Ex-CIA Officer Bustamante Plans US Exit Before 2030 Amid Decline

前CIA官员Bustamante计划在2030年前离开衰退中的美国 前情报人员Andrew Bustamante警告称美国正面临迫在眉睫的衰退和活跃的代理人战争，建议人们摒弃主观直觉，转而运用客观的情报运作技巧。 在这场深入对话中，Andrew Bustamante解析了如何将情报运作技巧——例如SADRAT框架、积极倾听技巧和客观视角——应用于日常生活、销售和商业中。他揭秘了CIA的运作，澄清了围绕性间谍手段、伪装和情绪控制的种种误解，并揭示了如何将焦虑转化为行动优势。此外，Bustamante还分享了自己离开CIA的个人感悟、果断行动的必要性，以及他对代理人战争和美国衰退的严峻地缘政治展望，包括他计划在2030年前迁往海外的打算。 感知（Perception）主观且易受情绪驱动，而客观视角（Perspective）需要搜集多角度数据；因此盲目相信直觉是极具缺陷的决策方式。 (61:22) CIA的核心情报框架SADRAT（定位、评估、发展、招募、掌控、终止）可直接迁移至商业领域，通过对潜在客户进行精准评估与筛选来最大化终身价值。 (69:01) 人类生活分为公开、私密与秘密三个层面；特工通过极小化的情绪镜像和克制展示自身脆弱点，渗透进目标的秘密生活以建立心理掌控。 (74:08) 在日常沟通中运用“二合一组合”公式（连续两个追问加一个肯定句陈述），能够在不引发审讯感的前提下持续主导谈话节奏。 (78:16) CIA特工将时间、距离与转向视作打破心理防御或察觉敌对跟踪的核心工具，并通过监测路线（SDR）规避外部威胁。 (89:18)

Former CIA covert intelligence officer Andrew Bustamante argues that human behavior is governed by predictable psychological drivers that can be systematically navigated through tradecraft rather than emotional intuition. He asserts that achieving personal, commercial, and geopolitical advantage requires overriding subjective perceptions in favor of disciplined, data-driven perspective. The Mechanics of Influence and Conversation Control (48:35) Bustamante frames interpersonal influence as a two-sided coin: manipulation directs individuals toward an operator's objective, while motivation aligns them with what they already desire. Both rely on the RICE framework—Reward, Ideology, Ego, and Coercion. Ideology and ego form the most durable motivators, whereas coercion damages long-term trust. Accessing an individual's deeper motives requires penetrating three layers of existence: the public persona, the private circle of roughly 15 close associates, and the secret life containing hidden fears, illicit actions, and unexpressed ambitions. To cross from the private into the secret life without provoking defensiveness, intelligence operatives deploy conversational tradecraft rather than interrogation. Bustamante outlines the 'two-in-one combination,' where an operative asks two follow-up questions followed by a single validating confirmation statement. Because the person asking questions steers the exchange, speaking less protects the operative's cover while making the counterpart feel understood, prompting them to voluntarily yield sensitive personal data. Replacing Emotional Perception with Objective Perspective (61:22) Bustamante challenges the conventional advice to 'trust your gut,' arguing that gut feelings are emotional reactions rooted in anxiety, insecurity, or fear that are statistically detached from reality. He distinguishes between sensory perception—subjective interpretations filtered through flawed human senses—and perspective, which entails gathering multi-angle, empirical data points from external viewpoints before reaching a conclusion. Rather than viewing anxiety as a defect, the CIA recruits candidates with baseline neuroticism and trains it into an observational asset. Operatives undergo stress inoculation at training facilities like The Farm, where controlled exposure to fear-inducing scenarios trains the rational brain to process facts before the emotional brain can trigger paralysis. Bustamante notes that 90% of individuals remain trapped in comfort zones out of fear; taking immediate, even imperfect action creates an instant competitive advantage over the hesitant majority. Applying Espionage Methodologies to Commercial Enterprise (67:15) Espionage recruitment models mirror commercial sales and business development. Both disciplines depend on volume, structured around the CIA's operational framework SADRAT: Spot, Assess, Develop, Recruit, Handle, and Terminate. Bustamante identifies 'Assess' as the phase most frequently neglected by conventional businesses, which often waste resources pitching unqualified prospects instead of vetting leads against specific criteria before investing capital or rapport. Just as unskilled liars expose themselves through verbal excess and fidgeting, unskilled salespeople fail by talking constantly and pushing feature lists. In contrast, effective sales mirror spy tradecraft: operators listen, validate customer pain points, and allow the buyer to justify the transaction. Bustamante points to his own company's reported 300% year-over-year revenue growth across three consecutive years as empirical proof that automating psychological validation drives commercial performance. Superpower Parity, Proxy Conflicts, and Relocation (110:27) On global statecraft, Bustamante forecasts that the United States and China will reach relative economic parity rather than a clean unilateral hegemony, creating an unstable bipolar dynamic analogous to competing corporate monopolies. In such environments, systemic volatility intensifies because rival powers focus exclusively on one another. He also asserts that World War III has already begun, characterized not by direct combat between great powers, but by decentralized proxy wars such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and anticipated tensions around Taiwan. Citing the domestic friction of an 'adolescent' nation undergoing acute polarization and declining institutional trust, Bustamante states his intention to relocate his family outside the United States between 2027 and 2030. He identifies regions such as Europe, Latin America, or the Middle East as potential alternatives to ensure long-term optionality and developmental advantages for his children. Bustamante concludes with a fundamental reassessment of human nature, rejecting his former belief in societal equality. He maintains that while people publicly endorse egalitarian principles, they privately seek structural advantages, edges, and unshared secrets over their peers. A central tension left unresolved is whether adopting an entirely transactional, tradecraft-driven worldview risks alienating authentic emotional connections outside operational environments.

前中央情报局（CIA）卧底情报官员 Andrew Bustamante 提出，基于人类心理预测的情报技能可被系统性转化为商业、沟通与个人突破的利器；他同时警告，受大国经济对峙与国内分裂影响，美国正步入动荡期，个人须依靠客观视角而非直觉做决策。 克服直觉偏见与客观视角训练 (62:50) Bustamante 指出，普通人习惯相信的“直觉”往往深受恐惧、焦虑与情绪误导，统计上极不准确。CIA 对特工的核心训练之一便是严格区分“感知”（基于自身感官的推测，主观且易受蒙骗）与“视角”（从多个外部角度收集客观事实）。情绪大脑对危险的反应快于理性大脑，未受训练者易陷入恐慌；特工必须通过受控的压力暴露训练（Stress Inoculation），延缓情绪反应，等待理性大脑分析客观数据。他建议个人从小范围的不适挑战起步，重塑大脑应对恐惧的逻辑。 掌握动机模型与切入私密领域 (48:35) 在人际操控与沟通中，Bustamante 将动机归纳为 RICE 模型：回报（Reward）、意识形态（Ideology）、强迫（Coercion）与自尊（Ego）。其中，意识形态与自尊驱动具有最高效用，而强迫由于破坏信任，效果最为低下。他将人类生活划分为公共生活、私人生活（约15人知晓）与私密生活（隐藏的弱点、越界行为与极度隐私）。情报招募的核心，在于通过提问和情绪共鸣跨越层级。特工通常运用“两问一确认”机制（连续提出两个追问并给予一次共情肯定），让对方感受到被深度倾听与认可，从而自愿交出掌控权。 情报技能向商业战略与销售转化 (67:15) 脱离情报机构后，Bustamante 发现间谍技术在商业中具备极高转化价值。CIA 发展线人的流程被提炼为 SADRAT 体系：物色（Spot）、评估（Assess）、发展（Develop）、招募（Recruit）、维系（Handle）及终止（Terminate）。他强调，大多数传统企业过度推销功能，却忽视了前期的“评估”环节。高效销售的关键在于通过针对性提问引导客户倾诉痛点，让客户自我说服；利用时间沉淀拆解对方防线，并以更快的调整速度应对市场变化，其企业借此连续三年实现了300%的年复合增长。 识破谎言误区与环境欺骗机制 (39:06) 针对广泛流传的测谎误区，Bustamante 强调眼神移动或微表情无法作为判断谎言的可靠依据，任何欺骗判定均建立在长时间观察建立的“基线行为”（Baseline）基础之上。未受训练的说谎者在压力下往往出现肢体多动、缺乏眼神接触或过度陈述等明显破绽；而受过训练的专业人员则崇尚“语言节制”，善于以反问掌握对话主导权。此外，在伪装策略上，CIA 优先采用假发、眼镜等轻度伪装（Level 1）或改变发型体重等中度伪装（Level 2），由于假体（Level 3）在极端温湿度下极易失效且易遗留证据，实战中极少采用。 地缘政治裂变与大国对峙预测 (110:27) Bustamante 预测中美两国最可能走向经济平手（Parity）或交替领先格局，而非单一国家绝对压制。他强调，生活在两个超级大国力量对等的交锋期极其危险，国际体系将被迫转向非黑即白的阵营选择。他直言第三次世界大战已通过代理人冲突在乌克兰等地展开，并认为台湾可能成为下一处交锋点。基于美国内部的政治极化与身份认同危机，他个人计划在2027至2030年间携家人离开美国，以寻求更有利的全球成长环境。 Bustamante 彻底改变了其早期对“人人平等”的信念，认为人类本性始终在秘密追逐不对称优势与排他特权，政治叙事中的平等常被作为整合权力的杠杆。该对谈的核心观点基于其个人在冷战后反恐情报体制下的实战经验，其关于地缘格局与宏观趋势的判断代表其个人推演，仍受未来国际博弈不确定性的检验。

## Background 该视频由知名访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人为 Steven Bartlett）于 2024 年 3 月 4 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目邀请了前美国中央情报局（CIA）秘密情报官员兼空军老兵安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante），深入探讨他如何将专业间谍技能、人性心理操控与谍报思维模型迁移至商业竞争与日常生活，并分享了他对地缘政治动荡的敏锐预警。 ## TL;DR 在长达两小时的高密度访谈中，布斯塔曼特拆解了 CIA 特工的核心心智与博弈法则。他详细剖析了识破谎言的行为基准线模型、驱动人类行动的四大核心动机（RICE 框架），以及如何区分主观情绪驱动的“感知”与客观理性的“视角”。结合自身从执掌核弹发射钥匙到潜伏受训、再到跨界商业并创立 EverydaySpy 的经历，他阐明了操纵与激励的本质、潜入他人“隐秘生活”的沟通策略，并对中美均势博弈与代理人战争现状提出了清醒而冷峻的洞察。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话透着一种罕见的冷峻务实与极致理性，特工视角的“反常识”冲击力贯穿始终。主持人巴特利特循序渐进地追问特工心理画像与童年创伤，布斯塔曼特则以毫无道德说教、甚至近乎手术刀般锋利的口吻剥开人性的伪善与脆弱。听众仿佛置身于一场高智商的秘密复盘课，在层层揭开欺骗与操控机制的战栗感中，被逼着直面真实世界的残酷规则与内在觉醒。 ## Bulletin - [19:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1170s) 前 CIA 卧底特工 Andrew Bustamante 透露，情报机构偏好招募具备适度童年创伤与道德弹性的人才，因其能务实对待秘密与欺骗并展现出惊人的执行力。 - [48:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2915s) 人类行为由四大动机驱动（RICE 框架：意识形态、自我认同、外在奖励、威胁强迫），其中意识形态影响力最强，而高压强迫最弱且会摧毁信任。 - [01:09:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4188s) CIA 实战中的 SADRAT 情报招募闭环（物色、评估、发展、招募、管理、终止）可完全迁移至商业销售，其中前置“评估”高价值客户是实现纯利爆发式增长的关键。 - [01:50:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6627s) Bustamante 研判第三次世界大战已通过代理人战争实质打响，中美将在经济与军力上走向均势或动态拉锯，为此他计划在 2027 年举家迁离美国以规避动荡周期。 ## Key takeaways - [08:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=493s) 操纵（让别人做你想做的事）与激励（让别人做他们自己想做的事）是同一枚硬币的两面，情报人员必须具备剥离善恶两分法的道德弹性。 - [15:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=904s) 童年情感缺失与低信任成长环境促使人形成守密与说谎的生存机制，而这种边缘反社会倾向往往会被情报系统识别并转化为特工武器。 - [03:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=237s) 情报官员（Handler）负责招募与操控，向其提供秘密的外国线人才是真正意义上的间谍（Asset），间谍活动在国际法框架下本质永远是非法的。 - [39:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2346s) 高阶欺骗者往往惜字如金并持续向对方提问，拙劣的说谎者才会滔滔不绝并不受控地在肢体上表现出坐立不安的“热椅反应”。 - [43:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2627s) 社交媒体推崇的眼动方向与微表情识谎多属伪科学，准确识别谎言必须建立目标在放松常态下的“行为基准线（Baseline）”以对比变量。 - [01:01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3682s) 绝大多数人受困于情绪化的“主观感知”，而 CIA 训练的核心在于教导特工彻底怀疑直觉，转而收集外部多维度数据建立“客观视角”。 - [01:14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4491s) 每个人都拥有公开生活、私密生活与隐秘生活三重层次；情报与深度操控的核心在于通过适度情感镜像与“开窗”技巧逐步渗透进对方的隐秘生活。 - [01:25:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5113s) 在人际与商业对话中，真正的控制权属于不断提问与给予定向确认的“提问者”，而非说话字数最多的人。 - [01:40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6005s) 适度焦虑是情报特工的超级超能力，高度警觉能成为保命壁垒；通过“压力接种法”可系统性训练理性脑逐步压制即时爆发的情绪脑。 - [01:52:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6735s) 中美走向双超级大国均势格局将颠覆全球秩序，双储备货币、双语言与旗鼓相当的军事力量并存会使大国对决的风险呈指数级上升。 - [01:59:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=7169s) 绝对平等是违背人性的谎言，人类潜意识与隐秘深处真正渴望的是超越同类的竞争优势，政客往往利用虚伪的平等口号挑起对立以操控民众。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=0s) 本期亮点预告：间谍技能与思维掌控 访谈伊始，前中央情报局（CIA）秘密情报官员安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直截了当地指出，他在长达 7 年的卧底生涯中，核心任务就是掌握如何操纵他人、如何在不被察觉的前提下生存与行动，以及如何搜集机密情报。离开 CIA 后，他发现这些顶级间谍技能完全可以迁移至商业与日常生活领域，帮助普通人打破心智壁垒、发挥潜能并取得商业突破。 在简短而密集的预告中，布斯塔曼特抛出了几个极具冲击力的核心认知： - **识破谎言**：拙劣说谎者最显著的破绽是什么？普通人该如何判断自己是否正在被欺骗； - **人类四大核心动机（MICE/RICE）**：人类的根本驱动力不外乎报酬（Reward）、意识形态（Ideology）、胁迫（Coercion）和自尊（Ego）。只要能站在一个人的“意识形态”视角与对方沟通，就能驱使其做出令人难以置信的举动； - **感知与视角的陷阱（Perception vs. Perspective）**：90% 的人都被困在主观情绪驱动的“感知”中，而情绪往往是极具误导性的。CIA 的专业训练核心就是教会特工识别并质疑自己的主观感知，转向客观理性视角； - **SADRAT 销售与互动框架**：这是一套他在 CIA 学到的人性转化模型，因为“人类处境极其容易预测”。他创办的企业正是凭借这套流程，连续三年实现了每年 300% 的爆发式增长； - **地缘政治预警**：从第三次世界大战的隐形爆发，到他个人为何计划在 2027 年左右离开美国，诸多劲爆话题层层递进。 --- ### [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=96s) 节目破纪录与五百万订阅里程碑 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向观众表达了由衷的震撼与感激。《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）开播仅三年多，YouTube 频道订阅数就已突破 500 万大关。巴特利特坦言，这完全超出了他当初最狂妄的想象——他原本以为三年能有 10 万订阅就不错了。 为了兑现与订阅观众之间持续提高制作门槛的承诺，巴特利特透露团队已经秘密筹备了 9 个月，将在 2024 年带来全方位的制作革新，去触达更顶级的嘉宾和全球化叙事，并呼吁观众顺手点击订阅支持节目。 --- ### [02:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=166s) 军旅生涯与中情局的真正职能 对话切入正题，巴特利特询问布斯塔曼特在 CIA 的具体服役时间。布斯塔曼特澄清说，与那些一干就是 30 年以上的老情报官相比，自己 7 年的 CIA 生涯相对较短。在此之前，他还身着美军制服服役了 7 年，为美国政府总共奉献了 14 年的时间。 在厘清 CIA 的机构性质时，布斯塔曼特解释道： - CIA 是美国负责搜集国外情报的核心平台，专注于收集任何影响美国国家安全的外国机密。 - 美国情报界（Intelligence Community, IC）由大约 36 个情报机构组成，而 CIA 只是其中之一。 - CIA 之所以带有“Central”（中央）一词，是因为它承担着整个情报界收集枢纽的角色，汇集并统筹来自各方的情报输入。 --- ### [03:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=237s) 术语解密：特工（Agent）、情报官员（Handler）与间谍的真相 公众受影视剧影响，对“间谍（Spy）”一词有着大量误解。布斯塔曼特就此深入拆解了情报与谍报（Espionage）领域的真实术语： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 传统谍报关系示意图 accDescr: 描述了情报官员与资产之间的双向互动关系，官员收集情报，资产提供国外秘密 subgraph HandlerSide["情报机构方"] H["情报官员 / 操盘者 (Handler)"] end subgraph AssetSide["外国情报源"] A["资产 / 线人 (Asset)"] end H -- "招募与操控" --> A A -- "提供秘密情报" --> H ``` - **操盘者 / 官员（Handler / Intelligence Officer）**：本国的情报人员，受雇于中情局（CIA）、英国军情六处（MI6）、摩萨德（Mossad）或中国国家安全部（MSS）等机构，负责走向一线搜集情报、发展并管理下线。 - **资产 / 间谍（Asset / Spy）**：真正向情报官员提供本国秘密的外国公民。在严格的行业术语中，那些出卖国家机密的“线人”才是间谍（Asset）。 - **专业定义**：大众俗称的“间谍”，在行内被称为训练有素的**情报官员（Intelligence Officer）**、**行动人员（Operator / Operative）**。只要是代表国家出境、通过人力情报（HUMINT）、信号情报（SIGINT）或测量与特征情报（MASINT）搜集秘密的人，都是情报官员。布斯塔曼特在 CIA 担任的正是这种角色。 --- ### [06:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=362s) 将间谍技艺应用于现实：破解人生的 12 道壁垒 离开 CIA 后，布斯塔曼特创立了 EverydaySpy，旨在把真实的国际间谍技术转化为普通人在商业与日常生活中突围的工具。巴特利特直言，普通大众能从中获得什么具体好处？ 布斯塔曼特提出了“人生壁垒（Barriers）”的底层逻辑： 1. **壁垒的普遍性与阶段性**：人生总共大约会遇到 12 种核心壁垒（贫困出身、单亲家庭、18岁自立、学业障碍如多动症与阅读障碍、心理焦虑、育儿挑战等）。所有人都会面对，只是遭遇的时间点不同。 2. **CIA 训练的真正精髓**：中情局对人性的壁垒有着极其透彻的理解。特工训练不仅是传授间谍技巧（Tradecraft），更是帮助特工本人穿透所有内心壁垒；更关键的是，它让你能够精准预判他人正在面临的壁垒。 3. **获取秘密的秘诀**：“如果你了解对方的壁垒，甚至比他们自己还了解其深层困境，当你引导并帮助他们突破这一壁垒时，他们就会心甘情愿地向你倾诉所有秘密。” --- ### [08:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=493s) 操纵的本质：无论你是否情愿，你都时刻处于被操纵中 针对巴特利特提出的核心问题——“在 CIA 训练中是否必须学习如何操纵（Manipulate）他人并迫使别人按你的意志行事”，布斯塔曼特秉持“极端透明（Radical Transparency）”的态度给出了绝对肯定的回答。 他坦诚地指出，想要操纵别人，在一次简单的对话中就能学会技巧。但最残酷的现实在于：**无论你主观上是否想操纵他人，外界与他人都在时刻操纵着你**，而你只是因为看不懂操纵机制而浑然不知。 在情报界，为了完成国家使命，特工常常不得不做出违背个人本意的事情；而在商业世界中，许多企业主陷入挣扎也是因为这种道德内耗——他们以为销售和管理就是必须变得虚伪、油滑和搞欺骗手段。接下来的核心，正是要剥离道德偏见，正视心理操控背后的客观规律。 ### [09:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=572s) 操纵与激励：一枚硬币的两面 Andrew Bustamante 指出，商业世界里充斥着狡诈的不良商人，但人们往往对“操纵”抱有刻板的负面偏见。事实上，如果把人的影响力比作一枚硬币，操纵只是这枚硬币的其中一面，它本身蕴含着巨大的实用价值。 操纵与激励的本质区别在于驱动力的归属： - **操纵（Manipulation）**：设法让别人去做**你**想让他们做的事情。 - **激励（Motivation）**：设法让别人去做**他们自己**本来就想做的事情。 这两者在人际博弈与情报工作中同等重要。主持人 Steven Bartlett 随即切入核心：中央情报局（CIA）当年之所以挑中 Andrew，其深层的心理侧写（psychological profile）并非偶然，而是深深植根于他童年时期极度特殊的家庭环境与心理创伤之中。 --- ### [10:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=621s) 缺失父亲与跨种族重组家庭的冷色调童年 Andrew 坦言，要理解他的心理底色，必须回到他生命的起点。他的生父在他出生前就死于加利福尼亚州的一起暴力犯罪，他一生从未见过生父。母亲在 1980 年生下他时，不仅是一位单亲母亲，更是一位带着被害死者遗腹子的年轻单亲妈妈。他的家庭背景在种族层面上极为复杂：生母是拉丁裔（Latina），生父是美洲印第安人（American Indian），这种少数族裔的血脉在当年的社会环境中尤为微妙。 随后，母亲改嫁给了一名白人男子（后成为 Andrew 的继父并正式收养了他），并生下了两个白人同母异父的妹妹。继父的核心目标是让母亲彻底脱离原生的天主教拉丁大家庭，摆脱家庭琐事与纷争，母亲也完全配合这种抽离。生长在这样一个肤色与文化错位的家庭中，Andrew 彻底成了边缘人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Andrew Bustamante 童年家庭关系 accDescr: 展示生父遇害、母亲改嫁以及他在家庭中形成的边缘处境 subgraph Origin["原生血缘"] BioFather["生父（美洲印第安人）<br>（在 Andrew 出生前死于暴力犯罪）"] Mother["母亲（拉丁裔）<br>（事业型女性、冷漠、推崇女权）"] BioFather -.->|遗腹子| Andrew["Andrew Bustamante"] Mother --> Andrew end subgraph StepFamily["重组家庭"] StepFather["继父/养父（白人）<br>（排斥天主教拉丁家族琐事）"] Mother === StepFather StepFather --> Sisters["两个同母异父妹妹（白人）"] Mother --> Sisters end StepFamily -.->|情感疏离与学业高压| Andrew ``` --- ### [11:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=715s) 功利化的学术培养与“选择之爱”的打击 当被问及成长过程中有哪些需求未被满足时，Andrew 直言自己从小从未感受过爱。他在理智与逻辑上清楚母亲是爱他的，但母亲性格极其冷漠，全副身心只撲在个人事业成功和女权主义上。如今人到中年，他和妹妹们私下交流时一致认为，他们的母亲在本质上根本就是一个“不想当妈妈的女人”，仅仅是因为社会和家庭的传统期许，才勉强扮演了母亲的角色。 在那个家里，情感支持和温暖的拥抱是彻底缺位的，取而代之的是无休止的“学术支持”（academic support）。这种严苛的学业督促背后藏着极为功利的动机： > “如果你培养出一个学业拔尖的孩子，只要他一满 18 岁，就能立刻滚出家门（get the fuck out of the house），你就能彻底重获自己的生活。” 母亲的培养哲学完全是目标导向的——用学业成功换取快速摆脱抚养责任。虽然这让 Andrew 后来拿到了全额大学奖学金并在各领域表现优异，但也给他留下了深重的心灵空洞，让他一生都在怀疑家庭中到底存不存在爱，甚至怀疑爱本身是否重要。 最令他刻骨铭心的一幕发生在他与继父爆发激烈争吵时。年少的 Andrew 走向母亲寻求情感依靠，带着一丝渴望问她：“你到底爱我，还是更爱爸爸？”母亲平静且条理分明地看着他回答： > “我当然更爱你的爸爸。因为你是我生的，我**必须**爱你（I have to love you）；但爱你的爸爸是我自己的选择。正因为那是一个选择，所以我必须更爱他。” 这番冷酷且看似逻辑严密的说辞彻底震撼了 Andrew。直到如今自己成家为人父，他依然无法理解母亲当年为何能如此理性地将爱进行等级排序。 --- ### [15:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=904s) 秘密、谎言与反社会特质的萌芽 长期的情感孤立迫使 Andrew 建立起一套截然不同的生存策略。在一个连父母和妹妹都无法信任的屋檐下，他既不能分享自己的心动女孩，也不能倾诉落选舞会的失落，因为没有人真正在意： - **秘密的合理化**：既然身边没有任何人可以托付心事，保守秘密就成了绝对的生存刚需。他坚信自己有权保留秘密，而家人同样在对他隐瞒秘密。 - **谎言的正当化**：既然秘密是生活常态，那么为了守住秘密，说谎便顺理成章地变得完全可以接受。 - **社交反社会特质（Sociopathy）的形成**：独自对抗环境的独行侠们会自然衍生出某种边缘反社会心理——他们清楚哪些行为在文化道德上不被接受，但只要不摆上台面，就可以在暗地里肆无忌惮地践行。他由此掌握了保守秘密、精妙撒谎且绝不露破绽的能力。 Andrew 提炼出了一种深刻的人性信任机制差异： | 成长环境类型 | 心理出厂设定 | 核心优势与致命缺陷 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **高信任家庭** | 默认信任他人（Trust first） | **脆弱性极高**。天生缺乏防御机制，后天极难训练其辨别何时不应信任他人。 | | **低信任/孤立家庭** | 默认怀疑他人（No trust） | **具备天然防御层**。始终保持警惕，后天随时可以按需选择去信任他人。 | --- ### [17:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1033s) 心理布线的代价与为人父母的代际恐惧 这种独特的心理结构（wiring）虽然冷酷且带有缺陷，但在现实功利世界中却为 Andrew 带来了巨大红利。依靠对数字、经济、实证指标而非内部主观情绪的绝对聚焦，他在商业和情报领域一路顺风顺水。然而，当他面对下一代时，这种心理布线却成了最大的担忧。 主持人 Steven 坦言自己也深陷类似的恐惧：他已与伴侣相恋 4 年，正处于考虑生育的关口，但他意识到自己是个对外界认可与职业成就高度成瘾的工作狂，极度害怕自己的心理缺陷会把未来的孩子毁掉。 对此，Andrew 给予了极其坦诚的回应： > “你作为父亲一定会搞砸的，我们当父母的通通都会搞砸。真正的问题在于，我们搞砸的程度到底有多大？” Andrew 坦承“父辈的罪孽必将传递（the sins of the father pass on）”，他目前竭尽全力在做的事，是将自己传给孩子的负面缺陷控制在他们后天容易修补的微小范围内，并最大限度地传递积极特质。而对于职业情报官员而言，在这一层家庭创伤之上，CIA 的特训体系还会叠加一层更为特殊且极端的心理重塑。 ### [19:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1170s) 特工的心理画像：道德弹性与童年创伤 中央情报局（CIA）在招募外勤特工（Field Operators）时，态度其实异乎寻常地坦诚直接。招募人员会当面指出，你之所以被选中，恰恰是因为你的心智“有些不正常”（a little fucked up）。机构看中的是一种非常独特的心理画像：这类人能够以极致务实的视角来看待秘密与谎言，在情报界这被称为“道德弹性”（moral flexibility）。某些行为在特定道德体系中可能被视为离经叛道，但换到另一个情境下，特工会认为这样做完全合理且合乎情理。这种思维机制往往从童年时期便已深植于内心，而 CIA 则极其擅长发掘并利用这种心理特质，将其转化为服务于国家安全战略的武器。 不仅如此，这种特殊的心理构建与“高绩效表现”密切相关。童年创伤（childhood trauma）与成年后的高绩效表现之间存在着经过大量科学验证的确定联系。无论是 CIA、英国秘密情报局（MI6）还是以色列摩萨德（Mossad），全球顶尖情报机构都掌握了一个规律：当一个人带着恰到好处的童年创伤且具备极高的执行力时，只要在他们人生的关键转折点及时介入，就能将他们塑造成忠诚度极高、产出惊人的王牌外勤特工，甚至能让其为国家隐秘战线奉献三十余年的职业生涯。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核心特工心理特征与招募转化机制 accDescr: 展示从童年创伤到被情报机构转化为高绩效外勤特工的心理发展路径 subgraph Trait["内在心理特质"] A["适度童年创伤"] --> B["高绩效表现倾向"] C["道德弹性意识"] --> D["务实看待秘密与谎言"] end subgraph Selection["机构评估与转化"] B & D --> E["特定心理画像识别"] E --> F["关键人生节点介入招募"] F --> G["高忠诚度与长期服役特工"] end ``` --- ### [21:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1273s) 执掌核武发射钥匙：身处地下百英尺的军旅生涯 2007年，27岁的 Andrew 正准备退役并寻找人生的下一步，就在此时迎来了命运的转向。在进入情报界之前，他是美国空军的一名核导弹发射官（Nuclear Missile Officer），手中直接掌握着战略级民兵洲际弹道导弹（ICBM）的发射大权——那是冷战遗留下用于维持“相互保证毁灭”（Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD）的终极毁灭工具。发射核弹实行双人控制机制，发射官脖子上挂着系有实体钥匙的钥匙环。一旦接到核打击密码指令，两名操作员需将代码输入老旧的计算机系统，确认无误后同时将各自的钥匙插入发射井操控台，步调一致地同时转动钥匙（turn in unison），从而唤醒并打出发射井中的战略核弹头。 当被问及为何27岁就能掌握如此毁灭性力量的钥匙时，Andrew 自嘲这根本不是一系列深思熟虑的英明决定，仅仅是因为自己“习惯于唯命是从”（I did what I was told）。他在高中成绩优异，听从母亲的建议申请并获得了美国空军学院（US Air Force Academy）的全额奖学金；军校毕业被授予少尉军衔后，空军让他学飞行他就去学飞行，军方转而需要他去钻研核武器与天基武器，他也毫无怨言地服从分配。他就这样顺着体制的阶梯一路向上，直到某一天，他赫然发现自己置身于地下100英尺深处，内心只剩下无尽的痛苦与荒谬感。 - **核打击控制方式**：两名值班军官分别持有独立物理钥匙，必须在听到指令并核对代码后，在不同机柜前协同同步拧动，单人无法擅自启动。 - **服役背景**：毕业于美国空军学院，曾受训接受飞行及核武器与太空武器操控体系，年仅27岁即晋升为战略核武值班关键岗位。 --- ### [23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1395s) 地下百英尺的煎熬：“冗余中的冗余”与待命机制 核导弹发射官的工作环境极度压抑。操作员需要下潜到地下100英尺的发射控制舱（Launch Control Capsule, LCC）内，每次执行长达72小时的封闭轮班。在这整整三天三夜里，狭窄密闭的空间内只有你和另一名持有第二把钥匙的搭档，而两个人往往互无好感。同一空军基地会有约30个机组、大约60人同时处于地下执勤状态；纵观全美，任何时刻都有约200名美军士兵深埋地下，各拥核大国亦是如此。他们的全职工作就是坐在那里，不见天日地等待一场大家竭尽全力阻止其发生的第三次世界大战爆发。 在长达两年的地下值班岁月中，没有阳光，只有漫长的自我拷问：“我到底在做什么？我只是一个全人类都在拼命阻止的灾难情境里的‘冗余中的冗余’（a redundancy of a redundancy）。坐在这里不发射导弹、等待一条深知永远不该到来的命令，这算是有价值的人生吗？”然而，当主持人问及若真收到发射命令是否会转动钥匙时，Andrew 斩钉截铁地回答：“绝对会，这就是职责所在。”更残酷的现实在于，发射官根本无法分辨指令是真实的核战号角还是一场测试神经的突击演习（drill），操作员只需按规程核验代码、插钥匙、转动，剩下的一切全交由机械系统执行。令人意外的是，这项极为枯燥绝望的工作人员流失率却极低，原因正在于军方在早期心理筛查阶段极其严苛，精准锁定了最能够耐受这种特殊环境的人群。 --- ### [26:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1563s) 来自和平队申请界面的神秘弹窗 在深埋地下的发射井里苦熬了两年后，Andrew 彻底厌倦了这份等待毁灭世界的工作，他极度渴望奔向完全相反的人生极端——正如一段极其痛苦的恋爱分手后，人们总会下意识去寻找性格完全相反的新伴侣。他决定退役去申请美国和平队（Peace Corps），希望前往非洲教孩子们英语、拯救孤儿、从事小额信贷或帮当地人搭建茅草屋，做一些实实在在建设世界而非摧毁世界的事情。 然而，正当他在美国政府官网上认真填写和平队申请表时，电脑屏幕上突然毫无征兆地弹出了一个提示窗口。弹窗写着大致含义为：“我们感谢您的申请。我们希望有另一位招聘人员就另一项机会与您联系，是否愿意将您的申请暂缓72小时？”对于一个27岁的单身小伙来说，骨子里的冒险冲动和“或许还有更好出路”的念头瞬间占了上风，他随即点击了确认键。 短短不到24小时，他的手机便响起了一个来自弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿区号“703”的未显示身份来电。电话那头是一位女性，不仅准确说出了他的姓名，核实了他申请和平队的记录，还询问他是否愿意接触国家安全领域的其他政府机密职位。对方极其干脆地表示，将通过 FedEx 隔夜特快向他寄送全套纸质飞机票、华盛顿特区的酒店预订确认单以及租车凭据，邀请他即刻前往华盛顿特区进行封闭面试。面对突如其来的离奇安排，Andrew 的第一反应是自己遭遇了一场恶作剧电话（prank call）。 - **申请转折**：因厌倦核威慑的破坏性属性，转向具备人道主义色彩的美国和平队（Peace Corps）。 - **拦截机制**：CIA在政府招聘系统底层嵌入了特定画像筛选算法，精准拦截符合情报特工资质的高潜力候选人。 - **初次接触**：72小时暂缓承诺在24小时内即被跟进，来电区号显示为代表北弗吉尼亚/大华盛顿机密政府机构密集的“703”，并提供全套报销的跨州实地面谈邀请。 ### [28:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1733s) 顺藤摸瓜的神秘初试：从蒙大拿基地到国家秘密行动处 机票寄到手中后，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特身上那种27岁单身年轻人的冲动与好奇心瞬间被点燃。他顺着对方留下的线索一步步摸索：机票是真的，落地后租车柜台的预订记录是真的，酒店也是真的。落地后，他接到一通确认电话：“你安全抵达了吗？”随后对方告知了他第二天需要前往的地址。次日清晨，他走进一座毫不起眼的普通建筑，接待室里已经坐着十来个人。大家打扮得大同小异，彼此完全不知道对方是来干什么的，只隐约明白这与某份政府工作有关；简单闲聊几句，才发现有人来自金融领域，有的女士曾是社工。 轮到安德鲁时，他被叫进一间办公室，接受所谓的首轮初筛面试。这一轮主要考察求职者的兴趣偏好与个人契合度。就在面试快结束时，女面试官平静地对他说，他或许非常适合中央情报局（CIA）的“国家秘密行动处”（National Clandestine Service）。安德鲁当时根本没听过这个部门，对方随即用直白的话挑明：“简单来说，我们希望你成为一名外勤情报官员（Field Officer）——也就是电影里常说的间谍（Spy）。”安德鲁内心那个7岁男孩的梦想瞬间炸开，脑子里全都是豪车、晚礼服与美相伴的特工幻想，心想“非洲那些饥饿儿童的援助项目可以先等等了，这就是我想做的事！” 然而，紧随其后的是严格的保密警示。面试官严肃地告诉他，绝不能向任何人透露自己正在申请这个岗位；他必须返回酒店，飞回蒙大拿州的马姆斯特罗姆空军基地（Malmstrom Air Force Base），继续过正常人的生活。若有人打听，只能回答说自己去华盛顿特区参加了一次普通的政府职位面试，不知道能不能录用。不久之后，联络再度开启。他被多次召回华盛顿特区，随后的多轮面试强度层层递增，从最初的契合度闲聊升级为高难度的能力测验：面对考官的场景推演题、烧脑谜题，以及初步的心理评估。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: CIA Recruitment and Screening Process accDescr: The step-by-step interview and onboarding path followed by Andrew Bustamante into the CIA. subgraph Phase1["第一阶段：初筛与接头"] A["收到神秘实体信件与机票"] --> B["顺藤摸瓜：抵达DC普通办公楼"] B --> C["首轮契合度面试"] C --> D["表明意向：国家秘密行动处外勤官员"] end subgraph Phase2["第二阶段：深度筛选与考核"] D --> E["封口指令：返回空军基地隐蔽日常"] E --> F["多次赴DC展开高难度复试"] F --> G["场景测验、谜题与深度心理评估"] end subgraph Phase3["第三阶段：录用与特训"] G --> H["正式下发录用信：耗时9个月（常规18个月）"] H --> I["进入全封闭模拟世界受训（批次化培训）"] end ``` --- ### [31:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1891s) 收到录用信那一刻：“打勾游戏”的终极满足 当正式录用信通过邮寄送达手中时，安德鲁感到前所未有的舒畅与快意。一种巨大的心理代偿与价值认同瞬间将他淹没，他当时信奉的信条是：“这世上能有几个人得到这种机会？”这封信给了他多年来拼命隐忍、循规蹈矩的人生最强烈的确认感。他在心底对自己说：现在我终于想通了，我为什么要硬着头皮去读自己根本不喜欢的大学，为什么要忍受继父的苛责，为什么要对母亲言听计从。你不需要被爱，不需要支持，也不需要一个真正在乎你这个人的家庭，你所要做的只是把该死的方框一个个打上勾（Check the boxes）——因为只要你把这些指标全勾选完毕，你就能走到这里，就能获得彻底的自由。 但这种解脱感很快证明只是一种幻觉。正如安德鲁后来所意识到的：当你仅仅因为“擅长打勾”而被雇佣时，你并没有真正自由；等待你的只是方框本身被替换成了另一批规则，你仍然得日复一日地把新的方框逐一填满。从这一刻起，招聘阶段画上句号，真正的谍报特训随即展开。 --- ### [32:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1950s) 斩断社交枝丫：冷酷谎言与人际关系的断舍离 在整个耗时漫长的面试过程中，保密规则严苛至极，即便面对至亲也绝不能吐露半个字。对安德鲁而言，这恰好切中了他童年时就形成的生存信条：人生中总有一些时候你必须撒谎，总有一些秘密你必须烂在肚子里。他对家人编造了借口，称自己正考虑从空军退役，还没想好具体要做什么，可能去政府部门谋职，所以需要经常跑去华盛顿特区面试。事实上，从18岁进入美国空军学院起，安德鲁便与家庭渐行渐远，每年顶多回家一次。每一次探亲往往都伴随着机票钱的龃龉与推诿，父母抱怨机票昂贵不想掏钱，没有积蓄的他不得不低头求助，节假日的亲情互动早已沦为令人疲惫的拉扯。由于情感极其疏离，向家庭瞒报真实动向对他来说没有丝毫心理负担。 这种抽离也迅速蔓延到了爱情与友情。当时他身边有一位很好的女朋友，但“再好的女友也比不上成为一名CIA特工来得诱人”；身边也有一群不错的朋友，但“再酷的朋友也比不上成为间谍的光环”。怀揣着去干一番惊天伟业的执念，安德鲁毫无留恋地亲手斩断了自己社交树上的侧枝。而在CIA的心理评估环节中，考官也明确问及应聘者对亲密关系的依赖程度，以及对切断次级、三级社交圈的接受度： - **初级关系（Primary Relationships）**：配偶或核心伴侣。 - **次级关系（Secondary Relationships）**：挚友、大学同学、密友圈。 - **三级关系（Tertiary Relationships）**：职场同事、业务泛泛之交。 CIA明确告知，一旦步入掩护身份的秘密行动处，个人不可能随身带着庞大的通信录生活。当考官询问能否彻底割舍这些次要人际纽带时，安德鲁几乎毫不犹豫地点头应允：“没问题，我们走吧。我去干大事，根本不需要大学同学陪在身边。” --- ### [34:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2084s) 9·11后的多元化变革与军方背景的加速红利 谈及自己的外貌与族裔背景是否成为被招募的加分项，安德鲁给出了斩钉截铁的肯定回答。时值2007年，距离“9·11”恐怖袭击事件过去6年，距离《9·11委员会调查报告》公开发布也过去了3年。该调查报告毫不留情地痛批了CIA过去的谍报运作模式，直指其思想完全固化在冷战时期的陈旧思维中，对新兴的反恐战争毫无防备，甚至依然将常春藤盟校毕业的白人精英视为下一代情报官的标准模板，严重脱离了全球复杂多变的地缘现实。为了有效应对全球新威胁，中情局急需彻底扭转用人结构，四处网罗年轻面孔、有色人种、少数族裔以及LGBTQ+群体，力求让特工人员能够真正融入现代世界的各个阴暗角落。 安德鲁深色皮肤的少数族裔外形，恰好完美契合了这一用人转向。此外，他自18岁起就服役于美国空军，联邦政府档案库里留有他极其详尽的背景记录：从体检指标、心理测评结果，到大学期间的学术与体育表现一应俱全，底细被查了个底朝天。这种官方背书大幅消除了安全审查阻力，使得他的整个入职审查流程仅耗时约9个月，而常规社会人员通常需要漫长的18个月。 --- ### [36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2163s) 楚门的世界：全景模拟环境下的严苛谍报特训 关于如何将一名普通人训练成真正的情报官员，安德鲁坦言核心细节依然属于高度机密，但他透露所有学员都会被送往一所外界偶有耳闻的专用基地（行业通称的训练基地“农场”）。学员们将在那里被完全抽离现实生活数月之久，置身于一个完全受控的仿真世界中。 这个基地的运行模式宛如《楚门的世界》：学员从自己原本租住的公寓被迁出，安排进模拟小镇的公寓里，而整座小镇其实是一场精密运转的大型考核沙盒。幕后团队全方位控制着受训人员接触到的所有信息：电视上播放的新闻广播是特意编排的，马路上来往的车辆与行人都由考官掌控，唯一不受操纵的只有真实的天气。考官通过人为制造各种突发危机和复杂情境，全天候检验学员掌握的谍报技术（Tradecraft），内容涵盖高速特种驾驶、紧急战伤急救、高压反侦察谎言、虚假化名身份下的长期伪装潜伏与运作。 由于这类全封闭、定制化的情境模拟成本高昂，中情局通常采取小班分批受训模式： - **年度批次**：每年全系统通常仅开设两到三批不同类型的密训班。 - **专业分轨**：不同职业序列的情报人员分流培养，分析官（Analysts）、技术官员（Technical Officers）与深入一线的外勤官员（Field Officers）各自接受针对性极强的技能塑造。 ### [037:37] CIA 的分批训练与残酷淘汰机制 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）回忆了 2007 年左右中央情报局（CIA）的培训模式：情报局会将新学员按照各自的专业领域（Discipline）进行归类、分批打包送入训练营。在基础训练阶段，所有学员就像在上大学一样，白天听同样的理论课程，在一天或一周内的不同时段进行一系列实地演练。整个批次采用完全统一的课程大纲与评分标准，所有人的表现被放在同一标尺下横向对比。这里的竞争非常残酷且直接——垫底的末位人员会被直接淘汰劝退，只有名列前茅的顶尖学员才能留下来继续受训。 ### [038:04] 杀人技能的分工：准军事官员与人力情报特工的根本差异 当主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及训练大纲中是否包含“学习如何杀人”时，安德鲁明确澄清，在通用基础训练层面并没有这项内容。中情局确实会传授杀人技能，但这完全取决于个人的岗位类型： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: CIA根据任务类型的技能分工 accDescr: 对比准军事特工与标准人力情报特工在技能培训与任务目标上的根本区别 subgraph PM["准军事行动官员 (Paramilitary Officer)"] PM1["核心任务：高风险作战与直接行动"] --> PM2["受训内容：必须精通各种杀人手段"] PM2 --> PM3["致命技能库：快速/无声击杀、钝器、刃器、枪械抛射武器、爆炸物及拆弹"] end subgraph HUMINT["标准人力情报收集员 (HUMINT Field Collector)"] H1["核心任务：长期卧底、搜集机密情报"] --> H2["行动准则：绝对避免暴露与被捕"] H2 --> H3["核心技能：心理操控、套取秘密、无痕生存；杀人反而带来极高暴露风险"] end ``` - **准军事行动官员（Paramilitary Officers）**：他们必须系统性地学习杀戮，掌握多样化的致命手段——如何快速杀人、无声无息地杀人、使用钝器杀人、使用刀刃武器杀人、使用枪械抛射武器杀人，以及使用与排除爆炸物等。 - **标准人力情报（HUMINT）现场收集员**：核心考核指标是“如何在不被捕、不暴露的前提下隐秘生活与执行任务”。在情报工作中，如果杀害了某人，会引发巨大的连锁反应并极易导致身份暴露。因此，教他们如何操控人心、如何窃取核心机密、如何在不被察觉的情况下运作，远比教他们杀人更有实际价值。 ### [039:06] 谎言的艺术：高阶骗子与拙劣骗子的根本区别 聊到欺骗训练时，安德鲁揭示了情报机构一个违背常理的前提：中情局在招生初期，就会专门挑选那些本性中就已经擅长撒谎的人。当考官坐在应聘者对面时，很容易辨别出谁是拙劣的骗子，谁是天生的高阶骗子。一旦筛选出有潜力的“好骗子”，教官便会帮他们梳理那些浑然天成的本能行为，将其提炼为系统性的技巧，并教他们如何识别劣质谎言、利用假话获取战略优势： - **言多必失 vs. 惜字如金**：劣质的说谎者通常滔滔不绝，拼命解释；而高阶骗子说话极少，因为“你说得越多，推翻自己谎言的风险就越大”。 - **陈述观点 vs. 提出问题**：糟糕的骗子会不断做出论断和陈述；高阶骗子则会大量向对方提问。只要一直在抛出问题，自己就几乎不需要透露任何个人信息。 - **社交派对测试**：安德鲁举例，如果你回想以往参加过的派对、约会或社交活动，遇到某个人让你感觉“他觉得我特别有意思、整场都在关注我”，但事后你发现自己对他一无所知，那么你大概率就是遇到了一位极高水平的“职业级骗子”。 ### [040:35] 肢体语言与“不一致破绽”：肌肉男的假自信 肢体语言在谎言传递中扮演着决定性角色。技艺精湛的骗子能够做到言语与身体动作完全同步，展现出浑然一体的真诚感；而缺乏训练的普通撒谎者，其身体反应与嘴上说的话往往存在明显的脱节（Disconnect）。 安德鲁以典型的欧美运动员/健身猛男（Jock/Footballer）为例：这类人在姿态上往往坐得极其庞大、舒展，肢体语言看似传递出无所畏惧的极度自信与开放。然而，当他们一开口说话时，语调支支吾吾、词不达意（满嘴“我不知道、差不多吧、老兄”），声音所展现的软弱与肢体展现的强大形成了剧烈冲突。这种“身心不一致”立刻出卖了他们：不仅意味着他们在某些内容上言不由衷，更深层的原因在于他们的认知无法接受自己当前所处的尴尬境地——他们内心深处其实非常不自在、缺乏安全感，而这种认知冲突直接通过结巴的语言暴露无遗。 ### [042:01] 操纵人心的第一步：镜像模仿建立绝对信任 斯蒂芬询问安德鲁在执行卧底和欺骗任务时，是否会时刻关注自己的肢体语言。安德鲁指出，普通人往往本末倒置——出于内心的脆弱和恐惧，人们总想学“如何识破别人的谎言”，但要理解识破谎言的逻辑，首先得懂得如何去构建一个完美的谎言。 构建可信谎言的第一核心法则是**镜像模仿（Mirroring）**。安德鲁现场指出了两人当时的坐姿细节： - 斯蒂芬的手放在桌下交叠，安德鲁的手也在桌下保持同样姿势； - 斯蒂芬的脚在座椅下方交叉，安德鲁的双脚同样交叉放置。 安德鲁解释道：“当我们彼此完全镜像时，在你的潜意识深处，你看向我时看到的其实是你自己。而在这个世界上，每个人最信任的人永远是他自己。”通过精准镜像对方的体态、动作与节奏，能在潜意识层面快速搭建起深度的信任地基。若是一开场就摆出与对方格格不入的侵略性或排斥性姿态，防备心理就会立刻升起。只有在镜像建立起牢固的信任基石之后，欺骗者才能一步步推进并放大谎言的边界。 ### [043:47] 戳破伪科学神话：眼神方向、微表情与行为基准线（Baseline） 安德鲁针对社交网络上广泛流传的“识谎技巧”进行了无情打假，指出网民和网红吹捧的眼动方向与微表情在严谨的情报心理学中大多站不住脚： | 流行迷思 | 社交媒体宣称的观点 | 中情局特工指出的真实情况 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **眼动方向 (Eye Movements)** | 认为看左是回忆真实、看右是编造谎言等固定公式。 | **无法单凭眼动定性**。西方人从左向右阅读，回忆时间线时看向左侧可能具备生理相关性（Biological Relevancy），但看右侧可能仅仅是因为光线太刺眼或头痛。变量过多，无法建立有效的概率模型。 | | **微表情 (Microexpressions)** | 认为频繁眨眼、面部抽搐、抿嘴吸唇就是心虚撒谎的铁证。 | **离开基准线毫无意义**。每个人在压力、紧张或专注时的生理微反应各不相同，脱离情境去抓微表情纯属臆断。 | 安德鲁郑重强调，在情报专业领域，想要准确判断一个人是否在撒谎，必须投入足够的时间为其建立**行为基准线（Baseline）**——即掌握此人在常态、放松环境下的自然表现到底是什么样子。 他指着身前的斯蒂芬现身说法：在正式录制开始前10分钟、摄像机尚未开机时，斯蒂芬整个人极其松弛、充满谈话兴致、非常随和友善；然而一旦机器运转、聚光灯亮起，斯蒂芬瞬间切换进入了极其严谨、专注、逻辑缜密的主持人状态。这并不代表斯蒂芬此刻在撒谎、之前在讲真话，而纯粹是因为“外部环境发生了改变”。如果一个观察者不曾掌握录制前的“基准线”，就绝对无法对其当前的行为模式做出任何客观、准确的研判。 ### [46:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2802s) 识别谎言的核心：基线与“热椅反应” 在辨别他人是否撒谎时，最关键的概念是所谓的目标时间（time on target）。只有投入足够的时间去观察一个人在常态下的表现，才能建立起精准的行为基线（baseline）；唯有掌握了基线，你才能察觉他们在承受特定压力时出现的微小偏离与变化（delta）。针对经验不足的普通说谎者（unskilled liars），识破他们的伪装其实非常直接。相比那些通过专业培训或生活严酷磨砺造就的老练说谎者，普通人一旦撒谎，身上会呈现出极其明显的通用破绽。 西方文化中常说的“如坐针毡”（on the hot seat），生动地描绘了普通说谎者在撒谎时的生理状态。他们就像屁股底下着了火一样，身体完全无法保持平静，会不受控制地频繁变换姿势、肌肉抽动、小动作不断。这就像任何一个曾试图向父母撒谎的六岁、八岁或十二岁小孩一样——眼神游离不敢直视对方，嘴里含混地发出各种并非实际词汇的支吾声（如“呃……”、“啊……”），整个人坐立不安。英语中用来形容人鬼祟不可信的词汇“shifty”，正是来源于现实中笨拙说谎者不断晃动身体的真实特征。识破这类谎言根本不需要去费力解读复杂的面部微表情，或是监控对方眼球转动的特定轨迹。 - **基线建立与偏离检测**：必须通过充分的目标时间（time on target）确立正常状态基线，方能对比出施压时出现的行为变量（delta）。 - **笨拙说谎者的典型破绽**：坐立难安（hot seat 现象）、眼神回避、频繁发出无意义的支吾声、身体无法克制地晃动与调整。 --- ### [48:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2915s) 中情局核心动机模型：RICE 框架 谈及中情局训练中最高度可迁移、最具有实用价值的技能，安德鲁指出，绝非那些酷炫的情报戏码——例如秘密情报传递（dead drop）、反监视侦察（surveillance detection）或是驾车强行冲破路障，而是对人类心理运作机制的深刻理解与行为预测。这种心理认知工具在日常生活的每一刻、每一次人际互动中都能派上用场。其中最核心的框架，便是人类行为的四大核心驱动力——“RICE 框架”。 人类不分年龄、种族、信仰或背景，其底层驱动力都可以归结为四个维度： 1. **Reward（奖励）**：目标人物所渴望拥有的一切事物。包括金钱、免费度假、他人的赞许拍肩、美色或美酒。只要给予对方渴望之物，就能换取其行动，尽管奖励的内容会随着时间与个人的变化而改变。 2. **Ideology（意识形态）**：个体深信不疑的核心信念。无论是宗教信仰、爱国主义、对家庭的忠诚，还是他们内心认同的道德准则。一旦你能透过某人的意识形态滤镜与他们沟通，就能驱使他们做出极其惊人的壮举。 3. **Coercion（强迫/威胁）**：动机中的所有负面诱因。涵盖内疚感、羞耻感、勒索敲诈以及各类施压逼迫。这往往对应着狭义上的心理操纵。 4. **Ego（自我/认同感）**：个体如何看待自身与期望被外界如何看待。自我并不局限于唐纳德·特朗普或好莱坞知名影星那种张扬高调的“自大（big ego）”，同样包含无私奉献者的自我认同。例如德兰修女（Mother Teresa）同样拥有强大的 Ego——她渴望为大众牺牲，并期望外界视她为一个愿意为苦难者牺牲奉献的人，这也是 Ego 的具象化体现。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: RICE Motivation Framework accDescr: The four core human motivators from strongest to weakest according to CIA operational tradecraft. subgraph Internal["内在驱动（影响力持久且强劲）"] I["1. Ideology 意识形态<br/>信仰、家国、核心道德"] E["2. Ego 自我认同<br/>自我认知、如何被外界看待"] end subgraph External["外在驱动（影响力较弱且易失效）"] R["3. Reward 物质/外在奖励<br/>金钱、利益、赞誉、实物"] C["4. Coercion 强迫与威胁<br/>勒索、施压、内疚、羞耻"] end I --> E E --> R R --> C ``` --- ### [51:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3102s) 影响力的层级与“道德灵活性” 在四大驱动力中，其掌控人心的效力有着严格的强弱排序：**意识形态（Ideology）最强，自我认同（Ego）次之，奖励（Reward）位列第三，而强迫（Coercion）则是最脆弱的驱动手段**。影视作品往往会产生误导，让观众误以为掏枪指着别人的头或是抓住把柄勒索就能迫使他人听命。然而在现实世界中，一旦你用枪顶着某个人的脑袋，你就彻底失去了他们的信任，你绝不可能命令他们做第二次事情。相反，若能诉诸对方的意识形态——告诉对方“这么做对你的国家有益”、“这符合你家庭的最大利益”、“这是为了你的健康着想”，对方就会长期且死心塌地遵照你的指示行事，因为其底层建立了信任。 这揭示了动机激励（motivation）与心理操纵（manipulation）的本质——它们实则是同一枚硬币的两面。情报界之外的人往往执着于将其贴上“善”与“恶”的道德标签，但真正的情报特工必须具备“道德灵活性”（moral flexibility），剔除狭隘的善恶两分法，只关注事物的**实用性（utility）与成效性（productivity）**。如果需要某人完成某事，能通过正向激励达成固然最好；但若无法激励，操纵便是被允许的绿灯通道，因为终极目标始终是促成行动。在情报战线中，如果一个人会对操纵他人产生道德负罪感，他绝不可能生存下来。 - **动机强度排序**：意识形态（最高） > 自我认同 > 物质奖励 > 强迫手段（最低）。 - **暴力与威胁的弊端**：高压强迫会瞬间摧毁信任，不具备可持续性与重复执行力。 - **道德灵活性**：摒弃绝对的好与坏，完全以行动的产出价值和效用为核心评估标准。 --- ### [53:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3194s) 商业与沟通中探寻他人意识形态的路径 要在商业和日常生活中探知一个人的核心意识形态，主要存在两种途径。第一种途径是成为敏锐的倾听者与观察者，因为**人们往往会主动向外界袒露其意识形态**。安德鲁以现场主持人为例指出，主持人在此前的交谈中已经多次主动表露了他对“为人父亲”这一身份的意识形态认同——主持人甚至在还没有孩子的情况下，就已经在焦虑未来会不会把孩子搞砸，这证明他骨子里对“成为一名负责任的父亲”有着强烈的价值预设与自我认同（Ego）。他会主动与伴侣讨论未来孩子去哪里上学、住在哪里、选什么品牌的尿布，这全都是透过“成为一个充满爱心且陪伴在侧的尽责父亲”这一意识形态滤镜在思考。不论是政治偏好、童年创伤还是商业上的阵痛，只要你懂得倾听，客户和受众每天都在主动袒露心声。 探寻意识形态的第二种有效手段，是进行精准且带有情绪导向的“主动营销”（active marketing）。这绝不是社交媒体上那些浮夸、空洞的通用大众营销，或是单纯纠结于品牌视觉配色，而是打造一句蕴含强烈情绪诉求的精准信息（messaging）。政治与商业领域常大谈“叙事”（narrative），但叙事本身并不具备最初的感染力，**真正的说服力源于信息（messaging）**。信息的本质是激发强烈情绪，唯有情绪被信息唤醒，才能逐步沉淀为长期的叙事。例如向特定男性群体抛出一句话：“你是否也在害怕自己最终沦为那个缺席孩子成长的父亲？”这句信息会瞬间击中那些在意识形态上高度渴望成为合格父亲的目标人群，促使他们产生共鸣并付诸行动。 ### [56:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3366s) 情感讯息与逻辑叙事的博弈：从地缘政治到商业世界 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）深入剖析了“讯息（Message）”与“叙事（Narrative）”之间的内在运作逻辑。讯息本身带有强烈的情感色彩，而叙事在本质上则是逻辑性的——高明的操纵方式，正是“利用情感讯息来传递逻辑叙事”。他以亲子关系为例：如果你对一个父亲说“你是否害怕成为那个缺席孩子成长的父亲？”，这句话瞬间直戳内心痛点，拉扯着人的心弦；紧接着逻辑叙事顺理成章地切入——“那么你只需要下载这款 App，它每周日都会提醒你给孩子讲故事”。人们立刻会觉得合情合理，心想只要有了提醒，自己就能成为一个好父亲。这种将情感痛点与逻辑解决方案绑定的手段，正是塑造认知与行为的底层密码。 这种技巧贯穿于政治与宏观地缘政治之中。情报界极度擅长利用讯息与叙事来达成战略目标，这不仅是选出总统的手段，也是沙特阿拉伯与伊朗围绕也门爆发冲突背后的深层舆论博弈逻辑。在国家安全层面，几乎所有人都理解如何用情感讯息构建具有说服力的叙事。然而反观商业界，绝大多数人至今仍未参透这一法则。受传统 MBA 或商业课程训练的人，仍然固执地以为卖牙膏的方式就是“做出更多牙膏、包装涂上更鲜艳的颜色、摆上更多的货架”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 情感讯息与逻辑叙事运作机制 accDescr: 展示如何通过情感讯息驱动逻辑叙事，并对比情报/地缘政治与传统商业的运用差异 subgraph Manipulation ["认知操控机制"] A["情感讯息 (Message)<br>触发恐惧/渴望等情绪"] --> B["逻辑叙事 (Narrative)<br>提供合乎理性的解决方案"] B --> C["目标达成<br>接受观点/采取行动"] end subgraph Application ["应用场景差异"] C --> D["情报与国家安全<br>(总统选举/地缘博弈)"] C -.->|传统商业思维落后| E["商业营销<br>(仍停留在包装与货架陈列)"] end ``` ### [57:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3457s) 中情局的残酷真相：人生中两次颠覆认知的“顿悟时刻” 当被问及过去二三十年的经历是否彻底改变了他看待世界的视角时，安德鲁坦言自己经历了两次巨大的“顿悟时刻（Aha Moments）”。第一个顿悟时刻发生在中情局的初期训练阶段。在经历严格的招募选拔以及服役期间，他一直觉得自己表现优异，甚至因为被选入国家秘密行动处（National Clandestine Service）而自命不凡，以为自己非常“特别”。然而，中情局随后的心理评估和训练却无情地揭露了一个事实：他在某些方面其实是“残缺损坏的（Broken）”。他的高绩效并非来自心理健康，而是源于童年创伤；他擅长说谎、偷窃，且对反社会倾向毫无心理负担，这一切都证明他并非神经典型（Neurotypical）的正常人。中情局直白地告诉他：你不是以你想象的方式获得成功的，但你的特质非常有用；正因为你在中情局工作，你才显得特别，所以千万不要离开这里。情报机构精准地抓住了他的意识形态与自尊心（Ego），从而将他牢牢套牢。 在此之前，安德鲁在成长过程中总觉得自己看到的世界和别人不一样。他在高中时就能看穿体制的虚伪，看到父母言行不一的虚伪；他无法理解为什么商界一边喊着“顾客永远是对的”，另一边公司却在诉讼中把顾客告倒；他也不明白为什么明明存在完备的法律体系，真正的罪犯却常常逍遥法外。但他以前从未自信地将这些质疑说出口，只能当成秘密埋藏心底。而中情局彻底点醒了他：他所看到的正是世界的本来面目，并教会了他一套专业词汇与人类心理学知识，让他看懂为何世界如此运转，以及为何人人都能看穿却从不点破。 安德鲁的第二个顿悟时刻发生在他离开中情局之后。当时他失业长达 6 个月，带着刚满 1 岁的孩子蜗居在岳父母家由车库改造的房间里。他甚至陷入怀疑，觉得自己把一切都搞砸了，明明刚从中情局出来，却连一份工作都找不到，沦为“全世界最大的失败者”。在绝境中，他唯一能倚仗的只有中情局传授的间谍技能。最终，他凭借这些话术与心理技巧，“一路说谎蒙混（lied my way into）”进入了一家《财富》前十强的超级巨头企业，人生瞬间逆风翻盘。那一刻他猛然意识到，中情局技能完全可以迁移并降维打击商业领域。从此，他眼中看到的一切，都是通过商业世界中应用中情局技能的透镜来审视的。 - **高绩效的心理成因**：童年创伤与非神经典型特质（如冷酷的反社会倾向与欺骗能力）往往被情报系统转化为高效的行动工具。 - **机构掌控手段**：中情局通过满足特工的意识形态渴望与自尊心（Ego），强化其“特殊感”以建立绝对忠诚。 - **职业转型绝境**：离开情报机关初期经历 6 个月失业，与妻儿挤在岳父母的改造车库中，最终凭借特工技巧跨界打入《财富》前 10 强企业。 ### [01:01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3682s) 感知 vs 视角：别信你的直觉，直觉往往在对你撒谎 针对公众经常混淆的“感知（Perception）”与“视角（Perspective）”，安德鲁给出了极具颠覆性的区分，并强调普通大众对此往往缺乏深刻认知： - **感知（Perception）**：是指你主观上“认为自己看到了什么”，完全取决于你所坐的位置与自身的五官感觉（视觉、听觉等）。感知是极其主观且高度情绪化的。安德鲁举例称，当你在昏暗的房间角落看到一堆黑乎乎的袜子，第一反应以为是老鼠而吓得跳起来，这就是“感知在对你撒谎”。 - **视角（Perspective）**：是指他人如何看待你所处的环境，或者从客观环境中获取的多维度真实数据。在相同的场景下，视角会理性地告诉你：“这是你自己的房间，这里从来没有进过老鼠，那个角落里的黑影大概率只是一堆袜子。”视角让判断保持客观。 中情局赋予外勤特工最核心的战术优势，就是训练他们**识别并极度怀疑自己的感知**。安德鲁直言，特工必须反其道而行之——“千万不要相信你的直觉（Don't trust your gut）”。市面上绝大多数成功学或心理建议都鼓吹“跟随直觉”，但直觉本质上根植于主观情绪，而情绪在绝大多数时候都是极具欺骗性的妄想：“你的女朋友没有打算甩了你，你的男朋友没有出轨，你不会立刻破产，根本没有人在意你鼻子上长的那颗痘痘”。 | 维度 | 感知 (Perception) | 视角 (Perspective) | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **信息来源** | 单一来源：仅依赖自身五官感觉与主观臆断 | 多元来源：从外部客观世界收集多个数据点 | | **思维属性** | 主观的、情绪化的、本能反应 | 客观的、理性的、基于逻辑推断 | | **准确率与风险** | 准确率极低，基于极端小概率事件产生恐慌 | 准确率极高，基于大概率与客观事实做决策 | | **典型反应** | 把角落里的黑袜子误认成窜出的老鼠 | 结合房间历史与常理，判断角落里只是衣物 | ### [01:03:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3799s) 如何建立理性客观的“视角思维” 针对如何训练自己依靠“视角”而非“感知”做决策，安德鲁指出这需要建立一种刻意的正向循环机制。核心的第一步是：**在情绪涌现的瞬间立刻怀疑它**。当感到紧张、焦虑或怀疑时，允许情绪短暂停留一秒并明确捕捉到它，随后迅速用理性告诉自己：“我大概率完全不需要恐慌”。因为现实中，无论坐在你桌子对面的人、走进房间的人，还是公交车上的路人，他们脑海中都在忙着应付自己的成千上万件琐事，他们的注意力焦点绝大概率根本不在你身上。 将这种思维转化为本能并非一蹴而就，必须通过有意识的反复刻意练习： 1. **刻意干预**：在初级阶段，当情绪化感知抬头时，强制用多角度客观数据（视角）进行逻辑核对。 2. **验证现实**：你会亲眼见证，自己之前所恐惧、担忧的最坏结果根本就没有发生，视角给出的客观结论完胜情绪化的感知。 3. **积累动能**：一旦成功经历过一次，认知就会建立正向反馈，随着反复验证，这种理性分析习惯会形成巨大的心理动能，越往后越变得轻松自如。 安德鲁总结道，学会以客观理性取代主观情绪是一项需要后天习得的硬技能。而能够让人豁然开朗的终极心法在于意识到：**世上 90% 的人都被死死困在他们自己的狭隘感知之中**，整日为了自己脑中想象的恐慌疲于奔命。只要你能跳出这种感知陷阱，就能在现实博弈中占据绝对的主动权。 ### [01:05:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3955s) 受训者与未受训者：认知差异带来的不对称优势 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，绝大多数人完全被困在情绪之中，甚至根本不知道世界上还存在另一种思维方式。光是正在收听这段对话的听众，只要第一次理解了“感知”（Perception）与“视角”（Perspective）之间的本质差异，就已经比那些从未接触过这一概念的人装备得更好，在面对竞争对手、配偶、伴侣甚至是职场霸凌者时抢先了一步。即便他们目前还没能完全做到理性思考，但仅仅掌握了“感知与视角”、“主观与客观”、“情绪化与理性逻辑”这组词汇，就拥有了定义自己思维方式的工具。 在中央情报局（CIA）的术语中，这正是“受训者”（Trained）与“未受训者”（Untrained）之间的巨大鸿沟。受训者至少清楚存在替代方案与不同视角；而未受训者甚至不知道自己有其他选择。布斯塔曼特形象地将社会上绝大多数未受训的人形容为“摇头娃娃”（bobbleheads）——他们对替代解决方案毫无察觉，彻底被自己的感知、情绪与主观牢笼所困。正因如此，那些懂得运用理性、客观视角的人，可以轻而易举地引导并掌控他们去执行特定的行动。 ### [01:07:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4035s) “吻过无数青蛙”：从CIA线人招募到商业销售的底层逻辑 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到，安德鲁退役后创办了 EverydaySpy 以及其他多项商业投资，并在商业上取得了显著的成功，他询问安德鲁是如何将CIA特工的核心技能直接迁移到日常商业成交与销售之中的。安德鲁透露，CIA内部有一句名言恰好也是销售界通用的行话——“吻过无数青蛙”（Kissing a lot of frogs）。在商业销售中，这意味着销售人员必须拨打海量潜在客户电话、与无数人握手、进行成百上千次提案推介，才可能换来一个真正变成“王子”的成单客户；而在情报工作中，这一逻辑更为严苛。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Line-to-Lead Comparison accDescr: 比较CIA招募外国线人与商业销售获客在本质上的高度对应关系。 subgraph CIA["中央情报局情报招募"] A["接触海量目标 Foreign Nationals"] --> B["物色有情报权限且愿背叛者"] B --> C["以金钱/利益交换国家机密"] end subgraph Business["商业销售转化"] D["触达海量销售线索 Leads"] --> E["筛选有需求且愿合作的高价值客户"] E --> F["以产品/服务交换客户资金"] end ``` 在CIA的实战中，外派特工的工作是寻找愿意出卖国家机密的外国公民。招募一个真正的“资产/线人”（Asset），意味着对方必须具备接触机密的权限，并且愿意冒着生命危险背叛祖国，以此换取金钱、酒精、色情制品或其他利益。在现实中，想要找到这样一个既有涉密权限又愿意合作的叛徒极其罕见且困难重重。然而安德鲁强调：“如果你能找到一个间谍，如果你能找到一个叛徒，你就绝对能做成一笔销售。”二者在技能层面上高度互通：特工需要通过交谈摸清对方的核心动机，并换位到对方的生存处境中去获取视角。在商业中，一旦你能够站在客户的鞋子里看问题，你就会提前洞悉客户的想法、渴望以及未来的痛点，从而牢牢占据主导地位。 ### [01:09:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4188s) SADRAT情报闭环与“评估”（Assess）的关键价值 在人力情报（HUMINT）搜集与线人招募转化中，CIA使用的是一套代号为 **SADRAT** 的严密流程框架。安德鲁将这套谍报法则无缝移植到了自己公司的数字化营销、客户转化以及追加销售（upselling）等全套商业体系中： * **S - 物色（Spot）：** 在商业中对应寻找并触达潜在客户（Lead）。 * **A - 评估（Assess）：** 研判该目标未来是否会成为高价值、可持续且配合度高的线人或客户。 * **D - 发展（Develop）：** 与目标建立深度信任关系与心理连接。 * **R - 招募（Recruit）：** 正式提出交易，以自身产品/技术换取客户资金或机密。 * **A/H - 控制/管理（Handle）：** 经典政府缩写中将 Handle（管理/操控）作为流程一环，维持长期的价值互换。 * **T - 终止（Terminate）：** 在任务结束或关系失效时，安全、干净利落地切断业务往来。 安德鲁特别强调，销售人员最常跳过的就是“评估”（Assess）阶段。普通销售只图眼前成交，完全不考虑客户是否属于能带来终身价值（LTV）、转介绍（Referral）和良好口碑的高产客户。 史蒂芬·巴特利特对此深有共鸣并分享了亲身创业经历予以印证：在其第一家公司成立的头几年，他们对任何客户来者不拒；直到年终复盘财务报表时才惊觉，虽然拿下了一批新客户，但由于这些客户往往只合作一个月便流失，公司反而在他们身上亏了钱。随后，史蒂芬的团队建立了一套客户筛选模型，主动对不符合画像的客户说“不”。他们精准定位出某种预算规模、员工人数以及具有特定痛点的品牌才是最具利润空间的“黄金客户”（位于维恩图右上角），这个评估维度的确立彻底改变了整个商业战局。 安德鲁赞同这种“改变战局”（Game-changing）的打法：平庸者向所有人兜售，而顶尖操盘手只针对特定客户群精准成交。这不仅大幅提升了客单价，更让高价值客户带来同类客户，从而实现指数级的“纯利润”（Profit）增长，而非虚幻的“流水营收”（Revenue）。 ### [01:13:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4411s) 线人即客户：间谍活动（Espionage）的非法性本质 从本质上看，“线人”（Asset）与“客户”（Customer）的角色完全是一对一的对应镜像： * **客户**是商业公司最重要的资产，他们拿出宝贵的资金换取渴望的商业服务。 * **线人**则是情报机构的核心资源，他们交出极具价值的情报以换取自身需要的利益。 在发展线人时，特工始终在拷问核心问题：这个人未来是否可靠听话？是否能长期提供高价值情报，而非一锤子买卖？这与审视一名优质客户是否听从建议、能否持续贡献高利润如出一辙。 随后史蒂芬提到了安德鲁屡次提及的“间谍活动”（Espionage）一词，并询问其严格定义。安德鲁解释道，“间谍活动”（Espionage）在法律与国际关系中的核心定义就是“窃取机密”（the stealing of secrets）。正因如此，间谍活动在本质上永远是非法的；世界上没有任何一个国家的法律会承认或允许别国在自己境内开展合法的情报间谍活动。无论是哪个国家、哪家情报机关派遣特工去执行此类任务，其行为在当地法律框架下都构成了不折不扣的违法犯罪。 ### [01:14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4491s) 间谍活动的法律豁免与“人生的三重境界” 谈到间谍活动的本质与法律界限，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，英国军情六处（MI6）和美国中央情报局（CIA）在各自国家的法律中都享有专门的豁免条款（carve-out）。这意味着，一名受雇于 CIA 的美国情报官员或一名 MI6 的英国特工在海外执行秘密间谍行动时，并不受本国针对间谍罪的法律追诉；但如果一名普通英国公民在英国本土或海外从事间谍活动，则完全属于违法犯罪。 主持人随后追问，安德鲁曾提到间谍的核心在于“让人允许你走入他们的隐秘生活”，那么究竟什么是“隐秘生活”？安德鲁阐释道，每个人其实都在同时经历三重生活：公开生活（Public Life）、私密生活（Private Life）以及隐秘生活（Secret Life）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Three Lives Model accDescr: An illustration showing progression from Public Life to Private Life to Secret Life in human psychology and espionage. subgraph Lives["人生的三重层次"] A["公开生活 (Public Life)<br/>外在形象、穿戴、防备心最强"] B["私密生活 (Private Life)<br/>少数亲友了解的敏感痛点与怪癖"] C["隐秘生活 (Secret Life)<br/>深埋内心的罪疚、婚外情、阴暗秘密"] end A -->|"建立初步连接与信任"| B B -->|"SADRAT 流程与心理操控"| C ``` - **公开生活**：人尽皆知的外在展现，不仅面向播客观众或公司雇员，也包括走在街上时的模样、衣着打扮、去教堂时的举止等。这是一个人希望外界感知自己的方式，正如 RICE 动机模型中的自我意识（Ego），德蕾莎修女（Mother Teresa）也希望大众以某种特定视角看待她。在公开生活中，人们的防御心理最完备，绝不可能在此阶段套取机密。 - **私密生活**：介于公开与隐秘之间的中转站。只有大约十五位最亲密的人知晓——伴侣、至亲或极要好的朋友。他们知道你爱吃什么冰淇淋、你家地址、生日，甚至知道你的脚其实有异味、吃生蚝会肚子胀气排气等令人尴尬的细节。身处私密生活中的人会分享敏感烦恼（比如担心下一季度的公司营收、怀疑伴侣是否出轨），但依然会牢牢守住核心机密。 - **隐秘生活**：这是最幽暗、最深沉的领域，连私密生活圈子里的亲友都被彻底瞒住。例如自己正在出轨、曾对孩子动手家暴、或童年曾遭遇过虐待等。 ### [01:18:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4696s) 潜入隐秘生活的心理机制：情感镜像与“开窗”技巧 安德鲁指出，间谍培训的核心就是一套标准程序：在公开生活中结识目标，步步为营进入对方的私密生活，最终渗透进对方的隐秘生活。人类内心深处其实都有倾诉秘密的渴望，我们迫切希望有个人能接纳自己最阴暗的一面，只是我们在私密生活中找不到足够信任的人。一旦情报官员利用感知与视角认知、四大核心动机（RICE）以及 SADRAT（定位、评估、发展、招募、管理、终止）流程建立起这种罕见的深层信任，目标就会产生强烈的依赖感，甚至“永远不想让你离开”，即便你撒谎或伤害他们，这种潜意识中的依恋也极难打破。 当主持人提问是否可以通过分享“虚假的脆弱”来诱导对方展现脆弱时，安德鲁纠正了这种认知，并详细拆解了高级对话操控的技术细节： - **情感镜像（Emotional Mirroring）的控制权转移**：正如肢体镜像一样，如果你一味去镜像对方的情感，一旦对方察觉，潜意识里会觉得自己掌控了局面。高明的做法是适度镜像，直到诱导对方反过来开始镜像你——当对方在情绪和反应上开始模仿你时，你便牢牢掌握了对话的主导权与控制权。 - **“开门”与“开窗”的区别**：“开门”代表完全转换话题（例如突然说一句“我其实不喜欢法国菜”，对方可以选择顺着走过去，也可以选择关上这扇门直接忽略）；“开窗”则是透露某种带有隐秘色彩的信息裂缝（例如轻描淡写地提一句“我有些消化系统上的难言之隐，平时不爱跟人提”）。情报人员绝不应该编造虚假的弱点，而是要使用真实但未必直接关乎当前情境的脆弱点（“开窗”），作为连接双方隐秘生活的桥梁。例如说一句“我最近跟妻子吵得不可开交，有时候真想离家出走”，从而激发并验证对方是否也正深陷婚姻崩溃、分房睡、搞婚外情或酗酒嗑药的隐秘痛苦中。 ### [01:22:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4960s) 实战演练：“二问一确认”模型 为了具象化展示如何撬开目标的隐秘生活，主持人现场模拟了一个受挫资产的场景：坐在酒吧里叹气说“这周在家里真的太难熬了，我老婆实在太烦人了”。 安德鲁随即演示了情报人员最基础却极高效的话术架构——**“二问一确认”法则（Two-in-One Combination）**： 1. **第一问（第一层追问）**：顺着对方抛出的话题提出第一个深入细节的跟进问题，利用人们天然倾向于回答问题的心理定势引导其倾诉。 2. **第二问（第二层追问）**：在对方回答后，紧接着进行更深维度的追问，促使其进一步透露情绪细节与背景。 3. **一次确认（共情闭环）**：在两个问题之后，不继续追问以防对话演变成咄咄逼人的审讯，而是给出一句极具共鸣的“确认反馈”（例如分享一段类似的狼狈经历，如前女友糟糕的生活习惯等）。这种确认会让目标瞬间觉得眼前的这个人完全“懂自己”，从而放下戒备，心甘情愿地向其敞开隐秘生活的深层大门。 ### [01:23:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5027s) 操控对话的公式：提问与确认 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）继续解析进入他人内心深处的对话技巧。当对方分享了一段非常具体的个人抱怨（例如妻子睡觉时把脚伸在被子外面）后，你不需要发表长篇大论，只要停在那里。核心策略非常程序化：**提出两个追问，加上一句确认对方感受的肯定陈述**（"Two follow-on questions and one confirming statement"）。因为这种心理结构，对方的大脑会受到强烈的倾诉驱动，继续主动提供更多信息。一旦对方提供新信息，你就重复这一循环：追问、追问、确认。 对操纵者而言，这套流程机械甚至公式化（倾听—追问—倾听—追问—肯定）；但对讲述者而言，感觉却完全不同——他们会觉得眼前的这个人是全世界唯一真正理解并关心自己的人。布斯塔曼特让大家代入这种视角（Perspective）：如果你在酒吧对某件极其烦心的事情大吐苦水，而身旁的人除了追问细节并表示完全赞同之外什么都没做，你脑海中只会冒出一个念头：“天啊，你太懂我了！为什么我老婆就不能像你这样懂我？”人类天生极度渴望被理解，这种对话节奏会让人毫无防备地顺着操纵者的步调越陷越深。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 对话操控循环流程 accDescr: 展示追问与确认如何促使对方不断自愿吐露信息的正向反馈循环 subgraph ConversationLoop ["对话循环机制"] A["对方倾诉信息"] --> B["追问细节 1"] B --> C["追问细节 2"] C --> D["情感确认 / 赞同陈述"] D -->|"触发被理解的心理需求"| A end ``` --- ### [01:25:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5113s) 商业应用与控制权的真相：不要相信直觉 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）敏锐地指出，这种技能可以直接迁移到商业场景中：在面试候选人或向客户推销时，自己的沟通姿态理应是“不断提问与确认”。布斯塔曼特对此表示完全认同，并指出了人类心理中关于“控制权”的致命误区： * **直觉的假象**：大多数人直觉认为，一场对话中说话最多的人掌控着全场。但布斯塔曼特再次强调——**永远不要相信你的直觉、感受或情绪**。 * **事实的真相**：真正掌控对话的永远是**提问者**，因为提问者决定了对话的走向与范畴。 * **当下的例子**：布斯塔曼特以正在进行的访谈为例，“无论你下一个抛出什么问题，我都会老老实实回答；如果我不回答，场面就会陷入尴尬——因为我们心里都清楚，尽管我说的字数最多，但这场谈话的主导权完全在你手里。” 布斯塔曼特透露，这一套对人性的精确把握，是他创办的 EverydaySpy 公司在过去三年能够保持每年 300% 爆发式增长的核心原因。人类的需求高度可预测：每个人都想感到被倾听（Heard）、被肯定（Confirmed）和被认可（Validated）。在销售和数字营销中，这套流程完全可以被自动化。顶级销售员早已掌握了这一秘密：尽快引导潜在客户开始谈论他们自己，然后顺着对方的话不断提问，让客户在自我倾诉中完成自我说服（Sell themselves）。相比之下，平庸的商业经营者总觉得必须滔滔不绝地灌输产品优点，殊不知客户根本不想听销售自卖自夸，客户想要的只是一个能解决自身问题、并通过提问来帮助他们的倾听者。 --- ### [01:27:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5260s) 重新理解“变化”与将时间转化为战略优势 对于人性的另一大弱点——抗拒改变，布斯塔曼特解释了 CIA 是如何彻底重塑特工对“变化”（Change）的认知的。普通人因为自我（Ego）和认知局限，面对变化极度僵化死板。而 CIA 灌输的核心观念是：正因为人类天生抗拒变化，**只要你能比对手更快适应变化，你就拥有了天然的竞争壁垒和不对称优势（Edge）**。 CIA 将“时间（Time）、距离（Distance）、方向改变（Change in direction）”作为三大核心行动原则。以时间为例： * **破除虚幻的紧迫感**：普通人总觉得时间在流逝、时间不够用、时间是自己的敌人；但特工将时间视为一种武器和拆解事物的资源——“世上没有秘密经得起时间的冲刷”。正如潜入一个人的“秘密生活”往往需要花费 9 个月，绝大多数对手根本没有这种耐心。当所有对手都在仓促行事时，唯独你不慌不忙，时间就成了你独有的巨大优势。 * **商业中的时间策略对比**： * **冲动低客单模式**：许多商家急功近利，追逐 7 美元的冲动消费。即便以 10% 的转化率计算，他们每 3 分钟就必须找到 10 个新销售线索。这种模式疲于奔命，且无法得知买家的真实可支配收入水平。 * **高信任深耕模式**：布斯塔曼特宁愿花 3 周时间培育一个愿意支付 97 美元的精准客户。这类客户具有更高的可支配收入与信任度，不仅大幅减轻了频繁寻找新流量的压力，后续还能进一步转化为 297 美元乃至 997 美元的高客单客户。 | 对比维度 | 冲动型低客单模式（7美元产品） | 长期型深耕模式（97美元及以上产品） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **时间投入** | 追求 3 分钟快速成单 | 耐心投入 3 周培养与验证 | | **转化压力** | 必须源源不断获取大量新线索 | 线索需求量少，获客压力极低 | | **客户画像** | 财务状况不明（可能是借父母的卡冲动消费） | 明确具备较高的可支配收入与消费意愿 | | **后续潜力** | 终身价值（LTV）难以拓展 | 可顺畅推升至 $297、$997，测试价格敏感度 | --- ### [01:30:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5440s) 遭遇境外间谍监视：SDR 路线的实战逻辑 当主持人问及在海外执行任务时是否曾面临生死威胁时，布斯塔曼特透露了一起发生于 2011 年前后的真实危机。当时他在某个特定外国开展特工行动，在某个关键时刻，他高度确信自己已被当地国家安全机关的专业监视团队锁定。在那样的国家和任务背景下，一旦被对方监视，对方的目的就是在行动的某个特定节点实施秘密抓捕，以换取最大的政治筹码和宣传效益。 布斯塔曼特目前正通过官方审查渠道争取 CIA 的脱密许可，希望能公开这一事件的全部细节。大约 9 个月前，CIA 本已初步同意放行，但随着全球地缘政治紧张局势的骤然升温，情报局撤回了许可，迫使他必须在保守保密协议与争取叙述权之间寻找合法途径。 针对巴特利特关于“你是不是猛然回头看到了可疑踪迹”的好奇，布斯塔曼特澄清：特工识别监视绝非靠直觉或好莱坞式的惊鸿一瞥，而是依赖一套严密的科学程序——**反监视路线（Surveillance Detection Route，简称 SDR）**。 * 特工绝不会因为某件事在 5 秒钟内发生就妄下结论。 * 他会利用数小时（例如 3 到 6 小时）的时间周期，蓄意执行一系列经过精心设计的路线与动作。 * 通过在漫长时间跨度内收集、交叉比对足够多的数据点与行为模式，最终以极高的置信度（High confidence）确证自己是否正处于敌方监视人员的跟踪网络之中。 ### [01:32:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5570s) 监视形态与“色情间谍活动”（Sexpionage）的运作真相 对一个目标的跟踪监视可能表现为多种形式：后方跟随的汽车、步步紧随的便衣行人、空中盘旋的无人机，亦或是手机出现某些异常行为，让你察觉到自己正处于数字或网络监控之下。当主持人 Steven Bartlett 抛出“色情间谍活动”（Sexpionage，即利用性或色诱手段获取情报）这一话题时，Andrew Bustamante 直言不讳地指出，这在现实中绝对是真实存在的手段，但其使用方式完全取决于一个国家的公民权利制度。在美国，情报机构基本不使用这种手段，最核心的根源在于这直接侵犯了在情报部门工作的本国公民的个人权利。如果上级命令一名女性情报官员必须与目标人物上床以获取机密情报，这直接践踏了她作为美国公民的宪法权利。而在俄罗斯和中国等国家，情况则截然不同。至于英国等西方情报机构，同样不提倡为了搜集情报而强制执行性行为。 当被追问“如果特工自愿选择发生关系是否可行”时，Andrew Bustamante 解释称，特工如果真的出于自愿与目标发生关系，便会直接触发致命的“操作安全风险”（Operational Security Risk，简称 OPSEC 风险）。在间谍活动中，情报处理者（Handler，联络官）的核心目标是对发展的“资产”（Asset，间谍线人）保持绝对的心理和客观控制权。一旦卷入性关系，这种权力天平就会彻底失衡：性行为会在人体内部引发不可控的激素反应。高潮会释放大量荷尔蒙，尤其是催产素（Oxytocin）和去甲肾上腺素（Norepinephrine）的骤降与波动，使身体产生与另一个人紧密相连的情感连接。这种生理本能正是成熟情报控制关系的对立面，也就是所谓的“爱上自己的资产”（falling in love with your asset）。Andrew 打趣道，自己很幸运没踩过这种雷，因为自己所需要的所有荷尔蒙连接，都已在同为 CIA 特工的妻子身上建立完毕了。 --- ### [01:35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=5711s) 揭秘间谍伪装：现实中的“服装”与三级伪装体系 谈及伪装（Disguises），Andrew Bustamante 坦言自己多次使用过。然而在大众认知中充斥着流行文化的误区：间谍的伪装在现实中使用得远比人们想象的频繁，但其精细复杂程度却远比人们想象的要粗糙。在 CIA 内部，甚至不习惯称之为“伪装”（Disguises 是好莱坞和媒体使用的流行词），内部部门通常直接称其为“服装”（Costumes）。伪装的唯一核心目的，**仅仅是让你看起来不像你自己**——它不需要让你看起来像某位具体的人，甚至不需要让你看起来毫无破绽，只要打破你原本的面部特质即可。以 Steven Bartlett 为例，只要遮掩改变其标志性的鼻子、额头轮廓、胡须修剪形态、发型和颈线，换上一顶杂乱的红发假发、一副夸张的超大号墨镜、剃掉胡子或把胡须染灰、贴上假胡子并佩戴粗大项链，在任何监控抓拍或目击者眼中，他就彻底不再是原本的模样。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: CIA 三级伪装体系结构图 accDescr: 展示从一级轻度伪装、二级长期伪装到三级假体伪装的递进机制及其实战安全考量 subgraph Level1 ["一级：轻度伪装 (Light Disguise)"] L1_Desc["道具改变外观：假发、超大墨镜、卫衣棒球帽<br/>特点：即用即脱，极度安全，无违法把柄"] end subgraph Level2 ["二级：长期伪装 (Long-Term Disguise)"] L2_Desc["身体自然形态调整：蓄长发、刮净胡须、增肌或减重、持久假文身<br/>特点：依然是本人真实肉体，经得起突击搜查"] end subgraph Level3 ["三级：假体伪装 (Prosthetic Disguise)"] L3_Desc["特效假体：假耳、假鼻、改瞳色、假缺牙<br/>特点：电影级质感，极易脱落损坏，突击检查极易暴露"] end Level1 -->|操作周期与浸入深度加深| Level2 Level2 -->|极端特殊任务极少采用| Level3 ``` 针对大众对于“间谍是否会做整容手术改变容貌”的好奇，Andrew 梳理了 CIA 划分的三级伪装机制，并指明西方情报机构绝不会让特工做永久性整容手术： - **永久性整容无实战意义**：永久改变特工的肉体不会增加卧底效能，因为整容之后特工只是换了一副固定的新面孔；伪装的真正价值在于“随时可以重置服装与状态”，从而让人无法锁定你的固定外貌。 - **第一级：轻度伪装（Light Disguise）**：利用简易道具（如蓬乱假发、大墨镜、连帽衫配棒球帽）快速打破辨识度。安全性极高，若当地警察深夜突击搜查旅馆房间，查验驾照时若特工只戴了帽子卫衣，根本不会引起刑事怀疑。 - **第二级：长期伪装（Long-Term Disguise）**：为了长期卧底任务在生理上作出的可逆调整。例如留长发、剃须、通过严苛饮食故意减少肌肉量或增加脂肪、纹上持久但可清除的伪装文身。身体虽然发生显著形态变化，但所有特征都是特工本人的真实肉体，完全经得起突发审查。 - **第三级：假体伪装（Prosthetic Disguise）**：好莱坞大片最爱描绘的特效级别伪装。包括硅胶假耳朵、假鼻子、改变虹膜颜色的隐形眼镜、做成黑缺牙的假牙套等。但在实战中这属于极少使用的极端手段。 Andrew 特别抨击了《碟中谍》（Mission: Impossible）和《双面女间谍》（Alias）对观众的误导。在现实环境里，假体伪装存在着致命的操作缺陷：在极寒天气下假体粘合剂无法固定在皮肤上；在菲律宾等极端潮湿闷热的环境下，特工大汗淋漓会导致特效化妆直接融化，贴在上嘴唇的假胡须粘胶会迅速分解脱落。一旦半夜当地军警破门而入，看到桌上摆着没有佩戴的假鼻子、假眉毛和假牙，而身份证件上的照片又与本人不符，特工将当场陷入万劫不复的境地。 --- ### [01:40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6005s) 焦虑是特工的超级超能力：左右脑恐惧处理机制 当谈及特工潜入敌对势力区域（例如耗费长达 9 个月的时间去接触一位掌握伊朗核密码的高危目标）时，常人很容易在巨大的精神重压与恐惧中崩溃。主持人询问：CIA 到底是在招募时就专门挑选天生抗压的人，还是后期通过训练培养这种抗恐惧能力？Andrew 的回答是“两者兼备”。 他给出了一个颠覆常识的内部视角：**CIA 极为看重并专门挑选本身带有一定程度焦虑感（Anxiety）的人**。社会通常让患有焦虑症的人觉得自己能力不足或有心理缺陷，但在 CIA 看来，这是一种“超能力”（Superpower）： - **高度警觉与偏执**：带有焦虑特质的人天生处于高度警觉的偏执状态（Naturally Paranoid），这赋予了他们远超常人的超强观察力和敏锐度。 - **生存的护城河**：正是这种焦虑让人时刻警惕、不断学习、保持警觉并最终保命。“在情报世界里，我宁可要一个带有焦虑感的人，也绝不要一个毫无焦虑感的人，因为焦虑能让你在危险中活下来。” 除了天生特质外，系统性的科学训练同样必不可少。CIA 会训练特工从神经认知机制层面拆解恐惧的运作方式。Andrew 进行了极具实战视角的模型化简化：人类大脑分为左脑和右脑，左半脑是逻辑脑（Logical Brain），右半脑是情绪脑（Emotional Brain）。由于两个半球基于完全不同的原则运作，**它们的信息处理速度存在巨大的物理时间差**：情绪脑的运算速度极快，受到惊吓几乎在一瞬间（Instant）就会爆发；而逻辑脑的分析与理性介入则迟缓得多，往往需要数分钟才能重新接管思维。情报训练的精髓，正是在于掌握这种速度差异，训练特工在恐惧本能爆发的间隙通过认知工具强行减缓情绪脑的支配。 ### [01:41:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6115s) 情绪脑与理性脑的博弈：训练与未训练的本质差距 未经训练的普通人在面临恐惧时，情绪脑的处理速度极快，导致他们完全凭本能做出应激反应，这也是无数被焦虑困扰的人裹足不前、无法施展拳脚的根本原因。但受过专业训练的情报人员清楚，引发情绪恐惧的同一件事物，其实也在同步被理性脑分析评估——大脑实际上正在核算“你到底需要多害怕”。 如果能通过系统性训练让情绪脑的即时反应慢下来，同时锻炼理性脑让其运转得更快，人与恐惧之间的关系就会彻底被颠覆。当理性能先于情绪接管大脑时，恐惧就不再是不可逾越的高墙，而只是一组等待被客观分析的数据。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对恐惧时的思维处理模式对比 accDescr: 展示未经训练与受训人员在面对同一恐惧刺激时，情绪脑与理性脑的不同处理速度与反应结果。 subgraph Untrained["未经训练的普通人"] Stim1["恐惧刺激"] --> E1["情绪脑飞速接管"] E1 --> React1["本能逃避 / 焦虑被困"] end subgraph Trained["经过系统训练的特工"] Stim2["恐惧刺激"] --> SlowerE["主动压制 / 延缓情绪反应"] Stim2 --> FasterR["训练理性脑加速运算"] SlowerE & FasterR --> Fact2["收集客观事实 / 掌控局势"] end ``` ### [01:42:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6164s) “农场”里的脱敏训练：压力接种法（Stress Inoculation） 针对主持人关于“CIA 究竟如何训练学员放慢情绪脑”的追问，安德鲁指出，这正是中情局特工训练必须在长达数月的受控闭门环境（即被称为“农场”The Farm 的训练基地）中进行的原因。这种核心方法论在心理学与情报学中被称为“压力接种”（Stress Inoculation）。就像注射疫苗一样，训练人员会持续向学员投掷精心设计的极限场景，目的就是刻意触发学员的情绪反应。 即使学员在认知上明白不要相信直觉反应，他们仍必须在接二连三的真实危机中反复完成心理重塑过程：“我感受到了恐惧，我必须不予采纳；我感到怀疑，我必须坚决排斥；我怀疑自己被跟踪了，我必须拒绝妄想，强行给理性脑留出追赶情绪的时间，直到掌握客观确凿的事实。”而在“农场”里，部分学员始终无法建立起针对恐惧的有效免疫，他们最终逃不过被直接淘汰（cut from the Farm）的命运。 - **核心机制**：通过可控、高频、渐进式的压力刺激，破坏“感知恐惧即立刻退缩”的生理本能反射。 - **特工心智铁律**：强行拉开感知刺激与采取行动之间的时差，让理性脑有足够的空间调取客观事实。 ### [01:43:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6239s) 普通人如何战胜恐惧：从微小恐惧逐步接种 对于那些被恐惧绊住脚步的普通大众——不敢冒险、不敢上台做演讲汇报、逃避不确定性的人——安德鲁给出的处方同样是“自我压力接种”。这如同接种流感或新冠疫苗：让人体先接触毒性减弱的毒株，从而建立抗体；面对恐惧也是同理，无法立刻克服登台演讲的终极恐惧，就要退而求其次，寻找自己没那么害怕的小事开始脱敏。 如果你害怕去健身房、不敢走进街角的一家餐馆、甚至害怕问朋友自己是不是变胖了，那就主动迎向这些微小的、明知是简单且非理性的恐惧。预先做好承受生理反应的心理准备：“我待会一定会心跳加速、冷汗直流，我的情绪脑会彻底炸开，但那没关系，它是可预测的。” 安德鲁举了一个生动的场景：跑去问好哥们史蒂夫（Steve）“你觉得我胖吗？”。问出前你的心脏狂跳，但当史蒂夫给出无论肯定、否定还是和稀泥的答案后，一切尘埃落定。你会突然意识到：“天哪，这根本没有我想象得那么可怕。”随后你再去问珍妮（Jenny）、布鲁斯（Bruce）、罗伯特（Robert）。等问到罗伯特时，你的生理反应早已波澜不惊。通过这种细小而连续的接种，情绪脑被强行放慢，理性脑被加速激活，你便获得了向更大恐惧发起冲击的动量。 ### [01:46:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6400s) 达尔文式的冷酷真相：世界需要齿轮，恐惧即优势 针对主持人提出的现实难题——“很多人明知上台讲多了就不怕了，但他们永远跨不出第一步该怎么办？”——安德鲁展现出了前 CIA 特工极致务实、甚至带有些许冷酷的生存哲学。他直言不讳地说：“如果你太害怕而不敢做，那太好了（good），我巴不得你别做。因为你的退缩和无能为力，恰恰赋予了我竞争优势。” 安德鲁将听众分为两类：一类是感到恐惧却咬牙硬着头皮去做的行动者，他们配得上改变命运的入场券；另一类则是抱怨“我太害怕了”并止步不前的人。安德鲁冷峻地指出，世界需要那些被恐惧束缚、被困在消费主义闭环里的“齿轮”（cogs），因为正是这群受困于恐惧的大众支撑着庞大经济体的日常运转；而极少数敢于撕碎舒适圈、跨越恐惧的人，则靠着解决普通人不敢碰的难题、提供普通人无法自给的服务来捕获巨大的商业与社会价值。因此，他既要鼓励敢于涉险的人，也要任由害怕的人留在原地。 ### [01:48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6481s) 品牌合作插曲：Whoop 与 1% 边际收益 在进入更深入的人生访谈前，主持人插入了一段品牌分享。作为智能健康穿戴设备 Whoop 的早期赞助合作方与个人投资人，主持人提到了自己对“1% 边际增益”（marginal gains）理念的极度推崇。他分享道，通过手腕上的 Whoop 监测睡眠、心率变异性（HRV）等各项生理指标，那些每天 1% 的细微数据改善，能带来强大的前进推力，帮助自己在健康生活方式上持续做出针对性微调，长此以往积累出更优秀的自我状态。 ### [01:48:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6539s) 告别情报生涯：双特工家庭的 16 小时困局与回归真实 安德鲁与妻子是在双双担任中情局卧底特工期间相识相恋的，他打趣称自己至今仍非常庆幸“她的看人眼光不太准”。2014 年，年仅 34 岁的安德鲁与妻子做出了一个惊人的决定：两人同时向 CIA 递交辞呈。这主要是安德鲁的想法，尽管当时妻子的特工事业蒸蒸日上，两人刚刚联手执行完几项极其成功的绝密行动，双双晋升为中层管理岗位。 然而，中情局的中层管理生活是一场家庭灾难。他们每天必须在极端保密的敏感隔离情报设施（SCIF）里连续工作 12 到 16 个小时。由于极高的涉密等级，工作绝不允许带回家中，也完全无法远程办公，意味着两人每天有整整 16 个小时彻底在物理上“从家里消失”。当时他们有一个刚满 1 岁的幼子，夫妻俩不得不把孩子长期扔在全托早教中心，甚至要支付高额的超时滞纳费让托管机构每天看管婴儿 12 小时。安德鲁直言：“那是一种糟透了的生活状态。”两人从未想过要做这种缺席孩子成长的父母，比起前途无量的情报仕途，他们决意把筹码全部压在家庭上，辞职重新开辟新的人生轨道。 ### [01:50:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6627s) 筹划离开美国：动荡周期的预警 当主持人提及坊间传闻安德鲁打算在 2030 年迁出美国时，安德鲁纠正道，自己的实际计划是争取在 2027 年就举家搬离美国。谈及原因，他直言美国当前正步入一个极其艰难的动荡周期，大多数清醒的人都对此有所感知；无论从地缘、社会结构还是历史发展周期来看，美国终究是一个历史并不算悠久的年轻国度，正在遭遇深层次的系统性阵痛。 ### [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6642s) 国家的“青春期”阵痛与远走海外的抉择 谈及美国的现状，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直言，无论美国人多么坚信自己是“世界第一”，这个国家在发展历程中实际上才刚刚迈入“青春期早期”。这种身份认同的迷茫与撕裂每天都在新闻头条和地缘政治舞台上上演：美国仿佛一个在初中时期挣扎的孩子，根本不知道自己究竟要成为一个真正的民主国家、半民主国家，还是要做到人人平等。对于布斯塔曼特而言，他的孩子们是他的整个世界，他渴望为他们提供一个拥有无限自主选择权的人生。然而，他悲观地认为，未来五到十年内的美国并不具备让下一代自由追求理想的包容环境，这个国家必须先经历自身的阵痛与成长。 正因如此，他并不希望自己的下一代被困在美国本土。如果他站在自己11岁儿子的立场，等到儿子长到15或16岁、开始对某些事物产生真正热情的时候，他更希望孩子身处欧洲、中东或拉丁美洲。在那些地区，孩子能够跳出美国本土的桎梏，充分享受美国之外整个世界所赋予的广阔空间与发展红利。 ### [01:52:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6735s) 中美实力均势：双超级大国时代的极端危险 在深入探讨中美地缘政治博弈时，主持人提及许多人预测中国最终将在经济上超越美国。布斯塔曼特提出了两种最现实的情景预测： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 中美未来竞争与经济走向模型 accDescr: 展示中美竞争的两种最可能走向及所带来的全球安全风险。 subgraph S1["情景一：走向绝对均势（最可能）"] A["美国维持微弱优势 (+10%) 或 中国微幅反超 (+2%)"] --> B["中美进入平分秋色的均势状态 (Parity)"] B --> C["世界格局剧变：双货币、双语言、双军事强权并立"] C --> D["处于均势核心的国家成为头号打击目标"] end subgraph S2["情景二：GDP动态拉锯（次可能）"] E["中国GDP阶段性领先 5%-10%"] --> F["美国蓄力追赶反超"] F --> G["每隔5年左右攻守易位，世界陷入持续动荡与不安全"] end ``` 布斯塔曼特强调，最可能出现的情景是中美两国在经济上达到均势（Parity）——也许美国保持10%的微弱优势，或者中国反超2%，但整体将平分秋色。然而，他明确表示：“我绝不想生活在一个失去绝对主导地位、被另一个国家在经济上追平的美国。”过去全世界习惯了单一超级大国的秩序，一旦变成双超级大国，游戏规则就会被彻底颠覆： - **双重维度的选择站队**：世界上将存在两种主导语言、两种主流储备货币、两套截然不同的政治与优先级体系，以及规模旗鼓相当的高精尖军事力量。 - **目标锁定的极度危险**：缺乏绝对差距意味着彼此将对方视作头号眼中钉。正如商业领域中的雅虎（Yahoo）被谷歌（Google）迎头赶上并最终超越一样，当两个巨头平起平坐时，身处其中的人所面临的风险是前所未有的。 - **循环波动的脆弱性**：即使出现第二种情景（中国GDP小幅反超5%至10%），随后美国必然全力反击试图夺回优势，双方可能陷入每隔五年轮流领跑的胶着拉锯，这种不确定性比绝对均势更加令人不安。 ### [01:55:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6907s) 第三次世界大战的现实：代理人战争与大国对撞 面对主持人关于“我们是否已经身处第三次世界大战”的提问，布斯塔曼特给出了斩钉截铁的肯定回答：“是的，绝对如此。我认为第三次世界大战已经在发生。”他指出，大众对于第三次世界大战的恐惧往往停留在类似第二次世界大战的大规模全面军事冲突上，但现实中的第三次世界大战完全采取了代理人战争的形式。 在这场隐形的世界大战中，较小的国家在台前发生激烈碰撞，背后则是大国资本与军力的实际博弈： - **俄乌冲突的本质**：表面上是乌克兰与俄罗斯的对抗，美国为乌克兰提供庞大的资金与军备支持，但这场战事真正的核心是整个西方阵营与俄罗斯的较量。 - **台海局势的走向**：中国大陆已经采取了诸多前期布局，未来一旦对台湾做出关键动作，其实质必然演变为中国与以西方阵营为首的台湾支持力量之间的正面对决。 ### [01:56:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6962s) 破除内耗的闭幕法则：迈出第一步的降维打击 主持人将话题拉回普通人的个人生活：那些被情绪枷锁、刻板偏见和身份认同束缚，想要创业、开启项目却停滞不前的普通人，究竟该如何解放自己？布斯塔曼特给出的核心建议是——**立刻采取行动，哪怕第一步完全走错了也无所谓**。 他解释道，迈出错误的第一步与站在原地寸步不移之间，有着天壤之别。只要你采取行动，就向外界和自己证明了你没有被恐惧绑架，证明了你愿意挑战自己固有的偏见去换取真正的客观视角。无论这个行动是去读一本书、购买一门课程，还是售出自己的第一个产品原型，都具有无可替代的意义。因为现实中每十个人里就有九个人永远只是停留在空想阶段，绝对不会付诸行动；你仅仅因为尝试了，就天然超越了绝大多数人。 许多人误以为“等待时机”是一种明智的策略，但在布斯塔曼特看来，等待的唯一后果就是给其余九个人抢占先机的可能。即使你在前三四步里跌跌撞撞、摔得鼻青脸肿，当你重新站起来时，你也已经走出了四步之远，不仅将竞争对手甩在身后，还在摔倒的过程中汲取了无可替代的经验教训。 ### [01:57:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=7078s) 身份认同的“放大镜效应”与播客最后的提问 在探讨阻碍行动的根源时，话题转向了“个人身份认同”。布斯塔曼特指出，最不适合定义你究竟是谁的人，往往恰恰是你自己。每个人都深陷在自己的“私密生活”之中，当审视自己时，手中如同拿着一个高倍放大镜： - **近距离的自我苛责**：透过放大镜，你会看清自己身上的每一个缺点、每一处暗斑和每一道瑕疵，从而无限放大自身的无能与缺陷。 - **客观视角的失真**：现实中的其他人不仅没有放大镜，而且往往站在十英尺开外看着你展现出的“公众生活”。他们眼中的你，与你自己眼中那个布满缺陷的形象截然不同。 由于缺乏客观抽离的视角，人们对自己的主观判断往往错得离谱。在讨论的高潮处，主持人翻开了《CEO日记》的压轴传统——上一位神秘嘉宾为下一位未知的到访者留下的专属手写问题。主持人读出了题干的前半句：“什么是你曾经深信不疑，如今却……”悬念在此处悄然铺开。 ### [01:59:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=7169s) 平等是谎言：人性深处追求的是优势与特权 当主持人询问 Andrew Bustamante 在人生中发生过什么根本性动摇与转变的观念时，Andrew 坦言，自己过去曾深信“人与人之间是可以实现平等的”。然而现在的他从根本上认清，人类永远不可能实现真正的平等，因为平等根本就不是人类内心真正渴望的东西。人性深处不敢承认的秘密诉求，其实是“渴望比别人更优秀、拥有更多、处于比所有人都更好的位置”。正因如此，人们总是在暗地里千方百计地利用秘密、紧抓一切机遇，寻找属于自己而不愿与他人分享的竞争优势；但在公开场合，大家却总会道貌岸然地宣称自己渴望更多的平等。 Andrew 直言，自己年轻时也曾是追求“一切平等”阵营中的一员，但如今的他却坦然接纳并乐于生活在一个不平等的现实世界中。因为他已经看穿了表象的喧嚣与伪善，深知“人们公开宣称的诉求，根本不是他们内心真正想要的”。 - **公开口号与隐秘欲望的割裂**：大众口头上高喊追求公平和平等，但潜意识与实际行动中却都在寻找“秘密优势”（edge）来超越同类。 - **看透表象噪音的释怀**：告别了对平等的理想化幻想后，面对不平等的世界反而更加清醒坦然，懂得如何顺应客观人性规则。 ### [02:00:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=7243s) 政客操纵话术与《EverydaySpy》的使命收尾 针对某些政客（例如左翼政客）不断高呼“我们要平等、我们要让每个人都平等”的说辞，主持人直率地提问这是否纯属胡扯。Andrew 斩钉截铁地证实了这一点，指出政客的真正目的绝非追求人人平等，他们真正想要的是维持现状以挑起与对立阵营的冲突，并借此让大众彻底信任政客，进而将大众日常生活的更多方面交由权力来操控。 对话进入尾声，主持人对 Andrew 表达了由衷的敬意与感谢。他表示整场长谈令人深受启发、充满能量，盛赞 Andrew 将原本只属于少数精英特工独占的情报机密技能，通过创立 EverydaySpy 平台普及给普通大众，帮助人们洞悉人性运行的规律、突破自身的内在枷锁，从而在真实世界中自由地追求能带来成就感的人生目标。在诚挚的道谢与致意中，这场深入探讨间谍技术与人性本质的对话圆满落下帷幕。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 政治操纵与个人觉醒路径对比 accDescr: 对比政客利用平等的虚伪口号掌控大众，与通过 EverydaySpy 掌握真实人性规则实现自主掌控。 subgraph Manipulation["政客的权力操控机制"] A["宣扬'人人平等'道德口号"] --> B["激化阵营对立与冲突现状"] B --> C["获取大众信任并全面掌控民众生活"] end subgraph Awakening["EverydaySpy 的个体赋能路径"] D["认清人性本质与真实诉求"] --> E["学习原本少数人专属的特工技能"] E --> F["摆脱认知束缚与假象，赢得人生自主与突破"] end ``` ## Notable quotes > [06:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=362s) 如果你了解对方的壁垒，甚至比他们自己还了解其深层困境，当你引导并帮助他们突破这一壁垒时，他们就会心甘情愿地向你倾诉所有秘密。 — Andrew Bustamante > [08:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=493s) 无论你主观上是否想操纵他人，外界与他人都在时刻操纵着你 — Andrew Bustamante > [11:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=715s) 我当然更爱你的爸爸。因为你是我生的，我必须爱你；但爱你的爸爸是我自己的选择。正因为那是一个选择，所以我必须更爱他。 — Andrew's Mother > [17:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1033s) 你作为父亲一定会搞砸的，我们当父母的通通都会搞砸。真正的问题在于，我们搞砸的程度到底有多大？ — Andrew Bustamante > [31:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1891s) 当你仅仅因为“擅长打勾”而被雇佣时，你并没有真正自由；等待你的只是方框本身被替换成了另一批规则，你仍然得日复一日地把新的方框逐一填满。 — Andrew Bustamante > [42:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=2521s) 当我们彼此完全镜像时，在你的潜意识深处，你看向我时看到的其实是你自己。而在这个世界上，每个人最信任的人永远是他自己。 — Andrew Bustamante > [01:01:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=3682s) 千万不要相信你的直觉（Don't trust your gut） — Andrew Bustamante > [01:07:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=4035s) 如果你能找到一个间谍，如果你能找到一个叛徒，你就绝对能做成一笔销售。 — Andrew Bustamante > [01:40:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6005s) 在情报世界里，我宁可要一个带有焦虑感的人，也绝不要一个毫无焦虑感的人，因为焦虑能让你在危险中活下来。 — Andrew Bustamante > [01:46:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6400s) 如果你太害怕而不敢做，那太好了（good），我巴不得你别做。因为你的退缩和无能为力，恰恰赋予了我竞争优势。 — Andrew Bustamante > [01:52:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6735s) 我绝不想生活在一个失去绝对主导地位、被另一个国家在经济上追平的美国。 — Andrew Bustamante > [01:55:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=6907s) 是的，绝对如此。我认为第三次世界大战已经在发生。 — Andrew Bustamante ## Mentioned Andrew Bustamante, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, CIA (中央情报局), EverydaySpy, MI6 (英国军情六处), Mossad (摩萨德), MSS (中国国家安全部), 美国空军学院 (US Air Force Academy), Peace Corps (和平队), National Clandestine Service (国家秘密行动处), Malmstrom Air Force Base (马姆斯特罗姆空军基地), 9·11委员会调查报告 (9/11 Commission Report), The Farm (农场), RICE 框架 (Reward, Ideology, Coercion, Ego), SADRAT 流程 (Spot, Assess, Develop, Recruit, Handle, Terminate), Whoop, SCIF (敏感隔离情报设施), Donald Trump, Mother Teresa, Google, Yahoo, 碟中谍 (Mission: Impossible), 双面女间谍 (Alias) ## Video description Andrew Bustamante is a former covert CIA intelligence officer and US Air Force combat veteran. He is the founder of EverydaySpy, an online education platform that teaches real-world international espionage techniques that can be used in everyday life. 00:00 Intro 02:47 Your Time At The CIA 03:15 What Is The CIA? 03:57 You've Got It Wrong About Spies 06:43 Applying Real Spy Skills To Overcome Any Barrier In Our Lives 08:13 How To Manipulate People 18:15 The Psychological Profile Of A CIA Agent 21:13 I Held The Key To Nuclear Missiles 23:15 It Was A Horrible Job 25:00 Would You Have You Pressed The Nuclear Button? 27:18 The CIA Message That Changed My Life 29:13 The Interview Process For The CIA 31:31 How Did You Feel When You Received That Letter? 33:54 Did The CIA Tell You To Cut Off From Your Social Circle? 34:44 Your Ethnicity Factor To Be Recruited By The CIA 36:03 Do You Have To Change Your Identity? 37:14 How Expensive Is To Train A CIA Agent? 37:21 What's The CIA Training Scheme? 38:04 Do They Show You How To Kill? 39:06 How You Teach The Art Of Lying 41:00 Body Language & Lying 42:46 Demystifying Lying Signs 45:44 How To Tell If Someone Is Lying 47:34 Human Psychology 50:32 The Essence Of Manipulation 52:09 How To Find Someone's Ideology To Manipulate Them 56:12 Have You Changed The Way You Look At The World? 01:00:01 Perception vs Perceptive 01:01:59 Leaning Into Objective vs Subjective Feelings 01:03:25 How To Train Yourself To Apply Rational Objective Perspective 01:05:54 Your Business Success 01:09:01 What Is SADRAT? 01:11:07 Change The Game When Selling Your Products 01:13:13 What Is Espionage? 01:14:08 What Is Our Secret Life? 01:18:16 How To Enter Someone's Secret Life 01:23:33 How To Apply It To Business 01:26:19 Adapting To Change Faster Than Your Opponent 01:29:18 Were There Times Your Life Was At Threat? 01:31:43 Sexpionage, What Is It? 01:33:49 Disguise, Did You Ever Do It? 01:38:44 Do CIA Agents Get Trained To Not Feel Fear & Anxiety? 01:41:23 How Do They Train You To Slow Down Your Emotional Brain? 01:47:28 Your Wife & You Leaving The CIA 01:48:55 America Is Going Through A Hard Period 01:54:15 What's The Advice For Everyone To Make That Change? 01:56:27 How Does Your Identity Stop You From Evolving? 01:57:39 What Is Something You Used To Believe That You No Longer Do? Want to learn more from Andrew? Find your Spy Superpower: https://everydayspy.com/spyquiz Explore Spy School: https://everydayspy.com/ Join the podcast: https://youtube.com/@EverydaySpyPodcast Follow Andrew Twitter - https://bit.ly/49AI9qT Instagram - https://bit.ly/4bTOIqf YouTube - https://bit.ly/3IkEhOY Follow our Shorts channel for more content: https://www.youtube.com/@TheDiaryofaCEOShorts Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGq-a57w-aPwyi3pW7XLiHw/join Follow me: https://beacons.ai/diaryofaceo Sponsors: Whoop: https://join.whoop.com/en-uk/CEO This episode of The Diary Of A CEO was filmed at Gold Tree Studios, located in the heart of the Sunset Strip, West Hollywood, California [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0)

[6:02] Andrew Bustamante: 如果你了解对方的壁垒，甚至比他们自己还了解其深层困境，当你引导并帮助他们突破这一壁垒时，他们就会心甘情愿地向你倾诉所有秘密。 [8:13] Andrew Bustamante: 无论你主观上是否想操纵他人，外界与他人都在时刻操纵着你 [11:55] Andrew's Mother: 我当然更爱你的爸爸。因为你是我生的，我必须爱你；但爱你的爸爸是我自己的选择。正因为那是一个选择，所以我必须更爱他。 [17:13] Andrew Bustamante: 你作为父亲一定会搞砸的，我们当父母的通通都会搞砸。真正的问题在于，我们搞砸的程度到底有多大？ [31:31] Andrew Bustamante: 当你仅仅因为“擅长打勾”而被雇佣时，你并没有真正自由；等待你的只是方框本身被替换成了另一批规则，你仍然得日复一日地把新的方框逐一填满。 [42:01] Andrew Bustamante: 当我们彼此完全镜像时，在你的潜意识深处，你看向我时看到的其实是你自己。而在这个世界上，每个人最信任的人永远是他自己。 [61:22] Andrew Bustamante: 千万不要相信你的直觉（Don't trust your gut） [67:15] Andrew Bustamante: 如果你能找到一个间谍，如果你能找到一个叛徒，你就绝对能做成一笔销售。 [100:05] Andrew Bustamante: 在情报世界里，我宁可要一个带有焦虑感的人，也绝不要一个毫无焦虑感的人，因为焦虑能让你在危险中活下来。 [106:40] Andrew Bustamante: 如果你太害怕而不敢做，那太好了（good），我巴不得你别做。因为你的退缩和无能为力，恰恰赋予了我竞争优势。 [112:15] Andrew Bustamante: 我绝不想生活在一个失去绝对主导地位、被另一个国家在经济上追平的美国。 [115:07] Andrew Bustamante: 是的，绝对如此。我认为第三次世界大战已经在发生。

[62:50] Andrew Bustamante: trust your gut [82:58] Andrew Bustamante: Everybody's in a contest for control. Who controls a conversation? The person asking the questions or the person saying the most words? It's always the person asking the questions. [106:40] Andrew Bustamante: good... I need you to stay exactly where you are. [115:07] Andrew Bustamante: Yeah, absolutely. [116:01] Andrew Bustamante: Nine out of every 10 people are not going to take any action. [117:56] Andrew Bustamante: the worst person to determine who you are is often times you [116:19] Andrew Bustamante: I used to believe that people could be equal. And fundamentally now, I know that people will never be equal...

[0:00] For 7 years, I was working undercover as [0:02] a spy. And I needed to know how to [0:05] manipulate, how to live and operate [0:06] without ever being detected, and how to [0:08] collect secrets. Okay, I've got so many [0:11] questions. Andrew Bustamante [0:14] He's a former CIA officer [0:15] who uses spy skills [0:17] to teach anyone how to master their [0:18] mind, talents, and potential in business [0:21] and everyday life. [0:22] When I left CIA, they realized that I [0:24] could use CIA skills to succeed in [0:26] business. One of the first things you [0:28] should want to learn is how do I know if [0:29] I'm being lied to? As an example, bad [0:31] liars [0:32] that is one of the biggest tells of an [0:34] unskilled liar. Next, people have four [0:36] basic core motivations. Reward, [0:39] ideology, coercion, and ego. And if you [0:42] can speak to somebody through the lens [0:43] of their ideology, you can get them to [0:45] do incredible things. [0:46] Deception versus perspective, what's [0:48] that? 90% of the people out there, [0:50] they're all trapped in their own [0:52] perception and thinking emotionally, and [0:54] emotions are very likely wrong. So, CIA [0:56] trains us to recognize and distrust our [1:00] perception. And there's two really quick [1:01] things that you can do. [1:03] Next, sad rat. [1:04] It's an acronym. And all of our [1:06] marketing, all of our human interactions [1:08] falls into the same sad rat process that [1:11] I learned at CIA. Because the human [1:13] condition is so predictable. So, sad rat [1:16] stands for [1:17] and it's the reason my company has grown [1:19] 300% every year for the last 3 years. [1:22] I want to know more. Was there any [1:23] situations where you felt your life was [1:25] at risk? What do you think about what's [1:27] going on at the moment with geopolitics? [1:28] Do you think we're already engaged in a [1:30] form of World War III? [1:31] And then, why are you going to try and [1:32] leave America in 2027? [1:36] It's absolutely crazy to me that so many [1:38] of you have decided to watch our show, [1:40] um, and so many of you have decided to [1:42] subscribe to our show. We now have 5 [1:44] million subscribers on YouTube, which is [1:45] a number that I just can't comprehend, [1:47] and it's a dream that I absolutely never [1:50] could have had. We started The Diary of [1:51] a CEO just over 3 years ago now, and in [1:54] my wildest expectations, we might have [1:56] had 100,000 subscribers by now. So, you [1:58] can imagine how shocked I am that so [2:00] many of you have chosen to, um, tune [2:02] into these conversations every week, um, [2:05] and spend some time with us. So, thank [2:07] you. And I made a deal with you. I made [2:09] a deal that if you subscribe to this [2:10] show, that we would continue to raise [2:13] the bar, and in 2024, [2:15] we're going to raise the bar like never [2:16] before. I've been working for the last 9 [2:18] months on a surprise for all of you that [2:21] have subscribed to this show, and I'm [2:23] very excited to deliver that for you. [2:25] The production's going to change. We're [2:27] going to go even further with our [2:28] guests, and we're going to tell even [2:30] more global stories. So, as always, if [2:32] you appreciate what we're doing here, [2:34] the simple, free favor I'll ask from you [2:37] is to hit the subscribe button. Let's [2:38] get on with the episode. [2:46] Andrew, [2:49] you're well-known for your time in the [2:50] CIA because people are so intrigued and [2:52] compelled by it. [2:54] How long were you in the CIA? I was [2:56] actually in the CIA for a comparatively [2:58] short period. I was only in for 7 years. [3:01] Uh, many people make a 30 or more year [3:03] career out of CIA. So, it was really [3:05] quite a small blip in terms of my [3:07] overall life. I wore, uh, the US [3:09] military uniform for 7 years before that [3:11] as well. So, 14 years total spent in [3:14] service to the United States. And what [3:16] is the CIA? So, the CIA is, uh, the [3:19] United States is intelligence, foreign [3:22] intelligence collection, uh, platform. [3:25] They're primary agency deemed with [3:27] collecting foreign secrets that have any [3:29] kind of impact in American national [3:31] security. So, if you think about it, uh, [3:34] there are multiple what's called [3:36] intelligence agencies in what's known as [3:38] the intelligence community or the IC. [3:40] CIA is just one of those 36-ish, [3:44] uh, community members in the IC. [3:46] However, it is the one charged with [3:49] centralizing all of the intelligence [3:51] collected, hence the Central [3:52] Intelligence Agency. So, it's the hub in [3:54] a large wheel of intelligence [3:56] collection. Is that what a spy is? Is it [3:58] the same thing as being a spy? So, I'm [4:00] going to I'll geek out with you a little [4:01] bit here because terminology is really [4:04] very important. So, uh, there are spies, [4:07] and spy is a vernacular that's used in [4:09] common, uh, conversation that doesn't [4:12] really have a definition in terms of the [4:15] intelligence or espionage profession. [4:17] You have handlers, you have assets in [4:20] terms of traditional espionage. Handlers [4:23] are officers who collect intelligence. [4:26] Assets are foreigners who provide [4:28] intelligence to the handler. So, a CIA [4:31] officer or an MI6 officer, a Mossad [4:34] officer, an MSS officer, depending on [4:36] the country, these are officers who [4:38] collect secrets. They are therefore [4:39] handlers. [4:41] And then, all the people who provide [4:42] them secrets are considered assets. [4:45] Traditionally speaking, when you talk [4:46] about a spy, some people think a spy is [4:49] an asset or a handler, either someone [4:51] who provides information or someone who [4:53] collects information. Okay. Uh, and and [4:56] the term spy is just, uh, just confusing [5:00] enough that oftentimes people will [5:02] project their own opinions on top of [5:04] that word because they don't understand [5:06] the real nuance of espionage. So, I [5:09] thought of a spy as someone that goes to [5:10] another country and collects information [5:13] secretly and then sends it back to the [5:15] country they came from. So, technically [5:17] that is an intelligence operative or an [5:20] intelligence officer, [5:21] uh, also known as an operator or in [5:24] media, an operative. Uh, sometimes it's [5:26] also called an agent, right? An [5:28] intelligence agent. Uh, these are all [5:30] kind of terms that get nebulous, but [5:32] what you are describing is a [5:34] intelligence, a trained intelligence [5:36] officer. No matter what country you're [5:38] in, whether you're in, uh, [5:41] it doesn't matter what intelligence [5:43] profession you're in either, and there [5:44] are multiple types of intelligence. [5:45] There's human intelligence, signals [5:47] intelligence, measurements intelligence. [5:48] Anybody who travels to collect secrets [5:51] on behalf of their country is an [5:53] intelligence officer. Is that what you [5:55] were? [5:55] That's what I was. You started a company [5:57] after leaving the CIA called Everyday [5:59] Spy. Correct. [6:02] For someone that's just clicked on this [6:03] podcast now, [6:04] who's trying to understand the value [6:06] that they're going to get from you by [6:07] understanding the work that you do at [6:09] Everyday Spy, [6:11] what are they going to get from this [6:12] conversation? This conversation is [6:14] designed to, for me, to be able to [6:17] explain how spy skills have a very real [6:21] value in breaking everyday barriers. And [6:23] that's the mission of my company at [6:25] Everyday Spy. We use spy education to [6:27] break barriers, social barriers, [6:29] financial barriers, educational [6:30] barriers, cultural barriers, language [6:33] barriers. If there is a barrier in life, [6:35] I've made it my mission in my company to [6:37] break that barrier using a proven, [6:40] real-world skill or technique from [6:42] espionage. And what sort of means is [6:44] that to what end? So, if I'm, you know, [6:47] the average Joe listening to this now, [6:49] when you say break barriers, what are [6:50] those barriers that I that I'm going to [6:51] be able to break in my life? So, I I [6:54] intentionally use the term breaking [6:55] barriers because we all have different [6:57] barriers. What the reality of life is [7:00] that we all come into barriers [7:02] that are similar, but we come into those [7:04] barriers at different times. For some [7:06] people, there's a barrier in income that [7:09] they're born into. [7:10] For other people, the barrier that [7:11] they're born into is that they don't [7:14] have a father. For other people, they [7:15] come into a financial barrier when [7:17] they're 18 and they have to leave home. [7:20] Some people don't ever know financial [7:21] barriers, but they do know educational [7:23] barriers because they suffer from [7:24] dyslexia or they suffer from ADHD. There [7:27] are people who have uh, barriers that [7:28] are due to anxiety. The reality is [7:30] there's really 12 or so barriers that we [7:33] will all experience in our life, but we [7:35] will experience them at different times. [7:37] For some of us, it won't happen until we [7:38] become parents. For others, it happens [7:39] as soon as we hit adulthood. [7:42] The idea is that CIA is extremely [7:45] familiar with barriers. And what they [7:48] teach us as officers going through their [7:50] training programs is not [7:52] just the details of tradecraft, but it's [7:54] really to understand that any barrier [7:56] that we as individuals face, they can [7:58] get us through. [8:00] But, we can also predict barriers other [8:02] people will run into. And if you know [8:04] somebody else's barrier, and you [8:06] understand their barrier better than [8:08] they do, when you help them through that [8:10] barrier, they will tell you secrets. [8:13] They will tell me secrets. [8:16] As part of your training to become a CIA [8:18] officer, you must have learned how to [8:21] manipulate people. [8:23] That seems to me, from what I know of [8:25] spies, pretty foundational to what it is [8:27] to be a successful spy and to get [8:29] information from someone else. [8:31] In this conversation today, are we going [8:33] to learn how, [8:34] through your training, [8:36] you were taught to [8:38] get information from people and make [8:40] them do what you wanted them to do? Yes, [8:43] and I'll I'll be very frank here. I try [8:46] to exercise something called radical [8:48] transparency. [8:50] If you want to manipulate people, [8:52] you will learn that from this [8:53] conversation. If you want to manipulate [8:56] people, I will teach you how to [8:57] manipulate people. In in just a simple [9:00] conversation, you can learn those [9:01] skills. [9:03] But, the thing to understand that's the [9:04] most important is that whether you want [9:06] to manipulate or not, others are [9:08] manipulating you [9:10] just because you don't know what they're [9:12] doing, right? The problem with being an [9:14] intelligence operator [9:16] is that to achieve the things you have [9:17] to achieve, [9:19] you sometimes have to do things that you [9:21] don't want to do. In being a business [9:24] owner, what I've discovered is that many [9:25] business owners struggle because they [9:27] feel like they have to do things they [9:29] don't want to do. They feel like they [9:30] have to be sleazy. They feel like they [9:31] have to be tricky. They feel like they [9:32] have to [9:33] mimic, you know, [9:36] shyster, bad guy business owners, right? [9:39] The flip side, if you think of a coin, [9:42] one side of that coin is manipulation, [9:44] and that is a that coin has value. [9:46] Manipulation has value. [9:48] But, the other side of the same coin [9:51] is motivation. [9:52] If you can get people to do what they [9:55] want to do, [9:56] then you have motivated them. And that [9:58] is worth just as much as getting people [10:01] to do what you want them to do, which is [10:03] manipulating them. We'll get into all of [10:05] that, but I want to understand where you [10:06] came from, because I think this is quite [10:08] pertinent to both your work as a CIA [10:11] officer, but also there's um really [10:13] interesting sort of psychological [10:15] elements to why the CIA chose you that [10:18] are deep within your childhood story. [10:21] Going right back to the beginning of [10:22] your life, what is what is the most [10:24] important context we need to [10:27] I think the most important thing to [10:28] understand from my childhood is that I [10:30] was raised by my mom. [10:33] Uh my father died. My father was killed [10:35] before I was born. [10:36] Uh he died in a violent crime in [10:37] California. I didn't know him ever, and [10:40] my mom had to start life with a newborn [10:43] son, not just as a single mom, but also [10:46] as the single mom of a man who was [10:47] killed in a crime. Um so it was my mom [10:51] and my grandmother raised me from very [10:52] young. My mom is uh a woman of color. [10:55] She's she's Latina. My father was [10:57] American Indian. [10:59] So they there was uh an element of [11:03] racial diversity in 1980 when I was born [11:06] that also kind of played a role in all [11:08] of that. And the reason that that's [11:09] important is not because of what [11:10] happened in the past, it's because from [11:13] that foundation [11:14] my mom married a Caucasian man who [11:17] became my stepdad, uh who became my [11:19] adopted father as well, and I had to [11:23] kind of learn how to come of age [11:25] or literally come of age in a household [11:28] where I didn't know my father, I had a [11:30] stepdad who was Caucasian with two [11:32] half-sisters who were Caucasian, and my [11:35] stepdad's whole goal was to just pull my [11:37] mom as far away from her roots as [11:40] possible, because he didn't want to deal [11:42] with [11:43] all the drama that comes from being part [11:44] of a Catholic Latin family. And my mom [11:46] was all for that, but nevertheless, like [11:50] that was that was the kind of [11:53] soup that I came out of. What were the [11:55] needs that were going unmet in your life [11:57] at that point? [12:00] You do not ask easy questions, man. So [12:04] uh [12:05] uh [12:06] I was not [12:08] I I did not feel loved. Growing up I did [12:09] not feel loved. My mother loved me, and [12:12] I know logically and rationally that she [12:14] loved me, but my mother was a cold [12:16] woman. She was focused on career [12:18] success, she was focused on feminism, [12:20] she was focused on [12:22] other things. I I As an adult now, [12:26] uh my sisters and I often [12:29] uh reflect on the fact that we think our [12:31] mom was the kind of woman that didn't [12:32] want to be a mom. [12:34] But it was expected of her to be a mom, [12:36] so therefore she became a mom. [12:38] So there wasn't a lot of love, there [12:40] wasn't a lot of emotional support. There [12:43] was plenty of academic support, [12:46] and it was always hard because the [12:48] academic support came, I think, as a way [12:50] of making sure that they didn't have to [12:51] provide the other support. Cuz if you [12:53] have an academically successful student [12:56] who turns 18, they can get the [ __ ] out [12:58] of the house, and you can have your life [12:59] back. [13:00] And I think that was the mission for my [13:02] mom was just academic success, academic [13:04] success. Be successful so I don't have [13:06] to take care of you, because I'm not [13:08] really good at this whole hugging loving [13:10] thing, [13:11] uh and I just want you gone. So I feel [13:12] like that was that was my mom, my dad, [13:15] and my mom I think had a marriage that [13:16] was based in a common set of objectives [13:20] more so than shared love, and uh and [13:23] they were just kind of pursuing those [13:25] objectives, and [13:26] uh and I was fortunate because from that [13:30] I was cultivated to be a [13:32] hard-working academic success, and that [13:35] led to a full ride scholarship, and that [13:37] led to, you know, success in other parts [13:39] of life, but for sure it was it was an [13:43] un- it left behind a trail of always [13:46] wondering [13:48] who who who loves me in my family? Is [13:52] love even important in a family? Does it [13:54] matter, or am I being too focused on [13:56] this whole love thing? Uh as an example, [14:00] I tell this story because it's totally [14:01] normal to me, but a lot of other people [14:03] find it surprising. [14:04] There was a day where my mom pulled me [14:06] aside. I was having an argument with my [14:07] stepdad, and I went to my mom looking [14:09] for support, and I asked her to support [14:11] me. I you know, I was like, "Do Do you [14:13] love me? Right? Do you love me, or do [14:15] you love Dad more?" [14:17] And she looked at me, and she was like, [14:18] "Of course I love your dad more than I [14:20] love you. Because you're my son, [14:23] I have to love you. [14:25] You were born to me. I must love you, [14:27] but it's a choice to love your dad. So I [14:29] have to love him more because it's a [14:31] choice." [14:32] And for me, I will never forget that [14:34] conversation. I'll never forget the look [14:35] on my mom's face. It was so simple and [14:37] so academic and so clear to her. Uh and [14:40] it's never been something I could ever [14:41] actually accept, and even now as a [14:43] husband and a father myself, [14:45] I don't understand how that was [14:47] logically sound to her. I don't know how [14:48] you could ever [14:50] actually prioritize who you love. [14:54] All of that, as you've said, has the [14:56] result resulted in your academic success [15:00] and your your focus and all those kinds [15:02] of things, but at at what cost? I mean, [15:04] it makes you kind of [ __ ] up, man. It [15:05] makes you feel like [15:08] first of all, it makes you feel like [15:09] your secrets are justified. It makes you [15:11] feel like you must have secrets [15:13] because there's nobody that you can talk [15:14] to about certain things. I I I remember [15:17] for many years you you can't take [15:19] you can't take your love life to mom and [15:20] dad. You can't tell them the girl that [15:22] you think is cute. You can't talk to [15:24] them about not getting picked to go to [15:25] the prom dance or anything like that. [15:27] You can't talk about that with them [15:28] because they don't care. [15:29] And you can't trust your your sisters, [15:33] you can't trust your mom, you can't [15:34] trust your dad. You can't trust the [15:35] people in your own house. So because you [15:37] can't trust them, and because you can't [15:38] take certain things to them, you must [15:40] keep secrets. [15:41] And since you must keep secrets, you [15:43] must be allowed to keep secrets. There [15:45] must be secrets that are totally [15:47] acceptable that they are also keeping [15:49] from you. [15:50] So I grew up in a world where secrets [15:52] were something that was very normal. And [15:56] then from that you start to learn that [15:59] if secrets are normal, then lying must [16:00] also be normal and totally acceptable. [16:03] So there's a level of sociopathy that [16:06] develops when you feel like you're on [16:09] your own. Uh and that's something that [16:12] most people out there who are loners, [16:14] who have grown up in that world, they [16:15] they learn to understand that there are [16:18] certain [16:19] elements of social behavior that are not [16:22] culturally acceptable, [16:24] but as long as you don't talk about [16:25] them, you can practice them. So that was [16:29] that's a big part of what I learned [16:31] personally was that secrets how to keep [16:33] secrets, that secrets are normal, [16:35] uh how to lie, how to lie without being [16:38] caught, and more importantly that that [16:40] there is a very real difference between [16:43] the people [16:46] the people who are raised in a world [16:48] where they trust people, they trust [16:50] others, [16:51] and because they trust others, they have [16:53] a built-in vulnerability, [16:55] a built-in deficiency of compared to the [16:59] people who are raised in a world where [17:00] they don't trust others. Because when [17:02] you're raised in a world where you don't [17:03] trust, you can always learn to trust. [17:06] But when you're raised in a world where [17:07] you trust first, it's very difficult to [17:09] train that person to know when to not [17:11] trust someone else. How do you feel [17:13] about that wiring that you have because [17:15] of that experience? I mean, it's sad. [17:17] I'm doing everything in my power to not [17:19] wire my children the same way that I was [17:21] wired. [17:22] So I do believe that there is a faulty [17:23] wiring that [17:26] But at the same time, it's been very [17:28] valuable to me. It's been very [17:30] productive and valuable in terms of [17:33] what I've been able to experience, what [17:34] I've been able to see and do, [17:36] financially, economically, relationally. [17:39] I I I benefit in value, and this is a [17:41] big challenge that I have is as much as [17:43] I sit here telling friends and like I'm [17:45] telling you secrets, [17:47] because this is what happens. We tell [17:49] people secrets when they trust you. [17:51] When I share with you the challenges of [17:53] growing up, it's important to me that I [17:54] don't sound like I'm complaining or [17:56] whining, because I had a fantastic [17:58] foundation for success after that. [18:01] But [18:03] I had to find success [18:05] in all the ways that I was trained to [18:07] define success, financially, [18:09] economically, empirically, not based on [18:13] how I feel internally. [18:15] Have you had to do a lot of work to um [18:17] counteract the [18:19] potential consequences of that wiring as [18:21] you become an adult and a father and all [18:23] of those things? It's something I think [18:24] about a lot. I think I've got my own [18:26] pretty uh [ __ ] up wiring, and I'm [18:28] scared now because I'm on the footsteps [18:31] of becoming a dad myself. [18:33] You know, I've I'm with a partner, been [18:34] with her for 4 years. We're talking [18:36] about kids right now, and I think, [18:38] "Jesus Christ, like there's a really [18:40] almost can foresee that there's a really [18:42] high possibility I'm going to [ __ ] up as [18:43] a dad because my brain is wired towards [18:46] like validation and work career success, [18:50] and I'm a bit of a workaholic, and [18:52] so have you had to do a lot of work on [18:54] that to Absolutely. So the first thing [18:56] I'll say is you will [ __ ] up as a dad. [18:58] We will all [ __ ] up as parents. [19:01] The question is how big will we [ __ ] [19:04] them up? [19:05] And I'm working very hard to make sure [19:06] that the way that I [ __ ] up my kids is [19:08] in small ways that they can fix in small [19:10] ways. But I already know like the sins [19:13] of the father pass on. So I'm just [19:15] trying to minimize what I pass on that's [19:17] negative and maximize what I pass on [19:20] that's positive. The the additional [19:22] layer that's that is unique [19:25] to myself and all uh professional [19:27] intelligence officers is that when we [19:30] are recruited into intelligence service, [19:33] specifically when CIA recruits field [19:36] operators, [19:37] it's fairly transparent. They tell you [19:40] that you were recruited because you are [19:41] a little [ __ ] up. They tell you that [19:44] you are you were recruited because of a [19:46] certain psychological profile that makes [19:49] it so that you pragmatically view things [19:51] like secrets and lies. There's a few [19:54] different terms. We call it moral [19:56] flexibility. [19:59] Depending on the situation, [20:01] there are some things that I would deem [20:03] immoral, [20:04] but to do them in a different situation [20:06] is totally acceptable. [20:08] And that's just something that I'm wired [20:10] to be that's that's been wired in me [20:11] since I was a kid, but CIA understands [20:14] how to take advantage of that, how to [20:15] use that in a way that benefits American [20:18] national security. [20:19] There's also an element of high [20:20] performance that comes from being wired [20:24] a certain way. So, there is a tie [20:26] between childhood trauma and high [20:29] performance. It's a well-known It's a [20:31] documented connection, but CIA has [20:34] learned as has MI6 and Mossad and all [20:37] the other intelligence services of the [20:38] of the world, they've learned that when [20:40] you train someone who has just the right [20:42] amount of childhood trauma high [20:45] performance, when you get your hands on [20:47] them at the right time and the right [20:48] period of their life, they can be [20:49] trained to become extremely loyal, [20:52] highly productive field operators [20:56] that that end up spending 30-plus years [20:59] in service to their nation. When did [21:00] they get their hands on you? [21:02] They recruited me when I was 27 years [21:03] old coming out of the military in 2007. [21:07] I was looking for whatever the next step [21:09] was going to be [21:10] and that was when I was approached by a [21:12] CIA recruiter. I heard that you got a [21:14] pop-up on your computer screen. Yeah, [21:16] back in the day that's that's uh [21:18] I was actually applying I was a nuclear [21:20] missile officer for the CIA or excuse [21:22] me, I was a nuclear missile officer for [21:23] the Air Force and a nuclear missile [21:25] officer in the Air Force controls [21:27] nuclear ICBMs. So, I wore the the little [21:30] ring Wait, wait, wait, wait. What's a [21:31] nuclear ICBM? [21:33] So, a nuclear ICBM is a nuclear [21:35] intercontinental ballistic missile. [21:37] So, the large missiles that carry [21:39] nuclear warheads for mutually assured [21:40] destruction nuclear war type of stuff. [21:42] So, you controlled the nuclear missiles. [21:45] I was half of who controlled them. I [21:47] wore one ring, somebody else wore a [21:49] different ring and that was that was how [21:50] a nuclear missile got launched. What [21:52] what's what does the ring do? So, the [21:54] ring is a key. On the end of it is a key [21:56] and when you get when you get a nuclear [21:59] code that comes in, the code you put it [22:02] into a old school computer system and [22:05] the two of you take your key ring and [22:06] you insert it into the the silo [22:09] operating system and then you turn in [22:12] unison and when you turn in unison it [22:13] launches a nuclear weapon. How did you [22:15] get yourself to the point in life at 27 [22:17] years old where you're holding [22:20] a nuclear key round your neck? [22:24] I would love to say it was a series of [22:25] good decisions, but [22:26] but it wasn't. I just I was I did what I [22:28] was told. That's how I got there. I did [22:31] what I was told when I was in high [22:32] school and I got good grades and then my [22:34] mom told me that the best school of all [22:37] the universities that chose me, the best [22:39] school I should go to is the Air Force [22:40] Academy. So, then I accepted a full ride [22:43] scholarship to the United States Air [22:44] Force Academy where I did what I was [22:45] told and I graduated as a lieutenant and [22:49] then I followed what the Air Force told [22:51] me to do from there and they they told [22:52] me to learn how to fly and then they [22:53] told me that they needed me to work in [22:56] nuclear and space weapons instead. So, [22:59] then I went to that school and I did [23:00] well at that school and and I ended up [23:02] just kind of climbing the ladder. I I I [23:04] did what I was told and and then one day [23:07] I was [23:08] I found myself 100 ft underground [23:11] miserable. [23:13] It's It's a horrible job. [23:15] Why? [23:16] You're [23:17] So, in 2007 when I was a nuclear missile [23:20] officer, you sit in a in a launch [23:23] control capsule, an LCC, [23:25] that sits 100 ft underground and you sit [23:28] there on a 72-hour shift with one other [23:30] person, the other person who holds the [23:32] other key. [23:34] And then you are one nuclear crew of [23:37] maybe 30 different nuclear crews who are [23:39] all on deployment at the same time. [23:43] So, at any given time in one Air Force [23:45] base, there's 60-ish people underground [23:48] for 72 hours at a time and in different [23:50] missile base, there'll be a different 60 [23:52] people underground and your whole job is [23:54] just to sit there and wait for a nuclear [23:56] war to break out. And obviously nuclear [23:58] war hasn't broken out and hopefully it [24:00] never will break out. So, as you sit [24:03] there [24:04] underground not seeing sunlight and as [24:06] you sit there in a in a capsule with one [24:08] other person that you very rarely ever [24:10] like, [24:11] you have a lot of time to reflect on [24:14] what am I doing? What am I doing with my [24:17] life? I'm a redundancy of a redundancy [24:20] of a scenario that we all are working [24:23] very hard to make sure never happens. [24:26] Is this [24:28] a productive life? Like am I am I making [24:30] a difference? Am I leaving a mark in [24:32] history sitting here not launching [24:34] missiles [24:36] waiting for a message to come in that I [24:38] already know isn't going to lead to [24:40] nuclear war? Like it's it it's a very [24:43] difficult and [24:45] thankless job that even right now as you [24:48] and I are having this conversation, [24:50] there are some 200 Americans sitting [24:52] underground doing that exact job and [24:54] that's just in the United States. [24:56] Every country that has nuclear weapons [24:58] is doing the same thing. [25:00] If an order had come in [25:02] that [25:03] instructed you to launch a nuclear [25:05] weapon, would you have done it? [25:06] Absolutely. [25:07] That's what you do. The other thing [25:08] that's important to understand is we're [25:10] redundancies of redundancies. So, we [25:12] don't know if an order says to launch [25:14] nuclear weapons, we just know that an [25:16] order comes in that says to insert the [25:17] keys and turn them. [25:19] And if it's a valid order that comes in, [25:22] then the machine will let us insert our [25:25] keys, we will turn our keys and then the [25:27] machine will do what the machine does. [25:29] Sometimes that order that's coming in is [25:31] saying launch nuclear missiles, [25:32] sometimes that order that's coming in is [25:34] just a drill to make sure that the two [25:36] people in the capsule turn their keys. [25:38] Oh, really? So, you never know the [25:39] difference. We're just a redundancy of a [25:41] redundancy, man. [25:43] It It seems hard to me to understand how [25:45] someone would stay in that job for a [25:46] long period of time. So, they must have [25:47] like really high attrition. They have [25:49] They have shockingly low attrition [25:52] because they do such a good job of [25:54] psychologically [25:55] identifying the right people for that [25:57] job. Were they scouting you, do you [25:58] think, from a very [26:00] early age to eventually go into the CIA? [26:03] No, I don't believe so. I think CIA is [26:06] far too practical to do anything that [26:09] requires scouting people from a young [26:11] age. I think what more realistically [26:13] happened is that they had a very simple [26:15] algorithm that they had applied to every [26:18] government website so that when people [26:20] of a certain [26:22] profile applied to a job on a government [26:25] website, [26:26] then [26:27] they'd get a flash on their screen just [26:29] like I did that said, "Hey, we [26:30] appreciate your application. We'd like [26:32] to have a different recruiter contact [26:34] you for a different opportunity." What [26:35] were you applying for on that government [26:36] website when that pop-up came up? [26:38] Yeah, I was applying for the Peace [26:39] Corps. I was trying to get into the US [26:40] Peace Corps because after spending [26:44] 2 years underground uh waiting to launch [26:47] nuclear missiles, I thought that it'd be [26:48] great to get out of the Air Force and go [26:50] do the exact opposite. Kind of like if [26:52] you've ever had a really bad breakup, [26:54] you go looking for the exact opposite of [26:56] the person you just broke up with. [26:57] That's that's how I felt. And the Peace [26:59] Corps does sort of humanitarian work [27:01] around the world. Exactly right. I mean, [27:02] I was looking to teach children English [27:05] in Africa or save orphans or do [27:07] microfinance or build huts. Like I was [27:10] looking to to do something that built [27:13] the world up instead of just waiting to [27:16] tear the world down. You get this pop-up [27:18] as you're applying and it says [27:20] we another recruiter wants to speak to [27:22] you or something words to that effect. [27:23] What happens then? So, that's when being [27:26] a 27-year-old single guy kicks in [27:28] and you think to yourself there might be [27:30] something better. [27:31] So, once you think to yourself there [27:32] might be something better, it's really [27:34] easy to say, "Yes, like I'll wait." And [27:36] that's all that that's all the screen [27:37] was asking me to do is just pause my [27:39] application for 72 hours. [27:41] So, [27:42] it's easy to click yes and then you fall [27:44] out of that website and you're just on [27:46] hold for 72 hours. Either a better [27:47] opportunity is going to happen and [27:49] someone's going to call me or no one's [27:50] going to call me and I can come right [27:51] back and finish my application. But just [27:54] to say no means to miss the opportunity [27:57] and that wasn't that wasn't me. And then [27:59] within 72 hours you get a call, [28:00] presumably? Within 24 hours I got a [28:02] call. Yeah, I got a call from an [28:04] unlisted number. It just said 703 [28:07] and there was a woman on the other end [28:08] of the line. She gave me a first name, [28:10] but I don't remember what her first name [28:11] was. [28:12] And she basically, you know, confirmed [28:15] who I was and confirmed that I was [28:16] applying to the Peace Corps, asked me if [28:18] I'd be open for other government [28:19] opportunities and then she said that [28:21] there might be opportunities in the [28:23] national security sector that I'd be [28:25] interested in and she'd like to send me [28:27] an airline ticket and a hotel [28:29] reservation and a rental car reservation [28:30] to come up to DC to hear more about the [28:32] job. What did you think at that point? [28:34] I thought it was a prank call. I thought [28:36] I thought that the the call wasn't real. [28:38] I thought that the call was maybe it was [28:41] some kind of gimmick or maybe it was [28:42] something else or it just didn't sound [28:44] real. [28:45] Especially not when she said she was [28:46] going to like send me a paper [28:48] airline ticket and she was going to send [28:50] me all this stuff in the mail overnight [28:51] FedEx. [28:53] But then it showed up and then when it [28:55] showed up, again, that 27-year-old [28:57] single male kicked in and I was like, [28:59] "Well, now I have a ticket. [29:01] Let's see where the ticket goes and [29:02] let's go to the reservation counter at [29:04] the rental car desk and is this a real [29:07] rental car reservation? It's a real [29:08] reservation. Is there a real hotel?" And [29:10] then you just kind of follow the [29:12] breadcrumbs. The rental car reservation [29:13] is real, the airline ticket's real, you [29:15] fly out there, you land. What happens [29:18] next? You get another phone call that [29:20] says, "Hey, did you get in safe?" And [29:22] then they tell you the address for where [29:24] you're supposed to show up the next day. [29:25] And then you go, it's a nondescript [29:27] building and you walk in and for me I [29:30] walked in, there were 10 or so other [29:31] people in the waiting room. None of us [29:34] really knew what we were there for. We [29:35] all knew that we were there for [29:36] something related to a government job. [29:38] Everybody's dressed essentially the same [29:40] way [29:41] and [29:42] you know, you find out that this [29:43] person's in finance and that lady came [29:44] from social work and whatever else it [29:46] might be and then you eventually [29:47] somebody comes out and calls you into a [29:48] room, and then you go through the first [29:51] what we call the first round of [29:52] interviews. And it's just kind of like a [29:54] a fit to see what you're interested in, [29:57] what you're not interested in, etc. And [29:59] it was at the end of that first [30:00] interview that the lady said to me that [30:02] uh I might be a good fit for the [30:05] National Clandestine Service at CIA, [30:07] which I didn't know what that was at the [30:08] time. And then she basically broke it [30:10] down, and she was just like you and I [30:12] did at the beginning of this [30:12] conversation. She was like, [30:13] "Essentially, we want you to be a a [30:15] field officer, or what you might know [30:18] from the movies as a spy." [30:20] And of course, for me, I was [30:22] I mean, my 7-year-old self was like, [30:24] "I'm going to be a what? Like, you want [30:25] me to be a spy? You want me to [30:27] like drive fancy cars and wear tuxedos [30:30] and always have a beautiful woman on my [30:31] side? Like, sign me up for that. I mean, [30:33] starving children in Africa can wait. [30:36] I want to do that." But then of course, [30:38] comes the the byline afterwards where [30:40] she's like, "You can't tell anybody that [30:43] this is what you're now applying for. [30:45] We're going to move you on to the second [30:46] phase of interviews. We need you to, you [30:48] know, go back to your hotel and go back [30:50] to Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana [30:52] and live your normal life. And if [30:54] anybody asks you why you're out here, [30:56] just tell them that you came out here [30:57] applying for a government position, and [30:59] you don't know whether or not you're [31:00] going to get it. And in the meantime, [31:02] we'll be in touch." And then they get in [31:03] touch again? And then they get in touch [31:04] again. And then you go through multiple [31:06] more rounds of interviews. So, they fly [31:09] you usually back to the DC area, and [31:11] then the interviews just get kind of [31:14] more intense. You go from a fit in [31:17] interview to a kind of like a uh a test, [31:21] like a [31:22] interview that's more of like a test [31:24] with somebody else. They ask you [31:25] scenario-based questions. They give you [31:27] puzzles. Uh they ask you some light [31:30] psychological stuff. [31:31] When you got that letter in the post [31:32] saying that you've been offered a a [31:33] role, how did you feel? Great. Yeah? [31:36] Yeah. I felt like [31:37] I had done everything right. Right? I [31:39] felt like [31:40] I mean, there was a part of me that says [31:42] that that says, and I still kind of [31:44] follow this mantra, like, "Who gets to [31:45] do this?" [31:46] So, that felt amazing. And then there [31:48] was a ton to use your word, a ton of [31:50] validation. [31:51] Of course, like, now I get it. Now I [31:53] know why I went to a college I didn't [31:55] like. Now I know why I put up with a [31:57] stepdad and listen to my mom and like, I [31:59] don't need love, and you don't need [32:01] support, and you don't need a family [32:03] that cares about you as a person. All [32:04] you need is to check the [ __ ] boxes [32:08] because this is where you get to go when [32:10] you check the boxes. And now that I've [32:12] checked all the boxes, I'm free. [32:17] Except it doesn't really work that way. [32:19] Because when you're hired because you're [32:20] you check boxes, [32:22] it just the boxes just change, but you [32:24] still have to check the boxes. [32:27] And at that point, it goes from [32:28] interview to I guess training. Correct. [32:30] During that whole interview process, [32:32] you're not allowed to tell anyone, I'm [32:33] guessing. Right. Even your family? [32:35] Nope. So, what what did you tell your [32:37] family that you've been up to during [32:38] that period? So, this is what's nice [32:39] about their recruitment process. [32:41] Remember I told you earlier that I I [32:43] accepted as a child that there are times [32:45] that you have to lie, and there are [32:47] secrets that you have to keep. [32:48] This was just a secret I had to keep and [32:50] a lie that I had to tell. So, I told my [32:52] family that I was looking at getting out [32:54] of the Air Force. I didn't really know [32:56] what I wanted to do. Maybe I'd go work [32:57] for the government. And I was going to [32:59] DC to do some government interviews. I [33:01] was never close to my family. From the [33:02] time I left for the Air Force Academy at [33:04] 18, [33:05] I mean, I went home maybe once a year. [33:07] Every time I tried to go home, it was [33:08] always a [33:10] kerfuffle because my parents didn't want [33:11] to buy the airline ticket cuz it was [33:13] expensive, and I didn't have money to [33:14] buy an airline ticket, so I had to ask [33:16] them, and it was the same song and dance [33:18] every Christmas holiday, right? Like, [33:19] "I'd like to come home. I don't have any [33:21] money." "Well, we don't have any money [33:22] either. Maybe you shouldn't come home." [33:25] So, it was really easy to be 27 years [33:26] old, almost 10 years after that. I'm not [33:29] really close to my family. So, [33:31] I'd tell them as little as possible. [33:34] I had a girlfriend at the time. She was [33:35] a great girlfriend, but [33:37] she wasn't as great as being a CIA [33:39] officer was going to be. Right? I had [33:41] friends at the time, but they weren't as [33:43] cool as being a CIA officer would be, [33:45] right? So, it was really easy to just [33:47] start [33:48] just cutting off the branches of my [33:49] social tree because I was going to go do [33:52] something awesome. I didn't need anybody [33:53] else. Did the CIA tell you to disconnect [33:56] from these people at all? They told you [33:58] that you would have to eventually. [34:01] And you know, they they explain how [34:05] you're going to go into covert service. [34:06] If you're going to go into clandestine [34:08] service, [34:09] you can't take a whole Rolodex of people [34:11] with you. So, one of the things that [34:13] they asked during our psychological [34:14] evaluation was, you know, how much do [34:15] you need close relationships and close [34:17] peers, and how do you feel about [34:19] severing ties with what we sometimes [34:21] call like secondary or tertiary [34:23] relationships, friends, college friends. [34:25] Like, a primary relationship is your [34:27] spouse. A secondary relationship is all [34:28] your close friends. A tertiary [34:30] relationship is somebody who you work [34:31] with. So, like, how do you feel about [34:33] cutting off all those [34:35] not-so-important relationships? And for [34:36] me, it was [34:37] easy. Right? I was like, "Let's Let's [34:39] go. I'm going to go do something [34:41] amazing. I don't need college friends to [34:43] go do something amazing." Do you think [34:45] your appearance and ethnicity factored [34:46] into the CIA's decision to recruit you? [34:49] Absolutely. In 2007, so just to take [34:52] everybody back, 2007 was 6 years after [34:55] 9/11. It was uh 3 years after the CIA [34:59] 9/11 Commission or the US Government [35:01] 9/11 Commission came out, which [35:02] basically said that everything CIA had [35:05] been doing up to 2001 was wrong. [35:08] They were focused in a Cold War era. [35:10] They were not focused on terrorism. They [35:12] were focused on, you know, Ivy League [35:15] Caucasian graduates as being the next [35:17] generation of CIA officer instead of [35:19] diversifying for a diversified world. [35:22] So, without a doubt, they were looking [35:24] for [35:26] different people. They were looking for [35:27] young people, colored people, you know, [35:30] LBGTQ plus, people who could connect [35:33] with the modern-day threat around the [35:35] world. And then I think on top of being [35:38] brown [35:40] and ethnic, I also came with a huge [35:44] government file cuz I had been part of [35:46] the Air Force since I was 18 years old. [35:48] So, they knew everything about my [35:50] health, everything about my mental [35:51] health, everything about my, you know, [35:53] academic, athletic performance in [35:54] college. They knew everything about me. [35:56] Uh and I think that's part of why my [35:58] onboarding process took about 9 months, [36:00] where the typical onboarding process [36:02] takes about 18 months. How do they train [36:04] you to become a CIA agent? So, a lot of [36:07] the training part is classified still, [36:09] so I can't talk about it. But uh but [36:11] there is a school that we go to. Uh [36:14] it's fairly publicly known, but I can't [36:15] acknowledge what it is and isn't. And we [36:18] go there for many months. And we [36:20] basically were were pulled out of [36:22] everyday life, and we're put into a [36:23] controlled, simulated world. [36:26] Um and inside that simulated world, they [36:29] kind of control what's happening around [36:31] us. So, uh if you can imagine almost [36:34] like going from uh being taken out of [36:36] your apartment where you live, and now [36:38] you're put into a different apartment, [36:39] but the apartment that you're put into [36:40] is part of a giant game. And somebody [36:42] else controls the all the game. So, they [36:45] control the news that's on the TV, and [36:48] they control, you know, the the cars [36:50] that are on the road, and and they [36:51] control everything except the weather, [36:52] basically, so that they can create [36:54] multiple different types of scenarios [36:55] where you exercise the skills that they [36:57] taught you, from driving to first [37:00] response, first aid response, to lying, [37:03] uh [37:04] living and working under alias [37:06] identities, all that stuff. So, you're [37:08] put into a very controlled environment [37:09] for a long period of time where they can [37:11] test all of your uh your tradecraft that [37:14] you're taught. It's very expensive. It [37:16] must be very expensive for them to train [37:17] a CIA agent. Right. That's why they [37:19] train us in batches. So, uh there's [37:22] generally a two to three batches a year [37:25] that go through different types of [37:27] training. And there's different [37:27] classifications of officers, too, right? [37:29] So, your analysts are different than [37:31] your uh technical officers, who are [37:33] different than your field officers. So, [37:35] what they'll do is they'll batch you [37:37] into, or at least what they did in 2007, [37:39] is they would batch you along with your [37:41] discipline, and then send a batch to [37:43] training. And then everybody goes [37:45] through the same lectures during the [37:47] day, just like university. And everybody [37:49] goes through a series of exercises at [37:51] different times of the day and different [37:52] times of the week. But essentially, [37:54] everybody goes through the same [37:55] curriculum. And everybody has the same [37:57] grades. And then those grades are all [37:59] measured against each other, and the [38:01] bottom performers are cut out, and the [38:02] top performers get to stay. [38:04] That curriculum, [38:05] what is involved in that curriculum? You [38:07] mentioned a few things there. Is um [38:08] learning how to kill people involved in [38:10] the curriculum? No, that is not involved [38:11] in the curriculum. Not at the basic [38:13] training level. Do they teach you that? [38:15] Uh they teach some people that, but they [38:17] don't teach everybody that. It depends [38:19] on the discipline that you're part of. [38:20] If you're a paramilitary officer, you [38:22] need to learn how to kill. And you need [38:24] to learn how to kill in different ways. [38:26] Kill quickly, kill quietly, kill with [38:28] blunt weapons, kill with bladed weapons, [38:30] or kill with bladed weapons, kill with [38:33] projectile weapons. So, kill with [38:35] explosives. [38:37] You know, disarm explosives. So, it all [38:39] depends on the the caliber or the level [38:41] of officer that you're kind of put put [38:43] into. So, paramilitary, they must learn [38:45] that. But your standard human [38:47] intelligence field collector, they need [38:50] to learn how to live and work without [38:51] being caught. So, if you kill somebody, [38:54] Mhm. [38:55] it's a big deal. You might get caught. [38:56] So, it's much easier to teach that [38:58] person how to manipulate, how to collect [39:01] secrets, how to live and operate without [39:03] ever being detected. Whereas a [39:04] paramilitary officer doesn't need to [39:05] learn all that. They taught you how to [39:07] lie. They teach you how to lie. How do [39:08] they teach someone how to lie? [39:10] It starts with a foundation of [39:13] making sure that you recruit people who [39:15] are already liars. And then once you [39:19] when you're sitting across from a liar, [39:21] you can start to understand if they're a [39:23] good liar or not very quickly. You've [39:25] probably talked to people who are bad [39:27] liars. [39:30] Talked to everything. [39:31] Yeah, yeah, yeah. [39:32] So, you know when someone's a bad liar. [39:34] So, from that, you can identify people [39:36] who are good liars. And then when you do [39:38] find a good liar, you start to teach [39:40] them what they already naturally do that [39:43] makes them a good liar. [39:44] And then you start to teach them how to [39:46] refine that skill, and you start to [39:47] teach them how bad liars operate, and [39:50] how you can detect a bad liar, and how [39:53] you gain advantages, you know, with [39:55] lies, and and how to handle lies. As an [39:57] example, cuz I promised you skills. Bad [39:59] liars talk a lot. [40:01] Good liars talk a little. [40:04] Because the more you talk, [40:06] the more you run the risk of undermining [40:07] your own lie. [40:09] Bad liars make a lot of statements. Good [40:11] liars ask a lot of questions. [40:13] Because if you ask questions, you're not [40:15] really disclosing anything about [40:17] yourself. So, if you've ever had if you [40:19] think back and you if you if you [40:20] remember ever going to a party or ever [40:23] having a date or ever being in a social [40:26] environment where there was somebody [40:28] there that made you feel so interesting, [40:31] but you didn't know anything about them, [40:33] you were talking to a very good liar. [40:35] What about body language? Is that a [40:37] factor in lying? Absolutely. I mean, [40:38] body language is a factor in everything, [40:40] but body language is especially a factor [40:42] in lying because, again, going back to [40:44] the idea of a skilled liar versus an [40:45] unskilled liar, [40:47] a skilled liar knows how to appear like [40:50] they are telling the truth with their [40:52] words and with their body. Whereas an [40:54] unskilled liar often has a disconnect. [40:57] Uh and their body will say a different [40:59] message than what their mouth is saying. [41:01] Consider your your stereo uh [41:03] stereotypical jock, your standard [41:05] European footballer, or your American [41:07] jock. A lot of times they'll be [41:09] portrayed as like somebody like Yeah, [41:11] yeah. They sit bigger than life and all [41:13] this other stuff, right? Their [41:15] their body shows confidence and [41:19] openness. But then when they talk, they [41:21] sound like idiots, right? They I don't [41:23] know. Sure, like, you know, totally, [41:25] like, dude, that lady, like, whatever. [41:28] They are There's a disconnect. [41:30] Their voice does not demonstrate the [41:31] same confidence that their body [41:33] demonstrates. So, you know that that [41:34] person is lying. [41:36] What they're lying about is not [41:37] necessarily just the content of what [41:39] they're saying, but they recognize they [41:41] don't they [41:43] can't cognitively accept the fact that [41:46] they are in a position where they are [41:48] telling an untruth, and that untruth, at [41:51] a minimum, is [41:52] that they are not super confident and [41:54] super comfortable. They are actually [41:56] uncomfortable, and they are not feeling [41:58] confident, and that's why they're [41:59] stammering over themselves. So, when you [42:01] were lying to someone, um based on your [42:03] training, would you think a lot about [42:04] your body language? [42:05] Yes. And what would you do What would [42:07] you What would the principles of making [42:09] sure your body language wasn't letting [42:11] the cat out of the bag? I see. So, one [42:13] of the first things to do when you're [42:15] when you're trying to lie to somebody, [42:16] and again, we're we're now talking about [42:18] how to lie to somebody. You shouldn't [42:20] want to learn how to lie to somebody. [42:22] You should want to learn how to know if [42:23] somebody is lying to you. Mhm. But we [42:25] always start this way, where we want to [42:27] We're afraid to ask the real question, [42:29] which is how do I know if I'm being lied [42:30] to, cuz that shows vulnerability. But if [42:32] you want to learn how to lie to [42:33] somebody, the first thing you do is you [42:35] mimic the person. Look at you and I [42:37] right now, we are mirrored. Mhm. Are [42:39] your hands connected under the table? [42:41] Yeah. So are mine. Are your feet crossed [42:43] under your under your seat? [42:44] Yeah. So are mine. We are mirrored right [42:46] now, which means when you look at me [42:48] subconsciously, you see yourself. Mhm. [42:51] I want you to see yourself [42:53] in this exercise because if you see [42:55] yourself, your [42:58] initial instinctive response is going to [43:00] be trust. Because who do you trust in [43:02] the whole world? [43:04] You trust yourself. [43:06] So, the first step to being able to lie [43:07] effectively is to be able to mirror the [43:09] person you're lying to. If I was coming [43:11] at you like [43:12] Yeah. [43:14] You know, right away you're going to be [43:15] like, I don't know who this guy is, [43:16] right? And And similarly, if I was to be [43:18] like [43:19] Just for people that are on audio, he's [43:20] just like doing different postures and [43:22] body languages, so [43:23] that that are far away from my own. [43:26] Like putting his hands on the table, [43:27] etc. So, okay, makes sense. So, we want [43:29] to mirror first, and you mirror because [43:31] mirroring creates a foundation of trust. [43:33] Subconsciously, it creates a foundation [43:34] of trust. And then once you have that [43:36] foundation of trust, you just start kind [43:39] of pushing the envelope more and more [43:41] with the untruth or with the fabrication [43:45] that you're creating, the lie, right? Is [43:47] there anything else on the subject of [43:49] telling a lie to someone that's [43:50] believable that we we need to be aware [43:51] of in terms of skills? Yes. So, first, [43:54] the whole idea about There's There's two [43:57] important ideas that get [44:00] glorified in social media that are just [44:02] inaccurate. And the first is called eye [44:04] movements. You can't actually tell if [44:06] somebody's lying to you based on where [44:07] they place their eyes. [44:09] Because while there are certain elements [44:12] of eye movements that have biological [44:15] relevancy, there's many, many more [44:18] things about eye movements that don't [44:19] have biological relevancy, right? So, [44:21] what I mean by that is [44:23] if I ask you uh what's your oldest [44:26] memory? [44:27] You just looked to your left. Mhm. It's [44:29] natural to look to your left when you're [44:31] from a Western country because [44:33] chronologically, [44:36] timelines start on the left. Mhm. [44:39] So, when you ask somebody a question [44:40] about time and they look to the left, [44:42] up, down, or in the middle, [44:44] generally speaking, that has biological [44:45] relevancy. So, it's a low probability [44:48] that they're lying, but they still could [44:49] be lying. [44:51] When you ask somebody a question, they [44:52] look to the upper right or the lower [44:54] right or wherever they might look, [44:57] if if there's there's not necessarily [44:59] biological relevancy because they could [45:01] be looking up into the right because [45:02] down into the left it's too bright. Mhm. [45:04] And they could be looking in any number [45:06] of directions because maybe they have, [45:07] you know, a a a headache or maybe they [45:09] have something else going on. The The [45:11] ability to create some sense of [45:13] probability about why they're making the [45:15] eye movements they're making is too [45:16] difficult. So, you can't [45:18] assess someone's honesty or dishonesty [45:21] based off of eye movements, even though [45:24] you're going to hear that you can from [45:25] Instagram influencers and, you know, [45:28] Discord and and everywhere on the [45:29] internet, you're going to hear that [45:30] there's some connection that you can [45:32] make justifiably. It's not true. The [45:35] same thing is also true. So, it is also [45:38] an untruth that you can rely on [45:40] something known as microexpressions. [45:43] Microexpressions being the number of [45:44] times your eyes blink or the twitch in [45:46] your face or if you're sucking on your [45:48] lips, these ideas that get glorified [45:51] through social media as indicators of of [45:54] deceit. The truth is you don't know if [45:57] someone is lying to you until you have [45:58] had enough time with the person to [46:00] establish what's known as a baseline. [46:03] A baseline means what's normal for you. [46:07] You So, [46:08] I'll just use you as an example. [46:10] 10 minutes before the cameras turned on, [46:12] you were a totally different person. [46:15] Your energy is different, you're so much [46:17] more conversational, like, you are just [46:19] You're an awesome, friendly guy [46:22] when the cameras are not on. [46:25] But you turn into an interviewer when [46:27] the cameras turn on. Totally rational, [46:29] totally logical, makes total sense. [46:32] That doesn't mean that you're lying now [46:33] and you were telling the truth then. It [46:35] means that the environment has changed, [46:36] and nobody would know that if there [46:38] wasn't a baseline. Mhm. Most people that [46:40] watch you don't ever know what you're [46:42] like outside of this baseline. So, you [46:45] have to get to know the person and then [46:46] understand the variance that's unusual [46:48] to understand if they're lying to you. [46:50] Exactly. We call it time on target. You [46:52] need time on target so that you can [46:53] understand the delta, the change, [46:56] between their baseline and whatever [46:58] pressure you're putting them under. [47:00] Was there any sort of [47:01] consistent telltale signs that someone [47:04] was lying to you in an interaction? [47:06] Like, you know what I mean? What you [47:07] know, certain, you know, nervous things [47:10] that they do change, you know, What are [47:11] those variances that you might see that [47:13] you go, this person's now lying to me? [47:14] Yeah, so with unskilled liars, it [47:17] becomes much easier cuz a lot of times [47:19] with skilled liars, with people who have [47:21] either learned how to lie through formal [47:23] training [47:24] or people who have learned how to lie [47:25] through the school of hard knocks, [47:27] when there's people who are skilled [47:29] liars, it's difficult to find generic [47:33] tells. With people who are unskilled [47:35] liars, it's much easier to find generic [47:37] tells. There are people who you've heard [47:39] of being on the hot seat. Mhm. It's a [47:41] It's a phrase we use in Western culture [47:43] pretty often. Like, when someone is [47:45] under pressure, we call them being in a [47:46] hot seat. [47:47] When you've got an unskilled liar, [47:49] they can't stop moving their body. Like, [47:52] they're just They're always [47:53] uncomfortable, and they just keep [47:54] moving, and they keep twitching, and [47:56] they keep fidgeting, and it's like [47:57] they're sitting in a hot seat. [48:00] That is one of the biggest tells of an [48:02] unskilled liar. And again, anybody who's [48:04] ever had like a a 6-year-old or an [48:06] 8-year-old or a 12-year-old try to lie [48:08] to them, they know what that looks like. [48:10] They can't make eye contact, they do a [48:11] lot of [48:13] like verbal [48:15] uh [48:16] noises that aren't actual words. They [48:18] can't get comfortable, they keep moving [48:19] around, they keep shifting, shifty. Mhm. [48:23] Those are all All those words came from [48:25] real-world examples of an unskilled liar [48:27] trying to lie. But you don't need [48:30] microexpressions of the face or to know [48:32] which way their eyes are tracking in [48:33] order to pick up on that. [48:35] Going back to your training, then, what [48:36] were the some of the other most [48:37] important transferable skills that you [48:38] learned throughout that process? The [48:40] most [48:41] interesting and useful things that we [48:43] learned during training actually had to [48:44] do with the [48:45] psychological processes that people go [48:48] through, and being able to understand [48:49] the process and then predict and [48:51] identify when the process is happening. [48:53] Those are the things that really make a [48:55] huge difference. Yes, it's cool to learn [48:57] how to do a dead drop, and yes, it's [48:59] cool to learn how to detect surveillance [49:01] uh or how to drive a car through a [49:03] roadblock, right? Those are all very [49:05] interesting things, but the most useful [49:07] things are the things that you can use [49:10] all day, every day, through multiple [49:11] types of interactions. Uh and there are [49:14] a series of processes, a number of [49:16] processes that we learned that had to do [49:17] with human psychology. One of those uh [49:20] processes is understanding the idea of [49:21] core motivations. Core motivations are [49:25] Remember how we talked about [49:25] manipulation and motivation are two [49:27] sides of the same coin? When you [49:29] understand all the different options of [49:32] the currency that you're working with, [49:33] you can work with it more effectively. [49:35] So, people are generally, despite age, [49:39] race, creed, or religion, people have [49:41] four basic motivations. And we call [49:43] those four basic motivations rice. R I C [49:47] E stands for reward, ideology, coercion, [49:50] and ego. Reward is anything that you [49:53] want. Money, [49:55] free vacations, pat on the back, uh [49:59] women, alcohol. If that's something that [50:01] you want and me giving it to you gives [50:04] you what you want, then that's a reward. [50:06] People do lots of crazy things for [50:08] rewards. And these rewards change over [50:10] time. And by based on person. Okay. [50:12] Right? The second primary motivator is [50:14] ideology. Ideology is the things that [50:17] you believe in. People do crazy things [50:19] for the things they believe in. Whether [50:21] it's their religion, whether it's their [50:22] country, whether it's family, whether [50:24] it's what they believe is morally [50:25] correct. Right? So, if you can assign, [50:28] if you can speak to somebody through the [50:30] lens of their ideology, you can get them [50:31] to do incredible things. [50:33] C is coercion. Coercion is all the [50:36] negative things. Guilt, shame, [50:39] blackmail, anything that you do to force [50:42] someone to take certain action by [50:44] leaning into the negative elements of [50:46] motivation, which is also known as [50:47] manipulation, that falls under the C or [50:50] coercion. And then E, ego, is everything [50:53] that has to do with how the person views [50:55] themselves. So, often times ego gets [50:58] oversimplified into thinking that it's [51:00] just people who have a big ego, right? [51:02] Somebody like Donald Trump who has a big [51:04] ego or you name the famous actor who has [51:07] a big ego. Ego is also people who don't [51:10] have big egos. Mother Teresa had an ego. [51:14] She wanted to sacrifice for other [51:16] people. She wanted other people to see [51:19] her sacrificing for other people. That [51:21] is also ego. [51:23] So, with these four core motivations, [51:25] you have a rubric, a process to [51:29] understand why other people do what they [51:31] do. If you understand why other people [51:32] do what they do, all you have to do [51:35] is connect what they care about with [51:37] what you want them to do, and you just [51:39] increase the probability of them doing [51:41] what you want them to do. [51:42] Of these four core motivations, uh [51:45] is there an order of the strength that [51:47] they have over people? So, if you were [51:50] really trying to get someone to do [51:51] something, you'd focus on this core [51:53] motivation over that one. Yes, [51:54] absolutely. Ideology is the strongest. [51:57] Ego is the second strongest. Reward is [52:00] the third strongest, and coercion is the [52:02] weakest. This is one of the things that [52:04] movies get wrong. Movies try to make it [52:06] look like you can blackmail somebody or [52:07] hold a gun to their head and get them to [52:09] do what you want them to do. [52:10] In the real world, once you hold a gun [52:13] to someone's head, they never trust you [52:14] again. [52:16] You can never get them to do something [52:17] twice. [52:18] Whereas if you appeal to their ideology, [52:21] "Doing this is good for your country. [52:23] Doing this is good for your family. [52:25] Doing this is good for your health." [52:27] If you can appeal to someone's ideology, [52:29] they'll do what you tell them to do for [52:31] a long time because they'll trust you. [52:33] Is this really the the essence of [52:34] manipulation, then? That is the essence [52:36] of motivation and manipulation, the same [52:38] coin. You'll hear me come back to this [52:40] because one of the things that people [52:42] really struggle with outside of [52:44] intelligence is they feel like they have [52:46] to label [52:48] things as good or bad. When you have [52:50] moral flexibility, [52:52] you take away good and bad. Everything [52:55] just becomes a question of utility or [52:58] productivity. If it's if you need [53:00] someone to do something and you can [53:02] motivate them, then you should. But if [53:04] you need someone to do something and you [53:06] can't motivate them, [53:09] that's a green light to manipulate them [53:10] because you still need them to do what [53:13] you need them to do. [53:14] If you feel bad about manipulating [53:16] somebody, you are not going to do well [53:18] in the intelligence world. How might you [53:20] you said the ideology is the strongest [53:21] of the four [53:22] of core of the core motivations, how [53:24] might you go about finding out someone's [53:26] ideology in the context of business and [53:29] life? A lot of times people will [53:31] volunteer it to you. There's there's two [53:33] ways. [53:34] If you're a keen observer, people will [53:36] volunteer it to you. You've already [53:37] volunteered that you are ideologically [53:39] predisposed to fatherhood. You've [53:41] already talked about it. The reason that [53:42] you're worried about [ __ ] up your [53:43] kids that you don't even have yet [53:46] is because you're thinking about [53:47] fatherhood. So, clearly, you are [53:49] ideologically predisposed to what it [53:50] means to be a responsible father. [53:52] You want to be seen as a responsible [53:54] father. That plays into your ego as [53:56] well. [53:57] So, I'm sure when you're talking to your [53:58] partner, if you guys are already looking [54:01] at where would we go to school? Where [54:02] would we live? What kind of diapers [54:04] should we use? If you're even thinking [54:05] about that, you're thinking about it [54:07] through the lens of the ideology of [54:09] being an engaged, present, helpful, [54:13] loving father, right? So, people will [54:16] volunteer it. Your your customer base [54:18] will volunteer to you [54:19] what their ideologies are. They'll [54:22] volunteer their politics. They'll [54:23] volunteer their their pain from their [54:26] childhood. They'll volunteer their pain [54:28] from business. If you listen. If you [54:30] listen. The second way that you can get [54:33] to understand the ideology of your [54:35] customer base is through active [54:37] marketing, the right kind of marketing. [54:40] Not mass marketing, not the kind of [54:43] garbage that you see on Instagram and [54:45] and YouTube about, you know, how to make [54:47] people believe in your brand because you [54:49] use the right colors. [54:51] But actual marketing where you present a [54:54] message [54:56] and that message was crafted with an [54:58] emotion behind it, [55:00] people who respond to that intentionally [55:02] crafted message [55:04] are [55:05] showing what their motivations are [55:08] because they were clearly motivated [55:10] enough by the message to take action. [55:12] You've heard a lot of people talk about [55:14] narrative, especially in politics. [55:16] There's, you know, oh, there's the [55:18] there's the liberal narrative and [55:20] there's the Republican narrative and [55:22] there's the conservative narrative and [55:23] the church narrative and people talk a [55:25] lot about narrative. [55:27] Narrative is not the power [55:30] in influence. The power in influence [55:32] actually comes from messaging. [55:34] It takes two steps to get to a [55:36] narrative. It takes messaging first, and [55:38] then messaging builds a narrative. If [55:41] you think about messaging, messaging is [55:42] supposed to be an emotional thing. Just [55:45] a statement, just a message, just like a [55:47] text message, right? [55:50] Are you afraid of being the kind of [55:51] father that isn't present for your kids? [55:53] That creates emotion in the right [55:57] ideologically predisposed person. [56:00] There's no woman out there who's going [56:02] to be motivated by that. She might be [56:04] motivated to tell her partner about [56:06] that, but it's not going to it's not [56:08] going to resonate with her like it [56:09] resonates with me as a father of young [56:11] children. [56:13] But that's just the message. [56:15] Then, the narrative is not emotional in [56:19] nature. The narrative is logical in [56:21] nature. So, you use an emotional message [56:25] to communicate a logical narrative. [56:29] Are you afraid of being the kind of [56:30] father that wasn't that's not present [56:31] for your child? [56:33] Man, that just like that pulls at my [56:34] heartstrings. [56:35] Well, then all you have to do is sign up [56:37] for this app that reminds you every [56:40] Sunday to read your kids a story. You're [56:42] like, oh, [56:44] that makes total sense. All I need is a [56:45] reminder and I'm going to be a good dad. [56:47] And that's [56:48] messaging and narrative. The same thing [56:50] happens in politics. The same thing [56:52] happens in geopolitics. The same thing [56:53] happens the whole world over because in [56:56] the intelligence world, we understand [56:58] messaging and narrative. [57:00] We know how to use messaging and [57:01] narrative. It's how you elect a [57:02] president. It's the reason that [57:04] that Saudi Arabia went to war with Iran [57:08] over Yemen. Like it it's everybody [57:10] understands at a national security level [57:14] the idea of creating a message or a [57:16] narrative using emotional messaging. But [57:19] when it comes to business, [57:21] people don't get it yet. They they [57:23] haven't learned that lesson yet because [57:24] they've all been taught through an MBA [57:26] program or something else that you sell [57:28] toothpaste by creating more toothpaste [57:30] with brighter colors on more shelves. [57:32] Thinking about [57:34] ideology has and everything you just [57:36] said there, [57:37] has your experience over the last, I [57:38] don't know, 20, 30 years really made you [57:40] rethink and look at the world entirely [57:42] differently? Because if you were so [57:44] focused and able to detect and [57:46] understand messaging and narrative, you [57:47] must just see it everywhere you go and [57:49] everything you do. Right. So, there were [57:51] two big aha moments for me. And the [57:53] first was in the very beginning parts of [57:56] my training at CIA. I mean, when I went [57:58] through all of the CIA recruiting [57:59] process and and all of my time in the [58:02] military, I just felt like I was doing [58:04] the right thing. I just felt like I was [58:06] doing a good job. I felt like I was [58:07] special. [58:09] Right? Like, wow, I must be super [58:11] special cuz I'm getting picked for the [58:12] National Clandestine Service. [58:15] So, I felt like I was doing everything [58:17] right. And then I actually ended up [58:20] going through my training program where [58:22] they confirmed that I actually was [58:25] broken [58:26] in certain ways. I was high-performing [58:28] because I had trauma as a child. [58:30] I I lie and I steal and I have no [58:35] problem with sociopathy because [58:39] I'm not mentally healthy, right? Like, [58:42] that's basically what they confirmed. [58:43] Like, you're wired in a certain way [58:46] that's really useful, but you're [58:48] actually not neurotypical. You're not [58:52] you're not successful in the way that [58:54] you thought you were successful. [58:56] But you are still very useful. And oh, [58:59] by the way, you're even more special [59:01] because now you work for CIA. So, don't [59:03] ever stop working for CIA. [59:06] Because they know that what drives us is [59:08] our ideology, right? Our ideology and [59:11] then our ego. So, they they hook us that [59:13] way. [59:14] So, for me, that was my first big aha [59:15] moment because up until then I always [59:17] thought maybe I understood the world, [59:20] but nobody else seemed to understand it [59:21] the way I understood it. Like, [59:23] I I I could see the hypocrisy in high [59:26] school and I could see the hypocrisy in [59:28] my mom and my dad and they would do [59:29] things that were different than what [59:30] they would tell me to do. [59:32] And I don't understand how is the [59:33] customer always right, but then like [59:36] sometimes the the company wins the [59:38] lawsuit. Like it doesn't make sense. How [59:41] How [59:43] How is there a legal structure, [59:45] but criminals don't go to jail [59:48] in if there's a legal structure? Like I [59:51] remember seeing it all and thinking that [59:53] it didn't make sense, but never actually [59:56] being confident enough [59:57] to say anything about it because it was [60:00] a secret and I didn't feel comfortable [60:01] sharing that secret. CIA then taught me, [60:04] "You're what you're seeing is actually [60:07] the world as it really is. And let's [60:10] train you to show you and give you a [60:12] vocabulary to understand what you're [60:14] seeing. Let's teach you about human [60:16] psychology so you understand why it [60:17] works the way that it works. Why [60:19] everybody sees it and nobody talks about [60:22] it." [60:23] Right? So, that was my first big aha [60:24] moment. And then my second big aha [60:26] moment came when I when I left CIA [60:30] and I was unemployed for like 6 months [60:33] living in my in-laws [60:35] converted garage with a 1-year-old child [60:38] wondering how the [ __ ] I did so many [60:40] things so wrong [60:42] that I couldn't get a job even though I [60:45] was just part of the CIA. [60:47] And in that [60:49] in that time feeling like just the [60:51] world's biggest loser, [60:54] the only skill that I could lean on [60:56] was what the CIA had taught me to do. [60:59] So, then I [61:00] lied my way into a Fortune 10 company. [61:05] And all of a sudden, I wasn't a loser [61:07] anymore. And once I realized that I [61:09] could use CIA skills to succeed in [61:11] business, [61:13] that was my second big aha moment. So, [61:15] now everything I see I see through a [61:18] lens of CIA skills in a business world. [61:22] Perception versus perspective was one of [61:23] the other things that I've heard you [61:24] talk about. Um was it quite a big [61:27] I guess shift in understanding, but [61:29] something that the regular person [61:30] doesn't really [61:31] understand. Yeah, so the idea of [61:34] perception and perspective uh [61:37] I have to define them first, right? [61:38] Perception is what you believe you see. [61:43] Where you sit is how you perceive the [61:45] world around you. [61:46] Perspective is how other people see [61:51] where you're sitting. So, when I think [61:54] about us right now across the table from [61:56] each other, my perception is what I see [61:59] of you. [62:00] Your perspective is very different than [62:02] my perception, right? At a At a minimum, [62:04] I'm looking at you with a background [62:07] that's different than when you're [62:08] looking at me with a background. [62:10] So, the benefit, the advantage that CIA [62:13] gives its field officers is that it [62:15] trains us to recognize and distrust our [62:19] perception. [62:21] Because perception really only comes [62:22] from from one source, and that is your [62:25] own five senses. You are the source of [62:28] information for your perception. So, for [62:31] anybody who's ever seen like a little [62:33] pile of socks in the lower left-hand [62:35] corner and they thought it was a rat and [62:37] they jump until they realize it's socks, [62:39] that is your perception [62:41] lying to you. [62:43] Perspective means that you get data [62:46] objectively from the world around you. [62:48] So, if you're in your room and you see a [62:49] pile of black in the corner, your [62:50] perspective tells you, "This is your [62:53] room. There's never been a rat in your [62:54] room ever before. That pile in the [62:56] corner is probably something like [62:58] socks." Your perspective keeps things [63:00] objective. Perception makes things very [63:03] subjective or very emotional. So, CIA [63:06] trains us to lean into our perspective, [63:10] gain perspective, think about things [63:12] objectively, because if you lean on your [63:15] perception, you're leaning on emotions [63:17] and emotions are very likely wrong. How [63:19] How can I train myself to lean more on [63:21] my perspective? There's two really quick [63:23] things that you can do. The first is is [63:25] immediately distrust your emotions. Know [63:29] right away when you're feeling emotions. [63:31] In other words, what I'm saying is don't [63:33] trust your gut. [63:35] Which is the antithesis of what most [63:37] people tell you to do. Most people say [63:39] trust your gut. I'm telling you right [63:40] now, your gut is more often than not [63:42] lying to you because your gut is based [63:44] in emotion. [63:46] Your girlfriend's not about to dump you. [63:48] Your boyfriend isn't cheating on you. [63:49] You're not about to go bankrupt. Nobody [63:52] cares about the zit on your nose. Right? [63:56] That is most likely true. [63:59] There's a small chance that your [64:01] perception is correct, but when it comes [64:03] to gambling, are you going to bet on the [64:05] small chance or [64:07] the bigger chance? You should always You [64:09] should always gamble on the bigger [64:10] chance. The bigger chance you only [64:12] really understand through perspective. [64:15] If you have perspective on something, [64:17] then you have multiple data points on [64:18] something. So, when you feel yourself [64:19] getting emotional, [64:21] stop and let your emotion happen for a [64:24] second, right? I feel nervous. I feel [64:26] anxious. I feel doubtful. [64:28] Okay. [64:30] I probably don't have to. You probably [64:32] shouldn't. Because whoever's sitting [64:34] across the table from you, whoever's [64:36] coming into the room with you, whoever [64:37] else is on the bus with you, they are [64:40] all focused on a thousand different [64:42] things. And the things that they're [64:43] focused on most likely don't include [64:45] you. Sounds easier said than done. [64:48] Correct. Is Is that a process of [64:50] repetitions to train yourself to think [64:52] like that? It is. It It takes uh [64:55] momentum. So, what ends up having to [64:57] happen is that you need to exercise it [65:00] intentionally at first. [65:02] And what happens is as you intentionally [65:05] exercise your perspective over [65:07] perception, what will start to happen is [65:09] your You will start to see [65:12] that what you were worried about doesn't [65:15] happen. [65:17] And then once you see it not happen, [65:19] once you see your perspective [65:22] give you the correct information over [65:23] your perception, [65:25] once you see that happen once, [65:27] then it starts to gain momentum. And [65:29] then it happens again and it gains more [65:31] momentum and more momentum and more [65:32] momentum until the time comes that you [65:34] realize it's much easier. But it is. [65:37] It's a learned skill. You have to learn [65:38] to think objectively instead of [65:40] subjectively. Think rationally instead [65:43] of emotionally. And a big part of what [65:45] helps you do that is understanding that [65:47] 90% of the people out there, [65:49] they're all trapped in their own [65:52] perception. [65:53] They're all trapped in thinking [65:55] emotionally. They don't even know that [65:57] there's an alternative. Just think about [65:59] this, man. The conversation we're having [66:00] right now, the people who are hearing [66:01] this conversation right now, who have [66:03] never heard that there's a difference [66:05] between perception and perspective, are [66:06] already better equipped [66:08] than all the other [ __ ] who have [66:10] never heard this conversation. They're [66:12] already one step ahead of their [66:13] competition. They're one step ahead of [66:15] their of their spouses, their partners, [66:17] their bullies. They're one step ahead of [66:19] everybody because now they can use the [66:21] words perception and perspective, [66:23] subjective and objective, emotional and [66:25] logical, and rational. They can use [66:26] these words to define how they want to [66:28] think, even if they don't think that way [66:30] yet. [66:31] That's the huge advantage to what CIA [66:33] calls the trained [66:35] and the untrained. [66:37] Trained people at least are aware that [66:40] there's an alternative option. [66:42] Untrained people aren't even aware that [66:44] there's an option. [66:46] The vast majority of people out there [66:48] are what I call bobbleheads. [66:50] They don't even know there's an option. [66:52] They're completely unaware of an [66:55] alternative solution, an alternative [66:57] process. So, they're trapped in their [67:00] perception. They're trapped in their [67:02] emotion. They're trapped in their [67:03] subjectivity. And that makes it so much [67:06] easier for people like you and me and [67:08] everyone listening right now to use [67:10] rational objective perspective to get [67:13] those people to do whatever we want them [67:14] to do. [67:15] You've had a lot of recent success in [67:17] business, [67:18] you know, um with your company Everyday [67:20] Spy and other ventures that you've been [67:22] involved in. [67:24] What are some of the fundamental skills [67:26] that um you find yourself transferring [67:28] directly from [67:30] your CIA experience every day when [67:33] you're closing business? [67:35] At CIA, that There's a saying at CIA [67:37] that I realized is also a saying in [67:38] business that I didn't realize until [67:40] afterwards. And it's called kissing a [67:42] lot of frogs. Mhm. And it's a [67:44] salesmanship term outside of CIA where [67:46] it means that you have to [67:48] you have to call a lot of leads. You [67:49] have to shake a lot of hands. You have [67:51] to make a lot of pitches before one of [67:53] them turns into a prince, right? At CIA, [67:56] we have the same concept, but for a [67:57] different reason. Because [67:59] finding a person [68:02] who is willing to tell you state [68:04] secrets, [68:06] willing to risk their life to give away [68:08] the secrets that they were entrusted [68:10] with. That's what a That's what an [68:11] actual asset does, [68:14] right? When when CIA sends a field [68:17] officer to You name the country. [68:20] When they recruit an asset from that [68:24] country, what they are actually [68:25] recruiting is a foreign national who is [68:28] a local of that country, who has access [68:30] to state secrets, who is willing to [68:32] share those state secrets in exchange [68:34] for something else. [68:36] Money, alcohol, pornography, you name [68:39] it, right? Who knows what they're after. [68:40] But your job is to find the person who [68:43] has secrets and give the person the [68:45] thing that they want in exchange for [68:47] those secrets. [68:48] That is a rare person to find. It is [68:51] hard to find [68:53] a [68:55] a willing collaborator from a foreign [68:57] country who has access to secrets and is [68:59] willing to share those secrets with you [69:00] in exchange for some kind of [69:01] remuneration. Very, very difficult to [69:03] find. [69:04] But if you can find a spy, if you can [69:07] find a traitor, [69:08] you can make a sale, right? The two [69:11] skills are incredibly uh interconnected. [69:14] So, what I found is that the the uh [69:17] the process and the skills that we use [69:19] to find an asset [69:21] translate immediately into business. [69:23] Everything from how you talk to the [69:25] person so that you can identify their [69:28] core motivations, [69:30] gaining perspective over that person's [69:32] position in life. If you can gain the [69:34] perspective of your customers, you [69:35] already know what your customer's [69:36] thinking. You already know what they [69:37] want, you already know what their [69:38] problem is are you know what their [69:40] problems are going to be [69:42] because you can sit in their shoes, but [69:44] they can't sit in your shoes, which [69:45] gives you the advantage. [69:48] So, the the process in espionage is a [69:51] process called SADRAT, S A D R A T. [69:55] Very similar to the the rice acronym I [69:57] gave you earlier. SADRAT is a process of [69:59] human intelligence conversion or [70:01] collection. The SADRAT process is [70:04] actually the foundation to my company's [70:06] sales process. [70:08] All of our marketing for digital sales, [70:10] all of our human interactions, all of [70:13] our uh upselling and everything else, [70:15] all falls into the same SADRAT process [70:18] that I learned at CIA. Only we use it [70:20] for sales and we use it for marketing. [70:21] SADRAT. SADRAT stands for spot, assess, [70:24] develop, recruit, handle, and terminate. [70:28] That's what SADRAT stands for. Uh and in [70:30] classic uh classic US government acronym [70:34] jargon, handle starts with an H, [70:38] but in the acronym we use the letter A. [70:40] Spot, assess, [70:43] develop, recruit, [70:45] handle, terminate. [70:47] Spot means you find a potential client, [70:50] right? Recruit means you sell that [70:53] client on your product in exchange for [70:55] your product in exchange for their [70:56] money, right? [70:58] Assess is a step that we use at CIA to [71:02] determine whether or not somebody will [71:04] be a good productive client. Often times [71:07] in sales people skip that step. [71:09] Yeah. They don't think about a good [71:10] productive customer. A good productive [71:13] customer has lifetime customer value. A [71:15] good productive customer turns into [71:17] referrals, turns into positive reviews [71:18] and positive ratings. They have infinite [71:21] value more than just the money they give [71:23] you in exchange for your service. [71:26] Assess is a critical piece in the CIA [71:30] recruitment process. It's also a very [71:32] important piece in my company. I'll tell [71:34] tell you something which kind of [71:35] validates that from my own experience [71:36] before we continue on that point of [71:38] assess. Um in the first couple of years [71:39] of my first company, we would just take [71:41] out any customer. And when we looked at [71:43] our um financial record for the previous [71:45] year, what we noticed was that there was [71:47] a cohort of customers that were [71:48] exceptionally valuable. And even though [71:50] we'd won business with this other set of [71:52] customers, we're actually losing money [71:53] because they were only lasting for a [71:54] month. Yeah. So, we made this sort of um [71:56] framework to determine the customers [71:59] that we should actually say no to. [72:01] Basically, as as you say, based on their [72:02] lifetime value. And we figured out that [72:04] there's a certain type of brand that has [72:06] a certain size budget, that has a [72:09] certain number of employees, that is [72:11] trying to solve a certain type of [72:13] problem that would be exceptionally [72:15] profitable for us. So, when we got the [72:17] inquiries coming through our website, we [72:18] were now looking at the inquiries [72:20] through that lens and measuring them [72:21] through that lens because it became so [72:23] clear that all of our best customers fit [72:24] into the sort of top right of this this [72:27] sort of Venn diagram. And that's what I [72:29] hear when you say assess. And it was [72:30] absolutely game changing for our [72:31] business. But most entrepreneurs will [72:34] just take every customer and they think [72:35] of all of them as having the same [72:36] potential in lifetime value. Exactly. [72:38] You just nailed the word, game changing. [72:40] You can play the game by just selling to [72:43] anybody. But if you want to change the [72:44] game, [72:45] you have to make sure that you're [72:46] selling to a very deliberate cohort of [72:49] customers because those customers not [72:51] only yield more revenue per customer, [72:54] but they bring in more customers like [72:55] them. Mhm. Which is where you get an [72:57] exponential level of not revenue, but [73:00] profit. Mhm. Just like you said, you you [73:03] talked about a very profitable group of [73:06] clients, not a high revenue group of [73:08] clients. So, when you focus the [73:10] conversation on profit instead of [73:11] revenue, and you focus it on the right [73:13] customer instead of just customer, [73:16] it it's game changing for your company. [73:18] So, you would assess targets in the CIA [73:21] for [73:22] using the same sort of framework. [73:23] Yep. Using the same framework because in [73:26] in recruitment operations, what you're [73:28] looking for is people who will be good [73:29] assets. [73:31] In the business framework, what you're [73:33] looking for is people who will be good [73:34] customers. An asset and a customer are [73:36] almost the same thing, right? A customer [73:39] is the most important asset of a [73:41] company. And what does a customer do? A [73:43] customer provides something of value [73:46] in exchange for something they want. [73:48] What does an asset do? They provide [73:50] something of value in exchange for [73:51] something they want. So, it's really a [73:53] one-for-one comparison as as long as you [73:55] understand the language of espionage and [73:58] the language of business. [73:59] So, what we did in espionage is every [74:01] time you're you're trying to develop a [74:04] source, you're always asking yourself [74:06] the question, will this source be a good [74:10] reliable asset in the future? Will they [74:12] do what we tell them to do? Will they be [74:14] able to provide information in the long [74:16] term, not just once or twice, right? Is [74:19] the information they provide [74:21] high value information? It's the same [74:23] thing you're doing with a customer. Will [74:25] this customer do what I tell them to do? [74:27] Will this customer provide high levels [74:29] of value? Will this customer last for a [74:31] long time? [74:32] You used the word espionage a few times [74:33] there. [74:34] What is the definition of the word [74:35] espionage? Espionage is defined as the [74:38] stealing of secrets. So, espionage is [74:41] always illegal. There's no country in [74:43] the world that says that espionage is [74:44] legal. [74:45] So, espionage is [74:47] it's uh when CIA commits espionage, when [74:51] MI6 commits espionage, they have a a [74:54] carve out in their law as it pertains to [74:57] their own undercover clandestine [74:58] services so that a American can conduct [75:02] espionage overseas [75:05] and not be prosecutable for that [75:06] espionage under US law [75:09] if they're part of CIA. Same thing is [75:11] true in the UK. An MI6 officer can [75:13] commit espionage overseas [75:15] and not be held accountable for it under [75:18] British law. They're it's a carve out. [75:20] Otherwise, if you're a British citizen [75:22] committing espionage anywhere in the UK [75:24] or abroad, you are punishable under UK [75:27] law. I've heard you say that espionage [75:29] really is about getting people to let [75:30] you into their secret lives. Correct. [75:33] What is [75:34] a secret life? So, uh you know, I I if [75:37] you go back to an earlier part in our [75:39] conversation, we were talking about how [75:40] when you trust people, you'll tell them [75:42] your secrets, right? When you help [75:44] people, [75:45] they'll tell you their secrets. [75:48] There are three lives that any anybody [75:50] lives. We have a public life, a private [75:52] life, and a secret life. [75:55] The public life is the life that we're [75:56] all very familiar with, right? It's the [75:57] life that you live for everybody else to [76:00] see. Not just the people who watch your [76:02] podcast, and the people who, you know, [76:04] work for you in your company, but your [76:06] public life also includes what you show [76:07] your friends. It includes what you show [76:09] your church. It includes who you are [76:11] when you walk down the street. The [76:12] clothes that you choose to wear are a [76:14] perfect example of your public life. [76:16] It's what you want people to think of [76:18] you. Remember the E in RICE. Mother [76:21] Teresa wanted people to see her a [76:22] certain way. That is her public life. [76:26] When you're in espionage, the goal is to [76:27] get away from the public life because if [76:30] you want someone to give you secrets, [76:33] you can't get secrets from somebody [76:35] who's in their public life because [76:37] they're protected in their public life. [76:39] So, you have to move them from public [76:41] into secret. And the middle step between [76:44] public and secret is private life. [76:47] So, you have to move somebody from [76:48] public life to private life. Private [76:50] life is the life that your partner [76:51] knows. [76:52] Private life is the life that your [76:53] closest friends know. Your mom and your [76:55] dad may know it. It's the people who [76:57] know that your feet secretly stink. It's [76:59] the people who know that you don't [77:01] really like to eat oysters because [77:03] whatever they give you gas. That that's [77:05] all stuff that's private. Your business [77:07] partners don't know that, your customers [77:08] don't know that, the people who watch [77:10] your podcast don't know that. And it [77:12] makes the people in your private life [77:14] feel like they know you. And it's what [77:16] makes it so that for you in your public [77:18] life, you feel like you have meaningful [77:19] relationships because instead of 200 [77:22] people who you kind of know, [77:25] now you've got 15 people who are in your [77:27] private life. They know your home [77:29] address, they know your birthday, you [77:31] know, they know your favorite ice cream. [77:33] It makes you feel good. Inside of [77:34] someone's private life, they will share [77:37] sensitivities, but they may still not [77:40] share secrets [77:41] because it's one thing to secretly tell [77:44] somebody that you're worried about your [77:45] business. You're worried about the next [77:48] revenue cycle. You're worried about [77:50] maybe your wife is having an affair. [77:52] Those things are uncomfortable, but [77:54] you'll share them with people in your [77:56] private life. [77:58] But you would never tell someone in your [77:59] private life that you're having an [78:01] affair. [78:02] You would never tell someone in your [78:04] private life that you hit your child. [78:07] You would never tell someone in your [78:08] private life that your parents sexually [78:10] molested you or whatever else. Those [78:13] dark, deep secrets [78:15] only live in your secret life. [78:19] The life that's so secretive that you [78:21] don't even share it with the people in [78:23] your private life. What we're trained to [78:26] do is to follow a process that allows us [78:29] to meet somebody in their public life, [78:31] get them to let us into their private [78:33] life, and then get them to let us into [78:35] their secret life. [78:38] Because it's a very [78:40] like [78:41] simple psychological process [78:43] to get into someone's secret life [78:45] because secretly we all want somebody in [78:49] our secret life. We all want to have [78:51] someone we can tell our secrets to. [78:54] We just don't trust anybody in our [78:56] private life enough to get there. [78:58] So, if you know how to leverage [79:01] perception and perspective, use the four [79:03] core motivations, when you know how to [79:06] leverage SADRAT to to create trust, you [79:09] can actually cut into someone's secret [79:11] life. And once you're in someone's [79:13] secret life, they never stop trusting [79:15] you. They never let you leave [79:18] because it was so rare and so hard to [79:20] find you from their perspective, [79:23] they don't ever want you to leave. So, [79:25] even if you [79:26] even if you break their heart, even if [79:28] you even if you lie to them, like their [79:31] trust in you is so great and so strong [79:33] and so subconscious that you don't ever [79:35] leave their secret life. I'm very keen [79:37] to know how you get into someone's [79:38] secret life and how they might get into [79:40] your own. And we've talked about some of [79:41] these principles earlier, but I was [79:42] wondering if one of the um [79:45] techniques you might use is by sharing [79:46] your own fake secret life with them to [79:50] create an element of comfort. I think I [79:52] I've heard and I I I think I know from [79:54] doing this podcast generally that [79:55] vulnerability creates vulnerability to [79:57] some extent. I if you open up to someone [79:59] that they're more likely to open up to [80:00] you. Correct. There is a So, you're [80:02] getting into now a a form of mirroring, [80:05] much like we were talking about physical [80:06] mirroring. Now, what you're talking [80:07] about is emotional mirroring. [80:09] The There's a nuance there because [80:13] you have to know when to mirror [80:17] appropriately because if if you're [80:19] mirroring somebody else [80:21] and they know that you're mirroring [80:23] them, then subconsciously they feel like [80:25] they're in control. [80:27] Okay, interesting. So, what you need to [80:28] do is you need to mirror just enough to [80:31] get to the place where you can get them [80:33] to mirror you. [80:35] When they mirror you, [80:37] subconsciously they know that you're in [80:39] control. [80:41] So, once you are in a position of power [80:43] or control in a conversation, [80:45] then you can use the ploy of feigned [80:49] vulnerability, [80:50] which I wouldn't quite use it the same [80:52] way you did. I wouldn't make up [80:53] something vulnerable. Instead, I would [80:55] we call it opening a a window [80:58] or opening a window that opens a door. [81:00] So, we have these windows and doors in [81:02] conversation. So, opening a door means [81:04] completely changing a subject. Mhm. [81:06] Right? So, if I were to just say right [81:07] now, I don't really like French food, [81:10] that's opening a door. You as the [81:12] interviewer can go through that door or [81:14] you can close that door because it's not [81:16] relevant, right? But if I open a window [81:19] about how I have certain digestive [81:21] challenges that I don't like to talk [81:22] about, that's a window. You can always [81:25] come back and [81:27] push on that window and get me to go [81:28] through a whole new door of [81:30] conversation, [81:31] right? So, when it comes to [81:33] vulnerability and conversing with [81:35] somebody about vulnerability, you want [81:37] to present windows [81:39] and not present doors. [81:40] So, instead of saying [81:42] something that's a fake vulnerability, [81:45] you would say something that's a real [81:46] vulnerability that may not be applicable [81:48] to you. Like, perhaps you say something [81:50] like, you know, I I have been having [81:53] massive arguments with my wife recently [81:55] and sometimes it makes me just want to [81:57] leave home. [81:58] That's real. [81:59] That's not saying I'm going to leave [82:00] home. It's not saying what I'm arguing [82:02] about, but if I believe that in your [82:05] secret life [82:06] you are also fighting with your wife and [82:08] you're living in a different room and [82:10] you're not telling anybody about it, [82:12] I want to show some sort of bridge [82:14] between us that gets you to admit that [82:16] to me. [82:18] Cuz if you can admit that to me, [82:20] maybe I can find out more about what [82:22] you're doing to cope with the fact that [82:24] your marriage is falling apart. Maybe [82:26] you have a girlfriend. Maybe you're on [82:27] Tinder. Maybe you're doing something [82:29] else, right? [82:30] Maybe you're drinking. Maybe you're [82:31] doing drugs. I don't know, but I need [82:33] you to let me into that secret life. So, [82:35] I'm going to present a window and see if [82:38] you go through that window. So, say that [82:40] I was the asset [82:42] and you were the CIA agent. You have [82:44] more experience in that role than I do. [82:45] Um [82:47] and I was sat in a bar and I said to [82:48] you, "Yeah, God, uh [82:50] this week's been really hard at home cuz [82:51] my wife, she's she's annoying me." [82:54] What what and you were trying to get [82:55] into my secret life, how might you [82:57] maneuver from there? Right. So, there's [82:59] a the basic principle here that we would [83:01] use is called the two-in-one [83:03] combination. So, two means two questions [83:07] and one means one confirmation. [83:09] So, when you present to me a topic that [83:11] I want to explore further, [83:13] the most rudimentary of techniques out [83:15] there is you present to me a topic I [83:18] want to explore, so I ask a follow-on [83:20] question. You will answer my follow-on [83:22] question because you're predisposed [83:24] to answer my question. I will ask [83:27] another follow-on question. You'll be [83:29] predisposed to answer that as well. [83:31] And then I'll say something that [83:33] confirms what you're saying. [83:35] That way it doesn't feel like you're [83:36] being interrogated. Instead, it feels [83:38] like you're [83:39] talking to somebody who gets you. Mhm. [83:41] So, I'll confirm what you say. Like, oh [83:42] yeah, I mean I I had a girlfriend once [83:44] and her feet stank so bad and man, it [83:47] just made me want to like [83:49] with her feet outside of the covers. [83:51] Mhm. [83:52] And then you just stop there. [83:54] Because you've asked two follow-on [83:56] questions and one confirming statement, [83:58] the psychology of the other person is [84:00] going to be to continue volunteering [84:02] information. [84:04] And then you just repeat the cycle. So, [84:05] they give you another piece of [84:06] information. You will follow follow-up [84:08] question, follow-up question, [84:09] confirmation. [84:11] Follow-up question, follow-up question, [84:12] confirmation. To you, [84:15] it feels [84:17] formulaic. Listen, ask a follow-up [84:19] question. Listen, ask a follow-up [84:20] question. To them, it feels like they [84:23] are talking to somebody who really [84:25] really cares. [84:27] Just put yourself in the shoes. Practice [84:28] a little perspective here. Imagine if [84:30] you really were talking about something [84:31] that was frustrating you and the person [84:33] sitting next to you at the bar literally [84:35] didn't do anything other than ask you [84:37] follow-up questions and agree with you. [84:40] You're going to feel like, "You get me, [84:42] man. Why can't my wife get me like you [84:43] get me? Like, you know what I'm talking [84:45] about." I completely agree with you, [84:47] man. Tell me more. Oh, dude. And then [84:50] and you can see how we'll just human [84:52] beings just fall right into the groove. [84:54] The parallel here [84:56] to business, but also the sort of [84:57] transferable skills here are quite [84:59] clear. From what I heard, when I'm doing [85:01] an interview, when I'm meeting a [85:02] candidate for a job, um when I'm trying [85:05] to sell to a client, really my [85:07] disposition should be to be doing [85:09] exactly what you said, asking them [85:10] questions, confirming, asking them [85:11] questions and confirming. Right. If you [85:13] think about it, [85:14] everybody's in a in a contest for [85:16] control. [85:17] Who controls a conversation? [85:19] The person asking the questions or the [85:21] person saying the most words? [85:23] It's always the person asking the [85:24] questions. Cuz the person asking the [85:26] questions determines the direction of [85:28] the conversation. [85:28] It feels the other way around, though. [85:30] It feels like the person speaking the [85:31] most has the most control. [85:32] And what did I tell you about feelings? [85:34] Don't trust them. Don't trust your gut. [85:36] Don't trust your emotions. [85:38] Right? It feels like the person talking [85:39] the most is the person in control. It is [85:41] not. [85:42] It is not. The person asking the [85:44] questions is in control. Think about [85:46] this interview right now. [85:48] I will answer whatever question you [85:51] bring up next. If I don't answer the [85:53] next question you bring up, I will feel [85:55] awkward [85:57] because you and I both know who's in [85:59] control of this conversation, even [86:01] though I'm the one saying the most [86:02] words. Interesting. [86:05] The the implications of this in sales, [86:08] human resourcing, [86:10] marketing, advertising, [86:12] it it's it's the reason my company has [86:14] grown 300% every year for the last 3 [86:17] years. [86:18] It's because the human condition [86:20] is so predictable. [86:23] People just want to feel heard. They [86:26] want to feel listened to and they want [86:27] to feel validated. [86:29] You can automate that. [86:31] You can automate the process that makes [86:33] people feel heard, [86:36] confirmed, and validated. You can [86:37] automate it and then they will sell [86:40] themselves. [86:41] That's how That's really good digital [86:43] marketing. That's how it works. Really [86:46] good direct sales, that's how it That's [86:49] how it works. Really good salesmen have [86:50] already learned this. Real good salesmen [86:52] understand that it's all about getting a [86:54] lead to talk about themselves as quickly [86:57] as possible. And then once they start [86:59] talking about themselves, you just ask [87:01] questions. Let them lead themselves [87:03] through the sales process. [87:05] The problem is with most business owners [87:07] out there who haven't been trained in [87:09] what we're talking about, they feel like [87:11] they have to talk the most. [87:13] They feel like they have to get the [87:15] customer to understand the benefits of [87:17] the product. I need to get you to hear [87:19] me. I need to get you to listen. I need [87:20] to get you to understand the value of [87:22] what I'm offering you. [87:25] That's not what the customer wants. [87:26] That's the salesperson's perception. [87:29] What the customer actually wants is a [87:31] product that's going to solve their [87:32] problems and a salesman that's going to [87:34] help them. [87:36] What's the kind of person that helps [87:37] you? The person who asks questions. I'm [87:40] really interested in this concept of [87:41] change and how the CIA drills into you [87:43] that you need to accept change because [87:46] in our all all of our lives, one of the [87:47] things that most of us are quite bad at [87:49] is accepting change. We're very rigid. [87:51] Again, maybe that's because of [87:52] perception and ego and these kinds of [87:54] things. But when I was reading through [87:56] um [87:56] the what they teach you at the CIA, they [87:59] change your relationship with change. [88:01] They do. So, [88:03] a big part of the advantage of having [88:06] change is the fact that it's not natural [88:09] to accept change. [88:10] So, if you can adapt to change faster [88:12] than your opponent, you have a built-in [88:14] advantage. You have an edge. [88:16] So, [88:18] the these three principles, time, [88:20] distance, and change in direction, these [88:22] three principles that CIA teaches as [88:23] concepts apply in multiple different [88:25] ways. So, as an example, time [88:29] means that you need to accept that [88:30] things take time. That time is a [88:33] resource for you to use. Too often we [88:35] feel like time is fleeting. Time is [88:37] running out. We have to take action [88:39] quickly. Like, time is against us. [88:42] That's not really true. In fact, time is [88:45] a tool that you can use to break things [88:48] down. Secrets don't withstand the test [88:51] of time. [88:52] How long will it take for you and I to [88:54] get into each other's secret lives? 9 [88:56] months. That takes time. Not many people [88:58] would wait 9 months for anything, [89:00] right? But time is a huge advantage that [89:03] you have. If all of your opponents are [89:06] rushing and you're the only person who [89:08] isn't rushing, time becomes a huge [89:10] advantage of to you that nobody else [89:12] has. Explain that in the context of [89:14] business, then. So, uh in business, [89:16] people are trying to make a rapid sale. [89:18] Most people want an impulse buyer, [89:20] right? What do I have to say right now [89:22] to get you to buy my $7 thing? [89:24] I don't really want you to buy a $7 [89:26] thing. I want you to buy a $97 thing. If [89:29] it takes me 3 weeks to get you to buy a [89:31] $97 thing, it takes this other person 3 [89:34] minutes to get you to buy a $7 thing, [89:37] who's the better salesman? [89:39] Well, I would argue that it depends on [89:41] what you're looking for in terms of [89:43] long-term. This person selling a $7 [89:45] thing every 3 minutes has to find a new [89:47] lead. [89:49] They have to find arguably if they sell [89:50] one out of every 10, if they convert at [89:52] 10%, they need to find 10 new leads [89:54] every 3 minutes to make $7. [89:56] If I convert at 10%, I need one person [90:00] to buy a $97 thing every 3 weeks. I have [90:03] a much less demand on my time to find [90:06] new leads. And I can qualify my leads [90:09] better. And if someone's willing to [90:10] spend $97 on something, guess what that [90:12] tells me about that person? [90:14] They have more disposable income. [90:16] The $7 person, I don't know anything [90:18] about their disposable income. Do they [90:20] have some? Do they not? Is that mom and [90:21] dad's credit card? I don't really know. [90:23] I'd rather spend 3 weeks of time [90:27] cultivating a person who buys a $97 [90:29] something because then I can sell them a [90:31] $297 something. And then I can sell them [90:33] a $997 [90:35] something cuz I can test their threshold [90:37] for price sensitivity. Was there any [90:40] situations during your time abroad where [90:42] you felt like like your life was at risk [90:46] or any sort of really clear apparent [90:47] threat? Yes, there was there's one [90:51] specific moment which I'm actively [90:54] trying to get cleared by CIA uh to talk [90:57] about where I felt like with high [91:00] confidence that I had fallen under the [91:01] scrutiny of a local country's [91:04] surveillance team. [91:05] So, I was in a foreign country. I [91:07] believed I fell under their surveillance [91:10] apparatus and they were actively [91:12] surveilling me. [91:13] And the country that I was in and the [91:15] job that I was doing in that country [91:17] made me believe that if I had a [91:19] surveillance team on me, their goal [91:21] would be to apprehend me at a certain [91:23] point in the operation. At a point where [91:26] they could get the most uh [91:29] propaganda and political leverage, etc., [91:31] etc. Uh so, that occurrence happened in [91:35] about 2011. [91:37] And I'm trying to go through a process [91:39] now to get that cleared by CIA. [91:41] Up until about 9 months ago, CIA was [91:45] giving me the thumbs up that I'd be able [91:46] to talk about it. But then geopolitical [91:48] tensions in the world changed and CIA [91:51] changed their mind along with that. So, [91:53] now I'm exploring what avenues I have to [91:56] get them to adhere to their previous [91:58] approval of letting me tell my story [92:01] versus uh being forced to adhere to my [92:03] continued secrecy agreement. So, you [92:05] were in a foreign country, you felt like [92:07] you were under the [92:08] surveillance apparatus of a foreign [92:10] country. What gave you that impression? [92:12] Was it looking over your shoulder and [92:13] seeing something or [92:14] It's the process that we're trained to [92:16] use for surveillance detection. So, [92:17] we're trained in a process where you run [92:19] what's known as an SDR and in that SDR [92:22] you have steps, methods that you use to [92:25] determine whether or not you are being [92:26] actively surveilled. And again, we use [92:29] time to our advantage. So, it's not like [92:32] something happened in 5 seconds and I [92:33] thought I was under surveillance. I [92:35] intentionally carried out [92:37] a series of steps over say 3 hours or 6 [92:41] hours. And over that period of time, I [92:43] had enough information, enough data [92:45] points to confirm with high confidence [92:47] that I would be under surveillance. SDR? [92:49] Surveillance detection route. [92:50] Okay. [92:51] And that could be like a car following [92:53] you or it could be A person following [92:55] you or a drone following you or your [92:57] phone being [92:59] uh acting in a certain way to make you [93:00] believe that you're being digitally or [93:02] cyber surveilled. Sex espionage? [93:05] It's a very real subject. It's a very [93:07] real thing. It's a very real thing [93:09] that's used in different ways based off [93:12] of [93:13] uh a country's civil rights. [93:16] So, in the United States, we don't [93:18] really use sex espionage. [93:19] Don't really? [93:19] We don't really use it because it goes [93:22] against the rights, the individual [93:23] rights of the citizen who works at the [93:27] intelligence agency, right? So, [93:30] if you tell a female intelligence [93:32] officer that they must sleep with this [93:34] target in order to get information, [93:37] you're violating her rights as a US [93:38] citizen. [93:40] In China, that's not the same case. In [93:42] Russia, that's not the same case, right? [93:44] In the UK, they're also they don't [93:46] subscribe to forced sex sexual acts in [93:50] service of collecting intelligence. [93:52] Forced? Forced. [93:53] But you can if you want to. [93:55] What ends up happening is you can if you [93:56] want to. And for those people who do, [93:59] they end up creating what's known as an [94:00] operational security risk [94:02] because once sex is involved, the power [94:07] shift becomes untenable. [94:09] So, if the whole goal of a handler is to [94:14] maintain control over the asset. [94:17] Once sex happens, [94:19] it's harder for the handler to maintain [94:22] control over the asset in a objective [94:25] relationship. Because now sex leads to [94:29] feelings, like hormonally it leads to [94:32] feelings. The act of orgasm releases [94:35] certain hormones that create senses of [94:37] connection with another person, right? [94:40] So, when that oxytocin drops, when that [94:44] norepinephrine drops, you your body [94:46] starts to tell you that you are [94:48] connected to another person. That is the [94:50] antithesis of a proper asset handler [94:54] relationship. You fall in love with [94:55] them. [94:57] Then we call that falling in love with [94:58] your asset. I wouldn't ask you if you [95:00] ever engaged in anything like that. [95:02] I appreciate that. I was fortunate [95:04] enough that I made all the connective [95:06] hormones I needed to make with my wife [95:08] who was also CIA. Disguises. Did you [95:11] ever wear a disguise? [95:12] Absolutely. Yeah, disguises are [95:13] something that are much more common than [95:16] people would believe and much less [95:19] quality than people would believe. [95:21] Really? [95:22] Yeah. So, most disguises, what we [95:24] actually call disguises inside CIA, we [95:26] call them costumes. We don't really call [95:28] them disguises. Disguises is a word [95:30] that's used in pop media and pop [95:32] culture. In the real world, we call them [95:35] costumes. And our costume departments [95:38] our our disguise department, the whole [95:41] objective behind a disguise or a costume [95:43] is just to make you not look like you. [95:46] Not to make you look like someone else, [95:49] not even to make you look like a [95:50] realistic person. It's just to make sure [95:53] that you don't look like you, right? So, [95:55] consider your picture, what you look [95:57] like. You have some very definite [95:59] features. Your nose, your forehead, your [96:00] beard shape, your hair, right? The the [96:03] way that you hold your face, the [96:04] neckline that you have. So, if we wanted [96:06] to change your appearance just so that [96:08] you didn't look like Steven Bartlett, [96:10] all we'd have to do is take away those [96:12] things that make you you and turn them [96:14] into something else, right? We could put [96:17] a a nappy red-headed wig on you. We [96:19] could put giant oversized sunglasses on [96:21] you. We could shave your face or paint [96:23] your beard [96:24] gray or even put a fake mustache on. We [96:27] could put an oversized necklace around [96:28] your neck. And now the picture of that [96:31] is not going to look like the picture of [96:33] Steve Bartlett. Those are all light [96:34] disguises though, right? [96:35] Correct. Is that there's [96:37] deeper types of disguises, right? [96:39] Correct. [96:40] wondered if they like plastic surgery [96:41] and [96:42] you know, if they give a spy plastic [96:44] surgery and those kinds of things. Uh [96:46] so, there's three levels of disguise. Uh [96:49] there are some places that will go as [96:50] far as permanent plastic surgery. [96:54] But most Western services won't do that [96:57] because it it's it doesn't help the [97:00] officer. Like to have a permanent change [97:02] to your body made doesn't make you more [97:05] effective at going undercover because [97:07] now you're just permanently changed. So, [97:09] you still look the way you look. The [97:11] value in a disguise is being able to [97:13] reset the disguise, to reset the costume [97:16] so that you don't look like yourself. [97:19] So, our three levels are level one, [97:20] level two, level three. Light disguise [97:22] is level one. [97:23] Level two is long-term disguise. Level [97:26] three is something that we call [97:27] prosthetic disguise. So, light disguise [97:30] is what we talked about. Oversized [97:31] sunglasses and a nappy wig and all of a [97:33] sudden you're a different a different [97:35] person, right? You're you're Loyola. [97:38] You're not Steve Bartlett anymore. [97:39] Phase two is long-term disguise. [97:41] Long-term disguise means it's still you, [97:44] but we change you [97:46] physically for a long-term operation. [97:49] So, instead of having short hair, we [97:50] grow your hair long. Instead of having a [97:52] beard, we shave you clean. We lose some [97:55] of that hard-earned body mass that you [97:57] have or we gain body mass that you don't [98:00] really want, right? Maybe we put some [98:02] kind of fake but long-standing tattoo on [98:04] you, right? We do something with you [98:07] that changes the way you look [98:09] physically. It's still you. [98:10] The reason that's important is because [98:12] you always have to ask yourself the [98:13] question, what will a police officer [98:15] think when they storm into your hotel [98:16] room at night? [98:18] If you're wearing a light disguise and a [98:20] police officer storms into your room at [98:22] night, they're going to ask questions [98:23] like, why do you have a wig? [98:25] Or if you don't have a wig, you just [98:27] wear a ball cap and a hoodie, there's [98:28] nothing for them to ask, right? They're [98:30] basically saying, oh, this is you. Your [98:32] license says it's you and you wear this [98:34] ball hat this ball cap and this hoodie [98:36] all the time. Whatever. You're not going [98:38] to jail for that. So, level one and [98:40] level two disguise are are very safe. [98:43] It's hard to get someone arrested using [98:46] those two. Level three is what the [98:47] movies are made out of. That's your [98:49] prosthetics. [98:50] If we put fake ears on you, if we put a [98:52] fake nose on you, if we change your eye [98:54] color, if we put in a fake missing [98:56] tooth, right? Instead of a real missing [98:58] tooth. [98:59] If we do that kind of stuff to you, [99:01] police officer breaks into your room in [99:02] the middle of the night, now they ask, [99:04] why do you have a fake nose that you're [99:06] not wearing right now? Why do you have [99:08] fake eyebrows? Where do Why do you have [99:10] fake ears? Why do you have a blacked-out [99:12] tooth? Right? Now, they look at your [99:14] your ID and you don't look like your ID. [99:18] Much less common, I'm I'm guessing that [99:20] number three [99:21] Very uncommon. And you would use them [99:22] strategically at different times. But, [99:24] if you watch too much Mission Impossible [99:26] or Alias, [99:27] you start to think that people wear [99:28] disguises all the time. [99:30] There's so many problems to disguise. [99:33] There's There's so many operational [99:36] uh inadequacies to operational to dis- [99:38] to disguise that we could have a whole [99:40] conversation about it, right? Like [99:42] things don't stick to your face in the [99:44] extreme cold. Things don't stick to your [99:46] face in the extreme heat or when you're [99:48] sweating your ass off in the [99:49] Philippines. Things melt. Makeup melts. [99:53] Uh the the adhesive that sticks a fake [99:55] mustache to your lip starts to [99:57] disintegrate. Like there's all sorts of [99:59] problems with prosthetics in real life [100:01] that Tom Cruise doesn't have to worry [100:03] about in the movies. When people think [100:05] of spies doing espionage overseas [100:07] wearing disguises and all these kinds of [100:08] things, it does make you think they must [100:10] be exceptionally good at dealing with [100:11] fear. [100:12] Because a lot of people would be too [100:14] nervous or too anxious or whatever to [100:16] not like crack under that kind of [100:18] pressure. If you're meeting the guy that [100:20] has the nuclear codes for Iran or [100:22] whatever, [100:23] um and you've been working for 9 months [100:26] to meet this person, [100:28] you know, you've got to have a good [100:29] handle on your own anxiety [100:32] and your own fear. [100:33] Do the CIA target people that [100:36] are good at that or do they train that [100:38] or is it both? [100:39] It's both. It's a great question. It's [100:41] both. CIA wants people that carry a [100:43] certain level of anxiety. [100:45] Because when you carry anxiety, you're [100:46] naturally paranoid, which means you have [100:49] heightened observational skills. [100:51] Most people who suffer from anxiety feel [100:54] like they're inadequate in some way. In [100:56] reality, they are hyper-adequate. They [100:58] are more than adequate. Anxiety is a [101:01] superpower through the eyes of the CIA. [101:03] I would take somebody with anxiety any [101:05] day over somebody without anxiety cuz [101:06] anxiety keeps you alive. [101:08] Anxiety keeps you sharp. Anxiety keeps [101:11] you learning. It keeps you attentive. [101:13] It's a good thing. But, to your second [101:15] point, you are also trained. You are [101:17] trained to understand how fear works. [101:21] And I like to oversimplify it, [101:25] your brain has two hemispheres, right? A [101:27] left brain and a right brain. Your left [101:29] brain is your logical brain. Your right [101:30] brain is your emotional brain. [101:33] Because you have two different [101:34] hemispheres and they operate on a on two [101:37] different bases, right? One is based in [101:39] logic, one is based in emotions. They [101:41] actually operate and they process at [101:43] different speeds. [101:44] Your logical brain processes much slower [101:48] than your emotional brain, which is why [101:50] it takes you in instant before you're [101:52] scared, but it takes you maybe minutes, [101:55] hours, weeks before you're convinced. [101:58] So, what ends up happening is fear in an [102:00] untrained person, going back to our [102:02] conversation about trained versus [102:03] untrained, in an untrained person, fear [102:07] is an emotion that's processed by the [102:08] emotional brain very quickly. So, then [102:11] they react instinctively to their fear. [102:13] That's where a lot of people who suffer [102:15] from anxiety get held back. [102:18] When you can train someone to understand [102:21] that [102:22] the same thing that makes them [102:24] emotionally scared is also being [102:26] processed by their logical brain. Your [102:29] brain is actually going through the [102:30] process of determining how scared you [102:32] really need to be. If you can just slow [102:35] down the emotional brain and train the [102:38] rational brain to work a little bit [102:39] faster, your whole relationship with [102:42] fear completely changes. [102:44] How do they train you to slow down your [102:45] emotional brain so that you don't react? [102:47] That's a big part of the reason why you [102:48] have a controlled training environment [102:51] that lasts for multiple months. [102:53] Because what they do is they inoculate [102:55] you. It's called stress inoculation. [102:57] They inoculate you with scenarios [102:59] designed specifically to trigger your [103:02] emotional response. [103:03] Even though you have been trained to not [103:06] trust your emotional response, they [103:07] inoculate you so that over and over [103:09] again you have to go through the process [103:11] of I feel fear. I have to not accept it. [103:15] I fear doubt I I feel doubt. I have to [103:17] reject it. I feel like I'm being [103:19] watched. I have to reject it. I have to [103:21] give my rational brain a chance to catch [103:23] up so that I can get objective facts [103:26] about the scenario. [103:28] And there are some people who don't do [103:29] it well. There are some people who never [103:32] inoculate themselves against fear, [103:34] so then they end up getting cut from the [103:37] farm. So, if for the average Joe that's [103:39] listening to this now or Jenny, the [103:41] average Jenny, that's listening to this [103:43] now and they live a life that's held [103:46] them back because of their fear. You [103:47] know, they don't take the risk. They [103:49] don't um raise their hand to do the [103:50] presentation. They don't lean into [103:53] uncertainty. Based on your training in [103:55] the CIA, what would you suggest that [103:57] they should do to get over that fear? [103:59] So, they need to inoculate themselves as [104:00] well. Inoculate Inoculate means [104:03] Inoculate means expose yourself in [104:05] controlled ways to fear. Very similar to [104:08] the way you inoculate against COVID or [104:10] you inoculate against the flu, right? [104:11] You expose yourself to a strain that's [104:14] weakened so that your body can gain some [104:17] sort of familiarity with it. You do the [104:18] same thing with fear. So, if you're [104:20] afraid to give that presentation, [104:23] you're not ever going to change the fact [104:25] that you're afraid to give a [104:26] presentation. [104:27] But, you will be able to change [104:29] something that you're less afraid of. [104:32] So, if you're afraid of going to the [104:34] gym, if you're afraid of uh eating at a [104:37] certain restaurant down the street, if [104:39] you're afraid of stepping out of your [104:40] front door, [104:41] if you're afraid of asking your friend [104:43] their opinion about whether or not [104:44] you're overweight, [104:46] find something small [104:48] where you are less afraid of this than [104:51] you are of this other thing [104:52] and inoculate yourself with this. [104:55] Like lean into the small fears, the [104:57] fears that you already know are kind of [105:00] irrational and simple. And if you can [105:02] overcome those, what will happen is you [105:05] will start to gain momentum. And the [105:07] thing that you do to inoculate yourself [105:09] is to to know up front. You know you're [105:11] going to have an emotional reaction. You [105:12] already know it. It's the thing that [105:14] you're afraid of. [105:16] It You can predict that. So, you already [105:18] know, I'm going to ask my buddy Steve if [105:20] he thinks that I'm overweight. [105:23] I'm terrified to ask him. He's either [105:25] going to say yes or no or he's going to [105:27] take some cop-out answer and ask me what [105:30] I think. But, I already know that it's [105:32] going to feel uncomfortable. But, he's [105:34] my buddy. It's low risk. Let's see how [105:36] it hap- Let's see where it goes, right? [105:37] So, you go and you ask the question. You [105:39] put yourself in the face of fear. [105:41] You're still going to have the heart [105:42] palpitations, the cold sweats. Your [105:44] emotional brain's going to take off and [105:46] all of your physiology is going to like [105:47] let loose. [105:48] But, then Steve is going to tell you his [105:50] answer [105:52] and it's over. [105:53] And then all of a sudden you're like, [105:54] "Oh, that wasn't nearly as bad as I [105:56] thought it was going to be." [105:57] And then when you do the same thing with [105:59] your friend Jenny and the same thing [106:00] with your friend Bruce and the same [106:01] thing with your friend Robert, by the [106:03] time Robert tells you his answer, your [106:05] body's not reacting the same way as it [106:06] did when you talked to Steve. [106:08] Small inoculations [106:11] are training your emotional brain to [106:12] slow down and training your rational [106:14] brain to speed up. So, then you move on [106:16] to the next most scary thing without [106:19] going to the scariest of things. You [106:22] know, I was thinking about that as you [106:23] you were talking and I was thinking, [106:24] "Gosh, [106:25] I think a lot of people know that. I [106:27] think they know that the way to get [106:28] better at at speaking on stage is to go [106:30] and speak on stage, but they're still [106:32] held back by [106:33] you know, if God, if I do that, I'm [106:35] going to mess up and then people are [106:36] going to think I'm this, that, and the [106:37] other and then I'll never X Y Z." Right. [106:40] So, you can say that to someone, but [106:42] getting them to take that first step [106:43] seems to be the impossibility. Like And [106:45] And here's where [106:47] here's where [106:48] the former CIA officer in me comes out. [106:51] Because if you're too afraid to do that, [106:52] good. [106:54] I don't want you to do it. Because you [106:56] being unable to do it [106:58] gives me the advantage. [107:00] The person who's listening to this who [107:02] says to themselves, "I'm scared, but [107:04] I'll do it anyways." [107:05] That's the person who deserves the [107:06] opportunity to change their life. [107:08] The person who's listening to this who [107:10] says, [107:11] "I'm too scared to do that." Good. [107:13] I need you to stay exactly where you [107:15] are. Because in our world, the the [107:18] flat-out truth is [107:20] our world needs cogs. Our world needs [107:24] people who are trapped in the consumer [107:26] cycle. [107:27] We need those people. [107:29] Because the people who are trapped in [107:30] that consumer cycle, the people who are [107:32] prisoners to their fear [107:34] are the people who run the economy. [107:37] It's the people who are willing to break [107:39] that cycle and capitalize on the fears [107:43] that you can't overcome, those are the [107:45] people who actually provide you the [107:47] service that you need because you can't [107:49] do it by yourself. [107:50] So, I want to encourage the people who [107:52] are willing to take the scary step. [107:55] And I also want to discourage the people [107:57] who already know that they're too [107:59] afraid. [108:01] We need both. As you know, we [108:03] pre-sponsored this podcast and I'm an [108:04] investor in the company. I've spoken [108:06] about this many times before, but I'm [108:07] obsessed with finding 1% gains in all [108:10] that I do. I'm a big believer in the [108:12] theory of marginal gains, especially in [108:14] health and in fitness. Seeing 1% and [108:16] small improvements in my Whoop data, be [108:19] it with my sleep or my heart rate [108:20] variability or other health indicators, [108:22] gives me this incredible sense of [108:24] forward motion and over time, the [108:26] ultimate result of these gains means a [108:28] healthier and better version of myself [108:30] in the long run. My Whoop, which is this [108:32] thing on my wrist, has really allowed me [108:34] to understand actions that I don't [108:36] necessarily need to completely change, [108:37] but things that I can tweak in order to [108:39] become the person I want to be and go in [108:41] the right direction with my health. So, [108:43] if you're obsessed with finding those 1% [108:44] marginal gains as well, like I am, go to [108:47] join.whoop.com/ceo [108:50] where you can try Whoop for 30 days [108:53] risk-free with zero commitment to see [108:56] how impactful it can be for you. [108:59] You met your wife while you were um an [109:01] undercover CIA operative. Yeah. It was [109:04] I'm I am still to this day very thankful [109:07] that [109:08] she is a poor judge of character. [109:13] In 2014, you leave the CIA age 34 years [109:16] old. You both resigned together? We both [109:18] resigned together. Why? Uh it was mostly [109:21] my idea. My wife had a stellar career. [109:24] Uh we had a 1-year-old child at the time [109:26] and we were at a point in our career [109:29] coming off of very successful operations [109:31] together right before that where we were [109:33] both kind of middle management [109:35] and that middle management lifestyle [109:37] meant that we're spending 12 to 16 hours [109:39] a day on the job just like most people, [109:41] but the difference is when you're [109:42] spending 16 hours a day on the job, it [109:45] means that you're in a skiff somewhere. [109:48] You're you can't take your work home. [109:50] You can't work from home. So, you're [109:51] literally absent from the house. [109:54] So, trying to coordinate two 16-hour [109:56] schedules along with a 1-year-old when [109:59] neither of us signed up to be that kind [110:01] of parent. [110:02] We both wanted to be the kind of parent [110:04] that was present for our children and [110:06] instead we're giving our child to some [110:08] daycare center and paying extra overage [110:10] fees to have that daycare center keep [110:11] the baby for 12 hours a day. [110:14] It's it's a sucky situation. So, for [110:16] family reasons [110:18] more so than for career reasons, we both [110:20] decided, "Hey, let's let's double down [110:23] on family [110:24] and let's see if we can't start all over [110:25] again." You're going to leave America in [110:27] 2030? I'm going to try and leave America [110:29] in 2027. I read that somewhere. Why why [110:32] you going to try and leave America in [110:33] 2027? So, I think the United States is [110:35] going through a very difficult time [110:37] right now and I think most people [110:38] understand that. Uh [110:40] we are a young country no matter how [110:42] much we think that we are the best in [110:45] the world, we are actually [110:47] going through the early part of our [110:49] adolescence as a nation. And you can see [110:52] it playing out every day in the [110:53] headlines. You can see it in our in our [110:55] role in geopolitics geopolitical events. [110:58] You can see that we are [111:01] we're suffering in terms of trying to [111:03] identify ourselves. We don't know do we [111:06] want to be a real democracy? Do we want [111:07] to be kind of a partial democracy? Do we [111:10] want to treat everybody as equal? Do we [111:12] not want to treat everybody as equal? [111:13] We're we're struggling in the same way [111:15] that you and I did through middle [111:16] school, right? [111:18] My children [111:20] mean the world to me and what I want to [111:22] do is give them a life where they have [111:25] the choice to do anything they want to [111:27] do. [111:28] Unfortunately, I don't believe our [111:30] country [111:31] for the next 5 to 10 years is going to [111:34] be the kind of country that allows [111:37] children of today to choose and be [111:40] whatever they want to be. I think our [111:41] country has some growing up of its own [111:43] to do before we really offer people [111:46] equal access to opportunities. [111:48] So, for me [111:51] if I was my 11-year-old son [111:55] when I turn 15 or 16 years old and I [111:57] start to really care about something [112:00] I would like to be in a place where I [112:01] can explore that thing. [112:03] I don't think that's going to be in the [112:04] United States. I think that's going to [112:05] be in Europe. I think that's going to be [112:07] in the Middle East. I think that's going [112:08] to be in Latin America where he will [112:10] have all the advantages of the world [112:13] outside of the United States. What do [112:15] you think about what's going on at the [112:16] moment with geopolitics as it relates to [112:17] like China and the US? Um [112:20] there's a bit of a power struggle going [112:21] on and there has been, but a lot of [112:23] people forecast that China's eventually [112:24] going to overtake [112:26] or maybe it already has the US as the [112:28] sort of global economic force. [112:30] Um [112:31] are you preparing for that? Do you think [112:33] it's going to happen? I think that [112:34] there's there's [112:37] two realistic outcomes and there's one [112:38] less realistic outcome. The most [112:41] realistic outcome is that the United [112:43] States and China continue to compete and [112:46] reach parity [112:47] equality with each other. [112:49] That's the most realistic outcome. Maybe [112:52] the United States remains 10% bigger. [112:54] Maybe China gets 2% bigger economically. [112:57] But they approach parity. They approach [112:59] equality. [113:00] I don't want to live [113:03] in the United States [113:05] when it loses so much status that [113:09] another country reaches economic parity. [113:12] Think about that for a second. [113:14] The world is accustomed to one [113:15] superpower. [113:17] Once there are two superpowers, [113:19] everything changes. There's two massive [113:22] languages and you're going to have to [113:23] choose which language you speak. There's [113:25] two currencies. Which currency are you [113:26] going to save your your money in? [113:28] There's competing priorities. There's [113:30] competing politics. There's equally [113:33] massive sophisticated militaries. [113:36] When you are in one of those two [113:37] countries at the moment that they reach [113:39] parity, you are in the most dangerous [113:42] position [113:43] because the number one target for China [113:45] will be the United States. The number [113:47] one target for the United States will be [113:48] China. [113:49] Right now, there's not parity. There's [113:51] not equality. So, the United States has [113:53] to worry about everybody. And China [113:54] doesn't really have to worry about many [113:56] people at all. [113:57] But as the that equality gets closer and [114:00] closer, there's more and more threat. [114:01] Think about it in business terms. When [114:03] you're the industry leader in your [114:05] business Google. [114:07] you don't have to worry about much. You [114:08] have to worry about all the little guys, [114:10] but nobody's really a direct threat. But [114:12] as soon as somebody else rises to meet [114:14] you, you have to worry about it. The [114:16] leader used to be Yahoo. Mhm. Right? [114:18] Yahoo had to see what it's like to lose [114:21] and gain parity with Google only to then [114:23] be eclipsed. Right? So, most probable [114:26] outcome, we reach parity. [114:28] Second most probable outcome is that [114:31] China does supersede us [114:33] by small amounts, right? 5% GDP, 10% GDP [114:37] and the United States has to regain its [114:40] momentum to try to gain back [114:43] the edge. So, now you have this cycle [114:46] back and forth, right? Where for 5 years [114:49] China is the leading GDP. For 5 years [114:50] the United States is the leading GDP and [114:52] you have this waffling back and forth [114:54] which makes you even less secure than if [114:56] you were in direct parity. [114:58] But that's that's a scary place to be as [115:01] well. You still have to lose all the [115:02] influence to get there and when you're [115:04] there you never know how long it's going [115:06] to last. Do you think we're already [115:07] engaged in a form of World War III? [115:09] Yeah, absolutely. I think World War III [115:11] is already happening. I think World War [115:13] III is not what people think [115:15] it was going to be. I think people were [115:17] afraid that World War III was somehow [115:18] going to look like another World War II. [115:21] Instead, World War III is a a war of [115:24] proxy nations. It's a war it's a war [115:27] where smaller third world countries are [115:29] competing against each other and they're [115:31] being funded by larger countries that [115:33] are actually in conflict with one [115:34] another. [115:35] Ukraine and Russia. [115:37] US is funding Ukraine. Russia's [115:39] obviously taking care of itself, but the [115:41] real conflict in Ukraine isn't about [115:43] Ukraine. It's about the West versus [115:45] Russia. [115:46] Same thing's going to happen with Taiwan [115:47] and China. When the time comes that that [115:49] China makes its biggest move on Taiwan. [115:51] It's already made the small moves on [115:53] Taiwan. When it makes its largest move [115:55] on Taiwan, it's going to become a [115:56] question of China versus the West and [115:59] whoever supports Taiwan. [116:01] So, going back to where we started then, [116:03] um [116:04] the average Joe. The average Joe's [116:05] listening to this conversation now. What [116:07] they really want is to make their life [116:08] better in whatever subjective measure [116:09] that they consider better to be. [116:11] Um they want to start that business. [116:13] They want to launch that project. They [116:14] want to kind of get get outside of this [116:16] sort of emotional prison that they live [116:18] in where their life is dominated by [116:19] perception, what they what they think, [116:22] their own sort of confines of their [116:23] identity. What is the sort of closing [116:25] argument and closing advice you give to [116:27] that average Joe to liberate themselves [116:29] so that they can pursue whatever they [116:30] want to pursue? So, the the most [116:32] important thing is to take action. [116:34] That is the most even if it's the wrong [116:36] action. [116:38] If you take the wrong step, if you take [116:39] the first step in the wrong direction, [116:41] the difference between you and the [116:42] person who doesn't take a step at all is [116:45] the world. You have to take the first [116:47] step. You have to take some kind of [116:49] action. Just by taking action, you show [116:52] that you're not trapped by fear. You [116:54] show that you're willing to challenge [116:56] your own perception of the world and try [116:59] to gain some perspective. It doesn't [117:01] matter what that action is. I don't care [117:02] whether you read a book, whether you buy [117:03] a program, whether you whether you sell [117:06] your first prototype [117:08] take some kind of action because [117:11] nine out of every 10 people are not [117:13] going to take any action. You already [117:15] have an advantage just by trying and so [117:19] few people understand that. They think [117:20] there's some kind of advantage in [117:22] waiting. [117:24] There isn't. The longer you wait, all [117:26] you're really doing is giving the other [117:27] nine people a chance to be the first one [117:29] to take a step. [117:30] If you take the first step, you beat the [117:32] competition right out of the gates and [117:34] you know this as well as I do, [117:36] even if your first three or four steps [117:37] are fumbles and trips and you fall on [117:40] your face, by the time you stand up, [117:42] you're four steps away from the rest of [117:43] the competition and you've learned a lot [117:46] in those first four steps. So, my [117:48] suggestion is [117:49] take action. Take action using the [117:51] skills that we talked about today. Take [117:53] action using the skills that you've [117:54] talked about on some other podcast. Just [117:56] take action. Identity. We talked about [117:59] how the the CIA kind of rewrite your [118:01] identity a little bit so that, you know, [118:03] it gives you some sort of cover. But one [118:05] of the things that stops us taking [118:06] action is our own [118:08] identity. [118:09] What have you come to learn and what do [118:10] you think now about the role of [118:12] identity, how it gets in our way and how [118:14] we can liberate ourselves from it? The [118:15] worst [118:17] person to determine who you are is often [118:20] times you. [118:22] Because you see it all. You live in your [118:25] own secret life. [118:26] The rest of the world sees your public [118:28] life even if your public life is [118:30] accidental. [118:31] The world sees you differently than you [118:33] see yourself. So, when you look at [118:36] yourself, it's like looking through a [118:37] magnifying glass. You see every wart. [118:40] You see every [118:42] every crevice. You see everything wrong [118:44] because you have the magnifying glass. [118:46] The rest of the world, not only do they [118:47] not have a magnifying glass, but they're [118:49] standing 10 ft away from you. So, they [118:51] see something very different than what [118:53] you see. So, a lot of times whatever you [118:55] think about yourself is actually [118:58] inaccurate when you apply it against the [119:01] test of perspective Because what other [119:03] people see and what other people think [119:05] of you, [119:06] you are usually very wrong from what [119:08] they think. [119:09] We have a closing tradition on this [119:11] podcast where the last guest leaves a [119:12] question for the next guest not knowing [119:14] who they're going to be leaving it for. [119:15] Now, the question that's been left for [119:17] you in the Diary of a CEO is um [119:20] very very interesting. [119:24] What is something you used to strongly [119:27] believe [119:29] that you have fundamentally changed your [119:30] mind on? [119:35] I used to believe [119:37] that [119:39] people [119:41] could be equal. [119:44] And fundamentally now, I know [119:47] that people will never be equal because [119:51] equality is not really the thing that [119:53] we're after. [119:54] What we're secretly after that we don't [119:56] want to admit to [119:58] is we're always after being better, [120:00] having more, [120:02] being in a better position than everyone [120:04] else. [120:05] So, we will constantly strive to take [120:07] advantage of secrets, to take advantage [120:09] of opportunities, to find an edge that [120:12] we do not share with other people. [120:15] But publicly, we will say that we wish [120:18] there was more equality and that we want [120:20] there to be more equality when secretly, [120:23] we don't. I used to be one of those [120:26] people that wanted everything to be [120:27] equal. And now I am one of those people [120:29] who is very happy in a world where [120:32] things are not equal. Why? [120:34] Because I see through the noise. I [120:37] understand [120:39] that [120:40] what we want isn't what we actually say. [120:43] So, these politicians that are saying, [120:45] you know, maybe on the left that are [120:46] saying, you know, we want equality, we [120:48] want everyone to be [120:50] equal, you think that bullshitting? [120:51] Absolutely. That's not what they want. [120:53] they want? What they want is more of the [120:56] current status quo, which is to have [120:58] conflict with the opposite side. [121:01] And what they also want on top of that [121:03] is to be in a position where the masses [121:05] trust [121:06] the politician to be in control over [121:10] more aspects of the population's life. [121:13] Andrew, thank you so much. Thank you so [121:14] much. I feel so um inspired, [121:17] a little bit excited, um [121:20] and energized by this conversation. And [121:21] I'm I think it's so incredible that [121:22] you've committed your this sort of [121:24] chapter of your life to helping [121:26] people unlock their full potential by [121:28] un- by knowing the way that humans work [121:31] and being able to use [121:33] the understanding of a human that was [121:35] probably getting in their way [121:37] to free themselves and pursue whatever [121:40] sort of goal they have in their lives [121:42] that they think will provide them with [121:43] fulfillment. Cuz that's really how I see [121:44] what you're doing. You're taking a skill [121:46] set that's been exclusive and given to [121:48] only a few and giving it to many. And [121:50] you do that through Everyday Spy. [121:51] Andrew, thank you so much. It's been an [121:53] absolute honor. Thanks for having me, [121:54] man.