Category: Uncategorized

  • Top Neuroscientist: Anxiety Is A Predictive Error In The Brain! Heres The Proof Your Brain Is Faking Trauma! Your Whole Life Might Be A Prediction!

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:05 There are these experiments where they trained people to experience anxiety, but as determination,
    0:00:10 because exactly the same physical state could be experienced completely different.
    0:00:14 And what they discovered is that at first it’s really hard, but you practice, practice, practice,
    0:00:18 and then eventually becomes really automatic. So the first thing to understand is that…
    0:00:21 Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett is a world-leading neuroscientist.
    0:00:26 Her groundbreaking research reveals that emotions like anxiety and trauma are built by the brain.
    0:00:28 And we have the power to control them.
    0:00:34 The story is that you’re born with these innate emotion circuits, but you’re not born with the ability to control them.
    0:00:34 That’s false.
    0:00:39 Really what’s happening is that your brain is not reacting, it’s predicting.
    0:00:46 And every action you take, every emotion you have is a combination of the remembered past, including any trauma.
    0:00:52 And so you don’t have a sense of agency about it because it happens really automatically, faster than you can blink your eyes.
    0:00:56 How does this change how we should treat trauma?
    0:01:03 Sometimes in life, you are responsible for changing something, not because you’re to blame, but because you’re the only person who can.
    0:01:09 I mean, I had a daughter who was clinically depressed, was getting D’s in school, she wasn’t sleeping, she was miserable.
    0:01:14 At first she was so resistant, but then she made the decision that she wanted to be helped.
    0:01:15 And did she recover?
    0:01:16 Yes, she did.
    0:01:25 So if you want to change who you are, what you feel, understanding these basic operating principles is the key to living a meaningful life.
    0:01:28 So what is step one to being able to make that change?
    0:01:34 Quick one before we get back to this episode, just give me 30 seconds of your time.
    0:01:36 Two things I wanted to say.
    0:01:40 The first thing is a huge thank you for listening and tuning into the show week after week.
    0:01:46 It means the world to all of us and this really is a dream that we absolutely never had and couldn’t have imagined getting to this place.
    0:01:50 But secondly, it’s a dream where we feel like we’re only just getting started.
    0:01:58 And if you enjoy what we do here, please join the 24% of people that listen to this podcast regularly and follow us on this app.
    0:01:59 Here’s a promise I’m going to make to you.
    0:02:05 I’m going to do everything in my power to make this show as good as I can now and into the future.
    0:02:11 We’re going to deliver the guests that you want me to speak to and we’re going to continue to keep doing all of the things you love about this show.
    0:02:12 Thank you.
    0:02:13 Thank you so much.
    0:02:14 Back to the episode.
    0:02:25 Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, you have a really remarkable, twisting career journey.
    0:02:35 It’s almost quite difficult to encapsulate in a particular mission or a particular summary of the journey you’ve been on and the twists and turns you’ve taken.
    0:02:44 But if I were to ask you now what mission you’re on with the work that you’re currently doing, are you able to summarize that?
    0:02:53 My goal is, as a science communicator, is to try to take really complicated science and present it in a way that people can use.
    0:02:57 You know, maybe they use it to entertain their friends at a dinner party.
    0:03:03 Maybe they use it to help their kid who’s, you know, struggling with depression.
    0:03:06 That was certainly, in my case, something that I had to deal with.
    0:03:14 Maybe they’re using it to improve their workplace or improve the productivity of their peeps or whatever.
    0:03:19 The point being that that’s ultimately, that’s what science is for.
    0:03:22 It’s for, you know, living a better life.
    0:03:30 And average, everyday people without PhDs can do that if they have the right information.
    0:03:47 I’m probably attempting to understand how it is that a brain like ours, that is attached to a body like ours, that is pickled in a world like ours, produces a mind.
    0:03:48 What is it?
    0:03:59 What is happening that allows you to have thoughts and feelings and memories and actions?
    0:04:08 And somebody from another country, another culture, also has a mental life which looks nothing like yours.
    0:04:29 How is it that the same kind of brain plan with the same general kind of body plan can produce such different types of minds when they are, when those brains are wired, in a sense, finish wiring themselves in cultural and physical contexts that are so widely different?
    0:04:47 When you just talked about your pursuit of understanding how a brain like ours creates the mind and the reality that we have, if I’m able to understand all of that, as many people who read your book about the brain and emotions were able to understand, what is it that it offers me in my everyday life?
    0:04:51 Oh my God, it offers you the opportunity to have more agency in your life.
    0:04:52 What does that mean?
    0:04:54 It means you have more choice.
    0:04:55 It means you have more control.
    0:04:58 It means that you can architect your life.
    0:05:00 I mean, you can’t control everything that happens to you.
    0:05:07 You can’t control every moment of feeling, but you have more control than you probably think you do.
    0:05:13 Everybody has more control over what they feel and what they do than they think they do.
    0:05:18 That control doesn’t look the way we expect it to.
    0:05:23 It’s much harder to harness than we would like it to be.
    0:05:33 Some people have more opportunities for that control than other people do, but everybody has the opportunity to have more control.
    0:05:40 And, of course, the flip side is also more responsibility for the way they live their lives.
    0:05:43 And I think that’s a really good thing.
    0:05:52 And I think it’s a really good thing now when, you know, world events are swirling around you and you feel like, you know, you’re just being buffeted around.
    0:06:04 And even within that craziness, there are opportunities to be more of an architect of your own experience and your own life.
    0:06:11 I think a lot of people find that optimistic and helpful.
    0:06:17 Yeah, because life can feel like we are a puppet and we are just responding to what happens around us.
    0:06:19 And if it rains outside, then we’re sad.
    0:06:22 If a person sends us a message, then we’re annoyed.
    0:06:27 And that we’re just these sort of reactive creatures reacting to whatever happens around us.
    0:06:34 But you’re telling me that if I have a greater understanding of the brain and how it works and emotions, then I can seize back some of that control and live a more intentional life.
    0:06:35 Yes, exactly.
    0:06:49 And I think for me, I mean, I started my career studying the nature of emotion, but really it became a flashlight into understanding how a brain works.
    0:06:51 Why do we even have a brain?
    0:06:53 It’s a very expensive organ.
    0:07:00 That piece of meat between your ears is the most expensive, metabolically the most expensive organ you have.
    0:07:03 So what’s it good for?
    0:07:04 What’s its most basic function?
    0:07:08 How does it work in relation to the body?
    0:07:15 I think that certainly on your show, you’ve had a number of people who talk about the relationship between the brain and the body in some way.
    0:07:24 But I think scientists for a long time forgot or ignored the fact that the brain is attached to a body, right?
    0:07:26 Because we don’t feel all the drama.
    0:07:31 Like right now, in you, in me, in all of our listeners, right?
    0:07:34 We all have this, like, drama going on.
    0:07:40 It’s really quite intense, and there’s a lot of going on, and none of us are aware of it, I hope.
    0:07:42 If you are aware of it, I’m really sorry.
    0:07:46 It probably means that something is, you know, you’re not feeling well today.
    0:07:54 But it’s a good thing that we’re not aware of what’s going on inside our own bodies most of the time, because we’d never pay attention to anything outside our own skin again, right?
    0:08:02 But the problem is that in science, it often begins with starting with your own subjective experience and then trying to formalize that.
    0:08:05 And, I mean, if you look at any science, physics is like that, too.
    0:08:10 You just have to go back several hundred years or maybe a little longer to see it.
    0:08:20 And so it turns out that a lot of what you experience as properties of the world, of the way the world is, really is very rooted in your brain’s regulation of your body.
    0:08:31 And so I guess I’m – I started with emotion, but it really became a much larger project to try to understand, well, what is a brain?
    0:08:32 How is it structured?
    0:08:34 How did it evolve?
    0:08:35 How does it work?
    0:08:37 What’s its most basic function?
    0:08:44 And where do thoughts and feelings and actions, perceptions, what role do they play in that function?
    0:08:47 So it’s a bit flipping the question, right?
    0:08:50 Most people start with, what is an emotion?
    0:08:51 What is a thought?
    0:08:52 What is a memory?
    0:08:59 They define it, and then they go looking for its physical basis in the brain or in the body.
    0:09:02 That’s a pretty bankrupt perspective.
    0:09:06 I mean, after a hundred years, there weren’t really good answers.
    0:09:15 So we flipped it around and we said, okay, well, given that we have the kind of brain we do, what can it do?
    0:09:17 What does it do?
    0:09:21 And in its normal functioning, how does it produce mental events?
    0:09:31 That in our culture, our thoughts and feelings and perceptions and actions, in other cultures, there are different conglomerations of features, right?
    0:09:35 So for us, a thought and a thought and a feeling are super distinct.
    0:09:36 We experience them as very separate.
    0:09:37 We experience them as very separate.
    0:09:48 In fact, really since the time of Plato, we’ve had this kind of narrative where, you know, the mind or the brain is a battleground between your thoughts and your feelings, right?
    0:09:59 In for control of your actions, for control of your actions, if your thoughts win, you are a rational creature, you are a healthy creature, you are a moral creature.
    0:10:11 If your instincts and your emotions win, you know, your inner beast, then you are irresponsible, you are childish, you are immoral, you are mentally ill.
    0:10:13 That’s the narrative that we work in.
    0:10:18 In some cultures, thoughts and feelings are not separate.
    0:10:24 They are really, it’s not that you have them at the same time, it’s that they are one thing.
    0:10:28 They are features of the same mental event.
    0:10:33 In some cultures, your body and your mind are not separate.
    0:10:39 There are no separate experiences for a physical sensation versus a mental feeling.
    0:10:41 They are really one thing.
    0:10:48 So our minds are not the human nature, it’s just one human nature, and there are other human natures too.
    0:11:03 And we have to figure out how general brain plan, a general body plan for a neurotypical human, produces such wide variation depending on the cultural context in which it grows.
    0:11:13 As it relates to neuroscience and understanding the brain and the way that we create reality, was there a eureka moment for you where you realized that most of us have it wrong?
    0:11:18 Or that there’s an underlying misconception about the way that our brain creates our reality?
    0:11:25 I would say, yeah, sure, there was a eureka moment, but it was a long, slow burn.
    0:11:28 When I was a graduate student, I wasn’t studying emotion.
    0:11:32 I was studying the self.
    0:11:34 How do you think about yourself?
    0:11:37 What is your self-esteem like?
    0:11:39 How do you conceive of yourself?
    0:11:43 This is an important topic in psychology.
    0:11:53 And I was measuring emotion as an outcome variable, and the measurements weren’t, the measures weren’t working.
    0:12:02 And I thought, well, I need to be able to just literally, objectively measure when someone is angry or when they’re sad or when they’re happy.
    0:12:05 I don’t want to have to ask them, because they could be wrong.
    0:12:12 And in that phrasing of the question, there’s a presumption, right, that there is an objective state called anger,
    0:12:19 that generally most instances of anger will look the same regardless of person and context.
    0:12:28 And I very quickly realized that there are no essences that anybody’s been able to discover, right?
    0:12:39 So recently, in the last couple of years, researchers did a meta-analysis, which is a big statistical summary of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of experiments.
    0:12:45 And what they discovered is that, and this is just in urban cultures, right?
    0:12:47 We’re not even talking about remote cultures now.
    0:12:53 Just in urban cultures, when someone is angry, people scowl about 35% of the time when they’re angry.
    0:12:56 A scowl is like a…
    0:12:58 Like a scowl, like a…
    0:13:02 Right, like, you know, you knit your eyebrows, you frown, right?
    0:13:03 Okay.
    0:13:09 But that means 65% of the time when people are angry, they’re doing something else that’s meaningful with their face.
    0:13:16 And half the time when people scowl, they’re not angry, they’re feeling something else.
    0:13:18 They could be concentrating really hard.
    0:13:21 You could have just told them a bad joke.
    0:13:24 They could have a bad bout of gas.
    0:13:27 You know, a scowl is not the expression of anger.
    0:13:32 It is an expression of anger in some contexts.
    0:13:36 And it’s also an expression of other states in other contexts.
    0:13:47 So what this means is that, you know, there’s no really strongly reliable expression for anger that is specific to anger.
    0:13:52 And the same is true for every other emotion that’s ever been studied.
    0:13:56 It’s really clear that you’re in anger or sadness or pick an emotion.
    0:13:59 You know, your heart rate can go up, it can go down, it can stay the same.
    0:14:02 Your blood pressure can go up, it can go down, it can stay the same.
    0:14:10 The physiology that is occurring in your body is related to your brain’s preparation for particular behaviors.
    0:14:12 So let’s start with that then.
    0:14:16 So the predictive brain is this idea that I only pretty much know from you.
    0:14:17 I’d never heard it before.
    0:14:21 When we say the predictive brain, what does that mean?
    0:14:22 And what does it not mean?
    0:14:28 So when you are living your everyday life.
    0:14:28 Yeah.
    0:14:29 Like right now.
    0:14:30 Like right now.
    0:14:39 So right now, I’m guessing that I’m saying things to you and you’re perceiving what I’m saying and then you’re reacting to it.
    0:14:40 That’s how it feels to you, right?
    0:14:41 Yes.
    0:14:41 Okay.
    0:14:43 And that’s how it feels to me too.
    0:14:46 So we sense and then we react.
    0:14:51 That’s the way most people experience themselves in the world.
    0:14:54 That’s not actually what’s happening under the hood.
    0:15:01 Really what’s happening is that the brain, your brain is not reacting, it’s predicting.
    0:15:25 And what that means is if we were to stop time right now, just freeze time, your brain would be in a state and it would be remembering past experiences that are similar to this state as a way of predicting what to do next.
    0:15:26 Like literally in the next moment.
    0:15:28 Should your eyes move?
    0:15:31 Should your heart rate go up?
    0:15:32 Should your breathing change?
    0:15:36 Should your blood vessels dilate or should they constrict?
    0:15:39 Should you prepare to stand?
    0:15:40 Right?
    0:16:04 So under the hood, your brain is predicting what movements it should engage in next.
    0:16:09 And as a consequence, what you will experience because of those movements.
    0:16:14 So you act first and then you sense.
    0:16:17 You don’t sense and then react.
    0:16:21 You predict action and then you sense.
    0:16:31 So give me an example which brings this to light of how my brain is predicting and then taking action.
    0:16:31 Okay.
    0:16:37 So right now you and I are having a conversation and I’m speaking and you’re listening.
    0:17:02 And what’s really happening in your brain is that based on many gazillion repetitions of listening to language, your brain is predicting, literally predicting every single word that will come out of my.
    0:17:06 Yeah.
    0:17:06 Okay.
    0:17:16 And how surprising would it have been if I didn’t say mouth, I said some other orifice of my body that words were coming out of.
    0:17:20 That would have been pretty surprising because your brain is predicting that.
    0:17:27 Your brain is always predicting and it’s correcting those predictions when they’re incorrect.
    0:17:37 And, you know, I have this video that I often show when I’m giving a talk to scientists or to civilians.
    0:17:50 I’m giving a talk and it creates a situation where they can predict something and they can feel that a prediction is not just this abstract kind of thought.
    0:18:01 Thought it’s your brain is literally changing the firing of its own sensory neurons to anticipate incoming sensations.
    0:18:09 So you start to feel these sensations before the signals actually arrive for you to perceive them.
    0:18:13 You start to have the experience before the world gives you those signals.
    0:18:18 I’ve read, I think it was in your book, but it might have been elsewhere about the example of being thirsty.
    0:18:31 So when you drink, so say you’re super thirsty and you drink a big glass of water, when do you stop being thirsty?
    0:18:32 Almost immediately.
    0:18:46 But actually it takes 20 minutes for that water to be absorbed into your bloodstream and make its way to the brain to tell the brain that you are no longer in need of fluid.
    0:19:01 Because across millions of opportunities, you have learned that certain movements now and certain sensory signals now will result in that mental state.
    0:19:03 Or here’s another example.
    0:19:06 So right now, keep your eyes on me.
    0:19:07 You’re looking right at me.
    0:19:17 And in your mind’s eye, I want you to imagine a Macintosh apple, like not a computer, but like an actual piece of fruit.
    0:19:17 Okay.
    0:19:18 Can you do it?
    0:19:19 Yeah.
    0:19:19 Can you see it?
    0:19:20 Yeah.
    0:19:22 What color is it?
    0:19:22 Green.
    0:19:23 Okay.
    0:19:24 Does it have any red?
    0:19:25 No.
    0:19:26 Okay.
    0:19:28 So it’s a Granny Smith apple.
    0:19:28 Yeah.
    0:19:29 Okay.
    0:19:30 What does it taste like?
    0:19:33 Like imagine, imagine grabbing it.
    0:19:34 Yeah.
    0:19:35 Biting into it.
    0:19:37 Hearing the crunch of the apple.
    0:19:39 What does it taste like?
    0:19:40 It’s like sweet.
    0:19:42 It’s like a little tart maybe?
    0:19:43 Yeah, yeah.
    0:19:43 Yeah.
    0:19:44 Is it juicy?
    0:19:44 It’s very juicy.
    0:19:45 Yeah.
    0:19:59 So if I were imaging your brain right now, what I would see is I would see changes in the signal that is related to neural activity in your visual cortex, even though there is no apple in front of you.
    0:20:07 And I would see a change in activity in your auditory cortex, even though you didn’t really hear the crunch.
    0:20:09 My mouth was watering as well.
    0:20:10 And your mouth is watering.
    0:20:24 And in fact, every time you sit down for a meal, your brain directs your saliva glands to produce more saliva to prepare you to eat and digest the food.
    0:20:29 So that usually happens in advance of even sitting down to a meal.
    0:20:31 That is all prediction.
    0:20:37 That’s all of that is your brain preparing itself for what’s coming.
    0:20:47 Because predicting and correcting is a much more efficient way to run a nervous system, really any system, than reacting to the world.
    0:20:48 Here’s another example.
    0:20:49 Do you drink coffee?
    0:20:50 Yes.
    0:20:51 Okay.
    0:20:53 Do you drink coffee every day at the same time?
    0:20:55 Usually, yeah.
    0:20:55 Okay.
    0:21:00 And are you one of these people that if you miss having coffee at that time, you get a headache?
    0:21:02 I mean, it’s happened before.
    0:21:03 Yes.
    0:21:07 Well, I used to be a person who drank a lot of coffee.
    0:21:11 And I love coffee, but I don’t drink it anymore.
    0:21:12 But I loved it.
    0:21:14 And I drank it always at the same time every day.
    0:21:20 And if I didn’t drink it, I would get, at that time of day, I would get a massive headache.
    0:21:34 And the reason why, and this is true really of every medicine you take, everything which, anything which affects your physiology, if you do it on a regular basis, your brain will come to expect it.
    0:21:44 And what that means, come to expect it, is that coffee has chemicals in it that will constrict your blood vessels everywhere.
    0:21:53 But in the brain, the brain is attempting to keep the blood flow pretty constant and even.
    0:22:12 And so if every day at 8 o’clock in the morning, you’re drinking something that’s going to constrict your blood vessels, then at 7.55 approximately, I don’t know the exact timing, but a little bit before 8, your brain will dilate the blood vessels.
    0:22:16 In preparation for that constriction, so they remain constant.
    0:22:23 And if you don’t drink that substance, then you have this big dilation and you get a very, very bad headache.
    0:22:32 I was just wondering then about, as you were talking, I thought you were going to talk about how sometimes when I set an alarm, I seem to wake up like five minutes before the alarm.
    0:22:33 Yeah, sure.
    0:22:34 That’s an example.
    0:22:35 Here’s another example.
    0:22:36 Exercise.
    0:22:44 If you want to play tennis better, if you want to run a faster mile, what do you do?
    0:22:45 Train.
    0:22:46 Train.
    0:22:49 And you do the same thing over and over and over and over again.
    0:22:51 And you get better and faster.
    0:22:53 And you burn fewer calories.
    0:22:54 You get more efficient.
    0:22:54 Why?
    0:22:56 Because your brain is predicting really well.
    0:22:59 That’s what muscle memory is.
    0:23:01 It’s not literally a memory in your muscles.
    0:23:03 It’s a memory in your brain.
    0:23:05 Your brain is controlling your muscles.
    0:23:16 And so if you practice the same set of movements over and over and over again, you just get really efficient at them because your brain is able to predict better.
    0:23:33 Now, if you’re somebody who’s exercising because you want to become healthier or you want to lose weight or you, right, you don’t want to practice the same exercise over and over and over again because you will be burning fewer calories because you’re being efficient.
    0:23:36 That’s the goal, right?
    0:23:47 If somebody’s calling out to you every 30 seconds, a different set of movements and you can’t predict what they are, then your brain will make a prediction.
    0:23:48 It’ll be wrong.
    0:23:49 You’ll have to adjust.
    0:23:57 And so you end up burning more calories and you end up throwing yourself out of balance, which we call allostasis.
    0:24:01 So you become dysregulated and then your brain has to work to get itself back in again.
    0:24:04 And so that’s a different kind of workout.
    0:24:11 These two different kinds of workouts are completely predicated on the fact that sometimes you want to be able to predict better.
    0:24:18 Sometimes you want to be able to disrupt yourself and get back into the pocket quickly, right?
    0:24:27 So basically you’re learning how to take in prediction error, signals you didn’t predict, and adjust to them.
    0:24:37 What does this say about the nature of trauma and other mental health illnesses like depression, anxiety, etc?
    0:24:40 Because is this a misfiring of my predictions?
    0:24:46 I say this because predictions reliant on something happening in the past and forming a pattern, like a pattern recognition system.
    0:24:52 So if I grew up and there were certain patterns that are now not the case.
    0:24:55 So if I grew up and every time a man walked into the room, he hit me.
    0:25:01 And now when a man walks into the room and I’m 35 years old, I’m getting that same sort of prediction in my brain.
    0:25:03 So I’ve got a fear of men, for example.
    0:25:12 Does this somewhat explain childhood trauma and why it’s so hard to shake and why as adults we can sometimes have dysfunctional lives?
    0:25:16 I would say as a general principle, yes.
    0:25:21 There are a lot of, you know, the devil is in the details, right?
    0:25:22 But yeah, sure.
    0:25:28 So trauma is not something that happens in the world to you.
    0:25:34 Everything you experience is a combination of the remembered past and the sensory present.
    0:25:37 So there could be an adverse event that occurs.
    0:25:38 You’re in an earthquake.
    0:25:41 Someone dies who’s close to you.
    0:25:43 Something bad happens to you.
    0:25:45 Someone hurts you in some way.
    0:25:50 There could be an adverse event that is not traumatic to you.
    0:25:58 Because you’re not using past experiences to make sense of it as a trauma.
    0:26:14 On the other hand, something that is, could be like an everyday experience to somebody else, to you, it links to a set of memories that are very traumatic.
    0:26:15 We’re very traumatic.
    0:26:16 Those events were very traumatic.
    0:26:18 And so to you, it is a trauma.
    0:26:22 So trauma is not an objective thing in the world.
    0:26:24 It’s also not all in your head.
    0:26:32 It’s a, trauma is a property of the relation between what has happened to you in the past and what is occurring in the present.
    0:26:33 So here’s an example.
    0:26:37 There is an anthropologist who works at Emory University.
    0:26:43 And she studies people in a lot of different cultures.
    0:26:45 And she studies trauma in a lot of different cultures.
    0:26:54 And there was this one girl that she wrote about, a case study of a girl named Maria, who was a young adolescent girl.
    0:27:11 And she lived in a culture where it was more normative for men to physically, be very physical with women and girls.
    0:27:16 So in our culture, we would say it’s physical abuse.
    0:27:19 But in her culture, this is just what men did.
    0:27:24 She didn’t experience, so her stepfather would slap her around.
    0:27:26 And she didn’t like it.
    0:27:28 But she didn’t show any sign of trauma.
    0:27:32 The way she made sense of it was that men are just assholes.
    0:27:36 It was very much a, this is not about me.
    0:27:38 This is about them.
    0:27:41 It’s not pleasant, but she slept okay.
    0:27:44 Her grades were okay in school.
    0:27:45 She had friends.
    0:27:49 She didn’t have any signs of trauma at all.
    0:27:52 Then she watched Oprah.
    0:28:07 And she heard all of these women talk about having been the subject of physical abuse from their boyfriends or their fathers or, you know, their husbands.
    0:28:21 And she recognized the similarity in the physical circumstances of these women’s descriptions and her physical circumstances.
    0:28:29 And she also observed them experiencing, like, you know, symptoms of trauma.
    0:28:35 And all of a sudden, she started to have difficulty sleeping.
    0:28:38 And she, her grades dropped.
    0:28:40 And she had trouble concentrating.
    0:28:42 And she became socially withdrawn.
    0:28:58 Her way of making meaning, her way of, if you think about physical movements as actions, she made different meaning of those actions.
    0:29:03 And she experienced trauma where she didn’t before.
    0:29:10 Now, if you’re somebody who believes that there is an objective world out there, where, you know.
    0:29:11 Cause and effect.
    0:29:12 Yeah.
    0:29:19 That, that really there was some kind of latent trauma in her and she didn’t experience it before, but then it was like triggered.
    0:29:29 And then she’d be, you could tell a whole story like that and people do tell whole stories like that, but that’s not what the best scientific evidence suggests is happening.
    0:29:35 What’s happening is that the physical movements were the same.
    0:29:50 The psychological experience of those movements was different because experience is a combination of the sensory present, the physical present, and the remembered past.
    0:29:56 And you need both in order to have a particular kind of experience.
    0:30:09 So the way to describe what happened to Maria’s trajectory was that she experienced something as an unfortunate aspect of like physical life.
    0:30:13 And then it became about her.
    0:30:23 It became something, not, not this person was doing something bad, but this person was doing something bad to her because of who she is.
    0:30:30 And she was also shown how she should be responding to that by watching Oprah’s show and watching these other individuals responding in a certain way.
    0:30:30 Right.
    0:30:37 So it became about her as a person, not just about, you know, her stepfather was an asshole.
    0:30:47 And if you think about it, what we do in this culture, when people go into therapy for trauma, right, is we’re attempting to actually reverse the narrative.
    0:30:57 So we try to teach people that it’s not, when something traumatic happens to them, it’s, and I want to be really clear what I’m saying, right?
    0:31:02 And I’m not saying that when people experience trauma, it’s their fault.
    0:31:07 I’m not in any way saying they’re culpable for what’s happened to them.
    0:31:20 But sometimes in life, you are responsible for changing something, not because you’re to blame, but because you’re the only person who can.
    0:31:23 The responsibility falls to you.
    0:31:36 And so in this culture, we try to teach people who’ve experienced trauma that they can experience those physical events that happened to them in the past in some other way.
    0:31:42 And when they do, they no longer feel traumatized anymore.
    0:31:51 My mind’s a little bit blown for a number of different reasons, because it’s a real paradigm shift to think that we are giving meaning to the thing that happened in our past.
    0:31:54 And sometimes that meaning is coming from watching other people give it meaning.
    0:31:56 And we’re inheriting that meaning that…
    0:31:57 Oh, yes.
    0:31:58 That’s called cultural inheritance.
    0:32:01 It’s like a cultural, it’s like a contagion.
    0:32:08 So it turns out that, you know, there’s one kind of old evolutionary theory, right?
    0:32:14 This is called the modern synthesis, where inheritance is really your genes.
    0:32:24 You inherit, whatever you inherit, you inherit by your genes, and then natural selection, you know, chooses some gene patterns and not others.
    0:32:27 And that’s really how inheritance works across generations.
    0:32:38 Most evolutionary biologists don’t hold to that view anymore, because for the most part, there are many, many ways to inherit things.
    0:32:47 And a lot of what we think of as inheritance is really more what’s called epigenetic, meaning it doesn’t really involve DNA very much.
    0:32:54 And I would say, the way I like to say it is that we have the kinds of nature that requires a nurture.
    0:33:01 We have the kind of genes that require experience before anything is wired into our brains.
    0:33:04 And most of our characteristics work that way.
    0:33:08 Very few characteristics work just by genes alone.
    0:33:16 What always happens in a neurotypical brain is that you’re born with your brain incomplete, right?
    0:33:22 An adult brain has, we say that it’s wired to its world.
    0:33:24 That world includes its own, your own body.
    0:33:30 But a baby is not a, baby’s brain is not a miniature adult brain.
    0:33:35 It’s a brain that’s waiting for wiring instructions from the world and from its own body.
    0:33:44 So your brain is wired for you to see out of eyes that are the exact distance of your eyes from each other.
    0:33:52 If somehow, you know, magically we could transplant your brain into somebody else’s skull, you would not be able to see out of that skull.
    0:33:56 You would not be able to see out of those eyes because they’re not in the right place.
    0:34:06 You hear with ears, your ability to hear comes from signals that are shaped by the shape of your ear.
    0:34:12 So your brain is wired to hear out of these ears, not any ears, these ears.
    0:34:20 Similarly, you, as a baby, you are taught the meanings of physical signals.
    0:34:23 You’re taught how to make sense of these things.
    0:34:25 That’s called cultural inheritance.
    0:34:34 Many things that we think of as hardwired into the brain are actually culturally inherited across generations.
    0:34:39 That’s how people survive in a particular environment.
    0:34:49 You know, so like in the 1800s and 1900s when explorers would go off and they would go off to Antarctica or here or there and they would very quickly die.
    0:34:51 The Inuit lived there.
    0:34:52 They lived perfectly fine.
    0:34:55 Well, because they had culturally inherited knowledge.
    0:35:01 We’re always transmitting knowledge to each other.
    0:35:08 And that knowledge becomes fodder for our own predictions.
    0:35:13 So your predictions don’t just come from your personal experience.
    0:35:20 They also come from you watching television, you talking to guests, you reading books, watching movies.
    0:35:42 Also, your brain, like most human brains, can do something really fantastic, which is you can take bits and pieces of past experience and put them together in a brand new way so that you can use the past to experience something new that you’ve never experienced before.
    0:35:47 You talked a second ago about therapists try and make you think about the past differently.
    0:36:00 But I do think there’s an underlying belief in our culture and society and on social media that if something happens to you, almost like this Freudian approach of if this happens to you, this is who you become.
    0:36:11 And I was reading that book, The Courage to be disliked over Christmas, and it kind of changed my view on this quite profoundly in an important way because it helped me to understand.
    0:36:20 I think it basically says that what happens to us doesn’t create who we use what happens to us and we apply meaning to it, which then determines the behavior we have.
    0:36:37 And really interestingly in that, it means that many of the beliefs I have about myself, who I say I am, my identity, and therefore like the ways that I behave every day, whether they’re productive or unproductive, are actually just choices I’ve made to apply meaning to the past.
    0:36:39 Does that make sense?
    0:36:40 It completely makes sense.
    0:36:54 And this is really, this is such like a profound, I don’t know if whoever’s listening now understands what I’m saying here, but we said at the start of this conversation, you go through life thinking you’re a puppet and you’re being controlled by what happened to you, who you are, your identity.
    0:37:05 But actually, your identity is just this construction of meaning that you’ve given to the past to serve your purpose now, as it says in the book.
    0:37:09 Yes, I would say it slightly differently, but the message is the same.
    0:37:22 I think there are, in the sensory present, right, there are sights, there are sounds, there are smells, some stuff’s going on inside your own body, right?
    0:37:25 And these signals are going to your brain.
    0:37:29 They have no inherent psychological meaning.
    0:37:30 They have no inherent emotional meaning.
    0:37:32 They have no inherent mental meaning.
    0:37:40 What gives them meaning is the, are your memories from the past.
    0:37:43 You are creating, you are a meaning maker.
    0:37:48 Meaning isn’t a set of features like a dictionary definition.
    0:38:02 So meaning, the meaning of this cup isn’t that it, it’s made of metal and that, I mean, we certainly can talk about those features, but the meaning of this cup in this moment is what I do with it.
    0:38:04 So it could be a vessel for drinking.
    0:38:06 It could be a weapon.
    0:38:09 It could be, you know, a flower holder.
    0:38:12 It could be a measuring cup.
    0:38:19 The meaning of the vessel is what I do with it in the moment.
    0:38:20 That’s its meaning.
    0:38:26 And so the meaning of the vessel isn’t in the vessel.
    0:38:30 And it’s also not only in my head.
    0:38:33 The meaning is the transaction.
    0:38:44 It’s the relationship between this, the features of this vessel, this object, and the signals in my brain, which are creating my actions.
    0:38:54 In fact, even the fact that this is a solid object, the property of solidity is not in the object.
    0:39:04 It’s because I have a body of a certain type with certain features that makes me experience this as solid.
    0:39:08 The solidity isn’t in me and it’s not in the object.
    0:39:10 It’s in the relationship between the two.
    0:39:17 That means everything, everything you experience is partly of your own making.
    0:39:22 You don’t have a sense of agency about it because it happens really automatically.
    0:39:26 It’s happening automatically now as we’re talking.
    0:39:29 It’s happening faster than you can blink your eyes.
    0:39:32 But it’s still happening.
    0:39:52 And that means if you are partly, even though you don’t have a sense of agency, you are partly in control and also therefore responsible for the meaning that is being made.
    0:40:08 And when I said at the outset of our conversation that my goal was to try to, you know, as a science communicator, was to try to explain to people that they have more control over their lives.
    0:40:17 They have more control over who they are in any given moment than they think they do to give them more agency in their lives.
    0:40:20 This is exactly what I mean.
    0:40:25 You don’t have an enduring identity.
    0:40:30 You are who you are in the moment of your action.
    0:40:45 And actions are a combination of the remembered past, so stuff your brain is using to predict, that your brain is assembling super automatically and the sensory present, right?
    0:40:56 So if you want to change who you are, you want to change what you feel, you want to change what your impact is on someone else, you have a couple of choices.
    0:41:07 You can try to go back into the past and change the meaning of what’s happened before so that you’ll remember differently, you’ll predict differently in the future.
    0:41:09 That’s what psychotherapy is.
    0:41:15 That’s what, you know, heartfelt conversations at 2 o’clock in the morning are with your friends or whatever.
    0:41:17 That’s really hard shit.
    0:41:19 It doesn’t always work so well.
    0:41:36 The other thing that you can do, though, is if you realize that whatever you experience now becomes the seeds for predictions later, then you can invest in creating new experiences quite deliberately for yourself now.
    0:41:49 You can expose yourself to new ideas, you can expose yourself to people who are different than you, you can practice cultivating particular experiences like you would practice any skill.
    0:42:03 And that will, any new concepts you learn, new experiences you have, in the moment, if you practice them, they become automatic predictions in the future.
    0:42:08 So let me take that and try and apply it to this example of this silver cup in my hand.
    0:42:20 So psychotherapy would try and go back into the past and explain to me why this actually isn’t something I should drink out of and that it could be other things.
    0:42:32 Whereas what you’re saying is another approach is if I go and get some flowers right now and I put them in there, I’m creating a new prediction for the future because I’ve created a new pattern in the present of this actually being a vase for flowers.
    0:42:40 And I can start to create a new pattern that silver cups like this one aren’t just for drinking out of, they are also vases for flowers.
    0:42:41 Exactly.
    0:42:55 Okay, so I can either go back in the past and try and convince myself that a cup isn’t a cup, or I can, in the present moment, create a new pattern, which will mean that in the future, my brain will predict next time it sees a silver cup, it won’t just think drink out of it, Steve, it’ll think pop some flowers in it.
    0:43:01 Right, and remember, it’s actually, the thinking comes after the action, right?
    0:43:11 So what will happen is the next time that you are approaching a table where a silver cup might be, your brain will already be starting to prepare the actions to go get the flowers.
    0:43:11 Right.
    0:43:17 And then you will think, oh, right, I can use this as a, oh, look, there’s a great vase, right?
    0:43:27 So in your brain, it’s action, first your brain is controlling, it’s preparing the actions of the viscera, what we call viscera motor.
    0:43:29 So does your heart rate need to change?
    0:43:31 Do your blood vessels need to dilate?
    0:43:32 Do you need to breathe differently?
    0:43:39 It’s basically anticipating the needs of the body and attempting to meet those needs before they arise.
    0:43:42 That supports your physical movements, right?
    0:43:53 So if you’re gonna, if you’re walking over somewhere to pick up some flowers and cut the stems and whatever, that, those are all physical movements that require glucose and oxygen and shit like,
    0:43:59 So all of that has to get prepared in advance, milliseconds before the actions start to be prepared.
    0:44:02 So it’s not what you think determines what you feel.
    0:44:10 It’s what you prepare to do determines your thoughts and your feelings and the sights and sounds and smells and sensations.
    0:44:13 That’s how it really works under the hood.
    0:44:17 So meaning is in terms of what you do.
    0:44:26 And then as a consequence of that, meaning is a consequence, it becomes what you feel and what you think and so on.
    0:44:28 So let me give you some specific examples then.
    0:44:38 So if I’m scared of spiders, how would I go about overcoming that fear of spiders using route number two that you described there?
    0:44:46 So one of the ways that you change to change predictions, you can’t just will yourself to change a prediction.
    0:44:48 I am really afraid of bees.
    0:44:53 I had a traumatic experience when I was five.
    0:44:54 I’m afraid of bees.
    0:44:57 I know a lot about bees.
    0:44:59 I’m actually a gardener.
    0:45:04 And I know a lot about the evolutionary biology of bees.
    0:45:12 But when I am outside, if a bee comes around, my first reaction is to either run or to freeze.
    0:45:13 Right?
    0:45:14 I’m afraid of bees.
    0:45:18 I could talk to myself until the cows come home.
    0:45:19 It won’t matter.
    0:45:20 Right?
    0:45:34 So what I have to do is dose myself with prediction error, meaning I have to interact with bees in a way that changes my actions, which will change my lived experience.
    0:45:37 And I can’t just do it all at once.
    0:45:48 It’s not like a good idea would not be for me to say, would not have been for me to go to like somebody who has beehives and, you know, put on a suit and go work.
    0:45:50 I mean, that would be like overwhelming.
    0:45:50 Right?
    0:45:54 So instead, maybe I don’t run.
    0:45:57 Maybe I stand and watch.
    0:46:00 Maybe I get closer to a bee.
    0:46:13 Maybe I plant bushes and flowers that bees like a lot to bring bees to me so that I can sit and just be around them while they’re buzzing and doing their thing.
    0:46:19 Maybe I deliberately let myself get stung at some point, which I did.
    0:46:25 But, you know, you’re dosing yourself with your brain is making a set of predictions.
    0:46:30 Those predictions, there are a set of predictions.
    0:46:33 That means your brain isn’t preparing one action.
    0:46:35 It’s preparing multiple actions.
    0:46:40 So you need to prove to your brain that those predictions are wrong.
    0:46:42 Yes, so exactly.
    0:46:48 You need, you are setting up circumstances so you can prove to yourself that your predictions are wrong.
    0:46:52 If you’re predicting well, you have a few action plans.
    0:46:58 If you’re predicting poorly, let’s say overgeneralizing, maybe you have a hundred plans.
    0:47:05 Like if there’s tremendous uncertainty, your brain doesn’t know which action plan to, so there might be many of them.
    0:47:13 Sensory signals are coming into your brain from the sensory surfaces of your body, from your retinas, from your cochlea.
    0:47:18 You’ve got sensory surfaces on your skin, inside your body, in your muscle cells.
    0:47:19 All these signals coming to your brain.
    0:47:30 They help select which prediction signal will be completed as action and lived experience.
    0:47:46 Okay, so let’s say you put yourself deliberately in a situation where the incoming signals will not select any prediction because there’s too much unpredicted signal there.
    0:47:47 It’s error.
    0:47:52 There’s another name in psychology for taking in prediction error.
    0:47:54 Exposure therapy?
    0:47:54 Learning.
    0:47:56 Oh, okay.
    0:48:12 Yeah, exposure therapy, which is a kind of learning, all learning, all learning is you taking in prediction error, signals you didn’t predict, or there’s no signal that you did predict.
    0:48:14 You predicted a signal, it’s not there.
    0:48:23 So what you do is you set up situations for yourself that you will take in signals that are novel, right?
    0:48:27 And this seems like an easy thing to do.
    0:48:33 We, people actually sometimes seek novelty, all right?
    0:48:48 But too much novelty is not necessarily a good thing all the time, particularly if, you know, you’re metabolically, it’s expensive metabolically to take in prediction error and learn something new.
    0:48:59 Like the biggest costs that your brain expends energy on are moving your body, learning something new, and dealing with persistent uncertainty.
    0:49:03 Those are really expensive things for us.
    0:49:21 So if you’re metabolically encumbered in some way, say you’re depressed, or you have anxiety disorder, or maybe you have heart disease, or diabetes, or you’re living under chronic stress, you don’t have the spoons necessarily to take in prediction error.
    0:49:23 You’re just going to go with your predictions.
    0:49:24 You aren’t going to learn.
    0:49:27 You aren’t going to be able to update those predictions.
    0:49:28 You’re going to be stuck.
    0:49:32 You’re going to be stuck in your head, right?
    0:49:40 Every experience, every action, a combination of the remembered present, the remembered past, the predictions, and the sensory present.
    0:49:49 But the sensory present is there just to select which remembered past you’re going to act on.
    0:50:02 And sometimes, in moments of great metabolic load, the brain just goes with its own predictions and ignores what’s out there in the world.
    0:50:19 I was thinking earlier on as you were speaking about this sort of social contagion where we can apply meaning to our lives and what happened to us and then consequently make ourselves sad because we see how other people on TikTok or Instagram are feeling.
    0:50:24 And it made me think that you must think the world is crazy to some degree.
    0:50:35 You must see social contagion in the world where suddenly everybody becomes traumatized because trauma has become almost popular, you know, to think about what happened to you and create meaning to it and then suffer that meaning.
    0:50:40 But there’s other types of social contagion which are spreading through society.
    0:50:42 I mean, young people are getting more and more anxious.
    0:50:44 They’re getting more and more depressed.
    0:50:48 We’re self-diagnosing ourselves with different illnesses and different things.
    0:50:51 But now you’ve explained to me how the brain works.
    0:50:55 I’m thinking, gosh, as a society, we are bonkers.
    0:50:58 Well, we’re living out lies.
    0:51:12 Yeah, I think, I guess the way I, I do, I do find it frustrating at times, but, but, but only because I think we are meaning makers as an animals are meaning maker.
    0:51:21 We create meaning, we create meaning, we create meaning by virtue of living, like by virtue of interacting with, with things in the world, by interacting with each other.
    0:51:29 Very few meanings are given that, that is that they exist independently of us.
    0:51:51 And so what I find frustrating is that there’s a lot of suffering and understanding these basic operating principles of the brain will not remove all suffering, but it, it could ameliorate, it could remove some.
    0:52:05 And people don’t understand that they are sometimes making their suffering worse than it has to be.
    0:52:07 You pause on the word responsible.
    0:52:14 Well, I want to be really clear that, again, I’m not saying people are, are to blame.
    0:52:18 Culpability and responsibility are not the same thing.
    0:52:21 Culpability is blame, are you blameworthy?
    0:52:27 Right, you can, nobody, I’m not saying people are to blame for their own suffering.
    0:52:37 I’m saying that people can be more responsible in, by taking more responsibility, they could reduce their suffering some.
    0:52:43 That’s not the same thing as saying, you know, that they, that they, it’s their cause, their cause to begin with.
    0:52:44 So I’ll give you an example.
    0:52:45 Social contagion.
    0:52:48 Contagion is an interesting word.
    0:52:50 It means that you are infected by something.
    0:52:53 Even a virus.
    0:53:03 There are these experiments that were done 15, 20 years ago where, um, these are done by Sheldon Cohen, who is a psychoimmunologist, which means he’s a psychologist.
    0:53:11 And he studies how immunology, um, that is your immune system is related to your psychological state.
    0:53:16 And so what he did across a number of experiments is he took people and he sequestered them in hotel rooms.
    0:53:27 And then he took the same dosage, the same concentration of virus, and he put it in every person’s nose.
    0:53:31 And then he controlled how much they slept, how much they ate.
    0:53:32 He measured their symptoms.
    0:53:37 He, like, weighed their tissues after they blew their nose.
    0:53:38 I mean, like, he did, right?
    0:53:41 Just really, really, really, really careful metrics.
    0:53:50 And across these experiments, somewhere between 20 to 40% of people became symptomatic with respiratory disease.
    0:53:59 That means the virus is necessary, but it is not sufficient to cause illness.
    0:54:06 Another necessary, but not sufficient cause is the state of each person’s immune system.
    0:54:16 That is, your brain and your immune system have to be in a particular state in order for you to be infected by a virus in these experiments.
    0:54:21 So the point that I’m making here is exactly the same about suffering.
    0:54:24 So let’s take anxiety, for example.
    0:54:36 You know, we, in a culture, we automatically make meaning of certain types of signal patterns as anxiety.
    0:54:43 When there’s a lot of uncertainty, there’s an increase in norepinephrine and some chemicals in the brain.
    0:54:48 That often goes with an increase in heart rate and so on.
    0:54:54 And we automatically make meaning of this physical state as anxiety.
    0:54:59 But exactly the same physical state could be determination.
    0:55:03 It could be just pure uncertainty.
    0:55:07 Again, meaning making is about action, right?
    0:55:21 So when you are experiencing high arousal, even if it’s super unpleasant as determination, you do something different than if you experience it as anxiety or uncertainty.
    0:55:23 So here’s an example.
    0:55:26 There are people who experience test anxiety.
    0:55:34 Really serious test anxiety prevents people from finishing courses or graduating from college.
    0:55:45 People who graduate from college have a lifetime trajectory of earning that is hundreds of thousands of dollars more often than somebody who drops out of college.
    0:55:50 So test anxiety over the test anxiety over the long run, it’s more than just a bit of discomfort.
    0:55:55 You know, it has serious implications for your earning potential across your life.
    0:56:08 There are these experiments that were done where they trained people to make sense of high arousal physical states, not as anxiety, but as determination.
    0:56:13 And these people learned to do this.
    0:56:15 First, they practice like a skill.
    0:56:15 It’s like driving.
    0:56:17 At first, it’s really hard.
    0:56:18 You have to give a lot of effort to it.
    0:56:21 But you practice, practice, practice, and then eventually it becomes really automatic.
    0:56:23 And then what happens?
    0:56:25 They are able to take tests.
    0:56:27 They’re able to pass tests.
    0:56:29 They’re able to continue taking courses and so on.
    0:56:32 I watched this actually happen right in front of my eyes.
    0:56:37 My daughter, when she was 12 years old, she was testing for her black belt in karate.
    0:56:42 Her sensei was a 10th degree black belt.
    0:56:46 This guy, 10th degree black belt is the highest you could be.
    0:56:50 This guy could break a board like by looking at it.
    0:56:52 He was a scary, scary dude.
    0:56:56 And my daughter was like not even five feet tall when she was 12.
    0:56:59 And she’s this tiny little thing.
    0:57:06 And she’s got to spar with like these hulking like 15, 16, 18-year-old boys.
    0:57:08 She’s got to actually spar with them.
    0:57:12 And so, you know, she’s, and this is across several days.
    0:57:13 She’s got to do this really.
    0:57:17 And so I’m sitting there, her, you know, I’m, her dad and me were sitting there.
    0:57:18 We’re watching her.
    0:57:25 And so her sensei, you know, saunters up to her and he says, sweetheart, get your butterflies
    0:57:26 flying in formation.
    0:57:32 And I was like, that’s fucking amazing.
    0:57:34 Get your butterflies flying in formation.
    0:57:37 He’s not saying calm down, little girl.
    0:57:39 That would actually be bad.
    0:57:40 You don’t want to be calm.
    0:57:42 You need that arousal.
    0:57:43 It’s there for a reason.
    0:57:46 It’s uncomfortable, but you need it.
    0:57:48 He’s saying, use it.
    0:57:55 That to me was like a perfect example of find a different meaning for that arousal.
    0:58:00 And that meaning is the action that you will engage in.
    0:58:07 No matter how hard it is, no matter how much it doesn’t really look like what it’s supposed
    0:58:08 to, the control is there.
    0:58:10 It’s there.
    0:58:12 It’s not there all the time.
    0:58:15 It’s harder to get, you know, yada, yada.
    0:58:16 But it’s there.
    0:58:21 And it means that you have more agency.
    0:58:24 You have more control.
    0:58:27 You’re never going to have as much control as you want.
    0:58:30 It’s always going to be harder to get.
    0:58:34 Your options aren’t always going to be the same.
    0:58:44 But you can always find a little more control over what you do and what you experience.
    0:58:48 And that’s the key to living a meaningful life.
    0:58:52 Are you somewhat concerned about the world that young people are growing up in, where they’re
    0:58:58 scrolling on social media and social media is telling them what certain feelings are.
    0:59:02 So they are just being programmed constantly.
    0:59:04 Yeah, they are.
    0:59:07 To be anxious, to be depressed, to be sad.
    0:59:07 Yes, they are.
    0:59:08 And think about it, too.
    0:59:14 Social media is pernicious uncertainty there.
    0:59:22 You know, you, first of all, even when we’re sitting face to face, we have all of these cues.
    0:59:23 We have all these signals.
    0:59:24 I can see your face.
    0:59:26 I can hear your voice.
    0:59:32 Even when all this information is there, there’s still some uncertainty, right?
    0:59:34 We’re not reading each other.
    0:59:39 Bodily movements are not a language to be read.
    0:59:42 It’s a bad metaphor, right?
    0:59:43 We’re guessing.
    0:59:44 We’re always guessing.
    0:59:47 And we’re using a lot of signals to guess.
    0:59:54 But when you’re on social media, you have very few signals.
    0:59:57 There is a lot of ambiguity.
    0:59:59 There is a lot of uncertainty.
    1:00:09 And the only thing that you can do is fill in that uncertainty with your own guesses, which could be bad, right?
    1:00:24 So people who go on TikTok and whatever are giving up, they’re like volitionally giving up their agency and they don’t know it.
    1:00:24 What do you mean by that?
    1:00:27 They’re choosing to be led.
    1:00:30 They’re choosing to be influenced.
    1:00:35 I’ll give you an example.
    1:00:39 I’ve listened to podcasts about metabolism.
    1:00:43 I’ve listened to podcasts about, you know, skin care.
    1:00:44 I’ve listened to podcasts.
    1:00:45 You know, I’m curious.
    1:00:49 I’m curious about, like, what kind of information people put out there.
    1:00:55 I probably turn off 90% of the—I get, like, 10 minutes into something and I will turn it off.
    1:00:59 That’s what it means to be a consumer.
    1:01:01 You have choice.
    1:01:18 I think people are—they don’t realize that by virtue of what they do and what they don’t do, they are making choices about what will be retained in their heads that will then be used automatically later.
    1:01:20 Brainwashing.
    1:01:20 Brainwashing.
    1:01:27 A little bit, except that you’re the one who’s—you’re choosing it.
    1:01:33 You know, I’m empathic and I’m not blaming people, but they could—things could be better for them, you know?
    1:01:38 I mean, I had a daughter who was clinically depressed.
    1:01:44 That was one of the most frustrating experiences I’ve ever had in my life, in addition to being really tragic.
    1:01:47 I mean, I can talk about it now without breaking into tears.
    1:01:48 That took a long time.
    1:01:52 But at first, she was so resistant.
    1:01:59 Eventually, you know, she made the decision that she wanted to be helped, and then we completely changed her life.
    1:02:02 But she had to make that decision.
    1:02:03 I couldn’t force her to do it.
    1:02:11 And I feel like, a little bit, it’s the same kind of situation now where there’s so much bullshit out there in the wellness industry.
    1:02:21 There’s so much, you know, swirling around on TikTok and on other areas of social media, and not all of it is useful.
    1:02:23 And some of it’s really harmful.
    1:02:26 Do you mind if I pause this conversation for a moment?
    1:02:29 I want to talk about our show sponsor today, which is Shopify.
    1:02:32 I’ve always believed that the biggest cost in business isn’t failure.
    1:02:34 It’s the time you waste trying to make decisions.
    1:02:38 Time spent hesitating, overthinking, or waiting for the right moment.
    1:02:42 When I started my first company at 20 years old, I had no experience and no money.
    1:02:46 What I did have was an idea and the willingness to move fast.
    1:02:47 And that made all the difference.
    1:02:53 If you’ve been thinking about starting your own business, Shopify makes this entire process so much easier.
    1:02:59 With thousands of customisable templates, you don’t need coding or design skills, you just need a willingness to start.
    1:03:09 Shopify connects all your sales channels from your website to social media, and it handles the back-end payments, shipping, and taxes too, so that you can stay focused on moving forward and growing your business.
    1:03:15 If you’re ready to start, visit shopify.com slash Bartlett and sign up for a £1 per month trial period.
    1:03:18 That’s shopify.com slash Bartlett.
    1:03:27 The advantage you have as an objective on Looker is you have a huge amount of information and knowledge which is guiding you to make better decisions.
    1:03:29 But a lot of people don’t have that information and knowledge.
    1:03:32 In fact, they have counter-information and knowledge.
    1:03:44 So when I think about what it takes for someone to make a change in their life, whether it was your daughter or whether it’s someone else who feels like they’re stuck and they feel like they’re trapped in an algorithm or trapped in a life that they want to break out of.
    1:03:53 Based on everything you know and based on the experience you had with your daughter, what is step one to being able to make that change?
    1:03:58 Because I’m really curious as to what it was about your daughter that made her decide that she wanted the help.
    1:04:05 Well, I think that the general answer is baby steps.
    1:04:09 It rarely works to completely change everything all at once.
    1:04:13 I’m not saying it never works, but it rarely works that way.
    1:04:28 So, for example, you know, you could deliberately get off social media for one day a week or do something else instead with a friend.
    1:04:35 Or go for a walk or just and build it into your day as a scheduled thing.
    1:04:39 So that’s the other thing is that you can’t do things because you want to do them.
    1:04:41 You have to force yourself to do them.
    1:04:47 So, for example, I had major back surgery, major back surgery, very serious.
    1:04:57 And I knew that after I had back surgery that I was going to experience sensations I had never had before.
    1:05:00 Just like, you know, if you go for a filling in your tooth, right?
    1:05:03 And then, you know, something’s there that wasn’t there before.
    1:05:08 And then your tongue is like constantly poking at the tooth and you’re not supposed to.
    1:05:12 But you do anyways because your brain is foraging for information.
    1:05:14 It’s foraging for prediction error.
    1:05:22 And then eventually it adjusts its predictions and then it ignores the sensations because they’re
    1:05:24 not relevant, right?
    1:05:28 So that was going to happen on a massive scale for me.
    1:05:36 And I knew that I had made a plan before surgery to dose myself appropriately with prediction
    1:05:39 error so that I would not develop chronic pain.
    1:05:43 Because chronic pain is like a set of bad predictions that don’t update, right?
    1:05:50 So your brain still believes that there’s tissue damage in your body when there’s no more tissue
    1:05:51 damage.
    1:05:55 So does that mean that pain often is just a figment of your imagination?
    1:05:57 No, that’s the wrong way.
    1:05:59 That is the wrong way to think about it.
    1:06:06 The way to think about it is every experience, remembered past and sensory present.
    1:06:09 So pain is in your head.
    1:06:12 Vision is in your head.
    1:06:14 Hearing is in your head.
    1:06:16 You don’t hear in your ears.
    1:06:18 You hear in your head, in your brain.
    1:06:20 You don’t see in your eyes.
    1:06:21 You need your eyes.
    1:06:22 You need your ears.
    1:06:27 But you don’t see in your eyes.
    1:06:29 You see in your brain.
    1:06:38 So pain is a combination of the, just like vision, is a combination of the remembered past and the
    1:06:39 sensory present.
    1:06:40 Okay.
    1:06:41 Okay.
    1:06:41 So it’s both.
    1:06:51 So chronic pain happens when your brain was receiving signals from the body that there
    1:06:52 was tissue damage.
    1:06:53 No susceptive signals, they’re called.
    1:06:57 And it was making sense of them as pain.
    1:07:04 And when you’re recovering from an illness, that’s metabolically taxing.
    1:07:11 So there’s not as much metabolic, there’s not as much of your metabolic budget devoted to
    1:07:12 learning.
    1:07:20 So you can be in a situation where your brain doesn’t update itself and you still experience
    1:07:27 pain, even though the tissue damage is no longer there.
    1:07:34 It’s just like seeing a green apple in your mind’s eye when there is no apple in front of
    1:07:34 you.
    1:07:42 It’s not all in, it’s not all in your head in the, in the, you know, insulting sense.
    1:07:47 It’s just, it’s a normal consequence of how brains work.
    1:07:51 The injury is gone, but the signal of the injury is still replaying itself.
    1:07:52 Yeah, exactly.
    1:07:54 Just like, it’s like a phantom limb.
    1:07:56 It’s like tinnitus is also like that.
    1:07:56 Oh gosh, yeah.
    1:07:58 I had that for a little while.
    1:07:58 Yeah.
    1:08:07 So, um, so I, I tried really hard to set a schedule for myself, um, you know, um, that
    1:08:13 would allow me to sort of like optimally dose myself, but with prediction error, but that
    1:08:17 meant, you know, that I, I had to follow that schedule.
    1:08:23 And I think if you’re committed to changing your habits, this is how you change any habit.
    1:08:33 You change the context and you, um, and then you practice, you practice new, um, new behaviors.
    1:08:45 So with my daughter, depression, we think about depression in our lab, um, as, um, let me back
    1:08:50 up and say, your brain’s most important job really is not thinking.
    1:08:53 It’s not feeling, it’s not feeling, it’s not even seeing, it’s regulating your body.
    1:08:56 It’s regulating your metabolism.
    1:08:59 Basically that’s your brain’s most important job.
    1:09:04 Your brain’s most important job is anticipating the needs of your body and preparing to meet
    1:09:05 those needs before they arise.
    1:09:12 The metaphor that we use for this predictive regulation of the body, which is the formal
    1:09:14 term is called allostasis.
    1:09:20 Um, that’s the scientific concept, but the, but the metaphor is body budgeting.
    1:09:22 It’s running a budget for your body.
    1:09:24 Your brain is running a budget for your body.
    1:09:25 It’s not budgeting money.
    1:09:33 It’s budgeting salt and glucose and oxygen and, um, potassium and like all of the nutrients
    1:09:41 and chemicals that are necessary, um, to, um, and run an energetically costly body.
    1:09:44 You know, you’ve got all these really low level kind of processes.
    1:09:49 You can just think of them as vital parts of, to keep yourself alive.
    1:09:52 So some of your energy budget goes to that.
    1:09:57 Some of your energy budget goes to repair and growth.
    1:10:01 So you get, if you get taller, you need more cells.
    1:10:06 When you learn something, you have to thicken up your myelin and your, your neurons.
    1:10:09 You’ve got to grow more receptors and stuff.
    1:10:12 That’s, you know, the kind of growth and, and repair.
    1:10:16 And then the rest of it is all for anything effortful.
    1:10:17 What is effortful?
    1:10:20 Like work or going to the gym.
    1:10:23 Dragging your ass out of bed in the morning is effortful.
    1:10:23 Yeah.
    1:10:26 Learning something new is effortful.
    1:10:29 Dealing with uncertainty is effortful.
    1:10:31 Everything we call stress.
    1:10:38 Stress is just really, your brain is predicting a big metabolic outlay because there’s some effort
    1:10:39 involved, right?
    1:10:42 Some motivated effort involved.
    1:10:47 So those are the three things that make up your energy budget.
    1:10:54 And the really important point, you as an organism have a fixed amount of energy that you can produce
    1:10:56 in a day.
    1:11:04 Meaning ATP, like these little chemicals that, these little protein things that, you know,
    1:11:11 your cells use as literal energy that come from glucose and, and other things like fats and.
    1:11:13 So there’s nothing I can do to increase it.
    1:11:14 Well, you’re in a range.
    1:11:15 Okay.
    1:11:25 But there is a finite limit, upper limit for that range because you are a, because you’re a human
    1:11:25 organism.
    1:11:33 And you’ve got to do these three things, these vital functions, growth and repair, and then
    1:11:34 everything else.
    1:11:39 If you’ve got a lot of psychosocial stress going on, or you have some kind of disease that’s
    1:11:47 taking up, you know, much of the budget, then you don’t have a lot of budget left for other stuff that you need to do.
    1:11:50 So what your brain will attempt to do is to cut costs.
    1:12:01 If you look at the symptoms of depression, they are symptoms of, that are related to cutting costs.
    1:12:09 Distress, fatigue, problems concentrating, lack of sensitivity to the context that you’re in.
    1:12:16 All of these things are indicative of reduced metabolic outlay.
    1:12:28 And then depression also has symptoms that are related to increased costs, like 70% of people who are depressed have inflammatory problems.
    1:12:40 So they have enhanced inflammatory, systemic inflammation, and your immune system is a very expensive system to run.
    1:12:52 So if you have persistent and systemic inflammation, that’s like a persistent tax on your budget.
    1:12:57 You’re, you know, meaning things are costing more than they necessarily need to.
    1:13:02 And even, you know, like there are these really interesting studies.
    1:13:07 I think they’re interesting as a scientist, as a person, I find them like slightly horrifying.
    1:13:14 But, you know, like if you, within two hours of eating a meal, if you encounter stress, social stress,
    1:13:20 it’s as if you ate 104 more calories than you actually ate.
    1:13:28 So you’re so inefficient in metabolizing that it’s like, it’s like having eaten 104 more calories than you did.
    1:13:35 And the, your, even good fats will be metabolized as if they’re bad fats.
    1:13:36 And potentially stored as.
    1:13:37 Yeah.
    1:13:44 So if you, if you add up 104 calories at every meal for a year, that’s almost 11 pounds.
    1:13:56 That means that if you are in a stressful environment and, um, for a year and you eat exactly the same thing as you ate the year before, you would gain 11 pounds.
    1:14:02 In depression, we know, for example, that, um, there’s cortisol dysregulation in depression.
    1:14:11 That means there’s dysregulation in, um, metabolism because cortisol is a metabolic, you know, it’s, it’s a metabolic chemical.
    1:14:20 Um, people who take, uh, SSRIs, they take for depression, antidepressants are SSRIs usually, or SNRIs.
    1:14:29 That means they are acting on serotonin to keep more serotonin in the, in the juncture, uh, between neurons.
    1:14:31 Serotonin is a metabolic regulator.
    1:14:34 Norepinephrine is a metabolic regulator.
    1:14:41 These are, um, chemicals that are directly involved in your metabolism.
    1:14:49 So it’s not an, a belief that depression is a metabolic, has a metabolic basis to it.
    1:15:00 I think the question is, what is the elixir of all these metabolic influences that would lead somebody to, um, develop a depressive state?
    1:15:14 Um, but the point, the simple point that I was making is I actually came to this idea about metabolism and depression because I was doing a shit ton of treating, trying to figure out how to help my kid.
    1:15:15 What were her symptoms at that time?
    1:15:20 Just if there are any parents listening right now that can relate or anybody that’s listening that can relate.
    1:15:21 Yeah.
    1:15:26 Oh, well, I will tell you that I’ve given this talk before, um, about depression in adolescence.
    1:15:36 Adolescence is a, um, it’s like a, um, it’s like a perfect storm of metabolic, uh, vulnerability for many, many reasons.
    1:15:40 You know, your brain is trapped in a dark, silent box called your skull.
    1:15:44 It’s receiving signals from the body and from the world.
    1:15:48 It doesn’t know what the causes of those signals are.
    1:15:49 It’s receiving the effects.
    1:15:52 It has to guess at the causes.
    1:15:53 What are the guesses?
    1:15:55 Predictions from the past, right?
    1:16:00 So it doesn’t know about hormone surges immediately as they happen.
    1:16:13 It, you know, it takes 20 minutes or so, or sometimes a little less, depending on where the hormonal changes are and what their origin is, for the brain to receive the signals of those changes.
    1:16:16 And then it has to guess at what the causes are.
    1:16:24 The narrative that’s used in psychiatry and medicine is a narrative that goes something like this.
    1:16:27 It goes back to this, like your brain is a battleground, right?
    1:16:35 So the idea is that, you know, you’re born, the story is that you’re born with these innate emotion circuits.
    1:16:38 You’re not, you don’t have any emotion circuits.
    1:16:39 You don’t have any emotion circuits actually.
    1:16:42 But the narrative is you’re born with these innate emotion circuits.
    1:16:46 They work, but you’re not born with the ability to control them.
    1:16:48 That has to develop over time.
    1:17:01 So in adolescence, the idea is that mood disorders arise because you’re, you don’t have enough cognitive control and you have too much emotion.
    1:17:04 So you’ve got this unbridled emotion and that’s the problem.
    1:17:09 That’s a really compelling narrative.
    1:17:12 It’s just neuro bullshit.
    1:17:16 Basically, there’s not a good evidence for that narrative.
    1:17:18 I heard it was a chemical imbalance.
    1:17:19 Yes.
    1:17:31 Well, the, sometimes people talk about that chemical imbalance in terms of serotonin being a happy chemical and dopamine being the reward chemical.
    1:17:36 And that’s also, that’s such a simplification that it’s not even wrong.
    1:17:37 Okay.
    1:17:42 Dopamine is not a reward chemical and serotonin is not a happiness chemical.
    1:17:44 They’re both metabolic regulators.
    1:17:53 You see increases in dopamine in some neurons during episodes of punishment.
    1:18:00 And serotonin does many things in your body in many places.
    1:18:20 But one of the things that it does in controlled experiments is it allows animals to spend, to forage, to engage in activity, physical activity, and learning when there is no immediate metabolic reward at the end.
    1:18:22 There’s no deposit at the end.
    1:18:42 So dopamine is seen more, I think, now by many neuroscientists as a chemical that is necessary for effort, whether that is a physical effort or learning something, a mental effort of learning something.
    1:19:01 It’s not really specific to reward, so at first with my daughter, you know, she went from being a really exuberant, engaged, socially, very socially connected kid who, you know, she did great in school.
    1:19:09 And it’s not like she had, you know, it’s not like she was a perfect kid, but she was pretty enthusiastic and pretty exuberant and had a lot of friends.
    1:19:27 And then, you know, by the time she was in 10th grade, she was withdrawn, she was getting D’s in school, she couldn’t concentrate, she wasn’t sleeping, she was miserable.
    1:19:30 She was really suffering, but she was miserable to be around.
    1:19:35 And to be honest, at the beginning, we thought she was being lazy.
    1:19:38 We thought, you know, she didn’t want to do anything.
    1:19:40 She wanted to spend all this time in her room.
    1:19:43 She didn’t, you know, she wanted to get rid of all of her activities.
    1:19:47 And we thought, come on, man, step up.
    1:19:50 Like, where are you, you know, we thought she was being lazy.
    1:19:58 I mean, really, it just never occurred to me in a million years because she had no mood symptoms as a kid, like none.
    1:20:02 And then all of a sudden, she just, she appeared to have no energy to do anything.
    1:20:07 But to us, it looked like she was being lazy and she didn’t want to do her homework and she seemed really disengaged.
    1:20:15 And it took me a while to realize, oh, no, this is something else.
    1:20:20 She was having trouble remembering conversations that we had.
    1:20:23 And at first I thought, oh, you’re not paying attention to me.
    1:20:31 But then it seemed really clear that even in day-to-day, she couldn’t tell me what was happening in her day.
    1:20:32 She just had no details.
    1:20:38 That’s also a sign of depression where you lose the episodic memory of details of the day.
    1:20:40 You can only talk in gists.
    1:20:45 You can’t give specifics about times and places and events.
    1:20:50 You just lose, you don’t retain that information long enough to be able to remember it later.
    1:20:53 There’s no consolidation of that information.
    1:21:04 And when she was in 10th grade, you know, she came home with Ds in school, Ds in mathematics.
    1:21:08 And this is a kid who was doing fun, you know, she was doing rudimentary algebra when she was eight.
    1:21:20 And we told her that we had to be, we had to have her assessed because we just didn’t know what was going on.
    1:21:22 And that’s when we realized that she was clinically depressed.
    1:21:28 The other thing I should say is that, you know, she had very bad menstrual cramps.
    1:21:40 And so a lot of one treatment for bad menstrual cramps is to put girls on birth control pills.
    1:21:46 Because it evens out the hormonal fluctuations of the month.
    1:21:48 And it does actually improve menstrual cramps.
    1:21:52 But it’s pretty well known now.
    1:22:05 It wasn’t so much known then that there is somewhere between a 40% and 70% increase in the likelihood of major depressive episode in young women who use birth control pills.
    1:22:11 If it’s a combination estrogen-progesterone pill, it’s more like 40%.
    1:22:21 If it’s a progesterone-only pill, which a lot of young women take because it has fewer side effects, you have a 70% increase in major depressive episode.
    1:22:26 And this is in – this first study that I read about this was in a million women.
    1:22:32 And when I read that study, I remember exactly where I was.
    1:22:33 It was like a flashbulb moment.
    1:22:34 I read the study.
    1:22:37 I called her pediatrician, my daughter’s pediatrician.
    1:22:39 And I said, she’s coming off pill today.
    1:22:41 Today.
    1:22:43 So tell me if there’s anything.
    1:22:45 Are there any side effects or can we just stop it?
    1:22:49 And he’s like, well, in my opinion – and I’m like, I don’t give a shit about your opinion.
    1:22:58 I have just read a study that is like – you know, it’s a large-scale epidemiological study of a million women today.
    1:23:00 She’s coming off today.
    1:23:03 And this was after or before she was experiencing depression?
    1:23:11 This was after – it was – it was maybe a year after she was diagnosed.
    1:23:21 Much later, I read – I was reading a book by Naomi Oreskes, the historian of science, and she wrote a book called Why Trust Science?
    1:23:23 And it’s a wonderful book.
    1:23:33 But in the book, she talks about – she gives examples of places, of phenomena where the public didn’t trust science and they should have.
    1:23:34 And this is one of them.
    1:23:37 Apparently, it’s been known for a really long time.
    1:23:48 And I just want to point out that estrogen, progesterone, testosterone evolved as metabolic regulators.
    1:24:02 I’m highlighting it because in a lot of – because in a culture that separates mental from physical, we don’t think about the role of metabolism in vision or in – even in mood.
    1:24:04 That’s a really recent thing.
    1:24:15 In our lab, we – one of the things we study now is the role of metabolism in really basic – really, really basic psychological phenomena.
    1:24:21 Like, just as a fundamental building block of your mind, basically.
    1:24:24 So, your daughter exhibits those symptoms.
    1:24:33 I’m really curious to hear what conventional medicine at that point told you you should do with the daughter in that situation at that time versus what you did.
    1:24:35 You have this wealth of information.
    1:24:36 You have a medical background.
    1:24:42 Yeah, so I should say this was – you know, this was some years ago, right?
    1:24:51 So, currently, there is a kind of a revolution going on where there’s actually something called metabolic psychiatry now.
    1:24:56 Back when this was – when, you know, when I was reading about this, it sounded crazy.
    1:25:03 When I saw what my daughter was – that she was suffering, like, really suffering.
    1:25:14 It’s really hard for me to talk about this because as I’m talking to you about this, I’m thinking, I just – I wish that I – you know, I wish that I had figured this out earlier.
    1:25:30 But anyways, what we did was I found every possible route that I could think of to target her body budget, so basically target her metabolism.
    1:25:48 And then we basically came up with a daily routine, which she participated in making, to see if we could put her on a different trajectory, you know?
    1:25:52 And that involved everything from getting off social media.
    1:25:53 Because?
    1:26:02 Because, first of all, she was using, like a lot of kids do, she was using her screens late at night.
    1:26:07 And at that point – and again, this was something I just happened upon, right?
    1:26:17 But it – actually, at a NCI meeting, at a National Cancer Institute meeting – you know, we have retinal ganglion cells.
    1:26:29 We have cells in our retina that regulate circadian rhythm, and they’re sensitive to light at the wavelengths that comes from your screen – from a screen.
    1:26:39 So if you look at those screens at night, your brain thinks it’s daytime, like your circadian rhythm – you give yourself a circadian rhythm disorder, basically.
    1:26:54 And it will be harder to get into a regular sleep cycle, and you need that regular sleep cycle in order for toxins to clear and in order to consolidate what you’ve learned during the day so that you can remember it later.
    1:27:00 And a whole bunch of restorative things happen during deep sleep that you really need.
    1:27:05 And if you can’t get enough deep sleep, that will make your budgeting problems worse, basically.
    1:27:16 So we targeted her – we got her off social media – well, first of all, off screens after, you know, like 7 o’clock, 8 o’clock at night, no screens.
    1:27:21 Off social media to reduce social uncertainty, social stress.
    1:27:35 I got up with her at 5.30 every morning, made her breakfast, sat with her while she ate breakfast, so made sure that she was eating nutritious food, not pseudo food, like, you know, Pop-Tarts and shit like that.
    1:27:41 We had to start her, like, exercising again, so she started to walk long distances.
    1:27:50 She started doing Pilates, like, not Pilates on a map, but, like, Pilates with a reformer that would make anybody cry, you know?
    1:27:55 Why exercise as it relates to this budget and the metabolic functions?
    1:28:13 Because exercise basically – it’s like your brain – it’s like you’re throwing yourself out of metabolic balance so that the brain can learn to get itself back in.
    1:28:33 Like, you’re basically improving the resilience of your physical systems is basically the way to – so she’s not – you know, she needed something more like interval training, which is what these Pilates classes were, as opposed to, you know, practicing to play tennis or whatever.
    1:28:47 Something that would – where she, you know, after a certain period of time, she’d be dysregulated metabolically, and then she’d drink water and, you know, eat something healthful.
    1:28:54 And then her system basically was learning to become more flexible, again, not so stuck.
    1:29:03 So, again, it was, like, dosing with prediction error or, like, showing the – providing the brain with opportunity to learn that it was wrong.
    1:29:14 And then omega-3s, so we took – I can’t remember the exact dose, but I dosed it out high omega-3s, low omega-6s.
    1:29:24 With her doctor’s permission, we also used a baby aspirin once a day on a full stomach to reduce systemic inflammation.
    1:29:34 So, before bed – I mean, before bed, we had always done, like, a cuddle, you know, like, when she was little, we would read a story or whatever.
    1:29:41 And in her early adolescent years, you know, she rejected that, and then we brought it back.
    1:29:51 So, an hour before bed, we would – either me or her dad, sometimes all three of us – we would read a book together, or, you know, he would read a book to us.
    1:30:01 Or we would – we would sit and talk, and she would tell me, you know, all the things that were happening at school that she could remember.
    1:30:05 And sometimes they were really horrible, and I just had to empathize.
    1:30:07 That was really hard for me because I just wanted to fix it.
    1:30:09 I just wanted to fix it.
    1:30:25 And it was really – I had to really draw on my own experience as a therapist to just sit with the distress and empathize rather than say, do this, do this, do this, do this.
    1:30:30 It took me a long time to learn that, and I’m still sometimes struggling with that.
    1:30:31 Why was that important?
    1:30:37 Because then she feels heard, and she feels understood.
    1:30:40 And when you – it took me a long time to learn this.
    1:30:52 When she would tell me that, you know, someone had done something terribly mean, if I did anything other than empathize, she would feel like I hadn’t heard her.
    1:31:01 And social support is a major – I mean, we are the caretakers of each other’s nervous systems.
    1:31:03 Humans are social animals.
    1:31:04 It’s hard to believe.
    1:31:15 I think in a culture like ours where we’re so individualistic, right, and it seems like a political statement or something, it doesn’t really matter what your political views are.
    1:31:18 We evolve the way we evolve, man.
    1:31:19 We are social animals.
    1:31:22 We affect each other metabolically.
    1:31:25 We can add savings, and we can add taxes.
    1:31:31 And, you know, the best thing for a human nervous system is another human.
    1:31:36 The worst thing for a human nervous system is another human.
    1:31:37 The wrong one.
    1:31:52 There are so many experiments showing such – I mean, I just saw a set of experiments from one of my former postdocs that was just amazing, where she looked at glucose metabolism in mothers and babies.
    1:31:56 And I think she also did it in dating partners, if I’m not mistaken.
    1:32:05 And she looked at them alone and then together, like alone during a task and then together during a task.
    1:32:13 And mothers and babies that are attached well, they’re actually – their glucose metabolism is more efficient, like literally more efficient.
    1:32:20 And I believe she – I believe she also showed this with dating partners, too.
    1:32:34 You know, there are these studies, these old studies showing that, you know, it’s like less calorically demanding to walk up a hill with a backpack if you’re with a friend than if you’re with a stranger.
    1:32:48 I mean, there’s all these really batshit crazy findings that – but if you realize that humans are literally affecting each other on a physical basis, whether they’re aware of it or not, whether they intend it or not, it’s completely irrelevant.
    1:32:57 Or it’s unnecessary, I would say, to have that effect, to have the effects be there, then it starts to make sense.
    1:33:15 You know, like the idea that – and again, meta-analyses show that you will live years longer, years on average, years longer if you are – if you have a social life filled with people who you trust and who trust you.
    1:33:21 So is that why you got the family around just before bed?
    1:33:26 Because it was regulating her nervous system, her body?
    1:33:27 Yeah.
    1:33:29 Sometimes she still says this to me, actually.
    1:33:33 She’ll say, can you just be my friend for a minute and not my mother?
    1:33:35 I’ll be like, yes, I can.
    1:33:38 And then I actually have to do it, which is sometimes hard.
    1:33:44 Or I will say to her, this is for parents.
    1:33:52 Anybody who has an adolescent or an adult child, this is like one of my – I don’t know how I came up with this, but it’s like golden, right?
    1:34:01 I say to her, can I – I’m having a mother moment where I feel the need to nag you about something.
    1:34:05 And if I can just nag you for a minute about it, I won’t need to tell you again.
    1:34:08 So I’m basically asking her permission.
    1:34:12 Can I tell you this thing, which I really want to tell you?
    1:34:19 And I know you don’t want to hear it, but you would be doing me a real kindness if you would just listen to me for a minute.
    1:34:20 And I know it’s me.
    1:34:20 It’s all me.
    1:34:21 It’s not you.
    1:34:22 It’s all on me.
    1:34:23 This is me.
    1:34:27 But I just – it would be better if you could just let me.
    1:34:33 And most of the time she says, you know, with great forbearance, right?
    1:34:35 Like, sure, mama, go ahead.
    1:34:38 Sometimes she says, not today.
    1:34:41 And then I actually have to listen, you know?
    1:34:43 So, yeah.
    1:34:46 But there were probably other things I’m not thinking of right now.
    1:34:49 I’ve written them all down because a lot of people have asked me this question.
    1:34:53 And what I like to say is this is – I’m not a physician.
    1:34:55 I’m not a psychiatrist.
    1:34:58 This is not a recommendation or recipe for your children.
    1:35:02 I’m just telling you what I did as a scientist.
    1:35:04 And you wrote down what you did.
    1:35:05 You still have a copy of that.
    1:35:08 So I can link it below for anyone that does want to read what you did.
    1:35:12 Yes, but it’s – again, it’s –
    1:35:14 It’s what you did for your daughter at that time.
    1:35:16 Yeah, just as a person.
    1:35:23 Who had read the literature, I – it’s not a – it’s not – this is not medical advice.
    1:35:31 It’s – I’m really strongly – and also I should say, you can’t force your adolescent to do anything.
    1:35:36 You can’t even force your kids really to do anything unless you threaten them with physical harm.
    1:35:40 They have to make that choice themselves, right?
    1:35:41 And did she recover?
    1:35:44 Yes, she did.
    1:35:56 And I think one of the reasons why she is good now, it’s not that she never has challenges with her mood, but she understands them in physical terms.
    1:36:01 She doesn’t understand her mood as being a psychological problem.
    1:36:10 She understands it as a symptom or a barometer of her body budget.
    1:36:14 This is something I learned from your work while I was researching, which was really, really helpful to me.
    1:36:18 And it’s pretty much exactly what you just said, which is sometimes I’m in a not-so-good mood.
    1:36:25 And if I’m not conscious about that, then the bad mood can wreak havoc, right?
    1:36:26 I can be short with people or whatever.
    1:36:36 And when I was reading your work and thinking about bad or good moods through the context of this body budget, it makes you pause for a second and go, what am I missing?
    1:36:39 And it makes you very conscious of what you then do.
    1:36:43 It almost makes you suddenly take hold of the wheel and go, okay, so there’s a problem here.
    1:36:44 It’s a physical problem.
    1:36:45 I didn’t get sleep last night.
    1:36:46 I haven’t eaten.
    1:36:51 Whatever it might be, be really aware of what this makes you do or feel or think.
    1:36:58 And the actions you need to take are maybe cancel everything you were planning today and go back to bed.
    1:37:02 Well, but I think that you just put your finger on the really important thing.
    1:37:05 It’s that it changes what you do next.
    1:37:06 Yeah.
    1:37:09 And that changes the trajectory of what happens.
    1:37:13 And I think this is really – it’s not like a magic cure.
    1:37:24 And again, you know, but when someone is – when you feel really distressed, you either look to the world, like what is wrong with the world, or you look to yourself.
    1:37:25 What is wrong with me?
    1:37:27 And really, it could be.
    1:37:28 Maybe there is something wrong with the world.
    1:37:30 Maybe there is something wrong with you.
    1:37:35 But most likely, it’s something – there’s a body budgeting problem.
    1:37:45 Even if it’s the case that there’s something wrong with the world, you’re better equipped to deal with that thing if you are managing your body budget.
    1:37:51 You really do need to design your calendar as much as you possibly can in the confines of the profession you have around that body budget.
    1:37:56 And for me, the big change I made two years ago – super privileged, I get that, and everyone can do it.
    1:38:01 I couldn’t do it when I was working in call centers – was I implemented a rule where there’s no meetings before 11 o’clock.
    1:38:07 And it just means for me that I never set an alarm, so I wake up when I’m fully recharged.
    1:38:09 And it was the most profound thing.
    1:38:11 I should have done this way sooner.
    1:38:13 But it’s had such a big impact on my life.
    1:38:19 Because you can almost guarantee that it’s very, very rare for me to be underslept, although it happens because I have to travel and stuff a lot.
    1:38:21 But that really had a profound impact on my life.
    1:38:23 Yeah, and I think, you know –
    1:38:24 And as a leader and as a –
    1:38:25 Exactly.
    1:38:41 And I think, honestly, if leaders take this seriously, then the hope is that there’ll be some realization that this is also important for everybody.
    1:38:48 And, you know, we have a society that is structured in a particular way, but there’s no requirement that it’s structured in this way.
    1:38:58 There’s, you know, the biggest predictor of work productivity after, you know, is sleep and hydration.
    1:39:02 And after you take away sleep and hydration, I think exercise is up there too.
    1:39:05 You know, some of us have more choices than others, right?
    1:39:21 But it’s important, I think, for people who are CEOs, who are leaders, who are business leaders, to understand that there are good business reasons.
    1:39:26 There are good economic reasons to take this shit seriously.
    1:39:43 Am I right in thinking that alcohol impacts your body budget and it therefore makes it harder for you to exhibit all the other behaviors and expend energy in other areas and also therefore increases the probability that you’ll be depressed?
    1:39:57 So I should say that I am not an expert in the metabolism of alcohol, so I’m going to extrapolate based on what I do know.
    1:40:12 And what I would say there is that sometimes people will drink alcohol like they will eat chocolate or, you know, they’re doing it for the taste or for the experience of, you know, the ambiance and experience of it, right?
    1:40:16 But a lot of people end up using alcohol.
    1:40:22 They might start that way or they might start because they’re doing something with friends, but then they realize that it has a mood.
    1:40:25 It affects their mood.
    1:40:31 Anything which affects your mood, like people talk a lot about emotion regulation, but it’s actually mood regulation.
    1:40:37 Again, you know, your mood is this, these simple feelings that are with you all the time.
    1:40:40 You know, your brain is always regulating your body.
    1:40:46 Your body is always sending signals back to your brain, which it, out of which it makes mood.
    1:40:50 So mood is a property of consciousness.
    1:40:53 It’s with you always.
    1:41:01 Sometimes in moments you will make sense of the signals and the mood that goes with it in terms of the outside world.
    1:41:04 And that’s when you experience emotion, right?
    1:41:08 Where your actions are relating the two together in terms of your mood.
    1:41:12 But a lot of the time, we don’t.
    1:41:16 We just experience mood as a property of consciousness.
    1:41:18 You know, this is a delicious drink.
    1:41:20 That guy’s an asshole.
    1:41:21 You’re very trustworthy.
    1:41:25 The mood is embedded in the perception of the world.
    1:41:31 And when people, it’s just like actually sometimes opioids have this effect also.
    1:41:39 They are, they’re mood altering, meaning they’re, they are, if they’re manipulating your mood, they are manipulating your metabolism.
    1:41:49 And when people get addicted, they often get addicted because they’re regulating their mood.
    1:41:53 They’re attempting to reduce their suffering.
    1:42:04 The problem with, or a problem, I shouldn’t say that problem because I don’t know exactly how mood, exactly how alcohol affects metabolism.
    1:42:09 My expectation is that it’s not just one, it’s not just in one way.
    1:42:12 And also, I do know there are context effects, actually.
    1:42:17 So you can drink exactly the same amount of alcohol and it can have different effects in different contexts.
    1:42:19 That totally blew my mind when I saw that research.
    1:42:34 So I’m thinking it’s not a simple relationship, but one thing I do know is that your predictions become sloppier and you don’t take in prediction error.
    1:42:36 You don’t learn.
    1:42:49 You won’t, you won’t update any, you know, so there, and so, and your behaviors are not necessarily well calibrated to the situation that you’re in,
    1:42:52 which can have all kinds of downstream difficult problems.
    1:42:59 You know, you can make things in the downstream worse for yourself and make it harder to do budgeting later.
    1:43:05 Isn’t it incredibly annoying when you’re in a rush to leave your house, but you can’t find your phone or your wallet?
    1:43:10 Now, because of Apple, if you have an iPhone, you can usually track it using Find My.
    1:43:13 But until recently, the same hasn’t been possible if you’ve lost your wallet.
    1:43:17 But that has now changed because of today’s sponsor, Exter.
    1:43:20 Exter is the first of its kind.
    1:43:27 By partnering with Apple, they’ve created a trackable wallet so that if you ever lose yours, you can find it within seconds.
    1:43:29 And this is it.
    1:43:34 And you might recognize Exter from their collaboration with Lionel Messi.
    1:43:42 It’s super slim, made from recycled aluminum with built-in RFID blocking properties to protect from identity theft.
    1:43:48 And with one click, all your cards pop up so you can tap and go.
    1:43:50 I often talk about 1% improvements.
    1:43:57 And when I look at Exter, to me, it’s the culmination of so many 1% improvements on the traditional wallet.
    1:44:07 So if you’re looking for an upgrade, head to Exter.com and use code Stephen for an additional 10% off their spring sale, which ends on May 19th.
    1:44:08 Head over there now and check it out.
    1:44:12 And you also get free shipping and a 100-day trial.
    1:44:14 That’s Exter.com with code Stephen.
    1:44:18 I wanted to ask you about something I heard you say.
    1:44:20 And I’ve actually heard other guests on my podcast say it.
    1:44:28 And I wasn’t ever sure if it was true until I heard you say it, which is that we can change our emotions by smiling.
    1:44:42 Because if the brain is predicting, then presumably if I do a big smile and I go, yes, then the brain is going to predict good feelings and going to cause good feelings, et cetera, et cetera.
    1:44:44 And are you going to cause me to feel nice about myself?
    1:44:46 Well, yes and no.
    1:44:51 I think, you know, people smile when they’re not happy, too.
    1:44:53 People smile when they’re angry.
    1:44:57 People smile when they’re plotting the demise of their enemy.
    1:44:59 You know, people smile for all kinds.
    1:45:01 People smile when they’re afraid.
    1:45:04 But can I make myself happier technically by smiling?
    1:45:16 The meta-analytic evidence suggests that there is a slight effect, that it’s – that there’s a small – yeah, yeah.
    1:45:18 Crinkle your – crinkle.
    1:45:18 There you go.
    1:45:21 It’s like putting – put a pencil between your teeth.
    1:45:23 No, go ahead.
    1:45:23 Oh, you need that, yeah.
    1:45:24 Now smile.
    1:45:26 Now crinkle.
    1:45:26 Okay.
    1:45:28 So it’s like that.
    1:45:33 And the – so what I would say is it’s a minuscule effect size.
    1:45:34 Like it’s very small.
    1:45:35 I do feel happier.
    1:45:36 Do you?
    1:45:36 Yeah.
    1:45:39 But that’s because I made you do something silly maybe?
    1:45:39 Maybe, yeah.
    1:45:44 But anyways, the point being that it’s overblown as an effect.
    1:45:55 I think there’s a small – my recollection is that the last meta-analysis I read was that there was a small effect.
    1:46:00 But a small effect means it doesn’t work for everyone and it doesn’t work always.
    1:46:03 It’s just really, really a very, very small effect.
    1:46:08 You must have a perspective on ADHD, which has become a huge topic of conversation in society.
    1:46:10 I was diagnosed with ADHD.
    1:46:16 I don’t necessarily take it to mean anything because I’ve seen so many variations of ADHD in my friends.
    1:46:25 But there’s been this big rise of ADHD and linked to the work that you’ve done on the brain being a predictive tool.
    1:46:37 So my general response is the following, that people – there’s a rise in people self-diagnosing and in using diagnosis as an explanation
    1:46:44 for behavior or for why people experience what they experience or whatever.
    1:46:47 Diagnoses are not explanations of anything.
    1:46:48 They’re descriptions.
    1:46:51 They don’t explain anything.
    1:47:00 And to treat a diagnosis like it’s an explanation is a form of essentializing, which is not a good thing.
    1:47:15 It means that you’re assuming that there’s some kind of underlying, unchanging essence, which is responsible for – in fact, there is something called psychological essentialism, where you don’t even know what the essence is.
    1:47:19 You just assume it’s there, you just assume it’s there, and that it’s the cause of all these symptoms.
    1:47:22 But a diagnosis is just a description of symptoms.
    1:47:29 And diagnoses are mostly useful for billing hours of treatment.
    1:47:40 They’re not optimized for pockets, describing pockets of behavior that are, you know, or collections of behavior that tend to go together.
    1:47:44 Because people sometimes think that serotonin and dopamine are the reason why someone has ADHD.
    1:47:47 That’s like one of the theories that I’ve –
    1:47:49 So there are multiple serotonin receptors.
    1:47:51 There are multiple dopamine receptors.
    1:47:53 They don’t all do the same thing.
    1:47:55 Serotonin doesn’t do one thing.
    1:47:57 Dopamine doesn’t do one thing.
    1:48:03 It does different things in different places in the body and the brain, depending on what the receptors are.
    1:48:13 And also, every resource of resilience and every symptom of difficulty has a context to it.
    1:48:24 There are requirements, the way our society is structured, there are requirements for sitting and paying attention to something for long periods of time.
    1:48:29 And that requirement is hidden in the background.
    1:48:39 It’s there so frequently that we forget that that’s the conditional – that’s the condition upon which diagnoses are made.
    1:48:47 So whatever – first of all, ADHD is not one set of symptoms.
    1:48:48 It’s a variety.
    1:49:01 It’s like it’s a – you know, there’s a lot of variation in the way that – you can have different symptom profiles and have the same diagnosis because it’s just descriptive and there are lots of symptoms.
    1:49:08 Some of those symptoms also occur in – they overlap with other syndromes, other diagnostic clusters.
    1:49:15 But the point is that they all – when you diagnose someone, it makes it sound like that’s a property of that person.
    1:49:16 Yeah.
    1:49:16 But it’s not.
    1:49:20 It’s a property of a person in the context that they’re in.
    1:49:26 And social expectation by – by any respects, like can he pay attention in school?
    1:49:28 Well, right.
    1:49:33 And the way that school is organized is, you know, you sit for long periods of time.
    1:49:45 Well, it may be that there are other circumstances in which not holding your attention on one thing for a long period of time could be advantageous.
    1:49:51 So my point is that there are very few things that are just categorically good or categorically bad.
    1:49:53 There’s always a hidden condition.
    1:49:53 Sure.
    1:49:55 There’s always a hidden context.
    1:49:59 And so I think it’s really important to foreground that context.
    1:50:00 You’re not broken.
    1:50:07 You’re just – your suitability to a certain context has been deemed to be – like doesn’t fit.
    1:50:09 It’s not productive for that context.
    1:50:19 And that may sound like weasel words or it may – you know, but it’s not because it’s important that competencies are by context.
    1:50:27 And again, I would say this is not, you know, me being a bleeding heart, you know, progressive or whatever.
    1:50:30 I mean, I am a bleeding heart progressive, but this is not an example of that.
    1:50:32 This is an example of me being pragmatic.
    1:50:39 You can regulate each other, something you talked about earlier on, which I found really, really interesting.
    1:50:48 I was reading about a study where – of 25,000 people and they found that people having a heart attack were 14% more likely to survive if they were married.
    1:50:51 But the other thing that I found interesting is that we regulate each other with words.
    1:50:57 And I think you did a study on assessing the power of words to facilitate emotion.
    1:51:01 You were – it was a study you co-authored.
    1:51:27 Well, we’ve studied the power of words in many contexts, including words as invitations to make sense of – you know, so if an instance of emotion is you making meaning of what is going on inside your body in relation to the world, then you can – you invite – every time you use an emotion word, you invite people to make meaning in that way.
    1:51:31 So you’ve proven, then, that certain words can calm us down?
    1:51:35 Well, yes, but I wouldn’t say I’ve proven anything.
    1:51:37 Scientists don’t, you know –
    1:51:38 Shown, demonstrated.
    1:51:41 Yeah, demonstrated in a – you know, in a context, right?
    1:51:45 Like, we – you know, scientists don’t like the F word.
    1:51:48 The fact – I like the other F word, but the fact.
    1:51:49 Fact.
    1:51:57 That’s a tough one because it means something that holds under all circumstances in all contexts, and that’s very rarely the case.
    1:51:59 So – but yes, we have.
    1:52:06 So – and I mean, so if you’ve done it probably a million times, you text things to people, do you not?
    1:52:06 Yeah.
    1:52:15 Yeah, and when you text a couple of words to your partner or your friend, you can change their heart rate.
    1:52:17 You change their breathing rate.
    1:52:22 You can change all kinds of chemicals, all kinds of protein synthesis just with a couple of words.
    1:52:27 Again, you know, we live in a – you know, free speech is important.
    1:52:31 Freedoms are important, but freedoms come with responsibilities.
    1:52:39 Like it or not, we regulate each other’s nervous systems in all kinds of ways, including with words.
    1:52:42 And –
    1:52:43 For better or for worse.
    1:52:44 For better or for worse.
    1:52:45 Exactly.
    1:52:47 And so –
    1:52:49 You really made me think differently about stress as well, generally.
    1:53:03 Because if I think about my life through the lens of this metabolic budget and stress is a burden to this budget, then if I don’t limit my stress, I’m much more likely to go over budget.
    1:53:11 And if I go over budget, my immune system might be the thing that I cut the costs of or something else.
    1:53:11 Right.
    1:53:15 I mean, there’s good – you can’t be without stress.
    1:53:16 That would mean you’d be without effort.
    1:53:29 So, you know, sometimes scientists will talk about good stress and bad stress, which really just means stress that is planned and where you replenish what you spend and stress that is pernicious and you don’t.
    1:53:30 Chronic stress.
    1:53:32 Chronic stress or, you know.
    1:53:47 So, you know, if you’re in a stressful meeting, a meeting where it’s affecting your mood, that means there’s been some metabolic impact, take into account what that means.
    1:53:59 With all that you know about the brain, I wondered if you – if it’s changed your view at all on religion and God and spirituality and if there is a higher power at all.
    1:54:01 The brain is such a wonderfully complex, beautiful thing.
    1:54:06 You know, it’s the objective observer in 2025 looks at a brain because this is fantastic.
    1:54:10 Many people then conclude that there must be a creator of that brain.
    1:54:13 But also we’ve talked so much today about meaning and the point of it all.
    1:54:18 So everything you’ve learned about the brain and neuroscience and psychology, has it made you believe in a God?
    1:54:19 No.
    1:54:23 Has it made you more atheist or agnostic?
    1:54:27 I’m pretty firmly an atheist.
    1:54:42 I don’t think that the wondrous complexity of nature or the brain or the nervous system requires a designer.
    1:54:45 And that logic doesn’t make sense to me.
    1:54:48 So this is obviously a terrible leap.
    1:54:55 But do you therefore think that there’s no inherent meaning to life outside of, you know, the, like, reproduction and –
    1:54:59 I’m just reading for the second time this book.
    1:55:01 It’s called Open Socrates.
    1:55:02 Okay.
    1:55:05 And it’s a really wonderful book.
    1:55:10 And I’ve learned a lot about Socratic philosophy that I didn’t know.
    1:55:18 And one of the things that Socrates thought was important was asking this question of what is meaning.
    1:55:23 And that you shouldn’t be asking this question in 15-minute increments.
    1:55:28 You should be really asking this question about the expanse of your life.
    1:55:49 And so I think, if anything, being a scientist who studies how a brain in constant conversation with a body and the other brains and bodies in our world and even the physical nature of our world,
    1:56:03 How that creates lots of minds, including our very Western mind, that makes me think more about the importance of philosophy, actually.
    1:56:10 Because I think philosophy is asking the same kinds of questions that religious belief tries to answer.
    1:56:13 And for me, that’s a better path.
    1:56:15 I think it’s a more comfortable path.
    1:56:19 I’ve often been asking questions like this my whole life, actually.
    1:56:22 So it makes me feel more like, what’s the point?
    1:56:23 Like, what is the ultimate point?
    1:56:33 I think the answer for me, the ultimate point, is to leave the world a little better than I found it.
    1:56:38 It’s like the Johnny Appleseed, you know, philosophy.
    1:56:45 You know, like as a scientist, scientists often, you know, a lot of us, we don’t do what we do for money.
    1:56:46 Money’s not bad.
    1:56:47 But we don’t do what we do for money.
    1:56:49 We do it for other motivations, right?
    1:56:54 To know, to be curious, to try to discover things.
    1:56:59 And at some point, we start to think about, well, what’s your legacy, right?
    1:57:01 Most of us are not Darwin.
    1:57:04 We’re not William James.
    1:57:07 We’re not, you know, Heisenberg.
    1:57:10 We’re not, you know, most of us are not those people.
    1:57:13 So what’s your legacy?
    1:57:19 And in the end, I realized that I’ve published a lot of peer review papers.
    1:57:25 When people introduce me, you know, they give some kind of like, you know, about my citation, you know, people, whatever.
    1:57:32 Dr. Lisa is one of the most influential figures in the field of emotion, neuroscience, and the nature of the brain.
    1:57:39 She is among the top 0.1% cited scientists in the world for her revolutionary research in psychology and neuroscience.
    1:57:42 Yeah, that’s all nice, super nice.
    1:57:55 But actually, my legacy is really the people who I’ve trained, the minds that I’ve had the opportunity to engage with.
    1:58:16 And if I were going to be bean counting, I might be bean counting the number of laboratories that now exist that didn’t exist before, several generations of scientists who I trained, or who, you know, and also who trained me, I mean, along the way.
    1:58:23 So that’s my legacy in some ways, really, it’s the people, it’s the people, and the ideas.
    1:58:48 And I would like to think, you know, when I used to do a lot of classroom teaching, I would feel like, what I told myself is, if I can change the trajectory, the outcomes of just one person in this class, just one, then I will have done my job.
    1:58:57 You know, and I kind of feel that way, you know, and I kind of feel that way a little bit, sort of the same about the public, the public face of what I’m doing, right?
    1:59:01 The public science education.
    1:59:14 If I can help, if I can help, if something that I’ve learned or something I’ve communicated can help somebody else live a more intentional
    1:59:34 life of agents with agency where they’re choosing and they’re impacting their loved ones or their children, then, then that’s my, then I’ve done my job.
    1:59:35 That’s my legacy.
    1:59:47 And the hard thing about that kind of a legacy, a legacy of ideas impacting people’s lives, is that you don’t ever know what your impact is.
    1:59:51 But that’s part of the deal.
    1:59:59 We have a closing tradition on this podcast where the last guest leaves a question for the next guest, not knowing who they’re leaving it for.
    2:00:04 Question is, how to live a life without attaining anything?
    2:00:07 I have some context on this person.
    2:00:12 They are a black belt, Shaolin monk.
    2:00:14 So they talk a lot about identity.
    2:00:15 Sure.
    2:00:19 And they, and living without encumbrances and attachments and so on.
    2:00:19 Right.
    2:00:22 So it’s, it’s, it’s, it sounds like a very Buddhist question.
    2:00:28 The problem is that I think even a Buddhist attains something, they attain enlightenment.
    2:00:30 So they don’t have attachments necessarily.
    2:00:31 They don’t have wealth.
    2:00:32 They don’t have power.
    2:00:34 They don’t, but they attain something.
    2:00:36 They attain enlightenment.
    2:00:40 They attain tranquility.
    2:00:43 How about then how to live life without your identity?
    2:00:48 Making you unhappy?
    2:01:00 Well, I think it’s important to remember that you don’t really have an identity that is separate from the moment that you’re in.
    2:01:02 It’s not like there’s an essence to you.
    2:01:15 And what I would say is that every, everything you experience, everything you do is a combination of the remembered past and the sensory present.
    2:01:32 That means to change who you are, you can change what you remember or how you predict, or you can change the sensory present by literally getting up and moving somewhere else, like going for a walk.
    2:01:38 Or you can change the sensory present by what you pay attention to, mindfulness, for example, right?
    2:01:43 You, there are, there are some sensory signals that are front and center in your attention.
    2:01:45 And there are some that are in the background lurking.
    2:02:00 For example, you can, right now you’re not paying attention to some sensory signals, but the minute that I say them, point them out, you will be, like the pressure of the chair against your back and your legs.
    2:02:03 Now they’re in the forefront of your attention because I just mentioned them.
    2:02:08 And so what I would say is that there is no essence to who you are.
    2:02:10 You are what you do.
    2:02:14 In that moment, you are what you do.
    2:02:18 And you can change what you do.
    2:02:31 You can change what you experience, the consequence of the lived experience, which is the consequence of what you do, by what you remember and what the context is.
    2:02:34 So that’s my answer.
    2:02:38 If you always remember that, you will never be attached.
    2:02:53 You will never crave or strive, you know, to have things and like all of these artificial things, which prop up the illusion that you are and you have an essence to you that you, that, you know, is unchanging across situations.
    2:02:59 Yeah, we, I, we are very quick to fall into the trap of thinking we are what we did.
    2:03:09 And that’s, I much prefer, I am what I do, because that means that I have agency to make a different decision in the moment, irrespective of what I did in the past.
    2:03:11 But that’s the trap we fall into.
    2:03:20 In 10 minutes time, I bet I’ll be downstairs and I’ll be back into the trap of thinking that I am Stephen Bartlett who did this thing for 32 years or did, you know.
    2:03:22 Lisa, thank you.
    2:03:25 Thank you so much for, thank you for everything that you do.
    2:03:27 I’ve, I’ve, you’ve changed my mind in a really profound way.
    2:03:29 And that’s quite hard because I sit here quite a lot.
    2:03:35 So I have lots of conversations about the brain and about lots of, lots of new studies that have come out, et cetera, et cetera.
    2:03:42 But you’ve completely changed my mind and made me think from, in a completely different way, which I’m really grateful for.
    2:03:44 So thank you so much because that’s a gift.
    2:03:48 And that’s not a gift that I always get doing this job, but it really is a gift.
    2:03:51 And it’s one that I think will help me to live a better life ultimately.
    2:04:07 But hopefully also for everybody that’s listening and thank you for stepping into the public communication side of your life because I was going to say it’s someone that knows what you know and that has done the work that you’ve done.
    2:04:22 It is so important to the extent that I almost consider it to be like a really critical responsibility because there’s people like us that sit on these podcasts who aren’t in the laboratory, that are getting our information from social media, TikTok, or any, any odd person that says anything.
    2:04:27 And it’s really, really important that people like you step out more and share what you know.
    2:04:32 And thank you so much for writing these books because they are absolutely brilliant.
    2:04:36 And just like you’ve changed my mind today, I think these books will change a lot of people’s lives.
    2:04:38 I highly recommend this book, How Emotions Are Made.
    2:04:40 I’m going to link it below, The Secret Life of the Brain.
    2:04:47 And also for something a little bit shorter, but equally accessible, this book here, Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain.
    2:04:49 Thank you so much.
    2:04:50 Thank you so much.
    2:04:53 I’m going to let you into a little bit of a secret.
    2:05:01 You’re probably going to think me and my team are a little bit weird, but I can still remember to this day when Jemima from my team posted on Slack that she changed the scent in this studio.
    2:05:05 And right after she posted it, the entire office clapped in our Slack channel.
    2:05:10 And this might sound crazy, but at the Diary of a CEO, this is the type of 1% improvement we make on our show.
    2:05:12 And that is why the show is the way it is.
    2:05:18 By understanding the power of compounding 1%, you can absolutely change your outcomes in your life.
    2:05:21 It isn’t about drastic transformations or quick wins.
    2:05:27 It’s about the small, consistent actions that have a lasting change in your outcomes.
    2:05:32 So two years ago, we started the process of creating this beautiful diary, and it’s truly beautiful.
    2:05:36 Inside, there’s lots of pictures, lots of inspiration and motivation as well.
    2:05:37 Some interactive elements.
    2:05:46 And the purpose of this diary is to help you identify, stay focused on, develop consistency with the 1% that will ultimately change your life.
    2:05:52 So if you want one for yourself or for a friend or for a colleague or for your team, then head to thediary.com right now.
    2:05:53 I’ll link it below.
    2:05:56 This has always blown my mind a little bit.
    2:06:00 53% of you that listen to this show regularly haven’t yet subscribed to this show.
    2:06:02 So could I ask you for a favor?
    2:06:08 If you like the show and you like what we do here and you want to support us, the free, simple way that you can do just that is by hitting the subscribe button.
    2:06:15 And my commitment to you is if you do that, then I’ll do everything in my power, me and my team, to make sure that this show is better for you every single week.
    2:06:20 We’ll listen to your feedback, we’ll find the guests that you want me to speak to, and we’ll continue to do what we do.
    2:06:21 Thank you so much.
    Có những thí nghiệm mà họ đã huấn luyện mọi người để trải nghiệm lo âu, nhưng như là một sự quyết tâm, vì trạng thái cơ thể giống hệt như vậy có thể được trải nghiệm một cách hoàn toàn khác biệt. Và những gì họ phát hiện ra là lúc đầu rất khó khăn, nhưng bạn thực hành, thực hành, thực hành, và cuối cùng nó trở nên tự động. Vì vậy, điều đầu tiên cần hiểu là… Tiến sĩ Lisa Feldman Barrett là một nhà thần kinh học hàng đầu thế giới. Nghiên cứu mang tính tiên phong của bà tiết lộ rằng cảm xúc như lo âu và chấn thương được hình thành bởi não bộ. Và chúng ta có quyền kiểm soát chúng. Câu chuyện là bạn được sinh ra với những mạch cảm xúc bẩm sinh này, nhưng bạn không được sinh ra với khả năng kiểm soát chúng. Điều đó là sai. Thực sự điều đang xảy ra là não bộ của bạn không phản ứng, nó đang dự đoán. Và mọi hành động bạn thực hiện, mọi cảm xúc bạn có là sự kết hợp của những ký ức trong quá khứ, bao gồm cả những chấn thương. Vì vậy, bạn không có cảm giác về quyền lực của bản thân trong điều đó vì mọi thứ diễn ra thật sự tự động, nhanh hơn cả khi bạn nháy mắt. Điều này thay đổi cách chúng ta nên đối xử với chấn thương như thế nào? Đôi khi trong cuộc sống, bạn có trách nhiệm thay đổi điều gì đó, không phải vì bạn phải chịu trách nhiệm, mà vì bạn là người duy nhất có thể. Ý tôi là, tôi có một cô con gái bị trầm cảm lâm sàng, cô ấy nhận điểm D ở trường, cô ấy không ngủ, cô ấy rất khổ sở. Ban đầu cô ấy rất chống đối, nhưng sau đó cô ấy đã quyết định rằng cô ấy muốn được giúp đỡ. Và cô ấy đã phục hồi chứ? Có, cô ấy đã phục hồi. Vì vậy, nếu bạn muốn thay đổi con người bạn, những gì bạn cảm thấy, hiểu những nguyên lý hoạt động cơ bản này chính là chìa khóa để sống một cuộc sống có ý nghĩa. Vậy bước đầu tiên để có thể thực hiện sự thay đổi đó là gì? Một điều nhanh trước khi chúng ta quay trở lại với tập này, hãy cho tôi 30 giây thời gian của bạn. Hai điều tôi muốn nói. Điều đầu tiên là một lời cảm ơn to lớn vì đã lắng nghe và kết nối với chương trình tuần này qua tuần khác. Điều đó có ý nghĩa rất lớn đối với tất cả chúng tôi và đây thực sự là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi chưa bao giờ có và không thể tưởng tượng được khi đến được nơi này. Nhưng thứ hai, đó là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi cảm thấy như mình chỉ mới bắt đầu. Và nếu bạn thích những gì chúng tôi làm ở đây, hãy tham gia cùng 24% những người thường xuyên nghe podcast này và theo dõi chúng tôi trên ứng dụng này. Đây là một lời hứa mà tôi sẽ làm với bạn. Tôi sẽ làm mọi thứ trong khả năng của mình để làm cho chương trình này tốt nhất có thể ngay bây giờ và trong tương lai. Chúng tôi sẽ mang đến những khách mời mà bạn muốn tôi trò chuyện và chúng tôi sẽ tiếp tục thực hiện tất cả những điều mà bạn yêu thích về chương trình này. Cảm ơn bạn. Cảm ơn rất nhiều. Quay lại tập phim. Tiến sĩ Lisa Feldman Barrett, bạn có một hành trình sự nghiệp thật đáng chú ý và đầy những khúc quanh. Thật khó khăn để gói gọn nó trong một sứ mệnh cụ thể hoặc một tóm tắt cụ thể về hành trình mà bạn đã trải qua và những khúc quanh bạn đã trải qua. Nhưng nếu tôi hỏi bạn bây giờ bạn đang theo đuổi sứ mệnh nào với công việc mà bạn đang làm hiện tại, bạn có thể tóm tắt điều đó không? Mục tiêu của tôi, với tư cách là một người truyền thông khoa học, là cố gắng đưa những khoa học phức tạp và trình bày chúng theo cách mà mọi người có thể sử dụng. Bạn biết đấy, có thể họ sử dụng nó để làm vui bạn bè của họ trong một bữa tiệc tối. Có thể họ sử dụng nó để giúp đỡ đứa trẻ của họ, người đang gặp khó khăn với trầm cảm. Đó chắc chắn là điều mà tôi đã phải đối mặt. Có thể họ sử dụng nó để cải thiện nơi làm việc của họ hoặc nâng cao năng suất của đồng nghiệp của họ, hoặc bất cứ điều gì. Điểm quan trọng là, cuối cùng, đó chính là mục đích của khoa học. Nó là để, bạn biết đấy, sống một cuộc sống tốt hơn. Và những người bình thường, hàng ngày mà không có bằng tiến sĩ cũng có thể làm điều đó nếu họ có thông tin đúng. Có lẽ tôi đang cố gắng hiểu làm thế nào mà một bộ não như của chúng ta, gắn với một cơ thể như của chúng ta, được ngâm trong một thế giới như của chúng ta, tạo ra một tâm trí. Nó là gì? Điều gì đang xảy ra cho phép bạn có những suy nghĩ và cảm xúc và ký ức và hành động? Và một người đến từ một đất nước khác, một nền văn hóa khác, cũng có một đời sống tâm thần trông không giống như của bạn. Làm thế nào mà cùng một loại kế hoạch não với cùng một loại kế hoạch cơ thể chung có thể sản xuất ra những loại tâm trí khác nhau như vậy khi chúng đang, khi những bộ não đó được kết nối, theo một nghĩa nào đó, hoàn thành việc kết nối bản thân trong những bối cảnh văn hóa và thể chất rất khác biệt? Khi bạn vừa nói về việc theo đuổi sự hiểu biết về cách một bộ não như của chúng ta tạo ra tâm trí và thực tại mà chúng ta có, nếu tôi có thể hiểu tất cả những điều đó, như nhiều người đã đọc sách của bạn về bộ não và cảm xúc đều có thể hiểu, thì điều gì đó cung cấp cho tôi trong cuộc sống hàng ngày? Ôi Chúa ơi, nó mang đến cho bạn cơ hội có thêm quyền lực trong cuộc sống của bạn. Điều đó có nghĩa là gì? Nó có nghĩa là bạn có nhiều sự lựa chọn hơn. Nó có nghĩa là bạn có nhiều quyền kiểm soát hơn. Nó có nghĩa là bạn có thể kiến tạo cuộc sống của mình. Ý tôi là, bạn không thể kiểm soát mọi thứ xảy ra với bạn. Bạn không thể kiểm soát mọi khoảnh khắc của cảm xúc, nhưng bạn có nhiều quyền kiểm soát hơn những gì bạn nghĩ. Mọi người đều có nhiều quyền kiểm soát hơn những gì họ cảm thấy và những gì họ làm hơn những gì họ nghĩ. Quyền kiểm soát đó không giống như chúng ta mong đợi. Nó khó khăn hơn nhiều để khai thác hơn chúng ta muốn. Một số người có nhiều cơ hội hơn để có quyền kiểm soát đó hơn những người khác, nhưng mọi người đều có cơ hội để có nhiều quyền kiểm soát hơn. Và, tất nhiên, mặt trái cũng là nhiều trách nhiệm hơn đối với cách họ sống cuộc sống của mình. Và tôi nghĩ điều đó là rất tốt. Và tôi nghĩ điều đó là rất tốt ngay bây giờ khi bạn biết, các sự kiện trên thế giới đang xoay quanh bạn và bạn cảm thấy như mình chỉ đang bị cuốn trôi. Và ngay cả trong sự điên rồ đó, có những cơ hội để trở thành người kiến thiết trải nghiệm và cuộc sống của chính bạn hơn. Tôi nghĩ nhiều người thấy điều đó lạc quan và hữu ích. Vâng, vì cuộc sống có thể cảm thấy như chúng ta là những con rối và chúng ta chỉ đang phản ứng với những gì xảy ra xung quanh mình. Và nếu trời mưa bên ngoài, thì chúng ta buồn. Nếu một người nào đó gửi cho chúng ta một tin nhắn, thì chúng ta khó chịu.
    Và rằng chúng ta chỉ là những sinh vật phản ứng, phản ứng với bất cứ điều gì xảy ra xung quanh chúng ta. Nhưng bạn đang nói với tôi rằng nếu tôi hiểu rõ hơn về bộ não và cách nó hoạt động cũng như cảm xúc, thì tôi có thể giành lại một phần quyền kiểm soát đó và sống một cuộc đời có chủ đích hơn. Đúng rồi, chính xác. Và tôi nghĩ, đối với tôi, tôi bắt đầu sự nghiệp của mình bằng cách nghiên cứu bản chất của cảm xúc, nhưng thực sự, nó trở thành một chiếc đèn pin để hiểu cách bộ não hoạt động. Tại sao chúng ta lại có bộ não? Đó là một cơ quan rất đắt đỏ. Mảnh thịt giữa hai tai của bạn là cơ quan đắt đỏ nhất, về mặt trao đổi chất, mà bạn có. Vậy nó có ích gì? Chức năng cơ bản nhất của nó là gì? Nó hoạt động như thế nào liên quan đến cơ thể? Tôi nghĩ rằng chắc chắn trong chương trình của bạn, bạn đã có một số người nói về mối quan hệ giữa bộ não và cơ thể theo một cách nào đó. Nhưng tôi nghĩ các nhà khoa học trong một thời gian dài đã quên hoặc phớt lờ thực tế rằng bộ não gắn liền với một cơ thể, đúng không? Bởi vì chúng ta không cảm nhận được tất cả những kịch tính. Giống như ngay bây giờ, trong bạn, trong tôi, trong tất cả các thính giả của chúng ta, đúng không? Tất cả chúng ta đều có kiểu như kịch tính đang diễn ra. Nó thực sự khá mãnh liệt, và có rất nhiều điều đang diễn ra, và tôi hy vọng không ai trong số chúng ta đều nhận thức được điều đó. Nếu bạn nhận thức được điều đó, tôi thật sự rất tiếc. Nó có thể có nghĩa là, bạn biết đấy, bạn không cảm thấy tốt hôm nay. Nhưng điều tốt là chúng ta không nhận thức được những gì đang xảy ra bên trong cơ thể của chính mình hầu hết thời gian, vì nếu không, chúng ta sẽ không bao giờ quan tâm đến bất cứ điều gì bên ngoài da của chúng ta nữa, đúng không? Nhưng vấn đề là trong khoa học, nó thường bắt đầu bằng việc bắt đầu từ trải nghiệm chủ quan của chính bạn và sau đó cố gắng chính thức hóa điều đó. Và, ý tôi là, nếu bạn nhìn vào bất kỳ khoa học nào, vật lý cũng như vậy. Bạn chỉ cần quay ngược lại vài trăm năm hoặc có thể lâu hơn một chút để thấy điều đó. Và vì vậy, hóa ra rằng nhiều gì bạn trải nghiệm như những đặc tính của thế giới, về cách thế giới là, thực sự rất gắn liền với cách bộ não bạn điều chỉnh cơ thể của bạn. Và vì vậy tôi đoán tôi – tôi đã bắt đầu với cảm xúc, nhưng thực sự nó trở thành một dự án lớn hơn nhiều để cố gắng hiểu rằng, à, bộ não là gì? Nó được cấu trúc như thế nào? Nó đã tiến hóa như thế nào? Nó hoạt động như thế nào? Chức năng cơ bản nhất của nó là gì? Và tư tưởng, cảm xúc và hành động, các cảm nhận, chúng đóng vai trò gì trong chức năng đó? Vậy là câu hỏi này có phần đảo ngược, đúng không? Hầu hết mọi người bắt đầu bằng việc, cảm xúc là gì? Tư tưởng là gì? Ký ức là gì? Họ định nghĩa nó, và sau đó họ đi tìm cơ sở vật chất của nó trong bộ não hoặc trong cơ thể. Đó là một quan điểm khá cạn kiệt. Tôi có ý nói, sau một trăm năm, không có câu trả lời thực sự tốt. Vì vậy, chúng tôi đã đảo ngược nó và chúng tôi nói, được rồi, xét tới việc chúng ta có loại bộ não mà chúng ta có, nó có thể làm gì? Nó làm gì? Và trong chức năng bình thường của nó, nó tạo ra các sự kiện tâm lý như thế nào? Trong văn hóa của chúng ta, tư tưởng và cảm xúc và cảm nhận và hành động, trong những nền văn hóa khác, có những tập hợp tính năng khác nhau, đúng không? Vì vậy, đối với chúng ta, một tư tưởng và một tư tưởng và một cảm xúc thì rất khác biệt. Chúng ta trải nghiệm chúng như rất tách biệt. Thực tế, thực sự từ thời của Plato, chúng ta đã có kiểu như tài liệu này mà, bạn biết đấy, tâm trí hoặc bộ não là một chiến trường giữa các tư tưởng và cảm xúc của bạn, đúng không? Trong việc kiểm soát hành động của bạn, nếu tư tưởng của bạn thắng, bạn là một sinh vật lý trí, bạn là một sinh vật khỏe mạnh, bạn là một sinh vật đạo đức. Nếu bản năng và cảm xúc của bạn thắng, bạn biết đấy, con quái vật bên trong bạn, thì bạn trở nên vô trách nhiệm, bạn trẻ con, bạn vô đạo đức, bạn có vấn đề về tâm thần. Đó là câu chuyện mà chúng tôi làm việc trong đó. Trong một số nền văn hóa, tư tưởng và cảm xúc không tách rời. Chúng thực sự không phải là bạn có chúng cùng lúc, mà chúng là một thứ. Chúng là các đặc điểm của một sự kiện tâm lý duy nhất. Trong một số nền văn hóa, cơ thể và tâm trí của bạn không tách rời. Không có trải nghiệm nào riêng biệt giữa một cảm giác vật lý và một cảm xúc tâm lý. Chúng thực sự là một thứ. Vì vậy, tâm trí của chúng ta không phải là bản chất con người, nó chỉ là một bản chất con người, và cũng có những bản chất con người khác. Và chúng ta phải tìm ra cách mà kế hoạch não bộ tổng quát, một kế hoạch cơ thể tổng quát cho một con người bình thường, sản xuất ra sự biến đổi rộng lớn như vậy tùy thuộc vào ngữ cảnh văn hóa nơi nó phát triển. Liên quan đến khoa học thần kinh và hiểu bộ não và cách chúng ta tạo ra thực tại, có phải có một khoảnh khắc “eureka” đối với bạn khi bạn nhận ra rằng hầu hết trong số chúng ta đều hiểu sai? Hoặc rằng có một hiểu lầm cơ bản về cách bộ não của chúng ta tạo ra thực tại của chúng ta? Tôi sẽ nói, vâng, chắc chắn, có một khoảnh khắc “eureka”, nhưng nó là một quá trình dài và chậm. Khi tôi là sinh viên sau đại học, tôi không nghiên cứu cảm xúc. Tôi nghiên cứu về cái tôi. Bạn nghĩ về bản thân mình như thế nào? Thế nào là sự tự tin của bạn? Bạn hình dung về bản thân mình như thế nào? Đây là một chủ đề quan trọng trong tâm lý học. Và tôi đã đo lường cảm xúc như một biến đầu ra, và các phép đo không, các phép đo không hoạt động. Và tôi nghĩ, vâng, tôi cần phải có thể đo lường một cách khách quan khi ai đó tức giận hoặc khi họ buồn hoặc khi họ hạnh phúc. Tôi không muốn phải hỏi họ, vì họ có thể sai. Và trong cách đặt câu hỏi đó, có một giả định, đúng không, rằng có một trạng thái khách quan gọi là tức giận, rằng nhìn chung, hầu hết các trường hợp tức giận sẽ trông giống nhau bất kể người và bối cảnh. Và tôi rất nhanh chóng nhận ra rằng không có bản chất nào mà bất kỳ ai đã có thể khám phá ra, đúng không? Vì vậy, gần đây, trong vài năm qua, các nhà nghiên cứu đã thực hiện một phân tích tổng hợp, tức là một tóm tắt thống kê lớn của hàng trăm và hàng trăm và hàng trăm thí nghiệm. Và những gì họ phát hiện ra là, và chỉ trong các nền văn hóa đô thị, đúng không? Chúng tôi thậm chí không nói về các nền văn hóa xa xôi bây giờ. Chỉ trong các nền văn hóa đô thị, khi ai đó tức giận, mọi người sẽ nhăn mặt khoảng 35% thời gian khi họ tức giận. Một cái nhăn mặt thì giống như một… Giống như một cái nhăn mặt, như một…
    Đúng rồi, bạn biết đấy, bạn nhíu mày, bạn cau mày, đúng không?
    Được rồi.
    Nhưng điều đó có nghĩa là 65% thời gian khi mọi người tức giận, họ đang làm điều gì đó có nghĩa với khuôn mặt của họ.
    Và một nửa thời gian khi mọi người cau có, họ không tức giận, họ đang cảm thấy điều gì đó khác.
    Họ có thể đang tập trung rất cao độ.
    Bạn có thể vừa kể cho họ một câu đùa tồi.
    Họ có thể bị đầy bụng.
    Bạn biết đấy, cái cau mày không phải là biểu cảm của sự tức giận.
    Nó có thể là biểu cảm của sự tức giận trong một số bối cảnh.
    Và nó cũng là biểu cảm của các trạng thái khác trong các bối cảnh khác.
    Vì vậy, điều này có nghĩa là, bạn biết đấy, không có một biểu cảm nào thật sự đáng tin cậy cho sự tức giận mà chỉ riêng cho sự tức giận.
    Và điều này cũng đúng cho mọi cảm xúc khác đã từng được nghiên cứu.
    Rất rõ ràng là bạn đang trong trạng thái tức giận hay buồn bã hay chọn bất kỳ cảm xúc nào.
    Bạn biết đấy, nhịp tim của bạn có thể tăng lên, có thể giảm xuống, hoặc có thể giữ nguyên.
    Huyết áp của bạn có thể tăng lên, có thể giảm xuống, hoặc có thể giữ nguyên.
    Sinh lý học đang diễn ra trong cơ thể bạn liên quan đến sự chuẩn bị của não bộ cho các hành vi cụ thể.
    Vậy nên hãy bắt đầu từ đó.
    Vậy não dự đoán là ý tưởng mà tôi chỉ biết từ bạn.
    Tôi chưa bao giờ nghe thấy điều này trước đây.
    Khi chúng ta nói về não dự đoán, điều đó có nghĩa là gì?
    Và điều đó không có nghĩa là gì?
    Vì vậy, khi bạn sống cuộc sống hàng ngày của mình.
    Vâng.
    Như ngay bây giờ.
    Như ngay bây giờ.
    Vậy ngay bây giờ, tôi đoán rằng tôi đang nói những điều với bạn và bạn đang cảm nhận những gì tôi nói và sau đó bạn đang phản ứng với điều đó.
    Đó là cảm giác của bạn đúng không?
    Ừ.
    Được rồi.
    Và đó cũng là cảm giác của tôi.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta cảm nhận và sau đó chúng ta phản ứng.
    Đó là cách mà hầu hết mọi người trải nghiệm bản thân trong thế giới.
    Thực ra, điều đó không phải là những gì đang diễn ra bên trong.
    Thực sự đang diễn ra là não, não của bạn không phản ứng, nó đang dự đoán.
    Và điều đó có nghĩa là nếu chúng ta ngừng thời gian ngay bây giờ, chỉ cần dừng lại, não của bạn sẽ ở trong một trạng thái và nó sẽ nhớ lại những trải nghiệm trong quá khứ tương tự như trạng thái này như một cách để dự đoán những gì sẽ làm tiếp theo.
    Chẳng hạn, trong khoảnh khắc tiếp theo.
    Mắt của bạn có nên di chuyển không?
    Nhịp tim của bạn có nên tăng lên không?
    Hơi thở của bạn có nên thay đổi không?
    Mạch máu của bạn có nên giãn nở hay co lại không?
    Bạn có nên chuẩn bị để đứng dậy không?
    Đúng không?
    Vì vậy, bên trong não bạn đang dự đoán những chuyển động mà nó nên thực hiện tiếp theo.
    Và vì vậy, bạn sẽ trải nghiệm những gì sẽ xảy ra do những chuyển động đó.
    Vì vậy, bạn hành động trước và sau đó bạn cảm nhận.
    Bạn không cảm nhận rồi mới phản ứng.
    Bạn dự đoán hành động và sau đó bạn cảm nhận.
    Vậy hãy đưa tôi một ví dụ để làm rõ việc não của tôi đang dự đoán và sau đó hành động.
    Được rồi.
    Vì vậy, ngay bây giờ bạn và tôi đang có một cuộc trò chuyện và tôi đang nói và bạn đang lắng nghe.
    Và điều thực sự đang diễn ra trong não của bạn là dựa trên hàng triệu lần lặp lại việc nghe ngôn ngữ, não của bạn đang dự đoán, thực sự dự đoán từng từ sẽ phát ra từ miệng tôi.
    Ừ.
    Được rồi.
    Và điều đó sẽ gây ngạc nhiên như thế nào nếu tôi không nói là miệng, mà tôi nói ra một lỗ nào đó khác trên cơ thể tôi mà âm thanh phát ra từ đó.
    Điều đó sẽ thật sự gây ngạc nhiên vì não của bạn đang dự đoán điều đó.
    Não của bạn luôn dự đoán và nó sẽ chỉnh sửa những dự đoán đó khi chúng không chính xác.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, tôi có một video mà tôi thường chiếu khi tôi thuyết trình cho các nhà khoa học hoặc cho dân thường.
    Tôi đang thuyết trình và nó tạo ra một tình huống mà họ có thể dự đoán điều gì đó và họ có thể cảm thấy rằng một dự đoán không chỉ là một suy nghĩ trừu tượng.
    Suy nghĩ, não của bạn thực sự đang thay đổi sự phát xung của chính các nơ-ron cảm giác của nó để dự đoán các cảm giác sắp tới.
    Vì vậy, bạn bắt đầu cảm thấy những cảm giác này trước khi các tín hiệu thực sự đến để bạn nhận biết chúng.
    Bạn bắt đầu có trải nghiệm trước khi thế giới đưa cho bạn những tín hiệu đó.
    Tôi đã đọc, tôi nghĩ là trong cuốn sách của bạn, nhưng có thể là ở nơi khác về ví dụ về việc khát nước.
    Vì vậy, khi bạn uống, giả sử bạn rất khát và bạn uống một cốc nước lớn, khi nào bạn không còn khát nữa?
    Hầu như ngay lập tức.
    Nhưng thực ra, mất 20 phút để nước được hấp thụ vào dòng máu của bạn và đi đến não để báo cho não rằng bạn không còn cần chất lỏng nữa.
    Vì trong hàng triệu cơ hội, bạn đã học rằng một số cử động nhất định ở hiện tại và một số tín hiệu cảm giác nhất định ở hiện tại sẽ dẫn đến trạng thái tâm lý đó.
    Hoặc đây là một ví dụ khác.
    Vậy ngay bây giờ, hãy giữ mắt bạn trên tôi.
    Bạn đang nhìn thẳng vào tôi.
    Và trong mắt tâm trí của bạn, tôi muốn bạn tưởng tượng một quả táo Macintosh, như không phải là một máy tính, mà là một miếng trái cây thực tế.
    Được rồi.
    Bạn có thể làm điều đó không?
    Có.
    Bạn có thấy không?
    Có.
    Nó có màu gì?
    Xanh.
    Được rồi.
    Nó có màu đỏ không?
    Không.
    Được rồi.
    Vậy đó là một quả táo Granny Smith.
    Ừ.
    Được rồi.
    Nó có vị gì?
    Hãy tưởng tượng, tưởng tượng rằng bạn đang nắm lấy nó.
    Ừ.
    Cắn vào nó.
    Nghe tiếng giòn của quả táo.
    Nó có vị gì?
    Nó ngọt.
    Có chút chua có phải không?
    Ừ, ừ.
    Ừ.
    Nó có nước không?
    Rất nhiều nước.
    Ừ.
    Vì vậy, nếu tôi đang chụp ảnh não của bạn ngay bây giờ, những gì tôi sẽ thấy là tôi sẽ thấy sự thay đổi trong tín hiệu liên quan đến hoạt động thần kinh trong vỏ não thị giác của bạn, ngay cả khi không có quả táo trước mặt bạn.
    Và tôi sẽ thấy sự thay đổi trong hoạt động trong vỏ não thính giác của bạn, ngay cả khi bạn không thực sự nghe thấy tiếng giòn.
    Miệng của tôi cũng đang ứa nước bọt.
    Và miệng của bạn đang ứa nước bọt.
    Và thực tế, mỗi lần bạn ngồi xuống để ăn, não của bạn chỉ đạo các tuyến nước bọt của bạn sản xuất nhiều nước bọt hơn để chuẩn bị cho bạn ăn và tiêu hóa thức ăn.
    Điều đó thường xảy ra trước cả khi ngồi xuống để ăn.
    Tất cả điều đó là dự đoán.
    Tất cả những điều đó là não của bạn đang chuẩn bị cho những gì sắp đến.
    Bởi vì dự đoán và điều chỉnh là một cách hiệu quả hơn để điều hành một hệ thần kinh, thực sự bất kỳ hệ thống nào, hơn là phản ứng với thế giới.
    Đây là một ví dụ khác.
    Bạn có uống cà phê không?
    Có.
    Được rồi.
    Bạn có uống cà phê mỗi ngày vào cùng một thời điểm không?
    Thường thì có.
    Được rồi.
    Và bạn có phải là một trong những người nếu bỏ lỡ cà phê vào thời điểm đó thì sẽ bị đau đầu không?
    Ý tôi là, điều đó đã xảy ra trước đây.
    Vâng.
    Ồ, tôi từng là một người uống rất nhiều cà phê.
    Và tôi thích cà phê, nhưng tôi không uống nữa.
    Nhưng tôi thích nó.
    Và tôi luôn uống vào cùng một thời điểm mỗi ngày.
    Và nếu tôi không uống, vào thời điểm đó trong ngày, tôi sẽ bị đau đầu dữ dội.
    Và lý do là, điều này thực sự đúng với mọi loại thuốc bạn dùng, mọi thứ nào ảnh hưởng đến sinh lý của bạn, nếu bạn làm điều đó thường xuyên, thì bộ não của bạn sẽ bắt đầu mong đợi điều đó.
    Và điều đó có nghĩa là, mong đợi điều đó, là cà phê có các hóa chất có thể làm co mạch máu của bạn ở khắp mọi nơi.
    Nhưng trong não, não đang cố gắng giữ lưu lượng máu ổn định và đồng đều.
    Vì vậy, nếu mỗi ngày vào lúc 8 giờ sáng, bạn uống thứ gì đó sẽ làm co mạch máu, thì vào khoảng 7:55, tôi không biết thời gian chính xác, nhưng một chút trước 8 giờ, bộ não của bạn sẽ giãn nở các mạch máu.
    Để chuẩn bị cho sự co thắt đó, vì vậy chúng duy trì ổn định.
    Và nếu bạn không uống chất đó, thì bạn sẽ có sự giãn nở lớn và bị một cơn đau đầu rất, rất tồi tệ.
    Tôi chỉ tự hỏi về điều đó, khi bạn đang nói, tôi nghĩ bạn sẽ nói về việc đôi khi khi tôi đặt báo thức, tôi dường như thức dậy trước báo thức khoảng năm phút.
    Vâng, chắc chắn rồi.
    Đó là một ví dụ.
    Đây là một ví dụ khác.
    Tập thể dục.
    Nếu bạn muốn chơi quần vợt tốt hơn, nếu bạn muốn chạy một dặm nhanh hơn, bạn sẽ làm gì?
    Tập luyện.
    Tập luyện.
    Và bạn thực hiện cùng một động tác nhiều lần.
    Và bạn trở nên tốt hơn và nhanh hơn.
    Và bạn tiêu tốn ít calo hơn.
    Bạn trở nên hiệu quả hơn.
    Tại sao?
    Bởi vì bộ não của bạn dự đoán rất tốt.
    Đó chính là cơ chế nhớ cơ bắp.
    Nó không phải là một trí nhớ thực sự trong cơ bắp của bạn.
    Đó là một trí nhớ trong bộ não của bạn.
    Bộ não của bạn điều khiển các cơ bắp của bạn.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn thực hành cùng một bộ động tác nhiều lần, bạn sẽ trở nên rất hiệu quả với chúng vì bộ não của bạn có thể dự đoán tốt hơn.
    Bây giờ, nếu bạn là người tập thể dục vì bạn muốn trở nên khỏe mạnh hơn hoặc bạn muốn giảm cân hoặc bạn, đúng không, bạn không muốn tập cùng một bài tập lặp đi lặp lại vì bạn sẽ tiêu tốn ít calo hơn do bạn đang trở nên hiệu quả.
    Đó là mục tiêu, đúng không?
    Nếu ai đó gọi bạn mỗi 30 giây với một bộ động tác khác nhau và bạn không thể dự đoán chúng là gì, thì bộ não của bạn sẽ đưa ra một dự đoán.
    Nó sẽ sai.
    Bạn sẽ phải điều chỉnh.
    Và vì vậy bạn sẽ tiêu tốn nhiều calo hơn và bạn sẽ tự mất cân bằng, mà chúng ta gọi là allostasis.
    Vì vậy, bạn trở nên mất cân bằng và sau đó bộ não của bạn phải làm việc để đưa nó trở lại.
    Và đó là một hình thức tập luyện khác.
    Hai hình thức tập luyện khác nhau này hoàn toàn dựa trên thực tế rằng đôi khi bạn muốn có thể dự đoán tốt hơn.
    Đôi khi bạn muốn có thể phá vỡ bản thân và nhanh chóng quay trở lại, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, về cơ bản, bạn đang học cách tiếp nhận lỗi dự đoán, những tín hiệu bạn không thể dự đoán, và điều chỉnh với chúng.
    Điều này nói gì về bản chất của chấn thương và các bệnh tâm thần khác như trầm cảm, lo âu, v.v.?
    Bởi vì đây có phải là một sự sai lệch trong dự đoán của tôi không?
    Tôi nói điều này vì dự đoán dựa vào một cái gì đó xảy ra trong quá khứ và hình thành một khuôn mẫu, giống như một hệ thống nhận diện khuôn mẫu.
    Vì vậy, nếu tôi lớn lên và có những khuôn mẫu mà giờ đây không còn.
    Nếu tôi lớn lên và mỗi lần một người đàn ông bước vào phòng, anh ta đánh tôi.
    Và bây giờ khi một người đàn ông bước vào phòng và tôi 35 tuổi, tôi đang nhận được dự đoán tương tự trong bộ não.
    Vì vậy, tôi có nỗi sợ hãi với đàn ông, ví dụ như vậy.
    Điều này có phần nào giải thích chấn thương thời thơ ấu và tại sao việc quên đi nó lại khó khăn và tại sao khi là người lớn chúng ta đôi khi phải sống những cuộc đời không bình thường?
    Tôi sẽ nói rằng, một nguyên tắc chung, thì đúng vậy.
    Có rất nhiều, bạn biết đấy, quỷ nằm trong chi tiết, đúng không?
    Nhưng vâng, chắc chắn.
    Vì vậy, chấn thương không phải là điều gì đó xảy ra trong thế giới đối với bạn.
    Mọi thứ bạn trải qua là sự kết hợp giữa quá khứ đã nhớ và hiện tại cảm nhận.
    Có thể có một sự kiện bất lợi xảy ra.
    Bạn đang ở trong một trận động đất.
    Ai đó bị chết gần bạn.
    Một điều gì đó tồi tệ xảy ra với bạn.
    Ai đó làm tổn thương bạn theo một cách nào đó.
    Có thể có một sự kiện bất lợi không phải là chấn thương đối với bạn.
    Bởi vì bạn không sử dụng những trải nghiệm trong quá khứ để hiểu rõ nó như một chấn thương.
    Ngược lại, một điều gì đó có thể, với người khác, là trải nghiệm hàng ngày, với bạn lại gắn liền với một loạt kỷ niệm rất chấn thương.
    Chúng rất chấn thương.
    Những sự kiện đó rất chấn thương.
    Và vì vậy đối với bạn, đó là một chấn thương.
    Vì vậy, chấn thương không phải là một cái gì đó khách quan trong thế giới.
    Cũng không hoàn toàn trong tâm trí bạn.
    Chấn thương là một thuộc tính của mối quan hệ giữa những gì đã xảy ra với bạn trong quá khứ và những gì đang xảy ra trong hiện tại.
    Đây là một ví dụ.
    Có một nhà nhân chủng học đang làm việc tại Đại học Emory.
    Và cô ấy nghiên cứu người dân ở nhiều nền văn hóa khác nhau.
    Và cô ấy nghiên cứu chấn thương trong nhiều nền văn hóa khác nhau.
    Và có một cô gái mà cô ấy đã viết về, một nghiên cứu trường hợp của một cô gái tên là Maria, cô ấy là một thiếu nữ trẻ.
    Và cô ấy sống trong một nền văn hóa nơi mà việc đàn ông có thể rất mạnh mẽ với phụ nữ và gái trẻ là điều bình thường hơn.
    Vì vậy, trong văn hóa của chúng ta, chúng ta sẽ nói đó là bạo lực thể chất.
    Nhưng trong văn hóa của cô ấy, đây chỉ là những gì đàn ông làm.
    Cô ấy không cảm thấy, vì vậy, cha kế của cô ấy đã đánh cô ấy.
    Và cô ấy không thích điều đó.
    Nhưng cô ấy không có dấu hiệu nào của chấn thương.
    Cách cô ấy hiểu điều đó là: đàn ông chỉ là những kẻ ngốc.
    Nó thực sự là một kiểu, đây không phải là về tôi.
    Đây là về họ.
    Nó không dễ chịu, nhưng cô ấy vẫn ngủ tốt.
    Điểm số của cô ấy ở trường cũng tốt.
    Cô ấy có bạn bè.
    Cô ấy không có bất kỳ dấu hiệu nào của chấn thương cả.
    Rồi cô ấy đã xem Oprah.
    Cô ấy đã nghe tất cả những người phụ nữ này nói về việc từng là nạn nhân của lạm dụng thể xác từ bạn trai, cha hoặc, bạn biết đấy, chồng của họ.
    Cô ấy nhận ra sự tương đồng trong các tình huống thể chất mà những người phụ nữ này mô tả và tình huống thể chất của chính cô.
    Cô cũng quan sát thấy họ trải qua, như bạn biết đấy, các triệu chứng của chấn thương.
    Đột nhiên, cô bắt đầu gặp khó khăn trong việc ngủ.
    Điểm số của cô giảm xuống.
    Cô gặp khó khăn trong việc tập trung.
    Và cô trở nên cách ly với xã hội.
    Cách cô tạo ra ý nghĩa, cách cô, nếu bạn nghĩ về chuyển động thể chất như những hành động, cô đã tạo ra ý nghĩa khác về những hành động đó.
    Và cô trải qua chấn thương mà trước đây cô không cảm thấy.
    Bây giờ, nếu bạn là người tin rằng có một thế giới khách quan bên ngoài, nơi mà, bạn biết đấy.
    Nguyên nhân và hệ quả.
    Đúng vậy.
    Thực sự có một loại chấn thương tiềm ẩn nào đó trong cô và trước đây cô không trải qua, nhưng sau đó nó như được kích hoạt.
    Và sau đó cô có thể, bạn có thể kể một câu chuyện hoàn chỉnh như vậy và mọi người vẫn kể những câu chuyện hoàn chỉnh như vậy, nhưng đó không phải là những gì bằng chứng khoa học tốt nhất cho thấy đang xảy ra.
    Những gì đang xảy ra là các chuyển động thể chất vẫn giống nhau.
    Trải nghiệm tâm lý về những chuyển động đó là khác nhau bởi vì trải nghiệm là sự kết hợp của hiện tại cảm giác, hiện tại thể chất và quá khứ được ghi nhớ.
    Và bạn cần cả hai để có một loại trải nghiệm cụ thể.
    Vì vậy, cách mô tả điều gì đã xảy ra với quỹ đạo của Maria là cô đã trải qua điều gì đó như một khía cạnh không may của cuộc sống thể chất.
    Và sau đó điều đó trở thành về cô.
    Nó trở thành điều gì đó, không phải, không phải người này đang làm điều gì đó xấu, mà là người này đang làm điều gì đó xấu với cô vì chính ai cô là.
    Và cô cũng được chỉ cho cách mà cô nên phản ứng với điều đó bằng cách xem chương trình của Oprah và xem những cá nhân khác phản ứng theo một cách nhất định.
    Đúng vậy.
    Vì vậy, nó trở thành điều về cô như một con người, không chỉ là, bạn biết đấy, cha dượng của cô là một kẻ tồi tệ.
    Và nếu bạn nghĩ về nó, những gì chúng ta làm trong văn hóa này, khi mọi người đi trị liệu vì chấn thương, đúng vậy, là chúng ta đang cố gắng đảo ngược narrative.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta cố gắng dạy mọi người rằng không phải khi điều gì đó chấn thương xảy ra với họ, là, và tôi muốn nói rõ điều này, đúng không?
    Và tôi không nói rằng khi mọi người trải qua chấn thương, đó là lỗi của họ.
    Tôi không có ý nói rằng họ có trách nhiệm về những gì đã xảy ra với họ.
    Nhưng đôi khi trong cuộc sống, bạn có trách nhiệm thay đổi điều gì đó, không phải vì bạn có lỗi, mà vì bạn là người duy nhất có thể làm điều đó.
    Trách nhiệm thuộc về bạn.
    Và vì vậy trong văn hóa này, chúng ta cố gắng dạy những người đã trải qua chấn thương rằng họ có thể trải nghiệm những sự kiện thể chất đã xảy ra với họ trong quá khứ theo một cách khác.
    Và khi họ làm vậy, họ không còn cảm thấy bị chấn thương nữa.
    Cái tư duy của tôi cảm thấy choáng váng vì nhiều lý do khác nhau, vì đây là một sự chuyển mình thực sự khi nghĩ rằng chúng ta đang gán nghĩa cho những điều đã xảy ra trong quá khứ của mình.
    Và đôi khi ý nghĩa đó đến từ việc xem người khác gán nghĩa cho nó.
    Và chúng ta đang thừa hưởng ý nghĩa đó mà…
    Ồ, đúng vậy.
    Đó được gọi là di sản văn hóa.
    Nó giống như một văn hóa, giống như một sự lây lan.
    Vì vậy, hóa ra rằng, bạn biết đấy, có một loại lý thuyết tiến hóa cũ, đúng không?
    Được gọi là tổng hợp hiện đại, nơi di sản thực sự là gen của bạn.
    Bạn thừa hưởng, bất cứ điều gì bạn thừa hưởng, bạn thừa hưởng qua gen của bạn, và sau đó sự chọn lọc tự nhiên, bạn biết đấy, chọn một số mẫu gen và không chọn những cái khác.
    Và đó thực sự là cách di sản hoạt động qua các thế hệ.
    Phần lớn các nhà sinh học tiến hóa không còn giữ quan điểm đó nữa, bởi vì hầu hết, có rất nhiều cách để thừa hưởng mọi thứ.
    Và nhiều điều mà chúng ta nghĩ là di sản thực sự giống như cái được gọi là biến đổi biểu sinh, nghĩa là nó không liên quan nhiều đến DNA.
    Và tôi sẽ nói, cách mà tôi thích nói là chúng ta có các loại bản chất mà yêu cầu có sự nuôi dưỡng.
    Chúng ta có các loại gen mà yêu cầu kinh nghiệm trước khi bất cứ điều gì được định hình trong não của chúng ta.
    Và hầu hết các đặc điểm của chúng ta hoạt động theo cách đó.
    Rất ít đặc điểm chỉ hoạt động chỉ bằng gen thôi.
    Điều luôn xảy ra trong một bộ não bình thường là bạn được sinh ra với bộ não chưa hoàn chỉnh, đúng không?
    Một bộ não trưởng thành, chúng ta nói rằng nó được định hình cho thế giới của nó.
    Thế giới đó bao gồm chính cơ thể bạn.
    Nhưng một đứa trẻ không phải là, bộ não của một đứa trẻ không phải là bộ não của người lớn thu nhỏ.
    Nó là một bộ não đang chờ đợi các chỉ dẫn về cách định hình từ thế giới và từ chính cơ thể của nó.
    Vì vậy, não của bạn được định hình để bạn có thể nhìn ra ngoài bằng đôi mắt mà được đặt ở khoảng cách chính xác từ nhau.
    Nếu bằng cách nào đó, bạn biết đấy, kỳ diệu, chúng ta có thể cấy ghép bộ não của bạn vào sọ của người khác, bạn sẽ không thể nhìn ra ngoài từ sọ đó.
    Bạn sẽ không thể nhìn ra ngoài bằng những đôi mắt đó vì chúng không ở đúng vị trí.
    Bạn nghe bằng tai, khả năng nghe của bạn đến từ các tín hiệu được định hình bởi hình dạng của tai bạn.
    Vì vậy, não của bạn được định hình để nghe bằng những tai này, chứ không phải bất kỳ tai nào, những tai này.
    Tương tự, bạn, khi còn là một đứa trẻ, bạn được dạy những ý nghĩa của các tín hiệu thể chất.
    Bạn được dạy cách để hiểu những điều này.
    Đó được gọi là di sản văn hóa.
    Nhiều điều mà chúng ta nghĩ là được lập trình sẵn vào não thực sự được thừa hưởng văn hóa qua các thế hệ.
    Đó là cách mà mọi người sống sót trong một môi trường cụ thể.
    Bạn biết đấy, vào những năm 1800 và 1900 khi những người khám phá ra ngoài và đi đến Antarctica hoặc đâu đó và họ nhanh chóng chết.
    Người Inuit sống ở đó.
    Họ sống rất ổn.
    Thực ra là vì họ có kiến thức được thừa hưởng văn hóa.
    Chúng ta luôn truyền tải kiến thức cho nhau.
    Và kiến thức đó trở thành thức ăn cho các dự đoán của chính chúng ta.
    Vì vậy, các dự đoán của bạn không chỉ đến từ kinh nghiệm cá nhân của bạn.
    Chúng cũng đến từ việc bạn xem ti vi, bạn nói chuyện với khách, bạn đọc sách, xem phim.
    Cũng như phần lớn bộ não của con người, bộ não của bạn có khả năng làm điều gì đó thực sự tuyệt vời, đó là bạn có thể lấy các mảnh ghép của kinh nghiệm trong quá khứ và kết hợp chúng lại theo một cách hoàn toàn mới, để bạn có thể sử dụng quá khứ để trải nghiệm một điều gì đó mới mà bạn chưa bao giờ trải qua trước đây.
    Bạn đã nói cách đây một giây rằng các nhà trị liệu cố gắng khiến bạn nghĩ về quá khứ theo một cách khác. Nhưng tôi thật sự nghĩ rằng có một niềm tin tiềm ẩn trong nền văn hóa và xã hội của chúng ta, trên mạng xã hội, rằng nếu điều gì đó xảy ra với bạn, gần như như một cách tiếp cận Freudian rằng nếu điều này xảy ra với bạn, đây chính là con người bạn trở thành.
    Tôi đã đọc cuốn sách “Courage to be disliked” trong dịp Giáng sinh và nó đã thay đổi quan điểm của tôi về điều này một cách sâu sắc và quan trọng, vì nó giúp tôi hiểu. Tôi nghĩ nó cơ bản nói rằng những gì xảy ra với chúng ta không tạo ra con người chúng ta. Chúng ta sử dụng những gì xảy ra với chúng ta và áp dụng ý nghĩa cho nó, điều này sẽ xác định hành vi của chúng ta.
    Và điều thú vị là, điều này đồng nghĩa với việc nhiều niềm tin mà tôi có về chính mình, về việc tôi nói tôi là ai, danh tính của tôi và vì vậy những cách mà tôi hành xử hàng ngày, cho dù chúng có hiệu quả hay không, thực ra chỉ là những lựa chọn tôi đã đưa ra để áp dụng ý nghĩa cho quá khứ.
    Có phải điều đó có nghĩa không? Hoàn toàn có nghĩa.
    Và đây thực sự là một điều sâu sắc, tôi không biết bất kỳ ai đang nghe hiện tại có hiểu những gì tôi đang nói không, nhưng chúng ta đã nói ở đầu cuộc trò chuyện này rằng bạn sống qua cuộc đời này trong suy nghĩ rằng bạn là một con rối và bạn bị điều khiển bởi những gì đã xảy ra với bạn, ai là bạn, danh tính của bạn. Nhưng thực tế, danh tính của bạn chỉ là một cấu trúc ý nghĩa mà bạn đã đưa ra cho quá khứ để phục vụ mục đích hiện tại của bạn, như cuốn sách nói.
    Đúng, tôi sẽ nói điều đó hơi khác một chút, nhưng thông điệp là như nhau. Tôi nghĩ trong khoảnh khắc cảm giác hiện tại, đúng không, có những hình ảnh, âm thanh, mùi vị, có những thứ đang diễn ra bên trong cơ thể của bạn, đúng không? Và những tín hiệu này đang gửi tới não của bạn. Chúng không có ý nghĩa tâm lý vốn có. Chúng không có ý nghĩa cảm xúc vốn có. Chúng không có ý nghĩa tinh thần vốn có. Điều mà tạo ra ý nghĩa cho chúng là những ký ức của bạn từ quá khứ. Bạn đang tạo ra, bạn là một người tạo ra ý nghĩa. Ý nghĩa không phải là một tập hợp các đặc điểm như định nghĩa từ điển.
    Vậy ý nghĩa của cái cốc này không phải là nó được làm từ kim loại và chúng ta chắc chắn có thể nói về những đặc điểm đó, nhưng ý nghĩa của cái cốc này trong khoảnh khắc này là những gì tôi làm với nó. Nó có thể là một cái bình để uống. Nó có thể là một vũ khí. Nó có thể là, bạn biết đấy, một chiếc bình hoa. Nó có thể là một cốc đo lường. Ý nghĩa của cái bình là những gì tôi làm với nó trong khoảnh khắc. Đó là ý nghĩa của nó. Và vì vậy, ý nghĩa của cái bình không nằm trong cái bình. Nó cũng không chỉ nằm trong đầu tôi. Ý nghĩa là sự giao dịch. Đó là mối quan hệ giữa các đặc điểm của cái bình này, đối tượng này, và các tín hiệu trong não tôi, điều đang tạo ra hành động của tôi.
    Thực tế, ngay cả việc cái này là một đối tượng rắn, thuộc tính rắn chắc không nằm trong đối tượng. Đó là vì tôi có một cơ thể thuộc loại nhất định với những đặc điểm nhất định khiến tôi trải nghiệm cái này như một đối tượng rắn. Tính rắn chắc không nằm trong tôi và cũng không nằm trong đối tượng. Nó nằm trong mối quan hệ giữa hai bên. Điều đó có nghĩa là mọi thứ, mọi trải nghiệm bạn có đều phần nào do chính bạn tạo ra. Bạn không có cảm giác tác động về điều đó vì nó xảy ra thật tự động. Nó đang xảy ra tự động ngay lúc này khi chúng ta đang nói chuyện. Nó xảy ra nhanh hơn bạn có thể chớp mắt. Nhưng nó vẫn đang diễn ra. Điều đó có nghĩa là nếu bạn là một phần, ngay cả khi bạn không có cảm giác tác động, bạn cũng một phần nào đó kiểm soát và vì vậy cũng có trách nhiệm cho ý nghĩa đang được tạo ra.
    Và khi tôi nói ở đầu cuộc trò chuyện rằng mục tiêu của tôi là cố gắng, như một người truyền thông khoa học, cố gắng giải thích cho mọi người rằng họ có nhiều kiểm soát hơn trong cuộc sống của họ. Họ có nhiều kiểm soát hơn về việc họ là ai trong bất kỳ khoảnh khắc nào hơn là họ nghĩ. Để mang lại cho họ nhiều khả năng hơn trong cuộc sống của họ. Đây chính xác là những gì tôi có ý nghĩa.
    Bạn không có một danh tính bền vững. Bạn là ai trong khoảnh khắc hành động của bạn. Và hành động là sự kết hợp giữa quá khứ đã được nhớ lại, những thứ mà bộ não bạn đang sử dụng để dự đoán, mà bộ não bạn tự động lắp ráp, và hiện tại cảm giác, đúng không?
    Vậy nếu bạn muốn thay đổi ai đó, bạn muốn thay đổi những gì bạn cảm nhận, bạn muốn thay đổi tác động của bạn đến người khác, bạn có vài lựa chọn. Bạn có thể cố gắng quay trở lại quá khứ và thay đổi ý nghĩa của những gì đã xảy ra trước đây để bạn sẽ nhớ theo cách khác, bạn sẽ dự đoán khác trong tương lai. Đó chính là tâm lý học trị liệu. Đó chính là những cuộc trò chuyện chân thành lúc 2 giờ sáng với bạn bè của bạn, hay gì đó. Điều đó thực sự rất khó khăn. Nó không phải lúc nào cũng hiệu quả tốt.
    Cái khác mà bạn có thể làm là nếu bạn nhận ra rằng bất cứ điều gì bạn trải nghiệm bây giờ trở thành hạt giống cho những dự đoán sau này, thì bạn có thể đầu tư vào việc tạo ra những trải nghiệm mới một cách có chủ đích cho chính mình ngay bây giờ. Bạn có thể tiếp xúc với những ý tưởng mới, bạn có thể tiếp xúc với những người khác biệt với bạn, bạn có thể thực hành việc nuôi dưỡng những trải nghiệm cụ thể như bạn sẽ thực hành bất kỳ kỹ năng nào. Và bất kỳ khái niệm mới nào bạn học được, những trải nghiệm mới bạn có, trong khoảnh khắc, nếu bạn thực hành chúng, chúng sẽ trở thành những dự đoán tự động trong tương lai.
    Vậy hãy để tôi lấy điều đó và cố gắng áp dụng cho ví dụ về cái cốc bạc này trong tay tôi. Vậy tâm lý học trị liệu sẽ cố gắng quay lại quá khứ và giải thích cho tôi lý do tại sao đây thực sự không phải là thứ tôi nên uống và rằng nó có thể là những thứ khác. Trong khi đó, cách mà bạn đang nói là một cách tiếp cận khác là nếu tôi đi và lấy một ít hoa ngay bây giờ và tôi đặt chúng vào đó, tôi đang tạo ra một dự đoán mới cho tương lai vì tôi đã tạo ra một mẫu mới trong hiện tại rằng điều này thực sự là một cái bình cho hoa.
    Và tôi có thể bắt đầu tạo ra một mẫu mới rằng những chiếc cốc bạc như thế này không chỉ để uống, mà chúng còn là bình hoa cho hoa.
    Chính xác.
    Vậy, tôi có thể quay lại quá khứ và cố gắng thuyết phục bản thân rằng một chiếc cốc không phải là một chiếc cốc, hoặc tôi có thể, trong khoảnh khắc hiện tại, tạo ra một mẫu mới, điều này có nghĩa là trong tương lai, não tôi sẽ dự đoán lần tới khi thấy một chiếc cốc bạc, nó sẽ không chỉ nghĩ “uống từ cái này”, mà sẽ nghĩ “cho một ít hoa vào”.
    Đúng vậy, và nhớ rằng, thực ra, việc suy nghĩ diễn ra sau hành động, đúng không?
    Vậy điều sẽ xảy ra là lần tới khi bạn đi đến một cái bàn nơi có một chiếc cốc bạc, não bạn sẽ bắt đầu chuẩn bị các hành động để đi lấy hoa.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và sau đó bạn sẽ nghĩ, “Ô, đúng rồi, tôi có thể dùng cái này như một… ô, nhìn kìa, đó là một chiếc bình tuyệt vời”.
    Vì vậy, trong não bạn, là hành động, trước tiên não bạn đang điều khiển, nó đang chuẩn bị các hành động của bàng quang, cái mà chúng ta gọi là bàng quang vận động.
    Thì nhịp tim của bạn có cần thay đổi không?
    Các mạch máu của bạn có cần giãn không?
    Bạn có cần thở khác đi không?
    Cơ bản là nó tiên đoán nhu cầu của cơ thể và cố gắng đáp ứng những nhu cầu đó trước khi chúng xuất hiện.
    Điều đó hỗ trợ cho các chuyển động thể chất của bạn, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn đang đi tới đâu đó để lấy hoa và cắt thân cây và bất cứ điều gì khác, đó là tất cả những chuyển động thể chất cần glucose và oxy và các thứ như vậy,
    Tất cả những thứ đó phải được chuẩn bị trước, vài mili giây trước khi các hành động bắt đầu được chuẩn bị.
    Vì vậy, không phải những gì bạn nghĩ xác định những gì bạn cảm thấy.
    Mà là những gì bạn chuẩn bị để làm xác định suy nghĩ, cảm giác, hình ảnh, âm thanh, mùi và cảm giác của bạn.
    Đó là cách mà nó thực sự hoạt động bên trong.
    Vì vậy, ý nghĩa nằm ở những gì bạn làm.
    Và rồi, như là một hệ quả của điều đó, ý nghĩa là một hệ quả, nó trở thành cảm giác và suy nghĩ của bạn và các thứ tương tự.
    Vậy để tôi đưa ra một số ví dụ cụ thể nhé.
    Vậy nếu tôi sợ nhện, làm thế nào tôi có thể vượt qua nỗi sợ đó bằng cách sử dụng cách thứ hai mà bạn đã mô tả ở đó?
    Một trong những cách mà bạn thay đổi để thay đổi những dự đoán là bạn không thể chỉ muốn tự mình thay đổi một dự đoán.
    Tôi thực sự sợ ong.
    Tôi đã có một trải nghiệm chấn thương khi tôi năm tuổi.
    Tôi sợ ong.
    Tôi biết rất nhiều về ong.
    Thực ra tôi là một người làm vườn.
    Và tôi biết rất nhiều về sinh học tiến hóa của ong.
    Nhưng khi tôi ở ngoài trời, nếu một con ong đến gần, phản ứng đầu tiên của tôi là hoặc chạy đi hoặc đứng im.
    Đúng không?
    Tôi sợ ong.
    Tôi có thể nói chuyện với bản thân cho đến khi nào bò về nhà.
    Điều đó sẽ không quan trọng.
    Đúng không?
    Vì vậy, điều tôi phải làm là làm quen với sự sai lệch trong dự đoán, có nghĩa là tôi phải tương tác với ong theo một cách thay đổi hành động của tôi, điều này sẽ thay đổi trải nghiệm của tôi.
    Và tôi không thể chỉ làm điều đó ngay lập tức.
    Không phải là một ý tưởng hay khi tôi nói, không phải là ý tưởng hay khi tôi đến như một người có tổ ong và, bạn biết đấy, mặc bộ đồ và đi làm.
    Ý tôi là, điều đó sẽ quá tải.
    Đúng không?
    Vì vậy, thay vào đó, có thể tôi không chạy.
    Có thể tôi đứng lại và quan sát.
    Có thể tôi lại gần một con ong.
    Có thể tôi trồng những bụi cây và hoa mà ong rất thích để kéo ong đến gần tôi, để tôi có thể ngồi và chỉ ở xung quanh chúng khi chúng kêu vo ve và làm việc của chúng.
    Có thể tôi cố tình để cho mình bị chích vào một lúc nào đó, mà tôi đã làm.
    Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, bạn đang làm quen với bản thân và não bạn đang đưa ra một bộ dự đoán.
    Những dự đoán đó, có một bộ dự đoán.
    Điều đó có nghĩa là não bạn không chuẩn bị chỉ một hành động.
    Nó đang chuẩn bị nhiều hành động.
    Vì vậy, bạn cần phải chứng minh cho não của bạn thấy rằng những dự đoán đó là sai.
    Vâng, chính xác.
    Bạn cần, bạn đang thiết lập các hoàn cảnh để có thể chứng minh cho bản thân rằng những dự đoán của bạn là sai.
    Nếu bạn dự đoán tốt, bạn có một vài kế hoạch hành động.
    Nếu bạn dự đoán kém, hãy nói rằng bạn đang tổng quát hóa quá mức, có thể bạn có hàng trăm kế hoạch.
    Như nếu có sự không chắc chắn lớn lao, não bạn không biết nên chọn kế hoạch hành động nào, vì vậy có thể có nhiều kế hoạch.
    Các tín hiệu cảm giác đang đến não bạn từ các bề mặt cảm giác của cơ thể bạn, từ võng mạc của bạn, từ ốc tai của bạn.
    Bạn có các bề mặt cảm giác trên làn da của bạn, bên trong cơ thể bạn, trong các tế bào cơ của bạn.
    Tất cả những tín hiệu này đến não bạn.
    Chúng giúp chọn tín hiệu dự đoán nào sẽ được hoàn thành như hành động và trải nghiệm sống.
    Được rồi, giả sử bạn đặt mình một cách có chủ ý trong một tình huống mà các tín hiệu đến không chọn bất kỳ dự đoán nào vì có quá nhiều tín hiệu không thể dự đoán ở đó.
    Đó là lỗi.
    Có một cái tên khác trong tâm lý học cho việc tiếp nhận sự sai lệch trong dự đoán.
    Liệu pháp tiếp xúc?
    Học tập.
    Ô, được rồi.
    Vâng, liệu pháp tiếp xúc, đó là một loại học tập, tất cả việc học tập, tất cả việc học tập là bạn đang tiếp nhận lỗi dự đoán, những tín hiệu mà bạn đã không dự đoán, hoặc không có bất kỳ tín hiệu nào mà bạn đã dự đoán.
    Bạn đã dự đoán một tín hiệu, nó không tồn tại.
    Vì vậy, những gì bạn làm là bạn thiết lập các tình huống cho bản thân mà bạn sẽ tiếp nhận các tín hiệu mới lạ, đúng không?
    Và việc này dường như là một điều dễ thực hiện.
    Chúng ta, con người thực sự đôi khi tìm kiếm sự mới lạ, đúng không?
    Nhưng quá nhiều sự mới lạ không phải lúc nào cũng là điều tốt, đặc biệt nếu, bạn biết đấy, về mặt chuyển hóa, việc tiếp nhận sự sai lệch trong dự đoán và học điều mới là tốn kém về mặt chuyển hóa.
    Giống như những chi phí lớn nhất mà não bạn tiêu tốn năng lượng là di chuyển cơ thể của bạn, học điều mới và xử lý sự không chắc chắn kéo dài.
    Đó là những điều thực sự tốn kém đối với chúng ta.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn bị gánh nặng về mặt chuyển hóa theo một cách nào đó, hãy nói rằng bạn đang bị trầm cảm, hoặc bạn mắc rối loạn lo âu, hoặc có thể bạn mắc bệnh tim, hoặc tiểu đường, hoặc bạn đang sống trong tình trạng căng thẳng mãn tính, bạn không có đủ sức để tiếp nhận sự sai lệch trong dự đoán.
    Bạn sẽ chỉ đi theo những dự đoán của mình.
    Bạn sẽ không học.
    Bạn sẽ không có khả năng cập nhật những dự đoán đó.
    Bạn sẽ bị kẹt lại.
    Bạn sẽ bị kẹt trong đầu mình đúng không?
    Mỗi trải nghiệm, mỗi hành động, là sự kết hợp giữa hiện tại đã được nhớ, quá khứ đã được nhớ, những dự đoán và hiện tại cảm giác.
    Nhưng hiện tại cảm giác chỉ có mặt để chọn lựa quá khứ đã được nhớ mà bạn sẽ hành động dựa trên đó.
    Và đôi khi, trong những khoảnh khắc căng thẳng lớn, bộ não chỉ làm theo những dự đoán của nó và bỏ qua thế giới xung quanh.
    Tôi đã nghĩ đến chuyện đó khi bạn nói về loại lây nhiễm xã hội này, nơi mà chúng ta có thể gán ý nghĩa cho cuộc sống và những gì đã xảy ra với chúng ta, và do đó làm cho chúng ta buồn vì chúng ta thấy những người khác trên TikTok hoặc Instagram đang cảm thấy như thế nào.
    Và nó làm tôi nghĩ rằng bạn chắc hẳn nghĩ rằng thế giới này điên rồ ở một mức độ nào đó.
    Chắc chắn bạn thấy sự lây nhiễm xã hội trong thế giới, nơi mà đột nhiên mọi người trở nên bị tổn thương vì chấn thương đã trở nên gần như phổ biến, bạn biết đấy, khi nghĩ về những gì đã xảy ra với bạn và tạo ra ý nghĩa cho nó, và rồi phải chịu đựng cái ý nghĩa đó.
    Nhưng còn có những loại lây nhiễm xã hội khác đang lan rộng qua xã hội.
    Ý tôi là, giới trẻ đang ngày càng lo lắng hơn.
    Họ ngày càng trầm cảm hơn.
    Chúng ta tự chẩn đoán mình với những căn bệnh và những thứ khác nhau.
    Nhưng giờ đây bạn đã giải thích cho tôi cách bộ não hoạt động.
    Tôi đang nghĩ, ôi, với tư cách là một xã hội, chúng ta thật điên rồ.
    Vâng, chúng ta đang sống trong những lời nói dối.
    Ừ, tôi nghĩ, tôi đoán cách tôi làm, tôi thấy điều đó thật khó chịu đôi lúc, nhưng, nhưng chỉ vì tôi nghĩ rằng chúng ta là những người gán ý nghĩa, như là động vật chúng ta là những người tạo ra ý nghĩa.
    Chúng ta tạo ra ý nghĩa, chúng ta tạo ra ý nghĩa, chúng ta tạo ra ý nghĩa bởi vì sống, như là nhờ vào việc tương tác với những thứ trong thế giới, bằng cách tương tác với nhau.
    Rất ít ý nghĩa được đưa ra, tức là chúng tồn tại độc lập với chúng ta.
    Và vậy nên, điều tôi thấy khó chịu là có rất nhiều đau khổ, và việc hiểu những nguyên tắc hoạt động cơ bản của bộ não sẽ không xóa bỏ tất cả đau khổ, nhưng nó có thể giảm bớt, có thể loại bỏ một số điều.
    Và mọi người không hiểu rằng đôi khi họ làm cho đau khổ của mình trở nên tồi tệ hơn mức cần thiết.
    Bạn dừng lại ở từ trách nhiệm.
    Vâng, tôi muốn làm rõ rằng, một lần nữa, tôi không nói rằng mọi người chịu trách nhiệm.
    Trách nhiệm và sự đáng trách không phải là một.
    Sự đáng trách là sự đổ lỗi, bạn có xứng đáng bị đổ lỗi không?
    Đúng, không ai, tôi không nói rằng mọi người có trách nhiệm cho đau khổ của chính họ.
    Tôi đang nói rằng mọi người có thể có trách nhiệm hơn, và bằng cách nhận nhiều trách nhiệm hơn, họ có thể giảm bớt đau khổ của mình.
    Điều đó không giống như nói rằng, bạn biết đấy, đây là nguyên nhân của họ ngay từ đầu.
    Vì vậy, tôi sẽ đưa ra một ví dụ.
    Sự lây nhiễm xã hội.
    Lây nhiễm là một từ thú vị.
    Nó có nghĩa là bạn bị nhiễm một cái gì đó.
    Ngay cả một loại virus.
    Có những thí nghiệm được thực hiện 15, 20 năm trước, nơi mà, um, được thực hiện bởi Sheldon Cohen, người là một bác sĩ tâm lý miễn dịch, có nghĩa là ông ấy là một nhà tâm lý học.
    Và ông ấy nghiên cứu cách miễn dịch học, um, tức là hệ thống miễn dịch của bạn liên quan đến trạng thái tâm lý của bạn như thế nào.
    Vì vậy, điều ông ấy đã làm trong một số thí nghiệm là ông ấy đưa những người này vào cách ly trong các phòng khách sạn.
    Sau đó ông ấy đã lấy cùng một liều, cùng một nồng độ virus, và đặt nó vào mũi mỗi người.
    Và sau đó ông ấy kiểm soát lượng họ ngủ, lượng họ ăn.
    Ông ấy đã đo triệu chứng của họ.
    Ông ấy đã, như, cân các mô của họ sau khi họ xì mũi.
    Tôi nghĩa là, như vậy, ông ấy thực sự rất, rất, rất, rất cẩn thận với các số liệu.
    Và trong các thí nghiệm này, khoảng từ 20 đến 40% người đã trở nên có triệu chứng với bệnh hô hấp.
    Điều đó có nghĩa là virus là cần thiết, nhưng không đủ để gây bệnh.
    Một nguyên nhân cần thiết nhưng không đủ khác là trạng thái của hệ thống miễn dịch của mỗi người.
    Đó là, bộ não và hệ thống miễn dịch của bạn phải ở trong một trạng thái cụ thể để bạn bị nhiễm virus trong các thí nghiệm này.
    Vì vậy, điểm mà tôi đang làm ở đây cũng chính xác như vậy về đau khổ.
    Vì vậy, hãy lấy lo âu làm ví dụ.
    Bạn biết, chúng ta, trong một nền văn hóa, chúng ta tự động gán ý nghĩa cho các kiểu mẫu tín hiệu nhất định là lo âu.
    Khi có nhiều sự không chắc chắn, có sự gia tăng norepinephrine và một số hóa chất trong não.
    Điều đó thường đi kèm với sự gia tăng nhịp tim và vân vân.
    Và chúng ta tự động gán ý nghĩa cho trạng thái thể chất này là lo âu.
    Nhưng chính xác trạng thái thể chất giống hệt này có thể là quyết tâm.
    Nó có thể chỉ là sự không chắc chắn thuần túy.
    Một lần nữa, việc gán ý nghĩa là về hành động, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, khi bạn trải qua sự kích thích cao, ngay cả khi nó cực kỳ khó chịu như quyết tâm, bạn làm điều gì đó khác biệt so với khi bạn trải qua nó như là lo âu hay không chắc chắn.
    Vì vậy, đây là một ví dụ.
    Có những người trải qua lo âu thi cử.
    Lo âu thi cử thực sự nghiêm trọng khiến mọi người không thể hoàn thành khóa học hoặc tốt nghiệp đại học.
    Những người tốt nghiệp đại học có một quỹ đạo kiếm tiền trong suốt cuộc đời hơn hàng trăm ngàn đô la so với những người bỏ học.
    Vì vậy, lo âu thi cử lâu dài, nó không chỉ đơn thuần là một chút khó chịu.
    Bạn biết đấy, nó có những tác động nghiêm trọng đến khả năng kiếm tiền của bạn trong suốt cuộc đời.
    Có những thí nghiệm được thực hiện, nơi họ đã huấn luyện mọi người để hiểu các trạng thái thể chất kích thích cao không phải là lo âu, mà là quyết tâm.
    Và những người này đã học được điều này.
    Đầu tiên, họ thực hành như một kỹ năng.
    Nó giống như lái xe.
    Lúc đầu, thật sự rất khó.
    Bạn phải nỗ lực rất nhiều cho điều đó.
    Nhưng bạn thực hành, thực hành, thực hành, và sau đó cuối cùng nó trở thành tự động thật sự.
    Và sau đó điều gì xảy ra?
    Họ có thể làm bài kiểm tra.
    Họ có thể qua bài kiểm tra.
    Họ có thể tiếp tục tham gia các khóa học và vân vân.
    Tôi đã chứng kiến điều này xảy ra ngay trước mắt mình.
    Con gái tôi, khi cô ấy 12 tuổi, cô ấy đang thi lấy đai đen trong karate.
    Sensei của cô ấy là một người có đai đen cấp 10.
    Người này, đai đen cấp 10 là cấp cao nhất mà bạn có thể đạt được. Người này có thể đập gãy một chiếc bảng chỉ bằng cái nhìn. Anh ta là một người đáng sợ, rất đáng sợ. Và con gái tôi thì chưa đến năm feet khi cô ấy 12 tuổi. Cô ấy chỉ là một cô bé rất nhỏ nhắn. Cô ấy phải tham gia tập luyện với những cậu bé lớn khoảng 15, 16, 18 tuổi. Cô ấy thực sự phải giao lưu với họ. Và, bạn biết đấy, đây là trong suốt vài ngày. Cô ấy thực sự phải làm điều đó. Và tôi ngồi đó, với cô ấy, bạn biết đấy, tôi là bố của cô ấy, và chúng tôi ngồi đó. Chúng tôi đang quan sát cô ấy. Và vì vậy, thầy của cô ấy, bạn biết đấy, bước lại gần cô ấy và nói, “Cô bé, hãy để những con bướm của con bay theo hình thức.” Và tôi đã nghĩ, điều đó thật tuyệt vời. “Hãy để những con bướm của con bay theo hình thức.” Ông ấy không nói “bình tĩnh lại, cô bé.” Điều đó thực sự sẽ không tốt. Bạn không muốn bình tĩnh. Bạn cần sự hưng phấn đó. Nó có lý do của nó. Nó không thoải mái, nhưng bạn cần nó. Ông ấy đang nói, hãy sử dụng nó. Điều đó đối với tôi là một ví dụ hoàn hảo về việc tìm kiếm một ý nghĩa khác cho sự hưng phấn đó. Và ý nghĩa đó là hành động mà bạn sẽ tham gia vào. Dù có khó khăn thế nào, dù có không giống như nó nên thế nào, sự kiểm soát vẫn ở đó. Nó ở đó. Nó không phải lúc nào cũng có mặt. Nó khó để có được, bạn biết đấy, bla bla. Nhưng nó ở đó. Và điều đó có nghĩa là bạn có nhiều quyền tự chủ hơn. Bạn có nhiều quyền kiểm soát hơn. Bạn sẽ không bao giờ có được nhiều kiểm soát như bạn muốn. Luôn luôn khó khăn hơn để có được. Lựa chọn của bạn không phải lúc nào cũng giống nhau. Nhưng bạn luôn có thể tìm thấy một chút kiểm soát hơn đối với những gì bạn làm và những gì bạn trải nghiệm. Và đó là chìa khóa để sống một cuộc sống có ý nghĩa. Bạn có lo lắng về thế giới mà người trẻ đang lớn lên không, nơi mà họ đang cuộn trên mạng xã hội và mạng xã hội đang cho họ biết những cảm giác nhất định là gì. Vì vậy, họ đang bị lập trình liên tục. Có, đúng vậy. Để cảm thấy lo lắng, để cảm thấy trầm cảm, để cảm thấy buồn bã. Đúng vậy. Và hãy nghĩ về điều đó. Mạng xã hội là điều không chắc chắn xấu. Bạn biết đấy, trước hết, ngay cả khi chúng ta đang ngồi đối mặt với nhau, chúng ta có tất cả những tín hiệu này. Chúng ta có tất cả những dấu hiệu này. Tôi có thể nhìn thấy khuôn mặt của bạn. Tôi có thể nghe thấy giọng nói của bạn. Ngay cả khi tất cả thông tin này có sẵn, vẫn có một chút không chắc chắn, đúng không? Chúng ta không đọc được nhau. Các chuyển động cơ thể không phải là một ngôn ngữ để đọc. Đó là một phép ẩn dụ tồi, đúng không? Chúng ta luôn đoán. Chúng ta luôn đoán. Và chúng ta đang sử dụng rất nhiều tín hiệu để đoán. Nhưng khi bạn ở trên mạng xã hội, bạn có rất ít tín hiệu. Có rất nhiều sự mơ hồ. Có rất nhiều điều không chắc chắn. Và điều duy nhất bạn có thể làm là điền vào sự không chắc chắn đó bằng những dự đoán của riêng bạn, điều này có thể là sai, đúng không? Vì vậy, những người lên TikTok và bất cứ đâu đều từ bỏ, họ như tự nguyện từ bỏ quyền tự chủ của mình và họ không biết điều đó. Bạn có ý gì khi nói như vậy? Họ đang chọn để bị dẫn dắt. Họ đang chọn để bị ảnh hưởng. Tôi sẽ cho bạn một ví dụ. Tôi đã nghe các podcast về sự trao đổi chất. Tôi đã nghe các podcast về, bạn biết đấy, chăm sóc da. Tôi đã nghe các podcast. Bạn biết đấy, tôi tò mò. Tôi tò mò về những loại thông tin mà mọi người đưa ra. Tôi có thể tắt 90% những gì tôi nghe—tôi nghe khoảng 10 phút và tôi sẽ tắt nó đi. Đó là điều mà một người tiêu dùng phải làm. Bạn có quyền chọn lựa. Tôi nghĩ mọi người—họ không nhận ra rằng vì những gì họ làm và những gì họ không làm, họ đang đưa ra những quyết định về những gì sẽ được giữ lại trong đầu họ mà sau đó sẽ tự động được sử dụng. Tẩy não. Tẩy não. Một chút, ngoại trừ việc bạn là người đang chọn điều đó. Bạn biết đấy, tôi có sự đồng cảm và tôi không đổ lỗi cho mọi người, nhưng họ có thể—mọi thứ có thể tốt hơn cho họ, bạn biết không? Ý tôi là, tôi đã có một cô con gái bị trầm cảm lâm sàng. Đó là một trong những trải nghiệm frust- đô nhất mà tôi từng trải qua trong đời, bên cạnh việc thực sự là bi thảm. Ý tôi là, bây giờ tôi có thể nói về điều đó mà không khóc. Điều đó mất một thời gian dài. Nhưng lúc đầu, cô ấy đã rất kháng cự. Cuối cùng, bạn biết đấy, cô ấy đã quyết định rằng cô ấy muốn được giúp đỡ, và sau đó chúng tôi đã hoàn toàn thay đổi cuộc đời của cô ấy. Nhưng cô ấy phải tự đưa ra quyết định đó. Tôi không thể ép cô ấy. Và tôi cảm thấy rằng, một chút, tình hình hiện tại cũng giống như vậy, nơi có quá nhiều thông tin vô nghĩa trong ngành công nghiệp chăm sóc sức khỏe. Có quá nhiều điều, bạn biết đấy, xoay quanh trên TikTok và các lĩnh vực khác của mạng xã hội, và không phải tất cả đều hữu ích. Và một số thì thực sự gây hại. Bạn có phiền nếu tôi tạm dừng cuộc trò chuyện này một chút không? Tôi muốn nói về nhà tài trợ chương trình của chúng ta hôm nay, đó là Shopify. Tôi luôn tin rằng chi phí lớn nhất trong kinh doanh không phải là thất bại. Đó là thời gian bạn lãng phí để cố gắng đưa ra quyết định. Thời gian dành cho việc do dự, suy nghĩ quá mức, hoặc chờ đợi khoảnh khắc thích hợp. Khi tôi bắt đầu công ty đầu tiên của mình khi 20 tuổi, tôi không có kinh nghiệm và cũng không có tiền. Những gì tôi có là một ý tưởng và sự sẵn sàng để hành động nhanh chóng. Và điều đó đã tạo ra sự khác biệt lớn. Nếu bạn đang nghĩ đến việc bắt đầu doanh nghiệp riêng của mình, Shopify biến toàn bộ quy trình này trở nên dễ dàng hơn rất nhiều. Với hàng nghìn mẫu có thể tùy chỉnh, bạn không cần kỹ năng lập trình hay thiết kế, bạn chỉ cần sự sẵn sàng để bắt đầu. Shopify kết nối tất cả các kênh bán hàng của bạn từ trang web của bạn đến mạng xã hội, và nó cũng xử lý các khoản thanh toán, giao hàng và thuế ở phía sau, để bạn có thể tập trung vào việc tiến về phía trước và phát triển doanh nghiệp của mình. Nếu bạn sẵn sàng bắt đầu, hãy truy cập shopify.com slash Bartlett và đăng ký dùng thử 1 bảng Anh mỗi tháng. Đó là shopify.com slash Bartlett. Lợi thế mà bạn có khi là một người quan sát trên Looker là bạn có một lượng lớn thông tin và kiến thức để hướng dẫn bạn đưa ra những quyết định tốt hơn. Nhưng nhiều người không có thông tin và kiến thức đó. Thực tế, họ có thông tin và kiến thức trái ngược.
    Vậy, khi tôi suy nghĩ về những gì cần thiết để ai đó thay đổi trong cuộc sống của họ, dù là con gái bạn hay một người khác cảm thấy họ bị kẹt rồi cảm thấy bị mắc kẹt trong một thuật toán hay bị mắc kẹt trong một cuộc sống mà họ muốn thoát ra. Dựa trên mọi thứ bạn biết và dựa trên kinh nghiệm của bạn với con gái mình, bước đầu tiên để có thể thực hiện sự thay đổi đó là gì? Bởi vì tôi thực sự rất tò mò về điều gì ở con gái bạn đã khiến cô ấy quyết định rằng cô ấy muốn nhận sự giúp đỡ.
    Chà, tôi nghĩ rằng câu trả lời chung là những bước nhỏ. Rất hiếm khi có thể thay đổi tất cả mọi thứ ngay lập tức. Tôi không nói rằng điều đó không bao giờ xảy ra, nhưng nó hiếm khi hoạt động theo cách đó. Vì vậy, ví dụ, bạn có thể cố gắng tắt các mạng xã hội một ngày trong tuần hoặc làm điều gì khác cùng với một người bạn. Hoặc đi dạo hoặc chỉ cần làm điều đó trở thành một phần trong lịch trình hàng ngày của bạn.
    Thế nên, điều khác là bạn không thể làm những điều này chỉ vì bạn muốn làm chúng. Bạn phải ép buộc bản thân để làm những điều đó. Ví dụ, tôi đã trải qua một cuộc phẫu thuật lưng lớn, rất nghiêm trọng. Và tôi biết rằng sau khi phẫu thuật lưng, tôi sẽ trải nghiệm những cảm giác mà tôi chưa từng có trước đây. Giống như, bạn biết đấy, khi bạn đi trám răng, đúng không? Và sau đó, bạn biết đó có cái gì đó mà trước đây không có. Và sau đó lưỡi bạn liên tục chọc vào cái răng và bạn không nên làm như vậy. Nhưng bạn vẫn làm vì não bạn đang tìm kiếm thông tin. Não bạn đang tìm kiếm lỗi dự đoán.
    Và cuối cùng nó điều chỉnh các dự đoán của mình và rồi nó bỏ qua những cảm giác đó vì chúng không quan trọng, đúng không? Vì vậy, điều đó sẽ xảy ra ở quy mô lớn cho tôi. Và tôi biết rằng tôi đã lập một kế hoạch trước phẫu thuật để tự điều chỉnh bản thân với lượng lỗi dự đoán cho phù hợp để tôi không phát triển cơn đau mãn tính. Bởi vì cơn đau mãn tính giống như một loạt các dự đoán xấu mà không được cập nhật, đúng không? Vì vậy, não bạn vẫn tin rằng có tổn thương mô trong cơ thể bạn khi mà không còn tổn thương mô nữa.
    Vậy điều đó có nghĩa là cơn đau thường chỉ là một sản phẩm của trí tưởng tượng của bạn không? Không, đó là cách suy nghĩ sai lầm. Cách đúng để nghĩ về nó là mọi trải nghiệm, quá khứ được nhớ và hiện tại cảm nhận. Vì vậy, cơn đau xảy ra trong đầu bạn. Thị giác là trong đầu bạn. Nghe là trong đầu bạn. Bạn không nghe bằng tai. Bạn nghe bằng đầu, trong não bạn. Bạn không thấy bằng mắt. Bạn cần mắt của bạn. Bạn cần tai của bạn. Nhưng bạn không thấy bằng mắt. Bạn thấy bằng não của bạn.
    Vì vậy, cơn đau là một sự kết hợp, giống như thị giác, là sự kết hợp giữa quá khứ đã nhớ và hiện tại cảm nhận. Được rồi. Ồ, cả hai là đúng. Vì vậy, cơn đau mãn tính xảy ra khi não bạn nhận được tín hiệu từ cơ thể rằng có tổn thương mô. Những tín hiệu nhạy cảm, chúng được gọi là như vậy. Và nó đã diễn giải chúng như là cơn đau. Và khi bạn phục hồi từ một căn bệnh, điều đó rất tốn năng lượng.
    Vì vậy, không có nhiều năng lượng trao đổi, không có nhiều ngân sách chuyển hóa của bạn dành cho việc học. Vì vậy bạn có thể ở trong một tình huống mà não bạn không cập nhật chính nó và bạn vẫn trải qua cơn đau, mặc dù tổn thương mô không còn nữa. Nó giống như việc nhìn thấy một quả táo xanh trong tâm trí của bạn khi không có quả táo nào trước mặt bạn.
    Nó không hoàn toàn ở trong đầu bạn theo một cách xúc phạm. Nó chỉ là một hệ quả bình thường của cách não bộ hoạt động. Chấn thương đã biến mất, nhưng tín hiệu của chấn thương vẫn đang lặp đi lặp lại. Đúng vậy, chính xác. Giống như, nó giống như một cái chân ảo. Nó giống như tiếng chuông phanh cũng như vậy. Ôi chao, đúng. Tôi đã trải qua điều đó trong một thời gian ngắn.
    Vì vậy, tôi đã cố gắng rất nhiều để lập một lịch trình cho bản thân, bạn biết đấy, để cho phép mình tự lên lịch cho bản thân một cách tối ưu với lỗi dự đoán, nhưng điều đó có nghĩa là tôi phải tuân thủ lịch trình đó. Và tôi nghĩ nếu bạn cam kết thay đổi thói quen của mình, đây là cách bạn thay đổi bất kỳ thói quen nào. Bạn thay đổi bối cảnh và bạn thực hành những hành vi mới.
    Vì vậy, với con gái tôi, trầm cảm, chúng tôi nghĩ về trầm cảm trong phòng thí nghiệm của chúng tôi, như là, để tôi lùi lại một chút và nói rằng, công việc quan trọng nhất của não bạn thực sự không phải là suy nghĩ. Nó không phải là cảm xúc, thậm chí không phải là nhìn thấy, mà là điều chỉnh cơ thể bạn. Nó đang điều chỉnh sự trao đổi chất của bạn. Về cơ bản, đó là công việc quan trọng nhất của não bạn. Công việc quan trọng nhất của não bạn là dự đoán nhu cầu của cơ thể bạn và chuẩn bị đáp ứng những nhu cầu đó trước khi chúng phát sinh.
    Ẩn dụ mà chúng tôi sử dụng cho việc điều tiết dự đoán của cơ thể, thuật ngữ chính thức được gọi là allostasis. Đó là khái niệm khoa học, nhưng ẩn dụ là ngân sách cơ thể. Nó giống như giảm ngân sách cho cơ thể của bạn. Não bạn đang điều hành một ngân sách cho cơ thể của bạn. Nó không phải là ngân sách tiền bạc. Nó điều chỉnh natri và glucose và oxy và kali và tất cả các loại chất dinh dưỡng và hóa chất cần thiết để triệu chứng hóa một cơ thể tốn năng lượng. Bạn biết đấy, bạn có tất cả những quy trình ở mức thấp rất quan trọng để giữ cho bản thân sống.
    Vì vậy, một phần ngân sách năng lượng của bạn được dành cho điều đó. Một phần ngân sách năng lượng của bạn dành cho sửa chữa và phát triển. Vì vậy, nếu bạn cao lên, bạn cần nhiều tế bào hơn. Khi bạn học một điều gì đó, bạn phải làm dày thêm myelin và các nơron của bạn. Bạn phải phát triển nhiều thụ thể hơn và những thứ như vậy. Đó là điều mà, bạn biết đó, kiểu phát triển và sửa chữa. Và phần còn lại tất cả dành cho bất cứ thứ gì cần nỗ lực. Cái gì cần nỗ lực? Như làm việc hay đi tập gym. Kéo bản thân ra khỏi giường vào buổi sáng là cần nỗ lực.
    Đúng vậy. Học điều gì đó mới là cần nỗ lực. Đối phó với sự không chắc chắn là cần nỗ lực. Mọi thứ chúng ta gọi là căng thẳng. Căng thẳng thực sự chỉ là não bạn đang dự đoán một khoản chi tiêu chuyển hóa lớn vì có một số nỗ lực liên quan, đúng không? Một số nỗ lực có động lực liên quan.
    Dưới đây là bản dịch của đoạn văn sang tiếng Việt:
    Vậy thì đó là ba điều tạo thành ngân sách năng lượng của bạn. Và điểm quan trọng thực sự là, với tư cách là một sinh vật, bạn có một lượng năng lượng cố định mà bạn có thể sản xuất trong một ngày. Có nghĩa là ATP, giống như những hóa chất nhỏ này, những protein nhỏ mà, bạn biết đấy, các tế bào của bạn sử dụng như một nguồn năng lượng thực sự có được từ glucose và những thứ khác như chất béo. Vậy nên không có gì tôi có thể làm để tăng nó lên. Thật ra, bạn đang ở trong một khoảng nào đó. Được rồi. Nhưng có một giới hạn nhất định, giới hạn trên cho khoảng đó vì bạn là một sinh vật con người. Và bạn phải thực hiện ba điều này, những chức năng thiết yếu, phát triển và sửa chữa, và sau đó là mọi thứ khác. Nếu bạn đang gặp nhiều căng thẳng tâm lý xã hội, hoặc bạn có một loại bệnh nào đó đã tiêu tốn, bạn biết đấy, nhiều ngân sách, thì bạn không còn nhiều ngân sách cho những thứ khác mà bạn cần làm. Vậy nên điều mà bộ não của bạn sẽ cố gắng làm là cắt giảm chi phí. Nếu bạn nhìn vào các triệu chứng của chứng trầm cảm, chúng là những triệu chứng liên quan đến việc cắt giảm chi phí. Sự đau khổ, mệt mỏi, vấn đề trong việc tập trung, thiếu nhạy cảm với bối cảnh mà bạn đang ở. Tất cả những điều này đều cho thấy sự giảm thiểu chi tiêu trao đổi chất. Và sau đó, trầm cảm cũng có những triệu chứng liên quan đến việc tăng chi phí, như 70% người bị trầm cảm gặp vấn đề viêm. Vì vậy, họ có tình trạng viêm tăng cường, viêm toàn thân, và hệ miễn dịch của bạn là một hệ thống rất tốn kém để vận hành. Vậy nếu bạn có tình trạng viêm kéo dài và toàn thân, đó giống như một khoản thuế kéo dài trên ngân sách của bạn. Bạn biết đấy, có nghĩa là mọi thứ đang tốn nhiều hơn mức cần thiết. Và ngay cả, bạn biết đấy, có những nghiên cứu rất thú vị. Tôi thấy chúng thú vị với tư cách là một nhà khoa học, còn với tư cách là một người, tôi thấy chúng hơi kinh hoàng. Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, nếu bạn, trong vòng hai giờ sau khi ăn một bữa ăn, nếu bạn gặp căng thẳng, căng thẳng xã hội, thì như thể bạn đã ăn thêm 104 calo so với những gì bạn thực sự đã ăn. Bạn đã quá kém trong việc chuyển hóa đến mức nó giống như việc bạn đã ăn thêm 104 calo so với những gì bạn đã làm. Ngay cả những chất béo tốt cũng sẽ được chuyển hóa như thể chúng là chất béo xấu. Và có khả năng bị lưu trữ như vậy. Vâng. Vậy nếu bạn cộng dồn 104 calo cho mỗi bữa ăn trong một năm, thì đó gần như là 11 pound. Điều đó có nghĩa là nếu bạn ở trong một môi trường căng thẳng và, um, trong một năm và bạn ăn giống hệt những gì bạn đã ăn năm trước, bạn sẽ tăng thêm 11 pound. Trong trầm cảm, chúng ta biết, chẳng hạn, rằng, um, có sự rối loạn cortisol trong trầm cảm. Điều đó có nghĩa là có sự rối loạn trong, um, chuyển hóa vì cortisol là một hóa chất chuyển hóa, bạn biết đấy, nó là một hóa chất liên quan đến chuyển hóa. Um, những người sử dụng, uh, SSRIs, họ dùng cho trầm cảm, thuốc chống trầm cảm thường là SSRIs hoặc SNRIs. Điều đó có nghĩa là chúng hoạt động trên serotonin để giữ nhiều serotonin hơn trong, trong giao điểm giữa các neuron. Serotonin là một tác nhân điều chỉnh chuyển hóa. Norepinephrine là một tác nhân điều chỉnh chuyển hóa. Đây là những hóa chất trực tiếp tham gia vào chuyển hóa của bạn. Vậy nên không phải là một niềm tin rằng trầm cảm có một cơ sở chuyển hóa. Tôi nghĩ câu hỏi là, “Chất dinh dưỡng nào trong tất cả những ảnh hưởng chuyển hóa này có thể khiến ai đó phát triển trạng thái trầm cảm?” Nhưng điểm, điểm đơn giản mà tôi muốn nói là tôi thực sự đã đến với ý tưởng này về chuyển hóa và trầm cảm vì tôi đã làm rất nhiều việc để tìm cách giúp đỡ con gái mình. Những triệu chứng của cô ấy vào thời điểm đó là gì? Chỉ cần nếu có bất kỳ bậc phụ huynh nào đang nghe ngay bây giờ có thể cảm thấy liên quan hoặc bất kỳ ai nghe có thể cảm thấy liên quan. Vâng. Ồ, tôi sẽ nói với bạn rằng tôi đã có bài nói này trước đây, um, về trầm cảm ở thanh thiếu niên. Tuổi thanh thiếu niên là một, um, giống như một cơn bão hoàn hảo về sự dễ bị tổn thương chuyển hóa vì rất nhiều lý do. Bạn biết đấy, bộ não của bạn bị giam giữ trong một cái hộp tối tăm, yên lặng gọi là hộp sọ của bạn. Nó nhận tín hiệu từ cơ thể và từ thế giới. Nó không biết nguyên nhân của những tín hiệu đó là gì. Nó nhận được các tác động. Nó phải đoán nguyên nhân là gì. Những dự đoán đó là gì? Dự đoán từ quá khứ, đúng không? Vì vậy, nó không biết về sự gia tăng hormone ngay lập tức khi chúng xảy ra. Nó, bạn biết đấy, nó mất khoảng 20 phút hoặc lâu hơn, hoặc đôi khi một chút ít hơn, tùy thuộc vào vị trí của những thay đổi hormone và nguồn gốc của chúng, để bộ não nhận tín hiệu của những thay đổi đó. Và sau đó nó phải đoán nguyên nhân là gì. Câu chuyện được sử dụng trong tâm thần học và y học là một câu chuyện điểu gì đó giống như thế này. Nó quay trở lại, như bộ não của bạn là một chiến trường, đúng không? Vì vậy, ý tưởng là, bạn biết đấy, bạn được sinh ra, câu chuyện là bạn được sinh ra với những mạch cảm xúc bẩm sinh này. Bạn không, bạn không có bất kỳ mạch cảm xúc nào cả. Thực ra, bạn không có bất kỳ mạch cảm xúc nào. Nhưng câu chuyện là bạn được sinh ra với những mạch cảm xúc bẩm sinh này. Chúng hoạt động, nhưng bạn không được sinh ra với khả năng kiểm soát chúng. Điều đó phải phát triển theo thời gian. Vì vậy, trong tuổi thanh thiếu niên, ý tưởng là rối loạn tâm trạng phát sinh vì bạn, bạn không có đủ kiểm soát nhận thức và bạn có quá nhiều cảm xúc. Vì vậy, bạn có những cảm xúc không kiềm chế và đó chính là vấn đề. Đó là một câu chuyện rất thuyết phục. Thật ra đó chỉ là một lập luận phi lý. Về cơ bản, không có bằng chứng tốt cho câu chuyện đó. Tôi nghe nói rằng nó là một sự mất cân bằng hóa học. Vâng. Chà, đôi khi mọi người nói về sự mất cân bằng hóa học đó theo nghĩa rằng serotonin là hóa chất hạnh phúc và dopamine là hóa chất thưởng. Và đó cũng, đó là một sự đơn giản hóa đến mức không đúng ngay cả khi sai. Được rồi. Dopamine không phải là một hóa chất thưởng và serotonin không phải là hóa chất hạnh phúc. Cả hai đều là những điều chỉnh chuyển hóa. Bạn thấy sự gia tăng dopamine trong một số neuron trong những trường hợp bị trừng phạt. Và serotonin thực hiện nhiều chức năng trong cơ thể bạn ở nhiều nơi khác nhau.
    Nhưng một trong những điều mà nó làm trong các thí nghiệm có kiểm soát là cho phép động vật dành thời gian, tìm kiếm thức ăn, tham gia vào hoạt động, hoạt động thể chất và học tập khi không có phần thưởng chuyển hóa ngay lập tức ở cuối. Không có phần thưởng ở cuối. Vì vậy, dopamine bây giờ được nhiều nhà thần kinh học coi là một hóa chất cần thiết cho nỗ lực, cho dù đó là nỗ lực thể chất hay học hỏi một cái gì đó, nỗ lực tinh thần để học một cái gì đó. Nó không thực sự chỉ dành riêng cho phần thưởng, vì vậy lúc đầu với con gái tôi, bạn biết đấy, cô bé đã từng là một đứa trẻ rất hăng hái, tham gia và kết nối xã hội rất tốt, bạn biết đấy, cô bé học rất giỏi ở trường. Và không phải lúc nào cô bé cũng hoàn hảo, nhưng cô ấy rất nhiệt tình, rất vui vẻ và có nhiều bạn bè. Rồi, bạn biết đấy, khi vào lớp 10, cô bé đã trở nên rút lui, cô bé đang nhận điểm D ở trường, không thể tập trung, không ngủ được và rất khổ sở. Cô bé thực sự đang chịu đựng, nhưng việc ở gần cô ấy thì thật khó chịu. Thành thật mà nói, lúc đầu, chúng tôi nghĩ rằng cô bé lười biếng. Chúng tôi nghĩ rằng, bạn biết đấy, cô bé không muốn làm gì cả. Cô bé muốn dành tất cả thời gian trong phòng. Cô bé không muốn, bạn biết đấy, muốn từ bỏ tất cả các hoạt động của mình. Và chúng tôi nghĩ, thôi nào, hãy cố gắng lên. Như kiểu, bạn đâu rồi, bạn biết đấy, chúng tôi nghĩ rằng cô bé đang lười biếng. Thực sự, tôi chưa bao giờ nghĩ tới điều này trong một triệu năm vì cô bé không có các triệu chứng tâm trạng nào khi còn nhỏ, không có triệu chứng nào cả. Rồi bỗng nhiên, cô bé dường như không có năng lượng để làm bất cứ điều gì. Nhưng với chúng tôi, nó trông như cô bé lười biếng và không muốn làm bài tập về nhà và dường như rất không hứng thú. Mất một thời gian dài tôi mới nhận ra, ôi không, đây là vấn đề khác. Cô bé gặp khó khăn trong việc nhớ các cuộc trò chuyện mà chúng tôi đã có. Lúc đầu, tôi nghĩ, ôi, bạn không chú ý đến tôi. Nhưng sau đó, thật rõ ràng rằng ngay cả trong cuộc sống hàng ngày, cô bé không thể nói cho tôi biết những gì đã xảy ra trong ngày của mình. Cô bé chỉ không có chi tiết nào. Đó cũng là một dấu hiệu của trầm cảm khi bạn mất đi trí nhớ hồi tưởng về những chi tiết của ngày. Bạn chỉ có thể nói ở mức tổng quát. Bạn không thể cung cấp chi tiết về thời gian, địa điểm và sự kiện. Bạn chỉ mất đi, bạn không giữ lại thông tin đó đủ lâu để có thể nhớ lại sau này. Không có sự củng cố thông tin đó. Và khi cô bé đang học lớp 10, bạn biết đấy, cô bé về nhà với những điểm D ở trường, điểm D trong môn toán. Đây là một đứa trẻ đã từng làm toán đại số cơ bản khi cô bé mới 8 tuổi. Chúng tôi đã nói với cô bé rằng chúng tôi phải cho cô bé được đánh giá vì chúng tôi không biết điều gì đang diễn ra. Và đó là khi chúng tôi nhận ra rằng cô bé bị trầm cảm lâm sàng. Một điều khác tôi muốn nói là cô bé đã có những cơn đau bụng kinh rất nghiêm trọng. Và vì vậy, một trong những phương pháp điều trị cho cơn đau bụng kinh nghiêm trọng là cho các cô gái sử dụng thuốc tránh thai. Bởi vì nó làm cân bằng biến động hormone trong tháng. Và thực sự nó cải thiện cơn đau bụng kinh. Nhưng hiện giờ nó khá nổi tiếng. Thời điểm đó không được biết nhiều, rằng có khoảng từ 40% đến 70% tăng khả năng mắc chứng trầm cảm nghiêm trọng ở những phụ nữ trẻ sử dụng thuốc tránh thai. Nếu đó là viên thuốc kết hợp estrogen-progesterone, thì khoảng 40%. Nếu đó là viên thuốc chỉ chứa progesterone, mà nhiều phụ nữ trẻ dùng vì nó có ít tác dụng phụ hơn, bạn sẽ có một mức tăng 70% về chứng trầm cảm nghiêm trọng. Và trong – nghiên cứu đầu tiên mà tôi đọc về điều này là trên một triệu phụ nữ. Và khi tôi đọc nghiên cứu đó, tôi nhớ chính xác tôi đang ở đâu. Đó là một khoảnh khắc bất ngờ. Tôi đã đọc nghiên cứu. Tôi đã gọi cho bác sĩ nhi khoa của con gái tôi. Và tôi đã nói, cô bé sẽ ngưng uống thuốc hôm nay. Hôm nay. Vì vậy, hãy cho tôi biết nếu có bất kỳ điều gì. Có tác dụng phụ nào không hay chúng tôi chỉ có thể dừng lại? Và ông ấy nói, à, theo ý kiến của tôi – và tôi như, tôi không quan tâm đến ý kiến của bạn. Tôi vừa đọc một nghiên cứu như – bạn biết đấy, đó là một nghiên cứu dịch tễ học quy mô lớn trên một triệu phụ nữ hôm nay. Cô bé sẽ ngừng lại hôm nay. Và điều này diễn ra sau hay trước khi cô bé trải qua trầm cảm? Đây là sau – có thể là một năm sau khi cô bé được chẩn đoán. Rất lâu sau, tôi đọc – tôi đang đọc một cuốn sách của Naomi Oreskes, nhà sử học về khoa học, và cô ấy đã viết một cuốn sách có tên Tại sao tin tưởng vào khoa học? Và đó là một cuốn sách tuyệt vời. Nhưng trong cuốn sách đó, cô nói về – cô đưa ra ví dụ về những nơi, những hiện tượng mà công chúng không tin vào khoa học nhưng họ nên làm vậy. Và đây là một trong số đó. Rõ ràng, nó đã được biết từ rất lâu. Và tôi chỉ muốn nhấn mạnh rằng estrogen, progesterone, testosterone đã phát triển như những người điều chỉnh chuyển hóa. Tôi nhấn mạnh điều này vì trong một nền văn hóa tách rời tâm thần khỏi thể chất, chúng ta không nghĩ về vai trò của chuyển hóa trong thị giác hoặc thậm chí là trong tâm trạng. Đó là một điều rất gần đây. Trong phòng thí nghiệm của chúng tôi, một trong những điều chúng tôi đang nghiên cứu bây giờ là vai trò của chuyển hóa trong những hiện tượng tâm lý rất cơ bản – như, chỉ đơn giản là một khối xây dựng cơ bản của tâm trí bạn, về cơ bản. Vì vậy, con gái bạn thể hiện những triệu chứng đó. Tôi rất tò mò muốn nghe y học cổ điển ở thời điểm đó đã nói gì với bạn về những gì bạn nên làm với con gái trong tình huống đó vào thời điểm đó so với những gì bạn đã làm. Bạn có một kho tàng thông tin. Bạn có nền tảng y tế. Vâng, tôi nên nói rằng điều này đã diễn ra – bạn biết đấy, đã vài năm trước, đúng không? Vì vậy, hiện tại, có một loại cách mạng đang diễn ra nơi mà thực sự có một cái gì đó được gọi là tâm lý học chuyển hóa bây giờ. Ngày trước khi điều này diễn ra – khi, bạn biết đấy, khi tôi đang đọc về điều này, nó nghe có vẻ điên rồ. Khi tôi thấy những gì con gái tôi đã – rằng cô bé đang chịu đựng, như, thực sự chịu đựng. Điều này thật khó cho tôi khi nói về điều này vì khi tôi nói chuyện với bạn về điều này, tôi đang nghĩ, tôi chỉ – Tôi ước rằng tôi – bạn biết đấy, tôi ước rằng tôi đã phát hiện ra điều này sớm hơn.
    Nhưng dù sao thì, những gì chúng tôi đã làm là tôi tìm mọi lộ trình có thể mà tôi có thể nghĩ ra để nhắm đến “ngân sách cơ thể” của cô ấy, tức là nhắm đến quá trình trao đổi chất của cô ấy. Sau đó, chúng tôi đã cùng nhau xây dựng một thói quen hàng ngày, và cô ấy đã tham gia vào việc tạo ra điều đó, để xem liệu chúng tôi có thể đặt cô ấy vào một quỹ đạo khác hay không.
    Điều đó bao gồm mọi thứ từ việc ngừng sử dụng mạng xã hội. Tại sao? Bởi vì, đầu tiên, cô ấy đang sử dụng, giống như nhiều đứa trẻ khác, cô ấy dùng màn hình vào khuya. Và vào thời điểm đó – lại một lần nữa, đây là điều mà tôi vô tình phát hiện ra, đúng không? Nhưng thực sự, tại một cuộc họp NCI, tại một cuộc họp của Viện Ung thư Quốc gia – bạn biết đấy, chúng ta có tế bào hạch võng mạc. Chúng ta có các tế bào trong võng mạc điều chỉnh nhịp sinh học, và chúng nhạy cảm với ánh sáng ở các bước sóng mà từ màn hình phát ra. Vì vậy, nếu bạn nhìn vào những màn hình đó vào ban đêm, bộ não của bạn nghĩ rằng đó là ban ngày, giống như nhịp sinh học của bạn – bạn tự tạo cho mình một rối loạn nhịp sinh học, cơ bản là vậy.
    Sẽ khó khăn hơn để có được một chu kỳ giấc ngủ đều đặn, và bạn cần chu kỳ giấc ngủ đều đặn đó để các độc tố được thanh lọc và để củng cố những gì bạn đã học trong suốt cả ngày để bạn có thể nhớ nó sau này. Rất nhiều điều phục hồi diễn ra trong giấc ngủ sâu mà bạn thực sự cần. Và nếu bạn không có đủ giấc ngủ sâu, điều đó sẽ làm tình trạng ngân sách của bạn tồi tệ hơn, cơ bản là vậy.
    Vì vậy, chúng tôi đã nhắm vào cô ấy – chúng tôi đã khiến cô ấy ngừng sử dụng mạng xã hội – mà trước tiên là tránh xa màn hình sau, bạn biết đấy, khoảng 7 giờ, 8 giờ tối, không màn hình. Ngừng sử dụng mạng xã hội để giảm sự bất ổn xã hội, căng thẳng xã hội. Tôi đã dậy cùng cô ấy lúc 5 giờ 30 mỗi sáng, làm bữa sáng cho cô ấy, ngồi cùng cô ấy khi cô ấy ăn sáng, để đảm bảo rằng cô ấy ăn thực phẩm dinh dưỡng, không phải thức ăn giả như, bạn biết đấy, Pop-Tarts và những thứ tương tự.
    Chúng tôi đã phải bắt đầu lại việc tập thể dục, vì vậy cô ấy đã bắt đầu đi bộ một khoảng cách dài. Cô ấy bắt đầu tập Pilates, không phải Pilates trên thảm mà là Pilates với máy reformer mà khiến bất kỳ ai cũng phải khóc, bạn biết đấy? Tại sao phải tập thể dục liên quan đến ngân sách này và các chức năng trao đổi chất? Bởi vì tập thể dục cơ bản – nó giống như bộ não của bạn – giống như bạn đang tự ném mình ra khỏi sự cân bằng trao đổi chất để bộ não có thể học cách đưa mình trở lại. Bạn đang cải thiện khả năng phục hồi của các hệ thống thể chất của mình, cơ bản là vậy – vì vậy cô ấy không – bạn biết đấy, cô ấy cần cái gì đó giống như tập luyện ngắt quãng, đó là điều mà các lớp Pilates này mang lại, thay vì, bạn biết đấy, tập để chơi quần vợt hay bất cứ thứ gì.
    Một cái gì đó mà – nơi mà cô ấy, bạn biết đấy, sau một khoảng thời gian nhất định, cô ấy sẽ bị mất cân bằng trao đổi chất, và sau đó cô ấy sẽ uống nước và ăn thứ gì đó lành mạnh. Và hệ thống của cô ấy cơ bản đang học cách trở nên linh hoạt hơn, không bị stuck như vậy. Vì vậy, một lần nữa, điều đó giống như việc liều lượng với lỗi dự đoán hoặc, như, cung cấp cho bộ não cơ hội để học rằng nó đã sai.
    Và sau đó là omega-3, vì vậy chúng tôi đã – tôi không nhớ liều chính xác, nhưng tôi đã liều cao omega-3, thấp omega-6. Với sự cho phép của bác sĩ của cô ấy, chúng tôi cũng đã sử dụng aspirin trẻ em một lần mỗi ngày trên dạ dày no để giảm viêm hệ thống. Vì vậy, trước khi đi ngủ – ý tôi là, trước khi đi ngủ, chúng tôi luôn làm điều như, ôm ấp, bạn biết đấy, khi cô ấy còn nhỏ, chúng tôi sẽ đọc một câu chuyện hay đại loại như vậy. Và trong những năm tuổi vị thành niên sớm, bạn biết đấy, cô ấy đã từ chối điều đó, và sau đó chúng tôi đã đưa nó trở lại.
    Vì vậy, một giờ trước khi đi ngủ, chúng tôi – hoặc là tôi hoặc bố cô ấy, đôi khi cả ba chúng tôi – chúng tôi sẽ đọc một cuốn sách cùng nhau, hoặc, bạn biết không, ông ấy sẽ đọc một cuốn sách cho chúng tôi. Hoặc chúng tôi sẽ – chúng tôi sẽ ngồi và trò chuyện, và cô ấy sẽ kể cho tôi, bạn biết đấy, tất cả những điều đang xảy ra ở trường mà cô ấy có thể nhớ. Và đôi khi chúng thật sự kinh khủng, và tôi chỉ cần đồng cảm. Điều đó thực sự khó khăn với tôi vì tôi chỉ muốn khắc phục nó. Tôi chỉ muốn khắc phục nó.
    Và thực sự – tôi đã phải rất cố gắng dựa vào kinh nghiệm của mình như một nhà trị liệu để chỉ ngồi với nỗi đau khổ và đồng cảm thay vì nói, làm điều này, làm điều này, làm điều này. Tôi mất nhiều thời gian để học điều đó, và đôi khi tôi vẫn gặp khó khăn với điều đó. Tại sao điều đó lại quan trọng? Bởi vì sau đó cô ấy cảm thấy được lắng nghe, và cô ấy cảm thấy được hiểu. Và khi bạn – tôi đã mất nhiều thời gian để học điều này. Khi cô ấy nói với tôi rằng, bạn biết đấy, ai đó đã làm điều gì đó thật sự tàn nhẫn, nếu tôi làm bất cứ điều gì khác ngoài việc đồng cảm, cô ấy sẽ cảm thấy như tôi đã không lắng nghe cô ấy. Và hỗ trợ xã hội là một yếu tố chính – ý tôi là, chúng ta là người chăm sóc hệ thần kinh của nhau. Con người là sinh vật xã hội. Thật khó để tin.
    Tôi nghĩ trong một nền văn hóa như của chúng ta, nơi mà chúng ta rất cá nhân, đúng không, và có vẻ như đó là một tuyên bố chính trị hay một điều gì đó, thực sự không quan trọng ý kiến chính trị của bạn là gì. Chúng ta tiến hóa theo cách mà chúng ta tiến hóa, người anh em. Chúng ta là sinh vật xã hội. Chúng ta ảnh hưởng đến nhau về mặt trao đổi chất. Chúng ta có thể thêm tiết kiệm, và chúng ta có thể thêm thuế. Và, bạn biết đấy, điều tốt nhất cho hệ thần kinh của con người là một con người khác. Điều tồi tệ nhất cho hệ thần kinh của con người là một con người khác. Người sai. Có rất nhiều thử nghiệm cho thấy điều đó – ý tôi là, tôi vừa thấy một loạt thử nghiệm từ một trong những cựu nghiên cứu sinh của tôi thật tuyệt vời, nơi cô ấy nhìn vào quá trình trao đổi glucose ở các bà mẹ và trẻ sơ sinh. Và tôi nghĩ cô ấy cũng đã làm điều đó ở các bạn hẹn hò, nếu tôi không nhầm. Cô ấy đã nhìn vào họ khi một mình và sau đó khi cùng nhau, như một mình trong khi làm một nhiệm vụ và sau đó cùng nhau làm một nhiệm vụ.
    Và các bà mẹ và trẻ sơ sinh kết nối tốt, thực sự – quá trình trao đổi glucose của họ hiệu quả hơn, như là thực sự hiệu quả hơn. Và tôi tin rằng cô ấy – tôi tin rằng cô ấy cũng đã chỉ ra điều này với các bạn hẹn hò. Bạn biết đấy, có những nghiên cứu, những nghiên cứu cũ cho thấy rằng, bạn biết đấy, việc đi lên một ngọn đồi với một cái ba lô sẽ ít tốn calo hơn nếu bạn đang ở cùng một người bạn hơn là nếu bạn đang ở cùng một người lạ.
    Ý tôi là, có rất nhiều phát hiện thực sự điên rồ mà – nhưng nếu bạn nhận ra rằng con người đang thực sự ảnh hưởng đến nhau trên một nền tảng vật lý, dù họ có nhận thức được điều đó hay không, dù họ có cố ý hay không, thì điều đó hoàn toàn không quan trọng. Hoặc tôi sẽ nói rằng, thật không cần thiết để có ảnh hưởng đó, để có những hiệu ứng đó ở đó, thì nó bắt đầu trở nên hợp lý. Bạn biết đấy, như ý tưởng rằng – và một lần nữa, các phân tích meta cho thấy bạn sẽ sống lâu hơn trung bình, nhiều năm hơn nếu bạn – nếu bạn có một đời sống xã hội tràn ngập những người mà bạn tin tưởng và họ tin tưởng bạn. Vậy có phải đó là lý do bạn có gia đình bên cạnh ngay trước khi đi ngủ không? Bởi vì họ đang điều tiết hệ thần kinh của cô ấy, cơ thể của cô ấy? Đúng thế. Đôi khi cô ấy vẫn nói điều này với tôi, thực sự. Cô ấy sẽ nói, bạn có thể làm bạn của tôi một phút và không phải là mẹ của tôi không? Tôi sẽ nói, ừ, tôi có thể. Và sau đó tôi thực sự phải làm điều đó, điều này đôi khi khó khăn. Hay tôi sẽ nói với cô ấy, đây là cho các bậc phụ huynh. Bất kỳ ai có con vị thành niên hay con trưởng thành, đây là một trong những – tôi không biết tôi đã nghĩ ra điều này như thế nào, nhưng nó như vàng, đúng không? Tôi nói với cô ấy, tôi có thể – tôi đang có một khoảnh khắc của mẹ khi tôi cảm thấy cần phải nhắc nhở bạn về điều gì đó. Và nếu tôi có thể chỉ nhắc bạn một chút về điều đó, tôi sẽ không cần phải nói lại cho bạn lần nữa. Thế nên tôi đang cơ bản hỏi ý kiến của cô ấy. Tôi có thể cho bạn biết điều này không, điều mà tôi thực sự muốn nói với bạn? Và tôi biết bạn không muốn nghe nó, nhưng bạn sẽ thực sự làm một việc tốt cho tôi nếu bạn chỉ lắng nghe tôi trong một phút. Và tôi biết đó là tôi. Tất cả là tôi. Không phải bạn. Tất cả đều là lỗi của tôi. Đây là tôi. Nhưng tôi chỉ – sẽ tốt hơn nếu bạn có thể để tôi. Và hầu hết thời gian cô ấy nói, bạn biết đấy, với sự kiên nhẫn lớn, đúng không? Như, chắc chắn rồi, mẹ ơi, cứ tiếp tục. Đôi khi cô ấy nói, không phải hôm nay. Và sau đó tôi thực sự phải lắng nghe, bạn biết không? Vậy, đúng rồi. Nhưng có thể còn nhiều điều khác mà tôi không nghĩ đến ngay bây giờ. Tôi đã ghi lại tất cả vì rất nhiều người đã hỏi tôi câu hỏi này. Và điều tôi thích nói là đây là – tôi không phải là bác sĩ. Tôi không phải là bác sĩ tâm thần. Đây không phải là một khuyến nghị hay công thức cho các con của bạn. Tôi chỉ đang kể cho bạn những gì tôi đã làm như một nhà khoa học. Và bạn đã ghi lại những gì bạn đã làm. Bạn vẫn còn một bản sao của điều đó. Vì vậy, tôi có thể liên kết bên dưới cho bất kỳ ai muốn đọc những gì bạn đã làm. Vâng, nhưng – một lần nữa, đó là – Đó là những gì bạn đã làm cho con gái của bạn vào thời điểm đó. Đúng vậy, chỉ như một người. Người đã đọc tài liệu, tôi – đây không phải – đây không phải là lời khuyên y tế. Tôi thực sự rất mạnh mẽ – và tôi cũng nên nói thêm, bạn không thể ép con vị thành niên của mình làm điều gì đó. Bạn thậm chí không thể thực sự ép con cái của bạn làm điều gì đó trừ khi bạn đe dọa chúng bằng tổn hại thể xác. Chúng phải tự đưa ra lựa chọn đó, đúng không? Và cô ấy đã bình phục? Có, cô ấy đã. Và tôi nghĩ một trong những lý do tại sao cô ấy bây giờ tốt, không phải là cô ấy không bao giờ có những thách thức với tâm trạng của mình, nhưng cô ấy hiểu chúng theo cách vật lý. Cô ấy không hiểu tâm trạng của mình là vấn đề tâm lý. Cô ấy hiểu nó như một triệu chứng hoặc một thanh đo ngân sách cơ thể của cô ấy. Đây là điều tôi đã học từ công việc của bạn trong khi tôi đang nghiên cứu, điều này thực sự, thực sự hữu ích cho tôi. Và nó gần như hoàn toàn đúng với những gì bạn vừa nói, đó là đôi khi tôi có tâm trạng không tốt. Và nếu tôi không ý thức về điều đó, thì tâm trạng tồi tệ có thể gây rối, đúng không? Tôi có thể trở nên cáu gắt với mọi người hoặc bất cứ điều gì. Và khi tôi đọc công việc của bạn và suy nghĩ về tâm trạng xấu hay tốt trong bối cảnh ngân sách cơ thể này, điều đó làm bạn dừng lại một giây và nghĩ, cái gì tôi đang thiếu? Và nó làm bạn rất ý thức về những gì bạn sau đó làm. Nó gần như làm bạn đột nhiên nắm lấy tay lái và nói, được rồi, vậy có một vấn đề ở đây. Đó là một vấn đề thể chất. Tôi đã không ngủ đủ giấc tối qua. Tôi chưa ăn. Dù sao đi nữa, hãy thực sự nhận thức về những gì điều này làm cho bạn hoặc cảm thấy hoặc nghĩ. Và những hành động mà bạn cần thực hiện có thể là hủy bỏ mọi thứ bạn đã lên kế hoạch cho hôm nay và quay lại giường. Vâng, nhưng tôi nghĩ rằng bạn vừa chỉ ra điều thực sự quan trọng. Đó là nó thay đổi những gì bạn sẽ làm tiếp theo. Đúng. Và điều đó thay đổi quỹ đạo của những gì xảy ra. Và tôi nghĩ điều này thực sự – không phải giống như một phép chữa kỳ diệu. Và một lần nữa, bạn biết đấy, nhưng khi ai đó – khi bạn cảm thấy thực sự lo lắng, bạn hoặc nhìn theo thế giới, như có gì sai với thế giới, hoặc bạn nhìn vào bản thân. Có gì sai với tôi? Và thực sự, có thể có. Có thể có điều gì đó sai với thế giới. Có thể có điều gì đó sai với bạn. Nhưng khả năng cao nhất, đó là một vấn đề ngân sách cơ thể. Ngay cả khi có trường hợp là có điều gì đó sai với thế giới, bạn sẽ được trang bị tốt hơn để đối phó với điều đó nếu bạn đang quản lý ngân sách cơ thể của mình. Bạn thực sự cần phải thiết kế lịch trình của mình càng nhiều càng tốt trong giới hạn của nghề nghiệp mà bạn có xung quanh ngân sách cơ thể đó. Và với tôi, sự thay đổi lớn mà tôi thực hiện hai năm trước – tôi rất đặc quyền, tôi hiểu điều đó, và mọi người cũng có thể làm điều đó. Tôi không thể làm điều đó khi tôi làm việc trong các trung tâm gọi – là tôi đã thực hiện một quy tắc mà không có cuộc họp nào trước 11 giờ. Và điều này có nghĩa rằng tôi không bao giờ đặt báo thức, vì vậy tôi tỉnh dậy khi tôi đã hoàn toàn được nạp lại. Và đó là điều sâu sắc nhất. Tôi lẽ ra nên làm điều này sớm hơn. Nhưng điều đó đã có ảnh hưởng rất lớn đến cuộc sống của tôi. Bởi vì bạn gần như có thể đảm bảo rằng rất hiếm khi tôi không ngủ đủ giấc, mặc dù điều đó xảy ra vì tôi phải đi công tác và các thứ nhiều. Nhưng điều đó thực sự đã có tác động sâu sắc đến cuộc sống của tôi. Vâng, và tôi nghĩ, bạn biết đấy – Và với tư cách là một người lãnh đạo và – Chính xác. Và tôi nghĩ, thành thật mà nói, nếu các nhà lãnh đạo coi trọng điều này, thì hy vọng là sẽ có một sự nhận thức nào đó rằng điều này cũng quan trọng với mọi người. Và, bạn biết đấy, chúng ta có một xã hội được cấu trúc theo một cách nhất định, nhưng không có yêu cầu rằng nó phải được cấu trúc theo cách này. Có, bạn biết đấy, yếu tố dự đoán lớn nhất về năng suất làm việc sau, bạn biết đấy, là giấc ngủ và sự cung cấp nước.
    Và sau khi bạn loại bỏ giấc ngủ và sự hydrat hóa, tôi nghĩ rằng tập thể dục cũng nằm trong số đó. Bạn biết đấy, một số chúng ta có nhiều lựa chọn hơn những người khác, đúng không? Nhưng tôi nghĩ điều quan trọng là những người là giám đốc điều hành, những người lãnh đạo, những người lãnh đạo trong kinh doanh, cần hiểu rằng có những lý do kinh doanh hợp lý. Có những lý do kinh tế hợp lý để xem xét điều này một cách nghiêm túc. Tôi có đúng khi nghĩ rằng rượu ảnh hưởng đến “ngân sách cơ thể” của bạn và do đó làm cho bạn khó khăn hơn trong việc thể hiện tất cả các hành vi khác và tiêu tốn năng lượng ở các lĩnh vực khác, và do đó cũng làm tăng xác suất bạn sẽ bị trầm cảm?
    Vì vậy, tôi nên nói rằng tôi không phải là một chuyên gia về chuyển hóa rượu, vì vậy tôi sẽ suy diễn dựa trên những gì tôi biết. Và những gì tôi muốn nói ở đây là đôi khi mọi người uống rượu như họ ăn sô-cô-la hoặc, bạn biết đấy, họ làm điều đó vì hương vị hoặc vì trải nghiệm, đúng chứ? Nhưng nhiều người lại sử dụng rượu. Họ có thể bắt đầu theo cách đó hoặc họ có thể bắt đầu vì họ đang làm điều gì đó với bạn bè, nhưng sau đó họ nhận ra rằng nó ảnh hưởng đến tâm trạng của họ. Nó ảnh hưởng đến tâm trạng của họ. Bất cứ điều gì ảnh hưởng đến tâm trạng của bạn, như mọi người thường nói rất nhiều về việc điều chỉnh cảm xúc, nhưng thực ra là điều chỉnh tâm trạng. Một lần nữa, bạn biết đấy, tâm trạng của bạn là những cảm xúc đơn giản luôn đồng hành với bạn. Bạn biết đấy, bộ não của bạn luôn điều chỉnh cơ thể của bạn. Cơ thể của bạn luôn gửi tín hiệu trở lại cho bộ não, từ đó tạo ra tâm trạng. Vì vậy, tâm trạng là một thuộc tính của ý thức. Nó luôn ở bên bạn. Đôi khi, trong những khoảnh khắc bạn sẽ lý giải các tín hiệu và tâm trạng đi kèm với nó theo cách liên quan đến thế giới bên ngoài. Và đó là lúc bạn cảm nhận cảm xúc, đúng không? Nơi mà hành động của bạn liên kết cả hai với nhau theo tâm trạng của bạn. Nhưng thường xuyên hơn, chúng ta không làm vậy. Chúng ta chỉ trải nghiệm tâm trạng như một thuộc tính của ý thức. Bạn biết đấy, đây là một đồ uống ngon. Người đó là một tên ngu ngốc. Bạn rất đáng tin cậy. Tâm trạng được nhúng trong nhận thức về thế giới. Và khi mọi người, cũng giống như đôi khi các loại thuốc giảm đau có tác dụng này. Chúng là thuốc thay đổi tâm trạng, có nghĩa là nếu chúng đang thao túng tâm trạng của bạn, chúng đang thao túng sự chuyển hóa của bạn. Và khi mọi người trở nên nghiện, họ thường trở nên nghiện vì họ đang điều chỉnh tâm trạng của mình. Họ đang cố gắng giảm bớt nỗi khổ. Vấn đề với, hoặc một vấn đề, tôi không nên nói vấn đề vì tôi không biết chính xác tâm trạng, chính xác rượu ảnh hưởng đến sự chuyển hóa như thế nào. Dự đoán của tôi là nó không chỉ theo một cách, mà nó cũng có các hiệu ứng theo ngữ cảnh, thực sự. Vì vậy, bạn có thể uống chính xác cùng một lượng rượu và nó có thể có những tác động khác nhau trong những ngữ cảnh khác nhau. Điều đó đã làm tôi bất ngờ khi tôi thấy nghiên cứu đó. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng đó không phải là một mối quan hệ đơn giản, nhưng một điều tôi biết là những dự đoán của bạn trở nên kém chính xác hơn và bạn không tiếp thu được sai sót trong dự đoán. Bạn không học hỏi. Bạn sẽ không cập nhật bất kỳ điều gì, bạn biết đấy, và do đó, hành vi của bạn không nhất thiết phải được điều chỉnh tốt với tình huống mà bạn đang ở, điều này có thể dẫn đến đủ loại vấn đề khó khăn về sau. Bạn biết đấy, bạn có thể làm mọi thứ trở nên tồi tệ hơn cho bản thân và làm cho việc lập ngân sách sau này trở nên khó khăn hơn.
    Có phải thật sự khó chịu không khi bạn đang gấp rút rời khỏi nhà nhưng không thể tìm thấy điện thoại hoặc ví của mình? Bây giờ, nhờ vào Apple, nếu bạn có iPhone, bạn có thể theo dõi nó bằng cách sử dụng Find My. Nhưng cho đến gần đây, điều này không thể thực hiện nếu bạn làm thất lạc ví của mình. Nhưng bây giờ điều đó đã thay đổi nhờ vào nhà tài trợ ngày hôm nay, Exter. Exter là sản phẩm đầu tiên như vậy. Bằng cách hợp tác với Apple, họ đã tạo ra một chiếc ví có thể theo dõi được, vì vậy nếu bạn làm thất lạc ví của mình, bạn có thể tìm thấy nó trong vài giây. Đây chính là chiếc ví. Và bạn có thể nhận ra Exter từ sự hợp tác của họ với Lionel Messi. Nó rất mỏng, làm từ nhôm tái chế với tính năng chặn RFID tích hợp để bảo vệ khỏi việc ăn cắp danh tính. Và với một cú nhấp chuột, tất cả thẻ của bạn hiện lên để bạn có thể chạm và đi. Tôi thường nói về các cải tiến 1%. Và khi tôi nhìn vào Exter, đối với tôi, đó là sự kết hợp của rất nhiều cải tiến 1% trên chiếc ví truyền thống. Vì vậy, nếu bạn đang tìm kiếm một nâng cấp, hãy ghé thăm Exter.com và sử dụng mã Stephen để được giảm thêm 10% trong chương trình giảm giá mùa xuân của họ, sẽ kết thúc vào ngày 19 tháng 5. Hãy ghé qua đó ngay bây giờ và kiểm tra nó. Bạn cũng được miễn phí giao hàng và trải nghiệm 100 ngày thử nghiệm. Đó là Exter.com với mã Stephen.
    Tôi muốn hỏi bạn về điều gì đó mà tôi đã nghe bạn nói. Và tôi thực sự đã nghe những khách mời khác trên podcast của tôi nói điều đó. Và tôi chưa bao giờ chắc chắn liệu điều đó có đúng hay không cho đến khi tôi nghe bạn nói, đó là chúng ta có thể thay đổi cảm xúc của mình bằng cách mỉm cười. Bởi vì nếu bộ não đang dự đoán, thì có khả năng nếu tôi mỉm cười lớn và tôi nói “có”, thì bộ não sẽ dự đoán những cảm giác tốt đẹp và sẽ gây ra những cảm giác tốt đẹp, v.v. và v.v. Vậy bạn có làm cho tôi cảm thấy tốt về bản thân không? Nó cũng có, nhưng mà không hoàn toàn. Tôi nghĩ, bạn biết đấy, mọi người cũng cười khi họ không vui. Mọi người mỉm cười khi họ tức giận. Mọi người mỉm cười khi họ đang âm thầm lập kế hoạch cho sự sụp đổ của kẻ thù. Bạn biết đấy, mọi người mỉm cười vì đủ loại lý do. Mọi người cười khi họ sợ hãi. Nhưng liệu tôi có thể làm cho mình hạnh phúc hơn theo cách nào đó bằng cách mỉm cười không? Các bằng chứng phân tích tổng hợp cho thấy rằng có một tác động nhẹ, rằng có một ảnh hưởng nhỏ – vâng, vâng. Nheo mắt vào – nheo. Đó rồi đấy. Giống như việc đặt một cây bút giữa hai hàm răng của bạn. Không, cứ tiếp tục. Ôi, bạn cần điều đó, phải không? Bây giờ mỉm cười. Bây giờ nheo mắt. Được rồi. Vậy nó giống như vậy. Và tôi sẽ nói rằng đó là một tác động rất nhỏ. Giống như nó rất nhỏ. Tôi cảm thấy hạnh phúc hơn. Còn bạn? Vâng. Nhưng đó chính là vì tôi đã làm cho bạn làm một điều gì đó ngớ ngẩn có lẽ? Có thể, vâng. Nhưng tóm lại, điểm là nó bị phóng đại như một tác động. Tôi nghĩ có một tác động nhỏ – theo như tôi nhớ, phân tích tổng hợp cuối cùng tôi đọc cho thấy rằng có một tác động nhỏ.
    Nhưng một hiệu ứng nhỏ có nghĩa là nó không hiệu quả với mọi người và không phải lúc nào cũng hiệu quả. Nó chỉ thực sự, thực sự là một hiệu ứng rất, rất nhỏ. Bạn phải có một cái nhìn về ADHD, thứ đã trở thành một chủ đề lớn trong xã hội. Tôi đã được chẩn đoán mắc ADHD. Tôi không nhất thiết phải coi đó là điều gì đó quan trọng vì tôi đã thấy rất nhiều biến thể của ADHD ở bạn bè của mình. Nhưng đã có một sự gia tăng lớn về ADHD và liên quan đến công việc mà bạn đã làm về bộ não như một công cụ dự đoán. Vì vậy, phản ứng tổng quát của tôi là như sau: Có một sự gia tăng ở những người tự chẩn đoán và trong việc sử dụng chẩn đoán như một giải thích cho hành vi hoặc lý do tại sao mọi người trải nghiệm những gì họ trải nghiệm hay bất cứ điều gì. Các chẩn đoán không phải là giải thích cho bất kỳ điều gì. Chúng chỉ là mô tả. Chúng không giải thích điều gì cả. Và việc coi một chẩn đoán như một giải thích là một dạng tinh tế hóa, điều này không phải là tốt. Nó có nghĩa là bạn đang giả định rằng có một dạng bản chất tiềm tàng, không thay đổi, chịu trách nhiệm cho – thực tế, có một cái gọi là chủ nghĩa thiết yếu tâm lý, nơi mà bạn thậm chí không biết bản chất đó là gì. Bạn chỉ giả định rằng nó tồn tại, bạn chỉ giả định rằng nó tồn tại, và rằng đó là nguyên nhân gây ra tất cả những triệu chứng này. Nhưng một chẩn đoán chỉ là một mô tả về triệu chứng. Và các chẩn đoán chủ yếu hữu ích cho việc lập hóa đơn các giờ điều trị. Chúng không được tối ưu hóa cho việc mô tả các nhóm hành vi mà bạn biết, hoặc tập hợp các hành vi thường đi cùng nhau. Vì đôi khi mọi người nghĩ rằng serotonin và dopamine là lý do tại sao ai đó có ADHD. Đó là một trong những lý thuyết mà tôi đã – Vì vậy, có nhiều thụ thể serotonin khác nhau. Có nhiều thụ thể dopamine khác nhau. Chúng không đều làm một việc giống nhau. Serotonin không làm một việc. Dopamine không làm một việc. Nó thực hiện những việc khác nhau ở những nơi khác nhau trong cơ thể và bộ não, tùy thuộc vào các thụ thể là gì. Và cũng vậy, mỗi nguồn lực về khả năng phục hồi và mỗi triệu chứng khó khăn đều có một ngữ cảnh nhất định. Có những yêu cầu, cách xã hội của chúng ta được cấu trúc, có những yêu cầu về việc ngồi và chú ý vào một điều gì đó trong thời gian dài. Và yêu cầu đó thường bị ẩn giấu ở phía sau. Nó tồn tại đến mức chúng ta quên rằng đó là điều kiện – đó là điều kiện mà việc chẩn đoán được thực hiện. Vì vậy, bất cứ điều gì – trước hết, ADHD không phải là một tập hợp triệu chứng. Nó là một sự đa dạng. Nó giống như – bạn biết đấy, có rất nhiều biến thể trong cách mà – bạn có thể có các hồ sơ triệu chứng khác nhau và có cùng một chẩn đoán vì nó chỉ là mô tả và có rất nhiều triệu chứng. Một số triệu chứng đó cũng xuất hiện trong – chúng chồng chéo với các hội chứng khác, các nhóm chẩn đoán khác. Nhưng điểm quan trọng là, khi bạn chẩn đoán ai đó, nó nghe như là đó là một đặc điểm của người đó. Đúng không? Nhưng không phải vậy. Đó là một đặc điểm của một người trong ngữ cảnh mà họ đang ở. Và mong đợi xã hội – theo bất kỳ tiêu chuẩn nào, giống như liệu anh ấy có thể chú ý trong trường học không? Ồ, đúng. Và cách mà trường học được tổ chức là, bạn biết đấy, bạn ngồi trong thời gian dài. Ồ, có thể có những hoàn cảnh khác mà việc không giữ sự chú ý vào một điều gì đó trong thời gian dài có thể có lợi. Vì vậy, ý tôi là có rất ít điều là hoàn toàn tốt hoặc hoàn toàn xấu. Luôn luôn có một điều kiện ẩn. Chắc chắn. Luôn luôn có một ngữ cảnh ẩn. Và vì vậy tôi nghĩ rằng thực sự quan trọng để đưa ngữ cảnh đó ra phía trước. Bạn không hỏng hóc. Bạn chỉ là – khả năng thích ứng của bạn với một ngữ cảnh nhất định đã được coi là – không phù hợp. Nó không hiệu quả cho ngữ cảnh đó. Và điều đó có thể nghe như những từ mập mờ hoặc có thể bạn biết đấy, nhưng không phải vì nó quan trọng mà các năng lực là theo ngữ cảnh. Và một lần nữa, tôi sẽ nói rằng đây không phải là, bạn biết đấy, tôi là một người có trái tim quảng đại, bạn biết đấy, tiến bộ hoặc bất cứ điều gì. Ý tôi là, tôi là một người có trái tim quảng đại, nhưng đây không phải là một ví dụ cho điều đó. Đây là một ví dụ về việc tôi thực dụng. Bạn có thể điều chỉnh nhau, điều mà bạn đã nói đến trước đây, điều mà tôi thấy thực sự, thực sự thú vị. Tôi đã đọc về một nghiên cứu về 25.000 người và họ tìm thấy rằng những người bị đau tim có xác suất sống sót cao hơn 14% nếu họ đã kết hôn. Nhưng điều khác mà tôi thấy thú vị là chúng ta điều chỉnh nhau bằng lời nói. Và tôi nghĩ bạn đã thực hiện một nghiên cứu về việc đánh giá sức mạnh của từ ngữ để tạo điều kiện cho cảm xúc. Bạn đã – đó là một nghiên cứu mà bạn cùng tác giả. Chúng tôi đã nghiên cứu sức mạnh của từ ngữ trong nhiều ngữ cảnh, bao gồm cả từ ngữ như những lời mời để hiểu được – bạn biết đấy, vì vậy nếu một trường hợp cảm xúc là bạn tạo ý nghĩa cho những gì đang xảy ra bên trong cơ thể bạn liên quan đến thế giới, thì bạn có thể – bạn mời – mỗi lần bạn sử dụng một từ cảm xúc, bạn mời mọi người tạo ra ý nghĩa theo cách đó. Vì vậy, bạn đã chứng minh, đúng không, rằng một số từ có thể làm dịu chúng ta? Vâng, nhưng tôi sẽ không nói rằng tôi đã chứng minh bất cứ điều gì. Các nhà khoa học không – Bạn biết đấy – Chứng minh, chứng tỏ. Vâng, chứng tỏ trong một – bạn biết đấy, trong một ngữ cảnh, đúng không? Giống như, chúng tôi – bạn biết đấy, các nhà khoa học không thích từ F. Tôi thích từ F khác, nhưng sự thật. Sự thật. Đó là một điều khó khăn vì nó có nghĩa là điều gì đó giữ vững trong mọi hoàn cảnh và mọi ngữ cảnh, và điều đó rất hiếm xảy ra. Vì vậy – nhưng vâng, chúng tôi đã. Vì vậy – và ý tôi là, nếu bạn đã làm điều đó có lẽ hàng triệu lần, bạn nhắn tin cho người khác, đúng không? Vâng. Vâng, và khi bạn nhắn tin một vài từ cho bạn đời hoặc bạn bè, bạn có thể thay đổi nhịp tim của họ. Bạn thay đổi nhịp thở của họ. Bạn có thể thay đổi đủ loại hóa chất, đủ loại tổng hợp protein chỉ với một vài từ. Một lần nữa, bạn biết đấy, chúng ta sống trong một – bạn biết đấy, tự do ngôn luận là quan trọng. Những quyền tự do là quan trọng, nhưng những quyền tự do đi kèm với trách nhiệm. Thích hay không, chúng ta điều chỉnh hệ thần kinh của nhau theo đủ mọi cách, bao gồm cả bằng lời nói. Và – Cho tốt hơn hoặc xấu hơn. Cho tốt hơn hoặc xấu hơn.
    Chính xác.
    Và vì vậy –
    Bạn thực sự đã khiến tôi suy nghĩ khác về căng thẳng nói chung.
    Bởi vì nếu tôi nhìn cuộc sống của mình qua lăng kính của ngân sách chuyển hóa này và căng thẳng là một gánh nặng đối với ngân sách này, thì nếu tôi không hạn chế căng thẳng của mình, tôi có khả năng vượt quá ngân sách hơn nhiều.
    Và nếu tôi vượt quá ngân sách, có thể hệ miễn dịch của tôi sẽ là thứ tôi cắt giảm chi phí hay là thứ gì đó khác.
    Đúng vậy.
    Ý tôi là, có một cái tốt – bạn không thể sống mà không có căng thẳng.
    Điều đó có nghĩa là bạn sẽ không có nỗ lực.
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, đôi khi các nhà khoa học sẽ nói về căng thẳng tốt và căng thẳng xấu, mà thực sự chỉ có nghĩa là căng thẳng được lập kế hoạch và nơi bạn bổ sung những gì bạn chi tiêu và căng thẳng có hại mà bạn không bổ sung.
    Căng thẳng mãn tính.
    Căng thẳng mãn tính hoặc, bạn biết đấy.
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, nếu bạn đang ở một cuộc họp căng thẳng, một cuộc họp ảnh hưởng đến tâm trạng của bạn, điều đó có nghĩa là đã có một số tác động chuyển hóa, hãy cân nhắc điều đó có ý nghĩa gì.
    Với tất cả những gì bạn biết về não bộ, tôi tự hỏi liệu bạn – nếu điều đó đã thay đổi quan điểm của bạn về tôn giáo, Chúa và tâm linh hay không, và liệu có một sức mạnh cao hơn nào đó không.
    Não bộ là một thứ thật tuyệt vời, phức tạp và xinh đẹp.
    Bạn biết đấy, một người quan sát khách quan vào năm 2025 nhìn vào não bộ vì điều này thật tuyệt vời.
    Nhiều người sau đó kết luận rằng chắc chắn phải có một nhà sáng tạo của bộ não đó.
    Nhưng chúng ta cũng đã nói rất nhiều hôm nay về ý nghĩa và mục đích của nó.
    Vì vậy, tất cả những gì bạn đã học về não bộ, thần kinh học và tâm lý học, đã khiến bạn tin vào một vị thần hay chưa?
    Không.
    Nó đã khiến bạn thêm phần vô thần hay hoài nghi không?
    Tôi khá chắc chắn là một người vô thần.
    Tôi không nghĩ rằng sự phức tạp kỳ diệu của tự nhiên hoặc của não bộ hay hệ thần kinh cần một nhà thiết kế.
    VàLogic đó không có ý nghĩa với tôi.
    Vì vậy, đây rõ ràng là một bước nhảy vọt khủng khiếp.
    Nhưng bạn có nghĩ rằng không có ý nghĩa vốn có nào trong cuộc sống ngoài, bạn biết đấy, như, sinh sản và –
    Tôi đang đọc cuốn sách này lần thứ hai.
    Nó có tên là “Open Socrates”.
    Được rồi.
    Và đây là một cuốn sách thực sự tuyệt vời.
    Và tôi đã học được rất nhiều về triết lý Socratic mà tôi chưa biết.
    Một trong những điều mà Socrates cho là quan trọng là đặt ra câu hỏi về ý nghĩa.
    Và bạn không nên hỏi câu hỏi này trong các khoảng thời gian 15 phút.
    Bạn nên thực sự hỏi câu hỏi này về cả cuộc đời của bạn.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ, nếu có gì, việc trở thành một nhà khoa học nghiên cứu cách mà một bộ não liên tục trò chuyện với cơ thể và các bộ não, cơ thể khác trong thế giới của chúng ta và ngay cả bản chất vật lý của thế giới của chúng ta,
    Cách mà điều đó tạo ra rất nhiều tâm trí, bao gồm cả tâm trí phương Tây của chúng ta, khiến tôi suy nghĩ nhiều hơn về tầm quan trọng của triết học, thực sự.
    Bởi vì tôi nghĩ triết học đang đặt ra những câu hỏi giống như những câu hỏi mà niềm tin tôn giáo cố gắng trả lời.
    Và đối với tôi, đó là một con đường tốt hơn.
    Tôi nghĩ đó là một con đường thoải mái hơn.
    Tôi thường đã đặt ra những câu hỏi như thế này suốt cuộc đời mình, thực sự.
    Vì vậy, điều đó khiến tôi cảm thấy như, điểm cuối cùng là gì?
    Ấy là, điểm cuối cùng là gì?
    Tôi nghĩ câu trả lời dành cho tôi, điểm cuối cùng, là để lại thế giới này tốt đẹp hơn một chút so với khi tôi tìm thấy nó.
    Nó giống như triết lý của Johnny Appleseed, bạn biết đấy.
    Bạn biết đấy, như một nhà khoa học, các nhà khoa học thường, bạn biết đấy, nhiều người trong chúng tôi, chúng tôi không làm những gì chúng tôi đang làm vì tiền.
    Tiền không xấu.
    Nhưng chúng tôi không làm những gì chúng tôi đang làm vì tiền.
    Chúng tôi làm vì các động cơ khác, đúng không?
    Để biết, để tò mò, để cố gắng khám phá những điều.
    Và ở một số thời điểm, chúng tôi bắt đầu nghĩ về, ồ, di sản của bạn là gì, đúng không?
    Hầu hết trong chúng ta không phải là Darwin.
    Chúng tôi không phải William James.
    Chúng tôi không phải, bạn biết đấy, Heisenberg.
    Chúng tôi không phải, bạn biết đấy, hầu hết trong chúng ta không phải những người đó.
    Vậy di sản của bạn là gì?
    Và cuối cùng, tôi nhận ra rằng tôi đã công bố rất nhiều bài báo đã được phản biện.
    Khi mọi người giới thiệu tôi, bạn biết đấy, họ thường nói một cái gì đó về trích dẫn của tôi, bạn biết đấy, mọi người, bất kỳ ai.
    Tiến sĩ Lisa là một trong những nhân vật có ảnh hưởng nhất trong lĩnh vực cảm xúc, thần kinh học và bản chất của não bộ.
    Cô ấy nằm trong số 0,1% các nhà khoa học được trích dẫn nhiều nhất trên thế giới nhờ vào nghiên cứu cách mạng của cô ấy trong tâm lý học và thần kinh học.
    Vâng, điều đó nghe thật tuyệt, rất tuyệt.
    Nhưng thực sự, di sản của tôi thật ra là những người mà tôi đã đào tạo, những tâm trí mà tôi đã có cơ hội tương tác.
    Và nếu tôi phải tính toán, tôi có thể tính số lượng phòng thí nghiệm hiện đang tồn tại mà trước đây không có, nhiều thế hệ nhà khoa học mà tôi đã đào tạo, hoặc những người, bạn biết đấy, và cũng những người đã đào tạo tôi, tôi muốn nói, trên đường đi.
    Vì vậy, đó là di sản của tôi theo một cách nào đó, thực sự, đó là những con người, đó là những con người, và những ý tưởng.
    Và tôi muốn nghĩ rằng, bạn biết đấy, khi tôi từng dạy học trong lớp nhiều, tôi cảm thấy rằng, những gì tôi tự nhủ là, nếu tôi có thể thay đổi quỹ đạo, kết quả của chỉ một người trong lớp này, chỉ một, thì tôi sẽ coi đó là hoàn thành nhiệm vụ của mình.
    Bạn biết đấy, và tôi cảm thấy có phần như vậy, bạn biết đấy, và tôi có phần như vậy một chút, kiểu như vậy về công chúng, về cái mặt công chúng của những gì tôi đang làm, đúng không?
    Giáo dục khoa học công chúng.
    Nếu tôi có thể giúp, nếu tôi có thể giúp, nếu điều gì đó mà tôi đã học hoặc điều gì đó tôi đã truyền đạt có thể giúp ai đó sống một cuộc sống có chủ đích hơn
    cuộc sống của các tác nhân có khả năng, nơi họ đang lựa chọn và họ đang tác động đến những người yêu thương của họ hoặc con cái của họ, thì, thì đó là, thì tôi đã làm được nhiệm vụ của mình.
    Đó là di sản của tôi.
    Và điều khó khăn về loại di sản đó, một di sản của các ý tưởng ảnh hưởng đến cuộc sống của mọi người, là bạn không bao giờ biết được tác động của mình là gì.
    Nhưng đó là một phần của thỏa thuận.
    Chúng tôi có một truyền thống đóng podcast nơi khách mời cuối cùng để lại một câu hỏi cho khách mời tiếp theo, không biết họ đang để lại cho ai.
    Câu hỏi là, làm thế nào để sống một cuộc sống mà không đạt được bất cứ điều gì?
    Tôi có một số bối cảnh về người này.
    Họ là một người nắm đai đen, nhà sư Shaolin.
    Vì vậy, họ nói rất nhiều về bản sắc.
    Chắc chắn rồi.
    Và họ, và sống mà không có chướng ngại và ràng buộc và những thứ như vậy.
    Đúng vậy.
    Vì vậy, nó nghe giống như một câu hỏi rất Phật giáo.
    Vấn đề là tôi nghĩ rằng ngay cả khi một người Phật giáo đạt được điều gì đó, họ cũng đạt được sự giác ngộ. Vì vậy, họ không nhất thiết phải có sự gắn bó. Họ không có của cải. Họ không có quyền lực. Họ không có, nhưng họ đạt được điều gì đó. Họ đạt được sự giác ngộ. Họ đạt được sự bình yên. Thế còn việc sống cuộc sống mà không có danh tính của bạn thì sao? Khiến bạn không vui? Chà, tôi nghĩ điều quan trọng là phải nhớ rằng bạn thực sự không có một danh tính tách biệt khỏi khoảnh khắc mà bạn đang trải qua. Không phải là có một bản chất nào đó ở bạn. Và điều tôi muốn nói là mọi thứ bạn trải nghiệm, mọi thứ bạn làm là sự kết hợp giữa quá khứ đã nhớ và hiện tại có cảm giác. Điều đó có nghĩa là để thay đổi bạn là ai, bạn có thể thay đổi những gì bạn nhớ hoặc cách bạn dự đoán, hoặc bạn có thể thay đổi hiện tại có cảm giác bằng cách đi đứng hoặc di chuyển đến nơi khác, chẳng hạn như đi dạo. Hoặc bạn có thể thay đổi hiện tại có cảm giác bằng những gì bạn chú ý đến, chánh niệm, chẳng hạn đúng không? Có những tín hiệu cảm giác nào đó đang đứng ở vị trí trung tâm trong sự chú ý của bạn. Và có một số khác thì ở phía sau đang rình rập. Ví dụ, bây giờ bạn không chú ý đến một số tín hiệu cảm giác nào đó, nhưng ngay khi tôi nói chúng, chỉ ra chúng, bạn sẽ chú ý đến như áp lực của ghế chống lưng và chân của bạn. Bây giờ chúng đang ở vị trí nổi bật trong sự chú ý của bạn vì tôi vừa mới đề cập đến chúng. Và điều tôi muốn nói là không có bản chất nào về bạn. Bạn là những gì bạn làm. Trong khoảnh khắc đó, bạn là những gì bạn làm. Và bạn có thể thay đổi những gì bạn làm. Bạn có thể thay đổi những gì bạn trải nghiệm, hậu quả của trải nghiệm sống, đó chính là hậu quả của những gì bạn làm, bằng những gì bạn nhớ và ngữ cảnh là gì. Vì vậy, đó là câu trả lời của tôi. Nếu bạn luôn nhớ điều đó, bạn sẽ không bao giờ bị gắn bó. Bạn sẽ không bao giờ khao khát hay cố gắng, bạn biết đấy, để có những thứ và tất cả những thứ nhân tạo này, mà hỗ trợ cho ảo tưởng rằng bạn là và bạn có một bản chất nào đó mà bạn, mà bạn biết, là không thay đổi giữa các tình huống. Vâng, chúng ta, tôi, chúng ta rất nhanh chóng sa vào cái bẫy suy nghĩ rằng chúng ta là những gì chúng ta đã làm. Và tôi thích hơn, tôi là những gì tôi làm, bởi vì điều đó có nghĩa là tôi có quyền quyết định khác trong khoảnh khắc, không phụ thuộc vào những gì tôi đã làm trong quá khứ. Nhưng đó là cái bẫy mà chúng ta sa vào. Trong 10 phút nữa, tôi cá là tôi sẽ xuống dưới và tôi sẽ lại rơi vào cái bẫy suy nghĩ rằng tôi là Stephen Bartlett, người đã làm điều này trong 32 năm hoặc đã làm, bạn biết đấy. Lisa, cảm ơn bạn. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì mọi điều bạn đã làm. Tôi, tôi cảm thấy bạn đã thay đổi cách suy nghĩ của tôi một cách thật sâu sắc. Và đó là điều khá khó vì tôi ngồi đây khá nhiều. Vì vậy, tôi có rất nhiều cuộc trò chuyện về não và về rất nhiều nghiên cứu mới mà đã ra đời, v.v. Nhưng bạn đã hoàn toàn làm tôi thay đổi suy nghĩ và khiến tôi nghĩ theo một cách hoàn toàn khác, điều mà tôi thực sự biết ơn. Vì vậy, cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì đó là một món quà. Và đó không phải là một món quà mà tôi luôn nhận được khi làm công việc này, nhưng thực sự là một món quà. Và đó là một món quà mà tôi nghĩ sẽ giúp tôi sống một cuộc sống tốt hơn cuối cùng. Nhưng hy vọng cũng để cho tất cả mọi người đang lắng nghe và cảm ơn bạn đã bước vào phần giao tiếp công cộng trong cuộc sống của bạn vì tôi đã định nói rằng đó là ai đó biết những gì bạn biết và đã thực hiện công việc mà bạn đã làm. Nó vô cùng quan trọng đến mức mà tôi gần như coi đó là một trách nhiệm rất quan trọng bởi vì có những người như chúng tôi ngồi trên những podcast này, những người không ở trong phòng thí nghiệm, mà nhận thông tin từ mạng xã hội, TikTok, hoặc bất kỳ ai đó nói điều gì đó. Và điều đó thật sự, thật sự quan trọng rằng những người như bạn bước ra nhiều hơn và chia sẻ những gì bạn biết. Và cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì đã viết những cuốn sách này vì chúng thật sự tuyệt vời. Và cũng giống như bạn đã thay đổi suy nghĩ của tôi hôm nay, tôi nghĩ những cuốn sách này sẽ thay đổi cuộc sống của rất nhiều người. Tôi rất khuyên cuốn sách này, “Cảm xúc được hình thành như thế nào”. Tôi sẽ liên kết nó bên dưới, “Cuộc sống bí mật của não bộ”. Và cũng cho một cái gì đó ngắn gọn hơn nhưng cũng dễ tiếp cận, cuốn sách này đây, “Bảy bài học rưỡi về não”. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều. Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều. Tôi sẽ chia sẻ với bạn một bí mật nhỏ. Bạn có thể nghĩ rằng tôi và đội ngũ của tôi hơi kỳ quặc, nhưng tôi vẫn nhớ đến bây giờ khi Jemima từ đội của tôi đăng trên Slack rằng cô ấy đã thay đổi hương thơm trong studio này. Và ngay sau khi cô ấy đăng, toàn bộ văn phòng đã vỗ tay trong kênh Slack của chúng tôi. Và điều này có thể nghe điên rồ, nhưng tại Diary of a CEO, đây là loại cải tiến 1% mà chúng tôi thực hiện trong chương trình của mình. Và đó là lý do tại sao chương trình lại trở thành như vậy. Bằng cách hiểu sức mạnh của việc cộng dồn 1%, bạn có thể hoàn toàn thay đổi kết quả trong cuộc sống của mình. Đó không phải là về sự chuyển mình đột ngột hay thành công nhanh chóng. Đó là về những hành động nhỏ, liên tục có sự thay đổi lâu dài trong kết quả của bạn. Vì vậy, hai năm trước, chúng tôi đã bắt đầu quá trình tạo ra cuốn nhật ký tuyệt đẹp này, và nó thật sự tuyệt đẹp. Bên trong có rất nhiều hình ảnh, rất nhiều cảm hứng và động lực nữa. Một số yếu tố tương tác. Và mục đích của cuốn nhật ký này là giúp bạn xác định, giữ sự tập trung vào, phát triển tính liên tục với 1% mà cuối cùng sẽ thay đổi cuộc sống của bạn. Vì vậy, nếu bạn muốn một cái cho bản thân hoặc cho một người bạn hay một đồng nghiệp hoặc cho đội ngũ của bạn, thì hãy đến thediary.com ngay bây giờ. Tôi sẽ liên kết nó bên dưới. Điều này luôn khiến tôi cảm thấy hơi ngạc nhiên. 53% trong số các bạn nghe chương trình này thường xuyên vẫn chưa đăng ký kênh. Vậy tôi có thể nhờ bạn một điều không? Nếu bạn thích chương trình và thích những gì chúng tôi làm ở đây và muốn hỗ trợ chúng tôi, cách đơn giản và miễn phí mà bạn có thể làm là nhấn nút đăng ký. Và cam kết của tôi với bạn là nếu bạn làm như vậy, thì tôi và đội ngũ của tôi sẽ làm mọi thứ trong khả năng của mình để đảm bảo rằng chương trình này sẽ tốt hơn cho bạn mỗi tuần.
    Chúng tôi sẽ lắng nghe ý kiến của bạn, chúng tôi sẽ tìm những khách mời mà bạn muốn tôi nói chuyện, và chúng tôi sẽ tiếp tục làm những gì chúng tôi đang làm.
    Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều.
    有一些實驗訓練人們去體驗焦慮,但以決心的方式去體驗,因為同樣的生理狀態可以被完全不同地體驗。 他們所發現的是,一開始真的很困難,但只要不斷練習,最終就會變得非常自動化。 所以,首先要理解的是…… 凱薩琳·李莎·費爾德曼·巴雷特博士是一位世界領先的神經科學家。 她的開創性研究揭示了情緒,如焦慮和創傷,是由大腦構建的。我們有能力去控制它們。 故事是你天生就擁有這些內在的情緒回路,但你並不是生來就能控制它們。 這是錯誤的。 其實發生的事情是你的大腦不是在反應,而是在預測。 你所採取的每一個行動、你擁有的每一種情感都是記憶中過去的結合,還包括任何創傷。 因此,你對此並沒有主觀能動感,因為這一切發生得非常自動化,快得比你眨眼還要快。 這怎樣改變了我們應該如何對待創傷? 有時在生活中,你對改變某些事情負有責任,並不是因為你應該被指責,而是因為你是唯一能這樣做的人。 我是說,我有一個女兒,她經歷了臨床抑鬱,學校成績不及格,睡不著覺,她非常痛苦。 一開始她非常抵抗,但後來她決定她想要得到幫助。 那麼她康復了嗎? 是的,她康復了。 所以如果你想改變自己是誰,改變你感受到的東西,理解這些基本的運作原則是生活有意義的關鍵。 那麼,改變的第一步是什麼? 在我們回到這一集之前,請給我30秒的時間。 我想說兩件事情。 第一件事就是非常感謝你每週收聽和關注這個節目。 這對我們所有人來說意義重大,這確實是我們從未想過的夢想,並且無法想象會到達這個地方。 但第二,這是一個我們覺得才剛剛開始的夢想。 如果你喜歡我們在這裡所做的事情,請加入那24%的定期收聽這個播客的人,並在這個應用程序上關注我們。 這裡有一個我給你的承諾。 我會盡我所能使這個節目變得盡可能好,無論是現在還是未來。 我們將提供你想讓我對話的嘉賓,並且我們將繼續進行你喜歡的所有事情。 謝謝你,真的非常感謝你。 回到節目中。 凱薩琳·李莎·費爾德曼·巴雷特博士,你的職業旅程真是非凡而曲折。 這幾乎很難用特定的使命或特定的旅程摘要來概括你所經歷的曲折和轉折。 但如果我現在問你,對於你目前正在做的工作,你的使命是什麼,你能位置嗎? 我的目標作為一名科學傳播者,就是試圖將非常複雜的科學以人們可以使用的方式呈現。 你知道,也許他們用它來在晚宴上娛樂朋友。 也許他們用它來幫助他們的孩子,當他們在與抑鬱作鬥爭時。 這在我個人的情況下,確實是我必須面對的事情。 或者也許他們用它來改善他們的工作場所,或提高他們工作同事的生產力,或者其他什麼。 關鍵是,這最終就是科學的用處。 它是為了,嗯,更好地生活。 而沒有博士學位的普通人也能做到這一點,只要他們擁有正確的信息。 我可能正在試圖理解,像我們這樣的大腦,與我們這樣的身體相連,浸泡在這樣的世界中,是怎樣產生思想的。 這是什麼? 什麼在發生,以至於你能擁有思想、感受、記憶和行動? 而來自其他國家、其他文化的人,卻也有著與你截然不同的心理生活。 怎樣的情況下,相同種類的大腦設計與相同一般類型的身體設計,可以產生如此不同類型的心智,當這些大腦在某種意義上,完成了在文化和物理上下文中自我連接的過程,這些上下文之間又是如此迥異? 當你剛才談到你追求理解我們的大腦是如何創造心智以及我們所擁有的現實時,如果我能夠理解所有這些,就像許多讀過你關於大腦和情感的書的人所能理解的一樣,那麼這對我的日常生活有什麼意義? 哦,我的天! 這給了你在生活中擁有更多主導權的機會。 這意味著什麼? 這意味著你擁有更多的選擇權。 這意味著你擁有更多的控制權。 這意味著你可以設計自己的生活。 嗯,你無法控制發生在你身上的一切。 你無法控制每一個感受的瞬間,但你擁有的控制權比你想像中要多。 每個人對自己所感受的和所做的事情的控制權,都比他們自己想的要多。 這種控制權不會像我們期望的那樣。 它比我們希望的要難以駕馭。 有些人比其他人有更多的控制機會,但每個人都有機會獲得更多控制權。 當然,反過來,也意味著對他們生活方式的更多責任。 我認為這是一件非常好的事情。 當世界事件在你周圍旋轉,而你感覺自己只是在漂浮時,我認為這是一件非常好的事情。 即使在這種瘋狂之中,也有機會讓你成為自己經驗和生活的更多建築師。 我認為這讓很多人感到樂觀和有幫助。 是的,因為生活有時會讓我們感到像是木偶,只是在對周圍發生的事情做出反應。 如果外面下雨,那我們就會感到難過。如果有人給我們發消息,我們就會感到煩惱。
    我們只是一種反應性的生物,對周圍發生的事情做出反應。
    但你告訴我,如果我對大腦及其運作和情感有更深入的理解,那麼我可以重新掌控一些控制權,過上更有意圖的生活。
    是的,正是如此。
    對我而言,我的職業生涯一開始是在研究情感的本質,但實際上這成為了一個了解大腦如何運作的手電筒。
    我們為什麼需要有大腦?
    這是一個非常昂貴的器官。
    在你耳朵之間那塊肉是你擁有的最昂貴的器官,從代謝的角度來看也是最昂貴的。
    那它有什麼用呢?
    它的最基本功能是什麼?
    它與身體的關係是如何的?
    我想在你的節目中,曾經有不少人談論過大腦與身體之間的某種關係。
    但我認為科學家們在很長一段時間內忘記或忽視了大腦是與身體相連的事實,對吧?
    因為我們並不會感受到所有的劇情。就像現在在你我以及所有聽眾身上,我們都在經歷著某種戲劇。
    這實在是相當激烈,裡面有很多事情在發生,而我們卻希望沒有一個人意識到這一點。
    如果你意識到了,那我真的很抱歉。這可能意味著你今天感覺不太好。
    但我們大多數時間不意識到自己身體內部發生的事情,這是件好事,因為如果我們真有意識到,我們將再也無法關注自己皮膚外的任何事情,對吧?
    但問題在於,在科學中,這通常是從你自己的主觀經驗開始,然後試圖對其進行形式化。
    而且,如果你看看任何科學,物理學也是如此。
    你必須回溯幾百年,甚至更久才能看到這一點。
    因此,事實證明,你所經歷的世界屬性以及世界的方式,其實深深根植於你大腦對身體的調節中。
    所以,我想我最初是從情感開始的,但它實際上變成了一個更大的項目,試圖理解,大腦究竟是什麼?
    它的結構是怎樣的?
    它是如何演變的?
    它是怎麼運作的?
    它的最基本功能是什麼?
    思想、情感、行動和知覺,它們在這一功能中扮演什麼角色?
    所以這有點翻轉了問題,對吧?
    大多數人會從什麼是情感開始?
    什麼是思想?
    什麼是記憶?
    他們為其定義,然後再尋找它在大腦或身體中的物理依據。
    這是一種相當破產的觀點。
    我指的是,經過了一百年,並沒有真正好的答案。
    所以我們將其翻轉過來,然後說,好吧,既然我們有這種大腦,那麼它能做什麼?
    它具體做些什麼?
    在正常功能下,它是如何產生心智事件的?
    在我們的文化中,我們的思想、情感、知覺和行動,而在其他文化中,有不同的特徵組合,對吧?
    對我們而言,思想、思想和情感是極為不同的。
    我們體驗到它們是完全分開的。
    事實上,自從柏拉圖開始以來,我們就有這種敘事。你知道,心靈或大腦就像是你的思想和情感之間的戰場,對吧?
    為了控制自己的行動,若你的思想獲勝,你就是一個理性生物、健康的生物、道德的生物。
    如果你的本能和情感獲勝,你知道的,你的內心野獸,那麼你就是不負責任的、幼稚的、不道德的、精神不健康的。
    這就是我們所處的敘事。
    在一些文化中,思想和情感並不是分開的。
    它們其實不是同時存在,而是合而為一。
    它們是同一精神事件的特徵。
    在某些文化中,你的身體和心靈並不是分開的。
    對於物理感覺和精神感受並沒有獨立的經驗。
    它們實際上是一回事。
    所以我們的心靈並不是唯一的人性,這只是其中一種人性,還有其他的人性。
    我們必須弄清楚,對於神經典型的人類來說,普遍的大腦計畫和普遍的身體計畫是如何在文化背景的影響下產生如此大的變異。
    在關於神經科學和理解大腦的過程中,與我們創造現實的方式,有沒有一個時刻讓你恍然大悟,意識到我們大多數人可能是錯的?
    或者說對於我們的大腦如何創造現實,有一個潛在的誤解?
    我會說,嗯,是的,當然有這樣一個恍然大悟的時刻,但那是一個漫長而緩慢的燒灼過程。
    當我還是研究生的時候,我並沒有研究情感。
    我在研究自我。
    你如何看待自己?
    你的自尊心如何?
    你如何概念化自己?
    這在心理學中是一個重要的主題。
    而我則在測量情感作為一個結果變數,但測量並不奏效。
    我想,我需要能夠直觀、客觀地測量當某人憤怒或悲傷或快樂時的情況。
    我不想要去詢問他們,因為他們可能是錯的。
    而在這個提問的措辭中,有一種預假設,對吧,即存在一種所謂的客觀狀態叫做憤怒,
    一般來說,大多數的憤怒情境在不同的人和上下文中看起來是相似的。
    而我很快意識到,沒有人能夠發現任何本質,對吧?
    所以最近,在過去幾年中,研究人員進行了一個元分析,這是一個對幾百個實驗的統計概要。
    而他們發現的事情是,這僅僅是在城市文化中,對吧?
    我們甚至沒有談論偏遠文化。
    在城市文化中,當某個人憤怒的時候,人們大約有35%的時間會皺起眉頭。
    皺眉就像是…
    像皺眉,像是…
    好的,你知道的,你皺起眉頭,這是皺眉的樣子,對吧?
    好的。
    但這意味著,大約65%的時間當人們生氣時,他們的面部表情還意味著其他某些事情。
    而一半的時間當人們皺眉時,他們並不是生氣,而是感受到其他情緒。
    他們可能是在非常專注。
    你可能剛告訴了他們一個糟糕的笑話。
    他們可能有胃氣脹的問題。
    你知道,皺眉並不僅僅是憤怒的表情。
    在某些情境下它是憤怒的表情。
    在其他情境中,它也是其他情感的表現。
    所以這意味著,實際上並沒有一種特定於憤怒的可靠情感表達。
    這對所有研究過的情感都是如此。
    無論你有多明確地感受到憤怒或悲傷,或選擇其他任何一種情感。
    你的心率可以上升,可以下降,也可以保持不變。
    你的血壓可以上升,可以下降,也可以保持不變。
    身體內正在發生的生理反應與你大腦為特定行為所做的準備有關。
    那麼我們就從這裡開始吧。
    預測性大腦這個概念我幾乎只從你那裡知道。
    我以前從未聽說過。
    當我們說到預測性大腦時,這意味著什麼?
    而這又不意味著什麼?
    所以當你生活在日常生活中。
    對。
    就像現在這樣。
    就像現在這樣。
    所以現在,我在猜我正在對你說話,而你在感知我所說的話,然後你做出反應。
    這對你來說是這樣的感覺,對吧?
    是的。
    好的。
    對我來說也是如此。
    所以我們感知,然後我們反應。
    這是大多數人如何在世界上經歷自己的方式。
    但實際上,在背後發生的事情並不是這樣。
    真正發生的事情是,大腦,您的大腦並不是在反應,而是在預測。
    這意味著,如果現在我們停止時間,將時間凍結,你的大腦會處於一種狀態,並且會記住和這種狀態相似的過去經驗,作為預測接下來該做什麼的方法。
    像是字面上的下一個瞬間。
    你的眼睛應該移動嗎?
    你的心率應該上升嗎?
    你的呼吸應該改變嗎?
    你的血管應該擴張還是收縮?
    你應該準備站起來嗎?
    對吧?
    所以在背後,你的大腦正在預測它應該進行哪些動作。
    因此,根據這些動作,你將會經歷到的事情。
    所以你是先行動,然後再感知。
    你不會感知然後再反應。
    你預測行動,然後才感知。
    所以請給我一個例子,讓我明白一下我的大腦是如何預測然後採取行動的。
    好的。
    所以現在你我正在交談,我在說話而你在聆聽。
    而你大腦中所真的發生的事情是,基於數以億計的聽語言的重複,你的大腦在預測,字面上預測每一個我將要說出的單詞。
    是的。
    好的。
    如果我不是說“嘴”,而是說我身體其他某個開口的詞語,你會多麼驚訝?
    那會很驚訝,因為你的大腦是在預測這一點。
    你的大腦一直在預測,並且在預測不正確的時候進行修正。
    你知道,我有一個視頻,通常在我對科學家或普通人進行演講時會播放。
    我在講話,這會創造出一種情境,讓他們可以預測一些東西,並且他們能夠感受到這種預測不僅僅是一種抽象的思維。
    思維是你的大腦實際上正在改變自身感官神經元的放電方式,以預測未來到來的感覺。
    因此,在你感知這些感覺之前,你開始感受到這些感覺。
    在世界給予你那些信號之前,你開始獲得這種經驗。
    我看過,我想是在你的書中,但可能在其他地方,關於渴望的例子。
    所以當你喝水的時候,假設你非常口渴,然後你喝了一大杯水,何時你停止口渴?
    幾乎是馬上。
    但實際上,水需要大約20分鐘才能被吸收到血液中,並進入大腦告訴大腦你不再需要液體。
    因為在數百萬次的機會中,你已經學會了現在某些動作和感官信號將導致那種心理狀態。
    或者這裡有另一個例子。
    所以現在,請把眼睛集中在我身上。
    你正好盯著我。
    在你的心靈視野中,我希望你想像一個麥金塔蘋果,並不是一台電腦,而是一個真正的水果。
    好的。
    你能做到嗎?
    是的。
    你能看到它嗎?
    是的。
    它是什麼顏色?
    綠色。
    好的。
    它有紅色嗎?
    沒有。
    好的。
    所以它是一個格蘭尼史密斯蘋果。
    是的。
    好的。
    它的味道怎麼樣?
    想像一下,想像一下抓住它。
    是的。
    咬下去,聽到蘋果的脆響。
    它的味道怎麼樣?
    它是甜的。
    可能有點酸?
    是的,是的。
    是多汁的嗎?
    非常多汁。
    是的。
    所以如果我此刻對你的大腦進行成像,我會看到與你的視覺皮層中的神經活動相關的信號發生變化,即使你面前沒有蘋果。
    我會看到你的聽覺皮層中的活動變化,即使你並沒有真正聽到脆響。
    我口水直流。
    而你的嘴也在流口水。
    事實上,每次你坐下來吃飯時,你的大腦都會指導唾液腺分泌更多唾液,以準備讓你進食和消化食物。
    所以這通常在你甚至坐下吃飯之前就會發生。
    這一切都是預測。
    這一切都是你的大腦在為即將到來的事情做準備。
    因為預測和修正是一種更有效的運行神經系統,實際上運行任何系統的方式,而不是對世界的反應。
    這裡還有另一個例子。
    你喝咖啡嗎?
    是的。
    好的。
    你每天在同一時間喝咖啡嗎?
    通常會的,對。
    好吧。
    那你是不是這種人,如果錯過那個時間喝咖啡,就會頭痛?
    我曾經有過這樣的經歷。
    是的。
    我之前是一個喝很多咖啡的人。
    我喜歡咖啡,但現在不再喝了。
    但我真的很愛它。
    我每天都在同一時間喝咖啡。
    如果我不喝,在那個時間點,我會感到劇烈的頭痛。
    原因是,這其實對於你所服用的每一種藥物都是正確的,任何影響你生理的東西,如果你定期攝取,你的腦袋就會預期這種情況。
    這意味著,咖啡中的化學物質會收縮你全身的血管。
    但在大腦中,大腦會試圖保持血流穩定且均勻。
    如果你每天早上8點都在喝一種會收縮你血管的飲料,那麼在大約7點55分,我不知道確切的時間,但在8點之前的一小會兒,你的腦袋會擴張血管。
    為了準備那種收縮,以保持血流的穩定。
    如果你不飲用那種物質,那麼就會出現劇烈擴張,導致非常非常嚴重的頭痛。
    我當時在想,當你在講的時候,我以為你會說到有時我設鬧鐘時,似乎會在鬧鐘響前五分鐘醒來。
    是的,當然。
    這是一個例子。
    還有另一個例子。
    鍛煉。
    如果你想更好地打網球,如果你想跑得更快,你該怎麼做?
    訓練。
    訓練。
    你不斷重複同樣的事情。
    然後你變得更好、更快。
    而且你消耗的卡路里會更少。
    你的效率會提高。
    為什麼?
    因為你的大腦在做出很好的預測。
    這就是肌肉記憶的意義。
    它並不是字面意義上的肌肉裡的記憶。
    而是大腦中的記憶。
    你的大腦控制著你的肌肉。
    所以如果你不斷重複同一組動作,你會變得非常高效,因為你的大腦能夠做出更好的預測。
    如果你是一個因為想變得更健康或想減肥而鍛煉的人,那麼你不想不斷重複同樣的運動,因為你會消耗更少的卡路里,因為你的效率提高了。
    這是目標,對吧?
    如果每30秒就有人呼喊不同的動作,而你無法預測它們,那麼你的大腦會做出預測。
    這將是錯誤的。
    你必須調整。
    所以你最終會燃燒更多的卡路里,並且使自己失去平衡,我們稱之為動態平衡(allostasis)。
    因此,你的身體會失去調節能力,然後你的大腦必須努力重新進行調整。
    這是一種不同的鍛煉。
    這兩種不同的鍛煉完全基於這樣一個事實,即有時你想能夠更好地預測。
    有時你想能夠打亂自己並快速恢復狀態,對嗎?
    所以基本上你在學習如何接收預測誤差,調整自己的信號。
    這對於創傷和其他心理健康疾病(如抑鬱症、焦慮等)有什麼啟示呢?
    這是否意味著我的預測出了錯?
    我這麼說是因為預測依賴於過去發生的事件並形成模式,就像一個模式識別系統。
    所以如果我成長的過程中出現了某些模式,但現在的情況卻不同。
    比如說,如果我在成長過程中,每次都被一個男人進入房間後打了。
    那麼現在,當一個男人走進房間,而我已經35歲時,我的大腦仍然會發出同樣的預測。
    因此,我對男人產生了恐懼,比如說。
    這是否在某種程度上解釋了兒童創傷,以及為什麼這麼難以擺脫,為什麼我們長大後有時會生活得如此不正常?
    我會說作為一個一般原則,是的。
    有很多細節,對吧?
    但是是的,的確如此。
    因此,創傷不是發生在你生活中的某種事情。
    你所經歷的一切都是記憶中的過去和感官中的現在的結合。
    所以可能會發生不利事件。
    你正在經歷地震。
    你周圍的某人去世了。
    某些不好的事情發生在你身上。
    有人以某種方式傷害了你。
    可能會有不利事件而對你來說卻不是創傷。
    因為你並沒有利用過去的經驗來將其理解為創傷。
    另一方面,對於某些人來說,某些事情可能是日常經歷,但對你而言,它卻與一組非常創傷的記憶相連接。
    這些事件對你來說非常創傷。
    所以對你而言,這就是創傷。
    因此,創傷並不是世界上客觀存在的東西。
    它也不僅僅存在於你頭腦中。
    創傷是過去發生的事情與當下發生的事情之間關係的屬性。
    這裡有一個例子。
    有一位在埃默里大學工作的 antropologist。
    她研究很多不同文化的人。
    她研究很多不同文化中的創傷。
    她寫過一個女孩的個案研究,名叫瑪麗亞(Maria),她是一位年輕的青少女。
    她生活的文化中,男性對女性和女孩的身體接觸是相對正常的。
    在我們的文化中,我們會稱之為身體虐待。
    但在她的文化中,這只是男性的常規行為。
    她並沒有經歷到創傷,所以她的繼父會拍打她。
    她不喜歡,但她沒有顯示出任何創傷的跡象。
    她理解這一切的方式是:男人就是混蛋。
    這是非常明確的,不是關於我的,而是關於他們的。
    這雖然不愉快,但她的睡眠還不錯。
    她的學校成績也還可以。
    她有朋友。
    她完全沒有任何創傷的跡象。
    然後她看了奧普拉的節目。
    她聽到那些女性談論她們曾經遭受來自男朋友、父親或丈夫的身體虐待。
    她認識到這些女性的描述和她自己身體狀況中的相似之處。
    她也觀察到她們經歷著創傷的徵兆。
    突然之間,她開始難以入睡。
    她的成績下降。
    她專心不起來。
    她變得社交孤僻。
    她理解事物的方式,就像如果你把身體動作視為行動,她對這些行動有了不同的意義。
    而她經歷了之前未曾經歷的創傷。
    現在,如果你是一個相信有客觀世界存在的人,你知道,那就是因果關係。
    是的。
    實際上,她內心深處確實存在某種潛在的創傷,她之前未曾經歷過,但後來被觸發了。
    然後你可以講述這樣的完整故事,很多人確實會這樣講,但這不是最好的科學證據所顯示的情況。
    實際上發生的事情是,身體動作是一樣的。
    這些動作的心理體驗是不同的,因為經驗是感官當下、身體當下和記憶過去的結合。
    而你需要兩者才能擁有特定類型的經驗。
    因此,描述瑪莉亞的軌跡所發生的事情的方式是,她經歷了某種不幸的身體生活的面向。
    然後這一切變成了關於她自己的事。
    這不再是說某人在做壞事,而是這個人因為她是誰而對她做壞事。
    她也被展示了應該如何應對這一切,透過觀看奧普拉的節目和其他人以某種方式做出反應。
    對。
    因此,這成了關於她這個人的事,而不僅僅是,知道,她的繼父是個混蛋。
    如果你這樣想,我們在這個文化中所做的事情是,當人們因創傷而去治療時,我們試圖實際上逆轉那種敘事。
    因此,我們試圖教導人們,當創傷發生於他們身上時,這不是……而我想要非常清楚我所說的,對吧?
    我並不是在說人們遭受創傷是他們的錯。
    我在任何方面都不在說他們對發生在他們身上的事情有責任。
    但是,有時在生活中,你有責任改變某些事情,這不是因為你應該承擔責任,而是因為你是唯一能做到的人。
    責任落在你身上。
    因此,在這個文化中,我們試圖教導那些經歷過創傷的人,他們可以以某種方式重新體驗過去發生在他們身上的身體事件。
    而當他們這樣做時,他們不再感到創傷。
    我的思想因為多種不同的原因有點震驚,因為認為我們賦予了過去事件的意義,這是一個真正的範式轉變。
    而有時這種意義來自於觀看其他人賦予的意義。
    而我們繼承了這種意義……
    哦,是的。
    這被稱為文化繼承。
    這就像文化的傳染。
    所以事實證明,有一種古老的進化理論,對吧?
    這被稱為現代合成,繼承確實是基因。
    你繼承了,不管你繼承了什麼,你都是通過你的基因繼承的,然後自然選擇,知道,選擇某些基因模式,而不是其他的。
    這就是跨世代的繼承方式。
    大多數進化生物學家現在不再認同這種觀點,因為在大多數情況下,還有很多種繼承的方式。
    而我們所認為的很多繼承事實上更像是所謂的表觀遺傳學,這意味著它不太涉及DNA。
    我會說,我喜歡這樣說,我們擁有的那種自然需要一種養育。
    我們擁有的基因需要經驗,才能將任何東西接入我們的大腦。
    而我們的大多數特徵都是這樣工作的。
    非常少的特徵僅僅依賴基因。
    在神經典型的大腦中發生的事情是,你出生時大腦還不完整,對吧?
    成人的大腦被認為是與其世界相連的。
    那個世界包括你自己的身體。
    但嬰兒的大腦不是一個迷你成人大腦。
    它是一個等待來自世界和自身身體的連接指令的大腦。
    因此,你的大腦被設計為透過與你眼睛的準確距離進行視覺。如果以某種方式,知道,我們可以將你的大腦神奇地移植到其他人的顱骨中,你將無法透過那個顱骨看東西。
    你將無法透過那些眼睛看東西,因為它們不在正確的位置。
    你用耳朵聽,你的聽覺來自由你耳朵形狀所形成的信號。
    因此,你的大腦是為這些耳朵而設計的,而不是任何耳朵,這些耳朵。
    類似地,作為一個嬰兒,你被教導這些身體信號的意義。
    你被教導如何理解這些事物。
    這被稱為文化繼承。
    很多我們認為是硬接入大腦的東西,其實是跨世代的文化繼承。
    這就是人們如何在特定環境中生存。
    你知道,就像在19世紀和20世紀,當探險者去南極或這裡或那裡,很快就會死去。
    因為因紐特人在那裡生活。他們過得很好。
    好吧,因為他們有文化繼承的知識。
    我們總是在互相傳遞知識。
    而這些知識成為我們自己預測的素材。
    因此,你的預測不僅來自於你的個人經驗。
    它們還來自於你觀看電視、和客人交談、閱讀書籍、觀看電影。
    此外,您的大腦,和大多數人類的大腦一樣,能做一些非常奇妙的事情,那就是您可以將過去的經驗片段重新組合以全新的方式,從而利用過去來體驗一些您前所未有的新事物。您剛才提到過,治療師試圖讓您以不同的方式看待過去。但是我確實認為,在我們的文化、社會和社交媒體上有一種潛在的信念,那就是如果發生在您身上的事情,幾乎就像這種佛洛伊德的觀點,如果這發生在您身上,那就是您所成為的樣子。我在聖誕節時閱讀了一本書《勇氣去不被喜歡》,這本書在某種重要的方式上深刻地改變了我對此的看法,因為它幫助我理解。我認為這本書基本上說的是,發生在我們身上的事情並不決定我們成為誰,而是我們如何使用這些發生的事情並賦予其意義,這最終決定了我們的行為。非常有趣的是,這意味著我對自己的許多信念,即我所說的我是誰、我的身份,因此我每天的行為方式,無論是生產性的或非生產性的,實際上只是我為過去所賦予的意義所做的選擇。這有意義嗎?完全有意義。這真的是一個非常深刻的議題,我不知道現在聽的人是否理解我所說的,但在我們談話的一開始,我們說過,您在生活中會覺得自己是一個木偶,並被您所經歷的事情、您的身份所控制。但實際上,您的身份只是您為過去賦予意義的構建,目的是為了現在的需求,就像書中所說的那樣。是的,我會略微不同地表達這一點,但信息是一樣的。我認為,在當下感官中,對嗎,存在著視覺、聲音、氣味,您體內也有一些事情發生,對吧?這些信號傳遞到您的大腦。它們本身沒有固有的心理意義。它們沒有固有的情感意義。它們沒有固有的心理意義。賦予它們意義的是您過去的記憶。您是創造者,您是意義的製造者。意義不是一組像字典定義那樣的特徵。因此,這個杯子的意義不是它是由金屬製成的,我們確實可以談論這些特徵,但在此刻,這個杯子的意義在於我如何使用它。所以它可以是喝水的器具。它可以是一種武器。它可以是,您知道的,花瓶。它可以是一個量杯。這個容器的意義在於我在此刻如何使用它。這就是它的意義。因此,這個容器的意義不在於容器本身,也不僅僅在我的腦海中。意義存在於這個物體的特徵與我大腦中創造我的行為的信號之間的關係中。事實上,即便這是一個實體物體,這種堅實性並不在於物體中。是因為我擁有某種類型的身體,擁有特定的特徵,使我感受到這是堅實的。堅實性不在我身上,也不在物體中。它存在於兩者之間的關係中。這意味著每一個您經歷的事情部分是您自己創造的。您對此沒有一種主體性的感覺,因為這發生得非常自動。在我們談話的過程中,它正以比您眨眼更快的速度發生。但它仍然在發生。這就意味著,即使您沒有主體性的感覺,您部分上仍然在控制,因此對正在產生的意義負有責任。當我在我們談話的開始時提到我的目標是作為一名科學傳播者,嘗試向人們解釋他們對自己生活有更多的控制權。您在任何給定的時刻對自己是誰的控制遠超過您所想,這是我所指的,給他們更多的主體性。您沒有持久的身份。您就是在您的行動瞬間的自己。行動是記憶中的過去的組合,是您的大腦用來預測的材料,您的大腦是以超自動的方式進行組裝的,還有當下的感官對嗎?所以如果您想改變自己,想改變您的感受,想改變您對他人的影響,您有幾個選擇。您可以試著回到過去,改變之前發生的事情的意義,讓您能以不同的方式記住,以便將來做出不同的預測。這就是心理治療的意義。這就是凌晨兩點和您的朋友進行心靈深處對話的意義,或其他的事情。這真的很困難。並不總是那麼有效。然而,您還可以做的另一件事是,如果您意識到您現在所經歷的任何事情都成為未來預測的種子,那麼您可以有意識地為自己創造新的經驗。您可以接觸到新想法,可以接觸到與您不同的人,可以練習培養特定的經驗,就像您鍛煉任何技能一樣。任何您學到的新概念、您擁有的新經驗,在此刻如果您加以練習,它們就會成為未來自動的預測。因此,讓我來拿這個例子,嘗試將其應用到我手中的這個銀杯上。因此,心理治療是試圖回到過去,向我解釋為什麼這實際上不是我應該用來喝水的東西,它可以是其他東西。而您所說的另一種方法是,如果我現在去找一些花,把它們放進去,我正在為未來創造一個新的預測,因為我在當下創造了一種新的模式,這實際上是花瓶。
    我可以開始創造一個新模式,讓這種銀杯不僅是用來喝水的,它們也是插花的花瓶。
    沒錯。
    好吧,我可以回到過去,試著說服自己杯子不是杯子,或者我可以在當下創造一個新模式,這意味著將來我的大腦預測下次看到銀杯時,不會只想到“喝水”,而是會想到“放一些花進去”。
    對,記住,實際上思考是在行動之後發生的,對吧?
    那麼,當你下次接近一個可能有銀杯的桌子時,你的大腦會已經開始準備去拿花的行動。
    對。
    然後你會想,哦,對,我可以把這當作一個,哦,看看,有個好花瓶,對吧?
    所以在你的大腦中,是行動在先,你的大腦在控制,準備內臟的行動,我們稱之為內臟運動。
    那麼,你的心率需要改變嗎?
    你的血管需要擴張嗎?
    你需要以不同的方式呼吸嗎?
    這基本上是在預測身體的需求,並試圖在這些需求出現之前滿足它們。
    這支持了你的身體運動,對吧?
    所以如果你要走過去拿一些花,剪一下花梗等等,這些都是需要葡萄糖和氧氣的身體運動。
    因此,所有這些都必須提前準備,在行動開始前的毫秒內。
    所以,不是你所想的決定了你所感受的,而是你準備要做的事情決定了你的思想、情感,以及你所看到的聲音、氣味和感覺。
    這才是內在運作的真相。
    所以意義在於你所做的事情。
    然後作為結果,意義會成為你所感受到的、你所思考的等等。
    那麼讓我給你一些具體的例子。
    假設我害怕蜘蛛,我該如何使用你描述的第二條路徑來克服對蜘蛛的恐懼呢?
    改變預測的一個方法是,你不能僅僅靠意志力改變預測。
    我真的很怕蜜蜂。我在五歲時有過創傷經歷。我害怕蜜蜂。我對蜜蜂了解很多。我其實是一名園丁。我知道許多關於蜜蜂的進化生物學的知識。
    但當我在外面時,如果蜜蜂出現,我的第一反應就是要麼逃跑,要麼靜止不動。
    對吧?我害怕蜜蜂。
    我可以跟自己說話直到牛回家,但這毫無意義。
    對吧?所以我必須給自己注入預測誤差,這意味著我必須以改變我的行動的方式與蜜蜂互動,這將改變我的生活體驗。
    而且我不能一次性做到這一點。
    如果我去找擁有蜂箱的人,穿上防護服去工作,那是一個壓倒性的想法。
    對吧?
    所以相反,也許我不跑。也許我站著觀看。
    也許我靠近蜜蜂。
    也許我種植蜜蜂喜歡的灌木和花朵,把蜜蜂吸引到我身邊,好讓我能坐在旁邊,看看它們在嗡嗡作響,做著自己的事情。
    也許我在某個時候故意讓自己被蜇,這我真的做過。
    但,你知道,你是在給自己注入預測誤差,你的大腦正在做一組預測。
    那些預測就是一組預測。
    這意味著你的大腦並不是準備一個行動,而是在準備多個行動。
    所以你需要向你的大腦證明那些預測是錯誤的。
    是的,正是如此。
    你需要創造情況讓自己證明你的預測是錯誤的。
    如果你預測得很好,那麼你將有幾個行動計劃。
    如果你的預測不佳,假設過度概括,也許你有一百個計劃。
    比如說,如果存在極大的不確定性,你的大腦就不知道哪個行動計劃,因此可能會有很多個。
    感官信號正從你身體的感官表面進入你的大腦,來自你的視網膜,來自你的耳蝸。
    你在皮膚、體內和肌肉細胞上都有感官表面。
    這些信號都在進入你的大腦。
    它們有助於選擇哪個預測信號會被完成為行動和生活經歷。
    好吧,讓我們假設你故意將自己置於一個情況中,那裡的進入信號將不會選擇任何預測,因為那裡有太多未預測的信號。
    這是錯誤。
    在心理學中,有另一個名稱用於接受預測誤差。
    暴露療法?
    學習。
    哦,好的。
    是的,暴露療法,這是一種學習,所有的學習,所有的學習就是你接受預測誤差,即你未曾預測的信號,或是你預測的信號不存在。
    你預測了一個信號,它卻不存在。
    所以你要做的是為自己創造情況,讓你接受新奇的信號,對吧?
    這似乎是件簡單的事情。
    實際上,人們有時會尋求新奇的東西,對吧?
    但過多的新奇未必總是好事,尤其是如果你在代謝上,接受預測誤差和學習新事物在代謝上是昂貴的。
    比如說,你的大腦在三方面花費能量最多:移動身體、學習新事物以及應對持續的不確定性。
    這些都是對我們來說非常昂貴的事情。
    所以如果你在某種程度上受到代謝負擔,比如你抑鬱、焦慮障礙,或許你有心臟病、糖尿病,或是生活在慢性壓力下,你可能沒有足夠的精力去接受預測誤差。
    你將會依賴你的預測。
    你無法學習。
    你也無法更新那些預測。
    你會陷入停滯。
    你會卡在自己的腦海裡,對吧?每一個經驗,每一個行動,都是記憶中的當下、記憶中的過去、預測和感官的當下的組合。但是,感官的當下只是為了選擇你將根據哪些記憶中的過去進行行動。而有時,在大腦負荷很大的時刻,大腦會依賴自己的預測,忽視外界的事物。我剛才在你談論這種社會傳染的時候,想到了這一點,我們可以將意義應用到我們的生活和發生在我們身上的事情上,然後因此讓自己感到悲傷,因為我們看到其他人在抖音或Instagram上是如何感受的。這讓我想,你一定在某種程度上認為這個世界是瘋狂的。你一定能察覺到社會傳染的存在,突然之間每個人似乎都變得受到創傷,因為創傷幾乎變得流行,你知道的,去思考發生在你身上的事並賦予它意義,然後承受那個意義。但還有其他類型的社會傳染在社會中擴散。我是說,年輕人變得越來越焦慮,越來越沮喪。我們自我診斷出各種不同的疾病和問題。但現在你已經解釋了大腦是如何運作的。我在想,天哪,作為一個社會,我們真是瘋狂。好吧,我們活在謊言中。是的,我想,我覺得,我確實有時候會感到沮喪,但只是因為我認為我們作為動物是意義創造者。我們創造意義,我們之所以創造意義,是因為生活的本質,就像與世界中的事物互動,與彼此互動一樣。很少有意義是既定的,這意味著它們獨立於我們存在。所以我覺得令人沮喪的是有很多痛苦,而理解這些大腦的基本運作原則不會消除所有的痛苦,但它可能會改善或減少一些。但人們並不明白,他們有時會讓自己的痛苦比其實應有的來得更糟。你在“負責任”這個詞上停頓了。我想要非常清楚地說,再次重申,我不是在說人們要負責。可責性和責任並不是一回事。可責性是指你是否值得責備,對吧?我不是在說人們要為自己的痛苦負責。我是說,通過承擔更多的責任,人們可以在某程度上減少自己的痛苦。這並不是說他們一開始就造成了這個結果。所以我舉個例子。社會傳染。傳染是一個有趣的詞。它意味著你被某種東西感染,甚至是病毒。有些實驗是在15到20年前進行的,這些實驗是由謝爾頓·科恩(Sheldon Cohen)進行的,他是一位心理免疫學家,這意味著他是一名心理學家。他研究免疫學,也就是你的免疫系統與你的心理狀態之間的關係。因此,他在多個實驗中將人們隔離在酒店房間內。然後,他將相同劑量、相同濃度的病毒放進每個人的鼻子裡。然後,他控制他們的睡眠時間、飲食量。他測量他們的症狀。他在他們擤鼻涕後稱量他們的組織。我是說,他做得真的非常,非常,非常小心。在這些實驗中,大約20%到40%的人出現了呼吸道疾病的症狀。這意味著病毒是必要的,但是不充分以引起疾病。另一個必要但不充分的原因是每個人的免疫系統狀態。也就是說,你的腦部和免疫系統必須處於特定狀態,才能在這些實驗中受到病毒的感染。所以我在這裡要強調的觀點與痛苦是一樣的。以焦慮為例。我們在文化中,自動將某些信號模式賦予意義為焦慮。當有很多不確定性時,腎上腺素和一些化學物質在大腦中會增加。這通常伴隨心率上升等等。我們自動地將這種生理狀態解讀為焦慮。但是完全相同的生理狀態也可能是決心。它可能只是純粹的不確定性。再次強調,創造意義與行動有關,對吧?因此,當你經歷高亢的激勵時,即使它的確是非常不愉快,若是被理解為決心,你的行為會與像是焦慮或不確定性時有所不同。因此,這裡有一個例子。有些人會經歷考試焦慮。嚴重的考試焦慮會阻止人們完成課程或從大學畢業。那些大學畢業的人,一生的收入軌跡往往比輟學的人的多出幾十萬美元。因此,考試焦慮在長期來看,絕不僅僅是一點不適。你知道,這對你的終身賺取潛力有嚴重的影響。曾經進行過這樣的實驗,訓練人們將高亢的生理狀態視為決心,而非焦慮。這些人學會了這樣做。首先,他們像技能一樣進行練習。剛開始時,這非常困難。你需要付出很多努力去做。但你不斷地練習,最後它變得非常自動。然後發生什麼呢?他們能夠參加考試。他們能夠通過考試。他們能夠繼續上課等等。我實際上在我眼前看到了這一切。我女兒在12歲時正在測試她的空手道黑帶。她的老師是一位十級黑帶。
    這位先生,十級黑帶是你能達到的最高級別。
    這位先生只需看著一塊板子就能把它打碎。
    他是一個可怕可怕的人。
    我女兒在十二歲的時候甚至不到五英尺高。
    她是一個這麼小的女孩。
    她得跟那些身材魁梧的十五、十六、十八歲的男孩對打。
    她真的得和他們對練。
    所以,你知道,這是持續了幾天。
    她必須真的這樣做。
    我就在那兒,我是她的爸爸,我們坐在那裡。
    我們在看著她。
    然後她的師父,你知道,走到她面前,對她說,親愛的,讓你的蝴蝶整齊地飛行。
    我當時想,這真的太神奇了。
    讓你的蝴蝶整齊地飛行。
    他不是在說,冷靜點,小女孩。
    那樣的話其實是錯誤的。
    你不想冷靜下來。
    你需要那種興奮感。
    它存在是有原因的。
    雖然不舒服,但你需要它。
    他在說,利用它。
    對我來說,這是找到對那種興奮感另一種意義的完美例子。
    而那個意義就是你將要參與的行動。
    無論有多困難,無論它看起來有多不符合預期,控制權就在那裡。
    它在那里。
    不會一直存在。
    這是更難獲得的,你知道,等等。
    但它在那裡。
    這意味著你有更多的主動權。
    你有更多的控制。
    你永遠不會有你想要的那麼多控制。
    這一直會更難獲得。
    你的選擇不會一直一樣。
    但你總是可以找到更多的控制權在你所做的事情和你所經歷的事情上。
    這是過上有意義的生活的關鍵。
    你對年輕人所成長的世界有點擔憂嗎?他們在社交媒體上滑動,社交媒體告訴他們某些感覺是什麼。
    他們總是被不斷地編程。
    是的,他們是。
    讓人焦慮,讓人沮喪,讓人悲傷。
    是的,他們是。
    而且想一想,社交媒體帶來了有害的不確定性。
    你知道,在坐在面對面時,從一開始我們就有所有這些線索。
    我們有所有這些信號。
    我能看到你的臉。
    我能聽到你的聲音。
    即使所有這些信息都在,仍然會有一些不確定性,對嗎?
    我們無法完全讀懂彼此。
    身體的動作並不是一種可以被解讀的語言。
    這是一個糟糕的隱喻,對嗎?
    我們總是在猜測。
    我們總是在猜。
    而且我們使用了很多信號來進行猜測。
    但當你在社交媒體上時,你幾乎沒有信號。
    有很多模糊性。
    有很多不確定性。
    你能做的唯一事情就是用你自己的猜測來填補那種不確定性,這可能是錯的,對吧?
    所以那些上TikTok等社交媒體的人,他們自願放棄了自己的主動權,而他們卻不知道。
    你這是什麼意思?
    他們選擇被引導。
    他們選擇被影響。
    我給你一個例子。
    我聽過有關新陳代謝的播客。
    我聽過有關皮膚護理的播客。
    我聽過很多播客。
    你知道,我對人們發布的信息感到好奇。
    我大概有90%的內容會關掉—我聽到大約十分鐘,我就會關掉。
    這就是消費者的意義。
    你有選擇。
    我覺得人們他們沒有意識到,根據他們所做和不做的事情,他們在做出對腦海中保留的內容的選擇,然後這些內容會自動使用。
    洗腦。
    洗腦。
    有那麼一點,除了你是自己選擇的。
    你知道,我是有同理心的,我並不在責怪人們,但他們的情況本可以更好,你知道嗎?
    我的女兒曾經臨床抑鬱。
    那是我一生中最挫折的經歷之一,還很悲慘。
    我現在可以談論這件事而不會淚流滿面。
    這花了很長時間。
    但一開始,她非常抗拒。
    最終,你知道,她做出了想要被幫助的決定,然後我們徹底改變了她的生活。
    但是她必須做出那個決定。
    我不能強迫她這樣做。
    而我覺得現在的情況有點類似,有太多的謊言在健康產業中。
    有太多東西在TikTok和其他社交媒體上旋轉,而並不是所有的都是有用的。
    有些真的很有害。
    你介意我暫停一下這段對話嗎?
    我想談談今天的節目贊助商,Shopify。
    我一直相信,商業中最大的成本不是失敗。
    而是你浪費的時間去做出決定。
    花時間猶豫、過度思考或等待正確的時刻。
    當我20歲時創立我的第一家公司時,我沒有經驗,也沒有錢。
    我擁有的是一個想法和快速行動的意願。
    這才是最重要的區別。
    如果你一直在考慮創立自己的業務,Shopify讓整個過程變得簡單得多。
    擁有數千個可自定義的模板,你不需要編程或設計技能,只需有啟動的意願。
    Shopify連接你所有的銷售渠道,從網站到社交媒體,還處理後端的支付、運輸和稅務,這樣你就可以專注於向前推進和發展業務。
    如果你準備好了,請訪問 shopify.com/bartlett 註冊每月1英鎊的試用期。
    這是 shopify.com/bartlett。
    作為Looker的客觀者,你擁有大量的信息和知識,它指導你做出更好的決策。
    但很多人並沒有這些信息和知識。
    事實上,他們擁有的是反向信息和知識。
    當我思考一個人要改變自己生活所需的條件時,無論是你的女兒還是其他感到被困住的人,他們感覺自己被困在某種算法中或是想要逃離的生活中。根據你所知道的一切,以及你與女兒的經驗,第一步是什麼,才能夠實現那種改變?因為我真的很好奇,是什麼讓你的女兒決定要尋求幫助的。
    我認為一般的答案是小步驟。一次性完全改變一切幾乎不會成功。我不是說這根本不會成功,但這種情況非常少見。
    例如,你可以故意每週一天不上社交媒體,或是和朋友一起做其他事情。或者出去散步,將其融入到你的一天中,成為一個預定的活動。因此,另一件事是,你不能只是因為想做某件事情而去做。你必須強迫自己去做。
    例如,我曾經進行過重大背部手術,非常嚴重。我知道在手術後,我會體驗到我從未有過的感覺。就像是你去補牙時,對吧?然後,你知道那裡有一些以前不存在的東西。然後你的舌頭會不斷地去戳那顆牙,但你本不該這樣做。但你還是這樣做了,因為你的大腦正在尋找信息,尋找預測錯誤。然後最終,它調整了預測,然後忽視那些感覺,因為它們不再相關,對吧?所以這會在我身上以大規模的方式發生。我知道我在手術前制定了一個計劃,適當地給自己施加預測錯誤,以便我不會產生慢性疼痛。因為慢性疼痛就像一組不會更新的壞預測,對吧?所以你的大腦仍然相信你的身體有組織損傷,即使實際上沒有了。
    這是不是意味著疼痛常常只是一種想像的產物?不,這是一種錯誤的想法。正確的思維方式是,所有的經歷都是過去的記憶和當下的感官。疼痛是在你的腦中。視力是在你的腦中。聽覺是在你的腦中。你不是在耳朵裡聽。你是在你的腦中聽,在你的大腦中。你不是在眼睛裡看。你需要你的眼睛。你需要你的耳朵。但你不是在眼睛裡看。你是在你的大腦中看。所以,疼痛是過去的記憶和當下的感官的結合。好,是的。
    所以這兩者都有。慢性疼痛發生在你的大腦接收到身體發出的有組織損傷的信號時。這些信號被稱為疼痛感受信號。然後它將它們解釋為疼痛。而當你從一種疾病中恢復時,這對新陳代謝是有壓力的。因此並沒有太多的代謝預算用於學習。你可能處於一種情況中,你的大腦沒有更新自己,儘管組織損傷不再存在,但你仍然會感受到疼痛。就像在你心中看見一顆綠蘋果,儘管你面前沒有蘋果。這不是所有的都在你的頭腦中,以一種侮辱的方式。這只是大腦工作方式的正常結果。損傷已經消失,但損傷的信號仍然在重播。
    對,正是如此。就像幻肢一樣。耳鳴也是這樣。哦,天啊,是的。我曾經有過一段時間。
    所以,我非常努力地為自己制定了一個計劃,讓我能夠在預測錯誤上達到最佳劑量,但這意味著我必須遵守這個計劃。我認為如果你致力於改變自己的習慣,這就是改變任何習慣的方法。你改變上下文,然後你練習新的行為。
    至於我的女兒,當我們在實驗室裡思考抑鬱症時,讓我退一步說,你的大腦最重要的工作其實不是思考,也不是感受,甚至不是看東西,而是調節你的身體。它調節你的新陳代謝。基本上,這是你的大腦最重要的工作。
    你大腦最重要的工作是預測你的身體所需的需求,並在需求出現之前做好準備。我們用來比喻這種對身體預測性調控的術語是“全ostasis”。這是一個科學概念,但這個比喻是身體預算。它為你的身體運行預算。你的大腦在為你的身體運行預算。它不是在預算金錢,而是在預算鈉、葡萄糖、氧氣、鉀以及所有必要的營養素和化學物質,讓身體能夠高效運行。你知道,你有各種極低層次的過程。你可以把它們看作是維持生命的重要部分。因此,你的一部分能量預算用於這些。
    一部分能量預算用於修復和成長。當你變高時,你需要更多細胞。當你學習東西時,你必須增厚我的髓鞘和神經元。你必須增長更多接受器等等。那是成長和修復的過程。而剩下的則全部用於任何費力的事情。什麼是費力的?比如工作或去健身房。早上拖著你的身體起床也是費力的。學習新東西是費力的。應對不確定性是費力的。這一切我們稱之為壓力。壓力其實就是你的大腦預測會有大量的代謝支出,因為有某種努力的參與,對吧?某種有動力的努力。
    所以這三件事構成了你的能量預算。而真正重要的一點是,作為一個生物體,你每天能產生的能量是固定的。這指的是 ATP,就像這些小化學物質、這些小蛋白質一樣,你的細胞依賴它們作為從葡萄糖和其他物質(如脂肪)中獲得的實際能量。這就是說,沒有辦法增加它的產出。好吧,你是在一個範圍內。不過,這個範圍是有限的,因為你是人類生物體。你必須完成這三件事情,這些基本功能:生長與修復,以及其他一切。如果你有很多心理社會壓力,或者你有某種疾病耗費了你大部分的預算,那麼你所剩的預算就不夠用於其他需要做的事情了。因此,你的大腦試圖做的是削減開支。如果你查看抑鬱症的症狀,它們與削減開支有關。痛苦、疲勞、注意力集中困難、缺乏對環境的敏感度。這些都是代謝支出減少的指標。而且,抑鬱症還有與成本增加有關的症狀,比如 70% 的抑鬱症患者有炎症問題。因此,他們有增強的炎症、系統性炎症,而你的免疫系統是一個非常昂貴的系統。如果你有持續的系統性炎症,那就像是對你的預算施加了持續的稅賦。也就是說,事情的花費超出必需的水平。而且,還有一些非常有趣的研究。我作為科學家覺得這些研究有趣,作為個人則覺得有些可怕。不過,如果你在進餐後兩小時內遇到壓力,社交壓力,這就像你比實際攝入的多吃了 104 卡路里。因此,你的代謝效率非常低,這就好像你多吃了 104 卡路里。即使是好的脂肪,也會像壞脂肪那樣被代謝,並可能被儲存起來。是的。如果你在每餐的攝入上加起來每餐多出 104 卡路里,持續一整年,那幾乎是 11 磅。這意味著如果你在一個有壓力的環境中待上一年,且吃的東西與前一年完全相同,你會增重 11 磅。我們知道在抑鬱症中,例如,皮質醇調節失調。這意味著代謝出現了失調,因為皮質醇是一種代謝性化學物質。服用SSRIs(選擇性血清素再攝取抑制劑)的人,通常是用來治療抑鬱症的抗憂鬱藥物,或者SNRIs(選擇性去甲腎上腺素再攝取抑制劑)。這意味著它們會作用於血清素,讓更多的血清素留在神經元之間。血清素是一種代謝調節因子,去甲腎上腺素也是。一些直接參與你代謝的化學物質。所以說,抑鬱症有代謝基礎這不是一個信念。我認為問題是,這些代謝影響的精華是什麼,導致某人發展成抑鬱狀態?但我想強調的是,我實際上是因為在努力治療我的孩子,試圖找到幫助她的方法,才開始思考代謝和抑鬱之間的關係。當時她的症狀是什麼?如果有任何能夠產生共鳴的父母,或任何聽到這個的人。如果是這樣的話,我之前已經講過這個關於青少年抑鬱症的演講。青少年是一種完美的代謝脆弱的暴風雨,這有很多原因。你知道,你的大腦被困在一個叫做顱骨的黑暗安靜的箱子裡。它正在接收來自身體和世界的信號。它不知道那些信號的原因是什麼,只有效應。它必須猜測原因。猜測是什麼?來自過去的預測,對吧?所以它不會立刻知道激素的激增。其實需要大約 20 分鐘,或者有時稍微少一點,取決於激素變化的位置和來源,大腦才能接收到那些變化的信號。然後它必須猜測這些變化的原因。精神病學和醫學中的敘事大致是這樣的。故事是,你的腦袋是一個戰場,對吧?所以這個觀念是,你出生時具有這些天生的情感回路。其實你並沒有任何情感回路,你根本沒有情感回路。但這個敘事是說,你出生時擁有這些天生的情感回路,它們可以運作,但你出生時並沒有控制它們的能力。這需要隨著時間的推移來發展。因此在青少年時期,這個觀念是情緒障礙產生是因為你缺乏足夠的認知控制,情感過於強烈。所以你擁有這種不受控制的情感,這就是問題。這是一個非常吸引人的敘事,但這基本上是神經上的胡說八道。在這個敘事中其實沒有良好的證據。我聽說過是化學失衡。是的。人們有時會以血清素是快樂化學物質、而多巴胺是獎勵化學物質來談論這種化學失衡。而這種簡化非常過於簡化,甚至可以說是錯誤。好吧,多巴胺不是獎勵化學物質,而血清素也不是快樂化學物質。它們都是代謝調節因子。你可以在某些神經元的懲罰期間看到多巴胺的增加,而血清素在你的身體和很多地方會做很多事情。
    但在控制實驗中,它所做的其中一件事是讓動物在沒有即時代謝獎勵的情況下進行覓食、參與活動、進行身體活動和學習。結尾沒有獎勵。因此,許多神經科學家現在更認為多巴胺是一種對努力是必要的化學物質,無論是身體上的努力還是學習某些事物的心理努力。它實際上與獎勵並不特定。因此,最開始的時候,我的女兒從一個非常熱情、積極參與,而且社交非常活躍的孩子變化過來,她在學校表現出色。她並不是一個完美的孩子,但她非常熱情、充滿活力,擁有很多朋友。然後,到她上十年級的時候,她變得內向,學校成績是D,無法集中注意力,睡不著覺,過得非常痛苦。她真的很痛苦,但和她在一起的感覺也很糟糕。老實說,剛開始我們以為她是懶惰。我們想,她不想做任何事情。她想把時間都花在房間裡。她想要擺脫所有活動。我們想,快點,行動起來吧。我們以為她懶惰。我當時真的從來沒有想過,因為她小時候根本沒有情緒症狀,真的一個都沒有。然後突然間,她似乎沒有精力去做任何事。對我們來說,看起來就是她懶惰,不想做家庭作業,而且似乎真的很不投入。過了一段時間我才意識到,哦,不,這是其他問題。她對我們的對話記憶有困難。開始我以為,哦,你不專心聽我說話。但後來 我發現,即使在日常生活中,她也無法告訴我她一天發生了什麼。她只記不住任何細節。這也是抑鬱的徵兆,當你失去對日子細節的情節記憶時,你只能講出大致的內容,無法給出具體的時間、地點和事件。你只是無法長時間保持那個資訊以便之後記起來。沒有那個資訊的鞏固。當她上十年級的時候,她帶著數學的D回家。這是一個在八歲時就已經在做初步代數的孩子。我們告訴她我們需要進行評估,因為我們不知道發生了什麼。那是我們意識到她臨床抑鬱的時候。還有一件我應該提到的事就是,她的經痛非常嚴重。因此,對於嚴重的經痛,一種治療方式就是給女孩開避孕藥。因為它可以平衡月經中的荷爾蒙波動,並且實際上能改善經痛。但現在已經相當普遍地知道,當年輕女性使用避孕藥時,重大抑鬱症發作的可能性會增加40%到70%。如果是雌激素-孕激素的結合藥物,可能更接近40%。如果是僅含孕激素的藥物,許多年輕女性都在使用,因為副作用較少,則重大抑鬱症發作的可能性則會增加70%。而我讀到的第一項研究就是在一百萬名女性中進行的。當我閱讀那項研究時,我記得我當時的情況。這就像一瞬間的閃光。我看完後,打電話給她的兒科醫生,說她今天要停藥。今天。告訴我是否有任何副作用,還是可以直接停藥?醫生說,嗯,依我看——而我當時想,我根本不在乎你的看法。我剛剛讀了一項針對一百萬女性的大規模流行病學研究。她今天就要停藥。這是在她經歷抑鬱之前還是之後?這是在她被確診後的——也許是一年以後。之後,我讀了一本由科學歷史學家娜奧米·奧雷斯基斯寫的書,書名叫《為什麼要相信科學》。這是一本很棒的書。但在書中,她舉例說,一些地方和現象,公眾不信任科學,而他們應該信任。這就是其中之一。顯然,這已經被知道很久了。我想指出的是,雌激素、孕激素和睾酮進化成為代謝調節器。我強調這一點是因為在一個把心理與身體分開的文化中,我們並沒有考慮到代謝在情緒或視覺中的角色。這是一個非常近期的事情。在我們的實驗室中,我們現在研究的其中一項是代謝在非常基本的心理現象中的角色。這基本上是一個心靈的基本建構單元。因此,你女兒展現出那些症狀。我很想知道在那個時候,傳統醫學告訴你應該如何處理女兒的情況,與你實際上所做的有何不同。你擁有這麼多資訊,還有醫療背景。是的,我應該說,這是幾年前的事情。因此,現在正發生著一場革命,目前有一種叫做代謝精神病學的事情。當時 我在閱讀這些時,聽起來真是瘋狂。當我看到我的女兒正在痛苦,真的很痛苦。談起這件事我非常困難,因為在和你談的過程中,我心裏在想,我真希望我能更早地搞清楚這些。
    不過無論如何,我們所做的是我找到每一條可能的路徑來針對她的身體預算,也就是說,針對她的新陳代謝。然後我們基本上制定了一個每日例行程序,她也參與了這個過程,以看看我們是否能把她引導到不同的軌道上,你知道嗎?這包括從退出社交媒體開始。為什麼?因為,首先,她就像很多孩子一樣,晚上常常使用電子屏幕。在那個時候——而且再說一次,這也是我偶然發現的,對吧?但事實上,在一個國家癌症研究所的會議上——你知道,我們有視網膜神經節細胞。我們的視網膜中有細胞調節晝夜節律,並且對來自屏幕的光波長非常敏感。因此,如果你晚上看這些屏幕,你的腦子會覺得是白天,像是你的晝夜節律——你基本上會給自己帶來晝夜節律障礙。這樣會使你更難進入正常的睡眠周期,而你需要這個正常的睡眠周期來清除毒素,並整合你白天學到的東西,以便你稍後能夠記住它。而在深度睡眠中會發生很多修復性的事情,這是你真的需要的。如果你得不到足夠的深度睡眠,這會使你的預算問題加劇。因此,我們針對她——我們讓她退出社交媒體,首先,晚上七點或八點之後不看屏幕。退出社交媒體以減少社會不確定性和社會壓力。我每天早上5點半起床,為她做早餐,坐在她旁邊吃早餐,以確保她攝取營養豐富的食物,而不是像波浪餅和那些東西這樣的伪食物。我們還需要讓她重新開始運動,因此她開始長途步行。她開始進行普拉提訓練,不是那種地板上的普拉提,而是那種用改革器做的,會讓任何人哭泣的那種,你知道嗎?為什麼運動與這種預算和新陳代謝功能有關?因為運動基本上——就像你的大腦一樣——就像你把自己從代謝平衡中擲出來,以便大腦學習如何重新回到平衡點。就像,你基本上在提升你身體系統的彈性,基本上是這樣的,所以她不是——你知道,她需要更像間歇訓練的東西,這就是這些普拉提課程的特點,而不是,比如說,練習打網球或什麼的。這些訓練是有助於她在一定時間內進入代謝不調的狀態,然後她喝水,這樣再吃點健康的東西。然後她的系統基本上學會變得更加靈活,而不是那麼僵化。因此,再次強調,這就像是用預測誤差進行劑量,或者像是給大腦提供機會來學習它是錯誤的。然後還有Omega-3,因此我們用了——我不記得確切的劑量,但我給她服用了高Omega-3、低Omega-6的膳食補充劑。在她醫生的同意下,我們還每天在吃飽肚子後服用一次嬰兒阿司匹林來減少全身性炎症。因此,在睡前——在睡前,我們一直會進行抱抱,當她小的時候,我們讀故事或什麼的。在她早期的青少年時期,她拒絕了這一切,然後我們把它帶回來了。因此,在睡前一小時,我們會——要麼我,要麼她的爸爸,有時我們三個人一起——我們會一起讀書,或者你知道的,他會給我們讀書。我們會坐下來聊天,她會告訴我她在學校的所有事情,她能記得的。這些事情有時真的很可怕,我只需要同理心。這對我來說非常困難,因為我只想解決問題。我只想解決問題。這真的需要我親自借助自己作為治療師的經驗去承受這些痛苦,而不是告訴她,這樣做,這樣做,這樣做。我花了很長時間才學會這一點,而且有時我仍然在與此掙扎。為什麼這很重要?因為那樣她會感覺到被聽見,被理解。而當你——我花了很長時間才明白這一點。當她告訴我,有人做了某件極為惡毒的事情時,如果我做任何事都不如同情,她會感到我沒有聽到她的聲音。社會支持是一個主要因素——我的意思是,我們是彼此神經系統的照顧者。人類是社交動物。這很難相信。我覺得在我們這種如此個人主義的文化中,對吧,這似乎是一種政治聲明什麼的,無論你的政治觀點如何,其實並不重要。我們以這樣的方式進化,老兄。我們是社交動物。我們互相在代謝上影響彼此。我們可以增加存款,也可以增加稅收。你知道,人類神經系統的最佳方案是另一個人類。人類神經系統的最壞的事情是另一個人類。錯的人。有這麼多實驗顯示——我的意思是,我剛看過一套實驗,來自我的一位前博士後,那真是驚人,她研究了母親和嬰兒的葡萄糖代謝。如果我沒有記錯的話,她也在研究約會伴侶。她觀察了他們獨自一人和在一起的情況,就像在執行任務時獨自一人和一起時的任務。母嬰之間的健康連結實際上使他們的葡萄糖代謝更加高效,字面上說是更高效。而我相信她也用約會伴侶證實了這一點。你知道,這些研究,這些老研究顯示,與朋友一起攀爬山坡,背著背包的熱量需求比與陌生人一起時要低。
    我指的是,這裡有許多非常瘋狂的發現——但如果你意識到人類在物理上真的彼此影響,不論他們是否意識到這點,或是否有意圖,這一切都是完全無關緊要的。 或者說,我認為,產生這種影響,讓這些影響存在,都是不必要的,然後這一切就開始變得有意義了。你知道,就像這個觀念——再一次,綜合分析顯示,如果你擁有一個充滿你信任的人和信任你的人的社交生活,你的平均壽命會比其他人多活幾年。 所以這就是為什麼你會在睡前把家人召集在一起嗎? 因為這是在調節她的神經系統,她的身體? 是啊。 有時她仍然會跟我這麼說,事實上。 她會說,你能不能在一分鐘內當我的朋友,而不是我的母親? 我會回答,是的,我可以。 然後我真的需要這麼做,這有時很難。 或者我會對她說,這是為父母的事。 任何擁有青少年或成年孩子的人,這就像是我——我不知道我是怎麼想到這點的,但這幾乎是金子般寶貴的,對吧? 我對她說,我現在有一個母親時刻,我感覺需要在某件事上對你嘮叨一下。 如果我能在這件事上嘮叨你一分鐘,我就不用再告訴你了。 所以我其實是在詢問她的許可。 我能告訴你這件事情嗎?我真的很想對你說。 我知道你不想聽這些,但如果你能聽我說一分鐘,對我來說會是非常大的恩惠。 而且我知道這都是我的問題。 這完全是我的問題。 這不是你的問題。 所有問題都在我身上。 這是我。 但如果你能讓我這麼做,那將會更好一些。 而大多數時候,她都會以極大的忍耐力回答,你知道,沒問題,媽媽,隨便你。 有時她會說,今天不行。 然後我真的需要聽她的,你知道? 所以,是啊。 但可能還有其他我現在想不到的事情。 我把它們全都寫下來了,因為很多人曾問我這個問題。 而我喜歡說的是,這並不是——我不是醫生。 我不是精神科醫生。 這不是給你的孩子的建議或食譜。 我只是在告訴你我作為一名科學家的做法。 而且你也寫下了你所做的事情。 你還保留有一份副本。 所以如果有人想要了解你所做的事情,我可以在下面鏈接它。 是的,但這——再一次,這是—— 這是你當時對你的女兒所做的事情。 對,就像是作為一個人。 誰閱讀過文獻,我——這並不是——這不是醫療建議。 我 realmente 強烈地說,你不能強迫你的青少年做任何事情。 除非你威脅他們身體上的傷害,否則其實根本無法強迫你的孩子。 他們必須自己做出選擇,對吧? 她恢復了嗎? 是的,她恢復了。 而我認為她能夠好起來的原因之一,是她並不是完全沒挑戰情緒的時候,但她以物理的角度來理解它們。 她並不把自己的情緒理解為心理問題。 她理解它作為她身體預算的症狀或指標。 這是我在研究你工作的時候學到的東西,對我真的非常有幫助。而這幾乎完全符合你剛才所說的,這就是有時我情緒不太好。 如果我對此沒有意識,壞情緒就會造成混亂,對吧? 我可能會對別人發火,或者其他什麼。 而當我在閱讀你的工作,並從身體預算的角度思考壞情緒或好情緒時,這使你暫時停頓一下,想一下,我錯過了什麼? 而且讓你非常意識到你接下來的行動。 它幾乎使你突然握住方向盤,然後說,好吧,這裡有問題。 這是一個物理問題。 我昨晚沒有睡好。 我還沒吃飯。 無論是什麼,真的要了解這些會使你做什麼、感受什麼或思考什麼。 而你需要採取的行動,也許就是取消你今天所有的計劃,回到床上去。 嗯,但我認為你剛好指出了非常重要的事情。 這會改變你接下來的行動。 是的。 而這會改變接下來事情發展的軌跡。 而我認為這真的——這並不是一種魔法療法。 再次強調,你知道,但是當一個人感到非常苦惱時,你要麼看向世界,想知道世界上出了什麼問題,要麼你關心自己。 我自己出了什麼問題? 其實,可能這真的是。 也許世界上確實出了一些問題。 也許你自己也有問題。 但最有可能的是,這是一個身體預算問題。 即使世界上可能存在某種問題,如果你在管理你的身體預算,那麼你會更加適合去應對那件事情。 你真的需要儘可能地設計你的日曆,以服從你在身體預算周圍的職業。 而對我來說,我兩年前做出的重大改變——我非常有幸,我明白,並不是每個人都能做到。 我在工作於呼叫中心時無法做到的——就是我制定了一個規則,那就是在早上11點之前不開會。 這對我來說,就意味著我從不設鬧鐘,所以我在充電完畢後醒來。 而這是最深刻的事情。 我應該更早這麼做的。 但這對我的生活產生了非常大的影響。 因為幾乎可以保證我非常非常少有缺覺的情況,雖然偶爾會發生,因為我經常需要出差和其他事務。但這真的對我的生活產生了深遠的影響。 是的,我認為,你知道—— 作為一位領導者,以及—— 沒錯。 而且我認為,老實說如果領導者莊重對待這一點,那麼希望會有人察覺到這對每個人來說也都是重要的。 而且,我們有一個以特定方式結構的社會,但這並不是以這種方式結構的必要條件。 了解,在工作生產力方面,最大的預測因素,除了你知道的,就是睡眠和水分。
    在排除睡眠和水分補充之後,我認為運動也非常重要。你知道,有些人相比其他人有更多的選擇,對吧?但我認為,對於那些首席執行官、領導者和商業領袖來說,重要的是要理解有一些很好的商業理由。有一些很好的經濟理由來認真對待這些問題。我是否是對的,認為酒精會影響你的身體預算,因而使你更難以展現出所有其他行為並在其他方面耗費精力,並且因此也增加了你憂鬱的概率?
    所以我應該說,我不是酒精代謝方面的專家,因此我要根據我所知道的進行推斷。我想說的是,有時人們喝酒就像吃巧克力一樣,或者說他們是為了味道或是體驗而喝,對吧?但很多人最終會使用酒精。他們可能最初是這樣開始的,或可能是因為和朋友在一起,但後來他們意識到酒精會影響他們的情緒。任何影響你情緒的東西,比如人們常常談論情緒調節,但實際上是情緒的調節。再次強調,你的情緒就是這些一直伴隨著你的簡單感受。你的大腦總是調節著你的身體,而你的身體總是向你的大腦發送信號,而這些信號共同構成了情緒。因此,情緒是一種意識的特性,它總是在你身邊。在某些時刻,你會根據外部世界理解這些信號和情緒的關係。那就是你體驗到情感的時候,對吧?在這方面,你的行為將兩者聯繫起來。
    但很多時候,我們不這樣做。我們只是把情緒視為意識的一種特性。你知道,這是一種美味的飲品。那個人真討厭。你真可靠。情緒嵌入在對世界的感知中。而當人們……有時鴉片類藥物也會有這種效果。它們是改變情緒的,這意味著它們在操控你的情緒時,也在操控你的代謝。當人們上癮時,他們常常是因為在調節自己的情緒,試圖減少痛苦。至於酒精對代謝的影響,或者說這是一個問題,我不應該這樣說,因為我並不確切知道情緒是如何運作的,我的預期是它並不只是以單一的方式影響。而且,我確實知道還存在上下文效應。實際上,你可以喝一樣多的酒,在不同的上下文中可能會有不同的效果。這一點讓我非常震驚,當我看到那項研究時。所以我認為這不是一個簡單的關係,但我知道有一件事,就是你的預測會變得不準,而你不會吸收預測誤差。你不會學習。你不會更新任何東西,所以你的行為未必與你所處的情境良好校準,這會造成各種後續的困難問題。你知道,你可能會讓後續的情況變得更糟,並且使得日後的預算管理變得更加困難。
    當你急著離開家卻找不到手機或錢包時,難道不是非常煩人嗎?現在,因為蘋果,如果你有iPhone,你通常可以使用Find My進行追蹤。但直到最近,如果你丟失了錢包,這一切都不可能。不過,這現在已經改變了,因為今天的贊助商Exter。Exter是同類產品中的第一個。我們與蘋果合作,創造了一個可追蹤的錢包,如果你丟失了你的錢包,可以在幾秒鐘內找到。這就是它。你可能會認識Exter,因為他們與萊昂內爾·梅西的合作。它非常纖薄,採用回收鋁製成,內置RFID防盜功能以保護個人身份免受盜竊,並且只需點擊一下,所有的卡片就會彈出,讓你可以輕鬆刷卡。我經常談論百分之一的改進。當我看到Exter時,對我而言,它是傳統錢包上無數百分之一改進的總和。因此,如果你正在尋找升級,請前往Exter.com,並使用代碼Stephen以額外10%的折扣參加他們的春季促銷活動,該活動將於5月19日結束。現在就去那裡看看吧。而且你還可以享受免費運送和100天試用期。那就是Exter.com,使用代碼Stephen。
    我想問你一個我聽到你提到的事情。我其實還聽到過我播客的其他嘉賓提到它。直到我聽到你這麼說,我才真的確定這是否成立,那就是我們可以通過微笑來改變自己的情緒。因為如果大腦在預測,那麼假設如果我露出燦爛的微笑並說「是的」,那麼大腦就會預測良好的感受,並引發良好的感覺等等。那你會讓我感覺良好嗎?嗯,是的,也不全然。你知道,人們在不快樂的時候也會微笑。人們在生氣的時候也會微笑。人們在策劃敵人的滅亡時也會微笑。人們出於各種原因微笑。人們在害怕的時候也會微笑。但是,從技術上而言,我可以通過微笑來讓自己更快樂嗎?元分析的證據表明,這的確有輕微的效果,是的,有一點小效果。去皺吧——對,沒錯。就像在牙齒之間放一支鉛筆。沒錯,繼續。哦,你需要那個,是的。現在微笑。現在去皺。好了。就這樣。因此,我想說的是,這是一個微不足道的效果大小。它非常小。我確實感到更快樂。你呢?是的。但這也許是因為我讓你做了一些傻事?也許是的,但無論如何,重點是這個效應被過度誇大。我記得最近的元分析是說確實有小的效果。
    但是小的效果意味著它並不適用於所有人,也並不總是有效。 這真的只是非常非常微小的效果。
    你必須對注意力缺陷過動症 (ADHD) 有一個觀點,這已經成為社會上討論的巨大話題。
    我被診斷為ADHD。
    我不一定將它視為什麼,因為我在朋友中看到了如此多不同的ADHD變化。
    但ADHD的出現量大幅上升,這與你在大腦作為預測工具方面所做的工作有關。
    所以我一般的回應是,人們——自我診斷的人數正在上升,人們把診斷用作對行為或人們為什麼會經歷他們所經歷的事情的解釋。
    診斷並不是對任何事情的解釋。
    它們是描述。
    它們不解釋任何事情。
    把診斷當作解釋的處理方式是一種本質主義的表現,這並不是一件好事。
    這意味著你假設有某種基礎的、不變的本質,這就是負責的原因——其實存在一種叫心理本質主義的東西,你甚至不知道這種本質是什麼。
    你只是假設它存在,你只是假設它存在,並且它是所有這些症狀的原因。
    但診斷只是症狀的描述。
    而診斷對於計費治療時間是最有用的。
    它們並不優化用來描述行為的集群,或者行為的集合,有時候,因為人們認為血清素和多巴胺是造成某人有ADHD的原因。
    這是我相信的理論之一——
    所以存在許多血清素受體。
    也有多個多巴胺受體。
    它們並不是都做相同的事。
    血清素不止做一件事。
    多巴胺不止做一件事。
    它在身體和大腦的不同位置做不同的事情,具體取決於受體的類型。
    而且,每一種抵抗力資源和每一種困難症狀都有其背景。
    有要求,就像我們的社會結構那樣,對於坐著並專注於某件事情很長時間是有要求的。
    這一要求隱藏在背景之中。
    它經常存在,以至於我們忘記了這是做出診斷的條件。
    所以無論如何——首先,ADHD不是一組症狀。
    它是一種多樣性。
    就像你可以有不同的症狀特徵但診斷相同,因為它只是描述性、且有很多症狀。
    其中一些症狀也存在於——它們與其他症候群、其他診斷群有重疊。
    但重點是,當你診斷某人時,聽起來像是那是那個人的特性。
    是的。
    但並不是。
    這是那個人在所處環境中的特性。
    社會期望——以任何方式來說,例如他能在學校集中注意力嗎?
    是的。
    而學校的組織方式是,你知道,你要坐很長時間。
    那麼,可能有其他情況,不將注意力長時間集中在某一件事情上可能是有利的。
    所以我的觀點是,幾乎沒有什麼是絕對好的或者絕對壞的。
    總是有一個隱藏的條件。
    當然。
    總是有一個隱藏的背景。
    所以我認為強調這個背景是非常重要的。
    你並沒有壞掉。
    你只是——你在特定背景下的適應性被認為是——不合適的。
    這對那個背景來說是沒有生產力的。
    而這聽起來可能像是模糊的話,或者你知道的,但這不是,因為能力的重要性是依賴於背景的。
    再一次,我會說這不是我在表達同情心,你知道,進步主義者之類的。
    我是個富有同情心的進步主義者,但這並不是那樣的例子。
    這是我務實的一個例子。
    你可以彼此調節,這是你之前提到的,我覺得真的非常有趣。
    我在閱讀一項針對25,000人的研究,他們發現,心臟病發作的人如果已婚,存活的機率要高出14%。
    但我發現有趣的是,我們用言語彼此調節。
    我想你做過一個研究,評估言語對情緒的促進力量。
    你是說,這是一個你共同撰寫的研究。
    好吧,我們在許多背景中研究過言語的力量,包括作為邀請使人理解的詞彙——你知道,因此如果情感的例子是你試圖理解自己身體與世界之間發生的事情,那麼每次你使用一個情感詞時,你就邀請人們以那種方式來理解。
    所以你已經證明,某些詞能夠讓我們冷靜下來?
    好吧,是的,但我不會說我證明了任何事情。
    科學家不會,然後,
    顯示、演示。
    對,演示在——你知道,在一個背景中,對吧?
    就像,我們——你知道,科學家不喜歡“事實”這個字。
    我喜歡另一個“事實”的字,但事實。
    這是一個棘手的詞,因為它意味著在所有情況和背景下都成立的東西,而這種情況非常少見。
    所以——但好吧,我們已經。
    所以——我的意思是,你可能已經做了不下百萬次,你會給人發簡訊,你不是嗎?
    是的。
    是的,當你給伴侶或朋友發幾個字的簡訊,你可以改變他們的心率。
    你會改變他們的呼吸速率。
    你可以僅僅用幾個字就改變各種化學物質,改變各種蛋白質合成。
    再一次,我們生活在這一——你知道,自由言論很重要。
    自由是重要的,但自由伴隨著責任。
    無論你喜不喜歡,我們以各種方式調節彼此的神經系統,包括用言語。
    並且——
    不管是好還是壞。
    不管是好還是壞。
    確實如此。
    所以—
    你讓我對壓力的看法也有所改變,總的來說。
    因為如果我通過這個代謝預算的視角來思考我的生活,而壓力成為這個預算的負擔,那麼如果我不限制自己的壓力,我就更有可能超出預算。
    而如果我超出預算,我的免疫系統可能是我削減成本的部分,或是其他某些方面。
    對。
    我的意思是,有好—你不能沒有壓力。
    那意味著你沒有努力。
    所以,你知道,有時科學家會談論好壓力和壞壓力,這其實只是意味著計劃好的壓力,並且你能夠補充你所花費的,與那些有害的壓力,而你卻無法補充。
    慢性壓力。
    慢性壓力,還有,嗯。
    所以,你知道,如果你在一個壓力巨大的會議上,會議影響了你的情緒,這意味著有一些代謝的影響,也要考慮到這意味著什麼。
    根據你對大腦的所有了解,我想知道這是否改變了你對宗教、上帝和靈性的看法,以及是否真的存在一個更高的力量。
    大腦是如此美妙而複雜的事物。
    你知道,站在2025年的客觀觀察者看著大腦,因為這真是太神奇了。
    許多人因而得出結論,必定有一個創造者存在。
    但今天我們也討論了很多關於意義和一切意義的問題。
    所以你所學到的一切有關大腦、神經科學和心理學的知識,是否讓你相信有上帝?
    不。
    這是否讓你更傾向於無神論或不可知論?
    我基本上是一個堅定的無神論者。
    我不認為自然界或大腦或神經系統的奇妙複雜性需要一個設計者。
    這樣的邏輯對我來說不成立。
    所以這顯然是一個可怕的跳躍。
    但是你是否因此認為,除了繁衍和—
    我現在第二次在讀這本書。
    它叫《開放的蘇格拉底》。
    好吧。
    這是一本非常棒的書。
    我學到了很多我不知道的蘇格拉底哲學。
    蘇格拉底認為重要的一件事是提出什麼是意義的問題。
    而且不應該在15分鐘的增量中問這個問題。
    你應該真正地從整個人生的延展來問這個問題。
    因此,我認為,作為一個科學家,研究大腦和身體以及我們世界中其他大腦和身體不斷交談的過程,
    這樣如何創造出許多心靈,包括我們非常西方的心靈,讓我更思考哲學的重要性。
    因為我認為哲學提出的問題與宗教信仰試圖回答的問題是相同的。
    對我而言,這是一條更好的道路。
    我認為這是一條更舒適的道路。
    我其實一生中經常在問這樣的問題。
    所以它讓我覺得更像是,這一切有什麼意義?
    最終的意義是什麼?
    對我來說,答案是讓這個世界比我發現的時候更好一點。
    就像是約翰尼·阿普爾西德的哲學。
    你知道,作為一名科學家,我們許多人,實際上,我們並不是為了金錢而做我們所做的事情。
    金錢並不好。
    但我們並不是為了金錢而做我們所做的事情。
    我們是為了其他動機,對吧?
    為了知道,為了好奇,為了嘗試發現事物。
    在某個時候,我們開始思考,嗯,你的遺產是什麼,對吧?
    我們大多數人都不是達爾文。
    我們不是威廉·詹姆斯。
    我們不是海森堡。
    我們不是,你知道,我們大多數人都不是那些人。
    那麼你留下的遺產是什麼?
    最終,我意識到我發表了很多同行評審的論文。
    當人們介紹我的時候,你知道,他們會提到一些關於我的引用的事情,無論怎樣。
    莉莎博士是情感、神經科學和大腦本質領域中最具影響力的人物之一。
    她是全球被引用的科學家中前0.1%,因為她在心理學和神經科學方面的革命性研究。
    是的,這一切都很好,非常好。
    但實際上,我的遺產真的是我所培養的人們,我所與之互動的思想。
    如果我要算這些,我可能會算算那些現在存在的實驗室,這些實驗室在之前並不存在,幾代科學家是我所培養的,或者,嗯,還有那些培養我的人,當然,一路上。
    所以從某種程度上說,這就是我的遺產,真的是人,是人和思想。
    我希望,當我以前經常進行課堂教學時,我告訴自己的是,如果我能改變這個班級中僅一個人的軌跡,結果,那麼我就完成了我的工作。
    你知道,我也有一點這樣的感覺,你知道,對於我目前所做的公共科學教育,
    如果我能幫助,無論是我所學到的東西還是我所傳達的東西能幫助其他人過上更有意識的生活,成為有主體性的代理人,選擇並影響他們的摯愛或孩子,
    那麼,那就是我的工作了。
    這是我的遺產。
    而關於這樣的遺產,影響人們生活的思想遺產,艱難的地方在於你永遠無法知道你的影響是什麼。
    但這是其中的一部分。
    在這個播客中,我們有一個結尾的傳統,最後一位嘉賓會為下一位嘉賓留下問題,而不曉得他們是留給誰的。
    問題是,如何在不獲得任何東西的情況下生活?
    我對這個人有一些背景資料。
    他們是一位黑帶少林僧侶。
    所以他們經常談論身份。
    當然。
    還有生活中沒有負擔和依附等等。
    對。
    所以,這聽起來像是一個非常佛教的問題。
    問題在於,我認為即使是佛教徒達成了一些東西,他們也達成了覺悟。因此,他們不必必然地有執著。他們沒有財富。他們沒有權力。他們沒有,但他們獲得了一些東西。他們獲得了覺悟。他們獲得了寧靜。那麼,如何在不依賴身份的情況下生活呢?讓你不快樂的嗎?那我認為,重要的是要記住,你其實並沒有一個與你當下所處的時刻分開的身份。這不是說你有某種本質。我想說的是,你所經歷的一切,你所做的每一件事都是你所記得的過去和感官的現在的結合。這意味著,要改變你是誰,你可以改變你記得的東西或你如何進行預測,或者你可以通過實際起身前往其他地方(例如去散步)來改變感官的現在。或者你可以通過你關注的事物來改變感官的現在,例如正念,對吧?有些感官信號是在你注意的最前面,而有些則在背景中潛伏。例如,你現在可能並未關注某些感官信號,但當我提到它們—像是椅子對你背部和腿部的壓力—你就會開始注意。因為我剛剛提到它們,所以它們成為你注意的焦點。因此,我想說的是,你的身份並沒有本質。你是你所做的。在那一刻,你是你所做的。而且你可以改變你所做的事情。你可以改變你所經歷的事物,這是生活經驗所帶來的後果,而這取決於你記得的內容和上下文。因此,這就是我的答案。如果你總是記住這一點,你就永遠不會有執著。你永遠不會渴望或努力去擁有東西以及所有這些人為的東西,這些東西支撐著那個你是且你有某種本質的幻覺,這種本質在不同的情境中是不會改變的。是的,我們很容易陷入認為我們就是我們所做的事情的陷阱。我更喜歡說,我是我所做的。因為這意味著我有自主權,在當下做出不同的決策,而不必受過去所做的事情的限制。但是這是我們所陷入的陷阱。在十分鐘後,我敢打賭我會回到樓下,重新陷入認為我就是這位做了三十二年的斯蒂芬·巴特利特的陷阱。謝謝你,莉莎。非常感謝你,謝謝你所做的一切。我,你已經以非常深刻的方式改變了我的想法。這真的很難,因為我經常坐在這裡。因此,我有很多關於大腦的對話,還有大量新出的研究等。但是你讓我完全改變了看法,使我從一種完全不同的方式思考,這我非常感激。因此,非常感謝你,因為這是一份禮物。這不是我在做這份工作的時候總是能得到的禮物,但這真的很珍貴。而且我認為這將幫助我最終過上更好的生活。但也許對所有在聽的人來說都是如此,謝謝你踏入你生活中的公共交流一面,因為我想說,作為一個知道你所知道並且做過你所做工作的人的角色,這是如此重要,以至於我幾乎將其視為一項非常重要的責任。因為像我們這樣的人坐在這些播客上,並不在實驗室裡,從社交媒體、抖音或任何隨口說話的人那裡獲取信息。因此,像你這樣的人更應該走出來,分享你的知識。還有,謝謝你寫這些書,因為它們真是太棒了。就像你今天改變了我的想法,我認為這些書將改變很多人的生活。我強烈推薦這本書,《情緒是如何形成的》。我將在下面鏈接它,《大腦的秘密生活》。還有一本稍微短一些的、同樣易於理解的書《關於大腦的七個半課》。非常感謝你。我要告訴你一個小秘密。你們可能會覺得我和我的團隊有點奇怪,但我至今仍然記得當我的團隊中的詹米瑪在Slack上發佈說她改變了這個工作室的氣味的時候。她發佈後,整個辦公室在我們的Slack頻道中鼓掌。這可能聽起來瘋狂,但在《CEO的日記》中,這就是我們在節目中所做的那種1%的改進。這就是為什麼這檔節目會變成現在的樣子。通過理解1%複利的力量,你完全可以改變你生活中的結果。這並不是關於劇變或快速獲勝,而是關於小而持續的行動,這些行動會對你的結果產生持久影響。因此,兩年前,我們開始創建這本美麗的日記,它真的很漂亮。裡面有很多圖片,還有很多啟發和激勵的內容,還有一些互動元素。這本日記的目的是幫助你識別、專注於並培養與那個1%的一致性,最終改變你的生活。如果你想要一本給自己、給朋友、給同事或者給你的團隊,請立即前往thediary.com。我會在下面鏈接。這一直讓我感到驚訝。你們中有53%的人常聽這個節目但還沒訂閱。所以我可以請你們幫個忙嗎?如果你喜歡這個節目,喜歡我們在這裡所做的事情,並且想要支持我們,最簡單的免費方式就是點擊訂閱按鈕。我的承諾是,如果你這樣做,我和我的團隊會全力以赴,確保這個節目每周對你更好。
    我們會聆聽你的反饋,我們會找到你希望我交流的嘉賓,並且我們會繼續做我們該做的事情。非常感謝。

    What if your anxiety isn’t fear, and your trauma might not be real? Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett reveals how your brain creates emotional illusions.

    Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett is a Professor of Psychology and among the top 0.1% of most cited scientists for her revolutionary research in psychology and neuroscience. She is also the author of books such as ‘Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain’.

    In this conversation, Dr. Lisa and Steven discuss topics such as, how anxiety is a predictive error in the brain, the shocking truth about childhood trauma, how trauma can be contagious, and why you don’t have any free will. 

    00:00 Intro

    02:22 Lisa’s Mission

    04:14 Why Is It Important to Understand How the Brain Works?

    10:48 Measuring Emotions

    13:55 What Is the Predictive Brain?

    16:08 Examples of the Brain Making Predictions

    24:13 Is the Predictive Brain at the Root of Trauma?

    31:27 Cultural Inheritance, Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression

    36:29 How Reframing Past Events Can Change Identity

    42:41 Meaning as a Consequence of Action

    44:11 How to Overcome Fear by Taking Action

    45:43 Prediction Error

    47:37 Learning Through Exposure

    49:47 Dangers of Social Contagion

    54:06 Anxiety in the Context of Social Contagion

    58:33 Is Social Media Programming Us to Be Sad?

    1:02:08 Ads

    1:03:03 First Step to Overcoming Mental Health Issues

    1:05:18 Chronic Pain

    1:08:23 What Is Depression?

    1:09:17 Body Budgeting and Body Bankruptcy

    1:12:26 How Stress Contributes to Weight Gain

    1:15:00 Depression in Adolescents

    1:17:02 Is Depression a Chemical Imbalance?

    1:18:30 The Story of Lisa’s Daughter

    1:21:09 Oral Birth Control as a Risk Factor for Depression

    1:24:07 How Lisa Helped Her Daughter Overcome Depression

    1:29:11 Social Support

    1:35:26 Lisa’s Daughter’s Recovery from Depression

    1:39:12 Does Alcohol Affect the Body Budget and Increase Depression Risk?

    1:42:45 Ads

    1:44:00 Can People Change Emotions by Smiling?

    1:45:49 Lisa’s Perspective on ADHD

    1:48:01 The Power of Words to Facilitate Emotion

    1:52:26 Stress as a Burden to the Metabolic Budget

    1:53:27 Lisa’s View on God and Religion

    1:54:25 What Is the Meaning of Life in Lisa’s Opinion?

    1:59:32 Question from the Previous Guest

    Follow Dr Lisa: 

    X – https://g2ul0.app.link/JlkAHKXhCSb 

    Website – https://g2ul0.app.link/TWOO6vZhCSb 

    You can purchase Dr Lisa’s book, ‘Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain’, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/35oJGs4hCSb 

    Watch the episodes on Youtube – https://g2ul0.app.link/DOACEpisodes 

    The 1% Diary is back – and it won’t be around for long, so act fast! https://bit.ly/1-Diary-Megaphone-ad-reads

    You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb 

    Sign up to receive email updates about Diary Of A CEO here: https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt 

    Ready to think like a CEO? Gain access to the 100 CEOs newsletter here: https://bit.ly/100-ceos-newsletter 

    Follow me:

    https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb

    Sponsors:

    Ekster – http://partner.ekster.com/DOAC and use code STEVEN to get an extra 10% off on top of their current Spring sale

    Shopify – https://shopify.com/bartlett

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

  • Is the Future of Flight Supersonic?

    Blake Scholl is the founder and CEO of Boom Supersonic. Blake’s problem is this: Can you build a commercial airplane that flies faster than the speed of sound – and that makes economic sense?


    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.

  • #806: How Rich Barton Built Expedia and Zillow from $0 to $35B — Audacious Goals, Provocation Marketing, Scrabble for Naming, and Powerful Daily Rituals

    AI transcript
    0:00:04 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 is my job to deconstruct world-class performers,
    0:00:13 people who are arguably the best at what they do. How do they do it? What are their influences,
    0:00:19 favorite books, frameworks, lessons learned, things that you can apply to your own life?
    0:00:25 And I have someone you may not have heard speak before on the podcast today, Rich Barton,
    0:00:30 a close friend of Chris Saka and some other guests we’ve had. He is the co-founder and
    0:00:35 co-executive chairman of Zillow, a company transforming how people buy, sell, rent,
    0:00:41 and finance homes. Before Zillow, Rich founded Expedia within Microsoft in 1994 and successfully
    0:00:48 spun the company off as a public company in 1999. He served as president, CEO, and board director of
    0:00:53 Expedia, and later co-founded and served as non-executive chairman of Glassdoor. He has done
    0:01:01 so many different companies and he has a lot of stories from the trenches, a lot that you can use
    0:01:08 that is tactical and practical. He’s also super fit, super active. I would say a great father and
    0:01:14 husband. He is an incredible human being, sort of full stack. And that’s part of the reason I really
    0:01:20 wanted to have him on the show. We did it in person. We covered a lot of ground and I think you’re going
    0:01:25 to enjoy it. I loved it. So with just a few words from the people who make this podcast possible,
    0:01:31 we’ll get straight to the meat and potatoes and a wide-ranging conversation with none other than
    0:01:37 Rich Barton. My first book, The 4-Hour Workweek, which made everything else possible, is built around
    0:01:44 the acronym and framework DEAL, D-E-A-L, define, eliminate, automate, and liberate. Now, of course,
    0:01:49 after you define all the things you want, your metrics, 80-20, blah, blah, blah, then you want
    0:01:54 to get rid of as much as possible, eliminate. But sometimes there are things that are a huge hassle,
    0:01:59 like expense management for a lot of companies, which you can’t get rid of. They are essential
    0:02:05 to your business. But today, thank God, you can automate it. And there is no better way to do that
    0:02:11 than with today’s sponsor, Ramp. Ramp is a free corporate card that automates away your entire expense
    0:02:17 process. They are incredibly fast-growing and incredibly well-reviewed for good reasons.
    0:02:23 The moment your team makes a purchase, Ramp handles everything. Receipt matching, categorization,
    0:02:29 approval, the whole works. Switching to Ramp is like hiring a full-time employee just for expense
    0:02:34 management. And Ramp makes it easy to migrate from your current corporate card with their complimentary
    0:02:40 white-glove onboarding service for new members. More than 25,000 businesses trust Ramp,
    0:02:45 including my good friends at Shopify and the Boys and Girls Club of America, which is why they were
    0:02:50 just named number one in spend management by G2. And now, for a limited time, you guys,
    0:02:58 listeners of The Tim Ferriss Show, can get $250 when you join Ramp. Just go to ramp.com slash Tim.
    0:03:06 That’s R-A-M-P dot com slash Tim. Cards issued by Sutton Bank. Member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply.
    0:03:12 Listeners have heard me talk about making before you manage for years. All that means to me is that
    0:03:16 when I wake up, I block out three to four hours to do the most important things that are generative,
    0:03:23 creative, podcasting, writing, et cetera, before I get to the email and the admin stuff and the reactive
    0:03:29 stuff and everyone else’s agenda for my time. For me, let’s just say I’m a writer and entrepreneur.
    0:03:35 I need to focus on the making to be happy. If I get sucked into all the little bits and pieces
    0:03:42 that are constantly churning, I end up feeling stressed out. And that is why today’s sponsor
    0:03:47 is so interesting. It’s been one of the greatest energetic unlocks in the last few years.
    0:03:52 So here we go. I need to find people who are great at managing. And that is where Cresset
    0:03:58 Family Office comes in. You spell it C-R-E-S-S-E-T. Cresset Family Office. I was introduced to them
    0:04:04 by one of the top CPG investors in the world. Cresset is a prestigious family office for CEOs,
    0:04:10 founders, and entrepreneurs. They handle the complex financial planning, uncertain tax strategies,
    0:04:17 timely exit planning, bill pay, wires, all the dozens of other parts of wealth management and
    0:04:22 just financial management that would otherwise pull me away from doing what I love most, making
    0:04:27 things, mastering skills, spending time with the people I care about. And over many years,
    0:04:31 I was getting pulled away from that stuff, at least a few days a week, and I’ve completely
    0:04:36 eliminated that. So experience the freedom of focusing on what matters to you with the support
    0:04:42 of a top wealth management team. You can schedule a call today at cressetcapital.com slash Tim.
    0:04:49 That’s spelled C-R-E-S-S-E-T, cressetcapital.com slash Tim, to see how Cresset can help streamline
    0:04:55 your financial plans and grow your wealth. That’s cressetcapital.com slash Tim. And disclosure,
    0:05:00 I am a client of Cresset. There are no material conflicts other than this paid testimonial. And of
    0:05:05 course, all investing involves risk, including loss of principle. So do your due diligence.
    0:05:11 optimal minimal. At this altitude, I can run flat out for a half mile before my hands start
    0:05:17 shaking. Can I ask you a personal question? Now would’ve seen a perfect time. What if I did
    0:05:21 the opposite? I’m a cybernetic organism, living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.
    0:05:25 The Tim Ferriss Show.
    0:05:35 I know ADQ a little bit. He’s a friend. And there was a point at which, you know, I like
    0:05:41 to observe magic product things. And of course, Apple has tons. But my typical morning news setup
    0:05:47 is I’m kind of doing my email and sifting through things while I drink my coffee. And I’ve got
    0:05:55 my iPad set up next to it, rolling, you know, CNBC quietly on mute. And at one point, a couple
    0:06:01 years ago, I moused off the left edge of the screen and it seamlessly went onto the, and
    0:06:05 all of a sudden my mouse is on the iPad. And I was like, oh my God, it just decided because
    0:06:08 it was the same guy logged in. It’s an extended monitor.
    0:06:09 Yeah.
    0:06:11 And I texted him immediately. I’m like, oh, Eddie.
    0:06:21 Why do you have CNBC playing concurrently? Is that just old habits die hard? Or is it,
    0:06:25 let’s see if anything cataclysmic or monumental has happened that I need to be aware of?
    0:06:32 It’s my favorite source of news because business news is generally happy.
    0:06:33 Yeah. Got it.
    0:06:43 Just don’t wallow in the bullshit. And regular news makes me feel bad. And CNBC at best makes
    0:06:49 me feel good. And most of the time is just mid, that’s fine. And I get the news. I’m interested
    0:06:55 in business and companies and strategy and trends. And it is a pretty funny channel. It kind of gets
    0:07:00 on repeat. You don’t need to watch it very long, but they get good interviews too. So I usually don’t
    0:07:04 have the volume on, I have the closed caption scrolling. And then if something catches my
    0:07:05 eye, I don’t know how to do it.
    0:07:09 So let’s take a closer look then at the other screen.
    0:07:09 Yeah.
    0:07:11 You have your coffee.
    0:07:11 Yeah.
    0:07:12 Yeah.
    0:07:13 What time is this?
    0:07:21 Yeah. I’m a pretty early riser. 6.30 I get up usually and long before Sarah, my wife. And so
    0:07:24 these hour and a half, two hours I get in the morning are nice.
    0:07:25 Pristine.
    0:07:29 My kids have all left the house now. There was a routine when my kids were in the house
    0:07:36 that was obviously very different and really fun. I can talk about that. But now I have
    0:07:44 two hours of just catch up on the stuff in my news feed, which is my inbox, my email inbox.
    0:07:49 I’m kind of old school that way. And as I go through that, I’m catching up on the news on
    0:07:52 my iPad. I have a smoothie every morning with lots of stuff.
    0:07:53 What’s the stuff?
    0:07:57 No supplement kinds of things, but lots of…
    0:07:57 Cat testicles?
    0:08:07 I am not one of those guys. I am not one of the longevity supplement people. But I’ll tell you
    0:08:15 what’s in it. It’s about three or four ounces of oat milk, ice, an apple. It used to be a banana.
    0:08:23 I’ve switched to kind of two-thirds of an apple. Pistachios, macadamias, a handful of blueberries.
    0:08:29 My favorite electrolyte. I’m getting ready for my workout. It’s not very big. My favorite
    0:08:31 electrolyte is Procari Sweat.
    0:08:36 Yeah, the blue can, man. I had a lot of that when I lived there as an exchange student.
    0:08:41 My nutritionist says, that’s the one. And I’m like, okay. I’d been taking another one,
    0:08:43 using another one. She’s like, nope, this is the one.
    0:08:45 Not much. A prune?
    0:08:46 Prune.
    0:08:47 Prune.
    0:08:48 Because…
    0:08:48 Keeps things moving.
    0:08:53 Keeps things moving. And that’s very important. You know, young people out there don’t really
    0:08:54 realize how important that is yet.
    0:08:55 Yeah.
    0:09:00 But as you age, you realize how that can affect your day, really. Having everything moving.
    0:09:05 Here’s a little hack. I’m not really a hacky guy, but I do have a lot of quirks, I guess.
    0:09:08 Hyperice. You know that company that makes the…
    0:09:12 Okay. They have a thing. I think they bought a bunch of products, but there’s a back one called
    0:09:14 the Venom. You must have run into that.
    0:09:16 I think it heats and vibrates.
    0:09:17 Yes.
    0:09:18 Yeah.
    0:09:25 So I actually, for my whole kind of 45 minutes of that routine at the kitchen table, you know,
    0:09:30 with a lot of light coming in as soon as the sun’s up, I have it on repeat. I’m wearing that
    0:09:33 Venom. Oh my God. That loosens everything up too.
    0:09:37 So you mentioned before your workout. So this is all pre-workout.
    0:09:44 Yeah. I need to get things going and feel settled, a little bit settled, and brain on
    0:09:46 before I work out.
    0:09:48 Mm-hmm. Coffee helps too.
    0:09:53 Coffee helps all that. Yep. And I don’t drink a lot of coffee. Today I had a little too much
    0:09:58 because I’m off time zone a little bit, but I’ll have one, maybe two cups and that’ll be the
    0:09:58 caffeine for the day.
    0:09:59 Yeah. Got it.
    0:10:05 So I go through that and once everything’s, you know, make my ablutions and change into
    0:10:07 my workout stuff.
    0:10:08 Rinse your face with some holy water.
    0:10:14 And pretty much every day I do a workout. I can’t really get my mind right without that.
    0:10:18 All right. So we’re going to talk about the workout for people who are audio only. This
    0:10:24 guy looks like a, I don’t know how you, a Marvel character meets Abercrombie and Fitch model,
    0:10:29 not to mention scion of business. It’s unfair. I don’t know.
    0:10:34 How I got the short straw on this genetic and habit lottery, but we’re going to talk about
    0:10:41 the training because I have this working pet theory that longevity may be inversely correlated
    0:10:46 with the number of things that you do for longevity. In other words, there are a few things that
    0:10:53 really matter, but then there’s a long tail of things of questionable value that also have
    0:11:00 unknown, uncharted side effects. So when you start throwing the kitchen sink plus plus at your body,
    0:11:07 the likelihood of you heading in the wrong direction is probably higher or just as high.
    0:11:12 My observation is the harder you push against something, the harder it pushes back. And I think
    0:11:18 the people who are pushing really hard at the longevity and the supplement thing and the whole
    0:11:23 day scheduled out lifestyle things to improve health span. Yeah. Most of that’s probably not
    0:11:29 useful. Yeah. There’s some basics, you know, and maybe the most important basic is when I was younger,
    0:11:34 my kids were in the house because I got up early. I was to get the kids to school parent. Yeah.
    0:11:42 While Sarah became more beautiful, she stays up late and I love to cook. I’ve had several jobs as a kid
    0:11:48 growing up where I was a short order chef and worked in a lot of kitchens and I love to cook. And so our
    0:11:56 house is set up. We have a kitchen Island with a big bar with stools and the cooktop is on the other side.
    0:12:04 And whenever the kids wandered downstairs bleary eyed, I was their short order breakfast chef and anything they
    0:12:10 wanted, I would make, which was so fun. It was like the breakfast buffet with the four seasons or something.
    0:12:13 Whatever they wanted. I had it. I could whip it up really, really fast because you get that skill
    0:12:21 when you’re a short order chef. I have my younger boy had some kind of ADHD stuff and started taking those,
    0:12:30 the meds. I can’t remember how old he was, 10, 12. And those meds make kids, it’s an appetite suppressant.
    0:12:37 Oh, for sure. Okay. So maybe, you know, and I was a typical parent. Our primal urge is to feed our
    0:12:42 children. That’s it. Like feed and care for our children. That is the overriding program that kind
    0:12:48 of puts everything else down. And so I got to the point where I was so worried about how skinny he was
    0:12:53 and he wasn’t eating the rest of the day. He was hungry in the morning and I would like make a 12 egg
    0:12:59 frittata and like put potatoes in it and sausage in it. And he downed the thing. And I’m like, okay,
    0:13:01 he’s good for the day.
    0:13:01 Yeah.
    0:13:05 The anaconda diet, just one huge meal and it works.
    0:13:10 Yeah. And the punctuation on this one, aside from that, just being really quality time,
    0:13:14 regardless of what kind of mood the kids were in, it was just really quality. I cherish it.
    0:13:22 I took a picture most days. Okay. Totally candid. There’s no posing. I would sneak a picture
    0:13:27 every day. And now I have a folder called the breakfast club on my, you know, in my picture,
    0:13:34 my iPhone pictures. And I have like a thousand pictures and it’s a time series of these kids
    0:13:37 growing up. It’s a virtual possession, but it’s my most prized possession.
    0:13:43 all right. We’re going to double click on a bunch of things we passed over. Yeah. Let’s hop
    0:13:49 for the, the entrepreneurial set listening. This is also related to more than just pure
    0:13:55 entrepreneurship, but let’s see if this is dead end or if it takes us somewhere. Who was Brad Chase?
    0:13:58 Brad Chase? Yeah. What impact did he have on your life?
    0:14:04 He was a great guy. He was my first real boss out of college. It’s not quite right,
    0:14:10 but it’s close to right. Brad was a group product manager at Microsoft. Microsoft was my,
    0:14:18 you know, I’ll call it my first job out of college. It had, this is 1991. Microsoft had only about 3,000
    0:14:23 people at the time. And just for reference, because I have no idea how many employees do you think they
    0:14:31 have now? It’s going to be a multiple of that. Of course. 300, 400,000. Yeah. Orders of magnitude.
    0:14:37 Multiple orders of magnitude. Two to three. And the product managers were kind of this elite little
    0:14:43 group of really smart people. We weren’t very big. And he was my boss and we were working on MS-DOS 5,
    0:14:49 which maybe I would say we’ll have to go two standard deviations at in your audience distribution curve
    0:14:53 to find anybody who really knows what MS-DOS 5 was. But it was a really big operating system
    0:15:02 for Microsoft at the time. And we made an upgrade. And the feature was, we broke the 640K barrier.
    0:15:07 Which you’re not going to engage on the geeky stuff. But it was a really big product. And my job
    0:15:15 was to create the packaging, manage the manufacturing, and figure out how to get this physical product into
    0:15:21 the Egghead. Some of you will remember Egghead. Egghead was a retail software store. And to push
    0:15:28 the product out into Egghead. That was my first job. And Brad was a guy who, he’s one of my mentors.
    0:15:34 You know, I only worked for him for a short period of time. I was a big idea thinker. You know,
    0:15:40 big risks, big bets. And he encouraged me. At a very young age, he funded me to take a really
    0:15:46 big swing at something and supported me in it. And it failed miserably.
    0:15:48 Is this the book project?
    0:15:48 Yeah.
    0:15:49 You want to tell people about it?
    0:15:53 Well, I don’t know how that interesting is, other than the lesson of take big swing.
    0:15:58 It is. But the details help paint a picture. People can conjure a visual in their head.
    0:16:02 All right. It’s become a huge series. It’s a series for dummies. Blank for dummies.
    0:16:10 Yep. And the book that the Dummies series was founded on was DOS for dummies, believe it or not.
    0:16:17 It was like the best-selling book about software of all time. And I was like, I’m a young product
    0:16:25 manager. I want to sell more MS-DOS 5 upgrades. And I was like, okay, we have all these software
    0:16:30 retailers where people go. But the really big thing at the time, believe it or not, was Barnes & Noble
    0:16:37 and Borders bookstore. Bookstore experience was huge back then. And DOS for dummies sold millions and
    0:16:44 millions of copies of this book in Barnes & Noble and Borders. And so I was like, why don’t we do a
    0:16:51 bundle with DOS for dummies and have that be the manual for the upgrade? Bundle it together, the book
    0:16:57 and the upgrade seems reasonable and distributed through bookstores. How brilliant. Uh, and so I
    0:17:03 went and met with like one of the Riggio guys at Barnes & Noble. I met with the guy who created the
    0:17:08 dummies series, this guy, John. So I met with all these people. We designed the product. It was really,
    0:17:16 I was, you know, feeling pretty like a big deal. Built a bunch of it at probably cost us a to 10 bucks a
    0:17:22 unit. Okay. Which is a lot for cogs, right? Yeah. Cost of goods sold. I can’t remember how many we
    0:17:32 built, but it was at best a C, you know, maybe a D. What was the retail price? You hit the problem.
    0:17:39 The problem was people are going in to buy a $12 book and it was a $54 price tag or $49 price tag,
    0:17:44 which is what the, you know, basically what the software cost it at, uh, at egghead. And it kind of
    0:17:48 looked a bit too much like a book. I kind of made it look like a book. Yeah. It wasn’t the
    0:17:52 greatest cover. Anyway, I kind of, I’m embarrassed about what it looks like now. I have one of course
    0:17:57 as a reminder, but yeah, it was just, it was too, the shock value was too much. People didn’t realize
    0:18:02 there was software in it. And so we ate, we ate a bunch. We ended up getting rid of all the inventory,
    0:18:08 but it was not a success. And the amazing thing, depending on where your audience is in their careers,
    0:18:16 like you work at a lot of places out there and great organizations encourage innovation,
    0:18:22 encourage big idea people to take big swings and do not punish them when it doesn’t work out
    0:18:28 according to plan. If that happens too many times, maybe there’s a pattern and somebody should go find
    0:18:34 another job. But Brad Chase, back to Brad, sat me down. I thought I was for my review and I thought I was
    0:18:40 going to, who knows, it was a 10, $20 million mistake, you know? And I was a young kid and he
    0:18:47 said, I remember distinctly, he said, all right, what’s your next big idea? Amazing. That is that
    0:18:53 Microsoft was and is an amazing organization because of that kind of culture. Wow. How have you,
    0:19:00 if you have sort of taken that forward into companies that you’ve built or just philosophically
    0:19:06 or operationally speaking, how do you encourage that? Because there must be some constraints on
    0:19:11 things so that you don’t light the whole house on fire. Yeah. Right. Yeah. How do you think about
    0:19:17 enabling people to innovate? You don’t want learned helplessness where they’re afraid to do anything.
    0:19:20 Right. At the same time, you don’t want some rogue trader like,
    0:19:22 that’s right. That’s right.
    0:19:28 Pierce turns or whatever. Yeah. It’s really hard, but everything ultimately boils down to the people
    0:19:35 that you hire and the people you choose to work with and the people you keep and saying your culture
    0:19:43 is X, Y, Z is very different from having people who channel that, those traits that you want. And so
    0:19:50 my method for doing this is to make sure we’re really diligent about finding those innovators and the
    0:19:56 entrepreneurs, sometimes who the intrapreneurs, let’s call them, okay? The inside entrepreneurs and
    0:20:02 protect them a little bit because sometimes they’re different and mainline corporate culture
    0:20:08 sometimes rejects, often rejects the innovators and the ones who want to disrupt whatever, just rock
    0:20:14 the boat a little bit. And you really do need to rock the boat to innovate. And so the leadership needs
    0:20:19 to hire, cultivate, protect, and invest in those people. Yeah.
    0:20:22 The foreign bodies so they don’t get rejected by the corporate immune system.
    0:20:23 That’s right.
    0:20:24 Which is just, it’s just natural. Yeah.
    0:20:25 You know?
    0:20:31 All right. So let’s come back to one thing you mentioned. You said, in effect, not totally true,
    0:20:35 but let’s consider Microsoft first job out of college. What was the actual first job?
    0:20:39 I was, you know, I was one of these high performance.
    0:20:40 There’s a confession coming.
    0:20:45 Yeah. I was just one of those kids. And, you know, I went to Stanford and was an engineer.
    0:20:46 Management consulting?
    0:20:47 Yeah.
    0:20:47 Really?
    0:20:48 Yes.
    0:20:48 No.
    0:20:50 Say it ain’t so rich.
    0:20:55 I know, but it was funny. There’s a good story here. I mean, I don’t know if it’s a good
    0:20:56 story, but we’ll tell it. Yeah.
    0:21:02 Yeah. I mean, I was like a success kid. Do well. Loved that. Identified that way. And
    0:21:06 so, of course, whatever the hardest job that came to interview at Stanford when I was a senior,
    0:21:10 of course, that’s the job I wanted. And there was like strategic planning at Disney. There
    0:21:16 was the kind of investment banking training program, analyst program. And there was like
    0:21:20 the strategy management consultant. And those were like the big ones. And it was the most
    0:21:24 competitive, hardest to get. So that’s how I got tracked. And I took a job as a strategy
    0:21:29 consultant in Cambridge, right out of college. I knew pretty damn quickly it wasn’t for me.
    0:21:31 Was it about like BCG or who was?
    0:21:32 It was a spinoff of BCG.
    0:21:32 Okay.
    0:21:38 Called Alliance Consulting Group. Great group of people. Super smart. It was going into a
    0:21:43 recession though in 1989. And so a lot of people ended up losing their jobs. However, the interesting
    0:21:50 thing was one of my besties at Stanford, Nina Roberts, who was an engineer with me. We were
    0:21:57 both interviewing for all the same jobs. And she didn’t get the big job. But she got this
    0:22:02 little tech company in Seattle, Microsoft, which of course I knew. The companies that I really
    0:22:07 loved were Microsoft, Apple. All I needed to do was buy Microsoft and Apple stock back in
    0:22:12 89. That would have been, yeah, I wouldn’t be talking with you now. Microsoft, Apple, I
    0:22:16 liked Patagonia. That was a brand that I identified with. Anyway, Nina got the job as a product manager
    0:22:23 at Microsoft. And she went to Seattle. I went to Cambridge. And we kept in close touch. And
    0:22:28 I knew pretty quickly it wasn’t for me. And she knew Microsoft was the place for me and
    0:22:32 was like on the horn with me every week saying, you got to come out here. You got to come out
    0:22:36 here. And so it took about a year to finally get the flight out and the job offer.
    0:22:42 Why did you know it wasn’t for you? What about it wasn’t for you? Because there are some people
    0:22:43 who thrive in those environments, right?
    0:22:50 Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. You know, a trite answer would be dressing up in a suit and tie and
    0:22:55 wearing uncomfortable shoes. Wasn’t for me. I like to go barefoot. Yeah. That really wasn’t what it
    0:23:01 was. You know, it kind of makes you feel important when you dress up. And I was like presenting things to
    0:23:07 CEOs and stuff. And it did feel important. And I got like a really good business school education
    0:23:12 in competitive strategy. You know, the Michael Porter stuff. I basically got an MBA in this one
    0:23:18 year. What I discovered about myself, and I discovered it there, I probably knew it before,
    0:23:22 but I hadn’t really focused on it, was I believe the world is somewhat divided. It isn’t totally
    0:23:29 binary, but it’s a continuum. But it’s maybe a barbell. Clients and servers. Okay. Which is kind of
    0:23:36 a geeky software architecture reference, but people get it. There are all of these industries
    0:23:44 that are set up to be service provision industries, lawyers, doctors, consultants, academics. And the
    0:23:51 benefit of these industries is you get to indulge your curiosity and deal with lots of different
    0:23:56 clients and lots of different problems. But oftentimes with consulting, you’re not seeing things through to
    0:24:04 the finished product. And it was apparent to me really quickly that I derived my jollies on the
    0:24:10 other hand from being a builder and the client. I actually loved what the clients were doing more
    0:24:14 than what we were doing when, when I was a consultant. So it became clear to me that I was a client. I
    0:24:18 wanted to build things. I derived my jollies that way. And so I started looking and it was good to
    0:24:23 discover at a pretty young age. And then I got to Microsoft and it was like, I was a kid in a candy
    0:24:30 store. I never left the place. Thank God for Nina, was it? Nina. Wow. I hope she still gets a box of
    0:24:40 chocolates. We’re still close. She’s great. All right. So let’s talk about then Microsoft and Expedia.
    0:24:47 How does this happen? I’ll just leave it broad. Well, back to the earlier conversation we had about
    0:24:53 taking big swings and intrapreneuring. The how on how this happened is that Expedia was a
    0:24:59 quote, venture startup inside of Microsoft. And then it spun out and we can get to that.
    0:25:04 But the real reason I even got into it and left the operating system group was that my wife, Sarah,
    0:25:11 who you just saw is a doctor. And she was applying to, she was in medical school at Northwestern and was
    0:25:18 applying to her residencies. She’s an OBGYN. And there’s only one residency, OBGYN residency in
    0:25:25 Seattle where I lived with only six or seven residents a year and one of the most attractive
    0:25:31 residencies in the country. So super competitive. We were engaged and then soon married. After that,
    0:25:37 we got married pretty young. And I was like, well, she’s not going to match out here in Seattle. So
    0:25:41 I’d better get ready to move to New York city or, you know, this probably would have been New York
    0:25:46 city where she matched. This was during the windows 95 launch. I left the windows 95 team and I went to
    0:25:54 the consumer division at Microsoft, which was kind of small. Now just, this is going to maybe sound
    0:26:01 like a side quest, but when you say you moved, did you just put in a request? Like how easy is that to
    0:26:01 do?
    0:26:06 At great companies, it’s relatively easy, relatively easy, especially for people who are tagged as high
    0:26:13 potential, but it’s still not easy. Of course, Brad, who was my boss at the time, couldn’t believe
    0:26:17 we’re launching windows 95. This is going to be the biggest launch of all time in the software
    0:26:22 industry. Maybe one of the biggest product launches of all time. I don’t know if you remember that.
    0:26:27 It was a big deal. And about six months before we launched, I had a big job there.
    0:26:33 I interviewed for jobs over in the consumer division and took on a portfolio of multimedia
    0:26:39 CD-ROMs. And the reason I did this, I was interested in consumer marketing, obviously, but the reason
    0:26:45 I did this was that I was going to have to leave Microsoft and I wanted to start a company and
    0:26:49 it wasn’t going to be an operating system. Yeah. Okay. Like that just wasn’t going to happen
    0:26:55 for reasons that, you know, we don’t need to get into, but the government made clear to Microsoft
    0:26:59 at one point. So I figured it was going to be a consumer software company and I wanted to go learn
    0:27:04 that. And the folks over there were fantastic. Microsoft was fantastic. And I took on a portfolio
    0:27:09 of CD-ROMs. Some of you out there will not even know what that is. This is kind of basically
    0:27:10 precursor to the internet.
    0:27:15 It’s the thing your doctor gives you that you can’t make any use of with all your images.
    0:27:20 It’s true. It’s true. And some artists, some musicians still hand out like CDs.
    0:27:22 It’s the artifact that your doctor gives you.
    0:27:28 It was what, it was what the last, what came in the red envelopes at Netflix.
    0:27:35 Anyway, so, but these things were like Wikipedia before Wikipedia was called Encarta and it was a
    0:27:41 multimedia CD-ROM. And one of them with the products in my portfolio of like rando ideas
    0:27:49 was an Encarta. So an encyclopedia of travel guides. This is really good. You take a whole bookshelf,
    0:27:55 a whole shelf of travel guides, cram it down onto one CD-ROM pictures, audio. Wow. What could be better
    0:28:01 for travel planning? And that was one of them. And I remember going into my first product review with
    0:28:06 Bill Gates and others, which was a kind of every six months, every year kind of thing that the product
    0:28:13 people did. And I was used to like business plans, but billions of dollars from the operating system
    0:28:18 group. And I was responsible for this thing. And I’m like, Bill, like this is tiny. The whole travel
    0:28:25 book industry in the U.S. is maybe a hundred million dollars. And that’s the whole thing. And so really,
    0:28:30 A, there’s not an opportunity. And B, you can’t travel with the CD-ROM. There were no like,
    0:28:35 like the laptop at that point was this compact suitcase that weighed 20 pounds. I’m like,
    0:28:39 that’s when you want the travel guide when you’re traveling. So even though I know it’s your idea
    0:28:48 and it’s kind of fun, it’s not going to work. That said, I demoed Easy Saber on Prodigy. Prodigy was an
    0:28:48 online service.
    0:28:49 Oh, yeah.
    0:28:58 Okay. And I was a geeky online guy. Right. And Easy Saber was a tool for travel agents to use at home
    0:29:03 on Prodigy to access the airline reservation systems. Okay. So it wasn’t meant for consumers,
    0:29:08 but I could get access to it on Prodigy. And I demoed that for him. He actually knew about it.
    0:29:12 I demoed that for him. I’m like, this is a change of the world thing. If we can have consumers
    0:29:18 be able to do this, then we can become the largest, e-commerce wasn’t a word then,
    0:29:21 we could become the largest seller of travel in the world. That was my pitch and my dream.
    0:29:26 The pitch further went, and fund me on the outside because I’m going to have to move to New York
    0:29:30 because my wife, she’s not going to match out here. And this doesn’t want to be a Microsoft business
    0:29:36 anyway. It’s travel first, software second, not software first, travel second. He agreed with all
    0:29:40 that. He thought it was an awesome idea. He also liked that we could rebuild all the mainframes
    0:29:45 on Windows NT, which was a different conversation. So he loved it. He greenlit it. He was my first
    0:29:50 venture capitalist. He said, no, don’t go do it on the outside. Do it here. We have a great team
    0:29:56 that we’ll put together. And I’m sure Sarah will match her residency at University of Washington.
    0:29:58 High degree of confidence.
    0:30:04 That was the end of that. She did match. I honestly, to this day, don’t know if there was any thumb on the
    0:30:09 scale. I doubt he had that kind of power, but she matched. I stayed in Seattle. He had promised me
    0:30:14 that he’d consider spinning it out if it got big enough. And then that’s what happened. So we spun
    0:30:19 in the height of the internet bubble, which is so bubbly that people today who think we’re in a bubble
    0:30:21 have no concept. I mean, you remember.
    0:30:22 Oh, yeah.
    0:30:22 1999.
    0:30:27 I moved out right before the Thelma and Louise car went off the cliff. I mean, I moved out to
    0:30:29 the Bay Area in 2000.
    0:30:31 It was crazy.
    0:30:32 Impeccable timing.
    0:30:38 We all thought we were the smartest people in the world. We really did. And we all thought those
    0:30:42 people in New York City just didn’t get it. And then there was comeuppance, but Expedia was a really
    0:30:50 good business. I was working for Balmer at the time. And I asked Steve for $100 million to spend on a
    0:30:55 television advertising campaign because I said, we are becoming. We can do this. We are in the pole
    0:31:02 position. We can build the biggest brand and travel. And Steve laughed at me like, no, we don’t do that.
    0:31:08 I said, well, dogshit.com is going public right now at a billion dollar valuation. It wasn’t quite that.
    0:31:13 It was like 500 million, which seemed big at the time. Really dumb, stupid stuff in my closet.com was
    0:31:19 going public. You know, put it on the web anyway. And I was like, the public markets would give us
    0:31:25 a hundred million dollars and it’ll cost basically nothing. And so let’s give this a try. Let me spin
    0:31:28 this thing out. It’s a good HR experiment, human resources experiment too.
    0:31:32 Now just explain for folks, why does spinning something out make sense? What are the
    0:31:35 advantages of doing that to them and to you?
    0:31:42 Okay. I mean, the financial answer to that is unlocking value that is stuck in a company. And
    0:31:46 this happens a lot. That’s kind of the most uninteresting one.
    0:31:48 Unlocking value, meaning.
    0:31:52 It’s not getting valued by the shareholders as being part of Microsoft.
    0:31:57 Right. But if you, if you take it public or do something outside of Microsoft, all of a sudden.
    0:32:01 It could attract its own investor base that we’re interested in that in particular.
    0:32:05 Okay. So there’s a conglomerate discount, generally speaking, in the public markets where
    0:32:12 the more stuff you have in a big company, the less the individual businesses are valued.
    0:32:16 There was a period of American business history where conglomerates actually got a premium,
    0:32:22 like in the GE, the Jack Welch GE days and Honeywell. And there were all these big conglomerates.
    0:32:26 And then the pendulum swung the other way. Microsoft could have cared less about the financial play,
    0:32:35 though. However, I pitched it mostly as an HR experiment. Microsoft was getting so big at the
    0:32:42 time that people could hide out in random corners of Microsoft. And as long as Windows NT, the operating
    0:32:47 system succeeded or office, Microsoft Office succeeded, they could make a lot of money off their stock
    0:32:55 options. And so that’s basically a compensation accountability disconnect. Okay. And so some of
    0:33:02 the best people at Microsoft, there was this field of dreams, wild opportunity outside of Microsoft,
    0:33:08 even though it was the place everybody wanted to work at the time, probably still is. There were great
    0:33:13 people, like I’ll just say, like me, like I would not have stayed. I would have gone out and started
    0:33:17 something on the outside because the opportunity was so great. And so Steve Ballmer understood this
    0:33:18 really well.
    0:33:20 God, this was like a talent retention pitch.
    0:33:25 Sort of. Sort of. And so he’s like, yeah, we’ll take a flyer on it. And that was great. And Greg
    0:33:29 Maffei, who was the CFO at the time, he became my chairman and he was really supportive. You know,
    0:33:35 he and I still work together. He’s been a great, great mentor to me. We took 150 people out of
    0:33:39 Microsoft. We gave them the choice if they wanted to stay or come. All but I think two people,
    0:33:45 we had 150 of us, all but two people decided to come take the adventure, give it a rip. I was 32
    0:33:47 years old, 31, 32 years old.
    0:33:50 Now, were you pitching those people yourself?
    0:33:50 Yeah.
    0:33:54 What was the pitch? Because it’s going to be different than the pitch to Ballmer, right?
    0:34:02 Yeah, way different. I mean, it was, I had had this idea for a while. And so the people I recruited,
    0:34:07 back to an earlier comment I made, the people that were on the team were the people who were the
    0:34:13 adventurers and the ones who wanted to, who would have left. Okay. And so this was all about the
    0:34:20 adventure. The hardest sell was not the people. It was the spouses. And I remember several dinners,
    0:34:26 like with an S1 for those, you know, it’s an IPO document with our, our Expedia draft of the S1 lying
    0:34:34 on a dinner table at Wild Ginger in Seattle with a skeptical spouse. The S1 is highlighted and like,
    0:34:38 there’s annotation and I’m having to answer like, you know, those were my toughest investors.
    0:34:44 Actually, it worked out really well, maybe too well because Expedia was a real business. We actually
    0:34:50 were profitable and growing like crazy. I mean, obviously digital travel agent made a lot of sense.
    0:34:51 Okay.
    0:34:51 Yeah.
    0:34:58 And so when Thelma and Louise went off the cliff, as you say, we were already public. Okay. And we’d gone to
    0:35:02 the moon. The stock price had gone to the moon. We crashed back down, but we had a real business
    0:35:08 and very shortly popped back up on the climb and just climbed from there. And we’re very successful.
    0:35:16 Microsoft, however, crashed with Thelma and Louise and it took 17 years for Microsoft to re-achieve
    0:35:22 the same stock price it had in November of 99 when we spun Expedia out. So the HR experiment kind of failed.
    0:35:27 How long did it take Expedia to recover or to get back on the climb?
    0:35:31 I mean, to re-achieve the all time high, probably a couple of years.
    0:35:33 Yeah. But a couple versus 17.
    0:35:36 Yeah. But the valuations were a bit nutty, right?
    0:35:36 Yeah.
    0:35:42 So it was obvious that Expedia was on the right path very quickly. And there was kind of a flight
    0:35:49 to quality with internet investors, which meant find the profitable recent IPOs, which there were not
    0:35:51 many and let’s invest in those. But we were one.
    0:35:58 Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors and we’ll be right back to the show.
    0:36:04 This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform revolutionizing millions
    0:36:11 of businesses worldwide. And I’ve known the team since 2008 or 2009. But prior to that, I wish I had
    0:36:16 personally had Shopify in the early 2000s when I was running my own e-commerce business. But the tools
    0:36:23 then were absolutely atrocious and I could only dream of a platform like Shopify. Whether you’re a garage
    0:36:29 entrepreneur or getting ready for your IPO, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run and grow your
    0:36:33 business without the struggle. And once you’ve reached your audience, Shopify has the internet’s
    0:36:40 best converting checkout to help you turn browsers into buyers. Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in
    0:36:46 the United States. And Shopify is truly a global force as the e-commerce solution behind Allbirds,
    0:36:52 Rothy’s, Brooklyn, and millions of other entrepreneurs of every size across more than 170 countries. Plus,
    0:36:57 Shopify’s award-winning help is there to support your success every step of the way if you have questions.
    0:37:03 It’s established in 2025. It has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? So sign up for your $1 per month trial
    0:37:12 period at shopify.com/tim, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com/tim to start selling today with Shopify.
    0:37:15 One more time, shopify.com/tim.
    0:37:24 Maybe this is not a good question, but I have to ask, how did you learn to pitch? How did you learn
    0:37:32 to pitch different stakeholders? Because you’re talking about employees, bomber, gates, spouses,
    0:37:33 like that is a skill set.
    0:37:35 Preston Pyshko: Persuasion.
    0:37:37 Preston Pyshko: Yeah. How did you develop that?
    0:37:42 Preston Pyshko: It just must’ve been an innate thing that got a lot of exercise as I was growing up.
    0:37:49 Preston Pyshko: I was an engineer by degree, but never a practicing engineer. I was an engineer
    0:37:52 because I liked technology. I was a geeky kid.
    0:37:55 Preston Pyshko: What type of engineer initially?
    0:37:59 Preston Pyshko: The story there kind of answers the question. I was an industrial engineer,
    0:38:02 theoretically, but I wanted to go study in Italy my junior year.
    0:38:04 Preston Pyshko: Now, industrial engineer would be like,
    0:38:10 you end up going to a smart design or one of those types of companies. Or how are you thinking your path
    0:38:14 Preston Pyshko: That’s not a degree anymore at Stanford. It’s called management science and
    0:38:19 engineering. And then there’s a kind of a symbolic systems things. The industrial engineering degree,
    0:38:24 which kind of sunsetted, was really a kind of manufacturing efficiency.
    0:38:24 Preston Pyshko: I got it. Okay.
    0:38:25 Preston Pyshko: I got it.
    0:38:28 Preston Pyshko: Optimization, simulation,
    0:38:32 lots of computer work going into the design of making things more efficient.
    0:38:32 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:38:33 Preston Pyshko: Kind of like the operations,
    0:38:35 Preston Pyshko: Research, finance department, other places.
    0:38:36 Preston Pyshko: That’s right.
    0:38:36 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:38:40 Preston Pyshko: I did it just because it was a Bachelor of Science, not a Bachelor of Arts.
    0:38:45 Preston Pyshko: It was the most businessy of the engineering disciplines.
    0:38:47 Preston Pyshko: At Stanford, they called it imaginary engineering,
    0:38:51 because the mechanical and the electrical folks didn’t respect us.
    0:38:53 Preston Pyshko: Probably deservedly.
    0:38:55 Preston Pyshko: Because we were more interested in business.
    0:38:56 Preston Pyshko: But anyway,
    0:39:00 Preston Pyshko: I did this because I had all these other interests and skills around
    0:39:03 Preston Pyshko: persuasion and people and entrepreneurialism.
    0:39:05 Preston Pyshko: Already at that point, as an undergrad.
    0:39:06 Preston Pyshko: Already, already.
    0:39:08 Preston Pyshko: As a kid, I had all that.
    0:39:10 Preston Pyshko: I probably was a good pitch person already,
    0:39:13 but had a lot of support and exercise of that.
    0:39:14 Preston Pyshko: You mentioned Italy in passing.
    0:39:16 Preston Pyshko: So we’re going to come to Italy.
    0:39:19 Preston Pyshko: But how did you get that exercise when you were younger?
    0:39:21 Preston Pyshko: I went to Italy.
    0:39:25 Preston Pyshko: So I got off the industrial engineering track and Stanford was awesome.
    0:39:27 Preston Pyshko: I came back and I like,
    0:39:29 Preston Pyshko: Well, you can’t get an accredited degree now.
    0:39:29 Preston Pyshko: I’m like, I don’t care.
    0:39:33 Preston Pyshko: And Nina’s dad was a professor at the time.
    0:39:33 Preston Pyshko: And he said,
    0:39:36 Preston Pyshko: Well, Stanford, you can self design an engineering degree.
    0:39:37 Preston Pyshko: So let’s just design one for you.
    0:39:39 Preston Pyshko: So we designed, I designed one.
    0:39:42 Preston Pyshko: So my degree is called general engineering colon industrial economics.
    0:39:46 Preston Pyshko: Anyway, unlike a lot of kids today,
    0:39:50 Preston Pyshko: I worked real summer jobs, you know, my kids generally did.
    0:39:52 Preston Pyshko: Actually, my kids have worked real summer jobs.
    0:39:54 Preston Pyshko: So we were talking like busboy?
    0:39:55 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:39:58 Preston Pyshko: I mean, my daughter, I’m thinking of what their jobs are right now.
    0:40:00 Preston Pyshko: My daughter spent, you’re going to know this place.
    0:40:03 Preston Pyshko: You know, after gurneys was redone, it became like this club scene.
    0:40:04 Preston Pyshko: This is out in Montauk.
    0:40:05 Preston Pyshko: Once it got fancied up.
    0:40:06 Preston Pyshko: It got super fancied up.
    0:40:08 Preston Pyshko: Took away the day passes for the locals.
    0:40:20 Preston Pyshko: It was after her sophomore year in college, I think, and I’m like, honey,
    0:40:22 you’ve got a place to stay out in the Hamptons.
    0:40:27 Preston Pyshko: You don’t need to get on the track, the track that every smart kid is supposed
    0:40:27 to take.
    0:40:28 Preston Pyshko: You don’t need to do that.
    0:40:30 Preston Pyshko: Why don’t you get real experience?
    0:40:35 Preston Pyshko: So she came and lived in our house out in Montauk and was the – who’s the
    0:40:38 person that stands at the counter when – Preston Pyshko: The hostess?
    0:40:40 Preston Pyshko: The hostess at the club part of gurneys.
    0:40:41 Preston Pyshko: Oh, God.
    0:40:44 Preston Pyshko: Okay, where it was like $2,000 tables.
    0:40:44 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, yeah.
    0:40:45 Preston Pyshko: That’s quite an education.
    0:40:47 Preston Pyshko: It’s an amazing human nature.
    0:40:48 Preston Pyshko: Human nature job.
    0:40:49 Preston Pyshko: Oh, my God.
    0:40:53 Preston Pyshko: She had a crazy, successful, interesting learning experience.
    0:40:54 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:40:56 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, and we had fun watching it happen.
    0:40:57 Preston Pyshko: And we also got tables set.
    0:41:01 Preston Pyshko: Anyway, when I was a kid, I was the ice cream man.
    0:41:02 Preston Pyshko: So I ran my own ice cream business.
    0:41:04 Preston Pyshko: This is in Connecticut.
    0:41:06 Preston Pyshko: I went to high school in Connecticut.
    0:41:10 Preston Pyshko: I learned how to do house painting as a crew member of a buddy of mine.
    0:41:15 Preston Pyshko: And then after one year doing that, I was like, well, well, I can bid the jobs
    0:41:17 myself, you know, and I can hire a crew.
    0:41:22 Preston Pyshko: And so I had my own painting company for a couple of years, which was hugely profitable
    0:41:24 Preston Pyshko: for a kid. I mean, I made a ton.
    0:41:28 Preston Pyshko: I had to pay for all my expenses at college, not my tuition.
    0:41:31 Preston Pyshko: My parents covered the tuition, but I had to pay all my other expenses.
    0:41:37 Preston Pyshko: So making back then, I would make like $15,000 or $20,000 in summer painting.
    0:41:37 Preston Pyshko: Wow.
    0:41:39 Preston Pyshko: And that was a boatload of money.
    0:41:39 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:41:41 Preston Pyshko: And so I had run my own businesses.
    0:41:43 Preston Pyshko: Got it. All right.
    0:41:44 Preston Pyshko: I knew I liked it.
    0:41:46 Preston Pyshko: And why did you go to Italy at all?
    0:41:51 Preston Pyshko: Why did I want to go when I was in school? I have no Italian heritage,
    0:41:58 as you can probably tell. But I went to Italy and Greece when I was in high school with my Latin
    0:42:06 teacher and just had these awesome kind of kid high school trips. And while I was in Italy, I literally
    0:42:13 Preston Pyshko: fell in love with the whole vibe, the food, the wine, the girls, the family culture.
    0:42:18 Preston Pyshko: The kind of work is not that as important, you know, and I kind of fell in love
    0:42:24 Preston Pyshko: with it and kept going back. So I went to study. And then after I sold Expedia
    0:42:30 to Barry Diller, we were public and Barry Diller bought it. And we had three little kids and I was
    0:42:35 Preston Pyshko: leaving after Barry Diller, I wanted to give space to the next team. And I said,
    0:42:40 Preston Pyshko: let’s go back to Italy. And so we moved to Florence for a year after we sold Expedia.
    0:42:43 Preston Pyshko: In fact, Nina, who I was talking about before, she was living there, married to a European
    0:42:49 Preston Pyshko: guy. And I’d gone to Stanford there when I was a junior and I kept in touch with the
    0:42:55 Preston Pyshko: woman who ran the Stanford program, Linda. And so we kind of moved to Florence and went back
    0:42:59 Preston Pyshko: to school and learned how to paint and started road biking. Anyway,
    0:43:01 Preston Pyshko: so I just, I love the whole Italy vibe.
    0:43:05 Preston Pyshko: Let’s take a closer look at the Barry Diller transaction.
    0:43:06 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, yeah.
    0:43:11 Preston Pyshko: How did that come to be? And what were the most important aspects of that deal?
    0:43:16 Preston Pyshko: Could be deal structure, could be timing, could be anything. But how does that even happen?
    0:43:19 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, so Expedia had been public for maybe four years
    0:43:24 Preston Pyshko: and had become very successful and pretty big,
    0:43:26 Preston Pyshko: you know, pretty highly valued in the market.
    0:43:32 Preston Pyshko: And I think it came about, I mean, Barry was kind of interested. He was building a
    0:43:35 Preston Pyshko: interactive conglomerate called IAC.
    0:43:37 Preston Pyshko: IAC, right. USA Networks.
    0:43:40 Preston Pyshko: I think he owns most of the popular dating apps,
    0:43:42 Preston Pyshko: things like that. I mean, IAC buys a lot of stuff.
    0:43:44 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, and then spun it out as Match.com.
    0:43:44 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:43:49 Preston Pyshko: You know, and yeah, he was post his media career. He got into interactive
    0:43:53 Preston Pyshko: media and he started buying stuff. And a guy, his kind of key corporate
    0:43:59 Preston Pyshko: development strategist and all around great fricking guy who worked for
    0:44:01 Preston Pyshko: him was a young guy named Dara Kazushahi.
    0:44:05 Preston Pyshko: Ah, okay. Folks might recognize that, man.
    0:44:07 Preston Pyshko: I may be miscrediting or giving
    0:44:10 Preston Pyshko: you too much credit, Dara, but probably not.
    0:44:14 Preston Pyshko: I think this was Dara’s idea was consolidate the players
    0:44:18 Preston Pyshko: in the online travel space, that it was already big,
    0:44:20 Preston Pyshko: but it was going to be much bigger.
    0:44:25 Preston Pyshko: And Microsoft was the majority owner, but didn’t
    0:44:26 Preston Pyshko: have anybody on the board.
    0:44:29 Preston Pyshko: Even there, you know, 65% of the company didn’t
    0:44:31 Preston Pyshko: have anybody on the board. Greg, they knew me and they trusted
    0:44:34 Preston Pyshko: Greg Maffei, who had left as CFO and was running
    0:44:36 Preston Pyshko: That is an unbelievable level of trust.
    0:44:38 Preston Pyshko: It just didn’t matter to Microsoft, right?
    0:44:38 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, I guess.
    0:44:40 Preston Pyshko: Just as a percentage of the total.
    0:44:43 Preston Pyshko: And at some point somebody came in, I won’t name names,
    0:44:46 Preston Pyshko: somebody came in and said, “We need to focus at Microsoft.
    0:44:47 Preston Pyshko: We need to get things focused.
    0:44:48 Preston Pyshko: We’re too scattered.”
    0:44:52 Preston Pyshko: And an easy thing to do was to take a big offer from Barry Diller.
    0:44:53 Preston Pyshko: And so they did.
    0:44:55 Preston Pyshko: It was a bit of a two-step deal.
    0:44:58 Preston Pyshko: The IAC and Dara and Barry bought
    0:45:00 Preston Pyshko: Microsoft 65%.
    0:45:06 Preston Pyshko: So we were public, but captive to IAC.
    0:45:08 Preston Pyshko: And Barry Diller was my chairman for a while.
    0:45:09 Preston Pyshko: And then maybe eight months later,
    0:45:10 Preston Pyshko: Bid for the rest of it.
    0:45:13 Preston Pyshko: And consolidated it down.
    0:45:17 Preston Pyshko: Or I think they kind of pushed us to buy the number two player,
    0:45:19 Preston Pyshko: which was Hotels.com.
    0:45:23 Preston Pyshko: And so we mashed those things together and I moved on at that point.
    0:45:26 Preston Pyshko: So when in that journey, the Expedia journey,
    0:45:28 Preston Pyshko: did you feel the highest high?
    0:45:30 Preston Pyshko: Like, for instance, I would imagine
    0:45:36 Preston Pyshko: when you are working summers and on your way through high school and college,
    0:45:38 Preston Pyshko: there was probably a moment, I’m just guessing here,
    0:45:44 Preston Pyshko: but when you had your first big summer with that painting gig and made $15,
    0:45:48 Preston Pyshko: 20 grand, like, my God, you must have felt rich.
    0:45:49 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, we went to the high lie.
    0:45:50 Preston Pyshko: You know what the high lie is?
    0:45:51 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:45:52 Preston Pyshko: Took the crew to the high lie.
    0:45:54 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, so with the Expedia journey,
    0:45:55 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:46:00 Preston Pyshko: was it the tail end with the Barry Dillard transaction?
    0:46:00 Preston Pyshko: No.
    0:46:00 Preston Pyshko: No.
    0:46:02 Preston Pyshko: Because there’s mixed emotions there, right?
    0:46:02 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:46:04 Preston Pyshko: And I didn’t control the company.
    0:46:07 Preston Pyshko: I learned that henceforth I would control the companies that I started.
    0:46:12 Preston Pyshko: No, I mean, that was great and it made sense and it created value.
    0:46:18 Preston Pyshko: No, the highest highs were probably around the spin out and the IPO.
    0:46:21 Preston Pyshko: There’s kind of a funny IPO story that my wife,
    0:46:25 Preston Pyshko: Sarah, was pregnant with our first child, Will, during the roadshow.
    0:46:28 Preston Pyshko: Okay, so this is November of 1999.
    0:46:30 Preston Pyshko: It’s really pitching to the buy side.
    0:46:31 Preston Pyshko: So it’s pitching to the mutual funds.
    0:46:32 Preston Pyshko: To the mutual funds.
    0:46:33 Preston Pyshko: To the investors.
    0:46:33 Preston Pyshko: Okay, got it.
    0:46:38 Preston Pyshko: And it used to be, I think now is a lot more on Zoom, which it should be,
    0:46:42 by the way. But it was a rite of passage back then for companies going public and a lot more
    0:46:51 companies went public then. And it was 15 cities over three weeks, five meetings a day, six meetings a day,
    0:46:57 Preston Pyshko: Chartered private plane with banker team and CFO and CEO zipping around the country.
    0:47:05 Preston Pyshko: Okay, exhausting and exhilarating and repetitive and kind of boring, also really fun.
    0:47:10 Preston Pyshko: Anyway, so Sarah was pregnant and she wasn’t due until December, but we had been on the road
    0:47:15 for two and a half weeks already. We’d filled the book 30 times over, which means we had a lot more demand.
    0:47:19 Preston Pyshko: We knew the offering was going to be successful. These were back in the days when the offerings
    0:47:23 Preston Pyshko: were a little bit managed to the advantage of the inside banker people. But anyway,
    0:47:27 that’s a different story. So it was going to work. The IPO was going to work. And I called the red show
    0:47:35 off a day early. I flew back to Seattle exhausted. I get in bed at like one in the morning after getting
    0:47:41 home. Sarah’s super pregnant. I get a tap on the shoulder at 3:00 a.m.
    0:47:48 Preston Pyshko: And she said, she’s an OB, so she knows what’s going on. Although that’s not always the
    0:47:56 case, but she knows what’s going on. And she said to me, “Honey, this is like IPO day. If our baby is
    0:48:01 born on the IPO day, do I really have to name him Expedia?” Which is what I promised the team.
    0:48:12 And then we went to the hospital and while the IPO was happening, my son was being born. My oldest was
    0:48:14 being born. And so that was actually the high point right there.
    0:48:19 Preston Pyshko: Wow. All right. Now we’re tracking the path. So now you’re
    0:48:25 painting a vase of fruit in Florence, living the life of a…
    0:48:29 Preston Pyshko: Naked. It was a naked woman. It was life, it was life drawing.
    0:48:30 Preston Pyshko: There we go. All right.
    0:48:31 Preston Pyshko: Charcoal life drawing.
    0:48:34 Preston Pyshko: Yeah. There we go. All right. Charcoal, charcoal drawing of naked
    0:48:36 lady, changing poses every 10 minutes.
    0:48:38 Preston Pyshko: What could be a better way to learn art?
    0:48:40 Preston Pyshko: What a lovely way to learn art.
    0:48:41 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:48:44 Preston Pyshko: And living the life of a refined gentleman.
    0:48:45 Preston Pyshko: Mm-hmm.
    0:48:47 Preston Pyshko: Pasta and wine and culture and road biking.
    0:48:47 Preston Pyshko: Road biking.
    0:48:49 Preston Pyshko: Little cap, maybe.
    0:48:55 Preston Pyshko: Little cap, of course, no helmet. Taking Italian classes in the morning.
    0:48:58 Preston Pyshko: Yeah, yeah. So here and there. Sounds like a great life.
    0:48:58 Preston Pyshko: It was fun.
    0:49:02 Preston Pyshko: So how the hell does Zillow happen?
    0:49:02 Preston Pyshko: Yeah.
    0:49:06 Preston Pyshko: Do you start getting fidgety? I mean, what happens there?
    0:49:09 Preston Pyshko: Yeah. I was still pretty young. So probably,
    0:49:19 I was three, I was like 35, 36. And I was hoping art, music, thought I might write books, whatever.
    0:49:21 Preston Pyshko: You know, find the next chapter.
    0:49:22 Preston Pyshko: Mm-hmm.
    0:49:26 Preston Pyshko: Because I really didn’t need to, I had enough to take care of myself for the rest of
    0:49:33 my life. But something I discovered, I was still on a few boards, including the IAC board, which had
    0:49:40 bought Expedia and Netflix, where I’d been on the board since like 2000. And still, I’m still on that
    0:49:46 board and a couple others. So I was still involved in the business world from a kind of long,
    0:49:51 in a long distance way. Though I had an amazing time learning experience, I didn’t find my next
    0:49:58 calling. And I was still really curious about the business world and what was going on. So I knew
    0:50:02 that I had, we weren’t going to stay in Italy. We were going to move back and I was going to do
    0:50:09 something else, which is great to learn. And we did. Did it in Florence for a little over a year.
    0:50:13 We spent a few months skiing with the family, which was really fun in the mountains.
    0:50:17 Pyshko: And you came to the US. I am going on a hunting expedition. Did you
    0:50:19 already have an inkling of what you were going to do?
    0:50:23 Pyshko: A little bit. I didn’t know if I really had another startup in me,
    0:50:32 because I knew how much work it was. And I adjusted my life to prioritize some things I
    0:50:40 hadn’t prioritized when I was younger, like living well and family and body and mind. And I was very
    0:50:45 curious in all kinds of different things. So the venture capital opportunity was available to me
    0:50:50 to go be a GP at a venture capital firm. And I was kind of headed in that direction.
    0:50:56 And then my Zillow co-founder, Lloyd Frank, who was a guy I went to Stanford with and did Expedia with.
    0:51:03 Pyshko: He was still at Expedia and he got fired by our good friend, Eric, who was running Expedia at
    0:51:06 the time. Probably for good reason. Awesome guy. Really smart.
    0:51:09 Pyshko: I won’t follow up on that.
    0:51:10 Pyshko: We don’t need to.
    0:51:12 Pyshko: Let that one go. Pyshko: It’s a fun story.
    0:51:15 Pyshko: But Lloyd, so Lloyd got fired and Lloyd’s like,
    0:51:20 “Wait, wait, wait, don’t move to California. Let’s just sit in an office and brainstorm for a while.”
    0:51:26 Pyshko: And so we did. We did. And we went through a bunch of ideas. He went off on one
    0:51:31 that was kind of Dropbox before Dropbox. It was obvious that the kind of cloud storage thing was
    0:51:36 going to be huge. And I said, “Go figure that out. See what it costs.” And so he disappeared
    0:51:40 for a couple of weeks. So we were kind of sharing an office. And he came back and he’s like, “Yeah,
    0:51:44 100% this is going to work, but there’s going to be no profit. There’s no profit. Like there’s going
    0:51:47 to be Microsoft and Google are going to give this away.” Pyshko: Where were you guys brainstorming?
    0:51:51 Pyshko: We were brainstorming and his dad, his dad was a stockbroker. He had an extra
    0:51:54 couple of rooms in his office and he just gave them to us. Pyshko: New York City?
    0:51:56 Pyshko: No, no. This is Seattle. Pyshko: Oh, Seattle.
    0:51:58 Pyshko: Seattle. Pyshko: Okay, got it, got it. Pyshko: Yeah, yeah. So we’re in Seattle.
    0:52:02 Because we didn’t sell our house in Seattle. When we moved to Italy, we’d moved back to our house. But we were
    0:52:07 looking for a new house. We were going to maybe move to California or something in Seattle. Our
    0:52:13 family was getting bigger. And so we went through a series of ideas. And then at one point I said,
    0:52:21 “Hey, back when we started Expedia, we also wrote a plan for an electronic stockbroker, matchmaking
    0:52:28 service, all the classified categories basically, and all the kind of agent categories were all obvious
    0:52:33 that we were on a little team of people researching big ideas inside of Microsoft. How would the web
    0:52:39 change industry?” And so we had all these plans. Expedia was one of the ideas. There was basically
    0:52:45 to create a digital real estate marketplace. And I dusted that off and I said, “Hey, what about that?
    0:52:51 I mean, you’re looking for a house right now. It’s really freaking hard. This is 2003. And I can’t
    0:52:59 get the price of a home online. I can’t even get the address.” Because the industry had been very good
    0:53:01 at defending their special data.
    0:53:02 Making it opaque.
    0:53:07 Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we were the power to the people guys. We were the guys who freed all that
    0:53:12 information for the regular traveler. And we were like, “Well, it wants to be power to the people
    0:53:19 here too, right?” And we couldn’t believe that it hadn’t changed. And so that was the dawn of Zillow.
    0:53:24 Yeah. So he convinced me not to move. And I said, “Well, I’ll be CEO, but I’m not going to work that hard.”
    0:53:30 He’s like, “Don’t worry. I’ll do it. Just be CEO. I need you to be CEO, because you have to raise money and stuff.”
    0:53:31 All this trick in the book.
    0:53:37 So maybe I am a four-hour work with CAC kind of guy. I said, “Look, I don’t want to do it full-time.
    0:53:42 You can use my name.” Of course, he was like, “Yeah, sure. Whatever. You can do whatever you
    0:53:43 want, Rich.” Knowing I’d be sucked in.
    0:53:44 Let the line out.
    0:53:46 He totally managed me.
    0:53:50 Yeah, I think I’m in charge now. Lloyd was in charge.
    0:53:54 So when you say you’re brainstorming, there’s an entire universe of possibilities.
    0:53:55 Yeah.
    0:54:00 What constraints or criteria are you applying to that brainstorming? What are you looking for?
    0:54:08 I think most great idea is that there’s just a big, obvious problem. I like consumer stuff.
    0:54:12 And so that means the way I interface with the world, the way we all interface with the world,
    0:54:18 is rife with problems. And all those problems are business opportunities. And when you see a particularly
    0:54:25 big, “Oh my God, why is it this way?” Those are probably the bigger opportunities. And it’s almost
    0:54:33 as simple as that. We identified this big dislocation. We knew 100% that there would be a leading digital
    0:54:35 real estate marketplace in the US.
    0:54:36 At some point.
    0:54:36 At some point.
    0:54:37 There’s an inevitability.
    0:54:43 Inevitability. And business model? Who knows? Who cares? It’s a giant. It’s a big
    0:54:50 pond. And so my business criteria for doing stuff is, is it a big pond? And are there good fishermen?
    0:54:54 Right. Because the travel CD-ROM wasn’t big enough.
    0:54:55 It’s not a small pond.
    0:54:59 100 million. That’s the entire market. Plus, you’re not going to carry a briefcase
    0:55:04 that you’re doing weight training with inadvertently.
    0:55:06 Problems.
    0:55:11 A lot of entrepreneurs make this mistake of identifying a really big problem.
    0:55:13 But it is just a small opportunity.
    0:55:20 And then there are ones where, I know Bill Gurley was on the pod a couple of years ago,
    0:55:23 talking about the Uber thing, the insight. You were involved there a little bit.
    0:55:28 I was one of the first three advisors when it was called Uber Cab LLC. Yeah.
    0:55:30 Way back in the day. Yeah.
    0:55:32 And for people who didn’t pick up, Dara.
    0:55:34 Oh, sorry. Dara’s the CEO.
    0:55:35 Current CEO of Uber.
    0:55:40 He was the CEO of Expedia after, you know, two after I left as well.
    0:55:46 Anyway, a lot of people make the mistake, is what I was going to say, of identifying a real
    0:55:51 problem, but it’s just too small. Uber kind of, to some people, a lot of people looked too small
    0:55:56 because it was a black car, TAM, the total addressable market. But the insight that you
    0:56:04 and Gurley and Travis and I guess J-Cal and others had was that actually, no, it was going to,
    0:56:10 it was going to take not just the black car market, but taxi, transportation, and then ultimately more.
    0:56:12 It can expand the total addressable market.
    0:56:12 That’s right.
    0:56:13 Right.
    0:56:14 Car ownership.
    0:56:14 Yeah.
    0:56:20 Just transportation, you know, and of course, obviously it’s beautifully played out that way.
    0:56:22 It took a little while to see, but it’s, yeah, amazing.
    0:56:29 Anyway, so big pond, good fishermen, after identifying the big problem. And I guess that was the guiding
    0:56:35 thing here. I knew, Lloyd and I knew there would be a digital real estate marketplace. We didn’t
    0:56:40 know what the business would be. We didn’t know what, how we were going to play. And we started
    0:56:46 poking at ideas for attracting audience with software. And we made a couple of big mistakes
    0:56:49 before we landed on the solution. Yeah.
    0:56:54 What were some of the big mistakes and how costly, how risky were they?
    0:56:58 Pretty small venture numbers at that point. And Lloyd and I were funding it ourselves. You know,
    0:57:05 we put the first 5 million bucks total in with a couple of friends. So costly, but not that costly.
    0:57:06 But the first idea we were-
    0:57:10 Side note also what Garrett Camp did with Uber early on.
    0:57:11 He did too. He wrote, yeah, I didn’t realize that.
    0:57:15 Yeah. There was self funding for a while. It wasn’t expensive. Yeah.
    0:57:20 It wasn’t overly expensive. But it’s a good way to go as a second time founder or a non first time
    0:57:25 founder, if you actually have some resources. And because you end up with more of the company down
    0:57:26 the road. Yeah.
    0:57:32 You know, I love Gurley. We’re really close. But what, by the time Gurley or the venture capitalists
    0:57:36 come in, you know, if they’re writing the first check, they’re going to end up with a big chunk of
    0:57:41 the company, which is great, especially if you get somebody like Bill. Okay. But we were able to do it
    0:57:49 ourselves. We were enamored of Google. Everyone was at the time. The magic business model that they
    0:57:56 sort of discovered or innovated, iterated on that came from another company was the AdWords,
    0:57:59 the digital auction-based marketplace.
    0:58:01 You say it came from another company.
    0:58:01 Yeah.
    0:58:02 I might not know that wrinkle.
    0:58:03 Yeah, it did.
    0:58:04 It did.
    0:58:06 Meaning they acquired something or they-
    0:58:09 I’m thinking, what’s the guy’s name who did the startup incubator factory? Gross?
    0:58:11 Oh, Bill Gross?
    0:58:11 Yeah.
    0:58:14 Yeah, it was, I mean, I may be getting this wrong.
    0:58:15 Am I making this idea lab?
    0:58:16 Am I making it?
    0:58:20 He did idea lab. There was a lot of companies kind of sort of spun out of that. But one of
    0:58:25 them was a search engine whose name I’m forgetting. We can, you know, look it up later.
    0:58:26 We’ll put it in the show notes. Yeah.
    0:58:30 And, but it was, the whole basis of the search engine was AdWords.
    0:58:31 AdWords.
    0:58:32 Oh, wow.
    0:58:36 And so did Google acquire that or are they just being a better mousetrap?
    0:58:38 I think the latter, but I’m not an expert.
    0:58:40 Regardless, I don’t want to speak out of turn.
    0:58:42 We’ll put the story in the show notes.
    0:58:49 Okay, right. There’s a good story there, I’m sure. Why I brought it up was we were enamored
    0:58:57 of auctions. Auctions have huge geek appeal for mathy idealists. And we were like, well,
    0:59:02 obviously the US housing market should be at auction. And that’s the most efficient mechanism
    0:59:07 for price discovery. Okay. Which of course it is. And we were like, okay, so that’s our
    0:59:14 business. We’re going to auction homes. And what we learned trying to auction a home that
    0:59:21 our buddy Gordon got us kind of on consignment was that, well, two things. One, to have an auction
    0:59:28 work, you kind of need a real time liquid market. Okay. Duh. Okay. So you need all the bidders
    0:59:32 there at the same time. Okay. Well, the housing market doesn’t work that way. It’s just, you know,
    0:59:36 it’s a, it’s a, it’s a long period of time. You want to show it to a lot of bidders. You know,
    0:59:43 that, that didn’t work. The second thing, which is obvious is until all those innovators out there,
    0:59:50 if you have to educate your customer on how to buy the thing that you’re doing, if it’s like a radically
    0:59:55 new way to do it, you know, from decades or hundreds of years of ingrained human behavior,
    1:00:01 it’s a pretty heavy lift. It’s got to be super duper simple, obvious, and 10 times better than
    1:00:08 the current way. And just, we didn’t check any of those boxes, but in pursuit of price discovery,
    1:00:15 we found the Zestimate, which was our killer feature. And the visual on the Zestimate that’s
    1:00:20 in my head that kind of popped in, in our collective heads on the home auction web experiment
    1:00:30 was a real time estimated value algorithmically driven as your Google map zooming over neighborhoods,
    1:00:35 looking. We wanted prices on every roof because everything should have a price.
    1:00:40 And the timing of that is pretty wild, right? And it’s just like how things line up. Cause I,
    1:00:44 I mean, how long had the aerial view been around prior to you guys?
    1:00:44 Short.
    1:00:45 It was short.
    1:00:47 Short. And there was no iPhone. There were no smartphones,
    1:00:52 but it was obvious. Like I was like, Whoa. And then I also had in my head,
    1:01:00 homes are for home American homeowners, oftentimes their largest asset and the bulk of their wealth.
    1:01:03 And people care a lot about it. Yeah.
    1:01:08 So I knew they wanted to know the value. I knew that was catnip. Okay.
    1:01:13 I knew I, in my gut, I knew that was, we did the team knew it was candy and I’m like, Oh, it’s an
    1:01:20 investment. And so let’s plot the Zestimate, the home value, like a stock chart. And so the aerial
    1:01:26 view with the numbers, any home’s value laid out like a stock chart. Those were the two things.
    1:01:29 And when we discovered that we were kind of off to the races.
    1:01:36 Okay. So at the time, was it just rentable infrastructure, AWS, you get it going, you launch
    1:01:40 and it’s up to the right, just a nice, smooth rocket launch. Is that what happened?
    1:01:42 AWS didn’t exist.
    1:01:54 No, dude, man, this was like server in a closet. Yeah. This was server in a closet.
    1:01:59 You forbade Christmas lights or something like you’re like preserving electricity and compute
    1:02:00 power and all this stuff.
    1:02:02 I don’t remember that. I don’t remember.
    1:02:02 All right. Got it.
    1:02:04 But David, our things of lore.
    1:02:09 David Baitel, who was our CTO at the time and still is, and was CTO at Expedia with me too.
    1:02:14 He may have told that story somewhere, so it may actually be right. Yeah, I believe. I remember
    1:02:20 our launch blog post with Garrett, who worked for David, like doing the, what’s the professor in?
    1:02:23 It’s Doc from Back to the Future.
    1:02:25 3.2 gigawatts, whatever.
    1:02:31 Because we launched and millions of people showed up because Walt Mossberg, who was,
    1:02:35 who’s the equivalent? Is there any equivalent of Walt Mossberg now? No.
    1:02:38 It’s like the Oprah of tech at the time, right?
    1:02:43 I mean, God. And Walt loved it. And Walt published. And millions of people came on day
    1:02:50 one. And of course, the server in the closet tipped over for a while. And it was painful. But Amy
    1:02:55 Butinsky, who was running our marketing at the time, said, “Don’t worry, we’ll make lemonade out of
    1:03:01 lemons.” And the headline the next day in the San Francisco Chronicle was, “House porn site Zillow
    1:03:06 launches and falls over because it’s so popular.” Or something like that.
    1:03:09 And she’s like, “Yeah, that’s going to be good press.”
    1:03:16 Anyway, I’m a big believer in the product being the most important part of the marketing mix,
    1:03:17 if that makes sense to you.
    1:03:23 Gurley actually challenged us when we launched. He was on the board. Benchmark and TCV were our A-round
    1:03:30 funders. And he was on the board at the time. And we had had kind of a spend advertising dollars
    1:03:34 mindset at Expedia because we really needed to grow exposure to the brand. And Gurley said,
    1:03:39 “Well, what if we didn’t have any marketing budget?” And that launched. We were like, “No way,
    1:03:44 you can’t do that.” But that made us think a lot more creatively about the features that we built,
    1:03:50 the way we built them, and then the way we PR communicated them. And I’ve since developed a
    1:03:57 pretty good playbook around, I guess, what I would call provocation marketing. When you have really
    1:04:01 provocative feature that you know people are going to feel emotional about one way or the other,
    1:04:04 and they’re going to talk about it, you’re on to something.
    1:04:08 What are some aspects of that toolkit or the playbook?
    1:04:14 Yeah. I mean, having data, having a stream of data that people are interested in at Glassdoor,
    1:04:20 which I did with Bob Homan, who was at Expedia with me as well. Glassdoor is another example of that.
    1:04:25 When you have constantly changing data that people are interested in,
    1:04:31 you can almost think about feeding that data to hungry consumers in a Bloomberg-like way.
    1:04:39 And so the playbook that Amy kind of put together was building a PR data distribution
    1:04:45 infrastructure down to the local. Amy was our marketing chief at Zillow. She’s still on the board
    1:04:50 today. And she was really creative about recognizing that there’s an infinite news hole for housing data
    1:04:58 at local newspaper level once upon a time. And if you could wire that up to just feed, constantly feed,
    1:05:05 the endless appetite. Housing is just an important topic, right? And there’s always space in the paper
    1:05:11 for a story on housing and changing prices. And so we set up a mechanism to feed that data, which was a
    1:05:17 terrific brand builder for us rather than spending ad money. And then just having this estimate be so
    1:05:23 provocative, like high school boyfriend’s house, philanthropist development team that are trying
    1:05:28 trying to figure out who’s a good target, you know, whatever, like it’s a lot of applications.
    1:05:29 Lots of applications.
    1:05:34 I know you had a lot of fans. I think the Arizona attorney general was a fan.
    1:05:36 That’s a deep cut. Wow.
    1:05:42 No, but this is of interest to me because there is opposition also.
    1:05:42 Oh, yeah.
    1:05:48 Right? And my God, I mean, the number of, I don’t think they were actual ulcers,
    1:05:53 but just the rollercoaster ride that I was also on with Uber from a regulatory,
    1:06:00 mobbed up local fill in the blank perspective. It was just nonstop battles. And that was just part
    1:06:01 of the deal, right?
    1:06:03 And actually part of the playbook.
    1:06:03 Yeah.
    1:06:06 Honestly, it’s the same provocation marketing.
    1:06:08 It’s the exact same thing. It’s exactly the same.
    1:06:09 Yeah. So what happened with you guys?
    1:06:14 Yeah. I mean, you know, we were provocative to some of the industry players who were big lobbyists.
    1:06:15 Yeah.
    1:06:17 You know, the taxi commission in Uber’s case.
    1:06:17 Yeah.
    1:06:21 In our case, a lot of the real estate professional associations.
    1:06:22 They were not.
    1:06:22 A lot of voters.
    1:06:23 They were not, they were not thrilled.
    1:06:26 They’re not thrilled or they think they’re not thrilled.
    1:06:29 They don’t realize till later that it’s could be helpful, but, but whatever.
    1:06:30 Yes.
    1:06:35 They were initially provoked to nobody, no industry that’s likes to change.
    1:06:37 Most people don’t like change.
    1:06:41 I’m one of the people that loves change, but a lot of people, most people don’t.
    1:06:43 And so we were seen as a, we were seen.
    1:06:46 You may like change when you’re the instigator of the change.
    1:06:48 Well, that’s, you know, awesome.
    1:06:52 It leaves me more open to change coming from the outside too, though.
    1:06:57 I do believe, I do believe, and I, and I, and I, I mean, obviously this is just human nature.
    1:06:58 Yeah.
    1:07:04 But yeah, but the equivalent of the taxi commission in the Uber case was these real estate professionals
    1:07:07 and a lot of places we had them lobbying to have us outlawed.
    1:07:09 They’re not licensed.
    1:07:11 How can they make an appraisal?
    1:07:13 You know, whatever, whatever thing they’re going to make up.
    1:07:16 We knew we’re on really strong legal ground.
    1:07:23 And so we weren’t so worried about that, but the strategy for combating that resistance
    1:07:33 was literally probably the same thing you guys did at Uber, which was, we knew the legislators,
    1:07:40 state legislators, not to mention federal legislators, were big fans of the site and the service.
    1:07:41 Yeah.
    1:07:42 Okay.
    1:07:49 And so all we had to do was make sure we just activated that latent love for the product
    1:07:54 itself and made it obvious that this way is the future way.
    1:07:58 And the lobbyists got nowhere and it was overcome.
    1:07:58 Yeah.
    1:08:05 In the case of Uber, I don’t want to make this overly about Uber, but also turns out when people
    1:08:09 have something that is incredibly convenient and useful, they do not want it taken away.
    1:08:10 No.
    1:08:17 And if elected officials like the service or are even ambivalent about the service, they
    1:08:18 do love getting reelected.
    1:08:24 And man, oh man, if there are a lot of your constituents using that app and you take it
    1:08:27 away, they’re not going to be super happy about it.
    1:08:29 Power to the people, baby.
    1:08:34 I mean, like you build magic stuff for masses of consumers that they want to talk about with
    1:08:38 their friends unprompted on the sidelines of the soccer game or what have you.
    1:08:39 Have you tried Uber?
    1:08:40 Have you tried Zillow?
    1:08:41 Have you tried Expedia?
    1:08:42 Whatever.
    1:08:46 It’s like, you’re definitely onto something and having popular support as we’re learning
    1:08:53 politically right now is having big populist support is ultimately where the power is derived.
    1:08:55 So sometimes you can go too far.
    1:08:57 We don’t need to talk about that, but of course you can go too far.
    1:09:02 And in fact, it may be that you need to go too far to establish where the frontier is.
    1:09:08 All right, well, I can’t not take the bait on that one.
    1:09:09 What does going too far look like?
    1:09:12 I was thinking specifically Uber.
    1:09:13 Oh, all right.
    1:09:18 Yeah, but because it did, you know, in some cities, municipalities or Airbnb.
    1:09:20 Airbnb, you can push too hard.
    1:09:28 You can push too hard and learn some lessons about how much leash you’re going to be given
    1:09:29 by the popular support.
    1:09:29 Yeah.
    1:09:34 Because it does tip into a point where like with Airbnb, you know, this is not a story.
    1:09:38 I know this guy’s a little bit, but it’s not a story I’m intimately familiar with, nor was I
    1:09:40 an early investor or anything.
    1:09:46 But, you know, they did piss off some homeowners, you know, in certain cities, not just the hotel owners.
    1:09:46 Yeah.
    1:09:52 And, you know, so they found the line and I think they managed it really, really well
    1:09:54 because they lead from the heart.
    1:09:59 You know, I think other companies may have not obviously led from the heart and had a difficulty.
    1:10:02 At Zillow, our job was a little easier.
    1:10:08 Also with those battles, I remember there were early on a number of locations that were
    1:10:10 incredibly important.
    1:10:10 Yeah.
    1:10:14 Not just from a ride volume perspective, but from a precedent setting perspective.
    1:10:15 Yeah.
    1:10:21 So if you win a few of those precedent setting battles, then you don’t necessarily have to
    1:10:23 do like a full frontal assault on the next.
    1:10:24 That’s right.
    1:10:27 10 locations because people have gotten the message.
    1:10:30 You can be a little more diplomatic about it, which people figure out over time.
    1:10:33 But then there’s the next country and then whatever.
    1:10:34 Anyway, there’s always something.
    1:10:38 But provocation marketing with a heart.
    1:10:43 With the end consumer’s best interests in mind, that’s a winner.
    1:10:46 So if you were teaching a class, maybe you already have.
    1:10:47 I have no idea.
    1:10:49 Related to provocation marketing.
    1:10:49 Yeah.
    1:10:50 All right.
    1:10:50 There you go.
    1:10:51 You get to choose.
    1:10:54 You can go back to your alma mater, wherever it might be.
    1:10:54 You’re teaching a class.
    1:10:55 Yeah.
    1:10:59 What would other elements of the class be?
    1:11:03 Other resources, principles, anything at all?
    1:11:07 While I try to figure out a structure here on the flat, to give a couple of other examples
    1:11:09 of stuff that I’ve been involved with.
    1:11:14 So I co-founded Glassdoor, which many people out there may know.
    1:11:21 And our provocation data marketing feature was how much money do people make?
    1:11:22 Okay.
    1:11:29 Not individuals, but the product manager at XYZ company or the developer or the customer service
    1:11:30 representative.
    1:11:36 And our model was, we knew that salaries was kind of a little bit taboo for a lot of people.
    1:11:38 So it was inherently secret and provocative.
    1:11:48 And then Robert Homan, who is my co-founder and the team, they had a data collection problem
    1:11:51 because it was ultimately user-generated content.
    1:11:57 People would need to share their salaries in a way that we believed in order to get enough
    1:12:01 data to provide anything interesting to everybody else.
    1:12:08 And so their innovation, after kind of hand-cranking it with survey, their innovation was give to get.
    1:12:11 You show me yours, I’ll show you mine.
    1:12:13 Very good.
    1:12:14 That’s very clever.
    1:12:15 Very clever.
    1:12:18 And say, “Hey, I’ll give you a little taste, but if you want to see any more data,
    1:12:22 you’ve got to share your salary and your title and your company, we promise you’ll be anonymous.
    1:12:24 And do a company review.”
    1:12:30 How many people screwed that up were the only person in that position?
    1:12:31 I guess it has to be logic.
    1:12:32 And we had protocols for that.
    1:12:32 Okay.
    1:12:36 We did have protocols for that, but it worked really.
    1:12:40 And we also then solicited feedback on what it’s like to work at the company.
    1:12:43 And, you know, CEOs are kind of public figures.
    1:12:46 So, okay, we’re going to let you review the CEO performance.
    1:12:51 And we knew all those things would provoke.
    1:12:53 We knew some CEOs would go crazy, you know.
    1:12:57 So there’s another example while I’m formulating a framework.
    1:13:01 Another one is with another former Expedia guy, Mark Britton.
    1:13:07 We founded a company called Avo, which was in the legal space.
    1:13:12 And we decided to rate attorneys, systematically rate attorneys.
    1:13:14 This had never happened before.
    1:13:16 It was just kind of like trip advisor for attorneys.
    1:13:18 You need to kind of trip advisor for anything, right?
    1:13:23 These are business models that are well-trodden now, but these were kind of innovative back in the day.
    1:13:28 And, of course, we were going to get sued because we were rating attorneys.
    1:13:30 Yeah.
    1:13:32 Definitely a great way to kick the hornet’s nest.
    1:13:39 Some investors, when we were raising money, I remember traveling around, you know, doing the Sand Hill Shuffle with Mark.
    1:13:43 And, you know, I remember some people saying, well, is this legal?
    1:13:45 You’re going to get, can you rate people?
    1:13:46 You know, you’re going to get sued.
    1:13:48 You know, I’m not going to invest.
    1:13:51 And we were like, yeah, we’re going to get sued.
    1:13:53 You know, did you see Die Hard?
    1:14:04 You remember Die Hard where the German terrorist leader is waiting for the last lock to open and he needs the power to go down in order to be able to get the bearer bombs out of the Nakatomi Plaza safe?
    1:14:05 Yeah.
    1:14:05 Okay.
    1:14:09 And the people are like, how is he going to get the power to go down?
    1:14:13 And he’s like, he said, ladies and gentlemen, I’ll give you the FBI.
    1:14:14 And they came in on those things.
    1:14:17 And the FBI, the playbook said, all right, cut the power.
    1:14:23 Anyway, that was exactly the launch strategy.
    1:14:25 Yvonne was like, here come the suits.
    1:14:26 I’ll give you the FBI.
    1:14:29 Anyways, perfect because it created all kinds of noise.
    1:14:31 I’m struggling with the structure.
    1:14:32 Let’s go with the lawsuits.
    1:14:32 All right.
    1:14:35 So the Sand Hill Shuffle, for people who don’t get that reference.
    1:14:50 So Sand Hill Road, if you could imagine going to like, this is not going to be the best comparison, but you go to like Kuwait and there’s a shopping mall with like Balenciaga and like Prada and all the fanciest brands, all the aspirational brands.
    1:14:55 Well, if there were such a place, but it was all the highest end venture capitalists, that would be Sand Hill Road.
    1:15:00 And now it’s more distributed, but still it’s a thing, right?
    1:15:00 Oh, yeah.
    1:15:05 If you go stay at the Rosewood and you’re right around the corner, that’s got its own stories.
    1:15:05 That’s a strange place.
    1:15:06 Fantastic.
    1:15:07 Fantastic.
    1:15:08 Love that.
    1:15:08 Love that part.
    1:15:13 And then you have, you name it, right?
    1:15:14 Everybody’s there.
    1:15:16 All the big players.
    1:15:18 And so that’s the Sand Hill Shuffle.
    1:15:21 So why not be afraid of lawsuits?
    1:15:26 What did you guys know that the guys who said, I’m not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole?
    1:15:35 Well, the founder CEO, Mark Britton, was my general counsel at Expedia, and he worked Securities Exchange Commission prior to that.
    1:15:36 He was a real attorney.
    1:15:41 And the way we did it, we were 100% convinced of our legal grounds.
    1:15:42 Yeah.
    1:15:46 And so people could still just consume so much energy, right?
    1:15:46 No doubt.
    1:15:50 So we raised money to deal with that, but we knew it was going to be pretty cheap lawsuits.
    1:15:54 And we could provide the legal, most of the legal billing ourselves anyway.
    1:15:57 And so it would be cheaper than hiring some fancy firm.
    1:15:59 We were convinced.
    1:16:03 And, you know, after we won the first few suits, you know, they lost steam.
    1:16:05 The lawyers lost steam on suing.
    1:16:11 So it caused some venture capitalists to not do it, but the more kind of disruptive-oriented folks were like, yeah, great.
    1:16:12 So what happened with that?
    1:16:14 It did pretty well.
    1:16:14 It did pretty well.
    1:16:15 We had trouble.
    1:16:21 So in a kind of TripAdvisor for legal sort of way, it did really well.
    1:16:32 Ultimately, these kind of TripAdvisor-y digital middlemen who were kind of SEO on one side, collecting Google search traffic on one side and trying to monetize leads on the other.
    1:16:37 You know, as time wore on, a lot of those business models got somewhat disintermediated.
    1:16:47 And so the protection against that is usually to go down into the workflow of the transactions of the industry, which is, say, what we’ve done at Zillow or what Expedia does.
    1:16:50 So could you explain that just one more time and maybe an example would be helpful?
    1:16:52 So let’s just say there’s a TripAdvisor for X.
    1:16:56 Like you said, they’re kind of harvesting traffic on the SEO side.
    1:16:59 So their pages are engineered in such a way.
    1:16:59 That’s right.
    1:17:07 Maybe also using ad spend to drive traffic to these reviews, which are then monetized on some level.
    1:17:08 That’s right.
    1:17:12 Some people can’t see, but by selling those leads out the other side of the marketplace.
    1:17:12 Right.
    1:17:14 So literally a lead middleman.
    1:17:15 Got it.
    1:17:15 Yeah.
    1:17:16 Lead middleman.
    1:17:17 How would they get disintermediated?
    1:17:27 Well, Michael Porter, Five Forces, would say, look, if you have an over-dependency on any supply of customers, you’re strategically exposed for obvious reasons.
    1:17:31 If you have an over-dependency on any supplier, you’re strategically exposed.
    1:17:40 And so business strategy 101 says diversify your sources of customers and your sources of supply so that nobody gets too much leverage over you.
    1:17:43 Also, it’s like a single point of failure, right?
    1:17:44 Absolutely.
    1:17:47 Oop, factory went down because of X, Y, Z.
    1:17:48 That’s a problem.
    1:17:53 We’re dealing with that right now in the country because COVID discovered that we had lots of supply chain single points of failure.
    1:17:55 Anyway, we don’t need to sidetrack on that.
    1:18:06 So in that example, if you’re primarily getting your traffic from Google, paid or free, you’re developing a serious dependency on Google.
    1:18:13 And Google, of course, in its own search for increased value, starts looking vertical, which means down into your business.
    1:18:19 And so people probably noticed over the years that Google started doing reviews and then they did their own mess.
    1:18:21 So they’re doing their Yelp reviews and their TripAdvisor reviews.
    1:18:28 And then they started doing airline schedules and hotel bookings and restaurant reservations and, and, and.
    1:18:38 And so when the big guy that you’re getting all your customers from starts taking a more than passing interest in your business model because they want to capture more value, you better figure out something else.
    1:18:39 Yeah.
    1:18:39 Okay.
    1:18:46 So strategically speaking, my defense against that in my digital marketplaces has been twofold.
    1:18:50 One, build a giant brand that customers know and love.
    1:18:55 And therefore most of your traffic and customers comes directly to your app and sites.
    1:18:56 Okay.
    1:18:59 You have to have a brand to do that in order to have power.
    1:19:16 And then two, look down your funnel and look into the workflow of the business you’re in, be it travel or real estate or legal or jobs, you know, through for the verticals that I’ve done stuff in and make sure you become digitally integral to the workflow.
    1:19:18 You’re building tools for the industry.
    1:19:22 Ultimately, maybe even doing the transactions.
    1:19:23 Okay.
    1:19:29 And having a platform for the transactions and that in a nutshell is what Zillow’s long-term strategy is.
    1:19:39 We’re basically building a super app, a one-stop shop application for anybody who’s renting or buying soup to nuts, everything integrated, all the professionals plug in and workflow.
    1:19:41 And that we have a big brand.
    1:19:45 We source almost all of our customers directly, not all, but most.
    1:19:50 And we’re embedded in the workflow, solving real customer problems.
    1:19:52 And the business is great and growing.
    1:19:53 All right.
    1:19:55 So I haven’t forgotten about the provocation marketing class.
    1:20:00 However, I think this is a great place to buy you some more time and talk about naming.
    1:20:01 Okay.
    1:20:01 Oh.
    1:20:03 How do you name companies?
    1:20:04 You saw that blog post.
    1:20:08 I played around with blogging like all of us.
    1:20:12 You know, it really stuck with some and it didn’t with others.
    1:20:14 I probably only had like 10 posts on my blog.
    1:20:19 But one of them was naming because I’ve had a lot of fun naming companies.
    1:20:21 And I gave advice on naming.
    1:20:26 And I think the title of the post, the site it’s on is called hopperanddropper.com, which
    1:20:29 is a fly fishing term, but which is nobody’s gone to.
    1:20:30 So I only had 20 visitors.
    1:20:31 Tim being one.
    1:20:32 Lucky 21.
    1:20:37 I have a few rules about naming.
    1:20:45 First, when you’re trying to brand a company, if you’re building a consumer brand, especially you have kind of two broad ways you can go.
    1:20:47 The easy way and the hard way.
    1:20:53 And I’ll forgive the four-hour work week and the four-hour body, you know, but I’ll tell you that there are no shortcuts.
    1:20:56 You take the shortcut to the long road, my coach Jimmy says.
    1:20:57 Yeah.
    1:21:04 Anyway, the easy way is if you’re building a travel site to call it hotels.com, airline tickets.com, you know, you name it.
    1:21:07 Every category has a literal word.com.
    1:21:10 And the advantages to that are it’s easy to explain to people what you do.
    1:21:11 Yeah.
    1:21:17 And the disadvantages to that are you don’t own any brand of equity because you can’t own a word that previously exists.
    1:21:20 And so you’re non-distinct and non-distinctive.
    1:21:25 There’s an in-between way, which is to use an existing word, but make a new application of it.
    1:21:27 Apple, computer, Amazon.com.
    1:21:29 And that’s viable.
    1:21:33 But you have to build a new definition for that word, which those companies obviously did successfully.
    1:21:39 The hard way and the best way, I think, for consumers is to make up a word.
    1:21:45 Make up a word, which is super hard because you have to tell people what the word means.
    1:21:46 You have to define it for them.
    1:21:49 But once you do, you own that word.
    1:21:52 The definition of that word is yours and only yours.
    1:21:57 And so I like the hard path because I like building brands.
    1:22:02 And with provocation marketing, I think I can get a big audience early, which begins to familiarize people with the brand.
    1:22:07 So I was confident in my ability to, my and my team’s really ability to do that.
    1:22:09 Okay, so now when you’re making up a word, what do you do?
    1:22:10 And I think this is what you’re referring to.
    1:22:12 Okay, so high point Scrabble letters.
    1:22:13 Do you play Scrabble?
    1:22:16 It’s been a minute, but yes, I’ve played Scrabble.
    1:22:20 Okay, you know that there are different point numbers on each letter as you play Scrabble.
    1:22:23 And do you remember what the high point ones are?
    1:22:24 I don’t.
    1:22:24 Okay.
    1:22:28 Their Z is 10.
    1:22:29 X is 10.
    1:22:31 That’s the highest points you can get.
    1:22:33 A, E, I, O, U are 1.
    1:22:34 Here’s why.
    1:22:35 Q is 10 too.
    1:22:36 Here’s why.
    1:22:40 Z, X, and Q are super rare letters.
    1:22:42 A, E, I, O, U are super common.
    1:22:46 And so rule number one is pick the super rare letters.
    1:22:49 And pick them because they’re very distinctive.
    1:22:51 They jump off a page when you read.
    1:22:53 They stick in people’s brains in a way that’s not crowded.
    1:22:58 So all my stuff has Zs and Xs and some Qs actually too.
    1:23:02 Rule number two, fewer syllables is better than more.
    1:23:03 I kind of learned this lesson with Expedia.
    1:23:06 Expedia was too many syllables.
    1:23:08 It’s worked out fine.
    1:23:09 We’ve overcome that.
    1:23:11 The company’s overcome that now.
    1:23:13 But it was, in hindsight, it was a lot.
    1:23:19 I liked it because of rule number three, which is it was evocative of positive things, speed, expedition.
    1:23:25 So it said adventure and speed, and that all felt good in that word.
    1:23:26 But fewer syllables.
    1:23:32 I think two syllables is the sweet spot because I also want it to be a good dog name.
    1:23:37 So if the word could be a good dog name, you’re on to something like you can call for it.
    1:23:38 Zillow.
    1:23:41 Anyway, another one is it can be turned into a verb pretty easily.
    1:23:43 So pick a word that can be turned into a verb.
    1:23:48 So it probably, the dog name and verb probably means it ends in a vowel sound.
    1:23:53 And then the last one is people, double letters and palindromes are good too.
    1:23:55 So anything that is unique, a unique word form.
    1:23:58 Double letters, people remember, they jump off the page.
    1:24:03 And palindromes are words that are the same forward and backward spelled, right?
    1:24:05 So just interesting, interesting words.
    1:24:05 Yeah.
    1:24:06 Anyway, that’s my handbook.
    1:24:09 Palindrome, like my friend Mike Kim back in the day.
    1:24:12 I was struggling to think of one.
    1:24:13 I couldn’t pull one on the fly.
    1:24:13 Well done.
    1:24:14 Taco Cat.
    1:24:16 It’s a good game.
    1:24:17 So you’re in the game space.
    1:24:19 It’s the name of Taco Cat.
    1:24:22 That is a funny game, isn’t it?
    1:24:22 Yeah.
    1:24:22 It’s so stupid.
    1:24:24 It’s so fun.
    1:24:24 It’s so good.
    1:24:27 So I’m thinking of double letters.
    1:24:29 So there are names.
    1:24:30 Expedia had.
    1:24:31 X.
    1:24:32 Has an X.
    1:24:36 Good connotation with pre-existing words or concepts.
    1:24:36 Yep.
    1:24:38 Maybe one syllable too long.
    1:24:40 Then you got Zillow.
    1:24:41 Zillow, that’s a sweet spot.
    1:24:42 Kind of named it.
    1:24:45 I’m imagining this Labrador Retriever, right?
    1:24:46 Yeah.
    1:24:47 And starts with a Z.
    1:24:49 Like how many words start with a Z?
    1:24:50 That’s great.
    1:24:51 And two double letters, LLs.
    1:24:52 Soft ending.
    1:24:57 Double letter, but I’m not sure because I am not up to speed with my Scrabble.
    1:24:57 Glassdoor.
    1:25:01 Glassdoor in the mid, you know, in the middle.
    1:25:05 It was pretty evocative of having people peer is transparency.
    1:25:07 Power to the people and transparency is a big thing.
    1:25:12 And we really liked kind of looking in through the glass door inside of a company.
    1:25:17 Two syllables, not a great dog word, you know, but two double letters.
    1:25:19 So it kind of jumps off the page.
    1:25:21 It’s an interesting looking word.
    1:25:24 I would say we get a kind of a B on that.
    1:25:27 But Robert did a very good job with marketing that.
    1:25:27 So.
    1:25:28 All right.
    1:25:32 So if you need more time, I’m not going to forget about it.
    1:25:35 The provocation marketing curriculum.
    1:25:35 Yeah.
    1:25:38 And it could just be one seminar.
    1:25:39 It doesn’t have to be ongoing.
    1:25:42 Just if that complicates the envisioning process.
    1:25:48 Find a seven deadly sin zone, something that is emotionally core to us, okay?
    1:25:52 That you know is going to incite an emotional response.
    1:25:53 All right.
    1:25:54 Okay.
    1:25:56 So some topic that people are emotional about.
    1:26:06 And then go address some sacred cow, you know, some taboo or sacred cow in that space.
    1:26:11 Most of the ideas that you could probably think of with that outline would be really negative.
    1:26:14 And then get rid of all those.
    1:26:18 Because I do believe a cheap way to get attention is to scare people.
    1:26:19 Okay.
    1:26:20 But I think it’s cheap.
    1:26:23 It’s a cheap way to lead is to scare people.
    1:26:25 Effective, but cheap.
    1:26:30 And it doesn’t make people feel good to be scared.
    1:26:37 So if you’re building a brand and a service, you want people to be provoked, but feel good.
    1:26:39 Or tickled.
    1:26:40 Or entertained.
    1:26:41 You know.
    1:26:44 And so that is where I would head with the seminar.
    1:26:48 And then we end up brainstorming about getting people’s ideas for that.
    1:26:50 Let’s touch on briefly.
    1:26:51 Mention Bill Gurley.
    1:26:52 Of course, famous venture capitalist.
    1:26:54 He’s been on the show.
    1:26:55 Brilliant guy.
    1:26:56 Also quite hilarious.
    1:26:57 And local.
    1:26:58 And local.
    1:26:58 Hey, Bill.
    1:26:59 Yeah.
    1:26:59 Yeah.
    1:27:01 He’s right down a couple of blocks from where we’re sitting right now.
    1:27:07 You have spent time at Benchmark Capital, which way back in the day, I mentioned this to Bill,
    1:27:12 when I first moved to Silicon Valley, a book was recommended to me called E-Boys.
    1:27:13 Oh, yeah.
    1:27:14 Way back in the day.
    1:27:18 And putting aside how Bill Mayer may or may not feel about it, we didn’t really get into it.
    1:27:25 I’m sure there’s lots of stuff that could stand some fact-checking, but it was incredibly inspirational and so entertaining.
    1:27:27 I mean, this was the heyday, right?
    1:27:30 I mean, this was just rocket ships everywhere.
    1:27:31 So fun to read.
    1:27:35 So you’ve spent time at and with Benchmark.
    1:27:39 What led you to that?
    1:27:43 Was that kind of biding time until you figured out which next big swing to take?
    1:27:44 What was the motivation?
    1:27:54 And then also, what did you learn there or what came into greater resolution or clarity while you were there?
    1:27:54 Yeah, okay.
    1:28:02 So as we chatted about before, when I was coming with my family back from sabbatical,
    1:28:10 I’m a big believer in the sabbatical in Italy and was considering the next career move,
    1:28:16 I got to know first Bruce Dunleavy at Benchmark and then Bill and the other guys.
    1:28:25 I did read E-Boys then too, which was romantic kind of in a weird way, but for business geeks like me and you maybe, romantic.
    1:28:31 And I also knew that I had a personality that did want to have my fingers in a lot of stuff.
    1:28:33 You did.
    1:28:33 I did.
    1:28:34 I knew that.
    1:28:37 I liked to do lots of things and I wanted to do lots of things and I could do lots of things.
    1:28:39 I could think about lots of things.
    1:28:47 And so in the course of trying to figure out prior to Zillow, trying to figure out what to do, I got to know those guys really well.
    1:28:50 You know, they invited me to a bunch of stuff to sit in on stuff.
    1:28:51 I knew I would be good at that.
    1:28:53 I knew I liked doing that.
    1:28:59 And then a condition with Lloyd Frank of doing the Zillow thing and taking the CEO title, I said,
    1:29:02 look, you know, I’m going to do a bunch of other things too.
    1:29:05 I’m going to start more companies and I’m going to do the venture capital thing.
    1:29:06 And he’s like, oh, good.
    1:29:06 No problem.
    1:29:19 And so as a way to keep myself stimulated and seeing lots of stuff and get down to the valley, I was in Seattle, which was not really a venture pop-ed at the time.
    1:29:20 Cloud computing hadn’t happened yet.
    1:29:25 We did have Amazon, Expedia, and Microsoft, but, you know.
    1:29:28 And so the action on the cutting edge was down in the valley.
    1:29:31 I had some boards I was on down there as well.
    1:29:42 And so I took the venture partner job with Benchmark, which is a pretty ill-defined position, as a way to keep me going to the valley and keep me in the flow of the latest stuff.
    1:29:43 And I really loved that.
    1:29:47 I do believe that ended up benefiting all the other stuff I was doing as well.
    1:29:50 I really loved that, you know, love that team.
    1:29:51 I love that team to this day.
    1:29:53 How did it benefit the other things?
    1:29:59 Was it just seeing around corners, kind of getting an idea of what’s coming before most other people have a chance to?
    1:29:59 Yeah.
    1:30:02 And thinking of new ideas for companies too.
    1:30:09 But I’m a big believer, there are some companies that hold on to their people and say, you can’t go do other things.
    1:30:10 Don’t sit on other boards.
    1:30:15 I really like executives that are on my teams to have another board.
    1:30:18 And if you love it, set it free.
    1:30:23 If you’re scared about losing people and you’re being too retentive, that means you’re too insular, probably.
    1:30:26 And you got to give to get.
    1:30:34 If you give time and get interested in other business models, you help them, but you end up learning a bunch of stuff for your own company.
    1:30:37 I’ve learned so much from sitting on the board of Netflix that I’ve imported to my other companies.
    1:30:42 Can you explain, just for folks who may not be familiar, what does it mean to sit on a board?
    1:30:44 What does that actually mean?
    1:30:47 It depends board to board, I’m sure, on responsibilities and expectations.
    1:30:54 But along with that, you must have lots of requests to join X, Y, or Z boards.
    1:30:57 How do you choose the boards to be a part of?
    1:31:07 What it means to sit on a board is when a company’s private, it means help the CEO and the leadership team build the company.
    1:31:18 So it’s really being an advisor and a coach and somebody with a lot of business building experience to help pick the right strategy.
    1:31:23 You’re not running anything, but you’re basically coaching the entrepreneurs who oftentimes are less experienced.
    1:31:26 Sometimes not, but oftentimes less experienced.
    1:31:32 And I would always recommend assembling a board of people with real experience who are going to be engaged.
    1:31:33 And so it’s a company building exercise.
    1:31:39 And then when fundraising, it’s time to fundraise, can totally help with the next fundraising, can help with recruiting.
    1:31:43 One of the very best at this is, I mean, there’s so many good ones.
    1:31:48 Bill is really good, as you’ve seen in the Uber case, at really helping build companies.
    1:31:49 Okay.
    1:31:51 And a public company is a little different.
    1:31:54 Yeah, I had one thing, and I’ve never been on a board.
    1:31:54 Really?
    1:31:57 Yeah, no, I’ve dodged it, I guess, in a sense.
    1:31:59 So you have a negative impression?
    1:32:00 No, no, it’s not a negative impression.
    1:32:02 You dodged it.
    1:32:06 Well, I feel like, yeah, dodge is a strong verb to use.
    1:32:08 That was a missile coming at you, and you-
    1:32:19 I have felt like I, at the time when these opportunities have come up, that I did not have clear criteria, and I don’t want to commit to things reactively.
    1:32:20 Yeah, okay.
    1:32:21 Which is part of the reason why I’m asking you.
    1:32:21 Okay, got it.
    1:32:31 And also, it seems like, and definitely correct me if I’m wrong, but another responsibility of a board is to fire leadership if it comes down to that.
    1:32:41 So it can be better roses and looking forward to the future and a lot of good things, but it’s also, it also comes with responsibilities to handle the tough times.
    1:32:46 And that’s probably the most, especially for a public company, those are the most important times, too.
    1:32:50 But when you’re company building as a private company, it’s a little less important.
    1:32:51 Yeah.
    1:32:52 That’s good context.
    1:32:56 But it’s something that I’ve been, I’m not necessarily reconsidering because I’ve-
    1:32:56 I think you should.
    1:32:57 I think you’d be good.
    1:32:58 Okay, tell me.
    1:32:59 Well, you’re a coach.
    1:33:00 Yeah.
    1:33:01 That’s all it is.
    1:33:02 Okay.
    1:33:04 I mean, it’s what it primarily is.
    1:33:09 You’re instinctively a coach, and you have a lot of experience sets, and you look for far analogies.
    1:33:14 You look for, oh, this situation here is a lot like this other situation, and that makes you a good communicator.
    1:33:17 And that is oftentimes what good coaching is.
    1:33:25 I kind of in, I shouldn’t say inadvertently, because it’s not inadvertent, but informally do that already, right?
    1:33:28 With a lot of the founders that I’m involved with.
    1:33:29 Which is fine, too.
    1:33:29 Yeah.
    1:33:35 But it’s that same, in the best of circumstances, it is that same way on a board.
    1:33:35 Mm-hmm.
    1:33:36 Okay?
    1:33:44 And those are the only boards that I’m involved with, is those that are really there to coach and give advice.
    1:33:51 Sometimes, oftentimes, in a public company, when you get into the public markets, where your responsibilities are a little different.
    1:33:51 Yeah.
    1:33:55 You have these hardcore responsibilities to represent shareholders.
    1:34:00 And the only real power you have is kind of capital allocation a little bit, and who is the CEO?
    1:34:04 Capital allocation, meaning how do they spend their funds?
    1:34:10 Raising money, raising money, spending money, usually not to the budgetary, but big, big acquisitions, whatever.
    1:34:16 Big changes in the cap table, in the balance sheet, that will affect shareholders.
    1:34:16 Yeah.
    1:34:16 Okay.
    1:34:17 Got it.
    1:34:32 Oftentimes, public companies, depending on their age, usually as they get older, they stop acting like a private board, where it’s really about the strategy and coaching and helping and building, and then becomes more about institutional shareholder services, rates, directors.
    1:34:33 What is that?
    1:34:34 Oh, wow.
    1:34:34 Yeah.
    1:34:35 Okay.
    1:34:38 So, they’re like, the lawyer’s competing to have good ratings on AVO.
    1:34:39 Kind of.
    1:34:40 Okay.
    1:34:40 Kind of.
    1:34:41 And then when a board-
    1:34:42 This is something I haven’t heard anything about.
    1:34:53 If a board tips into, let’s call them professional directors, who are really worried about their board director reputation, it becomes more about them and process and CYA.
    1:34:55 Cover your ass.
    1:34:55 Yeah.
    1:34:57 Because you only get sued, whatever.
    1:34:58 If you don’t look bad, whatever.
    1:35:00 Versus, let’s build a company.
    1:35:01 Yeah, that doesn’t sound fun.
    1:35:04 I’ve really actually never had a board tip into that.
    1:35:10 I’ve had some boards devolve into finger pointing and what have you, but in the private space, right?
    1:35:10 Yeah.
    1:35:16 So, I’m on a few public boards, but they’re all really their strategy and how can we grow and
    1:35:18 how can we help you and how’s the team doing?
    1:35:24 And so, if I don’t get a good ISS rating, which I have some of the worst there are out there.
    1:35:25 Really, I do.
    1:35:26 Wait, wait, wait.
    1:35:28 Who actually determines the rating?
    1:35:34 I don’t really know the process and I don’t really give a rip, but some survey, it’s going to stick up job, these things.
    1:35:37 They stick up job.
    1:35:39 They rate, give us what we want or else.
    1:35:41 Look, it’s like bond ratings or whatever.
    1:35:47 These ratings firms, they do ratings and then they sell consulting services to the customers.
    1:35:48 It’s just a classic.
    1:35:58 And mutual funds and ETFs, whatever, hire them and they can’t track every company, so they look at the ratings and how we should vote on the proxy issue and blah, blah, blah.
    1:36:05 Anyway, I’ve got very low ratings for lots of nonsensical reasons, but I don’t care.
    1:36:05 Yeah, yeah.
    1:36:06 Okay.
    1:36:14 I personally don’t care, but a board that’s full of directors who really do care is not as fun.
    1:36:17 Framework for you, which you asked.
    1:36:24 So, Greg Maffay, who’s on my board at Zillow and who I’ve worked with for a long time, I mentioned already, and Jay Hogue kind of gave me the same advice.
    1:36:26 Jay’s another venture capitalist who I work a lot with.
    1:36:27 We’re on boards together.
    1:36:34 A good construct that Greg told me early in my career was, is it local?
    1:36:35 Is it fun?
    1:36:36 Is it lucrative?
    1:36:38 Yeah.
    1:36:39 It’s a good place to start.
    1:36:41 Those are good starting points.
    1:36:45 So, you can zoom now a little bit, but you really don’t want to spend your life traveling.
    1:36:53 So, that’s another thing that put me on the sidelines is I knew a few people who, they just seemed like traveling salesmen in a sense.
    1:36:58 It was like George Clooney from up in the air when he was just traveling around a different city area.
    1:37:00 You know, every other week.
    1:37:01 Soul crushing.
    1:37:01 Yeah.
    1:37:02 It’s not quite that way.
    1:37:03 Yeah.
    1:37:09 I mean, so local is, Greg, when he laid it out for him, he’s like, it’s got to be two out of three at least.
    1:37:11 If it can be all three, trifecta score.
    1:37:14 And lucrative meaning potentially lucrative.
    1:37:16 Like, the business is, you would buy the stock.
    1:37:17 Right.
    1:37:17 As a gross stock.
    1:37:18 You know, so.
    1:37:24 And this is as good a point as any, to just explain the, I guess, compensation structure.
    1:37:25 How does it work?
    1:37:26 You get an equity grant.
    1:37:28 You have options to invest over time.
    1:37:31 And I suppose it depends on the state of the, and stage of the company.
    1:37:33 But.
    1:37:36 Private companies often are not compensated because you’re the venture capitalist.
    1:37:37 Right.
    1:37:37 Okay.
    1:37:38 So you’re the funder.
    1:37:42 So you’re doing it because you’ve already, you already own a chunk of the company.
    1:37:42 Yep.
    1:37:43 So that’s your compensation.
    1:37:47 And most startups, most private companies can’t afford to pay.
    1:37:52 Now, the late stage startups, the forever startups now, like I’m sure Stripe directors make a lot of money.
    1:38:00 Public companies, you know, it’s really just like salary bands based on the size of the company.
    1:38:09 I mean, it’s like for most kind of mid-cap public companies, I would guess it’s $200,000 to $350,000 a year.
    1:38:16 Most companies for big meetings, committee meetings, whatever, not a huge chunk of time, you know, so it’s nice.
    1:38:20 And then usually they enable the directors to choose if they want it.
    1:38:25 And some part has to be in stock and some could be in cash, you know.
    1:38:27 Anyway, I don’t have a ton of experience with those.
    1:38:31 So fun, local, lucrative.
    1:38:32 Potentially lucrative.
    1:38:32 Potentially lucrative.
    1:38:37 And fun has got to be like, it’s a proxy for maybe it’s a cool company, whatever, that’s fun.
    1:38:39 But really it’s the boardroom dynamic.
    1:38:48 You look around the table and at the leadership team and are these interesting, is it a collegial, everybody’s rowing together in the same boat kind of situation?
    1:38:56 Or is it a, we got old factions fighting and these guys want that and these ones want that and like, you know, run away.
    1:38:57 Less Game of Thrones.
    1:38:58 Yeah, exactly.
    1:38:59 Like no fun.
    1:39:00 No fun.
    1:39:01 All right.
    1:39:05 So we’re drinking our carbonated Japanese citrus.
    1:39:05 Yeah.
    1:39:07 Yuzu coconut water.
    1:39:11 Feeling very well hydrated and infused.
    1:39:22 And that is as smooth slash awkward a segue as possible to do a callback to something you mentioned earlier, which was da-da-da-da-da.
    1:39:31 And then I started paying attention to things I had neglected before that and da-da-da-da, including health and body, things like that.
    1:39:34 So when did that happen?
    1:39:44 Was it a gradual development of wellness habits, self-care, or was there a reckoning at some point?
    1:39:44 What happened?
    1:39:55 Yeah, I mean, I think for a lot of people, it’s a health reckoning for them or for somebody else that kind of shocks them into, you know, and maybe an overlay of general age.
    1:39:58 You know, the substrate is age.
    1:40:03 And ultimately, everybody probably figures this out.
    1:40:03 Yeah.
    1:40:04 Some later, sooner than others.
    1:40:06 What is your age now?
    1:40:06 I have no idea.
    1:40:07 I can’t tell.
    1:40:07 I’m 57.
    1:40:08 Okay, God.
    1:40:09 Yeah.
    1:40:09 Wow.
    1:40:10 Yeah.
    1:40:12 You really held on to the youthful glow.
    1:40:13 Yeah, right.
    1:40:14 Everything’s falling apart.
    1:40:15 Look at me.
    1:40:15 Oh, God.
    1:40:18 American history acts as of 10 years ago.
    1:40:21 And then it’s just the crow’s feet are turning into crow’s legs.
    1:40:26 But you seem to be very active.
    1:40:26 I am.
    1:40:29 And for me, it was that same thing.
    1:40:30 It was a catalyst.
    1:40:32 It was a pretty sudden external catalyst.
    1:40:37 Not my health, but my wife’s and children’s.
    1:40:41 And so I have three kids, Will, Josie, and Russell.
    1:40:42 And Josie and Russell are twins.
    1:40:47 And twin pregnancies are high risk.
    1:40:47 Yep.
    1:40:48 Definitionally.
    1:41:01 And so I was age maybe 35, 34, running Expedia as a really young public company CEO.
    1:41:09 The company’s doing great, but I had to deal with stuff like 9-11 during the travel business.
    1:41:18 And I had been a pretty, like, not quite sleep under the desk, but kind of work all the time kind of guy for a long time.
    1:41:19 Because I love my work.
    1:41:20 Whatever.
    1:41:24 Like, we all kind of, we socialized with Microsoft people and then Expedia people.
    1:41:25 And we just lived, this was our lives.
    1:41:27 We talked about it, we talked about it, we talked about it at dinner.
    1:41:29 So I was pretty neglectful.
    1:41:40 While I was a weekend warrior type basketball player and tennis player and snowboarder, I didn’t yet realize that I had to maintain myself in order to be able to do those things.
    1:41:44 So I was just working too hard, working all the time.
    1:41:48 When Sarah was pregnant with Josie and Russell, she went into labor really early.
    1:41:50 We were on our way up to Whistler.
    1:42:02 And she was, for those who understand these things, I think she was 27 weeks pregnant out of a 40-week typical gestation period, which is very early.
    1:42:05 That’s not very, very early, but it’s danger early.
    1:42:09 And so we were driving on our way.
    1:42:10 So I was like, I think something’s going on.
    1:42:12 Let’s go stop by the hospital.
    1:42:16 So we stopped by the hospital just so her OB could check her out.
    1:42:22 And she was partially dilated and just some small contractions.
    1:42:25 And Sarah thought nothing of it.
    1:42:26 The shoemaker’s kids have no shoes.
    1:42:31 Sarah’s like, oh, fine, I’ll just keep the seat reclined as we drive up to Whistler.
    1:42:37 And her doctor, Edith, said, not only are you not going up to Whistler, you’re not going home.
    1:42:40 You are going to be admitted to the hospital.
    1:42:41 We’re going to put you on muscle relaxants.
    1:42:50 So that began a kind of a six-week, very scary period of my life and her life, where she was in the hospital making sure that the babies didn’t get born.
    1:42:54 I was taking care of my three-year-old, Will.
    1:42:57 And then everything turned out great.
    1:43:01 She carried them to 35 weeks or something, 36 weeks.
    1:43:02 The kids were perfect.
    1:43:04 The birth was a little hard.
    1:43:05 The kids were perfect.
    1:43:06 And it all worked out.
    1:43:16 But in the course of that period of time, it got me to reassess my life and how I led my life and what my priorities were and how I needed to take care of myself mentally and physically.
    1:43:21 I kind of had the realization that for sustainability, I was going to have to start doing a bunch of things.
    1:43:26 If I wanted to do the things I love to do for the long term, I was going to have to really build my foundation.
    1:43:29 I decided to quit my job at that point, too.
    1:43:31 I was still CEO.
    1:43:33 IAC had just acquired the company.
    1:43:37 And I made the decision at that point, but that this lifestyle was not.
    1:43:39 I didn’t need it.
    1:43:39 Needed a change.
    1:43:45 And what were some of the changes?
    1:43:46 Like, how did you layer things in?
    1:43:48 Did you boil the ocean all at once?
    1:43:50 And I was like, all right, here are the 12 new things I’m starting.
    1:43:52 Did you layer it in?
    1:43:56 And would you have done anything differently?
    1:43:58 I started just exploring things.
    1:44:03 The big change was we moved to Italy six months later or maybe eight months later.
    1:44:07 And I developed a whole new set of things I did when we were living in Italy.
    1:44:12 I took up road biking, which is a very Italian, a social Italian thing to do, which was great.
    1:44:13 It was great for making friends, too.
    1:44:17 But I had a period of time after that where I was in Seattle.
    1:44:23 And I started, you know, I remember the first real class kind of thing I’d ever done was hot yoga.
    1:44:25 And I was like, wow, this is amazing.
    1:44:27 I feel incredible after I come out of that class.
    1:44:33 And it’s, you know, strength and some conditioning, I guess, and really interesting and kind of a mental thing, too.
    1:44:35 And I started doing that.
    1:44:42 And then I didn’t hire a trainer until much later, but I eventually got there.
    1:44:45 I didn’t lift weights for a long, long time.
    1:44:47 I was more just kind of running.
    1:44:48 I took up running.
    1:44:49 I ran a couple of marathons.
    1:44:53 You know, I discovered my body was not built for, my joints were not built for,
    1:44:53 for marathons.
    1:44:55 Anyway, I did a bunch of things, Tim.
    1:45:05 Recognizing that I felt better when my body felt better and my mind felt better when my body felt better.
    1:45:16 And it’s just built over time to the age I am now where, like, the physiology of what’s happening to my body and my bone density and my muscle mass at my age.
    1:45:25 It’s like, I’m, like, continually been ramping up how much I do, A, because it makes me feel good, but B, because I’m, you know, just age-wise deteriorating.
    1:45:28 And if I want to snowboard, I’ve snowboarded 35 days this year.
    1:45:30 And it’s been amazing.
    1:45:34 And, like, if I want to keep doing stuff like that, I’ve got to be strong.
    1:45:39 So what does the current regimen look like, generally speaking?
    1:45:45 I’m sure there are exceptions, and maybe you travel or go to various places, but what does the general regimen look like?
    1:45:49 Probably a couple hours total of Zone 2-y type stuff.
    1:45:52 You know, bike, rowing, maybe tread.
    1:45:57 My knees kind of are not great running, but the treadmill, a softer treadmill works.
    1:45:59 But the Peloton is my favorite one there.
    1:46:05 And then weightlifting, different body parts, maybe four times a week.
    1:46:08 And then a lot of just play stuff.
    1:46:09 What kind of play?
    1:46:12 A lot of snowboarding and play sports.
    1:46:13 I play tennis.
    1:46:15 I like to do a lot of stuff.
    1:46:16 With my body and the world.
    1:46:18 How do you fit that in?
    1:46:20 I mean, you’ve got a lot going on.
    1:46:21 You like building.
    1:46:28 You continually, as our mutual friend Chris Saka, has in one of his suggested topics for exploration.
    1:46:30 Since I asked him.
    1:46:32 Like, you continually put yourself back in the arena.
    1:46:33 Yeah.
    1:46:34 Right?
    1:46:34 As a builder.
    1:46:35 Yeah.
    1:46:38 You are on several boards.
    1:46:40 I mean, there are demands.
    1:46:42 I’m sure there’s a lot of inbound that you say no to.
    1:46:44 How do you think about the self-care?
    1:46:46 Is it sort of the first thing that you block?
    1:46:46 Yeah.
    1:46:47 And then that’s it.
    1:46:54 For me now, priority wise, that is, I mean, my family and my health is essential to my family’s health, too.
    1:46:57 So, my family and my health and my state of mind.
    1:46:59 But I am not operating.
    1:47:07 About seven, eight months ago, after my second or third stint as CEO at Zillow, I kind of kicked myself back upstairs.
    1:47:11 And so, I’m no longer the day-to-day CEO, which is terrific.
    1:47:12 It’s helped.
    1:47:17 But I’ve always been the guy who my joke was, I’m very much a delegator.
    1:47:21 I’m very much a pick great people and then give them lots of space.
    1:47:33 And actually, a leadership development technique I often coach is for a senior leader or middle management type leader, I encourage them to really take a vacation and disappear.
    1:47:38 And most people think that’s going to be harmful to their business or their career.
    1:47:44 And what I try to coach them on is, no, that is actually the way you develop your leaders.
    1:47:46 One of the ways you develop your leaders.
    1:47:52 Because if you’re really disconnected, you’re on a surf trip in Indonesia and you have zero connectivity.
    1:47:54 For how long would you recommend?
    1:47:54 For two weeks.
    1:47:54 Yeah.
    1:47:55 Okay?
    1:47:58 Do it for two weeks and be disconnected.
    1:48:02 And your teams are going to have to figure out how to deal with stuff that’s important.
    1:48:09 And they’re going to have to create systems and policies and rules ahead of time that will outlive the surf trip.
    1:48:10 That’s true.
    1:48:16 But from a leadership perspective, sometimes the real leader of an organization is not necessarily the one with the title.
    1:48:24 And when somebody’s really disconnected, the senior leader is disconnected, leadership is sort of an emergent property.
    1:48:25 Okay?
    1:48:26 And it kind of emerges.
    1:48:32 So this is a long way of saying, I kind of have always felt that way about my universe, too.
    1:48:42 I believe the most secure people are willing to let go and roll the dice on the other people and answer the question, who is your successor?
    1:48:44 If you were hit by a bus, who would take over?
    1:48:45 Okay?
    1:48:54 And the less secure people, the more insecure people, put themselves in a position where they seem indispensable to senior management and couldn’t possibly leave.
    1:48:54 Okay?
    1:48:55 That person is not promotable.
    1:49:03 The person who has cultivated leaders under them, that person is totally promotable, even though that person is more expendable, too.
    1:49:03 Yeah.
    1:49:04 Right?
    1:49:05 And so it’s that fine thing.
    1:49:08 Long-winded way of me saying, I’ve always had a lot of things going on.
    1:49:14 My joke was, you know, if I’m doing my job really, really perfectly, I can be on my surfboard.
    1:49:15 Okay?
    1:49:20 And nobody knows when you don’t show up to work if you have eight jobs.
    1:49:24 Everybody always thinks you’re working on the other thing.
    1:49:27 I’m being glib, and it gets a little bit of a chuckle.
    1:49:32 But I am a seriously leverage-oriented person.
    1:49:33 So it’s not that hard.
    1:49:34 Yeah.
    1:49:42 What are other ways that you identify opportunities for leverage or think about leverage?
    1:49:53 In a life context, it is just surrounding yourself with great people who care, who have skills and who care about whatever the mission is, be it building a business or building a family.
    1:50:04 Like, Sarah is amazingly smart and capable and cares, and, like, the stuff that she’s in charge of is going to happen well.
    1:50:09 You know, that’s an unbelievable feature to have in a partner as you’re looking for a partner.
    1:50:13 And, you know, lots of stuff matters in finding a partner.
    1:50:15 But, like, it’s really a partnership.
    1:50:18 If you guys are going to have a baby, that’s a business of sorts.
    1:50:19 You know?
    1:50:22 I think it’s mostly about picking the right people.
    1:50:33 Any recommendations for people who are hiring folks they have not known for a long period of time?
    1:50:36 Any recommendations for the hiring process?
    1:50:39 Because a lot of people interview well who don’t necessarily perform well.
    1:50:40 They know what to say.
    1:50:43 And reference checks often are conflicted.
    1:50:48 I’ve had the worst luck with taking reference checks at face value.
    1:50:50 There’s some ways to kind of work with that.
    1:50:50 Yeah.
    1:50:52 Two things, I would say.
    1:50:56 One is my favorite section of the resume, I guess now LinkedIn.
    1:51:02 It’s not really a section on LinkedIn, but it’s always in the very bottom, which is the interests.
    1:51:19 I want to get somebody, if in an interview situation, talking about their interests and why they put them there and then just asking them basic questions and watching whether or not they have any passion.
    1:51:21 You know, to see a real spark.
    1:51:27 You know, because if they put it there, that is what they’re interested in and they’d better be able to light up on it.
    1:51:31 When I was earlier in my career, I would always make up business cases around some interest.
    1:51:34 You know, how big is the ski industry because you put skiing, whatever.
    1:51:36 You know, and that was always a fun stepping off point.
    1:51:39 So finding people’s passion.
    1:51:41 I want to find people who are passionate people.
    1:51:47 And then the second thing is get used to pulling the pitcher off the mound quickly.
    1:51:49 Firing someone.
    1:51:49 Yep.
    1:51:50 Okay.
    1:51:52 It’s hard when you’re early in your career.
    1:51:54 It’s not as hard later.
    1:51:58 All of my mistakes as a leader have been leaving.
    1:52:04 Almost all of them have been leaving the pitcher on the mound too long, hoping that the arm would get better.
    1:52:09 What have you learned in terms of process for firing?
    1:52:14 Any approach, go-to phrases, rules?
    1:52:17 If you’ve got someone, you’re going on your two-week surf trip.
    1:52:25 There’s someone below you who is going to fill that leadership void and he or she is going to have to fire someone.
    1:52:31 And they’re like, hey boss, I don’t want to bother you, but this is something I haven’t done before.
    1:52:32 Give me some advice.
    1:52:33 Yeah.
    1:52:35 Don’t do it via text.
    1:52:37 Be an upstanding person.
    1:52:38 You know, have some courage.
    1:52:40 You got to be face-to-face.
    1:52:42 But it’s actually not that hard.
    1:52:51 My advice would be, look, if you’re not happy with the performance of this person, I guarantee you the person isn’t happy either.
    1:52:57 Therefore, you can increase love in the world by releasing that person to find where that person belongs.
    1:52:59 That person belongs somewhere else.
    1:53:01 That person’s going to be happy somewhere.
    1:53:03 Help that person find that somewhere.
    1:53:07 But you’re going to be happier when you release that person.
    1:53:08 That person’s going to be happier too.
    1:53:16 And so, if you make it a partnership, if you make it a joint decision effectively, or at least align, get the interests aligned, which it almost always is.
    1:53:17 It’s not as hard.
    1:53:21 And when you do that, you naturally are being human.
    1:53:25 If you’re looking for shared alignment, that means you care.
    1:53:27 That means you’re showing heart.
    1:53:31 And having heart in this situation is really important.
    1:53:37 And then in terms of the delivery, the conversation, any tips on how to manage that?
    1:53:41 You do have to be ready for a lot of stuff to come up.
    1:53:47 And as the person in the power, holding power in this situation, you have to wear it.
    1:53:54 You have to understand and be sympathetic and non-argumentative in order to get people on the same page.
    1:53:59 Oftentimes, just like in life with anything, people really do need to get it out and be heard.
    1:54:01 And that’s great.
    1:54:02 That’s great.
    1:54:08 And then asking advice on the way out, too, like for voluntary or involuntary termination.
    1:54:09 Sometimes it’s hazy, right?
    1:54:09 You know?
    1:54:18 And soliciting information on the way out for yourself and the organization is often appreciated and often revealing, too.
    1:54:19 So, that’s good.
    1:54:20 Exit interview.
    1:54:26 Exit interview is important in as casual a setting as you can make, as you can muster.
    1:54:32 I believe the entrance, the one month post-start, is a really great time to get observations.
    1:54:33 From new people, too.
    1:54:35 They haven’t been fully indoctrinated yet.
    1:54:38 And they probably are good consultants right then.
    1:54:42 So, random question.
    1:54:43 I don’t know.
    1:54:44 You could be covered in tattoos.
    1:54:47 But what is the story of this tattoo?
    1:54:48 Family.
    1:54:49 All right.
    1:54:50 Five of us in the family.
    1:54:52 Things we love.
    1:54:54 So, it looks at a quick glance.
    1:54:55 It looks like a snowflake.
    1:54:56 But those are trees.
    1:54:58 It’s made up of five trees.
    1:55:00 It’s a snowflake in total shape.
    1:55:03 And it’s a starfish in the negative space.
    1:55:04 Uh-huh.
    1:55:13 My daughter, Josie, when she was 16, which is too young to get a tattoo, asked Sarah if she
    1:55:14 could get a tattoo.
    1:55:18 Or asked her more specifically, would she get a tattoo with her?
    1:55:21 And Sarah’s like, well, you met Sarah.
    1:55:22 Like, sure.
    1:55:26 And she’s like, and then brought it to me.
    1:55:28 And I was like, okay, let’s design one as a family.
    1:55:29 Yeah.
    1:55:30 No Wile E. Coyote.
    1:55:35 The first versions, you know those on the back of a minivan, the family of five with
    1:55:37 the stick figure mom and stick figure.
    1:55:38 That was what Josie drew.
    1:55:39 V1.
    1:55:41 Josie’s very creative.
    1:55:42 You’re creative, honey.
    1:55:44 But it was funny.
    1:55:45 That was the first version.
    1:55:49 And we were sharing different versions and iterating.
    1:55:55 And at some point, Sarah said, maybe we should bring this artist friend, Joe Park, into this.
    1:55:56 And he’d never designed a tattoo.
    1:55:58 We brought him, and he was super psyched to do it.
    1:56:03 So then he led the creative iterations, and we ended up with this.
    1:56:04 They look exactly the same, but they’re not.
    1:56:05 They’re all unique.
    1:56:08 They form a cohesive whole.
    1:56:08 Oh, the trees, you’re saying?
    1:56:09 The trees are unique, too.
    1:56:10 Mm-hmm.
    1:56:11 So, anyway.
    1:56:12 I dig it.
    1:56:12 Yeah.
    1:56:13 I love it.
    1:56:17 I was the only one who got it in a really visible place, and everybody else got jealous,
    1:56:20 because I like to be able to look at it and remember my family.
    1:56:24 And we did this maybe five, six, seven years ago.
    1:56:26 I thought we’d get more.
    1:56:29 Sarah’s gotten two more tattoos, but I haven’t gotten any more.
    1:56:32 You know, I think tattoos are, you don’t have any?
    1:56:32 Do you have some?
    1:56:33 I don’t.
    1:56:35 It’s a, very few people have one.
    1:56:37 Yeah.
    1:56:43 I have been, I’ve been considering getting my first, which is in some ways kind of similar.
    1:56:47 It’d actually be in very similar location right here with my dog’s paw prints.
    1:56:51 It’s hard for me to imagine regretting that.
    1:56:51 You won’t.
    1:56:52 Yeah, I don’t think I will.
    1:56:53 Yeah.
    1:56:53 Yeah.
    1:56:53 Yeah.
    1:56:55 So.
    1:57:00 We, uh, interestingly, our older boy, Will, was of age to get a tattoo.
    1:57:02 He was 18, I think, at the time, maybe 19.
    1:57:07 But the twins, it wasn’t legal to get one in Washington state or most states.
    1:57:13 And so Josie was actually going to high school for a year in Spain at the time, and Spain didn’t have that restriction.
    1:57:15 So she got the design and got it, got it in Spain.
    1:57:19 And we have that house in Montana, and Montana doesn’t have any restrictions.
    1:57:26 So on the way to go skiing one time, Russell, you know, went to some sketchy place in Bozeman and got the tattoo.
    1:57:28 So we got them all, we all got them in different places.
    1:57:29 It’s funny.
    1:57:42 Any other, uh, I mean, I guess getting a tattoo is not necessarily a recommendation you’re making, but any thoughts for, let’s just say there are people listening who are type A or otherwise builders,
    1:57:55 builders who can sometimes be consumed, perhaps, by the scale and scope of what they’re doing or hope to do, and they’re planning on kids or they have very young kids.
    1:57:57 What would your recommendations be to those people?
    1:58:04 For the planning on the kind of constant delayers, which there are a lot of, you know, maybe some right here.
    1:58:08 There are a lot of out there, okay?
    1:58:18 And I think the fundamental logic is, this is an important thing, and I don’t have enough time right now, and so I’ll wait till it’s a better time.
    1:58:22 There’s never a better time.
    1:58:24 There’s never a good time.
    1:58:27 So point number one is, it’s not going to get better.
    1:58:28 It’s not going to feel better.
    1:58:33 And then point number two is, we’re built for this.
    1:58:51 We are the successful evolutionary product of a lot of people who figured this out, which means we have a lot of encoded knowledge about how to do this and how to deal from our bodies and our minds and our relationships and even just how we parent.
    1:58:52 It’s encoded.
    1:58:53 A lot of it is encoded.
    1:58:54 So it’s, you know what?
    1:58:57 It’s probably going to work pretty well.
    1:58:59 And so, I don’t know if I’d call myself a birther.
    1:59:03 I’m an encourager of, like, let’s have more babies.
    1:59:12 And I’m a really big believer in how it’s such an important part of our own mental health to have, at least for me, to have children.
    1:59:23 And from a growth perspective, and it kind of, as we get older, our ego focus naturally, the diameter of our ego sphere gets broader and broader, and children just blow it way out.
    1:59:30 And that is really a positive for most people, to realize that their needs and wants are trivial.
    1:59:32 You know, I think that’s a positive.
    1:59:34 So anyway, I encourage it.
    1:59:39 Yeah, for me, it’s not a bad timing, looking for better timing thing.
    1:59:49 It’s more of a navigating the bizarre aspects of modern dating, being in my public slash semi-public position.
    1:59:57 And as someone who’s already, for a lot of good reasons, slow to trust, getting to a point where I feel like I can pull the trigger.
    2:00:01 I think that’s solvable, but it’s not trivial.
    2:00:03 I never had to deal with that, but I totally.
    2:00:05 How old were you guys when you met?
    2:00:07 22.
    2:00:08 Wow.
    2:00:09 Yeah.
    2:00:10 Good for you.
    2:00:11 In a pub in Cambridge, Mass.
    2:00:12 Look at that.
    2:00:13 Yeah.
    2:00:14 Maybe that’s my next move.
    2:00:14 No.
    2:00:16 Go pub crawling, Cambridge.
    2:00:17 It’s hard, though.
    2:00:20 I totally get what you’re saying.
    2:00:21 It’s hard.
    2:00:35 For the people with young kids and balancing things, I guess I would just always advise to don’t wait for an external catalyst to make sure you’re prioritizing your family life and your personal health.
    2:00:45 Because a lot of people out there are not doing that, and eventually it comes home to roost one way or another, you know, and the sooner you can kind of keep things in perspective.
    2:00:47 It’s kind of a confidence game in general.
    2:00:49 It’s a courage and confidence game in general.
    2:00:59 If you have high confidence in your abilities, there is no better time for at least, you know, the kinds of jobs in the sit at a desk, use a computer type jobs.
    2:01:07 There’s no better time in the history of the world to be able to have a good balance between having work and life interweave.
    2:01:13 I’m a huge believer in what I call cloud HQ, cloud headquarters at Zillow post-pandemic.
    2:01:24 I was a huge believer in office culture before that, but the pandemic opened my eyes to just how much more inclusive the cloud headquartered the Matt Mullenweg.
    2:01:29 Matt was very, you know, he was very influential on me early in the pandemic.
    2:01:39 You know, I had him blue jeans zoom in to an early company meeting early in COVID and lay out his game plan for the distributed corporation.
    2:01:41 Yeah, for people who don’t know, yeah.
    2:01:42 Super helpful.
    2:01:54 Yeah, Matt Mullenweg, generally associated with WordPress, founder and CEO of Automatic, spelled M-A-T-T-I-C, and pioneer of distributed workforces.
    2:02:06 And as a design principle from the outset has built that company to be distributed and therefore was very anti-fragile when COVID came along.
    2:02:09 And there were some other standout examples.
    2:02:11 I mean, Shopify did really well also.
    2:02:12 But you’re right.
    2:02:27 I think if this can’t lend itself, I mean, modern technology and the options available to some type of balance or the option to pull different levers where it would have been far difficult even 10 years ago.
    2:02:27 Yeah.
    2:02:31 But we can generalize and say it’s been great for moms, but it’s more than just moms.
    2:02:49 But it has enabled really smart, very experienced moms who may have historically decided to take the off-ramp into primarily momhood rather than primarily climbing the corporate ladder or just executive leadership path.
    2:02:50 It’s enabled them to come back.
    2:03:04 And likewise now, for a father, as long as the company doesn’t get angry when they see you in your car on the Zoom because you’re at a dentist appointment for your kid or something.
    2:03:11 As long as that doesn’t make the CEO get angry, because that’s not the way I did it when I came up and look how great I turned out.
    2:03:13 I’ve got to do it this way.
    2:03:16 It’s like I kind of chuckle when I listen to all that.
    2:03:19 I’m like, you people, open your minds.
    2:03:21 This opens doors.
    2:03:23 This doesn’t close doors.
    2:03:23 Yeah.
    2:03:25 So let me ask a couple of quick questions.
    2:03:39 They don’t need to have quick answers, but just as we start to land the plane, what books have you either gifted a lot to other people or re-read yourself?
    2:03:40 Either one.
    2:03:50 I am not your typical person, probably sitting in the seat and that maybe I am not a nonfiction business book.
    2:03:52 Sorry, Tim.
    2:03:53 Oh, that’s okay.
    2:03:53 Yeah.
    2:03:55 I tend not to read that stuff.
    2:04:00 The older I get, I occasionally will read a biography now, but they mean more now the older you get.
    2:04:07 But I am fully a, I’m a big reader and it’s fiction and generally good fiction.
    2:04:08 Although I do have, you know.
    2:04:09 Cheap thrills.
    2:04:11 Yeah, yeah, I do.
    2:04:11 I do.
    2:04:14 I really love beautiful, beautiful fiction.
    2:04:21 I dabble, I’ve always dabbled in the kind of science fiction, magical realism stuff as well.
    2:04:33 I believe for me at least escape from the cranked up quick twitch, always on alert operational stuff that business people go with.
    2:04:34 Yeah, exactly.
    2:04:35 To get my brain, my monkey brain.
    2:04:36 Okay.
    2:04:45 And to get my monkey brain to relax escaping into a fiction novel for me is just a fantastic release.
    2:04:51 So, with all that said, what stuff do I like and that I’ve gifted?
    2:04:53 Recently, I gifted The Oceans and the Stars.
    2:04:54 Do you know Mark Halperin?
    2:04:55 Oh, no.
    2:04:56 Okay.
    2:05:02 He’s a guy who’s a little older than I am and writes characters that are just about in my phase of life.
    2:05:05 Like a beautiful, luscious prose writer.
    2:05:06 Really smart.
    2:05:11 Wrote Soldier of the Great War and A Winter’s Tale and Freddy and Frederica.
    2:05:13 I don’t know if you’ve heard of any of these books.
    2:05:15 There’s a little bit of magic in them.
    2:05:17 Magic is a prime character in all these books.
    2:05:26 It’s this luscious prose and epic stories of war and romance and exploration and relationships.
    2:05:29 And this latest one is I highly recommend.
    2:05:38 It’s a kind of on the edge of retirement, just under admiral or like a low-level admiral in the U.S. Navy
    2:05:42 who almost becomes head of the DOD but doesn’t get it because he speaks his mind.
    2:05:47 And then he gets commissioned as a rebuke on this new, weird ship.
    2:05:48 And I’ll just say that.
    2:05:54 And that’s a setup for him taking this really more fast attack destroyer into the Middle East.
    2:05:56 And he’s kind of a war guy.
    2:05:57 He’s a vet.
    2:06:05 And he’s a pretty engaged political kind of, I call him an offensive realist in the John Mearsheimer mold.
    2:06:07 Kind of hawkish, would be perceived as hawkish.
    2:06:09 You know, believes in strong defense.
    2:06:10 The protagonist.
    2:06:12 This is the author.
    2:06:12 I got it.
    2:06:13 Mark Halperin.
    2:06:14 This is his mindset.
    2:06:24 So that manifests in basically romantic stories of heroic war efforts, which is, you know, I’m a boy.
    2:06:24 I like that stuff.
    2:06:28 I recommend Oceans and Stars is great.
    2:06:34 The only one of his that I probably reread is A Winter’s Tale, which was my first one I ever read by him.
    2:06:41 It’s just a beautiful, beautiful story of early 20th century life near New York City and upstate New York.
    2:06:42 You might actually like it.
    2:06:43 I might dig it.
    2:06:48 I read Last of the Mohicans just to take a walk through that area and that time period.
    2:06:49 Authors I like.
    2:06:51 I like Haruki Murakami.
    2:06:51 Yeah.
    2:06:52 Kind of magic.
    2:06:57 Neil Stevenson is like, some people don’t like his latest book, Polo Ston.
    2:07:00 I don’t know if he’s the one who wrote Snow Crash.
    2:07:00 Oh, yeah.
    2:07:05 I had pizza with him in Seattle with a couple of other guys.
    2:07:12 And I was like, wait, you do Victorian era calisthenics with, oh, and you make swords?
    2:07:13 Wait, what?
    2:07:14 I mean, lots of.
    2:07:15 And he’s got the beard.
    2:07:16 Oh, amazing beard.
    2:07:17 Yeah.
    2:07:19 I actually kind of like froze up when I met him.
    2:07:23 It doesn’t happen to me very often, but he’s kind of a hero.
    2:07:24 And he’s in Seattle.
    2:07:24 He’s in.
    2:07:25 Yeah, he’s right there.
    2:07:26 Yeah, he’s right there.
    2:07:28 So I see him occasionally at our sushi place.
    2:07:30 I’m like, I get scared.
    2:07:35 But his latest, Polo Ston, I highly recommend.
    2:07:36 Okay, I haven’t read it yet.
    2:07:39 Some people are giving me grief for it.
    2:07:43 It’s, you know, authors when they get successful late in the night.
    2:07:44 7,000 pages?
    2:07:45 Well, it’s long.
    2:07:46 A lot of his stuff is long, but it’s not that long.
    2:07:49 It’s not like Cryptonomicon or something.
    2:07:50 Which I loved.
    2:07:51 Which me too.
    2:07:51 Me too.
    2:07:57 But authors, as they get successful, sometimes they have too much power over their editors.
    2:07:59 And so they get a little self-indulgent, you know?
    2:08:03 Which, for me, with a beautiful prose writer, I’m like, take me along.
    2:08:03 Fine.
    2:08:05 I will indulge your self-indulgence.
    2:08:06 And I don’t mind it.
    2:08:12 But this one takes 100 to 150 pages to break into, but then it just goes.
    2:08:12 Then it rips.
    2:08:13 Then it rips.
    2:08:13 Yeah.
    2:08:15 So anyway, I highly write.
    2:08:16 And it’s going to be a trilogy.
    2:08:18 And so it’s only the first one.
    2:08:19 So I’m like, you know, I can’t wait.
    2:08:22 Anyway, I love, you can tell, I love to read fiction.
    2:08:29 And do you lean these days, if you’re gifting, have you gifted those books that you mentioned?
    2:08:33 I have gifted Oceans and Stars, but I’m such a Kindle person.
    2:08:35 So many of us are digital readers now.
    2:08:36 It’s kind of hard to gift.
    2:08:37 Yeah, it is.
    2:08:39 It’s more, you know, group chat.
    2:08:39 Yeah.
    2:08:41 You know, book group, group chat.
    2:08:44 That’s how most of the book discovery happens for me now.
    2:08:47 Have you read any of Ted Chang’s stuff?
    2:08:48 Uh-uh.
    2:08:49 Oh, man.
    2:08:49 Who is it?
    2:08:50 Who is it?
    2:08:53 Okay, so Ted, C-H-I-A-N-G.
    2:08:54 Okay.
    2:08:58 He has, last I checked, he has two collections of short stories.
    2:09:02 There is one, which I always script the title of.
    2:09:09 It’s like stories of your life and other stories, something like that.
    2:09:09 Okay.
    2:09:17 And one of those short stories was the basis for the movie Arrival with Jeremy Renner.
    2:09:17 Amazing movie.
    2:09:20 So one of his short stories was the basis for that.
    2:09:24 And then I read that collection, and pretty much everyone who read it was just like,
    2:09:26 I don’t understand how this guy does this.
    2:09:31 And if they happen to be writers, they’re also just like, sad clown tear.
    2:09:35 You know, it’s like, how does someone even begin to create something like this?
    2:09:40 His second collection came out, Exhalation, and I didn’t want to buy it because I didn’t
    2:09:40 want to be disappointed.
    2:09:42 I was like, there’s just no way, right?
    2:09:44 Like, that first one was Appetite for Destruction.
    2:09:45 Like, yeah, you can’t do that twice.
    2:09:50 And then the second was just unbelievably good.
    2:09:50 All right.
    2:09:57 And not all of them will hit necessarily, but the ones that hit are just incredible.
    2:09:58 And he has-
    2:10:00 And they’re like one night read short story, a collection of one night reads.
    2:10:03 I would say a lot of them are one night reads.
    2:10:05 Some of them end up being a little bit longer.
    2:10:11 But he, along with other writers too, Kenneth Liu, I think is L-I-U.
    2:10:16 He has the paper Menagerie, which was actually gifted to me by Matt Mullenweg, blends or alternates
    2:10:22 in a sense between sci-fi and fantasy in this really compelling way.
    2:10:27 So you get these like little ginger snacks in between your pieces of sushi.
    2:10:29 That sounds right up my alley.
    2:10:29 Resets.
    2:10:31 So highly, highly recommend.
    2:10:37 And I think for the longest time, he wasn’t, maybe he still isn’t a full-time writer.
    2:10:40 That’s the part that really got me where it’s like, okay, he writes technical manuals for
    2:10:41 A, B, or C.
    2:10:44 And then in his spare time, he wins Hugo and Nebula Awards.
    2:10:46 It’s just like, oh, come on.
    2:10:46 Amazing.
    2:10:47 Yeah.
    2:10:51 There’s hope for, I always kind of wished I became a writer.
    2:10:53 I like to write, but I’m not that good.
    2:10:55 And I’ve never dedicated time to it.
    2:10:58 But in that vein, this guy Amor Tolles, do you know him?
    2:10:59 Oh, so good.
    2:11:00 I’ve only read-
    2:11:01 He was a banker.
    2:11:01 I know.
    2:11:02 Finance.
    2:11:03 Well, that’s another one.
    2:11:05 Until he was like 40.
    2:11:06 No, I know.
    2:11:12 I read, the only thing I’ve read of his is Lincoln Highway, which, I mean, it is such a page
    2:11:12 turner.
    2:11:14 It’s so beautifully architected.
    2:11:21 And I read that, and I, through someone named Hugh Howey, shook hands with Amor very
    2:11:21 briefly at a restaurant.
    2:11:23 We happened to bump into each other.
    2:11:26 And I found out about the finance background.
    2:11:27 I was like, you gotta be kidding me.
    2:11:27 I know.
    2:11:28 You gotta be kidding me.
    2:11:29 I learned that.
    2:11:30 He was on somebody’s pod.
    2:11:33 He gave a great pod when Lincoln Highway came out.
    2:11:34 Yeah.
    2:11:36 To somebody who cracks open artists.
    2:11:37 It might have been like Brian.
    2:11:38 Oh, Coppelman.
    2:11:39 It might have been Coppelman.
    2:11:39 Yeah.
    2:11:40 Very well could have been Coppelman.
    2:11:42 Who gets to artists, right?
    2:11:45 Yes, who, by the way, for people who don’t know, a quick bit of trivia.
    2:11:52 So, Brian Coppelman, co-creator of Billions and co-writer of Rounders and all these movies
    2:11:59 and TV shows and so on, also discovered Tracy Chapman as a musician back in his A&R days.
    2:11:59 Really?
    2:12:00 Yeah.
    2:12:01 Isn’t that wild?
    2:12:03 He’s a talented guy.
    2:12:06 So, it wouldn’t surprise me if A&R was on that show.
    2:12:06 Yeah.
    2:12:08 He was on there and got him to crack up.
    2:12:11 And then, he was kind of surprised by Brian’s questions, I think.
    2:12:13 And didn’t know Brian.
    2:12:15 And all this stuff came out.
    2:12:15 Yeah.
    2:12:16 You know.
    2:12:17 Amazing.
    2:12:18 All right.
    2:12:20 This is the billboard question.
    2:12:23 If you could put anything on a billboard.
    2:12:24 Message.
    2:12:25 Quote.
    2:12:25 Yeah.
    2:12:30 Blinder, anything at all, obviously metaphorically, just to get something in front of a lot of
    2:12:30 people.
    2:12:33 You asked this, so I did think about it a little bit.
    2:12:33 Yeah.
    2:12:38 And my initial response that I latched onto came from that movie Bowfinger.
    2:12:40 I don’t know if you ever saw Bowfinger.
    2:12:40 No.
    2:12:41 It’s a cult classic.
    2:12:41 Okay.
    2:12:44 And a lot of you people out there haven’t seen it, but I highly recommend it.
    2:12:47 It’s Eddie Murphy Tour de Force.
    2:12:48 Okay.
    2:12:50 And Steve Martin and Heather Graham.
    2:12:52 It’s super quirky.
    2:12:57 Eddie Murphy plays two roles in it, which he did for a while in lots of movies.
    2:13:05 And he plays, one of his roles, he plays a paranoid Hollywood celebrity who thinks and
    2:13:10 in fact is being followed by people who are making a movie about him with him starring it
    2:13:10 unbeknownst to him.
    2:13:11 That’s the setup.
    2:13:13 Steve Martin’s directing.
    2:13:17 And he gets super, he’s already a paranoid guy, but he gets super paranoid.
    2:13:19 It’s like, people are following me.
    2:13:25 And he goes to a thing that, I don’t know what kind of culty LA religion it’s representing,
    2:13:27 but it’s called Mindhead.
    2:13:32 And he goes in and he has his first counseling with the high priest of Mindhead.
    2:13:35 And the religion is based on three happy premises.
    2:13:39 I’m not going to remember them all, but happy premise number one was something like,
    2:13:43 there is no giant foot in the sky about to step on me.
    2:13:44 Okay.
    2:13:46 This is like a mantra you have to repeat.
    2:13:50 The third one is my favorite and that was what I was going to put on the billboard.
    2:13:55 And that is, even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won’t.
    2:13:57 Okay.
    2:13:59 That goes on my billboard.
    2:14:05 That or my favorite Burning Man bar ever was, had that giant neon sign on top of this kind
    2:14:10 of cozy geodesic dome playing groovy music decorated as an aquarium.
    2:14:11 Anybody out there?
    2:14:14 It’s like, it was at Burning Man a while ago and it hasn’t come back.
    2:14:15 It was our favorite spot.
    2:14:18 And the sign said, don’t panic.
    2:14:21 We’ll say more.
    2:14:22 That’s it.
    2:14:23 Don’t panic.
    2:14:24 So that’s on the billboard.
    2:14:24 Don’t panic.
    2:14:25 Don’t panic.
    2:14:32 I think a lot of my job as a leader explicitly or naturally or otherwise is to naturally bring
    2:14:36 people off of their high, high beta, high swings, high mood swings.
    2:14:42 People have a tendency to, towards fear and panic and almost always it’s going to be just
    2:14:43 fine.
    2:14:45 And when it’s not, it doesn’t matter anyway.
    2:14:46 Right.
    2:14:46 Okay.
    2:14:54 And it can cause a lot of a happier life and a calmer community and a better, healthier
    2:15:00 community and family if everybody just takes a little breath before getting scared, you
    2:15:04 know, or getting crazy or sending a text or whatever.
    2:15:06 Even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won’t.
    2:15:09 Is that basically related to the don’t panic?
    2:15:09 Yes, I think so.
    2:15:11 I think that led me to the don’t panic.
    2:15:11 I think so.
    2:15:16 And I’m not saying I actually, I don’t move through the world feeling as if I might
    2:15:16 ignite.
    2:15:17 I really don’t.
    2:15:24 But I think a lot of people, especially in the modern newsfeed, iPhone, TikTok, Twitter
    2:15:26 world do feel that way.
    2:15:26 Yeah.
    2:15:28 And so it’s even more important.
    2:15:31 It’s why meditation is on the rise.
    2:15:33 It’s why we’re looking for escapes.
    2:15:39 We’re looking to give our brains and bodies just a break from the constant barrage.
    2:15:42 And it’s causing mental health problems we all are familiar with.
    2:15:43 You know, and I think that’s part of it.
    2:15:46 It’s just too easy to get mad or scared or outraged or whatever.
    2:15:51 Go take a rafting trip for a week, you know, that’s disconnected.
    2:15:52 That’s going to be on the rise.
    2:15:53 Those are growth businesses, right?
    2:15:57 People sheltering from the digital storm.
    2:15:58 Hailstorm of doom.
    2:15:59 Right, exactly.
    2:16:02 It’s so unhealthy, you know?
    2:16:03 Have you taken any sabbaticals since Italy?
    2:16:05 Oh, yeah.
    2:16:07 I mean, I’ve had multiple retirements.
    2:16:12 Now, are those failed retirements or did those have an end point where you’re like,
    2:16:15 I’m going to take a year and then I’m going to dust off my gloves and get back in the room?
    2:16:18 The Italy one was a failed one, although I suspected I was really young, right?
    2:16:20 The others, no.
    2:16:21 It’s just been sabbaticals.
    2:16:22 How long are they typically?
    2:16:31 You know, the Italy one was the longest one, but I’ve kind of built shelter into our family’s routine now.
    2:16:36 So it’s just a part of the normal cycle of the seasons, you know?
    2:16:41 And a really key component of that is not always achievable, especially now.
    2:16:46 Starlink and traveling Starlink and Starlink at my surf camp and Starlink on my Airstream.
    2:16:51 Like, it’s harder and harder to disconnect, but disconnection is really a key part of it, I think.
    2:16:56 I think disconnection, the behavior you observe when people are disconnected, like with my family, when we do,
    2:17:00 we rafted the Grand Canyon this year with a big group of friends and family.
    2:17:08 And when you watch the younger people, it’s very unsettling for the first only like three or four hours.
    2:17:14 And then when they realize it’s over, it’s total mean reversion to human behavior.
    2:17:22 Playing games, doing crafts, taking a hike, you know, painting a picture, you know, it’s totally beautiful what happens.
    2:17:24 And everybody is happy.
    2:17:29 Well, you can’t not be happy making a friendship bracelet or playing Taco Cat.
    2:17:31 What do we, I don’t want to give that away.
    2:17:33 I don’t want to give your game away.
    2:17:34 Oh, no, you didn’t.
    2:17:38 But you can’t not be happy when you’re doing that and not looking at your phone.
    2:17:39 Yeah.
    2:17:40 Highly encouraged.
    2:17:41 Rich.
    2:17:42 Tim.
    2:17:43 So nice to see you, man.
    2:17:44 It’s great to see you.
    2:17:45 We’ve covered a lot of ground.
    2:17:46 That was fun.
    2:17:46 Wow.
    2:17:54 Where, if people want to learn more things about Rich, should they be visitor 22 to your blog?
    2:17:55 No, I don’t think so.
    2:17:57 I think the blog is totally vestigial.
    2:17:59 It’s an appendix that needs to be removed.
    2:18:01 Hopper and dropper.
    2:18:01 Yeah.
    2:18:01 No.
    2:18:03 Yeah, no, man.
    2:18:04 I don’t, you know.
    2:18:07 The writing thing, I’ve had a lot of offers to do that with.
    2:18:13 I’ve just never felt like I enjoyed reading any of those, you know, business guy ego books, you know.
    2:18:18 I just don’t find them very interesting and I don’t want to be one of those kind of jerk-offs, you know.
    2:18:24 Maybe do a writer’s retreat or an MFA, compressed MFA and take a stab at fiction.
    2:18:25 Just saying.
    2:18:30 Even if you never publish anything, it’s a good muscle to train for a bit and just to play with it.
    2:18:33 I’m doing more creative things deliberately now and it feels good.
    2:18:33 Yeah.
    2:18:40 Like I took a Procreate painting on my iPad during COVID and it’s so, I’m so, I feel so good.
    2:18:48 And I like catch myself going back and looking at my works and I should, like I’d be at a party and I’ll show people what I painted.
    2:18:48 Yeah.
    2:18:51 And it’s not good, but it makes me feel good.
    2:18:53 I did exactly the same thing during COVID.
    2:18:54 Procreate.
    2:18:57 And you go through these tutorials, there’s something very soothing about it.
    2:18:58 Oh, that Australian gal.
    2:18:59 Yeah.
    2:19:01 Oh, who I think works at Procreate.
    2:19:01 Oh, so many.
    2:19:02 Who gives the tutorials.
    2:19:03 She’s so awesome.
    2:19:05 Yeah, so many good ones.
    2:19:08 Is there anything you would like to say?
    2:19:13 Any closing comments, formal public complaints you’d like to lodge?
    2:19:15 No, no.
    2:19:17 I guess I should just, I should thank you.
    2:19:18 You perform a good service.
    2:19:25 You provide a good service for a lot of people with this pod and with your books, you know, and certain people need it more than others.
    2:19:28 And I don’t think, I really don’t think people are looking for shortcuts.
    2:19:30 That may have been where you started a little bit.
    2:19:30 Yeah.
    2:19:39 I really just think people are just looking to lead better, happier, slightly more efficient lives.
    2:19:40 Improving lives.
    2:19:42 They want to improve themselves.
    2:19:44 And you really help people do that.
    2:19:49 And the diversity of the guests that you bring on this pod is really inspiring.
    2:19:50 So, yeah, it’s great.
    2:19:51 Thank you.
    2:19:51 Thanks, man.
    2:19:52 It’s great to be here.
    2:19:52 Yeah.
    2:19:53 Awesome to have you.
    2:19:58 Everybody listening, we’re going to include everything we talked about in the show notes.
    2:20:00 Tim.blog slash podcast.
    2:20:02 If you search Barton, that’s going to be the only Barton.
    2:20:04 So you’ll find this episode.
    2:20:11 And until next time, be just a bit kinder than is necessary to others, but also to yourself.
    2:20:13 And as always, thanks for tuning in.
    2:20:15 Hey, guys, this is Tim again.
    2:20:18 Just one more thing before you take off.
    2:20:20 And that is Five Bullet Friday.
    2:20:25 Would you enjoy getting a short email from me every Friday that provides a little fun before the weekend?
    2:20:32 Between one and a half and two million people subscribe to my free newsletter, my super short newsletter called Five Bullet Friday.
    2:20:33 Easy to sign up.
    2:20:34 Easy to cancel.
    2:20:43 It is basically a half page that I send out every Friday to share the coolest things I’ve found or discovered or have started exploring over that week.
    2:20:45 It’s kind of like my diary of cool things.
    2:20:57 It often includes articles I’m reading, books I’m reading, albums, perhaps, gadgets, gizmos, all sorts of tech tricks and so on that get sent to me by my friends, including a lot of podcast guests.
    2:21:04 And these strange, esoteric things end up in my field, and then I test them, and then I share them with you.
    2:21:11 So if that sounds fun, again, it’s very short, a little tiny bite of goodness before you head off for the weekend, something to think about.
    2:21:15 If you’d like to try it out, just go to tim.blog.friday.
    2:21:19 Type that into your browser, tim.blog.friday.
    2:21:21 Drop in your email, and you’ll get the very next one.
    2:21:22 Thanks for listening.
    2:21:27 Listeners have heard me talk about making before you manage for years.
    2:21:34 All that means to me is that when I wake up, I block out three to four hours to do the most important things that are generative, creative, podcasting, writing, etc.
    2:21:42 Before I get to the email and the admin stuff and the reactive stuff and everyone else’s agenda for my time.
    2:21:49 And for me, let’s just say I’m a writer and entrepreneur, I need to focus on the making to be happy.
    2:21:55 If I get sucked into all the little bits and pieces that are constantly churning, I end up feeling stressed out.
    2:21:59 And that is why today’s sponsor is so interesting.
    2:22:03 It’s been one of the greatest energetic unlocks in the last few years.
    2:22:04 So here we go.
    2:22:07 I need to find people who are great at managing.
    2:22:10 And that is where Cresset Family Office comes in.
    2:22:12 You spell it C-R-E-S-S-E-T.
    2:22:13 Cresset Family Office.
    2:22:17 I was introduced to them by one of the top CPG investors in the world.
    2:22:22 Cresset is a prestigious family office for CEOs, founders, and entrepreneurs.
    2:22:37 They handle the complex financial planning, uncertain tax strategies, timely exit planning, bill pay, wires, all the dozens of other parts of wealth management, just financial management that would otherwise pull me away from doing what I love most.
    2:22:41 Baking things, mastering skills, spending time with the people I care about.
    2:22:48 And over many years, I was getting pulled away from that stuff, at least a few days a week, and I’ve completely eliminated that.
    2:22:54 So, experience the freedom of focusing on what matters to you with the support of a top wealth management team.
    2:22:58 You can schedule a call today at CressetCapital.com slash Tim.
    2:23:01 That’s spelled C-R-E-S-S-E-T.
    2:23:07 CressetCapital.com slash Tim to see how Cresset can help streamline your financial plans and grow your wealth.
    2:23:10 That’s CressetCapital.com slash Tim.
    2:23:13 And disclosure, I am a client of Cresset.
    2:23:16 There are no material conflicts other than this paid testimonial.
    2:23:20 And of course, all investing involves risk, including loss of principle.
    2:23:21 So, do your due diligence.
    2:23:29 My first book, The 4-Hour Workweek, which made everything else possible, is built around the acronym and framework DEAL.
    2:23:30 D-E-A-L.
    2:23:33 Define, Eliminate, Automate, and Liberate.
    2:23:40 Now, of course, after you define all the things you want, your metrics, 80-20, blah, blah, blah, then you want to get rid of as much as possible.
    2:23:41 Eliminate.
    2:23:48 But sometimes, there are things that are a huge hassle, like expense management for a lot of companies, which you can’t get rid of.
    2:23:49 They are essential to your business.
    2:23:52 But today, thank God, you can automate it.
    2:23:56 And there is no better way to do that than with today’s sponsor, Ramp.
    2:24:01 Ramp is a free corporate card that automates away your entire expense process.
    2:24:06 They are incredibly fast-growing and incredibly well-reviewed for good reasons.
    2:24:10 The moment your team makes a purchase, Ramp handles everything.
    2:24:14 Receipt matching, categorization, approval, the whole works.
    2:24:19 Switching to Ramp is like hiring a full-time employee just for expense management.
    2:24:26 And Ramp makes it easy to migrate from your current corporate card with their complimentary white-glove onboarding service for new members.
    2:24:33 More than 25,000 businesses trust Ramp, including my good friends at Shopify and the Boys and Girls Club of America,
    2:24:37 which is why they were just named number one in spend management by G2.
    2:24:44 And now, for a limited time, you guys, listeners of The Tim Ferriss Show, can get $250 when you join Ramp.
    2:24:47 Just go to ramp.com slash Tim.
    2:24:51 That’s R-A-M-P dot com slash Tim.
    2:24:52 Cards issued by Sutton Bank.
    2:24:53 Member FDIC.
    2:24:55 Terms and conditions apply.

    Rich Barton is the co-founder and co-executive chairman of Zillow, a company transforming how people buy, sell, rent, and finance homes. Before Zillow, Rich founded Expedia within Microsoft in 1994 and successfully spun the company off as a public company in 1999. He served as president, CEO, and board director of Expedia and later co-founded and served as non-executive chairman of Glassdoor.

    Sponsors:

    Ramp easy-to-use corporate cards, bill payments, accounting, and more: https://ramp.com/tim (Get $250 when you join Ramp)

    Cresset prestigious family office for CEOs, founders, and entrepreneurs: https://cressetcapital.com/tim (book a call today)

    Shopify global commerce platform, providing tools to start, grow, market, and manage a retail business: https://shopify.com/tim (one-dollar-per-month trial period)

    *

    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.

  • Isomorphic Labs Discusses AI-Driven Drug Discovery and the Future of Medicine – Ep. 252

    Max Jaderberg and Sergei Yakneen from Isomorphic Labs discuss how AI is enhancing drug discovery by treating biology as an information processing system. They share how advanced AI models like AlphaFold 3 are accelerating the pipeline and paving the way for a future of precision medicine.

  • The Dual-Use Founder: Vets Now Building For America

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 – Frankly, in the beginning, they didn’t work at all.
    0:00:05 That’s when the DOD first started to realize
    0:00:07 that it was a totally new threat.
    0:00:08 – You can learn them the hard way
    0:00:10 by just start a company and go do it,
    0:00:11 or maybe you can have some training wheels,
    0:00:14 but ultimately there’s no way to learn how to do this job
    0:00:15 other than to just do it.
    0:00:19 – As taxpayers, as veterans, and as founders,
    0:00:21 we should want that level of competition
    0:00:22 and that cutthroat competition
    0:00:25 to onboard things quickly and offboard things quickly.
    0:00:28 – You can’t have a company where people are split
    0:00:29 on what they care about
    0:00:31 and what those foundational values are.
    0:00:33 You have to be all on board.
    0:00:35 – Do you want to do something meaningful?
    0:00:37 Do you want to do meaningful work?
    0:00:38 – It’s very clear what the stakes are
    0:00:42 and it’s very clear why it’s important.
    0:00:45 – In 2025, the battlefield is not just overseas.
    0:00:48 It’s in the tech stacks, the logistics networks,
    0:00:50 and airspace security systems
    0:00:52 that power our national defense.
    0:00:54 And who better to design solutions
    0:00:57 than those who have faced these problems firsthand?
    0:00:58 Those who have served.
    0:01:01 In this episode, recorded live at our third annual
    0:01:04 American Dynamism Summit in the heart of Washington, D.C.,
    0:01:07 A16Z’s Matt Shortle, operating partner and chief of staff,
    0:01:11 plus a veteran himself, sits down with three veterans
    0:01:12 who have turned to the private sector
    0:01:14 to build technology companies,
    0:01:16 tackling secure communications,
    0:01:19 military logistics, and drone defense.
    0:01:21 Joining this conversation is John Doyle,
    0:01:23 founder and CEO of Cape,
    0:01:25 David Tuttle, co-founder and CEO of Rune,
    0:01:29 and Grant Jordan, founder and CEO of SkySafe.
    0:01:31 Today, you’ll get to hear on-the-ground stories
    0:01:32 from these veterans,
    0:01:35 like how their time in uniform has shaped the scope of problems
    0:01:38 that they see and ultimately what they’ve chosen to build.
    0:01:41 They also discuss whether a jump directly from military
    0:01:43 to entrepreneurship is possible,
    0:01:46 or whether a stint in the private sector is needed,
    0:01:48 like the time that David spent at Anderil,
    0:01:51 or that John spent at Palantir.
    0:01:54 And finally, how does this unique group of individuals
    0:01:57 who have spent time on the battlefield and in the boardroom
    0:02:01 think our collective culture is changing around the national project?
    0:02:05 Listen in to find out.
    0:02:09 As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only,
    0:02:12 should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice,
    0:02:14 or be used to evaluate any investment or security,
    0:02:19 and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
    0:02:22 Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments
    0:02:25 in the companies discussed in this podcast.
    0:02:27 For more details, including a link to our investments,
    0:02:31 please see A16Z.com/disclosures.
    0:02:38 I’d like to start with just hearing your initial story,
    0:02:40 what you did in the service,
    0:02:42 and then also what inspired you to join initially.
    0:02:46 What inspired me to join initially was what I think inspires plenty of people,
    0:02:48 which is paying for school.
    0:02:51 So the Air Force was good enough to pay for me to go to MIT.
    0:02:54 And for that, when I commissioned as an officer,
    0:02:56 I went and worked in AFRL for four years,
    0:02:57 working in the Air Force Research Lab,
    0:03:01 and focusing on how do we actually innovate in the Air Force?
    0:03:03 How do we bring new systems out to the warfighter?
    0:03:07 And how do we rapidly get those systems out there?
    0:03:09 I mean, similar family history of service to the nation.
    0:03:12 I just service to our people, went to Cornell,
    0:03:14 did ROTC there, commissioned into the Army.
    0:03:16 I left active service for a period of time,
    0:03:17 went to the private sector,
    0:03:20 and then actually went back into active service.
    0:03:22 Ended up down at the Joint Special Operations
    0:03:24 Camp for a number of years and ended up in some technology orgs
    0:03:27 at the end of my time there, and then came back out and said,
    0:03:28 “Hey, I think we can do some great work
    0:03:32 from the private sector technology side going into the defense world.”
    0:03:34 I should say I’m still serving,
    0:03:36 still serving Army National Guard officer up in New York.
    0:03:38 So I do the one weekend a month driving back there,
    0:03:41 and that’s been a number of years now at this point.
    0:03:43 That’s great. John?
    0:03:45 So I almost joined, like a lot of folks of my vintage,
    0:03:48 I almost joined on 9/11 or on 9/12.
    0:03:50 I’m obviously heavily affected by that.
    0:03:52 By that day, I was a senior in college,
    0:03:57 and I ultimately made the decision to finish my computer science degree.
    0:03:59 But then when we invaded Iraq in 2003,
    0:04:02 I felt that same call to service decided it wasn’t just a whim,
    0:04:04 it’s something I shouldn’t and couldn’t ignore.
    0:04:06 And so the day after the invasion, I went to the recruiter,
    0:04:07 and signed up.
    0:04:10 I think I’m unique on the panel in that I enlisted.
    0:04:14 I was on a program called 18 X-ray, which I think still exists.
    0:04:19 You can join the Army as an enlisted soldier and commit to five years up front.
    0:04:24 And in exchange, the Army will give you a shot to try out to be a Green Beret,
    0:04:27 to be Army Special Forces, after doing basic training in airborne school.
    0:04:32 And so I signed that contract the day after the invasion and I was successful.
    0:04:36 And so I spent two years doing really amazing training in the Special Forces training pipeline,
    0:04:39 and three years on an SF team at the Special Forces Group.
    0:04:43 Was entrepreneurship something you envisioned while you were serving?
    0:04:44 Did that come after?
    0:04:47 Tell me how all that works, because you’re all three founders now.
    0:04:52 I don’t think it was something I thought about at the time in service, but I think part of my frustration
    0:05:01 in the Air Force was seeing how some of the acquisitions programs were broken or were outdated for what the pace of current technology was.
    0:05:09 And I think I saw a lot of opportunities to try to change that from the outside and to try to innovate and bring those technologies in from the outside.
    0:05:12 To be honest, it was not something that was on my radar.
    0:05:17 When I left the active service for the first time, I went to about the biggest companies you could imagine.
    0:05:23 I ended up as an investment banker on Wall Street and did that, obviously massive international bank presence.
    0:05:24 I think that was great for me.
    0:05:33 I don’t think I had at the time, at my stage in career at that point, I don’t think I had what I thought I needed to go out and start my own company or do the thing that we’re all doing now.
    0:05:39 So I think for me, it was like, how do I build that toolkit of knowledge and how do I do those sorts of things in a large organization?
    0:05:46 And then now that the time was right later on, opportunity presented to us, hopefully, give back to the mission and help the mission that we can from a startup standpoint.
    0:05:49 I think for me, I’ve always been a builder.
    0:05:52 The thing I loved about computer science in college was building things.
    0:05:54 I’m very proud of my service.
    0:05:58 In some ways, that was a little bit of a detour on my inevitable path to starting a company.
    0:06:00 In fact, when I left the service, I went to law school.
    0:06:05 And the reason I never really practiced law was because I figured out pretty quickly that that was not a path to,
    0:06:09 or not, it’s really not a direct path to entrepreneurship or the kind of work I wanted to be doing.
    0:06:13 So I wound up at Palantir instead in 2013 and spent nine years at that company.
    0:06:17 It was not among the first hundred employees, but it felt very early stage.
    0:06:23 And I got a lot of exposure that I think helped me on the eventual journey to founding Cape three years ago.
    0:06:30 As you look at when you’re in the service and your problems, you work in aerospace management, logistics, and then privacy first, mobile care.
    0:06:35 Were those problems you saw while serving, or did that help influence what you founded later?
    0:06:36 Absolutely.
    0:06:45 So we at RUN are focused on how do we enable military logistics, cross-services, but really on the Army and the Marine Corps side right now, how do we do field logistics?
    0:06:46 How do we enable that?
    0:06:52 And I think from my career side, we saw that not to say that military logistics can get the job done in the GWAT era, in our era of serving.
    0:07:05 But, you know, I saw very quickly that the same things we had in GWAT from a military logistics standpoint were not necessarily to enable the force to be successful in a peer adversary, whether that’s in competition phase or conflict phase.
    0:07:10 When Peter was my co-founder at RUN, we were still at Anderil before we left and founded RUN.
    0:07:14 We were thinking about this problem setting, saying like, yeah, this is something that actually needs help and needs attention.
    0:07:17 No great technology companies necessarily were really focused on it.
    0:07:25 And I said, hey, this is a need that I felt still serving when I was serving in the military, and then this is a need that we think we can help advance now from the private sector.
    0:07:38 When I was in AFRL, it was very, very early in the era of DOD thinking about drones on the battlefield and thinking about especially small, inexpensive drones, which at that time, we’re talking like 07, 08 kind of era.
    0:07:45 Expensive drones on the battlefield were like, oh, wow, a $100,000 drone, that’s so inexpensive, or $50,000.
    0:07:51 Whereas now, what anybody can buy off the shelf for $1,000 or $500 is greater than any capabilities we had at that time.
    0:08:02 But at that point, the DOD was first starting to think about what does it really mean when adversaries can bring low-cost capabilities to the battlefield, adversaries who may not have a traditional air force.
    0:08:19 And what I saw early on in those initial tests and those initial developments was kind of a disconnect of the old-school, big, heavy military systems trying to be thrown at these small, light, fast threats that were kind of a totally new challenge.
    0:08:25 And I saw how difficult it was for this traditional structure and the traditional defense contractors to actually do that.
    0:08:36 We saw a lot of big systems, missiles and lasers and all of these things, which were big, expensive, bespoke systems built for a prior era of warfare, trying to be thrown at this small problem.
    0:08:38 And frankly, in the beginning, they just didn’t work at all.
    0:08:43 And I think that’s when the DOD first started to realize that it was a totally new threat.
    0:08:43 It was a totally new thing.
    0:08:52 And it’s something we’ve seen borne out since then in pretty much every conflict since then, you know, certainly in Ukraine, where we’ve got tens of thousands of drones flying around all the time.
    0:08:59 And so I think that’s what really inspired me and a lot of the folks on our team to do something about that and to try to think about it in a new way.
    0:09:03 As you brought up Ukraine, I think, obviously, that’s changed the whole paradigm in your space.
    0:09:04 And then also you.
    0:09:06 I think, frankly, I would say.
    0:09:07 Oh, three, actually.
    0:09:22 I don’t want to speak for John, but I think all of us, right, as we look at what has happened in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, right, the new technologies that have been effectively used or ineffectively used by both sides and how that changes things, right, from a logistics standpoint, certainly from a U.S. standpoint, from a communications standpoint.
    0:09:23 Yeah.
    0:09:31 I think it’s changed, like, that laboratory, for better or worse, has really certainly impacted the way I think about things and we think about things at Rune, and I’m sure it has for both of you.
    0:09:38 I left Palantir in February 2022 to start CAPE, left Palantir on a Friday, checked into that we work on a Monday morning, and the invasion was happening.
    0:09:52 The very first question that we asked ourselves at CAPE was, if you recall, commercial cellular was a huge factor, continues to be a huge factor in Ukraine, but was enormous in the initial days as a force multiplier, but also as a risk.
    0:09:59 Both sides were using commercial cellular heavily and enjoying benefits of that, but also literally targeting missile strikes against each other based on that signature.
    0:10:12 And so the first question we asked ourselves as a company was, what tech do we wish the Ukrainians were using right now, and how do we get that tech into Taiwan ahead of an eventual Chinese invasion that hopefully never happens, but we certainly need to prepare for?
    0:10:15 And that’s really been a motivating question for the company from the beginning.
    0:10:18 I think if you look at logistics, obviously they stopped outside of Kiev.
    0:10:19 Yep.
    0:10:21 So the Russians had a few issues there.
    0:10:34 As we look at going from veteran to founder, can you jump straight from veteran and found a company, or do you need to stop somewhere in between an Anderol, a Palantir, and know what right looks like, know what culture you need to set?
    0:10:36 I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
    0:10:39 I think you can become a founder at any point in your career.
    0:10:44 If it’s something you’re going to do and it’s something that’s sort of in your blood, I think that it’s inevitable.
    0:10:54 I will say personally, my stint, which turned out to be almost a decade, at Palantir in between service and starting a company, I learned a ton.
    0:11:09 The culture at Palantir, I think, is borderline legendary at this point, and the reputation is warranted, but also the mechanics of how to operate in a company, what does an innovative company look like, fostering innovation and allowing a little bit of chaos and a little bit of things to bubble up within the stew, but without the wheels coming off.
    0:11:12 Those are important lessons for a founder to learn.
    0:11:18 You can learn them the hard way by just start a company and go do it, or maybe you can have some training wheels for a few years at a Palantir in Anderol.
    0:11:29 I would say my experience at Palantir certainly was helpful and I think has helped set us up for success in some ways, but ultimately there’s no way to learn how to do this job other than to just do it.
    0:11:30 Right.
    0:11:34 Yeah, I would say I think it’s a very individual and a very personal question, like what are your life experiences, right?
    0:11:39 I think we all come out of the military with a great set of leadership skills, a great set of communication skills.
    0:11:42 We understand we have some domain expertise, right, in what we’re doing.
    0:11:50 But I think it’s really boils down to, again, to use the toolkit analogy of like how strong do you as a veteran feel coming out of this and committed to it?
    0:11:52 And do you think you have the skills to be able to do it?
    0:11:58 To John’s point, I think for me personally, I wanted to get out in the time that I had in finance and then the time that I had at Anderol.
    0:12:00 Very similar to like the Palantir ethos there.
    0:12:03 How do you move fast and break things, but that’s okay to get towards a mission and do those things.
    0:12:07 To me, that is super valuable experience as I now lead a team and lead the company.
    0:12:11 But that’s not to say that we have different paths to get here.
    0:12:12 I mean, all three of us have different paths.
    0:12:17 That doesn’t mean you might not have had different experiences prior to service, right, before serving or coming out.
    0:12:22 And I think that’s a very individual, I hate to be a cop out on it, but I think it’s a very individual choice to make.
    0:12:24 I would agree with that.
    0:12:28 I would say for me, when I left the Air Force, I went to grad school after that.
    0:12:36 And I think having some distance from it is helpful, whatever that distance is, whether that’s a big corporation or doing something entirely different or grad school.
    0:12:42 I think having a little bit of distance, seeing a little bit of a different set of culture or a different set of problem sets.
    0:12:54 Also, you know, it helps you maybe in some ways distance yourself from some of the frustrations of the government bureaucracy and the military and all of that to then kind of refresh yourself to go face those challenges and jump back into it.
    0:13:06 But I think also just trying to figure out how you should do things differently out in the private sector, out in the commercial sector, how you can take the good parts of the military, of government service and apply them.
    0:13:13 Take the good parts, ignore the bad, drop the bureaucracy bits that are not helpful to anybody and figure out how you can benefit from it.
    0:13:18 But I think there’s a lot of good things to take from it, especially a lot of the kind of mission-driven focus.
    0:13:27 We’ve had lots of folks on our team over the years who have been prior military or prior intelligence, and there’s no replacement for that mission-driven focus.
    0:13:30 There’s no replacement for that actual commitment to making a difference.
    0:13:33 Matt, where do you come down on that question?
    0:13:35 So that’s a good question, and we debate that internally.
    0:13:41 Personally, I transitioned out, and I was part of Lehman Brothers’ 08 MBA class, which went really well.
    0:13:42 I was there 22 years.
    0:13:44 Probably not technically your fault, though.
    0:13:45 That’s not your fault.
    0:13:45 No, it wasn’t my fault.
    0:13:47 Me and Dick Folder were really tight.
    0:13:50 But I think it helps to go to somewhere and see what right looks like.
    0:13:57 For me personally, especially Anderol, Palantir, SpaceX, and then Tesla, just some companies that are producing these founders.
    0:13:58 I think it really helps.
    0:14:01 But there’s obviously folks that can make that jump.
    0:14:03 So I think the answer is either.
    0:14:06 But for me personally, I would want to stop along the way.
    0:14:08 You made a great point as well that I think is important.
    0:14:12 I think you always have to be careful that you don’t want to just create the thing that you thought you knew.
    0:14:14 needed when you were in the military, right?
    0:14:16 And I think that is sometimes a trap, right?
    0:14:17 We all need to use our experience to do that.
    0:14:22 But when I talk to folks about that, if you try to build the thing that you thought you needed,
    0:14:28 every month that goes by, every year that goes by, what you thought you needed then is now out of date and it’s stale, right?
    0:14:34 So especially as you lead a company, and I’m sure Sean can talk about it too, is you need to be constantly thinking forward,
    0:14:42 not just creating the thing that you thought you needed in the Argandab River Valley in 2011 or 12 or in Herat or wherever it happened to be.
    0:14:42 Yeah, I agree.
    0:14:44 And we went 4G to 5G.
    0:14:44 Let’s go to 10G.
    0:14:46 Why stop at 4?
    0:14:50 Or we built the Hornet, which is a Category 4 fighter, and we built the Super Hornet with Category 4+.
    0:14:52 Skip that like the Marine Corps did.
    0:14:57 I think that’s the essential skill for a founder, is that mindset.
    0:14:59 In my opinion, you have that or you don’t.
    0:15:00 That’s part of who you are or it’s not.
    0:15:07 There are other skills that support that overall mindset, that insistence on way forward thinking, ambitious goal setting.
    0:15:10 And you can learn those skills, certainly in the military.
    0:15:12 You can learn those skills at great companies like the ones you mentioned.
    0:15:17 So they’re supporting skills you can learn, but the core, that core mindset, I think, is just innate.
    0:15:22 I don’t know your founding stories necessarily, specifically, but finding the right co-founder was important.
    0:15:23 For me, right?
    0:15:26 So finding the right software engineer, technical co-founder, right?
    0:15:29 So Peter is my co-founder and CTO.
    0:15:32 Like, I don’t know how I would have done that straight coming out of service, right?
    0:15:35 So I needed to go to a place, thankfully a great place like Anderil,
    0:15:39 where we’re surrounded by those types of people to be able to find that partner.
    0:15:43 And now he and I, our Venn diagrams don’t overlap that much, which is great in a co-founding pair.
    0:15:46 Let’s pull in a thread that Grant brought up, and let’s go culture.
    0:15:47 You might have some good responses here.
    0:15:50 Culture in the military, culture in startup land.
    0:15:54 And then you could even add finance, city, which is very different.
    0:15:54 So that’s a third.
    0:15:59 But let’s focus on military and then startup land differences and similarities.
    0:16:06 I think I probably have a unique perspective from the military side by virtue of being an 18x-ray
    0:16:10 and only ever experiencing the special operations community in my military service.
    0:16:16 That is a naturally more meritocratic, flatter organization, I think, than the rest of the DoD.
    0:16:19 Having said that, there’s still a rank structure.
    0:16:20 There’s still centralized planning.
    0:16:26 There’s still a very clear hierarchy and a very clear set of doctrine and a book that literally tells you how to do your job.
    0:16:30 Even in the context of special operations where you’re granted a lot more creativity and a lot more autonomy,
    0:16:32 that structure still exists.
    0:16:36 What is amazing about a startup is none of that exists.
    0:16:41 You know, Monday morning, you check into a WeWork, and now you’ve just got a company and a couple bucks in the bank, hopefully.
    0:16:43 And there’s literally nothing else.
    0:16:44 You don’t have an email address necessarily.
    0:16:47 And so you get to write the entire thing yourself.
    0:16:50 That can be really disorienting, especially in my experience.
    0:16:52 We have a ton of veterans at the company, and they’re all amazing.
    0:16:54 And I love to hire veterans.
    0:16:56 But that can be disorienting coming out of service.
    0:17:02 And so you have to create, in my opinion, a culture around, I think it’s a little bit trite to say celebrating failure,
    0:17:06 but at least openly accepting failure when it happens.
    0:17:11 If people are working hard and people are taking risks and pushing the envelope and their efforts fail,
    0:17:16 at CAPE anyway, the only thing you need to do is be transparent about that and call it out when we fail
    0:17:19 and adjust and maybe name a couple of lessons learned for next time.
    0:17:22 And it doesn’t do any damage to your reputation at the company or your ability to operate.
    0:17:27 I think that’s the most important cultural aspect at a startup because it encourages risk-taking.
    0:17:29 It encourages people to lean forward and push hard.
    0:17:33 I find that there’s like common threads across all of them.
    0:17:38 So when I think of like out of broad buckets, military service, my finance experience, and now startup experience,
    0:17:43 there are like broad threads that make somebody or make something successful there,
    0:17:46 which is initiative, drive, taking chances and doing those things, right?
    0:17:49 Whether that is part of a deal team in investment banking,
    0:17:53 whether that was part of a team within the JSOC enterprise or the military writ large,
    0:17:55 or now it’s part of a startup, right?
    0:17:56 So it’s, yeah, how do you celebrate success?
    0:17:58 How do you encourage risk-taking?
    0:18:01 I think also I view it as like, how do you hire talent?
    0:18:05 But you understand that when that talent comes in, you got to train, you got to mentor, you got to develop, right?
    0:18:08 And it’s not necessarily always at a startup, at least from my standpoint, at Rune.
    0:18:11 It’s not been hiring just because somebody has a skill.
    0:18:17 It’s hiring somebody that I think can grow into a position or do these things or with the right coaching and development can take chances
    0:18:20 and maybe fail, as John says, but like you move on from that.
    0:18:23 So I think there are like commonalities across all of these.
    0:18:28 Obviously, at the startup, you don’t have the structure in place and the support structure that’s in place.
    0:18:31 It’s certainly at a large company, but also somewhat in the military side.
    0:18:35 So there’s some differences there, but I think from a human standpoint and a culture standpoint,
    0:18:39 you can have some threads of success that are common across those.
    0:18:44 Probably for most of our companies, it’s not just about government or military.
    0:18:45 Everything is dual use.
    0:18:48 Technology crosses a lot of different industries.
    0:18:52 For us, it’s not just the kind of like military and federal market.
    0:18:57 It’s also critical infrastructure, oil and gas, power companies, all of these large organizations
    0:19:02 that face a lot of the same challenges that military or federal government face.
    0:19:07 I think for us, it’s about balancing that culture and trying to figure out how to take the really mission-driven
    0:19:11 and what that really translates to is customer-driven, user-driven.
    0:19:13 I think there’s commonality there.
    0:19:18 Not an over-obsession with the kind of military portion of it, but taking the part about it
    0:19:23 about what are we trying to accomplish and how are we trying to help these people, these organizations.
    0:19:25 Yeah, you mentioned dual use.
    0:19:28 And first of all, I’d love you to define, are you dual use?
    0:19:30 Would you consider all three of you dual use or not?
    0:19:36 And then any cultural issues with that, bringing folks on board on the national defense side?
    0:19:40 Number one, I would say we’re definitely dual use because kind of threats and concerns
    0:19:46 about drones in the national airspace, in critical areas, absolutely cut across all sorts of different areas.
    0:19:52 Whether it’s an Air Force base or a power plant or border security, everyone is concerned.
    0:19:56 And not just because they’re concerned about just malicious drones, it’s about being able
    0:20:00 to use drones for good things and use drones for inspecting infrastructure and doing logistics
    0:20:01 and all of these things.
    0:20:06 But I think in that, you do need to make sure that you’re building a culture that understands
    0:20:09 why you’re there and what your values are and what you care about.
    0:20:12 In our world, right, we’re going to end up dealing with serious stuff.
    0:20:17 And you can’t just have people who wanted to build iPhone games and so they just happen
    0:20:17 to get a job.
    0:20:20 They’re like, no, you have to understand we’re here to do serious stuff.
    0:20:26 We had folks actually go over and assist the Ukrainians and provide support and services
    0:20:28 and technology to them.
    0:20:33 You can’t have a company where people are split on what they care about and what those foundational
    0:20:33 values are.
    0:20:35 You have to be all on board.
    0:20:39 Yeah, there’s some great quotes out there by Palmer Luckey talking about taking technology
    0:20:43 talent from the commercial sector and how do you convince them to come into the defense
    0:20:43 world.
    0:20:45 And I will say that, frankly, it’s not that hard.
    0:20:46 Do you want to do something meaningful?
    0:20:47 Do you want to do meaningful work?
    0:20:51 And I think that’s the genius behind a lot of the American Dynamism companies, to include,
    0:20:54 I would say, all three of ours, is like, how do you bring that amazing technical talent
    0:20:58 and those amazing software engineers or hardware engineers, the case may be, and bring them
    0:21:03 to something like, hey, do you want to do something meaningful for the nation, for the people and
    0:21:04 do those types of things?
    0:21:07 And how do you fuse that together with those of us who have come out of the military and
    0:21:08 do those sorts of things?
    0:21:12 I don’t want to say it’s easy, but it’s not as hard as people would think to get them motivated
    0:21:16 about doing what’s right for the country, doing what’s right for our people and to do those
    0:21:17 sorts of things.
    0:21:21 And I’ll also add, I think what really sorts people out on whether or not they want to
    0:21:26 join a company that does these sorts of work and these sorts of missions is you show them
    0:21:27 what you’re doing, right?
    0:21:30 Nothing sorts that out faster than real-world examples.
    0:21:36 When we show drones in places that are being run by prison gangs to smuggle fentanyl into
    0:21:40 prisons or in military environments, whatever, it’s very clear what the stakes are, and it’s
    0:21:41 very clear why it’s important.
    0:21:46 And for those people who it resonates, it’s instantaneous, and it’s, wow, I want to be working on this.
    0:21:48 And for those, it doesn’t, great.
    0:21:49 Like, that’s fine.
    0:21:52 There’s plenty of iPhone game companies to go join, and that’s great.
    0:21:57 I think one of the things I really love about Cape and the company we’ve built is we really
    0:22:03 are truly dual-use, and we’re dual-use in some sense defense and consumer, much in the same
    0:22:04 way that Signal is dual-use, right?
    0:22:08 It’s like Signal is used by privacy-preferring people all around the world doing all kinds
    0:22:08 of stuff.
    0:22:13 And also everyone here at the Summit, everyone on Capitol Hill has Signal installed on their
    0:22:13 phone.
    0:22:15 It’s very valuable technology.
    0:22:19 I’m personally very motivated, and the company is very motivated by building this tech to
    0:22:24 keep folks doing special operations work safe and allowing them access to commercial cellular
    0:22:26 without incurring all the risk that typically comes with that.
    0:22:30 It’s the same set of issues, and frankly, everyone has the same use case for their phone.
    0:22:32 We have customers who are journalists.
    0:22:36 We have customers who are survivors of domestic violence.
    0:22:41 We do work with the Electronic Frontiers Foundation on detecting cell-size simulators at protests
    0:22:42 and at demonstrations.
    0:22:46 All those people have the same set of issues and the same desire to leverage the value of
    0:22:50 the commercial cellular network without making that typically inherent set of compromises.
    0:22:54 And you ask a really good question, which is, does that change the kind of people you can
    0:22:55 attract, or how does that affect recruiting?
    0:23:00 I think at Cape anyway, first of all, I’m like, I’m incredibly proud of the team that we’ve built,
    0:23:02 and so I’m biased here.
    0:23:06 But you just have, you have to work hard to find people who embrace both of those missions
    0:23:07 simultaneously.
    0:23:11 But when you find them, they just tend to be awesome, awesome folks, and the kind of people
    0:23:13 that I really like to work with, and the people I want to work with.
    0:23:18 One thing I’ll just say, tactically, that we’ve done internally that I really believe in is
    0:23:24 we have not split the business into commercial and defense divisions, for lack of a better
    0:23:24 word, right?
    0:23:29 There’s an engineering team, and the engineering team, we all agree on a set of priorities that
    0:23:32 serve the entire customer base, and I think that’s worked out really well.
    0:23:34 We’re building one product, and it really serves both purposes.
    0:23:35 That’s great.
    0:23:38 You’re all busy building your own companies.
    0:23:43 When you served, did you see any gaps there that you wish people would start looking to
    0:23:44 build companies?
    0:23:45 Any requests for startups?
    0:23:47 It’s a big question.
    0:23:49 This is such an unfair question.
    0:23:53 I realize now that I ask every government person I talk to, if you have the magic technical
    0:23:55 wand, what would you wave it and create?
    0:23:57 Who, height or weight, body armor, and kit?
    0:24:01 Give me all that stuff that I need to carry around and make it weigh 30% of what it weighs.
    0:24:02 80 pounds of gear in your back.
    0:24:03 Yeah, yeah.
    0:24:03 Right, right, right.
    0:24:05 Make it 25 pounds and make it less cumbersome.
    0:24:08 I mean, I was actually just having a conversation this morning.
    0:24:13 As we think about logistics and how do you enable autonomous logistics systems, maritime,
    0:24:14 assets, ground assets.
    0:24:19 One of the things, though, that we’re interested in is heavy lift aerial resupply platforms,
    0:24:19 right?
    0:24:21 Which is a hard problem, right?
    0:24:23 Autonomous air vehicles, obviously a thing.
    0:24:27 UASs, how do you actually lift substantial cargo with that?
    0:24:33 As we think about driving the automation of military logistics or through autonomous vehicles, right?
    0:24:36 Getting an air system that actually can carry the weight for that is something that’s like
    0:24:39 particularly interesting to me and is a very hard thing to do.
    0:24:48 Part of the thing with both military and government now is the challenges they face are less kind of hardware centric than they used to be.
    0:24:51 It’s not about owning a particular set of kit.
    0:24:57 A lot of it is about data and data sharing and being able to have the correct information to make decisions.
    0:25:03 A lot of what’s needed now is how does data get shared between organizations.
    0:25:12 So for us, right, in the drone tracking world, we actually shifted business models a lot over the last few years from what was initially traditional hardware sales,
    0:25:15 building the fancy piece of military hardware and selling it.
    0:25:19 And pretty much as soon as it goes out the door, you kind of never see it again, mostly if things go well.
    0:25:28 But what we saw was that the need really was for the information to make those decisions to take action and that it wasn’t about having a fancy piece of hardware.
    0:25:36 But I think changing the way that the government looks at that and the way that they buy things and the way that they’re able to actually share information, that’s the hard part.
    0:25:46 And part of dual use and part of the cross problems between government agencies and private companies is being able to share information between those two.
    0:25:54 It doesn’t do the power plant any good if the federal law enforcement agency next door can’t share with them the threats that are happening.
    0:26:04 So I think anything that encourages and enables data sharing between organizations with government is super, super valuable and definitely needed in a lot of these cases.
    0:26:05 You touched on hardware, software.
    0:26:09 As we look at the future of war, we don’t want to be fighting the last war.
    0:26:10 Obviously, we want to fight the next war.
    0:26:15 We look at Ukraine, perfect test case for all three of your companies there.
    0:26:22 Do you think we have the right weapons, whether it’s hardware, software, or do we need to be looking out further and making a bigger leap?
    0:26:26 Do we need different types of programs, vice trillion-dollar programs?
    0:26:34 I think that maybe the common thread to pull out as we think about the next war is an emphasis on asymmetric capabilities.
    0:26:39 A lot of attention is being paid, I know, rightfully, to the need for low-cost achievable systems, right?
    0:26:44 That’s, I think, there’s a growing consensus that’s the future of warfare in a lot of ways.
    0:26:52 I think, although it’s certainly no secret, people don’t always contextualize cyber warfare in the same way as an asymmetric capability.
    0:26:56 Relatively low amounts of investment can cost huge amounts of damage in an adversary.
    0:27:01 That’s sort of where CATE plays, is in the cyber vulnerabilities in the global cell network.
    0:27:04 But in general, that’s the theme to pay attention to.
    0:27:10 Rather than investing in trillion-dollar bets on absolute dominance in a relatively small number of exquisite systems,
    0:27:15 how do we win the scrappy, messy, asymmetric war that’s sort of inevitable next time around?
    0:27:18 Do we feel we have the things now?
    0:27:19 I mean, no.
    0:27:23 I mean, that’s why we started, or at least in the middle of the time, that’s why all of us started our companies, right?
    0:27:28 Is we feel like there is something there that we can give back to the military that doesn’t exist right now,
    0:27:30 or we can do it better, or we can help enable operations.
    0:27:33 One of the things we need to look at is, how do we do these things faster, right?
    0:27:35 At least as a software company, right?
    0:27:42 The idea of a 20-month prototyping effort to potentially get to something that then maybe a year later is going to transition.
    0:27:44 I’m using that as a very specific example right now.
    0:27:46 It’s just, it’s absolutely insane.
    0:27:49 Would be insane to the commercial sector, right?
    0:27:51 Is insane when you think about software development cycles.
    0:27:57 So I think the ability to rapidly prototype things, develop them, get them out to the force, test, iterate with them,
    0:28:00 and then frankly for the government to say, yes, that worked, great, cool, move on.
    0:28:02 No, it didn’t, and off-ramp.
    0:28:07 I think that’s what we are totally on board with, is the ability for the government to force us to perform,
    0:28:09 to compete, to do things for the warfighter.
    0:28:11 And if we are doing great, then awesome.
    0:28:15 And if not, then off-board us and bring somebody else in, right?
    0:28:20 And I think how you do those things, I think, as taxpayers, as veterans, and as founders,
    0:28:26 we should want that level of competition and that cutthroat competition to onboard things quickly and off-board things quickly.
    0:28:30 And I think that’s finally, the administration’s obviously moving towards that way, that direction.
    0:28:33 And I think that’s the goodness for the force and the goodness for the nation to move that way.
    0:28:38 I think a lot of attention has rightfully been invested in, how do we onboard things quickly?
    0:28:42 You know, the resurgence to OTAs is the most visible example of this, and it’s great.
    0:28:44 DIU’s doing amazing work.
    0:28:49 I think there’s sneaky work to be done on killing stuff that’s not working still.
    0:28:51 And there are big, high-profile, very expensive examples.
    0:28:55 But also within the innovation ecosystem, just call it when you see it.
    0:28:58 And if something’s not working and something’s not going to pan out, just kill it.
    0:29:03 You do everybody a favor, including the folks at that company, if you say, this isn’t working, and you cut it off.
    0:29:08 Yeah, the worst thing, like you have a zombie program that just goes on with millions or tens of millions of dollars,
    0:29:11 or sometimes even more of that, that’s not being used by warfighters.
    0:29:14 I think to John’s point, like, you’re not doing the service any favors.
    0:29:15 You’re not doing the warfighter any favors.
    0:29:16 Definitely not the taxpayer.
    0:29:22 And frankly, you’re not doing that company any favors because you’re putting them into a false sense of that solution is useful,
    0:29:27 and you’re stifling potentially that company to, like, reinvent itself or go forward and do something new on that.
    0:29:28 So I think you’re right.
    0:29:30 I think off-boarding is just as important as onboarding.
    0:29:35 Yeah, I think one of the gaps right now is, like you said, DIU’s done a lot of great stuff.
    0:29:42 A lot of different efforts have been done to try to get early-stage startups involved in those first government contracts,
    0:29:44 that kind of $1 million phase, $2 million phase.
    0:29:50 But we still have that gap, that kind of valley of death, of how do we take any of those successful programs
    0:29:53 and scale them up to that mid-size level?
    0:29:57 Not everything is going to jump from a $1 million to a $200 million contract.
    0:30:01 How do we scale them up, get them out to the forces, get them out to the services,
    0:30:03 and see the potential once you actually scale it up?
    0:30:11 Because I think that’s one of the challenges is, it’s easy to deploy a couple systems in a little POC and see,
    0:30:12 okay, well, that’s pretty useful.
    0:30:16 But a lot of the types of things we’re talking about, you don’t really see the real value of them
    0:30:19 until you have them at some sort of scale.
    0:30:22 If I’m talking about monitoring the airspace and looking at all the drones,
    0:30:27 it’s great at the kind of tactical level to see, oh, we’ve got a drone crossing into this airbase here.
    0:30:34 But as soon as you scale it up to the larger scale of saying, oh, well, now we can see patterns of activity.
    0:30:39 We can see that, oh, that’s funny, this drone showed up at three different bases over time.
    0:30:44 And we can do that only because we’ve started to build that out at a not large scale.
    0:30:49 We’re not fully committing to everything, but we can see the potential of it at a kind of mid-size scale, larger scale.
    0:30:51 And I think that’s a missing piece that we have.
    0:30:55 How do you scale it up to actually try it in the real world at a scale that matters?
    0:30:57 Yeah, you brought up programs.
    0:31:02 CIA’s got In-Q-Tel, DIU’s for the DoD, not only programs, but how to select the best tech.
    0:31:05 And obviously, we think you three are all the best.
    0:31:06 You’re our portfolio companies.
    0:31:14 But you need to build that market map, find out the category leader, because it’s going to go 90% leader, 10%, everybody else gets steak knives.
    0:31:17 So we need to help them select the best tech also.
    0:31:22 And I think one of the challenges on the government side with that, especially on the DoD side,
    0:31:29 is because people and officers rotate out so frequently, you run into situations where somebody started out a really good program.
    0:31:31 They started to see the benefits of it.
    0:31:34 And then a brand new person walks in the door the next day and says, OK, what are we doing?
    0:31:36 And you’re starting from scratch.
    0:31:38 And they don’t really understand why were the decisions made?
    0:31:39 What was the intent?
    0:31:47 And so I think there needs to be a little bit of a better focus on continuity of ushering these programs across those eras and understanding why they’re doing them.
    0:31:51 Military units are renowned for their trust and confidence, their cohesion.
    0:31:53 We all saw that, especially you and the Special Forces.
    0:31:57 How do you instill that in your companies?
    0:32:00 How do you build that teamwork, that trust, confidence, cohesion?
    0:32:05 We’re an in-person company, which I don’t think is the final answer, but really helps.
    0:32:07 Proximity matters, in my opinion.
    0:32:13 When people are in the office working together, you get a lot of that more easily than you do in a remote configuration.
    0:32:20 The key ingredient, the thing you’re really trying to build that the military has in space, you really want at your startup,
    0:32:27 you want to know when you need someone on your team that they’re there and they’re picking up on the first ring.
    0:32:30 I think that’s the most important thing in life, certainly in company building.
    0:32:37 And so my barometer for this within the company is when someone, it just happened this weekend,
    0:32:42 we had a PZERO with someone who was traveling abroad in support of a customer and was having an issue,
    0:32:46 and they spun up an internal thread, and immediately seven people were on the thread,
    0:32:49 and it was the right seven people, and they were all helping to troubleshoot,
    0:32:51 and within 20 minutes they had the guy turned around and good to go.
    0:32:57 And that sort of mindset, no one complained about it, and we didn’t even mention it.
    0:33:00 On Monday morning, it was just, that’s how we do business at Cape, right?
    0:33:06 And that’s where you want to get, in my opinion, and the way you do that, to quote Ben Horowitz,
    0:33:07 culture is what you do, it’s not what you say.
    0:33:11 And so as the founder, your job is to be on every single one of those Slack threads,
    0:33:12 especially in the early days, right?
    0:33:15 And to be at the office every single day and to be working on those things.
    0:33:17 And people will follow your lead.
    0:33:21 And then if you do it enough, and you do it over and over and over again, it becomes part of the culture.
    0:33:22 I’ll amplify that.
    0:33:27 The collaboration that happens across engineering, product, growth, company leadership, all in one place.
    0:33:31 I can’t imagine having not had that when we first opened our first initial hires,
    0:33:34 because your first hires are really also building the culture with you.
    0:33:38 Yes, it’s top-down from founders and from the executive level,
    0:33:40 but like those initial hires are part of that culture for us.
    0:33:42 And then I think it’s the normal things.
    0:33:44 After work, during Sun-Fridays, we do a happy hour.
    0:33:46 Every single Friday, we go to the same bar.
    0:33:48 But it’s little things like that.
    0:33:49 I mean, what does it cost?
    0:33:50 It costs us an hour of time.
    0:33:52 We cut out a little bit early on a Friday,
    0:33:54 but I also know that everyone’s working generally right now.
    0:33:56 We’re working Saturdays over the weekend.
    0:33:59 You know, in one day, let’s presume success, and we have thousands of employees.
    0:34:01 I don’t think I can still fit in the same bar.
    0:34:03 But right now, that’s important, right?
    0:34:05 It’s important to know that, especially as a software company,
    0:34:07 where my capital is my people, right?
    0:34:10 It is my engineers, and it is my growth professionals.
    0:34:12 And that’s really what we need to grow and build.
    0:34:17 I think the biggest thing for us has been actually recognizing and calling out
    0:34:19 real-world impacts of the things we do.
    0:34:24 I think, especially initially, we were actually very bad at celebrating our successes
    0:34:25 and calling attention to it.
    0:34:29 I think part of that is because so many of our folks are very mission-driven
    0:34:31 and very like, okay, we got to do this thing.
    0:34:35 And so you accomplish something, and you never even take the time to notice.
    0:34:40 And I think that is one of the good things of having that mix in the culture
    0:34:46 of kind of the mission-driven military and intelligence people versus the normal people
    0:34:48 is sometimes the normal people kind of step back and they’re like,
    0:34:50 holy shit, like, what did we just do?
    0:34:51 That’s amazing.
    0:34:52 That’s incredible.
    0:34:54 And there’s plenty of other people who are just like,
    0:34:55 oh, well, yeah, we do this all the time.
    0:34:56 It’s no big deal.
    0:35:00 But actually stepping back and recognizing that and celebrating those wins,
    0:35:04 I think that’s part of what really builds that culture and that cohesion.
    0:35:08 And then that builds a culture in which when things are going bad,
    0:35:10 when things are going wrong, which are always going to happen,
    0:35:12 there’s always going to be new things popping up.
    0:35:16 Suddenly, that’s a culture where everyone understands why they’re like,
    0:35:18 okay, cool, let’s pull together a team.
    0:35:18 Let’s hop on a flight.
    0:35:21 Let’s go fix this thing, do this thing right now.
    0:35:25 And everybody’s on board because they understand why they’re doing it
    0:35:25 and what the stakes are.
    0:35:27 All right, big question here.
    0:35:29 Take your time before you answer.
    0:35:32 Would you ever go back to the military,
    0:35:35 either in a leadership, advisory, or an innovation role?
    0:35:38 I think innovation roles are really interesting.
    0:35:40 There are so many of them across government.
    0:35:43 And without picking on any in particular,
    0:35:44 a lot of them never get anything done.
    0:35:46 So I know internally,
    0:35:49 someday if I’m lucky enough to be approached about that sort of a job,
    0:35:51 I’m going to have a list of demands.
    0:35:52 Here are the ways I need to be empowered.
    0:35:56 Here’s the authorities that I need so that I can actually make a real impact
    0:35:57 and be empowered.
    0:35:59 But given the right set of conditions, I would love it.
    0:36:02 That would be a defining career milestone just like starting a company.
    0:36:05 This is a little bit different for me because I am still serving
    0:36:07 in the Army National Guard in that way.
    0:36:09 And I love leading soldiers and I love being around soldiers.
    0:36:13 But I think going back into like full-time some kind of role or governmental role,
    0:36:16 if I am successful to the point that I’m offered that opportunity at some point,
    0:36:16 same as John,
    0:36:18 yeah, I think that would be an honor of a lifetime to go back.
    0:36:19 I mean, I think we were all,
    0:36:23 yes, we are doing these to grow companies and to do those things.
    0:36:25 And I’m not ashamed to say we are here to make some level of money.
    0:36:28 I mean, that is what we do as companies.
    0:36:30 But there is a selfless service aspect to that.
    0:36:34 And if that selfless service could eventually be back in a governmental role
    0:36:37 and helping the mission, if I believe I can make an impact and be helpful there,
    0:36:39 then yeah, that would absolutely be something I would do.
    0:36:41 Yeah, I totally agree with that.
    0:36:43 I think being able to know that you can have an impact
    0:36:46 and being able to know that you actually have the authority
    0:36:50 and the ability to go and do the things that need to be done as you see them.
    0:36:52 Coming from the Air Force acquisition side,
    0:36:55 I have strong opinions about what’s needed in that world
    0:36:57 and acquisition reform and whatnot.
    0:37:00 But one request, one thing that I know I would have
    0:37:02 that I didn’t realize until I knew it was an option.
    0:37:05 A number of years ago, I was talking with the Secretary of the Air Force
    0:37:10 and she said, wow, we need a lot more folks like you coming back into service.
    0:37:12 And I said, well, I don’t really know.
    0:37:14 And she said, well, I can get you a beard waiver
    0:37:16 so you wouldn’t have to shave your beard.
    0:37:17 I’m like, okay, now you’re talking.
    0:37:20 That’s my, gotta have a beard waiver.
    0:37:21 That’s nice beard.
    0:37:22 There you go.
    0:37:22 Done.
    0:37:26 Now, if you made it this far,
    0:37:28 a reminder that this was recorded live
    0:37:30 at our third annual American Dynamism Summit
    0:37:32 in the heart of Washington, D.C.
    0:37:35 And if you’d like to see more exclusive content from the Summit,
    0:37:38 head on over to a16z.com
    0:37:41 slash American dash Dynamism dash Summit.
    0:37:43 Or you can click the link in our description.

    In today’s world, the battlefield extends far beyond war zones—it’s embedded in our tech stacks, supply chains, and airspace security systems. So who better to solve these modern challenges than those who’ve served on the front lines?

    Recorded live at the third annual American Dynamism Summit in Washington D.C., this episode features a16z’s Matt Shortal—a veteran himself—moderating a conversation with three founders who transitioned from military service to building cutting-edge defense startups:

    • John Doyle, founder & CEO of Cape 
    • David Tuttle, cofounder & CEO of Rune 
    • Grant Jordan, founder & CEO of SkySafe

    The panel covers their journeys from service to startups, how their time in uniform shaped what they chose to build, and whether veterans should go straight into entrepreneurship—or stop first at places like Palantir or Anduril. They also discuss how Ukraine changed the game, how dual-use tech is shifting the innovation landscape, and how to instill trust and culture in mission-driven companies.

    The big question: how do we win the next war—the asymmetric, fast-moving, tech-enabled kind—and build the industrial base we need to do it?

     

    Resources: 

    See more from The American Dynamism Summit 2025: www. a16z.com/american-dynamism-summit

    Find John of  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-doyle-48633227/

    Find David on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtuttle1/

    Find Grant on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/grantjordansd/

    Find Matt on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-shortal/

     

    Stay Updated: 

    Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16z

    Find a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16z

    Find a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/

    Follow our host: https://twitter.com/stephsmithio

    Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures.

  • The Future of Nonprofits, Moving to a New City in Your 20s, and Advice for First-Time Managers

    AI transcript
    0:00:07 soon enough high schoolers will be donning those caps and gowns but what comes next is less of a
    0:00:12 sure thing than it was a decade ago students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it and
    0:00:17 if college is really the right thing for them knowing what they know about themselves this week
    0:00:22 on explain it to me a look at the new range of alternatives to college and how some high schools
    0:00:28 are setting up their graduates for success new episodes on sunday mornings wherever you get your
    0:00:35 podcasts support for prop g comes from sofos when it comes to cyber security many businesses think
    0:00:40 they don’t have the resources for enterprise level tech but with sofos no matter your business’s size
    0:00:45 you get enterprise-grade technology and real-world expertise always in sync always in your corner
    0:00:50 their native ai technologies evolve with every threat and their experts are ready 24 7 with
    0:00:55 managed detection and response services to stop threats before they strike sofos augments your
    0:01:00 current team with expert analysts who have decades of experience responding to the latest threats
    0:01:05 don’t sacrifice your peace of mind to grow your business learn more at sofos.com
    0:01:16 support for the show comes from intuit quickbooks do you own a business that’s ready to thrive it’s time to let
    0:01:21 intuit quickbooks take things like unpaid invoices and tracking expenses off of your plate so you can
    0:01:26 take things to the next level intuit quickbooks is a powerful ai driven all-in-one business platform
    0:01:31 that can help with your day-to-day tasks like invoicing expenses and taxes letting you unlock growth
    0:01:35 so you can get back to enjoying your business manage and grow your business all in one place
    0:01:41 intuit quickbooks your way to money money movement services are provided by intuit payments inc licensed
    0:01:44 as a money transmitted by the new york state department of financial services
    0:01:53 welcome to office hours with prop g where we answer your questions on business big tech entrepreneurship and
    0:01:58 whatever else is on your mind today we’ve got two great listener questions then after the break we’ll hit
    0:02:04 the reddit hotline pulling questions straight from reddit want to be featured send a voice recording to
    0:02:10 officehours of propgmedia.com or post on the scott galloway subreddit let’s get into it first question
    0:02:17 hey scott ria here calling from new york city thanks so much for all you do really appreciate
    0:02:22 the clear-eyed level-headed advice that you give my question to you is about the non-profit sector
    0:02:27 which i’ve not heard you speak about i know you’re primarily focused on tech and for-profit businesses
    0:02:33 but my question scott is that given the threats to federal funding eroding donor trust declining
    0:02:40 philanthropy overall shifting foundation priorities ai disruption and the increased demand for services
    0:02:45 to support the most vulnerable among us many of whom are being targeted by the trump administration as
    0:02:51 you rightly point out what are your predictions for the non-profit sector and what strategic advice
    0:02:58 do you have for non-profit leaders to survive and thrive thanks again whoa so i’m not sure i’m the person
    0:03:04 here um religion and non-profits are two of my million achilles heel and that is i don’t know
    0:03:10 that much about them so in january the trump administration enacted a funding freeze which
    0:03:15 affected roughly three trillion dollars of federal grants and loans um including i don’t know if you’ve
    0:03:18 seen but there’s been a lot of money that is not only going to non-profits but the educational
    0:03:23 institutions although this freeze was blocked by a judge the white house has repeatedly threatened future
    0:03:29 funding for non-profit working in the fields of lgbtq plus rights climate change immigration reproductive
    0:03:37 rights dei and more jesus christ really additionally many of the philanthropic sector believe we’re going
    0:03:42 through a generosity crisis as few americans less than ever are making donations less than half of
    0:03:50 american households now give cash to charity 20 million fewer households donated in 2016 than in 2000
    0:03:56 what is going on here because if you look globally people are globally spending more time helping other
    0:04:01 people they won’t ever meet that’s a nice thing right but there’s something going on around a lack
    0:04:06 of philanthropic mindset is it because we’re going to church less i don’t know what it is is it because
    0:04:11 people’s prosperity is not what they’d hoped and their quality of life is going down because of
    0:04:17 inflation and they just need to hold on to money is it because of social media algorithms pit
    0:04:22 us against each other so we’re less inclined to trust institutions trust others and give money away
    0:04:28 that we don’t have the same comity a man i don’t know uh where can non-profits look to fill these gaps
    0:04:36 the ultra wealthy in 2024 billionaire wealth surged by two trillion dollars growing three times faster than
    0:04:41 the prior year with nearly four new billionaires minted weekly there are now 10 times more billionaires
    0:04:48 than in 1990 think about that there’s no demographic group not latinos not old people in the last 34
    0:04:55 years the number of billionaires has increased tenfold so i work with a lot of universities and they have
    0:05:01 very robust development departments and typically development departments are filled with very high
    0:05:06 eq late 30s early 40s women who have kids at home and we’re working in the corporate sector and they need
    0:05:13 more flexibility and they go to work in development for university and they just try and just a manicure
    0:05:20 shepherd and develop and mature these relationships with really rich people or specifically really rich alum
    0:05:24 and they’re very good at what they do but they invest long term in these relationships
    0:05:30 and generally speaking they want to get the reason why they raise small amounts of money i just participated in the
    0:05:37 one day giving thing at nyu stern once you give you’re invested and you’re more inclined to give
    0:05:40 more and what they’re hoping the reason why they want to raise a hundred two hundred dollars a thousand
    0:05:45 dollars from an alum it probably takes more time to raise the money it probably costs more money to
    0:05:50 raise the money but once they get you to give you’re invested you’re comfortable giving you’re much more
    0:05:57 likely to make a bigger cash donation sometime in the future and then where they make their money or how they
    0:06:04 kind of butter their bread is that they occasionally find a whale who makes a huge gift and that is kind
    0:06:09 of everything for non-profits and these institutions i’ll use scott harrison as an example scott who runs
    0:06:17 charity water he is so good at establishing relationships with people one he’s just a people person who’s good
    0:06:23 at it he was a club promoter and the guy i’ve known the guy for i think 25 years we shared office space
    0:06:28 together i always gave him a little bit of money and he’s just always done a really good job curing or
    0:06:34 manicuring evolving uh his personal relationship with me and i’ve given you know six figures seven
    0:06:39 figures to scott i don’t know anyways and quite frankly i’m not passionate about bringing potable
    0:06:43 water to africa sub-saharan africa it’s just not something i don’t say i don’t care about it i think
    0:06:49 it’s wonderful the reason i do it is i i’m invested in scott i know that his non-profit is so well
    0:06:54 run and so innovative that those dollars are being put to good use i don’t know if i have a lot of
    0:07:00 inside here what i will say is that i appreciate the question and it’s one thing to cut funding to
    0:07:04 non-profits because you think that maybe they’re not spending it as efficiently as they should be
    0:07:09 what is most depraved about all of this is having a political bent on it and that is cutting money
    0:07:15 to non-profits because of a certain political leaning i just find that i don’t know flag of a better term
    0:07:23 gross thanks for the question question number two hi scott my name’s joe i’m 21 years old and i’m a
    0:07:28 senior in college about to graduate this april with a bachelor’s in marketing i discovered your book the
    0:07:33 algebra of happiness in 2023 and ever since then your content has really helped to change the trajectory
    0:07:38 of my life your career advice helped me land a great internship that turned into a competitive
    0:07:42 full-time job offer you helped motivate me to get in the best physical shape of my life
    0:07:46 but most importantly your advice surrounding relationships with people greatly strengthened
    0:07:51 my own relationships with my friends and family while i’m a big fan of your professional and political
    0:07:56 works your advocacy for young men is what resonates with me the most i’m about to start the next chapter
    0:08:01 of my life and i’m fortunate enough to be moving to a big city but my parents friends and girlfriend
    0:08:06 will go from a quick walk or drive to an expensive plane ride i’m grateful for my situation but i’m also
    0:08:11 slightly terrified how did you deal with experiencing true independence for the first time and do you have
    0:08:15 any advice for maintaining a healthy mental state while dealing with the loneliness that will likely
    0:08:20 accompany the independence please keep advocating for young men your message is working and if you’re
    0:08:26 ever in boston i’d love to buy you a drink thanks uh what a thoughtful question so joe from boston first
    0:08:31 off everyone wants to be you right now you’re 21 it sounds like you’re in good shape you have a girlfriend
    0:08:38 good relationship with your parents and you’re starting your professional life so well done you should feel
    0:08:45 really good about the you know where and when you are right now um so just just what popped into my mind is
    0:08:53 it’ll be interesting it’ll be inspiring but but the real world is your first one or two years you’re gonna have
    0:08:58 a moment where you go wow this fucking sucks or i didn’t realize that this would suck this much or that this is hard
    0:09:03 and that’s exactly where you’re supposed to be and so just realize it’s temporary and that’s part
    0:09:07 everyone’s first job or not everyone almost everyone’s first job sucks
    0:09:12 my first job was at morgan stanley and fixed income and within about 48 hours i’m like jesus christ this is
    0:09:18 awful and it ended up being good for me it was like serving the marines so i don’t know just sort of
    0:09:23 expect i don’t want to say hate your first job but have it be not cracked up to what it’s supposed to
    0:09:30 be in terms of maintaining a healthy outlook and being mentally fit it sounds like you got sort of
    0:09:37 the keys figured out uh that is you’re exercising it sounds like you have good relationships you know
    0:09:43 what call your parents every day um stay in close contact with your girlfriend find ways to have her
    0:09:51 come visit uh or go visit her i don’t know how far away that is and then just be really open and
    0:09:56 thoughtful about saying yes to things as much as you can in your new city such that you establish
    0:10:02 relationships there the mistake i made when i first got to new york you know i was so immature i made the
    0:10:08 i made the kind of the same mistake i made when i first got to college i couldn’t new york was too
    0:10:13 much for me it was just a playground there was something to do every night i’d go out i’d get
    0:10:21 fucked up i’d be totally hung over i’d wake up at 8 44 to get to work by like 9 15 try and do some work
    0:10:27 and then try and go find a conference room no joke because i was so hung over and i would hide under the
    0:10:34 conference room table and i’d sleep for an hour and then i would go get a greasy lunch and then that
    0:10:39 and i think okay tonight i’m just going to go home call my mom get some sleep and you know go to bed
    0:10:44 really early watch 30 something something like that and go to sleep early and then inevitably that mix
    0:10:49 of grease and advil would make me feel just reasonable for an hour and a buddy would call me and say
    0:10:54 we’re meeting some models downtown at obar and i’m like i’m in and i’d go do the same goddamn thing
    0:11:01 again and i was smart enough to know okay i can’t handle the temptations of new york and i had an
    0:11:08 opportunity to go to the la office of morgan stanley so i took it i moved back in with my mom and i kind
    0:11:14 of stopped drinking and this is a long parable or way of saying try and tone down and i don’t know if
    0:11:22 you’re doing this but i got better at making the requisite commitment to being good at my first job
    0:11:28 which sucks and i expect a lot of you at a place like morgan stanley i got good i stopped drinking
    0:11:35 and smoking pot for a while and i did work out i went to the ymca or the ywca ymca never was in
    0:11:42 downtown los angeles and i worked out not every day but uh and i didn’t have a lot of relationships i had
    0:11:47 some friends i used to go out with but my primary relationship was with my mom who i was living with
    0:11:53 um and then i had some friends but i didn’t have any girlfriends i had a lot of girlfriends in college
    0:11:59 i found that a young man right out of college is just not that attractive that all the women i wanted
    0:12:03 to date were dating guys in their 30s who were hedge fund managers who could take them to st bart’s or
    0:12:09 aspen or the hamptons and uh the women in college that i used to date were dating other college guys so
    0:12:14 you’re sort of in no man’s land when you’re a young man or right out of college i found so the
    0:12:19 fact that you have a girlfriend is really wonderful i would just say try and maintain your current
    0:12:26 relationships be physically fit and recognize your first job is not going to be easy and also just
    0:12:34 optimize your logistics what do i mean by that have a clean apartment near work try and cut commute town
    0:12:38 even if it’s a small place just a clean place near work because you’re not gonna spend a lot of time
    0:12:46 at home uh two if you can don’t buy a car have a uniform keep your clothes really simple really easy
    0:12:52 um get a workout routine just try and starch out all the extra time and logistical constraints on
    0:12:58 your life so you can focus on work and you can focus on relationships uh but my brother i don’t know
    0:13:01 you’re so far ahead of the game the fact you’re even thinking this way means you’re going to be just
    0:13:09 fine and let me finish where i started and that is um really good to be you congratulations on all
    0:13:14 your success and again recognize that when you hit some rough spots and you think wow this isn’t
    0:13:18 this isn’t what i thought it would be that’s exactly where you’re supposed to be most people’s
    0:13:25 first job is is not fun and the fact that you’re you know just make sure your parents are there call
    0:13:29 them every day it’s sort of a release valve or every week to tell them what’s going on in your life
    0:13:35 um obviously uh other things will take over in terms of your desire or your ability
    0:13:41 to ensure you maintain your relationship with your girlfriend uh but again i don’t know boss you
    0:13:45 should be coaching me i wish i had you to tell me what to do when i was your age congrats on everything
    0:13:51 and best of luck in your first job we have one quick break and when we’re back we’re diving into
    0:13:53 the depths of reddit buckle up
    0:14:02 support for the show comes from skims undergarments are the first thing you put on in the morning and
    0:14:06 one of the last things you take off at night so it’s a shame that they’re an afterthought for many of us
    0:14:12 treat yourself to something better and try skims for men skims is creating the next generation of
    0:14:17 underwear loungewear and shapewear for every gender shape and size that’s because skims
    0:14:23 is a solutions oriented company that carefully constructs each garment to fit every body and
    0:14:29 they do it using some of the softest fabric of the highest quality i wear skims it feels good it fits
    0:14:34 me well i think my girlfriend likes them too so whether you’re looking for briefs boxes or something in
    0:14:41 between check out skims skims is the official underwear partner of the mba the wmba and usa basketball
    0:14:47 shop skims men’s and more at skims.com and in skim stores and let them know we sent you
    0:14:53 after you place your order select podcast in the survey and select our show in the drop down menu that
    0:14:53 follows
    0:15:04 the regular season is in the rearview and now it’s time for the games that matter the most
    0:15:09 this is kenny beecham and playoff basketball is finally here on small ball we’re diving deep into
    0:15:15 every series every crunch time finish every coaching adjustment that can make or break a championship run
    0:15:21 who’s building for a 16 win marathon which superstar will submit their legacy and which role player is
    0:15:26 about to become a household name with so many fascinating first round matchups will the west
    0:15:31 be the bloodbath we anticipate will the east be as predictable as we think can the celtics defend
    0:15:37 their title can steph curry lebron james koat leonard push the young teams at the top i’ll be bringing the
    0:15:41 expertise to pass in the genuine opinion you need for the most exciting time of the nba calendar
    0:15:47 small ball is your essential companion for the nba postseason join me kenny beecham for new episodes
    0:15:52 of small ball throughout the playoffs don’t miss small ball kenny beecham new episodes dropping
    0:15:56 through the playoffs available on youtube and wherever you get your podcasts
    0:16:03 support for property comes from built rewards these days you can get reward points on basically
    0:16:08 everything you get a couple of points for your morning bagel a few more for a pack of gum from
    0:16:12 the convenience store but imagine if you can get reward points on one of your biggest monthly expenses
    0:16:18 your rent with built rewards you finally can there’s no cost to join and when you pay rent through built
    0:16:22 you unlock two powerful benefits first just by paying rent you unlock flexible points that can be
    0:16:27 transferred to your favorite hotels and airlines a future rent payment your next lift ride and more
    0:16:33 no matter where you live or who your landlord is your rent now works for you second you gain access to
    0:16:38 exclusive neighborhood benefits in your city built’s neighborhood benefits are things like extra points
    0:16:43 on dining out complimentary post-workout shakes free mats or towels at your favorite fitness studios
    0:16:48 and unique experiences that only built members can access start paying rent through built and take
    0:16:56 advantage of your neighborhood benefits by going to joinbuilt.com slash prop g that’s j-o-i-n-b-i-l-t.com
    0:17:02 slash prop g make sure to use the url so they know we sent you join built.com slash prop g to sign up
    0:17:03 for built today
    0:17:15 welcome back let’s bust right into it today’s reddit question comes from mr roto
    0:17:23 they say hey scott i’m a 35 year old who just got his first managerial position what advice would you
    0:17:29 give to a first-time manager especially one whose team is remote that’s a good question so
    0:17:36 people often make the mistake of thinking that okay i’m nice and i’m smart which means i’m going to be a
    0:17:40 good manager no being nice and smart doesn’t make you a great tennis player it doesn’t make you a great
    0:17:48 you know it doesn’t make you great at basketball management is its own sport and it takes a few
    0:17:54 things when i find the great you know kind of the best managers have the following attributes in
    0:18:02 common one they are willing to demonstrate excellence and share that excellence so um my partner in the
    0:18:07 business uh katherine dylan has always been what i call a player coach and that is rather than managing
    0:18:11 people you got to set up an incentive structure that works got to provide feedback that’s really
    0:18:16 important but what she does is she helps people do their jobs instead of in addition to saying okay
    0:18:20 this wasn’t great she will actually she can do that and she can do that almost as well as or better
    0:18:25 almost everything in the company as well or better than anyone else and she she doesn’t provide just
    0:18:29 feedback she provides learning she sits on i don’t have the patience for that if i say to someone
    0:18:34 when i send feedback like this edit on this podcast sucked i don’t call them and say okay let’s edit it
    0:18:39 together and let me teach you i just say it sucked that’s not that inspiring or that helpful they
    0:18:43 demonstrate excellence and they’re willing to share that excellence with their team they take the time
    0:18:48 to try and teach people and upskill them too they hold people accountable and that is they set out
    0:18:53 definitive goals and benchmarks and they say okay we’re going to check in and they hold them accountable
    0:18:57 all right you miss your target what’s up how can i be helpful but you missed your target or
    0:19:02 you exceeded your target well done let’s celebrate that together they hold people accountable and the
    0:19:08 third good managers demonstrate empathy and what do i mean by that i always assumed that everyone
    0:19:12 just wanted to be like me rich and awesome that was my goal want to be super fucking rich and super
    0:19:18 fucking awesome and so so that means you do as well well what you find out is that for some people
    0:19:24 or most people they don’t share exactly your same aspirations some people want to manage other
    0:19:29 people they get huge reward out of someone reporting to them and figuring out a man some people want to
    0:19:34 see their name in lights okay fine you’re going to manage the the staff you’re going to manage this
    0:19:39 group of people you’re going to take on this project you’re going to manage a kind of corporate
    0:19:44 initiative oh you’re going to when the new york times calls and asks for a quote i’m going to turn them
    0:19:49 over to you as an analyst and that they just light up right that’s just hugely important to them
    0:19:54 other people need some flexibility and it’s like if you can provide that for them especially as a
    0:20:00 i i was into remote work kind of a long time before other people and when i say that i think it’s terrible
    0:20:05 for young people but i my secret kind of human capital weapon in the 90s was i hired quite a few
    0:20:11 people who are brand managers out of really iconic companies who left because it wasn’t compatible
    0:20:16 with having kids they weren’t nearly as generous with maternity leave back in the 90s and i would
    0:20:20 say come in two days a week but you can be home three days a week and i found that mothers were
    0:20:24 really efficient and disciplined because there was no like they had to leave at a certain time to get
    0:20:30 home to pick up their kids or whatever and so i hired a lot of mothers and gave them remote work
    0:20:35 flexibility which doesn’t sound that progressive now but it was back in the 90s why because i would learn
    0:20:41 about their situation and think okay i’m going to cater my management of you to what is your specific
    0:20:49 situation if you can demonstrate to people that you have a vested interest in their success that you
    0:20:55 are fighting for them they will be loyal to you and that is a really powerful thing i didn’t figure that
    0:21:01 out until later in my management career but understanding what’s important to people and then giving them the
    0:21:08 sense that you’re fighting for them and that they can trust you and is really powerful first got to
    0:21:12 demonstrate excellence got to be really good at what you do sit people down and not only demonstrate
    0:21:17 excellence be willing to share with them to hold them accountable hold everyone accountable there’s a
    0:21:22 reason you’re here you’re good at what you do and if other people don’t match you we hold them accountable
    0:21:26 and we let people go i think that’s part of management and then finally you demonstrate empathy i’m
    0:21:30 going to learn about you i’m going to learn about your priorities and i’m going to demonstrate to you
    0:21:36 that i understand your priorities and i want you to be successful i i i have a vested interest sure you
    0:21:43 my success is more important to me than anything but i also do spend a lot of time thinking what does this
    0:21:48 person value how can i make them more successful how can i get them economic security how can i help
    0:21:56 them participate in our success what specific soft things prestige management feedback do they really
    0:22:02 value and they’ll see that i have listened and learn because again loyalty is a function of appreciation
    0:22:07 and appreciation is a function of empathy and tailoring your specific empathy to that specific
    0:22:14 person appreciate the question that’s all for this episode if you’d like to submit a question please
    0:22:20 email a voice recording to office hours of property media.com again that’s office hours of property media.com or
    0:22:26 if you prefer to ask on reddit post your question on the scott galloway subreddit and we just might
    0:22:28 feature it in our next reddit hotline segment
    0:22:43 this episode was produced by jennifer sanchez our intern is dan shalon drew burrows is our technical
    0:22:48 director thank you for listening to the property pod from the box media podcast network we will catch you
    0:22:55 on saturday for no mercy no malice as read by george han and please follow our property markets pod wherever
    0:22:58 you get your pods for new episodes every monday and thursday

    Scott answers a big-picture question about the future of nonprofits. Then, he speaks to a listener preparing for a big move after college and offers advice on managing loneliness and finding independence. 

    Finally, in our Reddit Hotline segment, Scott shares his take on how to lead effectively as a first-time (and remote) manager.

    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

  • Rachel Rutter: Championing the Rights of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children

    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 There is no right to a court-appointed lawyer in immigration court.
    0:00:47 So if the government puts you in deportation proceedings to try to deport you,
    0:00:50 you have to be able to pay for a lawyer yourself.
    0:00:52 And if you can’t, then you would have to represent yourself.
    0:00:56 Meanwhile, the government is always represented by an attorney who’s trying to deport you.
    0:01:00 Obviously, that’s very unfair for an adult, let alone for a child.
    0:01:04 I would love to see all kids have a lawyer in immigration court.
    0:01:07 Unfortunately, it looks like the administration is going to try to cut
    0:01:10 legal services for unaccompanied kids this year.
    0:01:11 So we will see what happens with that.
    0:01:15 Good morning.
    0:01:16 I’m Guy Kawasaki.
    0:01:19 This is the Remarkable People podcast.
    0:01:25 And I know Madison keeps telling me, you’re getting repetitious, Guy, but I have to say
    0:01:27 we are on a mission to make you remarkable.
    0:01:33 So what we do is look for remarkable people all over the world and bring them on our podcast
    0:01:36 so that you can listen to them and be remarkable, too.
    0:01:42 And today we have someone who is a CNN hero, which is hero with a capital H.
    0:01:43 That’s a big deal.
    0:01:46 It’s a big reward, a big award.
    0:01:47 I wish I could be one.
    0:01:49 But anyway, that’s an aside.
    0:01:51 So this is Rachel Rudder.
    0:01:58 She is executive director of Project Libertad, and she helps unaccompanied minors navigate
    0:02:02 the immigration system and adjust to living in America.
    0:02:06 So, Rachel Rudder, thank you very much for being on our podcast.
    0:02:08 Thank you for having me.
    0:02:13 Listen, let’s start off with just explaining what your organization does.
    0:02:18 It’s fascinating that what you do, and it’s also kind of depressing that it’s necessary
    0:02:20 that you do what you have to do.
    0:02:22 So please explain what you do.
    0:02:26 I think necessary and depressing is like the perfect way to describe my job.
    0:02:28 Actually, no one’s ever said it like that before.
    0:02:33 So our work is, as you said, primarily with unaccompanied minors, but generally with
    0:02:34 newcomer immigrant youth.
    0:02:40 And we have a whole host of services to try to help them adapt to being in the U.S. and
    0:02:42 take a really holistic approach to meeting their needs.
    0:02:46 So, of course, on the legal side, with my background as an immigration attorney, we help
    0:02:48 them apply for different types of immigration status.
    0:02:53 So that can be things like helping them apply for asylum, representing them in immigration
    0:02:57 court while they’re going through that process, helping them apply for different types of visas
    0:02:58 they may qualify for.
    0:03:03 And then we have a whole bunch of social service programs as well to complement the legal services.
    0:03:08 So we have a case management team that works with kids to connect them with resources that
    0:03:13 they need in the community, whether that’s getting access to medical or dental care, mental
    0:03:15 health support, whatever the case may be.
    0:03:21 We offer mental health services, ESL classes, summer camp programs, in-school programming for
    0:03:21 newcomers.
    0:03:25 So just really trying to take that wraparound holistic approach.
    0:03:31 This may sound like a dumb question, but why are these children unaccompanied when they’re
    0:03:32 doing this?
    0:03:37 So when we say that a child is unaccompanied, like in immigration world, that means that
    0:03:43 they arrived in the U.S. by themselves as a minor under age 18 without a parent or legal
    0:03:45 guardian and with no lawful immigration status.
    0:03:48 So it’s like a very specific meaning in the immigration world.
    0:03:52 And being designated as unaccompanied when they arrive in the U.S.
    0:03:56 gives them certain special protections under the law as they go throughout their immigration
    0:03:57 process.
    0:04:02 And so what happens generally is that once they’re apprehended at the border, they’re
    0:04:07 placed in a shelter through the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is the branch of the government
    0:04:08 that oversees unaccompanied children.
    0:04:13 And then the goal is that there’s a caseworker through ORR who will help to match them with
    0:04:15 a sponsor in the community.
    0:04:20 So generally, that’s like a family member or family friend who’s already here in the U.S.,
    0:04:23 maybe a parent or an aunt or an uncle or something like that who’s already here.
    0:04:27 And then they would be released to go live with that person while at the same time they’re
    0:04:30 being placed in deportation proceedings in immigration court.
    0:04:35 So it’s not that they just get to come live here indefinitely with that person, that sponsor.
    0:04:39 It’s just you’re going to live with that person while your immigration case is going on.
    0:04:43 And that’s then how we would end up working with them in our programs here in the community.
    0:04:47 And how long does this legal process take these days?
    0:04:51 It really depends on what type of process they’re doing.
    0:04:53 There’s a lot of different types of immigration status.
    0:04:57 It also ebbs and flows depending on lots of different factors.
    0:05:01 What country the child is from, what’s going on elsewhere in the government,
    0:05:05 like what type of funding is available for officers to process the cases and all those
    0:05:06 types of things.
    0:05:13 But to give you an idea, I have kids who applied for asylum back in 2020, which is when we first
    0:05:18 started doing legal work through the organization, because prior to that, we were offering some
    0:05:20 other services, but not legal services yet.
    0:05:24 And those cases have just been pending since 2020.
    0:05:27 They have not been granted an interview, which would be their next step.
    0:05:31 So that’s five years of just waiting for those kids with no resolution.
    0:05:36 We also do another really type of common case called special immigrant juvenile status, which
    0:05:41 is a type of status for kids who have been abused, abandoned or neglected by one of their parents.
    0:05:44 And those cases can take many years as well.
    0:05:49 There’s a part of that process that happens in family court without getting too into the weeds
    0:05:50 that can take many months.
    0:05:55 And then you apply for the special immigrant juvenile status after the family court portion.
    0:06:00 That can take another, I would say, six to nine months to get a response.
    0:06:04 If that gets approved, then they’re going to be waiting another three or four years to be
    0:06:06 able to even apply for a green card.
    0:06:10 And then after that, the green card can take a couple of years.
    0:06:13 And then it’s five years of a green card before you can apply for citizenship.
    0:06:17 So it varies depending on like the type of case and all these other factors.
    0:06:22 But just to give you the two types of cases that I most often work on, you can see how long
    0:06:22 that it can take.
    0:06:23 Wow.
    0:06:28 You mentioned the F word twice, F as in funding.
    0:06:34 And you also said something kind of general about depends on what’s going on with the government.
    0:06:41 So you just named some numbers of five years or so, but this was before all this drama.
    0:06:44 So now what’s the conditions?
    0:06:49 I mean, certainly you can’t make a case that things are going to go smoother and faster now,
    0:06:49 right?
    0:06:51 No, definitely not.
    0:06:52 So there’s a lot going on.
    0:06:53 That is a huge question.
    0:06:59 We’ve definitely seen a big increase in ICE enforcement and the number of arrests and
    0:07:00 people in detention and ICE detention.
    0:07:02 So that is one thing.
    0:07:07 In terms of just talking specifically about like case processing times, I think a lot of
    0:07:11 the things that the Trump administration is doing is going to make case processing times
    0:07:15 worse, which is interesting because they are always talking about wanting people to take
    0:07:18 the legal pathways and things like that.
    0:07:23 And this is a whole other tangent, but for the majority of people, there is no legal pathway.
    0:07:26 It’s silly to ask people to take a pathway that doesn’t exist.
    0:07:30 But they’re also doing a lot of things that are making the paths that do exist even less
    0:07:32 efficient than they already were.
    0:07:37 So we already have a huge immigration court backlog, millions of cases backlogged, and they’re
    0:07:39 firing lots of immigration judges.
    0:07:46 So that’s even fewer judges to hear those cases, which creates an even bigger backlog for people who are going through a legal process.
    0:07:55 And then there’s also been lots of different funding cuts across the federal government, as we’ve seen, that are going to affect employees who would process those cases.
    0:08:00 So they’re doing a lot of funding cuts that are actually making the system even less efficient.
    0:08:08 At the same time, they’re doing a lot to try to chip away at due process and be able to deport people without hearings as quickly as possible.
    0:08:19 So in that sense, the process can be sped up, but in a very unfair way where people aren’t getting a chance to defend themselves and demonstrate that they might qualify for legal status.
    0:08:29 So there’s a lot going on in the world right now, if only they had $5 million each and they could just purchase their citizenship with the gold card.
    0:08:35 I don’t want to be paranoid or I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to make something out of nothing.
    0:08:41 But do you think all of this is like on purpose to discourage people from coming?
    0:08:42 Oh, absolutely.
    0:08:44 I don’t think that’s paranoid at all.
    0:08:56 Well, I think the Trump administration and administrations on both sides of the political spectrum have always been about deterrence and border enforcement and any kind of like benefit that we give to people.
    0:09:07 They want it to come at the expense of having more border enforcement or having stricter policies or pitting certain groups that they deem like the good immigrants against the bad ones in their eyes.
    0:09:18 So like anytime there’s any talk of any type of reform, it’s always, OK, we’ll give you these couple of good things, but then we’re going to do these other things that make enforcement worse at the border.
    0:09:23 And the reality is that long term, we’ve seen that deterrence just doesn’t actually work.
    0:09:28 You may see a short term decrease in border crossings and things like that.
    0:09:36 Like right now, what we’re seeing is that the border is totally shut down to asylum seekers, which I think is illegal under our own laws and under international laws and treaties.
    0:09:49 And I did see that I believe the Florence Project and some other organizations actually just filed a lawsuit this week against the federal government to try to force them to allow people to seek asylum, which we’re supposed to be doing.
    0:09:57 Deterrence doesn’t work. We try to shut down the border, maybe short term, we see a decrease in crossings and things like that, like with the border being shut down right now.
    0:10:10 But in the long term, the root causes that are driving people to come here, and particularly with the population that I work with, a lot of Central American families who are fleeing gang violence and really horrible, life-threatening conditions.
    0:10:17 And those conditions are, you know, for the most part, a result of U.S. foreign policy in that region over many years.
    0:10:24 And unless those root causes that are driving them north to seek safety are addressed, they’re going to keep coming.
    0:10:29 So that deterrence doesn’t really have a long term effect on stopping people from coming to the U.S.
    0:10:32 But what it does do is make migrating even more dangerous.
    0:10:40 Last year, the United Nations said that the U.S.-Mexico border is actually the most dangerous land route for migrants in the entire world.
    0:10:56 There are entire organizations and programs at universities that are dedicated to trying to identify people’s remains who perish trying to cross the border because our enforcement and our border wall and all of that stuff forces people to go into more and more remote routes in the desert, and it’s super dangerous.
    0:11:03 And the government knows that, and they choose to do it anyway, knowing that people will die in hopes of deterring people.
    0:11:07 And again, it’s just silly because it doesn’t actually work, and we know that by now.
    0:11:14 This is a dumb question, but I’m not assuming a world of perfect information.
    0:11:19 So these poor people in Central America don’t know what they’re walking into.
    0:11:21 I’m sure they know what they’re walking into.
    0:11:29 So they know they’re walking into years and years of delays and prosecution and deportations and all that shit.
    0:11:35 And it must be that it’s so much worse there that they’re willing to put up with all this here.
    0:11:37 So what are they running from?
    0:11:39 What are they trying to get away from?
    0:11:40 Yeah, absolutely right.
    0:11:51 And I always say that when we do trainings and presentations on this topic that you have to think about how bad things are that people are willing to come here and go through all of that and go through the dangerous journey to arrive here.
    0:11:58 So some of the most common stories that we hear, particularly from Central America, which is kind of my niche, is the gang violence.
    0:12:05 So there’s two primary gangs, that’s MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang, and they pretty much control large swaths of Central America.
    0:12:10 In many places, they are synonymous with the government or the police are working with them.
    0:12:14 So there’s really no kind of outside governmental authority people can go to for help.
    0:12:28 In terms of the kids that we work with, really common fact patterns are boys, particularly teenage boys, being forcibly recruited into the gang, where they’re being threatened that either they’re going to be killed or their family members or loved ones are going to be killed if they don’t join the gang.
    0:12:35 And they either have to leave because those threats are real, and they really do carry those threats out if they won’t comply.
    0:12:42 And similarly, with girls, we see oftentimes girls trying to be forced to be like a girlfriend to an older man who’s a gang member.
    0:12:49 And we’re talking young girls, 11, 12, 13 years old, who are being forced to be a quote-unquote girlfriend to a gang member.
    0:12:53 And if they don’t want to, again, there’s threats against them and their family members if they’re not complying.
    0:12:56 So we see a lot of girls coming because of that.
    0:13:11 We also see a lot of, like, extortion cases where you have to, just to exist in these different gang territories, you have to pay, like, an extortion tax just to keep your business open or to ride the bus in that neighborhood or to pass through that territory or whatever.
    0:13:18 And if you can’t pay it anymore, they start increasing it and you can’t pay it, then, again, there’s, like, death threats against you and your family.
    0:13:26 We also have a lot of kids who deal with different types of abuse within their families of origin, whether that’s domestic violence, sexual abuse.
    0:13:33 There’s also a lot of kids that we see who are being discriminated against or afraid for their lives because of their gender identity or orientation.
    0:13:36 So those are some of the really common stories that we hear.
    0:13:46 We also see a lot of kids who are out of school for a really long time in their home country or have very limited formal education, a lot of child labor trafficking.
    0:13:52 And oftentimes, a bunch of these different kind of factors are at play in the same kid’s story.
    0:14:04 Every business is under pressure to save money.
    0:14:08 But if you want to be a business leader, you need to do more to win.
    0:14:14 You need to create momentum and unlock potential, which is where Brex comes in.
    0:14:17 Brex isn’t just another corporate credit card.
    0:14:19 It’s a modern finance platform.
    0:14:23 That’s like having a financial superhero in your back pocket.
    0:14:30 Think credit cards, banking, expense management, and travel, all integrated into one smart solution.
    0:14:37 More than 30,000 companies use Brex to make every dollar count towards their mission, and you can join them.
    0:14:44 Get the modern finance platform that works as hard as you do at brex.com slash grow.
    0:14:50 How do you wrap your mind around what this country is doing?
    0:14:55 Because it seems to me that America being as wealthy and powerful as possible,
    0:15:00 we should be trying to help other people who are less wealthy and less successful.
    0:15:08 and less fortunate, but we seem to believe that we should just keep everybody out and just make things
    0:15:09 good for us.
    0:15:14 Is there another side to this story about why we should be making all these deterrents happen?
    0:15:17 It’s really hard for me to understand.
    0:15:23 And I think what I tend to find when I talk to people who are anti-immigration is that they really
    0:15:25 just don’t actually know the facts of what they’re talking about.
    0:15:30 There’s a lot of really common myths about immigration and immigrants that get repeated and repeated.
    0:15:32 I mean, they’re simply not true.
    0:15:39 So a lot of times when people will know what I do and try to argue with me or want to talk about it.
    0:15:45 I grew up in a rural part of Pennsylvania where a lot of the people who live there are Trump supporters and things like that.
    0:15:49 So whenever I come into touch with those people and they want to talk about immigration and things,
    0:15:54 a lot of the talking points they repeat are just things that aren’t true, but they don’t know that.
    0:15:58 So a lot of their belief system about it is just not based in real facts.
    0:16:03 For example, we hear a lot of times, well, my great-great-grandparents came here the right way,
    0:16:06 so people should just get in line and come here the right way.
    0:16:12 The reality is that the laws were very different when a lot of our grandparents, great-grandparents came here,
    0:16:18 and most of them would not actually be eligible to immigrate to the U.S. under the laws that we have today.
    0:16:23 And for the vast majority of people, whether you’re someone who is in the U.S. and you’re undocumented,
    0:16:27 or you’re somebody who is abroad and you want to try to immigrate to the U.S.,
    0:16:30 for most people, there is literally no path to do that.
    0:16:34 There’s no general application you can file to say,
    0:16:36 hey, I want to become a green card holder.
    0:16:37 I want to become a citizen.
    0:16:39 I want to get a work permit.
    0:16:40 That doesn’t exist.
    0:16:43 You have to kind of fit into one of three primary buckets,
    0:16:47 and those are humanitarian, which is things like asylum or refugee status,
    0:16:50 employment-based visas or family petitions,
    0:16:54 where you have a family member who is a close relative that can petition for you.
    0:16:57 All of those different buckets have very strict requirements.
    0:17:00 And if you don’t fit into one of them, there’s nothing else you can do.
    0:17:02 You just don’t have a path.
    0:17:04 So that’s one thing that gets repeated all the time.
    0:17:07 We also hear a lot about immigrants bringing crime,
    0:17:11 when really we know that many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely
    0:17:16 to commit crimes, including violent crimes, than U.S.-born citizens.
    0:17:19 We hear about immigrants stealing jobs or hurting the economy.
    0:17:24 And again, many studies bear out that immigrants actually strengthen our economy
    0:17:28 and create jobs and create businesses and pay lots of taxes that they don’t then benefit from.
    0:17:34 So my feeling on that is a lot of people just keep citing these myths,
    0:17:35 and they just actually don’t know the facts.
    0:17:39 So part of what we do is try to put out a lot of educational information,
    0:17:42 do a lot of stuff like this, do training sessions,
    0:17:46 particularly with teachers and people like that who are coming into contact with these kids
    0:17:48 so that they do have the facts.
    0:17:51 And yeah, I think, as I said, immigrants make our community safer.
    0:17:52 They help our economy.
    0:17:56 They help us to have more culture, different types of food, different music,
    0:18:00 all these different things that they bring to our communities to make them stronger.
    0:18:06 So I really don’t see any valid argument for why we should be keeping people out.
    0:18:07 You know, it’s really interesting.
    0:18:11 I saw with Trump talking about trying to make Canada the 51st state,
    0:18:15 he said something about how, like, it would be a great 51st state.
    0:18:17 There’s just an arbitrary line there.
    0:18:22 And I was like, it’s really interesting that he can say that the U.S.-Canada border is an arbitrary line,
    0:18:26 but then make such a big deal about people coming across the southern border.
    0:18:31 And I really think the lines are arbitrary and we’re all humans and we should all be supporting each other.
    0:18:32 Wow.
    0:18:33 That was a really long answer.
    0:18:35 Yeah, that’s okay.
    0:18:39 But this is why you’re a CNN hero.
    0:18:41 In a sense, you’re doing God’s work, right?
    0:18:45 I mean, God’s work is different these days.
    0:18:48 It has a very different meaning today.
    0:18:51 So how many kids are we talking about?
    0:18:57 What’s the number you have to wrap your mind around of number of kids who are going through this experience every year?
    0:19:01 Oh, I don’t know if I have that number off the top of my head.
    0:19:06 In our area alone, I think I recently read that, like, as far as just unaccompanied children,
    0:19:14 there have been over maybe nearly 1,500 to 2,000 released to our area from ORR in the last fiscal year.
    0:19:20 When you say released to your area, what does that mean?
    0:19:23 They came over the border in Texas or California or something.
    0:19:25 And how did they get to Pennsylvania?
    0:19:28 How did they get released in Pennsylvania?
    0:19:31 Yeah, so that’s what I was talking about earlier with them having sponsors.
    0:19:35 So they get sent to this Office of Refugee Resettlement.
    0:19:37 That can be a group home shelter.
    0:19:38 It can be, like, a foster home.
    0:19:42 It depends on their age and, like, where there’s space and all those factors.
    0:19:45 And then they have a caseworker at the shelter.
    0:19:49 And that person will then ask them, like, do you have anybody here in the U.S.?
    0:19:53 Maybe they have a parent who was already here or some other family member or whatever.
    0:19:58 And then they’ll do background checks and have that child then released to the sponsor.
    0:20:01 So that’s what I mean when I say released.
    0:20:09 They’ll let them leave immigration detention and go to be with that sponsor while their court case is going through the immigration courts.
    0:20:13 And what’s your caseload right now, your personal caseload?
    0:20:15 I have about 90 right now.
    0:20:16 90?
    0:20:17 Yeah.
    0:20:21 You are trying to take 90 kids through this system right now?
    0:20:21 Yes.
    0:20:22 Wow.
    0:20:27 And are there legal firms who are doing pro bono work and helping you?
    0:20:32 Or, I mean, are you, Rachel, I mean, are you just standing out there by yourself?
    0:20:35 So for my cases, I’m representing them.
    0:20:48 There are, you know, other nonprofits in our area and throughout the country that do different types of immigration work with families, with unaccompanied kids, with survivors of domestic violence, with people who have been exploited at their workplaces.
    0:20:51 There’s all kinds of different, like, iterations and organizations and things doing this work.
    0:20:54 There are definitely firms that also do pro bono work.
    0:20:57 We don’t really have any partners in that at this moment.
    0:21:05 We do work closely with some fellow attorneys who are family law attorneys to do those special immigrant juvenile status cases I was mentioning earlier.
    0:21:08 But, yeah, we’re directly representing those 90 kids.
    0:21:09 Wow.
    0:21:13 That must be the third time I said wow in this conversation.
    0:21:15 Let me ask you a question.
    0:21:17 And you can say you don’t want to answer this question.
    0:21:37 I, quite frankly, wouldn’t blame you maybe, but are you afraid at all that you’re on some kind of list at Doge or the FBI or Department of Justice because you’re this activist who’s trying to bring in these illegal immigrants and trying to help these people break the law and all that?
    0:21:38 Do you think you’re on somebody’s list?
    0:21:40 Yeah, I’ve definitely worried about that.
    0:21:42 My husband and I have talked about it.
    0:21:45 That list does exist, at least for government employees.
    0:21:51 There’s a website that has, like, you know, radicals within USCIS or whatever.
    0:21:53 And it’s just people who, like, support immigrant rights.
    0:21:55 It’s, like, actually nothing that radical.
    0:22:04 But a friend sent me that list because there was somebody that was a former co-worker of ours who was on it who now works for the government and ended up on that list.
    0:22:09 And with all of the CNN publicity, most of it was very overwhelmingly positive.
    0:22:12 But we definitely started getting a lot of, like, hate mail.
    0:22:16 And it was interesting because I asked, like, the other honorees, hey, is this happening to you too?
    0:22:19 And they were like, no, like, what are you talking about?
    0:22:22 So immigration is a very heated, polarizing issue.
    0:22:25 People get really mad about it, despite that they don’t really understand it that well.
    0:22:35 We’ve gotten kind of scary emails and messages and things like that, which we did report to the police and keep a record of in case anything more were to come of it.
    0:22:47 I don’t know of any, like, official lists, but I definitely think it’s a possibility, especially with the executive order that came down recently about student public service loan forgiveness for student loans, which I expect there to be, like, litigation about.
    0:22:48 And I’m hoping that it will get blocked.
    0:23:06 But basically, that order said that anybody who’s doing work under the public service loan forgiveness program at nonprofits that do things that Trump doesn’t like, basically, like doing immigration work was specifically mentioned in it, doing work with LGBT youth, things like that, trying to say those people wouldn’t then get their loans forgiven.
    0:23:15 you’re supposed to get your loans forgiven after 10 years of public service, and they’re trying to undo that for people who are doing work that Trump doesn’t align with the mission.
    0:23:19 So I could definitely see that spiraling into something more.
    0:23:28 Pretty soon, that kind of work will be immigration work, it’ll be climate control work, it’ll be LGBTQ plus rights, it’ll be female.
    0:23:30 What’s not going to be on that list?
    0:23:33 Habitat for Humanity was like one of the latest ones they were going after.
    0:23:33 Yeah.
    0:23:38 Yeah, Jimmy Carter is literally turning over in his grave.
    0:23:40 How can you do that?
    0:23:45 Okay, so let me ask, what can people do to support you, people who are listening to this podcast?
    0:23:48 Yeah, so we have a lot of volunteer opportunities.
    0:23:53 If you’re not in our area, we also have a lot of remote opportunities that are available.
    0:23:58 So definitely volunteering, there’s stuff for everyone, depending on your skill set and what you’re interested in.
    0:24:01 There are opportunities to work directly with the community that we serve.
    0:24:04 There are also opportunities to do behind the scenes stuff like fundraising.
    0:24:11 We have remote ESL classes as well that are an option if you’re remote but want to work directly with the community.
    0:24:13 So lots of options there.
    0:24:16 If you go to our website, it’s projectlibertad.org slash volunteer.
    0:24:18 You can learn more about that.
    0:24:20 Donating, of course, is always welcome.
    0:24:24 We have so many kids with so many needs that we’re trying to meet all the time.
    0:24:28 Whatever people are able to give is appreciated and goes really far.
    0:24:31 We’re a small organization trying to do a lot, so every dollar really does help.
    0:24:42 And then if you can share the accurate information you’ve learned from listening to this podcast with somebody who might not have it, that’s also really helpful to help get correct facts out in the world about immigration.
    0:24:59 AI’s impact on the environment is one of the most pressing issues facing the tech industry today.
    0:25:04 People want to know, what’s the carbon footprint of a chat GPT query?
    0:25:07 What does it mean to innovate sustainably?
    0:25:10 And can AI actually be used to solve the climate crisis?
    0:25:13 I’m Rana El-Khalyubi.
    0:25:21 On my podcast, Pioneers of AI, we bring questions like this to some of the leading thinkers and builders working in AI.
    0:25:29 Join me each week as we explore how this technology is leaving its mark on humanity and our planet.
    0:25:37 Find Pioneers of AI on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
    0:25:48 Let me ask you a very theoretical question.
    0:25:58 Let’s say you had a magic wand or let’s say I had a magic wand and I waved it at you and I said, now you get to design the immigration system for the United States.
    0:26:15 So Rachel, describe that system, the perfect system you would like to see implemented that I guess it has to represent both sides, the security and on one side, but also the empathy and the desire to make the world a better place on the other side.
    0:26:21 And those things don’t necessarily have to conflict, but they are at least different.
    0:26:25 So how would you design an immigration system?
    0:26:30 I know this is probably a bridge too far for a lot of people, but I am all for open borders.
    0:26:35 We already have open borders for wealthy white people who want to retire in another country.
    0:26:44 So I think that people hear open borders and think it’s crazy, but from what I’ve read and studied about it, it would work like moving from state to state within the United States.
    0:26:47 You still have identification and things like that.
    0:26:50 So we still know who people are and where they are and all of that.
    0:26:59 But without this like punitive aspect of ICE detention and all of this, barring that, I would love to see us just not put kids in immigration court proceedings, not deport children.
    0:27:13 And short of that, if we’re like taking it back even further, having universal representation for immigrant kids or for all immigrants in immigration proceedings, because we didn’t really touch on this, but there is no right to a court appointed lawyer in immigration court.
    0:27:20 So if the government puts you in deportation proceedings to try to deport you, you have to be able to pay for a lawyer yourself.
    0:27:22 And if you can’t, then you would have to represent yourself.
    0:27:26 Meanwhile, the government is always represented by an attorney who’s trying to deport you.
    0:27:30 Obviously, that’s very unfair for an adult, let alone for a child.
    0:27:38 If we’re dreaming a little smaller, something that’s maybe more feasible in the near future, I would love to see all kids have a lawyer in immigration court.
    0:27:45 Unfortunately, it looks like the administration is going to try to cut legal services for unaccompanied kids this year.
    0:27:46 So we will see what happens with that.
    0:27:47 But yeah.
    0:27:50 Just backing up a second here.
    0:27:54 Could you just explain what open borders mean?
    0:28:02 So open borders just means that you can travel freely anywhere and we’re not going to put you in jail or deport you.
    0:28:04 It’s just the right to move freely.
    0:28:06 So there’s no wall, obviously.
    0:28:08 There’s no passports.
    0:28:09 There’s no nothing.
    0:28:11 It’s just welcome to America.
    0:28:12 Come and go as you please.
    0:28:19 I think we can still have passports and identify people, but you wouldn’t be thrown in jail for not having a visa.
    0:28:22 And you have to remember, I know that it sounds crazy.
    0:28:23 People think it sounds crazy.
    0:28:32 And actually, if anybody’s interested in learning more about open borders from somebody that knows way more about it than I do, there’s a really great organization here in Philly called Free Migration Project.
    0:28:36 And that’s one of their kind of core things is open borders.
    0:28:39 And they have really good research on their website about it.
    0:28:48 But if you think about if I decide that I want to go to Europe on vacation right now, I don’t need to do anything other than show my passport and go.
    0:28:49 Right.
    0:28:59 So a lot of people in the world basically exist under open borders, but we tend to put all these restrictions on black and brown people of color, people from poorer countries.
    0:29:04 So if you’re like a wealthy white American or European, you already have open borders.
    0:29:06 You just haven’t thought of it that way before.
    0:29:12 Well, Rachel, I really appreciate you bringing attention to this issue.
    0:29:19 And I have to say that it disgusts me that we treat unaccompanied minors this way.
    0:29:22 There’s just something morally wrong with this.
    0:29:24 And I don’t know what else to say.
    0:29:25 I’ll give you as long as you want.
    0:29:40 Just give your final message to my audience about the issue and what you can do and how you can do it and just promote the hell out of your organization and the concept so that we can get as much support for you as possible.
    0:29:41 Thank you.
    0:29:44 I thank you for having me and for sharing our work, too.
    0:29:49 My final message is I think that we are heading into a really dark and scary time for immigrants in this country.
    0:29:59 And if you are someone that has the privilege of citizenship, to be sure that you’re using your voice to stand up for immigrant communities and to draw attention to what is happening.
    0:30:02 We have the Trump administration detaining green card holders.
    0:30:03 It’s really frightening.
    0:30:09 And I think it’s a test to see how far they can go, how far the public will let them go.
    0:30:14 And I think it’s really, really important that all of us who do have that privilege of birthright citizenship.
    0:30:25 And I say privilege in the sense of, like, we’re not at risk as much as others who don’t have that safety net to use our voices to stand up to what’s going on right now.
    0:30:31 I mean, you just mentioned a very interesting topic, which is birthright citizenship.
    0:30:35 That literally must make your head explode.
    0:30:37 That could go away.
    0:30:39 It is really crazy.
    0:30:44 And I think, like, the people who are pushing for it don’t realize how easily that could come back on them as well.
    0:30:45 Because, like, where do you draw the line?
    0:30:51 If we don’t have birthright citizenship, then who is to say that our grandparents are citizens?
    0:30:51 You know what I mean?
    0:30:53 Like, how far back are we going to take this?
    0:30:56 And I know that the executive order had specific parameters.
    0:31:01 But if they are able to do away with birthright citizenship, they don’t have to stick to those parameters.
    0:31:04 And nobody has the guarantee of citizenship then.
    0:31:11 I am third-generation Japanese-American, and my great-grandparents came over to pick sugarcane in Hawaii.
    0:31:18 It’s not like they had a red carpet welcome when they rolled out into Hawaii.
    0:31:25 All right, Rachel, I really appreciate you coming on our show and explaining what you do and the problem that you’re facing.
    0:31:33 And I hope you listeners will support her and other organizations to make this world a better place, a remarkable place.
    0:31:38 And, Rachel, thank you for the work that you’re doing to make this world a better place.
    0:31:39 So, I’m Guy Kawasaki.
    0:31:49 If you’ve been listening to Rachel Rutter, she’s the executive director of Project Libertad, and she helps unaccompanied minors immigrate into the United States.
    0:31:53 In the meantime, this has been the Remarkable People podcast.
    0:32:00 The people I want to thank are Madison Neismar, producer and co-author, Tessa Neismar, researcher, Jeff C.
    0:32:04 And Shannon Hernandez, who’s the sound design team.
    0:32:06 And that’s the Remarkable People team.
    0:32:15 And I hope that you enjoy our work and that you will be remarkable and help other people be remarkable, too.
    0:32:19 Until next time, mahalo and aloha.
    0:32:25 This is Remarkable People.

    Can we truly understand what drives desperate families to risk everything at the border? Rachel Rutter, Executive Director of Project Libertad and CNN Hero, delivers a powerful reality check about America’s immigration system. Her organization provides legal representation and wraparound services to unaccompanied immigrant children navigating a complex and often hostile immigration system. Rachel dispels common immigration myths and makes a compelling case for change. This conversation challenges us to examine our humanity and consider what it means to truly welcome the vulnerable among us.

    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.

  • OIRA: The tiny office that’s about to remake the federal government

    OIRA — the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs — is an obscure, but powerful federal office around the corner from the White House. President Trump has decided that it should get even more powerful.

    For the last 45 years, OIRA has overseen most federal agencies by reviewing proposed regulations to make sure they agree with the President’s policies and don’t conflict with the work of other agencies. But one set of federal agencies has always been exempt from this review process — independent federal agencies like the SEC, FTC, FCC, and Federal Reserve. Until now.

    According to a new executive order, those independent agencies are about to get a lot less independent. We take a look at what this change could mean for financial markets…and the future of American democracy.

    This episode was produced by James Sneed and Willa Rubin. It was edited by Jess Jiang and engineered by Jimmy Keeley. It was fact-checked by Sierra Juarez. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer.

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

    Listen free at these links: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.

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

    Music: Universal Music Production – “Tanga,” “The Jump Back,” and “Kumbatia.”

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

    NPR Privacy Policy

  • From making $6/week selling worms to making $110M+

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 So you went from selling worms to how much money does NFX have under management now?
    0:00:07 Close to $1.6 billion, yeah.
    0:00:09 Does that blow your mind?
    0:00:10 Blows my mind. Blows my mind.
    0:00:12 What are the traits of a savage founder?
    0:00:17 Speed. School taught you what time looks like, and now you think this is how the world moves.
    0:00:20 You’re wrong. Your speed bar is wrong.
    0:00:23 So if I’m a founder, what are the most common emotional blockers slowing me down?
    0:00:25 The big one is just fear.
    0:00:28 We have these mindsets bred into us by the normies.
    0:00:32 Why is it that sort of 85%, 90% of all returns in tech have come from the Bay Area?
    0:00:35 It’s because the mindsets here are slightly different.
    0:00:39 So can you make me smarter as a founder? Because it seems like this is important.
    0:00:42 Don’t think of yourself as choosing a job or choosing an industry.
    0:00:44 Think of yourself as choosing a network.
    0:00:47 What do you think of people who are investing in open AI or the sort of the models?
    0:00:49 Is that where the value is going to accrue?
    0:00:52 Yeah, I don’t get it. I don’t get it. I think they’re making a big mistake.
    0:00:56 What do you think is the juiciest kind of opportunity, whether you’re an entrepreneur or an investor?
    0:00:58 There is going to be opportunity.
    0:01:18 Can you tell your high school story? Because when I was doing my research, it looks like, James, Harvard, Princeton, Exeter.
    0:01:23 You know, like you went to the top high school, the top college, the top business school.
    0:01:29 So I just thought you must either come for money or just prestige, alumni, something.
    0:01:32 But I guess you were telling me before we started, that’s not the case.
    0:01:32 Yeah.
    0:01:35 I love the phrase you said, they got me out of the mud.
    0:01:35 I love what you said.
    0:01:37 Yeah, they plucked me from the mud.
    0:01:41 But I grew up on the dirt road in New Hampshire, about a mile from the nearest paved road.
    0:01:42 My mom was a music teacher.
    0:01:44 My dad, she made about seven bucks an hour.
    0:01:46 And my dad was a carpenter.
    0:01:49 Sometimes she was a hostess at a nearby restaurant.
    0:01:52 And we had 12 cats and two dogs.
    0:01:53 We just, we lived in the middle of nowhere.
    0:01:57 And I would sell worms to fishermen who would be fishing nearby.
    0:01:59 That was my first job when I was sick.
    0:02:01 Now, my first job, my first startup was when I was six.
    0:02:04 And they would come by and they’d need worms to go fishing.
    0:02:12 And so I would dig them out from under the apple trees that were nearby and put them in the empty cat food cans that we had in the house and sell them for 50 cents.
    0:02:18 And I would make, you know, six bucks a week during the summer because they would come up the driveway and I would just sell them worms.
    0:02:20 And then I went on to do all sorts of other businesses.
    0:02:24 But what happened was in sixth grade, I got beat up by a guy named James Cody.
    0:02:26 I hope he’s doing well, but he was kind of brutal.
    0:02:28 I’m sure he did not have an easy life.
    0:02:28 Right.
    0:02:30 Because he was making my life hard too.
    0:02:37 And as my friend Lance Casey picked me up off the ground, he said, don’t worry, James, we’re going to go to prep school.
    0:02:38 And I said, what’s prep school?
    0:02:40 And he said, it’s where the smart kids go.
    0:02:42 And I said, do they fight there?
    0:02:44 And he said, no, they don’t fight there.
    0:02:45 And I said, well, then I want to go there.
    0:02:47 Because I’m a small guy.
    0:02:49 I still weigh 165 pounds.
    0:02:53 I mean, as my sons call me, who are all now taller than me, they call me a victim weight.
    0:02:55 Dad, you’re still a victim weight.
    0:02:57 So anyway, fighting wasn’t my forte.
    0:03:01 And so I went home to my dad and I said, you know, I want to go to prep school.
    0:03:03 And he’s like, how did you hear about prep school?
    0:03:04 And I said, well, Lance told me.
    0:03:06 Now, Lance’s dad was like the local surgeon.
    0:03:08 And Lance was half Iranian and half Italian.
    0:03:11 And, you know, the kids kind of picked on him, too, and whatnot.
    0:03:14 So he and I were sort of bonded together.
    0:03:16 And that really changed my life.
    0:03:18 And so my dad figured out that I needed to take these SSAT tests.
    0:03:19 So I took the test.
    0:03:21 And then I applied.
    0:03:22 And they let me in.
    0:03:23 And we didn’t have any money.
    0:03:24 So they just paid for it.
    0:03:25 So Exeter paid for it.
    0:03:29 And so that really set my whole life off in a different direction.
    0:03:33 And I, you know, I had, you know, used clothes from Goodwill.
    0:03:35 And everybody else had fancy clothes.
    0:03:37 And, you know, but and everybody was grinding.
    0:03:38 We just grinded.
    0:03:42 And so by the end of my junior year, I’d skipped out of the first two and a half years of Princeton
    0:03:42 engineering.
    0:03:48 So at the end of that, of the high school, they said, you know, you can choose Harvard,
    0:03:51 Princeton, or Yale because you’ve achieved all this stuff.
    0:03:54 You built a hovercraft that went 35 miles an hour.
    0:03:55 You’re clearly an engineer.
    0:03:57 You know, pick which one you want to go to.
    0:03:59 And I said, what’s the furthest place from here?
    0:04:04 So I have been assisted by the whole system all the way along.
    0:04:08 And, you know, people talk about beat their chest and say, I’m a self-made man, and it’s
    0:04:09 complete bullshit.
    0:04:16 Like most of us are a function of a sixth grade friend who put us on a completely different
    0:04:16 path.
    0:04:17 Right.
    0:04:23 And you went from selling worms for 50 cents, making, you know, 50 cents a worm to how much
    0:04:25 money does NFX have under management now?
    0:04:26 Close to 1.6 billion.
    0:04:26 Yeah.
    0:04:28 Does that blow your mind?
    0:04:29 It blows my mind.
    0:04:34 I’ve written here a bunch of kind of like the greatest hits.
    0:04:36 So these are some of the big ideas that you’ve shared with me.
    0:04:37 Let’s see.
    0:04:38 Your life on network effects.
    0:04:43 So the NFX.com website is the second most popular VC website in the world.
    0:04:45 And Andreessen produces a lot more content.
    0:04:46 They’ve got like 600 people.
    0:04:48 You know, we have 10 people.
    0:04:53 But we’re the second most popular and the most popular blog post was called your life on network
    0:04:53 effects.
    0:04:55 Can you do the quick explainer?
    0:04:57 So for somebody who doesn’t know what network effects is.
    0:05:04 A network effect is every new person who uses your product makes the product more valuable
    0:05:05 for the other users of the product.
    0:05:06 And the great example is Twitter.
    0:05:09 The more people who are tweeting, the more valuable Twitter becomes for everyone.
    0:05:14 Facebook, Microsoft operating system, more people using Microsoft operating system, the
    0:05:18 more it’s more valuable for WordPerfect to build their software on top of Microsoft so
    0:05:19 that more people can use it.
    0:05:25 And the more people that are using WordPerfect, the more I can share my WordPerfect file with
    0:05:25 other people.
    0:05:27 So these are all network effects.
    0:05:31 So if you look at the top, you know, seven companies in the world in terms of market
    0:05:34 cap, five or six of them have network effects at their core.
    0:05:36 And that was not true 30 years, 20 years ago.
    0:05:43 And so most of the big things that dominate our life, whether it’s Comcast or whatever, these
    0:05:44 all have network effects businesses.
    0:05:46 And so we’ve studied them.
    0:05:47 We invest in them.
    0:05:51 We have spent the last 20 years becoming sort of the world’s experts at them.
    0:05:53 We’ve identified 17 of them.
    0:05:54 They’re mathematical principles.
    0:06:00 And in talking these through with Eric and others, he started to get these wide eyes
    0:06:02 like, oh, that affects how I’m dating.
    0:06:04 Oh, that affects where I should live.
    0:06:06 That affects what happened to my dad.
    0:06:13 And I was and he was realizing that the analysis of networks and the network topologies and network
    0:06:17 dynamics was actually really applicable to how we live our lives.
    0:06:18 So give me a simple example.
    0:06:20 So where’s besides business?
    0:06:23 How does network effects work in my life?
    0:06:24 Dating, you know, friends.
    0:06:27 The simplest and most relevant is where you choose to live.
    0:06:29 So a city is a network.
    0:06:30 Right.
    0:06:34 And if you choose to live in a city, you are choosing that network.
    0:06:39 And so basically what the article says is don’t think of yourself as choosing a job or choosing
    0:06:42 an industry or think of yourself as choosing a network.
    0:06:43 OK.
    0:06:48 My company is a network who I hire into my network, which journalists I get to write
    0:06:48 about.
    0:06:50 I bond that person into my network.
    0:06:51 Right.
    0:06:53 Which investors I bond into my network.
    0:06:54 Right.
    0:06:55 So we think of everything.
    0:06:58 Once you start thinking of everything as networks, like the whole world looks a little bit different
    0:06:59 to you.
    0:07:00 Where should I go to find a spouse?
    0:07:02 Well, think about your network.
    0:07:05 When you get married, you’re joining her network.
    0:07:06 Right.
    0:07:07 And she’s joining your network.
    0:07:11 You’re going to have to have Christmas and Thanksgiving or whatever with her parents forever.
    0:07:12 Right.
    0:07:16 And what your life on network effects does is it breaks it down into seven phases of
    0:07:22 your life where you are basically choosing a network and it’ll have a really big impact
    0:07:24 on how your life plays out.
    0:07:25 Let’s pull another card.
    0:07:26 See what we got.
    0:07:26 OK.
    0:07:28 Savage founders.
    0:07:28 Yeah.
    0:07:34 So, you know, look, I’ve been a founder four times and then the fifth time is starting a
    0:07:34 venture firm.
    0:07:40 So I have been a founder myself and I’ve invested in, I don’t know, 300 different companies over
    0:07:40 the years.
    0:07:47 And the thing that keeps coming up is that in order to do something extraordinary, you
    0:07:50 have to be relatively savage, which means you have to be very fast.
    0:07:54 You have to be very competitive and you tend to have to be pretty aggressive and you just
    0:07:56 can never can never stop.
    0:07:57 And a lot of people say, oh, they need to be mission driven.
    0:08:02 But that’s confusing with that word or they need to have had childhood trauma.
    0:08:05 And that’s that may be true for some people, for sure.
    0:08:10 But in the end, we use the word savage just because you just go for it every day.
    0:08:14 You know, it’s like you wake up every morning and you’re listening to bring me to life and
    0:08:17 you’re just, you know, you’re cranking and that sort of thing.
    0:08:19 And that’s that’s what we look for in founders.
    0:08:20 And that’s who I like to be.
    0:08:23 And that’s who I like hanging out with.
    0:08:25 And what are the traits of a savage founder?
    0:08:31 So I think people would immediately gravitate towards like maybe hardworking or determined,
    0:08:32 things like that.
    0:08:34 So the number one thing that it rolls up into is speed.
    0:08:39 So you could you could lay out 16 characteristics that you’re looking for, but all of those lead
    0:08:40 to one thing, which is speed.
    0:08:44 And so if we measure speed when we’re meeting with the founders, that’s the main thing that
    0:08:45 determines.
    0:08:48 And if you look at their speed over the next five, six, seven, eight, ten years when we’re
    0:08:53 working with them, that’s the main thing that determines their success is that now to get
    0:08:53 to speed.
    0:08:56 You typically have to push out people who aren’t fast.
    0:09:02 So you end up firing a lot of people who aren’t willing to sacrifice, who don’t enjoy, you
    0:09:07 know, type two fun, the fun that you look back on and you suffered, but you look back on it
    0:09:08 as if it was fun, right?
    0:09:10 Type one fun, fun in the moment.
    0:09:10 Yeah.
    0:09:12 Type two fun, look back on it.
    0:09:12 Is that it?
    0:09:12 That’s right.
    0:09:15 And type two fun is you’re suffering through the whole thing.
    0:09:18 But but at the end, you look back and realize it was fun, like staying up for a hackathon
    0:09:20 for three straight days and then winning the hackathon.
    0:09:20 Right.
    0:09:25 Like, that’s fun, you know, not sleeping very much for 18 months.
    0:09:25 Right.
    0:09:27 But then it succeeds and you’ve got this giant company.
    0:09:28 It’s really cool.
    0:09:30 That’s you look back and you’re like, I want to do that again.
    0:09:30 Right.
    0:09:36 You know, you think about women giving birth, like it’s type two fun, like, you know, and
    0:09:38 they look back and like, I would do that again.
    0:09:42 So, you know, I think that that’s a that’s a main character, but it rolls up to speed.
    0:09:47 So the other thing is that you can’t be afraid of pissing some people off.
    0:09:53 Like, and the people who aren’t afraid of it, of just saying what they’re thinking or
    0:09:55 having a different view and not pleasing everyone in the room.
    0:09:56 Right.
    0:09:59 Those people end up doing a lot better because they see the world differently.
    0:10:00 They’re not they’re not scared.
    0:10:03 We can measure their their personality type.
    0:10:06 Actually, if you look at the best personality test in the world, it’s called a five factor
    0:10:06 personality test.
    0:10:08 McCray and McCosta, 1972, North Carolina.
    0:10:09 Right.
    0:10:10 This is the best test in the world.
    0:10:14 And one of the attributes is agreeableness or disagreeableness.
    0:10:15 That’s a scalar.
    0:10:18 One of the five scalars that they use is agree.
    0:10:23 If you are disagreeable, you end up doing better as an entrepreneur and a founder and as a creator
    0:10:27 because you don’t have this need to please everyone all the time.
    0:10:30 And it’s simple things like, you know, I remember I went out on a date with a girl when I was a
    0:10:35 teenager and she asked three or four times to get ice cream from behind the counter, you know?
    0:10:38 And I’m like, at some point, you just got to buy the ice cream, my friend.
    0:10:41 And I was getting a little upset because I’m more agreeable and other people were more.
    0:10:42 She was just very disagreeable.
    0:10:43 Right.
    0:10:44 She was great.
    0:10:45 It’s just a personality trait.
    0:10:49 And so those sorts of things end up showing up in Savage Founders.
    0:10:51 I think about that within founders we’ve invested in, too.
    0:10:58 It’s like they have these almost rough edges that are and they have things they believe that
    0:11:01 they’re going to do and they don’t really care if you think it’s nice.
    0:11:02 They don’t really care if you think it’s right.
    0:11:04 They believe it’s right.
    0:11:05 And that’s kind of all that matters.
    0:11:09 And whether they whether 99% of people would agree with them or not doesn’t matter.
    0:11:11 And those people might not end up having great friends.
    0:11:17 They might not have a normal, peaceful life, but they’re going to potentially do something
    0:11:17 extraordinary.
    0:11:20 And as a venture investor, we have to look for that.
    0:11:24 And in general, I’ve tended to surround myself with people who are both extraordinary and nice
    0:11:28 like yourself, but other people don’t don’t really care.
    0:11:31 So, you know, like more of a Peter Thiel type or whatever, where he’s just like, I just
    0:11:32 want the truth.
    0:11:34 I don’t care if I break people’s beaks, you know?
    0:11:34 Right.
    0:11:36 Who comes to mind?
    0:11:36 Savage founder.
    0:11:41 Because, you know, I have this theory that you don’t know what a level 12, like on a scale
    0:11:43 of one to 10, you don’t even know what 12 looks like.
    0:11:44 Then you meet someone, they break your frame.
    0:11:48 You said, oh, I thought I was already 10 out of 10 hard work.
    0:11:49 And then I met David Goggins.
    0:11:49 Yeah.
    0:11:51 I was, oh, I don’t know the first thing about this.
    0:11:52 I’m a seven.
    0:11:52 Yeah.
    0:11:53 That’s what a level 12 is.
    0:11:57 So who kind of broke your frame as like, wow, that’s the real savage founder.
    0:11:58 Yeah.
    0:12:01 I mean, a couple of people like, you know, think about the Poshmark CEO, right?
    0:12:05 He was so determined.
    0:12:07 He was constantly revisiting his flows.
    0:12:09 He was constantly rebuilding the product.
    0:12:10 He’s constantly changing his mind.
    0:12:13 You’re running a very complicated marketplace product.
    0:12:16 You have to abandon what you’re doing six months ago and do something brand new.
    0:12:17 It’s a very difficult business to run.
    0:12:21 And he did it for like 11 years and exited for billions of dollars, right?
    0:12:24 I mean, he’s an amazing guy, but he’s also a nice person.
    0:12:25 You want to have lunch with him.
    0:12:28 So he’s in that boundary layer, which I really appreciate.
    0:12:30 A guy like Khan Ghanai, who nobody knows yet.
    0:12:36 He’s the CEO of Firefly, which is those videos on top of, you’ve got six different businesses
    0:12:37 you’re running inside of that.
    0:12:38 It’s a very difficult business to run.
    0:12:39 He went through COVID.
    0:12:40 He lost 95% of his revenue.
    0:12:45 He had to adjust to that because no one was on the street to show ads to.
    0:12:47 And so he survived.
    0:12:47 They’re now profitable.
    0:12:48 Big company.
    0:12:50 Everyone’s gotten out of the space.
    0:12:51 It’s like, Tim, he’s going to win the space.
    0:12:55 People will tell his story later, but yeah, just savage founder.
    0:13:00 And you said it all rolls up to speed, but you’ve also said something, which is speed is
    0:13:01 not what you think.
    0:13:01 Yeah.
    0:13:02 What does that mean?
    0:13:04 I actually don’t know what you meant by that.
    0:13:08 So most people think speed means you’re working 18 hours a day.
    0:13:15 It’s not that it’s about an emotional flexibility that allows you to abandon what you were doing
    0:13:16 before and do the right thing going forward.
    0:13:20 It isn’t speed on your original idea.
    0:13:22 It’s speed toward success.
    0:13:25 And that isn’t typically what you most ideas don’t work.
    0:13:30 You know, I always say I have 83 ideas a week and every three weeks I have a half an idea
    0:13:30 that’s good.
    0:13:35 I mean, it’s literally that volume of ideas, the difference between what’s a good idea and what
    0:13:36 doesn’t work.
    0:13:37 And it’s okay that most things don’t work.
    0:13:42 And the flexibility to move toward what will work is what speed is.
    0:13:44 And it’s mostly your emotional tenor.
    0:13:47 And it’s how you manage your network around you.
    0:13:51 It’s how you manage your spouse to let him or her know what’s about to come.
    0:13:56 It’s how you manage your employees so that they know, look, we’re going to iterate this.
    0:13:57 We’re not going to iterate this twice.
    0:13:59 We’re going to iterate this 28 times.
    0:14:01 You know, that’s where Snap came from.
    0:14:02 I think it was their 27th app.
    0:14:04 Like, is that true?
    0:14:05 Well, what was their story?
    0:14:11 I don’t know their story in detail, but I understand that it was many, many attempts before Snap
    0:14:11 actually worked.
    0:14:15 And if you look at, you know, our gaming company that we did, it was our seventh game that finally
    0:14:16 worked.
    0:14:21 If you look at my first company, it was our 27th test, which finally got, you know, viral.
    0:14:27 You have to prepare everyone around you for all the changes, which ends up producing speed.
    0:14:28 So Stan and I have never failed.
    0:14:30 We’ve never lost a dime for anyone.
    0:14:36 We’ve always made people money for the last 25 years because we had speed toward the goal
    0:14:38 of success, not speed toward the original thing we were going to do.
    0:14:41 And so we got out of our own way emotionally.
    0:14:46 And so I actually have this lecture I give in private about all the emotional barriers you
    0:14:49 are putting up in front of you that causes you to go slowly.
    0:14:53 And you think it’s fast because school taught you what time looks like.
    0:14:57 And then maybe you work for a big company to get a good brand like Google or Microsoft or
    0:14:57 whatever.
    0:14:59 And now you think this is how the world moves.
    0:15:00 You’re wrong.
    0:15:02 Your speed bar is wrong.
    0:15:02 Right.
    0:15:05 And you’ve got to, you’ve got to raise your speed bar.
    0:15:06 Hey, quick announcement.
    0:15:10 So Sean here, I wanted to tell you that I’m doing a free CEO bootcamp.
    0:15:11 Why am I doing this?
    0:15:14 I’m doing this because over the last 15 years, I’ve been running my company and I’ve found
    0:15:19 a few things, not a lot, but a few things that are incredibly helpful that I kind of wished
    0:15:23 I had learned earlier that nobody really seems to teach, but have been incredibly helpful
    0:15:25 for me as a CEO.
    0:15:27 My business is totally free, no obligations, just doing it for fun.
    0:15:31 So if you’re a business owner out there and you want to come to this thing, it’s on April
    0:15:32 16th.
    0:15:33 The link is in the description below.
    0:15:36 And I’m teaching something that I found in a book that I read in the bathroom.
    0:15:39 I was in a bathroom once and I read this book called The One Minute Manager.
    0:15:44 And as somebody who hates managing people, but wants all the benefits of being a good manager,
    0:15:46 this book was incredible for me.
    0:15:47 It’s this book called The One Minute Manager.
    0:15:49 And I stole this one framework from it.
    0:15:51 And I’m going to teach it to you at the event.
    0:15:54 And I’m going to do live Q&A with people while I’m there.
    0:15:54 It’s going to be a lot of fun.
    0:15:55 Totally free.
    0:15:56 You should come if you want.
    0:15:57 It’s in the description below.
    0:15:59 I have a thing on here.
    0:16:03 I think it’s called the, or is it the art of unlearning?
    0:16:04 Yes.
    0:16:05 Is that what you’re talking about?
    0:16:10 Like you’re taught things, you learn things, but then as an adult, there’s almost like these,
    0:16:11 I don’t know, five, seven things.
    0:16:12 I have to unlearn these things.
    0:16:13 What are those?
    0:16:15 And this is, I mean, there’s so many things.
    0:16:16 It’s about speed.
    0:16:20 It’s about, you know, the emphasis on human communication relationship versus the actual
    0:16:20 product.
    0:16:23 Like everyone focuses on how to build this and do it.
    0:16:24 No, dude, you’ve got to talk to people.
    0:16:25 You’ve got to talk to your customer.
    0:16:27 You’ve got to think about that communication.
    0:16:31 We have these mindsets that get bred into us by the normies.
    0:16:34 And if you want to do something extraordinary, you have to get out of those mindsets.
    0:16:38 I mean, why is it that sort of 85, 90% of all returns in tech have come from the Bay Area?
    0:16:45 It’s because the mindsets here are slightly different from New York and London and LA and other things.
    0:16:51 And as a result, things just happen a lot faster and things happen a lot better.
    0:16:51 And we should say that again.
    0:16:55 So you’re saying the world of technology, which is open to everybody to compete.
    0:16:56 Everybody’s aware of it.
    0:17:00 We’ve all got phones and we’re on earth and you’re saying 85% of all of the returns, all
    0:17:05 the money that got made comes from this, how many square feet, how many square miles?
    0:17:07 It’s like 7 million people.
    0:17:08 7 million people in the Bay Area.
    0:17:08 Yeah.
    0:17:10 And 85% of the returns happen here.
    0:17:11 Yeah.
    0:17:13 You got to ask yourself why, right?
    0:17:16 And what you’re saying is one of the things is there’s a certain mindset, a certain way
    0:17:19 of doing things, a certain speed of operating that is different.
    0:17:20 Yeah.
    0:17:23 And those are all just assumptions and mindsets we make.
    0:17:23 Right.
    0:17:28 But it’s literally an order of magnitude you can go faster than you think you can.
    0:17:33 And once you understand that, once you set your speed bar that way, then life opens up
    0:17:33 to you.
    0:17:34 And that’s what savage founders do.
    0:17:35 They realize it.
    0:17:36 Mike Cassidy is the founder.
    0:17:38 He was the original speed guy.
    0:17:39 I don’t know if he was.
    0:17:39 Who’s Mike Cassidy?
    0:17:41 Mike Cassidy is a guy who founded Fire.
    0:17:45 He founded Direct Hit, one of the first search engines.
    0:17:47 He sold it for 500 million after 500 days.
    0:17:50 He’s done, I don’t know, four or five businesses.
    0:17:50 They’ve all worked.
    0:17:52 He ended up at X for a while doing Loon.
    0:17:55 And he’s just, he taught me about speed.
    0:17:57 He was the one who originally figured it out in the 90s.
    0:17:58 What did he tell you?
    0:17:59 What did he say?
    0:18:04 He’s like, you don’t need to take, you know, three months to raise money and get an office
    0:18:04 and all that stuff.
    0:18:05 You can do it in four days.
    0:18:10 I can raise money in two days and I can get an office in a half a day and I can hire
    0:18:14 my team in three days and I can have my product out in two months.
    0:18:16 And everyone else was taking two, three, four years.
    0:18:16 Right.
    0:18:18 He was literally doing it two, three, four months.
    0:18:22 Is this a shoot for the stars and you’re laying on the moon situation where, okay, even if he
    0:18:26 doesn’t do it in two days, he does it in five, but five is way better than the default five
    0:18:26 months.
    0:18:27 That could be it.
    0:18:27 Yeah.
    0:18:28 That could be it.
    0:18:30 I have a couple of stories.
    0:18:34 Sometimes I hear these stories about, you know, Elon built the Colossus data center in
    0:18:36 122 days.
    0:18:38 Normally it’s two years for permitting.
    0:18:41 And then you hear these stories and it’s like, wow, that’s pace, that’s speed.
    0:18:45 But it’s also a little bit like, well, I’m not building Colossus.
    0:18:47 So it’s almost distant for me, but I’ll give it like another story.
    0:18:48 We have a buddy.
    0:18:48 I think he might know him.
    0:18:49 Suli Ali.
    0:18:51 He, we were advising a company.
    0:18:53 The company was like, we really need to raise money.
    0:18:54 Desperately need to raise money.
    0:18:56 He’s like, okay, we’ll be on the, let’s get on the phone now.
    0:18:57 They’re like, okay.
    0:18:59 We don’t have it ready yet.
    0:19:00 So you just told me you desperately need help.
    0:19:01 Let’s go.
    0:19:05 So we get on a phone call and we say, just give us what you got for so far for the pitch.
    0:19:05 Yeah.
    0:19:06 And they give it to us.
    0:19:12 And we give them some feedback and they’re like, oh wow, this was really, really useful.
    0:19:15 And so Suli goes, great.
    0:19:17 How long do you think it’s going to take you to make these changes?
    0:19:19 Like, well, we’ll reach back out next week.
    0:19:21 And I’m really like, so thankful for your help.
    0:19:22 Want to see what happens.
    0:19:23 He goes, next week.
    0:19:24 I thought this is important.
    0:19:25 Like it is important.
    0:19:26 He goes, cool.
    0:19:28 Like, I think you could probably make, get these changes done or most of them done.
    0:19:30 80% of them in the next few hours.
    0:19:32 So let’s talk again at 3 p.m.
    0:19:33 By lunch.
    0:19:33 Yeah, exactly.
    0:19:36 So he was like, we met at 11 and he’s like, we’re going to meet again at three.
    0:19:36 Yeah.
    0:19:41 And I just didn’t even know that was like a norm you could do, especially externally to someone else’s
    0:19:43 company be like, why are we not having two meetings today?
    0:19:44 Why not?
    0:19:45 Why not do two days?
    0:19:49 And as soon as I saw that, my own speed bar got raised because I realized like something
    0:19:52 that was almost an invisible wall really wasn’t real.
    0:19:53 And I could change that.
    0:19:56 I could make that, that small difference in my own speed pace.
    0:19:57 Right.
    0:20:03 So most people think of speed as process or standups or schedules or Kanban board.
    0:20:04 That isn’t.
    0:20:05 It’s your own emotional mentality.
    0:20:06 That’s what speed is.
    0:20:09 And you’re saying there’s like this list of emotional blockers.
    0:20:13 So if I’m a founder, what are the most common emotional blockers slowing me down from being
    0:20:13 higher speed?
    0:20:15 The big one is just fear.
    0:20:20 You’re fearful of getting it wrong because you were taught all through growing up that
    0:20:25 getting the answers right on the test got you love, got you appreciation, got you status,
    0:20:27 got you into the right college.
    0:20:30 And in the real world, that’s just not the case.
    0:20:35 You’re just got to like, like Elon, just blow up the rockets, blow up the rockets, blow up the
    0:20:36 rockets, and so the rockets don’t blow up anymore.
    0:20:37 Right.
    0:20:41 And, and so his, his, his speed bar is what you see.
    0:20:41 Right.
    0:20:44 And so he has broken through into a completely different realm.
    0:20:47 The one that Mike Cassidy has always lived in.
    0:20:47 Right.
    0:20:49 And there’s just a few of us living in that realm.
    0:20:53 And so much is possible once you live in that realm of your mind.
    0:20:54 Yeah.
    0:20:55 You get, now that you say, you can see it everywhere.
    0:20:59 Like Doge, they set a target, which was Doge will wind down in two years or whatever.
    0:21:01 He’s like, we don’t need the full term.
    0:21:02 Why would I take the full term?
    0:21:03 Two years will be done.
    0:21:03 We set a date.
    0:21:05 That was like the first thing he did was set a date.
    0:21:10 And people burn out and people like, oh, I worked there for four years, got my equity
    0:21:11 and I’m gone, man.
    0:21:12 I never want to do that again.
    0:21:12 It was miserable.
    0:21:15 Ah, they look back and you know what they talk about at Thanksgiving?
    0:21:20 Well, when I was working at Tesla, when I was working at SpaceX, like it’s the most amazing
    0:21:20 time of your life.
    0:21:23 You talk to people who are in World War II and they’re like, what was the best years of your
    0:21:24 life during the war?
    0:21:25 We were together.
    0:21:26 We were bonded.
    0:21:27 We had a mission.
    0:21:31 We did the, you know, so this is type two fun and, and going fast as part of that.
    0:21:32 You have this diagram.
    0:21:33 I thought it was pretty cool.
    0:21:33 Yeah.
    0:21:35 It’s a technology window.
    0:21:37 You have actually two little things here.
    0:21:42 So you have this one, which is the technology window curve.
    0:21:43 I hadn’t seen this before.
    0:21:47 And then you have this kind of historical thing.
    0:21:48 It’s like railroads.
    0:21:55 The technology window was open for 40 years, cars, 25 years, radio, 24 years.
    0:21:57 And so you have, and now AI, eight years so far.
    0:21:58 So far.
    0:22:00 So can you make me smarter as a founder?
    0:22:03 Because it seems like this is important because timing is everything.
    0:22:05 Being early is the same thing as being wrong.
    0:22:07 Being late is the same thing as being wrong.
    0:22:11 So getting the, being, knowing where you are in the window seems important, but I’ve never
    0:22:13 really talked about it this much.
    0:22:13 Yeah.
    0:22:18 So look, I, you know, as I said, I went to Harvard Business School and I lecture at Stanford and
    0:22:19 lecture at Berkeley and MIT.
    0:22:21 And I’ve never seen anyone teaching this and I’ve never seen anyone teaching this.
    0:22:22 And it was really surprising to me.
    0:22:31 And basically what you realize is that most big, interesting, world-changing companies are a result of riding a particular technology wave.
    0:22:41 So if you think about the railroads, the giant railroads, Southern Pacific Railroad, which transformed America, they leveraged a new technology, which was railroad technology.
    0:22:46 Both the steel for the rails and the steam engines and all the stuff that came with that technology.
    0:22:50 And that, that window in the United States was open for only 40 years.
    0:22:59 If you were, and that was between 1830 and 1870, if you were trying to start a railroad company in 1880, you got your ass kicked.
    0:23:00 Right.
    0:23:08 And they all wanted to be rich and famous, like the people who had been building it the 40 years earlier, but they couldn’t anymore because the technology window had closed 90%.
    0:23:09 It was just closed.
    0:23:11 You wouldn’t even think of starting a railroad company today.
    0:23:12 Pretty obvious.
    0:23:15 But then you look at other technologies like cable.
    0:23:18 And that was open between like 1970, 1984.
    0:23:24 Only a 14-year window during which all the cable companies that were meaningful were created.
    0:23:26 Anybody who tried to do it afterwards got their ass kicked.
    0:23:31 Same thing was true in consumer internet once we looked at it.
    0:23:36 And, you know, it opened in 1994 because remember, in 93, nobody used software.
    0:23:37 Right.
    0:23:38 No consumers, no small businesses, no enterprises.
    0:23:42 We had some AS400s running around and it was all on-prem software and blah, blah, blah.
    0:23:44 But it was very small.
    0:23:46 Suddenly, we now have 4 billion people using software.
    0:23:49 And that was because of the browser and the internet and TCPIP.
    0:24:01 That opens up and between 94 and 2013, it was a fantastic time to start companies in the consumer software space and invest in them from seed or Series A.
    0:24:03 In 2014, the window just closed.
    0:24:09 You can look at the number of unicorns created from 2014 to today and it’s really small.
    0:24:15 It’s like Discord, TikTok, you know, Starlink, ChatGPT.
    0:24:17 There’s like 10 of them in the West.
    0:24:21 Versus how many, you know, during the previous, let’s say, 10 years, you might have 10x that number.
    0:24:22 Yeah, you would have 15 a year.
    0:24:22 Right.
    0:24:26 And so, what we haven’t been talking about is that the technology window closed.
    0:24:29 Like it closes for every technology, you know, window.
    0:24:31 If you look at automobiles, same thing.
    0:24:44 All the automobile companies that we know of were started between 1898 and 1928, right, until Tesla, when the underlying technology window opened around lithium batteries and electric engines.
    0:24:47 And now we have two interesting companies, Tesla and Rivian.
    0:24:48 Okay.
    0:24:53 So, this opening of the technology and the closing of the technology window is very predictable.
    0:24:54 We don’t know how long it’s going to be.
    0:24:56 Sometimes 40 years, sometimes it’s eight years.
    0:25:02 It’s like with cell phone networks in the United States, which is eight years, but the phases of it are very predictable.
    0:25:05 And there’s just six phases in it, and you can see it.
    0:25:07 And so, once you see them.
    0:25:08 That’s these six phases.
    0:25:09 Yeah, once these six phases.
    0:25:14 The first phase is just, it’s a hobbyist, is really interested in the technology just because of fun.
    0:25:14 Right.
    0:25:15 Geeks, basically.
    0:25:19 And this is kind of like what the nerds do on the weekend, we’ll all do in 10 years type of thing.
    0:25:19 That’s right.
    0:25:21 What was a toy before is now a big thing, that kind of idea.
    0:25:26 And then there is, the second phase is the status and money phase.
    0:25:31 Where suddenly, some geek makes a ton of money and gets status.
    0:25:33 And then now everyone’s interested.
    0:25:34 Oculus sells to Facebook.
    0:25:41 And everybody now can understand it because the abnormal people, the savage people, are probably just hobbyists.
    0:25:41 Right.
    0:25:43 But normal people are money and status seeking.
    0:25:43 Right.
    0:25:44 Right?
    0:25:46 So, they can understand money and status.
    0:25:47 I want that.
    0:25:47 How did he get that?
    0:25:48 Or how did she get that?
    0:25:49 I want that.
    0:25:51 So, that’s when the knowledge diffuses.
    0:25:54 What’s going on over there with that internet thing?
    0:25:55 Broadcasters are like, oh, start talking about it.
    0:25:57 Bloggers, start talking about it.
    0:26:01 There’s conferences pop up about the AI wave and agents and all this.
    0:26:03 We’re diffusing the knowledge now.
    0:26:04 More people are getting in on the secret.
    0:26:04 That’s right.
    0:26:09 And then you get tons of competition flows in.
    0:26:10 A lot of investment money comes in.
    0:26:11 Teams form.
    0:26:13 Everyone can understand the idea because the knowledge is diffused.
    0:26:16 And so, five or six people get together and start a company and then they get funded, blah, blah, blah.
    0:26:18 And then the incumbents arrive.
    0:26:21 The incumbents arrive because they’ve found the network effect.
    0:26:22 They had a better management team.
    0:26:24 They raised more money and crushed the other people.
    0:26:27 Something happened to give them their defensibility.
    0:26:27 Right.
    0:26:31 And they establish themselves as the incumbents and then they just squeeze down.
    0:26:33 And the window closes.
    0:26:39 If you want to watch an interesting, beautiful dramatization of what this looks like, watch the movie Tucker with Jeff Bridges.
    0:26:43 It’s a story that I think the movie came out in the 90s.
    0:26:45 It was about something that happened in 1952.
    0:26:48 And it shows you what it’s like to build a car company in 1952.
    0:26:48 Okay.
    0:26:50 You just get your ass kicked by the incumbents.
    0:26:52 The window is shut.
    0:26:53 Get your ass kicked.
    0:26:53 There’s nothing you can do.
    0:26:55 There’s nothing you can do.
    0:26:57 And so, we see this pattern over and over again.
    0:26:59 And I think it’s very important for us as founders.
    0:27:06 So, the window opens due to the technology, underlying technology, and it closes because the winners get network effects.
    0:27:16 And their flywheel is spinning so fast that even if you’re hardworking and you’re super smart and you’ve got great design and great engineering, you can’t compete with a network effect once it really kicks in.
    0:27:16 That’s right.
    0:27:17 And it could be a network effect.
    0:27:19 It could be an embeddedness.
    0:27:21 It could be a scale.
    0:27:22 Or it could be a brand.
    0:27:25 Those are the four defensibilities in the digital world that now exist.
    0:27:26 So, it’s just one of those.
    0:27:27 Quick example of each of the four.
    0:27:30 So, like, let’s do a simple brand.
    0:27:33 So, a brand network effect would be something like Ford.
    0:27:38 People just keep buying their Fords because they’re loyal to Fords, even though, you know, the Toyota trucks might be better.
    0:27:43 You have a brand effect around Nike, obviously.
    0:27:45 I mean, I feel a certain way when I wear it.
    0:27:45 Right.
    0:27:47 You know, I project something.
    0:27:49 Everybody knows what it means when I wear Nike.
    0:27:53 So, there’s sort of a knowledge network effect, but we still call it a brand effect.
    0:27:54 It’s quite close to a network effect.
    0:27:55 It’s just in the mind.
    0:27:58 With, like, all luxury brands, basically, Louis Vuitton, et cetera.
    0:28:00 Yeah, those, exactly.
    0:28:01 So, those have brand effects.
    0:28:05 The network effects are the most powerful because they’re really unstoppable.
    0:28:06 I mean, look at Facebook.
    0:28:09 I mean, they’re now one and a half trillion or something.
    0:28:14 And the more people there, the more valuable those networks are.
    0:28:16 Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook.
    0:28:18 That’s classic network effect.
    0:28:19 You’ve got embedding, like Oracle.
    0:28:22 They embed that software in your operations.
    0:28:25 You’re going to retire before you rip that stuff out, right?
    0:28:27 They charge you 25% more next year.
    0:28:28 You’re going to pay.
    0:28:28 Right.
    0:28:30 There’s nothing you can do, right?
    0:28:31 It’s just…
    0:28:34 We had a startup that was trying to get rid of its birthday alarm.
    0:28:36 They’re trying to get rid of Oracle back in the day.
    0:28:42 And it took us, like, a year and a half of the worst work that every engineer hated just
    0:28:43 to get off our Oracle dependency.
    0:28:44 Right.
    0:28:45 And how much was it worth in the end?
    0:28:46 I don’t know.
    0:28:48 So, that’s an embedding.
    0:28:50 And then scale would be something like Walmart.
    0:28:53 It’s just so many stores, so much buying power.
    0:28:55 They can buy cheaper.
    0:28:56 They can sell cheaper.
    0:28:58 Everyone just goes there because it’s always going to be cheaper there.
    0:29:01 Where does Mr. Beast fit in as a content creator, right?
    0:29:02 Like, he’s kind of scaled.
    0:29:07 Basically, he gets paid the most, so he invests the most, so he has the biggest kind of set
    0:29:08 productions.
    0:29:10 He can give away the most money, which creates a lot of views.
    0:29:11 That’s a scale effect.
    0:29:11 That’s a scale.
    0:29:12 That’s a scale effect.
    0:29:13 And it’s a very weak one.
    0:29:14 Yeah.
    0:29:15 No, he’s very vulnerable.
    0:29:15 Yeah.
    0:29:18 Just like BuzzFeed was very vulnerable and wasn’t going to go anywhere.
    0:29:19 And why is that?
    0:29:20 So, explain more there.
    0:29:23 Well, because he’s in what’s called the fresh produce business, which is he has to keep producing
    0:29:26 fresh produce and putting it on the shelves, and then it times out.
    0:29:29 And he’s not building any network effect.
    0:29:30 He’s not building any embeddedness.
    0:29:33 It’s just you’re consuming his stuff on YouTube and other channels.
    0:29:35 They have the network effect.
    0:29:35 Right.
    0:29:40 And he’s just, he’s playing blackjack at the blackjack table.
    0:29:42 And as I’ve taught my sons, you don’t want to be playing blackjack.
    0:29:43 You want to be the house.
    0:29:45 And what would you do if you’re a content creator then?
    0:29:49 How would you, if you’re Mr. Beast right now, how do you not be the fresh produce business?
    0:29:51 You think about how to create a network effect.
    0:29:55 You think you go and learn about the 17 network effects and figure out which ones you could
    0:29:55 build.
    0:29:55 Right.
    0:29:57 I would go for.
    0:29:59 So, like, he’s got this chocolate brand now, right?
    0:30:00 Selling Feastables.
    0:30:02 And he literally told me, he said something great.
    0:30:04 He goes, he took us to Walmart.
    0:30:05 Yeah.
    0:30:08 So, he got into Walmart, which is like a hard, once you get this embedding, right?
    0:30:09 He’s like, I have shelf space now.
    0:30:09 Yeah.
    0:30:10 It doesn’t matter if you make another chocolate brand.
    0:30:11 I have shelf space.
    0:30:11 Yeah.
    0:30:14 And he goes, I sell this color of blue.
    0:30:17 He’s like, people don’t even, he’s like, I just need to keep showing this color of blue
    0:30:21 and I’m going to need to sell this baby blue thing as, you know, that’s, that’s my game.
    0:30:25 She sells this dark brown color and I sell this baby blue color.
    0:30:25 Yeah.
    0:30:26 Yeah.
    0:30:26 Yeah.
    0:30:29 And, and he might end up building a brand around that chocolate.
    0:30:30 Right.
    0:30:33 But it’ll take years and it’ll take hundreds of millions of dollars.
    0:30:36 And it’s not clear that it’ll happen.
    0:30:37 Right.
    0:30:42 What’s an example of somebody who you think has been clever about this and done it, whether
    0:30:46 they’re a content creator or something else, where maybe most people in their industry would
    0:30:52 have done something that’s a bit of a, doesn’t have network effects, but somebody figured out,
    0:30:55 somebody who was a little bit smarter or stumbled into something, figured out a way to do it with
    0:30:56 network effects.
    0:31:00 I can tell you a funny story about where it should have happened and it didn’t, which
    0:31:04 was Dana Carvey asked me about what should I do with danacarvey.com.
    0:31:07 And I said, what you should do is you should get Robin Williams and one other guy.
    0:31:13 And the three of you should create the standup comedy website, like for, for that niche of YouTube.
    0:31:14 Right.
    0:31:17 And then you guys judge every week who’s the best and have contests and whatnot.
    0:31:21 And I said, you create, and each of you own 33% of the company, you raise some venture capital
    0:31:24 and then you sell it for a billion to whatever.
    0:31:26 And I explained all this to him.
    0:31:28 And then at the end of the hour and a half, he said, yeah.
    0:31:30 So what do I do with danacarvey.com?
    0:31:32 Like he just, he just couldn’t get out of.
    0:31:34 I had the same conversation.
    0:31:38 I went to, uh, Hasan Minhaj has become a friend and he was on the podcast and he was, he was
    0:31:40 asking me afterwards, like, what do you, what would you do?
    0:31:40 Yeah.
    0:31:44 And I asked him, I said, what, uh, comedians today, they all sell their specials to Netflix
    0:31:46 and they’re super happy.
    0:31:47 Like we got the bag, right?
    0:31:48 $10 million, 20 million.
    0:31:51 I don’t know what Netflix plays, but let’s just assume it’s tens of millions of dollars for
    0:31:52 Dave Chappelle or whoever.
    0:31:56 But it just makes Netflix’s network effects super strong, right?
    0:32:00 Like, so they might make 10 million, but Netflix is going to become a multi hundred billion
    0:32:01 dollar company in the process.
    0:32:06 But comedians could, especially if you get Louis C.K. and Chappelle, you could theoretically
    0:32:11 say, if we just put our content here, we own the network where all the comedy content is.
    0:32:14 And that’s a much more valuable thing to own than this special.
    0:32:16 But it was kind of the same thing.
    0:32:19 It was like, yeah, but they’re throwing a big bag at us.
    0:32:22 And also, um, yeah, I want my stuff to be seen.
    0:32:24 That’s, you know, if I go there, I get distribution.
    0:32:27 If I go, if I try to make my own thing, I’m giving up distribution.
    0:32:28 I don’t know if it’s worth it.
    0:32:28 That’s right.
    0:32:31 But somebody, if somebody played that long game, I think that would be very, that’s right.
    0:32:33 And that is all network bonding.
    0:32:34 And that is all network dynamics.
    0:32:36 And that is exactly the game.
    0:32:40 And very few people think in that way, like a vampire attack, like Saudi Arabia tried to
    0:32:43 suck off some of the PGA guys and create a new golf thing.
    0:32:45 And then they ended up merging back or the USFL.
    0:32:47 What’s a vampire attack?
    0:32:52 A vampire attack is when you go into a network and you try to suck out the blood from what makes
    0:32:58 that network work and you, you essentially try to create your own network effect on your
    0:33:01 platform by sucking out the energy that had been developed on their platform.
    0:33:04 So was it smart what Saudi Arabia did and the live tour?
    0:33:05 Was that like, did they execute it well?
    0:33:07 Or what’s your takeaway from it?
    0:33:08 I didn’t follow it that much.
    0:33:12 It looked like it was only a two year effort and then they, they collapsed after two years.
    0:33:15 So I don’t know that it was perfectly executed, but it is the right idea.
    0:33:15 Right.
    0:33:19 It is the right idea because they were being told by the, they’re, you know, they’re trying
    0:33:21 to improve their brand, right?
    0:33:24 They’re trying to do brand association to improve their brand.
    0:33:27 Everyone’s trying to ratchet up the status of their own brand, whether it’s Saudi Arabia
    0:33:27 or whoever.
    0:33:32 And, uh, they, they were trying to borrow off the PGA and the PGA was putting all these
    0:33:37 restrictions on them and they were, they didn’t have a, uh, a free operating field.
    0:33:40 You know, they were, it’s like they were on iOS and they were like, well, I don’t want
    0:33:41 to pay 30% to you.
    0:33:42 Let me do my own thing.
    0:33:43 And they tried it.
    0:33:44 And then it’s just hard.
    0:33:47 There’s an article on, on, on effects.com, which people should read.
    0:33:50 I think it’s one of the better articles, but it might not be as read as it should be.
    0:33:52 It’s called network bonding theory.
    0:33:56 It’s a little bit boring title, but, uh, I wonder why people didn’t, yeah, network bonding
    0:33:56 theory.
    0:34:02 It’s it’s, and it explains it uses messy as an example, uh, uh, within the social, within
    0:34:05 the soccer networks and how much he makes for the whole networks.
    0:34:07 So, so what, what’s the story there with messy?
    0:34:12 The basic story is that in the, it was funny because this was before he went to, uh, Miami.
    0:34:12 Right.
    0:34:19 Um, I said, um, you know, PSG offered to give him X much amount of money and some tokens cause
    0:34:24 they were doing these like crypto tokens and, uh, they still aren’t paying him enough.
    0:34:26 Like everyone was outraged at how much they were paying him.
    0:34:32 And I said, they’re still not paying him enough because he moves the licensing for TV rights
    0:34:38 and he moves viewership and he, he is going to bring so much more attention to the French
    0:34:45 soccer system so that every comp, every, um, game that messy plays around the French system
    0:34:49 is going to be watched three or four times more by the world than it would have been last
    0:34:49 year.
    0:34:50 Right.
    0:34:53 And the value to them of that is way more than they’re going to end up paying him.
    0:34:54 Right.
    0:35:00 And so you look at Tiger Woods, if Tiger Woods plays, the PGA makes one and a half billion
    0:35:01 dollars more per year.
    0:35:05 And if he’s not playing, it’s like these nodes in these networks.
    0:35:08 And so if you could get Tiger to go over here and you could get this and this and that, if
    0:35:12 you did the right vampire attack, you could actually create a higher status, better thing.
    0:35:12 Right.
    0:35:17 But it’s literally about measuring the nodes and measuring their effects and then having
    0:35:21 a strategy for the order in which you get them, what you compensate them with.
    0:35:21 Right.
    0:35:22 You can compensate them with money.
    0:35:24 You can compensate them with titles.
    0:35:25 You can compensate with status.
    0:35:28 You can, whatever they want, figure out how to compensate them.
    0:35:31 And that’s what the article walks through is all the different ways you can compensate
    0:35:33 people to come to your network.
    0:35:35 I have a real world example of this.
    0:35:39 When I was at Twitch, Microsoft tried to do a, Microsoft, YouTube, they’re all trying to
    0:35:40 do a vampire attack on Twitch.
    0:35:44 So Twitch was the number one gaming network for watching people live stream video games.
    0:35:46 And the number one streamer was Ninja.
    0:35:50 So Microsoft came out and they offered him something, 20, $30 million, come to us.
    0:35:53 He might’ve been making 6 million or 7 million a year on Twitch.
    0:35:54 Yeah.
    0:35:54 I don’t know.
    0:35:59 These are hypothetical numbers, but like some, they offered more than he was making by like
    0:36:00 a couple, you know, two or three X.
    0:36:01 Yeah.
    0:36:03 So he leaves and it’s code red inside Twitch.
    0:36:09 And there’s the, there’s some people who are like, we, you know, we have to keep the integrity,
    0:36:10 you know, we have to keep our community.
    0:36:12 We can’t let them just poach our streamers.
    0:36:12 We have to fight.
    0:36:15 And then there’s the finance people who are like, that doesn’t make any sense.
    0:36:16 That’s too much money.
    0:36:19 And then there’s people who were like, I think if we lose too many people, at some point, there’s
    0:36:21 a critical mass where people will leave Twitch.
    0:36:23 How do we solve this problem?
    0:36:25 And finance people wanted to use the finance tool.
    0:36:29 The community people wanted to make an impassioned, heartfelt argument.
    0:36:32 And, you know, there’s other people who are the strategists who were trying to make
    0:36:34 an argument about like, hey, there’s some tipping point.
    0:36:36 We don’t know where it is, but there was some math.
    0:36:39 There was, like you said, there’s like, this is a mathematical principle.
    0:36:43 And so one thing, one of the ways that we looked at it was for every viewer, forget the
    0:36:46 streamer, for every viewer, how many channels are they bonded to?
    0:36:47 You use the word bond.
    0:36:47 Yeah.
    0:36:52 So it’s like they come every week and they’re watching three channels, four channels, five
    0:36:52 channels.
    0:36:52 Yeah.
    0:36:55 And it turns out if you just take one of those channels out, they’ll just swap to another
    0:36:56 channel.
    0:36:56 No problem.
    0:37:01 But as soon as they lose a certain number of channels in their bonded network, they’ll just
    0:37:02 go wherever that is.
    0:37:07 And so strategically, if one of those other companies had figured out which network of
    0:37:11 streamers to go after, not the ranked list, because they would take Ninja, who’s a Fortnite
    0:37:13 streamer, but they wouldn’t take the other Fortnite streamers.
    0:37:16 They would take this other guy who plays this other style of content.
    0:37:16 Yeah.
    0:37:18 And their fans didn’t overlap.
    0:37:18 Yeah.
    0:37:22 So it was very ineffective, whereas if they had gone and been like, all right, these
    0:37:26 15 streamers are all part of, they’re all core to network, all the viewers care about each
    0:37:26 other.
    0:37:26 Of a subcluster.
    0:37:27 Of a cluster.
    0:37:27 Of a cluster.
    0:37:27 Yeah.
    0:37:32 If, and they may not look like they’re the biggest, but there’s a, that would have created
    0:37:35 the tipping point, but they didn’t have the data or the know-how.
    0:37:35 Beautifully described.
    0:37:36 That’s exactly right.
    0:37:36 Yeah.
    0:37:37 That’s a great story.
    0:37:41 That’s, that’s a perfect example of network bonding and how you can do the math on it.
    0:37:42 And then you have to think about it, right?
    0:37:43 Or you’re going to waste all your money and time.
    0:37:43 Right.
    0:37:44 Which is what they did.
    0:37:45 All right.
    0:37:46 Let’s take another one.
    0:37:47 So what do we got here?
    0:37:49 Language first.
    0:37:50 Uh, yeah.
    0:37:56 So it turns out that, look, the way I look at it, there are five things in the world that
    0:37:57 kind of explain everything.
    0:37:59 Okay.
    0:38:00 One of them is language.
    0:38:01 One of them is networks.
    0:38:04 Like if you look at network dynamics, like why do rulers rule?
    0:38:05 What’s going on with Trump?
    0:38:06 What’s happening with elections?
    0:38:08 These are all network dynamics.
    0:38:10 And if you study networks, you can really understand all that.
    0:38:15 Energy is another one, which is who has the oil?
    0:38:17 Who needs the energy to live?
    0:38:21 Because our, our bodies are just absorbing energy and expending energy and countries absorb
    0:38:22 and expand and households absorb and expand.
    0:38:26 You can actually understand the entire world just by studying energy and energy flows.
    0:38:28 But one of them is language.
    0:38:30 Language and mindsets.
    0:38:31 And what do you mean by language?
    0:38:32 So what are we talking about?
    0:38:32 So language.
    0:38:35 So English or more specific than that?
    0:38:35 More specific.
    0:38:39 So there’s a guy named George Lakoff that people should study.
    0:38:42 He’s a semiologist over at Berkeley.
    0:38:55 And he was the one who found out that the Republicans in the 70s said, look, we are never going to win another election unless we change the dialogue in this country in the United States.
    0:38:58 So they went around and they created a three ring binder and they created language.
    0:39:03 They said, when we talk about tax, we’re going to talk about not tax cuts, tax relief.
    0:39:07 Because we’re going to use the word relief because we’re going to imply that it’s a disease or a sickness.
    0:39:07 Right.
    0:39:09 No one’s going to be thinking.
    0:39:11 It’s the opposite of stress, relief.
    0:39:12 Right.
    0:39:12 What do taxes do?
    0:39:13 Stress you out.
    0:39:14 Right.
    0:39:20 And so they went through and for every subject, they developed, they thought about the language they were using.
    0:39:25 And then they took, they printed tens of thousands of these three ring binders and they went all around the country and they took every Republican.
    0:39:27 They say, use these words.
    0:39:31 Everyone use these words and we will turn the situation around.
    0:39:36 And that was, that was just like eight years or six years before Reagan got elected.
    0:39:36 Wow.
    0:39:39 And it was very, very effective.
    0:39:43 And George Lakoff is like, hey, Democrats, you guys have to start thinking at this level.
    0:39:45 And he’s been screaming this.
    0:39:46 He’s just a consultant or who’s this guy?
    0:39:53 He’s a professor and then a consultant and he’s got his own institute and, and I think he’s retired now, but you should study.
    0:39:56 Everybody should study, whether you’re Republican or Democrat, doesn’t matter.
    0:39:58 Like this is the way the world functions.
    0:40:00 It functions on language.
    0:40:03 And you have to notice that game being played.
    0:40:07 Like people were like, oh, we’re going to build a product and then we’ll market it.
    0:40:15 I’m like, no, dude, pick the word first and then figure out what the product does behind the word, because the word has a promise to it.
    0:40:18 So in Silicon Valley, I feel like you described it.
    0:40:21 Well, people think name of your company doesn’t matter.
    0:40:22 Just pick one.
    0:40:22 It’s fine.
    0:40:22 Yeah.
    0:40:24 Oh, look, Google, it’s random word.
    0:40:25 Don’t worry about it.
    0:40:25 Yeah.
    0:40:32 So people think names don’t matter and people think marketing and language comes after you build a, we’ll just build a great product.
    0:40:36 And then at the, right before it gets out the door, we’ll slap a few labels on it, write a description.
    0:40:38 That’ll be enough.
    0:40:39 You believe the opposite.
    0:40:41 So you believe names really matter.
    0:40:41 Yeah.
    0:40:42 And that language really matters.
    0:40:44 Could you give me why names matter?
    0:40:51 Very practically, it lowers your cost of user acquisition and increases your lifetime value to actually give you the business that you want.
    0:40:53 So we were building a game.
    0:41:01 We knew we wanted to build a particular type of role play of, of strategy game and we had to decide what to call it.
    0:41:05 So we tested out names and we, we went onto Facebook.
    0:41:15 We spent $2,000 on ads saying wars of Mars, wars of space, wars of Atlantis, wars of the Amazon, wars of Egypt.
    0:41:19 And we tried all these different places, like where were we going to have the wars?
    0:41:23 And the number one click through blew our mind.
    0:41:24 It was Atlantis.
    0:41:25 And so.
    0:41:26 That’s so funny.
    0:41:31 When you just said them, immediately when you said wars of Atlantis, I was like, that, like my, my pick would have been that one too.
    0:41:32 Okay, great.
    0:41:33 The five you just said.
    0:41:33 So that works.
    0:41:36 And so, so then we said, okay, we know it’s going to be in Atlantis.
    0:41:36 Now, what is it?
    0:41:38 Is it going to be Amazons of Atlantis?
    0:41:39 Is it going to be realms of Atlantis?
    0:41:41 Is it going to be wars of Atlantis?
    0:41:42 Is it going to be dragons of Atlantis?
    0:41:45 And we went down, we did another 20 of those.
    0:41:52 And we spent another $2,000 and the number one click through was, well, the number, number one click through is Amazons of Atlantis, but we knew what people were clicking for.
    0:41:56 They were looking to look at, you know, girls, girls, drawings, drawings of girls.
    0:41:57 So we discounted that.
    0:41:58 And we said, what’s number two?
    0:41:59 Number two is dragons.
    0:42:01 So we’re like, all right, that’s the game.
    0:42:02 Dragons of Atlantis.
    0:42:02 Right.
    0:42:08 And we knew we would lower our click through rate or our cost of click through by 75%.
    0:42:08 Right.
    0:42:12 Which would give us a massive advantage over the other gaming companies that were buying ads on Facebook at the time.
    0:42:17 And so we then told the game developers, it’s going to be dragons and it’s going to be in Atlantis.
    0:42:20 And so then the game rolled from there.
    0:42:20 Right.
    0:42:23 And then in the end, we were doubling every day.
    0:42:27 And in the year two, I think we did 120 million revenue.
    0:42:32 I mean, it’s, you know, we merged with Kabam and then the company grew like crazy.
    0:42:34 I think we were 55% of the revenue when we merged.
    0:42:34 I don’t know.
    0:42:35 It was like crazy.
    0:42:35 Yeah.
    0:42:39 By the way, language is one of the ultimate network effects, right?
    0:42:39 Yeah.
    0:42:43 Why are people in India and China studying English?
    0:42:46 Because English is a more valuable language.
    0:42:50 It has a higher market cap because more people speak it, especially in markets that matter.
    0:42:53 You know, you can’t go to New York if they don’t speak English.
    0:42:58 So I don’t know Mandarin today or, you know, I don’t know Swahili.
    0:43:02 But if 95% of the world spoke Swahili, I would have to learn Swahili.
    0:43:08 It would be the most important thing I could do in my life is join that network of Swahili because that’s where all the value is.
    0:43:09 So well said.
    0:43:15 You had said something about language too, where you said, it’s not just about you write language that will describe it to your customers.
    0:43:20 First, you figure out the words because you’re describing to yourself what you should be building.
    0:43:23 And it basically gives you clarity as a product builder.
    0:43:26 Do you have any stories or examples that kind of drive that home?
    0:43:33 Yeah, we had a company, I don’t know, two decades ago, we had a product that was allowing you to store your digital photos.
    0:43:38 Digital photography was new and we’re like, store your digital photographs here.
    0:43:43 And people would come, but not very many people were coming because it wasn’t a multiplayer game.
    0:43:45 I store them there, I retrieve them there, single player game.
    0:43:51 So I said, okay, guys, we’re just going to change the homepage to say, share your photos.
    0:43:55 And I just changed the name, I changed the word on the homepage.
    0:44:00 And my team said, but James, our product doesn’t let people share photos.
    0:44:02 We’re lying to people.
    0:44:03 That makes me really uncomfortable.
    0:44:06 And I said, so fix it.
    0:44:13 And so three days later, they had figured out how to put in features that allowed you to share your photos.
    0:44:17 And within six months, we’d registered 47 million people virally.
    0:44:19 47 million.
    0:44:21 Yeah, back when there was like 800 million people using the internet.
    0:44:25 So it was extremely viral because we changed the word.
    0:44:26 Wow.
    0:44:29 You also had a lot of virality with Tickle.
    0:44:29 Yeah.
    0:44:31 Tickle’s an interesting name first.
    0:44:34 And then you had a lot of virality there.
    0:44:35 Do you have any good Tickle or viral stories?
    0:44:36 Yeah.
    0:44:46 So I learned about the importance of words in part because the first name I had for the company was Emode, which none of you can know how to spell or know what the hell that is.
    0:44:53 And when I changed the name to Tickle, in the middle of it, my board almost wanted to fire me.
    0:44:57 The entire engineering team threatened to quit.
    0:44:58 They came to me and they said, we’re all leaving.
    0:45:02 We don’t want to work for a site that sounds like a porn site because you’re changing this name to Tickle.
    0:45:05 And everyone was against it.
    0:45:07 And I knew everyone would be.
    0:45:13 So the process of deciding on the name, I picked the two most language savvy people I knew in my company.
    0:45:14 And it was just the three of us who decided.
    0:45:15 And then we announced the change.
    0:45:16 We did not let anybody else.
    0:45:18 A little bit like the Luka Doncic.
    0:45:19 Right.
    0:45:20 Trade.
    0:45:20 Trade.
    0:45:28 It’s just if you want to get something done, you got to kind of keep it close to the chest because, you know, people will be against it and they’ll want to complain and whine and do all the things they do.
    0:45:34 So we did it and the traffic went up 30% in a week.
    0:45:42 And we had gotten an offer for $45 million as a company when we were called Emode.
    0:45:45 And then six months later, we got an offer for $110.
    0:45:52 So it literally doubled the value of the company by changing it to a good name that was spellable, memorable, interesting, fun to talk about.
    0:45:57 And so I learned, wow, you can double the value of your company by having the right name.
    0:46:02 And so that then led me down to watch more and more language and then learn about George Lakoff and all that kind of stuff.
    0:46:06 And so we had to use that language ability for our role of our role paths.
    0:46:09 We were in the fresh produce business at Tickle.
    0:46:11 And we didn’t have a network effect initially.
    0:46:15 And so we had to reinvent the growth channels every three months.
    0:46:15 Explain what it was.
    0:46:16 What was Tickle?
    0:46:19 Tickle was a site where you could take self-assessment tests.
    0:46:21 So think the first BuzzFeed.
    0:46:22 Okay.
    0:46:25 So we were the first people to put self-assessment tests on the internet.
    0:46:26 Is that a fancy way of saying personality quizzes?
    0:46:27 Personality quizzes.
    0:46:27 Yeah.
    0:46:28 Yeah.
    0:46:33 And we had, you know, five PhDs on staff and it was legit.
    0:46:35 And you weren’t trying to make something silly.
    0:46:38 You actually wanted to make like kind of Myers-Briggs-y type of stuff.
    0:46:45 You could actually learn something maybe meaningful about yourself, your character, how you’re wired so that you could make better life decisions.
    0:46:45 Yeah.
    0:46:47 But that was kind of what you wanted to sell.
    0:46:48 It’s not what the market wanted.
    0:46:48 Yeah.
    0:46:51 What the market wanted was something like, which breed of dog are you?
    0:46:53 Or who’s your celebrity match?
    0:46:53 Right.
    0:46:55 Or which Victoria’s Secret Panty are you?
    0:46:56 You know, that kind of thing.
    0:46:58 And those tests all did really well and got a lot of traffic.
    0:47:03 And so about 80% of the tests taken were silly and 20% were serious.
    0:47:05 But how did you even discover the silly ones?
    0:47:08 Like, did you one day you were just like, ah, let’s try this at lunch?
    0:47:09 Or how did that happen?
    0:47:11 What happened was we were off salary.
    0:47:12 We were running out of money.
    0:47:14 We were almost dead.
    0:47:16 I’ve never even heard of off salary.
    0:47:17 Is that just like the phase right before death?
    0:47:18 Yeah.
    0:47:18 Yeah.
    0:47:21 Rick Marini was my co-founder.
    0:47:23 We were living in Boston at the time.
    0:47:26 And we were off salary for six months at that point.
    0:47:31 And we said, well, fuck it.
    0:47:34 So we get to the fuck it moment, which is always the best moment.
    0:47:36 The two most powerful words in the entrepreneur’s dictionary.
    0:47:38 You know, you get clarity finally.
    0:47:41 That you’re not going to do what you set out to do.
    0:47:42 You’re going to do what’s going to work.
    0:47:44 And I said, well, fuck it.
    0:47:46 Let’s just do something that will get traffic.
    0:47:48 Because we got to grow this thing so that we can survive.
    0:47:52 And I had a friend who worked in an advertising agency in New York.
    0:47:57 And he said, if you want people to remember your ads, put puppies and babies in the ad.
    0:47:58 And then we watched the Super Bowl ads.
    0:48:00 And sure enough, they all had puppies and babies in them.
    0:48:03 And so I said, hey, guys, let’s do a puppy test and a baby test.
    0:48:04 And they said, really?
    0:48:06 Finally, we can do something fun?
    0:48:08 They were so excited.
    0:48:08 The team was so excited.
    0:48:09 And I said, sure.
    0:48:12 And they said, well, if we’re doing those, can we do the, who’s your celebrity match?
    0:48:13 I’m like, yeah, fuck it.
    0:48:14 Go ahead.
    0:48:19 And so we put up the dog test and the baby test and the celebrity match test.
    0:48:21 And eight days later, a million people were trying to get on the website.
    0:48:22 Wow.
    0:48:24 It was just super, what we call novelty viral.
    0:48:26 There was no mechanism for it.
    0:48:27 There was no A-B testing that we did.
    0:48:28 We didn’t manufacture the virality.
    0:48:29 It was novelty.
    0:48:30 Right.
    0:48:30 Novelty.
    0:48:32 The person had to tell another friend.
    0:48:34 Well, they wanted to show another friend voluntarily.
    0:48:35 That’s right.
    0:48:38 It was such a cool thing for them that they had to bring it up at lunch.
    0:48:41 And you sell this company for $110 million or something like that.
    0:48:43 Were you rich before that?
    0:48:45 Or that was like your moment to like make it?
    0:48:46 I was not rich.
    0:48:48 I had a white Toyota Corolla I bought for $10,000.
    0:48:53 And my wife and I had two babies and we were living in a rented apartment.
    0:48:56 And was the company like really successful?
    0:48:58 Did you think it was worth $110 million?
    0:49:00 Or you’re like, holy shit, why are they offering me $110 million for this?
    0:49:02 No, no, it was definitely worth $110 million.
    0:49:06 It was worth more than that because the company that bought us was Monster.
    0:49:08 And they needed our viral ability.
    0:49:10 They needed our network effects thinking.
    0:49:13 They needed all the tests we had for all the…
    0:49:16 But as a standalone business, was it kind of going to be worth a lot or no?
    0:49:20 No, we would have had to iterate into something else.
    0:49:25 We would have had to become more like Facebook.
    0:49:28 The problem was we’d started our social network without real names.
    0:49:29 Right.
    0:49:32 And you told me some story about when you sold.
    0:49:36 You’re like, you did something at the last hour or last minute of the sale.
    0:49:37 Yeah.
    0:49:39 What was that story?
    0:49:46 So, we were flying to New York with the four of us to finally pitch the 16-person board of Monster.
    0:49:48 They had a $7 billion market cap at the time.
    0:49:59 And the night before on the red eye, I actually lowered the projections to be more realistic to what we were going to do.
    0:50:01 And it freaked out my team.
    0:50:01 Right.
    0:50:04 They were like, dude, they’re not going to do this if we lower the projections.
    0:50:06 And I’m like, no, we need to be more honest with them.
    0:50:07 This is going to be a long-term relationship.
    0:50:10 These are good guys.
    0:50:14 So, in the end, we meet with the 16-person board.
    0:50:16 They decide to do it.
    0:50:20 And then we go up to the top floor of the building overlooking Manhattan.
    0:50:23 And this guy, Andy McKelvey, amazing guy.
    0:50:25 At the time, he was probably 64 or something.
    0:50:27 He’s – or maybe 68.
    0:50:31 He had acquired 220 companies to build Monster.
    0:50:33 Monster, he had bought for $400,000.
    0:50:34 Wow.
    0:50:38 When he had bought an ad agency in Boston, and they had a side project called the Monster
    0:50:39 Board.
    0:50:40 He didn’t even know that he had bought it.
    0:50:43 He bought an agency, happened to buy Monster.
    0:50:45 And that became the $7 billion value.
    0:50:45 Wow.
    0:50:47 So, he was just – he was just generative.
    0:50:48 He’s just an acquisition animal.
    0:50:49 Yeah.
    0:50:51 Just an East Coast acquisition guy.
    0:50:53 He had a lot of character, this guy.
    0:50:59 Anyway, he says, so, you know, I offered you, you know, 91.
    0:51:03 Would you take – you know, is there any room to negotiate?
    0:51:06 And I said, sure, take 10% off.
    0:51:07 And he says, interesting.
    0:51:08 What do you want?
    0:51:12 I said, I want you to pay all of my employees out before you pay me, and I want you to pay
    0:51:14 my investors before you pay me.
    0:51:16 And he’s like, well, you know, I can’t do that because then the people will leave.
    0:51:17 I was like, they won’t leave.
    0:51:20 He’s like, but don’t people just stick around for money?
    0:51:21 I’m like, no.
    0:51:22 That’s not why most people work.
    0:51:25 So, you wanted them to get their money first.
    0:51:25 Yeah.
    0:51:28 And you’re like, mine will kick in a year later or whatever.
    0:51:28 Is that what you wanted?
    0:51:29 Yeah.
    0:51:30 And why’d you do that?
    0:51:32 I mean, that’s a crazy move.
    0:51:37 Because I felt that was the right thing to do for my employees and for my investors because
    0:51:40 they had stuck with me over this crazy five-year ride.
    0:51:42 Did you decide that, like, in the moment?
    0:51:44 Or had you been thinking, I’m going to do this?
    0:51:45 No, I decided that at the moment.
    0:51:49 And he said, wow, interesting.
    0:51:49 So, what do you want?
    0:51:51 I said, I want to pay all my employees.
    0:51:54 And he’s like, well, you promise me they’ll stay even if I pay them out?
    0:51:55 And I said, yeah.
    0:52:02 And he said, okay, well, then in that case, I want you around a long time because I can
    0:52:03 see your character.
    0:52:03 Right.
    0:52:05 I can see that you’re a real leader.
    0:52:07 Right.
    0:52:08 You’re a mensch.
    0:52:08 Yeah.
    0:52:14 And he said, okay, I want to put a three-year earn out on this based on revenue.
    0:52:14 What about this?
    0:52:15 I said, that sounds good.
    0:52:20 And in the end, the acquisition price ended up being not 10% less than 91, but it ended up
    0:52:23 being 110 because we outperformed.
    0:52:23 The company performed, yeah.
    0:52:24 Yeah, we outperformed.
    0:52:25 Wow.
    0:52:26 That’s a great story.
    0:52:26 Yeah.
    0:52:31 And so, it was, and had I brought, if I had introduced an investment banker into this process, he would
    0:52:34 never would have returned my email or walked away.
    0:52:35 This is about humans.
    0:52:36 It’s about people.
    0:52:36 Yeah.
    0:52:39 You, I have a picture here.
    0:52:43 I actually met you, but before I met you, I met your business partner.
    0:52:43 Yeah.
    0:52:46 You and Stan.
    0:52:46 Stan.
    0:52:47 Stan Tednovsky.
    0:52:48 Yeah.
    0:52:49 He’s amazing too.
    0:52:50 Yeah.
    0:52:52 And he told me a story.
    0:52:54 So, when I, first time I met him, he was at my office.
    0:52:57 I remember Michael had this glass table so you could draw.
    0:52:57 Michael Birch.
    0:52:58 Birch.
    0:52:58 Birch, yeah.
    0:53:02 He had this glass table where you could like whiteboard on the table itself.
    0:53:02 Yeah.
    0:53:06 And I had just been writing notes as he was talking and I wrote like business
    0:53:10 bromance and I circled it question mark because he told me you guys had been, you’ve been
    0:53:13 partners for like, I don’t know, at the time, maybe 15 or 20 years.
    0:53:13 Yeah.
    0:53:15 And I could just tell it was like, wow.
    0:53:20 Like, you know, when you see a couple at dinner and they’ve been married for 30 years, but they’re
    0:53:22 like, it’s like they’re on their first date and they’re just having fun.
    0:53:24 They’re talking, they’ve got their arm around each other.
    0:53:25 It’s like, oh man, that’s what you really want.
    0:53:28 You know, when you get married, it’s not the wedding day.
    0:53:29 It’s the 20 years later.
    0:53:31 What if we’re still at dinner like that?
    0:53:34 That’s how he was kind of like talking about y’all’s partnership.
    0:53:35 And so I asked him, I said, what’s the key?
    0:53:37 Like, how did you make that work?
    0:53:39 What’s, what’s been made it, what’s made it work?
    0:53:40 He told me a bunch of things.
    0:53:41 I want to hear your take on it.
    0:53:46 But one story he told me, he goes, when you sold a company at the time, you owned the vast
    0:53:47 majority of the company, maybe 90%.
    0:53:48 I think you were wealthier.
    0:53:50 You’d put more money in before that or something.
    0:53:53 I was not wealthy, but he said you, you own, neither of us had any money.
    0:53:55 You, you own more of the company.
    0:54:00 And at the time of the sale, you, at the last minute, sort of like equalized it in some way.
    0:54:04 You gave him like a, you know, got it to more like a 50-50 arrangement.
    0:54:04 Yeah.
    0:54:09 And I was pretty blown away because you, you really know what someone’s like when the money
    0:54:10 hits the table.
    0:54:10 Yeah.
    0:54:14 And that’s not the story you normally hear of what happened when the money hit the table.
    0:54:17 The guy who had, had the leverage gave instead of took.
    0:54:18 Yeah.
    0:54:20 That was inspiring to me.
    0:54:20 I still don’t remember that.
    0:54:21 That was like 15 years ago.
    0:54:22 I heard that story.
    0:54:22 Yeah.
    0:54:25 Well, look, Stan’s a special guy.
    0:54:27 I mean, I think he said it pretty well.
    0:54:29 He said, James turned it into a giving competition.
    0:54:35 I think that’s the, that’s the phrase I think that will help people understand the way he and
    0:54:36 I look at the world.
    0:54:37 Turn your relationship to a giving contest.
    0:54:38 That’s what he told me.
    0:54:38 Rule number one.
    0:54:39 Yeah.
    0:54:44 And look, I think that, you know, I’ve read a lot of Greek tragedy.
    0:54:47 I learned all the classics because I went to Philip Sexton.
    0:54:53 So I got classically trained and you have to have a long arc and looking at what is a good
    0:54:55 life and what matters.
    0:54:59 And, you know, what matters is in the end is deep friendship.
    0:55:06 Like if you work hard, like even if you don’t work, look, my point is the billionaire life is
    0:55:08 available to you today.
    0:55:12 It’s just in your mind because I know a lot of billionaires.
    0:55:18 I’m not one, but I’m nearby and they all wear the same socks you do.
    0:55:20 They eat the same steak you do.
    0:55:24 They drive cars that are as safe as the car you can drive.
    0:55:30 If you can drive a Toyota Camry, they have a hot shower, just like you have a hot shower.
    0:55:36 The distance between your life and a billionaire’s life is 99% in your mind.
    0:55:40 And so it’s really not about the money.
    0:55:42 It’s about the creativity.
    0:55:44 It’s about the connection.
    0:55:46 It’s about the friendships.
    0:55:52 And it’s even harder to make friendships once you have a ton of money because money freaks
    0:55:53 people out.
    0:55:57 And so just accept where you are.
    0:56:01 Like I say, look, you can have a fun, normal life and live like a billionaire.
    0:56:07 You can have a fun striver life where you go and try to build something, do roll-ups of,
    0:56:09 you know, basement manufacturing, whatever.
    0:56:14 And then you can have sort of a global greatness life where you try to be Elon and you try to
    0:56:15 be Steve Jobs and all that.
    0:56:18 Those are kind of the three ways to go.
    0:56:22 Either way, you could live a billionaire life and have a fun life.
    0:56:24 And either way, you can make yourself miserable with your own mindset.
    0:56:28 And so it’s up, it’s all, it’s 99% in your brain.
    0:56:34 So with me and Stan and with Rick Marini, who was also a co-founder at Tickle, it, you know,
    0:56:37 and Rick and Stan and I just went to Namibia together.
    0:56:38 We’re going to Turkey together.
    0:56:42 They’re like, I’m still friends with all these people that I worked with starting in 99.
    0:56:45 I’m still friends with people I went to school in fourth grade with.
    0:56:46 I mean, that’s it.
    0:56:47 That’s life.
    0:56:49 You know, and without that, what’s the point?
    0:56:53 Without that connectivity, there’s really no point to it.
    0:56:54 What are you going to be, higher status than someone?
    0:56:56 What are you going to be, richer than someone?
    0:57:00 It doesn’t matter past even a basic point.
    0:57:01 Right.
    0:57:05 And so I never wanted to covet whatever capital I could.
    0:57:09 I just want to make sure something cool would happen and that I had enough to keep creating.
    0:57:17 And look, I think that 25 years ago, people who were coming to the Bay Area were coming because they were generative.
    0:57:19 They were coming because they wanted to create.
    0:57:27 And then because so much money was made by 2008, 2013, it’s changed the tenor a little bit here.
    0:57:32 And we’re ruining the experiment because people are so money focused.
    0:57:35 And I love the My First Million podcast.
    0:57:36 I listen to it.
    0:57:37 I love you.
    0:57:42 And the only thing I would say is the naming indicates that it’s about the money.
    0:57:47 And I actually think that people love your podcast because you deep down know it’s not about the money.
    0:57:48 Yeah.
    0:57:51 Now, we have to talk about money because everyone thinks they want the status and the power.
    0:57:52 Show up.
    0:57:56 And, you know, TechCrunch will only talk about your product launch as if it’s with a financing.
    0:57:56 Right.
    0:57:57 Because it’s talking about the money.
    0:57:59 It does get the clicks.
    0:58:05 And you guys know that it’s not about the money, that it’s about the creativity and the generativeness.
    0:58:06 Right.
    0:58:10 And the connection with people, the way you connect with each other, the way you connect with me, the way you connect.
    0:58:12 I see that in your life.
    0:58:17 And so that’s, I think, why people really listen to you is because that’s what we all really want.
    0:58:20 And, yeah, there’s money involved, but it doesn’t matter.
    0:58:20 Right.
    0:58:22 It’s just gas in the tank.
    0:58:23 It’s not the tank.
    0:58:24 Right, right, right, right.
    0:58:25 Yeah.
    0:58:26 Somebody said it well.
    0:58:29 They go, you know, you’re trying to go on the road trip.
    0:58:35 And you want to get in a car, you want your pals inside, and you want to have this kind of adventure you’re going on.
    0:58:37 And you need gas, you need fuel to go on the road trip.
    0:58:41 But this is not a nationwide tour of gas stations.
    0:58:41 Don’t forget that.
    0:58:42 Right, right.
    0:58:44 That’s a great way to put it.
    0:58:44 I love that.
    0:58:45 I love that.
    0:58:45 Yeah, so, yeah.
    0:58:50 So I turned it into a giving competition with Stan, and then he turned it right back into a giving competition with me.
    0:58:53 And Rick did as well.
    0:58:55 And, yeah, it’s been great.
    0:59:02 New York City founders, if you’ve listened to My First Million before, you know I’ve got this company called Hampton.
    0:59:05 And Hampton is a community for founders and CEOs.
    0:59:10 A lot of the stories and ideas that I get for this podcast, I actually got it from people who I met in Hampton.
    0:59:13 We have this big community of 1,000 plus people, and it’s amazing.
    0:59:19 But the main part is this eight-person core group that becomes your board of advisors for your life and for your business.
    0:59:20 And it’s life-changing.
    0:59:27 Now, to the folks in New York City, I’m building an in-real-life core group in New York City.
    0:59:38 And so if you meet one of the following criteria, your business either does $3 million in revenue, or you’ve raised $3 million in funding, or you’ve started and sold a company for at least $10 million, then you are eligible to apply.
    0:59:41 So go to joinhampton.com and apply.
    0:59:44 I’m going to be reviewing all of the applications myself.
    0:59:48 So put that you heard about this on MFM so I know to give you a little extra love.
    0:59:49 Now, back to the show.
    0:59:53 I want to do some more of these.
    0:59:54 I want to do one that’s not positive.
    0:59:55 I want to do regrets.
    0:59:58 You had told me something when I came and hang out with you.
    1:00:01 You said you were talking about a mistake you had made.
    1:00:05 You go, I had my first success or whatever, and then you go, I kind of isolated myself.
    1:00:09 I wanted to do my own lab, partly due to ego and whatever.
    1:00:10 And you started doing your own thing.
    1:00:14 And you said, like, you drew this diagram on a whiteboard.
    1:00:17 And you were like, I was in the core, the white-hot center of the network.
    1:00:18 Of Silicon Valley.
    1:00:19 Of Silicon Valley.
    1:00:21 I knew all the right people, and they like me, and I like them, et cetera.
    1:00:24 And then you were like, I kind of went over here to try to build my own empire.
    1:00:29 And you’re like, the smart thing would have been to just join Facebook or invest in Uber.
    1:00:31 And you gave me a couple of quick examples.
    1:00:32 No, that’s right.
    1:00:42 You know, in 2006, when I left Tickle after the acquisition, I wanted to just build more stuff.
    1:00:47 And I had this great guy, Stan, who I just loved living in his brain.
    1:00:47 Right.
    1:00:49 And he seemed to love living in my brain.
    1:00:53 So we just were happy to get an office and live in each other’s brains and build stuff.
    1:00:57 So we created an incubator, and we built 24 different products over the course of three and a half years.
    1:00:58 And we had so much fun.
    1:01:01 We were just spending my money, my post-tax money.
    1:01:05 And we had a blast.
    1:01:06 And we were so creative.
    1:01:11 Every day, we were doing eight different experiments, you know, on the internet to see what would happen.
    1:01:17 And in the end, we came out with three companies from that that ended up working and making people money and raising venture and doing all that stuff.
    1:01:24 But we did it in a way where, as my friends told me later, we didn’t know how to be helpful.
    1:01:27 We didn’t know, should I send you deals to invest in?
    1:01:29 Should I come work with you?
    1:01:31 Should I send you people to hire?
    1:01:33 Should – what should I do?
    1:01:34 Right.
    1:01:41 And so our structure of the incubator wasn’t super network-centric.
    1:01:44 It was creativity-centric.
    1:01:45 It was isolated a little bit.
    1:01:46 And that was a mistake.
    1:02:00 And had I gone and worked at Facebook and learned more about that ecosystem, or had I gone and become a venture guy or opened up a shingle to say, yeah, I’m doing this, but I also want to be investing on the side.
    1:02:03 I want to make 12, 15, 20 investments a year as an angel, and I can be helpful.
    1:02:05 And I didn’t do any of those things.
    1:02:06 And that was just a mistake.
    1:02:15 Now, I just had four kids in 37 months, and my wife and I were moving houses, and, you know, my parents were – my mom got dementia, and, you know, we were busy.
    1:02:16 There’s excuses.
    1:02:18 But I didn’t have the clarity.
    1:02:22 And as a mentor, I would suggest to people, think again about the network.
    1:02:23 Go back to my life on network effects.
    1:02:30 Think about everything you do as how does this affect the people and the network connectivity that I have or don’t have going forward.
    1:02:36 One of the things you said there, you were like – you told me, you go, you got to create your API.
    1:02:40 API is – people who don’t know, it’s basically like, you know, you’ll say you make a website.
    1:02:48 If you want other developers, other engineers, to be able to, like, make their product compatible with yours, you put out documentation.
    1:02:49 You say, hey, here’s what I could do.
    1:02:52 If you ask me this question, I can give you this information.
    1:02:53 I can give you this data.
    1:02:55 You know, Twitter has an API.
    1:02:56 Hey, you want to see the tweets?
    1:02:57 Here’s the tweets.
    1:02:58 You want to see the most trending ones?
    1:02:59 Here’s the trending ones.
    1:03:00 That’s what I can offer you.
    1:03:01 And here’s what I want back.
    1:03:03 You know, here’s the things I’m working on.
    1:03:05 And maybe I can tap into your API.
    1:03:10 And so you were like, you need – it sounds like what you had at the time was just a fuzzy API.
    1:03:12 People didn’t know how to plug into you.
    1:03:13 They didn’t know where you could help.
    1:03:15 They didn’t know how you wanted to be helped.
    1:03:17 But you were in a creative mode.
    1:03:20 And that stuck with me because I was like, oh, I have the same problem.
    1:03:21 I need to make it clear.
    1:03:22 What am I trying to do?
    1:03:26 Because actually, when you help people, there’s a lot of goodwill that’s built up.
    1:03:27 People love to help you back.
    1:03:35 But not if they don’t understand what game you even play and what you like to do and what your dreams are and what you’re great at, your superpowers.
    1:03:36 It’s all fuzzy.
    1:03:40 And I think making that less fuzzy was one of my big takeaways from it.
    1:03:40 Yeah, yeah.
    1:03:41 That’s a great idea.
    1:03:46 And, you know, I think that the Bay Area, more than other cultures, is a non-zero-sum thinking environment.
    1:03:47 Right.
    1:03:48 It’s one of our key traits.
    1:03:54 And that’s furthered by this idea that here’s what I can help you with.
    1:03:56 And here’s how you can help me.
    1:04:01 And what do you think about people who leave California, leave San Francisco because they don’t want to pay taxes?
    1:04:04 I think it’s short-sighted.
    1:04:09 Look, anyone can move – it’s very sensitive, very emotionally sensitive to people about their choices, about where they want to live.
    1:04:19 And, you know, if you don’t like it here or somehow you feel like everyone’s smarter than you and therefore you feel bad every day because you have low status and whatever, like, go get a therapist.
    1:04:22 Don’t, like – don’t move out of the state just because you’re feeling bad all day.
    1:04:26 But a lot of people don’t like it for whatever reason.
    1:04:29 I can’t imagine why, but they don’t.
    1:04:34 And so they’ll leave or they’ll think I can go be a big fish in a smaller pond somewhere else.
    1:04:40 But generally, they’re moving because their husband’s mother is nearby and they can help raise the kids.
    1:04:44 There’s a network – we call it network gravity that pulls you away from the Bay Area.
    1:04:48 And you just have to fight all the network gravity and just go there and be in that ecosystem.
    1:04:58 And if I can earn, you know, 20 times more here and pay 13% extra tax versus New Hampshire or Florida, then isn’t that worth it?
    1:04:58 Right.
    1:05:08 And if I’m not smart enough and good enough to earn 20 times more or even two times more, then, yeah, I should leave.
    1:05:11 If I’m, you know, if I’m not good enough to play in the NBA, I shouldn’t be in the NBA.
    1:05:11 Right.
    1:05:12 But this is the NBA.
    1:05:13 Right.
    1:05:16 And so a 13% tax on being able to play in the NBA is nothing.
    1:05:17 Yeah.
    1:05:24 Yeah, I remember you said that because at the time, I think this was like COVID times or something, like tons of people were moving and they were moving not for – not because they didn’t like it.
    1:05:29 They’re moving because they were like, oh, why do I – if I can work online anyways, might as well just be somewhere else.
    1:05:31 I’ll save 13%.
    1:05:33 And I remember you just being like, that’s insane.
    1:05:37 Like, if you – if for that reason, because one idea, one investment.
    1:05:38 One comment.
    1:05:46 One comment, one serendipitous conversation, one brunch you go to – you used to host these brunches – one connection there has paid itself off, you know, many times.
    1:05:50 And that definitely reinforced that for me.
    1:05:56 One of the things I want to ask you about is you’ve been early to a lot of big things.
    1:05:59 You wrote a blog post about Bitcoin before Bitcoin.
    1:05:59 Yeah.
    1:06:02 You were in social gaming before social gaming really took off.
    1:06:02 Yeah.
    1:06:05 You were in social networking before Facebook was invented.
    1:06:05 Yeah.
    1:06:07 So my natural question is, what’s next?
    1:06:09 What do you see around the corner?
    1:06:10 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    1:06:14 We also got into tech bio in 2016, which is, you know, software-driven biology.
    1:06:21 And we also got into AI in 2018, which wasn’t quite as early as kind of a node with OpenAI and Elon, but it was pretty close.
    1:06:22 Yeah.
    1:06:23 I mean, so what’s next?
    1:06:25 A lot of things is next.
    1:06:27 This is what’s interesting about the current time.
    1:06:32 There is going to be opportunity in robotics that hasn’t existed before.
    1:06:34 There is going to be opportunity.
    1:06:40 I mean, we’re just seven, eight years into the tech bio thing, and that’s going to go – that window will be open for 30 years.
    1:06:44 We’re going to learn so much about DNA and what’s going on there.
    1:06:46 And then AI is going to touch everything.
    1:06:50 And so I think that AI has created a whole new set of consumer experiences.
    1:06:55 I think the window there will be open for three to four years for people – it hasn’t even really started.
    1:07:02 I mean, we’re writing a blog post about consumer AI stuff, and it’s hard to find interesting companies.
    1:07:07 Like, you’ve got AI Dungeon, and you’ve got, you know, Volley and Character AI.
    1:07:12 You’ve got, like, 15 or 20, but you don’t have 50 interesting consumer attempts.
    1:07:14 And we’re waiting.
    1:07:15 So, consumer is back.
    1:07:16 Yep.
    1:07:18 Tech bio.
    1:07:18 Yep.
    1:07:20 Robotics.
    1:07:20 Yep.
    1:07:21 Those are three.
    1:07:21 Yep.
    1:07:22 Space continues.
    1:07:29 I think the space window is still open for another three to five years, but it’ll start to close here soon because, remember, SpaceX started 20 years ago.
    1:07:30 And services.
    1:07:33 Services, services, services, services.
    1:07:33 What do you mean by services?
    1:07:39 Anything that’s a service, like my accounting firm or my tax firm or my –
    1:07:40 But now with AI?
    1:07:41 But now with AI.
    1:07:42 But now with AI.
    1:07:53 So, I think that PE firms and startups are going to grab AI and go in to transform all the workings of corporations, but also service firms, banks.
    1:07:54 Right.
    1:08:00 Everything that’s a service to you as a consumer is going to be transformed by AI.
    1:08:03 Faster, cheaper, better, easier in ways we can’t imagine.
    1:08:05 Completely rethinking it.
    1:08:18 And so, I would encourage people to think through what are services businesses in my area that I could bring AI to and lower the price by 30% and just take market share.
    1:08:19 What’s an example?
    1:08:27 A good example would be architecture, contracting, building houses, lawn care.
    1:08:30 Like, what can you do for my lawn?
    1:08:33 So, let’s say there’s a lawn care place, a lawn care business near me.
    1:08:33 Yeah.
    1:08:34 It’s making a million dollars a year profit.
    1:08:35 Guy’s ready to retire.
    1:08:35 Yeah.
    1:08:38 I think, okay, I could buy that business today.
    1:08:38 Yeah.
    1:08:39 At a fair price.
    1:08:39 Yeah.
    1:08:43 But I know that with AI, I’m going to be able to do what?
    1:08:46 I’m going to have a robo kind of receptionist.
    1:08:47 Yep.
    1:08:49 And so, I’m going to get more sales.
    1:08:53 And I’m going to go around with a video camera and the video is going to notice what all the plants are.
    1:08:59 So, to catalog the entire, I can now produce a beautiful thing for this owner that he never saw or she never saw before.
    1:09:00 I’m going to know what every plant is.
    1:09:02 I’m going to know what their water amount is.
    1:09:10 Like, AI is going to give me x-ray vision for their landscaping and allow me to provide them a service no one’s ever been able to provide before.
    1:09:13 And I can schedule stuff more easily.
    1:09:16 I can, all the customer service stuff goes to AI.
    1:09:19 And I provide a much better service.
    1:09:24 So, you can either charge more for the high-end clients because you can do something better or you could charge the same and give them a better service or you could charge less.
    1:09:24 Right.
    1:09:26 And just take market share.
    1:09:28 Right now with AI, there’s like a fog of war.
    1:09:29 You have all these companies.
    1:09:30 They’re all competing to the death.
    1:09:32 Billions and billions of dollars are getting invested.
    1:09:35 And it’s unclear who’s going to win.
    1:09:36 Where’s the value going to accrue?
    1:09:46 And I think from – if anyone is going to have an answer, I would want to hear yours because you think about network effects, which is the thing that kind of creates the long-term defensibility value for these companies.
    1:09:50 So, what do you think of people who are investing in open AI or the sort of the models?
    1:09:51 Is that where the value is going to accrue?
    1:09:52 Yeah, I don’t get it.
    1:09:53 I don’t get it.
    1:09:54 I think they’re making a big mistake.
    1:10:02 And in 2022, when we first started writing about this, we actually came out and said it on our blog post, which is AI is going to be like water.
    1:10:08 You’re going to get free unlimited AI processing on your CPU, on your phone within three to four years.
    1:10:18 There’s no doubt it’s going to free in the same way that I can use my phone and I don’t have to pay anybody anything to use my phone for hours a day.
    1:10:27 So, I don’t understand why everyone’s plowing so much money into this because it’s so clear that you’re going to have open source, whether it’s three months, six months, or nine months behind.
    1:10:31 When you’re actually thinking about defensibility, you have to think about 10, 20, 30 years.
    1:10:33 So, it doesn’t matter.
    1:10:36 The open source is going to end up just taking over.
    1:10:39 And you’re going to be able to do it on CPUs.
    1:10:47 So, both NVIDIA and all of these giant LLM companies who are spending all this money on training are going to go to zero eventually.
    1:10:59 And that’s why NVIDIA is trying to get everyone to use CUDA because that’s their operating system level that locks people into their software, which is more of a Microsoft – it’s an operating – we call it a platform network effect.
    1:11:05 They’re trying to force a platform network effect while they have the hardware that everybody wants so that they can be durable long-term.
    1:11:06 It’s smart.
    1:11:06 I get it.
    1:11:08 We’ll see if it works.
    1:11:09 And the same thing with OpenAI.
    1:11:10 Like, I don’t get it.
    1:11:12 Like, I don’t know why everyone’s plowing money into it.
    1:11:28 I think it’s crazy because they have to move up to an operating system layer where there’s a platform network effect or they have to move up into the application layer where there are network effects because otherwise, DeepSeq or the 20 DeepSeqs that are coming are going to not cause them to get any revenue.
    1:11:29 So, I don’t know what’s going on.
    1:11:35 I’m not sure why people don’t see it that way, but I’ve seen it since 22, and everything I’m seeing now teaches me the same thing.
    1:11:36 I mean, DeepSeq was obvious.
    1:11:43 And look, I don’t know what the percentage is, but let’s say 96% of all the processing in the world is still CPU.
    1:11:47 And these models will start working on CPU in the next 24 months.
    1:11:49 And then what do you do with the NVIDIA chips?
    1:11:50 And why do you need these huge clusters?
    1:11:54 So, it’s going to be – I think people are making a lot of bad bets.
    1:11:55 There’s going to be a lot of money lost.
    1:11:59 And one of the arguments is, oh, but we have the data.
    1:12:02 You know, maybe Elon’s – we have the X data feeds.
    1:12:03 That’s going to make our model better.
    1:12:06 Chamath has come out and said, oh, it’s all about who owns the data.
    1:12:08 Yeah, what’s your message to Chamath?
    1:12:09 Yeah, I just think that’s wrong.
    1:12:10 I just think it’s wrong.
    1:12:11 I can synthesize your data.
    1:12:12 I can steal the data.
    1:12:15 I can cobble together different data sets to approximate the data.
    1:12:26 And as we know, if you go to Google and just type in data network effects, like the first article you’re going to get, this explains why data network effects aren’t – they’re asymptoting in terms of their defensibility.
    1:12:27 And they’re just not that powerful.
    1:12:28 They’re valuable to an extent.
    1:12:32 They’re valuable to get to a threshold and to get into a range.
    1:12:39 If, you know, if JATGBT sees what I’m typing and then gets incrementally better, the next guy behind me can’t see that it’s incrementally better.
    1:12:42 The increment in which it is better is too small to be perceived by the user.
    1:12:42 Right.
    1:12:46 And so I don’t think that it’s all about the data.
    1:12:55 And I think this is a fiction that Google and Microsoft tell Wall Street and their employees for two reasons.
    1:12:59 They tell Wall Street because they want Wall Street to think that they’re going to be the winner because they have the data, therefore they win.
    1:13:03 And then they tell their employees, why would you want to go be an entrepreneur?
    1:13:09 Why would you leave the beautiful confines of this giant company because you know we’re going to win because we have all the data?
    1:13:09 Right.
    1:13:13 There might be some applications where it’s true.
    1:13:15 I’m open to the fact that there could be some.
    1:13:18 But there’s very, very few.
    1:13:20 And in the end, Microsoft and Google are not going to win because of the data.
    1:13:22 They’re going to win because of their scale.
    1:13:22 Right.
    1:13:24 And they’re going to win because they already have the distribution.
    1:13:25 Right.
    1:13:29 Customers already got – if I type it in, I’m defaulted to their service.
    1:13:31 Because it’s already in my way.
    1:13:36 They won the game 20, 30, 40 years ago, and that’s why they get a chance to win the game today.
    1:13:38 Not because they have the data.
    1:13:39 Because I can get your data, dude.
    1:13:42 So buy or sell NVIDIA.
    1:13:43 I don’t give advice.
    1:13:44 I don’t trade.
    1:13:46 So there’s like opinion.
    1:13:47 Like you think they’re –
    1:13:54 Oh, I mean, opinion is that I would sell NVIDIA compared to long term.
    1:13:57 I would still be a Google and a Microsoft buyer because of the distribution.
    1:13:57 Right.
    1:14:03 Because there’s going to be a tremendous value created for both consumers, small businesses, and enterprises.
    1:14:04 And they already have their hooks into them.
    1:14:06 And they’re the incumbents.
    1:14:06 Right.
    1:14:09 And we are in the age of incumbents when it comes to software.
    1:14:12 And they are going to win because of the distribution, but not because of the data.
    1:14:13 That’s just the fiction.
    1:14:16 If you were the CEO of OpenAI, what would you do?
    1:14:24 I would try to build an operating layer and get everybody to sign in to my operating layer in the same way that Microsoft has their operating system layer.
    1:14:30 And then I would create two or three applications the way Microsoft did in the 90s.
    1:14:31 Office or whatever.
    1:14:32 Like Office or whatever.
    1:14:36 And then I would just go buy up other companies just like Microsoft did.
    1:14:37 Just run the Microsoft playbook.
    1:14:41 The problem is that Microsoft’s main product was the operating system.
    1:14:43 So they had the network effect from day one.
    1:14:46 Whereas OpenAI does not have a network effect at all.
    1:14:52 The main thing they have right now is distribution and the subscriptions, but the consumers are fickle and SMBs are fickle.
    1:14:56 And they’ll move off to something for $10 or $5 or as long as it’s good enough.
    1:15:00 And maybe they’ll have some other thing they like better because it’s for their vertical or who knows.
    1:15:04 So what do you think is the juiciest kind of opportunity, whether you’re an entrepreneur or an investor?
    1:15:07 We think it’s in the application layer and the operating layer.
    1:15:11 And so we are investing in things that can build network effects.
    1:15:13 And we’re looking at verticals typically.
    1:15:24 Where people can get rapid growth and network effects so that even after a year or two, their scale allows them to have a network effect, which makes it hard for anyone to compete with them.
    1:15:25 What’s an example?
    1:15:29 Maybe something you invested that you’re excited about, you think has kind of the right architecture to do well.
    1:15:33 Oh, something like an AI dungeon, which is coming out with a multiplayer here.
    1:15:34 I don’t know what that is.
    1:15:37 AI dungeon is a role-playing game based on AI.
    1:15:42 It was the first sort of AI gaming company, and they’re still the biggest and they’re still the most advanced.
    1:15:51 And they’re in our portfolio and I work with those guys, and they’re going to build out a network effect around RPG games that are powered by AI.
    1:15:57 So you think of gaming companies adding AI, but we were thinking AI companies creating games.
    1:16:04 Or things like a company like an Even Up, which is AI for personal injury lawyers.
    1:16:09 It’s a vertical Microsoft and Google don’t want, but it’s still $80 billion a year.
    1:16:12 They need software to help them run their business.
    1:16:13 It’s a great business.
    1:16:16 I saw two billboards for personal injury on the way here.
    1:16:16 Exactly.
    1:16:17 We were just talking about it.
    1:16:18 Exactly.
    1:16:19 What is this industry?
    1:16:20 Right.
    1:16:21 And people don’t want to touch it.
    1:16:22 What are they doing with AI with it?
    1:16:26 Well, they have to submit these 300-page documents to the court.
    1:16:27 Gotcha.
    1:16:32 And they also have to evaluate the people who come in the door to see whether they should take the case on or not.
    1:16:32 Right.
    1:16:45 And the AI helps them collect the data, analyze the data, and then figure out what the court case would look like and whether they would actually get the money they want from this or not, which the judges actually like because then they’re not bringing specious cases.
    1:16:48 They’re only bringing cases that, you know, should have some sort of compensation.
    1:16:50 Okay.
    1:16:50 There we go.
    1:16:55 So application layer, operating system layers, specific verticals.
    1:17:03 We’re also investing in some speed-ups for the overall tools and architecture.
    1:17:04 Dev tools.
    1:17:04 Dev tools.
    1:17:05 Yeah.
    1:17:11 And stuff like that because we think that you can get distribution quickly and then build lock-in the way Atlassian has done.
    1:17:16 And if you were 25 again, and it’s 25 in the year 2025.
    1:17:17 Yeah.
    1:17:20 And it’s you, Stan, Rick, you guys are hanging out again.
    1:17:20 Yeah.
    1:17:22 What do you think you would be doing?
    1:17:29 First, I would have the conversation, do we want to have a fun normal life, a fun striver life, or a global greatness life?
    1:17:29 Right.
    1:17:31 What’s your answer?
    1:17:34 My answer is sort of global greatness.
    1:17:43 I think that it’s just fun to play in that game to see if, like, at Tickle, we had registered 150 million users when there were 600 million people on the internet.
    1:17:43 Right.
    1:17:45 That was touching the world.
    1:17:46 Right.
    1:17:46 It was kind of fun.
    1:17:49 I think it’s fun to do stuff at scale.
    1:17:50 I’m really interested in scale.
    1:17:50 Right.
    1:17:55 Things at scale are software, media, money, a few other things.
    1:17:57 And just, I like to work in those mediums.
    1:18:03 But you have to decide, like, don’t think that you have to be Steve Jobs in order to live a great life.
    1:18:05 Realize you can have a fun, normal life.
    1:18:09 And you’re in the global greatness game, but you seem like you’re not Steve Jobs.
    1:18:10 You seem like you’re happy.
    1:18:14 Like, it was one of my notes was like, I love this guy’s lifestyle.
    1:18:16 Like, you showed up in a fun shirt.
    1:18:16 Yeah.
    1:18:18 We hung out for a couple hours.
    1:18:22 You told me how, you know, you’re like, I spend a couple months out of the year with my kids.
    1:18:24 We try to travel as much as we can.
    1:18:25 That’s as many months as they’ll have me.
    1:18:25 Yeah.
    1:18:27 You know, but I want to max that bar out.
    1:18:28 Yeah.
    1:18:29 You were writing a TV show for fun.
    1:18:30 Yeah.
    1:18:33 Like, you weren’t, like, Elon running six companies sleeping on the factory floor.
    1:18:35 That wasn’t, like, you didn’t give that vibe, right?
    1:18:35 Yeah, yeah.
    1:18:41 You seemed like a happy, you know, happy dude who had kind of, like, balance, but you were still scaling.
    1:18:45 So, like, you know, are you in that game or are you some other path at all?
    1:18:47 Yeah, I’m upper middle class.
    1:18:50 I’m lower upper class sort of in that area, if you want.
    1:18:51 In that zip code.
    1:18:52 I’m on that borderland.
    1:18:58 You know, I get invited to the rooms where the global greatness is happening, but I love spending time with my wife and my kids.
    1:18:59 Right.
    1:19:02 And that’s my priority, is to have a great family life.
    1:19:06 And, you know, everyone tells me that I look younger than I am, and I’m like, it’s because I love my wife and I don’t drink alcohol.
    1:19:09 It’s pretty simple, you know?
    1:19:13 And, yeah, we’ve taken the kids to hike to the Everest Base Camp.
    1:19:14 We’ve sailed across the ocean.
    1:19:16 We got attacked by orcas, and our boat was destroyed.
    1:19:23 Like, we go snow camping in the winters and live in igloos, and, yeah, we do all the fun stuff with the kids.
    1:19:27 Did you have to wait until you were wealthy to do those things, or were you doing it all along the way?
    1:19:31 Because, like, I think if I’m listening to this, I’m like, yeah, good, well, cool.
    1:19:32 You’re sort of rich and retired.
    1:19:33 I get it.
    1:19:34 I want to get rich and retired.
    1:19:35 But until then, I’m going to grind.
    1:19:36 No, no, no.
    1:19:42 What I did was right after college, I moved jobs every six months and sailed across both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
    1:19:43 I learned how to paraglide.
    1:19:44 I learned how to scuba dive.
    1:19:46 I did all the adventure stuff.
    1:19:47 I lived in Hong Kong.
    1:19:48 I lived in Beijing.
    1:19:49 20s.
    1:19:50 20s.
    1:19:50 Yeah.
    1:19:55 And then I realized that I wanted to do some global greatness, so I started grinding.
    1:19:58 And so I ground for three years at Battery Ventures as an associate in Boston.
    1:20:05 And then I ground – actually, I had a lot of fun at Harvard Business School for a year and a half where I met my wife.
    1:20:09 And then I ground in my startups.
    1:20:14 But then what was interesting is once I had plenty of money, then I ground again because it was fun.
    1:20:15 It was type two fun.
    1:20:15 Yeah.
    1:20:16 It was creativity.
    1:20:17 It was generativeness.
    1:20:18 You know, and this is the thing.
    1:20:24 I love this word generative because if you want to understand what Elon is doing, he’s just generating.
    1:20:25 He’s generating tweets.
    1:20:25 He’s generating kids.
    1:20:26 He’s generating companies.
    1:20:29 He’s just moving stuff around.
    1:20:39 And a lot of people here in the Bay Area, I find, are like that, not as extreme, but like Craig Donato, who, you know, is the head of revenue at Roblox.
    1:20:45 That guy has generated – he’s like Howard – he’s like John Galt.
    1:20:50 The guy’s like terraforming the American River to create an incredible camp for him and his friends.
    1:20:50 Right.
    1:20:51 And he worked on it.
    1:20:55 He bought it for $240,000 and he worked on it for 22 years with his own hands.
    1:20:56 Right.
    1:21:00 And yet he’s worth way more money than any of us need because that’s what he loves doing.
    1:21:01 It’s type two fun.
    1:21:12 So there’s always been this approach to adventuring that I’ve had and I ground and tried to get someplace for like, I don’t know, eight years.
    1:21:19 And other than that, it’s all just been, you know, pick up the adventures every minute you can because life is short.
    1:21:19 Right.
    1:21:31 You don’t seem – maybe this conversation feels different, but like you didn’t seem to me like you were somebody who was kind of like in the –
    1:21:33 like a lot of people are like Elon worship camp.
    1:21:35 It’s like, oh, I like – you know, he’s the North Star.
    1:21:40 Like everybody else is just some like – some, you know, standard deviations away from Elon.
    1:21:45 And you just feel bad about yourself for not being your standard deviations or closer to Elon.
    1:21:45 Yeah, yeah.
    1:21:50 Whereas like I think you – you’re kind of in my camp, which is like you admire parts of him.
    1:21:51 Yeah.
    1:21:51 Not all.
    1:21:59 And of the parts you admire, you sort of incorporate that into your game or your life, you know, whether it’s his speed or maybe his fearlessness.
    1:22:01 Things that are like unquestionably admirable.
    1:22:02 Totally.
    1:22:04 I am curious, like who do you admire?
    1:22:05 Who do you learn from a lot?
    1:22:10 Like who’s kind of like your mentor, whether you know them or you just read about them a lot?
    1:22:11 Like who are the people that inspire you?
    1:22:16 I’m certainly inspired by what Elon’s been able to do.
    1:22:20 You know, when I knew him in the 2000s, he and I were in some of the same circles.
    1:22:22 He just seemed like a normal guy.
    1:22:23 Really?
    1:22:23 Yeah.
    1:22:28 He just seemed like a really generative, cool guy like Craig Donato or like anybody else.
    1:22:30 So you couldn’t have picked in a room.
    1:22:31 You wouldn’t have been like, that guy.
    1:22:32 That guy’s going to be one.
    1:22:33 No, I wouldn’t have.
    1:22:34 I wouldn’t have.
    1:22:35 Somebody else might have.
    1:22:36 But I wasn’t capable of doing that.
    1:22:46 And I remember in 2000s, what I admire about Elon is that in 2007, after the third rocket blew up, I emailed him and I’m like, Elon, the next one’s going to work.
    1:22:48 I said, it’s going to work eventually.
    1:22:51 And when you do, it’ll make it all the more sweet, man.
    1:22:52 Just keep going.
    1:22:52 Wow.
    1:22:54 And he emailed me back like four hours later.
    1:22:55 He’s like, thanks, man.
    1:22:56 I needed that.
    1:22:58 You know, like he was in the trenches.
    1:23:00 He was putting everything on the line.
    1:23:05 You know, he’s an entrepreneur doing entrepreneurial things and that’s what’s admirable about him.
    1:23:11 And whether you’re doing a bakery or whether you’re doing a construction company or whatever, you’re going through that same journey.
    1:23:16 And that was what was admirable about him is that he was clear eyed in his effort toward doing that back then.
    1:23:22 And he just keeps expanding the purview, the sort of scale at which he’s operating.
    1:23:27 You also had this idea for one world currency.
    1:23:28 Yeah.
    1:23:29 Before Bitcoin.
    1:23:29 Yeah.
    1:23:32 In 1997, there was a thing called Cyber Gold.
    1:23:40 And I was at Battery Ventures at the time and I was trying to convince my bosses we should take a look at this because we were going to have software-based currencies.
    1:23:42 And where’d that come from?
    1:23:43 I mean, that’s not obvious.
    1:23:44 It’s not obvious.
    1:23:45 Were you reading sci-fi?
    1:23:50 No, it’s just I was an associate and I was talking to companies and this guy approached us and he said, I got this thing called Cyber Gold.
    1:23:55 And I think that we’re going to have software-based gold and it’s going to be currencies.
    1:23:56 We’re going to pay each other.
    1:23:58 And I said, that actually sounds like logical.
    1:23:59 That sounds like the real future.
    1:24:14 And then the second thing that happened was we were at Tickle a few years later and we saw a Korean company that was selling a digital rose, 32 pixels by 32 pixels or something, or 64 by 64, for $4.95.
    1:24:18 And one of my engineers said, hey, James, come take a look at this.
    1:24:20 And it was in Korean, so we didn’t know what was going on.
    1:24:25 But we could see that there was a price on this little digital thing that I could send to a girl on this social network that they had.
    1:24:33 And Stan was standing behind me and I turned around and I looked at him and he looked down at me and I goes, there it is.
    1:24:35 People are going to buy pixels.
    1:24:39 This was, I don’t know, 2000, 2001, 2002, something like that.
    1:24:45 And people are going to buy pixels because it’s just like buying a thing because it just affects your brain.
    1:24:47 You know, it’s all in our minds, right?
    1:24:54 And then we realized, okay, so now we’re going to have digital goods that people pay for even though there’s nothing to it.
    1:24:58 And we’ve got Cybergold and then Second Life comes along.
    1:25:00 So I had this funny experience.
    1:25:10 I go to a tech conference called PC Forum and there’s this guy there and he’s sitting next to me during one of the lectures and we go out and he’s like, oh, I want to show you my thing.
    1:25:11 And I said, great.
    1:25:15 And so he waves over these other two guys and it turns out it’s Larry and Sergey.
    1:25:24 And so the four of us sit on a couch in the sun and he opens up his laptop and he’s like, I’ve got this thing and it’s a virtual world and it’s called Second Life.
    1:25:28 This is how it works and I’m like, so do you have a currency?
    1:25:29 He goes, yes, we do.
    1:25:30 It’s called Linden Dollars.
    1:25:32 And so I said, okay, very interesting.
    1:25:35 And so he gave us this demo and it was very cool.
    1:25:37 And so I went out to him.
    1:25:40 He and I walked outside and Sergey and Larry went elsewhere.
    1:25:48 And I said to him, this is going to be like, I said to him, the only question now is, Philip, what color are the robes?
    1:25:51 Meaning I see what you’re doing.
    1:25:52 You’re creating a religion.
    1:25:56 Like you’re moving humanity into this other realm.
    1:25:59 And he was like, oh, he’s like, you really know what I’m doing.
    1:26:02 Like you, you, you get it at a deep level.
    1:26:02 I’m like, yeah.
    1:26:07 And so I ended up on his board with Mitch Kapoor and Bill Gurley and whatnot for five years.
    1:26:07 And.
    1:26:09 And Second Life got big.
    1:26:09 It got big.
    1:26:11 It was on the cover of every magazine.
    1:26:13 It was the talk of the town.
    1:26:16 They raised it over a billion dollars from Goldman and others.
    1:26:19 And in the end, it didn’t end up becoming the world changing thing.
    1:26:30 But what Zuckerberg is trying to do right now with his virtual world is still behind what Corey Andraka and Philip were able to do with the technology in 2003 and four.
    1:26:31 Right.
    1:26:32 And still behind it.
    1:26:32 They had.
    1:26:36 I’ve never seen any company that was 20 years ahead in the digital realm.
    1:26:38 And they are still that far ahead.
    1:26:40 And what way are they ahead?
    1:26:46 Well, just the pixelation, the controls, the world, how the world functions.
    1:26:46 Right.
    1:26:47 The integration.
    1:26:49 Creating an actual functioning digital world.
    1:26:52 The cool thing about that was a lot of games have an in-game currency.
    1:26:53 That’s not what the Linden dollars are.
    1:27:03 The people, the players of the game, like, use the currency as a real currency to buy, sell, trade, like, at a, like, full level.
    1:27:05 Like, it’s been going for years and years and years.
    1:27:05 Right.
    1:27:07 It was like a fully baked currency.
    1:27:12 Not like, not just like, oh, I got to buy gems to get the power up and then I’m, I’m out of here.
    1:27:12 Right.
    1:27:12 That’s right.
    1:27:14 It was so multiplayer.
    1:27:15 Everybody’s using it with each other.
    1:27:16 People really valued it.
    1:27:19 And you could trade Linden dollar against U.S. dollars and British pounds.
    1:27:19 Right.
    1:27:20 On open exchanges.
    1:27:20 Right.
    1:27:23 And we would manage the fluctuation of the currencies.
    1:27:26 And we had, it took us a few years to figure that out of us.
    1:27:35 It took them a few years to, it wasn’t me doing it, but I was watching them do it and I was meeting with them and learning about how they were balancing the currency so it didn’t have that many fluctuations.
    1:27:36 And so.
    1:27:37 We saw all that.
    1:27:43 We saw all that and, and, and, you know, the way we measured the world was $760 million of GDP.
    1:27:48 And what are the number of people who are making more than a thousand dollars a month in Second Life?
    1:27:52 And we would watch that chart because it was actually people were living in there.
    1:27:53 Right.
    1:28:00 So we realized that money is just completely made up in our heads and that you can exchange it, whatever.
    1:28:01 We went off the gold standard in 72.
    1:28:02 There’s nothing to money.
    1:28:03 It’s all just in our minds.
    1:28:04 And so.
    1:28:05 We say it’s all in our minds.
    1:28:08 You just mean, as long as, as long as we all believe it, it works.
    1:28:11 As soon as one of us doesn’t believe it, there’s nothing underneath it besides that.
    1:28:13 It’s the belief network effect.
    1:28:14 It’s the belief network effect.
    1:28:17 It’s actually on the, one of the 17 network effects.
    1:28:20 And Bitcoin is just purely a, Bitcoin’s a meme coin.
    1:28:21 Right.
    1:28:22 We just all believe in it.
    1:28:23 It’s the best one.
    1:28:25 It’s just the best meme coin, right?
    1:28:27 It’s on a spectrum.
    1:28:28 It’s not a different thing.
    1:28:29 Right.
    1:28:30 And the dollar is also a meme coin.
    1:28:31 The dollar is a meme coin.
    1:28:32 Absolutely.
    1:28:34 And they just list out the reasons to believe.
    1:28:36 What, what underlies the belief?
    1:28:37 Why do you believe in the U.S. dollar?
    1:28:38 We have aircraft carriers.
    1:28:39 We have tax base.
    1:28:39 Yeah.
    1:28:40 Those are all reasons.
    1:28:43 Those are more reasons to believe than Bitcoin.
    1:28:43 Right.
    1:28:45 But with Bitcoin, you can’t print anymore.
    1:28:46 And that’s like a negative for the U.S. dollar.
    1:28:49 So you just list out for every believable thing.
    1:28:51 You just list out what are the reasons to believe.
    1:28:51 Right.
    1:28:53 And, and they’re on a spectrum.
    1:28:54 It’s not, it’s not a different thing.
    1:28:59 So in 2004, I bought a URL blue.com because I was like, we should create the world’s cyber
    1:29:01 gold, the global currency.
    1:29:02 Pricey domain, blue.com.
    1:29:03 That’s premium.
    1:29:04 It was pricey.
    1:29:04 Yeah.
    1:29:04 It was pricey.
    1:29:05 But you believed.
    1:29:06 But I believed.
    1:29:06 I believed.
    1:29:07 And I believe in language.
    1:29:08 And I believe in naming.
    1:29:09 And all that.
    1:29:14 And so I went to Philip, I said, you know, we should create the world’s global currency.
    1:29:16 And we should.
    1:29:17 As one friend says to another.
    1:29:18 As one friend says to another.
    1:29:21 And we should call it blue because you have greenbacks, like, like dollars.
    1:29:22 And then you have the blue currency.
    1:29:24 So you have a global currency.
    1:29:29 And so we got together every week on a Wednesday afternoon with Mitch Kapoor and Philip and
    1:29:30 me and Stan.
    1:29:33 And we would talk about how we were going to pull this off.
    1:29:36 And so this was not just shooting a show.
    1:29:37 This was like we were planning.
    1:29:38 Yeah.
    1:29:41 This is 2007, 2007.
    1:29:42 That’s just one drunk conversation.
    1:29:43 No, no.
    1:29:45 It went on for a bunch of weeks.
    1:29:46 It went on for a bunch of weeks.
    1:29:49 And what we had back then was BitTorrent, right?
    1:29:53 So BitTorrent was a distributed thing where everyone had a copy or pieces of the copy of
    1:29:54 the movies and we could all share.
    1:29:55 Right.
    1:29:58 And so what we were going to create, we were going to create a torrented currency.
    1:30:00 And it was going to be encrypted.
    1:30:03 And we were going to leverage it off Linnodollar to start with.
    1:30:05 It was going to be an independent company.
    1:30:06 It was going to be its own thing.
    1:30:10 We were going through, week by week, we were sort of nailing down all these topics.
    1:30:18 But then we came to something we couldn’t figure out, which was this creates seniorage to the
    1:30:22 U.S. dollar, which is illegal after the laws in place after the Civil War.
    1:30:26 Remember, there were 1,600 different currencies in the U.S. before the Civil War.
    1:30:27 Seniorage just means creating a currency?
    1:30:29 Creating a currency that’s above the U.S. dollar.
    1:30:30 Above meaning.
    1:30:31 Senior.
    1:30:33 You can’t do anything that’s above the U.S. dollar meaning.
    1:30:39 Seniorage essentially outlawed any currency which wasn’t the U.S. dollar to be used.
    1:30:48 And so we knew that if we were to do it, the FTC would come after us at some point.
    1:30:55 Now, remember, the SEC and the FTC did shut Facebook down from launching Libra because Facebook
    1:30:57 was already too powerful and the government saw them as a threat.
    1:31:01 And it was there was going to be some seniorage and some cryptoma.
    1:31:03 So we were right that at some point.
    1:31:08 But we knew what had needed to happen is we need to have an immaculate conception.
    1:31:10 We needed to be born so that no one knew it was us.
    1:31:12 Because Philip had four kids.
    1:31:13 I had four kids.
    1:31:14 We had plenty of money.
    1:31:15 We had all of our friends.
    1:31:15 You don’t have a target on your back.
    1:31:16 We like being an American.
    1:31:19 We don’t want to have to move to the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands.
    1:31:21 We don’t want to have a target on our back.
    1:31:24 We don’t want the M16s banging on our door in the middle of the night.
    1:31:25 We had too much to lose.
    1:31:30 So we had to figure out how can we do this and not be known as the people doing it.
    1:31:36 The problem was we had talked at the lobby, at David Hornick’s lobby, about one currency
    1:31:37 to rule them all.
    1:31:40 Philip and I had led a talk with about 20 people about this to get their ideas.
    1:31:44 And at the end, they said, well, I guess we know who’s going to go do this.
    1:31:49 So we knew that there was 20 people outside of the room who knew we were working on this.
    1:31:52 And eventually someone would track it back to us.
    1:31:55 And so we couldn’t solve that problem of anonymity.
    1:31:58 And so we didn’t go forward with it.
    1:32:04 And then about a year later, I get an email from Philip saying, is this you?
    1:32:05 Did you do this?
    1:32:07 And it’s the Bitcoin paper.
    1:32:08 Wow.
    1:32:09 And he was pissed.
    1:32:11 He was like, cut me out.
    1:32:12 You cut me out.
    1:32:14 And I was like, no, dude, it’s not me.
    1:32:18 And in fact, we both know that of the two of us, it’s more likely to be you.
    1:32:19 Is it you?
    1:32:22 And he said, no, it’s not me.
    1:32:23 Wow.
    1:32:26 So we missed out on creating Bitcoin.
    1:32:27 So did you buy?
    1:32:29 Yeah, of course.
    1:32:29 Of course.
    1:32:30 And I was lecturing about it.
    1:32:35 And then what happened was the next lobby, I went and I led a session on Bitcoin.
    1:32:38 About 35 people came and a whole bunch of people went and bought.
    1:32:43 And six people have come up to me and said, I owe my house to you.
    1:32:43 Yeah.
    1:32:46 So why are you not like a hundred billionaire then?
    1:32:48 You had the idea before the idea, right?
    1:32:50 Like before the price was.
    1:32:53 I bought a bunch, but I didn’t buy an infinite amount.
    1:32:58 Did you have the, I have entrepreneurial stubbornness, which is when I had an idea and somebody else
    1:33:01 did it, I sort of become like egotist.
    1:33:01 I don’t know.
    1:33:06 I want them to fail slash like, I don’t invest in it when it’s like, wait, I thought you believed.
    1:33:07 Do you want, you believe so much?
    1:33:09 You almost wanted to do it.
    1:33:09 Yeah.
    1:33:10 I have a resistance.
    1:33:10 Yeah.
    1:33:14 I don’t know if it’s, uh, uh, I think it’s creator, uh, stubbornness.
    1:33:14 You want it.
    1:33:17 You want to have been the creator rather than the participant.
    1:33:18 Exactly.
    1:33:18 Yeah.
    1:33:18 Yeah.
    1:33:19 I have that too.
    1:33:24 The other one I was going to bring up was this great line you had to go, you talked about
    1:33:26 some therapy, couples therapy you’d dip into or something like that.
    1:33:30 And you said, uh, like therapy is just realizing how much of an asshole you are.
    1:33:32 It makes you a better partner for your, for your wife.
    1:33:32 Yeah, totally.
    1:33:33 That was great advice.
    1:33:39 No, I am, I am a big fan of, as is my wife, of taking any self-improvement thing that
    1:33:40 comes along.
    1:33:40 Right.
    1:33:40 Why not?
    1:33:41 What have you have to lose?
    1:33:49 And anybody who’s hesitant to do that stuff, not only do I find you not courageous, but
    1:33:55 I also think you’re missing out on the fact that interpersonal relationships is the most
    1:33:56 important thing you do in your life.
    1:33:59 It determines whether you’re going to be successful at your business.
    1:33:59 Right.
    1:34:01 It determines whether you have a good death.
    1:34:05 Like all the things that are important are determined by that.
    1:34:07 And yet we don’t spend nearly enough time on it.
    1:34:11 You know, I, I, uh, have a friend whose boss told her once, oh, you don’t need a coach.
    1:34:12 You’re fine.
    1:34:13 Like what?
    1:34:15 She wants a coach.
    1:34:17 Like everybody should have a coach.
    1:34:18 Like awesome.
    1:34:18 Right.
    1:34:20 Like just, you can always get better.
    1:34:25 And I, and you know, I, I learned this just in life and it’s kind of obvious, but I also
    1:34:28 learned it from my wife, who’s the nicest person in the world.
    1:34:30 And of anyone I know, she’s the person who needs therapy least.
    1:34:31 Right.
    1:34:33 And she heard about this thing, Landmark Forum from our friends.
    1:34:34 And she’s like, oh, I want to do it.
    1:34:36 And I’m like, why?
    1:34:38 She goes, oh, because then I might be able to love people better.
    1:34:39 Right.
    1:34:41 I’m like, oh, that is awesome.
    1:34:41 What an attitude, yeah.
    1:34:42 What an attitude, right?
    1:34:46 And, uh, and so she and I took these five classes at the Landmark Forum over the course
    1:34:47 of two years.
    1:34:48 And I don’t think I’d be married without it.
    1:34:53 Cause I just hadn’t been developed in the basic ways of, you know, if you go to Stanford
    1:34:56 Business School and you ask people, what’s the best thing you took at Stanford?
    1:34:57 They’re like touchy feely.
    1:34:59 And if you go to Harvard Business School and say, what was the most important thing
    1:35:00 you learned at Harvard Business School?
    1:35:04 They’ll say lead, lead and touchy feely are the same class basically in the two different
    1:35:04 schools.
    1:35:07 And I find it’s the same thing in the world.
    1:35:10 It’s like the most important thing you learn and let people don’t focus on them.
    1:35:11 You go to Conscious Leadership.
    1:35:12 That’s a great program.
    1:35:13 You got Joe Hudson doing programs.
    1:35:16 You got Hoffman Institute doing programs.
    1:35:20 There’s all these ways to just further yourself and deepen yourself.
    1:35:24 And that makes relationships like staying go easier and you can have as much money as you
    1:35:25 want or as little money as you want to still be happy as hell.
    1:35:26 Right.
    1:35:27 So what are we doing?
    1:35:34 You know, and literally on the fourth course at Landmark Forum, I’d suddenly like over
    1:35:34 my eyes.
    1:35:37 I’m like, oh, I’m a total asshole.
    1:35:38 I understand.
    1:35:42 I’m, you know, and all these ways I’m an asshole.
    1:35:45 And unless you admit to yourself you’re an asshole, how can you stop being an asshole?
    1:35:46 Right.
    1:35:49 Step one of the asshole recovery program.
    1:35:50 Yeah.
    1:35:51 Love it.
    1:35:53 James, thanks for doing this, man.
    1:35:53 Long time coming.
    1:35:54 Yeah.
    1:35:55 Thank you, Sean.
    1:35:58 I feel like I can rule the world.
    1:36:00 I know I could be what I want to.
    1:36:03 I put my all in it like no days off.
    1:36:04 On the road.
    1:36:04 Let’s travel.
    1:36:05 Never looking back.
    1:36:06 Oh.
    1:36:06 Yeah.
    1:36:06 Yeah.
    1:36:06 Yeah.

    Help us win a Webby for BEST CREATOR and BEST VIDEO SERIES

    Join Shaan Puri and Nick Huber for a free CEO Bootcamp on April 16th at 2pm EST

    Episode 697: Shaan Puri ( https://x.com/ShaanVP ) sits down with James Currier ( https://x.com/JamesCurrier ) to talk about going from $0 to $110M through network effects. 

    Show Notes: 

    (0:00) $0 to $1.6B

    (4:23) Your life on network effects

    (8:00) Savage founders

    (13:40) Speed

    (15:49) The art of unlearning

    (21:23) Technology window curves

    (30:29) Network Vampire attacks

    (37:37) Language first

    (43:15) Tickle

    (42:29) Finding a business bromance

    (58:47) James isolation mistake

    (1:01:27) Become an API

    (1:05:02) AI business ideas

    (1:16:07) What to do in your 20s

    (1:22:18) One world currency

    (1:32:16) Go to therapy

    Links:

    • Steal Shaan’s $20M Pitch Deck: https://clickhubspot.com/qrd

    • NFX – https://www.nfx.com/ 

    Check Out Shaan’s Stuff:

    Need to hire? You should use the same service Shaan uses to hire developers, designers, & Virtual Assistants → it’s called Shepherd (tell ‘em Shaan sent you): https://bit.ly/SupportShepherd

    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

  • #224 Bret Taylor – A Vision for AI’s Next Frontier

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 Technology companies aren’t entitled to their future success.
    0:00:06 AI, I think, will change the landscape of software.
    0:00:10 And I think it will help some companies and it will really hurt others.
    0:00:15 And so when I think about what it means to build a company that’s enduring,
    0:00:19 that is a really, really tall task in my mind right now.
    0:00:24 Because it means not only making something that’s financially enduring over the next 10 years,
    0:00:31 but setting up a culture where a company can actually evolve to meet the changing demands
    0:00:36 of society and technology when it’s changing at a pace that is like unprecedented in history.
    0:00:40 So I think it’s one of the most fun business challenges of all time.
    0:00:45 I just get so much energy because it’s incredibly hard and it’s harder now than it’s ever been
    0:00:49 to do something that lasts beyond you. But that, I think, is the ultimate measure of a company.
    0:01:02 Welcome to the Knowledge Project Podcast. I’m your host, Shane Parish.
    0:01:06 In a world where knowledge is power, this podcast is your toolkit for mastering the best
    0:01:08 what other people have already figured out.
    0:01:13 If you want to take your learning to the next level,
    0:01:17 consider joining our membership program at fs.blog/membership.
    0:01:24 As a member, you’ll get my personal reflections at the end of every episode, early access to episodes,
    0:01:29 no ads including this, exclusive content, hand-edited transcripts, and so much more.
    0:01:32 Check out the link in the show notes for more.
    0:01:36 Six months after Brett Taylor realized AI was about to change everything,
    0:01:41 he walked away from his co-CEO job at Salesforce to start from scratch.
    0:01:46 That’s how massive this shift really is. The mastermind behind Google Maps and the
    0:01:51 former chief technology officer at Facebook, Brett reveals the brutal truths about leadership,
    0:01:57 AI, and what it really takes to build something that endures long after you’ve reached the top.
    0:02:03 Brett’s led some of the most influential companies in tech and seen exactly what makes businesses scale,
    0:02:08 what kills them from within, and why most founders don’t survive their own success.
    0:02:13 In this conversation, you’ll discover why so many companies are already on life support without
    0:02:19 realizing it, how first principles thinking separates the next wave of winners from everyone else,
    0:02:25 and the hidden reason most acquisitions fail. We’ll explore why AI is bigger than anyone suspects,
    0:02:31 plus the mindset shift that turns great engineers into exceptional CEOs. Whether you’re a founder,
    0:02:37 an operator, or simply someone who wants to think sharper, this episode will change how you see your
    0:02:42 business, technology, and the future. It’s time to listen and learn.
    0:02:53 What was your first real aha moment with AI where you realized, holy shit, this is going to be huge?
    0:02:59 I had two separate aha moments. One that I don’t think I really appreciated how huge it would be,
    0:03:07 but it kind of reset my expectation, which was the launch of Dolly in the summer of 22. Is that right?
    0:03:15 I might be off by Europe. I think summer of 22. And the avocado chair that they generated. And I had
    0:03:22 been, well, my background is in computer science and pretty technically deep. I hadn’t been paying
    0:03:31 attention to large language models. I just didn’t follow the progress after the Transformers paper. And
    0:03:38 I saw that and my reaction was, I had no idea computers could do that. And that particular launch,
    0:03:43 you know, seeing a generated image of an avocado chair, I don’t think I extrapolated to what,
    0:03:51 you know, where we are now. But it, for me, shook me and realized I need to pay more attention to this
    0:03:57 space and open AI specifically than I had been. I think I had, that was the moment where I realized like,
    0:04:01 I clearly have been not paying attention to something significant. And then it was,
    0:04:08 you know, six months later, coincidentally, like the month after I left Salesforce, the chat GBD came out
    0:04:14 and, uh, before it became a phenomenon, although it did so quickly, but I was already, you know,
    0:04:20 plugged into it. And, and, uh, and I was, uh, from then on, you know, I could not stop thinking about it.
    0:04:26 Um, but that avocado chair, I don’t know why I think it was the, there was a bit of an emotional
    0:04:33 moment where you saw a computer doing something that wasn’t just rule-based, but, uh, creative and,
    0:04:39 um, the idea of a computer doing something and creating something from scratch, uh, was, uh,
    0:04:43 well, it doesn’t seem so novel. Uh, you know, a few years later just blew my mind at the time.
    0:04:49 One of the unique things about you is that you’ve started companies. You’ve been acquired by Facebook
    0:04:56 and Salesforce inside those companies. You rose up to be the CTO at Facebook, the co-CEO at Salesforce.
    0:05:03 Talk to me about founders working for founders and founders working within a company.
    0:05:10 Yeah. It’s, uh, it’s a very, um, challenging transition for a lot of founders to make. I think
    0:05:17 there’s lots of examples of acquisitions that have been really transformative from a business standpoint.
    0:05:23 Uh, I think YouTube, Instagram being two of the more prominent that have clearly changed the shape of,
    0:05:30 of the acquiring company. But even in those cases, you know, the founders didn’t stay around that long.
    0:05:33 Uh, and those guys, that’s maybe a little unfair, you know, stick around for a little bit.
    0:05:39 I think the interesting thing about being a founder is it’s not just building a business,
    0:05:43 but it’s very much your identity. Um, and I think it’s very hard for people aren’t founders to
    0:05:48 experience it. If you take everything very personally, you know, from the product to the
    0:05:55 customers, to the press, to, uh, your competitors, uh, the, the both in inner and outer measures of,
    0:06:02 of, of success. And I think when you go to being acquired, there’s a business aspect to it. And,
    0:06:06 you know, can you operate within a larger company, but that’s intertwined with a sense of identity.
    0:06:12 You go from being a, the founder of a company and the CEO of a company or CTO of a company,
    0:06:16 whatever your, your title happens to be as one of the co-founders to be in a part of a larger
    0:06:22 organization. And to fully embrace that, you actually need to change your identity. Um, you need to go from
    0:06:29 being, you know, the head of Instagram or my case, the head of quip to being an employee of Salesforce or
    0:06:36 going from being the CEO of friend feed to being an employee of Facebook. And what I’ve observed is
    0:06:42 it’s that identity shift is a prerequisite for most of the other things. It’s not simply your ability to
    0:06:48 handle the politics and bureaucracy of a bigger company or to navigate a new structure. I actually
    0:06:54 think most founders don’t make that leap where they actually identify, uh, with that new thing.
    0:06:57 It’s even harder for some of the employees too, because most of the time in an acquisition,
    0:07:02 an employee of an acquired company didn’t choose that path. And in fact, they chose to work for
    0:07:07 a different company and they, you know, the, the acquisition determined a different outcome.
    0:07:11 And that’s why integrating acquisitions is so nuanced. And I would say that, uh,
    0:07:18 having the experience of having been acquired, uh, you know, before and having acquired some
    0:07:23 companies before when I got to Salesforce, I really tried to be self-aware about that and really tried
    0:07:29 to, you know, be a part of Salesforce, you know, and tried to shift my identity and, and not be a
    0:07:35 a single issue voter around quip, you know, I’d really tried to embrace it. Um, and, uh, and I
    0:07:38 think it’s really hard for some founders to do it. Some founders don’t want to, honestly, you know,
    0:07:43 they, uh, maybe cash the check and, and, you know, that’s the, it’s more of a transactional relationship.
    0:07:50 I, um, I, I really actually am so grateful for the experience of having been at Facebook and Salesforce.
    0:07:53 I learned so much, but it really took a lot of effort on my part to just, um,
    0:07:59 transform my perception of myself and who I am to get that value out of the company that acquired us.
    0:08:04 How did you, how did it change how you did acquisitions at Salesforce? You guys did a
    0:08:09 lot of acquisitions while you were there and you’re acquiring founders and sort of startups. And I think
    0:08:15 Slack was while you were there too. How did that change how you went about integrating that company
    0:08:20 into the Salesforce culture? I’ll talk abstractly about talking about some specific acquisitions too, but
    0:08:27 first, I think I tried to approach it with more empathy, um, and more realism. You know, uh,
    0:08:35 one of the nuanced parts about acquisitions is there’s the period of, um, doing the acquisition.
    0:08:39 There’s sort of the period, uh, after you’ve decided to do it, of doing due diligence. And then there’s
    0:08:44 a period when it’s done and you’re integrating the company and sort of the period after one of the
    0:08:51 things that I have observed is that, uh, companies doing acquisitions, often the part of deciding to do
    0:08:58 it is a bit of a mutual sales process. Um, uh, you’re trying to find a fair value for the company
    0:09:04 and, and there’s some back and forth there, but at the end of the day, there’s usually some objective
    0:09:09 measure of that, um, influenced by a lot of factors, but, but there’s some fair value of that.
    0:09:15 But what you’re trying to do is what are, uh, and corporate speak could be synergies, but like,
    0:09:19 why do this? Why is one plus one greater than two? You know, that’s, that’s why you do an acquisition
    0:09:26 just from first principles. It’s often a exercise in storytelling. You know, uh, you, you know,
    0:09:31 bring this product together with our product and customers will, you know, find the whole greater
    0:09:38 than the sum of its parts. This team applied to our sales channel, or if you’re a Google acquisition,
    0:09:44 you know, imagine the traffic we can drive to, to this product experience. Uh, you know, in the case of
    0:09:49 something like an Instagram, imagine our ad sales team attached to your, you know, amazing product
    0:09:55 and how quickly we can help you realize that value, whatever it might be. I find that people,
    0:10:01 because there’s sort of a craft of storytelling to, uh, for both sides to come to the same conclusion
    0:10:08 that they should, uh, do this acquisition sometimes, uh, either simplifies or sugarcoats,
    0:10:14 like some of the realities of it. Um, you know, little things like, you know, how much control
    0:10:21 will the founding team of the acquired company have over those decisions? Um, uh, will it be operated
    0:10:27 as a standalone business unit or will your team be sort of broken up into functional groups within the
    0:10:33 larger company? And it’s sort of those little, they’re not little, but those I’ll say boring,
    0:10:38 but important things that often people don’t talk enough about. And you don’t need to figure
    0:10:42 out every part of an acquisition to make it successful, but often you can end up running
    0:10:47 into like true third rails that you didn’t find because you were having the storytelling discussions
    0:10:51 rather than getting down to brass tacks about how things will work and what’s important.
    0:10:55 The other thing that I think is really important is being really clear what success looks like.
    0:11:02 Um, and you know, I think, uh, sometimes it’s a business outcome, sometimes it’s a product goal,
    0:11:11 but I found that, um, if you went to most of the like larger acquisitions, uh, in the valley and you,
    0:11:18 two weeks after it was closed, interviewed the management team of the acquiring company and the
    0:11:21 acquired company and you asked them like, what does success look like two years from now?
    0:11:28 My guess is like 80% of the time you get different answers. Um, and I think, uh, it goes back to this
    0:11:31 sort of storytelling thing where you’re talking about the benefits of the acquisition. We’re talking
    0:11:35 about like, what does success look like? So I really tried to approach it. I tried to, um,
    0:11:40 pull forward some harder conversations when, when we’re, you know, when I’m doing acquisitions or
    0:11:45 even when I’m being acquired since it’s happened to be not twice so that, you know, when you’re approaching
    0:11:50 it, you’d not only get the, Hey, why is one plus one equal greater than two? Everything’s gonna be
    0:11:57 awesome. You know, but no, for real, like what, you know, what does success look like here? And then,
    0:12:02 you know, as a founder, your job of an acquiring acquired company is to tell your team that and align
    0:12:07 your team to that. And I think founders don’t take on enough accountability towards making these
    0:12:11 acquisitions successful as I think they should. And, um, and it goes back to again, a certain,
    0:12:17 uh, naivete, you know, it’s like, you’re, you’re, you’re not your company anymore.
    0:12:22 You’re a part of something larger. And I think, you know, successful ones work when everyone embraces,
    0:12:27 um, embraces that. What point in the acquisition process is that conversation? Is that after we’ve
    0:12:33 signed our, our binding, you know, sort of commitment or is it, we should have that conversation
    0:12:39 before. So I know what I’m walking into. My personal take is it’s not something you have,
    0:12:44 you have to get to the point where the two parties want to merge, you know, and that’s a,
    0:12:49 obviously a financial decision, particularly if it’s like a public company, there’s a board and
    0:12:56 shareholders. Most acquisitions in the Valley are a larger firm acquiring a private firm. That’s not
    0:13:00 all of them, but I would say that’s the vast majority. And in those cases, there’s often a
    0:13:04 qualitative threshold where someone’s like, yeah, let’s do this. We’ve kind of have the high level
    0:13:09 terms, sometimes a term sheet, you know, formally, I think it’s right after that. Um,
    0:13:16 so where people have really committed to the, the key things, how much value, why are we doing this,
    0:13:23 the big stuff. And there’s usually, uh, you know, many, lots of lawyers being paid lots of money to
    0:13:28 turn those term sheets into, you know, uh, uh, more complete set of documents, usually more complete
    0:13:33 due diligence, stuff like that. That’s a, there’s an awkward waiting period there. And
    0:13:38 that’s a time I think where like the strategic decision makers in those moments can get together
    0:13:44 and say, let’s talk through what this really means. And, um, the nice part about having them for all
    0:13:48 parties is you’ve kind of made the commitment to each other. So it’s, you’ve, I think you have more
    0:13:54 social permission to have real conversations at that point. Um, but you also haven’t consummated the
    0:14:01 relationship, you know? And so, uh, there’s a, the power imbalance isn’t totally there and, and you can
    0:14:06 really talk through it. And it also, I think engenders trust just because by having harder
    0:14:11 conversations in those moments, you’re learning how to have real conversations and learning how each
    0:14:16 other works. So that’s my, my personal opinion when to have it. So you mentioned the board, you’ve been
    0:14:22 on the board of Shopify, you’re on the board of open AI, you’re a founder. What’s the role of a board
    0:14:26 and how is it different when you’re on the board of a founder led company?
    0:14:34 I, um, really like being involved, um, in a board. Um, and I’ve been involved in multiple boards
    0:14:40 because I think I am an operator through and through. I probably self-identify as an engineer first
    0:14:48 more than anything else. And I love to build learning and how to be an advisor, um, is a very different
    0:14:54 vantage point that I think, uh, you see how other companies operate and you also learn how to
    0:15:00 have an impact and add value without doing it yourself. Um, and it’s a very, and I’ve really,
    0:15:05 I think become a better leader, you know, having learned to do that. I have really only joined,
    0:15:12 uh, boards that were led by founders because typically I think they, you can speak to them,
    0:15:17 but I think they sought me out because I’m a founder and I like working with founder led companies. Um,
    0:15:26 I, I think the, uh, founders, I’m sure there’s lots of studies on this, but I think founders drive better
    0:15:34 outcomes for, uh, companies. Um, there’s a, I think founders tend to have permission to make bolder,
    0:15:39 more disruptive decisions about their business than a professional manager. There’s exceptions
    0:15:44 like Satya, I think is, you know, uh, one of the greatest and not the greatest CEO of, you know,
    0:15:50 our generation and, uh, as a professional manager, but you know, you look at, uh, everyone from, uh,
    0:15:57 Toby Lukey to Mark Benioff to Mark Zuckerberg to, uh, Sam at open AI. And I think when you have founded
    0:16:04 a company, it’s all your stakeholders, employees in particular, uh, give you the benefit of the
    0:16:09 doubt. You know, you created this thing. And if you say, Hey, we need to, um, do a major shift in
    0:16:16 our strategy, even hard things like, uh, layoffs, founders tend to get a lot of latitude and are
    0:16:21 judged, I think differently. And, and I think rightfully so in some ways, because of the interconnection
    0:16:26 of their identity to the thing that they’ve created. And so I actually really believe in founder led
    0:16:32 companies. Um, one of the real interesting challenges is going from a founder led company to
    0:16:35 not, and you know, Amazon has gone through that transition. Microsoft has gone through that
    0:16:42 transition, um, for that reason. Uh, but I love working with founders. Um, and I, I love working
    0:16:49 with people like Toby and Sam because they’re so different than me yet. Um, uh, and I can see how
    0:16:54 they operate their businesses and I am inspired by it. I learned from it and obviously working for, for
    0:16:58 market Salesforce, you, you have like, wow, that’s really interesting. Like most like an
    0:17:03 anthropologist. Like, why did you do that? You know, I want to learn more. And so I love working
    0:17:07 with founders that inspire me because I just learned so much from them. It’s such an interesting front
    0:17:11 row seat into what’s happening. Do you think founders go astray when they start listening to
    0:17:16 too many outside voices? And this goes back to the, I’m sure you’re aware of the Brian Chesky,
    0:17:20 founder mode, the founder mode. Do you think, talk to me about that.
    0:17:27 I have such a nuanced point of view on this because it is decidedly not simple. Uh, so
    0:17:34 broadly speaking, I really like the spirit of founder mode, which is just having
    0:17:42 deep founder led accountability for every decision at your company. Um, I think that that’s how great
    0:17:49 companies operate. Uh, and when you, you know, proverbially make decisions by committee or you’re
    0:17:55 more focused on process than outcomes, um, that produces all the experiences we hate as employees,
    0:17:59 as customers, you know, that’s the proverbial DMV, right? You know, it’s like process over outcomes.
    0:18:06 Um, and then similarly, uh, you look at the disruption in all industries right now because
    0:18:12 of AI, you know, the companies that will recognize where things are clearly going to change. Like
    0:18:18 everyone can see it. It’s like a slow motion car wreck. Everyone knows how it ends. You need that
    0:18:24 kind of decisive breakthrough boundaries, layers of management, um, to actually make change as fast
    0:18:30 as required in business right now. The issue I have not with Brian’s statements, Brian’s amazing,
    0:18:37 um, is how people can sort of interpret that and sort of execute it as a caricature of what I think
    0:18:44 it means. Uh, you know, there was a, I remember after Steve jobs passed away and you know, um, I don’t
    0:18:50 know, I’ve met Steve a couple of times. I haven’t never worked with him in any meaningful way, you know,
    0:18:54 know, but he was sort of, uh, if you believe the story is like kind of, uh, pretty hard on his
    0:18:59 employees and, and very exacting. And I think a lot of founders were like mimicking that, you know,
    0:19:04 done to wearing a black turtleneck and yelling at their employees. I’m like, not sure that was the
    0:19:10 cause, you know, uh, I think Steve jobs taste and judgment through, you know, executed through that,
    0:19:15 you know, packaging was the cause of their success and somehow. And then similarly, I think founder
    0:19:21 mode can be weaponized as an excuse for just like overt micromanagement. And that probably won’t
    0:19:27 lead to great outcomes either. And most great companies are filled with extremely great individual
    0:19:35 contributors who make good decisions and work really hard. And, uh, uh, companies that are like solely
    0:19:40 executing through the judgment of individual probably aren’t going to be able to scale to be truly great
    0:19:46 companies. So I have a very nuanced point because I actually believe in founders. I believe in actually
    0:19:52 that accountability that comes from the top. I believe in cultures where, you know, founders have
    0:19:58 license to go in and all the way to a small decision and fix it, the infamous question mark emails from
    0:20:02 Jeff Bezos, you know, that type of thing. That’s, that’s the right way to run a company, but that doesn’t
    0:20:08 mean that you don’t have a culture where individuals are accountable and empowered. And, uh, you don’t
    0:20:12 want, uh, you know, people trying to decide, make business decisions because of what will please our
    0:20:17 dual leader, you know, which is like the caricature of this. And so, you know, after that came out,
    0:20:20 I could sort of see it all happening, which is like, some people will take that and be like, you know what,
    0:20:24 you’re right. I need to go down and be in the details. And some people will do it and probably make
    0:20:28 everyone who works for them miserable and probably both will happen as a consequence. So.
    0:20:34 That’s totally. Thank you for the detail and nuance that I love that too. Do you think engineers make
    0:20:39 good leaders? I do think engineers make good leaders, but one thing I’ve seen is that
    0:20:50 I think that I really believe that great CEOs and great founders, um, start usually with one specialty,
    0:20:57 but become, uh, more broadly specialists in our parts of their business. Um, you know,
    0:21:04 I think the, uh, businesses are multifaceted and rarely is a business’s success due to one
    0:21:08 thing, uh, like engineering or product, which is where a lot of founders come from.
    0:21:14 Often your go to market model is important, uh, for consumer companies, how you engage with the
    0:21:22 world and public policy becomes extremely important. And I think as you see, um, uh, founders, you know,
    0:21:27 grow from doing one thing to growing, to be in a real meaningful company like Airbnb or Meta or
    0:21:32 something, you can see those founders really transform from being one thing to many things.
    0:21:38 Um, so I do think engineers make great leaders. I think the first principles thinking the system
    0:21:46 design thinking, um, really benefits things like organization design strategy. Um, and, but I also
    0:21:53 think that, you know, uh, when we were speaking earlier about identity, I think one of the main
    0:21:58 transitions founders need to make, especially engineers, uh, is you’re not like the product
    0:22:06 manager for the company or the CEO. And at any given day, do you spend time recruiting an executive
    0:22:12 because you have a need? Do you spend time, uh, on sales because that will have the biggest impact?
    0:22:19 Um, do you spend time on public policy or regulation? Because if you don’t, uh, it will happen to you and,
    0:22:25 and could really impact your business in a negative way. And I think engineers who are
    0:22:31 unwilling to elevate their identity from what they were to what it needs to be in the moment
    0:22:36 often leads to sort of plateaus, uh, in companies growth. So a hundred percent, I think engineers
    0:22:43 make great, um, leaders and it’s not a coincidence. I think that most of the Silicon Valley great Silicon
    0:22:49 Valley CEOs came from engineering backgrounds. Um, but I also don’t think that’s sufficient either
    0:22:54 as your company scales. And I think that making that transition as all the great ones have is incredibly
    0:23:00 important. To what extent are all business problems, engineering problems? That’s a deeper philosophical
    0:23:06 question that I think I have the capacity to answer. Um, what is engineering? What I like about
    0:23:14 approaching problems, uh, as an engineer is, uh, first principles thinking and understanding,
    0:23:21 uh, the root causes of issues rather than simply addressing the symptoms of the problem. And I do think
    0:23:27 that coming from a background in engineering, that is, um, everything from process, like how engineers do a
    0:23:32 root cause analysis of a outage on a server is a really great way to analyze why you lost a sales
    0:23:39 deal. You know, like I love the systematic approach of engineering. One thing that I think going back to
    0:23:45 good ideas that can become caricatures of themselves, like one thing I’ve seen though with engineers who
    0:23:53 go into other disciplines is, um, sometimes you can overanalyze decisions in some domains. Let’s just take
    0:24:00 modern communications, which is driven in social media and, and very fast paced. Um, having a
    0:24:07 systematic first principles discussion about every, you know, tweet you do is probably not a great comms
    0:24:15 strategy. Um, and so, uh, and then similarly, um, you know, there are some aspects of say enterprise
    0:24:22 software sales that, you know, aren’t rational, but they’re human, you know, like forming personal
    0:24:27 relationships, you know, and, and the importance of those to building trust with a partner. It’s not
    0:24:33 all just, you know, product and technology. And so I would say, I think a lot of things, uh, coming
    0:24:40 with an engineer mindset can really benefit, but I do think that, uh, taking that to its like logical
    0:24:47 extreme can lead to analysis paralysis, can lead to, uh, over intellectualizing some things that are
    0:24:52 fundamentally human problems. And so, yeah, I think a lot can benefit from engineering, but I wouldn’t say
    0:24:57 everything’s an engineering problem in my experience. You brought up first principles a couple times. You’re
    0:25:03 running your third startup now, Sierra. It’s going really well. How do you use first principles in terms
    0:25:12 of how to use that at work? Yeah, it’s, it’s particularly important right now because the market of AI is
    0:25:22 changing so rapidly. So if you rewind two years, you know, most people hadn’t used chat GPT yet. Uh,
    0:25:31 most companies hadn’t heard the phrase large language models or generative AI yet. And in two years, you have chat GPT
    0:25:38 becoming one of the most popular consumer services in history faster than his than any service in history.
    0:25:46 And you have across so many domains in the enterprise, uh, really rapid transformation.
    0:25:52 The law is being transfer transformed. Marketing is being transformed. Customer service, which is where my
    0:26:00 company Sierra works is being transformed. Software engineering is being transformed. And the amount of
    0:26:06 change in such a short period of time is, uh, I think unprecedented. Uh, and, uh, perhaps I lack the
    0:26:12 historical context, but it feels faster than anything I’ve experienced in my career. And so as a consequence,
    0:26:19 I think, uh, if you’re responding to the facts in front of you and not thinking from first principles about
    0:26:25 why we’re at this point and where it will probably be 12 months from now, the likelihood that you’ll make the
    0:26:33 right strategic decision is almost zero. Uh, so, uh, as an example, uh, it’s really interesting to me that
    0:26:39 with modern large language models, one of the careers that is being most transformed is software engineering.
    0:26:47 Uh, and, uh, you know, one of the things I think a lot about is how many software engineers will we have
    0:26:54 our company three years from now? What will the role of a software engineer be as we go from being authors of code to
    0:26:57 operators of code generating machines? Um,
    0:27:01 What does that mean for the type of people we should recruit?
    0:27:06 And if I look at the actual craft of software engineering that we’re doing right now, um,
    0:27:11 I think it’s literally a fact that it’ll be completely different two years from now.
    0:27:16 Yet I think a lot of people building companies hire for the problem in front of them rather than doing
    0:27:22 that. But two years is not that long. Those people that you hire now will just be getting really
    0:27:28 productive a couple of years from now. So we try to think about most of our long-term business from
    0:27:34 first principles, everything from, I’ll say a couple examples in our business. Our pricing model is really
    0:27:40 unique and comes from first principles thinking rather than having our customers pay a license for the
    0:27:45 privilege of using our platform. We only charge our customers for the outcomes. Uh, meaning if the
    0:27:50 AI agent they’ve built for their customers solves the problem, there’s like a usually a pre-negotiated
    0:27:55 rate for that. And that comes from the principle that in the age of AI, software isn’t just helping
    0:28:02 you be more productive, but actually completing a task. Uh, what is the right and logical business
    0:28:06 model for something that completes a task? Well, charging for a job well done rather than charging for
    0:28:12 the privileges using the software. Um, similarly, um, you know, we, with a lot of our customers,
    0:28:18 you know, we help deliver them a fully working AI agent. We don’t hand them a bunch of, uh, software
    0:28:25 and say, good luck, you know, configure it yourself. And the logic there is, you know, uh, in a world where,
    0:28:32 uh, making software is easier than it ever is before. And you’re delivering outcomes for your customer.
    0:28:37 Um, the delivery model of software probably should change as well. And we’ve really tried to
    0:28:41 reimagine what like the software company of the future should look like and trying to,
    0:28:46 you know, model that in everything that we do. That’s brilliant. How do you think software
    0:28:50 engineering will change? Is it you’re going to have fewer people or the people are going to be
    0:28:57 organized differently or how do you see that? How geeky can I get as geeky as you want?
    0:29:04 I actually wrote a blog post, uh, right before Christmas about this. I think this is an area
    0:29:09 that deserves a lot more research. Uh, I’ll describe where I think we are today and smart people may
    0:29:18 disagree, but a lot of the modern large language models, both the traditional large language models
    0:29:24 and sort of the new reasoning models are trained on a lot of source code. And it’s a, an important input
    0:29:29 to all of the knowledge that they’re trained on. Um, as a consequence, even the early models were
    0:29:37 very good at generating code. Um, so, you know, uh, every single engineer at, at CIRA uses a cursor,
    0:29:43 which is a great product that basically integrates with the IDE visual studio code to help you
    0:29:50 generate code more quickly. Um, it feels like a local maximum, uh, in a really obvious way to me,
    0:29:57 which is you have a bunch of code written by people, um, written in programming languages that
    0:30:04 were designed to make it easy for people to tell a computer what to do. Probably this funniest example,
    0:30:10 this is Python. Um, it almost looks like natural language, but it’s notoriously not robust. Um,
    0:30:16 you know, most Python bugs are found by running the program because there’s not static type checking.
    0:30:25 Um, similarly, there’s most bugs, uh, while you could run a fancy static analysis, like most bugs show up
    0:30:32 simply at runtime because, uh, it’s just not designed. Um, it’s designed to be ergonomic to write. Um,
    0:30:39 yet we’re using AI to generate that. Uh, we, and so we’ve sort of designed most of our computer
    0:30:47 programming systems to make it easy for the author of code to type it quickly. Um, and we’re in a world
    0:30:53 where actually generating code is going to like the marginal cost of doing that is going to zero,
    0:30:58 but we’re still generating code and programming languages that were designed for human authors.
    0:31:07 And similarly, um, if you’ve ever like looked at someone else’s code, um, which a lot of people
    0:31:13 do professionally, it’s called the code review. It’s actually quite hard to do a code review. Um,
    0:31:18 you know, you’re end up interpreting, you’re trying to basically put the system in your head and simulate
    0:31:25 it as you’re reading the code to find errors in it. So the irony now that I’ve taken things that are
    0:31:30 code programming languages that were designed for authors and now having humans do the job of
    0:31:36 essentially code reviewing code written by an AI. And, and yet all of the AI is being in the code
    0:31:42 generation part of it. I’m like, I’m not sure it’s, it’s great, but we’re generating a lot of
    0:31:47 code with similar flaws to that we’ve been generating before from security holes to just functional bugs
    0:31:54 and in greater volumes. And I think we’re, uh, what I would like to see is if you start with the
    0:32:01 premise that generating code is free or, or, or going towards free, what would be the programming
    0:32:06 systems that we would design? So for example, uh, you know, Rust is an example of a programming
    0:32:13 language that was designed for safety, not for programming convenience. Uh, you know, my understanding is
    0:32:18 that the, you know, Mozilla project, you know, there were so many security holes in
    0:32:24 Firefox. They said, let’s make a programming language that’s very fast. Uh, you know, uh,
    0:32:28 but everything can be checked statically, including memory safety. Well, it’s a really interesting
    0:32:34 direction where you weren’t operating, like optimizing for authorship convenience or optimizing for correctness.
    0:32:40 Are there programming language designs that are designed so a human looking at it can very quickly
    0:32:46 evaluate, does this do what I intended it to do? There’s an area of computer science I studied in
    0:32:50 college called formal verification, which at the time was turning a lot of computer programs into
    0:32:55 math proofs and finding inconsistencies. And it sort of worked well, not as well as you’d hope.
    0:33:02 But, you know, in a world where AI is generating a lot of code, you know, should we be investing in
    0:33:08 more informal verification so that the operator of that code generator machine can more easily verify
    0:33:14 that it does in fact to do what they intended is to do? And could a combination of a programming
    0:33:19 language that is more structurally correct and structurally safe and exposes more primitives for
    0:33:26 verification plus a tool to verify? Could you make an operator of a code generated machine 20 times
    0:33:30 more productive, but more importantly, make the robustness of their output 20 times greater?
    0:33:36 And then similarly, you know, there’s themes, things go in and out of fashion, but like test driven
    0:33:40 development, you know, where you write your unit test first or your integration test first and then
    0:33:44 write code until it fulfills the test. Most programmers I know who are really good,
    0:33:49 not despise it, but it’s just like a, it sounds better than it, than it is in practice. But
    0:33:54 again, writing code is free, you know, so writing tests is free, you know, how can you create a
    0:34:00 programming system where the combination of great programming language design, formal verification,
    0:34:05 robust tests, because you didn’t have to do the tedious part of writing them all. Could you make
    0:34:12 something that made it possible to write increasingly complex systems that were increasingly robust?
    0:34:15 And then similarly, like the elephant in the room for me is the anchor tenant of most of
    0:34:19 these code generating systems are an IDE right now, you know, and
    0:34:26 that obviously doesn’t seem as important in this world. And even with coding agents,
    0:34:30 which is sort of where the world is going, it doesn’t change the fact that like, you know,
    0:34:33 who’s accountable for the quality of it, who’s fixing it. And I think
    0:34:39 there is a world where we can make reasonable software by just automating what we as software
    0:34:46 engineers do every day. But I have a strong suspicion that if we designed these systems with the role of a
    0:34:53 software engineer in mind, being an operator of a machine rather than the author of the code,
    0:34:58 we could make the process much more robust and much more productive. And it feels like a research
    0:35:03 problem to me, it doesn’t feel. And I think a lot of people, and for good reason, including me,
    0:35:08 are just excited about the efficiency of software development going up. And I want to see the new
    0:35:11 thing, though. I’m constructively dissatisfied with where we are.
    0:35:16 It’s so interesting that if software AI is good enough to write the code, should we get enough to
    0:35:17 check the code?
    0:35:23 That’s a great, great question. But actually, I’ll, you know, it’s still funny to me that we’d be
    0:35:28 generating Python, you know, just because for anyone who’s listening right now has ever operated a web
    0:35:34 service running Python, it’s CPU and intensive, really inefficient. You know, should we be taking most of
    0:35:41 the unsafe C code that we’ve written and converting it to a safer system like Rust? You know, if authoring
    0:35:46 these things and checking it are relatively free, shouldn’t all of our programs be incredibly
    0:35:52 efficient? Should they all be formally verified? Should they all be analyzed by a great agent? I do
    0:35:58 think it can be turtles all the way down. You can use AI to solve most problems in AI. The thing that I’m
    0:36:04 trying to figure out is like, what is the system that a human operator is using to orchestrate all those
    0:36:10 tasks. And, you know, I go back to the history of software development, and most of the really
    0:36:15 interesting metaphors in software development came from breakthroughs in computing. So, you know, the C
    0:36:20 programming language came from Unix. And when these time sharing systems were really, it went from sort
    0:36:27 of punch cards to something that were a lot more agile. Small talk came out of the development of the
    0:36:34 graphical user interface at Xerox PARC. And, you know, there was a sort of a confluence of message
    0:36:39 passing as a metaphor and the graphical user interface. And then there was a lot of really
    0:36:46 interesting principles that came out of networking, you know, and sort of distributed systems, distributed
    0:36:52 locking, sequencing. I think we should recognize that we’re in this brand new era as significant
    0:36:57 as the GUI. You know, it’s like a completely new era of software development. And if you were just to say,
    0:37:03 I’m going to design a programming system for this new world from first principles, what would it be?
    0:37:06 And I think when we develop it, I think it will be really exciting because rather than
    0:37:13 automating and turning up the speed of just generating code and with the same processes we
    0:37:21 have today, I think we’ll feel native to this system and give a lot more control to the people who are
    0:37:24 orchestrating the system in a way that I think will really benefit software overall.
    0:37:29 Let’s dive into AI a little bit. How would you define AGI to the layman?
    0:37:39 I think a reasonable definition of AGI might be that any task that a person can do at a computer,
    0:37:49 that system can do on par or better. I’m not sure it’s a precise definition, but I’ll tell you where that
    0:37:54 comes from and it’s flaws, but there’s not a perfect definition of AGI in my opinion,
    0:37:59 or there’s not a precise definition of AGI. I’m sure there’s good answers.
    0:38:06 One of the things about the G and AGI is about generalization. So can you have a system that is
    0:38:14 intelligent in domains that it wasn’t explicitly trained to be intelligent on? And so I think that’s
    0:38:22 one of the most important things is like given a net new domain, can this system become more competent
    0:38:31 and more intelligent than a person sort of trained in that domain? And I think that’s sort of the,
    0:38:35 you know, at or better than a person is certainly a good standard there. And that’s sort of the
    0:38:40 definition of super intelligence. The reason I mentioned at a computer is I do think that
    0:38:51 it is a bar that means like if there’s a digital interface to that system, it affords the ability
    0:38:59 for AI to interact with it, which is why that’s a bar that’s reasonable to hit. I say that because
    0:39:08 one of the interesting questions around AGI is how quickly it does generalize. And there are domains in
    0:39:19 the world that the progress in that domain isn’t necessarily limited by intelligence, but by other
    0:39:24 social artifacts. So as an example, and I’m not an expert in this area, but if you think about
    0:39:33 the pharmaceutical industry, my understanding is, you know, the one of the main bottlenecks
    0:39:42 is clinical trials. So no matter how intelligent a system would be in discovering new therapies,
    0:39:50 it may not materially change that. And so you may have something that’s discovering new insights in math,
    0:39:55 and that would be delightful and amazing. But the existence of that
    0:40:01 system that’s super intelligent in one domain may not translate to all domains equally.
    0:40:06 I just heard at least a snippet of a talk by Tyler Cohen, the economist. And
    0:40:12 it was really interesting to hear his framing on this about which parts of the economy
    0:40:18 could sort of absorb intelligence more quickly than others. And so I choose that definition of AGI,
    0:40:24 recognizing that there’s not a perfect definition, because it captures the ability of
    0:40:31 this intelligence to generalize, while also recognizing that the domains of society might
    0:40:36 not apply with equal velocity, even once we reach that point of a system being able to have that level
    0:40:37 of intelligence.
    0:40:44 When I think about what artificial intelligence is limited by, or the bottlenecks, if you will,
    0:40:50 I keep coming back to a couple of things. There’s regulation, there’s compute, there’s energy,
    0:40:54 there’s data, and there’s LLMs. Am I missing anything?
    0:40:57 Uh, so you’re saying the ingredients to AGI?
    0:41:03 Yeah, like, there’s limitations on each aspect of those things. And there seem to be the main
    0:41:09 contributors to the, what’s limiting us from even accelerating at this point. Is that, how do you
    0:41:10 think about that?
    0:41:14 Yeah, what you said is roughly how I think about it. I’ll put it into my own words, though.
    0:41:25 I think the three primary inputs are data, compute, and algorithms. And data is probably obvious,
    0:41:30 but you know, one of the things after the Transformers model was introduced is it afforded
    0:41:37 an architecture with just much greater parallelism, which meant models could be much bigger and train
    0:41:44 more quickly on much more data, um, which just led to a lot of the breakthroughs with, that’s the LLM,
    0:41:50 just they’re large. And, uh, the scaling laws, you know, a couple years ago, you know, indicated like the
    0:41:58 larger you make the model, um, the more intelligent it would be, and at a degree of efficiency that was, uh, tolerable.
    0:42:06 Uh, and there, we are, you know, there’s lots of stuff written about this, but you know, there’s
    0:42:11 in terms of just like textual content to train on, you know, the availability of new content is
    0:42:16 certainly waning. And some people would say, I think there’s like a data wall. Uh, I’m not an expert in
    0:42:21 that domain, but it’s been talked about a lot and you can read a lot about it. There’s a lot of interesting
    0:42:27 opportunities though to generate data too. Um, so, uh, there’s a lot of people working on simulation.
    0:42:31 If you think about a domain, like self-driving cars, simulation is a really interesting way to
    0:42:36 generate. Uh, is that synthetic data? Is that what? Yeah, I would say that synthetic data,
    0:42:42 though synthetic data has a, uh, uh, simulation and synthetic data are a little different. So
    0:42:49 you can generate synthetic data, like generate a novel. Um, simulation, I would put at least in my
    0:42:56 head and I’m sure that like academics might critique what I’m saying, but, uh, I’ve used simulation is
    0:43:00 based on a set of principles like the laws of physics. So if you were to build a real world
    0:43:06 simulation for training, a self-driving car, um, you’re not just generating arbitrary data,
    0:43:10 like the roads don’t turn into loop-de-loops, you know, because that’s not possible with physics.
    0:43:18 So by constraining a simulation with a set of, uh, real world constraints, the data has more efficacy,
    0:43:24 you know, and so, uh, and there’s, uh, sort of a, it constrains the different permutations
    0:43:29 of data you can generate from it. So it’s, I think a little bit higher quality, but then along those
    0:43:37 lines, you know, uh, a lot of people wonder if you generate, uh, synthetic data, um, how much value can
    0:43:43 that add to a training process? Um, you know, is it sort of, uh, regurgitating information it already
    0:43:49 had? What’s really interesting about, you know, reasoning and reasoning models is I think, uh,
    0:43:54 I feel really optimistic these models are generating net new ideas. And so it really affords the opportunity
    0:44:00 to break through, uh, some of these, the data wall as well. So data is one thing. And I think both
    0:44:06 synthetic data and simulation are really interesting opportunities to, to grow there. Then you have compute.
    0:44:15 And, uh, this is, um, something that, you know, it’s why, uh, there’s so many data center investments.
    0:44:21 It’s why Nvidia as a company has, has grown so much. Um, the, probably the more interesting kind
    0:44:27 of breakthroughs there are these reasoning models where, uh, there’s not quite such a formal separation
    0:44:33 between the training process and the inference process where you can spend more compute at the
    0:44:38 time of inference to generate more intelligence, um, which has really been a breakthrough in a variety
    0:44:42 of ways, I think is really interesting, but it shows you how you can run up against walls and,
    0:44:47 and find new opportunities to use it. And then finally algorithms. And the biggest breakthrough
    0:44:52 is obviously the transformers model attention is all you need that paper from Google that sort of led to
    0:44:56 where we are now. But there’s been a number of really important papers since then, from
    0:45:02 the idea of chain of thought reasoning into, um, what, uh, at open AI, what we did with the O1 model,
    0:45:08 which is to, um, do some reinforcement learning on those chains of thought to, uh, really reach new
    0:45:14 levels of intelligence. Um, and so I do think that I mentioned some anecdotes about some breakthroughs
    0:45:20 there because my view is that each one of them has their own problems. You know, compute,
    0:45:27 it’s very capital intensive. Um, and a lot of these models, the half-life of their value is pretty
    0:45:32 short because new ones come out so frequently. And so, you know, you’re, you wonder like, you know,
    0:45:37 can we afford, uh, what’s the business case for investing this capex? And then you have a
    0:45:44 breakthrough like, uh, you know, O1 and you’re like, gosh, you know, with a distilled model and
    0:45:48 moving more to inference time, it changes the economics of it. You have data. You say, gosh,
    0:45:53 we’re running out of textual data to train on. Well, now we can generate reasoning. We can do
    0:45:56 simulations. Oh, that’s an interesting breakthrough. And then on the algorithm side, as I mentioned,
    0:46:02 just the idea of these reasoning models is really novel itself. And each of these at any given point,
    0:46:06 if you talk to an expert and in one of them, and I’m an expert in none of them,
    0:46:12 they will tell you the sort of current plateau that they can see on the horizon. And there usually is
    0:46:16 one, I mean, you’ll talk to different people about how long the scaling laws for something
    0:46:19 will continue and you’ll get slightly different opinions, but no one thinks it’s looking to last
    0:46:26 forever. Um, and at each one of those, because you have so many smart people working on them,
    0:46:32 you often have people discovering a breakthrough, um, in each of them. And so as a consequence, I,
    0:46:39 I really do feel optimistic about the progress towards HEI because one of those plateaus might
    0:46:44 extend a while if we just don’t have the key idea that we need to break through the idea that we will
    0:46:50 be stuck on all three of those domains feels very unlikely to me. And in fact, what we’ve seen
    0:46:55 because of the potential economic benefits of AGI is we’re in fact seeing breakthroughs in all three of
    0:47:02 them. And, um, as a consequence, um, you know, you’re just seeing just the blistering pace of progress
    0:47:09 that we’ve seen over the past couple of years. At what point does AI start making AI better than
    0:47:15 we can make it or making it better while we’re sleeping or we can’t be too far from that?
    0:47:19 Well, it might reflect back to our software engineering discussion, but you know,
    0:47:25 the broadly, this is the area of AGI around self-improvement, which is meaningful from a
    0:47:31 improvement standpoint, but also obviously from a safety standpoint as well. So I, um,
    0:47:36 I don’t know when that will happen, but I do think, you know, by some definition,
    0:47:42 you could argue that it’s happening already in the sense that every engineer in Silicon Valley is already
    0:47:49 using coding agents and, um, platforms like Cursor to help them code. So it’s contributing already.
    0:47:54 Um, and I imagine as, uh, coding assistants go to coding agents in the future,
    0:47:58 most engineers in Silicon Valley will show up in the morning and,
    0:48:04 but this is sort of the difference between, uh, you know, the assisted driving and Tesla versus like
    0:48:10 self-driving, right? Like at what point do we leap from, I’m a co-pilot in this to,
    0:48:12 I’m, I don’t have to do anything.
    0:48:17 I mean, it’s a question that’s, there’s so much nuance to the answer. I’m not sure to answer
    0:48:21 because I’m not sure you’d want to necessarily, like, I think for some software applications,
    0:48:25 that’s important. But when we brought up, you know, we were talking about the active software
    0:48:32 development, people have to be accountable, um, for the software that they produce. Um, and that
    0:48:38 means if you’re doing something simple, like a software as a service application, that it’s secure,
    0:48:45 that it’s reliable, that it, the functionality works as intended for something as meaningful as,
    0:48:51 uh, you know, uh, an agent that is, um, somewhat autonomous, does it have the appropriate guard
    0:48:57 rails? Um, does it actually do what the operators intended? Is there appropriate safety measures?
    0:49:02 So I’m not sure there’s really any system where you’d want to turn a switch and, and go get your
    0:49:08 coffee. But I do think to the point on, you know, uh, these broader safety things is I think that when
    0:49:15 you think about, uh, more advanced models, we need to be developing not only more and more advanced,
    0:49:22 um, safety measures and safety harnesses, but also, um, using AI to supervise AI and things like that.
    0:49:28 So it’s a part, uh, probably my colleague on the board, Zico Coulter is probably a better person to talk
    0:49:32 through some of the technical things, but there’s a lot of prerequisites to get to that point. And I’m not
    0:49:37 sure it’s simply like the availability of the technology. Um, just because it is, uh, that at
    0:49:41 the end of the day, we are accountable for the safety of the systems we produce, not just opening
    0:49:47 I like every, every engineer. Um, and, and, and that’s a principle that should not change.
    0:49:53 What does that mean? Like when we say safety and AI, that seems so vague in general that everybody
    0:49:58 interprets it quite differently. Like, how do you think about that? And how do you think about that
    0:50:05 in the world where, uh, let’s say we regulate safety in the United States and another country
    0:50:11 doesn’t regulate safety? How does that affect the dynamic of it? I’ll answer broadly and then
    0:50:18 go into the regulatory question. So I really like opening eyes mission, uh, which is to ensure that
    0:50:24 AGI benefits all of humanity. That isn’t only about safety. Um, and, and I, and I believe intentionally.
    0:50:29 So though the, the, obviously the mission was created prior to my arrival because it’s both
    0:50:34 about safety, kind of Hippocratic oath first to no harm. And I don’t think one could credibly achieve
    0:50:39 that mission if we created something unsafe. So I would say that’s the most important part of the
    0:50:45 mission, but there’s also a lot of other aspects of benefiting humanity. Um, is it universally accessible?
    0:50:52 Is there a digital divide where some people have access to AGI and some don’t? Um, uh,
    0:50:58 similarly, you could argue that does it, are we maximizing the benefits and minimizing the downsides?
    0:51:04 Uh, clearly, uh, AI will disrupt some job, but it also could democratize access to healthcare,
    0:51:11 education, expertise. Um, so as I think about the mission, it starts with safety, but I actually like
    0:51:16 thinking about it more broadly because I think at the end of the day, benefiting humanity is the mission
    0:51:21 and, um, uh, safety is a prerequisite, but it’s almost like going to my analogy of the Hippocratic
    0:51:28 oath. A doctor’s job is, you know, uh, to cure you first do no harm, but then to cure you and a doctor
    0:51:32 that did no harm, but didn’t cure you wouldn’t be great either. So I really like to think about the,
    0:51:40 uh, holistically and, um, again, uh, Zika or Sam might have a more complete answer here, but broadly,
    0:51:48 I think about does the system that represents AGI, um, align with the intentions of the people
    0:51:53 created it and the intentions of the people operating it, um, so that it, it does what we want and it’s
    0:52:00 a tool, um, uh, that benefits humanity that, um, a tool that we’re actively using, um, to affect the
    0:52:05 outcomes that we’re looking for. And that’s kind of the way I think about safety. Um, and, uh,
    0:52:10 it can be meaningful things like misalignment or, or more subtle things like unintended consequences.
    0:52:16 Um, and I think that latter part is probably the areas, uh, really interesting from, uh, um,
    0:52:23 intellectual and ethical standpoint as well. If I look at, um, uh, what was the bridge in Canada
    0:52:28 that fell down where it motivated the ring that a lot of engineers. Oh yeah. I forget the name of it,
    0:52:34 but just like the, whether it’s the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington or, uh, three mile island or
    0:52:43 these intersections where, um, uh, we’ve engineered these, um, you know, what, what at the time people
    0:52:49 hope would be positively impact humanity, but something went horribly wrong. Um, sometimes it’s
    0:52:54 engineering, sometimes it’s bureaucracy, sometimes it’s a lot of things. And so I don’t think when I think
    0:53:00 about safety, I don’t just look at the technical measures of it, but how does this technology
    0:53:05 manifest in society? How do we make decisions around it? And you could take, put another way,
    0:53:10 technology is rarely innately good or bad. It’s sort of what we do with it. Um, and I think those
    0:53:15 social constructs and, uh, matter a lot as well. Um, so I think it’s a little early to tell because we
    0:53:21 don’t have this kind of super intelligence right now. Um, and I think it won’t just be a technology
    0:53:28 company defining how it manifests in society. And you could imagine, uh, taking a very well aligned
    0:53:35 AI system and a human operator directing it towards something, um, that would, uh, objectively hurt
    0:53:40 society. And, and there’s a question of like, who gets to decide who’s accountable? And it’s a
    0:53:47 perennial question. I mean, it’s whether you’re deciding, uh, you know, uh, uh, should you use
    0:53:51 your smartphone in school? You know, who, who should decide that? And I, there’s parents
    0:53:55 who will tell you, Hey, it’s my decision. It’s my kid. And then there’s principals who will tell
    0:54:00 you it’s not benefiting the school. And I’m not sure that’s going to be my place or our place,
    0:54:04 but there’ll be a number of those conversations that are much deeper than that question that I
    0:54:12 think we’ll need to answer. Um, as it relates to regulation, uh, there’s two, uh, not conflicting
    0:54:16 forces, but two forces that exist somewhat independently, but relate to each other. One
    0:54:22 is the pace of progress in AI and ensuring that, you know, uh, the, the folks working on frontier
    0:54:29 models are ensuring those models do benefit humanity. And, uh, and then there’s the, uh,
    0:54:36 sort of geopolitical landscape, which is, you know, do you want, uh, AGI to be created by the freedom,
    0:54:43 uh, sort of, uh, the West, um, by democracies, um, or do you want it to be created by more
    0:54:50 totalitarian governments? And so I think the inherent tension for regulators will be, um,
    0:54:57 a sense of obligation to ensure that, you know, uh, the technology organizations creating AGI
    0:55:04 are in fact focusing enough on, um, that I’m fitting humanity, all the other, uh, uh, stakeholders
    0:55:11 there that whose, uh, interests that they’re accountable for and ensuring that the West remains
    0:55:16 competitive. Um, and, and, uh, I think that’s a really nuanced thing. And I think, uh, you know,
    0:55:23 my, my view is it’s very important that the West is, uh, leads in AI and I’m very proud of the fact that,
    0:55:28 um, you know, open AI is based here in the United States and we’re investing a lot in the United
    0:55:32 States. And I think that’s very important. And I also, you know, having sort of seen the inside of,
    0:55:37 I think we’re really focused on benefiting humanity. So I, I tend to think that, you know,
    0:55:41 it needs to be a multi-stakeholder dialogue, but I think there’s a really big risk that some
    0:55:47 regulations could have the unintended consequence of, of, uh, slowing down this larger conversation.
    0:55:51 But I don’t say that to be dismissive of it either. It’s actually just a impossibly hard,
    0:55:55 uh, problem. And I think you’re seeing it play out as you said, and in really different ways in
    0:56:00 Canada, United States, Europe, China, elsewhere. I want to come back to compute and the dollars
    0:56:07 involved. So, I mean, on one hand you have, um, if I just, I could start an AI company today by,
    0:56:12 you know, going, putting my credit card down and using AWS and leveraging their infrastructure,
    0:56:17 which they’ve, they’ve built, they’ve spent the hundreds of billions of dollars and I get to use
    0:56:24 it on a time-based model. On the other hand, you have people like open AI, uh, and Microsoft investing
    0:56:32 tons of money into it that may be more proprietary or, um, how do you think about the different models
    0:56:38 competing? And then the one that really throws me for a bit of a loop is Facebook. So Facebook has
    0:56:47 spent meta, I’m like aging myself here. So meta comes along and, you know, possibly for the good
    0:56:53 of humanity, but like I tend to think Zuck is like incredibly smart. So I don’t think, I don’t think
    0:56:59 he’s spending, you know, a hundred billion dollars to develop a free model and give it away to society.
    0:57:05 How do you think about that in terms of return on capital and return on investment?
    0:57:11 It’s a really complicated business to be in just given the capex required to build
    0:57:15 a frontier model. But let me just start with a couple definitions of terms that I think are useful.
    0:57:22 Um, I think most large language models I would call foundation models. And I like the word foundation
    0:57:28 because I think it will be foundational to most intelligent systems going forward. And
    0:57:37 most people building modern models, uh, particularly if they involve language image or, or audio shouldn’t
    0:57:42 start from building a model from scratch. They should pick a foundation model, either use it off the shelf
    0:57:47 or fine tune it. Um, and so it’s truly foundational in many ways. Uh, in the same way,
    0:57:52 most people don’t build their own servers anymore. They lease them from one of the cloud infrastructure
    0:57:58 providers. I think foundation models will be something trained by companies that have a lot
    0:58:06 of capex and leased by a broad range of customers who have a broad range of use cases. Um, and I think
    0:58:12 that leads in the same way that data center builders having a lot of data centers enabled you to have
    0:58:17 the capital scale to build more data centers. I think the same will largely be true of, uh, you know, building
    0:58:23 the huge clusters to, to do training and things like that. Foundation models, I think are somewhat distinct
    0:58:30 from frontier models and frontier models. I think it’s a term credited to, to Reed Hoffman, but, uh, I may be mistaken
    0:58:35 on that. That’s where I heard it from. And these are the models that are usually like the one or two that are
    0:58:43 clearly the leading edge. Oh, three, as an example from open AI. And these frontier models are being built by labs
    0:58:52 who are trying to build AGI that benefits humanity. And I think if you’re deciding whether you’re building a
    0:59:00 foundation model and, uh, what your business models around it, it’s very different business than I’m going to go pursue AGI.
    0:59:07 Uh, because if you’re pursuing AGI, really, there’s only one answer, which is to build and train and move to
    0:59:13 the next front, you know, horizon, because if you can truly build something that is AGI, the economic value
    0:59:20 is so great. Uh, I think there’s a really clear business case there. If you’re pre-training a foundation
    0:59:28 model, that’s the fourth best, uh, that’s going to cost you a lot of money. And the return on that
    0:59:36 investment is, is probably fairly questionable because why use your fourth best large language model versus a frontier
    0:59:43 model or an open source one, uh, for meta. And as a consequence of that, I think we have probably have too many people
    0:59:49 building models right now. There’s already been some consolidation actually of companies being folded into Amazon and
    0:59:56 Microsoft and others. But I do think it will play out a bit like the cloud infrastructure business where a very small number of
    1:00:04 companies with very large CapEx budgets, uh, are responsible for both building and operating these data centers.
    1:00:10 And then developers and, and in consumers will use things like chat GPT as a consumer or as a developer,
    1:00:16 you’ll license, uh, and rent, you know, one of these models, uh, in the cloud. Um,
    1:00:21 how it will play out is a really great question. You know, I think the, uh, I heard one investor
    1:00:28 talk about these as like the fastest depreciating assets of all time. Um, uh, on the other hand,
    1:00:34 you know, I, uh, if you look at the revenue scale of something like an open AI and, and what I’ve read
    1:00:41 about places like Anthropic, let alone Microsoft and Amazon, it’s pretty incredible as well. And so you
    1:00:46 can’t really, if you’re one of those firms, you can’t afford to sit on the sidelines as, as the
    1:00:51 world transforms. But I, I would have a hard time personally like funding, uh, a startup that says
    1:00:56 I’m going to do pre-training. You know, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s, I don’t really know like what’s your,
    1:01:00 what’s your, um, differentiation in this marketplace. And I think a lot of those companies,
    1:01:05 you’re already seeing them consolidate because they have the cost structure of a pharmaceutical
    1:01:09 company, but not the business model. But this is just it though, right? Like open AI has a revenue
    1:01:16 model around a revenue model. Microsoft has a revenue model around their AI investments. They
    1:01:24 just updated the price of teams with copilot. You know, uh, Amazon has a revenue model around
    1:01:29 AI in a sense to getting other people to pay for it through AWS. And then they’re getting the advantages
    1:01:35 of it, uh, at Amazon too, from a consumer point of view and all the millions of projects. Bezos
    1:01:40 was doing an interview last week. He said, there’s every project at Amazon basically has an AI component
    1:01:46 to it now. Facebook on the other hand has spent all of this money already. And with, you know, an endless
    1:01:54 amount, presumably insight or like not insight and endless amount to go, but they don’t have a revenue
    1:01:59 model specifically around AI where it would have been cheaper obviously for them to use a different
    1:02:05 model, but that would have required presumably giving data away or like, you know, I’m just trying to work
    1:02:12 through it from Zuck’s point of view. If you know, I actually will take Mark at his word and you know,
    1:02:18 that post he wrote about open source, I think was very well written and encourage people to read it.
    1:02:23 I think that’s a strategy. And you know, if you look at Facebook, um, you know, you’ve got me saying
    1:02:28 Facebook too. So that was, that was what it was called. You know, the company has always really
    1:02:34 embraced open source. And if I look at really popular things from react to, uh, you know, now
    1:02:40 the llama models, it’s always been a big part of their strategy to court developers around sort of their
    1:02:46 ecosystem. And Mark articulated some of the strategy there and I’m sure there’s elements of commoditizing
    1:02:52 your compliment. But I also think that, you know, if you can attract developers towards models, there’s
    1:02:58 a strength. Um, I, you know, I’m not really on the inside there, so I don’t really have a perspective
    1:03:04 on it other than I actually think it’s really great that there’s different players with different
    1:03:10 incentives, all investing so much. And I think it is really furthering the cause of like bringing these
    1:03:18 amazing tools to society. And, um, but a lot changes. I mean, if you look at the price of GPT
    1:03:24 4.0 mini, you know, it is, uh, so much higher quality than like the highest quality model two years
    1:03:30 ago and much cheaper. Um, I, I haven’t done the math on it, but it’s probably cheaper to use that than
    1:03:37 to host self host any of the open source models. So even, even the existence of the open source models,
    1:03:43 it’s not free. I mean, inference costs money. And so there’s a lot of complexity here. And, and
    1:03:48 actually I have the email even being relatively close to stuff. Like I have no idea where things
    1:03:53 are going, but you know, it’s, um, you could talk to a smart engineer and they’ll tell you,
    1:03:59 oh yeah, if you built your own servers, you’ll spend less than renting them from say Amazon Web
    1:04:04 Services or Azure. That’s sort of true in absolute terms, but misses the fact, like, do you want someone
    1:04:09 on your team building servers? Oh, and in fact, if you change the way your service works and you
    1:04:14 need a different SKU, like you all of a sudden are doing training and you need Nvidia, uh, you know,
    1:04:21 H 100s. Now all of a sudden you’re built servers like this, you know, asset that’s worthless. So
    1:04:26 I think with a lot of these models, you know, the presence of open source is incredibly important and,
    1:04:32 and, uh, and, uh, and I really appreciate it. I also think like the economics of AR pretty complex
    1:04:39 because the hardware is very unique. The cost to serve is much higher. Um, techniques like
    1:04:45 distillation have really changed the economics of models, whether or not it’s open source or, or,
    1:04:52 uh, hosted and, and, and leased. Um, so it’s, I think broadly speaking for developers,
    1:04:57 it’s kind of an amazing time right now because you have a, like a menu of options that’s incredibly
    1:05:02 wide. And I actually think of it as, you know, just like in cloud computing, you’ll end up with
    1:05:06 a price performance quality trade off. And for any given engineering talents, they’ll have a different
    1:05:13 answer and that’s appropriate. And some people use, uh, open source Kafka. Some people work with
    1:05:19 confluent. Um, great. You know, like that’s just the way these things work, you know, and, um,
    1:05:22 so you don’t think AGI is going to be like a winner take all. You think there’s going to be multiple
    1:05:30 options that have by definition, whatever the definition is of AGI. Well, first I think open AI,
    1:05:36 I believe will play a huge part in it because, uh, there’s both the technology, which I think open AI
    1:05:44 continues to lead on. Um, but also chat GPT, which has become synonymous with AI for most consumers.
    1:05:50 But more than that, um, it is the way most people access AI, um, today. And so one of the interesting
    1:05:57 things like what is AGI, we talked about, you know, opinions on what the definition might be. But the
    1:06:02 other question is like, how do you use that? Like, what do you, what is, uh, what is the packaging? Um,
    1:06:09 and some of, uh, intelligence will be simply the outcomes of it, like a discovery of a new drug,
    1:06:15 which would be, you know, remarkable and hopefully we can cure some illnesses. Uh, but others will be
    1:06:20 just how you as an individual access it. And, you know, I, most of the people I know, like if they’re
    1:06:26 signing an apartment lease, we’ll put it into chat GPT, you get a legal opinion. Uh, if you get, you know,
    1:06:34 lab results from your doctor, you can get a second opinion on, on chat GPT, um, Clay and I use, uh,
    1:06:42 the O1 pro mode for like criticizing our strategy at Sierra all the time. And so for me, what’s so
    1:06:48 remarkable about chat GPT, which was this, you know, quirkly named research preview that has come to be
    1:06:56 synonymous with AI as I do think that it will be the delivery mechanism for AGI when it’s produced and, uh,
    1:07:02 not just because of the many researchers at open AI, but because of the amazing like utility it’s become
    1:07:06 from individuals. And I think that’s really neat because I don’t know if it would have been obvious
    1:07:12 if we were having this conversation three years ago, um, you know, and you were talking about
    1:07:17 artificial general intelligence. I’m not sure either of us would have envisioned something so simple as
    1:07:24 a form factor, uh, to absorb it that you just talk to it. Um, so I think it’s great. And especially as I
    1:07:30 think about the mission of open AI, which is to ensure that AGI benefits humanity, what a simple,
    1:07:37 accessible form factor, there’s free tiers of it. Like what a kick ass way to benefit humanity. So I
    1:07:42 really think that will be central to what we come as society to define, uh, as a AGI.
    1:07:50 You mentioned using it at Sierra to critique your, your business strategy. What do you know about prompting
    1:07:54 that other people miss? I mean, you must have the best prompts.
    1:07:56 People think that, you know, cause I’m affiliated with it.
    1:07:59 You’re not going like, here’s my strategy. What do you think? What are you putting in there?
    1:08:07 Um, I often with the, uh, reasoning models, which are slower, we’ll use a faster model
    1:08:17 first GPT four O to refine my prompts. Um, so, uh, over the holidays, um, partly because I was thinking
    1:08:21 about the future of software engineering, I’ve, I’ve written a lot of compilers in my time. I’m like
    1:08:27 written enough that I, you know, it’s like, uh, uh, uh, it’s, it’s easy for me. So I decided to see
    1:08:36 if I could have a one pro mode, um, generate end to end, a compiler front end, parsing the grammar,
    1:08:42 um, checking for semantic correctness, generating an intermediate representation, and then using,
    1:08:49 uh, uh, LLVM, which is sort of a compiler collection, um, that’s very popular to actually do,
    1:08:56 you know, run, run it all. And I would spend a lot of time iterating on four O to sort of like
    1:09:02 refine and, and make more complete and specific what I was looking for. And then I would put it
    1:09:07 into a one pro mode, go get my coffee and, you know, come back and get it. I’m not sure if that’s
    1:09:11 a viable technique, but it’s really interesting because I do think in the spirit of AI being the
    1:09:20 solution to more problems than AI, um, having a, uh, lower latency, simpler model help refine,
    1:09:24 essentially. I like to think of it as like, you’re like a product manager and you’re asking,
    1:09:29 you know, an engineer what to do is your, is your product requirements document complete and specific
    1:09:35 enough. And, uh, waiting for it is sometimes slower than, and so I, I like doing it in stages like
    1:09:38 that. So that’s my, my chip at some point. There’s probably someone from open AI listening. He’s gonna
    1:09:43 like roll their eyes, but that’s just, uh, that’s, uh, who can I talk to at open AI? That’s like the prompt.
    1:09:50 Yeah. I’m like so curious about this because I’ve, I’ve actually taken recently to, uh, getting
    1:09:56 open AI or chat GBT, I guess, if you want to call it that I’ve been getting chat GBT to write the prompt
    1:10:03 for me. So I’ll prompt it with, I’m prompting an AI. Yeah. Here are the key things similar to my
    1:10:08 technique. I want to accomplish what would an excellent prompt look like. And then I’ll copy
    1:10:15 paste that prompt that it gives me back into the system. Uh, but I’m like, I wonder what I’m missing
    1:10:18 here. Right. Like it’s a good technique. I mean, there’s lots of engine techniques like that. Like
    1:10:25 self-reflection is a technique where you have a model observe and critique, you know, a decision
    1:10:30 like a chain of thought. Uh, so in general, you know, that mechanism of self-reflection is I think
    1:10:39 a really effective technique. You know, at Sierra, we help companies build customer facing AI agents. So, um,
    1:10:44 if you’re setting up a Sonos speaker, you’ll now chat with an AI. If you’re a SiriusXM subscriber,
    1:10:50 you can chat with Harmony, who’s their AI to manage your account. Um, we use all these tricks,
    1:10:56 you know, self-reflection to detect things like hallucination or decision-making, generating
    1:11:02 chains of thought for more complex tasks to ensure that it’s, you know, you’re putting as much, uh,
    1:11:10 compute and cognitive load into important tricks. So, uh, you know, we’re the, there’s a whole
    1:11:15 industry around sort of figuring out how do you exact the, like robustness and, and, um,
    1:11:18 precision out of these models. So it’s really fun, but changing rapidly.
    1:11:25 Hypothetical question. You, you’ve been hired to lead or advise a country, uh, that wants to become
    1:11:33 an AI superpower. What sort of, um, steps would you take? What sort of policies would you think
    1:11:37 would help create that? How would you bring investment from all over the world into that country?
    1:11:41 And researchers, right? Like, so now all of a sudden you’re competing. It’s not the United States.
    1:11:46 Like, how do you, how do you sort of set up a country like from first principles all the way
    1:11:48 back to like, what does that look like? What are the key variables?
    1:11:54 Well, I mean, especially, uh, this is definitely outside of my domain of expertise, but I would say
    1:12:04 one of the key ingredients to modern AI is compute, um, which is a noun that wasn’t a noun until recently,
    1:12:11 but now compute is a noun. And, uh, you know, I do think that’s one area where policymakers can,
    1:12:19 um, uh, because it involves a lot of things that, uh, touch, uh, federal and local governments like power,
    1:12:28 land. Um, and then similarly attracting the capital, which is immense to finance, uh, to the real estate,
    1:12:35 to purchase the, uh, you know, uh, compute itself, um, and then to sort of operate the data center. And again,
    1:12:41 there’s really immense power requirements for these data centers as well. Um, and then, you know,
    1:12:47 it’s attracting sort of the right researchers and research labs to, you know, leverage that. But in
    1:12:52 general, where there is compute, the research labs will find you, you know, and so I think that’s it.
    1:12:56 And then there’s a lot of national security implications too, just because, you know,
    1:13:01 these models are very sensitive, at least the frontier models are. And so, um, you know,
    1:13:08 how you, your place in the geopolitical landscape is quite important. Like will research labs and,
    1:13:13 uh, will the U S government be comfortable with training happening there and, and export restrictions
    1:13:20 and things like that. But I think a lot of it comes down to infrastructure, uh, as it relates to policy,
    1:13:28 is my intuition. Uh, you know, I think right now so much of AI is constrained on, on infrastructure that,
    1:13:35 that is the input to a lot of, uh, of this stuff. Um, uh, and then there’s a lot around,
    1:13:39 you know, attracting talent and all that. But as I said, you know, you look at the research labs,
    1:13:44 it’s not that many people, actually, it’s a lot, but the compute is a limited resource right now.
    1:13:49 That’s a really good way to think about it. I think about this from the lens of Canada,
    1:13:56 right? Which is like, we don’t have enough going on in, in AI. We, we tend to lose most of our great
    1:14:02 people to the states, uh, who then go to set up infrastructure here for whatever reason and don’t
    1:14:09 bring it back to Canada. And I, I wonder how Canada can compete better. So this is like sort of the lens
    1:14:15 I like look at these questions through, how do you see that the next generation of education?
    1:14:20 Like if you were setting up a school today from scratch and again, hypothetical, not your domain
    1:14:27 of expertise, but like using your lens on AI, how do you think about this? So like what skills will kids
    1:14:32 need in the future and what skills do we probably don’t need to teach them anymore that we have been
    1:14:39 teaching them? Well, I’ll start with, uh, the benefits that I think are probably obvious, but I’m incredibly
    1:14:48 excited about. I think education can become much more personalized. Oh, totally. Have you seen synthesis
    1:14:53 tutor by the way? No, I have not. Oh, so they developed this, uh, synthesis, this AI company developed this
    1:15:00 tutor, which actually teaches kids. And it’s so good that El Salvador, the country just recently adopted
    1:15:06 it and replaced their teachers and, uh, like it’ll teach you, but it teaches you specific to what you’re missing.
    1:15:11 So it’s not like every lesson’s the same. It’s like, well, you’re not understanding this foundational concept.
    1:15:17 So it’s like K through five or six right now. That’s amazing. And you know, I actually, and the results are like off the charts.
    1:15:22 Well, it doesn’t surprise me. And I, I don’t actually view it as like necessarily replacing a teacher,
    1:15:26 but my view is if you have a teacher with 28 kids in his or her class,
    1:15:33 the likelihood that they all learn the same way or learn at the same pace is very unlikely.
    1:15:39 And, you know, I can really think of a, say an English teacher or history teacher orchestrating
    1:15:45 their learning journeys through a topic, say AP European history in the United States,
    1:15:50 there’s a curriculum, they need to learn it. Um, how someone will remember something or understand
    1:15:57 the significance of Martin Luther, you know, is very different. And, um, you can, you know,
    1:16:03 generate a audio podcast for someone who might be an audio auditory learner. Um,
    1:16:08 you can create cue cards for someone who needs that kind of repetition, repetition. Um,
    1:16:14 you can visualize, uh, key moments in history, um, for people who just maybe want to more viscerally
    1:16:19 appreciate why this was a meaningful event rather than this dry piece of history. And all of that,
    1:16:23 as you said, can be personalized to the way you learn and how you learn. And I think it’s just
    1:16:30 incredibly powerful. And so one of the things I think is neat about AI is it’s, uh, democratizing
    1:16:35 access to a lot of things that used to be fairly exclusive. A lot of wealthy people, if their child
    1:16:40 was having trouble in school, would pay for a tutor, a math tutor, science tutor. Um, and, you know,
    1:16:46 you know, if you look at, uh, kids who are trying to get into, you know, uh, big name colleges, you
    1:16:51 know, if you have the means, you’ll have someone prep you for the SATs or help you with your college
    1:16:58 essays, all of that should be democratized if we’re doing our jobs well. And it means that we’re not
    1:17:05 limiting people’s opportunity from by their means. And I think that’s a, just the, the most, uh,
    1:17:09 American thing ever, uh, Canadian as well. Um, it’s the most incredible thing.
    1:17:14 It’s the most incredible thing, humanity. And, and so I, I just think education will change for
    1:17:20 the positive in so many ways. Um, because, uh, I, I actually, with my kids walking around when they
    1:17:24 ask, uh, you know, if you have little kids, they ask why, why, why? And, you know, there’s some point
    1:17:28 a parent just starts making up the answer or being dismissive. And like, we have chat TVT out and it’s
    1:17:34 like the best when you’re traveling and put on advanced voice mode and be like, ask a hundred percent.
    1:17:39 And I’m listening to, you know, it’s like you’re, uh, you live through your children’s curiosity.
    1:17:44 And, um, you know, my daughter went to high school and came home with Shakespeare for the first time.
    1:17:49 And I was, she asked me a question. I was like, I, I felt this is like total inadequacy. I was like,
    1:17:54 I was very bad at this the first time. And then we put it into chat GPT and it was the most thoughtful
    1:17:59 answer. And she could ask follow-up questions. And I actually was, you know, with her because I was
    1:18:02 like, Oh, I forgot about that. You know, didn’t even think about that. So I, I just think it’s
    1:18:09 incredible. And I would like to, uh, in public school systems, uh, I think it’s really, I think
    1:18:16 it would be a really great, uh, when public school systems formally adopt these things so that they lean
    1:18:25 into, uh, tools like chat GPT, uh, as mechanisms to L like raise, uh, the performance level of their
    1:18:30 classroom. And, and hopefully you’ll see it in things like test scores and other things because,
    1:18:35 uh, kids can get the extra time, even if the school system can’t afford it for everyone.
    1:18:40 Uh, and then most importantly, kids care getting explanations according to their style of learning,
    1:18:44 which I think will be, um, quite, uh, important as well. As it relates to skills,
    1:18:50 it’s really hard to predict right now. And I, I would say that I do think learning how to learn and
    1:18:54 learning how to think will continue to be important. So I think most of, you know,
    1:19:00 primary and secondary education shouldn’t and is not vocational necessarily. Um, some of it is,
    1:19:06 uh, you know, I took auto shop and all of that and I’m glad I did, but I couldn’t fix my electric
    1:19:10 car today with that knowledge, you know, things change and I don’t think it needs to be purely,
    1:19:16 you know, um, non-vocational, but you know, the basics of learning how to think, uh, learning,
    1:19:25 um, uh, uh, writing, reading, math, physics, uh, chemistry, biology, not because you need to memorize
    1:19:32 it, but understand the mechanisms that, uh, uh, create the world that we live in is, is quite
    1:19:42 important. Um, I do think that the, there’s a risk of people sort of, uh, becoming ossified in the tools
    1:19:49 that they use. Um, so, you know, uh, let’s go back to our discussion of software engineering for a
    1:19:54 second, but I’ll give other examples. You know, if you define your role as a software engineer is how
    1:20:01 quickly you type into your IDE, the next few years might leave you behind, you know, because that, um,
    1:20:06 that is no longer a differentiated, you know, part of the software engineering experience or will not
    1:20:13 be, but your judgment as a software engineer will continue to be, uh, incredibly important in your
    1:20:21 agency and making a decision about what to build, how to build it, um, how to architect it, uh, maybe
    1:20:27 using AI models as a creative foil. And so I think that, uh, just in the same way, if you’re an accountant,
    1:20:32 you know, using Excel doesn’t make you less of an accountant, uh, and, um, and just because you
    1:20:38 didn’t, you know, handcraft that math equation, it doesn’t make the results any less valuable to your
    1:20:44 clients. Um, and so I think we’re going to go through this transformation where I think the, um,
    1:20:50 the tools that we use to create value in the world will change dramatically. And I think some people who
    1:20:57 define their jobs by their ability to use the last generation’s tools really, really effectively,
    1:21:06 um, will, will be disrupted. But I, I think we, if we can empower people and, and to reskill, um, and also
    1:21:10 broaden the aperture by which they define the value they’re providing to the world, I think a lot of
    1:21:16 people can make the transition. The thing that is sort of uncomfortable, not really in education,
    1:21:23 or it’s just earlier in, in most people’s lives. It’s just, I think the pace of change, uh, exceeds
    1:21:29 that of most technology transitions. And I think it’s unreasonable, um, to expect most people to
    1:21:34 change the way they work that quickly. And so I think the, the next five years, I think will be,
    1:21:40 you know, for some jobs really disruptive and tumultuous. But if you take the longer view and you
    1:21:46 fast forward 25 or 50 years, I’m incredibly optimistic. I think it’s the, the change will
    1:21:53 require, um, from society, from companies and from individuals, like an open-mindedness about
    1:21:58 reskilling and, and re-imagining their job to the lens of this like dramatically different new technology.
    1:22:04 At what point do we get to, I mean, we’re probably on the cusp of it now and it’s happening in pockets,
    1:22:10 but what point do we start solving problems that humans haven’t been able to solve or eliminating
    1:22:15 paths that we’re on maybe with medical research that it’s like, no, that, that the, this whole
    1:22:22 thing you’ve spent $30 billion on, you know, based on this 1972 study that was fabricated. But that one
    1:22:27 study had all these derivative studies and like, I’m telling you it’s false, you know, because I can look
    1:22:32 at it through an objective lens and get rid of these 30 billion while you’re smiling.
    1:22:40 So, Oh no, I just, I hope soon. I mean, I hope, I mean, I, uh, there was a, a lot of, there’s a,
    1:22:44 one of the models I can’t remember which one introduced a very long context window. And there’s a lot of
    1:22:50 people on X over the weekend putting in their, uh, thesis, you know, like grads, grad school thesis in
    1:22:55 there. And, and it was actually critiquing them with like surprising levels of fidelity. Uh,
    1:23:02 and, uh, I think we’re sort of there perhaps with the right, um, right tools, but certainly over the
    1:23:06 the next few years, I, you know, we talked about how, what does it mean to generalize AI?
    1:23:15 Certainly in the areas of, um, science that are, you know, largely represented through text and
    1:23:20 digital technology, like math being probably the most, uh, most applicable, there’s not really
    1:23:24 anything keeping AI from getting really good at math. There’s not really an interface to the real
    1:23:30 world. You don’t need to do a clinical trial to verify something’s correct. So I feel a ton of optimism
    1:23:36 there. Um, it’ll be really interesting in like, you know, areas of like theoretical physics. Um,
    1:23:40 uh, you’ll tend to, you’ll continue to have the divide between the applied and the theoretical
    1:23:45 people. But I think there could be like really interesting new ideas there and perhaps some,
    1:23:50 uh, finding logical inconsistencies with some of the, you know, uh, fashionable theories,
    1:23:56 which has happened many times over the past few decades. Um, I think, I think we’ll get there soon.
    1:24:01 And I actually, I, um, what’s really neat about is most of the scientists, I know people
    1:24:05 who are actually like doing science, like they’re the most excited about these technologies and I,
    1:24:09 they’re using them already. And I think that’s really neat. And I think we’re hopefully going to be,
    1:24:15 I really hope we see more breakthroughs in science. One of the things I am not an expert in, but I’ve
    1:24:25 read a lot, like, uh, a lot as a amateur about is just the slowdown in scientific breakthroughs over
    1:24:29 the past, you know, a few decades and, and some theories that it’s because of the degree of
    1:24:34 specialization that we demand of grad students and things like that. And I hope with, you know,
    1:24:43 in general with AI, um, democratizing access to expertise, um, I, I have a completely personal
    1:24:50 theory that it will benefit deep generalists in a lot of ways too, because your ability to understand
    1:24:57 a fair amount and a lot of domains and leveraging AI, um, knowing where to prompt the AI to,
    1:25:04 to go explore and, and, um, bringing together those domains, it will start to shift sort of the
    1:25:10 intellectual power from people who are extremely deep to people who actually can, uh, orchestrate,
    1:25:15 uh, intelligence between lots of different domains for breakthroughs. I think that’ll be really good
    1:25:20 for society because most scientific breakthroughs aren’t, they tend to be, you know, cross-pollinating
    1:25:24 very important ideas from a lot of different domains, which I think will be really exciting.
    1:25:26 How important is the context window?
    1:25:33 I think it could be quite important. Um, especially it certainly simplifies working with an AI. If
    1:25:39 you can just give it everything and instruct it to do something. Um, and so, and, and assuming it
    1:25:46 works, you know, you can extend a context window and it can, um, uh, the, the tension can be spread
    1:25:52 fairly thin and, and, and the robustness of the answer can be questionable. So, but assuming,
    1:25:58 let’s just for argument’s sake, you know, perfect robustness, um, I think it can really simplify the
    1:26:05 interface, uh, to AI. The, not all uses, I also think that we’re talking about open source models and
    1:26:13 APIs. Um, I also think that, you know, most, what I’m excited about in the software industry is not
    1:26:19 not necessarily a large language model with a prompt and a response being the product of AI,
    1:26:25 but actually end in closed loose systems that use large language models as pieces of infrastructure.
    1:26:30 And I actually think that a lot of the value in software will be that. And for many of those
    1:26:35 applications, the context window size can matter, but often because you have contextual awareness of
    1:26:40 the process that you’re executing, um, yeah, context window is a little bit less important.
    1:26:45 So I think it matters a lot to intelligence. Um, you know, there’s a, I can’t remember someone,
    1:26:49 one of the, some researcher said, you know, you put all of human knowledge in the context window,
    1:26:54 and you ask it to invent the next thing. You know, it’s a, uh, obviously a reductive, uh, thought,
    1:26:59 but, but interesting. Um, uh, but I actually, I’m equally excited about sort of the industrial
    1:27:02 applications of large language models, sort of like my company, Sierra. And if you’re,
    1:27:08 you’re, um, returning a pair of shoes at a retailer and it’s a process that’s fairly complicated and,
    1:27:15 uh, you know, is it within the return window? Uh, you know, uh, do you want to return it in store?
    1:27:19 Do you want to send it? Do you want to print to your QR code? Blah, blah, blah, blah. Um,
    1:27:23 the orchestration of that is as significant as the models themselves. And I actually think as we,
    1:27:28 um, just like, uh, uh, computers, you know, there’s going to be a lot of things where computers are a
    1:27:32 part of the experience, but it’s not like manifesting itself as a computer. So I,
    1:27:36 I’m actually equally excited about those. And I think context window is slightly less important
    1:27:41 than those applications. Do you think that the output from AI should be copyrightable
    1:27:46 or patentable or let, let me just take an example. If I go to the U S patent office,
    1:27:53 I download a patent for, let’s say the AeroPress and I upload it to, uh, Oh one pro. And I say,
    1:27:58 I can’t upload it yet. Cause you don’t let me do the PDS, but I upload it to four. And, uh,
    1:28:05 so I say, Hey, what’s the next logical leap that I could patent office. It would give me back diagrams
    1:28:10 and an output. And presumably if I look at that and I’m like, yeah, that’s legit. I want to file
    1:28:14 that patent. Can I, I don’t know to answer that question. I’m not an expert in sort of intellectual
    1:28:21 property, but I, uh, uh, I think there will be an interesting question of, was that your idea
    1:28:27 because you used a tool to do it? I think the answer is probably yes, that you, you use the tool
    1:28:37 to do it. But I also think that the, um, uh, uh, in general, like the sort of marginal cost of intelligence
    1:28:43 will go down a lot. So a lot of the, you know, I think in general, like we’ll, we’ll be in this
    1:28:50 renaissance of, of new ideas and intelligence being produced. And so, uh, I think that’s broadly a good
    1:28:55 thing. And I think, you know, the marginal value of that insight that you had might be lower than it
    1:29:00 was, you know, and years ago, what I was hoping you would say is that, you know, that’s going to become
    1:29:05 less and less important because I feel like all the patent trolls and all of this stuff that slows down
    1:29:10 innovation in some ways, uh, obviously like there’s legitimate patents that people infringe on and
    1:29:15 there should be legal recourse. But if I could just go and patent like a hundred things a day,
    1:29:19 because it seems like that should not be allowed. This is what I’m saying though.
    1:29:24 Well, in general, I think that, you know, companies, you know, I think patents make sense
    1:29:29 if it’s protecting something that’s an active use that you, you know, invented and you’re, you’re trying to
    1:29:35 uh, you know, like the standard, you know, uh, legal rationale for patents, just generating a
    1:29:40 bunch of ideas and patenting. It seems destructive to the value of it. So here’s the idea I had last
    1:29:45 night to counter this because I was like, I don’t want somebody doing this. Uh, and I was thinking
    1:29:50 like, what if prior art eliminates patents? Yeah. So I was like, what if I just set off like an
    1:29:55 instance and just publish it on a website? Nobody has to read that website. Here’s a billion ideas.
    1:30:00 Exactly. But it’s like basically patenting like anything, not patenting,
    1:30:05 but it’s creating prior art for everything. So like, you can’t compete on that anymore.
    1:30:10 I don’t know. I was like thinking about that. I thought it was fun. Um, tell me about the
    1:30:16 Google maps story. This is like now legend and I want to hear it from you. Uh, this is my weekend
    1:30:22 coding. Is that what you want to hear about? Yeah. Um, yeah. So, uh, I’ll start with just
    1:30:28 like the story of Google maps, the abbreviated version. Uh, we had launched a product at Google
    1:30:33 called Google local, which was sort of a yellow pages, uh, search engine. Uh, you probably,
    1:30:37 probably most listeners don’t even know what yellow pages are, but it was a thing back then.
    1:30:44 And, um, we had licensed maps from map quest, which was the dominant sort of mapping provider at the
    1:30:49 time. And it was sort of an eyesore on the experience and also always felt like it could
    1:30:54 be a more meaningful part of the kind of local search and navigation experience on Google. So
    1:30:58 Larry Page in particular was really pushing us to really invest more in maps.
    1:31:05 Um, we found this, uh, small company with a, like four people in it, if I’m remembering correctly,
    1:31:10 started by Lars and Jens Rasmussen called where to technologies where, um, they had made a windows
    1:31:16 application called expedition. Um, that was just a beautiful, uh, mapping product. Um,
    1:31:20 it was running on windows long after it was sort of out of fashion to make windows apps, but they,
    1:31:25 they were sort of where the technology they’re comfortable with, but they’re really, um,
    1:31:32 their, their maps modeled the A to Z maps and in the UK were just beautiful. And they just had a lot
    1:31:39 of passion for mapping. So we did a little aqua hire of them and took together the Google local team and
    1:31:44 Lars and Jens’s team and, and said, okay, like, let’s take the good ideas from this windows app and
    1:31:49 the good ideas from Google local. And like, let’s bring them together to make something completely
    1:31:54 new. And that, and that’s what became Google maps. But there was a couple of idiosyncrasies
    1:32:00 in the integration because it was a, um, Windows app. It really helped and hurt us in a number of
    1:32:05 ways. Like one of the ways it helped us is the reason why Google maps, we were able to drag the map
    1:32:11 and it like, uh, was so much more interactive than any web application that preceded it was
    1:32:17 the standard that we needed to hit from interactivity was set by a native windows app, not set by the
    1:32:25 legacy, uh, you know, websites that we had used at the time. And I think that by having the goalposts
    1:32:30 so far down the field, because they had just started with this windows app, which was sort of a quirk of
    1:32:36 Lars and Jens, just like technical choices. We made much bolder technical bets than we would
    1:32:41 have. Otherwise, I think we would have ended up much less interactive had we, uh, not started with
    1:32:47 that quirky technical sort of a decision. But the other thing was this windows app. There’s a lot of
    1:32:52 like, it’s hard to describe the like early two thousands. We wouldn’t live it, but like XML was
    1:32:58 like really in fashion. So like most things and windows and other places like XML and XSLT,
    1:33:03 which was a way of transforming XML into different XML was the basis of everything. It was like all
    1:33:09 of enterprise software was like XML this, XML that. So similarly, when we were taking some of these ideas
    1:33:14 and putting them in a web browser, we kind of like went into autopilot and used like a ton of XML
    1:33:23 and it made everything just like really, really tedious. And so Google maps launched with some
    1:33:27 really great ideas like the draggable maps. And, and we did a bunch of stuff for the local search
    1:33:32 technology. So you could, you know, overlay restaurant listings. It was really great. It was a really
    1:33:38 successful launch. Uh, we were like the hot shots within Google afterwards. And, uh, but it really
    1:33:41 started to show its craft. And we got to this point where we decided we wanted to support the Safari
    1:33:45 web browser, which was relatively new at the time. This is before, you know, mobile phones.
    1:33:52 And, uh, there was much less XML support in Safari than there was an internet explorer in Firefox. And
    1:34:00 so one of the engineers implemented like a full XSLT transform engine in JavaScript to get it to work.
    1:34:07 And it was just like shit on top of shit on top of shit. And so what was a really elegant fat,
    1:34:12 like fast web application had sort of quickly become something, you know, there’s a lot of
    1:34:17 dial up modems at the time and other things. So like you’d show up to maps and it just was slow.
    1:34:21 And like, it just bothered me as like someone who takes a lot of pride in their craft. And so
    1:34:29 I got really, uh, energized and like over a weekend and a lot of coffee, like rewrote it.
    1:34:34 Um, but it rewrote the whole thing there rewrote. Yeah. More or less the whole thing. And it took
    1:34:38 probably another week of like, you know, working through the bugs, but yeah, I sent it out to the,
    1:34:43 you know, the team after that weekend. And it was, it was nice. The reason I was able to do it,
    1:34:50 yeah, I’m like a decent programmer, but you know, you’d also like lived with every bad decision up to
    1:34:56 that point too. So I knew exactly the output I was going to like, I had simulated in my head,
    1:35:01 like if I could do it over again, this is the way I do it. So by the time I like put my hands on the
    1:35:07 keyboard on like, you know, Friday night, I, it wasn’t like I was designing a product. Like I knew
    1:35:11 I had been in every detail of that product since the beginning and including me, the bad decisions
    1:35:16 too. They’re not all the bad decisions. And so it was just very clear. I knew what I wanted to
    1:35:20 accomplish. And for any, you know, any engineers worked on a big system, you have the whole system
    1:35:27 mapped out in your head. So I knew, knew everything. And I, and I, and, and I also knew that, you know,
    1:35:33 there’s a lot of pride of authorship with engineering and code. So I sort of knew I really wanted to
    1:35:38 finish it over the weekend so that people could use it and see how fast it was and kind of overcome
    1:35:44 anyone who was like, you know, you know, protective of the code they had written a few months ago.
    1:35:50 And so I really wanted the prototype to go out. And so I did it. And then I didn’t,
    1:35:53 it’s funny, I never talked about it again, but I think Paul Buhite, who’s was a co-creator,
    1:36:00 Gmail, and, and I worked and started friend feed with me. He was on an interview and mentioned this
    1:36:03 story. So now all of a sudden, it’s like, everyone’s talking about it. And I was like,
    1:36:07 well, thank you, Paul. It’s a little embarrassed that people know about it, but it was, it was,
    1:36:10 it’s a true story. And, and, and XML is just the worst.
    1:36:17 Did you get a lot of flack from the people who had built the system you effectively replaced? Like,
    1:36:21 you were part of that team, but everybody else had so much invested in it, even though it was like,
    1:36:23 shit on top of shit, on top of shit.
    1:36:28 you know, um, I wrote a lot of it too. So yeah, I’m sure there was some around it, but actually,
    1:36:33 I think good teams want to do great work. And so, uh, I think there was a lot of people constructively
    1:36:41 dissatisfied with the state of things too. And, um, uh, you know, I think, uh, you know, the engineer
    1:36:46 had written that XSLT transform, I think was like, you know, a little bit, it’s a lot of work. So you have
    1:36:52 to throw out a lot of work, which feels bad, but particularly, you know, um, Lars and Jens and I,
    1:36:56 like, we want to make great products. And so I don’t think there was a, you know, at the end of the day,
    1:37:01 everyone’s like, wow, that’s great. You know, we went from a bundle size of 200 K to a bundle size
    1:37:06 of 20 K and it was a lot faster and better. So, you know, broadly speaking, I think good engineering
    1:37:12 cultures. You don’t want a culture of, um, you know, ready, fire, aim, but I also think you just
    1:37:20 need to be really outcomes oriented. And I think people, if they become, they’d start to treat
    1:37:26 their code is too precious. It can really, uh, impede forward progress. Um, and yeah, I’ll just take,
    1:37:33 like, I, my understanding is like a lot of the early self-driving car software was a lot of hand-coded
    1:37:38 heuristics and rules. And, you know, a lot of smart people think that eventually it’ll probably
    1:37:43 be a more monolithic model that, uh, encodes many of the same rules. You have to throw out a lot of
    1:37:47 code in that transition, but it doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do. And so I think in general,
    1:37:51 um, yeah, there might’ve been some feathers ruffled, but at the end of the day, everyone’s like,
    1:37:55 that’s faster and better. Like, let’s, let’s do it, you know, which is, I think the right decision.
    1:37:59 That’s awesome. I’m going to give you another hypothetical. I want you to share your
    1:38:05 inner monologue with me as you think through it. So if I, uh, told you, you have to put 100% of
    1:38:11 your net worth into a public company today and you couldn’t, you couldn’t touch it for at least 20
    1:38:15 years, what company would you invest in? And like, walk me through your thinking.
    1:38:20 I literally don’t know how to answer that question. Um, how would you think about it without giving me
    1:38:24 an answer? Like, what? Yeah, that’s a good question. I, first of all, I’ll give you how
    1:38:29 I think about it, but I’m so, uh, having not been a public company CEO for a couple of years, I’m
    1:38:34 blissfully don’t pay attention as much, um, to the public markets. And in particular right now,
    1:38:40 it’s obviously valuations have gone up a lot. So there’s a, but because it’s a long-term question,
    1:38:45 maybe that doesn’t matter. I think what I’d be thinking about right now is, um,
    1:38:53 over the next 20 years, like what are the parts of the economy that will most benefit from this
    1:38:57 current wave of AI? That’s not the only way to invest over a 20 year period, but certainly it’s
    1:39:03 a domain that I understand. And in particular, you know, I mentioned that, uh, talk, I heard a snippet of
    1:39:09 from Tyler Cohen, which is like, it will probably AI will probably benefit different parts of the economy.
    1:39:13 Um, disproportionately, there will be some parts of the economy that can essentially,
    1:39:20 um, where intelligence is a limiting factor to its growth and where you can absorb
    1:39:26 almost arbitrary levels of intelligence and generate almost arbitrary levels of growth.
    1:39:30 Obviously there’s limits to all of this just because you change one part of the economy,
    1:39:36 it impacts other parts of the economy. And that was what, uh, uh, Tyler’s point was, uh, in his talk.
    1:39:39 But I would probably think about that because I think that
    1:39:44 over a 20 year period, there are certain parts of society that won’t be able to change extremely
    1:39:49 rapidly. Um, but there will be some parts that probably will, and it’ll probably be
    1:39:56 domains where intelligence is, is the scarce resource, uh, right now. And then I would probably
    1:40:00 try to find companies that will disproportionately benefit from it. And I assume this is why like
    1:40:06 Nvidia stock is so high right now, because if you want to sort of get downstream, you know,
    1:40:11 Nvidia will probably benefit from all of the investments in AI. Um, I’m not sure I would
    1:40:15 do that over a 20 year period, just assuming that the infrastructure will shift. So I don’t have
    1:40:19 an intelligent answer, but that’s the way I would think about it if I were, if we’re doing that exercise.
    1:40:26 I love that. Where do you think, like, what’s your intuition say about what areas of the economy are
    1:40:33 limited by intelligence and not just economy? I mean, perhaps politicians, uh, might be limited by,
    1:40:40 by this and, and aid and benefit from, in which case countries could benefit enormously from AI and unlock
    1:40:45 growth and potential in their economy. But I think maybe just to scope the question, like what areas of
    1:40:51 the economy do you think are limited by intelligence or workers, like smart workers, in which case, like,
    1:40:59 that’s another limit of intelligence. Yeah. I mean, uh, two that are, I think probably going to benefit a
    1:41:07 lot are technology and finance. Um, you know, where you’re, you know, if you can make better financial
    1:41:12 decisions than competitors, you’ll generate outsized returns. And that’s why over the past, you know,
    1:41:18 30 years, you know, of machine learning, um, you know, uh, hedge funds and financial service
    1:41:24 institutions, everything from fraud prevention to true investment strategies, it’s already been an area
    1:41:30 of domain, uh, domain of investment, um, software, similar, as we talked about, I think that, uh,
    1:41:36 at some point we will be, um, we will no longer be supply constrained in software, but we’re not anywhere
    1:41:42 close to it right now. And you’re taking something that has always been the scarce resource, which is
    1:41:47 software engineers and you’re making it not scarce. And I think as a consequence,
    1:41:53 you just think of like, how much can that industry grow? We don’t know. Um, but we’ve been so constrained
    1:41:59 on software engineering as a resource, uh, who knows over the next 20 years, but we’ll find out, uh,
    1:42:04 where, where the limits are. But to me, intellectually, there’s just a ton of growth there. Um,
    1:42:09 and then broadly, I think areas of like processing information are areas that will
    1:42:16 really benefit, um, quite a bit here. And so that, and I think the, the thing that I would think about
    1:42:19 over a 20 year period is like second and third order effects, which is why I don’t have an intelligent
    1:42:22 answer. And if you’re asking me to put all my money in something, I would think about it for a
    1:42:28 while, um, probably use a one pro a little bit to help me. Um, but, uh, you know, because you can end
    1:42:33 up, uh, generated a bunch of growth in the short term, but then, you know, if everyone does it,
    1:42:39 it commoditizes the whole industry, you know, type of thing. So, you know, there used to be, you know,
    1:42:44 before the introduction of the freezer ice was like a really expensive thing and now it’s free,
    1:42:49 you know? And so I think it is really important to actually think through those. If you’re talking
    1:42:52 in a timeframe of like 20 years. And that’s why having not thought about this question ahead of
    1:42:57 time, I, um, you could be quite simplistic elsewhere, but I would say software and finance
    1:43:02 are areas that I, I think stand to reason should benefit quite a bit. I love that response. How do
    1:43:12 you balance, uh, having a young family with also running a startup again? I work a lot. Um, I don’t,
    1:43:20 uh, I really care and love care about and love working. Um, so one thing is that I, um,
    1:43:27 well, there’s always trade-offs in life. Um, if I didn’t love working and I wouldn’t do it as much
    1:43:34 as I do, but I, I just love, uh, love to create things and love to have an impact. And so I like
    1:43:39 jump out of bed in the morning and, um, work out, go to work and then spend time with my family
    1:43:45 broadly, probably, you know, being honest first. I’m not perfect. I think for a second,
    1:43:48 I don’t have a ton of hobbies. You know, I basically work and spend time with my family.
    1:43:54 Um, the first time we talked, you saw a couple of guitars in my background. Uh, I haven’t picked
    1:44:00 one of those up in a while. Um, uh, I, I mean, I literally pick it up occasionally, but I, you know,
    1:44:05 do not devote any time into it. And I don’t regret that either. Like I am so passionate about what
    1:44:10 we’re building at Sierra. I’m so passionate about opening. I am so love my family so much. I don’t
    1:44:15 really have any regrets about it, but I basically just like life is all about where do you spend your
    1:44:20 time and mine is at work and with family. And so that’s how I do it. I don’t know if I’m particularly
    1:44:26 balanced, but I don’t strive to be either. I really take a lot of pride and I love, I love to work.
    1:44:32 Having sold the companies you started twice, how does that influence what you think of Sierra? Like,
    1:44:37 are you thinking like, Oh, I’m building this in order to sell it? Or do you think differently? Like,
    1:44:41 this is my life’s work. I’m building this with, that’s not going to happen.
    1:44:47 I absolutely, uh, intend Sierra to be an enduring company and an independent company,
    1:44:54 but to be honest, every entrepreneur, every company starts that way. And so, um, you know,
    1:45:00 uh, I’m really grateful for both Facebook and Salesforce for having acquired my previous companies
    1:45:04 and hopefully I had an impact about those companies, but you don’t start off. Well,
    1:45:11 at least I never started off saying, Hey, I want to make a company to sell it. Um, uh, and, uh,
    1:45:15 but I actually think with Sierra, we have just a ton of traction in the marketplace. Uh,
    1:45:19 I really do think Sierra is the leader in helping consumer brands build customer facing
    1:45:25 AI agents. And I’m really proud of that. So I really see a path to that. And I joke with Clay,
    1:45:30 I want to be, you know, an old man sitting on his porch, you know, complaining how
    1:45:33 the next generation of leaders at Sierra don’t listen to us anymore. You know,
    1:45:37 I want this to be something that not only is enduring, but outlives me. Um, and I think
    1:45:43 just actually, I don’t think we’ve ever talked about this, but it was really interesting, um,
    1:45:47 moment for me when Google went from its one building in mountain view to its first corporate
    1:45:53 campus. It, uh, we moved into the Silicon graphics campus, which was right over near shoreline
    1:46:00 Boulevard and in mountain view. And, uh, SGI had been a really successful company enough to build a
    1:46:04 campus. And when we, it was actually quite awkward. We moved into like half the campus,
    1:46:08 they were still in half and they’re like, we’re this up and coming company. They’re declining.
    1:46:14 And then when Facebook, when we moved out of the second building, we were in Palo Alto,
    1:46:19 it was slightly larger building. I think we leased it from HP, but when we finally got a campus,
    1:46:24 it was from Sun Microsystems who had gone through an Oracle acquisition and had been sort of on the
    1:46:32 decline. And it was interesting to me because both SGI and Sun, um, had been started and grown to
    1:46:36 prominence in my lifetime. Uh, obviously I was maybe like a little younger, obviously,
    1:46:41 but in my lifetime enough to build a whole corporate campus and then declined fast enough
    1:46:48 to sell that corporate campus to a new software company. And for me, I, it was just so interesting
    1:46:54 to have done that twice to move into like a, you know, a used campus, you know, for the previous,
    1:47:00 uh, uh, uh, owners. It was a very stark reminder that technology companies aren’t entitled to their
    1:47:07 future success. And I think we’ll see this actually now with AI, AI, I think will change the landscape
    1:47:14 of software to be, um, tools of productivity that to agents that actually accomplish tasks. And I think it
    1:47:20 will help some companies who, for whom that’s a, uh, uh, amplifies their existing value proposition
    1:47:25 and it will really hurt others where it will essentially the seat based kind of model of
    1:47:32 legacy software will wane, um, very quickly and then really harm them. And so when I think about the,
    1:47:40 what it means to build a company that’s enduring, um, that is a really, really tall, um, task in my mind
    1:47:44 right now, because it means not only making something that’s financially enduring over the
    1:47:52 next 10 years, but setting up a culture where a company can actually evolve to meet the changing
    1:47:58 demands of, uh, society and technology at a, when it’s changing at a pace that is like unprecedented
    1:48:03 in history. So I think it’s one of the most fun business challenges of all time. And I think it has
    1:48:10 as much to do with culture as it has to do with technology because every line of code in Sierra
    1:48:15 today will be completely different, you know, probably five years from now, let alone 30 years
    1:48:19 from now. Um, and, uh, I think that’s really exciting. So when I think about it, I just get
    1:48:26 so much energy because, um, it’s incredibly hard and it’s harder now than it’s ever been, um, to do
    1:48:30 something that lasts beyond you. Um, but that I think is the ultimate measure of a company.
    1:48:34 You mentioned AI agents. How would you define that? What’s an agent?
    1:48:39 I’ll define it more broadly and then I’ll tell you how we think about it at Sierra, which is a more
    1:48:44 more narrow view of it. The word agent comes from agency. And I think it means affording
    1:48:53 a software, the opportunity to reason and make decisions autonomously. Um, and I think that’s
    1:48:59 really all it means to me. And I think there’s lots of different, uh, applications of it. The three
    1:49:04 categories that I think are meaningful and I’ll end with the Sierra one just so I can talk about it a
    1:49:10 a little more, but one is personal agents. So I do think that most people will have
    1:49:18 probably one, but maybe a couple AI agents that they use on a daily basis that are, uh, essentially
    1:49:25 amplifying themselves as an individual. Um, you can do the rote things like help you triage your email to
    1:49:32 helping you schedule a vacation. You know, you’re flying back to, um, Edmonton and help you arrange
    1:49:38 your travel. Um, two more complex things like, you know, I’m going to go ask my boss for promotion,
    1:49:44 like help me role play. And, um, you know, uh, I’m setting up my resume for this job. Help me do that
    1:49:49 too. I’m applying for a new job. Help me find companies I haven’t thought of that I should be applying to.
    1:49:55 Uh, and I think these agents will be really powerful. I think it might be a really hard
    1:50:00 product to build because when you think about all the different services and people you interact with
    1:50:06 every day, it’s kind of everything. So it’s not, it has to generalize a lot to be useful to you. And
    1:50:12 because of the personal privacy and things like that, it has to work really well for you to trust it.
    1:50:15 So I think it’s going to take a while to go. I think it’ll be a lot of demos. I think it’ll take
    1:50:22 a while to be robust. The second category of agent is I would say, um, really filling a persona, uh,
    1:50:32 within a company. So a coding agent, a paralegal agent, um, a analyst agent. Um, I think these
    1:50:37 already exist. I mentioned cursor. There’s a company called Harvey that makes a legal agent. I’m sure
    1:50:44 there’s a bunch in the analyst space. Um, these do a job and they’re more narrow. Um, but they, uh,
    1:50:49 they’re really commercially valuable because most companies hire people or consultants that do those
    1:50:55 things already, like analyze the contracts of the supply chain, right? That’s a kind of a rote
    1:51:01 kind of law, but it’s really important and AI can do it really well. So I think that’s why, uh,
    1:51:06 this is the area of the economy that I think is really exciting. And, and as, uh,
    1:51:11 I’m really excited about all the startups in this space because you’re essentially, um, taking what
    1:51:16 used to be a combination of people and software and really making something that solves a problem.
    1:51:24 Uh, and by narrowing the domain of, of autonomy, you can have more robust guard rails and even with
    1:51:29 current models actually achieve something that’s effective enough to be commercially viable today.
    1:51:35 Um, and, uh, and by the way, it changes the total addressable market of these models too. Like,
    1:51:39 I don’t know what the total addressable market of legal software was three years ago, but it
    1:51:43 couldn’t have been that big. I couldn’t tell you like a legal software company. I probably should,
    1:51:48 I just can’t think of one, but if you think about the money we spend on lawyers, that’s a lot. And so
    1:51:56 you end up where you’re broadening the, the addressable market quite a lot. The domain we’re
    1:52:03 in, um, I think is somewhat special, which is, um, a company’s branded customer facing agent. And
    1:52:08 the reason why I think it’s, one could argue we’re sort of, uh, helping with customer service,
    1:52:14 which is a, a, a persona, a role, but I do think it’s broader than that. Because if you think about,
    1:52:20 um, a website, you know, like your insurance company’s website, try to list all the things
    1:52:24 you can do on it. You can look up the stock quote, you can look up the management team,
    1:52:31 you can compare their insurance company to all their competitors. You can file a claim. You can,
    1:52:39 you know, uh, buy, you can bundle your home and auto. You can, um, uh, um, add a member of your
    1:52:44 family to your premium. There’s a million things you can do on it. Essentially over the past 30 years,
    1:52:50 websites, a company’s website singular has come to be the universe of everything that you can do with
    1:52:54 that company. I like to think it was like the digital instantiation of the company.
    1:53:01 And that’s what we’re helping our customers do at Sears, help them build a conversational AI that does
    1:53:05 all of that. So, you know, most of our customers start with customer service and it’s a great
    1:53:10 application because no one likes to wait on hold and, and having something that has perfect access
    1:53:16 to information is multilingual and empathetic is just amazing. But you know, when you put a conversational
    1:53:22 AI as your digital, um, front door, people will say anything they want to it. And, um,
    1:53:28 we’re now doing product discovery, consider purchases, going back to the insurance example.
    1:53:34 Hey, you know, I’ve got a 15 year old daughter. I really am concerned about the cost of her premium
    1:53:39 until she grows up. Tell me, um, which plan I should be on. Tell me why you’ll be better than
    1:53:43 your competitors. That’s a really complex interaction, right? That’s not something that,
    1:53:47 can you make a webpage that does that? No, that’s, but that’s a great conversation.
    1:53:54 And so we really aspire that when you encounter a branded agent in the wild, we want Sierra to be
    1:54:00 the platform that powers it. And it’s super important because there was a case, at least in Canada,
    1:54:06 where an AI agent for Air Canada hallucinated a bereavement policy, right? But they were found liable
    1:54:12 to hold themselves to what the agent said. Yeah. I mean, it turns out, and it was an AI
    1:54:17 agent. There was no human involved in the whole thing. Well, look, it’s one thing if chat GPT
    1:54:22 hallucinate something about your brand. It’s another if your AI agent hallucinate something about your
    1:54:29 brand. So the bar just gets higher. So the robustness of these agents, the guardrails, everything is more
    1:54:35 important when it’s yours and it has your brand on it. And so it’s harder, but I also, I’m just so
    1:54:41 excited for it because this is a little overly intellectual, but I really like the framing.
    1:54:49 If you think about a modern website or mobile app, it’s essentially you’ve created a directory of
    1:54:56 functionality from which you can choose. But the main person with agency in that is the creator of
    1:55:02 the website. Like what are the universe of options that you can do? When you have an AI agent represent
    1:55:08 your brand, the agency goes to the customer. They can express their problem any way they want in a
    1:55:12 multifaceted way. And so it means that like your customer experience goes from the
    1:55:18 enumerated set of functionality you’ve decided to put on your website to whatever your customers ask.
    1:55:23 And then, you know, you can decide how to fulfill those requests or whether you want to.
    1:55:29 But I think it will really change the dynamic to be really empowering to consumers. As you said,
    1:55:35 I mean, the reason that that Air Canada case is the reason we exist. You know, companies,
    1:55:42 if they try to build this themselves, there’s a lot of ways you can shoot yourself in the foot.
    1:55:48 But in particular, too, your customer experience should not be wedded to one model, let alone even
    1:55:54 this current generation of models. So with Sierra, you can define your customer experience once in a
    1:56:00 way that’s abstracted from all of the technology. And it can be a chat. It can be, you can call you on
    1:56:05 the phone. It can be all of those things. And as new models and new technology comes out,
    1:56:10 our platform just gets better. But you’re not like re-implementing your customer experience. And I
    1:56:14 think that’s really important because, you know, we were talking about what’s happened over the past
    1:56:19 two years. Can you imagine if you’re a consumer brand like ADT Home Security and thinking about,
    1:56:23 like, how can you maintain your AI agent in the face of all of that, right? It’s just not even,
    1:56:28 it’s not tenable. I mean, it’s not what you do as ADT. So they’ve worked with us to build their AI agent.
    1:56:35 Like, how do you fend off complacency? Like, a lot of these companies, and maybe not in tech
    1:56:44 specifically, but they get big, they get dominant, and then they take their foot off the gas. And that
    1:56:50 opens the door to competitors. And there’s like a natural entropy almost to bureaucracy in some of
    1:56:57 these companies that, and the bureaucracy sows the seeds of failure and competition. How do you,
    1:56:58 how do you fend that off constantly?
    1:57:05 It is a really challenging thing to do at a company. One of the, there’s two things that
    1:57:15 I’ve observed that I think manifest as corporate complacency. One is bureaucracy. And I think the
    1:57:22 root of bureaucracy is often when something goes wrong, companies introduce a process to fix it.
    1:57:32 And over the sequence of 30 years, the layered sum of all of those processes that were all created for
    1:57:42 good reason, with good intentions, end up being a bureaucratic sort of machine where the reasons for
    1:57:48 many of the rules and processes are rarely even remembered by the organization. But it creates this
    1:57:55 sort of natural inertia. Sometimes that inertia can be good. You know, it’s like, you know, if you end up
    1:58:01 with you, there’s definitely been stories of executives coming in and ready, fire, aim, new strategies that
    1:58:08 backfire massively. But often, it can mean in the face of a technology shift or a new competitor,
    1:58:13 you just can’t move fast enough to address it. The second thing that I think is more subtle is as a
    1:58:20 a company grows in size. Often its internal narrative can be stronger than the truth from customers.
    1:58:28 I remember one time when this sort of peak of the smartphone wars, and I ended up visiting a friend
    1:58:37 on Microsoft’s campus. And I got off the plane and, you know, Seattle Tacoma Airport, drove into Redmond,
    1:58:43 went on to the campus. And all of a sudden, everyone I saw was using Windows phones.
    1:58:50 I assume it must have been a requirement or formal or social, like you were definitely uncool if you’re
    1:58:56 using anything else. And from my perspective at the time, like the war had already been lost.
    1:58:57 Yeah.
    1:59:04 Like, it was definitely a two-horse race between Apple and Google on iOS and Android.
    1:59:10 And I remember sitting in the lobby waiting for my friend to get me from the security check-in.
    1:59:15 And I made a comment, like it wasn’t a confrontation, but I made a comment to someone who’s at Microsoft.
    1:59:22 I was like, you know, something along the lines of, are you required to use Windows phones?
    1:59:27 How these are? And I just sort of like curious. And then I got a really bold answer, which is like,
    1:59:31 yeah, we’re going to win. Like, we’re taking over the smartphone market. And I was like,
    1:59:36 I didn’t say anything because it was like a little socially awkward. I was like, no, you’re not. Like,
    1:59:38 you lost like four years ago.
    1:59:44 But there’s something that’s happening that’s preventing you from getting reality.
    1:59:48 Well, that’s the thing is, if you think about it, if anyone, if you’ve ever worked for like a large
    1:59:55 company, you know, when you work at a small company, you care about your customers and your
    2:00:02 competitors and you feel every bump in the road. When you’re a, you know, junior vice president of
    2:00:10 whatever, and you’re, you know, eight levels below your, you know, CEO, and you have a set of
    2:00:15 objectives and results, uh, your, you might be focused as I want to go from junior vice president
    2:00:20 to senior vice president. That’s what success looks like for me. And you end up with this sort
    2:00:28 of myopic focus on this internal world in the same way your kids will focus on, you know, the social
    2:00:33 dynamics of their high school, not the world outside of it. And it’s probably rational by the way, because
    2:00:38 like, you know, probably their social life is more determined by those, you know, 1,000 kids in their
    2:00:42 high school than it is like all the things outside. But this is, that’s the life of a
    2:00:48 person inside of these big places. And so you end up where, uh, you know, if you have a very senior
    2:00:53 head of product, who’s like, are this competitor says they’re faster, but this next version we’re
    2:00:58 so much better. And then everyone says, all of a sudden that’s like the windows phone is going to
    2:01:04 win. That’s what everyone says. And, and you truly believe it because everyone you meet says the
    2:01:10 same thing and you end up reflecting, you know, uh, customer anecdotes through that lens and you end up
    2:01:16 with this sort of reality distortion field manifested from the sum of, of this sort of myopic
    2:01:22 storytelling that, um, exists within, within companies. The, what’s interesting about that
    2:01:27 is like, you know, the ability for a culture to believe in something is actually a great strength of
    2:01:33 a culture, but it can lead to this as well. And so the combination of bureaucracy and inaccurate
    2:01:39 storytelling, um, I think is the reason why companies sort of die. Uh, and, and it’s really
    2:01:45 remarkable to look at, you know, the blackberries of the world or the TiVos or the, you know, there,
    2:01:52 you can really, um, you know, as the plane is crashing, like tell the story that you’re not. And,
    2:01:58 um, and, and, and then similar, as I said, like culturally, you can still have like the person
    2:02:03 in the back of that crashing plane being like, when am I going to get promoted to SVP? And then you’re
    2:02:08 like, you know, and, and that’s, I mean, this is like, I mean, I’ve seen it a hundred times. And so
    2:02:14 I think it really comes down to leadership, you know, and I think that one of the things that most
    2:02:19 great companies have is they are obsessed with their customers. Um, and I think the, the free market
    2:02:24 doesn’t lie. And so I think the, one of the most important things I think for any like enduring
    2:02:29 culture, particularly in an industry that changes as rapidly as software is how close are your
    2:02:35 employees to customers and how much can customer like the direct voice of your customers be a part of,
    2:02:42 uh, your decision-making. Um, and that is something that I think you need to constantly work out because
    2:02:52 that, you know, person employee number 30,462, you know, how does he or she actually, actually
    2:02:55 directly hear from customers is, it’s not actually a simple question to answer.
    2:02:58 Is it direct? Is it filtered? How many filters are there?
    2:03:04 That’s exactly right. And then, um, I think the other part on leadership is, you know,
    2:03:09 we talked about bureaucracy is process is there to serve the needs of the business.
    2:03:18 And, uh, uh, often, um, mid-level managers, uh, don’t get credit for removing process.
    2:03:24 They often are held accountable for things going wrong. Um, and I think it really takes top-down
    2:03:31 leadership to, uh, you know, remove bureaucracy. Um, and, uh, it is not always comfortable, you know,
    2:03:40 when companies remove spans of control or, uh, all the people impacted will, it’s like antibodies.
    2:03:44 Uh, and for good reason, I mean, it makes sense their lives are negatively impacted or whatever it is,
    2:03:51 but it almost has to come from the top because you need to give, uh, air cover, uh, almost certainly
    2:03:56 something will go wrong by the way. I mean, like processes usually exist for a reason. Um,
    2:04:01 but when they accumulate, um, without end, you end up with bureaucracy. So those are the two things
    2:04:06 that I always, uh, and you could smell it when you go into a really bureaucratic company, the,
    2:04:13 the inaccurate storytelling, the process over outcomes. And it’s just, uh, it sort of sucks the
    2:04:19 energy out of you when you feel it. That’s a great answer. We always end these interviews with the exact
    2:04:24 same question, which is what is success for you? Success for me, we talked about how I spend my
    2:04:31 time with my family at work is, you know, having a happy, healthy family and being able to work with
    2:04:35 my co-founder Clay for the rest of my life, making Sierra into an enduring company. That would be success for me.
    2:04:47 Thanks for listening and learning with us. The Farnham street blog is where you can learn more
    2:04:54 about my new book clear thinking, turning ordinary moments into extraordinary results. It’s a transformative
    2:05:00 guide that hands you the tools to master your fate, sharpen your decision-making and set yourself up for
    2:05:14 unparalleled success. Learn more at fs.blog slash clear until next time.

    What happens when one of the most legendary minds in tech delves deep into the real workings of modern AI? A 2-hour long masterclass that you don’t want to miss.

     

    Bret Taylor unpacks why AI is transforming software engineering forever, how founders can survive acquisition (he’s done it twice), and why the true bottlenecks in AI aren’t what most think. Drawing on experiences, he explains why the next phase of AI won’t just be about better models—but about entirely new ways we’ll work with them. Bret exposes the reality gap between what AI insiders understand and what everyone else believes.

    Listen now to recalibrate your thinking before your competitors do. 

    (00:02:46) Aha Moments with AI

    (00:04:43) Founders Working for Founders

    (00:07:59) Acquisition Process

    (00:14:14) The Role of a Board

    (00:17:05) Founder Mode

    (00:20:29) Engineers as Leaders

    (00:24:54) Applying First Principles in Business

    (00:28:43) The Future of Software Engineering

    (00:35:11) Efficiency and Verification of AI-Generated Code

    (00:36:46) The Future of Software Development

    (00:37:24) Defining AGI

    (00:47:03) AI Self-Improvement?

    (00:47:58) Safety Measures and Supervision in AI

    (00:49:47) Benefiting Humanity and AI Safety

    (00:54:06) Regulation and Geopolitical Landscape in AI

    (00:55:58) Foundation Models and Frontier Models

    (01:01:06) Economics and Open Source Models

    (01:05:18) AI and AGI Accessibility

    (01:07:42) Optimizing AI Prompts

    (01:11:18) Creating an AI Superpower

    (01:14:12) Future of Education and AI

    (01:19:34) The Impact of AI on Job Roles

    (01:21:58) AI in Problem-Solving and Research

    (01:25:24) Importance of AI Context Window

    (01:27:37) AI Output and Intellectual Property

    (01:30:09) Google Maps Launch and Challenges

    (01:37:57) Long-Term Investment in AI

    (01:43:02) Balancing Work and Family Life

    (01:44:25) Building Sierra as an Enduring Company

    (01:45:38) Lessons from Tech Company Lifecycles

    (01:48:31) Definition and Applications of AI Agents

    (01:53:56) Challenges and Importance of Branded AI Agents

    (01:56:28) Fending Off Complacency in Companies

    (02:01:21) Customer Obsession and Leadership in Companies

    Bret Taylor is currently the Chairman of OpenAI and CEO of Sierra. Previously, he was the CTO of Facebook, Chairman of the board for X, and the Co-CEO of Salesforce. 

    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

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

    Watch on YouTube: @tkppodcast

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