Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to the 'Lead Smarter. Not Harder' Podcast by David Kent, your window into the minds of visionary leaders, trailblazing innovators, and savvy business owners.
Get ready to immerse yourself in the captivating stories and invaluable lessons from the best and brightest minds in the business.
Hey Chuck, thank you for jumping on the call with me and joining us for the Lead Smarter
podcast.
It's been really fun getting a chance to talk with you.
We've had a chance to connect a few times now.
You've sent me several of your books, uh one which is new, which we will talk about
towards the end of podcast that I don't have yet, but I'm looking forward to.
But I really would like to talk to you about your expertise in leadership, about the
things that you've been doing in leadership for the past.
Gosh, I don't want to age you.
So I'm not gonna...
on!
I won't even talk about how long you've been doing it, but you're doing it long enough
that you've been able to be on a Ted talks that you've been able to write several books
about it.
Um, and, uh, as we were just talking about before we jumped on, um, you've been able to do
things that people feel is, uh, counterintuitive, but you've described that as an
inaccurate, um, identification of what you're actually doing.
So, leading into that, speaking of things that seem counterintuitive, but maybe are just
counter, uh, logical.
Yes, counterlogical was the term, which I've not heard before, by the way.
So, um, you mentioned, uh, when we talk that leadership and management have nothing to do
with each other.
And, um, you're the only one who's I've heard say this, but I'm sure that maybe you've
coined the concept, but I would love to hear, please tell me what you mean by that.
Yeah, sure, David.
It's great to be with you.
ah I'm excited.
I feel like you're kind of a brother from another mother.
ah get it.
Intuitively, you get it.
I thought I came up with this myself, and I've stopped thinking that I've had any original
ideas.
I'm pretty sure I never have, but I'm okay with that because I'm pretty sure nobody else
has either.
We're just thinking things that are out there and maybe reforming them in a way that sound
new.
They sound like
Wow, that's a new thought.
So I thought I had come up with this myself after observing and running 13 businesses and
10 industries on four continents.
I thought, there's nothing in common about leadership and management.
I got to write this down because I've just experienced this for decades and these things
are vastly different.
There's a reason why we have two different words.
And then I found this guy at Harvard, Harvard Professor John Carter, who says, leadership
and management have nothing in common.
So I'm not alone.
And there are other people.
There's not a lot of them.
But there's also all the data.
The data is all on our side.
So it's kind of fun trying to have an argument with someone who thinks that management
leadership, know, somehow in the middle, like on the edges, they're very different.
But by the time you get to the middle, they're the same thing.
uh There's not a thing that's the same about leadership and management.
Totally different things.
And we can demonstrate that as we go.
Yeah.
I mean, if I remember correctly, that's kind of where the distributed decision-making uh
you've you've talked about comes from.
And when you say there's no like, there's no overlap between leadership and management.
I've heard you talk about situations where uh people that will reach out to you or they'll
like butt heads with you in in social media or things like that.
You've actually had some interesting stories.
What where where have you seen or where have you experienced clashes with that concept uh
that
Well, I think just about everywhere.
I would say that all of most of my journey got kickstarted.
The light went on, I don't know, a few decades ago when I realized I looked around at my
own business and the businesses of just about everybody else in the world and realized,
huh, the factory system, the industrial age factory system is alive and well in every
company.
Google.
It doesn't matter how fancy you think you are, you are operating on an industrial age
factory system.
And in fact, this could be a rant all on its own, but the technology sector in America is
probably the most archaically structured environment I've ever been around.
I did consulting for Google and I was on a very short consulting because I was going to
tell them to go somewhere else, not that place, but I was going to go a different
direction and they didn't want it.
But I can't believe how top down and hierarchical and political and all these things that
the guys in ties making decisions for everybody else, top down decision making.
We get the information to flow up, we do the decisions down and all this stuff that
basically a pyramid scheme, David, that's all it is.
And I ask people when I speak, when I do speed engagements, why are pyramid schemes
illegal?
And they all say, it's because the pyramid scheme uses the people at the bottom to benefit
the people at the top.
Welcome to corporate America.
The book free thing pyramid scheme, that's all it is.
And it's just so archaic.
And the cool thing is, David, it doesn't have to be that way.
People who want to defend it think that if we do something flatter with lots of that
nonsense.
that it'll be too egalitarian, it'll move too slow, and it'll be earthy crunching, you'll
have to get a kimono or something, and you'll lose money.
I had this, I had a discussion with Jim Collins, one of the most data driven people I ever
met, Good to Great, his big book.
And he told me on this year long discussion we had that this was nonsense, that the
leadership and management are
are absolutely the same thing and here's why.
But all of his stuff, he never gave a single bit of data.
He would just give me emotional, here's a guy, he's all data driven.
But he wouldn't give me any data because there isn't any.
The data says that if you lead people instead of manage them, everything gets better.
So I've seen that clash throughout corporate America and many of the, most of the largest
companies in America are that way.
Thankfully, there's enough to know that what we're talking about here is not odd.
It's not an outlier.
It's not some freakish thing.
I can give you hundreds of giant corporations with thousands to tens of thousands of
people and thousands of smaller ones that have been doing this since the 50s.
It's not this new brand new thing.
And all the data is on their side.
Here's just an example, David.
Fortune is a Fortune magazine.
uh Best places to work.
I can't remember who that is that does that.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, fortune.
Maybe it's not them, but the best places to work thing for the last 25, 30 years, as long
as they've been running it, like 85 % of the companies that have been on their entire
time, it's only like 15 companies who have made it every year.
Most of them are companies that do not ascribe to the industrial age factory system
top-down thing.
They've blown it up.
They don't have managers anywhere.
They have leaders, but they don't have managers.
So the data is all on our side.
You've actually, so you brought up a point like we've had several conversations.
I've read uh at least part of one of your books now that I'm trying to finish before you
sell, tell me what the ending is on that.
But, uh one of the things that you're, you talk about and we've had conversations about is
the difference between leadership and management.
You're saying right now that there's no overlap, but maybe for listeners that weren't on
in all of our conversations, how would you define the difference between leader?
How would you separate those terms leadership and management?
there's a fairly classic definition of management.
It's basically using authority to command and control for the benefit of the managers or
the management.
So using the command and control structure for the benefit of the management.
So it's a top down, the whole thing is top down.
Management is about getting other people to do things that they may or may not want to do.
Leadership, my definition of leadership is inclusive.
I believe, and I've tested it in companies with a few thousand people, we've put this in
place.
I believe leadership is something every single person in the company, including the guy
pushing the broom, every one of them is a leader in some way.
And none of them have to be managed.
None of them.
And we can show you again, so many companies that it's not an anomaly anymore.
So the difference between the two is basically that
managers, the assumption behind management.
Here's the stupefying thing to me.
When I researched my first book, I went out and I asked myself, asked the robot, what is
the, what is management and what is the, the question I asked specifically was, does
management make people more productive?
Does management of people make people more productive?
And it comes back with, seven million responses.
And I started going through those and I can't find a single bit of research that supports
the idea that managers make people more successful.
Not one bit.
All of it says, well, leadership is important and starts conflating the two.
There's only one study done that I know of around the idea of managers being important.
And it came up with a conclusion that they're not.
And that was Google's oxygen study in 2003.
They threw all the managers out and then three months later they brought them all back in
because they did it wrong.
And then they had to justify their decision to bring them all back.
So they did a two year study on why managers are important.
Well, that's confirmation bias right out of the gate.
Let me show you why.
And they came up with 10 things people need at work.
Or it was actually eight to begin with and they studied it again a few years later.
Eight things people need at work.
And I agree with all eight of them.
Everybody needs those things.
By the way, one of those eight is not to be micromanaged.
That was one of the things they came up with.
So here's eight things people need.
They need infrastructure, they need training, they need, and then they said, therefore,
because people need these eight things, therefore, managers are critical.
Now that's just a huge leap of nonsense.
People need those eight things, great.
Let's ask the question, how could we get them to them?
And that becomes fascinating.
You realize that managers not only do not get them those things, they stand in the way of
them.
I think it was work.com or one of those guys did a study like eight years ago on reasons
people quit.
And it came up with 20.
15 of the reasons people quit directly related to their manager.
If you eliminate managers, you eliminate 75 % of the reasons people are going to quit
right out of the gate.
uh
what's the alternative to managers though?
So you know of uh organizations that have managed or let me put it this way that they've
not required managers.
oh What's the model you suggest or you say that would be a.
And by the way, I want to inject this before I answer the question.
Just this far into the uh podcast, I'm certain there are people out there saying, this guy
sounds like chaos and anarchy.
That's what it sounds like out of the gate.
I can tell you that the companies that have no managers are better organized, more
profitable, more procedure driven.
I've never seen smoother operations than people who don't have managers.
So what was your question again?
I had to get that in.
yeah, so that's actually helpful.
So I was actually asking of the alternative methods or the alternatives out there to
having a manager hierarchy structure.
one of the alternatives, we have this top-down view of the world that has to do with
pyramids.
And the pyramid means that as a supervisor, I have four people working for me.
And as a manager, I have seven supervisors.
And as a director, I have seven managers.
And as a vice president, I have seven direct...
So we have this thing where it's always one person managing multiple others.
And one of the things that you find out when you get rid of the industrial age factory
system model that we're mostly still doing is this statement.
Here's a principle that you can take with you that will change your business.
Anytime you have an opportunity or an obstacle, like how do we get these people to be
productive?
That would be an opportunity or an obstacle.
Anytime you one of those, here's how you should approach it.
Think people, not person.
When I was with Google,
They were asking me, how do we get our mojo back?
How do we actually get to where we're doing things like we did in the early stages?
And I said, well, you got to stop hiring heroic jerks who are, you these Steve Jobs-y whiz
that can hang the moon.
And instead you got to figure out how to get people to work together.
Well, that sounds too wooey gooey and mushy washy.
So here's how you do that.
So let's go back to Google study that people need eight things.
Well, here's the reality of it.
And it's unfair to managers, David.
It's the most unfair job we have in America is management.
Because we're asking those people to be gods.
They have to be good at eight things that are pretty much polar opposites.
They have to be great at detail.
have to be great at relationships.
They have to have a sense of urgency.
They have to be patient.
I mean, it's...
I couldn't find a single human being on the face of the earth who could do more than four
of the eight things really well.
And what happens?
They do the four well, they do one or two really badly and two of them get ignored and
everybody hates them for the two things they can't do.
And you put somebody else in and it's a different two things they can't do.
It's a thankless position.
What if we did this?
Let's just ask the manager, hey, you're really good at these four things or these three
things.
How about if you hang on to those three things and you join the team.
and you become productive as well.
So you start making shoes or programming or whatever it is, but you do that 40 % of your
time and you use the rest of your time to do those three things with the team.
And then let's find other people on the team to do the other four or five things.
Cause there's on the team of six or eight or 10 people, you're gonna have all eight of
those things covered by three or four of the people.
And the rest of them don't wanna do anything but be production.
So now you got three people or maybe four people doing what was one person's job and
they're all doing a little bit less production, but that's okay because the manager has
jumped back in and he's doing production or she's doing that.
So your production is actually increased and all eight of these things are getting done by
people who are great at them.
Think people, not person.
And what you're saying sounds like this kind of leads into what you told me about
managing, um, managing stuff rather than people.
So this manager no longer is a manager of people.
Now the manager that you've just moved into the organization, they're focused on the areas
of responsibilities that they have strengths, which is not just overseeing a group and
micromanaging individuals, but contributing to the group.
now the group is coming up with what, what to do going forward.
Is that kind of the, the managing stuff versus people?
Yeah, well, we call it participated, or we call it distributed decision making in the
participation age.
Everybody wants to participate in building a great company, not for you, but with you.
And if you invite all eight people on the team to build a great company with you, really,
you're going to let me use my brain?
Not in a vacuum.
There's no chaos in anarchy in it.
There's eight of us ensuring that it's not a stupid decision anymore.
Instead of one dobertized manager,
making these hilariously stupid decisions that Scott Adams made millions of dollars off of
with Dilbert.
So, you know, it's a wonderful opportunity to teach people to be adults at work like they
already are at home and take on responsibility, not just tasks.
So that's a big piece of it.
And then what happens is everybody leads in some way, or form, and everybody manages
except nobody manages people.
Everybody leads.
And here's the difference.
So manage stuff, lead people.
That's the mantra.
And why do we do that?
Because uh stuff actually does need to be managed.
uh In 1911, uh guy named David, Frederick Winslow Taylor wrote a paper called Scientific
Management.
And in that paper, he postulated two fatal assumptions about people.
Number one, people are
In the paper, he actually says, quote unquote, people are so stupid, they more resemble
the ox than any other type.
If you ever heard the phrase, that guy's dumb as an ox, he came from that paper.
So, I mean, what a fatalistic thing to say about the human race.
They're all stupid.
Here's the second one.
They're all lazy.
He called it soldiering.
Now David.
If people are, if the majority of people are stupid and lazy, there's only one solution to
that.
You find the rare, smart, motivated person and you lured them over the stupid and lazy
ones to force them to work and thus management was born.
The first place management is actually the word manager in use is in Hammurabi's code
5,000 years ago related to slaves.
Hey, if you don't want to be there, you do need to have somebody standing over you with a
whip.
managing you.
But see, I'm stuff.
We sat down here and I put my computer down, and it's still there.
It is stupid.
And it is lazy and it has to be managed.
Processes need to be managed trucks, you know, your microphone, it's all stupid and lazy.
So we need to manage stuff.
But I, I'm not stupid.
And I'm not lazy.
Lead me give me vision, give me training, give me mentoring and get the blankety blank out
of my way and watch me work.
I'm glad that, mean, that's the dream for somebody who's a leader, uh at least for me.
So for my own company, I'm specifically trying to find people that are gonna be better at
what they do.
And if I am smarter than them what they do, then I'm not only dealing with my own
limitations, but now I'm also carrying this person that shouldn't be there in the first
place.
And that's a...
I'm sorry, David, you hit on it right away because this is one of the problems with
management.
Management is nothing more, management of people is nothing more or nothing less than
pure, unadulterated codependence.
Here's a classic definition of codependent.
Doing for others what they could or should do for themselves.
That's management.
And I'm going to get used to that and actually like it because I have enough decisions to
make at home.
You just tell me what to do and I'll be a human doing instead of a human being.
it's one of them.
And then you get mad because nobody thinks.
It's like they're all dependent on me.
Well, who created that rule?
You did.
Well, and that makes sense.
It probably makes sense as to why you chose the name of that book about uh by giving
people humans their brains back by giving people their brains back.
that's that that makes that makes a lot of sense to me.
uh I'm interested for for me.
It's like, this makes a lot of sense on a very small scale, right?
Like I have a small business.
I run a small team.
And by running that team, my whole purpose is to like I see my whole purpose as enabling
them and empowering them with what they need and then getting out of their way as quickly
as possible.
It's easy for me to imagine that kind of environment working well in a small environment.
think most people would think of it like micro that works.
And then people would say, well, at scale that couldn't possibly work, right?
It's just too big.
Yeah.
And again, this is where data, I just have so much fun with people because everyone on
this podcast right now is emotional.
Oh, wait a minute.
No, I got to manage people.
I get it.
I was there.
We're all being emotional about this.
Here's the data.
Again, the 12, I think 12 of the 15 companies that have been on the Fortune best places to
work list for 30 years are all companies without managers.
Nobody gets managed.
The guy who did the m
I had the problems with my whole concept here.
He said, if there's ever an airplane made by self-management, make sure it's labeled.
I'm not getting on it.
Well, GE Aviation has eight factories for making engines for like one third of all the big
planes in the world.
This is a very large corporation.
There are no managers in those eight factories.
None, zero duck eggs.
That's really interesting.
I think people would have a hard time imagining a factory setting with no managers.
That's impressive.
And yet that's where it has, that's where it started.
One of the most famous examples is a company in California.
It's a tomato paste manufacturer.
And then when there were seven or eight of them, they decided they would never have
managers.
Now they are the largest tomato paste manufacturer in the nation, maybe in the world.
And there are no managers in the place and they've been doing this for 40 years.
I can give you in any industry, including government, places where people have stopped
having managers and it always works.
better.
First of all, you don't have the management tax because managers are useless.
We assume that if the only reason we have managers, we know this, David, the only reason
we have managers, well, because the eight stupid and lazy people won't work unless they
have somebody lording over them with a whip.
I can give you plenty of data that actually says when we remove those people, remove the
managers, the people blossom and are more productive.
All the data is on the side of making sure that we can bring this to fruition.
And it just takes so long.
We don't like change.
The pneumatic hammer was invented in 1890, and people weren't using it until 1990 or
something.
We don't like change.
Even in the face of it works better.
COVID is a great example.
When everybody went home, you could see all the CEOs were dazed and confused.
We don't understand how this is working.
And then when the first excuse came that they could bring them, haul them back into the
office, they did.
There's no data to support it.
Doesn't matter.
We don't need.
you brought that up.
That's probably the, for me, like, I'm not uh involved in really massive companies and
trying to imagine that structure working in a distributed decision-making platform.
But when I'm in a space where I'm talking to my own clients or people that run even
regional businesses and they're trying to figure out, how do I get a remote team member to
do what I know they're supposed to do?
How do I know they're doing what they're supposed to?
And the answer, for me, it's super intuitive.
but for some reason, it's still harder for me to connect it to your structure, which is
like, you don't manage the person you create.
Like you manage the data, like the, you know, follow, what's the output.
That's what you manage the output and get alignment on what that output should be.
And if the output's not there, then the data is going to fire them.
You don't have to fire them.
They didn't do their job and everybody can tell.
And you don't need a manager for that.
You need alignment and you need systems and you need structure in place.
And then everybody needs to be operating inside the system.
And.
You don't have to have, and the system shouldn't be that you're sitting behind them in an
office.
That's not a system.
So, Haier Corporation, H-A-I-E-R, the largest white goods manufacturer in the world,
stoves, refrigerators, microwaves.
They're bigger than Google.
They have like 90,000 full-time and 80,000 part-time people.
They're based in China, which is a highly top-down pyramid scheme, and hugely
bureaucratic.
I'm trying to get rid of all the excuses for why we can't do this.
And they, they, they implemented this like 15 years ago and the company blew up all over
the world.
There's not a single manager in those 160,000 people.
Nobody manages anybody.
And it's so crazy when we, they've, they've given the teams such autonomy that you can
actually here in Denver, if, if, if you're using the higher corporation accounting team
and you like what they're doing for you, number one, you're paying them out of your,
everybody's a profit center.
Everything, maintenance, accounting, marketing, it's all a profit center.
So accounting goes out to all the other people in higher in Denver and says, hey, we're
gonna give you accounting services.
How's much it costs?
And if you don't like it, you can go get somebody else.
You can find him.
own economy, it's like its own environment, like an organism.
They're all profit centers.
And so if you made them all profit centers, can, you know, they, most of these play, you
know, accounting, marketing, maintenance, so many of these things basically can give you
the finger because they're protected.
Well, they're not in higher corporation and they don't need to be.
Nobody ever fires them because they know they could be fired.
So they do their jobs and they do them excellent with excellence.
It's the largest white goods manufacturer in the world.
And I could just give you
You give me an industry and I'll give you a company, a large one that is functioning
without managers and great leadership.
And here's one of the beauties of this.
Management is about seven to 10 people.
That's all you can manage.
A leader can actually lead 50 people.
So think of how much thinner your middle layers are.
All that fat, that management tax goes away.
And when they, when you say that the scalability that's I'm just going to try to see if I
can play this out and understand you're basically saying that the leader, what they're
doing is they're focusing on empowering people.
They're not like going through all their tasks and managing their individual tasks.
Cause at that level, they're basically overseeing a micromanaging to a degree, uh, to a
depth that they could only manage seven to people.
So yeah, there's about 10 major principles in this.
One of them is leaders focus on results.
You already said this.
Leaders focus on results, managers focus on process.
So let's get the people because process does need to be managed, but why does some manager
who never runs the process, why should they come up with the process?
How about if we ask the eight people, first of all, let's do this together.
I'm not gonna tell you what result we need.
I'm the leader of 50 people, and so I got seven or eight teams under me.
I'm going to to GMA and say, okay, guys, what result do you guys think we should have on a
daily, weekly, monthly basis, financially, whatever, give us the...
And we're going to work on those together until we're all happy that that's really going
to be the thing that the company needs.
And so we're going to come up with that together because one of the other principles is
input equals ownership.
And if you just tell people what to do and you don't give them any input, any ability to
have input...
It's going to be the Dobertson Society.
Can you believe what the manager told us to do this time?
Let's go do it.
Is he going to look like a fool?
So we have to, we look at it from that perspective.
We give it to the teams to do.
And then we say, okay, if that's the result we want, now let's together design a process
that will get us that result.
And there's so much better at this than the manager because the manager hasn't run the
process for nine years.
You forgot what the process was, but the leader can be involved in that and can make sure
that whatever they come up with,
works for the whole company.
So he or she brings the strategic piece of that to this decision making process.
So they come up with it, they own it, and if it's broken, they fix it.
If the Dilbert Society manager comes up with it is broken, they just laugh.
That might be a problem.
uh Both my parents worked throughout my whole life in a factory.
I remember all growing up throughout my entire childhood, um hearing how they would hire a
manager right out of college that would come in and tell them how to do their job that
they've never seen or don't have any idea how it's supposed to be done.
My parents were just like, well, we have to do it and things are going to fall apart and
they're going to break really expensive equipment.
And that'll just be, that's just how things are ran and the organization just continued
that process.
And I think largely without having an understanding that there's another process that
could be done.
I don't know that people recognize the ability or that the options out there, it's hard
for me.
Cause I didn't until you brought this up at scale, I wouldn't have thought of me doing
what I do with my own team at a scale like that.
So here's a principle, another principle you just alliterated.
Managers tell, leaders ask.
This is probably the biggest one.
We think managers and leaders tell.
No, they don't.
Leaders ask, hey, what do you think we should do?
And what do you need?
And what resources and how do you need to be helped?
what, you know, you got what you need here and what's the result?
Leaders ask, they use the Socratic method.
Managers say, here's the process, here's the result, here's the tools, now go do your job.
Yep.
Managers tell, and that's what the kid out of college did.
He thinks that's his job is to go tell people who've been doing this for 30 years how to
do the job because that's how he adds value, by telling, because they're stupid and lazy.
Well, uh I definitely resonate with this from my experience with just listening to my
parents in a factory setting through every interaction I've had.
And yet somehow it still feels like it's difficult for me even knowing this intuitively as
we had talked about versus I guess logically, it's still hard for me to shake the idea
that, yeah, that's actually not necessary.
And it intuitively makes sense that you would remove.
effectively wasteful management or like you had mentioned like the management tax so that
you can get out of people's way and give them their brain back.
I would actually love for you to tell us a little bit.
I know you said you've recently released a new book which also sounds like it's counter
and counter logical.
Yeah, could you could you tell me about the new book that you've released recently?
The book is called Sell Less, Earn More.
And it's the anti-sales book.
Again, most of what we learned about sales comes from the industrial age factory system,
and we're still doing it.
Cold calls.
One of the dumbest things we've ever done.
Seth Godin, in the 90s, said, stop doing that.
And we're still doing it.
Permission marketing.
But we don't know what it means to build relationships.
So this book is the anti-sales book.
It's the cure for the common cold call.
It's for anybody who pretends to like sales, who knows in their heart that what they're
doing is just not helpful to the people around them and to the world around them.
Hey, I got one of these.
Stop me when you see something you like.
We're constantly selling.
My encouragement would be serve, don't sell, and you will make a bucket load more money.
So for small business owners who hate selling,
Don't try and get to like it.
Stop reading books by people who sales, who want you to love it too.
You don't have to.
We can get you to where you can just stop doing sales.
Stop talking to strangers.
That's the nature of this book.
You should never have to talk to another stranger in your life.
And if you do it right, you will make a lot more money than pounding uh on people's doors
when they didn't want you to.
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing that book as well.
I've got several of your books I still have to get through.
The first one being the uh Rehumanizing the Workforce and Giving People Their Brains Back.
Thanks for covering that topic as well as lots of topics that feed into that.
Before we go, is there, what do you like to read for pleasure?
The non-professional development side of you that just enjoys getting lost in something
and not turning your brain off?
I read a lot of I don't even use the word self development because I don't believe in that
necessarily the way it has evolved.
I write I read books that are highly practical about how I can become a better human
being.
Very practical, practical stuff about, you know, like how to breathe and why and what you
should do when you go to a gym and why you should go to a gym and, you know, and how to
get your your head straight in the morning and
So very practical things that will make me a better human being on a daily basis, it will
help me grow and become a better, bigger presence in the world around me.
I love reading that kind of stuff.
What's one of those that you either read most recently or you're reading now?
uh The Myth of Normal.
The Myth of Normal.
uh The author's name just...
The Myth of Normal.
uh Great book, and it basically talks about how every one of us has been traumatized our
whole lives.
Nobody's normal.
And nobody's abnormal.
And the guy with the addiction?
Well, I have an addiction to popcorn.
I I need my popcorn almost every night.
It's like a big hug.
That's an addiction, except it's adorable.
Alcoholism isn't.
the myth...
Another one, Vessel van der Koke wrote a book called uh The Body Keeps the Score.
Fantastic book that shows that all those things that we have experienced in our life, you
can almost pin most of your diseases to things that have happened to you in the past.
And so much of it is in our bodies.
It's not in our heads.
And there's lots of ways to get that out of there.
get it fixed.
those kinds of books, I just see them alive.
They make me different.
They make me change.
I need to look up that book myself.
Obviously, I'm focused on my own health and that one actually sounds really interesting.
I can tell like injuries and things that I've done, those things stick with you.
I didn't think that way when I was 20.
Now I feel like I'm only thinking that way.
So thank you for those recommendations.
Thank you for your time on this.
ah It's been great chatting with you and I'm looking forward to having another chat with
you again soon.
David, it's a pleasure.
Keep going.
Thanks.