WEBVTT 00:00:03.120 --> 00:00:06.360 Matt Abrahams: Constraints catalyze communication. 00:00:06.630 --> 00:00:09.870 My name's Matt Abrahams and I teach Strategic Communication at 00:00:09.870 --> 00:00:11.640 Stanford Graduate School of Business. 00:00:11.910 --> 00:00:14.695 Welcome to Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast. 00:00:15.530 --> 00:00:17.570 Today I look forward to chatting with David Epstein. 00:00:17.780 --> 00:00:20.960 David is a science writer and investigative journalist, best known 00:00:20.960 --> 00:00:25.310 for his number one New York Times bestseller range and the Sports 00:00:25.310 --> 00:00:29.630 Gene in his latest book Inside The Box, how Constraints Make Us Better. 00:00:29.870 --> 00:00:34.610 He explores the counterintuitive cognitive science showing that the limits we have. 00:00:34.720 --> 00:00:36.850 Free us up to be more creative. 00:00:37.600 --> 00:00:39.010 Well, welcome David. 00:00:39.010 --> 00:00:40.030 Thanks for being here. 00:00:40.030 --> 00:00:42.100 I really look forward to learning from you today. 00:00:42.339 --> 00:00:43.360 David Epstein: It's a pleasure to be here. 00:00:43.360 --> 00:00:44.140 Thanks for having me. 00:00:44.350 --> 00:00:44.739 Matt Abrahams: Okay. 00:00:44.739 --> 00:00:45.610 Shall we get started? 00:00:45.850 --> 00:00:46.300 David Epstein: Let's do it. 00:00:46.720 --> 00:00:49.960 Matt Abrahams: In reading Inside the box, I really resonated with, 00:00:49.960 --> 00:00:52.219 when you talk about the Christmas tree effect or featuritis. 00:00:53.565 --> 00:00:58.215 Can you share what these ideas mean and how can we prevent when we communicate in 00:00:58.215 --> 00:01:03.765 our core ideas from being drowned in just the unnecessary complexity of so many of 00:01:03.765 --> 00:01:05.535 the things we end up communicating about? 00:01:05.955 --> 00:01:08.595 David Epstein: That's a great question because those are phrases that come from 00:01:08.595 --> 00:01:12.164 designers primarily, featuritis and the Christmas tree effect, that essentially 00:01:12.164 --> 00:01:14.565 mean the same thing, adding more. 00:01:14.565 --> 00:01:17.955 So featuritis is like you get carried away by always adding features to things. 00:01:17.955 --> 00:01:22.095 The Christmas tree effect is similar, meaning you just keep putting ornaments 00:01:22.155 --> 00:01:23.895 on the tree over and over and over. 00:01:24.285 --> 00:01:29.384 And humans have a hardwired what's called additive bias to always solve 00:01:29.384 --> 00:01:31.455 problems by putting more and more on. 00:01:31.455 --> 00:01:34.785 In a related bias, the flip side called subtractive neglect bias, 00:01:35.115 --> 00:01:38.384 we tend to overlook solutions that involve taking things away. 00:01:38.789 --> 00:01:44.220 I think when it comes to communication, and I've been guilty of this for sure, 00:01:44.639 --> 00:01:48.899 I'm curious about a lot of things and I have a desire to impart everything 00:01:48.899 --> 00:01:51.030 that I think is interesting to someone. 00:01:51.179 --> 00:01:55.380 And I think that shows in my first book, which did well, but in retrospect, going 00:01:55.380 --> 00:01:58.169 back, there are things in here that I would take out looking at it now. 00:01:58.320 --> 00:02:02.190 So I feel like an antidote to featuritis when it comes to communication 00:02:02.190 --> 00:02:06.660 would be something like, assuming the other person's gonna forget 00:02:06.660 --> 00:02:08.400 everything except one thing you said. 00:02:08.699 --> 00:02:11.820 Now decide what that one thing is before you're opening your mouth. 00:02:11.970 --> 00:02:13.890 That doesn't mean you can't add other things. 00:02:14.429 --> 00:02:17.595 But that one thing you wanna make sure that you get across. 00:02:17.925 --> 00:02:22.275 And I think that's an approach, like many good constraints do, can help 00:02:22.275 --> 00:02:25.185 you clarify priorities when you're trying to communicate clearly. 00:02:25.635 --> 00:02:25.845 Matt Abrahams: Yeah. 00:02:25.845 --> 00:02:29.355 One of the things that I coach the people I coach and the students 00:02:29.355 --> 00:02:32.955 I teach is to really think of the bottom line first before you speak. 00:02:33.285 --> 00:02:35.385 And I like how you said, what's the most important thing? 00:02:35.685 --> 00:02:39.195 And then build the message from there rather than thinking of 00:02:39.195 --> 00:02:42.585 everything you have to say and hoping that some of it sticks. 00:02:43.320 --> 00:02:47.130 Growing up, one of my favorite books as a kid was Green Eggs and Ham. 00:02:47.130 --> 00:02:48.420 I love Dr. Seuss. 00:02:48.810 --> 00:02:52.560 Can you tell the story of Dr. Seuss, Theodor Geisel, and The Cat in the 00:02:52.560 --> 00:02:57.510 Hat, and how that was written with vocabulary restriction in mind? 00:02:57.510 --> 00:03:04.109 And how can that type of restriction lead to new and novel input and output? 00:03:04.285 --> 00:03:08.220 And have you thought about that in the way you do your communication, and perhaps 00:03:08.220 --> 00:03:09.840 all of us could do our communication? 00:03:10.260 --> 00:03:15.225 David Epstein: So Dr. Seuss, we take for granted now that there's a lot of 00:03:15.225 --> 00:03:19.665 interesting children's literature, but at the time he was working, it was boring. 00:03:19.725 --> 00:03:22.484 Like I went back and read some of the stuff and it was just super 00:03:22.484 --> 00:03:25.005 literal stuff, very pedantic. 00:03:25.305 --> 00:03:32.834 And Dr. Seuss was asked to create a children's book using only 200 words from 00:03:32.834 --> 00:03:35.115 a kid's vocabulary list that he was given. 00:03:35.295 --> 00:03:36.075 And so what does he do? 00:03:36.075 --> 00:03:37.695 First he starts complaining to his wife. 00:03:37.725 --> 00:03:40.215 'Cause he looks through and he says, there's basically no adjectives. 00:03:40.475 --> 00:03:44.995 And in fine Seussian form, he compares it to trying to make a strudel without 00:03:44.995 --> 00:03:48.174 any strudels, which I love because it's like he was the same person 00:03:48.174 --> 00:03:50.144 in private as he was in public. 00:03:50.554 --> 00:03:53.250 But then he gets exasperated and decides he's just gonna take the 00:03:53.250 --> 00:03:56.609 first two rhyming words on the list and write a book around them. 00:03:56.609 --> 00:03:59.940 And the first two rhyming words are cat and hat, and the rest is history. 00:03:59.940 --> 00:04:04.110 But that restriction forced him to experiment with rhythm because 00:04:04.110 --> 00:04:05.579 he couldn't experiment vocabulary. 00:04:05.579 --> 00:04:09.360 And after he did that, his famous publisher bet him that he couldn't 00:04:09.360 --> 00:04:11.935 do it again using only 50 words. 00:04:12.355 --> 00:04:14.815 And he did that for Green Eggs and Ham where he had to experiment 00:04:14.815 --> 00:04:18.774 with rhythm even more because what can you do with 50 words? 00:04:19.075 --> 00:04:22.795 And it became this rollicking tale, of course, that spawned imitators 00:04:22.795 --> 00:04:23.784 and changed children's literature. 00:04:24.385 --> 00:04:28.405 And gave rise to psychological effect known as the Green Eggs and 00:04:28.405 --> 00:04:32.875 Ham effect, which is the idea that the quickest path to creativity 00:04:32.905 --> 00:04:35.485 is by blocking familiar solutions. 00:04:35.515 --> 00:04:37.345 So our brains are actually lazy. 00:04:37.465 --> 00:04:39.745 You know, you may think your brain is made for thinking, but it's actually 00:04:39.745 --> 00:04:42.745 made for preventing you from having to think whenever possible because 00:04:42.745 --> 00:04:43.920 thinking is energetically costly. 00:04:44.630 --> 00:04:48.109 So if you're given complete freedom, you'll just go down 00:04:48.200 --> 00:04:50.690 what cognitive scientists call the path of least resistance. 00:04:50.690 --> 00:04:53.299 You'll just do the thing that feels convenient or that you've done before. 00:04:53.359 --> 00:04:56.780 And so the best way to become creative or have new ideas is to take that away. 00:04:56.780 --> 00:05:01.400 So in a communication perspective, one thing I would think of is, let's say 00:05:01.640 --> 00:05:06.680 you're going into a client meeting or something and you say, if we were not 00:05:06.680 --> 00:05:12.000 allowed to pitch or recommend or say the usual thing, what would we do instead? 00:05:12.330 --> 00:05:15.645 And I think that can be a fruitful thought exercise for thinking of what are other 00:05:15.645 --> 00:05:19.485 ways we could frame this, or what are other ways we could propose this, or maybe 00:05:19.485 --> 00:05:23.865 even directly in the communication medium, if we were not allowed to communicate this 00:05:24.075 --> 00:05:27.675 using PowerPoint slides or whatever it is that we're used to, how would we do it? 00:05:27.975 --> 00:05:30.735 I'm not saying you necessarily have to do that, but it tends to be a 00:05:30.735 --> 00:05:34.665 very generative exercise in figuring out what is the core of this thing 00:05:34.875 --> 00:05:35.870 and what are ways to communicate it. 00:05:36.525 --> 00:05:42.915 Matt Abrahams: I love the backstory on Dr. Seuss's initial successes and this idea 00:05:42.915 --> 00:05:47.895 of putting constraints into communication to get you to think differently about it. 00:05:48.195 --> 00:05:52.185 I have a colleague who when they do an activity in class and they're 00:05:52.185 --> 00:05:56.355 teaching conflict resolution, they ask the students to have a conflict, 00:05:56.355 --> 00:06:00.045 they create a simulated conflict, and the students can only ask questions. 00:06:00.075 --> 00:06:02.025 They can't make declarations. 00:06:02.395 --> 00:06:05.385 And you can see how it would change the dynamic, right? 00:06:05.565 --> 00:06:09.525 And again, she's not advocating that every conflict should be resolved 00:06:09.525 --> 00:06:13.035 through questioning exclusively, but it changes your mindset 00:06:13.245 --> 00:06:14.595 and it changes how you listen. 00:06:15.285 --> 00:06:18.915 David Epstein: When I'm in my mode as a journalist, I think I'm legitimately a 00:06:18.915 --> 00:06:23.535 better person because it's not that I'm only asking questions, but it's that I go 00:06:23.535 --> 00:06:30.045 into every conversation with the mindset of trying to understand, not to be right. 00:06:30.075 --> 00:06:35.325 And that frame just makes so much difference in how the conversation goes. 00:06:35.804 --> 00:06:36.705 Matt Abrahams: Yeah, absolutely. 00:06:36.705 --> 00:06:41.145 And I think the challenge for all of us, you first have to recognize the habits 00:06:41.145 --> 00:06:44.864 and patterns, heuristics, that you have to then begin to challenge them and 00:06:44.864 --> 00:06:46.575 say, okay, now we're not gonna do this. 00:06:46.905 --> 00:06:49.844 But I think there are a lot of possibilities and another reframe you 00:06:49.844 --> 00:06:53.534 could use, go into any situation as a journalist, what would a journalist 00:06:53.534 --> 00:06:54.705 do here could be really helpful. 00:06:55.094 --> 00:06:58.815 What is chunking and how can it help us in our communication? 00:06:59.385 --> 00:07:02.715 David Epstein: Chunking is in the sense that psychologists 00:07:02.715 --> 00:07:07.155 use, it means essentially the grouping together of information. 00:07:07.155 --> 00:07:11.115 So maybe I can give you an example, would be an easy way to explain the phenomenon. 00:07:11.265 --> 00:07:15.735 If I said 20 random words to you right now and asked you to repeat them 00:07:15.735 --> 00:07:16.965 back, you'd have trouble doing that. 00:07:17.655 --> 00:07:21.225 If I gave you 20 words in a sentence, you may well be able to repeat that 00:07:21.225 --> 00:07:24.735 back to me, or at least most of it, and they could be the same 20 words 00:07:25.095 --> 00:07:26.415 just in the first case mixed up. 00:07:26.655 --> 00:07:30.255 But it will make your memory seem so much better because you've learned a 00:07:30.255 --> 00:07:34.335 system of grammar and groups and phrases of words that are chunked or collected 00:07:34.335 --> 00:07:38.055 into groups in your brain, so you're not actually remembering 20 different things. 00:07:38.415 --> 00:07:41.655 You're remembering just a few different chunks that fit together in some 00:07:41.655 --> 00:07:46.905 coherent scheme, and that's how humans are able to remember and access as much 00:07:46.905 --> 00:07:52.185 information as we can because we chunk information into related, meaningful 00:07:52.185 --> 00:07:55.875 groups and then into these broader networks or templates of knowledge. 00:07:56.445 --> 00:07:58.065 Matt Abrahams: So how does this lead to novelty? 00:07:58.065 --> 00:08:01.785 How does it lead to creativity and new ideas when you're attaching to 00:08:01.845 --> 00:08:03.885 previous existing old information? 00:08:04.515 --> 00:08:08.355 David Epstein: Our older ideas or familiar ideas are actually the jumping 00:08:08.355 --> 00:08:09.705 off point for new ideas typically. 00:08:09.705 --> 00:08:12.705 In fact, as I was doing the research for the book, one of the things I learned 00:08:12.705 --> 00:08:17.565 was that the idea that creativity and originality are synonymous was not even 00:08:17.565 --> 00:08:21.795 a thing until the late 18th century and this group of people that wanted 00:08:21.795 --> 00:08:25.930 to say not everything is logical, like creative inspiration comes in 00:08:25.930 --> 00:08:29.080 these lightning strikes out of the blue and there's no rhyme or reason 00:08:29.080 --> 00:08:31.240 to it, and that's not really true. 00:08:31.270 --> 00:08:36.760 It actually typically comes from modifying ideas that are already very familiar. 00:08:37.210 --> 00:08:40.689 And I think if we're thinking about this in a communication frame, one of 00:08:40.689 --> 00:08:43.419 the important things is that if you want to get people to come along with 00:08:43.780 --> 00:08:48.310 creative or radical ideas, a really important thing you have to do is ground 00:08:48.310 --> 00:08:53.115 it in things that are very familiar to them, and then layer the more radical 00:08:53.115 --> 00:08:56.444 thing on top of it so that this vision of change also comes along with it 00:08:56.444 --> 00:08:57.975 an embedded vision of continuity. 00:08:58.574 --> 00:09:02.564 Matt Abrahams: Demonstrating consistency and showing how what you're talking about 00:09:02.564 --> 00:09:08.295 is familiar, it makes it easier for people to one, buy into it and to follow through. 00:09:08.805 --> 00:09:12.555 Anybody listening to this show knows that I am a huge advocate for frameworks 00:09:12.555 --> 00:09:16.064 and structure and communication for the very reasons you've just talked about. 00:09:16.455 --> 00:09:20.535 They allow us to understand and predict what's coming so we can dedicate 00:09:20.535 --> 00:09:22.095 and focus more information on it. 00:09:22.095 --> 00:09:25.935 We're not good at remembering just list after list, item after item. 00:09:26.115 --> 00:09:31.215 When you package it in a structure like problem, solution, benefit, past, present, 00:09:31.215 --> 00:09:36.795 future, all of a sudden that chunking allows us to have a framework that we can 00:09:36.825 --> 00:09:39.045 attach to and it makes it more memorable. 00:09:39.045 --> 00:09:43.275 So I definitely appreciate you defining that term that helps us see something 00:09:43.275 --> 00:09:45.225 that we often talk about on the show. 00:09:45.675 --> 00:09:48.225 In your book, you talk about the podcast, This American 00:09:48.225 --> 00:09:49.965 Life, one of my favorite shows. 00:09:50.205 --> 00:09:53.895 Can you share with us what you learned from your interviewing of them? 00:09:54.315 --> 00:09:57.165 David Epstein: I did a piece for This American Life and I had never 00:09:57.165 --> 00:10:00.675 written anything for radio or narrative podcasts essentially. 00:10:00.675 --> 00:10:03.165 And this was like a 35 minute piece that I'm writing. 00:10:03.165 --> 00:10:06.375 I know nothing about what I'm doing, and I'm a science writer, so I was used to 00:10:06.375 --> 00:10:10.035 putting a lot of technical information in articles, or reasonably technical, 00:10:10.275 --> 00:10:14.955 and that's okay when people can stop and reread it or slow down, not so 00:10:14.955 --> 00:10:16.905 okay when it's flying by them in audio. 00:10:17.490 --> 00:10:20.250 And so This American Life had this system where you do these 00:10:20.250 --> 00:10:23.280 read-throughs where it's like Ira Glass sitting there holding a stopwatch. 00:10:23.430 --> 00:10:25.620 You're reading the narration, your producer hits play when you 00:10:25.620 --> 00:10:26.940 wanna play some interview audio. 00:10:27.150 --> 00:10:28.800 And then people say what confused them. 00:10:28.980 --> 00:10:30.210 They don't tell you how to solve it. 00:10:30.300 --> 00:10:33.030 You have to do something, you can't ignore, but they don't tell you how. 00:10:33.150 --> 00:10:34.650 And then you keep redoing that. 00:10:34.650 --> 00:10:38.040 And every time you do it, there'd be at least one new person who had 00:10:38.040 --> 00:10:39.630 never heard it before, every time. 00:10:39.900 --> 00:10:41.700 And that person gets to say what confused them. 00:10:41.755 --> 00:10:44.695 Then you just do that over and over until the new person comes 00:10:44.695 --> 00:10:46.255 in and says, nothing confused me. 00:10:46.314 --> 00:10:47.064 I got everything. 00:10:47.395 --> 00:10:53.785 And so the process titrated out confusion, and it's a brutal process, but the 00:10:53.785 --> 00:10:58.735 greatest editing process I've ever been through because it just relentlessly 00:10:58.735 --> 00:11:03.065 exposes all the assumptions you are making about things that you know really well, 00:11:03.465 --> 00:11:07.020 and that you've even lost track of the fact that not everybody knows this stuff. 00:11:07.170 --> 00:11:11.130 And even though I'm sensitive to that as a professional science communicator, 00:11:11.340 --> 00:11:12.390 I'm thinking about that all the time. 00:11:12.390 --> 00:11:17.430 And yet there's still stuff that just becomes so routine or, or so obvious 00:11:17.430 --> 00:11:20.490 to you once you know about it, but it's not obvious to people who don't. 00:11:20.610 --> 00:11:23.730 So it's a great system in that way that people can really lose track of 00:11:23.730 --> 00:11:27.150 what the other party doesn't understand if they start taking for granted the 00:11:27.150 --> 00:11:28.650 meaning of things in their world. 00:11:29.310 --> 00:11:32.790 Matt Abrahams: The American Life story highlights the importance of 00:11:32.849 --> 00:11:34.530 making sure your audience understands. 00:11:34.530 --> 00:11:36.930 But what I really like about it is the question they asked, 00:11:36.930 --> 00:11:38.550 they said, what is confusing? 00:11:38.819 --> 00:11:41.910 Many of us will say, did you understand everything? 00:11:41.939 --> 00:11:43.469 Were things clear, et cetera. 00:11:43.469 --> 00:11:46.320 But when you put it in, hey, what was confusing? 00:11:46.560 --> 00:11:50.040 That helps people be more specific, and I really like that they 00:11:50.040 --> 00:11:53.850 don't then give suggestions for how to make it less confusing. 00:11:54.090 --> 00:11:55.350 They leave that to you. 00:11:55.350 --> 00:11:57.960 So that, I think, is where that creativity comes in. 00:11:58.200 --> 00:12:01.710 And I think you learn more when you're not given direction on how to fix it. 00:12:01.710 --> 00:12:05.850 And I'm really gonna take this lesson to heart as a parent, as a teacher, as 00:12:05.850 --> 00:12:10.830 a coach, because often it's my reaction to then immediately give, here's 00:12:10.830 --> 00:12:12.090 what I think you could do to fix it. 00:12:12.510 --> 00:12:16.110 David Epstein: I thought it was fantastic because just wrote a book obviously about 00:12:16.110 --> 00:12:19.620 useful constraints, but there is clearly such thing as too much constraint, right? 00:12:19.620 --> 00:12:22.260 If you're telling someone what they have to do and how they have to 00:12:22.260 --> 00:12:25.590 do it, if the person says, there's no room for me to surprise myself, 00:12:25.590 --> 00:12:27.000 then it's too much constraint. 00:12:27.209 --> 00:12:32.459 But in this case, it really impressed upon me the power of having someone define 00:12:32.459 --> 00:12:36.720 the problem for you really well, and instantly you're fired up about solutions. 00:12:36.720 --> 00:12:39.800 They'd say, I just did not understand this beat in the story, whatever it was. 00:12:40.190 --> 00:12:43.500 And if they could define it really well, it feels very empowering for 00:12:43.500 --> 00:12:44.760 then doing the problem solving. 00:12:44.824 --> 00:12:46.470 I, I see the problem clearly. 00:12:46.680 --> 00:12:49.709 In many cases, I think a clear definition of the problem is the 00:12:49.709 --> 00:12:51.569 best tool for getting it solved. 00:12:51.930 --> 00:12:53.310 Matt Abrahams: Right, it helps to distill that down. 00:12:53.610 --> 00:12:54.209 Very good. 00:12:54.810 --> 00:12:57.840 Another term I need you to define for our listeners, what is 00:12:57.840 --> 00:13:00.030 precluding and how does it work? 00:13:00.390 --> 00:13:00.569 David Epstein: Yeah. 00:13:00.600 --> 00:13:06.300 Precluding is, in this context, blocking the most familiar solutions. 00:13:06.390 --> 00:13:13.845 So, in the history of innovation, preclude constraints are basically ever 00:13:13.845 --> 00:13:17.235 present, where either by someone's choice. 00:13:17.535 --> 00:13:21.165 In artistic innovation, it was often the case that people did this by choice, 00:13:21.435 --> 00:13:24.345 in order to innovate, in technological innovation, in many cases, it was more 00:13:24.345 --> 00:13:29.445 necessity, but that a preclude constraint means it precludes the previous solution. 00:13:29.745 --> 00:13:36.045 It blocks the path that has been taken most regularly, and once that's 00:13:36.045 --> 00:13:41.939 gone it's maybe the most generative creative prompt you can possibly have. 00:13:42.240 --> 00:13:44.430 The thing you're used to, the thing everyone's always done, 00:13:44.430 --> 00:13:45.420 you're not allowed to do it. 00:13:45.720 --> 00:13:46.410 So what now? 00:13:46.740 --> 00:13:47.670 How can you get this done? 00:13:48.329 --> 00:13:50.790 It kind of reminded me, actually, one of the early readers of the book was 00:13:50.790 --> 00:13:53.819 a guy named Ed Hoffman, who was the first chief knowledge officer at NASA, 00:13:53.970 --> 00:13:56.699 basically like the head psychologist, he stopped partway through and said, I 00:13:56.699 --> 00:14:00.089 gotta tell you about this mission called LCROSS, where the team ended up with 00:14:00.089 --> 00:14:01.800 half the time in budget they expected. 00:14:02.219 --> 00:14:04.020 And so what did they do? 00:14:04.020 --> 00:14:06.780 First they complained and then they said, well, if we were gonna get 00:14:06.780 --> 00:14:08.370 this done anyway, how would we do it? 00:14:08.939 --> 00:14:10.380 And it led them to repurpose things. 00:14:10.380 --> 00:14:13.800 So they took imaging equipment from army tanks and engine temperature 00:14:13.800 --> 00:14:19.319 sensors from NASCAR and created a probe that confirmed water on the moon. 00:14:19.949 --> 00:14:23.310 It was incredibly innovative and it led to other missions where they 00:14:23.310 --> 00:14:26.610 realized they could repurpose lots of technology, but they just never would've 00:14:26.610 --> 00:14:30.780 done this if they hadn't been forced off of the convenient path basically. 00:14:31.620 --> 00:14:34.350 Matt Abrahams: And we can challenge ourselves to do that. 00:14:34.380 --> 00:14:38.130 We don't have to have some external thing or people tell us that we can 00:14:38.130 --> 00:14:42.660 say, what if this weren't possible or this were taken away so we can actually 00:14:42.660 --> 00:14:44.580 leverage this as a tool ourselves. 00:14:45.900 --> 00:14:49.410 Before we end, I like to ask everybody three questions, one I make up just 00:14:49.410 --> 00:14:52.470 for you and two I've been asking everybody I've interviewed in the past. 00:14:52.470 --> 00:14:53.160 Are you up for that? 00:14:53.340 --> 00:14:53.940 David Epstein: Absolutely. 00:14:54.180 --> 00:14:54.570 Matt Abrahams: Alright. 00:14:54.570 --> 00:14:55.830 I'm gonna give you a constraint. 00:14:56.070 --> 00:15:02.190 If you were to give our listeners one boundary that could help them in their 00:15:02.190 --> 00:15:05.550 communication, what would that advice be? 00:15:06.270 --> 00:15:08.670 David Epstein: Make the other person's argument first. 00:15:09.180 --> 00:15:13.830 I realize there's no rule that applies to every situation, but I found this 00:15:13.920 --> 00:15:17.820 when I critiqued Malcolm Gladwell pretty stridently in my first book, and we ended 00:15:17.820 --> 00:15:20.970 up, we first met for a public debate, and then we became really good friends. 00:15:21.390 --> 00:15:24.480 So this was a very generative relationship based on disagreement. 00:15:24.945 --> 00:15:28.695 One of the things that really helped was at that initial debate, we decided 00:15:28.695 --> 00:15:33.045 to start, he and I together, by stating what we thought the other person's 00:15:33.045 --> 00:15:38.385 argument was, and I think one, that gave you some first empathy for the other 00:15:38.385 --> 00:15:42.105 person's argument, but it also gave the other person a chance to decide if 00:15:42.105 --> 00:15:43.455 they were actually being misunderstood. 00:15:44.280 --> 00:15:48.990 So you both had an understanding of if the other person heard you and then you 00:15:48.990 --> 00:15:51.900 could know what you were talking about when you were having this discussion. 00:15:52.230 --> 00:15:55.589 And so because of that, he and I then became running buddies and all this stuff, 00:15:55.829 --> 00:15:59.910 I started taking that forward to other situations where I thought I might have 00:15:59.910 --> 00:16:03.420 a different perspective than someone to start off, even if it's just to myself. 00:16:03.689 --> 00:16:05.250 Like that was a formal debate with him. 00:16:05.955 --> 00:16:08.835 But even to myself, what do I think the other person's point of view is? 00:16:08.835 --> 00:16:11.205 And, and I will, if I think it's appropriate, try to work 00:16:11.205 --> 00:16:12.525 that in early in a conversation. 00:16:12.525 --> 00:16:15.585 So what I'm hearing you say is, and then you're basically fact checking 00:16:15.615 --> 00:16:19.335 in real time and they'll correct it if you're wrong, and that's useful. 00:16:19.665 --> 00:16:22.695 So I think that idea of going in with making the other person's argument 00:16:22.695 --> 00:16:26.355 first, even if it's just to yourself, is a really useful constraint to enter 00:16:26.355 --> 00:16:27.615 certain types of conversations with. 00:16:28.095 --> 00:16:29.445 Matt Abrahams: I really, really like that. 00:16:29.535 --> 00:16:32.025 If nothing else, it puts you in service of the audience. 00:16:32.025 --> 00:16:34.605 It makes you focus on what's going on for them. 00:16:35.235 --> 00:16:39.074 Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? 00:16:39.824 --> 00:16:42.555 David Epstein: Not to be redundant here, but I do wanna say it's Malcolm 00:16:42.555 --> 00:16:46.905 Gladwell because in those series of disagreements that led to us becoming 00:16:46.905 --> 00:16:48.915 good friends, he was very open-minded. 00:16:48.915 --> 00:16:53.805 So we had a debate at the same forum, 5 years apart, and the second time around, 00:16:53.805 --> 00:16:57.495 he started saying the things that I had convinced him of, and I didn't have 00:16:57.495 --> 00:16:59.865 nearly as much professional capital the first time we met for a debate. 00:16:59.865 --> 00:17:01.365 You could have just crushed me just because of who you 00:17:01.365 --> 00:17:02.754 are, and you're very clever. 00:17:03.344 --> 00:17:06.660 And he said, yeah, but I have the luxury of learning from my critics. 00:17:07.260 --> 00:17:08.940 And that stuck with me so much. 00:17:08.940 --> 00:17:12.060 The idea that an earnest critic, you have the luxury of learning from 00:17:12.060 --> 00:17:13.710 them instead of becoming defensive. 00:17:14.130 --> 00:17:19.140 And now I've seen that in his writing where he has decided some things that 00:17:19.140 --> 00:17:23.820 he wrote that became very famous, are not right, and has changed direction. 00:17:24.120 --> 00:17:28.785 And I think that's an amazing thing to do when you've been so successful with 00:17:28.785 --> 00:17:31.995 a certain idea, because I've definitely seen the opposite of other writers 00:17:31.995 --> 00:17:35.415 who, once they've become successful with an idea, they are not changing 00:17:35.415 --> 00:17:36.945 their mind, no matter the evidence. 00:17:37.425 --> 00:17:43.455 So his ability to acknowledge that and address it even directly, I think is 00:17:43.785 --> 00:17:47.175 rare and amazing and quite frankly, became really a role model for me. 00:17:47.535 --> 00:17:50.565 Matt Abrahams: That notion of there's something to be learned from the criticism 00:17:50.565 --> 00:17:54.375 and just the openness there, I think we could all learn something from. 00:17:54.750 --> 00:17:56.070 Final question for you, David. 00:17:56.400 --> 00:18:01.380 What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe? 00:18:01.860 --> 00:18:05.010 David Epstein: I think identifying the type of conversation you're having. 00:18:05.100 --> 00:18:09.000 We've all probably had this issue at some point where you are saying 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:12.330 something or someone else is saying something you're upset about and one 00:18:12.330 --> 00:18:16.410 party offers solutions and really it's a I need to be heard conversation. 00:18:16.650 --> 00:18:20.280 And I think that can be a very upsetting disconnect for both sides. 00:18:20.280 --> 00:18:21.810 So identifying the conversation type. 00:18:22.350 --> 00:18:27.225 I think keeping in mind what psychologists call the peak end rule, which is that the 00:18:27.225 --> 00:18:31.785 way your brain remembers an experience is more or less an average of the moment 00:18:31.785 --> 00:18:33.945 of peak intensity and the last moment. 00:18:34.275 --> 00:18:36.405 You may not be able to do much about the moment of peak intensity, 00:18:36.405 --> 00:18:37.605 but you can end on a good note. 00:18:38.175 --> 00:18:41.445 That end moment has more weight than just an average moment. 00:18:41.685 --> 00:18:46.335 And the third I would say, and this is more group focused, would be relatively 00:18:46.335 --> 00:18:48.045 equal conversational turn taking. 00:18:48.195 --> 00:18:52.905 So, not that everyone has to have a turn in every case, but there is a body of 00:18:52.905 --> 00:18:56.055 research that I write about in the new book that shows that one of the hallmarks 00:18:56.175 --> 00:19:00.585 of teams that are good at solving problems together is that over the course of a 00:19:00.585 --> 00:19:03.675 day, for example, if they're working together, there will be relatively 00:19:03.675 --> 00:19:05.355 equal conversational turn taking. 00:19:05.805 --> 00:19:09.285 When I was writing about Pixar, where Ed Catmull, the co-founder, told 00:19:09.285 --> 00:19:13.275 me that they banned Steve Jobs from certain feedback meetings specifically 00:19:13.275 --> 00:19:18.765 because as he became this larger than life personality they felt his voice 00:19:18.945 --> 00:19:22.905 would take up too much space and crowd out other people who might have a lot 00:19:22.905 --> 00:19:25.125 to add but not be quite as eloquent. 00:19:25.755 --> 00:19:28.845 Or there's this colloquial term, HIPPO, highest paid person's opinion, 00:19:29.175 --> 00:19:32.145 where if that person speaks, everyone will start to gravitate around them. 00:19:32.475 --> 00:19:36.405 So I think putting boundaries in place that facilitate more 00:19:36.405 --> 00:19:38.115 equal conversational turn taking. 00:19:38.805 --> 00:19:41.360 Matt Abrahams: I really appreciate the three ingredients. 00:19:41.445 --> 00:19:43.965 They're very specific and they're all science-based. 00:19:44.774 --> 00:19:48.615 Be aware of what type of conversation you're having, what's needed in this 00:19:48.615 --> 00:19:50.325 conversation, what's your role in it? 00:19:50.715 --> 00:19:54.375 Think about how they end and can you end it in a way that increases the 00:19:54.375 --> 00:19:57.405 likelihood that people will remember it and have the experience you want them 00:19:57.405 --> 00:20:01.935 to, and then to really consider the turn taking that takes place because 00:20:01.935 --> 00:20:05.205 that does impact how people feel about it and the quality of the interactions. 00:20:05.745 --> 00:20:07.605 David, this has been fantastic. 00:20:07.605 --> 00:20:12.015 In many ways you've unconstrained my thinking and hopefully that 00:20:12.015 --> 00:20:15.075 of our listeners, even though the book was all about constraints. 00:20:15.435 --> 00:20:16.365 Thank you so much. 00:20:16.455 --> 00:20:19.965 Good success on Inside the Box, and I appreciate learning from 00:20:19.965 --> 00:20:21.705 you and having our conversation. 00:20:22.155 --> 00:20:23.145 David Epstein: I enjoyed this very much. 00:20:23.145 --> 00:20:23.565 Thank you. 00:20:25.095 --> 00:20:26.985 Matt Abrahams: Thank you for joining us for another episode of 00:20:26.985 --> 00:20:29.265 Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast. 00:20:29.550 --> 00:20:34.110 To learn more about constraints, please listen to episode 108 with Dan Klein, 00:20:34.200 --> 00:20:36.050 Adam Tobin, and Patricia Ryan Madsen. 00:20:36.840 --> 00:20:41.879 This episode was produced by Katherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams. 00:20:42.060 --> 00:20:43.710 Our music is from Floyd Wonder. 00:20:43.860 --> 00:20:46.379 With special thanks to Podium Podcast Company. 00:20:46.980 --> 00:20:50.250 Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. 00:20:50.340 --> 00:20:52.500 Be sure to subscribe and rate us. 00:20:52.649 --> 00:20:55.695 Also follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok, and Instagram. 00:20:55.995 --> 00:21:00.015 And check out fastersmarter.io for deep dive videos, English language 00:21:00.015 --> 00:21:02.145 learning content, and our newsletter. 00:21:02.685 --> 00:21:06.315 Please also consider joining the Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community 00:21:06.555 --> 00:21:07.675 at fastersmarter.io/learning. 00:21:09.435 --> 00:21:13.245 You'll find video lessons, learning quests, discussion boards, my 00:21:13.245 --> 00:21:15.555 AI coach, and our book club. 00:21:15.705 --> 00:21:20.565 Again, that's fastersmarter.io/learning to become part of the Think Fast 00:21:20.745 --> 00:21:22.395 Talk Smart Learning Community.