Just ask him.
    0:20:50 And so I said, what are your reactions to that?
    0:20:59 And he got quiet for a minute and then he said, if you really want to know my true reaction, I’m completely demoralized by what you just asked me to do.
    0:21:00 And I was just like that.
    0:21:02 I was flabbergasted because I thought we were good.
    0:21:08 But he said, what I discovered is he had a whole different set of information about what our clients needed and were asking for than I did.
    0:21:15 And so what I asked him made no sense to him to do based on the information he had within the span of about five to seven minutes.
    0:21:16 We cleared it all up.
    0:21:17 We got back on the same page.
    0:21:22 But had I not taken that literally the three seconds to ask the question, what’s your reaction to this?
    0:21:25 He would have gone either done the wrong thing or just not done it.
    0:21:26 He would have resented me.
    0:21:27 Our relationship would have suffered.
    0:21:29 We wouldn’t have served the client well.
    0:21:31 And so people say, I don’t have time to ask questions.
    0:21:33 And I say, it doesn’t take long.
    0:21:39 Just, you know, three seconds to ask a question and you can save yourself weeks and I think a lot of heartache and money too.
    0:21:44 I think that I will add to my Macintosh a keyboard macro.
    0:21:50 So I just type like something like Z reaction and it’ll spit out the whole sentence.
    0:21:52 What’s your reaction?
    0:21:52 So I love that.
    0:21:54 I can ask that all the time.
    0:21:55 Okay.
    0:21:58 Madison, get ready to always tell me your reaction.
    0:21:59 I’m ready.
    0:22:00 Sorry, Madison.
    0:22:03 Okay.
    0:22:05 So I think we’re on number four now.
    0:22:07 Number four is called listen to learn.
    0:22:13 And basically, once you ask a question, it’s, it all comes down to, do you hear the answer?
    0:22:17 How well do you actually listen to what someone has to say?
    0:22:25 And a lot of times we’re listening to look smart, listening to prove a point, listening to get someone to do something, listening to look like we’re listening.
    0:22:27 None of that is listening to learn.
    0:22:35 Listening to learn is like truly taking a vigorous interest in what someone else has to say so that you can actually get to the essence of what they’re talking about.
    0:22:40 It’s listening, not just for the information, but also for the emotions and also for the actions.
    0:22:47 And when I talk to groups, I say to them, I say to people like, give me on average, what percent of people that you talk to you think is a good listener?
    0:22:54 On average, people say it’s about 10 or 15% of people that they, but many polls think that the vast majority of us think we’re good listeners.
    0:23:00 So, there’s a massive gap between how good we think we are as a listener versus how we’re actually experienced as a listener.
    0:23:04 But there’s some very simple things that we can do to increase our listening.
    0:23:06 Should I give you an example or two?
    0:23:10 Yeah, that’s why I have you on the podcast.
    0:23:11 All right, I’ll go there.
    0:23:13 That makes sense to me.
    0:23:20 Yeah, so for the book, I interviewed professional listeners, including journalists and also including psychotherapists.
    0:23:22 Psychotherapists sit there and they listen all day long.
    0:23:30 And one of the things I discovered is that psychotherapists universally experience this phenomenon called the doorknob moment.
    0:23:31 Have you heard of this?
    0:23:52 So, if there’s a session that is 50 minutes long, what happens quite often is that someone will sit there, have the therapy, have the conversation, and then at the very last second, at minute 49 and 59 seconds, right when they’re standing up, their hand is on the door, they’re about to leave the room, only then is when they actually say the real thing that’s going on.
    0:23:58 And it’s like, that’s when they say, I’m thinking about leaving my spouse or, you know, whatever the thing is that’s going on.
    0:24:01 And these therapists, they’re like, why didn’t they tell me this during the whole session?
    0:24:02 We could have talked about it.
    0:24:03 And they have all kinds of theories.
    0:24:10 Sometimes they think, well, maybe they were working up the courage, or maybe they were waiting to see how I reacted, or maybe they were just getting their thoughts straight.
    0:24:14 One of them recently said to me, I think they do it because they want me to think about them all week.
    0:24:16 So, they just say it’s the last thing, hoping that I’ll think about them.
    0:24:23 But the takeaway is that you can’t assume that when you ask a question and someone answers it, you’re getting the most important thing they have to say.
    0:24:30 Often, the most important thing they have to say is two or three layers back, and it’s not the thing that comes out when you ask them.
    0:24:33 And yet, many of us will ask a question, and then we’ll say, okay, I got my answer.
    0:24:37 Now, next question, or I’m moving on, and we miss the actual real thing.
    0:24:44 So, there’s a listening technique that I just call pull the thread, which is if you just pull it a little bit more and say, that’s interesting, can you elaborate on that?
    0:24:46 Can you say a little bit more about that?
    0:24:46 Tell me more.
    0:24:48 What else?
    0:24:54 Any of those things are just ways to increase the likelihood that the real thing is going to come out when you ask someone the question.
    0:25:00 Sometimes, I will even say to my own team, if we’re having a conversation or I’m asking them for ideas, I’ll say, what else?
    0:25:01 And what else?
    0:25:04 And then I’ll even say to them, I’m going to keep asking you, what else?
    0:25:06 Until you tell me, that’s it.
    0:25:09 Because the ideas keep getting better and better each time I say, what else?
    0:25:11 That’s one of the strategies, pull the thread.
    0:25:16 And what happens if you pull the thread at the 50th minute or the 59th minute?
    0:25:20 If you’re in a psychotherapy session, you can’t because it’s over.
    0:25:22 And so, that’s the thing.
    0:25:24 It’s like by not doing that, they’ve missed the chance.
    0:25:26 But we don’t have that constraint usually.
    0:25:27 Usually, we’re still in the conversation.
    0:25:29 We can continue to do that in a conversation.
    0:25:30 So, that’s one.
    0:25:38 The other one I would just share with you that I would say is, if there’s nothing else that anybody who listens to this episode remembers for this entire episode, it would be this thing.
    0:25:40 It’s just called tellback and test.
    0:25:49 And so, when you’re talking to someone and they answer your questions, before you give your response or before you ask the next question, just simply say, I think this is what I heard you say.
    0:25:49 Let me just check.
    0:25:50 Did I get that right?
    0:25:52 Or here’s what I think I’m getting from you.
    0:25:53 How close is that?
    0:25:54 Whatever it is.
    0:26:06 It’s very rare that we do it, but research shows that it is actually one of the biggest distinguishers of high-performing teams versus low-performing teams, the degree to which they just check if they understood what each other said.
    0:26:07 It’s sort of the magic move.
    0:26:09 It has many benefits.
    0:26:12 The first and most important, of course, is simply you get better information.
    0:26:15 So, when I do this, half the time when I say to someone, let me just check.
    0:26:16 I think this is what you’re saying.
    0:26:17 Is that right?
    0:26:20 They will say, kind of, but that’s not exactly what I meant.
    0:26:23 Or that is what I said, but now that you tell me, this is what I really think.
    0:26:25 I just get better information.
    0:26:26 It saves a lot of time.
    0:26:29 It also just changes up the tempo of the conversation.
    0:26:32 So, let’s say we’re having some kind of an argument or whatever.
    0:26:34 It’s like a ping-pong match or a counterpoint.
    0:26:39 If I just stop and say, before I react to you, guy, I just want to check if I understood where you’re coming from.
    0:26:40 Is this what you mean?
    0:26:41 Is this what you’re saying?
    0:26:42 It just slows it down.
    0:26:44 It gives us a chance both to breathe.
    0:26:49 But I think the most important benefit is that it also sends you the message, I care about you.
    0:26:58 I care about you enough to take my own time, my own words, my own breath to check if I understand where you’re coming from, what’s important to you.
    0:27:00 And that changes everything as well.
    0:27:04 So, like the magic move, the power move, just check your understanding.
    0:27:05 Tell back and test.
    0:27:07 Man, I don’t know if I can get to number five.
    0:27:11 Okay, number five, I will tell you, is my favorite of them all.
    0:27:16 And the reason why it’s my favorite is because it’s called Reflect and Reconnect.
    0:27:20 And as you said at the beginning in your kind introduction, my passion in life is learning.
    0:27:23 And I believe that reflection is how we learn.
    0:27:30 Reflection is how we convert our experiences into takeaways or insights and our insights into actions.
    0:27:38 I think reflection is the difference between somebody having 20 years of experience doing something versus having one year of experience 20 times over.
    0:27:39 It’s how well they reflect.
    0:27:43 And I think that reflection often gets a bad rap.
    0:27:44 People think, I don’t know how to reflect.
    0:27:47 I don’t have time to go on a meditation retreat.
    0:27:49 I would have to, you know, start whatever, going into the hills.
    0:27:51 But reflection can be very simple.
    0:27:55 So, I have a method I suggest that I just call sift it and turn it.
    0:27:59 But sift it is just to say, let’s say someone told you 30 things in the course of a conversation.
    0:28:02 Just sift it and say, you know, take a second.
    0:28:04 What were the three or four most important things I took away from that person?
    0:28:06 And I can release some of the other stuff.
    0:28:09 In fact, some of the stuff that people tell us, we don’t need to take it.
    0:28:10 Maybe it’s not even healthy for us to take it.
    0:28:11 So, sift it.
    0:28:15 And often it can be helpful to sift it with a friend or a colleague so you’re not sifting out the wrong stuff.
    0:28:18 And then just turn it over in your mind three times.
    0:28:23 The first time, I would say, is turning it over to see how does this affect my story about the situation?
    0:28:25 Maybe it gives me a new piece of information.
    0:28:28 Maybe it shows me a wrong assumption I was making or whatever it is.
    0:28:30 How does it affect my story?
    0:28:33 The second time you turn it is to say, based on that, what steps should I take?
    0:28:35 Maybe I want to apologize.
    0:28:36 Maybe I want to double down.
    0:28:38 Maybe I want to make a right turn with it.
    0:28:39 But just ask yourself.
    0:28:44 And then the third is the deepest turn, which is there anything that I learned here that affects my own stuff?
    0:28:51 Like maybe it revealed to me that I have a bias or a way of being or some deeper held assumption that this just kind of questioned a little bit.
    0:28:54 So, sift it and turn it for your story, your steps and your stuff.
    0:28:57 And then the reconnect part is the closing the loop.
    0:29:02 It’s basically to say this whole ask approach is not just about me taking things away from myself.
    0:29:06 It’s about connecting back to the other person and saying, thank you for taking the time.
    0:29:08 Thank you for taking the risk if it felt risky.
    0:29:10 And by the way, here’s what I learned from you.
    0:29:12 And here’s what I’m going to go do with what I learned from you.
    0:29:16 And is there something different than you were hoping or additional you were hoping I would learn from you?
    0:29:21 And that act of closing the loop, I was just literally with a group of executives yesterday.
    0:29:27 And they said, our whole organization is cynical because we ask them for so many suggestions and then they have no idea what we do with these suggestions.
    0:29:28 And so, they say, what’s the point?
    0:29:32 But closing the loop lets people know they didn’t waste their time.
    0:29:35 They’re powerful because they’ve influenced you.
    0:29:39 And I think it just deepens the connection so that they’re going to want to share and you’re going to want to share more together over time.
    0:29:41 I’m exhausted already.
    0:29:49 You’re changing my entire conversational style, my God.
    0:29:51 Well, there you know what?
    0:29:52 You just reflected back.
    0:29:53 You reconnected back to me.
    0:29:54 You told me something.
    0:29:56 Some impact that it had on you.
    0:30:05 Can I ask you, do you value either, even if it’s performative, people taking notes?
    0:30:13 I think that whatever people need to do to make sure they get the right takeaways is valuable.
    0:30:20 Nowadays, more often, I am using an AI note taker, whether it’s on my phone, if it’s in person or online.
    0:30:21 If it’s on Zoom, I can use any number of them.
    0:30:27 And for me, that’s a way that I can actually just fully stay present with the person but know that I’m going to still have the takeaways.
    0:30:36 But if someone doesn’t have that or if that’s their style, I think that’s great as long as they’re not so buried in their notes so they’re not able to make some eye contact and look across time.
    0:30:40 But if it helps you to make sure you’re getting the right takeaways, I think that can be valuable.
    0:30:50 So are you saying that I could take a transcript of a conversation, put it into an LLM and ask it, what are the takeaways?
    0:30:51 How should I reconnect?
    0:30:53 It can use it as a coach.
    0:30:54 You can do that.
    0:30:56 In fact, there’s some really fun things you can do.
    0:30:57 For example, you can take that transcript.
    0:31:04 You can say to AI, what are some questions I didn’t ask in this conversation that I might have asked?
    0:31:09 Or what are a few follow-up questions that I could ask in my follow-up email or in the next question?
    0:31:11 So it can actually help you generate questions.
    0:31:15 But the other really fun thing that you can do with a transcript to help you practice listening,
    0:31:20 I mentioned very briefly earlier that you can listen for content, emotion, and action.
    0:31:22 So content is the information that someone’s saying.
    0:31:25 Emotion is what are the feelings that they were expressing or displaying.
    0:31:29 And actions are what are the behaviors that they were doing in the conversation.
    0:31:32 You can literally take a transcript and ask it to help you listen for those three things.
    0:31:38 So you can say at a content level, what were the most important facts and arguments that were being made?
    0:31:40 At an emotion level, what were they expressing and displaying?
    0:31:43 At an action level, what behaviors were they doing in that conversation?
    0:31:46 And you can check it against your own listening to that.
    0:31:52 And in a way, it can really help you to train your brain to not just listen.
    0:31:54 Because most of us just listen through one of those three channels.
    0:31:58 For me, I default to content and I can sometimes miss the emotion or the action.
    0:32:02 But if I can do that, I can start to train my brain to be listening for those other two things too.
    0:32:05 Let’s get a little more granular here.
    0:32:10 So are there differences when you’re talking to women versus men?
    0:32:13 Are there differences when you’re talking to old versus young?
    0:32:17 The five things were generic across all human beings, right?
    0:32:22 Do you have to change things up for old, young, gender, stuff like that?
    0:32:26 I will say I do believe that they are generalizably applicable.
    0:32:37 But there is some interesting research about the ways in which lines of difference can exacerbate some of the challenges that the ask approach is trying to solve.
    0:32:43 So the biggest problem that the ask approach is trying to deal with is people not telling us the real truth.
    0:32:46 Is people actually knowing and feeling and thinking things that they don’t have any bad things.
    0:32:48 They could be ideas too, but just not telling us.
    0:32:59 There is a phenomenon called protective hesitation that someone named David Thomas, who was a researcher at Harvard Business School, is now the president of Morehouse College.
    0:33:10 He coined the term and it basically refers to the idea that women and people of color are less likely to get honest, direct developmental feedback than other people.
    0:33:26 It’s because their colleagues, their bosses and mentors are engaging in this protective hesitation, which means that they are both trying to protect the women and people of color from getting feedback or input that might be biased or that might perpetuate some kind of oppression.
    0:33:29 But they’re also protecting themselves from getting accused of that as well.
    0:33:33 And so for both of those reasons, they’re not learning as much.
    0:33:40 And so that can be especially important situation in which to be using some of these ask methods.
    0:33:50 And then the other thing that is well documented is that psychological safety can go down across any lines of difference, whether that’s a cultural difference, power difference, gender difference, race difference, etc.
    0:33:55 And so those are the ways in which I would say that kind of dynamics of difference play into this.
    0:33:58 Are there telltale signs?
    0:33:59 I’m listening to this.
    0:34:00 I’m using I generally.
    0:34:13 People are listening to this and they’re saying, can you just give me some tells that obviously I should figure out that I am a lousy question asker.
    0:34:16 You know, how can I self-diagnose?
    0:34:17 Definitely.
    0:34:18 There’s a few.
    0:34:30 I would say if you look at any conversation, you could take a transcript from AI or you could just listen to a conversation and you could literally plot out the ratio between two things, statements and questions.
    0:34:36 You can divide everything into statements and questions and you can look at the ratio of statements to questions in a conversation.
    0:34:47 If your ratio is a lot of statements and very few questions, overall, you are a lousy asker because you’re just not asking many people that question.
    0:34:51 Now, of course, if you’re being interviewed or you’re giving a lecture, then that’s one thing.
    0:34:58 But generally speaking, in conversations, if your ratio is very heavily tilted towards statements and very low towards questions, you’re off.
    0:35:14 I will tell you that at least mentally, I try to achieve a ratio of my talk to the guest talk at 90, 10, 90, 10 being 90% Jeff, 10% me in my podcast.
    0:35:15 I’ve seen that in your episodes.
    0:35:16 Yeah.
    0:35:20 And I think the way that you get that done is by asking questions.
    0:35:28 And so if your ratio is flipped the other way, or if your ratio of statements to questions is the other, you’ve got some improvement to do.
    0:35:29 I would say that’s one.
    0:35:30 I’ll just give you two others.
    0:35:46 If you’re a leader and you’re not getting critical feedback from the people around you, chances are you’re not asking the right questions or you’re not asking the right questions in the right ways because the people around you undoubtedly have observations and feedback and ideas of what you could be doing better.
    0:35:49 So if you’re not hearing that, that’s something that you should take notice of.
    0:36:05 And then the third thing I’ll just say is if your questions generally start with words like do or don’t, would or wouldn’t, is or isn’t, chances are you’re going to be getting surface level answers because you’re getting yes, no answers.
    0:36:09 Versus if your questions are starting with what, how come, those are going to be open.
    0:36:11 Those are going to give you richer information.
    0:36:19 So if I’m a manager, can I paraphrase what you just said, which is to say that.
    0:36:19 I love this.
    0:36:20 Yeah.
    0:36:21 You’re a fast learner.
    0:36:25 No news is bad news.
    0:36:27 No news is bad news.
    0:36:29 And by the way, that’s not just true if you’re a manager.
    0:36:44 That’s also true, let’s say, if you have any kind of professional service, if you’re a client, if you’ve got clients and your client is not giving you critical feedback, if you’re a startup founder and your investors are not giving you critical feedback, it really goes 360 degrees around.
    0:36:49 If you’re only getting affirming feedback, chances are you’re not asking the right questions in the right ways.
    0:36:54 You heard Madison say that I often ask her if something made sense.
    0:37:00 But I also heard that you have a relationship with Madison because I observed it where she’s also willing to tell you a little bit more.
    0:37:01 And I think that’s probably healthy.
    0:37:07 There is no question that Madison is willing to tell me negative things.
    0:37:08 Yes, that’s a real deal.
    0:37:11 So you’re doing something right.
    0:37:14 Up next on Remarkable People.
    0:37:25 One of the things that he truly did well is that he would just spend a ton of time going all around the state, having conversations with people, listening to people, asking them what’s on your mind.
    0:37:30 And I think it really informed his policies in a much more grounded kind of way.
    0:37:39 Thank you to all our regular podcast listeners.
    0:37:43 It’s our pleasure and honor to make the show for you.
    0:37:48 If you find our show valuable, please do us a favor and subscribe, rate, and review it.
    0:37:51 Even better, forward it to a friend.
    0:37:54 A big mahalo to you for doing this.
    0:37:58 You’re listening to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki.
    0:38:04 Much of our discussion has been focusing on asking the right questions.
    0:38:07 So now we also have to answer the question.
    0:38:09 So how do I optimize my answers?
    0:38:17 I would say to optimize your answers, you want to be speaking directly to the question as opposed to speaking around the question.
    0:38:24 If you receive what I would call a crummy question, so let’s say someone just asks you a surface level, do you believe X or Y or whatever?
    0:38:28 Sometimes you can go further than just giving the surface answer.
    0:38:33 And sometimes you can also say to them, but this is my simple answer, but is there a deeper part of your question?
    0:38:35 Or is there a question behind the question?
    0:38:40 Sometimes people will ask you questions that are really them trying to get you to agree with them.
    0:38:42 And then you can say, I’ll share my thoughts, but I’m curious.
    0:38:44 It sounds like you might have a view on this.
    0:38:45 What are your views on these questions?
    0:38:55 And so I often say to people from the perspective of answering, even if someone doesn’t come at you with a quality question, you can help make their question better in those kinds of ways.
    0:38:58 And that will get a better answer out of you, too.
    0:39:08 Is there a Jeff Wetzler Hall of Fame that you say, this person really knows how to ask questions?
    0:39:09 It could be a journalist.
    0:39:11 It could be a broadcaster.
    0:39:12 It could be a CEO.
    0:39:14 It could be, I don’t know, Oprah Winfrey.
    0:39:15 Do you have a Hall of Fame?
    0:39:18 I have different people in different categories.
    0:39:20 So for the book, one category was CEOs.
    0:39:23 And I tried to interview iconic CEOs.
    0:39:29 And the reason I did is because CEOs are notorious for getting lied to.
    0:39:36 People tend to tell CEOs what they think the CEO wants to hear, what they think is going to make themselves look good, what they think is going to get their agenda through.
    0:39:44 And so I said to CEOs, and this included people like Bill George of Medtronic or Irene Rosenfeld, who ran Kraft for a while.
    0:39:50 I said to them, how did you get the truth out of people, especially several layers away from you?
    0:39:53 And I’ll never forget, there was one common theme.
    0:40:07 They basically said, if I want to get the truth out of someone, I’m not, especially someone junior, I’m never going to bring them to my office and make them sit across the intimidating CEO desk from me and assume that they’re going to tell me the truth.
    0:40:11 Irene Rosenfeld from Kraft basically said, I’m going to go to the cafeteria.
    0:40:12 We’re going to have lunch together.
    0:40:16 Bill George said, I’m going to do a ride along and we’re going to take a walk, whatever it is.
    0:40:24 And there was no single answer other than what makes them feel safest, what makes them feel most comfortable.
    0:40:25 And so it was so interesting to me.
    0:40:28 And this is why I would name both of them as heroes, for example.
    0:40:30 It’s not even about the questions yet.
    0:40:35 It’s about the setting that they create, the safety that they create for people to then open up.
    0:40:45 And then when you have that right tone and that right setting for connection, it takes a little pressure off of do you have the perfectly worded question because you’ve got the level of safety there.
    0:40:46 And I know you have kids.
    0:40:52 I have a teenage daughter and I find that this applies to my relationship with my daughter as well.
    0:40:56 When she comes home from school and I say to her, how was school?
    0:40:58 I get stonewalled.
    0:40:59 I get absolutely nothing.
    0:41:02 When I say to her at dinner, what did you learn today?
    0:41:02 Nothing.
    0:41:07 If I want to actually get the truth out of my daughter, I have to stay up until 11 p.m.
    0:41:12 When she’s done with her homework and she’s done talking to her friends and she wants to hang out with me in her room.
    0:41:15 And at that hour, my body wishes that I was asleep.
    0:41:18 But if I want something from her, that’s the setting.
    0:41:24 And so that’s what I learned, actually, from these question heroes is that it’s about the other person and you’ve got to go to where they feel most comfortable.
    0:41:26 And then you’re going to learn what you want to learn.
    0:41:29 OK, so that’s the category of CEO.
    0:41:33 But how about the category of journalist or TV personality?
    0:41:36 So in the category of journalists, I will name two heroes here.
    0:41:38 One is Jenny Anderson.
    0:41:40 She is an award-winning business journalist.
    0:41:42 She actually also just wrote a great book that came out.
    0:41:49 And what she said to me is that when she does an interview, she usually asks the person that she’s interviewing for permission to record the interview.
    0:41:52 And then she will go back and listen to the recording.
    0:41:56 And she’ll listen to it two or three or four times, literally the same recording.
    0:42:03 And she said, every single time I listen to it, I hear something completely different than I heard the first time.
    0:42:06 And I think to myself, she is a professional listener.
    0:42:09 And she’s not getting the most important stuff the first time.
    0:42:11 She takes her two or three or four times.
    0:42:12 The rest of us barely ever do that.
    0:42:14 We just have our conversation and we move on.
    0:42:20 But to me, she’s a hero for just recognizing the limits of her listening and all of our listening and to go back.
    0:42:23 And then the other journalist I’ll just mention is Amanda Ripley.
    0:42:27 She recently came out with a book called High Conflict, which is a great book.
    0:42:34 And what I learned from her is the way that she creates safety when she does journalism stories with people who have different backgrounds than her.
    0:42:37 She’ll basically say, look, I know I’m from the East Coast.
    0:42:39 I know my life is different than yours in many different things.
    0:42:40 I’m truly ignorant.
    0:42:43 And I would love for you to help me to understand what I might be missing.
    0:42:48 And so she just confesses that in a way that’s completely disarming to people and also creates that safety as well.
    0:42:54 OK, so now the last category I’m going to ask you is about politicians.
    0:42:58 Is there any politician you respect for asking questions?
    0:43:01 So I don’t know if you know who Deval Patrick is.
    0:43:04 He was the governor of Massachusetts a couple of terms ago.
    0:43:16 And one of the things that he truly did well is that he would just spend a ton of time going all around the state, having conversations with people, listening to people, asking them what’s on your mind.
    0:43:21 And I think it really informed his policies in a much more grounded kind of way.
    0:43:23 That’s a short list of politicians.
    0:43:29 It doesn’t get a lot longer on that category, although I’m sure that there are many that I’m not aware of, too.
    0:43:32 Yeah, I’m sure.
    0:43:38 Do you have any favorites on your end that you think are role models of great questions or listening, whether politicians or any other categories?
    0:43:40 Jeff, I’m from Silicon Valley.
    0:43:46 In Silicon Valley, we don’t have to ask questions because we’re omniscient and omnipotent.
    0:43:47 Have you not learned that?
    0:43:48 Oh, that’s true.
    0:43:49 I completely forgot.
    0:43:53 Think of my history.
    0:43:54 I work for Apple.
    0:43:56 Okay, enough said.
    0:43:58 End of discussion.
    0:44:00 Did that make sense?
    0:44:03 Perfect sense.
    0:44:06 All right.
    0:44:08 So three more questions.
    0:44:17 First of all, because I know in your book, the whole book is about asking questions, but at the end, you drove it home by asking about mastery.
    0:44:22 So question number one is how do you master asking questions?
    0:44:32 Yeah, I would say that the way that you master it is really no different than how you would master any other important skill.
    0:44:39 And it starts with recognizing the limits of where you are right now, recognizing where you might not be as good at it.
    0:44:51 So for example, paying attention to what is my ratio of questions to statements and if I start to see that ratio is often, then I get a little insight or starting to actually look at or audit the kinds of questions that I’m asking.
    0:44:56 And in the book that we see high quality questions versus karma questions, I start to see that I’m asking karma questions.
    0:44:58 So some of it just starts with awareness.
    0:45:01 And the fancy term for that is conscious incompetence.
    0:45:06 It’s recognizing is becoming more conscious of the ways that I’m incompetent in this.
    0:45:09 And then the thing to do is just to start to pick it off little by little.
    0:45:13 So maybe you want to start by learning how to better ask for people’s reactions instead of saying, does that make sense?
    0:45:16 You just start to force yourself to say that.
    0:45:19 You might even write it down on a card and have that card in front of you.
    0:45:21 You might even tell other people, hey, I’m trying a new kind of question.
    0:45:27 And then you practice that enough times that you start to see how to make it your own and that it starts to become fluid.
    0:45:30 Then maybe you want to go to the next cycle and you say, all right, now I’m going to try to become a little bit better listener.
    0:45:32 Let me start by practicing pulling the thread.
    0:45:36 And you just do that over and over again for each of the different chunks that you want to do.
    0:45:39 And that’s how you start to build your repertoire.
    0:45:41 And then what I say is you’ve got to level up.
    0:45:43 It’s one thing to do that in low-stakes situations.
    0:45:46 Then you say, what’s the next higher-stakes situation I can do that in?
    0:45:48 And you don’t start in the high-stakes situations.
    0:45:51 But once you’ve gotten better, you try that again and again and again.
    0:45:53 And that’s how it starts to become more of a superpower.
    0:45:57 And that’s when I’m consciously competent.
    0:45:58 That’s right.
    0:46:02 And you want to get to the place where you’re unconsciously competent.
    0:46:05 To the point where you don’t even have to think about it anymore.
    0:46:07 It just comes naturally to you because it’s built into your repertoire.
    0:46:11 And are we getting Malcolm Gladwell-ish?
    0:46:14 It’s like 10,000 hours of this and, you know.
    0:46:18 Yes, but it has to be 10,000 hours of actually the right practice.
    0:46:19 It’s not just 10,000 hours of practice.
    0:46:26 It’s 10,000 hours of practice, watching how it went, feedback, tweaking it, adjusting it, leveling up, those kinds of things.
    0:46:30 I have surfed for about 10,000 hours and I’m not getting any better.
    0:46:35 I have a feeling you’re probably a lot better than when you started, though.
    0:46:38 That’s not hard to say, but yeah.
    0:46:39 Okay.
    0:46:45 So how do I teach other people to become masters of asking questions?
    0:46:45 Yeah.
    0:46:51 So the easy answer is the best way to teach it is to role model it yourself.
    0:47:04 So the more that if you’re a leader, the more that the people on your team are seeing you admit that you don’t know something, ask a follow-up question, shut up and listen instead of just taking over the meeting and telling them what to do.
    0:47:10 Any number of those things, that sends a super powerful message to people about what you value.
    0:47:12 They will imitate your behavior.
    0:47:18 You can also, of course, actually put people in situations where they’re being taught this kind of stuff as well.
    0:47:21 You can call people out to reward that.
    0:47:27 So not just rewarding, hey, you hate your sales goals, but also, hey, you asked the best question that we haven’t thought about yet.
    0:47:28 That pushed our thinking.
    0:47:31 And so what you actually elevate, you can even hire for it.
    0:47:38 I remember in my first job out of college, I worked for a company called Monitor Group that literally was hiring for a proclivity to do this stuff.
    0:47:45 And after they made me do a whole performance task and presentation in front of a group of people, somebody sat me down and they gave me a bunch of critical feedback.
    0:47:50 And I thought they were giving me this feedback to tell me why they were about to not give me the job.
    0:47:52 And I said, so does that mean I don’t get the job?
    0:47:57 But really what they were trying to do is they were trying to see, was I going to be defensive or curious about the feedback?
    0:48:01 Was I going to try to like push back on it or was I going to say, that’s interesting?
    0:48:01 How come?
    0:48:02 And tell me more.
    0:48:04 And so you can literally build this into your hiring practices, too.
    0:48:06 All right.
    0:48:15 And the final and most important question about master is how do I help my kids become master question askers?
    0:48:16 Yes.
    0:48:18 Maybe we should interview your daughter.
    0:48:18 You should.
    0:48:23 You could interview my daughter or my son who is actually now working out at Silicon Valley as well.
    0:48:30 But first of all, the thing to say is that kids are born curious and by age four, they’re asking between 25 and 50 questions per hour.
    0:48:34 And parents of young kids nod and they say, absolutely, that’s what they’re doing.
    0:48:39 What’s fascinating is that those same exact kids in school ask two questions per hour.
    0:48:43 And so there’s something very different going on when they’re not constrained.
    0:48:48 I think it’s because schools basically have a model where we tell kids sit down and shut up and give me the right answer.
    0:48:50 Stop asking so many questions.
    0:48:59 And I was talking to a group two weeks ago and somebody said to me, when I was a kid, my parents were so sick of my questions, they offered to buy me an ice cream cone if I would stop asking so many questions.
    0:49:05 So the thing I would say to parents, if you want curious kids, is don’t beat the curiosity out of them.
    0:49:08 When they ask the questions, take the questions.
    0:49:10 Give them honest answers to those questions.
    0:49:12 Admit to them when you don’t know the answer to the question.
    0:49:14 And say, that’s really interesting.
    0:49:15 Let’s go find out together.
    0:49:16 What could that be?
    0:49:20 The way in which you respond to their questions will send a lot of messages.
    0:49:27 One of the exercises I do with groups is I say to people, stand up if as a kid someone discouraged you from asking a question.
    0:49:30 Yesterday, 80% of the people in the room stood up.
    0:49:31 Usually it’s about half the room.
    0:49:36 But just the amount of things that we do to tell kids, stop asking questions, to me is tragic.
    0:49:41 And so if you’re a parent and you want your kids to be curious, encourage those questions.
    0:49:42 Fuel that fire.
    0:49:46 I have to say, Jeff, that we have interviewed about 260 people.
    0:49:52 And probably this episode, I feel the most convicted in doing things wrong.
    0:49:55 I feel like I owe you an apology.
    0:50:00 I look at this as a turning point opportunity.
    0:50:04 I appreciate your learning spirit to the whole thing as well.
    0:50:07 And especially because I’ve learned so much from you and your book and your episodes over time.
    0:50:15 I hope I didn’t shatter any delusions you had about my competence by coming on my podcast.
    0:50:16 Not at all.
    0:50:20 All right, Jeff.
    0:50:23 Thank you so much for being on Remarkable People.
    0:50:24 I’m serious.
    0:50:27 I got a lot of thinking to do after this episode.
    0:50:31 From now on, when I meet people, Jeff, I’m going to say, hi, my name is Guy Kaosaki.
    0:50:31 What’s your name?
    0:50:35 And they’re going to say, and then my next question is going to be, what’s your reaction?
    0:50:37 What’s your reaction to that?
    0:50:42 Thank you for having me on for such a great conversation and also for listening so seriously
    0:50:44 and taking it all in as well.
    0:50:44 It means a lot.
    0:50:51 And everybody out there, if you want to be a better manager, leader, or parent, you definitely
    0:50:53 need to pick up this book.
    0:50:55 It’s called Ask by Jeff Wetzler.
    0:50:58 So thank you for being on this podcast, Jeff, obviously.
    0:50:58 Thank you.
    0:51:04 Thank you, Madison, for dealing with my incompetence as a question asker.
    0:51:11 And thank you, Tessa Neismar, for the research you did on Jeff and also to the sound design
    0:51:14 team, which is going to turn this into just a great sounding podcast.
    0:51:17 That’s Jeff C. and Shannon Hernandez.
    0:51:18 And so that’s it.
    0:51:21 That’s today’s episode of Remarkable People.
    0:51:31 This is Remarkable People.

    Could your questions be holding you back? Drawing from decades of experience as an educational innovator and organizational leader, Jeff Wetzler, author of Ask, reveals why most of us ask poor questions and how mastering the art of inquiry can dramatically improve our decision-making, relationships, and leadership. He shares his proven five-step ASK approach—Choose Curiosity, Make it Safe, Pose Quality Questions, Listen to Learn, and Reflect and Reconnect—offering practical techniques anyone can use to uncover hidden insights and drive meaningful change. From challenging our ingrained assumptions to creating psychological safety that invites honesty, Jeff demonstrates how asking better questions can lead to breakthrough thinking in both personal and professional contexts.

    Guy Kawasaki is on a mission to make you remarkable. His Remarkable People podcast features interviews with remarkable people such as Jane Goodall, Marc Benioff, Woz, Kristi Yamaguchi, and Bob Cialdini. Every episode will make you more remarkable.

    With his decades of experience in Silicon Valley as a Venture Capitalist and advisor to the top entrepreneurs in the world, Guy’s questions come from a place of curiosity and passion for technology, start-ups, entrepreneurship, and marketing. If you love society and culture, documentaries, and business podcasts, take a second to follow Remarkable People.

    Listeners of the Remarkable People podcast will learn from some of the most successful people in the world with practical tips and inspiring stories that will help you be more remarkable.

    Episodes of Remarkable People organized by topic: https://bit.ly/rptopology

    Listen to Remarkable People here: **https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guy-kawasakis-remarkable-people/id1483081827**

    Like this show? Please leave us a review — even one sentence helps! Consider including your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally!

    Thank you for your support; it helps the show!

    See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

  • Prof G on Marketing: Should Your Brand Take a Stand?

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 What’s up, y’all? It’s Kenny Beach, and we are currently watching the best playoff basketball since I can’t even remember when.
    0:00:09 This is what we’ve been waiting for all season long.
    0:00:20 And on my show, Small Ball, I’ll be breaking down the series matchups, major performances, in-game coaching decisions, and game strategy, and so much more for the most exciting time of the NBA calendar.
    0:00:24 New episodes through the playoffs available on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.
    0:00:27 Subscribe to Small Ball with Kenny Beach, so you don’t miss a thing.
    0:00:32 Welcome to Office Hours with Prof. G.
    0:00:40 Today we’re continuing our special three-part series, Prof. G. on Marketing, where we answer questions from business leaders about the biggest marketing challenges and opportunities companies face today.
    0:00:44 What a thrill. Let’s bust right into it.
    0:00:48 Okay, what do we have here? Our first question comes from Dom on Instagram.
    0:00:49 He asks,
    0:00:54 More and more companies are taking political stances as part of their branding.
    0:01:04 Growing up, I was told that businesses should never talk about religion or politics in order to stay out of trouble and not segment customers.
    0:01:06 Does this hurt companies in the long run?
    0:01:10 Do you think it is smart that businesses are moving in this direction?
    0:01:13 This is going to require some nuance.
    0:01:16 So I’ve served on a bunch of public company boards, seven.
    0:01:17 I’m kind of a big deal.
    0:01:18 Kind of a big deal.
    0:01:21 And probably 24 private company boards.
    0:01:26 And my general view on political statements is that it’s mostly virtue signaling from the CEO.
    0:01:33 It likes to get in front, especially about three or four years ago, maybe five years ago, get in front of a younger workforce and talk about all this woke nonsense.
    0:01:36 Because why it was nonsense is because they didn’t believe it themselves.
    0:01:39 They were just trying to score, like, acquire virtue.
    0:01:45 Like, I don’t have enough Gulf Streams or shares or options here, so I want to capture social status.
    0:01:47 I think that’s actually a pretty decent criticism of the Democratic Party.
    0:01:58 Instead of focusing on the material and emotional well-being of consumers, they want to pretend that they’re grabbing virtue rather than actually getting any fucking thing done at the ground level in terms of what actually impacts people.
    0:02:04 So I generally think it’s a good idea to stay out of politics.
    0:02:07 I try to separate the person from the politics.
    0:02:15 I live just south of Palm Beach, and a lot of my friends are Republicans, and I just think they’re batshit crazy.
    0:02:19 I just don’t understand how they can tolerate some of this nonsense.
    0:02:23 But at the same time, I also recognize they’re thoughtful, nice people, and I enjoy their friendship.
    0:02:31 So I try to ignore it when they put out a reel saying, oh, finally, the truth that these food products cause autism.
    0:02:33 And I want to write, dude, didn’t we go to college together?
    0:02:35 Are you really that fucking stupid?
    0:02:37 Because I know that will damage the friendship.
    0:02:39 So I try to separate that.
    0:02:41 I also try to separate the company from politics.
    0:02:42 Now, Prop2 doesn’t do that.
    0:02:44 You know, we’re a media company.
    0:02:45 We’re a small company.
    0:02:52 We are highly political because a lot of what we do is putting out thought leadership, opinion, et cetera.
    0:02:58 And still, we would probably be a bigger company if I just focused on business and tech rather than taking political stance.
    0:03:00 But at this point in my life, I get to do whatever the fuck I want.
    0:03:01 See above.
    0:03:01 I’m going to talk about.
    0:03:08 My favorite is when people say in my newsletter, they write, oh, get back to talking about business or things you know.
    0:03:11 Basically, I got a lot of like stay in your lane.
    0:03:12 Well, you know what my lane is?
    0:03:14 Whatever the fuck I want to talk about.
    0:03:15 And I’ve earned that.
    0:03:16 And I’m finally there.
    0:03:21 Anyways, anywho, for most big public companies, you do want to avoid politics.
    0:03:25 Now, having said that, occasionally an opportunity comes along.
    0:03:29 Race relations in the U.S. were capturing a lot of attention.
    0:03:40 Colin Kaepernick was a great quarterback, two-thirds of Nike’s customer base under the age of 30, not kind of on board with how race relations were going in the United States.
    0:03:46 Anyone who was upset about them embracing Colin Kaepernick, who burnt their Nikes, had to go out and buy their first pair of Nikes.
    0:03:48 It was a very smart move.
    0:03:58 They probably alienated somewhere between 5% and 10% of their TAM to embolden or entrench or inspire 90% of their addressable market.
    0:03:59 That’s a really good tradeoff.
    0:04:01 We are in that moment right now.
    0:04:09 And essentially, I think that things have gotten so out of control where we’re rounding up people with the wrong tattoo, doing really stupid shit around tariffs.
    0:04:14 It’s going to do nothing but elegantly reduce our prosperity, put thousands of small businesses out of business.
    0:04:20 Doge, which was nothing but literally like, okay, how stupid can you be?
    0:04:21 We’re going to cut $2 trillion.
    0:04:23 No, I meant $150 million.
    0:04:24 No, I meant $60 billion.
    0:04:27 No, I meant less than the subsidies to Tesla.
    0:04:39 I mean, that has been handled so poorly, so poorly that Americans are so fed up that the biggest commercial opportunity in a decade, and I said this last week and I’ll say it again.
    0:04:57 I said it in the last office hours and I’ll say it again, is to come out not against Trump so much, but to come out in favor of American values of decency, of competition, of being thoughtful around our economic policy, of embracing our great immigrant population, PhD students, of rule of law, of due process.
    0:05:00 All the things that we’ve come to expect are American.
    0:05:05 That company, that company will register a torrent of new business.
    0:05:10 I mean, for God’s sakes, this guy is flailing, literally flailing.
    0:05:14 This is the biggest commercial opportunity in the last decade.
    0:05:24 In sum, with rare exception though, let me finish where I started, you generally want to avoid politics because you are likely going to alienate 50% of the population.
    0:05:29 Having said that, on a risk-adjusted basis, this is a calculated risk worth taking.
    0:05:32 Our next question comes from Instagram.
    0:05:34 Ambreen asks,
    0:05:49 Each year we pick sort of a strategic imperative.
    0:05:53 I think it’s important to have one thing that you’re like, this is the one box we have to check this year.
    0:05:58 Because I think being an effective leader is not deciding what to do, it’s deciding what not to do.
    0:06:00 And that is, you only have so much wood.
    0:06:03 So I think it’s important every year to say, this is our strategic imperative.
    0:06:04 We’ve got to check this box.
    0:06:13 For 2025, the strategic imperative for Prop G Media is to get much better and dramatically increase our video views.
    0:06:23 What I found just fascinating and kind of blew my mind was that the primary channel of distribution for podcasts right now is not Apple, it’s not Spotify, it’s YouTube.
    0:06:33 20% of the listens of this program right now will be listened to on a television or watched on a television, which isn’t a good idea.
    0:06:36 All of a sudden I get very self-conscious because listen to my voice.
    0:06:38 My voice, ooh, hello, dreamy.
    0:06:40 I’m handsome, handsome voice.
    0:06:41 Brad Pitt of voices.
    0:06:44 Face, for those of you watching on TV, not so much.
    0:06:45 Not so much.
    0:06:48 See above, lost virginity when he was 19.
    0:06:55 Anyways, so my skills play well to audio, but here’s the bottom line.
    0:06:57 Podcasts are moving towards video.
    0:07:04 Podcasts are essentially becoming TV shows with strong audio components where you can just listen to the audio.
    0:07:09 If you look at, I think the next Joe Rogan is a kid named Steve Bartlett.
    0:07:16 When I moved to London two and a half years ago, the first thing I did was drive to the studio in Ipswich or Norwich or whatever the cool part of town is.
    0:07:20 And he had this incredible studio with eight people, cameras everywhere.
    0:07:26 And I’m like, this is like Charlie Rose, but much more deft production quality.
    0:07:28 And he was basically doing a TV show.
    0:07:33 And if you’ll notice, in the last two and a half years, Stephen has busted into the top 10.
    0:07:36 He used to be in the top 10 in the UK, and now he’s in the top 10 globally.
    0:07:38 I think he’s probably going to be the biggest podcaster in the world.
    0:07:49 And if you look at the top 100 podcasts of the 1.6 million that are out there and the 600,000 that put out content every week, the top 100, there’s been huge churn.
    0:07:53 50 new entrants into the top 100, 50 have dropped out.
    0:07:56 And what is the arbiter of who has churned in and churned out?
    0:07:58 It’s their video game.
    0:08:07 So we have spent a lot of time trying to think about, we hired a kid named Billy Bennett who used to work for us, who’s now, was at CNN and is now working with us, just focusing on video.
    0:08:13 We have a full-time tech guy, our tech guy, Drew, who’s sort of our head of engineering and has known us for about 15 years.
    0:08:20 The woman who runs my business, Catherine Dillon, is a creative at heart and edits and thinks about video.
    0:08:27 The hard part is that the thing that played to my strengths in terms of video from a personal standpoint is I’m on the road about 150 days a year.
    0:08:31 So my studio was basically a dop kit that I could set up.
    0:08:31 I didn’t even have a ring light.
    0:08:36 I would just try and find a nice part of the hotel room I was staying in and do a reasonable job of video.
    0:08:38 And that’s no longer going to cut it.
    0:08:48 So we’ve spent a bunch of money on studios that we’re replicating in the different places I spent a lot of time in, specifically New York, Florida, and London.
    0:08:50 But I’m not sure that’s enough.
    0:08:58 So we’re trying to be really thoughtful about marketing, pushing people to our videos, using more sound effects, usually using more visual effects.
    0:09:03 The fastest growing part of our franchise or our portfolio, if you will, is Prop G Markets.
    0:09:08 And that’s because it is tailor-made for graphic overlays because we talk a lot about stocks in the market.
    0:09:12 And Ed’s in the same place so they can create better production values.
    0:09:22 In sum, the assumption we made was that the new arbiter of who moves up in the world of podcasting and who moves out is going to be how strong your video game is.
    0:09:26 Now, your question is what would happen if that changed?
    0:09:27 I don’t know.
    0:09:32 I guess we just have to pivot and be agile and try and figure out what that next thing is.
    0:09:35 I think the next thing, YouTube is the new channel.
    0:09:44 I believe that in 2026, and I’m already starting to think about a strategy here, that the new arbiter of success in podcasting is not going to be Spotify.
    0:09:46 It’s not going to be Apple.
    0:09:47 It’ll still be YouTube.
    0:09:55 But more than anything, or the new player, if you will, that creates the difference between numbering number 300 and number 30 is the following, Reddit.
    0:10:01 I think Reddit is literally out of central casting in terms of its niche domains.
    0:10:12 It’s the viscosity of how they become a platform for taking pieces of podcasts and threading them into different comments on Reddit.
    0:10:17 I think Reddit is going to be the new platform that kind of picks winners and losers.
    0:10:24 A possible second to that on 26 is going to be Netflix, who’s decided to get into the game.
    0:10:41 And Netflix just has, with 350 million consumers, with custody of 350 million home screens, if they decide that they want to distribute Mel Robbins’ podcast or Raging Moderates, that podcast will immediately shoot into the top 20 of podcasts globally.
    0:10:45 So they have so much custody of the consumer that they perhaps could be the new arbiter.
    0:10:52 In sum, I’m trying to think about not only what’s in front of our face, but think around the corner and make bets accordingly.
    0:10:53 But I think about this stuff a lot.
    0:10:56 So in sum, you’ve got to make a bet.
    0:11:10 You’ve got to have a strategic imperative and hold people accountable and invest additional resources in that imperative such that you can give people the resources to move against or act against what you think is important and where the puck is headed.
    0:11:15 And also think about, you know, looking beyond the second corner.
    0:11:18 So what’s the corner we’re moving towards or where’s the puck going?
    0:11:19 Video, hands down.
    0:11:21 Where do we think it might be headed?
    0:11:23 Reddit and possibly Netflix.
    0:11:24 Thanks for the question.
    0:11:27 We’ll be right back after a quick break.
    0:11:45 Whether you’re a startup founder navigating your first audit or a seasoned security professional scaling your GRC program, proving your commitment to security has never been more critical or more complex.
    0:11:47 That’s where Vanta comes in.
    0:11:58 Businesses use Vanta to build trust by automating compliance for in-demand frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, and more.
    0:12:08 And with automation and AI throughout the platform, you can proactively manage vendor risk and complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, getting valuable time back.
    0:12:12 Vanta not only saves you time, it can also save you money.
    0:12:23 A new IDC white paper found that Vanta customers achieve $535,000 per year in benefits, and the platform pays for itself in just three months.
    0:12:26 For any business, establishing trust is essential.
    0:12:29 Vanta can help your business with exactly that.
    0:12:35 Go to vanta.com slash vox to meet with a Vanta expert about your business needs.
    0:12:39 That’s vanta.com slash vox.
    0:12:55 I started my career in big agencies back in the early aughts when the internet was young.
    0:13:01 However, even then we were talking about how the media was splintering and how it was getting harder to get noticed.
    0:13:03 As you know, the trend has gone into overdrive.
    0:13:14 Audience attention is splintered across endless platforms and micro-communities, and trust is shifting, from institutions to individuals, from brands to influencers.
    0:13:16 I keep coming back to this question.
    0:13:21 How does the humble media planner or marketer even navigate this reality?
    0:13:26 The age of the all-powerful, monolithic brand feels like it’s fading fast.
    0:13:33 And now, resonance doesn’t come from one big message, but from a thousand fragments finding the right ears.
    0:13:35 Yeah, I agree.
    0:13:48 So, it used to be, if you think about it, not that long ago, you could capture a third of America in about four nights, because two-thirds of America was watching one of three channels five hours a day.
    0:13:52 Now, that media landscape has fragmented just wildly.
    0:13:55 And not only that, the costs have gone way up.
    0:14:01 So, we didn’t realize how inexpensive broadcast advertising was, how cheap it was.
    0:14:15 You could capture, essentially, a 30-second spot on the Academy Awards 30 years ago was about a fifth of the price, and it reached three times as many people as it does today.
    0:14:21 So, it was 15 times, you have 15 times the ROI, and yet people still do it.
    0:14:22 We didn’t realize how cheap it was.
    0:14:39 So, the fact that media was so inexpensive from, like, 1945 to 1995, maybe in 2000, created an ecosystem where the algorithm for creating shareholder value was to have a mediocre truck, salty snack, sugary drink, shoe, or car.
    0:14:59 Build an OK slash shitty car, the K car, or out of Detroit, and wrap it in amazing brand codes of tough like a rock or apple pie, whatever it might be, or find soap, then craft it with OK materials or ingredients, and then talk about European elegance.
    0:15:06 Create a shitty beer and convince people that if they drink this beer, they’re going to be hot and have a six-pack and be more attractive to potential mates.
    0:15:17 And you could infuse these incredible brand codes really inexpensively using some creative agency of guys who wore black and gave you awards if you spent enough money on their ad campaign and can every year.
    0:15:19 That ship has sailed.
    0:15:22 That dog just doesn’t hunt anymore.
    0:15:27 Because now we have these weapons of mass diligence that say, OK, and this is the example I always use.
    0:15:30 I usually used to stay at the Four Seasons, the Ritz-Carlton, or the Mandarin Oriental.
    0:15:32 One, because someone else was paying.
    0:15:34 I was usually there speaking or with a client.
    0:15:35 And two, they always deliver an eight.
    0:15:41 But the reality is the Mandarin Oriental in Istanbul is just not where I want to stay.
    0:15:47 The core associations of these hotel brands meant that they delivered, you know, always an eight.
    0:15:54 But then my social graph, TripAdvisor, friends, Weapons of Mass Diligence, Google, OpenAI.
    0:15:57 I go to OpenAI now and say, I’m going to South by Southwest in Austin.
    0:16:01 I’m in the midst of a midlife crisis, and I want to hang out with younger, cooler people.
    0:16:04 And it literally comes back with stay at the Austin proper.
    0:16:05 Boom.
    0:16:06 I don’t need the brand.
    0:16:07 I’ve never heard of the brand.
    0:16:11 I just know that I trust these weapons of mass diligence more than the brand.
    0:16:13 So what do you have?
    0:16:17 You have people trying to figure out how to gain these algorithms in search.
    0:16:21 You have influencers, the rise of the influencer generation, the rise of Instagram.
    0:16:24 Do you know how much influence Instagram now has?
    0:16:30 Also, at the end of the day, and this sounds very passé, the era of Don Draper is just over.
    0:16:34 The sun has passed midday on the bullshit of thinking you’re going to have a mediocre product
    0:16:35 and a great brand.
    0:16:37 Now the product is the brand.
    0:16:39 And that sounds very passé, but it’s true.
    0:16:43 The companies that have developed the most market capitalization over the last 20 years
    0:16:45 have really been victories, not in brand, but in supply chain.
    0:16:50 Amazon, Alibaba, Netflix’s supply chain.
    0:16:54 They went direct to consumer with DVDs by mail, and then they went direct to consumer using
    0:16:54 broadband.
    0:16:55 How much money?
    0:16:58 What do the most valuable companies in the world have in common?
    0:17:00 They don’t spend a lot of money on advertising.
    0:17:00 Why?
    0:17:02 Because they’ve put all their money into the product.
    0:17:05 And oftentimes, it’s not just about the product.
    0:17:08 It’s how you deliver it and discover it, i.e. supply chain.
    0:17:09 So what do you do if you’re a marketer?
    0:17:17 You think about, okay, where’s my core customer finding and doing diligence on my product?
    0:17:20 Sometimes the best CMO comes back and says, folks, I got to be honest.
    0:17:24 We should put all our money into innovation around digital to unlock new features with our
    0:17:24 product.
    0:17:27 Tesla doesn’t spend a lot of money on advertising.
    0:17:31 And the bottom line is, their brand has gone way down because Elon Musk is an enormous
    0:17:35 asshole, but also because the product has gotten really stale, right?
    0:17:40 So consumers can find the best product now using these weapons of mass diligence.
    0:17:43 So whatever you’re going to see, you’re going to see reallocation of capital out of traditional
    0:17:49 marketing into supply chain, into influencers, into social, and into product itself.
    0:17:51 And this is hand-to-hand combat.
    0:17:53 There’s no single platform.
    0:17:58 If you wanted to bet on any two platforms, I don’t know, you’d probably bet on TikTok
    0:18:00 and Instagram and also maybe YouTube.
    0:18:02 I mean, there’s a cumulative effect here, right?
    0:18:06 You got to kind of do it all, but you want to have influencers.
    0:18:07 You want to have evangelists.
    0:18:12 You want to over-serve a core customer base such that there’s word of mouth and they absolutely
    0:18:13 fall in love with your product.
    0:18:18 I used to use Norelco or Braun or these shitty brands to clip my head.
    0:18:23 And then I found this clipper from a former East German factory that used to make propellers
    0:18:26 from Messerschmitts and they make this incredible clipper.
    0:18:29 And I went online and I found out where it was and I ordered them and they’re more expensive,
    0:18:30 which is a pricing signal.
    0:18:35 But you can now find the best product or discover it online.
    0:18:40 So look, I’m not sure I’m saying anything revolutionary here, but the CMO that’s like the second
    0:18:44 lieutenant in Vietnam that gets shot in the forehead within six to 18 months is the one
    0:18:48 that comes in and wants to do the brand identity and hire a big agency and talk about traditional
    0:18:48 media.
    0:18:50 Boss, that ship has sailed.
    0:18:56 This is hand-to-hand combat that is a combination of a better product with digital unlocks, huge
    0:19:00 supply chain investments if you have access to cheap capital, and then trying to identify
    0:19:04 evangelists slash influencers who can weaponize these platforms to your advantage.
    0:19:06 That was a mouthful.
    0:19:08 Thanks for the question.
    0:19:10 That’s all for this episode.
    0:19:13 If you’d like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehours of
    0:19:14 propertymedia.com.
    0:19:16 That’s officehours of propertymedia.com.
    0:19:21 Or if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit,
    0:19:23 and we just might feature it in an upcoming episode.
    0:19:34 This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez.
    0:19:35 Our intern is Dan Shallon.
    0:19:38 Drew Burrows is our technical director.
    0:19:41 Thank you for listening to the Prop G pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network.
    0:19:45 We will catch you on Saturday for No Mercy, No Malice, as read by George Hahn.
    0:19:51 And please follow our Prop G Markets pod wherever you get your pods for new episodes every Monday
    0:19:52 and Thursday.

    Welcome to the second episode of our special series, Prof G on Marketing, where we answer questions from business leaders about the biggest marketing challenges and opportunities companies face today.

    In today’s episode, Scott answers your questions about whether brands should get political, how to pivot when industry assumptions no longer hold, and why marketers must adapt to a world where trust is shifting from institutions to individuals.

    Want to be featured in a future episode? Send a voice recording to officehours@profgmedia.com, or drop your question in the r/ScottGalloway subreddit.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • CEO Diaries: If You’re Not Doing This in Business, You’re Already Behind! LinkedIn Founder, Reid Hoffman

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:01 There’s a reason I love today’s conversation.
    0:00:05 It is with the founder of a platform that we probably all use called LinkedIn.
    0:00:09 And the guy that made that platform is Reid Hoffman.
    0:00:13 The reality of running a small business is that switching off is never really an option.
    0:00:18 Even when you try, the ideas, the excitement and all the responsibility is always there.
    0:00:22 And because you’re always switched on, it’s only fair that your hiring partner should be too.
    0:00:27 LinkedIn Jobs, who are the sponsor of this moments episode, has been that hiring partner for me
    0:00:30 and for years because it’s always working away in the background.
    0:00:37 My team can post our jobs for free, share them with our networks and reach top talent all in the same place.
    0:00:39 So let’s get into today’s conversation.
    0:00:45 On all these great people you’ve worked with, specifically, you know, during that PayPal period of your life.
    0:00:50 One of the things I was reflecting on is they’re all independently successful people,
    0:00:52 but they’re all very different people.
    0:00:56 And that in and of itself is evidence that there’s not one version of success.
    0:00:58 There’s many different types of success.
    0:01:01 Presumably, there’s many different types of entrepreneur, leader.
    0:01:02 Yes.
    0:01:07 Give me a flavor of the different types of entrepreneurs you’ve worked with.
    0:01:10 And what, you know, because I sat with Walter Isaacson.
    0:01:12 And he talked to me about Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, et cetera.
    0:01:15 And he was like, Steve’s really great at hiring people.
    0:01:19 Elon’s not as good at the people team building part, but he’s better at this part.
    0:01:20 Yes.
    0:01:24 So no entrepreneur wins at every game.
    0:01:33 Generally speaking, as an entrepreneur, you should try to play the games that you have a massive competitive edge on.
    0:01:35 Same thing is true.
    0:01:41 So some people, for example, like take Anil Busri at Workday, right?
    0:01:47 He is thoughtful, intentionally cultural building, very professional.
    0:01:50 So it’s a HR product for work.
    0:01:54 His contrarian idea was going to the cloud and that people were going to do cloud software.
    0:02:06 For the first, I think it was 500 people that Workday hired, he would always do a cultural interview at the end to make sure that the first 500 people all kind of shared cultural things.
    0:02:12 So once you get through all the competence and all the rest of the stuff, he would make sure that was a fit.
    0:02:14 And that’s part of how you get cultural coherence.
    0:02:16 That’s like one example, right?
    0:02:28 Another example, Elon is the, like, I have a big idea and I convinced myself 100% that it’s absolutely going to be the case.
    0:02:30 Like, I am going to settle Mars.
    0:02:35 We’re going to terraform Mars in our lifetimes, which is, no, it’s impossible.
    0:02:44 No human being on the planet, including Elon, is going to do that within Elon’s lifetime, right?
    0:02:47 Like, I’m going to go all in.
    0:02:49 I’m going to work really hard.
    0:02:50 I’m going to be technologically sophisticated.
    0:02:55 I’m going to work against the odds, right, in order to make that work.
    0:03:02 That’s a, you know, Anil, very professional, understands the workplace mark.
    0:03:06 Elon, like, I think I was like the second person he pitched SpaceX to.
    0:03:12 And his pitch, though, to my defense was, I’m going to send a turtle to Mars.
    0:03:14 And I’m like, that’s not a business.
    0:03:19 And you’re competing with national governments and, like, Russian subsidized rocket programs and so forth.
    0:03:20 This is not a good equity.
    0:03:21 I was wrong.
    0:03:21 He was right.
    0:03:25 But it’s not a good equity, you know, kind of play.
    0:03:26 He pitched it to you as an investor?
    0:03:27 Yes.
    0:03:28 Yeah.
    0:03:31 At what point was SpaceX at when he pitched it?
    0:03:33 That was before he started it.
    0:03:33 So it was an idea.
    0:03:34 Yes.
    0:03:36 And I’m going to send a turtle to Mars.
    0:03:41 And then it became, I’m going to send a gelatinous cube with plant seeds in it to Mars because they’ll grow.
    0:03:43 I’ll be the first person who will send life to Mars.
    0:03:45 And you’re like, well, okay.
    0:03:46 Right.
    0:03:49 What did you think genuinely when he said that to you?
    0:03:52 I thought he’d gone off his rocker.
    0:03:52 Really?
    0:03:53 Well, yeah.
    0:03:54 Of course you would.
    0:03:54 Yeah.
    0:03:56 Like, someone’s, my friend said that to me.
    0:03:58 I think I’d make a couple of calls just to check in.
    0:03:58 Do you know what I mean?
    0:04:00 Like, is Elon doing okay?
    0:04:02 He’s just told me about this turtle.
    0:04:03 Yes.
    0:04:04 It’s like, that’s not a business.
    0:04:13 Has your opinion of him changed over time in terms of his potential and ability as an entrepreneur?
    0:04:14 No, no.
    0:04:16 I’ve always thought of him as one of the world’s great entrepreneurs.
    0:04:18 Always?
    0:04:19 Yeah.
    0:04:21 All the way back to PayPal days.
    0:04:21 Really?
    0:04:21 Yeah.
    0:04:26 No, look, he has done repetitively amazing things.
    0:04:29 Now, he pitches everything with the same level of certainty.
    0:04:30 Right?
    0:04:33 Like, you know, I have this idea for online banking.
    0:04:35 I have this idea for boring tunnels under cities.
    0:04:39 I have this idea for creating a pneumatic tube for Hyperloop.
    0:04:48 All of them, he has the same level of, I am 1,000% right that this is, like, guaranteed to be part of the future.
    0:04:49 Right?
    0:04:52 And I, you know, and I may be the unique person to make it happen.
    0:04:52 Right?
    0:04:54 So, you have to have some discernment.
    0:04:59 But he’s, his, you know, on-base batting is pretty good.
    0:05:00 Right?
    0:05:01 For such major ideas.
    0:05:03 But it’s not 100%.
    0:05:03 Yeah.
    0:05:05 People kind of excuse that, though.
    0:05:06 Of course.
    0:05:06 If you get…
    0:05:09 If you get one that’s big, that’s fine.
    0:05:10 Right?
    0:05:10 Yeah.
    0:05:14 On the hiring side, has he been, is he up there with the best?
    0:05:18 Or is he not a direct hirer of people like Steve Jobs was?
    0:05:22 He hires well.
    0:05:26 Matter of fact, you can’t be a great entrepreneur and not ultimately hire well.
    0:05:32 I think some people are better hirers.
    0:05:40 Some people also have, like, are the kind of people that people would work for forever.
    0:05:47 Elon tends to burn people out a lot.
    0:05:51 Like, there’s lots of burnt-out people in his wake.
    0:05:56 And when you go and talk to those people, what you hear is, some people say, that was
    0:05:58 the best work experience ever, and I never want to work for him again.
    0:06:02 And other people say, that was the worst work experience ever, and I never want to work for
    0:06:02 him again.
    0:06:05 So, they’re all, I never want to work for him again.
    0:06:06 Right?
    0:06:09 So, you know, as kind of a dynamic.
    0:06:11 Because he basically looks at them as disposable parts.
    0:06:14 And, you know, go as hard as you can.
    0:06:15 Right?
    0:06:16 And then afterwards, you’re out.
    0:06:17 Don’t care.
    0:06:19 Because he goes so hard.
    0:06:26 Yeah, he goes hard, but he also thinks, your only relevance to me is, can you help me with
    0:06:26 my mission?
    0:06:30 And after you’re done, after you can no longer help me with my mission, you’re not relevant
    0:06:30 to me anymore.
    0:06:34 What do you think of that approach?
    0:06:35 That’s not my approach.
    0:06:37 LinkedIn mirrors my approach.
    0:06:44 Like, literally, I am referenceable by every entrepreneur that I’ve ever worked with, right,
    0:06:49 as a board member and as an investor, right, who, you know, even ones that I’ve, like,
    0:06:50 fired his CEO and so forth.
    0:06:54 Those people will say, he was really good to work with on these things.
    0:06:56 They may also have some critical things.
    0:06:57 There’s no problem with that.
    0:06:57 Right?
    0:07:03 But, like, literally, like, when I’m pitching an entrepreneur, I just, like, call anyone that
    0:07:04 I’ve worked with.
    0:07:06 Right?
    0:07:13 Because I try to work with people in a way that even when we’re at a difficult moment
    0:07:17 because I disagree with them intensely about how well they’re doing or what they’re doing
    0:07:21 or something else, that I’m doing it in a collaborative, constructive way.
    0:07:32 And so my goal is to work with people, like, anyone I want to work with, Brian Chesky, you
    0:07:33 know, Mark Pincus, et cetera.
    0:07:39 I want to be able to work with them for, you know, the rest of our lives.
    0:07:46 What’s interesting is I think these strategies fundamentally come down to what you think
    0:07:48 matters in life the most.
    0:07:54 Because you could optimize, even you could optimize more for building more companies or something
    0:07:56 at the expense of something else.
    0:07:57 And it’s a trade-off of something else.
    0:07:58 Like, you could go harder.
    0:07:58 Yes.
    0:08:00 But there’s a trade-off happening here.
    0:08:05 And we often, because Elon’s done these crazy things like the cars and the Neuralinks and
    0:08:09 there’s tunnels and now the AI and the X and the spaceships and stuff.
    0:08:10 We go, oh my God, that’s so amazing.
    0:08:11 And I do that as well as an entrepreneur.
    0:08:13 I go, fuck, no, one person can do that much.
    0:08:15 But we almost never talk about the trade-off.
    0:08:16 Yes.
    0:08:16 Yep.
    0:08:17 You’re 100% right.
    0:08:21 And it’s so, this goes back to the point about self-awareness.
    0:08:26 It’s like, it’s so tempting for the brain to go, oh my God, I want that.
    0:08:27 That’s what I want.
    0:08:29 Because you’re not seeing the trade-off.
    0:08:30 You’re not seeing the darkness.
    0:08:31 That is 100% correct.
    0:08:33 And look, I respect it.
    0:08:39 I understand the burn people out, like treat them as disposable assets that when they burn
    0:08:40 out, you just jettison them.
    0:08:46 And you can be very, Elon’s not the only entrepreneur who is very successful doing that, right?
    0:08:55 But for example, on the other side, like if you go to Mark Zuckerberg and you talk to the
    0:08:56 people who work for him, they’re like, that was great.
    0:08:58 That was the best working experience of my life.
    0:08:59 Of course I work for them again.
    0:09:00 Interesting.
    0:09:04 I hope you found today’s conversation helpful and insightful.
    0:09:08 If you’re ready to join two and a half million other small businesses already using LinkedIn
    0:09:12 for hiring, head over to linkedin.com slash D-O-A-C now.
    0:09:17 That’s linkedin.com slash D-O-A-C to find your next exceptional hire.
    Có lý do tại sao tôi yêu cuộc trò chuyện hôm nay.
    Người mà tôi gặp hôm nay là người sáng lập một nền tảng mà có lẽ tất cả chúng ta đều sử dụng, đó là LinkedIn.
    Người đã tạo ra nền tảng đó là Reid Hoffman.
    Thực tế khi điều hành một doanh nghiệp nhỏ là việc ngắt kết nối chưa bao giờ thực sự là một lựa chọn.
    Ngay cả khi bạn cố gắng, những ý tưởng, sự phấn khích và tất cả trách nhiệm luôn có mặt.
    Và vì bạn luôn ở trong trạng thái “bật”, thật công bằng khi đối tác tuyển dụng của bạn cũng phải như vậy.
    LinkedIn Jobs, nhà tài trợ cho tập này, đã là đối tác tuyển dụng của tôi suốt nhiều năm vì nó luôn hoạt động trong nền.
    Nhóm của tôi có thể đăng các công việc của chúng tôi miễn phí, chia sẻ chúng với mạng lưới của mình và tiếp cận những tài năng hàng đầu, tất cả tại cùng một chỗ.
    Vậy hãy bắt đầu cuộc trò chuyện hôm nay.
    Về tất cả những người tuyệt vời mà bạn đã làm việc cùng, cụ thể là, bạn biết đấy, trong giai đoạn PayPal của cuộc đời bạn.
    Một trong những điều tôi đã suy ngẫm là họ đều là những người thành công độc lập, nhưng họ đều rất khác nhau.
    Và tự bản thân điều đó chứng minh rằng không có một phiên bản duy nhất của sự thành công.
    Có nhiều loại thành công khác nhau.
    Có lẽ, có nhiều loại doanh nhân, nhà lãnh đạo khác nhau.
    Đúng vậy.
    Cho tôi biết một chút về những loại doanh nhân khác nhau mà bạn đã làm việc cùng.
    Và bạn biết đấy, vì tôi đã ngồi cùng Walter Isaacson.
    Ông ấy đã nói với tôi về Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, v.v.
    Và ông ấy nói, Steve rất giỏi trong việc tuyển dụng người.
    Elon không giỏi bằng ở mảng xây dựng đội ngũ, nhưng anh ấy giỏi ở phần này.
    Đúng vậy.
    Vì vậy, không có doanh nhân nào thắng trong mọi cuộc chơi.
    Nói chung, là một doanh nhân, bạn nên cố gắng chơi những trò chơi mà bạn có lợi thế cạnh tranh lớn.
    Điều tương tự cũng đúng.
    Vì vậy, một số người, ví dụ như Anil Busri tại Workday, đúng không?
    Ông ấy suy nghĩ thấu đáo, xây dựng văn hóa một cách có chủ ý, rất chuyên nghiệp.
    Vì vậy, đó là một sản phẩm nhân sự cho công việc.
    Ý tưởng ngược đời của ông ấy là chuyển sang đám mây và rằng mọi người sẽ sử dụng phần mềm đám mây.
    Trong 500 người đầu tiên mà Workday tuyển, ông ấy luôn tiến hành phỏng vấn văn hóa ở cuối để đảm bảo rằng 500 người đầu tiên đều có những giá trị văn hóa tương đồng.
    Vì vậy, khi bạn vượt qua tất cả năng lực và các yếu tố khác, ông ấy sẽ đảm bảo điều đó hợp với văn hóa.
    Và đó là một phần của cách thức bạn có được sự nhất quán văn hóa.
    Đó là một ví dụ, đúng không?
    Một ví dụ khác, Elon là người có một ý tưởng lớn và tôi thuyết phục bản thân 100% rằng điều đó chắc chắn sẽ xảy ra.
    Như, tôi sẽ định cư trên sao Hỏa.
    Chúng tôi sẽ biến đổi sao Hỏa trong cuộc đời của chúng ta, điều này là, không, điều đó không thể.
    Không có con người nào trên hành tinh này, bao gồm cả Elon, sẽ làm được điều đó trong cuộc đời của Elon, đúng không?
    Như, tôi sẽ dồn toàn bộ sức lực.
    Tôi sẽ làm việc thật chăm chỉ.
    Tôi sẽ phát triển công nghệ tinh vi.
    Tôi sẽ nỗ lực vượt qua khó khăn, đúng không, để biến điều đó thành hiện thực.
    Đó là một, bạn biết đấy, Anil rất chuyên nghiệp, hiểu biết về thị trường nơi làm việc.
    Elon, như, tôi nghĩ tôi là người thứ hai mà anh ấy thuyết phục về SpaceX.
    Và phần thuyết phục của anh ấy, mặc dù tôi đã bảo vệ mình, là, tôi sẽ gửi một con rùa đến sao Hỏa.
    Và tôi đã nói, đó không phải là một doanh nghiệp.
    Và bạn đang cạnh tranh với các chính phủ quốc gia và các chương trình tên lửa được trợ cấp của Nga, v.v.
    Điều này không phải là một lợi thế tốt.
    Tôi đã sai.
    Anh ấy đã đúng.
    Nhưng đó không phải là một phần chơi hợp lý, bạn biết đấy.
    Anh ấy đã thuyết phục bạn như một nhà đầu tư?
    Đúng vậy.
    Tại thời điểm nào SpaceX đang ở vị trí nào khi anh ấy thuyết phục bạn?
    Đó là trước khi anh ấy bắt đầu.
    Vì vậy, đó chỉ là một ý tưởng.
    Đúng.
    Và tôi sẽ gửi một con rùa đến sao Hỏa.
    Và sau đó nó trở thành, tôi sẽ gửi một khối gel có hạt giống thực vật vào sao Hỏa vì chúng sẽ phát triển.
    Tôi sẽ là người đầu tiên gửi sự sống đến sao Hỏa.
    Và bạn như, ừ, được rồi.
    Đúng.
    Bạn nghĩ gì thực sự khi anh ấy nói điều đó với bạn?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng anh ấy đã mất trí.
    Thật sao?
    Chà, đúng.
    Tất nhiên bạn sẽ như vậy.
    Ừ.
    Như, ai đó, bạn tôi đã nói điều đó với tôi.
    Tôi nghĩ tôi sẽ thực hiện một vài cuộc gọi chỉ để kiểm tra.
    Bạn hiểu ý tôi không?
    Như, Elon có ổn không?
    Anh ấy vừa nói với tôi về con rùa này.
    Đúng.
    Nó giống như, đó không phải là một doanh nghiệp.
    Ý kiến của bạn về anh ấy có thay đổi theo thời gian không về tiềm năng và khả năng của anh ấy như một doanh nhân?
    Không, không.
    Tôi luôn coi anh ấy là một trong những doanh nhân vĩ đại của thế giới.
    Luôn luôn sao?
    Ừ.
    Từ những ngày đầu PayPal.
    Thật sao?
    Ừ.
    Không, nhìn xem, anh ấy đã thực hiện liên tiếp nhiều điều tuyệt vời.
    Bây giờ, anh ấy thuyết phục mọi thứ với cùng một mức độ chắc chắn.
    Đúng không?
    Như, bạn biết đấy, tôi có ý tưởng này về ngân hàng trực tuyến.
    Tôi có ý tưởng này về những đường hầm nhàm chán dưới các thành phố.
    Tôi có ý tưởng này về việc tạo ra một ống khí nén cho Hyperloop.
    Tất cả chúng đều được anh ấy thuyết phục với cùng mức độ, tôi 1.000% tin rằng điều này, như, sẽ là một phần của tương lai.
    Đúng không?
    Và tôi, bạn biết đấy, tôi có thể là người duy nhất làm cho nó xảy ra.
    Đúng không?
    Vì vậy, bạn cần phải có một số khả năng phân biệt.
    Nhưng anh ấy, bạn biết đấy, tỷ lệ thành công trên sân nhà của anh ấy khá tốt.
    Đúng không?
    Cho những ý tưởng lớn như vậy.
    Nhưng không phải là 100%.
    Vâng.
    Mọi người cũng thường bỏ qua điều đó.
    Tất nhiên rồi.
    Nếu bạn có một cái lớn, thì không sao cả.
    Đúng không?
    Ừ.
    Về phần tuyển dụng, anh ấy có phải là một trong những người giỏi nhất không?
    Hay là anh ấy không trực tiếp tuyển dụng người giống như Steve Jobs?
    Anh ấy tuyển dụng tốt.
    Trên thực tế, bạn không thể là một doanh nhân vĩ đại mà không cuối cùng tuyển dụng tốt.
    Tôi nghĩ một số người là những nhà tuyển dụng tốt hơn.
    Một số người cũng là kiểu người mà người khác sẽ muốn làm việc mãi mãi.
    Elon có xu hướng làm mọi người kiệt sức.
    Như, có rất nhiều người đã kiệt sức khi làm việc với anh ấy.
    Và khi bạn đi và nói chuyện với những người đó, những gì bạn nghe được là, có người nói, đó là
    trải nghiệm làm việc tốt nhất mà tôi từng có, và tôi không bao giờ muốn làm việc cho anh ấy nữa.
    Và những người khác nói, đó là trải nghiệm làm việc tồi tệ nhất mà tôi từng có, và tôi không bao giờ muốn làm việc cho anh ấy nữa.
    Vì vậy, họ đều là, tôi không bao giờ muốn làm việc cho anh ấy nữa.
    Đúng không?
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, như một kiểu động lực.
    Vì anh ta cơ bản coi họ như những phần có thể vứt đi. Và, bạn biết đấy, hãy cố gắng hết sức có thể. Đúng không? Và rồi sau đó, bạn ra ngoài. Không quan tâm. Vì anh ta làm việc rất nghiêm túc. Đúng, anh ta làm rất quyết liệt, nhưng anh ta cũng nghĩ, giá trị duy nhất của bạn đối với tôi là, bạn có thể giúp tôi với sứ mệnh của tôi không? Và sau khi bạn hoàn thành, sau khi bạn không còn có thể giúp tôi với sứ mệnh của tôi nữa, bạn không còn giá trị gì đối với tôi nữa. Bạn nghĩ sao về cách tiếp cận đó? Đó không phải là cách tiếp cận của tôi. LinkedIn phản ánh cách tiếp cận của tôi. Thật vậy, tôi được mọi doanh nhân mà tôi từng làm việc cùng tham khảo, đúng không, với tư cách là thành viên hội đồng quản trị và nhà đầu tư, đúng không, thậm chí cả những người mà tôi đã sa thải CEO của họ và những thứ tương tự. Những người đó sẽ nói, anh ấy thật tuyệt khi làm việc với những điều này. Họ cũng có thể có một số điều phê bình. Không có vấn đề gì với điều đó. Đúng không? Nhưng thực sự, khi tôi thuyết trình với một doanh nhân, tôi chỉ cần gọi cho bất kỳ ai mà tôi đã làm việc cùng. Đúng không? Bởi vì tôi cố gắng làm việc với mọi người theo cách mà ngay cả khi chúng tôi ở một khoảnh khắc khó khăn vì tôi không đồng ý với họ một cách mạnh mẽ về việc họ làm tốt như thế nào hoặc họ đang làm gì hoặc điều gì khác, tôi đang làm điều đó theo cách hợp tác, xây dựng. Vì vậy, mục tiêu của tôi là làm việc với mọi người, như bất kỳ ai tôi muốn làm việc cùng, Brian Chesky, bạn biết đấy, Mark Pincus, v.v. Tôi muốn có thể làm việc với họ trong suốt phần đời còn lại của chúng tôi. Điều thú vị là tôi nghĩ rằng những chiến lược này cơ bản xoay quanh việc bạn nghĩ rằng điều gì là quan trọng nhất trong cuộc sống. Bởi vì bạn có thể tối ưu hóa, thậm chí bạn có thể tối ưu hóa nhiều hơn để xây dựng nhiều công ty hơn hoặc một cái gì đó mà phải đánh đổi điều khác. Và đó là một sự đánh đổi của một cái gì khác. Như bạn có thể cố gắng hơn. Có. Nhưng có một sự đánh đổi đang diễn ra ở đây. Và chúng ta thường, vì Elon đã thực hiện những điều điên rồ như những chiếc xe, Neuralinks và có các đường hầm và giờ là AI, X và những chiếc tàu vũ trụ và những thứ khác. Chúng ta nói, ôi Chúa ơi, thật tuyệt vời. Và tôi cũng làm điều đó với tư cách là một doanh nhân. Tôi nói, chết tiệt, không, một người không thể làm được nhiều như vậy. Nhưng chúng ta gần như không bao giờ nói về sự đánh đổi. Đúng rồi. Ừ, bạn hoàn toàn đúng. Và điều này, điều này quay lại điểm về sự tự nhận thức. Thật hấp dẫn khi bộ não nghĩ, ôi Chúa ơi, tôi muốn điều đó. Đó là điều tôi muốn. Bởi vì bạn không thấy sự đánh đổi. Bạn không thấy bóng tối. Điều đó hoàn toàn chính xác. Và nhìn này, tôi tôn trọng điều đó. Tôi hiểu rằng việc đốt cháy mọi người, như coi họ là những tài sản có thể vứt đi mà khi họ kiệt sức, bạn chỉ cần loại bỏ họ. Và bạn có thể rất… Elon không phải là doanh nhân duy nhất rất thành công khi làm điều đó, đúng không? Nhưng ví dụ, ở phía bên kia, nếu bạn đến gặp Mark Zuckerberg và bạn nói chuyện với những người làm việc cho anh ta, họ sẽ nói, đó thật sự tuyệt vời. Đó là trải nghiệm làm việc tốt nhất trong đời tôi. Tất nhiên tôi sẽ làm việc cho họ một lần nữa. Thú vị. Tôi hy vọng bạn thấy cuộc trò chuyện hôm nay hữu ích và sâu sắc. Nếu bạn sẵn sàng tham gia cùng hai triệu rưỡi doanh nghiệp nhỏ khác đã sử dụng LinkedIn để tuyển dụng, hãy truy cập linkedin.com/DOAC ngay bây giờ. Đó là linkedin.com/DOAC để tìm kiếm nhân viên xuất sắc tiếp theo của bạn.
    我喜歡今天的對話是有原因的。這次的對話是和我們可能都在使用的平台創始人進行的,這個平台叫做LinkedIn。而創建這個平台的人是里德·霍夫曼(Reid Hoffman)。
    經營小型企業的現實是,關掉開關從來不是一個真正的選擇。即使你試著去放鬆,想法、興奮感和所有的責任感總是如影隨形。因為你總是保持在線,所以你的雇用夥伴也應該這樣。
    LinkedIn Jobs,今天這集節目的贊助商,這幾年來一直是我的雇用夥伴,因為它總是在背後默默運作。我的團隊可以免費發布工作機會,與我們的網絡分享,並在同一個地方接觸到頂尖人才。
    那麼,讓我們開始今天的對話。對於你過去與那些優秀的人合作的經歷,具體來說,特別是在你生活中的PayPal那段時間。 我反思的一件事情是,他們都是獨立成功的人,但他們每個人都非常不同,而這本身就是證據,表明成功沒有單一的版本。成功有很多不同的類型。或許,企業家和領導者的類型也有很多不同。是的。
    給我一些你曾合作過的不同類型企業家的風格。你知道的,我曾與沃爾特·艾薩克森(Walter Isaacson)坐下來聊天。他對我提到史蒂夫·喬布斯(Steve Jobs)、伊隆·馬斯克(Elon Musk)等等。他說,史蒂夫擅長雇用人,而伊隆在建立團隊方面則不如他,但他在其他方面更優於史蒂夫。
    所以沒有企業家能在每個領域都獲勝。一般來說,作為一個企業家,你應該試著參加你具有巨大競爭優勢的比賽。這個道理是相通的。因此有些人,例如在Workday的阿尼爾·布斯里(Anil Busri),對吧?他是個深思熟慮的人,故意在文化上進行建設,非常專業。這是一個針對工作的HR產品。他的反主流理念是走向雲端,認為人們會使用雲軟件。在Workday雇用的前500個人中,他總是在結尾時做文化面試,以確保前500個人都共享某些文化特徵。因此,一旦你通過了所有的能力測試,他會確保這是合適的。這是獲得文化一致性的一部分。
    這是一個例子,對吧?另一個例子,伊隆就是那種,我有一個大點子,我100%相信這會成為現實的人。我將要殖民火星。我們將在我們的有生之年改造火星,而這是不可能的。包括伊隆在內的地球上沒有任何人能在伊隆的有生之年做到這一點,對嗎?他會全力以赴。他會非常努力,技術上會很先進。他會逆流而上,為了讓這一切成真。這個人是阿尼爾,很專業,理解工作場所的市場。伊隆則是,我想我是在他為SpaceX做的第二個推介的人。他對我的推介是,我會把一隻海龜送到火星。我說,這不是一門生意。你在和國家政府、俄羅斯的補貼火箭計劃等競爭。這不是一個好的股權。結果我錯了,他是對的。但這不是一個好的股權玩法。
    他把這個推介給你作為投資者?是的。當他向你推介的時候,SpaceX已經到達什麼程度?那是在他創立SpaceX之前。因此,那只是一個想法。是的。我將把一隻海龜送到火星。然後變成了,我將要把一個裡面放有植物種子的明膠立方體送到火星,因為它們會生長。我將是第一個將生命送到火星的人。然後你會想,好吧。對吧?當他這麼告訴你時,你真心的想法是什麼?我覺得他好像瘋了。真的嗎?嗯,當然是的。是的。如果我的朋友對我這麼說,我想我會打幾個電話來檢查一下。你懂我的意思嗎?他現在這樣過得如何?他剛告訴我這個有關海龜的事。
    是的。就是說,那不是一門生意。你對他的評價隨著時間改變了嗎,特別是在他的潛力和作為企業家的能力方面?不,不。 我一直認為他是世界偉大的企業家之一。一直以來都是?是的。早在PayPal的年代。真的嗎?是的。不,看,他重複做了很多驚人的事情。現在,他以同樣的確定性推銷每一個想法。對吧?比如,我有一個關於網上銀行的想法。我有一個關於在城市下面挖隧道的想法。我有一個關於為超迴路建立氣動管道的想法。他所有的想法都有相同的確定性:我有1,000%的把握,這將是未來的一部分。對吧?我可能是唯一能讓它成真的人。對吧?因此,你必須對此有所辨識。但他的,嗯,基本打擊率還不錯。對於這樣的重大想法。但這可不是100%。是的。不過人們通常會對此心存寬容。當然。如果你找到了…
    如果找到一個大的,那就好。對吧?是的。在雇用方面,他是否在頂尖之列?還是他不像史蒂夫·喬布斯那樣直接雇用人?他會雇用得很好。事實上,你不能是一個偉大的企業家而不最終雇用得很好。我認為有些人更擅長雇用。有些人則是那種人,大家會願意一直為他工作。伊隆則常常會讓人們感到精疲力竭。就像在他身邊,有很多人感到疲憊。而當你去與那些人交談時,你會聽到,有些人說,那是我最好的工作經歷,我再也不想為他工作了。另一些人則說,那是我最糟糕的工作經歷,我再也不想為他工作了。所以,總之,大家都說我再也不想為他工作了。對吧?因此,這就形成了一種動態。
    因為他基本上把他們當作一次性零件來看待。
    而且,你知道,盡可能地努力吧。
    對吧?
    然後之後,你就不再重要了。
    不在乎。
    因為他努力到極致。
    是的,他很拼,但他也想,你對我唯一的相關性就是,你能否幫助我完成我的任務?
    而在你完成後,當你不再能幫助我完成我的任務時,你就不再對我重要了。
    你怎麼看這種做法?
    這不是我的做法。
    LinkedIn 反映了我的做法。
    字面上,我是每個我曾合作過的企業家的推薦人,對吧,身為董事會成員和投資者,對吧,甚至包括像我解雇過他的 CEO 等人。
    那些人會說,他在這些事情上非常好合作。
    他們也可能會有一些批評意見。
    這沒問題。
    對吧?
    但是,當我在向一位企業家推銷時,我會直接打電話給我曾合作過的任何人。
    對吧?
    因為我力求以一種合作、建設性的方式與人合作,即使當我們在難關中,因為我對他們的表現或他們做的事情有強烈的不同意見,我也希望這樣合作。
    所以我的目標是與我想合作的人合作,比如 Brian Chesky,還有 Mark Pincus 等等。
    我希望能夠與他們合作,直到我們的生命結束。
    有趣的是,我認為這些策略根本上歸結於你認為人生中最重要的是什麼。
    因為你可以優化,即使你可以在建立更多公司的同時,犧牲其他東西。
    這是一種取捨。
    是的,你可以更加努力。
    但是這裡發生了一個取捨。
    而且我們經常因為 Elon 做了一些瘋狂的事情,比如汽車、Neuralinks、隧道、現在的 AI、X 和宇宙飛船等等。
    我們會說,哦我的天,真是太驚人了。
    我身為企業家也這樣想,我會說,去他的,不可能一個人做到這麼多。
    但是我們幾乎從來不談論這種取捨。
    是的。
    你完全正確。
    這一點回到自我認知的重要性。
    大腦很容易就會想,哦我的天,我想要那個。
    那就是我想要的。
    因為你沒有看到取捨。
    你沒有看到黑暗。
    這是完全正確的。
    我尊重這點。
    我明白將人們消耗到極限,如同把他們當作一次性資產,當他們燒盡時就把他們拋棄的做法。
    你可以非常,Elon 不是唯一一位在這方面非常成功的企業家,對吧?
    但例如,另一方面,如果你去找 Mark Zuckerberg,和為他工作的人交談,他們會說,那真是太棒了。
    那是我一生中最好的工作經歷。
    當然我會再次為他們工作。
    有趣。
    我希望你覺得今天的對談有幫助並且富有啟發意義。
    如果你準備好加入已經有兩百五十萬家小企業正在使用 LinkedIn 進行招聘的行列,請立即前往 linkedin.com/D-O-A-C。
    那是 linkedin.com/D-O-A-C,來找到你下個卓越的聘用。

    Over the next six weeks, we’re bringing you the most unmissable moments from The Diary of a CEO, a masterclass in work, business, and entrepreneurship. These are the lessons that built some of the most iconic companies in the world, shared by the visionary CEOs behind them.

    We begin with Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn. In this powerful conversation, Reid breaks down the surprising trait that separates good entrepreneurs from the greats and why ignoring it could be your biggest mistake. He shares the story of whats like working with Elon Musk, what most people get wrong about ambition, and the brutal trade-offs that come with building at scale. You’ll learn how different leadership styles create different outcomes and what it really takes to build companies that last.

    Visit – www.linkedin.com/DOAC

    Listen to the full episode here –

    Spotify – https://g2ul0.app.link/kXUCbNYywTb

    Apple – https://g2ul0.app.link/AkpmkV6ywTb

    Watch the Episodes On YouTube –

    https://www.youtube.com/c/%20TheDiaryOfACEO/videos

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • How to Succeed at Failing, Part 4: Extreme Resiliency (Update)

    AI transcript
    0:00:07 Hey there, it’s Stephen Dubner, and you are about to hear the fourth and final episode
    0:00:13 of our series, How to Succeed at Failing, which was first published in 2023.
    0:00:17 If you missed any of the earlier episodes, they should be right there in your podcast
    0:00:18 app.
    0:00:22 For this version, we have updated facts and figures as necessary.
    0:00:24 As always, thanks for listening.
    0:00:35 If I asked you to name the world’s deadliest infectious disease, what would you say?
    0:00:36 COVID-19?
    0:00:40 That was the biggest infectious killer for a few years, but not anymore.
    0:00:42 How about malaria?
    0:00:44 Influenza?
    0:00:44 HIV?
    0:00:49 Those are all deadly, but not the deadliest.
    0:00:51 So what’s number one?
    0:00:58 Actually, TB, for the last 20, 30 years, has been the number one infectious disease killer
    0:00:58 in the world.
    0:01:03 Babek Javed is a physician scientist who studies tuberculosis, or TB.
    0:01:08 You may think of TB as a 19th century disease when it was called consumption.
    0:01:13 It killed John Keats, Anton Chekhov, and at least two of the Bronte sisters.
    0:01:18 It killed the heroines of both La Boheme and La Traviata.
    0:01:24 And today, it still kills more than a million people each year, most of them in the developing
    0:01:24 world.
    0:01:27 TB is a disease of poverty.
    0:01:35 It’s really a major problem in India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria.
    0:01:37 TB is a bacterial infection.
    0:01:40 There is a vaccine for it, but it’s not always effective.
    0:01:46 It can be treated with antibiotics, but it’s a long and fairly complicated course of treatment.
    0:01:53 And as deadly as TB is, it doesn’t draw the attention or the funding that flow to other
    0:01:54 diseases.
    0:02:01 There is no Hollywood star that gets TB that puts it in the public mind and everyday people’s
    0:02:02 thoughts.
    0:02:07 One of the reasons I was attracted to this field is I felt that infectious diseases in general,
    0:02:13 TB in particular, is, you know, one of the mechanisms of injustice in our world.
    0:02:14 And I really wanted to tackle that.
    0:02:19 David runs a tuberculosis research lab at the University of California, San Francisco.
    0:02:23 He has also worked at labs in Beijing and at Harvard.
    0:02:27 His kind of research comes with a lot of failure.
    0:02:31 I remember in my graduate school, I went over a year and a half without a single experiment
    0:02:32 working.
    0:02:37 And it’s very hard to get up in the morning and go back and expect to fail again.
    0:02:42 The first drug that was found to successfully fight TB is called streptomycin.
    0:02:44 It was discovered in 1943.
    0:02:49 It won a Nobel Prize for Selman Waxman, the main scientist behind it.
    0:02:53 And the way that streptomycin works is that it does two things.
    0:02:56 It inhibits the process of making new proteins.
    0:02:58 It’s called a protein synthesis inhibitor.
    0:03:01 But that in itself doesn’t kill the bug.
    0:03:08 What kills the bug is that in addition to that inhibitory action, it actually causes the
    0:03:11 bug to make mistakes when it makes these proteins.
    0:03:17 What interested Javid was this second function, the drug causing the bacteria to make mistakes
    0:03:21 as they are creating the proteins that produce the symptoms of TB.
    0:03:26 So he went looking for other ways to trigger those mistakes.
    0:03:31 And he found some, but it turned out this wasn’t enough to thwart the bacteria.
    0:03:36 What was really shocking and surprising to me is the bug didn’t seem to mind.
    0:03:38 It just carried on regardless.
    0:03:42 So I cranked up the error rate and I kept pushing and pushing.
    0:03:47 And really, the bugs were kind of fine with it until eventually, when I had really,
    0:03:51 cranked up the error rate an awful lot, then the bugs died.
    0:03:54 It takes a lot of error to kill these bugs.
    0:03:59 I was reflecting on my results and I was thinking, this just doesn’t make any sense to me.
    0:04:04 The prevailing dogma at the time is that with a small amount of error, you induce what’s
    0:04:12 called error catastrophe, where the errors in the new proteins make faulty machinery in the
    0:04:15 cell that then makes more errors and it just feeds on itself.
    0:04:18 And these bugs were extremely resilient.
    0:04:20 And that made me take a step back.
    0:04:24 And I thought, what if actually these errors aren’t detrimental after all, at least in a
    0:04:25 moderate amount?
    0:04:28 And that was my, I guess, aha moment.
    0:04:33 I have to be honest, at the beginning, I had no idea why this was.
    0:04:35 We were coming up with lots of different ideas just to explain it.
    0:04:43 But after a lot of experimentation and blind alleys and wrong turns, we figured out that
    0:04:49 what’s happening is that this mistranslation is allowing the bacteria to innovate.
    0:04:51 And that was a really exciting moment.
    0:04:59 And I kind of coined the term adaptive mistranslation, that sometimes these errors in the right context
    0:05:02 can actually be good for the bug.
    0:05:07 Adaptive mistranslation.
    0:05:08 Think about that for a minute.
    0:05:12 And let’s think about it outside the realm of tuberculosis research.
    0:05:19 It’s the idea that errors in the right context and degree can strengthen an organism, can make
    0:05:23 it more resilient and lead it to innovate.
    0:05:26 Now, that sounds like a magic trick, doesn’t it?
    0:05:32 But if it can work for TB, can it work for us?
    0:05:38 Today on Freakonomics Radio, the final episode of our series, How to Succeed at Failing.
    0:05:44 We will hear about another counterintuitive way to fight off failure.
    0:05:50 The premortem is designed to help you do better rather than to shut off innovation.
    0:05:55 We ask if failure should be taught formally in the classroom.
    0:06:01 The whole point of the whole semester is going to be, hey, everybody fails and we fail at everything.
    0:06:04 And whether failure needs a museum.
    0:06:06 We have a Ford Edsel.
    0:06:09 We have Pepsi Crystal, New Coke.
    0:06:14 How to Succeed at Failing, the final chapter starting right now.
    0:06:35 This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything.
    0:06:38 With your host, Stephen Dubner.
    0:06:51 Gary Klein is a cognitive psychologist who advises organizations on how to respond to failure.
    0:06:55 His latest research is around what are called wicked problems.
    0:07:01 A wicked problem is one where there’s not a clear right answer that people would generally agree upon.
    0:07:05 And what share of problems in the world are wicked problems?
    0:07:10 Most of the major social problems we wrestle with are wicked problems.
    0:07:14 We have multiple stakeholders and there’s no way to please all of them.
    0:07:18 And so there’s all of this potential conflict.
    0:07:29 And resource situations change or pandemics arise, wars arise, things that are unexpected that are going to upset what you’re doing.
    0:07:43 In any of those conflicts that Klein is describing, any of those disruptions, let’s call them, we suddenly crash into a complex situation that’s also fogged in by uncertainty.
    0:07:47 And now we have to essentially guess what’s going to happen next.
    0:07:50 And those guesses often turn out to be wrong.
    0:07:57 I actually went on Anderson Cooper during the early days of the pandemic to tell everyone how wrong I was.
    0:07:59 That is Teresa McPhail.
    0:08:06 She is a medical anthropologist at the Stevens Institute of Technology, one of the country’s top engineering colleges.
    0:08:13 And yes, McPhail is an appropriate name for a professor discussing her own failure in a series about failure.
    0:08:17 But just wait, it will get even more appropriate later in this episode.
    0:08:23 Anyway, McPhail had studied the outbreak of the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009.
    0:08:27 So her expertise was in demand when COVID came along.
    0:08:35 I really thought when we heard the first rumblings out of China in 2019 and early 2020, I was like, we have this.
    0:08:37 Like there’s mechanisms in place.
    0:08:45 But what I hadn’t really considered was what over a decade of cutting funding had done.
    0:08:49 And it had basically decimated a lot of public health.
    0:08:54 I thought we were more prepared and it turns out we were not.
    0:09:02 And I felt badly because I had done an interview with Vice News in February and I said, calm down.
    0:09:04 You know, we’re not China.
    0:09:06 We’re better equipped.
    0:09:07 Here’s why.
    0:09:12 I had to go to the ER in March because I got very sick on March 1st.
    0:09:24 I went to the ER and I remember the ER doctor saying to me that he had never seen a situation where they were so ill-equipped with PPE or personal protective equipment.
    0:09:27 That’s when I realized, uh-oh, I was wrong.
    0:09:42 Now, what might have happened if Teresa McPhail, and not just McPhail, but let’s say everyone in the realm of pandemic preparedness, what if they had all thought a bit differently about this wicked problem?
    0:09:49 What if, before the failure happened, they pretended that there had already been a failure?
    0:09:56 You are probably familiar with the idea of a post-mortem or what the military calls an after-action review.
    0:10:00 By that point, of course, the damage has been done.
    0:10:05 So what if you flip the order and conduct a pre-mortem?
    0:10:11 That’s what Gary Klein called this strategy when he invented it in the 1980s.
    0:10:27 The pre-mortem is designed to help people surface realistic possibilities and threats so that you can improve the plan, improve the product, and increase your chance of success.
    0:10:33 At the time, Klein was running an R&D firm that studied decision-making in organizations.
    0:10:37 You know, many of our projects succeeded, but not all of them.
    0:10:41 And we would occasionally have an after-action review.
    0:10:45 Those weren’t exciting things to do because we were pretty disgruntled.
    0:10:49 At one point, I said, why don’t we do this at the very beginning?
    0:10:51 Why don’t we imagine that it fails?
    0:11:01 Often in organizations, if you have like a kickoff meeting, there’ll be a part where they say, all right, now, does anybody have any concerns?
    0:11:02 Are there any critiques?
    0:11:04 Does anybody see any problems?
    0:11:14 And nobody says anything, either because they don’t want to disrupt the harmony of the team or because they’re not thinking that anything could go wrong because they’re excited to get started.
    0:11:20 So to break through that mindset, I developed this technique of a pre-mortem.
    0:11:26 And at the end of a kickoff meeting, we say, all right, imagine that I’m looking at a crystal ball.
    0:11:33 I’m dialing forward six months, maybe a year, whatever the right time frame is.
    0:11:37 And oh, no, this project has failed.
    0:11:39 It’s failed in a big way.
    0:11:40 We know that.
    0:11:41 There is no doubt.
    0:11:43 This crystal ball is infallible.
    0:11:48 Now, everybody in the room, you’ve got two minutes.
    0:11:53 Write down all the reasons why this project failed.
    0:12:01 And it’s amazing the types of issues that people surface that ordinarily they wouldn’t say in public or even think about.
    0:12:06 Can you explain from a psychological perspective why that works?
    0:12:11 Well, after I developed the technique, I read about some research on prospective hindsight.
    0:12:17 And so I think a big part of it is the certainty that it’s failed.
    0:12:19 And so now that changes my mindset.
    0:12:21 So I’m not resisting.
    0:12:23 If I say, here’s the plan.
    0:12:24 Are there any problems?
    0:12:27 There’s all kinds of pressure not to think about problems.
    0:12:36 But by being certain that the plan has failed, by entering into that exercise, it just changes the whole valence, the whole experience.
    0:12:37 So interesting.
    0:12:43 I mean, we always hear about how humans perform poorly under uncertainty generally.
    0:12:46 So you’re saying you’re just removing the uncertainty of whether it will work.
    0:12:48 You’re saying it didn’t.
    0:12:49 Now tell me why it didn’t.
    0:12:51 And that provides clarity.
    0:12:51 Right.
    0:12:56 So what happens next after people voice these ideas?
    0:12:57 What happens now?
    0:13:01 OK, so let me get we never thought about this as a tool outside our company.
    0:13:04 This was just something we did.
    0:13:06 But then we had a big project we were doing for the Air Force.
    0:13:13 It was a software tool for identifying ways of using precision guided munitions.
    0:13:17 And I told my prime sponsor, I want to do a pre-mortem.
    0:13:18 And he said, what’s that?
    0:13:19 And I explained it to him.
    0:13:21 And he said, absolutely no way.
    0:13:23 We want everybody to be positive.
    0:13:25 This is such a depressing exercise.
    0:13:27 I don’t want to do it.
    0:13:30 And I said, this is an important project.
    0:13:31 We want it to succeed.
    0:13:33 This is a way to make it succeed.
    0:13:36 And reluctantly, he agreed to do it.
    0:13:38 We were doing this pre-mortem.
    0:13:39 And there was this young captain.
    0:13:40 He hadn’t said a word.
    0:13:43 The meeting had gone on for about two days.
    0:13:44 He hadn’t said a word.
    0:13:49 And it was time for him to come up with his, what he had on his list.
    0:13:51 We go around one at a time around the room.
    0:13:53 And we do one or two or three sweeps.
    0:13:55 And he looked a little nervous.
    0:14:00 And he said, this tool that we’re building, it’s for people in the field.
    0:14:04 And they have these low-powered laptops.
    0:14:09 The tool we’re building runs on a supercomputer that takes 48 hours.
    0:14:11 I don’t see how that’s going to work.
    0:14:15 And there was silence in the room because everybody realized he was right.
    0:14:22 And then somebody said, now, I’ve got a back-of-the-envelope technique that I use that could be a shortcut.
    0:14:25 And all of a sudden, we were back in business.
    0:14:28 But if we hadn’t done that, we would have failed.
    0:14:32 And he never would have said that if we didn’t give him that space.
    0:14:36 And you’re saying the person who spoke up was the most junior or among the most junior in the room?
    0:14:38 Yes, he was.
    0:14:47 So I’ve seen this myself many times, not in a pre-mortem, but just in a meeting generally, where junior people, they have very little incentive to speak up.
    0:14:49 It seems like there’s more downside than upside.
    0:14:58 It strikes me that American meeting culture is dominated by noisy people who have a lot of confidence, which is often unearned.
    0:15:03 And I’m curious if you have any advice for having better ideas come through in meetings.
    0:15:11 I have a couple of ideas, but one of them is the pre-mortem because the pre-mortem creates a culture of candor.
    0:15:17 People learn that they can voice unpopular ideas and not be punished for it.
    0:15:26 It also creates an environment where I’m surprised at the ideas that you come up with or this young captain comes up with.
    0:15:33 It’s because a pre-mortem really harvests the different experience and ability of the people in the room.
    0:15:37 I don’t know what’s in your head, so how can I appreciate your perspective?
    0:15:41 But in a pre-mortem, I realize, wow, I never thought of it that way.
    0:15:46 So there’s a chance for the people in the room to start to gain more respect for their colleagues.
    0:15:50 I would think that anonymity would be a useful tool here.
    0:15:52 Why do you not use that?
    0:15:56 Anonymity could be useful in environments that are usually very punitive.
    0:16:02 But in terms of creating a culture of candor, it works better if we’re all face-to-face.
    0:16:06 Does it sometimes get personal, even ugly?
    0:16:09 I have never seen that happen, surprisingly enough.
    0:16:10 No.
    0:16:15 No, because everybody knows that this is a made-up failure.
    0:16:19 So it’s not life or death, although it could be.
    0:16:23 And everybody knows that the intent is to improve the plan.
    0:16:28 Can you talk about how to encourage candid feedback generally?
    0:16:34 Again, it may be the more junior employees, but whoever it is that might have a valuable insight,
    0:16:37 how can you best float that insight up to leadership?
    0:16:43 I’ve wrestled with that issue for a while because most organizations say that they want insights,
    0:16:49 but they don’t because insights are going to mean that we have to change.
    0:16:55 And if I’m a mid-level manager, now I’ve got to change my supply lines.
    0:16:57 I’ve got to change my staffing.
    0:17:01 Can we just continue what we’re doing and try to do it better?
    0:17:08 They’ll say, we want to be harmonious, so we’re going to make decisions where everybody agrees.
    0:17:14 A harmonious decision is a terrible idea because that means that everybody has a veto.
    0:17:20 And so your chance of coming up with an innovation has been severely compromised.
    0:17:25 Do you ever have harmonious decisions in your personal life, maybe with your family?
    0:17:31 I am guilty of the delusion that we can have harmonious decisions.
    0:17:37 And despite personal experience, I hold on to this goal.
    0:17:45 Do you personally routinely do pre-mortems, even just a quick in-your-head one when you’re about to make a decision?
    0:17:49 I do not do it when I make lots of decisions.
    0:17:52 And so I don’t do it automatically.
    0:17:55 Did you pre-mortem this interview today, Gary?
    0:18:00 That was a no.
    0:18:07 After the break, we ask the CEO of a startup if he would like to try Gary Klein’s pre-mortem idea.
    0:18:09 I guess I disagree with Gary.
    0:18:11 I’m Stephen Dubner.
    0:18:12 This is Freakonomics Radio.
    0:18:13 We’ll be right back.
    0:18:29 In 2018, Will Coleman left his job as a partner at McKinsey, the consulting firm, in order to launch a rideshare startup called Alto.
    0:18:35 At Alto, we’re elevating rideshare for both drivers and passengers.
    0:18:41 We offer a really differentiated service through W2 employees and company-owned vehicles.
    0:18:47 So at Alto, you always know exactly what you’re going to get, a safe, clean, high-quality ride every single time.
    0:18:54 A lot of those words sounded as if they were chosen to be contra Uber and Lyft.
    0:18:55 Is that essentially the case?
    0:18:57 That is essentially the case.
    0:19:01 Uber and Lyft, we think, are the contra of safe, clean, consistent.
    0:19:10 Our brand was always built to go head-to-head against the big names and to compete directly against them in every major city.
    0:19:13 Are you also, to some degree, a luxury product?
    0:19:15 We call it an accessible luxury.
    0:19:23 We want it to be something that feels luxurious, but that is, for most people, a couple dollars more.
    0:19:35 It might be because you really value your safety and the type of vehicle that you’re in or the type of person that you’re in the vehicle with or that you just value the consistency, knowing exactly what you’re going to get.
    0:19:38 So we see it a lot like a cup of Starbucks coffee.
    0:19:44 You can get a much cheaper cup of coffee, but most people choose that for that consistency and quality every single time.
    0:19:45 How many markets are you in right now?
    0:19:48 Yeah, we’re in six markets across the U.S.
    0:19:53 Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Miami, and Washington, D.C.
    0:19:55 I did not hear New York City there.
    0:19:55 Why not?
    0:19:56 That’s a big market.
    0:19:58 New York is a very expensive market.
    0:19:59 It’s a very competitive market.
    0:20:01 It’s very big and it’s a huge opportunity.
    0:20:09 But as efficient and maybe conservative allocators of capital, we want to perfect the product.
    0:20:13 The rideshare market is tough to break into.
    0:20:18 Uber and Lyft dominate both the drivers and riders in most places.
    0:20:21 Coleman hopes that Alto’s business model can set it apart.
    0:20:27 Instead of using freelance drivers who have their own cars, which is how Lyft and Uber do
    0:20:31 it, Alto employs the drivers directly and leases vehicles from manufacturers.
    0:20:33 Will that work?
    0:20:40 The history of the rideshare industry is already littered with firms that tried to challenge
    0:20:41 Uber and Lyft.
    0:20:44 There’s Juno, Sidecar, Fasten, and more.
    0:20:49 We asked Gary Klein how he might help Alto stay off that list.
    0:20:52 Okay, so there’s a couple of things that I might do with them.
    0:21:00 First of all, we would want to run some premortems to inject a healthy dose of reality.
    0:21:02 Not that I don’t think they have that.
    0:21:09 A second is, are they going to be able to pivot based on what they learn?
    0:21:16 Or are they going to get locked into a business model and not be resilient or flexible as things
    0:21:17 develop?
    0:21:18 Because things will develop.
    0:21:25 Their plan is not going to continue as they’ve originally designed it, simply because nobody
    0:21:29 is smart enough to come up with a perfect plan right off the bat.
    0:21:34 So you do want to make discoveries and you do want to be able to pivot and maybe even make
    0:21:37 massive changes in your business model.
    0:21:44 I mean, if you do some sort of premortem, you might say, what are the things that we might
    0:21:49 have to adapt for in part to build a more resilient organization?
    0:21:56 We went back to Will Coleman to ask what he thinks of Gary Klein’s suggestion.
    0:21:59 Yeah, we’re not going to be running any premortems at all.
    0:22:02 Because why?
    0:22:04 I guess I disagree with Gary.
    0:22:09 I mean, if you’re constantly focused on the downside, then I think you’re probably not
    0:22:10 focused enough on the upside.
    0:22:15 I often tell my team, you know, the money-making machine hasn’t been built yet.
    0:22:21 If you’re in a company like Google or Apple or Amazon, the money-making machine has been built
    0:22:22 and you’re just there to make it better.
    0:22:25 Here, you’re really building something from scratch.
    0:22:31 And so, honestly, the proposition of failure is almost – I mean, startups fail every day,
    0:22:33 you know, probably, what, 99% of them.
    0:22:39 So you’re already going into this with an understanding that failure is the most likely outcome.
    0:22:43 So we could sit around and talk about that for hours, days, but we’ll never make any progress.
    0:22:44 It’s paralyzing.
    0:22:50 Instead, what we talk about and what I focus on is, you know, how do we just get to the next
    0:22:50 decision point?
    0:22:52 How do we just get to tomorrow?
    0:22:55 How do we just make this incrementally better now?
    0:23:03 I hate to keep leading you down the road of potential failure, but I do want to ask, let’s
    0:23:08 say this doesn’t work and a couple of years from now, you need to close up shop.
    0:23:12 Can you envision what that would feel like for you?
    0:23:13 It would be devastating.
    0:23:18 Yeah, I mean, because we’ve been on the brink of that before.
    0:23:21 In COVID, I mean, I’m not kidding.
    0:23:23 We lost 95% of our revenue in a day.
    0:23:27 We were more agile during that period of time than we had ever been.
    0:23:32 And the impact of that was that many of those products that we built that were the ones that
    0:23:38 succeeded, which was maybe a tenth of them, but the ones that did are now 20%, 30% of our
    0:23:38 revenue.
    0:23:43 Incremental things that we didn’t have before the pandemic have made our business more robust,
    0:23:44 more resilient.
    0:23:51 A couple of months after we spoke with Coleman, we learned that Alto shut down service in
    0:23:52 San Francisco.
    0:23:55 Later, they stopped operations in two more cities.
    0:23:58 This all came with significant layoffs.
    0:24:04 Does this mean they will join the 90 some percent of failed startups that Coleman mentioned?
    0:24:08 I, of course, have no way of knowing.
    0:24:14 But if they do fail and fail spectacularly, they might end up with this man.
    0:24:16 My name is Samuel West.
    0:24:18 I’m a psychologist and I’m a curator.
    0:24:23 He is a curator and founder of the Museum of Failure.
    0:24:24 And how did that come to be?
    0:24:30 So I was in Croatia, in Zagreb, the capital, just on holiday with my family.
    0:24:35 And I stumbled into a museum called the Museum of Broken Relationships.
    0:24:44 So I’d been thinking about ways to sort of spread the ideas of accepting failure and how much room
    0:24:46 for improvement there is on learning from failure.
    0:24:51 And then I was in Zagreb and I just got this, you know, what do you call it?
    0:24:52 Hallelujah moment.
    0:24:57 And so it was that Samuel West invented the Museum of Failure.
    0:25:02 It’s a pop-up museum that has been traveling the world since 2017.
    0:25:06 Helsingborg, Sweden, Paris, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.
    0:25:09 When we spoke with West, the museum was in Brooklyn.
    0:25:14 It’s a sunny, nice day and we’re about to open in a few minutes.
    0:25:17 As it turns out, running a traveling museum is not easy.
    0:25:21 So here we have an example of failure at Museum of Failure.
    0:25:23 Our wall panels are falling off the wall.
    0:25:25 I’m going to kill somebody.
    0:25:33 The museum includes more than 150 failures, most of them inventions and commercial products.
    0:25:37 They range from trivial to fraudulent.
    0:25:40 Elizabeth Holmes, do I need to say anything about her?
    0:25:41 No, come on.
    0:25:49 Gerber, back in the 70s, they launched a product of adult food in a baby food jar.
    0:25:53 This is the Euro Club from 2008.
    0:26:01 In case you couldn’t hear that, it’s called the Euro Club, not Euro, E-U-R-O, just U-R-O.
    0:26:07 It’s a golf club with, yeah, it’s for us men when we’re out golfing.
    0:26:09 And I need to urinate.
    0:26:16 So what you do is you unscrew the top of it, you clip it onto your belt, and then you fiddle
    0:26:24 under the belt and you urinate into this canister camouflaged as a golf club.
    0:26:27 And then you screw it back up and you continue on with your golf.
    0:26:33 I mean, the criteria is that to be in a museum, it has to be an innovation, and it has to be
    0:26:34 a failure, obviously.
    0:26:36 And then I have to find it interesting.
    0:26:41 The museum of failure will make you laugh, but West hopes that people walk away with more
    0:26:42 than that.
    0:26:47 So the focus at the museum is on innovations, which is products and services, but in our
    0:26:52 personal lives we fail also, and the same principle applies there.
    0:26:56 We’re very bad at learning from our own failures because it’s uncomfortable.
    0:27:01 So if we’re willing to have those uncomfortable feelings and thoughts for a while, we can actually
    0:27:02 learn from them.
    0:27:09 I want people to feel liberated that failing isn’t as bad as you think it is, usually.
    0:27:16 We also got Samuel West into a studio to talk about failure more generally.
    0:27:19 I think failure is far more interesting than success.
    0:27:22 Because why?
    0:27:30 Because success is often sort of curated by whoever, whatever story the sender wants to
    0:27:34 present, whereas failure feels much more authentic, much more human.
    0:27:38 Do you think it’s easier to learn from failure or from success?
    0:27:44 I think it maybe feels better to learn from success, but I think we can learn much more from failure.
    0:27:47 It’s a more natural way of learning.
    0:27:53 That’s how we learn how to eat, how to walk, how to do anything is through a repeated trial
    0:27:53 and error.
    0:27:55 So here’s the thing.
    0:28:00 I agree with you, but it seems as though most of the world, certainly the business world,
    0:28:01 thinks the opposite.
    0:28:05 We are addicted to, you know, success porn.
    0:28:11 People read the books written by successful entrepreneurs and they say, okay, that’s what I’m
    0:28:11 going to do.
    0:28:16 People listen to popular music or watch popular films and emulate that.
    0:28:22 It seems that there’s pretty much consensus that the best way to succeed is to copy success.
    0:28:23 What’s wrong with that idea?
    0:28:24 There’s nothing wrong with it.
    0:28:26 It’s just really difficult to do.
    0:28:33 And the thing is, it’s really low effort learning because sometimes, you know, listening to that
    0:28:38 successful entrepreneur or listening to that successful artist, you think you’re just going
    0:28:41 to absorb the success by listening to the story.
    0:28:46 Just because something works for someone else doesn’t mean it’s going to work for you.
    0:28:54 Since we spoke with Samuel West, the Museum of Failure itself seems to be failing.
    0:28:59 West and his former business partner are engaged in a bitter public dispute.
    0:29:03 West has encouraged people not to buy tickets to the museum.
    0:29:07 He says the partner stole his collection of failure memorabilia.
    0:29:09 The partner denies this.
    0:29:16 So if the Museum of Failure isn’t the place for instruction at the moment, how else might
    0:29:17 you learn from failure?
    0:29:22 Throughout this series, we’ve been speaking with Amy Edmondson, a scholar of failure at the
    0:29:23 Harvard Business School.
    0:29:28 She argues that, for starters, we should not be hiding our failures.
    0:29:32 One way to think about this is we will be failing.
    0:29:35 So let’s do it joyfully.
    0:29:39 Let’s do it thoughtfully and celebrate them appropriately.
    0:29:46 Talk to me for a moment about the ways in which failure is a good teacher, but we ignore its lessons.
    0:29:50 And I’m particularly thinking about the lack of publishing of null results and things like that.
    0:29:53 We don’t, in academia, we don’t publish our null results.
    0:30:00 So that means not only do we not spend enough time on them to really learn what they’re teaching
    0:30:05 us, but even more importantly, our colleagues near and far don’t get to see them.
    0:30:11 So then they’re at risk of trying the same thing, which to me is the most wasteful of the
    0:30:16 wasteful failures is when we already had that knowledge, but somehow we aren’t able to share it.
    0:30:20 Should there be a journal of failed results somewhere?
    0:30:21 Yes.
    0:30:23 And, you know, it’s not as strange as it sounds.
    0:30:28 You could still have very high standards because you wouldn’t publish things that were just
    0:30:35 nonsensical or didn’t have thoughtful hypotheses or theories that led you to spend that time
    0:30:36 studying them.
    0:30:40 You want to be the editor-in-chief and I’ll be your amanuensis or something?
    0:30:41 Let’s do it the other way around.
    0:30:47 Oh, I failed in my request to Tom Sawyer you into painting the fence there.
    0:30:48 I like the idea, though.
    0:30:55 Okay, so that’s one vote for a journal of failure, but Edmondson doesn’t want to run it.
    0:30:58 Maybe we can persuade this person.
    0:31:00 My name is Roy Shalem.
    0:31:02 I have a PhD in economics.
    0:31:08 Shalem teaches at Tel Aviv University and he studies the economics of competition and regulation.
    0:31:12 He once published a paper called The Market for R&D Failures.
    0:31:20 So what I’m trying to analyze is a situation in which firms are competing head-to-head in
    0:31:21 kind of a patent race.
    0:31:23 Patent races are quite common.
    0:31:28 Think about when pharmaceutical firms are competing to find a disease treatment.
    0:31:31 But this goes way beyond pharma companies.
    0:31:37 One of the most famous examples is when Alexander Graham Bell and Alicia Gray both filed a patent
    0:31:40 for the telephone on the same day in 1876.
    0:31:46 Bell won the patent, started the successful company, now synonymous with telephone, while
    0:31:48 far fewer people remember Gray.
    0:31:51 A typical patent race is winner-take-all.
    0:31:57 The competitors work hard, invest a lot of resources, but only the winner reaps the rewards.
    0:32:01 And the loser, or losers, are left with pretty much nothing.
    0:32:09 Roy Shalem, based on his research around corporate innovation, thinks this model is due for an upgrade.
    0:32:13 He thinks the losers should also have a way to monetize their efforts.
    0:32:18 My paper proves that theoretically there is a potential for a market for R&D failure.
    0:32:26 When you sell knowledge of past failures, you are expected both to reduce the cost of R&D because
    0:32:29 you’re not doing the same mistakes over and over again.
    0:32:34 And you also reduce the time until a discovery is made.
    0:32:36 So that’s also worth money.
    0:32:43 If Shalem had his way, there would be, as he titled his paper, a true market for R&D failures.
    0:32:49 Basically, when you’re doing something which is very hard, you mostly produce failures.
    0:32:54 And this is a very, very important part of the stock of knowledge.
    0:33:01 And so I think that it is possible to take all that knowledge and find the right price for
    0:33:03 a competitor to buy that knowledge.
    0:33:07 So far, at least, such a market does not exist.
    0:33:13 So what else can we do if we want to seriously consider the idea of learning from failure?
    0:33:19 Maybe we learn from failure in the old-fashioned way, in a classroom.
    0:33:21 I mean, I’m old school.
    0:33:22 I’m talking about Hobbes.
    0:33:25 After the break, Failure 101.
    0:33:27 I’m Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio.
    0:33:27 Freakonomics Radio.
    0:33:42 Do you remember Teresa McPhail?
    0:33:48 She is the medical anthropologist who initially thought that COVID-19 wouldn’t be a big deal.
    0:33:50 I said, calm down.
    0:33:52 You know, we’re not China.
    0:33:54 We’re better equipped.
    0:33:55 Here’s why.
    0:34:01 McPhail’s day job is teaching undergraduate engineering students at Stevens Institute of Technology.
    0:34:02 Right.
    0:34:07 They’re all science and technology nerds and geeks.
    0:34:10 And I mean that in the best possible sense.
    0:34:11 My people.
    0:34:13 Very driven.
    0:34:16 Very type A personalities.
    0:34:19 I mean, you don’t get into science and tech lightly.
    0:34:22 It’s not an easy subject.
    0:34:27 And the course load is quite hefty.
    0:34:34 At some point in their lives, probably the majority, like say 70%, will probably go on to get some sort of master’s or PhD.
    0:34:37 And then in terms of careers, what’s typical?
    0:34:38 What sort of careers?
    0:34:41 Engineers, engineers, engineers.
    0:34:44 And research scientists.
    0:34:48 And within engineering, is it software, mechanical, electrical, everything?
    0:34:49 The whole gamut.
    0:34:51 They’re building your bridges.
    0:34:52 They’re putting up your buildings.
    0:34:54 They’re designing your sewage pipes.
    0:34:56 All things I don’t want to fail.
    0:34:57 Exactly.
    0:34:58 Exactly.
    0:35:00 They’re designing your airplane engines.
    0:35:01 Everything.
    0:35:10 Now, for someone studying engineering who sees a future designing things where the stakes are high, an airplane, a bridge, whatever.
    0:35:13 How do they think about failure generally in their work?
    0:35:16 It’s the worst thing that can happen.
    0:35:19 It’s the worst thing that can happen.
    0:35:22 They’re all very high-achieving students.
    0:35:27 So they’re used to getting straight A’s or close to it.
    0:35:35 They come in thinking that failure is bad and it needs to be avoided at all costs.
    0:35:44 And they have imbibed the cultural narrative of, oh, you must learn from your failures and fail better and fail faster.
    0:35:46 But they kind of don’t buy it.
    0:35:48 Why do you think that is?
    0:36:05 I did a research project where a psychology professor and I designed a survey and just wanted to get a sense of how they define failure for themselves and what they think about it and what they think the American culture thinks about it.
    0:36:19 And they’re all really aware when we ask them what Americans think about failure, some of their answers are, you’re not doing a good job, you must be lazy, weak, incapable, stupid.
    0:36:27 They say that if you fail, it’s going to lead you to poverty, perhaps, a lack of social status.
    0:36:31 One person, this is a direct quote that I wrote down, if you fail, you suck.
    0:36:42 So McPhail got to thinking about whether there was a better way to talk to her students about failure, a more direct way.
    0:36:49 I know that business schools already teach case studies and failures, like they’ll teach what happened to Enron, what happened to WeWork.
    0:36:53 And that’s great for business students, but that’s not what I wanted to do.
    0:37:03 I wanted to really get them familiar with the concept of failure and introduce it as a necessary and natural part of life.
    0:37:12 And she felt the stakes were high, higher than most of us are willing to admit.
    0:37:20 Around 2017, 2018, we had a year that had several suicides.
    0:37:22 And, you know, we’re not alone.
    0:37:27 You pick up the newspaper and you’re reading constantly about Penn, Yale, Cornell.
    0:37:30 I mean, you name a school and they’re having a suicide problem.
    0:37:39 And one of the students who committed suicide in 2018 was my student, one of my students in a class that I had.
    0:37:41 She was active.
    0:37:47 She was involved heavily in Amnesty International, which is how she came to me because she took my global health class.
    0:37:50 She was very interested in helping others.
    0:37:52 She was cheery.
    0:37:55 She was a pleasure to be around.
    0:38:03 There were none of the signs when she was in my classroom, at least, of outward struggle.
    0:38:09 So I really felt blindsided when I heard that she had committed suicide.
    0:38:23 And I had heard from friends of multiple students who had committed suicide in that same time frame that one of the things they were all worried about is that they were somehow going to screw up,
    0:38:32 that they had screwed up, that college was the last good years, and then everything else was just going to be a series of failure.
    0:38:36 And I thought, my God, what is happening?
    0:38:41 And so as a professor, you know, I’m teaching and I teach depressing classes.
    0:38:43 Let me just be honest about this.
    0:38:47 I teach about things that can hurt us.
    0:38:49 I teach about pandemics.
    0:38:51 I teach about illnesses.
    0:38:55 I teach medicine, which is all about disease and death.
    0:38:58 And so my classes are pretty depressing.
    0:39:09 And I thought, what can I do to make a difference or, like, just provide a different perspective to try to help all of this anxiety?
    0:39:14 And that’s when Teresa McPhail started teaching a course she calls Failure 101.
    0:39:19 So I start off the class with the ultimate failure, which is death.
    0:39:27 I really think I’m an intellectual granddaughter of Ernest Becker, who famously wrote The Denial of Death.
    0:39:29 He was an anthropologist as well.
    0:39:36 And his take was that society everywhere is a living myth of the significance of human life,
    0:39:46 that we defiantly create meaning where none exists because we do not want to deal with the terror that the ultimate mistake is one that’s going to get us killed.
    0:39:52 I start off the class saying, listen, life is terrifying because death is terrifying.
    0:39:57 And I think evolutionarily, mistakes meant catastrophe.
    0:40:05 And that’s probably why we don’t like them, because if you make a wrong move in the savannah when you’re hunting, you’re dead.
    0:40:19 When I read your course description and you describe teaching about failures in all realms of science, and then you write that death is the ultimate failure, my response was, well, that’s not fair.
    0:40:32 My reasoning would be that failure implies at least some small level of uninevitability, whereas death has a perfect record as far as I know.
    0:40:39 Yes, but if you look at biology, death is your systems all failing.
    0:40:40 See what I’m saying?
    0:40:50 But that’s the perfect example to try to get them to accept that failure is necessary, because the example of something that doesn’t die is cancer.
    0:40:52 And that’s not what we want.
    0:41:00 And so there’s that tension that, yes, death is, if you think about it from that perspective, it’s all your system shutting down one by one in a cascade.
    0:41:24 And you can see that as the ultimate failure, but then I try to get them to embrace that, because, and again, I’m just Becker’s granddaughter, because his argument was, if we distract ourselves and we try to push down our fears of failing, ultimately that’s about our fear of dying, that ironically trying to push all of that down and not talking openly about it creates more problems.
    0:41:33 So that’s my take, is that, yeah, you have to embrace failure, because you can’t have a successful life without it.
    0:41:53 I basically tell them at the start of my classes that I need you to get comfortable being uncomfortable, and I need you to be comfortable with uncertainty, and I really think embracing the idea that you’re going to fail
    0:42:04 Okay, but Professor McPhail, I’ve gotten nothing but A’s for the last 13 years of my life, and I’m not going to stop now.
    0:42:09 So would you please not say things like that and get out of the way and start lecturing and give me an A?
    0:42:11 No.
    0:42:20 I’m trying to take failure and put it on the table and look at it as a social object.
    0:42:24 From an economic perspective, what does it look like?
    0:42:26 From a business perspective, from a science perspective?
    0:42:30 Because failure is a changeable object.
    0:42:38 Like, one failure in one arena doesn’t necessarily have any of the components of the same label in another.
    0:42:39 I mean, I’m old school.
    0:42:41 I’m talking about Hobbes.
    0:42:52 And we’re going over things like what is the social contract and what does the social good look like and what does Hobbes think failure will be?
    0:42:58 Give me an example of a culture that dealt with or deals with failure very differently than 21st century American.
    0:43:00 I mean, it’s never good.
    0:43:00 I mean, here’s the thing.
    0:43:07 So anthropologists often ask, what are the things that all cultures everywhere struggle with?
    0:43:12 And failure is definitely something that all cultures grapple with on some level.
    0:43:13 That surprises me.
    0:43:18 I would have thought there have been many cultures and societies through time where…
    0:43:18 Where it’s fine?
    0:43:20 I don’t know about fine.
    0:43:21 It’s great?
    0:43:24 I definitely don’t think great.
    0:43:26 But I mean, here’s the way I’m thinking.
    0:43:30 If you look at our track record, humans, we’re pretty darn fallible.
    0:43:34 We screw up all the time in so many ways.
    0:43:35 Right.
    0:43:47 And so it’s surprising to me that we haven’t developed a philosophy or science of failure that would be fairly timeless and robust and so on.
    0:43:49 You would think so, but not in my…
    0:43:56 I mean, maybe someone will listen to this and say, here’s the book that answers it all.
    0:44:09 But the truth is there’s something about the time you’re living in that it’s either hard to see what it is you’re doing wrong or it’s hard to admit where that buck stops.
    0:44:18 I know that the researchers, Lauren Eskreis-Winkler and Ayelet Fischbach, have done work looking at why we hate failure so much.
    0:44:26 And it comes down to a pretty obvious point, which is that ego is real and failure threatens our ego.
    0:44:29 And universally, it feels bad.
    0:44:42 So if we were to reduce it to that finite and concrete psychological response and emotional response, have you encountered any way to sort of take the sting out of that response?
    0:44:46 Not really except for embracing it.
    0:44:48 So I would, I guess…
    0:44:50 Man, I came in thinking you were going to have all sorts of…
    0:45:04 I went back to Amy Edmondson, the failure expert at Harvard, to ask what she would like to see taught in a failure 101 class.
    0:45:08 Number one, distinguishing different kinds of failure.
    0:45:09 A failure is not a failure is not a failure.
    0:45:12 You know, we could be talking about a little mistake.
    0:45:15 We could be talking about a catastrophic accident.
    0:45:19 We could be talking about a scientific, you know, hypothesis that didn’t get supported.
    0:45:23 So providing the students that useful terminology and that useful clarity.
    0:45:30 And then I think a second element that I’d love to see in the course is experimentation best practices.
    0:45:36 You know, how do you think about good experiments versus not good experiments?
    0:45:40 Here’s what Teresa McPhail writes in her Failure 101 syllabus.
    0:45:46 Some assignments will intentionally be set up for you to fail to complete them in full.
    0:45:51 But I expect you to cope with this as best you can and turn in something.
    0:45:55 I will not warn you which weeks are impossible to complete.
    0:45:59 McPhail has now taught the course seven times.
    0:46:04 The only grades she gives are an A for passing or an F for failing.
    0:46:07 She’s only had two students ever fail the class.
    0:46:14 McPhail says she has gotten positive feedback from students, their parents, and according to some students, their therapists.
    0:46:18 She would like to see her course taught at other schools.
    0:46:22 I think they should offer a Failure 101 course because it works.
    0:46:27 It changes the students’ perspectives on failure.
    0:46:29 It makes them embrace it.
    0:46:36 It completely alters their understanding of themselves in relationship to the norm.
    0:46:40 And I think that’s worth it.
    0:46:43 I’m looking at your Rate My Professor rankings.
    0:46:43 Oh, God.
    0:46:46 And you have a perfect score.
    0:46:47 I’ve never seen that before.
    0:46:49 Here’s one review.
    0:46:51 Quite possibly the best professor I have ever had.
    0:46:53 Confident and knows what she’s talking about.
    0:46:55 She’s enthusiastic about her lectures.
    0:46:58 And that enthusiasm is truly contagious to students.
    0:46:59 She just loves what she does.
    0:47:02 Also, she is so cool.
    0:47:05 She’s had such an interesting life.
    0:47:07 Low-key want to be her.
    0:47:08 All right.
    0:47:09 So what’s your review of that review?
    0:47:11 Oh, my God.
    0:47:13 If they could only see me behind the scenes.
    0:47:18 You know what, though?
    0:47:23 I think they feel like that because I do show them my failures.
    0:47:24 For instance?
    0:47:26 Well, I mean, we’re all human beings.
    0:47:30 There are going to be days where I’m not entirely prepped for class.
    0:47:31 Ah.
    0:47:32 What do you do then?
    0:47:33 I announce it.
    0:47:35 I say, hey, guess what?
    0:47:37 I forgot my notes at home.
    0:47:39 So we’re off the books.
    0:47:40 Let’s do this.
    0:47:43 Or I also will.
    0:47:47 I mean, we live in the age of lightning Googling.
    0:47:52 So, you know, if I say something, feel free to fact check me.
    0:47:54 And if I’m not right, raise your hand.
    0:47:58 Because I want them to get the idea that you can be an expert.
    0:48:00 You can be highly knowledgeable.
    0:48:03 But there’s no way I know everything.
    0:48:10 What is the upside of embracing or at least processing failure in the way that you’re describing?
    0:48:11 Freedom.
    0:48:12 Freedom.
    0:48:18 And a lightness of moving through the world.
    0:48:19 Okay.
    0:48:23 But the people designing our airplanes and bridges, I don’t care if they feel free and light.
    0:48:25 So here’s the thing.
    0:48:31 Before any of us step on a plane, there’s been so many prototypes and there’s been so many tests.
    0:48:37 And the thing I’d like to see more is letting people fail.
    0:48:41 There has to be a space for people to accept abject failure.
    0:48:44 Failure that doesn’t teach you anything.
    0:48:48 And in that space, what does one do?
    0:48:51 Does one grieve, for instance?
    0:48:52 I think, yes.
    0:48:55 I think one learns acceptance.
    0:48:58 And out of acceptance comes resilience.
    0:49:05 I ask my students to reflect at the end of every class.
    0:49:11 And the answers I get back is that they’ve totally changed their definition of what failure is.
    0:49:14 Most of them will say it’s not the end of the world.
    0:49:15 It’s a setback that you learn from.
    0:49:20 And all of them understand that it’s subjective and a social construct.
    0:49:32 Simply having a class where you come in once a week for three hours and talk about failure just blatantly somehow made it okay for them to accept their own personal failures.
    0:49:41 And one of the things that shifts throughout the class is I ask them, what do you think the rate of other people’s failures is compared to your own?
    0:49:46 And before they take the class, they say, oh, I definitely fail more than other people.
    0:49:50 And then at the end of the class, they go, everyone is failing every day at everything.
    0:49:53 And I’m like, yes, that’s right.
    0:49:53 Correct.
    0:49:55 You’ve passed this class.
    0:50:04 I’d like to thank Teresa McPhail for teaching all of us a new way to think about failure.
    0:50:09 And thanks to everyone who spoke with us for this series, How to Succeed at Failing.
    0:50:12 I’m curious to know how you think we did with this series.
    0:50:16 One key ingredient of learning from failure is getting good feedback.
    0:50:18 And I want yours.
    0:50:22 Our email is radio at Freakonomics.com.
    0:50:25 You can also leave a rating or review on your podcast app.
    0:50:31 Coming up next time on the show, let’s play a guessing game.
    0:50:38 Who operates in the shadows of the global economy, but often dictates the fate of nations?
    0:50:45 They’re also involved at one point or another in the buying and selling of just about everything you touch.
    0:50:48 Wherever there is history being made, the commodity traders are there.
    0:50:54 Jack Farchi and Javier Blas have written a definitive book on the commodity trading industry.
    0:50:59 We’re not talking about the desk warriors who trade financialized commodity futures.
    0:51:06 These are the people who buy and sell the actual petroleum products and metals and agricultural products.
    0:51:11 If you think about a commodity trader, they have to have a bit of the Wolf of Wall Street,
    0:51:16 a bit of James Bond, and a lot of pirates of the Caribbean.
    0:51:26 Just beneath the surface of the global economy, there is a hidden layer of dealmakers for whom chaos, war and sanctions are often a great business opportunity.
    0:51:29 We’ll hear all about them next time on the show.
    0:51:31 Until then, take care of yourself.
    0:51:34 And if you can, someone else too.
    0:51:37 Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.
    0:51:45 This episode and this entire failure series was originally produced by Zach Lipinski and was updated with help from Dalvin Abawaji.
    0:51:50 It was mixed by Greg Rippon and Jasmine Klinger with help from Jeremy Johnston.
    0:51:56 The Freakonomics Radio network staff also includes Alina Cullman, Augusta Chapman, Eleanor Osborne, Ellen Frankman,
    0:52:00 Elsa Hernandez, Gabriel Roth, Morgan Levy, Sarah Lilly, and Tao Jacobs.
    0:52:08 You can find our entire archive on any podcast app or at Freakonomics.com, where we also publish transcripts and show notes.
    0:52:14 Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by the Hitchhikers, and our composer is Luis Guerra.
    0:52:16 As always, thanks for listening.
    0:52:25 I am a professor, so if I’m talking too long, feel free to nudge me.
    0:52:25 Will do.
    0:52:29 I try to keep track of it, but sometimes, you know, I get enthusiastic, as you’ll see.
    0:52:30 Should we have a safe word?
    0:52:33 Pineapple.
    0:52:40 The Freakonomics Radio Network.
    0:52:42 The hidden side of everything.
    0:52:46 Stitcher.

    Everyone makes mistakes. How do we learn from them? Lessons from the classroom, the Air Force, and the world’s deadliest infectious disease.

     

    • SOURCES:
      • Will Coleman, founder and C.E.O. of Alto.
      • Amy Edmondson, professor of leadership management at Harvard Business School.
      • Babak Javid, physician-scientist and associate director of the University of California, San Francisco Center for Tuberculosis.
      • Gary Klein, cognitive psychologist and pioneer in the field of naturalistic decision making.
      • Theresa MacPhail, medical anthropologist and associate professor of science & technology studies at the Stevens Institute of Technology.
      • Roy Shalem, lecturer at Tel Aviv University.
      • Samuel West, curator and founder of The Museum of Failure.

     

     

  • How Siemens Is Bringing AI to Factory Floors – Ep. 257

    Matthias Loskyll, head of virtual control and industrial AI at Siemens Factory Automation, joins the NVIDIA AI Podcast to discuss how AI, simulation and digital twins are making significant impacts in manufacturing. From automating defect detection with Siemens Inspekto to enhancing production efficiency, NVIDIA’s collaboration with Siemens is making advanced automation accessible and secure for manufacturers.

  • #229 Outliers: Andy Grove – Only The Paranoid Survive

    AI transcript
    0:00:06 Through his office window at Intel headquarters, Andy Grove could see the Ferris wheel of Great
    0:00:11 America Amusement Park spinning in the distance. But the document in front of him offered no such
    0:00:18 entertainment. Gordon Moore, yes, that Gordon Moore of Moore’s Law fame, drops into the visitor’s
    0:00:24 chair, his face grim. The latest memory chip numbers are catastrophic. After quarters of
    0:00:31 watching Japanese competitors demolish Intel’s market share from 83% to a mere 1.3%,
    0:00:39 this situation had become existential. In a standard issue 8×9 cubicle, Grove insisted executives use the
    0:00:44 same workspace as everyone else. He asked a question that would change history. If we got
    0:00:50 kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do? Gordon answers without
    0:00:57 hesitation. He’d get us out of memories. This reply hits Grove like a physical blow. After a moment of
    0:01:02 stunned silence, he delivers the line that would save Intel. Why shouldn’t you and I walk out the door,
    0:01:09 come back in, and do it ourselves? No dramatic music swells, no chest-bumping celebration, just the sound
    0:01:15 of two men exhaling as they mentally prepare to abandon the very product that built their company.
    0:01:23 Intel in 1985 was a memory company. The business generated over 90% of their revenue and it would
    0:01:29 soon be gone. The pivot would cost thousands of jobs, millions in R&D, and require shuttering
    0:01:34 eight manufacturing plants. But by detaching themselves emotionally and viewing the situation
    0:01:40 from an outsider’s perspective, Grove and Moore had found clarity in crisis. Grove would later distill
    0:01:47 this ruthless, clear-sightedness into a mantra for corporate survival. Only the paranoid survive.
    0:01:53 This wasn’t just a catchy business slogan, it was survival wisdom earned through trauma. For Grove,
    0:02:00 paranoia wasn’t pathological, it was practical. And its seeds were planted a continent away half a century
    0:02:07 earlier when a hard-of-hearing Jewish boy named Andras Grof was learning to detect danger before it arrived
    0:02:11 while hiding from Nazi death squads in wartime Budapest.
    0:02:31 Welcome to The Knowledge Project. I’m your host, Shane Parrish. In a world where knowledge is power,
    0:02:36 this podcast is your toolkit for mastering the best of what other people have already figured out.
    0:02:44 The story of Andy Grove is about survival in its most elemental form. Imagine transforming yourself
    0:02:49 from a child hiding from Nazi death squads in Budapest to becoming Time Magazine’s man of the year
    0:02:56 and the CEO who saved Intel. That journey isn’t just remarkable, it’s almost incomprehensible. Yet,
    0:03:00 Grove himself would scoff at any narrative involving destiny or divine intervention.
    0:03:06 His philosophy, captured in the book title, Only the Paranoid Survive, offers a far more practical
    0:03:13 explanation. Detect threats before they become fatal. Whether it’s the sound of jackboots on
    0:03:18 cobblestone streets or Japanese competitors overtaking your memory chip business, survival demands the same
    0:03:25 skills. Constant vigilance, brutal self-assessment, and the courage to abandon what wants to find you.
    0:03:31 The same boy who learned to read danger in a stranger’s glance would later read impending doom
    0:03:38 in market share statistics. Different contexts, identical skills. Today’s episode isn’t just about
    0:03:44 technology or business strategy, it’s about developing a mindset that thrives in environments of
    0:03:50 radical change. Something all of us face today, regardless of our field. What made Grove extraordinary
    0:03:56 wasn’t technical genius, but his ability to see reality clearly when others couldn’t? While his
    0:04:03 contemporaries remained emotionally attached to past decisions, Grove asked the questions no one dared to
    0:04:10 ask. What if we’re wrong? What if everything we built needs to be abandoned? Grove’s lessons on
    0:04:16 strategic inflection points offer something invaluable, a framework for detecting existential threats
    0:04:21 before they destroy you. Drawing from his autobiography and Richard Tedlow’s definitive
    0:04:26 biography, this episode reveals how Grove’s traumatic childhood shaped his leadership approach,
    0:04:30 how he taught himself to become a world-class manager, and how he saved intel by walking away
    0:04:36 from the very product that built it. Remember to stay until the end for lessons you can take away from
    0:04:41 this episode. After all, inflection points don’t announce themselves with press releases. They whisper
    0:04:47 first, then shout, then destroy. In Grove’s world, paranoia isn’t anxiety, it’s attention paid to
    0:04:59 whispers others dismiss. It’s time to listen and learn. This podcast is for entertainment purposes only.
    0:05:11 Let’s begin at the beginning. Andreas Estevan Grof was born in 1936 to a middle-class Jewish family in
    0:05:16 Budapest, Hungary. His father co-owned a dairy business. His mother was, in Grove’s words,
    0:05:22 cultured without being snobbish. They were thoroughly assimilated into Hungarian society. That is, until
    0:05:29 everything changed. When Andreas was just five, his father was conscripted into a Jewish labor battalion,
    0:05:35 essentially a death sentence of forced labor on the Eastern Front. Young Andreas noticed something that
    0:05:40 day he’d never forget. His father was trying to smile, but there was something wrong with his smile.
    0:05:45 In the spring of 1943, the family received notice that George Grof had disappeared.
    0:05:51 Andreas, now six, was bewildered by this term while watching his mother retreat into smoking in solitary
    0:05:58 grief. Amid this trauma, Andreas contracted scarlet fever, confining him for months and permanently
    0:06:05 damaging his hearing. Yet years later, Grove reflected on how this seeming handicap became an unexpected
    0:06:06 asset. He wrote,
    0:06:12 I had to be quicker at processing nonverbal signs and more attentive to signals. And most important,
    0:06:18 because I often understood only parts of sentences, I had to exercise my mind constantly.
    0:06:24 What’s instructive here is Grove’s capacity to transform disadvantage into strength. The hearing
    0:06:30 loss that isolated him socially became his edge in business. While others heard noise, Grove detected
    0:06:35 patterns. While others waited for complete information, Grove decided with fragments.
    0:06:40 The little limitation that made childhood harder became the foundation of his leadership genius.
    0:06:45 Life rarely deals perfect hands. The winners aren’t those with the best cards, but those who play
    0:06:52 difficult hands exceptionally well. The situation for Hungarian Jews deteriorated dramatically in March of
    0:06:59 1944 when Nazi Germany directly occupied the country. The eight-year-old Andreas watched as German soldiers
    0:07:05 marched into Budapest. There were no announcements and there was no fighting. They just came in. My mother
    0:07:10 and I stood on the sidewalk of the ring road watching as the cars and troop carriers filled with soldiers
    0:07:16 drove by. The German soldiers didn’t look anything like the soldiers who had guarded my father’s labor unit.
    0:07:22 Those soldiers slouched a bit and their uniforms were wrinkled. The German soldiers were neat,
    0:07:29 more shiny boots and had self-confident air about them. They reminded me of my toy soldiers. Within days,
    0:07:35 Adolf Eichmann arrived with a small but efficient commando unit to eliminate Hungary’s Jewish population.
    0:07:43 They moved with terrifying speed. By July of 1944, most Jews outside of Budapest had been deported to
    0:07:50 Auschwitz and murdered. Young Andreas experienced the casual cruelty of anti-Semitism firsthand when a
    0:07:55 playmate suddenly announced that Jesus Christ was killed by the Jews and because of that all the Jews
    0:08:01 would be thrown into the Danube. Andreas ran to his mother in tears and never returned to that park again.
    0:08:08 By late summer, Andy and his mother were forced into a designated star house and required to wear yellow
    0:08:14 stars in public. People avoided looking at us. Even people we knew wouldn’t meet our eyes. It was as if
    0:08:21 a barrier was growing between us and everyone else. In October 1944, as Hungary’s homegrown fascist
    0:08:28 organization seized power, Andy’s mother made a fateful decision. Andreas, she said, “We have to get out of here.”
    0:08:36 This paranoid vigilance would save their lives. Maria obtained false identity papers with a Slavic surname,
    0:08:42 and they went into hiding, posing as non-Jewish refugees. The danger was constant. Being circumcised
    0:08:48 would immediately identify Andreas as Jewish if he was discovered, so his mother warned him not to
    0:08:53 urinate when others were present in their communal bathroom. When children were gathered to recite
    0:08:59 Christian prayers, Andreas feigned illness and ran to his mother, who quickly created a distraction.
    0:09:05 This ability to detect threats and take decisive action would later become the cornerstone of Grove’s
    0:09:10 leadership philosophy decades later. As he would later write, the ability to recognize that the winds
    0:09:16 have shifted and to take appropriate action before you wreck your boat is crucial to the future of an
    0:09:23 enterprise. Grove learned early that survival depends not just on recognizing danger, but on acting before
    0:09:32 it’s too late. A lesson that would later save Intel. By January of 1945, the Soviet Red Army reached Budapest,
    0:09:37 transforming the city into a battleground. Sheltering in a cellar during the bombardment,
    0:09:42 Andreas and his mother had a remarkable encounter with a Russian sergeant who spoke German. After
    0:09:48 establishing communication, Maria made a bold request. She asked Andreas to recite a Hebrew prayer he had
    0:09:54 learned at school. The boy was terrified. After months where revealing their Jewish identity meant
    0:10:00 certain death, his mother was asking him to expose them, but she assured him it was safe. As he recited
    0:10:06 the prayer, the Russian sergeant smiled with recognition. He too was Jewish. The Germans had killed his entire
    0:10:13 family in Russia. Liberation brought relief, but also new horrors. Andreas witnessed his mother being sexually
    0:10:19 assaulted by a Russian soldier. The next day when they reported the crime to military authorities,
    0:10:26 Maria made the extraordinary decision not to identify her attacker. She had calculated that if she named him,
    0:10:31 he would be executed immediately, but his comrades would likely return and murder everyone in their shelter
    0:10:40 in retaliation. Even in this most personal violation, Maria demonstrated the cold strategic calculus that
    0:10:46 her son would later apply to business decisions. Sometimes you must accept a terrible injustice
    0:10:51 when the alternative is destruction. The profound impact of witnessing such moments where survival
    0:10:58 required painful compromise rather than righteous action shaped Andreas’s world view forever. He was
    0:11:05 not yet nine years old. In the aftermath of the war, something remarkable happened. Andy’s father,
    0:11:10 George Grof returned home. He had indeed disappeared, but somehow survived the Eastern Front and made his
    0:11:17 way back to Budapest. The family reunited, though forever changed by their experiences. Under Soviet occupation,
    0:11:23 Hungary transformed into a communist state. The dairy business George had co-owned was nationalized.
    0:11:29 Both parents found government work. Georgian retail management, Maria, at the now state-owned dairy.
    0:11:35 Their apartment once again filled with visitors, creating a facade of normalcy that masked the trauma
    0:11:40 that they had endured. Young Andreas threw himself into education, displaying the fierce intelligence
    0:11:47 and disciplined work ethic that would later define his career. His insatiable curiosity and aptitude
    0:11:52 for mathematics and science set him apart. At the prestigious Madrick gymnasium, his physics teacher
    0:12:00 made a prediction that would later inspire the title of Grof’s memoir, “Life is a big lake. All the boys get
    0:12:07 in the water at one end and start swimming. Not all of them will swim across, but one of them I’m sure will. That
    0:12:15 one is Grof.” The teacher’s words resonated deeply. Decades later, Grof would title his autobiography “Swimming
    0:12:21 across,” and conclude it with, “As my teacher Volensky predicted, I managed to swim across the lake, not
    0:12:27 without effort, not without setbacks, and with a great deal of help and encouragement from others. I am
    0:12:33 still swimming.” But before Andreas could fully test those waters, Hungary’s political situation would once
    0:12:40 again upend his life. Most mornings I start my day with a smoothie. It’s a secret recipe the kids and
    0:12:46 I call the Tom Brady. I actually shared the full recipe in episode 191 with Dr. Rhonda Patrick.
    0:12:52 One thing that hasn’t changed since then, protein is a must. These days I build my foundation around
    0:13:00 what Momentus calls the Momentus 3: protein, creatine, and omega-3s. I take them daily because they support
    0:13:06 everything: focus, energy, recovery, and long-term health. Most people don’t get enough of any of
    0:13:12 these things through diet alone. What makes Momentus different is their quality. Their whey protein
    0:13:18 isolate is grass-fed, their creatine uses Creopure, the purest form available, and their omega-3s are
    0:13:26 sourced for maximum bioavailability, so your body actually uses what you take. No fillers, no artificial
    0:13:32 ingredients, just what your body needs, backed by science. Head to livemomentus.com and use code
    0:13:37 KnowledgeProject for 35% off your first subscription. That’s code KnowledgeProject
    0:13:43 At LiveMomentus.com for 35% off your first subscription.
    0:13:46 Spring is here, and you can now get almost anything you need delivered with Uber Eats.
    0:13:49 What do we mean by almost? You can’t get a well-groomed lawn delivered, but you can get
    0:13:54 chicken parmesan delivered. Sunshine? No. Some wine? Yes. Get almost, almost anything delivered
    0:13:57 with Uber Eats. Order now. Alcohol and select markets. See app for details.
    0:14:04 In 1956, when Andreas was 20 and a university student in Budapest, revolution erupted across
    0:14:09 Hungary. What began as a student demonstration against Soviet control quickly escalated into
    0:14:14 a nationwide uprising. For a brief exhilarating moment, it seemed the Hungarian people might
    0:14:19 win their freedom. Andreas participated in early demonstrations, but he had learned from childhood
    0:14:25 the fatal cost of misreading political winds. When Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest on November 4th
    0:14:31 to crush the uprising, he recognized the patterns of oppression unfolding once again. He would later
    0:14:36 write, “I was deathly afraid that the Soviets would seal the borders completely, and I knew once they
    0:14:42 did that, anybody who had participated in any way in the uprising would have to pay the price. I had an
    0:14:48 uneasy feeling that I would have a very bleak future in Hungary.” So on November 20th, Andreas slipped away
    0:14:54 from his parents’ apartment, carrying only what fit in his pockets. He joined thousands of refugees
    0:14:59 streaming towards the Austrian border. Guided by local farmers through secret roads, he waded through
    0:15:05 icy marshes in darkness, evading Soviet patrols. This crossing wasn’t merely physically dangerous,
    0:15:11 it represented a complete severance from the past. Andreas had no guarantee he would ever see his parents
    0:15:16 again. He carried no photographs, no memories, just the clothes on his back and the determination to
    0:15:22 start anew. When he reached Austria, America seemed the obvious destination. He had relatives in New York
    0:15:26 whom he’d never met, but they were his only connection to what would become his new home,
    0:15:32 and ultimately the launching pad for one of the most remarkable business careers of the 20th century.
    0:15:38 Andreas Groff arrived in the United States in January of 1957, penniless, speaking broken English,
    0:15:45 and knowing almost no one. His transformation into Andy Groff was about to begin. His first night in
    0:15:51 America revealed both the promise and challenges ahead. At the Refugee Center Hotel, he encountered
    0:15:57 a vending machine. He wrote, “It was a miracle. You put money in and food comes out. This would never
    0:16:01 happen in Hungary. Either the machine would take your money and give you nothing, or more likely,
    0:16:06 there would be no machines and no food.” Andy enrolled at the City College of New York,
    0:16:11 supporting himself as a waiter while studying with relentless discipline. Despite the language
    0:16:18 barriers and his hearing impairment, he graduated first in his chemical engineering class in 1960.
    0:16:25 It was during this time that Andreas Groff became Andrew Grove, a change he made with characteristic
    0:16:30 pragmatism. As he later explained, “I found myself spending too much time spelling my name out to people,
    0:16:36 then repeating it, then having it come back mispronounced or misspelled. I translated the name
    0:16:41 from Hungarian, where Groff means count in the aristocratic sense. Groff seemed close enough.”
    0:16:48 This wasn’t merely a practical decision. It represented Groff’s methodical approach to success.
    0:16:54 He didn’t just immigrate to America. He systematically transformed himself into an American.
    0:17:01 At City College, Andy met Eva Kasten, a fellow refugee who had come from Austria by way of Bolivia.
    0:17:06 They married in 1958 and would remain together for the rest of their life. After graduation,
    0:17:12 Groff earned his PhD in chemical engineering from Berkeley in just three years. Though academically
    0:17:17 brilliant, he was restless to apply his knowledge. “I want to do something useful,” he would say over and
    0:17:24 over again. When a Berkeley professor suggested solid-state physics as an emerging field, Groff approached his
    0:17:30 career hunt with characteristic thoroughness. He researched 22 different companies, dividing them
    0:17:36 into two categories: jobs for which he was qualified but uninterested, and those that interested him but
    0:17:43 where he might be underqualified. This methodical approach led him to Fairchild Semiconductor in 1963,
    0:17:49 where he immediately connected with research director Gordon Moore, a relationship that would shape
    0:17:55 technological history. What’s remarkable here is Groff’s systematic approach to opportunity. While most
    0:18:00 immigrants struggled to find any job, Groff was strategically positioning himself at the intersection
    0:18:06 of his skills and emerging industries. He didn’t just adapt to America, he methodically analyzed where he could
    0:18:14 create maximal impact, a preview of the strategic thinking that would later save intel. Before diving deeper into
    0:18:20 Groff’s career at Fairchild, we need a brief history of how the entire semiconductor industry began.
    0:18:26 Silicon Valley’s origin traces back to December 26, 1947, when three scientists at Bell Laboratories
    0:18:33 created the first working transistor. William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Bratton had invented a device
    0:18:40 that would replace bulky vacuum tubes in electronics, arguably one of the most important inventions in the history
    0:18:45 of the world. In a typical East Coast corporate story, these men would have remained at Bell Labs,
    0:18:51 collecting patents and promotions while safely ensconded in a major corporation. But Shockley had different
    0:18:57 ideas. In 1955, he left Bell Labs to establish Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in Mountain View,
    0:19:03 California. He recruited brilliant young engineers, including Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. However,
    0:19:09 despite his scientific genius, Shockley proved to be a disastrous manager. He was controlling,
    0:19:16 erratic, and paranoid. By 1957, eight of his top researchers, later dubbed the traitorous eight,
    0:19:20 could no longer tolerate Shockley’s leadership. Moore and Noyce among them, they approached a young
    0:19:26 investment banker named Arthur Rock, who helped them secure funding from Fairchild Camera. Fairchild
    0:19:34 Semiconductor was born in October 1957. This moment established the pattern that would define
    0:19:38 Silicon Valley. Talented people leaving established companies to form startups, backed by investors
    0:19:44 willing to bet on unproven technologies, which is a radical departure from the East Coast business
    0:19:49 culture at the time. The next few years at Fairchild produced extraordinary breakthroughs.
    0:19:54 They developed the process for semiconductor manufacturing, and they developed the integrated
    0:19:59 circuit, building on work done at Texas Instruments. When Fairchild Camera exercised its options to
    0:20:06 buy out the founders in 1959, each received $250,000, which is over $2.5 million today, for their initial
    0:20:14 $500 investment. Silicon Valley’s reputation for turning sand into gold was born. This transaction sparked a
    0:20:20 financial ecosystem unlike anything before it. Success breeds success with wealthy engineers funding
    0:20:26 new ventures. Dozens of semiconductor firms would eventually trace their lineage back to Shockley’s
    0:20:32 laboratory. By the time Grove arrived at Fairchild in 1963, the company was the epicenter of technological
    0:20:39 revolution. Moore and Noyce had already become legends. The culture valued technical brilliance, but as Grove would
    0:20:45 soon discover, it lacked managerial discipline. For a recent immigrant with a strong accent and hearing problems,
    0:20:52 Silicon Valley offered something traditional corporate America didn’t: a pure meritocracy, where problem-solving
    0:20:58 ability trumped pedigree. It was the perfect environment for Grove’s combination of technical brilliance,
    0:21:04 determination, and willingness to question orthodoxy. What’s significant here is that Grove joined a
    0:21:10 culture that was simultaneously revolutionary and yet, at the same time, deeply flawed. Silicon Valley had
    0:21:16 technical brilliance, but lacked organizational discipline. Precisely the gap that Grove, with his
    0:21:22 Eastern European understanding that systems mattered as much as individual genius, was uniquely positioned
    0:21:28 to fill. Now, let’s see what Grove encountered when he joined this revolutionary industry. Andy’s first week at
    0:21:34 Fairchild established a pattern that would define his career. On Monday morning, a supervisor handed him a
    0:21:39 Semiconductor physics problem requiring differential equations and data analysis. By Friday,
    0:21:45 Andy had solved it using computer programming skills he had taught himself during his studies, a rare capability
    0:21:52 in a commercial company in 1963. “How lucky can you get?” Andy later marveled. “You show up for work on Monday,
    0:21:58 you’re assigned a problem that you’re uniquely qualified to solve, and you defies a non-obvious solution by Friday.” But
    0:22:04 was it mere luck? Andy had methodically acquired skills beyond what was required, positioning himself in a
    0:22:09 field where they might prove valuable. As Michael Dell would later observe, “He’s smart, he’s shrewd. There’s
    0:22:15 no such thing as lucky a thousand times in a row.” Grove himself would later coin the phrase “earned luck” to
    0:22:23 explain such success. During his five years at Fairchild, Andy displayed extraordinary work ethic. Beyond his day
    0:22:29 job, he authored 30 scientific articles, filed two patents, and taught graduate-level semiconductor
    0:22:34 physics at Berkeley. He challenged conventional wisdom about semiconductor surfaces with data that
    0:22:40 contradicted accepted theory. “When presenting these findings in 1963, the semiconductor establishment
    0:22:46 reacted harshly. I got nailed by all these experts,” Andy recalled, “who would sooner burn witches or equally
    0:22:52 burn me at the stake for being a heretic.” But Andy trusted data over dogma, a trait that would serve
    0:22:57 him throughout his career. Perhaps his most valuable contribution at Fairchild was what he called
    0:23:02 “managing up,” particularly his ability to work with Gordon Moore, the brilliant but conflict-averse
    0:23:07 head of R&D. The device development lab where Andy worked lacked clear expectations and internal
    0:23:12 discipline, mirroring the broader company culture. Andy developed a technique for extracting Moore’s
    0:23:17 insights during contentious meetings. “I would be running a meeting and people would be bashing each other’s
    0:23:22 heads.” Andy explained, “I looked up at Gordon. Something is wrong.” So I’d yell,
    0:23:27 “Stop! Gordon, what’s bothering you?” “Shut up! Gordon, tell us! Whatever you wanted to tell us!”
    0:23:32 Somebody had to stop the traffic. This role of traffic cop for Moore’s insights proved
    0:23:36 invaluable. Moore appreciated Andy’s ability to draw him out once telling him,
    0:23:41 “You know me better than my wife, or at least as well.” Fairchild’s trajectory illustrates the volatile
    0:23:47 nature of the early semiconductor industry. The company skyrocketed from founding to industry dominance,
    0:23:53 then began unraveling due to management missteps. Its technical achievements were revolutionary,
    0:23:59 but the business itself was poorly run. Two things stand out to me here. First, Andy’s willingness to
    0:24:05 follow the data over dogma, even at personal risk. And second was his recognition that technical
    0:24:10 brilliance alone doesn’t build lasting companies. While his peers focused exclusively on innovation,
    0:24:15 Grove was already developing the organizational mindset that would later distinguish Intel.
    0:24:22 By 1967, Andy Grove had reached a crossroads. Fairchild’s semiconductor, where he’d cut his
    0:24:27 professional teeth was hemorrhaging talent. The exodus had begun with the Traitorous Eight,
    0:24:33 engineers who had abandoned Shockley’s lab to form Fairchild. And now Fairchild itself was spawning
    0:24:39 a second generation of Silicon Valley startups. The Valley wasn’t just growing, it was subdividing.
    0:24:44 When Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce announced they were leaving Fairchild in 1968 to launch their own
    0:24:50 semiconductor venture, Grove didn’t hesitate and didn’t wait for an invitation. The moment Moore mentioned
    0:24:54 their plans, Grove immediately declared, “I’m going with you.” And just like that, he became employee
    0:25:01 number three at Intel, short for Integrated Electronics. Intel’s founding trio constituted
    0:25:07 semiconductor royalty. Gordon Moore was the visionary physicist who would soon formulate Moore’s law,
    0:25:11 predicting the doubling of transistor density every two years, a prediction that would drive the
    0:25:16 industry’s ambitions for decades. Robert Noyce, the co-inventor of the integrated circuit,
    0:25:21 brought charismatic leadership and industry credibility that opened doors and investor
    0:25:27 checkbooks. And then there was Andy Grove. What Grove brought to this threesome was something
    0:25:32 altogether different but equally crucial, a ferocious commitment to operational excellence. As one
    0:25:38 industry observer noted, in the semiconductor industry, management talent has been harder to find than
    0:25:43 engineering talent. By becoming a brilliant manager, Grove differentiated himself and the company.
    0:25:50 Here’s the irony. Until Intel’s founding, Grove had shown virtually no interest in business management.
    0:25:55 His published papers all dealt with technical subjects. He was an engineer and by all accounts,
    0:26:01 a brilliant one. But Silicon Valley in the late 1960s was already teeming with technical geniuses.
    0:26:07 What it lacked were leaders who could transform those geniuses into cohesive, productive teams. Fairchild
    0:26:12 was a great example of this, but far from the only one. What’s significant here is Grove’s intuitive
    0:26:18 understanding of complementary skills. While others sought to duplicate their strengths in founding teams,
    0:26:22 Grove recognized that Moore and Noyce needed someone fundamentally different from themselves.
    0:26:28 They had vision. They had technical credibility. But what they lacked was operational discipline.
    0:26:34 Grove didn’t need to be another visionary inventor. Instead, he took the role of execution specialist who
    0:26:43 could transform brilliant ideas into reality. Why would Andy Grove, a PhD engineer with zero management
    0:26:48 training, suddenly transform himself into a business leader? The answer comes from Gordon Moore himself.
    0:26:53 When asked how they handled problems in Intel’s early days, Moore responded with characteristic
    0:26:58 understatement. You look at the problems that are current at the time, and you try to come up with
    0:27:04 some kind of creative solution for them. Or you turn them over to Andy, one or the other. Grove had
    0:27:09 effectively become Intel’s default problem solver. Any challenge that Moore or Noyce couldn’t handle,
    0:27:14 or perhaps didn’t want to handle, landed on Andy’s desk. Anyone who has worked in a startup’s early
    0:27:19 days will recognize this pattern. The persistent problem nobody else wants to tackle eventually
    0:27:24 find their permanent home with the person willing to solve them. Grove not only accepted this role,
    0:27:29 but he excelled at it. Having witnessed brilliant ideas and talent wasted at Fairchild due to poor
    0:27:34 execution, Grove was determined not to let that happen at Intel. So he did something remarkable. He
    0:27:39 systematically taught himself management and leadership, applying the same analytical rigor
    0:27:44 he used in chemical engineering and semiconductor physics. This self-transformation is a defining
    0:27:50 characteristic of Grove’s career. He was a learning machine. He simply refused to be limited by his
    0:27:56 formal training or pigeonholed into one specialty. In 1997, reflecting on his career, Andy observed,
    0:28:01 I went from chemistry to chemical engineering, to applied physics, to solid state device physics,
    0:28:08 to manufacturing, all in a 10 to 12 year period. His biographer notes that Grove could have continued.
    0:28:13 After manufacturing, Grove migrated to management, to leadership of Intel, to spokesperson for the
    0:28:18 technology industry, to expert on corporate governance, to arguably the most admired business
    0:28:24 leader of his era. Grove’s personal notebooks from Intel’s early days reveal an engineer methodically
    0:28:30 deconstructing the challenge of organizing people. Just two months after Intel’s founding,
    0:28:36 he was analyzing not just what progress had been made, but how progress itself should be reported.
    0:28:41 Three days later, he wrote something profound. The formal decision-making process is usually the
    0:28:46 only protective covering for a much simpler informal process. This was Grove peeling back the organizational
    0:28:52 onion, recognizing that beneath the surface of business decision lies a layer of unspoken
    0:28:58 assumptions. He later explained people kind of knew the answer, and they manage the arrangement of facts so
    0:29:05 that the formal process validates what they want to do anyway. By 1968, Grove was sketching structural
    0:29:11 solutions to the semiconductor industry’s most vexing problem, the handoff from design to manufacturing.
    0:29:17 In his notes, he outlined a quality control system with independent oversight, rapid feedback loops,
    0:29:24 maps and clear accountability. In his notes, he writes, quality slash reliability. The best person to worry
    0:29:29 about product quality first is the designer. As the product goes into manufacturing and the designer takes
    0:29:35 on a new product design, he loses interest. A third independent body should take over the quality control
    0:29:41 function from the engineers at that stage to ensure meaningful results and determinations and rapid feedback.
    0:29:47 He should be closely related to both the design and processing groups. To ensure external auditing,
    0:29:53 their books should be open to examination by general management. This approach was extraordinary. While
    0:29:59 other executives might have copied existing management processes, Grove recognized Intel was breaking new
    0:30:04 ground. He designed the organization from first principles, structuring it specifically to solve
    0:30:09 technical problems. Intel desperately needed these solutions as it fought for survival. The startup
    0:30:16 competed fiercely for its first contract is the seventh better on a project six established companies had already
    0:30:21 pursued. Grove later recalled, we worked day and night to design the chip and in parallel develop the
    0:30:29 manufacturing process. We worked as if our life depended on it, as in a way it did. What’s instructive here is
    0:30:34 Grove’s methodical approach to mastering new demands. While most people define themselves by their formal
    0:30:40 education or job title, Grove saw knowledge as something to be systematically acquired when needed. He was
    0:30:46 always learning and evolving from chemistry to engineering to management. When faced with the
    0:30:51 challenge outside of his expertise, he didn’t delegate it or avoid it. He simply dove in and taught himself
    0:30:58 what he needed to know. This plasticity of identity explains how a Hungarian refugee with a PhD in chemical
    0:31:04 engineering became one of history’s most influential business leaders. The real breakthrough for Intel
    0:31:14 came in October 1970 with the 1103, a 1024 bit dynamic random access memory chip or DRAM. This wasn’t an
    0:31:19 incremental improvement. It represented a quantum leap forward storing four times the data of Intel’s
    0:31:26 previous chips. The 1103 acquired what Grove called “big technological gambles” and the challenges it
    0:31:33 presented revealed just how difficult semiconductor manufacturing was. “We were a company composed of
    0:31:38 a handful of people with a new design and a fragile technology housed in a little rented building,”
    0:31:43 Grove recalled, “and we were trying to supply the seemingly insatiable appetite of large computer
    0:31:49 companies for memory chips.” What made the 1103 revolutionary and so difficult to produce
    0:31:55 was its fundamental design. Unlike previous static memory chips that use six transistors per bit of
    0:32:02 memory, the 1103 used just three transistors in a new cell design. This remarkable efficiency allowed
    0:32:07 more memory to fit on a single chip, but it came with a catch. The information had to be constantly
    0:32:13 refreshed or it would fade away. The manufacturing challenges were enormous. The process began with silicone
    0:32:19 wafers, thin mirror polished slices of pure silicone crystal about four inches in diameter.
    0:32:24 In Intel’s first facility, these wafers traveled through a complex multi-step process where the
    0:32:31 slightest contamination could ruin the entire batch. What’s notable here is the high stakes bet Intel was
    0:32:36 making. Rather than playing it safe with incremental improvements, they bet the company on a fundamentally
    0:32:41 new approach to memory design. This willingness to make bold technological leaps while simultaneously
    0:32:46 building rigorous systems to manage the resulting complexity would become their defining competitive
    0:32:52 advantage. Few companies can successfully balance revolutionary innovation with operational
    0:32:58 discipline. Most excel at one or the other and Grove was creating an organization that could do both.
    0:33:04 Grove became obsessive about quality control. Early semiconductor manufacturing suffered from poor
    0:33:11 yields. Sometimes only 10 to 20 percent of chips on a wafer actually worked. Improving this percentage became his fixation.
    0:33:17 Intel’s fabrication facility, Fab 1, represented cutting-edge manufacturing for its time. Workers wore bunny
    0:33:23 suits, head-to-toe coveralls, not to protect themselves, but to protect the wafers from contamination.
    0:33:29 The scale of precision required was staggering. While a human hair is approximately 100 microns thick,
    0:33:35 circuit features on these early chips measured just a few microns. The 1103’s design made it
    0:33:41 extraordinarily vulnerable. It stored memory as tiny electrical charges that would leak away unless
    0:33:47 refreshed every few milliseconds, making the chip unusually sensitive to microscopic defects.
    0:33:52 Each manufacturing step demanded perfect precision. The smallest deviation in temperature, exposure,
    0:33:58 or time, or chemical concentration could ruin an entire batch. This stress was crushing. Grove recalled
    0:34:03 having nightmares where vicious dogs were leaping out of the processing equipment attacking him.
    0:34:09 The 1103 had to succeed or Intel might not survive. Ironically, despite Grove’s obsession with quality,
    0:34:14 the 1103 still went to market with serious flaws. After thousands had shipped, it turned out that
    0:34:20 in Grove’s candid words, under certain adverse conditions, the thing just couldn’t remember. Years
    0:34:27 later, Grove joked that the “S” in “Andrew S. Grove” stood for “ship the unit.” Yet customers bought it anyway,
    0:34:32 because even with the flaws, the 1103 offered advantages previous technologies couldn’t match.
    0:34:37 More surprisingly, its difficulty actually helped its adoption. As Gordon Moore observed,
    0:34:43 core memory engineers didn’t embrace the 1103 until they realized that it too was a difficult
    0:34:49 technology and wouldn’t make their skills irrelevant. As production scaled, Grove instituted statistical
    0:34:55 process control, systematically tracking every manufacturing variable to identify exactly what
    0:35:00 affected yield. Every temperature, chemical bath, and timing sequence was measured and correlated with results.
    0:35:06 His production meetings became legendary for their intensity. Grove demanded fact-based analysis and
    0:35:12 rejected vague explanations for problems. This relentless focus gradually improved yields. When
    0:35:20 Fab 2 opened in 1971, it incorporated all the lessons from Fab 1. And by the time Fab 3 opened in 1973,
    0:35:28 Intel had largely mastered the once temperamental 1103. Grove didn’t just care about quality. He obsessed
    0:35:34 over it scientifically when others saw manufacturing variability as an annoying fact of life. He approached
    0:35:40 problems with cold, hard numbers, not gut feelings. And he built systems to measure what others were guessing or
    0:35:46 complaining about. The human mind isn’t really equipped to intuitively grasp all the variables in a modern
    0:35:53 manufacturing process. While obvious now, in the early 70s, this was revolutionary. Grove was inventing
    0:35:59 manufacturing analytics decades before the term even existed. The lesson here, the most valuable
    0:36:04 approaches often seem like common sense in retrospect, but require seeing what others don’t in the moment.
    0:36:12 Looking back at the 1103 achievement, Grove wrote with uncharacteristic immodesty, making the 1103
    0:36:17 concept work at the technology level, at the device level, and at the systems level, and successfully
    0:36:23 introducing it into high volume manufacturing required, if I may flirt with immodesty for a moment of fair
    0:36:29 measure of orchestrated brilliance. Everybody from technologists to designers to reliability experts had to
    0:36:35 work to the same schedule toward a different aspect of the same goal interfacing simultaneously at all
    0:36:42 levels. Four years earlier, in July 1969, Grove had cut out a description of a film director’s job from
    0:36:52 Time Magazine. Above it, he wrote “my job description.” The clipping read, “vision to aspire. Any director must master
    0:36:59 formidable complexity. He must be adept at sound and camera work, a soother of egos, a cajeweler of artistic
    0:37:06 talent. A great director has something more, the vision and force to make all these elements fuse into an
    0:37:12 aspired whole.” End quote. This is fascinating. So an engineer by training with zero formal business
    0:37:18 education was modeling his role on a film director. Grove’s biographer notes that he doubts anyone else at
    0:37:24 Intel or in the whole semiconductor industry cut out that clipping and inquired of themselves rhetorically
    0:37:29 whether or not this was their job description. With the 1103, Grove had established the template for
    0:37:35 how Intel would operate for decades, identifying bleeding edge technology that required manufacturing
    0:37:41 breakthroughs, relentlessly tackling production challenges, and scaling rapidly while competitors
    0:37:47 struggled to catch up. The complexity of manufacturing the 1103 made it nearly impossible for competitors to reverse
    0:37:54 engineer, giving Intel a multi-year advantage in the market. In effect, complicated manufacturing
    0:37:59 became their core skill. There’s a bit of irony to this today. The experience crystallized Grove’s
    0:38:05 management philosophy. By 1971, he was coordinating dozens of specialists hired because of their expertise
    0:38:12 in a sliver of technology, each contributing one crucial piece to the larger puzzle. As technical
    0:38:17 teams developed in the next generation of products, Grove created systems to ensure seamless handoffs between
    0:38:23 design and manufacturing, historically the most vulnerable point in semiconductor development.
    0:38:28 Grove saw leadership like directing a film, not commanding an army. When he cut out that film
    0:38:33 director’s job description in 1969 and wrote “my job description” above it, he revealed something
    0:38:39 profound about his approach. While most technical leaders tried desperately to maintain expertise across
    0:38:46 every domain, a losing battle as technology advances, Grove took a different approach. The magic was in how he
    0:38:51 redefined the leader’s role, not the supreme technical expert, but as collecting talent and creating
    0:38:56 harmony. Most leaders fail because they can’t let go of being the smartest person in the room.
    0:39:02 And Grove succeeded by understanding a simple truth. As complexity increases, coordination becomes more
    0:39:09 valuable than individual control. The best leaders don’t need to know everything. They do need to know who knows what
    0:39:16 that and how to get them playing from the same sheet of music. While the 1103 DRAM established Intel as a
    0:39:24 serious memory player, an even more revolutionary product appeared in 1971, the 4004, the world’s first
    0:39:32 commercial microprocessor. Originally developed as a custom chip for Japanese calculator manufacturer, the 4004 was
    0:39:38 essentially a computer on a chip containing 2300 transistors and performing functions that previously required
    0:39:42 entire cabinets of electronics. The microprocessor’s importance
    0:39:48 wasn’t immediately apparent, even to Intel’s leaders. The company initially viewed it as
    0:39:54 merely a sideline to the core memory business. As one Intel engineer recalled, in the early days, the microprocessor was a
    0:40:01 solution looking for a problem. Andy himself would later admit that Intel stumbled into the microprocessor business.
    0:40:06 That statement is insane, given what we know today, but this is back in 1971.
    0:40:17 Nevertheless, Intel followed the 4004 with the 8008 in 1972 and the 8080 in 1974, increasingly powerful processors
    0:40:23 that found their way into a widening range of applications. The 8080 became particularly significant because it was selected
    0:40:30 selected as the brain of the Altair 8800, which was the first commercially successful personal computer
    0:40:38 released in 1975. What’s instructive here is how even brilliant leaders can miss the significance of their
    0:40:44 own innovations. Intel’s core team, including Andy Grove, initially failed to recognize that they had created the
    0:40:51 product that would eventually transform not just their company, but the entire world. This blind spot reveals an
    0:40:58 important truth about innovation. Revolutionary products often emerge not from grand strategic visions,
    0:41:04 but from solving specific customer problems. The microprocessor wasn’t born from a plan to change
    0:41:09 computing or change the history of the world. It came from meeting the needs of a Japanese calculator company.
    0:41:15 The greatest innovations frequently appear first as modest solutions to narrow challenges before their broader
    0:41:18 potential becomes clear.
    0:41:22 There used to be days I’d open my inbox and feel buried, like I was digging through noise just to find
    0:41:28 the signal. Important messages got lost, my focus slipped, and I started feeling like I was managing
    0:41:33 email more than running my business. As someone who values productivity above almost anything else,
    0:41:40 that just wasn’t sustainable. Since I’ve switched to Notion Mail, everything’s changed. Notion Mail is the inbox that thinks like you.
    0:41:46 It’s automated, personalized, and flexible to finally work the way that you work. With AI that learns
    0:41:51 what matters to you, it can organize your inbox, label messages, draft replies, and even schedule meetings.
    0:41:58 No manual sorting required. Now, the emails that matter rise to the top. I write faster with content blocks and
    0:42:04 AI prompts that polish or draft replies in seconds, and it integrates seamlessly with my Notion workspace,
    0:42:10 so I have full context right where I need it. Plus, Notion is trusted by over half of Fortune 500
    0:42:15 companies. If those are the people that you’re looking to compete with, start upgrading for free
    0:42:21 to Notion Mail. Get Notion Mail for free right now at notion.com/knowledgeproject and try the inbox
    0:42:27 that thinks like you. That’s all lowercase letters, notion.com/knowledgeproject to get Notion Mail for free
    0:42:34 right now. When you use our link, you’re supporting our show too. Notion.com/knowledgeproject.
    0:42:40 Intel’s growth during the 1970s was remarkable. The company’s 1977 annual report described it as a
    0:42:48 difficult year, yet sales and profits both increased by 25%. Employment had risen to 8,100 people and
    0:42:53 the R&D investment was climbing steadily. A technological revolution was unfolding through
    0:42:59 what the report called the continuous integration between circuit requirements, basic science and
    0:43:05 process technology. The average number of transistors in the components Intel introduced in 1977 exceeded
    0:43:12 the total number of vacuum tubes in INEC, the most complex electronic equipment built just 30 years
    0:43:19 earlier. Yet, not all Intel ventures succeeded. In 1977, the company admitted defeat in one notable
    0:43:25 experiment. We abandoned the digital watch and watch module business, including the closing of our Microma
    0:43:31 subsidiary, the transfer of the most important people to other divisions of Intel and the disposal of Microma’s
    0:43:39 assets. Intel tried to create the Apple Watch before 1980. That’s insane. Intel had entered the watch
    0:43:45 business in 1972 convinced it had a unique combination of capabilities, the CMOS chip, the liquid crystal
    0:43:51 display, and assembly facilities. But as Grove later explained, we got out when we found out it was a
    0:43:56 consumer marketing game, something we knew nothing about. The cost of consumer advertising particularly
    0:44:02 shocked Intel’s engineering-minded leadership. The company ran exactly one television commercial
    0:44:10 for the Microma watches at a cost of $600,000. Just one ad, Grove lamented, and poof, it was gone. Moore
    0:44:16 continued wearing his Microma watch for years, calling it his $15 million watch and joking, “If anyone
    0:44:21 comes to me with an idea for a consumer product, all I have to do is look at my watch to get the answer.”
    0:44:27 The Microma experience taught Intel two important lessons though. First, when closing the subsidiary,
    0:44:32 Intel found positions elsewhere in the company for almost all Microma employees. This approach,
    0:44:37 protecting the people even when ventures failed, created tremendous loyalty within the company.
    0:44:43 A breed of employees who would bleed blue, Intel’s logo color was developing. Crucial for the upcoming
    0:44:49 challenges of the 1980s. The second lesson, however, may have been learned a bit too well. Intel concluded
    0:44:55 the consumer products simply weren’t in the company’s genetic code. As Grove reflected in 2005,
    0:45:00 all of our subsequent consumer products efforts were half-hearted. Despite eventually becoming one of
    0:45:06 the most recognized brands in the world, Intel never sold directly to consumers, perhaps leaving
    0:45:13 significant value unrealized. Intel’s handling of the Microma failure reveals an elegant paradox of
    0:45:18 corporate culture. They killed the watch business without hesitation, but protected nearly every employee
    0:45:23 who worked on it. This wasn’t kindness, it was rational. When companies punish the people behind failed
    0:45:28 ventures, they create risk aversion that slowly suffocates innovation. But there’s a fascinating
    0:45:35 flip side to how we process failure. The $15 million watch disaster so traumatized Intel’s leadership that they
    0:45:42 permanently tagged consumer products as “not in our DNA”. For decades afterwards, Intel reflexively
    0:45:48 avoided direct consumer sales. This is kind of how experience works. We don’t just learn the lessons,
    0:45:54 we sometimes overlearn them. The same painful memories that can make us smarter in one domain can blind us
    0:46:00 in another. Smart companies know when to kill projects, wise ones know which lessons from those failures to
    0:46:08 keep and which to forget. Beneath Intel’s impressive growth numbers of the late 1970s lay a company culture
    0:46:14 in metamorphosis forged largely through Grove’s relentless, sometimes merciless, self-criticism. Reading
    0:46:20 Grove’s internal notes from this period, one would never guess 1978 was a triumphant year for Intel.
    0:46:25 Instead of celebration, we find Andy complaining to Gordon Moore that with our operating managers
    0:46:30 being busy with operating, planning does not get sufficient emphasis. As Intel approached a half
    0:46:36 billion dollars of revenue, Grove wrestled with a fundamental question: what was preventing Intel from
    0:46:44 reaching a billion? His answer scribbled in July 1978 was a strikingly simple oomph and administration.
    0:46:51 When Intel was small, he reflected an individual or small group could provide the oomph, the initiative
    0:46:58 and the enthusiasm that the company needed to do its work. By 1978, however, the oomph had concentrated
    0:47:04 in top managers who are now consumed by day-to-day responsibilities. What troubled Andy about Intel’s
    0:47:08 middle management was their aversion to conflict was their aversion to conflict. The middle is populated
    0:47:15 by passive introverts, he wrote, honest, competent, decent, well-meaning, work-oriented people who just
    0:47:23 can’t tolerate controversy. The result in Andy’s characteristically blunt phrasing, “shit rises uphill.”
    0:47:29 This frustrated Andy because, as he noted, it is impossible to change people’s personalities and very
    0:47:36 difficult to modify behavior tied to fundamental personality traits. Intel somehow needed to upgrade
    0:47:42 the oomph quotient of its middle managers. By August 1978, Andy’s frustration had reached
    0:47:48 a boiling point. Manufacturing was undisciplined. Marketing was abominable. He told more, “I think
    0:47:54 I was totally wrong a month ago in perceiving improvements in our great organized campaign. If
    0:48:00 anything, things are getting worse. If I truly had the guts, I think what we should do is put on a total
    0:48:08 hiring freeze until we get our nose above the shit level.” This is the Andy that Intel employees knew,
    0:48:14 demanding, uncompromising, and brutally honest. His criticisms weren’t reserved for others. They extended
    0:48:20 to himself and the entire organization. Yet, for all of his harshness, he understood the potential
    0:48:26 downside of the critical culture he was creating. In an October 1978 memo to the top executives, he wrote,
    0:48:32 “To a large extent, I think we owe our success not to luck, but to a culture of problem orientation,
    0:48:38 of being critical of ourselves and thereby urging ourselves and our organizations to perform better
    0:48:43 and better. This virtue, however, can be carried to such an extreme that it can bring about our own
    0:48:49 paralysis through self-doubt.” Then, in what must have surprised anyone familiar with his typically
    0:48:54 unsparing critiques, Andy added, “So let’s try to keep our perspective and permit ourselves to enjoy the
    0:49:00 fact that we have never yet in our history had a problem we didn’t solve.” What’s remarkable here
    0:49:05 is Groves’ understanding of the paradox of high-performance cultures. The very critical
    0:49:11 orientation that drives excellence can eventually become toxic if not balanced with perspective and
    0:49:17 celebration. Most leaders swing between extremes, either creating complacent cultures that celebrate
    0:49:23 mediocrity or harsh environments that burn people out. Groves is attempting something far more difficult,
    0:49:29 building a culture that could simultaneously maintain relentless standards while providing enough
    0:49:35 psychological safety for people to take risks and speak truth. This balance, being brutally honest about
    0:49:40 problems while remaining fundamentally optimistic about solving them, would become their defining
    0:49:45 cultural characteristic. What we’re witnessing in these private notes is the birth of what would
    0:49:51 later be recognized as the intel culture. Groves’ distinctive organizational ethers that would
    0:49:56 eventually be studied at business schools around the world. This culture had several defining elements,
    0:50:03 all bearing his unmistakable imprint. At its core was what became known as constructive confrontation.
    0:50:08 As Groves recalled during intel’s early pressure cooker days, we often spent as much time bickering
    0:50:14 with one another as working on the problems. We developed a style of ferociously arguing with one
    0:50:20 another while remaining friends. We call this constructive confrontation. This direct problem-solving
    0:50:26 confrontation approach was coupled with a relentless focus on data and facts rather than opinions or
    0:50:32 emotions. Andy frequently complained about the tendency in management circles to substitute opinions for
    0:50:39 facts and emotion for analysis, a trend that still continues to this day. Intel also developed a unique
    0:50:45 approach to organizational management. In June 1978, Andy wrote, “The time has come for us to establish honest to
    0:50:50 goodness corporate staff. This would be made up of our top flight operating executives who would serve for
    0:50:55 a limited period prior to returning to line management. Their role would be to deal with
    0:51:01 longer-term issues, especially for those that cross divisional boundaries.” This focus on organizational
    0:51:07 effectiveness stemmed from Andy’s recognition that Intel’s rapid growth created increasingly complex
    0:51:12 problems. He noticed that every attempted solution seemed to generate new challenges. Getting into new
    0:51:19 businesses is a complicated phenomenon where directors can change fairly rapidly as one feels one way.
    0:51:24 Realigning emphasis means shuffling people about and having people stagger under the same load that their
    0:51:29 predecessor, who had done the job for years, would have been able to handle with ease. Culture wasn’t
    0:51:35 something that just happened at Intel, at least not under Andy Grove. While many companies let culture evolve
    0:51:42 organically, Grove engineered Intel’s with the same precision he brought to chip manufacturing. He wasn’t
    0:51:48 designing pleasant office vibes. He was building a corporate immune system. The brilliance here is in how
    0:51:55 he institutionalized seemingly contradictory forces, the brutal honesty alongside deep loyalty, rigid processes
    0:52:02 alongside flexibility. Constructive confrontation sounds like an oxymoron until you see it solve problems that
    0:52:09 politeness can’t touch. Grove treated culture as infrastructure, and to him it was just as critical as the factory
    0:52:14 floor. Years later, when Intel faced its greatest crisis, this deliberately designed culture became the
    0:52:20 company’s salvation. The greatest competitive advantage isn’t a product, but rather an organization that can
    0:52:26 adapt faster than the world changes around it. These cultural elements were crystallizing into a coherent
    0:52:34 whole, and the results were undeniable. By 1979, Intel sales and profits soared to 663 million and 77.8
    0:52:43 million, representing growth of 65.8% in both categories. The workforce expanded by 40% to more than 14,000
    0:52:53 employees. Intel had debuted on the Fortune 500 in 1978 at position 486, and by 1979 had climbed to 368.
    0:53:00 Even more impressively, Intel’s market capitalization more than doubled from 638 million at the end of
    0:53:07 1978 to 1.4 billion just a year later. In many ways, 1979 represented the validation of the culture
    0:53:12 Andy had been painstakingly building. Prices for their products remained high throughout the year because
    0:53:18 demand far outstripped forecasts. The semiconductor industry was constrained by supply shortages. As one
    0:53:24 observer noted, “If you’re going to have a problem, that is one which many business people would select.”
    0:53:30 But as the 1970s drew to a close, Andy’s greatest test as a leader still lay ahead. The extraordinary
    0:53:36 success of 1979 masked underlying vulnerabilities. As Andy himself had written years earlier, “In the
    0:53:40 meantime, while you’re fighting the forces of entropy in your company, the rest of the world is
    0:53:46 hardly standing still.” He had identified the competitive threat in an annual report. This
    0:53:51 year, or in some cases last year, competition arrived and very logically went after the most visible
    0:53:57 segment. The large accounts who now have alternatives have started to move towards those alternatives with
    0:54:03 a resulting loss of standing, if not business for us. In retrospect, that seems to have been unavoidable,
    0:54:09 “but we were too skimpy, too busy, and too smug with our success to have anticipated
    0:54:15 this trend.” The culture Andy had forged through his relentless self-criticism and exacting standards would
    0:54:21 soon face its most severe challenge. The question wasn’t whether Intel’s culture could drive growth in good
    0:54:26 times. It had proven that conclusively. The real question was whether the same culture could navigate
    0:54:32 Intel through a genuine crisis when rigorous analysis and candid self-assessment would have
    0:54:38 to transform into decisive action at a pivotal moment for the American semiconductor industry.
    0:54:45 It’s worth pausing here for a second. Success often sears the seeds of its own destruction. Grove
    0:54:50 understood something profound. The moment you feel safest is often when you’re most vulnerable. While
    0:54:56 competitors celebrated victories, he was already hunting for threats lurking in Intel’s success.
    0:55:01 For Grove, this wasn’t theoretical pessimism. It was personal trauma. Going back to his childhood,
    0:55:07 as a Hungarian Jew who survived both Nazi occupation and communist rule before fleeing to America,
    0:55:13 Grove had witnessed how quickly stability can disintegrate into chaos. The genius of his approach
    0:55:20 was maintaining intense paranoia precisely when it seemed least necessary. Most companies grow complacent
    0:55:26 with success. Their vigilance fades exactly when competitors are motivated to overtake them. While
    0:55:31 Intel’s 1979 results had shareholders celebrating, Grove was already writing about fighting the forces
    0:55:38 the forces of entropy. This wasn’t anxiety, it was clarity. And it’s something all the greats have,
    0:55:44 even when they’re winning. This perpetual vigilance would prove crucial to Intel’s salvation when
    0:55:51 Japanese manufacturers later attacked the company’s core business. By the mid-1980s, Intel faced an
    0:55:55 existential threat and existential threat that would not just test the company’s business model, but the
    0:56:01 very leadership philosophy Grove had been cultivating for nearly two decades. The semiconductor industry was
    0:56:06 experiencing what he would later term a 10x force, a fundamental shift so powerful it could destroy
    0:56:12 established companies that failed to adapt. In his influential book, Only the Paranoid Survive,
    0:56:19 Andy explained that a crucial distinction between ordinary changes and 10x changes. Ordinary 1x changes were the
    0:56:25 constant background noise of business, the incremental shifts in customer preferences, competitor tactics,
    0:56:30 or technologies that companies routinely handle. These might alter your trajectory, but they don’t
    0:56:37 fundamentally transform your industry. A 10x change, by contrast, was a force of an entirely different
    0:56:42 magnitude. Andy described it as the difference between a light breeze and a full-blown typhoon,
    0:56:48 or between waves and a tsunami. When a 10x force hits, the fundamentals of your business are altered
    0:56:55 so dramatically that continuing with your existing strategy becomes impossible. For Intel in the late 1980s,
    0:57:01 this 10x force came in the form of Japanese memory chip manufacturers. The quality level of the Japanese
    0:57:07 memories, especially DRAMs, were becoming consistently and substantially better than Intel’s. This meant
    0:57:11 not only were they selling merchandise cheaper than Intel could, but they were selling better
    0:57:17 merchandise as well, a very threatening position for the company to be in. This was a fundamental shift
    0:57:23 that rendered Intel’s position in the memory market untenable. Japanese firms had mastered a manufacturing
    0:57:28 approach that Intel simply couldn’t match. Memory chips had become commodities, where competitive
    0:57:36 advantages came from manufacturing scale and efficiency rather than design innovation. The area where Intel had
    0:57:42 dominated through the 1970s. Most businesses are designed to weather ordinary changes. The 1x forces
    0:57:47 that Grove described as the constant background noise. But strategic inflection points aren’t headwinds,
    0:57:53 they’re tsunamis that destroy companies that mistake them for normal challenges. The true genius of
    0:57:58 leadership lies in recognizing when incremental improvements become futile and when you must abandon the
    0:58:04 very business that made you successful. The golden goose, if you will, even while it’s still generating enormous profits.
    0:58:11 By 1985, Intel was wandering through what Andy described as a valley of death. The company was
    0:58:18 posting significant losses, employee morale was plummeting, and the board grew restless. Cost-counting
    0:58:23 measures, facility closures, and layoffs, the standard corporate responses to financial pressure failed to
    0:58:30 address the fundamental market reality. Intel simply couldn’t compete in the memory business anymore. Andy
    0:58:35 Grove possessed a rare ability to acknowledge the brutal truce before disaster became inevitable. He’d
    0:58:40 been doing it his whole life. But even for him, the realization didn’t come easily because Intel’s
    0:58:47 identity was inextricably tied to memory chips. The company had been founded on it. Gordon Moore and
    0:58:52 Robert Noyce’s vision of semiconductor memory replacing magnetic core memory had sparked the whole industry in
    0:58:58 a new direction. And Intel engineers took enormous pride in their memory innovations. As Andy would
    0:59:03 later observe, people who have no emotional stake in a decision can see what needs to be done sooner.
    0:59:09 Two deeply held beliefs within Intel complicated matters even further. First, many believed that
    0:59:14 memories were the company’s technology drivers, the products on which new manufacturing processes were
    0:59:20 perfected before being applied to microprocessors. Second, there was a widespread conviction that Intel
    0:59:25 needed to offer customers a complete product line including both memories and processors. If they
    0:59:31 offered only one, customers would supposedly leave them for someone who could offer both. The turning
    0:59:36 point came during a conversation between Andy and Gordon Moore that has since become legendary in
    0:59:42 business circles. It’s the one I mentioned in the introduction. Looking at the terrible memory chip numbers for the
    0:59:48 latest quarter, Andy said to Moore, “If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you
    0:59:55 think he would do?” Moore answered without hesitation. He would get us out of memories. Andy then posed a pivotal
    1:00:01 question. Why shouldn’t you and I just walk out the door, come back in, and do it ourselves? This mental
    1:00:06 exercise of viewing the company as an outsider would become the cornerstone of what Andy would later term
    1:00:11 a strategic inflection point, a moment when the fundamentals of the business are about to change.
    1:00:15 You can tell you’re going through a strategic inflection point if the way you traditionally have
    1:00:20 done business no longer delivers the kind of results that we used to get. Well, the new way of doing
    1:00:25 business involves so much uncertainty that you can’t easily bring yourself to embrace it. What’s
    1:00:32 interesting here is the technique Grove used to overcome organizational inertia by mentally stepping
    1:00:37 outside, walking out the door. Grove and Moore could temporarily escape the emotional attachment to past
    1:00:42 decisions and see the blind spot that was holding them where they were. They could see their situation
    1:00:48 with new clarity. This ability to create psychological distance from your own commitments is extraordinarily
    1:00:54 difficult but crucial during strategic inflection points. Most leaders remain imprisoned by their previous
    1:01:00 decisions, unable to abandon what they built even as evidence mounts that it’s no longer viable. Grove had
    1:01:06 developed a technique to break the psychological lock, a method for seeing his own creation with the
    1:01:12 objectivity of an outsider. One of Andy’s most insightful observations involved the transformation of the
    1:01:17 computer industry’s structure. He described how the industry had evolved from a vertically integrated
    1:01:23 model to a horizontally segmented one in 1980s sparked by memory chips becoming commodities and the rise of the
    1:01:30 microprocessor. In the mainframe era dominated by IBM, companies operated as fully integrated vertical stacks. IBM
    1:01:35 designed everything from chips to hardware to the operating system to the applications. As Andy explained,
    1:01:40 a company competing in this industry as one vertical proprietary block against all other computer
    1:01:45 companies’ vertical proprietary blocks. The rise of the microprocessor, which Intel had pioneered,
    1:01:51 fundamentally changed the structure. The industry fragmented into horizontal layers. Chip manufacturers like
    1:01:57 Intel, computer assemblers like Dell and Compaq, operating system providers like Microsoft and application
    1:02:02 developers. Andy wrote, “In this new model, no one company had its own stack. A consumer could pick
    1:02:07 a chip from the horizontal chip bar, pick a computer manufacturer from the computer bar, choose an operating
    1:02:14 system out of the operating system bar, grab one of several ready to use applications off the shelf at a retail
    1:02:20 store or a computer superstar and take the collection of these things home.” This shift destroyed IBM’s dominance.
    1:02:26 Despite its vast resources and market power, or possibly because of them, IBM couldn’t adapt to this
    1:02:31 horizontal world. They remained wedded to the vertical integration model. Even as the economics of
    1:02:37 specialized horizontal layers made that approach uncompetitive, what made this transition especially
    1:02:42 treacherous was that it didn’t happen overnight. It evolved gradually with the vertical model continuing to work
    1:02:48 reasonably well, even as the horizontal model gained momentum. By the time the inflection point was obvious to
    1:02:54 everyone, IBM had already lost most of its market leadership position. Andy observed, “IBM was
    1:02:59 composed of a group of people who had won time and time again, decade after decade, in the battle among
    1:03:05 vertical computer players. The managers who ran IBM grew up in this world. Their long reign of success deeply
    1:03:11 reinforced the thought processes and instincts that led to winning in the vertical industry. So when the industry
    1:03:17 changed, they attempted to use the same type of thinking that had worked so well in the past. IBM,
    1:03:22 as a vertical player, was trying to sell portions of its stack to direct competitors, an inherently
    1:03:28 conflicted position. Grove had learned that Intel needed to focus on microprocessors and basically nothing
    1:03:36 else. As he would write, “It’s harder to be the best of class in several fields than just one.” What’s interesting here is that
    1:03:41 Grove didn’t just see competitors. He saw the competitive landscape transforming. While IBM’s
    1:03:45 executives were still trying to outmaneuver other vertically integrated companies, Grove recognized
    1:03:51 the industry was fundamentally restructuring into horizontal layers where specialists in each layer
    1:03:56 would dominate. The greatest business failures often come from not playing the game poorly, but from
    1:04:03 continuing to excel at games that no longer matter. One of Andy’s most penetrating insights concerned
    1:04:07 the role of middle managers during strategic inflection points. He believed they often had
    1:04:14 the clearest view of impending changes and called them Cassandras, after the Greek priestess who foretold
    1:04:19 the fall of Troy. He wrote, “The Cassandras in your organization are a consistently helpful element in
    1:04:25 recognizing strategic inflection points.” As you might remember, Cassandra was the priestess who foretold the fall
    1:04:30 of Troy. Likewise, there are people who are quick to recognize impending change and cry out an early
    1:04:34 warning. Although they can come from anywhere in the company, Cassandras are usually in the middle
    1:04:40 management. Often they work in the sales organization. They usually know more about the upcoming change than
    1:04:46 the senior management because they spend so much time outdoors where the winds of the real world blow in their
    1:04:54 faces. In other words, their genes have not been selected to achieve perfection in an old way. Because they are on the
    1:04:59 front lines of the company, Cassandras often feel more vulnerable to danger than do senior managers
    1:05:04 in their more or less bolstered corporate headquarters. Bad news has much more of an immediate
    1:05:09 impact on them personally. Lost sales affect a salesperson’s commission. Technology that never
    1:05:15 makes it into the marketplace disrupts an engineer’s career. Therefore, they take the warning signs more
    1:05:20 seriously. “If you’re a senior manager in a company,” Andy explained, “strategic inflection
    1:05:25 points arrive in disguised form.” Top executives are often the last to recognize the fundamental
    1:05:31 shifts because they’re insulated from market realities and emotionally invested in the status quo. Middle
    1:05:37 managers, by contrast, operate at the intersection of the company and the outside world. They usually have a
    1:05:44 better sense than the senior management of what’s happening with both sides. Andy noted, “their position gives them an
    1:05:50 unfiltered view of the customer shifts, competitive threats, and technological changes.” Andy illustrated
    1:05:56 this with a powerful analogy, comparing strategic inflection points to fire drills in a theater. When
    1:05:59 the alarm sounds, audience members in the middle of the theater have the clearest picture of what’s
    1:06:05 happening. They can see both the stage, where the fire may have started, and the exits. Audience members
    1:06:10 in the very front like senior executives may be too close to the stage to see the big picture. While
    1:06:16 those in the back, frontline employees may be too far from the action. At Intel, Grove created forms where
    1:06:22 middle managers’ voices could be heard and respected regardless of hierarchy. Grove discovered something
    1:06:28 counterintuitive about organizational awareness. Middle managers often see the existential threats before
    1:06:34 their executives do. These Cassandras operate where strategy meets reality. They’re close enough to the
    1:06:40 customers to feel market shifts, but connected enough to headquarters to understand the implications. By
    1:06:45 deliberately elevating these voices rather than filtering them through the hierarchy, Grove built an early
    1:06:52 warning system that detected industry shifts while competitors were still celebrating calm seas. The
    1:06:58 decision to exit the memory business wasn’t implemented overnight. The transition took nearly three
    1:07:02 years, and throughout this challenging period, Andy deployed the leadership style he had honed for
    1:07:08 decades, demanding, data-driven, and brutally honest. First, he insisted on clarity about market realities. He
    1:07:13 gathered comprehensive data on Japanese companies’ memory pricing, quality, and manufacturing
    1:07:18 capabilities, forcing Intel’s management to confront an uncomfortable truth. The gap wasn’t closing,
    1:07:23 it was widening. Second, he addressed emotional resistance head-on. In a pivotal meeting with
    1:07:29 senior managers, Andy posed a provocative question. If memories are so strategic, why do we lose money on
    1:07:35 every one we sell? This forced Intel’s leadership to separate old strategic methodology with new economic
    1:07:42 reality. And third, he tackled practical transition challenges with meticulous attention to detail. What would
    1:07:47 happen to Intel’s memory design teams? How would customers react? What would the microprocessor-focused
    1:07:52 Intel look like? Andy demanded detailed planning for each dimension so employees could visualize the
    1:07:57 new Intel. Thanks to the company’s history of protecting employees during previous shutdowns,
    1:08:02 there was less fear of institutional change. When Intel finally announced to customers it would
    1:08:08 no longer be manufacturing DRAMs, the response was largely a big yawn. Many had already anticipated
    1:08:13 Intel’s retreat and secured alternative suppliers. Some even expressed relief saying it sure took you a long
    1:08:20 time. Grove systematically dismantled both practical and psychological barriers to change. He recognized
    1:08:25 that strategic pivots fail not just because of poor planning, but because of emotional attachments to
    1:08:31 past decisions and fear of an uncertain future. By keeping the focus on market realities, strategic
    1:08:36 contradictions, and implementation details simultaneously, Grove created a comprehensive
    1:08:43 approach to organizational transformation that remains a template for executing painful but necessary pivots
    1:08:49 today. By 1987, Intel had largely completed the transition away from memories. The company was
    1:08:55 profitable again, but its 80386 microprocessor was gaining traction in the personal computer market.
    1:09:00 But Andy, now Intel’s president, wasn’t content with mere survival. He sensed an opportunity to
    1:09:06 fundamentally transform Intel’s position in the market. Rather than remaining an anonymous component supplier,
    1:09:12 Intel could become a recognized brand that signified quality and innovation to end consumers and thereby
    1:09:20 protect itself from future inflection points. In 1989, Intel began shifting its advertising aimed at consumers
    1:09:26 instead of manufacturers. This approach culminated in the famous Intel Inside campaign,
    1:09:33 fundamentally altering the power dynamics in the computer industry. PC manufacturers couldn’t easily
    1:09:38 switch to a competing processor without risking consumer backlash. Consumers would be looking
    1:09:46 specifically for an Intel-powered PC. This move was pure genius. What emerged from this crucible was not
    1:09:51 just a safe company, but a coherent leadership philosophy that Andy would articulate. Business success contains
    1:09:56 the seeds of its own destruction. The more successful you are, the more people want a chunk of your
    1:10:00 business and then another chunk until there’s nothing left. I believe that the prime responsibility of
    1:10:06 a manager is to guard constantly against other people’s attacks and to put this guardian attitude
    1:10:12 in the people under his management. Grove’s paranoia wasn’t the anxious hand-wringing that paralyzes
    1:10:19 action. It was strategic mindset that fueled adaptation. A corporation is a living organism. It has to
    1:10:24 continue to shed its skin, he insisted, recognizing that yesterday’s winning formula becomes tomorrow’s
    1:10:30 liability. His masterstroke, the final masterstroke, the Intel Inside campaign, reveals a deeper insight
    1:10:36 about competitive advantage. By turning an invisible chip into a household brand, Grove didn’t just
    1:10:43 differentiate Intel, he fundamentally changed who Intel’s customer was. Though PC manufacturers wrote the
    1:10:49 checks, consumers now demanded Intel processors specifically, creating a protective moat around the
    1:10:54 business that no competitor that no competitor could easily cross. This is the paradox at the heart of
    1:11:01 lasting success. The more deliberately you prepare for your own obsolescence, the less likely you are to
    1:11:13 become obsolete. All right, let’s get into a few afterthoughts and reflections and then talk about some lessons learned.
    1:11:21 So one of the things that stood out to me here was just how profound his childhood was on his experiences and
    1:11:27 how he learned that survival demands the same skills, constant vigilance, brutal self-assessment,
    1:11:32 the courage to abandon what’s once defined you. I mean, he lived this stuff as a child. That is a terrible,
    1:11:38 terrible childhood. Another thing that really stands out to me here is a bit of the red queen effect going on where,
    1:11:44 you know, you have to run harder and harder to maintain your place in industries that are changing rapidly.
    1:11:49 And I think, you know, the memory, you can use this as a great example, the memory chips, you know,
    1:11:52 you have to get better and better every year. You can’t just rest. You can’t take a break. You have to sprint.
    1:11:57 You’re constantly sprinting because your competitors are sprinting. And if you stand still, if you don’t get
    1:12:02 better, you’re getting worse. And in highly, highly competitive industries, that’s what’s happening.
    1:12:08 The decision to kill the golden goose, killing the memory chips and, and doing the strategic pivot that
    1:12:14 I can’t understate how hard that is. There’s so much organizational inertia tied into that and making
    1:12:21 that pivot. And, you know, it all worked out well for Intel, uh, at the time. And it’s so hard to make
    1:12:28 those decisions. Um, there’s so many people giving you conflicting information. I like Andy talks a lot
    1:12:32 about blind spots without using the term blind spots. He’s always trying to get information
    1:12:38 either from people through analysis or through analytics or just seeing the world through their
    1:12:42 eyes. I liked his idea of Cassandra’s being the middle managers. I think there’s a lot of truth
    1:12:48 to that. Having worked in a large organization before people who touch the outside, they touch the territory.
    1:12:53 And because they touch the territory, uh, they often have more accurate information about the
    1:12:57 territory than management who relies on maps. It’s a bit of map territory.
    1:13:03 I like his idea of thought experiments, you know, sort of stepping outside, firing yourself as CEO,
    1:13:07 uh, and saying, what would we do different if the board fired us and then hired us again?
    1:13:11 You know, these are the type of things I talk about in the great mental models, volume one,
    1:13:16 it’s a great thought experiment for you. It’s also something that we can do. You are the CEO of you.
    1:13:23 Uh, and you have thousands of employees at your disposal today in the form of GPUs and AI.
    1:13:28 And I think the question is, you know, one question that I constantly ask myself is if I fired myself
    1:13:34 today, uh, what would a new CEO or myself taking over stop doing? What am I doing today that I need
    1:13:41 to stop and what could I start doing? And I think those questions are super important. As I was researching
    1:13:48 the whole transition from memory to semiconductors with Intel, you know, the parallels between what Google’s
    1:13:53 going through right now just stuck out so much. They have this golden goose in traditional search
    1:14:00 that’s making a ton of money. And I wonder at what point you face a bit of innovators dilemma where
    1:14:04 you’re not dealing with reality. The people who grew up in Google right now grew up in search. They grew
    1:14:09 up in an era where they won over and over again. Sounds a lot like IBM in this story. They kept winning
    1:14:15 over and over again and they’re dominant in their field until they’re not. And when you grow up in an
    1:14:21 industry and you win over and over and over again in that industry, and then you have to change, you
    1:14:27 reach one of those inflection points, those 10 X points that Grove talk about, uh, that becomes the
    1:14:33 hardest point to change your mind about things. The very thing that success has driven for you. Now you have
    1:14:38 to abandon and go all in, you have to burn the boats and, you know, close some doors, but you have to
    1:14:44 close doors on the most profitable part of your business. And one final reflection is sort of, I
    1:14:49 couldn’t fit this in the story, but I think it’s quite profound. Andy’s philosophy about how he connected
    1:14:56 organizational adaptation to personal responsibility. He said, and I quote, “The sad news is nobody owes you
    1:15:03 a career.” Your career is literally your business. You own it as a sole proprietor. You have one employee
    1:15:09 yourself. You were in competition with millions of similar businesses, millions of other employees
    1:15:14 all over the world. You need to accept ownership of your career, your skills, and the timing of your moves.
    1:15:21 That is such a high agency way to think about things. And this is what I tell my kids, like you are running
    1:15:26 a company. You, and I mentioned this a little bit earlier, you have a thousand GPUs. You have a thousand
    1:15:31 employees at your disposal. And, you know, if you’re not telling them to do something or learning or getting
    1:15:36 better, then they’re just sitting there waiting for you to tell them what to do. But you have one employee.
    1:15:42 You are in competition with millions of other people, millions of people just like you, and nobody owes you
    1:15:50 anything. And I think, you know, Andy’s childhood really informs that view. Okay. Let’s get to some of
    1:15:58 our lessons here before we close this out. So lesson number one, bounce, but don’t break. Grove faced
    1:16:03 devastating childhood circumstances. A father sent to labor camp, hiding his Jewish identity and
    1:16:09 permanently losing his hearing from scarlet fever. Yet he transformed this difficulty into advantage,
    1:16:14 developing extraordinary attention to subtle signals and the ability to make decisions with
    1:16:20 incomplete information. When you can’t change your circumstances, you can change how you respond to
    1:16:27 them. This is the lesson we also learned from Viktor Frankl. The last human freedom is the ability to
    1:16:33 choose how you respond to a situation. Lesson number two, don’t care what they think. When
    1:16:40 Grove’s semiconductor research contradicted established theory, experts wanted to burn him at the stake.
    1:16:47 He built a culture where only data mattered, not opinions. Truth seeking requires the courage to
    1:16:53 be disliked. So many people these days optimize their life around being liked. And that means that you
    1:17:01 will never face the hard reality of inconvenient data. Three, face reality before it faces you.
    1:17:08 Grove’s willingness to confront brutal facts became his defining leadership trait. When faced with Japanese
    1:17:13 memory manufacturers overtaking Intel, he asked more of the pivotal question. If we got kicked out and the
    1:17:18 board brought in new CEO, what would he do? This thought experiment created distance from his own
    1:17:24 decisions and allowed him to abandon the very business that built Intel. He was effectively enabled to see
    1:17:29 his blind spots. Emotional attachment to past decisions is such a silent killer.
    1:17:36 Four, success sows the seeds of its own destruction. Even during Intel’s record profits of 1979,
    1:17:42 Grove was hunting for the existential threats. Having survived Nazi occupation, he knew stability could
    1:17:48 vanish overnight. Paranoia is the most valuable precisely when it seems least necessary. And there’s
    1:17:53 a parallel here that just comes to mind as I’m reading this. But if you listen to interviews with Tom
    1:17:58 Brady or Patrick Mahomes or Michael Jordan, there’s these key moments, there’s these games where they
    1:18:05 win. I remember Brady won one game is like 24 to seven or something. And in the interview after he’s
    1:18:09 like, we should have won that 45 to seven. He’s not celebrating the victories. Like, you know, we got
    1:18:15 lucky. We, we, we should have been better. I should have been better. And I think that, you know, that is
    1:18:22 something that people have, but you can also adapt. Five, Grove was a talent collector. He recognized
    1:18:28 leadership as an orchestration rather than individual brilliance. As Intel grew, he focused on creating
    1:18:34 systems where collective intelligence could flourish, particularly by amplifying middle managers’ voices.
    1:18:40 He developed constructive confrontation where ideas could be ferociously debated. If you’re running an
    1:18:44 organization or your senior level in an organization, your ceiling is determined by the
    1:18:51 talent you attract, not the talent you possess. That is true of organizations. Six, he was a learning
    1:18:58 machine. Grove transformed from a chemical engineer to semiconductor physicist to management guru in just
    1:19:03 a decade. He approached each new domain with the same methodical rigor. In a changing world,
    1:19:10 the ability to learn quickly compounds like interest. Seven, he had a taste for salt water.
    1:19:16 While working as a waiter and learning English, Grove still graduated first in his class. Excellence
    1:19:22 happens when nobody’s watching. The gap between good and great is filled with voluntary hardships that
    1:19:28 others refuse to endure. Eight, it takes what it takes. Grove’s work ethic was relentless and
    1:19:35 unconstrained by conventional boundaries. At Fairchild, he authored 30 scientific articles and filed patents
    1:19:41 while simultaneously teaching at Berkeley. When manufacturing problems threatened Intel’s existence,
    1:19:46 Grove created statistical systems tracking every production variable, well before these type of
    1:19:53 analytics were normal or standard or even acceptable. Sometimes progress requires both working smarter
    1:20:01 and harder. Nine, positioning is leverage. Grove never merely reacted to opportunities. He methodically
    1:20:06 positioned himself at the intersection of his talents and emerging trends. Before joining Fairchild,
    1:20:11 for example, he researched 22 different companies, dividing them into categories based on his interest
    1:20:16 versus qualifications. When Moore and Noyce mentioned they were starting Intel, he immediately recognized the
    1:20:23 opportunity as their operational compliment. He mastered his circumstances rather than being mastered by them.
    1:20:29 Number 10, ride the wave. When Grove identified the semiconductor revolution, he committed fully
    1:20:37 rather than hedging his bets. Even when Intel’s 1103 memory chip had serious flaws under certain adverse
    1:20:42 conditions, the thing just couldn’t remember. He still persevered because he knew they were riding an
    1:20:49 unstoppable technological wave. When you get the trend right, you can overcome countless tactical failures.
    1:20:54 What a story with Andy Grove. There’s so many lessons that you can take away here. I’m going to listen
    1:21:05 to this one over and over again. Thanks for listening and learning with us. And be sure to sign up for my
    1:21:12 free weekly newsletter at fs.blog/newsletter. I hope you enjoyed my reflections at the end of this episode.
    1:21:18 That’s normally reserved for members. But with this outlier series, I wanted to make them available to everyone.
    1:21:24 The Farnam Street website is where you can get more info on our membership program, which includes access
    1:21:31 to episode transcripts, reflections for all episodes, my updated repository featuring highlights from the
    1:21:37 books used in this series and more. Plus, be sure to follow myself and Farnam Street on X, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
    1:21:43 If you like what we’re doing here, leaving a rating and review would mean the world. And if you really like us,
    1:21:56 sharing with a friend is the best way to grow this special series until next time.

    Most people protect their identity. Andy Grove would rewrite his, again and again. He started as a refugee, became a chemist, turned himself into an engineer, then a manager, and finally the CEO who built Intel into a global powerhouse. He didn’t cling to credentials or titles. When a challenge came up, he didn’t delegate, he learned. This episode explores the radical adaptability that made Grove different. While his peers obsessed over innovation, he focused on something far more enduring: the systems, structures, and people needed to scale that innovation. Grove understood that as complexity rises, technical brilliance fades and coordination becomes king. 

    You’ll learn how he redefined leadership, why he saw management as a creative act, and what most founders still get wrong about building great companies. If you’re serious about getting better—at work, at thinking, at leading—this is the episode you’ll be glad you didn’t miss. 

    This episode is for informational purposes only and most of the research came from The Life and Times of an American by Richard S. Tedlow, Only the Paranoid Survive by Andy Grove, and Tom Wolfe’s profile of Robert Noyce available here.

    Check out highlights from these books in our repository, and find key lessons from Grove here — ⁠⁠https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/outliers-andy-grove/⁠

    (05:02 ) PART 1: Hungarian Beginnings
    (06:48) German Occupation
    (09:27) Soviet Liberation
    (11:01) End of the War
    (12:35) Leaving Hungary

    (14:10) PART 2: In America
    (16:50) Origin of Silicon Valley
    (20:04) Fairchild

    (22:54) PART 3: Building Intel
    (25:15) Becoming a Manager
    (29:39) Intel’s Make-or-Break Moment
    (31:35) Quality Control Obsession
    (34:41) Orchestrating Brilliance
    (37:49) The Microprocessor Revolution and Intel’s Growth
    (40:32) Intel’s Growth and the Microma Lesson
    (30:51) The Grove Influence
    (47:00) The Birth of Intel Culture
    (49:42) ​​The Fruits of Transformation
    (50:43) The Test Ahead

    (53:07) PART 4: Inflection Points
    (55:23) The Valley of Death
    (58:26) The IBM Lesson
    (01:01:18) CASSANDRA’s: The Value of Middle Management
    (01:04:09) Executing a Painful Pivot

    (01:08:25) Reflections, afterthoughts, and lessons

    Thanks to our sponsors for supporting this episode:

    MOMENTOUS: Head to ⁠⁠livemomentous.com⁠⁠ and use code KNOWLEDGEPROJECT for 35% off your first subscription. 

    NOTION MAIL: Get Notion Mail for free right now at ⁠notion.com/knowledgeproject

    Upgrade — If you want to hear my thoughts and reflections at the end of all episodes, join our membership: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/membership⁠⁠⁠⁠ and get your own private feed.

    Newsletter — The Brain Food newsletter delivers actionable insights and thoughtful ideas every Sunday. It takes 5 minutes to read, and it’s completely free. Learn more and sign up at ⁠⁠fs.blog/newsletter

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices