Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques

How to turn doubt and suspicion into hopefulness and trust.

There’s a lot in the world to make us cynical about other people and their motives and intentions. But by “trusting loudly,” Professor Jamil Zaki believes we can renew our faith in one another.
Zaki is a professor of psychology at Stanford, director of the Stanford Social Neuroscience lab, and author of several books, including his most recent, Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness. While many people feel suspicious of others and are reluctant to trust them, Zaki finds that relying on other people is a necessary part of forming relationships.
“Acts of trust are the bedrock on which relationships are formed,” Zaki says. “The only way that strangers become friends and friends become best friends, the only way that we can build partnerships is through a willingness to count on one another.”
In this Rethinks episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Zaki joins host Matt Abrahams to discuss practical strategies for fostering trust and challenging our cynical assumptions, offering a hopeful perspective on human nature, backed by surprising scientific insights.

Episode Reference Links:
 
Connect:

Chapters:

  • (00:00) - Introduction
  • (03:39) - Defining Trust and Its Importance
  • (04:30) - Building Better Trust
  • (06:01) - Understanding Cynicism
  • (08:23) - The Cynicism Spectrum
  • (10:43) - Fostering Hopeful Skepticism
  • (12:57) - Challenges of Overcoming Cynicism
  • (14:49) - Positive Gossip and Positive Noticing
  • (17:47) - Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
  • (20:43) - The Final Three Questions
  • (28:55) - Conclusion

********
Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.

Go to Quince.com/ThinkFast for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns.

Join our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be.

Creators and Guests

Host
Matt Abrahams
Lecturer Stanford University Graduate School of Business | Think Fast Talk Smart podcast host
Guest
Jamil Zaki
Professor of Psychology; Author of Hope For Cynics and The War For Kindness

What is Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques?

One of the most essential ingredients to success in business and life is effective communication.
Join Matt Abrahams, best-selling author and Strategic Communication lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, as he interviews experts to provide actionable insights that help you communicate with clarity, confidence, and impact. From handling impromptu questions to crafting compelling messages, Matt explores practical strategies for real-world communication challenges.

Whether you’re navigating a high-stakes presentation, perfecting your email tone, or speaking off the cuff, Think Fast, Talk Smart equips you with the tools, techniques, and best practices to express yourself effectively in any situation. Enhance your communication skills to elevate your career and build stronger professional relationships.

Tune in every Tuesday for new episodes. Subscribe now to unlock your potential as a thoughtful, impactful communicator. Learn more and sign up for our eNewsletter at fastersmarter.io.

Matt Abrahams: Without trust,
our relationship struggle.

Our organizations fail
and our societies suffer.

We must actively strengthen bonds
and appreciate others even when

we disagree and have challenges.

Today we're opening our vault to revisit
a prior discussion and learn to foster

trust and build hopeful skepticism.

You'll learn useful techniques like how
to trust loudly from Stanford Psychology

Professor and my colleague, Jamil Zaki.

Enjoy this Think Fast Talk
Smart Rethinks episode.

It doesn't take much to see how
cynical we are in the world today.

We doubt, we lack trust.

What if we could develop hopeful
skepticism where we trust loudly?

My name's Matt Abrahams, and I
teach strategic communication at

Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Welcome to Think Fast,
Talk Smart, the podcast.

Today, I look forward to
speaking with Jamil Zaki.

Jamil is a professor of psychology
at Stanford and the director of the

Stanford Social Neuroscience Lab.

He studies empathy and kindness, both at
the interpersonal and neuroscience level.

He has a new book out
that I really enjoyed.

It's called Hope for Cynics: The
Surprising Science of Human Goodness.

Jamil, I am so excited
for our conversation.

We've had such great chats with some
of your colleagues in the psychology

department at Stanford, Jeanne
Tsai, Alia Crum, Phil Zimbardo.

Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart.

Jamil Zaki: Oh, thank you so much, Matt.

It's a pleasure to be here.

Matt Abrahams: Awesome.

Should we get started?

Jamil Zaki: Let's do it.

Matt Abrahams: Excellent.

Trust is an important
part of what you study.

Can you define trust from your
perspective and its impact

on the relationships we have?

Jamil Zaki: Trust I would say is
one person's willingness to be

vulnerable on the expectation that
another person will step up and

have our best interest in mind.

So for instance, when you loan somebody
money, but also when you decide to

open up with a new acquaintance about
a struggle that you're going through.

When you allow a babysitter to watch your
kids, all of these are acts of trust.

And I would say that those acts are the
bedrock on which relationships are formed.

The only way that strangers become
friends and friends become best

friends, the only way that we can build
partnerships in business is through a

willingness to count on one another.

So without trust, all of those
relationships would disappear.

Matt Abrahams: Absolutely.

How are some ways that you have
seen or studied that people can

actually develop better trust?

And I'm assuming communication plays
an important role in all of that.

Jamil Zaki: Oh, absolutely.

Trust is a matter of managing
risk, it's a social bet.

If you count on somebody and
they betray you, you will lose.

And if you count on somebody and
they show up for you, you both win.

I think that we might be too risk
averse in our trusting relationships.

Why is that?

Well, that time that you're let down lives
on in your mind for years or decades.

We all remember the times
that we've been betrayed.

But the opportunities that we
miss, because we didn't trust

somebody who would have honored that
trust, we don't think of as much.

So I think that our risk calculation
is off and we might want to take

more leaps of faith on people.

You asked about how this could matter
in terms of communication, and I think

that there's an important point here too.

Because trust isn't just
about what you do, it's about

how you explain what you do.

I really love the term trusting loudly.

That is when you put your faith in
somebody else, it's important to tell

them that you're doing so and to tell
them that the reason you're doing

that is because you believe in them.

You say, well, you know,
I've been going through this.

I want to tell you about it
because I really trust you.

That simple message has way more
power than I think most of us realize.

It's a gift to another person and
makes it much more likely that they

will reciprocate by stepping up
and becoming trustworthy as well

as strengthening the relationship.

Matt Abrahams: I love that notion of
trusting loudly, making it explicit.

And in many ways, as you say, not only is
it an invitation and a gift, but it also

is a way of demonstrating vulnerability
and saying, I'm open to that.

In this notion of risk aversion,
we've talked about before on the

podcast, and we've had Dan Pink
on who talked about regrets.

And the regretting of not taking the
act because of not trusting, I think

looms large in my life and in others.

I appreciate that.

And I'm going to think a lot about
trusting loudly as we move forward.

Your new book focuses on cynicism.

What is cynicism from your perspective?

And what is what you
call the cynicism trap?

Jamil Zaki: Yeah.

So cynicism can be
thought of as a theory.

A theory about the world and
about humanity in particular.

It's the theory that most people, at their
core, are selfish, greedy, and dishonest.

Now, that is not to say
that a cynic believes nobody

will ever do something kind.

Rather, they think that those kind
acts are a surface level performance

of what we're supposed to be.

But if you had a magnifying glass
and could peer beneath the action

into a person's soul, they're
mostly looking out for themselves.

This is a worldview that
traps us in all sorts of ways.

But the major form in which it traps
us is that cynics lose all of the

powerful benefits that we've just
talked about when it comes to trust.

Because if you believe that every
act of trust is a social bet on

another person, and you also have a
theory that most people would lie,

cheat, and steal if they could.

Well then that bet is for suckers.

And we see that in cynics actions and
in their self report as well, right?

They tell us in the lab and they tell
researchers that they don't think it's a

smart decision to trust almost anybody.

And if you give them chances to trust
others, both in the laboratory and

if you measure how much they trust
people in their lives, they're much

less willing to take those chances.

And that means that they often
end up trapped in a smaller

version of their lives than they
might want to live in, right?

So they might not be betrayed as
much, but they also don't form as

many friendships and partnerships.

They lose access to the richness of
social life, which I would argue is

one of the best parts of being human.

Matt Abrahams: Is it binary?

Is it you're either a cynic or you're not?

Is there a continuum?

And what do you find in the work that
you've done and the work others have done

in terms of are most people towards the
cynical side or are they more optimistic?

And well, let me ask this,
what's the opposite of cynicism?

Jamil Zaki: First, cynicism is
not a binary, it's a spectrum.

So there's all sorts of tests where
you can measure your own cynicism

through answering questions like,
do you agree that most people would

lie if they could get away with it?

Or do you think that most people only help
others because they feel obligated to?

There's fifty questions like that,
you can find a cynicism test online.

And people range and they vary enormously.

I would add that it's not just
that people differ from each other.

We differ from ourselves
at different times and in

different environments, right?

So at a poker table, it's perfectly
natural to be pretty cynical about

the people you're playing against.

They probably do have their
best interest in mind.

At a charity drive, maybe that's
not as smart an assumption.

What's the opposite of a cynic?

It depends who you ask.

If you ask a cynic, then the opposite of a
cynic is a gullible rube or chump or mark.

The opposite of cynicism is being naive.

I would argue, from a scientific
perspective, being naïve and being cynical

are actually quite similar to one another.

A naïve person might credulously,
unthinkingly put faith in

everybody without evidence
and end up being betrayed.

A cynic credulously and unthinkingly
takes away faith from everybody.

And neither one of them
uses much evidence.

You can think of both naive trusters
and cynics as sort of like lawyers

in the trial against humanity, right?

Where cynics are part of the
prosecution and naive trusters

are part of the defense.

I would say that the opposite
of cynicism is skepticism.

That is, not having one assumption or
the other about what people are like.

But thinking instead of like a lawyer,
thinking like a scientist and looking

for evidence to support our claims.

Skeptics, unlike cynics, are
more open to learning from every

single act of communication,
every interaction that they have.

And that I think makes them a lot wiser
than either cynics or gullible people.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you
for that distinction.

What are things we can do to
foster what I think you call

hopeful skepticism versus cynicism?

How can we inculcate that?

How can we teach that to others?

How can we embody that in our own way
and approach in situations where we

might have a tendency to be cynical?

Jamil Zaki: Yeah, it's a hard task
because I think that our brains

and minds are set up for cynicism.

And actually, we've become more
cynical as a population over

the last fifty years, right?

So in 1972, about half of Americans
believed most people can be trusted.

By 2018, that had fallen to
a third of Americans, right?

So we have cynical tendencies,
I think, because we have what

psychologists call negativity bias.

That is, we pay more attention to
threats than we do to opportunities

or to beautiful things in the world.

And that makes sense from a
survival perspective, right?

A hundred thousand years ago, the person
who ignored a predator or a tsunami maybe

wouldn't make it to pass on their genes.

And the person who ignored the beauty
of a sunset might be just fine, right?

So, but that bias means that fighting
cynicism is an uphill battle.

But it's still a battle that
we can fight and we can win.

There's three steps that I suggest.

The first is to think differently.

So to acknowledge that
we have negativity bias.

And that might make us, as I was saying,
too risk averse when it comes to trust

and too negative in general about people.

There's all sorts of evidence that
people are more trustworthy, kinder,

more compassionate than we realize.

The average person underestimates
the average person.

So because of that, being skeptical
about our cynicism can help.

What I try to do when I find myself
judging somebody, feeling suspicious,

is to fact check my cynical beliefs.

I say, well, wait a minute.

Why do you think that?

Why are you so sure that this
person is going to betray you?

Why are you so sure that what
you're seeing in the news represents

what people are really like?

And that fact check can help me start in
the journey of overcoming my own cynicism.

Matt Abrahams: I think
that self reflection, while

hard, can be really helpful.

We tend to seek out confirmatory
experiences, which to me might be a

bit of a challenge for this cynicism
toolkit that you're providing.

What advice do you have
to broaden our worldview?

Because it's very easy for me to say,
oh see, that I was right, you know.

Are there suggestions you
have for managing that?

Jamil Zaki: Absolutely.

I think, first of all, I just
want to co sign what you've said.

It feels great to be right even if
what you're right about feels terrible.

A cynic might have a sort of
bleak, bitter satisfaction when

they see somebody act poorly.

Because they say, aha, I've had
their number all along, but we

shouldn't be so ready to sit on
our laurels as cynics, right?

Instead, we might want to challenge
ourselves, not just with what we

think, but with what we do, right?

We've talked about how we can
be reflective and challenge our

assumptions by fact checking them.

I, as I said, I sometimes say,
what evidence do you have to

support this cynical idea?

Oftentimes, my answer is,
not much evidence at all.

So the second step is to collect evidence.

What does that mean?

It means treat your life a little
bit more like an experiment.

If there is a person who you're
considering trusting and you're sort

of feeling yourself pulling away,
maybe make the opposite choice.

If you typically look at one
news source because it confirms

all of your expectations, try
to check out a different one.

Vary your experiences.

Now, I want to be clear.

I'm not telling people to
put it all on the line.

I'm not saying that you should send
your bank information to a prince who's

going to forward you fourteen million
dollars or to an influencer who says

that there's one weird trick that will
give you passive income and clear up

your skin at the same time, right?

We don't need to be naive.

We just need to be data driven, and when
we are, pleasant surprises are everywhere.

Matt Abrahams: I like that idea
that it's more than just reflection

and thinking, it's about the doing.

In thinking about my own life,
I know when something's going on

that I am a bit cynical about.

I'll seek

others I know who will
reinforce that cynicism.

I have friends who will see
the world the same way and we

get together and rar together.

But I also know there are times where I'm
feeling cynical and I have some friends

who are very optimistic and I'll seek them
out just to get a difference of opinion.

It's like being in a group
and purposely having a devil's

advocate to challenge you.

It's not just what happens
internally, it's also the people

you surround yourself with.

Jamil Zaki: Absolutely, we are
fundamentally social creatures

and the people you spend time
with, choosing them is sort of

like choosing who you will become.

Because you're choosing your
social environment and that

environment shapes you, right?

And I think that absolutely many
of us crave confirmation of our

negative assumptions and so we
gravitate towards negative people.

We also ourselves share a
lot of negative information.

There's a lot of temptation to go around
giving life a one star review on Yelp.

And that attracts a lot of
attention on social media as well.

Posting negatively gets you more clout,
more, uh, notoriety than being positive.

But this too is a trend we can fight.

One by surrounding ourselves with people,
as you said, this sort of team of rivals

approach where you look for a challenge.

But second, I also think that we can
honor our influence over others and

realize, you had asked earlier, is
there something we can do to fight

cynicism, not only in ourselves,
but in the people we care about?

One way to do that is through
what I call positive gossip.

We typically gossip most
about the harm that people do.

In my lab, we found that when we give
people stories or show them examples

of somebody acting selfishly, and
then somebody acting generously, and

we ask, which of these stories do you
want to pass on to future participants?

People are three times more likely
to gossip about a selfish person

than about a generous person.

And again, there is a great reason
for this from a survival perspective.

We want to protect our communities
from people who would hurt us.

That's a beautiful instinct.

But it doesn't always serve us,
in fact, because we end up giving

people an unnecessarily negative
view of who's in the community.

And so what I try to do in my life and
what I encourage other people to do is

to catch people in the act of kindness
or of compassion or of open mindedness.

And then talk about them, call
them out for doing good things.

Two things happen when you do that.

The first is that you spread hopeful
skepticism to the people in your lives.

But the second is that you change
yourself because of course, what we

talk about becomes what we notice.

And so a habit of speech around positive
gossip turns into a habit of mind,

which we could call positive noticing.

Matt Abrahams: The notion of positive
gossip and being strategic and very

thoughtful about it, I think is a really
important thing for us in our own lives.

But I also think of within
organizations and within other

collectives, families, etcetera.

I really appreciate that.

You also study self fulfilling prophecies.

Can you define what those are for us
and perhaps give us an example or two

of how we can leverage these to help us
feel better and do better in the world?

Jamil Zaki: It's a great question.

And again, I think that a
lot of us underestimate our

power in the social world.

My friend Vanessa Bohns studies this.

She finds that much more than most
people realize how we treat others

changes who they become in our presence.

And that, for cynics, I think
leads to many toxic or sad

self fulfilling prophecies.

Cynics, for instance, are much more
likely to micromanage, spy on other

people, to threaten and browbeat them,
to try to protect themselves from what

they imagine is a selfish person on
the other side of the interaction.

Well, guess what?

If you treat people that way,
then they become more combative,

aggressive, disrespectful, and selfish.

And then the cynic says,
aha, I was right all along.

Matt Abrahams: And that's the self
fulfilling nature of it is you've

created the situation you expected.

Yeah.

Jamil Zaki: Exactly.

That's exactly right.

Now you asked not the gloomy
version, but the brighter version.

What can we do with it?

And I would say that there are many
cases where our instincts in an

interaction is how can I protect myself?

And that includes aggressive
or even disrespectful action

towards the other person.

But watch out because if you focus
too much on protecting yourself, you

might damage the relationship and
create that self fulfilling prophecy.

Instead, we can remember that by
acting positively, doing things

like taking leaps of faith, trusting
loudly, that those actions aren't just

ways of showing who we want to be.

They are also likely to bring
out the best in the other person.

This is what economists call earned trust,
which is that when we treat somebody

well, including treating them as though
they are a trustworthy and kind person.

We bring that side out of them people
lower themselves to our expectations if

we're cynical and they raise ourselves to
our expectations if we are non cynical.

Matt Abrahams: Using self fulfilling
prophecy for good can have so many

benefits and thank you for sharing.

I first became aware of self fulfilling
prophecies in my research on how to

feel more confident in communication.

And many of us set ourselves up for that
gloomy doomy version where we see the

one person who isn't paying attention and
then say, oh, we're not doing a good job

and therefore we end up doing a poor job.

Jamil Zaki: Hmm.

Matt Abrahams: And we can
use that same self fulfilling

prophecy mechanism for positive.

Highlight the person who is
engaged or think about the value.

So I think self fulfilling prophecy
is a tool we have in our toolkit.

That many of us don't think
of deploying to help us.

Jamil, this has been a
fantastic conversation.

Before we end, I'd like to
ask you three questions.

One I create just for you.

And two, I've asked everybody
who's been on this podcast.

Are you up for that?

Jamil Zaki: Absolutely.

Matt Abrahams: You have used just
eloquent language and analogies.

You've talked about toolkits,
you've talked about being lawyers,

you've talked about leaps of faith.

How much time do you spend thinking
about how you communicate these concepts?

And what sort of drives that
because you have such an eloquent

way of helping us to understand.

Is that conscious?

What do you think about to do that?

'Cause you do it so well.

Jamil Zaki: That's very
kind of you to say, Matt.

A secret about me is that before I was
ever a neuroscientist or psychologist,

I dreamed of being a novelist.

I love the written word and always have.

And so turns of phrase matter to me.

Metaphors matter to me.

And the beauty of language matters to me.

So when I write, do a lot of iteration
and I look for linguistic moments that

turns of phrase that feel resonant to me.

But I also learn an enormous amount
through dyadic conversation, right?

I consider myself really a thinker on the
page, but also a thinker in conversation.

Oftentimes, in real time when talking
to somebody, I'll come up with a way

of describing something that I never
would have if I wasn't with them, right?

And being shaped by those
conversations also helps me figure

out what resonates with other
people and what resonates with me.

Matt Abrahams: I will absolutely
read the novel you write when

you take the time to do that.

Thank you.

And even in your description of
what you do, you did so eloquently.

A lot of us, I believe, in that
conversation, in that dyadic exchange,

a lot can be learned and just having
a thought partner, maybe even if

the person didn't know they were
your thought partner, can be really

helpful for those turns of phrase.

Jamil Zaki: Yeah.

You know, to build on that, I think
a lot of us imagine thought to be

something that occurs in our heads.

I think thought happens in my
hand when I'm writing and in the

space between us when we speak.

Matt Abrahams: I love that quote.

Thought happens in the space between us.

And I would actually suggest that
many of the things you talk about,

trust, empathy happens in that
space between us, I like that.

I'll be curious to get your
answer to our second question.

Who's a communicator
that you admire and why?

Jamil Zaki: Oh, there's so many.

A person who immediately comes to
mind for me is the psychologist,

Dan Gilbert at Harvard.

I was a longtime admirer of Dan's and
I'm lucky to call him a friend now.

Dan showed me what writing and speaking
about the human mind could be, right?

So I shared that I wanted to be
a fiction writer and I always

loved neuroscience and psychology.

But one thing that I missed about it was
the poetry of language and description.

And Dan, more than almost anybody
I've ever encountered, just

naturally is able to access that.

His way of thinking about even very
esoteric pieces of social psychology

is so intuitive and so natural that
he makes these ideas come to life for

anybody regardless of their background.

Matt Abrahams: He is a great communicator.

I'm a big fan of his
written and spoken work.

You remind all of us that we're not
just translators for our material

and our ideas, but we're also
emotional conduits for it as well.

Where the way we feel about it and what
initiated our interest in it is something

that's also important and he does a
good job of it as you certainly do.

Final question.

What are the first three ingredients that
go into a successful communication recipe?

Jamil Zaki: I love this question.

If I may, I want to talk about one
type of communication that's been

part of my lab's work recently,
which is good disagreements.

Disagreement, quite common, uh, in a
lot of parts of our culture right now.

And my lab and I have been really
focused on, we bring people

together to disagree about politics.

And we ask ourselves, when do
those conversations go well?

What makes those disagreements useful?

And there are three things that we see.

The first is to agree about
what we disagree about.

Oftentimes, people bring so many
assumptions to these charged,

potentially threatening conversations
that they never bother to figure

out whether they have common ground.

They imagine that the Venn diagram between
their perspective and the other person's

perspective is really just two circles.

But if you actually were to
measure these people's views,

there'd be much more overlap.

So good disagreement often entails
actually figuring out what the

disagreement is before jumping into it.

The second piece that we find is
that it's much more effective to

share stories than to share opinions.

People often feel attacked if
you just tell them, no, you

were wrong, these are the facts.

They feel much more open if you
say, well, tell me about how

you started to feel this way.

And let me share how I
started to feel that way.

That's a natural narrative form of
communication that brings up trust.

And empathy as well.

And then the third piece is to be humble.

I think a lot of us, especially in
the context of disagreements, feel

like we need to be confident to win.

We're trying to battle
this person to the ground.

And it turns out that if we act that
way and come into a disagreement

that way, other people can tell and
they don't react very well to it.

That's a self fulfilling prophecy.

If instead we enter a disagreement
with the goal of accurately

representing ourselves, but also
learning from the other person.

If we show that humility, if we admit
when we're uncertain and ask questions

of the other person, well, first of all,
we actually do learn more from them.

But second, that self fulfilling
prophecy flips from something

gloomy into something virtuous.

That other person ends up listening
to us more, opening up more.

If you want somebody to pay attention
to your perspective, one of the best

things that you can do is show that
you're paying attention to theirs first.

Matt Abrahams: I am so glad that you
are studying disagreement and good

disagreement in our world today.

It is such a big challenge.

It's not surprising to me that you
would end up studying that because

I see it as sort of a crucible for
all the things you're interested in.

Cynicism and empathy and trust.

The notion of figuring out what
we agree on in our disagreement.

The use of story, clearly
something that's right in the

bullseye of what we talk about.

Jamil, thank you so much for your time.

Super instructive.

This notion of cynicism and how
to bolster hopeful skepticism, the

notion of trusting loudly, positive
gossip, all of this is so helpful.

Thank you for your time and
best of luck on your new book.

Jamil Zaki: Matt, this has been delightful
and thank you for all you do to bring

these great messages to so many people.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for joining
us for another episode of Think

Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast.

To learn more about how we create
our social reality, please listen

to Episode 84 with Brian Lowery.

And to better understand connection
and deepening relationships, check

out Episode 128 with David Brooks.

This episode was produced by Jenny Luna,
Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams.

Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

With thanks to Podium Podcast Company.

Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

Also follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram
and check out fastersmarter.io for

deep dive videos, English language
learning content, and our newsletter.