Former CIA Officer Bustamante Outlines Tradecraft to Overcome Societal Controls

前CIA官员Bustamante概述突破社会控制的谍报技巧 个人可通过摆脱体制规训、善用情绪触发机制以及将人际交往视为交易交换，从而实现个人成功与影响力。 前CIA秘密行动特工Andrew Bustamante探讨了社会规训与体制如何限制人类潜能，并提出了基于谍报技能的认知模型来突破这些局限。他概述了诸如“保持沉默”（Get Quiet）、R.I.C.E.法则、4C框架以及“知晓-喜爱-信任”（Know-Like-Trust）等实用的影响力与说服力模型，以掌控求职面试、销售及商业领导场景。Bustamante还分析了涉及美中两国的地缘政治动态、国内政治手段以及重大新闻事件发生后阴谋论的运作机制。他最终指出，取得成功需要客观审视人际交往、勇于承担风险，并通过动态执行专注于追求卓越。 前 CIA 秘密情报官员 Andrew Bustamante 介绍了“保持安静”（Get Quiet）感官重置框架，通过暂停言语与感官超载，让个人在关键谈判中快速获取信息优势。 (0:00) 社会机构与教育体制构建了扭曲现实的“棚屋与脏玻璃”认知牢笼，而 CIA 训练的核心在于彻底击碎玻璃，引导特工洞察客观现实与人类组织架构。 (4:35) 真正的态势感知需要严格区分“个人感知”（自身视角）与“全局视角”（他人视角的信念），将两者结合能使可执行情报量翻倍。 (30:07) 相比于被体制规训押注于低回报的金融工具，敢于在自身优势概率上冒险并直接投资于自己的事业，往往能获得远超传统市场的回报率。 (47:58) 地缘政治预测中美力量将在 2035 年左右趋于平局，这将打破单一超级大国主导的稳定局面，转向充满动荡与不确定性的多极对抗环境。 (52:23)

Former CIA covert intelligence officer Andrew Bustamante argues that societal structures condition individuals into predictable, compliant roles rather than true meritocracies, but applying intelligence tradecraft can systematically dismantle cognitive barriers and negotiate personal advantages. Systemic Conditioning Versus the Meritocracy Myth (7:16) Bustamante challenges the assumption of a pure meritocracy, asserting that conventional schooling, corporate routines, and religious systems train individuals into rigid, predictable hierarchies necessary for state governance. According to Bustamante's anthropological model, human organization ascends from base individualism to tribalism and finally to the state apex. While these conditioning systems maintain broad societal stability, they intentionally sever the feedback loop of direct experimentation, training citizens to accept dictated facts rather than testing them in practice. The Flywheel of Action and Escaping Perfection (28:37) To counter passive conditioning, Bustamante introduces the intelligence flywheel: converting raw information into knowledge, which must be immediately tested through direct real-world experience to yield refined data. This process requires overcoming what he terms the 'Perfection Paradox'—the trap where teams or individuals repeatedly make incremental minor improvements to a plan while postponing actual execution. True excellence, Bustamante states, is generated dynamically by taking imperfect action, absorbing field feedback, and recalibrating. Strategic Persuasion and the Architecture of Trust (146:47) Bustamante outlines systematic frameworks for professional and personal influence, centered on building 'Social Capital' via the Four Cs: Consideration (rapidly adopting the counterparty's perspective), Consistency, Collaboration (synthesizing conflicting ideas into superior outcomes), and Control (actively cashing in accumulated capital). In professional settings and interviews, he notes candidates should mirror the interviewer's values rather than simply listing credentials. Furthermore, within the Know-Like-Trust (KLT) model, trust does not require moral affinity; it simply requires perceived behavioral predictability built through prolonged engagement. Geopolitics, Polarized Power, and Leadership Trade-Offs (52:23) At a macro level, Bustamante views stability through the lens of dominant power. Drawing on geopolitical forecasts, he warns that the United States risks reaching power parity with China around 2035, transitioning from a single uncontested global actor into a volatile 'red ocean' near-peer rivalry. On an individual leadership level, Bustamante argues that driving influence requires taking polarized stances to attract loyal supporters, accepting that true authority requires courage, objective assessments of reality, and the inevitable burden of isolation. Bustamante views interpersonal relationships through a pragmatic investment lens, arguing that individuals must consciously choose high-yield connections and test frameworks empirically rather than resigning to passive societal conditioning.

前中央情报局（CIA）秘密行动官员安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，现代社会体系通过制度化规训限制了个人的认知与发展，个体必须借助情报领域的行为博弈、逆向思维和行动验证机制，才能打破认知壁垒并在职业与人际交往中建立非对称竞争优势。 解构系统规训与行动驱动的认知飞轮 (7:16) 布斯塔曼特指出，他在中央情报局训练基地“农场”（The Farm）受训时，教官打破了他对“绝对唯才是举”（Meritocracy）的固有认知。人类社会依赖“个人主义—部落主义—国家”（Individualism-Tribalism-The State）的三层架构维系运转，国家制度通过标准化教育和既定程序确保庞大人口的秩序与可预测性。传统教育往往将事实灌输作为考核标准，刻意剥离了实践环节。与此相对，情报领域遵循“信息—知识—经验”（Information, Knowledge, Experience）的三角飞轮：唯有将理论付诸现实检验并接受试错反馈，才能产出更高阶的有效认知。 在行动层面，布斯塔曼特强调必须克服“完美悖论”（Perfection Paradox），即陷入无休止微调方案却推迟执行的泥潭。CIA在“9·11”事件发生后约48小时内就敲定行动预案，将首批特工派往阿富汗与巴基斯坦的山区骑马作战，这种实践体现了“在执行中追求卓越”的核心原则。针对个人心理创伤，他主张跳过传统疗法反复“经历痛苦”的路径，转而采用“绕过创伤”的策略，直接利用过往事件带来的客观结果来强化现实生存能力。 破解人际壁垒与情报学影响力架构 (97:00) 针对事业与个人突破，布斯塔曼特赞同“他人是达成目标的唯一障碍”这一判断，并补充指出个人内部的心智摩擦同样是重大阻力。在人际交往中，他提出了“认知—喜欢—信任”（Know, Like, Trust）链条，指出信任并非道德层面的好感，而是对他人行为结果的高度可预测性。在求职面试场景中，考官的潜在诉求是寻找沟通轻松且与自己“相似”（Alike）的对象；候选人可通过敏锐观察环境线索（“门窗技术”）并提出有深度的开放式问题，将单向问询转化为互惠对话。他创办的 Everyday Spy 平台曾应用此类框架，帮助一名陷入晋升瓶颈五年的工程师成功获得高级职位并加薪3.1万至3.2万美元，同时协助失业的新手父亲伊曼纽尔（Emanuel）在数月内入职科学实验室。 为快速积累人际层面的“社会资本”（Social Capital），布斯塔曼特梳理了“影响力4C模型”：体谅（Consideration，先于对方换位思考）、一致性（Consistency，以可预测的言行建立信任）、协作（Collaboration，融合不同观点创造优于妥协的第三解）与掌控（Control，主动发起要求以兑现积累的社会资本）。此外，在冷邮件沟通中合理调动奖励、意识形态与竞争等驱动因素（RICE框架），能够大幅降低对方的决策阻力。 极化效应、领导力代价与投资型人际观 (107:15) 布斯塔曼特分析了极化观点在建立个人权威过程中的战略价值。他认为，试图讨好所有人的折中表达会削弱影响力，而坚定的极化立场虽然必然树立反对者，却能促使核心支持者主动投入精力和声誉进行辩护，进而深化其心理承诺并加速向忠诚阵营转化，同时倒逼中立旁观者做出选择。在领导力层面，他将核心素质界定为客观诚实与“勇气”（明确定义为做令自己感到恐惧之事），并指出卓越领导者必须直面做出痛苦决断所带来的必然代价——深层的孤独感。 在审视人际关系时，布斯塔曼特打破了道德禁忌，主张将关系理性视作存在价值交换的“投资”。鉴于个体生命的有限性，他利用情报筛选逻辑迅速识别值得投入精力的对象，主动切断单向索取价值的无效损耗，将有限精力集中于能为家庭和后代产生长期回报的高质量关系上，从而提升关键人际互动的在场质量。 地缘霸权交替与暗杀阴谋论的生成逻辑 (52:23) 在地缘政治层面，布斯塔曼特援引预测指出，美中两国可能在2035年左右达到力量均势，届时美国将丧失单一超级大国地位并转为近同等竞争者（Near-peer Competitor）。他以“操场恶霸”（Playground Bully）比喻国际秩序：单一主导力量虽具压迫性，但能维持体系的可预测性，而两个旗鼓相当的力量并存极易引发混乱与冲突。他指出美国当前约1.3%的GDP增速显现出增长乏力，落后于中国公布的4.5%增速，表明既有的地缘博弈模式正面临结构性瓶颈。 结合2024年7月唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）在宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒遭遇的暗杀未遂事件，布斯塔曼特从情报操作角度反驳了“自导自演”的舆论猜测，说明任何策划团队都绝不可能将实弹直接射向保护目标本身，因为极小的弹道误差即会造成致命事故。他剖析了阴谋论的生成链路：重大事实发生后出现的官方信息真空，会迅速催生未经证实的臆测，最终促使公众大脑选择封闭式的舒适叙事来抚平不确定性带来的焦虑。 布斯塔曼特将冷战与反恐时期的情报作业逻辑转化为个人跃迁的处世哲学，主张穿透权威叙事、主动承担执行风险并对人际网络进行严苛的投入产出评估。然而，该套框架建立在强烈的实用主义与理性博弈假设之上，将复杂的人类组织高度机制化；缺乏专业训练与情报安全边际的普通人在现实复杂的职场与生活中应用此类边缘策略时，能否稳定规避人际摩擦与逆向淘汰风险，仍取决于具体的应用场景与个体执行力。

## Background 本期节目由知名访谈频道 The Diary Of A CEO 于 2024 年 7 月 29 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目由 Steven Bartlett 主持，对话嘉宾为前 CIA 卧底情报官员、美国空军退伍老兵兼 Everyday Spy 平台创始人 Andrew Bustamante。根据页面简介，Andrew 将间谍心理与战术系统解构为普通人可用的思维工具，揭示社会系统的控制机制与实战影响力策略。 ## TL;DR Andrew Bustamante 剖析了社会体制的驯化逻辑，指出大众常因自我设限而画地为牢，并系统阐述了如何运用情报思维实现认知破局。他分享了 CIA 核心的行为分析与心理博弈工具，包括用于突破防备的“保持静默”练习、洞察人性的 R.I.C.E. 动机模型、层级递进的“意义建构水杯模型”，以及职场跃迁的“4C 影响力法则”。对话还结合地缘政治变迁、大选刺杀事件推演与商业实操，系统论证了如何将人际互动视为可量化的“社交资本交易”，在现实博弈中重构胜率。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片节奏紧凑且充满思想锋芒，既有冷峻犀利的情报实战推演，又穿插着直面生死与家庭脆弱性的真情流露。Steven 与 Andrew 的互动如同两位顶级操盘手的心智切磋，语调沉着笃定却极具张力，将残酷冷酷的现实法则剥离得淋漓尽致。整场对话既像一堂高密度的谍报心理学大师课，又带着一种撕开社会温情面具、迫使听众直面生存博弈本质的震撼感。 ## Bulletin - [52:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3143s) 地缘战略研判显示，情报界预计到2035年前后中美将在多维度达到对等均势（Parity），双雄并立的红海格局将终结单极霸权秩序，大幅推高全球摩擦与系统性动荡。 - [02:13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8037s) CIA行动底层的行为动机模型R.I.C.E.揭示，人类行动的核心驱动力排序依次为意识形态（Ideology）、自我（Ego）、回报（Reward）与胁迫（Coercion），攻心与意识形态对决策的撬动远深于物质利益。 - [02:26:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8811s) 职场与人际博弈的核心框架“影响力4C法则”由考量（Consideration）、一致性（Consistency）、协作（Collaboration）与控制（Control）构成，其终极目标是将积累的社交资本变现为战略控制权。 - [01:47:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6435s) 现代营销与心智争夺必须善用“极化效应”（Polarity），优秀品牌与个人宁可得罪80%的中庸受众也要牢固绑定核心的20%，通过制造立场撕裂穿透信息噪音并获得算法与情感加持。 ## Key takeaways - [12:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=776s) 社会体制与规则多为人为设立的秩序系统而非物理定律，多数人如同生活在墨水圈中的蚂蚁，因假想障碍自我画地为牢并受困于外界预设的“木屋”滤镜。 - [22:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1372s) 商业世界中的“颠覆者”本质上是在打破潜规则初期获得非对称竞争优势（作弊优势），并在获得规模后将其成功合法化与体制化的先行者。 - [29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1763s) “感知”（Perception）是以自我为中心的闭塞经验，而“视角”（Perspective）是他人眼中的真实世界；跳出自我并叠加入对方视角，能瞬间斩获双倍情报优势。 - [40:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2403s) 运用CIA“门与窗”法则，在倾听中敏锐捕捉对方不自觉敞开的情感线索并配合开放式提问，能绕过死板话术直击对方的真实痛点与心理防线。 - [47:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2877s) 真正的勇气在于算清概率后坚决押注，大众被驯化去押注低回报的体制，而顶尖创业者敢于将资本与精力全部押注于自身能力并博取非对称回报。 - [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3246s) “操场恶霸理论”说明单极霸权虽然严苛但能提供稳定的可预测性，势均力敌的双霸权交替摩擦必然拉扯出高风险的代理人战争与动荡时代。 - [01:07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4041s) 从特工秘密行动准则推断，巴特勒刺杀特朗普事件绝无自导自演可能；阴谋论的滋生往往遵循“事实真空—主观揣测—自我闭环”的心理补偿机制。 - [01:19:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4771s) 警惕“完美悖论”（Perfection Paradox）导致的无限推迟循环，卓越并非来自纸上谈兵的微小优化，而是在执行（Execution）中快速犯错、试错与迭代出来的。 - [01:23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4985s) 面对过去的苦难不必强求“穿过痛苦”，间谍思维主张通过逻辑重构其对当下人格韧性的塑造因果，直接“绕过痛苦”快速聚焦现实行动。 - [01:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6008s) 说服是主动耗能的语言争论，影响力是无需在场即可左右决策的心智资产；深层信任建立在回避、竞争与顺从的人际演进阶梯之上。 - [01:43:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6221s) 信任在本质上是对他人行为结果的“确定性与可预测性”而非道德评判，稳定的共同经历能使人自然而然地“跌入信任”。 - [02:01:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7297s) 面试官潜意识里倾向于雇佣“像自己的人”，求职高手应通过大量开放式提问与同频镜像对方风格，打破面试官的回避心理并逆转主导权。 - [02:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9050s) 卓越领导者往往并不受普遍喜爱，推行远大愿景必须施加控制，领袖必须具备为大局利益承受孤独并伤害身边80%人群的超凡勇气。 - [02:37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9459s) 所有人际关系在底层逻辑上均具备交易属性，建立影响力需在日常进行“人际交往预审批”式的价值储蓄，同时果断远离单向索取的无底洞消耗。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=0s) 开场预告：看透真实世界的间谍法则与思维框架 绝大多数人终其一生都在通过一副“别人为他们打造的眼镜”观察这个世界。他们内心渴望获得更多成就与自由，却苦于不知道实现路径。前中央情报局（CIA）秘密情报官员、Everyday Spy 创始人安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）再次做客节目，揭示普通人与成功之间最根本的差距：社会从未教授过通往成功的底层配方、框架与流程，而这恰恰是 CIA 核心训练所赋予的精髓。CIA 将复杂的人性博弈简化为可复制的行动系统，这些经过最高情报机构淬炼的法则在现实生活中展现出惊人效能——有学员运用这套框架成功争取到 3.2 万美元的薪资涨幅，也有人凭借间谍博弈策略在求职面试中征服考官，拿下了原本毫无希望的职位。 在精彩片段混剪中，安德鲁勾勒出本期对话的核心知识板块：从获取情报优势的“保持静默”（Get Quiet）训练，到能够迅速建立人际影响力的“影响力 4C 法则”（The 4 Cs of Influence）；从看似神秘实则有迹可循的说服术底层逻辑，到 CIA 内部绝大多数人未曾领悟的“终极秘籍”。这些经过情报战场验证的工具，旨在帮助人们彻底打破思维限制、掌控自己的命运。片头随后穿插了主持人的频道订阅抽奖活动通知，预告在订阅人数突破 700 万之际回馈观众丰厚大礼。 --- ### [02:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=121s) 祖母离世带来的顿悟：直面死亡与人生的脆弱性 当主持人询问安德鲁当下正处于人生的何种阶段时，安德鲁坦露自己刚刚遭遇了一场深刻的变故：就在录制前的一周左右，抚养他长大的两位至亲女性之一——他的祖母刚刚离世。安德鲁自幼没有父亲陪伴，祖母与母亲是他成长的支柱。老人的离世如同一记重锤，让“死亡”与“宿命”变得无比真实而刺骨。这种对死亡的真切体验瞬间冲刷掉了生活中的浮躁与虚妄，让一切事物的本质变得清晰透明，暴露出什么才是真正重要的，而什么完全不值一提。 安德鲁感慨道，人们每天习以为常地度日，将未来的每一天视作理所当然，但现实却是生命极其脆弱且毫无保障。他直言：“我甚至不知道自己回程的航班能否平安降落，不知道走出录音室后会不会被车撞倒，不知道明天我的孩子在车道上玩耍时会不会发生意外。”人们总是在新闻里听说悲剧，潜意识里总觉得灾难只会发生在别处，直到目睹生命的脆弱在眼前彻底瓦解。这种直面现实的震撼甚至让他产生了一种类似《黑客帝国》（The Matrix）中吃下红蓝药丸的挣扎：“我甚至有些希望自己能重新回到无知的状态，忘记这种残酷的真实，忘记死亡无处不在的必然。” --- ### [03:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=208s) 从盲目追求企业增长到赋能团队与珍惜身边人 面对至亲离去带来的心态剧变，安德鲁反思了这对他个人优先级、尤其是商业经营层面的深刻影响。在不久之前，安德鲁还将全副精力倾注在宏大的商业指标上，执着于在当年将公司规模再翻三倍（Triple the size）。在此之前，公司已经连续两年实现了业绩翻倍增长，这让他不知不觉陷入了一场将增长当作“计分牌”的虚荣博弈中。然而，企业规模化扩张（Scaling）伴随着无休止的焦头烂额与阻力，这些琐事一度吞噬了他全部的专注力。 祖母在病榻上的最后时光彻底打破了他的执念。安德鲁意识到，自己并不需要事必躬亲去推动每一个业务增长点，因为他麾下已经拥有一支完全有能力扩张业务的优秀团队。作为创始人和领导者，他的核心职责是赋能、激励、引导和支持团队去达成目标，而真正的业务执行应当交由团队负责。这一觉醒让他从无休止的企业事务中抽离出宝贵的时间，重新投入到那些真正塑造了他的人格、值得他深爱的人身上——去陪伴身边的家人，去陪伴如同沙发病榻上奄奄一息的祖母那样生命中最重要的人。 --- ### [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=282s) 破除认知的“毛玻璃”：Everyday Spy 的使命与真相 谈及他所创办的企业 Everyday Spy 时，安德鲁明确阐述了其核心使命：通过“间谍教育”（Spy Education）为所有渴望学习的人打破人生壁垒。所谓间谍教育，涵盖了从认知训练、心理博弈、物理技能，到打破大众对特工的影视幻想、击碎阴谋论，再到将间谍实战框架体系化，传授给创业者、企业家和商业领袖，助力他们在领导力、销售转化、营收增长及组织管理上取得突破。 针对主持人提出的疑问——“这些前来求教的人，真的清楚自己人生在追求什么吗？”，安德鲁给出了否定的回答。他认为绝大多数人根本没有看清世界的本来面目，而是透过一套被外界预先设定的滤镜在看待现实。他用了一个极为生动的隐喻来解释这种认知困境： * **破旧小屋的脏玻璃隐喻**：想象你置身于童年老旧的棚屋或木屋中，透过一扇布满尘垢、甚至污迹斑斑无法洗净的毛玻璃向外看。你心里清楚屋 ### [09:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=597s) 中情局为何相中安德鲁：“恰到好处的童年创伤”与好奇心 当被问及中情局当年挑选他是否因为他生性叛逆（Defiant）时，安德鲁纠正了这一说法。他指出，“叛逆”意味着全盘否定并反抗一切体制，但真正的间谍招募逻辑并非如此。中情局寻找的是那些能够对既有体制产生足够怀疑、因而对接受另一套全新体系（即间谍技术与背叛的系统）持开放态度的人。 安德鲁将自己的特质归结为“好奇心”而非单纯的逆反。他骨子里对国家和某种权威体系依然保有深厚的忠诚感。与此同时，童年创伤使他成长为一个渴望外部认可（External Validation）的人，但他保留了选择“由谁来给予这种认可”的自主权。这种“恰到好处的创伤”（The right amount of trauma）让他既拥有独立审视规则的疏离感，又能对特定组织保持极高忠诚；而那些完全逆反的人往往无法忠于任何对象，因此根本无法成为合格的特工。 --- ### [11:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=663s) 不是阴谋而是系统：从哈雷摩托到宗教的运作本质 针对这种体制是否存在“阴谋论”的质疑，安德鲁明确划清了界线：阴谋论暗示着背后有负面或恶意的图谋，但社会体制的存在只是为了秩序和法治，本身毫无恶意。任何社会要维持运转，就必须通过不断重复和灌输来强化既定规则。安德鲁指出，企业是一系列产生可预测结果的可预测流程，政府与社会在本质上并无二致。 为了阐明系统是如何塑造意识形态的，安德鲁将传统教会与哈雷戴维森（Harley-Davidson）机车文化进行了犀利的横向对比： | 维度 | 教会（The Church） | 哈雷戴维森（Harley-Davidson） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **核心意识形态** | 善与恶、天堂与地狱 | 自由与个人主义 | | **象征符号** | 佩戴十字架 | 佩戴雄鹰徽章 | | **集会时间与地点** | 周日去教堂礼拜 | 周二在公路酒吧聚会 | | **群体活动** | 履行公民义务、社区捡垃圾 | 长达数小时的机车公路旅行 | | **传播与传承机制** | 面向各个年龄段营销，老成员带新成员入会，建立专属俱乐部与社群网络 | 安德鲁解释称，这两者在社会学上都是典型的“亚文化”（Subcultures）。它们吸收认同某种价值观的人，赋予一套思维框架，并将其牢固地锁定在系统行为之中。 --- ### [12:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=776s) “木屋”隐喻与社会金字塔：多数人为何不愿向外看 安德鲁用了一个生动的隐喻来描述大多数人与现实系统的关系：这就好比一群人共同生活在一个木屋（Shed/Cabin）里，透过一块模糊脏污的玻璃看着外面的森林。你隐约察觉到外面有更广阔的世界，却不知道如何走出去；更令你感到格格不入的是，身边的其他人似乎都满足于留在木屋中。绝大多数人从不向窗外张望，因为木屋为他们遮风挡雨，天冷供暖、天热降温。人们理所当然地依赖着自己出生的那座“木屋”——所在的社区、教会、同龄朋友圈，深信为了融入就必须追求相同的目标，比如“必须考好成绩”，却从未退一步追问“妈妈为什么认为我需要好成绩”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类社会层级金字塔 accDescr: 展示从国家到部落再到个人的三层社会人类学结构与资源交换机制 subgraph Pyramid ["社会人类学三层金字塔"] State["国家 (The State)<br/>最高级形态：自上而下强制推行统一政策"] Tribal["部落主义 (Tribalism)<br/>中间层：群体归属与局部规范"] Individual["个人主义 (Individualism)<br/>底层基础：个体贡献与基本诉求"] end State -->|"提供自来水、商业与车辆贷款、警力、公立学校"| Individual Individual -->|"服从统一政策与法律秩序"| State ``` 安德鲁进一步展开了不同国家体制的横向观察：世上存在着截然不同的“木屋”——中国木屋不同于俄罗斯木屋，英国木屋也不同于美国木屋。逻辑上讲，既然存在多种形态各异的木屋，就证明根本不存在所谓的“完美木屋”。面对斯蒂芬“是否存在比生活在木屋更好的选择”的追问，安德鲁坦言，目前最现实的生存策略并非彻底脱离社会，而是生活在木屋之中，却清醒地意识到屋外的世界存在，从而既能享受木屋带来的安全与便利，又拥有在适当时机果断踏出门外的眼界。 --- ### [16:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=979s) 标签理论的禁锢：从电话客服到打破思维藩篱 斯蒂芬结合自身经历回应了安德鲁的观点。他谈到，社会运转需要警察、道路与医疗等基础设施，木屋的存在有其必要；但创业者的核心特质在于意识到“木屋的规则只是人为设定的规范，而非不可动摇的物理定律”，从而懂得适度变通。斯蒂芬分享道，自己学生时代成绩很差，险些落入社会灌输的刻板叙事——即“拿 A 的人富有快乐，拿 D 和 E 的人贫困挣扎”。根据“标签理论”（Labeling Theory），最致命的不是考试拿了 E，而是内心深信自己就是一个“E 级的人”，并最终按照这一低劣标签度过余生。斯蒂芬最终选择从大学辍学、自己摸索创业，彻底跳出了这套评价体系。 安德鲁对此深表共鸣，并抛出了一个惊人的观察： - **停滞的群体**：社会上约有 80% 的人内心深处觉得自己从未真正超越 19 岁在电话呼叫中心做客服时的状态，甚至感觉自己的心智与人生发展在 27 岁左右就戛然而止。 - **觉醒的第一步**：破局的核心在于拥有两层觉察（Awareness）——不仅要意识到自己身处木屋之中，更要意识到“留在木屋里完全是你自己的主动选择”。 - **虚构的无助感**：安德鲁经常遇到那些坚信自己“别无选择”的人。在美国哪怕拥有 50 个州，依然有佛罗里达州的人觉得自己这一辈子都绝对无法离开佛州，这种自我画地为牢的心理枷锁才是阻碍人们掌控命运的真正根源。 ### [19:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1171s) 画地为牢：被假想困难困住的现实人生 许多人常常觉得自己无法做出改变，例如下定决心搬离佛罗里达。他们会列出一长串借口：资金不够充裕、路途太过遥远、搬过去后缺乏人际支持网络、变更居住地和更换驾照等行政流程太繁复，或是从无州税的州搬到征税州需要承担高昂的税务成本。这些理由在客观事实上都是成立的，但问题的根源在于，人们在主观上赋予这些事实的权重出现了严重偏差——在他们的视角中，挑战的阻力被无限放大，远远盖过了突破现状所能带来的奖赏。然而在客观现实中，两者的价值关系恰恰相反。 听到这里，主持人想起了一个深刻改变自己认知的短视频。视频中有人抓了一只蚂蚁（其实任何微小昆虫都可以），随后拿出一支圆珠笔在蚂蚁周围画了一个圈。令人震惊的是，那只蚂蚁竟然被困在墨水线条围成的封闭圆圈内不敢越界。实验者不断在周围画出越来越小的圆圈，蚂蚁的生活空间被步步压缩，却始终不敢跨越那道墨水边界，宛如画地为牢。蚂蚁最终或许会意识到那不过是一道墨迹、一个虚构的界限，但主持人在看完视频后立即反问自己：“在人生当中，我究竟在哪些方面也为自己画下了这种无形的假想圆圈？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 假想困境与认知突破 accDescr: 展示人们如何被外界与自我设立的假想边界困住，并通过重新评估挑战与回报实现认知突破。 subgraph Trap["假想边界的形成"] A["现实中的客观事实<br/>(资金、手续、税务成本)"] --> B["主观价值权衡失衡<br/>(将困难看得高于回报)"] B --> C["自我画地为牢<br/>(如墨水圈中的蚂蚁)"] end subgraph Breakout["认知突破路径"] C --> D["觉察界限的虚构性"] D --> E["重新校准成本与收益"] E --> F["迈出边界获取回报"] end ``` ### [21:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1271s) 谁画了第一个圈？打破假想边界的双重不适 面对蚂蚁的隐喻，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，更本质、更关键的问题应当是：“这个假想的圆圈究竟是何时出现的？最初画下这个圈的人到底是谁？”因为那个人绝不是我们自己。只要观察过刚出生的婴儿或蹒跚学步的幼童就会明白，人类生来是“毫无界限的（Limitless）”。幼童甚至无法清晰感知自己的身体内部状态——他们分不清自己是饿了、胀气了还是想排尿，他们对一切未知大哭，身体不断乱动挣扎。因为他们完全没有现实语境，所有的规则与界限全靠后天吸收环境信息而建立。 成人与社会为孩子勾画了所有的框框：“现在是上床睡觉的时间”、“刷牙洗手才算健康习惯”，以及“家里是可以自由走动的安全空间，但一旦走出门来到前院，那就不是家里了，你绝不能乱跑”。在生命极早期的阶段，外界就已经替我们画好了最初的圈子，而我们长大后只是误以为这些假想的墨水线条是永久固定、不可逾越的真理。 想要打破这种牢笼，唯一的出路就是勇敢“走出去（step out）”。然而，真正迈出那一步时，内心会瞬间涌起两种极其强烈的负面感受： 1. **极度不适（Uncomfortable）**：因为环顾四周，身边的其他人全都规规矩矩地待在圈内，没有一个人敢迈出来。 2. **负罪与道德不安（Feels wrong）**：因为常年受到的行为驯化与心理预设不断在大脑中叫嚣——留在圈内才是正确的，走出去就是越轨。 这正是安德鲁创办“Everyday Spy”并在日常生活中传授间谍技能的核心使命：帮助人们击碎这些人为设定的障碍。 ### [22:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1372s) 间谍、作弊与商业世界中的“颠覆者” 大众普遍迷恋间谍的神秘与浪漫，无论是詹姆斯·邦德（James Bond）还是杰森·伯恩（Jason Bourne），间谍影视题材经久不衰。但安德鲁一针见血地指出：现实中没有人真正喜欢间谍干的勾当——间谍靠偷窃情报为生，靠欺骗和撒谎立足。人们之所以一边谴责这些行径，一边又为间谍形象着迷，是因为人性中存在着强烈的内在撕裂：我们内心极度渴望获取机会，这种渴望甚至强烈到我们愿意通过“作弊（cheat）”来得到它，但社会公德又不允许我们承认自己想作弊；我们迫切想要获得超越他人的竞争优势，却又不愿承认自己的优势必然会挤压他人的利益。大家口头上都想要一种人人平等的温和进步，但大自然的残酷竞争法则从来不是这样运作的。 成功创业者往往早早就参透了这个秘密：商业竞争中你可以去“作弊”，并且当你成功打破旧规则且未受惩罚时，你不仅获得了先发优势（First Mover Advantage），还等于给那些原本不敢越雷池一步的观望者发放了通行证。随后众人蜂拥效仿，这种原本被视为“作弊”的手段随即被体制化，不再被视作违规。 主持人追问：“在商业语境下，你说的‘作弊’到底意味着什么？”安德鲁解释道，“作弊”本质上就是指“任何形式的不公平优势（unfair advantage）”。以音乐产业的技术迭代为例： - 在 CD 和短暂存在的 MiniDisc 时代之后，MP3 音频格式诞生，整个行业陷入前所未有的混乱； - 像 Napster、LimeWire 这样的文件共享平台让用户能够免费下载数字音乐，音乐创作者拿不到一分钱版税，这在当时被整个传统唱片工业痛斥为非法的作弊行为； - 然而，今天的商业社会换了一种方式来包装和歌颂这种“作弊”——大家将其美化为“颠覆者（disruptors）”。 所谓的“颠覆者”，无非是敏锐利用了别人尚未利用的新技术与不对称条件。为什么他们能接触到新技术？因为他们拿到了投资；为什么他们能拿到投资？因为他们在高尔夫俱乐部认识了对的人，父辈积累了人脉，或者碰巧在电梯里获得了关键人物的五分钟垂青。没拿到投资的人看着他们，只会愤愤不平地抱怨：“这不公平！” 安德鲁坦言，现实世界本来就没有公平可言：有人一出生就含着金汤匙，降生在年收入 30 万美元的富贵之家（精装“棚屋”）；而有人降生在年收入仅 3 万美元的贫困家庭。既然世界底层逻辑本就是不公平的，那么反过来说，世上也就不存在绝对意义上的“不公（unfair）”。一旦接受了这个现实，你就可以卸下思想包袱，采取一切必要的手段去突破规则、提升自我并改善生活。 ### [26:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1593s) 走出思想棚屋的第一步：检验信息而非盲信结论 主持人顺着这个思路提问：如果一个人意识到自己正被困在规训的“棚屋”中，明白了世俗规则并非不可打破，那么在建立这种清醒的觉察之后，实际行动的第一步应该是什么？ 安德鲁给出了两个层面的回答：一个是现实层面的通常表现，另一个则是他本人极力主张的科学路径： - **现实层面的路径**：大多数听众其实内心早已隐约萌生了这些叛逆想法，安德鲁的言论只是用权威性、真实感和公信力为他们原有的直觉背书。因此，很多人会瞬间产生崇拜与信服，不假思索地一头扎进去。安德鲁坦承别人相信自己确实让人感觉良好，但他绝不希望大家只是盲从他。 - **他极力主张的路径——实践检验（Test the information）**：将 Everyday Spy 所教授的思维框架，或者对话中讨论的具体方法拿到现实生活中去执行与测试。如果管用，你就用客观事实验证了一套新工具，此时你才有据可依地改变自己的思维模式与认知框架。 安德鲁痛批了几乎所有传统学校教育的通病：除了极少数两三位真正优秀的老师，绝大多数教师上课时只会塞给学生一套标准答案，并称其为“不可动摇的事实”，接着要求学生在周末的小测验以及期末大考中一字不差地复述这些内容。这种教育模式从不教导学生去质疑、测试或反思事实的真伪。 “历史是由胜利者书写的”，即便在成熟的商业与政治社会中，任何事件都会由于政治、宗教或个人利益立场的不同而衍生出多种版本的叙事。客观世界中的“硬事实（Fact）”也许只有一个，但流传的“真相（Truth）”却有千百种。如果一个人没有被训练过去主动审视真相背后的事实，就会随波逐流地把权威灌输的观念当成唯一真理。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 传统灌输模式与批判检验模式对比 accDescr: 对比传统教育的被动接受与间谍认知框架中的主动测试检验过程。 subgraph Passive["传统死板教育模式"] P1["权威宣称事实"] --> P2["死记硬背以应付测验"] P2 --> P3["盲目确信与思维僵化"] end subgraph Active["间谍思维检验模式"] A1["获取外界信息"] --> A2["放到现实中执行测试"] A2 --> A3["基于亲身反馈确立认知"] end ``` ### [28:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1717s) 情报界的飞轮：信息、知识与经验的三元闭环 主持人总结道，这种思维方式实际上是在“信息（Information）”与“知识（Knowledge）”之间划出了一道清晰的界限——信息是别人对你说的口头之辞，而知识则是你经过亲身检验、确证为真的内核。 安德鲁随即揭示了情报机构内部奉行的一个经典认知飞轮（Flywheel）。这个飞轮呈现为一个动态循环的三角形架构： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 情报界认知三角飞轮 accDescr: 展示从信息到知识再到经验，并循环反馈生成新信息的闭环飞轮。 Info["1. 信息 (Information)<br/>外界接收到的原始数据与主张"] Knowledge["2. 知识 (Knowledge)<br/>理解、吸收并形成行动框架"] Experience["3. 经验 (Experience)<br/>付诸实战行动与真实测试"] Info --> Knowledge Knowledge --> Experience Experience -->|产生全新数据与反馈| Info ``` 1. **信息（Information，三角顶端）**：这是认知的起点，指你从外部世界听取、读取到的数据、言论或理论。 2. **知识（Knowledge）**：信息经过梳理与理解，转化为指导行动的认知框架与逻辑。 3. **经验（Experience）**：将内化的知识投入到现实世界的具体行动中进行压力测试与实践验证。 这一闭环最强大的地方在于它的自驱迭代：一旦你带着知识进入实战经验中，真实的行动反馈又会反哺出更高维度、更准确的新“信息”；新信息进而提炼出更扎实的“知识”，再由下一步的“经验”予以检验。情报人员正是依托这套飞轮，在充满不确定性与欺骗的环境中打破认知迷雾，建立起真正属于自己的生存本领。 ### [29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1763s) 体验的缺失与“感知”对立“视角”的核心框架 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，在真正的情报循环（Intelligence Cycle）中，获取信息会产生知识，知识通过实践验证又会带来更多新信息，形成一个强大的正向飞轮。然而，现代社会与国家体制为了让大众变得更守规矩、更具可预测性、温和且顺从，往往在教育中直接剔除了“亲身体验”（Experience）这一环。体制不断塞给人们所谓的既定事实与知识，却剥夺了大众亲自下场检验这些知识的机会。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随即发问，希望安德鲁分享一个在 Everyday Spy 实践中最能深刻改变他人职业、销售或商业思维的硬核框架。 安德鲁毫不犹豫地提出了“感知”（Perception）与“视角”（Perspective）的本质区别。所谓感知，是你站在自身立场上所认定的世界真相；而视角，则是他人眼中所认定的世界真相。安德鲁以两人此刻面对面录制播客为例：在安德鲁的感知里，他坐在中心位置，史蒂芬和其他一切事物都在他的外围展开；但从史蒂芬的感知来看，史蒂芬自己才是整个房间的轴心，安德鲁才是对面的客体。人类的感知天生无法自然重合，因此寻找共识或掌握局势的唯一办法，就是主动跳出自己感知的束缚，切入对方的视角。一旦将自己的感知与对方的视角叠加，瞬间就能获得双倍的情报量。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 感知与视角的信息整合 accDescr: 展示将自身感知与他人视角相结合从而获得情报优势的过程 subgraph Mindset["认知维度"] A["自身感知 (Perception)<br/>'我'眼中的世界真相<br/>（天生以自我为中心）"] B["他人视角 (Perspective)<br/>'他人'眼中的世界真相<br/>（对方的情感与处境）"] end subgraph Advantage["双倍信息优势"] C["信息叠加与整合<br/>（获取 2x 维度的完整情境）"] end A --> C B --> C ``` --- ### [31:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1881s) CIA 的三步培训法：教育、演练与实战 当史蒂芬询问这种双重视角能否被后天训练时，安德鲁给出了肯定的回答，并详细拆解了中央情报局（CIA）训练未来间谍的三步法则。安德鲁强调，CIA 从本质上说就是一个巨大的间谍训练机器，其核心任务就是持续培养间谍，派遣他们盗取机密，再将情报汇总上报给国会山的决策者。在这套严苛的训练体系中，能力的跃迁严格遵循三个阶段： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: CIA 三步培训闭环 accDescr: 教育、演练、体验三阶段的情报训练飞轮 A["第一步：教育 (Educate)<br/>获取原始信息与理论"] --> B["第二步：演练 (Exercise)<br/>在受控环境中将信息转化为知识"] B --> C["第三步：体验 (Experience)<br/>在现实世界中实战检验知识"] C --> A ``` - **第一步：教育（Educate）**——吸收外部信息，建立基础认知。 - **第二步：演练（Exercise）**——在安全受控的环境中反复练习，将理论信息转化为自身掌握的“知识”。 - **第三步：体验（Experience）**——走出训练营，直接被推向现实世界去检验这套知识在当下的有效性，犹如母鸟将幼鸟踢出鸟巢。 安德鲁表示，任何人若想打破思维壁垒、实现蜕变，都必须贯彻这套流程。 --- ### [32:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=1952s) 被动脑与主动脑：现场测试史蒂芬的观察力 为了让概念真正落地，史蒂芬提出以自己作为播客主持人的实际场景为例，探讨如何利用这套技能去精准理解嘉宾眼中的世界。安德鲁当场出题，要求史蒂芬回忆开录前私下闲聊时安德鲁分享的五件事。史蒂芬努力回忆并列举出：家庭与情感关系的近况、过去几天因唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）遭遇暗杀未遂导致生活节奏巨变、曾带着孩子全家挤在房车（RV）里生活、最近举家横跨美国搬到了新地方。但当安德鲁追问具体细节（例如孩子的年龄）时，史蒂芬只能含糊猜出“大概三岁”，安德鲁随即纠正，当年住进房车时两个孩子分别是五岁和一岁。 安德鲁指出，史蒂芬能够记住个大概，是因为调用了负责被动学习的“古哺乳动物脑”（Paleomammalian Brain，即后脑的无意识被动记忆）。未经专业情报思维训练的普通人，日常都是依赖被动观察来处理外界信息的。而训练有素的特工则会在接触他人的第一秒，直接强行激活“前额叶皮层”（Prefrontal Cortex），在对话开始的刹那便主动捕捉所有言语细节与微表情。掌握了这套方法的人，在与任何人坐在一起时，所获取的对方情报永远远多于对方所获取的自身情报。 --- ### [34:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2088s) 读心术维度的现场剖析：“史蒂芬的世界”与伴侣的执念 安德鲁直白地指出了史蒂芬刚刚进门时的状态：穿着袜子、盘着腿坐在椅子上，神态自若，同时手头不停摆弄调整设备，因为录制工具没达到最顺手而跟仪器较劲。安德鲁称这就是典型的“史蒂芬的世界”。安德鲁评价道，沉浸在自己的舒适区完全没有错，但史蒂芬一个人的世界，其信息维度永远无法比拟“史蒂芬与安德鲁”融合后的世界。而安德鲁从踏入影棚起，就已经在全方位观察史蒂芬、制片人团队、录音现场的搭建细节，以及此前线上会议结识的团队成员。安德鲁深知镜头一开便是一场无法重来的单向旅程，必须在上桌前尽可能确立绝对的信息优势。 随后安德鲁向史蒂芬扔下了一枚震撼弹，现场展示了对细节的洞察力：每个坐到桌前的嘉宾都携带着自己的压力、创伤与忧虑而来。安德鲁敏锐地捕捉到，史蒂芬在提到家庭时曾说“我的伴侣正在考虑怀孕”，而不是“我们正在考虑怀孕”。安德鲁据此推断，史蒂芬的伴侣对生孩子的狂热与期待恐怕远超史蒂芬本人。这番话让史蒂芬当场惊呼掩面大笑，直呼“求上帝保佑她千万别听到这一段”，并坦白承认伴侣兴奋到了极点，甚至为了备孕把家里翻了个底朝天，连史蒂芬常用的洗发水都被换掉了，自己确实完全无法企及伴侣那般疯狂的准备状态。 --- ### [37:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2233s) CIA 的“静音练习”与商业降维打击 安德鲁解释道，正是因为自己始终在践行“切入对方视角”，努力设身处地站在史蒂芬的鞋子里思考如何为史蒂芬、《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）节目以及听众创造最大价值，他才能捕捉到这种言语措辞中的微小漏洞。对于播客主持或商业谈判而言，与其猜测对方是否疲惫、是否状态在线，不如学会情报机构的经典手段。安德鲁透露，CIA 有一项名为“静音练习”（Get Quiet Exercise）的专属训练：在进入需要高强度观察的环境前，完全切断外部感官超载，让视觉、听觉、味觉、嗅觉与触觉彻底放空休息。 一旦感官不再超负荷运转，大脑就会自动启动后台索引整理机制，从而带来极其敏锐的警觉度与洞察力，就像在品尝全新口味的冰淇淋前先清洗味蕾一样。安德鲁强调，这种“视角胜过感知”的打法在商业竞争中同样具有降维打击的效果。例如一个咖啡馆老板通常只会陷在自我感知里，盲目认为自己的咖啡品质天下无双；但他往往忽略了在方圆两英里内就有五家竞争对手、整个区域有五百家同行，如果不能从消费者的真实视角切入，单凭自身感知的傲慢注定无法在竞争中立足。 ### [38:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2327s) 走出自恋陷阱：用客户视角重构商业模式 商业运营中最常见的误区，就是店主沉浸在自己的逻辑里自说自话。安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）以一家咖啡店为例：老板总会自豪地宣称自己的咖啡豆来自埃塞俄比亚并在店内现磨现烘、香气扑鼻，墙上挂着本土艺术家的画作，音响里放着本地独立音乐人的作品。然而，老板却从未花时间从买咖啡的人的角度去审视问题。对于顾客而言，他们从某个地方出发，赶往另一个目的地，咖啡店充其量只是这段旅程中的一个小驿站。如果一家店想成为每个人心目中的首选，就必须透过顾客的眼睛和视角来看待周遭的一切。 如果买咖啡的是一位新手妈妈，她真正的需求是什么？除了咖啡因本身，她可能需要一个能遇到其他妈妈的社交空间、适合母婴的特惠套餐，甚至是能顺手买给孩子的小玩意儿。只有以开放的心态拥抱顾客视角，店家才能灵活调整产品与环境来契合真实需求；否则，一切经营不过是作茧自缚，在自己狭窄的“小棚屋”里闭门造车。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 商业视角转变流程 accDescr: 对比传统店主思维与基于客户真实视角的经营思维差异 subgraph Trap["传统店主思维（自我中心）"] A["强调埃塞俄比亚咖啡豆"] --> B["展示本地艺术与音乐"] B --> C["沉浸于自我小棚屋"] end subgraph Solution["情报视角思维（客户导向）"] D["洞察客户旅程与身份"] --> E["识别底层真实动机"] E --> F["重塑场景满足需求"] end Trap -.->|转变视角| Solution ``` ### [40:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2403s) CIA的“门与窗”法则：如何通过开放式提问搜集情报 在人际沟通与销售实战中，单凭被动倾听远远不够，必须主动挖掘关键信息。CIA训练中有一套被称为“门与窗”（Windows and Doors）的技巧：在对话过程中，人们往往会在回答中不自觉地打开一扇“窗户”——即在回应一个问题的同时，顺带透露出其他未被深究的信息线索。如同史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）在访谈开始时提问安德鲁正处于人生的哪个阶段，这种开放式提问能让对方打开无数的门窗，提问者再根据自身的情报需求，挑选最合适的门窗切入追踪。对于创业者或销售人员而言，顺应这些门窗深入挖掘，就能精准找准客户面临的瓶颈与痛点。 安德鲁分享了自己近期在科罗拉多斯普林斯（Colorado Springs）买车的糟糕经历。大部分汽车销售员完全缺乏这种感知力： - 当安德鲁搬到科罗拉多斯普林斯后去买车，根本原因不是“有了两个孩子”，也不是“地域辽阔需要长途跋涉”，底层逻辑非常简单：纯粹需要一种“交通代步工具”。 - 只要客户踏进斯巴鲁（Subaru）或日产（Nissan）展厅，就已经完成了初步筛选（说明他们在寻找特定价位、全驱或四驱车型）。 - 销售员只需观察和倾听就能进一步获知：这是一位四口之家的父亲，因此需求立刻具象化为“能容纳至少四人、极致安全的代步工具”。 最终，安德鲁买下了一辆全新的日产探路者（Nissan Pathfinder），但这完全是因为他进店前就已经做好了决定，并非销售员能力出众。安德鲁指出，他的公司经常为高绩效销售团队提供内训，令人震惊的是，即便顶级团队也往往只懂得死记硬背话术脚本，依靠“打100个冷电话换取12%转化率”的大数法则硬碰硬，却从来不愿练习更高效的方法——用一句开放式提问开局，引导对方站在当下现实的视角倾诉。 ### [44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2640s) 史蒂芬的播客秘诀：开放式提问与西蒙·斯涅克的眼泪 史蒂芬透露了自己主持播客时从未公开过的习惯：在正式录制前的闲聊阶段，他会对99%的嘉宾抛出同一个问题——“你此刻脑海中最挂念的是什么？”（What's front of mind for you at the moment?）。之所以这么问，是因为嘉宾在早晨醒来时可能遭遇了某种突发状况，或者正被某种烦心事所困扰，这些是调研团队在互联网上掘地三尺也找不到、甚至嘉宾从未在公开采访中吐露过的真实情绪。 史蒂芬分享了他与畅销书作家西蒙·斯涅克（Simon Sinek）的对话经历： - 史蒂芬曾三次采访西蒙·斯涅克，彼此已经聊透了所有常规管理学话题，以至于第四次录制前完全没有准备任何预设采访提纲。 - 史蒂芬开门见山地问：“你最近怎么样？请给我一个毫无保留、绝对诚实的完整长回答。” - 结果这位享誉全球的领导力大师卸下了所有防备，破天荒地坦白：“你知道吗，我现在感觉无比孤独。” - 如果史蒂芬当天死板地遵循“我们今天来聊聊团队管理策略”的提纲，就会彻底错失这场极具穿透力且引人共鸣的经典对话。 这种主持风格需要极强的自信与“自我信任”（Self-trust），敢于在手中毫无提纲的情况下，顺着对方的敞开心扉一路探索。 ### [45:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2725s) 勇气的定义与对自己有利的胜率博弈 安德鲁对此高度赞赏，指出史蒂芬的核心能力在于“有规划却不盲从规划”，既能顺着嘉宾的指引走，也能坦然承受偏离轨道的未知风险。安德鲁给“勇气”（Courage）下了一个清晰的定义：勇气就是去做你真正害怕的事情。敢于脱离脚本、敢于在毫无预备方案的情况下开麦，心中必然会升起担忧与焦虑，但依然选择迎难而上。这也是真正的创业者与“空想型创业者”（Aspirational entrepreneurs）的本质分水岭——前者拥有立即尝试的勇气，而后者永远在夸夸其谈未来的某一天自己会有勇气去试。 面对史蒂芬提及的“自我信任”，安德鲁提出了更深刻的洞察：这本质上是在进行一场“算准了胜率站在自己这一边”的情报博弈。 - 职业运动员在赛场上做出不可思议的极限动作，有时成功得分，有时失误打铁；但观众脑海中铭记的，永远是他们绝杀得分的巅峰高光。没人会在意丹尼斯·罗德曼（Dennis Rodman）投丢了多少次篮筐。 - 阿诺德·施瓦辛格（Arnold Schwarzenegger）曾有一句名言：他一生拍过海量电影，大众只会记住最爱的那几部传世经典，又有几个人能数得出他演砸了多少部烂片？ 这种深刻的认知揭示了行动与声誉的底层逻辑：只要你积累了足够多的胜率筹码并敢于下注，行动过程中的那些偏差和失误终将被历史忽略，而留下的唯有高光时刻。 ### [47:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2877s) 押注体制还是押注自己：阿诺德·施瓦辛格的胜负哲学与创业思维 谈及评估人生风险，对话从阿诺德·施瓦辛格（Arnold Schwarzenegger）接拍海量电影的策略切入。施瓦辛格在早期的健美生涯中便悟出一个道理：“没有人会记住你的失败，大家只会记住你的胜利。”因此，他毫不介意接演大量作品，即便其中夹杂着像《幼儿园警探》（*Kindergarten Cop*）这样的非硬核之作，但最终只要有数部乃至十多部大片成为票房巨制，就足以确立他在影坛的历史地位。这一逻辑同样适用于普通人在人生关口的决断——面对脱离原有轨道的巨大不确定性，绝大多数人都在被动接受规训。 社会体系从一开始就训练大众去“押注系统”（gamble on the system）。体制造就的逻辑是：既然要掷骰子，就用系统给你的骰子；既然要下注，就押在庄家身上，因为庄家永远会赢。然而，真正优秀的创业者学到的是“押注自己”（gamble on yourself）。安德鲁以其岳母为例：老人工作了整整50年，前几周才刚在67或68岁时退休，但她一生最主要的投资工具竟然全是大额定期存单（Certificates of Deposit, CD）。这种受上一代保守观念规训的理财方式虽然保本，但回报极低，大半生的积蓄在通胀与复利面前几乎没有增长。 相比之下，创业者选择将资金投入自己的事业中： - 普通大众将每一分辛苦钱存入第三方托管的理财账户，苦苦追求年化约 8% 的常规回报。 - 即使扩张缓慢的普通初创企业，往往也能实现 12%、15% 乃至 20% 的投资回报率，轻松跑赢公开资本市场。 - 安德鲁对自身公司的投资回报率更是达到了 300%。然而绝大多数人宁愿将命运托付给平庸的系统，也不敢押注自身，归根结底是由于对庄家必然取胜的底层恐惧。 --- ### [50:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3032s) 阴谋论者与无法被教授的群体：在矩阵中检验真实结果 谈到 Everyday Spy 的受众与技能边界，安德鲁坦言，并非所有人都能接受中情局（CIA）这套认知训练。社会上存在相当一部分群体，天然认定 CIA 是一个从事“深层政府阴谋、残害美国本土公民、贩卖儿童、走私毒品”的邪恶组织。面对这种固有偏见，安德鲁直言无论怎么解释，这类人永远不会敞开心扉接受知识。互联网上充满了两极分化的言论：一派坚称他是招摇撞骗的伪君子与骗子；另一派则信誓旦旦地指认他是 CIA 至今安插在公众视野里的特工线人。 面对主持人关于“我怎么知道你现在是不是还在为 CIA 效力”的质问，安德鲁指出了本质逻辑：对方究竟是不是在役特工并不重要，甚至他教的内容是否试图将人“困在黑客帝国的矩阵里”也不关键。真正关键的在于，安德鲁输出的是一套可以被拿去在真实世界中亲自检验（test for myself）的框架与技能。只要受训者付诸实践，产出的结果究竟是积极还是消极、高效还是无效，事实会给出最直观的检验。这种强调实操验证的底层逻辑，正是推动他持续授课的核心动力。 --- ### [52:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3143s) 霸权跌落与2035对等风险：红海竞争下的失序隐患 安德鲁坦诚地解构了自己的终极动机：他希望为自己的孩子争取一个安全、稳固的未来，而这个未来高度依赖于美国继续维持全球最强大的经济与军事霸权地位。然而，情报与战略报告均显示，这一单极格局在未来十年将面临颠覆性挑战——到 2035 年前后，美国将在多个维度与至少另一个国家（极大概率是中国）达到平起平坐的“对等状态”（parity）。 失去绝对优势并沦为“势均力敌的竞争对手”（near-peer competitor），对全球秩序和普通个体而言意味着巨大的不确定性： - **不确定性激增**：当不存在绝对主导者时，危险、风险和摩擦全面上升，而确定性的发展机会大幅收缩。 - **美式橄榄球四分卫隐喻**：如同球队拥有不可动摇的首发四分卫时，战术清晰、执行稳定；一旦出现实力相当的新星四分卫引发主力之争，轮换与猜忌会导致全队表现滑坡，因为谁都无法预判下一次传球的走向。 - **蓝海与红海战略对比**：企业在没有对手的“蓝海”中享有试错空间与平稳学习曲线；一旦卷入寸土必争的“红海”，容错率将归零。单极霸权即国际政治层面的蓝海，而均势对峙则是动荡血腥的红海。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 单极霸权与对等竞争对比模型 accDescr: 对比绝对超级大国地位与均势竞争状态对地缘政治风险的影响 subgraph BlueOcean ["单极主导（蓝海格局）"] A["绝对超级大国"] --> B["规则高度可预测"] B --> C["系统容错空间大"] end subgraph RedOcean ["对等竞争（红海格局 / 预计2035）"] D["均势竞争对手崛起"] --> E["阵营分化与摩擦"] E --> F["代理人冲突爆发"] F --> G["全球系统性风险剧增"] end ``` --- ### [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3246s) 放弃利他主义伪善：操场上的“恶霸逻辑”与历史转型阵痛 安德鲁在此处重申了他摒弃虚伪利他主义的务实立场。他明确表示自己并不在乎所谓的“全人类共同利益”（common good），他在乎的仅仅是自己的子女、家人、挚友以及那些能切实带来改变的人。许多人之所以拒绝他的理论，正是因为无法接受他公开承认“无法对所有人一视同仁”的道德现实主义。 纵观世界历史，霸权交接期对普通人而言从来都是灾难性的剧痛： - **古罗马帝国**：罗马繁荣时期其公民生活优渥，但罗马的崩溃与权力交接给当时所有人带来了巨大的动荡与灾难。 - **第二次世界大战**：纳粹政权崩溃后伴随的是大规模的死亡、饥荒与国土瓦解；随之而来的并非平静，而是美苏双方在柏林及欧洲废墟上的地盘瓜分，并迅速演变成冷战对峙；在远东与太平洋战区，权力的重新分配同样伴随着旷日持久的冲突与内战。 - **苏联解体**：权力真空与秩序崩解再次引发了深重的地缘裂痕与地区摩擦。 安德鲁用一个通俗的“操场恶霸理论”概括了这一现实残酷性：如果操场上只有一个绝对强硬的恶霸，虽然被他找麻烦的人会很惨，但整个操场的秩序至少是确定的，其余大多数人尚能维持安稳；可一旦操场上出现了两个势均力敌的恶霸，双方必然拉帮结派、相互火拼，受牵连受伤的普通人将几何级暴增。 站在美国公民的务实角度，身处“恶霸”阵营内部自然享有巨大红利。因此，为了子女未来的确定性，安德鲁明确希望美国能继续维持作为“操场唯一恶霸”的地位。对话最后，主持人将话题引向当前全球现实，指出乌克兰与俄罗斯的战事，以及中东地区围绕哈马斯、也门胡塞武装与伊朗的冲突，本质上正是这场大国均势转型中不可避免的代理人战争序幕。 ### [57:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3458s) 代理人战争的本质与战后大国竞争模型 当主持人提到俄乌冲突是否算某种“代理人战争”时，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）直言，这绝非“某种”代理人战争，而是一场“彻头彻尾的代理人战争”（a full-on proxy war）。在军事学说中，“代理人战争”有明确定义：即国家内部挑起或利用既有的“国家内部冲突”（interstate conflict），随后外部富裕强权为这场冲突提供资金与武器。通过这种方式，两个发生对抗的外部大国不需要牺牲自己公民的生命，既在外交、社会和军事上保全了自身，又仅需输出资源就能削弱对手。 安德鲁指出，乌克兰东部与西部之间一直存在内生冲突，只是在俄罗斯入侵之前外界鲜少关注；如同以色列与巴勒斯坦之间的冲突一直存在，直到10月7日（采访中口误称10月8日）袭击爆发才引发全球聚焦。这场冲突根本不是权力转移的“副产品”，而是一种处心积虑的“战略”。美国借此以不流一滴美国人鲜血的方式，持续消耗俄罗斯的战略资源；而北约在俄罗斯坐大时损失最大，因此也全力跟进援助。 这种通过扶持与重塑盟友来扩张实力的方式，是美国自二战以来的核心运作逻辑。二战结束后，是美国出资重建了日本、英国、德国和法国，并将自身的政治体制模型深度植入这些国家，使其顺理成章地成为美国在外交、政治和经济上的忠实盟国。如今，中国正在以自己的方式复刻这一走向世界的模型。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 代理人战争机制流程图 accDescr: 展示外部大国如何通过资助内部冲突国来削弱竞争对手并规避自身直接伤亡 subgraph 内部冲突区["代理冲突区域（如乌克兰/地缘热点）"] InternalConflict["既有内部矛盾与战火激化"] end subgraph 外部战略博弈["外部强权策略运作"] US["美国与北约盟友"] -- "提供资金、武器与情报" --> InternalConflict RU["对手国（如俄罗斯）"] -- "深陷战场消耗人力与战略资源" --> InternalConflict US -. "避免直接军事伤亡<br/>保全外交与社会成本".-> RU end ``` ### [59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3583s) 中美深层博弈：高科技净出口国之间的争夺 安德鲁进一步剖析中美地缘政治冲突的根本所在。唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）常常将其描述为“廉价中国商品涌入”导致的贸易战，但安德鲁认为这完全没有切中要害。真正的核心在于：中国最高领导层非常明确地希望让中国成为“高科技净出口国”（net exporter of high technology）。而当前全球唯一的另一个高科技净出口大国，正是美国。 从电动汽车（EV）到先进电信设备，中美在核心高科技赛道上展开了直接正面对决。中国正在为广大发展中国家提供替代美国产品与技术生态的选择。安德鲁用咖啡店作比喻：原本整条街只有一家咖啡店，所有人只能喝这一家；现在另一家咖啡店开张了，双方争夺同样的客源。一旦对手赢得了顾客的青睐与复购，原有咖啡店的市场份额就会被剧烈侵蚀。这才是中美竞争无法调和的深层经济驱动力。 - **高科技争夺**：不仅是低端代工与制造，而是电动车、电信网络等前沿科技定价权与主导权之争。 - **市场选择权**：中国为全球新兴市场与发展中国家提供了摆脱单一依赖美国方案的“替代选项”。 --- ### [01:00:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3651s) 2024美国大选困局与唯一能击败特朗普的人选 谈及乔·拜登（Joe Biden）与特朗普谁对美国更有利，安德鲁直白地表示“两者都不好，只是坏的方式不同”。但若论谁更能延续美国的霸权主导地位，在两人之中他认为是特朗普。随后安德鲁分享了自己前一晚的深入思考：在全美民主党阵营中，目前只有一个人有能力彻底击败特朗普，那就是前第一夫人米歇尔·奥巴马（Michelle Obama）。 尽管米歇尔曾在7月初公开表示对竞选毫无兴趣，但安德鲁指出，7月13日宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒发生的暗杀未遂事件彻底重塑了选战格局。特朗普在流血后高举拳头、背后飘扬着美国国旗的照片席卷全球，视觉冲击力宛如普利策获奖作品。安德鲁认为，面对国家未来的巨变以及对自己女儿未来的担忧，米歇尔不可能不受到触动。如果她决定参选，一夜之间便能整合民主党全国代表大会（DNC）的全部资源，锁住现有全部捐款并吸引海量新资金，瞬间激活女性选民、非裔选民以及大量处于摇摆状态、对“老迈说不清话的拜登”和“胡言乱语的特朗普”深感绝望的中间选民。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 米歇尔·奥巴马潜在参选影响力图 accDescr: 展示米歇尔参选可能引发的选民整合与竞选资源动员路径 Michelle["米歇尔·奥巴马参选"] --> DNC["整合DNC全党资源与金主资金"] Michelle --> Voters["汇聚核心选民群体"] subgraph Voters["核心选民聚合"] V1["女性选民"] V2["非裔选民"] V3["厌倦两党候选人的摇摆选民"] end ``` - **打破常规的唯一人选**：除米歇尔·奥巴马外，民主党当时没有任何其他挑战者能在全美声量上与特朗普抗衡。 - **暗杀事件改变一切**：刺杀未遂后特朗普建立的英雄叙事与媒体热度，迫使民主党面临要么拿出破局人选，要么直接认输的境地。 --- ### [01:04:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3852s) 霸权模式的边际收益递减与大选终局预判 安德鲁剖析道，特朗普与米歇尔代表了两种截然不同的维持美国影响力的路径。特朗普奉行的是自1950年代以来美国惯用的“霸凌者/强势施压”（bully strategy）逻辑，凭借虚张声势（bravado）与强权操纵谋求增长。然而，这一套老打法早已陷入“边际收益递减”（diminishing returns）的怪圈——美国投入巨大，却在持续丧失全球号召力、影响力和经济韧性。 安德鲁指出，西方媒体大肆炒作中国GDP增速放缓至4.5%是经济衰退，却闭口不提美国自身只有约1.3%的低迷增长率；美国长年无法突破3%左右的平庸增速，这种常态化停滞让人对自身的衰退麻木不仁。特朗普重返白宫只剩下短短四年任期，他不会从根本上革新美国的发展范式，只会在这套失效的霸凌模式上“加倍下注”。相比之下，米歇尔若能跳出拜登与奥巴马的老派建制派思维，本有机会重新定义甚至拯救迷失的“美国意识形态”。 两人随后谈到暗杀未遂对大选的定调影响。安德鲁断言，2024年7月13日特朗普在宾夕法尼亚州幸存的那一刻起，大选实际上就已经尘埃落定： > "Everybody knows he won the election on that day. The day he survived that shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, July 13th, he won the 2024 election." 除非在11月5日投票日前，市场上发生更具颠覆性的政治地震，否则大局已定。面对主持人半开玩笑地提问“如果你是特朗普的营销团队，会不会为了选情冒险擦伤他的耳朵”，安德鲁坚决否认：“绝不可能，这其中的致命风险实在太巨大了。” ### [01:07:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4041s) 从特工实操逻辑看“自导自演暗杀”的荒谬性 针对坊间关于唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒（Butler, Pennsylvania）集会枪击事件是否属于竞选团队“自导自演以赢取选票”的猜测，安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）从中情局（CIA）的秘密行动（covert action）实操逻辑进行了直接驳斥。他指出，在情报行动中，“保护对象 / 核心人物”（Principal）是绝对不可危及的目标。如果真要自导自演一场暗杀来为候选人造势，绝不可能将枪口直接对准保护对象本人，因为实际射击中的致命风险根本无法控制：子弹只要出现毫厘之差就会击毙核心人物，或者射偏击中观众席中的无辜民众。在巴特勒集会上，确实有与会民众中弹身亡和受重伤，这种后果在任何受控的假暗杀策划中都是不可接受的事故。 布斯塔曼特进一步拆解，若真要伪造一场刺杀，专业的秘密行动方案会偏离目标 35 到 40 度角朝空中或安全区域开枪。这样同样能引发枪声巨响、制造现场恐慌、让特勤局特工扑倒保护对象，并获得同等轰动的媒体头条效果，同时将死伤风险降至零。如果要制造受伤流血的视觉冲击，操作者大可以在登台前准备一个微小伤口并贴上肉色创可贴，在枪响卧倒时撕下创可贴即可呈现真实的出血点。“公众对阴谋论最大的误解，在于以为策划秘密行动会冒险射击主角。实际上，设计秘密行动的首要原则，是在确保绝对安全的前提下达成目的，绝不会去冒击毙保护对象的巨大风险。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 假暗杀策划与真实枪击风险对比 accDescr: 对比假造暗杀行动的专业实操方式与巴特勒实际枪击事件的特征差异 subgraph FAKE["专业假暗杀演习（若存在）"] direction TB F1["枪手瞄准目标外 35-40 度角开枪"] --> F2["产生枪声与群体恐慌效果"] F3["预先准备伤口与肉色创可贴"] --> F4["卧倒时撕开创可贴造成出血画面"] F2 --> F5["零伤亡 + 达成头条轰动效果"] F4 --> F5 end subgraph REAL["巴特勒实际枪击特征"] direction TB R1["子弹直接掠过特朗普耳部"] --> R2["距离致命伤仅数毫米"] R3["现场观众出现实际伤亡"] --> R4["高风险不可控的真实暗杀行为"] end ``` --- ### [01:09:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4176s) 阴谋论的四步解构与巴特勒枪击案事实 谈及公众在事件发生后的各种猜测，布斯塔曼特明确表示这毫无疑问是一场真实的刺杀企图。他援引中情局在态势分析中总结的“阴谋论生成解剖学”（Anatomy of a Conspiracy），将阴谋论的产生过程划分为固定的四个阶段： 1. **真实事实（Fact）**：必须有一件真实的事件发生作为起点； 2. **信息真空（Lack of Information）**：事件发生后，官方或当事人无法在第一时间给出所有细节，产生信息盲区； 3. **主观推测（Speculation）**：人类大脑无法忍受“未闭合的信息回路”（open loop），因此在健康怀疑（suspicion）演变成不健康的胡乱推测（speculation）后，人们会强行填补空白； 4. **闭环故事（Loop-closing Story）**：某种能够迅速解释一切、闭合信息逻辑的故事出炉，一个完整的阴谋论便由此诞生。 布斯塔曼特强调，这种心理机制在日常家庭生活中屡见不鲜（例如谁吃掉了最后一片面包、谁喝完了牛奶，在缺乏直接证据时人脑会自动脑补出凶手）。回到巴特勒枪击事件，目前掌握的确凿物理证据已经非常充分：现场有一具 20 岁年轻枪手的尸体，其手持大威力步枪趴在屋顶并瞄准讲台；当地警方与治安官在案发前已收到民众报告；法医技术与现场多角度视频也已相互印证。枪手射击距离超过 400 英尺（约 120 多米），从弹道学和射击经验来看，这绝非媒体所谓的“轻松射击（turkey shoot）”，而是一个极具挑战性的远距离射击。布斯塔曼特透露，案发后他第一时间致电了一位退休特勤局好友，对方指出在任何大型露天政治集会上，绝对的安全都是不可能做到的，这就是屋顶需要布置狙击手、台前需要特勤人员带枪戒备的原因——他们之所以存在，正是因为已知安全漏洞永远无法彻底消除。 - **阴谋论生成的四要素**：真实事实（Fact） $\to$ 信息匮乏（Lack of Information） $\to$ 主观推测（Speculation） $\to$ 闭环故事（Loop-closing Story）。 - **案发现场核心客观事实**：枪手年仅 20 岁，位处 400 英尺外屋顶，使用大威力步枪射击，现场造成包括保护对象受伤及集会观众伤亡的严重后果。 --- ### [01:13:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4408s) 信任危机、9/11 前后的中情局变迁与非正式合谋 针对主持人提出民众普遍存在“深层政府（Deep State）、精英阶层、光明会或情报机构在幕后操纵一切”的疑虑，布斯塔曼特承认情报机构在历史上确实有过劣迹，但必须严格区分“9/11 前的 CIA”与“9/11 后的 CIA”： * **9/11 前的中情局（Pre-9/11 CIA）**：规模相对精简、预算极其充沛，但几乎处于“无外部监管的蛮荒西部（Wild West）”状态。当时该机构策划了大量离奇荒诞的行动，例如试图通过化学毒剂让菲德尔·卡斯特罗（Fidel Castro）胡须脱落以损其威信、猪湾事件（Bay of Pigs Invasion）、以及针对精神控制与药物实验的 MKUltra 计划。 * **9/11 后的中情局（Post-9/11 CIA）**：2003 年出炉的《9/11 委员会报告》（9/11 Commission Report）严厉问责了中情局的失职。此后该机构被置于极其严苛的国会与行政监督之下，演变成一个规模庞大、层级冗杂且深受官僚体制约束的庞然大物，再也无法随心所欲地执行天马行空的暗杀策划。 布斯塔曼特指出，若假设这次刺杀真有政府内部力量参与，也绝不可能有任何一个正式的政府部门出面组织或负责。一旦正式立案建制，那就变成了国家政策（policy）；在现实中，真正的政治阴谋往往由体制内的极端个体或小团体独立行动发起，类似于爱德华·斯诺登（Edward Snowden）窃密或奥德里奇·埃姆斯（Aldrich Ames）叛国，属于个体自私或极端的单边行动，而非官僚部门的集体密谋。正当探讨进入高潮时，主持人抛出了下一个核心假设：如果那颗子弹再向右偏移几毫米、直接击中了特朗普的头部致其死亡，美国的政局与社会将面临何种走向。 ### [01:16:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4593s) 刺杀特朗普设想：动荡多米诺与截然相反的社会走向 对话围绕一个令人不寒而栗的假设展开：如果唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）在那场刺杀未遂事件中真的中弹身亡，局势会发生怎样的剧变？主持人直言，如果子弹击中目标，演播室所在的洛杉矶街头恐怕早就陷入混乱，两人甚至不可能安稳坐在这里录播客。在他预设的“多米诺骨牌效应”中，特朗普遇刺将立即点燃极端右翼分子的报复心理，进而引发针对其他群体的报复性枪击，演变成全美街头以暴制暴的恶性循环。即便官方掌握了枪手的完整硬盘、指纹和遗体，确凿证实其独狼作案的动机，互联网和社交媒体上的大批受众依然会坚信这是“深层政府（Deep State）”、CIA 或希拉里·克林顿（Hillary Clinton）等左翼势力的暗中操控，从而在左翼集会或特定族群的活动中实施流血报复。 Andrew Bustamante 则提出了另一种截然不同的推演路径。他指出，在当时的现场处置下，枪手大概率也会被当场击毙，白宫传达的第一信息必然是“威胁已被彻底清除”。乔·拜登（Joe Biden）会以现任总统的身份发表充满温情与哀悼的讲话，将特朗普塑造成遵循民主程序、为个人信念牺牲的前国家领导人与国家英雄。与其陷入无休止的内战，美国社会反而可能迎来罕见的全国凝聚力契机——得克萨斯州、佛罗里达州或宾夕法尼亚州的街头可能会举行配得上国家元首规格的盛大悼念游行，连拜登政府都会欣然批准拨款以展示“国家团结”，从而暂时弥合撕裂的两极化政治体制。尽管这两种极端预测都具备可能性，但无可争辩的是，共和党全国代表大会将被迫重新推选候选人，历史的走向从那一刻起已被彻底改写。 --- ### [01:19:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4771s) 让世界为你弯曲：摆脱“完美悖论”与“在执行中追求卓越” 话题随后切回个人的心智突围。主持人借用“走出棚屋”的比喻，提出许多人深陷自己厌恶的生活模式中，而顶级企业家与具备巨大影响力的人往往拥有一种独特认知：他们眼中的世界是“具有延展性的（malleable）”，他们懂得如何“让世界为自己弯曲（bend the world in their favor）”，主动将现实塑造成自己渴望的模样。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 完美悖论与执行卓越对比 accDescr: 对比陷入停滞的完美悖论路径与在行动中迭代的执行卓越路径 subgraph Trap["停滞陷阱：完美悖论"] A["制定计划"] --> B["追求 1%~5% 细微改进"] B --> C["等待更完美情报"] C --> B end subgraph Action["突破路径：在执行中追求卓越"] D["快速行动 (哪怕仅有 20%)"] --> E["直面失误与碰壁"] E --> F["在实战中快速迭代"] F --> G["产生实际现实影响"] end ``` 为了帮助普通人掌握这种重塑现实的能力，Andrew Bustamante 分享了 CIA 内部严格灌输的第一个核心法则：警惕**完美悖论（Perfection Paradox）**。完美悖论与普通意义上的完美主义不同，它的本质是陷入一种“持续微调计划却永不付诸实施”的死循环。在策划情报行动时，人们极易患得患失——想着今天优化 5%、明天优化 2%、再等后天更优质的情报进来，结果虽然计划看似越来越完善，但因为从未落地，其现实影响力等于零。 CIA 对抗这种停滞的方法被称为**在执行中追求卓越（Excellence through Execution）**。这一原则的核心在于：真正的卓越不是来自推演，而是通过执行犯错，并在下一次执行中迅速修正。Andrew 举例说明，“9·11”事件爆发后，布什总统立即对阿富汗宣战，CIA 在短短 48 小时内完成初步行动筹备，准军事人员随即骑着马匹、赶着骡子直接挺进阿富汗与巴基斯坦交界的崇山峻岭中。在生死攸关的极高风险下，根本没有精雕细琢的余地，唯一的方法就是先抵达现场，在动态执行中摸索解决方案。如果一个人想要重构周围的现实，就必须接受初次行动可能只达到理想状态的 20%，敢于承受早期的碰壁与挫败，唯有执行才能产生撬动现实的力量。 - **完美悖论（Perfection Paradox）**：持续对计划进行渐进式改进，但从未真正启动行动，导致努力无法转化为实际影响力。 - **在执行中追求卓越（Excellence through Execution）**：卓越源于在行动中犯错并快速迭代，而非来自无限期的推迟与纸上谈兵。 - **阿富汗快速部署范例**：“9·11”后仅用 48 小时规划，CIA 准军事力量直接骑马深入险境现场解决问题。 --- ### [01:23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4985s) CIA 应对创伤的心智技术：与其穿过痛苦，不如绕开障碍 关于重构人生的第二项原则，Andrew Bustamante 分享了他与一位**身家过亿的客户（centimillionaire）**打交道的经历。这位富豪长期饱受童年心理创伤的折磨，童年阴影甚至严重干扰了他的商业运作和多段婚姻生活。主流心理咨询师、治疗师以及伴侣通常会灌输同一种观念：“你必须直面创伤，穿过痛苦（go through your pain），承担心理重负才能获得治愈。” 然而，CIA 传授的行动哲学彻底打破了这种传统心理学说教：“**当你明明可以直接绕过去的时候，为什么非要逼自己从痛苦中间穿过去？**（Why would you ever go through something when you can go around it?）” Andrew 解释道，如果一个人的母亲在自己七岁时出轨背叛了父亲，无论在心理层面对这个创伤剖析多少遍、感受多少痛苦，过去的事实都无法被篡改。盲目“穿透痛苦”往往只是陷入反刍与内耗。相反，更高效、更具韧性的心智路径是直接**绕过这段痛苦**，在逻辑链条上重新定义它：“因为母亲出轨，家里发生了巨变；正因如此，我早早学会了自立自强，不再依附于任何人；这最终塑造了我强大的独立生存能力，让我取得了今日的商业成就。”过去已经封死，唯有前方的发展空间可以掌控。人们根本不必强求在情感上完全“治愈”，只要在认知上予以确认、接受其存在并跨步向前，就能以最轻的心理负荷绕过阻碍、继续前进。 ### [01:25:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=5102s) 重构过去与应对无法挽回的悲剧 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）接着讲述那位客户的故事：客户终于意识到，如果当年母亲没有背叛父亲出轨，那么随后引发的一连串骨牌效应，就绝不可能促成他创办如今让他跻身超级富豪（ultra-high-net-worth）行列的企业。一旦把这两个因果节点串联起来，他的心态瞬间逆转：“见鬼，我真庆幸我妈当年出轨了，因为现在我的女儿们衣食无忧，儿子们得到最好的照顾，妻子们被妥善安置，我名下500多名员工生活安稳，业务横跨四个国家，所有人都得到了庇护。” 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随即提出疑问：这种对创伤的重新诠释，难道不需要经历足够长的时间沉淀吗？他提到前一天刚与UFC冠军弗朗西斯·纳干诺（Francis Ngannou）坐在一起录制播客，纳干诺在当年4月刚刚痛失仅18个月大的幼子。面对刚刚发生短短几个月的灭顶之灾，任何人都不可能轻飘飘地说“绕过去”或从中找出什么积极意义。安德鲁肃然回应，悲剧是无法绕开的，这种骨肉至痛极少有人经历，值得庆幸的是绝大多数人不必体会。在惨剧发生的当下，没人能知道未来它会把人塑造成什么样，人们唯一能感受到的只有当下的剧烈痛楚。 史蒂芬借此补充了前Google X高管穆·高达特（Mo Gawdat）的经历：穆的儿子在一次原本只需10分钟的常规小手术中意外去世，穆随后辞去谷歌高位，踏上探寻真正快乐的旅途。当史蒂芬在播客中问穆，如果能回到过去改变这一切、让儿子不死，他是否会去改变，穆的回答是“不会”。安德鲁借此指出，那些“注定要成功”（wired for success）的人正是如此——他们无法去悔恨或试图抹除过去的遭遇，因为一旦改写了那些苦难，自己就不再是如今这个坚韧且成功的自己。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创伤重构与成功思维因果图 accDescr: 展示从历史创伤到超级富豪，以及面对不可逆悲剧时的心智模型演变过程。 subgraph TraumaReframing["创伤因果重构模型"] A["过去创伤与剧变<br/>（如家庭破裂）"] --> B["多米诺骨牌效应<br/>（人生轨迹重塑）"] B --> C["商业巨大成就<br/>（建立跨国企业/庇护家人员工）"] C --> D["心智彻底反转：<br/>不再悔恨过去的苦难"] end subgraph TragedyReality["面对重大悲剧的现实"] E["突发灭顶灾难<br/>（如痛失幼子）"] --> F["当下绝对痛苦：无法绕过"] F --> G["时间沉淀与重塑塑造<br/>（决定未来走向）"] end TraumaReframing -.-> H["成功特质者核心心智：<br/>不改写过去，接纳塑造当下的所有经历"] TragedyReality -.-> H ``` --- ### [01:27:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=5251s) 天生成功者与CIA谍报招募的底层逻辑 史蒂芬追问，现实中究竟存不存在“生来就适合成功”这一说，普通听众又该如何判断自己是否具备这种特质。安德鲁斩钉截铁地确认：确实有人是注定追求成功的，而很多人则被底层程序设定为接受平庸、仅求温饱生存，甚至终其一生在痛苦与折磨中打转。 安德鲁将辅导的高净值客户与他在CIA执行外勤特工招募时的线人（asset）进行了深度对比： - **棚屋理论**：间谍与寻求突破的客户，本质上都是“身处四面透风的木棚，但透过窗户看到了外面更广阔世界”的人。 - **无法招募的人群**：如果一个人无知却安于现状，在自己的破棚屋里过得极其快乐与满足，没有任何野心，那么无论使用金钱诱惑、威逼恐吓还是技巧欺骗，都不可能说服他背叛国家成为间谍。 - **线人与优质客户的区别**：线人迫切渴望逃离棚屋，因此极其容易被情报官操纵；而一个天生注定成功的客户，虽然同样坚信外面有更好的天地，但他们具备敏锐的戒备心，深知外界充满了欺诈与操纵，因此他们不会盲从，而是在寻找经得起验证的指引、方法与证据。 - **成功的底层代码**：天生适合成功的核心定义，就是清楚地意识到环境施加在自己身上的限制与壁垒，并从心底涌起想要打破这道壁垒的强烈冲动。 --- ### [01:29:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=5395s) 认知失调、失败的阴影与“成功的食谱” 史蒂芬结合自己在伦敦搭乘黑色出租车（Black Cab）的经历提问：许多出租车司机收听他的播客，常常认出他并激动地倾诉自己的创业构想与心中的抱负，但他们始终被困在当下，安德鲁能给这些人什么解释？ 安德鲁指出，一个天生注定追求成功却长期接受西方社会传统驯化的人，必然会陷入剧烈的**认知失调（cognitive dissonance）**： - 他们直觉地渴望更多成就，但社会灌输的观念让他们误以为成功必须依赖一张既定路线图或标准方案。 - 他们不再盲信现有的体制说辞，却又苦于找不到替代的出路，这种失调转化为每日如影随形的挫败感。 为了说明这种放弃与妥协的悲剧，安德鲁分享了一个让他心碎的真实经历： 在他38岁、刚创办“Everyday Spy”两周年时，曾在俄勒冈州波特兰遇到一名在啤酒厂打兼职的24岁年轻人。小伙子性格风趣幽默，但没有任何远大志向，每天下午两点就跟四个室友喝啤酒度日。安德鲁问及家境时，年轻人提到母亲曾在爱达荷州的一个农场经营餐饮生意，专门为邻近农家做晚饭以减轻农妇照顾十几口孩子的负担。然而，母亲苦心经营三年后生意倒闭，自此深感挫败。年轻人的逻辑因此被彻底锁死：“既然像我母亲那样热爱并拼尽全力创业最终依然失败，那我为什么还要去尝试？” 安德鲁感慨，无数人在经历了两次或三次商业挫折后便彻底放弃，缩回自己的小棚屋，接受被划定的狭小生活圈。他们根本不知道，或许再坚持尝试几次就是突破口，他们欠缺的仅仅是一套简单有效的“食谱”（方法论）。 --- ### [01:33:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=5615s) 最喜欢的案例研究：从停滞不前到薪资跃升 当被问及运用这套谍报方法论改变人生的最经典案例时，安德鲁半开玩笑地回答，他最喜欢的案例就是他自己，因为他每天都在享受这套系统带来的自由与收益。 而在客户案例方面，安德鲁举了一位刚给他写信的工程师为例： - 该客户三十多岁，此前在职业生涯中长期停滞，已经连续5年申请升职加薪无果。 - 在学习并实践了Everyday Spy传授的行为与谈判框架后，该工程师打破了困局。 - 最终，他成功斩获了超过31,000至32,000美元的大幅加薪，直接晋升为公司的高级职位（senior level），人生首次迈入六位数年薪的阶层。 ### [01:34:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=5661s) 间谍技能的现实案例：从失业绝境到高薪逆袭 安迪·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）分享了间谍思维框架如何在普通人身上产生立竿见影的效果。他提到一位学员多年来一直在向主管争取加薪和升职，但总是被以“资格不够”或“不合适”为由直接拒绝；后来该学员开始实践他们“行动思维”（Operational Thinking）大师课中传授的一套影响力框架，仅仅九个月后就成功获得了升职。 更令人动容的是安迪在拉斯维加斯举办的“情报边缘”（Intel Edge）大会上的真实案例。该盛会邀请了来自情报界与特种领域的重磅嘉宾——包括联邦调查局（FBI）特工、美国陆军“绿贝雷”（Green Beret）特种兵、艾美奖获奖调查记者以及运动科学家等，现场面对面培训数百人。当时有一位名叫伊曼纽尔（Emanuel）的波多黎各学员，刚刚迎来家庭的第一个小生命，成为新手父亲的喜悦还没消退，就在孩子出生一个月内遭遇公司裁员。陷入养家绝境的伊曼纽尔没有盲目投简历，而是严格运用了训练营教授的“镜像法则”（Mirroring）以及“打动面试官本人而非迎合面试流程”（Winning the interviewer instead of winning the interview）策略。被解雇仅仅三个月后，他不仅成功入职一家顶尖科研实验室，还拿到了远超以往任何阶段的历史最高薪资。当伊曼纽尔次年春天重返会场汇报喜讯时，整个团队都为之沸腾。安迪坦言，虽然自己经常收到此类反馈并渐渐习以为常，但他对此毫不惊讶：“因为这些‘处方’本就在中央情报局（CIA）的核心机构中历经无数次打磨验证，它们行之有效了几十年，只是此前从未向公众开放。” - **拉斯维加斯“情报边缘”大会阵容**：汇聚 FBI 特工、绿贝雷特战队员、艾美奖调查记者、运动科学家，面向数百名学员传授一线情报技能。 - **面试逆袭核心战术**：放弃机械应对考题，转而运用身体与语言“镜像投射”（Mirroring），聚焦于直接征服面试官本身的心理防线。 --- ### [01:36:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=5818s) 人生的唯一障碍是“人”：说服与影响力的本质分野 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有共鸣。他回顾起自己的学生时代：因为逃课成瘾，大部分科目一塌糊涂，唯独心理学和商业学成绩拔尖。他在大约14岁时就在脑海中形成了一个核心信念，并在如今31岁的岁月里每年重复不下十次：“阻碍我成为世界上最伟大的企业家、慈善家或销售员的唯一障碍，只是一群‘人’而已。”生活中的所有壁垒本质上都是人的壁垒；只要参透人性的运行逻辑并掌握影响他人的能力，就等于拿到了通往任何目标的“城市钥匙”。安迪十分赞同这一看法，但随即幽默而犀利地补充道：“别忘了，我们自己也是‘人’，所以我们自身往往也是这个障碍的一部分。” 随后，安迪深入剖析了整套机制的结构——所有的影响力框架就像“俄罗斯套娃”一样层层嵌套，由基础框架包裹着子框架（从两步模型一直衍生到十二步模型）。在此之前，必须先理清大众最常混淆的一对概念：“说服”（Persuasion）与“影响力”（Influence）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 说服与影响力的机制差异 accDescr: 对比主动耗能的说服过程与被动无形的影响力状态 subgraph PersuasionModule ["主动说服 (Persuasion)"] direction TB A1["主动投入能量"] --> A2["言语交锋与辩论"] --> A3["迫使对方当下改变主意"] end subgraph InfluenceModule ["无形影响力 (Influence)"] direction TB B1["前期深度建构"] --> B2["不在场/不发一言"] --> B3["自然占据对方心智决策"] end ``` 安迪指出，**说服**是纯粹的“主动能量消耗”——你当面费尽口舌、运用逻辑让某人同意跟你共进晚餐，这叫说服；而**影响力**则是“被动存在的无形资产”——即便你不在现场、一句话都没说，当外界发生重大事件时，对方脑海中第一时间浮现出的念头是“不知道安迪会怎么看这件事”，这才叫影响力。说服靠的是当场施压，而影响力需要前期耗费大量时间进行评估、互动并建立深度信任。 --- ### [01:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6008s) 影响力基石：意义建构框架（Sense Making）与三层水杯模型 为了让复杂的层级落地，安迪从影响力的底层核心切入，详细讲解了名为“意义建构”（Sense Making）的子框架。无论是谁想要影响对方，双方都必须先给这段关系的权力结构赋予合理的认知定义——即明确谁处于主导地位、谁在顺从权力。 安迪将意义建构比喻为一个需要往里面注水的“圆柱形水杯”，人际关系的建立必须自下而上依次填满三个阶段： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 意义建构水杯模型的三层演进 accDescr: 从底层的回避到中层的竞争再到顶层的顺从 subgraph SenseMakingCup ["意义建构圆柱体 (Sense Making)"] direction TB L3["顶层：顺从 / 认同 (Compliance)<br/>明确权力结构，达成'求同存异'"] L2["中层：竞争 / 碰撞 (Competition)<br/>信息、观点与能量的交锋与沉没"] L1["底层：回避 / 戒备 (Avoidance)<br/>人类面对陌生事物的本能防御"] L1 --> L2 --> L3 end ``` - **底层（水杯下三分之一）：回避（Avoidance）** 这是所有人际互动的起点。人类的生物本能天生排斥新事物与陌生人。初次相识时，无论是否承认，潜意识里的第一反应往往是逃避。唯有投入足够的时间与耐心，才能把水注满这一层，破除天然防御。 - **中层（水杯中三分之一）：竞争（Competition）** 迈过回避阶段后，双方进入信息、观点与能量的激烈交换。即便彼此发生争执、各执己见甚至面红耳赤，本质上也是双方在向这段关系注入心力。如果一个人真的对你毫无所谓，他只会选择全然回避；争吵恰恰证明关系的连接正在形成。 - **顶层（水杯上三分之一）：顺从与定型（Compliance）** 竞争的最终诉求不是无休止的内耗，而是确立彼此的权力动态与边界。当双方耗费了大量能量后，便会走向这一平衡点。常见的结果就是所谓的“求同存异”（Agree to disagree）——双方在特定议题（如政治倾向）上确认了对等的对立立场，但此时水杯已经被注满。 安迪强调，人类最深沉的心理痛点之一就是“痛恨浪费已经投入的能量”。双方在中层投入了大量情绪与能量成本，沉没成本效应会倒逼双方认可这段连接的有效性。一旦在某一话题上完成了“意义建构”，彼此就拥有了稳固的信任底座，随后便能顺理成章地将影响力半径延伸至商业合作、家庭沟通等更广阔的领域。 ### [01:43:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6221s) 影响力阶梯：从意义构建到“认知、喜欢与信任”（KLT 框架） 要真正施加影响力，必须逐步突破人际交往中的多重心理防线。安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）指出，首要任务是打破对方的“回避”（Avoidance）；紧接着进入“竞争”（Competition）阶段，促使对方愿意将宝贵的时间和精力投入到这段关系中；随后达成某种层面的“顺从”（Compliance）——哪怕这种顺从仅仅是对方愿意坐下来，听你阐述一个他从一开始就打定主意要反对的观点，这也已经是行为上的顺从。 这套“回避—竞争—顺从”的基础意义构建模型，向上承接并支撑着社交媒体与营销领域熟知的次级架构：“认知、喜欢、信任”（Know, Like, Trust，简称 KLT）。安德鲁惊喜地发现，这套 CIA 惯用的情报招募逻辑竟与现代社交营销不谋而合。一切始于“认知”（Discovery）：如果某件事物未被察觉，喜欢便无从谈起；而一旦被发现，人们本能的第一反应往往是启动防御去回避它。当穿越了回避、竞争并实现顺从后，实质上已经沉淀了足够的时间与精力，此时对方在某种程度上就已经“喜欢”上了这段交互。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 影响力与KLT模型推进流程图 accDescr: 展示从回避到信任的情报与心理学递进关系 subgraph SenseMaking ["意义构建阶段 (Sense-Making)"] A["突破回避 (Overcome Avoidance)"] --> B["赢得竞争 (Competition: 争取时间和精力)"] B --> C["达成顺从 (Compliance: 哪怕仅愿倾听)"] end subgraph KLTFramework ["KLT 框架 (Know, Like, Trust)"] D["认知 (Know / Discovery)"] --> E["喜欢 (Like / 投入精力产生的认同)"] E --> F["信任 (Trust / 跌入信任与可预测性)"] end C --> D E --> F ``` --- ### [01:45:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6308s) 跌入信任：信任不是道德评价，而是“可预测性” 中央情报局（CIA）掌握着一条绝大多数人并不理解的核心秘诀：一个人不必极度喜欢你，就可以开始信任你。人们常说“坠入爱河”（falling in love），但在心理学和情报学中，同样存在一个极其真实的现象叫做“跌入信任”（falling into trust）。只要两个人相处的时间足够长，在不知不觉中，信任就会自发建立。 安德鲁用一个生动的场景举例：哪怕对方每一步都不同意你的观点，哪怕你整个人唯一让他接受的特质只是周五晚上能一起去酒吧喝上一品脱啤酒，彼此就政治话题大吵大闹、互相咒骂，对方依然享受周五去酒吧喝一杯的时光，依然喜欢和你一起看两家支持的不同足球队比赛。因为这份微小的共同体验，在未来的某一刻，他终究会“跌入信任”——或许因为你是唯一陪他喝酒的人，他在某个防线崩溃的瞬间向你倾吐自己有多痛恨老板。那一刻，你成了世上唯一知道他内心秘密的人。 这种机制揭示了人类深层却又常自我痛恨的本能：人们总会盲目信任错误的对象。斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问：“所以即便某人并不喜欢你，他们依然会在影响力层面信任你？”安德鲁明确肯定，因为“信任”（Trust）本质上是一个中立、不可知论（agnostic）的词汇，它并不天然代表善意或美好，它只意味着**结果的确定性与可预测性**（predictable outcome）。 - 即使是面对极度讨厌的邻居，你依然会“信任”他：你会深信他在特定场合一定会对你的孩子说风凉话，或者百分之百确信他会把垃圾桶推到你的车道口。 - 只要对方的言行展现出持续的规律性，大脑就会建立对他的行为预期，进而形成实质上的信任依赖。 --- ### [01:47:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6435s) 极化的力量：为何有争议的鲜明立场能筑起强大影响力 斯蒂芬结合自身行业提出疑问：在 LinkedIn 等社交媒体上打造个人品牌时，发布那些引发剧烈争论的极端观点（hot takes），究竟能否沉淀真正的信任与影响力？还是说有某种特定的内容策略能够更高效地构建影响力？ 安德鲁随即引入了中情局与高阶影响力体系中的核心概念——**“极化效应的力量”**（The Power of Polarity）。如果你想创造吸引力与权威感，就必须制造极化，必须旗帜鲜明地坚持某种立场。中庸和含糊只会让人无法捕捉你的真实信仰，最终被信息洪流彻底淹没。皮尔斯·摩根（Piers Morgan）和埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）等公众人物之所以拥有巨大的声浪，正是因为他们从不畏惧站在风口浪尖，甚至渴求别人当面表达对他们的厌恶。 极化立场不仅会树立敌人，更会催生出坚定不移的盟友。其背后的心理与群体动力学如下： 1. **激化阵营对立**：旗帜鲜明的观点会迅速为你筛选出明确的敌人与朋友。 2. **触发防御与深度投入**：当敌人发起攻击时，站在你这边的朋友会本能地站出来为你辩护与反击。 3. **被迫站队的围观者**：为他人辩护需要消耗大量心理能量，防御者在投入能量的过程中会愈发深陷其中、强化对你的信任；而围观的旁观者在目睹双方交锋时，心理上也会受到牵引，被迫在“攻击你”还是“捍卫你”之间做出选择。 --- ### [01:49:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6591s) 一致性原则与平台算法：从社媒博弈到策反间谍 为了进一步探讨极化的边界，斯蒂芬分享了一个反面案例：他的一位朋友在 LinkedIn 上的表现堪称灾难，核心症结在于**立场极度不一致**。这位朋友多年来一直坚持滴酒不沾，并在网上大肆宣扬酒精的危害；然而到了卡塔尔世界杯期间，他却突然发文抨击中东禁止饮酒的宗教习俗，主张应该允许球迷在现场狂饮。这种精神分裂般的言论反差彻底摧毁了他的个人公信力。 安德鲁对此剖析道，这正是该朋友丧失影响力的根本原因：**极化的前提是一致性**。追随者根本不知道他究竟站在哪一块阵地上，原本为其清晰立场感到自豪的支持者也无从追随。哪怕你坚守的阵地极度不受欢迎、充满争议，只要你岿然不动地持续输出清晰且一致的极化信息，就一定会有一群人为你聚拢，另一群人向你开火，而你将从这两种反应中同时获益。 - **算法逻辑的本质**：在 YouTube 等内容平台上，最恶毒、最负面的差评往往能带来最顶级的赋能。愤怒的评论会诱导更多人涌入跟帖争论，而平台算法渴求的仅仅是“参与度”（Engagement）和停留时长。赞成与反对的剧烈割裂，恰恰是算法将内容推向更广泛受众的催化剂。 - **情报战中的极化测试**：在 CIA 策反间谍的实战中，这种技巧更是生死攸关。当你试图诱导敌国目标背叛自己的祖国、犯下叛国罪（treason）时，招募官绝不能含糊其辞，必须抛出极具撕裂性和极化意味的问题，以此测试对方的心理防线——试探他究竟只是在言语间流露出潜在叛徒的蛛丝马迹，还是一名不可动摇的极端民族主义者。唯有通过极化试探摸清底线，才有可能建立起足以驱使对方实施叛国行为的深层控制力。 ### [01:52:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6754s) 品牌的两极分化法则与“了解-喜欢-信任”框架 谈话首先延续了关于品牌极化力量的探讨。许多在市场上取得巨大成功的品牌，之所以能够脱颖而出，核心就在于它们敢于明确表达立场并引发“两极分化”（polarizing）。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到护肤品牌 Medik8（此处转述此前播客嘉宾观点）的创业理念：“你必须愿意惹恼 80% 的人，才能赢得属于你的那 20%。”真正的品牌不需要人人平庸地“喜欢”你，平庸的喜欢根本构不成品牌；你必须让人们要么“极度热爱”，要么“极度讨厌”。 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）盛赞这一逻辑简直是天才之举，并且完全符合“了解-喜欢-信任”（Know, Like, Trust）的核心机制。品牌的两极分化本质上是跳过了中间温吞的“喜欢”层级，直接将受众推向两极：要么深爱，要么憎恶。无论是深爱还是憎恶，受众事实上都已经进入了“信任”的范畴——深爱的人坚信并信任你所说的每一句话；而憎恶的人也无比确信、深信自己绝对会讨厌你说的任何话。无论走向哪个极端，受众都已被深度锁定在信任机制之中。 随后，史蒂芬插入了一则赞助商口播，分享自己早年在卧室白手起家创业时极度依赖自由职业平台 Fiverr，并介绍了该平台最新推出的人工智能助手 Neo。用户只需与 Neo 对话陈述遇到的业务或设计难题，该 AI Agent 就能自动撰写需求简报、精准匹配并推荐顶尖自由职业者，大幅缩短找人与沟通周期。 --- ### [01:54:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6861s) 说服的底层逻辑：情绪触发与理性叙事的闭环 回到讨论主题后，史蒂芬问及影响力的其他关键维度，并指出安德鲁此前强调过“说服”（Persuasion）与“影响力”（Influence）有着本质区别。安德鲁解释道，“说服”在实际操作中其实比长期的“影响力”简单得多，而且在日常生活中更为普遍：商业广告、电视促销、甚至日常哄小孩晚上乖乖刷牙，全部都属于“说服”。 安德鲁将说服拆解为一个精确的心理与信息传递流程：**触发情绪反应，进而引导围绕该情绪展开的理性思考。** 说服的核心是信息构建与叙事策略（messaging and narrative）。你首先打造一条高度情绪化的信息，精准击中目标受众的某种特定情感；随后，你可以变换信息的表述形式，但必须反复轰炸同一种底层情绪。当受众被足够多指向同一情绪维度的信息连续触达后，他们的大脑就会自动建立起一套认知性的“理性叙事”，并将其内化为自己自发得出的结论。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 说服的心理闭环流程 accDescr: 展示从连续的情绪信息轰炸，到受众自发形成理性认知，再到最终执行预设行动的闭环链条。 subgraph EmotionLayer ["情绪轰炸阶段"] M1["情绪信息 A"] --> E["锁定核心情绪反应"] M2["情绪信息 B"] --> E M3["情绪信息 C"] --> E end subgraph RationalLayer ["认知固化阶段"] E --> R["受众自发建立理性叙事<br/>（内化为自身逻辑）"] end subgraph ActionLayer ["转化结果阶段"] R --> A["触发预设行动<br/>（高概率转化/购买/信从）"] end ``` 安德鲁以政治认知举例：所谓“深层政府/影子政府”（Deep State）的概念，最初就是由海量关于“政府不可信”的情绪化信息堆叠而成的。当公众的大脑接收到足够多的不信任情绪后，便自发演变出逻辑推论——“既然我们不能信任现有的政府，那就证明暗地里一定存在一个不可信的影子政府在操纵一切”。商业销售亦是如此，无论是引导顾客选择自己的咖啡店而非隔壁、选择斯巴鲁（Subaru）而非日产（Nissan），还是在欢迎邮件序列的第一封就促成销售转化，核心机制都是通过一系列情绪信息，引导对方自己推导出一个理性叙事，最终心甘情愿地采取行动。 - **说服与影响力的区别**：说服更偏向战术层面，利用情绪杠杆与叙事引导实现短期、高概率的既定行为转化；影响力则是更为深层的系统性心理控制。 - **信息与叙事法则**：通过多角度但聚焦于同一情感核心的密集信息，促使受众完成“情绪被触动 $\to$ 自我理性合理化 $\to$ 做出决定”的心理跃迁。 --- ### [01:56:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7000s) 实战演练：以 Whoop 智能手环为例的情感说服剧本 为了具象化展示这套说服公式，史蒂芬以自己手腕上佩戴的智能健康手环 Whoop 为案例，现场向安德鲁发起实战推销推演。史蒂芬列举了该产品的典型功能：追踪心率变异性（HRV）、监测睡眠与压力水平、整合生物数据，以及与好友数据同步并进行良性健康竞争。 安德鲁敏锐指出，普通营销人员最致命的错误就是向客户推销“功能特征”（Features）——“买它吧，因为它能测心率、测体温、监控睡眠”。这毫无说服力，因为市面上有大把竞品同样能做到这些。真正的说服必须注入情感连接。安德鲁现场针对“处于严肃稳定伴侣关系中的男性”设计了一套说服叙事： 1. **痛点与情感共鸣**：作为深爱妻子的丈夫，我极其在意她的健康、睡眠和压力，但我不想每次都直截了当地去盘问她。这款手环让我无需开口，就能精准感知妻子的生理状态与身心负荷——“每一个男人梦寐以求的‘读心术’”。 2. **场景化救赎**：每天晚上哄孩子睡觉往往是一场灾难。妻子疲惫崩溃、大吼大叫，丈夫刚下班回家身心俱疲，彼此摩擦不断。如果有了这款手环，丈夫在下班路上看一眼数据就知道妻子今天精疲力竭，进门前就可以提前打电话：“亲爱的，数据看到你今天很累，你先去泡个 30 分钟的热水澡做自我护理，晚饭和孩子交给我。等你缓过来我们再一起搭档配合。” 3. **升华核心主张**：“Whoop 让夫妻重新成为并肩作战的战友团队。” 这套信息精准击中了男性“关爱伴侣”、“渴望家庭和谐”，以及“私下里明白妻子状态好自己才能好”的隐秘心理需求。安德鲁指出，只要在落地页或推广文案中布置三到五条这样直击内心的信息，任何处于稳定异性伴侣关系中的男性都会做出唯一的理性判断：立即点击领取 30 天免费试用。这种转化率在统计学上是高概率且极其可控的，能够通过点击率、邮件打开率与留存时长等指标进行量化验证。 --- ### [02:00:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7216s) 广告界的通病与经典营销 4P 的重塑 安德鲁进一步批判了当下商业界与广告代理公司的通病。虽然某些极为成功的品牌偶有这种情绪化营销的表现，但它们往往没有将其**系统化**，全凭灵感与偶然。许多广告公司之所以屡屡炮制出糟糕透顶的失败广告，是因为他们根本没有流程系统，纯粹是“把面条往墙上扔”（throwing spaghetti at the wall，意为盲目乱碰运气）——今天看到什么新闻热点就聊什么，完全缺乏对情绪刺激、理性反应与可衡量转化链路的严密设计。 这种认知盲区在年轻创业者身上尤为致命。初创团队往往对自己的“产品”（Product）产生近视般的偏执狂热，误以为产品好就有一切，却遗忘了传统营销理论中的经典 4P 要素（产品 Product、价格 Price、渠道 Place、推广 Promotion）。安德鲁甚至提出，应该用“说服”（Persuasion）全面取代 4P 中的“推广”（Promotion）。因为现实是残酷的：只要你掌握了强大的情绪说服力与叙事掌控权，产品的定价高低、销售渠道在何处，甚至产品本身某些微小的缺陷，都将变得不再致命。 ### [02:01:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7297s) 面试的本质：人们不会雇佣单纯喜欢的人，而是雇佣“像自己的人” 说服的核心永远不是罗列产品或个人的理性优势，因为单纯谈论好处根本不具备说服力，真正的说服必须从情感层面切入。当话题转向人际交往与求职面试时，Steven Bartlett 询问如何将这种影响力框架运用到现实中，甚至做到“只要走进面试房间，就必然能拿下这份工作”。在探讨面试官究竟在寻找什么样的人选时，Steven 凭直觉给出了两点：一是能胜任工作的人，二则是面试官喜欢的人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面试中的意义建构与认同转化流程 accDescr: 展示面试官如何从回避阶段通过意义建构识别共同点，最终形成喜欢与信任 subgraph S1["心理初始状态"] A["面试官的默认心理：回避<br/>（觉得面试耗竭心神、程序化）"] end subgraph S2["意义建构阶段 (Sense Making)"] B["应聘者观察环境细节与非语言线索<br/>（笔记习惯、穿搭细节、设备）"] C["投射与镜像反射<br/>（寻找自己与对方的相似处/互补处）"] B --> C end subgraph S3["最终决策状态"] D["识别共同点与互补特质<br/>（'像我自己的人'）"] E["跨越门槛：产生好感并建立信任<br/>（Like & Trust 达成录用意愿）"] D --> E end A --> S2 C --> D ``` Andrew Bustamante 对此给出了更深层的剖析：面试官表面上在寻找“自己喜欢的人”，但本质上是在寻找“像自己的人（someone who is alike the interviewer）”。人们在潜意识里往往更倾向于录用能折射出自身特质的候选人。当面试官在应聘者身上看到自己身上的闪光点，或者看到对方擅长自己所不擅长的互补领域时，内心的“意义建构机制（sense making process）”便会迅速启动，瞬间将其转化为“喜欢（Like）”与“信任（Trust）”。大多数面试官最害怕经历枯燥无味、耗费心神的拉锯战，而最渴望遇见的，是坐在桌子对面那个能在瞬息之间建立共鸣、如同另一个自己般的应试者。 --- ### [02:05:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7506s) 破解回避期：从环境观察到“良性竞争”的互动投资 为了在实际面试中化被动为主动，求职者必须理解面试官在会面初期的心理防御。任何面试开始时，由于彼此陌生，面试官的潜意识默认处于“回避（Avoidance）”阶段，觉得这只是一项不得不完成的任务。此时，应聘者需要主动进行“对话投资”，通过捕捉一切显性与隐性的线索来打破僵局。 Andrew 现场以 Steven 为例进行了细致入微的观察示范： - **设备与习惯**：注意到对方使用 iPad 进行书写记录，并且习惯使用不同颜色的笔迹做标记；iPad 下方压着纸质笔记本，说明里面有大量用传统钢笔或墨水手写的真迹。 - **个人仪容与风格**：观察到对方精心修整的面颊胡须，以及利落干练的发型。 - **线索转化**：利用背景环境、着装、小物件作为切入点，迅速打破冷漠与距离感。 这种互动投资的目的在于将对话引导至“竞争阶段（Competition phase）”。Andrew 特别强调，这里的“竞争”绝非你死我活、非赢即输的零和博弈（Zero-sum game），也不是唇枪舌剑的争辩，而是类似于足球队内的红绿对抗赛（scrimmage），或是棒球春季训练营里纽约洋基队内部的磨合训练。双方在对抗中投球、击球、相互切磋，目的都是为了提高彼此的水平。在面试中，双方互相投入思想、观点与问题，正是通过这种你来我往的思想碰撞与探讨，双方的“投入之杯”被不断斟满，最终水到渠成地引导面试官做出录用（Compliance）的决定。 --- ### [02:07:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7670s) 反转面试主导权：通过开放式提问让对方感到被重视 大多数求职者在进入面试间时都会默认等待被动接受盘问，但真正的高手会反客为主。Andrew 提出了一个打破常规的策略：**在面试中问的问题，要比面试官问得还要多**。提出高质量的开放式问题能够让对方感受到自己的重要性与独特性，而这是绝大多数机械答题的求职者根本无法带给面试官的体验。 为了展示这种提问技巧，Andrew 与 Steven 展开了一段即兴角色扮演： - **开场破冰**：Andrew 热情致谢并询问对方今天过得如何，随即迅速引入对公司业务的洞察。 - **由浅入深的提问**：他指出自己在调研时发现 Steven 的业务涵盖广泛的营销板块，并抛出开放式问题：“您会将这项业务的核心功能定义为社交媒体营销，还是更偏向于互联网广告？” - **捕捉偏好并递进共鸣**：当 Steven 回答是“社交媒体营销”后，Andrew 没有停留在表面，而是立刻追问：“是因为社交媒体变化迅速且充满动态活力，还是出于其他原因？” - **达成价值同频**：在 Steven 表达了“社交媒体是未来且增长最快”的观点后，Andrew 立即跟进，分享自己与家人也高度沉浸于社交媒体的经历，指出社交媒体能构筑一种“模拟关系（simulated relationship）”，双方瞬间在理念上形成极强的契合感。 通过这种“回答后紧跟一个反问”的节奏，面试不再是审讯式的单向输出，而变成了一场引人入胜的深度对话。这种互动让面试官在离开房间时由衷地感到被倾听、被尊重，深刻体会到应试者在来之前做足了功课、具备批判性思考能力且充满探索欲望，从而在心理上彻底确立了对求职者的青睐。 ### [02:09:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7798s) 面试中的倾听与提问艺术 斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了他最近面试候选人的糟糕经历。他在上周进行了几场面试，其中一场长达一个小时的交流让他深感疲惫，事后他甚至对幕僚长吐槽说自己在整整一小时里“几乎一句话都没能插上”。那位候选人全程滔滔不绝地单向输出，完全是在“对着他说话”（spoken at），而且全程没有主动提过任何问题。即便斯蒂芬主动询问对方是否有问题想问，对方抛出的唯一一个问题也只是为了铺垫自己接下来的又一段长达 20 分钟的长篇大论。这次经历让斯蒂芬下定决心淘汰此人，因为该职位需要与他每天紧密共事，他本能地意识到与这样的人合作会令人极其分心、难以忍受。 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）肯定了斯蒂芬的直觉判断，并指出问题的核心在于没有人喜欢被单向说教。安德鲁澄清说，他并非建议求职者像连珠炮一样机械地向面试官抛出密集问题，但提出深思熟虑的问题是赢得面试的关键。当求职者主动提问时，在面试官眼中会立刻被赋予“更有深度、更聪明、更负责任”的特质。因为求职是对彼此生活与职业生涯的重要承诺，一个重视自身价值的聪明人必然会反向考察公司与面试官。这种行为在潜意识中契合了面试官内心的价值观——“这个人在做我也会做的事”，从而在“认知、喜爱、信任”（Know, Like, Trust）的决策模型中，极速建立起深层信任。安德鲁强调，要将面试成功率提升至可预测的高水准，核心就在于“赢得面试官”：观察对方的肢体语言、语调语速与关键词，同频镜像对方的风格，并借由开放式提问获取信息，形成认知与体验的正向飞轮。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面试沟通飞轮模型 accDescr: 展示面试中通过提问与镜像反馈建立信任的正向循环过程 subgraph Phase1["观察与同频"] A["观察面试官行为语言"] --> B["镜像语调节奏与核心词汇"] end subgraph Phase2["开放式互动"] B --> C["抛出高质量开放式问题"] C --> D["获取信息并沉淀为认知"] end subgraph Phase3["建立深层信任"] D --> E["契合认知/喜爱/信任框架"] E --> F["达成合作共鸣与录取结果"] end F -.->|"强化正向循环"| A ``` ### [02:13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8037s) R.I.C.E. 核心动机框架解析 斯蒂芬谈到了安德鲁之前分享过的 R.I.C.E. 动机模型，并表示自从了解该框架后，在生活与商业面试中几乎无处不在地看到它的身影。安德鲁详细解释了该框架的含义：R.I.C.E. 是情报界用于洞察人类一切行为深层核心动机的缩写工具，分别代表： - **R（Reward，利益回报）**：物质、金钱或实际利益的奖励。 - **I（Ideology，意识形态/价值观）**：内心坚信的信念、使命感或理念认同。 - **C（Coercion，胁迫）**：来自外部的强迫、恐惧或压力。 - **E（Ego，自我/自尊）**：个人的身份认同、自尊心、声望与被认可的渴望。 安德鲁指出，每个人做任何决定的核心动机通常由其中一种主导，而另外三种则以不同权重协同存在。斯蒂芬准确复述了四大动机的强度顺位：**意识形态（Ideology）最强**，其次是**自我（Ego）**，再者是**回报（Reward）**，而**胁迫（Coercion）则是最脆弱、最不可持续的**。斯蒂芬笑称自己记忆深刻是因为在澳大利亚等地的全球巡回演讲中，每场都会在数万人面前播放安德鲁讲解该理论的片段。斯蒂芬补充道，现在不少求职者在面试时会刻意引用他书中的观点或公开采访里的概念（例如“提高实验率”、“接受失败率”、“1% 微小改进的复利效应”），即便斯蒂芬心知肚明对方在投其所好，但这种“将自己的意识形态反弹给自己”的策略依然“该死地有效”。 ### [02:16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8169s) 拆解 18 岁冷邮件中的心理操纵密码 斯蒂芬随后回顾了自己人生转折点上的两封关键冷邮件（Cold Email）：一封是让他拿到了第一笔天使投资、彻底从一个在超市顺手牵羊的贫困辍学生转变为创业者的邮件；另一封则是为他撬动了价值上万英镑专业摄影器材赞助的合作信。现场，斯蒂芬展示了那封发给投资人的原始邮件，邀请安德鲁以 R.I.C.E. 框架进行专业拆解。 斯蒂芬一边自嘲当年糟糕的语法和拼写（信头甚至把“My name is”错写成“My names”），一边念出邮件原文。信中他自称是一名 18 岁且极具商业头脑的英国青年，从 12 岁起就经营小生意赚取体面收入，去年还曾作为青年创业代表登上过 BBC 节目，但他随即在信中写道：“但那些对我来说其实不算什么。”他接着阐述自己与合伙人过去四个月夜以继日筹备的新项目，并写下一句关键话术：“我长期关注您的博客，对您的经历非常熟悉，因此我特别渴望得到您对我目前所做事情的意见与评价。” 安德鲁立刻叫停并圈出了其中的核心心理机制：**“您的博客、您的经历、您的意见”（Your blog, your story, your opinion）**。安德鲁分析指出，年仅 18 岁的斯蒂芬在无意识中极其精准地击中了对方的**自我（Ego）**与**意识形态（Ideology）**。这种表达不仅体现了前期极其详尽的背景调查，更在潜意识里传达出一个强烈的心理信号——“我之所以联系您，是因为我的故事正是您当年故事的镜像”。斯蒂芬证实了这一推断，该投资人当年正是在同一座城市创办了一家面向学生的类似网站，并在成功变现出售后定居摩纳哥成为超级富豪。通过精准锚定对方的成就与经验，斯蒂芬在素未谋面的情况下成功撬开了这位富豪投资人的大门。 ### [02:18:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8326s) 拆解第一封邮件：自曝短板、弱化诉求与误打误撞的情感共鸣 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）继续逐句剖析史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）18岁时写给天使投资人的冷邮件。邮件中写道：“附件中的所有设计图纸均为我自己所做……使用的是微软 Publisher，目前我在网页设计方面毫无专业经验。我现在的阶段是希望找到一位导师/投资人，指导我将网站上线，请告诉我您的想法。” 安德鲁敏锐地指出，在邮件中直接展示并交出自己的原创设计（知识产权），不仅证明史蒂文的付出远超单纯写一封信，而且在心理层面上直接喂养了对方的“自我”（Ego）与“回报”（Reward）——因为接收者能立即看到现成成果，并感觉自己能从中受益。更绝妙的策略在于史蒂文用词的转变：将诉求定位于寻找“导师（Mentor）”而非“投资人（Investor）”。这一微小的调整瞬间为对方卸下了沉重的心理防备，即便对方读完全文，也不会觉得是被来要钱的，而只是在被请求给予一些关注和经验指导。 在邮件结尾，史蒂文写道：“虽然我们已经收到了当地风险投资机构抛来的几个诱人橄榄枝，但我们仍在寻找真正合适的人选。在浏览了您的网站后，我相信您就是那个人。”安德鲁对此评价道，这里再次极度巧妙地放大了对方的自我认知（Ego Play），表现出对该投资人成功轨迹的充分了解与尊重。 有趣的是，安德鲁还发现了一个意想不到的催化剂——史蒂文邮件中那些显眼的拼写错误（typos）。安德鲁打趣说，任谁看这封信都能断定发信人绝不是什么名校精英，但恰恰是这种笨拙与粗糙，极有可能意外触发了对方深层次的“互惠”（Reciprocity）或同理心： > “也许在他当年起步时，也有人曾盲目地给过他一次机会；又或者他自己的学业也曾一塌糊涂，或者他有个在学业中苦苦挣扎的孩子或兄弟。你那满篇的拼写错误反而打破了防备。” 安德鲁总结道，人类的核心驱动力中，最强大的是“意识形态”（Ideology）。当一位身价过亿、阅历无数的超级富豪，面对一个年仅18岁、敢想敢做、甚至有些鲁莽的英国年轻小伙时，潜意识里的意识形态就会被激活：“哪个成功人士不想给一个像极了18岁时的自己、充满胆识的孩子一个机会呢？”史蒂文随后证实，那位投资人当年确实也是在同一座城市、相仿的年纪创立了一个学生网站。 - **减压策略**：在破冰邮件中将索取资金转为索取“建议与指导”，大幅降低对方的拒绝防御心理。 - **瑕疵效应**：年轻创业者信件中的不完美与拼写错误，反而强化了真诚、草根与勇敢的真实画像，唤起成功前辈的提携欲。 - **镜像共鸣**：提前摸清对方背景，让年轻时期的经历形成共鸣，本质上是在用“意识形态”赢得考官。 --- ### [02:22:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8526s) 第二封冷邮件：松下相机赞助、利益回报与意识形态驱动 史蒂文随即拿出了当年发出的另一封经典冷邮件。那是他19岁时群发给10家主流相机品牌（包括三星、松下等）的赞助申请信。令人惊叹的是，在邮件发出48小时之内，松下公司（Panasonic）一位名叫李（Lee）的负责人就回复询问：“你们需要什么样的相机？我们仓库里有一些退货库存，我可以直接寄到你家门口。”果不其然，数天后，一整箱成色崭新的专业相机送抵史蒂文门前，直接解决了他们初创期视频内容制作的核心硬件难题。 安德鲁当场朗读并拆解了这封邮件的内容： > “您好，我叫史蒂文·巴特利特，是一名19岁的在校大学生，正在参与搭建一个激动人心的全新学生网站。自去年3月萌生想法以来，我们已经获得了英格兰西北部所有大学及学生会的全程支持。我们距离网站正式上线仅剩数月，并已获得达美乐（Domino's）和赛百味（Subway）等品牌的鼎力支持，如今我们非常期待能够获得贵公司的协助……” 安德鲁立刻在“达美乐与赛百味”处圈出重点。他指出，搬出知名品牌的背书，不仅瞬间树立了项目的公信力（Credibility），更巧妙地激发了品牌的**竞争本能**——在2012年，面对同为行业龙头的达美乐和赛百味，任何有雄心的商业公司都不甘落后。 邮件随后列举了团队配置：拥有制作激情的传媒与新闻系学生、痴迷代码的网页开发工程师、鼎力支持的高校联盟，以及担任顾问的资深社媒专家。史蒂文在信中承诺，作为回报，他们不仅会在全网展示赞助商标志，还将在每条由学生采编的高清视频片尾为品牌相机进行植入宣传。 安德鲁分析道，这封邮件之所以能打动素不相识的松下员工，核心在于精准击中了**“回报”（Reward）**与**“意识形态”（Ideology）**： 1. **回报维度**：信中描摹了所有未来的潜在消费者——海量的新闻传媒学生、高校社群，而这些人正是相机的刚需用户。 2. **意识形态维度**：支持大学生活动、助力年轻人追梦，本身就符合大型跨国企业的品牌公关价值观。 --- ### [02:25:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8724s) 胁迫的本质是一座牢笼：何时该用，为何慎用？ 在复盘两封邮件时，史蒂文提出疑问：他在第一封邮件中提到“已收到其他风投机构抛来的橄榄枝”，在第二封邮件中提到“已获得其他知名品牌赞助”，这种制造竞争压力、暗示自己奇货可居的做法，是否属于 R.I.C.E. 模型中的“胁迫”（Coercion）？ 安德鲁坚决否认了这种看法。他阐明，“胁迫”的本质是利用羞耻感（shame）、愧疚感（guilt）或恐惧等负面情绪压迫对方就范。而展示竞争与替代选项完全不属于负面刺激，相反，健康的竞争是建立商业信任的常规法则： > “永远向外界表明你有其他机会，哪怕你其实没有。你甚至随时都有‘彻底放弃不干了’这一项选择，所以你永远都有其他选项。” 谈及 R.I.C.E. 模型中的“胁迫”，史蒂文追问：冷邮件或商务沟通中是否真的存在使用“胁迫”的合理场景？安德鲁直言，胁迫确实可以使用，但必须极其克制，因为它的副作用是毁灭性的： - **信任崩塌**：一旦动用胁迫手段，此前辛苦建立起来的信任关系将被彻底撕裂。 - **囚徒困境**：胁迫就像一个牢笼。当你把对方关进笼子时，你确实拥有绝对的控制权；但只要笼门打开、威胁解除，对方会立刻逃离，且永远不会再踏入其中。因此，使用胁迫往往意味着“要么只能用一次，要么必须无休止地持续胁迫下去”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: R.I.C.E. Framework in Cold Pitching accDescr: 比较自我、意识形态、回报与胁迫四种驱动力在沟通中的表现与后果 subgraph Constructive ["高阶正向驱动（建议主导）"] E["E - 自我 (Ego)<br/>认可对方成就，诚恳请教"] I["I - 意识形态 (Ideology)<br/>激发提携后辈情怀，唤醒共鸣"] R["R - 回报 (Reward)<br/>提供潜在商业曝光，让利益显性化"] end subgraph Destructive ["高危负向驱动（极度慎用）"] C["C - 胁迫 (Coercion)<br/>基于愧疚、羞耻或威胁施压"] Cage["笼子效应<br/>破坏既有信任，导致关系不可逆破裂"] end E --> Win["赢得同盟与资源"] I --> Win R --> Win C --> Cage ``` --- ### [02:26:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8811s) 职场快速建立影响力的“4C法则”：从“考量对方”起步 随着话题深入，史蒂文引出了安德鲁常年在情报与咨询工作中运用的另一套核心工具——快速在职场与团队中建立影响力的**“4C法则”**。安德鲁详细列举了构成该框架的四个核心要素： 1. **考量 / 体贴（Consideration）** 2. **一致性（Consistency）** 3. **协作（Collaboration）** 4. **控制（Control）** 安德鲁首先深入拆解了第一个核心要素“考量”（Consideration）。在法律语境中，Consideration 往往指代具有法律效力的对价，但在人际影响力的维度上，它代表着极深维度的**换位思考（Perspective）**： > “考量意味着我彻底置身于你的处境之中。我去设想你的生活面临着什么——你是我的上司，或是我的同事；你同样有家庭要顾，下班后也想健身锻炼，也背负着养家糊口的生计压力，你的渴望与挣扎与我毫无二致。如果我能比你更快一步看清你的立场与难处，我就在这场博弈中占据了绝对的优势。” 安德鲁强调，先于对手或同僚建立对他人现实情境的洞察，是实现所有后续影响与合作的前提基石。 ### [02:27:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8867s) 影响力的“4C模型”：一致性、协作与控制 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）继续深入拆解构建影响力的关键架构。在谈及第一项“顾及/体谅”（Consideration）时，他补充道，没读过法学院的普通人往往没有意识到，“Consideration”（对价/考量）在法律层面也是同一个核心概念，即站在他人视角去衡量与置换价值。 紧接着是第二项“一致性”（Consistency）。布斯塔曼特指出，一致性蕴含着极其强大的力量，因为在现实中极少有人能够真正做到言行一致，绝大多数人都是反复无常的。他提到史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）之前在 LinkedIn 上提到的某位朋友，连关于饮酒的观点和立场都无法保持统一。破坏自身影响力、说服力以及与他人之间理解信任关系最快的方式，就是“前后矛盾”。没有人愿意把情感和关系投资在一个信念、价值观、言行或金钱支出上颠三倒四的人身上。一致性能够给人带来舒适感与信心。当危机来临、“子弹在空中呼啸、局势全面失控”时，每个人都希望身边的人是绝对可靠且行为可预测的，即便你个人并不喜欢对方，只要对方具备一致性，你依然能对其产生信任。 第三项是“协作”（Collaboration），这也是影响力模型中至关重要的一环。大多数人总在追求所谓的“妥协”（Compromise），但在布斯塔曼特看来，妥协本质上是一个极差的烂交易（"That's a shit deal"）——它意味着你没得到你想要的，我没得到我想要的，大家各退一步选了一个谁都不喜欢但勉强接受的折中方案。妥协的政府永远在失去，而协作的政府永远在收获。真正的“协作”是指：你带着你的想法，我带着我的想法，双方碰撞结合，共同创造出对彼此都更好的“第三种解决方案”。 第四项则是绝大多数人在构建影响力时最容易丢失的环节——“控制”（Control）。控制意味着当你通过前三个“C”（顾及、一致性、协作）积累了足够的社交益处后，必须能够果断兑现并采取行动去拿到你想要的结果。这包括主动要求上镜、争取某个难得的机会、索要面试机会、请求对方帮忙，或者直接走进老板办公室，明确表示自己已经准备好晋升为主管，或者要求在圣诞节休假。通过调动前期积累的信任与协作基础，在关键时刻行使对局势的主导权。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 影响力的 4C 架构 accDescr: 展示从顾及他人视角、保持言行一致、共同协作到最终行使控制以达成目标的流程 subgraph Build ["积累社交资本"] C1["1. 顾及 (Consideration)<br/>理解对方视角与对价"] C2["2. 一致性 (Consistency)<br/>言行与价值观稳定可预测"] C3["3. 协作 (Collaboration)<br/>碰撞出共赢的第三种方案"] C1 --> C2 --> C3 end subgraph Execute ["变现与控制"] C4["4. 控制 (Control)<br/>果断行使杠杆，争取实际诉求"] end Build -->|汇聚为庞大的社交资本| C4 ``` - **妥协 vs 协作**：妥协是双输的折中（谁都没拿到最想要的），协作是合力创造超越双方预期的第三种成果。 - **一致性是信任基石**：即便个人偏好不喜欢某人，但只要其行为模式保持高度一致，依然能在危机时刻赢得他人的依赖。 - **控制的本质**：若只做前三项而不行使控制，积累的势能就无法转化为实质产出。 --- ### [02:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9050s) 社交资本与残酷的领导力真相：领导者极少被人喜欢 布斯塔曼特解释道，在中央情报局兰利总部（Langley, Virginia）的高墙之内，情报官员并不使用“影响力”这个词，而是将其统称为“社交资本”（Social Capital）。就像银行里的真实货币一样，通过“4C模型”建立影响力的过程，就是在往社交资本的储蓄账户里存钱——你建立起了互惠机制、杠杆、人情和欠条（IOUs）。当你手里握着这一大笔资金时，你唯一能做的事情就是花掉它去达成战略目的，而这正是“控制”（Control）的真实含义。 巴特利特随即询问，这是否就是伟大领导者所做的事。布斯塔曼特直言不讳地揭示了领导力不为人知的阴暗面：人们必须承认，优秀的领导者极少会“受人喜欢”（leaders are very rarely liked）。领导者会被尊重，会被信任，但几乎很少被喜爱；他们可能在一百年后像已故艺术家那样受人爱戴，但在行事的当下，他们往往是不招人喜欢的。 其核心原因就在于领导者必须行使“控制”。没有人喜欢被控制、被施加杠杆、被推销或承受巨大压力。然而，当你手握社交资本与权力时，你必须运用它来推进既定的愿景。如果一个人对他人极为体贴、处事始终如一、也极具协作精神，却从来不敢行使控制权，那这个人根本算不上领导者——他充其量只是一个“积极的追随者”（assertive follower）、一个可靠的搭档、同僚或者好朋友。面对巴特利特关于这是否意味着“懦弱”的提问，布斯塔曼特厘清道，这不是懦弱，因为并不是所有人都想当领导者；但如果某人渴望成为领导者却不敢运用手中的杠杆去施加控制，那他充其量只是一个“抱有希望的学徒”。领导力从来不是自封的头衔，而是靠实际行动证明的：“率领零人军队的人不是将军；带领千军万马却不自称领袖的人，依然是不折不扣的领袖。” - **兰利的术语**：CIA 内部视人际关系为“社交资本”（Social Capital），由互惠、人情和杠杆构成。 - **领导力与讨喜的悖论**：追求“受人喜爱”会直接削弱执行力；真正的领袖靠尊重与信任推动控制，而非迎合他人。 - **伪领导者的画像**：具备关怀、一致性与协作，却在临门一脚不敢行使控制权并承担冲突。 --- ### [02:34:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9257s) 伟大领袖的核心特质：诚实、客观与注定孤寂的勇气 在谈及伟大领导者必备的核心要素时，布斯塔曼特列出了三项不可或缺的特质：诚实（Honesty）、客观性（Objectivity）与超凡的勇气（Courage）。 首先，领导者必须对自己看到、感受到和经历的事物保持绝对诚实与客观。真正的领导力在于践行愿景并感召众人追随。如果无法客观认清残酷的现实，就绝不可能描绘出切合实际的宏图，更无法点燃追随者的热情。 其次，领导者必须具备惊人的勇气，因为他们时刻在做自己害怕的事情：承受未知风险、挑战错误认知、牺牲家庭与陪伴孩子的时间，甚至在做决定时踩到公司半数人的脚趾。布斯塔曼特直言：“要想成为领导者，你必须拥有伤害身边 80% 的人的勇气。”如果团队成员的步伐与终极愿景不一致，领导者就必须动用手段将其纠正归位——这可能意味着传达刺耳的坏消息、当头棒喝，甚至直接将其边缘化或淘汰。 最后，布斯塔曼特强调，领导力中最核心、也最残酷的一项要求，就是坦然接受“永恒的孤独”（accepting that you will be lonely forever）。古往今来，无论是战火中的将军还是坐在椭圆办公室的总统，无一不体验过高处不胜寒的孤寂感。历任美国总统上任后迅速斑白的双鬓正是这种极度重压与孤独的写照。他打趣道，米歇尔·奥巴马（Michelle Obama）白发时肯定依然光彩照人，但玩笑背后，如果一个人没有面对孤独的勇气，他就根本不配领导他人。 - **客观与诚实**：唯有直面现实的灰度，才能绘制出具备可行性且能激发信心的未来愿景。 - **承受冲突的勇气**：领导力不是讨好大众，而是为了大局敢于得罪甚至伤害绝大部分人的舒适区。 - **领袖的宿命是孤独**：高层决策的重量无法分担，不具备承受绝对孤独心理素质的人无法胜任领袖之位。 --- ### [02:36:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9403s) 把人视为投资：在有限生命中追求跨代 ROI 听到这里，巴特利特试探性地问道：“你穿行在这个世界上，是否在内心深处把所有人都看作提线木偶（puppets）？” 布斯塔曼特坚定地否认了木偶的说法。他解释道，自己确实拥有一种极为理性冷峻的视角，但他不是把人看作木偶，而是看作“值得投资或不值得投资的资产”（worthy or unworthy investments）。 他把这一思维方式与自己早年失去祖母的经历联系起来：人生极为短暂，每个人一生中拥有的时间、分钟、秒数和呼吸次数都是极其有限的常量。因此，他深感自己有幸在情报机关习得了一项宝贵的特权技能——能够以极快的速度甄别出谁才真正值得他浪费呼吸与精力。对于那些值得的人，他会毫不吝啬地投入自己的语言、思想、行动和生命时光；而这种投资所追求的投资回报率（ROI），往往并不是为了图谋当下的现世回报，而是为了能够长远地回馈给自己的下一代，甚至惠及子孙后代。 - **木偶论的驳斥**：间谍技术并非为了肆意操纵他人，而是建立精准的人际估值模型。 - **时间与呼吸的稀缺性**：生命是有限额的倒计时，社交的核心策略是快速筛选值得投入生命成本的对象。 - **跨代 ROI**：最顶级的社交投资不追求短期利益交换，而是着眼于为后代构筑长久的福祉与资产。 ### [02:37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9459s) 关系的本质是交易：摆脱无底洞式的消耗 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）深入剖析了他看待人际关系的底层逻辑。他坦言，自己所做的一切努力与教导，最终都是为了子孙后代——那些认同并运用这些技能的人将塑造未来的世界，而未来的世界是属于他家人的。正因如此，他许多人际交往的本质都可以归结为“交易”。他尖锐地指出：“所有的关系本质上都是交易性的，只是我们不愿意承认罢了。”许多人常常陷入没有投资回报率（ROI）的人际关系中，甚至不断将情感与精力投入到一个永远得不到回报的“无底洞”里，最终感到被困、迷茫或遭人遗弃。安德鲁直言，与其在错误的糟糕关系中盲目空转，他宁愿保持清醒，从胜负与价值交换的角度来审视互动。 针对斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出的疑问——“如果把一切都看作交易，生活是否会显得有些可悲？”安德鲁澄清道，主动把所有事都当成冷酷交易，与“理性接纳事物的交易本质”有着本质区别。他并不会将妻子或孩子仅仅视作获取回报的工具，但他完全接纳家庭关系中的价值置换机制：家人渴望爱、关注与陪伴，而作为回应，他们也会给予同等的爱与温情，共同创造美好的回忆。他举例说，如果自己需要出差 12 天，他必须在出发前的 12 天里加倍投入精力维系感情、积累好感度，这就好比去银行贷款前必须提前提交材料拿到预先审批。理清这种机制，非但不会让人变得冷酷，反而能让人把精力集中在真正值得深交的纯粹关系上。 斯蒂芬对此深表认同，并感慨生活中太多人将大好时光白白消耗在毫无价值的“寄生型”关系中——无休止的早午餐聚会、长达两小时的无聊电话、WhatsApp 上的琐碎寒暄，全是对生命能量的无谓挥霍。安德鲁强调，面对任何关系，每个人都应当毫无负罪感地问自己一句：“这段关系到底给我带来了什么？”这绝非自私，而是一个优秀领导者必须具备的客观、诚实与负责任的态度。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 关系认知框架对比 accDescr: 对比传统感性关系视角与理性交易视角在精力投入与回报上的差异 subgraph 消耗型模式["盲目消耗型模式"] A["无底洞式关系"] --> B["持续单向情感投入"] B --> C["缺乏回报与边界"] C --> D["陷入困顿、内耗与疲惫"] end subgraph 理性客观看法["理性价值交换模式"] E["接纳关系的互动机制"] --> F["客观评估 ROI 与双向反馈"] F --> G["主动积累人际好感资产"] G --> H["腾出精力深耕核心家庭与伙伴关系"] end ``` - **人际交往的预审批机制**：建立人际关系好感就像银行贷款，若想在未来支取理解与宽容（如长途出差），必须在事前持续存入时间与情绪价值。 - **领导者的客观自省**：勇于审视人际关系是否对自己产生积极作用，是摆脱社交内耗、实现自我问责的必要思维。 --- ### [02:41:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9708s) 即将出版的新书《Red Cell》与中情局的审查 对话转向了安德鲁正在筹备的新书。斯蒂芬提到上次见面时该书仍在等待审查，安德鲁确认中情局（CIA）目前仍未正式批准出版，但预计在当月底会获得正式批复。不仅作者本人在焦急等待，出版商也对中情局漫长而严格的审查流程感到神经紧绷。这部命名为《红细胞》（*Red Cell*）的新书预计将于 2025 年夏季正式面世，届时会提前开启预售通道。 安德鲁透露，这部书是他与妻子首次获准公开他们共同作为中情局秘密外勤夫妻档（tandem clandestine couple）的作战执勤经历。书中详细披露了他们当年如何在严酷的外勤环境中协同开展间谍行动、如何在极高压的特工任务与夫妻婚姻之间维持平衡，以及他们围绕自身打造的核心团队。由于这种双特工夫妻搭档在当时极为罕见且极度敏感，而中情局向来对公开敏感行动故事讳莫如深，因此出版过程经历了极为严苛的保密合规审核。 斯蒂芬由衷赞叹安德鲁一直以来的坦诚与务实，认为他从不做虚伪的情感标榜或道德说教（virtue signaling），而是以成熟成年人的视角直击现实本质。虽然网络评论区里总有阴谋论者坚信他依然受雇于中情局，但大众对他的极高信任度正是源于这份真实。安德鲁提供的并非不切实际的鸡汤，而是一套套可落地的行动框架，帮助那些被困在狭隘认知“木棚”中的普通人找到破局希望与改变命运的路径。 - **新书核心信息**：书名暂定为《Red Cell》，记录安德鲁与妻子兼搭档在中情局实战一线的秘密行动史与婚姻协作细节。 - **获取资源的渠道**：除官方平台 `everydayspy.com` 外，相关教学与播客内容同步更新于 YouTube 频道 Everyday Spy 以及各大社交平台同名账号。 --- ### [02:44:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9868s) 压轴提问：关于来生信仰与认知失调的哲学拷问 节目录制接近尾声，斯蒂芬抛出了每期节目的传统保留环节——由上一位飞行嘉宾留给下一位嘉宾的私密提问。本期留给安德鲁的问题极具哲学深度：“无论你倾向于相信还是不相信人死后存在来世，如果有一天你的这个核心信念被确凿无疑地证明是彻底错误的，这会如何改变你当下的行为举止？” 安德鲁略作沉思后坦承，他倾向于相信存在某种形式的来世，尽管人类有限的认知可能根本无法构想那究竟是怎样的一种存在。然而，面对“信念被彻底证伪”的假设，他给出了一个特工式的真实反应：如果突然出现绝对证据证明没有来世，他的第一反应大概率是去反复质疑和挑战那些所谓的“证据”。因为当一个根植脑海多年的底层信念突然被推翻时，人类本能会陷入剧烈的认知失调（cognitive dissonance），绝不可能像抛硬币一样轻松地一笑而过承认自己错了。 斯蒂芬随即进一步引导这个思想实验：假设在逻辑层面上，你已经彻底接受了这项无可辩驳的证据，完全接纳了“死后即是一切终结”的新现实，那么你的生活态度与现实行为是否会发生实质转变？安德鲁赞同这种解读的合理性，并开始深入剖析当永恒的预期被瞬间抽离后，一个人对待当下生命每分每秒的根本重塑。 - **核心信念的坚韧性**：面对颠覆性证据时，人们往往优先调动心智去挑战证据本身，而非瞬间推翻自我认同。 - **认知失调与接纳**：在极端的逻辑设定下，当既定精神支柱被打破，个体对世俗当下价值的感知与生活方式势必经历一场深刻的再校准。 ### [02:46:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=10006s) 假如死后一无所有：对死亡与风险认知的深层反思 安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）深入探讨了假使自己确信没有来世，生命会发生怎样的转变。他坦言，如果明知没有第二次生命、没有来世的机会、死后无法化身进入孩子的梦境、没有天堂也没有涅槃，闭眼后只有纯粹的无尽黑暗，那么他对待现世的态度将会变得无比谨慎与克制。因为这是他仅有的一次机会，他会全身心地投入到眼前的每一个当下。当史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问这是否会改变他过去所做的决定时，安德鲁忍不住苦笑叹道：“天哪，这个问题真操蛋……提得很好，但答案很烂。” 如果能够带着这种认知重新活过，安德鲁表示自己会彻底改变人生轨道，绝不会去冒任何身体上的物理危险。他列举了一长串曾经热衷的极限体验与选择——他绝不会去学骑摩托车、绝不会去跳伞、绝不会练习自由潜水、绝不会去航海，甚至“绝不会加入中央情报局（CIA）”。倘若确认人生仅此一遭，没有任何翻盘或延续的可能，他大概会选择过一种极其平淡、乏味且高度保守的生活。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 来世信念对个人风险承受度的影响 accDescr: 对比确信无来世与育儿后对生活决策和冒险倾向的不同心理机制 subgraph Mindset["无来世信念的心理推论"] A["确信无来世/无第二人生"] --> B["身体风险承受度降至最低"] B --> C["放弃跳伞/机车/CIA潜入等极限冒险"] C --> D["倾向过保守、平稳、无风浪的生活"] end subgraph Parenthood["为人父母后的心理重构"] E["迎来新生命/成为父母"] --> F["意识到行动波及至亲命运"] F --> G["对自身死亡产生实质恐惧"] G --> H["风险承受偏好发生根本性逆转"] end ``` ### [02:47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=10073s) 孩子的降临如何重塑人类对死亡与风险的容忍度 史蒂芬提出了完全相反的对照视角：他本人目前并不相信来世的存在，但他依然会去跳伞，并且乐于承担各种风险。他很安于死后空无一物的设定，正如喜剧演员瑞奇·热维斯（Ricky Gervais）曾说过的逻辑：一百年前你未出生时感觉如何，死后也就是同一种虚无。安德鲁听后直截了当地向史蒂芬下战书：“等你有孩子六周后，咱们坐下来喝杯啤酒，再来重新聊聊这个问题。”安德鲁指出，孩子的降生会彻底打破一个人的风险认知框架，彻底改变你对自身涉险的容忍极限。 史蒂芬随即证实了安德鲁的观点，并分享了他亲哥哥杰森（Jason）的亲身经历。杰森比史蒂芬大一岁，拥有三个孩子，在投资银行做了12年的精算师，在数学与概率评估方面是不折不扣的天才专家。然而，就是这样一位极度理性的学者型人物，却曾对史蒂芬坦白过一段听起来近乎荒谬的心里话：“我知道这完全不合逻辑，但除非我的孩子们跟我坐同一班飞机，否则我绝不登机。” - **精算师的悖论感知**：虽然精算数据明示飞机是极度安全的交通工具，但身为父亲后，情感风险完全凌驾于数学概率之上。 - **父母的终极担忧机制**：如果飞机不幸失事，身为父母宁愿与孩子共同面对生死瞬间并在最后一刻安慰他们，也不愿留下年幼的孩子在这个世界上承受失去父亲依靠的余生。 安德鲁深有同感地表示，自己近期与他人也有过几乎一模一样的交流。当旁人质疑“怕坠机为什么还要把孩子也带上飞机”时，安德鲁的直觉是：即便万一坠机，他至少能在生死关头给孩子一个拥抱，而不是让孩子孤独无依地活着。虽然没当过父母的人可能觉得这种心态匪夷所思，但有了子女后，个人生命就再也不单纯属于自己，死亡恐惧从此深深植根于对家庭的责任感之中。 ### [02:51:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=10263s) 尾声致谢与赞助支持 对谈在极其融洽的气氛中进入尾声。史蒂芬对安德鲁毫无保留的倾囊相授与深邃洞见表达了由衷的敬佩与感谢，称赞安德鲁在各个层面都称得上是“绝无仅有的一位访客（One of a Kind）”，不仅带给听众难以估量的启发，也让这场对谈充满温度与智慧。安德鲁同样真诚致谢，高度赞赏史蒂芬极其充分扎实的前期准备，并表示与如此用心的主持人深入对话是一次无比享受、愉悦的经历。 节目的最后部分插播了史蒂芬对其投资的健康能量饮品品牌 PerfectTed 的商业推荐： - **品牌高速扩张**：这罐绿色健康能量饮品在短时间内增长近 10,000%，迅速入驻了英国各大连锁零售巨头如 Tesco 与 Waitrose。 - **产品核心特质**：选用健康纯净的抹茶能量替代传统劣质能量饮料，不仅提供持久专注力，更彻底杜绝了因咖啡因骤升而导致的身体崩溃感（Crash），专为持续数小时的长播客录制设计。 - **听众专属优惠**：节目为《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的专属听众提供了限时 40% 的大幅折扣（结账时输入优惠码：`DIARY40`）。 ## Notable quotes > [01:04:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=3852s) Everybody knows he won the election on that day. The day he survived that shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, July 13th, he won the 2024 election. — Andrew Bustamante > [01:23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=4985s) Why would you ever go through something when you can go around it? — Andrew Bustamante > [44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=2640s) What's front of mind for you at the moment? — Steven Bartlett > [01:52:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=6754s) 你必须愿意惹恼 80% 的人，才能赢得属于你的那 20%。 — Steven Bartlett > [01:56:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7000s) Whoop 让夫妻重新成为并肩作战的战友团队。 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:07:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=7670s) 在面试中问的问题，要比面试官问得还要多 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:18:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8326s) 虽然我们已经收到了当地风险投资机构抛来的几个诱人橄榄枝，但我们仍在寻找真正合适的人选。在浏览了您的网站后，我相信您就是那个人。 — Steven Bartlett > [02:18:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8326s) 哪个成功人士不想给一个像极了18岁时的自己、充满胆识的孩子一个机会呢？ — Andrew Bustamante > [02:25:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=8724s) 永远向外界表明你有其他机会，哪怕你其实没有。你甚至随时都有‘彻底放弃不干了’这一项选择，所以你永远都有其他选项。 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:30:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9050s) 率领零人军队的人不是将军；带领千军万马却不自称领袖的人，依然是不折不扣的领袖。 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:34:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9257s) 要想成为领导者，你必须拥有伤害身边 80% 的人的勇气。 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=9459s) 所有的关系本质上都是交易性的，只是我们不愿意承认罢了。 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=10073s) 等你有孩子六周后，咱们坐下来喝杯啤酒，再来重新聊聊这个问题。 — Andrew Bustamante > [02:47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA&t=10073s) 我知道这完全不合逻辑，但除非我的孩子们跟我坐同一班飞机，否则我绝不登机。 — Jason Bartlett ## Mentioned Andrew Bustamante, Steven Bartlett, Everyday Spy, CIA (中央情报局), FBI, Green Beret, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Simon Sinek, Francis Ngannou, Mo Gawdat, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dennis Rodman, Fidel Castro, Edward Snowden, Aldrich Ames, George W. Bush, Napster, LimeWire, Harley-Davidson, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru, The Matrix, 9/11 Commission Report, Piers Morgan, Elon Musk, Medik8, Fiverr, Fiverr Neo, Whoop, 微软 Publisher, BBC, 松下 (Panasonic), 达美乐 (Domino's), 赛百味 (Subway), 《Red Cell》, Ricky Gervais, Jason Bartlett, PerfectTed, Tesco, Waitrose ## Video description Andrew Bustamante is a former covert CIA intelligence officer and US Air Force combat veteran. He is the founder of Everyday Spy, an online education platform that provides people with useful spy skills for everyday life. He is also the host of the ‘Everyday Spy Podcast’. 00:00 Intro 01:56 What is Andrew doing now? 04:35 What is every day spy? 07:16 Your perspective on the world before the CI 10:02 Why the CIA chose Andrew? 12:37 Is there anything we can do once we know there's a system 18:52 The importance of awareness in our society 20:07 Living in a state of your own barriers 24:20 'Cheating' in the context of cheating 26:24 How to break free of the system 28:37 Knowledge, information & experience 30:07 Real life examples of how you've helped people 31:17 How to train people to have perception and perspective 38:25 Getting into someone else's perspective 41:16 Asking open-ended questions to get into someone's reality 46:54 We should gamble on our lives when the odds are in our favor 50:32 Who can't be taught these CIA skills 52:23 Reaching an equal point with China 54:06 What history tells us about changing superpowers 57:20 Is the war in Ukraine & Russia a symptom of a change in power? 01:00:46 Current State of US politics, there's only one person that can beat Trump 01:07:07 Was Trump's shooting a staged assassination? 01:16:16 If that bullet had hit Donald Trump, how would things be different 01:19:31 How to bend the world for success 01:23:05 CIA skills for overcoming trauma 01:27:31 How do we know if we're wired for success? 01:33:35 What is your favorite case study? 01:36:56 How do we influence people? 01:40:05 The influence framework 01:44:05 Know, like, trust framework 01:47:15 The power of polarity, what marketing strategy builds more influence 01:54:21 How to persuade someone 02:01:50 How to get any job 02:13:57 The R.I.C.E framework 02:26:47 The 4 Cs of influence 02:31:44 What a great leader does 02:34:13 The core components of a great leader 02:36:43 Seeing every interaction as a transaction 02:41:48 Your book Want to learn more from Andy? Find your Spy Superpower: https://yt.everydayspy.com/DOAC Follow Andy on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@Andrew-Bustamante Explore Spy School: https://everydayspy.com/ Join the podcast: https://youtube.com/@EverydaySpyPodcast You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb Sponsors: Fiverr: https://www.fiverr.com/diary PerfectTed: https://bit.ly/PerfectTed-DOAC with an exclusive code DIARY40 for 40% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_A8XElrAqA)

[64:12] Andrew Bustamante: Everybody knows he won the election on that day. The day he survived that shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, July 13th, he won the 2024 election. [83:05] Andrew Bustamante: Why would you ever go through something when you can go around it? [44:00] Steven Bartlett: What's front of mind for you at the moment? [112:34] Steven Bartlett: 你必须愿意惹恼 80% 的人，才能赢得属于你的那 20%。 [116:40] Andrew Bustamante: Whoop 让夫妻重新成为并肩作战的战友团队。 [127:50] Andrew Bustamante: 在面试中问的问题，要比面试官问得还要多 [138:46] Steven Bartlett: 虽然我们已经收到了当地风险投资机构抛来的几个诱人橄榄枝，但我们仍在寻找真正合适的人选。在浏览了您的网站后，我相信您就是那个人。 [138:46] Andrew Bustamante: 哪个成功人士不想给一个像极了18岁时的自己、充满胆识的孩子一个机会呢？ [145:24] Andrew Bustamante: 永远向外界表明你有其他机会，哪怕你其实没有。你甚至随时都有‘彻底放弃不干了’这一项选择，所以你永远都有其他选项。 [150:50] Andrew Bustamante: 率领零人军队的人不是将军；带领千军万马却不自称领袖的人，依然是不折不扣的领袖。 [154:17] Andrew Bustamante: 要想成为领导者，你必须拥有伤害身边 80% 的人的勇气。 [157:39] Andrew Bustamante: 所有的关系本质上都是交易性的，只是我们不愿意承认罢了。 [167:53] Andrew Bustamante: 等你有孩子六周后，咱们坐下来喝杯啤酒，再来重新聊聊这个问题。 [167:53] Jason Bartlett: 我知道这完全不合逻辑，但除非我的孩子们跟我坐同一班飞机，否则我绝不登机。

[4:35] Andrew Bustamante: I don't feel like they took me out of the shed... I feel like what they did is they just shattered the glass and there I was looking at the world for what it really was. [18:52] Andrew Bustamante: The value of the challenge is greater than the value of the reward in their perspective. And in reality, it's the other way around. [26:24] Andrew Bustamante: There's multiple different versions of truth. There may only be one fact, but there's multiple versions of truth. [32:35] Andrew Bustamante: When you are untrained to think like a spy, you rely on passive knowledge... All a spy does is when they talk to you, they turn on the prefrontal part right away and they start paying attention to all the details right away. [43:51] Andrew Bustamante: Courage is a word that is definable and people don't often take the time to really define what courage is. Courage is doing the thing that you're afraid of. [50:32] Andrew Bustamante: If you can take the information and test the framework and get ahead, does it matter? [54:06] Andrew Bustamante: When there's a clear bully in the playground, there's only one bully and nobody has to mess with the bully... But what happens when there's two bullies? Shit gets messy. [73:29] Andrew Bustamante: Prior to September 11th, CIA was a small, highly funded organization with very little oversight... a well-funded free-for-all. [83:05] Andrew Bustamante: Therapists and counselors... tell you to go through your pain... whereas what I teach, which is what CIA teaches, is why would you ever go through something when you can go around it? [91:17] Andrew Bustamante: They don't even realize that one or two or three or four more attempts is going to be when they get their big breakthrough. All they need is a recipe. [99:00] Andrew Bustamante: Persuasion takes energy. Influence is passive... Influence is what happens when something happens in the world and I'm the one that comes into your mind. [146:47] Andrew Bustamante: When you engage in the process of building influence using the four Cs, what you're actually building is a savings account of Social Capital... And when you have this pile of money, the only thing that you can do with a pile of money is spend it.

[0:00] the majority of people they're still [0:01] seeing the world through a lens that was [0:04] built for them and they want more they [0:06] just don't know how to do it so what I [0:08] teach which is what CIA teaches is how [0:10] to see the world in the way it really is [0:13] here's what I'm going to tell you [0:14] andreon is back a former CIA officer and [0:18] founder of everyday spy a company on a [0:20] mission to help you get anything you [0:21] want in life with the skills the CIA [0:24] taught him we don't know the recipe for [0:26] Success our society doesn't teach us the [0:28] plan the framework the process that's [0:30] what CIA did for us they just taught us [0:32] a simple system and one gentleman one of [0:34] the Frameworks that we taught him helped [0:36] him get a $32,000 raise we had one [0:39] person say I followed your framework I [0:41] wenton over the interviewer now I have [0:43] this job that I would have never gotten [0:44] otherwise but I'm not surprised when [0:45] they happened because of course the [0:46] recipes work because they were refined [0:49] in the center of CIA so first we have an [0:52] exercise called get quiet and in a get [0:54] quiet exercise all you do is just the [0:56] reason that we do that is because we [0:58] have the informational Advantage going [1:00] into any situation interesting then [1:02] there's the four seas of building [1:03] influence rapidly so if you want to [1:04] build influence the first thing we have [1:06] to do is and now you actually take the [1:08] action to get what you want so what [1:09] about persuasion then how do I persuade [1:11] somebody persuasion is a process that's [1:13] much easier it really is as simple as [1:16] finally the secret sauce at CIA that we [1:18] know that most people don't understand [1:21] is that now you can do whatever you need [1:24] to improve yourself and your [1:28] life the DAR a raffle is about to close [1:32] anyone that subscribes to the D Co [1:34] before we hit 7 million subscribers [1:36] which is probably going to be in a [1:37] couple of days time you will be included [1:40] in the raffle and on the day we hit 7 [1:42] million subscribers we are giving away a [1:44] lot of money can't buy prizes to all of [1:47] you so hit the Subscribe button get in [1:49] before 7 million and I'll announce the [1:51] prizes and the winners in the comments [1:53] below when we hit 7 million [1:58] subscribers Andrew what is it you're [2:01] doing in this season of your life you [2:03] know it's an interesting question I [2:05] actually just lost my grandmother [2:06] recently in the last week or so and my [2:08] grandmother was one of the two women [2:10] that raised me I didn't have a father I [2:12] mentioned that to you the last time I [2:13] was here um and it was a moment that [2:18] struck me because mortality became very [2:21] real it makes [2:24] everything clearer it makes you realize [2:27] what actually matters and what doesn't [2:29] matter it it shows you that the days [2:32] that we have aren't actually guaranteed [2:34] to us even though we take them for [2:35] granted every day I don't know I don't [2:37] know if my flight home is g to actually [2:41] happen I don't know if I'm going to step [2:42] out of this studio and get hit by a car [2:44] I don't know if my child isn't going to [2:46] get hit by a car playing in the driveway [2:47] tomorrow because life is so [2:50] fragile and we don't think about it [2:53] until we watch its [2:55] fragility dissolve in front of us we [2:58] hear about tragedy but tragedy is always [2:59] happening somewhere [3:01] else [3:03] it's it's so real and yet we don't [3:07] realize it every day it's a good thing [3:09] we [3:10] don't that's that's the truth that's how [3:13] it feels right now for me as well I kind [3:14] of wish I could go back to being [3:16] ignorant again it's that Matrix red pill [3:18] blue pill moment where I kind of wish I [3:20] could go back in and forget the reality [3:23] and and forget that mortality is reality [3:26] and so does that change your your [3:28] priorities in life in any way it does [3:32] like the biggest way that it's affecting [3:34] me right now is really with business [3:36] because you know we had a conversation [3:38] not too long ago where I was very [3:40] focused on trying to Triple the size of [3:41] the business this year because we had [3:43] been tripling the year before and we had [3:44] tripled the year before that and it [3:46] became this arbitrary number this this [3:48] scorecard where I wanted to continue [3:50] having this achievement and then what I [3:52] found is that scaling a business is no [3:54] easy thing and the struggles that come [3:57] from [3:58] scaling were [4:00] consuming the majority of my focus all [4:03] the time until this moment happened with [4:05] my grandmother and then all of a sudden [4:07] I realized I have a team of people who [4:10] can scale the business I don't have to [4:12] scale it I just have to empower the team [4:14] to do what the team does and my job is [4:17] very different my job is to enable [4:19] Empower encourage direct lead manage [4:23] their efforts but it's their job to grow [4:26] it I can take some of that time and put [4:28] it into the people that matter to me the [4:31] people that surround me the people who [4:33] have made me who I am the people like [4:35] the woman on the couch that I was [4:36] visiting in her death bed the business [4:39] you're referring to is called everyday [4:40] spy right yes sir what is everyday spy [4:42] what is the mission of that business the [4:44] mission of everyday spy is to use spy [4:46] education to break barriers for everyone [4:50] willing to learn and what is spy [4:52] education spy education is anything from [4:54] specific spy skills cognitive skills [4:56] physical skills it can be breaking myths [4:58] about what spies are and what spies are [5:00] not B bursting conspiracy theories [5:03] teaching spy uh processes and Frameworks [5:07] to everyone from entrepreneurs to [5:09] business owners and CEOs so that they [5:11] can use those same Frameworks to improve [5:14] their leadership to improve their sales [5:15] to improve their revenue or their [5:17] organization do you um do you do you [5:19] ever have a bit of a you you're a guy [5:21] that thinks quite big picture about [5:22] things um and sometimes think are Level [5:24] above everybody else do you um do you [5:27] think the people you teach these things [5:29] to know what they're looking for in life [5:31] do you think they actually know what [5:32] they're aiming at no I don't and I'll [5:35] tell you why because I don't think that [5:38] the majority of people who learn from [5:39] everyday spy see the world in the way it [5:43] really is I think they're still seeing [5:45] the world through a a lens that was [5:49] built for them have you ever looked [5:50] through uh a window in an old cabin or [5:53] in an old house it's kind of hazy it's [5:56] uh maybe it's stained or it's dirty or [5:59] the dirt is so thick on it that it [6:00] doesn't wash off have you ever seen a [6:01] window like that yeah my old shed at [6:04] home when I was a kid growing up so [6:05] you're inside the shed M and you're [6:07] looking out onto a sunny day and you [6:10] know it's a sunny beautiful Forest on [6:11] the other side of the window you know it [6:13] is but that's not what you see through [6:15] the window I feel like that's how many [6:17] of our high achieving brothers and [6:19] sisters feel they know it's a sunny [6:22] forest on the other side but school and [6:25] University and working for somebody else [6:27] and growing their business has created [6:29] this hazy glass and you can't trust what [6:33] you see through the glass you know that [6:35] what the glass is showing you isn't real [6:38] but you also can't prove it because you [6:40] can't step outside of the glass you're [6:42] inside the shed so a lot of what I try [6:45] to do with everyday spy is just shatter [6:47] the glass because you don't need the [6:49] glass to be between you and the real [6:51] world and that's what it felt like for [6:53] me when CIA trained me how to be a field [6:55] officer I don't feel like they took me [6:57] out of the shed I don't feel like they [6:59] cleaned the glass I feel like what they [7:01] did is they just shattered the glass and [7:04] there I was looking at the world for [7:05] what it really was and it all made sense [7:08] until I started meeting other people who [7:10] were still looking through the glass and [7:12] there's no way to teach them otherwise [7:13] or there's no way to convince them [7:15] otherwise the only thing you can do is [7:18] teach them to break through the barrier [7:19] themselves so that I can understand that [7:21] can you tell me what your perspective of [7:23] the world was before and after the [7:26] shattered [7:27] glass when I was growing up [7:30] uh all through high school I went to the [7:31] Air Force Academy which is a a military [7:33] school that you have to get accepted on [7:35] scholarship to go to even getting [7:37] accepted to CIA itself every step of the [7:39] way I believed that achievement came [7:43] from doing what you were told better [7:45] than anybody else so that you could be [7:48] empirically better than the competition [7:51] like that's what I believed but what I [7:53] found along the way was often times that [7:56] was true but often times it wasn't some [7:59] sometimes people who had no business [8:02] being next to me in a race at the Air [8:05] Force Academy on the college teams at [8:09] the CIA sometimes the people to my left [8:11] and to my right had no business being [8:13] there they just were the son of somebody [8:14] influential they were the daughter of [8:16] somebody important they had money they [8:19] had opportunity they were a foreigner [8:21] who knows but it wasn't always [8:23] merit-based but everything had always [8:26] taught me that it was merit-based that [8:29] the best [8:30] Jobs go to the people with the best [8:31] scores who go to the best universities [8:33] like that's what I was taught but that [8:35] wasn't really the truth the richest [8:37] people weren't the smartest people the [8:39] most successful people weren't the [8:40] hardest workers and that was when as a [8:43] kid even I started feeling like there's [8:45] a forest on the other side but all I see [8:48] is this picture that doesn't seem to [8:51] make sense so then when I got to C and [8:53] CIA put me through their their field [8:56] tradecraft course FTC which is often [8:58] referred to as the farm what they did at [9:01] the field tradecraft course is they [9:04] said Society is conditioned to believe a [9:07] certain way because Society needs to be [9:11] a giant economic machine we all live [9:14] inside of a giant machine we are [9:17] conditioned through the education [9:19] process through the the industrial [9:21] process through the church process to [9:25] fall into a hierarchy that we believe is [9:28] meritorious that is a meritocracy so [9:31] that hard work and obedience and loyalty [9:33] gets rewarded because the only way that [9:35] the government stays in power of a large [9:38] group of people is if there's a [9:40] predictable system is if they believe [9:42] there's a system and since a system is [9:45] really nothing more than a belief system [9:48] all you have to do to step outside of [9:49] the system is Stop Believing or believe [9:52] in a different system so what CIA [9:54] teaches us to do is find the people who [9:57] question the system enough that they're [10:00] open to being taught a different system [10:02] and then we teach them the system of [10:04] Espionage or treachery so they they [10:07] chose you because you were a bit of a [10:09] defiant personality or thinker I would [10:12] say or on the cusp of or potential of [10:14] being I would say a differently only [10:15] because Defiance as a as a term by [10:19] itself means that you just reject [10:20] everything instead it was more of like a [10:23] curiosity I was still very loyal very [10:26] loyal to my country very loyal to the [10:28] idea of some sort of authority figure I [10:30] was still an individual that had a [10:32] history of childhood trauma that turned [10:35] me into a person that needed external [10:36] validation but I also chose where that [10:39] external validation came from so I was [10:42] It was kind of the right amount of [10:43] trauma to be able to make me loyal to a [10:47] specific organization whereas some [10:48] people who are truly defining aren't [10:50] loyal to anyone right they defy everyone [10:52] so the CIA told you that the world [10:56] is [10:57] predictable but also way that you [10:59] explained it made it seem like it was a [11:01] bit of a conspiracy not a conspiracy but [11:03] absolutely a system you got to a [11:06] conspiracy means that there's some sort [11:09] of a conspiracy insinuates that there's [11:12] some sort of negative intention there is [11:14] no negative intention in order for there [11:16] to be a society at all in order for [11:18] there to be structure and lawfulness [11:22] there needs to be a system and in order [11:24] to create the system we have to [11:27] intentionally continue ually repeat and [11:30] program the system what is a business a [11:32] business is nothing more than a series [11:34] of predictable reinforced processes and [11:37] systems that yield a predictable [11:40] outcome why do we think a government is [11:42] anything different why would we think [11:44] that Society is anything different if [11:46] you really look at what the church does [11:49] if you really look at what [11:50] Harley-Davidson does it's essentially [11:52] the same thing find people who believe [11:56] in an ideology bring them in give them a [11:59] framework to believe in that ideology [12:01] the church is good and evil Heaven and [12:04] Hell Harley-Davidson is freedom and [12:07] individuality and then you just give [12:09] them a system to think about it one [12:11] wears crosses one wears Eagles one meets [12:14] on Sundays one meets on Tuesdays at the [12:18] local Road bar one goes on you know [12:21] civic duty to collect trash the other [12:23] goes on multi-hour road trips but in in [12:26] all cases they mark it to the young they [12:28] mark it to the age they Market to the [12:30] very old their senior members bring in [12:32] junior members they have clubs they have [12:35] everything right they're two separate [12:36] subsections of society which is why we [12:38] call them subcultures so now I [12:41] understand that there's a system that [12:42] I'm part of and it's again it's not [12:44] malicious in terms of its intent it just [12:46] is what it is it's how the world [12:48] functions it's how the country that I'm [12:51] in um operates and it's required for [12:53] there to be stability now there's [12:56] awareness but is there is there any [12:58] benefit in me [12:59] doing anything about it is there [13:01] anything I can do about it to to make my [13:03] life better there's absolutely things [13:04] that you can do about it you you skipped [13:08] over the awareness part as if it wasn't [13:09] substantial the first thing I would say [13:11] is awareness of the system is quite a [13:13] substantial step because most of us are [13:15] not aware of the system I was certainly [13:17] not aware of the system I suspected [13:20] something was different I suspected [13:23] maybe there was more than I understood [13:25] that's the whole idea of looking through [13:27] faded glass at a clear Forest you know [13:30] there's a forest but you don't know how [13:32] to get there MH and you don't know why [13:34] everybody else is standing in the shed [13:35] if there's a forest right out there [13:37] there's just this there's this in this [13:40] discomfort because you're like there's [13:42] there should be something more I feel [13:43] like there's something more but [13:44] everybody seems so happy right here [13:46] except me I'm looking out this window [13:48] feeling like there's something more the [13:49] reality is most people don't look out [13:51] the window what is it that everybody in [13:53] the shed believes that's what's so [13:55] interesting I think most people in the [13:57] shed believe that the shed is a good [13:58] thing [13:59] we need the shed the shed keeps us warm [14:03] when it's cold outside it keeps us cool [14:05] inside when it's hot outside it protects [14:07] us from the rain it keeps the wind away [14:09] we need the shed that's what most people [14:12] I think start to believe about whatever [14:14] shed they're born into I need this [14:17] church I need this neighborhood I need [14:19] these friends I need to be popular in [14:21] school like because everybody else is [14:24] after the same thing I need good grades [14:27] why do you think you need good grades [14:28] cuz my mom said I need needed good [14:29] grades well we don't question it any [14:31] further than that we don't question why [14:34] do you think your mom thinks you need [14:35] good [14:36] grades right and when you look at the [14:38] hierarchy of society there's there's an [14:41] actual anthropological pyramid that [14:44] defines Society right and it breaks into [14:47] three levels individualism at the bottom [14:49] level tribalism in the center level and [14:52] then the state at the top level because [14:55] the most advanced version of society is [14:58] the state it maximizes the contribution [15:01] of each [15:02] individual by forcing shared policy down [15:07] all the way from top to bottom so all [15:09] people have to obey the state but in [15:12] exchange for their obedience the state [15:15] provides resources to all people like [15:18] clean water and loans and uh car loans [15:21] and business loans and police forces and [15:23] public schools so we are we believe that [15:26] this cabin is [15:30] needed it's the best cabin it's the only [15:32] cabin is that wrong I think if you look [15:34] at the world as it is there's a lot of [15:36] different cabins out there our cabin is [15:38] quite different than the China cabin [15:40] China cabin is quite different than the [15:41] Russia cabin right the UK cabin is very [15:44] different than the American cabin so if [15:47] you follow Logic the fact that different [15:50] cabins exist at all would suggest that [15:53] there is no best cabin and then if there [15:56] is no best cabin then do we even need a [15:59] cabin or perhaps there's a different [16:01] option that's better is there a [16:03] different option that's better in your [16:04] opinion I haven't found one yet outside [16:08] of living in a cabin and being the one [16:10] that understands there's more because [16:12] then you get all the benefits of the [16:14] cabin but you're also the one that knows [16:16] that sometimes it's worth it to step [16:18] outside yeah I in your analogy I was [16:20] thinking in fact it's okay for there to [16:22] be a cabin because I kind of need there [16:23] to be a cabin because you know what I [16:24] like roads and Healthcare and [16:27] police but but if you can be one of the [16:29] people that realizes you are in a cabin [16:32] and that the rules of the cabin aren't [16:34] actually rules law they're just made up [16:37] rules then you can bend them in certain [16:39] ways to live the life that you want to [16:41] live and I think in many respects [16:43] entrepreneurship is kind of one of those [16:45] things because some of the narratives [16:47] that you described there of thinking [16:49] grades mattered were the narratives that [16:51] nearly held me back in my life cuz I was [16:53] not doing well in school my brother's [16:55] where everyone else was and I nearly [16:56] fell into the Trap which you learn in [16:58] the shed [16:59] which is the people that get A's are [17:01] going to be rich and happy this is the [17:02] like unspoken word and then if you get [17:05] like an E and A D you're going to be [17:06] poor and probably not that happy and [17:08] probably going to live in a small house [17:10] and you're probably um going to struggle [17:13] and that's like a narrative and through [17:14] labeling Theory you can come to believe [17:16] that as the truth and then play that out [17:17] in your life but I always think the [17:19] biggest harm of I now and I had a [17:21] suspicion back then that the biggest [17:23] harm of getting like an e in my exam was [17:25] believing that I was an e and they're [17:27] two very different things like I can get [17:29] an e but it doesn't make me an e but in [17:31] the in the shed it does make you an e [17:32] it's hard to because everybody else [17:34] labels you by what you perform inside [17:36] the shed that defines them and then I [17:38] self-label I then start to tell myself [17:40] in my self-esteem that I am an eggr and [17:44] then I show up like an e-grade which [17:45] they've proven through labeling Theory [17:46] you can tell someone there's something [17:47] or you can remind them of a stereotype [17:49] that applies to them and they'll [17:50] immediately perform worse on a test [17:52] whatever that stereotype relates to so [17:55] but entrepreneurship for me was saying [17:56] do you know what I'm going to drop out [17:57] of I'm going to get leave school I'm [17:59] going to drop out of University and I'm [18:01] going to try and like send a bunch of [18:03] emails and figure out life myself [18:05] outside of the system because the system [18:06] was never going to get me where I needed [18:07] to go if if I had followed the system I [18:10] would still be working in the call [18:11] center that I was when I was 19 you know [18:14] and basically have no free time working [18:16] till midnight at night and just getting [18:18] [ __ ] from a boss that was an [ __ ] to [18:20] me and you just [18:22] described the feeling of 80% of the [18:25] population they feel like they've never [18:27] gone past the call center that they [18:28] worked at when they were 19 the vast [18:30] majority of people out there feel [18:32] like they stopped developing at about 27 [18:37] what is the difference though what is [18:39] the difference between the people that [18:40] kind of get out the shed and pursue [18:42] their dreams and build the business or [18:43] whatever and the people that are still [18:45] in the call center I'm not saying call [18:46] center is a bad lesson I learn a lot of [18:47] school from call centers that I loved [18:49] but it sucked compared to what I do now [18:52] um what is the F so the first thing [18:54] you're talking about shattering the [18:55] glass the first thing is awareness yeah [18:57] you have to be aware that you're in a [18:59] shed that you're in a shed and you have [19:00] to be aware that you're choosing to be [19:04] in the shed right you can always leave [19:08] this is an argument I have so often with [19:10] people who are trapped in in the wrong [19:14] mindset right I don't even know what the [19:16] right psychological term is because I [19:18] don't live in a world of academic [19:19] psychology but there are people who [19:21] believe that they don't have a choice [19:23] and in the United States for example we [19:25] have 50 states there are some people in [19:27] the state of Florida who feel like they [19:29] can't leave the state of [19:31] Florida [19:33] because they they think it's because [19:35] they don't have enough money they think [19:37] it's because it's it's the drive is too [19:39] far there isn't a support network on the [19:41] other side the bureaucratic hurdles of [19:43] trying to change your residency and get [19:45] a new driver's license is too much the [19:47] taxes are too high to pay to move from a [19:49] non-state a non- tax state to a state [19:51] tax state so they all have reasons and [19:54] the reasons are grounded in fact [19:59] but the value that they put on the fact [20:02] the the value of the challenge is [20:05] greater than the value of the reward in [20:07] their point of view in their perspective [20:09] and in reality it's the other way around [20:11] you um you just reminded me of a video [20:13] that changed my life I'm going to play [20:15] this video for you okay um it's a very [20:18] very short video but when you talked [20:19] about people living in a state or living [20:21] in a situation where they don't think [20:22] they can leave this video came to mind [20:26] they just get an an and you can do this [20:28] with basically any small creature and [20:29] you get a brro or a pen and just draw a [20:31] circle around it and it will not it will [20:34] not leave the the circle and I watched [20:37] this video many years ago of just this [20:39] ant trapped in the circle and they the [20:41] guy drawing the circle around the ant [20:43] just makes the circle smaller and [20:44] smaller left there and it will basically [20:47] remain trapped and it was in when I [20:48] watched it I thought you know I'm doing [20:49] that for myself in my own life so the [20:51] ant remains trapped they make it smaller [20:53] the ant won't um leave the circle but [20:55] what's interesting here right is the ant [20:57] is just eventually figuring out that the [21:00] it's just a circle that it's just a [21:01] circle that it's like just a shed and [21:03] when I saw that the first thing I asked [21:05] myself was in what ways have I drawn an [21:08] imaginary circle around [21:11] myself I think the more important [21:13] question is often times when did the [21:15] imaginary Circle start who drew the [21:18] first Circle because it wasn't you if [21:20] you've ever seen a child if you've ever [21:23] seen an infant a toddler they are [21:26] Limitless they they know no bounds they [21:30] they don't understand anything about the [21:31] world around them they they don't know [21:34] how their body feels so they don't know [21:35] whether they're hungry or whether [21:36] they're gassy or whether they're [21:38] urinating they cry at everything and [21:41] they're constantly squirming they have [21:42] no context so all the context that they [21:45] gain they gain through absorption we [21:49] create the context for them we create [21:51] the idea of this is bedtime we create [21:54] the idea of this is what a healthy habit [21:56] is brushing your teeth washing your [21:57] hands whatever else we create this is [22:00] home and this is where you can walk [22:02] around openly but once you go out this [22:04] door into the front yard the front yard [22:07] is not home anymore and now you can't [22:09] you can't go anywhere you want you have [22:11] to stay here so somewhere somebody [22:13] started drawing circles before we ever [22:15] drew them all we started doing was then [22:17] believing that the circles were more [22:19] permanent than they really [22:21] were and the way to understand that it's [22:23] not permanent is to step out to step out [22:27] but stepping out does two things to us [22:30] simultaneously one it feels [22:32] uncomfortable because nobody else is [22:34] stepping out and two it feels wrong why [22:38] does it feel wrong because we've been [22:40] conditioned to believe we have to stay [22:41] in the circle this is why I love my [22:44] company this is why I love our mission [22:47] of teaching spy skills to break barriers [22:52] because everybody loves the idea of a [22:57] spy [22:59] but when you think about what a spy [23:02] does nobody actually likes what a spy [23:06] does nobody likes the fact that spies [23:08] steal nobody likes the fact that spies [23:10] lie but for some reason they still like [23:14] the idea of a spy and that's why James [23:18] Bond and Jason Bourne and and Spy shows [23:20] are so popular what's happening is we [23:23] come we come into this place where what [23:26] we want and what told we're supposed to [23:30] want Clash because you know what we [23:33] really want is an opportunity and we [23:35] want an opportunity so bad that we're [23:37] willing to cheat to get the opportunity [23:40] but we don't want to admit that we're [23:42] willing to cheat to get the opportunity [23:45] we want an [23:47] advantage but we don't want to believe [23:49] that our advantage hurts other people so [23:52] somehow we want to all move forward with [23:55] with equinity and everybody does better [23:58] and that's just not the way that [23:59] anything in nature actually works and [24:02] what entrepreneurs figure out when [24:04] they're [24:05] successful is that you can cheat and you [24:08] can get away with cheating and when you [24:10] get away with cheating it just gives [24:12] permission to everybody else who was too [24:14] afraid to cheat and then you have first [24:16] mover advantage in the marketplace and [24:18] they copy you and all of a sudden that [24:21] isn't cheating [24:22] anymore and cheating in the because [24:25] cheating can you know it's a bit of a [24:26] loaded word right what do you mean when [24:29] you you talk about choosing in the [24:30] context of business I'm talking about [24:32] like an unfair advantage of any sort [24:34] right think about when do you remember [24:36] when MP3s first came out yes well I I [24:39] had one when I was a kid so an MP3 [24:42] player yeah yeah yeah so MP3s as in [24:44] music files I remember when they first [24:46] came out it was the the market went [24:49] chaotic because you could get them off [24:52] of the internet for free which meant [24:54] that the musicians didn't get paid for [24:55] it and that turned into I think it was [24:57] called nabster Napster yeah lime Wire [24:59] yeah yeah there were so many of these [25:01] different databases where you could just [25:02] pull free music and it it was crazy [25:05] before that there were CDs there was [25:08] even a brief period where there were [25:09] mini discs right people just kept making [25:12] improvements we call them disruptors now [25:14] because we found a way to glorify the [25:17] word cheat and make it into something [25:20] good so now there's disruptors but all [25:22] they were doing was taking advantage of [25:24] something that other people weren't [25:25] taking advantage of a new form of [25:27] Technology well how how did they get [25:28] access to a new form of Technology [25:30] because they got investors well how did [25:32] they get [25:33] investors they knew a guy who knew a guy [25:35] they shook a hand dad at the golf club [25:37] maybe they had five minutes with the [25:40] right guy on the right elevator who [25:41] knows but the people who don't get [25:43] investors look at the people who do get [25:45] investors and say that's not [25:48] fair that's just the way it is that's [25:51] the way life is you know what's not fair [25:52] it's not fair that some people are born [25:54] into a house where the cabin where the [25:57] the shed that they're born into is a [25:59] $300,000 a year shed and other people [26:02] are born into a shed that's a $30,000 a [26:04] year shed that's not fair nothing is [26:06] fair so once you accept that nothing is [26:08] fair that also means there isn't really [26:11] anything that's unfair you can do [26:13] whatever you need to improve yourself [26:16] and your life so I'm in the shed and [26:19] I've just I've listened to you so I [26:21] realized that I am in a shed and that [26:23] the rules I've been conditioned to [26:25] believe aren't necessarily um they're [26:28] rules but they're breakable rules and I [26:31] have every right to break them what is [26:33] what do you think is step one Beyond [26:34] there beyond the aarness I'm going to [26:37] give you two answers because there's the [26:39] reality of the answer but then there's [26:41] my [26:42] preferred response right the reality of [26:45] the answer is once [26:47] people the reality is that most people [26:49] have already thought about what I'm [26:51] saying I'm just giving words and [26:54] authenticity and credibility to what [26:55] they already believe so they're ready [26:57] for the next step and they just jump [26:58] right in they believe me I appreciate it [27:01] when people believe me but I don't want [27:03] people to believe me what I want people [27:05] to do is my preferred approach which is [27:07] to test the information test what I'm [27:09] saying learn a framework that we teach [27:12] it everyday spy learn a framework that [27:13] you and I talk about put it into [27:15] exercise if it works you just tested [27:18] something now you can believe something [27:20] now you can change your mindset and [27:21] change your framework but too often [27:24] people just [27:25] believe I appreciate it when they [27:27] believe me makes me feel good but it's [27:30] not what I'm trying to teach people to [27:31] do what I want people to do is actually [27:32] test it test it and because if they test [27:35] it they make it their [27:36] own if here's the problem with every [27:39] teacher I've ever had with the exception [27:41] of two or three they tell you something [27:44] is the facts and then you know that at [27:46] the end of the week you have to take a [27:47] quiz on what they told you was the facts [27:50] and then you know that at the end of the [27:51] semester you have to take an exam on [27:52] what they told you was the facts they [27:54] don't ever teach you to test or question [27:56] the facts and we we know at our age in [27:58] our success level that history is [27:59] written by the winners but there's [28:01] always two sides to history and then [28:02] when you think about the political the [28:05] religious the personal ramifications of [28:07] everything that happens you realize [28:08] there's multiple different versions of [28:10] Truth there may only be one fact but [28:13] there's multiple versions of Truth so [28:16] how do we we're not even conditioned to [28:18] learn to question the truth to find the [28:21] fact instead we're just taught that the [28:23] truth that we're taught is the facts and [28:25] that's how we end up in a world like we [28:26] have today where people can can say [28:29] whatever they want to say and people [28:30] believe them instead of testing what you [28:34] hear to see if it really is worth [28:37] transitioning or transforming your [28:38] belief system it sounds like you're [28:40] making a distinction between like [28:42] knowledge and belief what what we call [28:44] information information and knowledge [28:46] exactly right okay so information is [28:48] what what someone might say to you but [28:49] then knowledge is what you actually know [28:50] to be true correct there's a fly wheel [28:52] that we have in the intelligence world [28:54] and it's a triangle and the top of the [28:56] triangle is information and then [28:58] information flows into knowledge and [29:01] then knowledge flows into experience so [29:04] what happens is you learn information [29:07] from that information you develop [29:11] knowledge and then you test that [29:13] knowledge through experience and what [29:15] happens when you go out and take action [29:17] in an experience you get more [29:20] information which yields more knowledge [29:22] which you test through experience which [29:23] yields more information and you have [29:25] this very positive flywheel that's how [29:27] the int Ence cycle works but what [29:30] happens in society what happens in a in [29:33] a state system that requires people to [29:35] become predictable and obedient and and [29:38] respectful and uh collegial is they skip [29:42] the experience part they say this is [29:45] information this is knowledge and here's [29:48] more new information and here's more new [29:50] knowledge and they never give people the [29:52] opportunity to test the knowledge for [29:55] themselves so I'm breaking out the shed [29:57] and I'm going to try and test some of [29:58] this information that I'm going to learn [30:00] today and in this conversation um what [30:02] is a good example of something that [30:04] you've seen in your practice when [30:05] working with people at the everyday spy [30:08] has helped someone to change their life [30:11] like a framework that's that typically [30:13] helps people to change their life in the [30:15] most profound way as it relates to [30:16] business sales their career whatever one [30:19] of the ones that jumps to mind right [30:20] away is the it's a simple framework [30:21] about perspective versus perception and [30:24] we may have mentioned this actually in [30:25] our previous conversation Stephen uh [30:28] perception is what you believe to be [30:30] true about the world around you [30:33] perspective is what other people believe [30:35] to be true about the world around them [30:38] so as I sit here looking at you this is [30:41] my perception my perception is that I'm [30:43] sitting in the center seat and you're [30:46] sitting outside of me and everything [30:48] else is built around me at the center [30:50] well guess what your perception is the [30:53] same thing I'm across a table from you [30:55] you're at the center and everything in [30:56] this room is built around you you mhm so [31:00] our perceptions are never going to be [31:02] the same so the only way that I can find [31:04] common ground with you is to stop [31:06] thinking about what's happening around [31:08] me from my perception and start thinking [31:10] from your [31:11] perspective because then I get my [31:14] perception plus your perception combined [31:18] I get twice as much information to think [31:19] through this specific situation how do [31:21] you train that can you train someone's [31:23] have both points of view absolutely so [31:25] here's here's how I mentioned that [31:27] awareness is is the first step right [31:28] really we have a three-step process at [31:31] CIA that we use when we teach spy skills [31:33] to Future spies because that's all CIA [31:35] is CIA is a giant training engine that's [31:38] constantly creating new spies and then [31:41] spies just go out and spy but what CIA [31:43] really does is train spies who then [31:45] steal secrets and combine and compile [31:48] those secrets to to share with uh with [31:50] decision makers on the hill right cia's [31:54] system of teaching is a system where you [31:56] educate first you exercise second and [32:00] then you experience third remember that [32:02] flywheel so you educate that's your [32:05] information you exercise that's where [32:07] you turn information into knowledge and [32:09] then you experience and that's where you [32:10] actually go out and test the knowledge [32:13] to see if the knowledge is still [32:14] applicable in the world that you live in [32:15] today so those are the three steps so [32:18] whenever you're trying to get anyone to [32:19] break a barrier whenever you're trying [32:20] to get anyone to transform all you have [32:22] to do is educate them help them to [32:24] exercise which means practice what they [32:26] learned in a controlled space and then [32:28] kick them out the door to go do it for [32:29] themselves it's like kicking a bird out [32:31] of the nest so if I can you make this [32:33] very real for me because I want to I [32:35] want to be someone that can walk through [32:36] the world and appreciate my perception [32:40] of a situation but also the other [32:41] person's perspective so if we just put [32:43] this in the context of me here as a [32:45] podcast host how would I be able to [32:47] implement this to become a better [32:48] podcast host like understand the other [32:50] person's perspective and the way that [32:52] you're seeing the world absolutely so we [32:54] had a whole conversation before the [32:55] cameras turned on yeah right can you [32:58] tell me five things that you remember [33:00] about me that I shared during the time [33:03] before the cameras turned on yes go [33:04] ahead okay you want me to say them [33:06] because we're talking about absolutely [33:07] it's private stuff but tell me okay um [33:09] we're talking about your relationship [33:12] things you're going through at home you [33:13] said that in the last couple of days [33:14] Everything's changed because of the [33:16] assassination attempt on Donald Trump we [33:19] talked about you used to live in an RV [33:23] for a while and you've just recently [33:25] moved um Across America to to a new [33:27] place place you mentioned your kids as [33:29] well give me specifics oh god um you [33:32] said that you used to live in the RV [33:34] with your kids and there's [33:36] a they're varying ages I think I think [33:38] one of them is did you say three years [33:41] old close one of them was three years [33:43] old or something five in one when we Liv [33:45] in the [ __ ] yeah five and one you you [33:47] did great right those things that you [33:50] were that you recalled you recalled [33:52] those from what's known as your paleo [33:54] melean brain the back part of your brain [33:56] passive learning part of your brain mhm [33:59] because naturally when you are untrained [34:03] when you're untrained to think like a [34:05] spy you rely on passive knowledge you [34:08] rely on passive observation to create [34:11] prefrontal cortex knowledge all a spy [34:14] does is when they talk to you they turn [34:17] on they turn on the prefrontal part [34:19] right away and they start paying [34:20] attention to all the details right away [34:23] because the way that you gain someone [34:25] else's perspective is by listening to [34:27] what they're saying and seeing how [34:29] they're saying it because what happens [34:33] now when I sit with people I was just [34:34] with a client this morning who made a [34:36] comment on this when you're trained and [34:39] you sit with someone you are always [34:42] gaining more information about them than [34:44] they are about you when you know how to [34:46] practice perspective versus perception [34:48] because from the moment that you came in [34:49] and sat down you were very much in your [34:51] world you're sitting here in socks [34:53] you're sitting on your leg you're very [34:55] comfortable you're messing with all of [34:57] your Tech technology you're fighting [34:59] with your technology because it's not [35:00] exactly the way you want it to be like [35:02] this is this is Steve's World and [35:04] there's not a single thing wrong with [35:05] Steve's world but Steve's World isn't as [35:08] big as the world of Steve and Andy [35:10] together whereas when I came in here [35:13] just because of the way I'm wired I'm [35:15] paying attention to you I'm paying [35:17] attention to your producers I'm paying [35:18] attention to the set I'm paying [35:19] attention to the people who I've met [35:20] from your team in previous calls because [35:23] I'm trying to gain as much perspective [35:24] as possible before I sit at this table [35:27] with you in the cameras turn on and [35:28] we're on a one-way trip mhm because I [35:31] only get one chance so I want to have as [35:33] much information on my side moving [35:35] forward so you as a podcast co host your [35:38] original question was how do I use this [35:40] information how do I use these [35:41] Frameworks to become a better podcast [35:43] host every person who sits across the [35:45] table from you came from somewhere and [35:48] every time they leave the table you're [35:49] sitting at they're going somewhere and [35:51] they're bringing stress and they're [35:52] bringing pain and they're bringing [35:53] worries and they're bringing concerns [35:55] with them and they're leaving with the [35:56] same things mhm I know that your partner [36:00] is thinking about babies MH when you [36:03] talk about it that's how you talk about [36:05] it you say my partner is thinking about [36:07] getting pregnant you don't ever say [36:09] we're thinking about getting pregnant [36:10] which makes me wonder if she's more [36:13] excited about pregnancy than you [36:15] are I'm so [36:17] [Laughter] [36:19] [ __ ] oh pray the Lord she doesn't [36:21] listen to this am I accurate [36:24] so I do I can I match her EXC [36:28] levels she's changed the entire house at [36:31] home it's like she's expecting I don't [36:34] know what you but like the entire like [36:35] my shampoo is gone that's like her level [36:37] of excitement about it um but and you [36:40] know yeah so obviously I'm excited about [36:42] it but no of course I can't match her [36:43] level of like preparation and Obsession [36:45] about it no yeah but I'm paying [36:47] attention to you and which is that's the [36:49] only reason I even have the ability to [36:50] ask that question right because I'm [36:52] coming in and I'm trying to live in your [36:54] shoes the whole time I'm here I'm trying [36:56] to live in your shoes even as answer [36:57] your questions I'm trying to think what [37:00] can I do to bring value to Steve to the [37:03] Diary of a CEO to the audience that's [37:05] listening because this is my only time [37:07] to talk to you guys so what can I do to [37:09] maximize that value that's practicing [37:12] perspective so when you do that to your [37:14] guests you're going to unlock a whole [37:16] new level of podcasting from them [37:19] instead of being frustrated or curious [37:22] or wondering whether or not they're on [37:23] track or off track or whether or not [37:25] they're tired or not tired or whether or [37:26] not you're going to get the best [37:27] performance out of them if you literally [37:29] just took I mean we have an exercise we [37:31] have an exercise called get quiet at CIA [37:34] and in a get quiet exercise all you do [37:37] is [37:38] just get quiet you stop overwhelming [37:41] your sensory organs your eyes your ears [37:44] your feelings your taste buds your your [37:48] nose your old factory you get yourself [37:50] into a place where your sensory organs [37:52] can take a break because what happens [37:54] when you don't overload your sensory [37:56] organs is your brain starts to index and [37:58] when your brain starts to index it gives [38:00] you a higher level of awareness a higher [38:02] level of observational skills so [38:05] especially before you go into an area [38:06] where you want to make observations you [38:08] want to quiet your sensory organs so [38:10] that you can go in with fresh sensory [38:11] organs it's kind of like cleaning your [38:13] pette before you try a certain ice cream [38:15] right the reason that we do that is [38:18] because we want to gain as much [38:19] prospective information as possible so [38:21] that we have the informational Advantage [38:23] going into any situation understanding [38:25] that most people are coming in [38:28] living in their own perception consider [38:30] applying this to business right you are [38:34] a coffee shop well there's 500 other [38:36] coffee shops there's five other coffee [38:38] shops just in in two square miles of [38:40] where your coffee shop is so when you [38:42] think about your own product you think [38:45] well my coffee is superior it's from [38:47] Ethiopia we roast it here and it smells [38:50] great and whatever else or you think my [38:52] building is better because we have we [38:54] have local artists on the wall and we [38:55] play local musicians like right like [38:57] that's what they think that's what the [38:59] owner of the coffee shop thinks but they [39:01] don't stop to think about the customer [39:04] who buys the coffee because the customer [39:06] who buys the coffee is coming from [39:08] somewhere and then going to somewhere [39:11] and the coffee shop is just one stop [39:14] along the way so if you really want to [39:16] become the coffee shop that everybody [39:19] wants to go to you have to think about [39:22] life through their eyes through their [39:24] perspective why are they drinking the [39:26] coffee oh they're drinking the coffee [39:28] because they're a new [39:29] mom so then what else does a new mom [39:32] need what else does a new mom want when [39:35] she goes to a coffee shop maybe she [39:37] wants other moms to be there maybe she [39:39] wants specials maybe she wants uh she [39:42] wants to find little things to buy her [39:43] kids who knows what you can change your [39:46] shop to fit your customer if you're open [39:49] to their perspective otherwise all [39:51] you're doing is creating your own little [39:53] circle your own little shed so in terms [39:56] of practi iCal things that you do so [39:58] that you can really tune into someone's [40:00] perspective is the most important one [40:02] just [40:03] listening yes but there's a Twist [40:06] because you also have to dig for the [40:08] information you want so you have to know [40:09] how to ask questions and you have to be [40:11] willing to ask questions there's another [40:13] exercise that we have at CIA called [40:14] windows and doors in a conversation [40:18] people will open Windows Windows in [40:21] conversation which means I might ask you [40:23] one thing or you might ask me something [40:25] and then in my response mon I hint at [40:28] something else that's a window right you [40:31] started this conversation by asking me [40:33] what season of my life am I in that was [40:35] a fantastic question to open Windows and [40:38] Doors because you don't know what the [40:40] answer is but you're going to [40:42] choose what you hear to decide where you [40:45] go next the same thing happens in a [40:47] normal conversation right you can you [40:49] can see windows and doors when they [40:51] present themselves when you are trying [40:54] to cultivate perspective over somebody [40:57] you want to choose the windows and doors [40:59] that you follow through in the [41:00] conversation specifically to collect the [41:01] kind of information that you want to [41:03] gain that perspective so if I'm trying [41:05] to sell something to you if I'm trying [41:06] to sell something to you as an [41:09] entrepreneur I'm going to follow the [41:11] windows and doors that open up in [41:13] conversation that take me to understand [41:15] better what limitations or challenges [41:18] you're having as an entrepreneur so if [41:20] I'm trying to buy if you're a car [41:21] salesman and I'm I'm a customer and I [41:23] want to buy a car what kind of questions [41:25] would you start asking me to I love this [41:28] I love this exercise cuz I actually just [41:29] had to buy a car after we moved and I [41:31] was shocked at how horrible my car [41:33] salesman was because he he did not think [41:35] this way right why do people buy a car [41:38] I'm I [41:40] have I'm going to let you practice your [41:42] perspective on me when I moved to [41:44] Colorado Springs in May why did I have [41:47] to buy a car because you have kids nope [41:50] you have two kids oh because um you have [41:53] to well is you mentioned Colorado [41:55] Springs so I suest Rec I I guess that's [41:57] pretty pertinent your answer but you [41:59] have to travel a lot around Colorado [42:01] because it's quite um quite vast isn't [42:04] it you need a mode of transportation MH [42:06] that's the only reason anybody buys a [42:08] car that's where you have to start [42:09] because then you have to think well why [42:11] are they here if you're a Subaru [42:13] dealership and somebody walks in you [42:15] already know that they've pre-qualified [42:18] a number of things they must be looking [42:20] for a Subaru they must be looking for a [42:22] two wheel car they must be looking for [42:24] an all-wheel car or else they wouldn't [42:26] be here MH so you can kind of make those [42:29] assumptions if you practice perspective [42:31] when they walk in and then when they [42:32] walk in that's when you find out oh [42:33] they're a parent so I'm looking for a [42:36] mode of [42:37] transportation that's also safe because [42:40] I'm a parent I'm a I have a family of [42:42] four so I'm looking for a mode of [42:43] transportation that's safe for at least [42:45] four people if you practice a little bit [42:48] of perspective you learn a lot more [42:50] about the person that you're trying to [42:52] close so now I ended up buying a Nissan [42:55] Pathfinder a brand new Nissan Pathfinder [42:57] ER not because my salesman was any good [43:00] but because I went to the Nissan [43:02] dealership already wanting a brand new [43:04] Pathfinder just like you did but I [43:07] always go through this experience to see [43:09] what it's what's the salesperson going [43:11] to do like are they going to try to sell [43:12] me something good are they going to try [43:13] to sell me something wrong are they [43:14] going to understand my specific needs or [43:16] am I going to have to coach them through [43:17] this whole thing my company gets hired [43:20] to give sales training to high [43:22] performance sales teams and what I'm [43:24] shocked at is how often even with a high [43:26] performing sales team salespeople don't [43:29] practice perspective and perception what [43:32] they practice is whatever script they're [43:34] supposed to read and they practice [43:36] empirical numbers and they practice the [43:38] the law of averages and it's like I need [43:39] to make a 100 calls to convert 12% [43:42] that's what they practice instead of [43:45] practicing something just a little bit [43:46] more efficient like changing your [43:48] opening line to ask an open-ended [43:51] question just like you did an open-ended [43:53] question is a question that makes the [43:54] person on the other side of the phone [43:56] speak through the lens of their current [43:58] reality do you know what the um I've [44:00] never said this before but there's a [44:01] question I ask every guest in the [44:03] Preamble and I don't know if I asked you [44:05] but but I I ask 99% of guests when we [44:09] sit down um and it's what's front of [44:11] mine few at the moment and for me the [44:14] reason I asked that question is because [44:16] um kind of what you said because people [44:18] come here and I I I assume that there's [44:20] something that happened when they woke [44:21] up this morning or there's something [44:22] that's bugging them that my research [44:24] team wouldn't have been able to find on [44:25] the internet that they haven't yet said [44:27] in an interview and it's been so [44:28] unbelievably amazing when you ask that [44:30] question and then there was one [44:31] particular conversation I had which was [44:33] one of my favorite of all time where it [44:34] was with Simon cynic and because I've [44:36] spoken to Simon cynic three times on the [44:38] podcast I didn't like have research like [44:41] we've talked about everything so I sat [44:43] down and I had to Fig sit down and [44:46] figure out where the conversation was [44:47] going to go for the next three hours and [44:48] so my opening question to him was really [44:50] broad it was um how are you and please [44:52] give me the long answer and you have to [44:55] be honest and he literally for the first [44:56] time ever in his life when do you know [44:58] what I'm feeling really lonely right now [45:00] and for him to say that a guy like that [45:02] to say that was like whoa and if I had [45:06] sat down with my okay today we're going [45:07] to talk about management strategies I [45:09] totally would have missed one of my [45:10] favorite conversations of all time um [45:12] but you have to have a lot of trust in [45:13] yourself this is what I've come to learn [45:14] as a podcaster to be able to sit down [45:17] without any questions written down here [45:19] and to ask a really open-ended question [45:21] and then to try and follow them like [45:23] wherever they might take you well that's [45:25] what's what's interesting is that one of [45:26] your super hours as a podcaster is that [45:28] you have a [45:29] plan but you don't always stick rigidly [45:32] to your plan you go wherever the guest [45:34] takes you you go where Simon synic takes [45:36] you right I've taken you down this long [45:38] path about living in a shed that I'm [45:40] sure was not on your agenda and I'm sure [45:43] lost a good half of the people that we [45:44] were talking to early on [45:46] but my point with all that is just to [45:50] say you you practice what is called [45:54] courage and courage is courage is a word [45:57] that is definable and people don't often [45:59] take the time to really Define what [46:00] courage is courage is doing the thing [46:05] that you're afraid of that is courage so [46:09] going off script and asking a question [46:12] coming in unprepared for a podcast those [46:14] are things that cause you a little bit [46:14] of fear a little bit of anxiety you're [46:16] like I don't know how this is going to [46:16] turn out but you do it anyways one of [46:20] the major differences between [46:21] entrepreneurs and aspirational [46:23] entrepreneurs is that entrepreneurs have [46:25] the courage to try and aspirational [46:28] entrepreneurs are always talking about [46:30] the day that they will have the courage [46:32] to try trust comes into this right [46:34] because um part of the reason that I can [46:37] sit down with someone for three hours [46:38] and not necessarily have a I've never [46:39] had a question written down but not even [46:40] have an idea of where the conversation's [46:42] going to go is because I have so many [46:44] case studies that it's been fine in the [46:45] past and it's it's it's those case [46:47] studies that have built up this sort of [46:49] self trust that enables me to sit down [46:51] and go how are you and then they they go [46:53] off about loneliness and we spend three [46:54] hour talking about loneliness but that [46:55] comes from that initial Trust I think I [46:57] think trust is a good word trust is self [46:59] trust I'm trying yeah yeah self trust or [47:01] or confidence those are good words to [47:03] use but I would almost challenge that [47:05] what you're really talking about is [47:07] you're you're [47:09] gambling on odds that you've learned or [47:12] in your [47:13] favor right it's kind of like when you [47:15] think about a professional athlete [47:17] professional athletes do some amazing [47:21] movements sometimes they make the score [47:23] and sometimes they don't but what [47:25] happens is when make the score doing an [47:28] amazing movement that's what we all [47:29] remember when they miss the shot doing [47:31] the amazing movement nobody remembers [47:32] that right nobody remembers how many [47:35] basketball shots Dennis Rodman didn't [47:38] make right they just remember something [47:40] else about Dennis Rodman Arnold [47:42] Schwarzenegger has his famous quote [47:43] where he he he made lots of movies we [47:46] all remember our favorite Arnold [47:49] Schwarzenegger movie but how many of his [47:52] bad movies do you remember not many and [47:55] he knows that too and that's one of the [47:57] reasons that he said yes to so many [47:58] movies was because he learned early on [48:01] in his bodybuilding career that nobody [48:03] remembers when you lose but they always [48:05] remember when you win so he had no [48:08] problem making a bunch of movies because [48:10] the one or two or three or 12 or 18 that [48:12] became Blockbusters were the ones that [48:14] defined him even though he also did [48:15] Kindergarten Cop I mean that that's [48:17] quite a good [48:19] um that's quite a good concept to hold [48:22] in your mind if you're trying to weigh [48:24] up any sort of risk in your life like [48:25] the risk of leaving this show that we [48:27] were talking about correct you're you're [48:29] taking a chance you're taking a gamble [48:31] but here's the thing we're conditioned [48:33] in our shed we're conditioned to gamble [48:35] on the [48:36] system right if you're going to roll the [48:38] dice at least roll the dice that the [48:41] system gives you right bet on the house [48:44] because the house is going to [48:46] win what we really learn as [48:48] entrepreneurs is to gamble on ourselves [48:51] like bet on you how many people take [48:54] every dollar they earn and they invest [48:57] it in a brokerage that's managed by [49:00] somebody else that is targeting an 8% [49:03] return on investment MH that's what they [49:05] do with every dollar of their life my my [49:09] mother-in-law just recently retired [49:10] about three and a half or four weeks ago [49:12] she is what do you have to be to retire [49:14] 69 I think so she's 67 or 68 years old [49:18] she's worked her entire life her primary [49:21] investment vehicles I [ __ ] you not are [49:23] CDs it's a device in the investment [49:25] world where you basically put your money [49:28] in for a certain amount of time and it [49:30] guarantees you a certain yield and that [49:31] yield is usually very very low but that [49:34] was her preferred investment vehicle so [49:37] for the 69 years or the or the uh 50 [49:40] years that she's been working she's been [49:42] investing in these low [49:43] performance certificates of deposit [49:46] CD that is exactly the kind of thinking [49:49] that was conditioned into her by the [49:51] generation before her that's where she [49:53] learned about CDs at all that's why she [49:54] bought her first CD at 16 years old was [49:56] because Mom and Dad told her to do that [49:58] so here it is 2024 she's retiring and [50:01] all of the money that she saved is [50:03] basically in these certificates of [50:04] deposit which is not a lot of money [50:06] really yes because it doesn't grow [50:09] whereas I invest in my company and my [50:12] return has been 300% M and entrepreneurs [50:16] even entrepreneurs who don't grow [50:18] quickly still see 12% return on [50:21] investment 15% return on investment 20% [50:24] return on investment which outperforms [50:26] anything in the [50:27] Market but you still have these people [50:29] who don't want to gamble on themselves [50:32] because they're afraid that the house [50:34] will [50:35] win who can't be taught the things that [50:38] you teach in terms of the CIA skills and [50:40] everything you teach within everyday spy [50:41] there's a lot of people out there who [50:43] already who right out of the gates had a [50:45] circle drawn around them that CIA is [50:47] some kind of deep state conspiracy kills [50:51] Americans sells children steals drugs [50:54] kind of organization are they wrong [50:56] [Laughter] [50:59] maybe there was a CIA that did that once [51:01] but my point is those people are never [51:03] going to believe what I have to teach [51:04] them there are threads all over the [51:07] Internet about how I'm a fake and a [51:08] phony and a fraudster and and there's [51:11] even there's for every one of those [51:13] threads there are also threads that talk [51:15] about how I'm a plant how I'm still a CA [51:18] officer I did read that in the comment [51:19] section isn't that funny quite funny so [51:21] there's like there's both sides these [51:23] are people who cannot they'll never be [51:25] open to learn they're not willing to [51:26] learn how do I know you're not still a [51:28] CIA officer does it matter no it doesn't [51:31] it doesn't matter if you get if you can [51:33] take the information and test the [51:34] framework and get ahead does it matter [51:37] well actually maybe if the fra okay you [51:39] said you're the right point there you [51:40] said test it myself because you could be [51:43] teaching me things that are going to [51:44] just keep me trapped in The Matrix [51:46] because you know but I don't want you [51:49] trapped in The Matrix but I don't know [51:50] that you could still be a CIA spy I [51:52] could be but the key thing you said is [51:54] that you're giving them to me to test [51:56] for myself so I get the results to check [51:58] right whether what you're teaching me is [52:00] positive or negative productive or not [52:02] productive correct and that's that's [52:03] what really drives me what drives me is [52:06] this vision of a future that's good for [52:08] my children and the future that's good [52:10] for my children is a future where the [52:12] United States is still the most powerful [52:14] economy in the world still the most [52:15] powerful military in the world and [52:19] according to all [52:20] reports that is not what will happen by [52:23] 2035 by 2035 we will be at parity with [52:28] at least another country most likely [52:30] China and as we reach parity what that [52:33] means is you reach equality as you reach [52:35] equality your superpower status goes [52:38] away you are no longer a superpower you [52:41] are a near peer power or a near peer [52:44] competitor it's very different than [52:46] being a superpower why does it matter [52:49] because when there's competition there's [52:52] more uncertainty there's more [52:54] unpredictability there's more Danger [52:56] there's more risk there's less [52:58] opportunity think about the starting [53:01] quarterback for a football team he's the [53:04] starting quarterback he is the person he [53:07] is the the player that will start the [53:10] game that will have the football and [53:11] nobody questions it there's a lot of [53:13] opportunity there for that person but as [53:15] soon as they start to be unpredictable [53:18] as soon as there's a new star a new [53:19] quarterback that comes in and threatens [53:21] the existing quarterback now we don't [53:23] really know who's going to start and the [53:24] team doesn't really know who's going to [53:26] start and then for all we know the team [53:28] is going to have two different [53:29] quarterbacks that that swap in and out [53:31] throughout the entire game and the whole [53:32] team performs worse because they don't [53:34] know how to predict the quarterback [53:36] because the new quarterback or the old [53:37] quarterback isn't the one that's always [53:39] throwing the ball so there's there's an [53:41] uncertainty that comes as a as [53:44] competition arises it's why business [53:47] owners want to be in a business of one [53:49] it's why there's such a thing as a blue [53:51] ocean marketing strategy versus a red [53:54] ocean marketing strategy because when [53:55] you're in a blue ocean when you have no [53:58] competitors around you your business [54:00] will most likely Thrive you have room to [54:02] make mistakes you can learn slowly but [54:05] when you're in a highly competitive red [54:06] ocean you don't get any of those [54:09] opportunities what does history tell us [54:11] about how changing the changing of the [54:14] God as it relates to world [54:16] power what the dangers might be for the [54:20] average [54:22] person it's a great question and this is [54:24] where I want to re-emphasize my lack of [54:27] altruism right because what does [54:29] altruism mean for anyone that doesn't [54:31] know so altruism is is this idea that [54:33] you care about other people or that you [54:34] care about a common good right I I don't [54:37] care about a common good care about [54:39] other people I care about some other [54:41] people your children [54:44] correct my family my friends the people [54:46] that I think are making a difference and [54:48] that's just the way it is why will some [54:50] people not be willing to learn what I [54:52] teach them because they will disagree [54:54] with my ethics and my morals about how I [54:56] don't care about all people equally well [54:58] I just I prefer I like the fact that [54:59] you're honest so I mean that makes me [55:01] trust you more so I appreciate that yeah [55:03] so if you look at history Rome was [55:07] really good for Romans for a long long [55:09] time the fall of Rome was bad for [55:12] everybody the transition was bad for [55:16] everybody coming out of World War II [55:20] right when you were a Nazi in Nazi [55:22] Germany things were pretty good right [55:26] but then when Nazi Germany fell it was [55:28] bad for a lot of people there was a lot [55:30] of War there was a lot of death there [55:32] was a lot of starvation multiple [55:33] countries had been destroyed there was a [55:35] war there was a transition of power same [55:37] thing happened at fall of Soviet Union [55:39] the you in that War I was watching a [55:40] documentary about it the other day it [55:41] was interesting because I watched both [55:42] the sort of Soviet Union rush into [55:43] Berlin and I was America rushed into [55:45] Berlin they kind of they both um took [55:48] different parts of Germany and then once [55:50] they taken down the Nazis they kind of [55:51] went to war with each other correct [55:53] because they then were trying to figure [55:54] out who was in charge of Germany and how [55:55] they were going toct divy up land so [55:57] there was another War basically like a [55:59] civil war following the and the same [56:01] thing happened in China the same thing [56:02] happened as as our Pacific forces kind [56:05] of work their way up through Japan there [56:07] became conflict in the east as well [56:09] right so transition periods where nearer [56:14] countries or where countries become [56:15] near-peer competitors that's not people [56:18] don't stop competing as the competition [56:21] increases like what's what's happening [56:23] in the world right now in Ukraine and [56:24] Russia in in Israel with Hamas with the [56:28] houthis and with the Iranians like [56:30] what's happening is competition is on [56:31] the rise so everything becomes less [56:34] stable Things become more dangerous when [56:36] there's a clear bully in the playground [56:40] there's only one bully and nobody has to [56:41] mess with the bully and it's a bad day [56:43] for anyone the bully messes with but for [56:45] the most part everybody else is good but [56:48] what happens when there's two bullies [56:50] [ __ ] gets messy the bullies make posies [56:54] the Posies have to fight with each other [56:56] other more people get hurt more Rabel [56:58] rousing happens in the playground than [56:59] when there's just one [57:01] bully so for me the United States is the [57:04] bully on the playground and I as an [57:07] American citizen am living in a place [57:10] where it's pretty good to be on the [57:11] bully side so for me pragmatically [57:14] speaking if I want the best for my [57:16] children what I really need is for the [57:18] United States to remain the only bully [57:20] so then I can have some impotence some [57:22] some confidence that their future will [57:23] be secure do you think the war in the [57:26] Ukraine and Russia is a symptom of the [57:29] changing in power because it's kind of [57:32] like a proxy war right you've got [57:33] Ukraine is actually the USA and Russia [57:35] is actually kind of China to some degree [57:38] so I would say it's not kind of a proxy [57:40] war it's a full-on proxy war you're [57:42] you're 100% right I didn't even know [57:42] what proxy war is I just use that term [57:44] because it sounded smart well it does [57:45] sound smart it is smart proxy war is a [57:48] Doctrine it's an actual military [57:49] doctrine that says that you create [57:52] what's known as interstate conflict [57:54] which means conflict in internal to a [57:56] state and then external wealth parties [58:01] fund the conflict in the state that way [58:03] the two external parties that are in [58:05] Conflict don't have to waste any lives [58:08] it protects them diplomatically it [58:09] protects them socially it protects them [58:11] militarily they're only spending [58:13] resources in an interstate conflict the [58:16] interstate conflict has always been [58:17] inside Ukraine eastern Ukraine and [58:18] Western Ukraine have always been in [58:19] Conflict we just didn't realize it until [58:21] Russia invaded because nobody paid [58:22] attention to Ukraine same thing in [58:24] Israel there's always been conflict [58:26] between the Palestinians and the [58:27] Israelis we just didn't really pay [58:28] attention to it until until October 8th [58:31] so the the conflict that you're talking [58:34] about is is not a symptom it's a [58:38] strategy and the strategy is that the [58:41] United States can drain Russian [58:43] resources without draining American [58:46] lives which makes it easy for the United [58:48] States to continue draining strategic [58:51] resources from Russia and then NATO is [58:54] watching the same thing happen and [58:55] NATO's the one that has the most to lose [58:57] if Russia is strong so then that's why [59:00] they also Pile in support that's the [59:02] strategy that has been the United States [59:04] strategy since the end of World War II [59:07] who rebuilt Japan the United States who [59:11] rebuilt the UK the United States who [59:13] rebuilt Germany who rebuilt France all [59:16] the United States is it any surprise [59:18] that all of these countries since World [59:19] War Two have then been close diplomatic [59:22] political and economic allies no and [59:25] guess what they all have they all have [59:27] very similar sheds because we built [59:30] their political systems from World War [59:33] II based on ours right that's the [59:36] American model that's been how America [59:38] has grown economically so quickly all [59:40] over the world guess who's mimicking [59:42] that model [59:43] now China the real conflict between the [59:47] United States and China nobody can [59:49] Define it Trump calls it a trade War [59:52] because we have a bunch of cheap Chinese [59:54] Goods that's not the problem [59:56] the problem is that Xin [59:58] ping understands that what he wants for [60:01] China is for China to be an a net [60:04] exporter of high [60:05] technology who's the only other high ex [60:08] net exporter of high [60:10] technology the United States the United [60:13] States makes electric vehicles China [60:14] makes electric vehicles United States [60:16] makes telecommunication China makes [60:18] telecommunication that's the conflict [60:20] because what China is doing is giving [60:21] the rest of the developing World an [60:23] alternative to the United States well if [60:25] just like any other business if I make [60:27] coffee and you make coffee we're in [60:29] competition for the person who wants to [60:32] buy coffee so now we're fighting over [60:34] that person whoever wins that person [60:36] wins more money whoever wins that person [60:38] wins repeat buyers and now I might lose [60:41] my company my coffee shop might shrink [60:43] and your coffee shop might grow because [60:45] this person is choosing your coffee when [60:46] it used to be only mine was [60:48] available [60:51] so who is better for America Joe Biden [60:55] or Donald Trump neither they are both [60:58] bad for America in different ways who is [61:01] more likely to prolong American [61:05] dominance Donald Trump of the two Donald [61:09] Trump of the two here here's what I'm [61:11] going to tell you I had this thought [61:13] last night and I was going to make it a [61:15] video for my own channel but my channel [61:16] is nowhere near as enjoyable as your [61:18] channel you put it on yours as [61:21] well there is only one Democrat in the [61:23] United States who can beat Donald Trump [61:26] only one nobody else stands a chance [61:28] Democratic party is struggling to accept [61:29] that nobody can beat Donald Trump it's [61:32] only one that can win and that's [61:34] Michelle Obama I did think this because [61:37] I mean I would say Barack but obviously [61:38] he can't because he's done his eight [61:39] years but Michelle I I I do agree and [61:41] she doesn't want anything to do with it [61:43] she said she said in early July she [61:47] wanted nothing to do with it but what's [61:50] happened since early July there's been [61:52] the assassination attempt on Donald [61:53] Trump the assassination attempt turned [61:55] into this incredible media frenzy now [61:57] you have this guy with blood on his face [61:59] and a fist in the air and a flag behind [62:00] him you have a pullitzer prizewinning [62:02] photo already floating around the [62:04] internet with this guy on it right [62:06] everything [62:08] changed there's no way Michelle Obama [62:10] isn't sitting in her [62:12] room multiple times a day asking herself [62:16] the question do I still want nothing to [62:19] do with this or do I have to step up to [62:21] the plate to do what I believe is the [62:23] right thing to do because only I can do [62:24] it think about the questions Barack [62:27] Obama must ask Michelle Obama think [62:29] about The Silence the pregnant silence [62:31] around their kitchen table at night [62:33] think about how heavy they must be [62:36] thinking right now because they know [62:38] what I just said out loud that you knew [62:41] yesterday there's only one Democrat that [62:43] can beat Donald Trump and maybe in July [62:46] 3D she said she wanted nothing to do [62:48] with it but now it's July [62:51] 20th and if she really believes in this [62:54] country how is she not G to rise to the [62:56] occasion how is she gonna sit back and [62:59] let the future of her daughters rest in [63:03] the hands of somebody she doesn't [63:04] believe in because the truth is if she [63:06] were to run [63:09] overnight she would have the complete [63:12] support of the entire Democratic [63:13] National Convention every donor who has [63:16] already donated money would let their [63:17] money stay with her and probably donate [63:19] more Women Voters African-American [63:22] voters voters that were on the fence [63:23] voters that are looking for any [63:25] alternative to Donald Trump or Joe Biden [63:27] they would all get their answers given [63:28] to them at once not to mention the fact [63:31] that she's brilliant she's esteemed [63:34] she's youthful like everything that [63:38] America stands for is represented in [63:40] Michelle Obama just as much as what we [63:43] say America stands for is represented by [63:44] Donald Trump so if Michelle Obama is [63:47] announced at the Democratic National [63:49] Convention I'm glad we had this [63:51] conversation you do you do you think [63:54] that's possible absolutely it's possible [63:56] I don't think it's probable okay but I [63:58] do think it's possible and I can't help [64:00] but have the Hope in our country that [64:05] the few who are willing to [64:08] learn will step up and accept that they [64:10] have to gamble on themselves do you [64:12] think that Michelle Obama would increase [64:15] the probability and the length of [64:17] America's dominance versus Trump [64:19] absolutely it would just be in a [64:20] different way Donald Trump grows through [64:24] bravado and brings manip he grows like a [64:27] bully grows but what we've learned about [64:30] the United States is that our bullish [64:32] strategy our bully strategy that we've [64:34] been employing since [64:36] 1950 is a game of diminishing returns we [64:41] invest a lot into it but we lose [64:44] influence we lose Global reach we lose [64:47] power we're losing economic might they [64:50] say that China's having an economic [64:51] recession right now at 4.5% growth GDP [64:55] we at 1.3% growth [64:57] GDP nobody's talking about our recession [65:00] because our recession has been on so [65:01] long it's not a recession anymore it's [65:03] just the United States doesn't grow more [65:04] than really 3% China used to grew at 5% [65:07] so when it goes from 5% to 4% it's a big [65:10] deal for [65:11] people our model is already broken our [65:13] our model already doesn't work so all [65:15] Donald Trump is going to do is come in [65:17] and double down on that model because [65:19] he's only got four years in the house [65:21] he's only got four years in the white [65:22] house and he knows it so he's not out [65:24] there to Revolution America he's not out [65:26] there to revolutionize the United States [65:28] like he's out there for Donald Trump I [65:30] think he believes he'll do a good job I [65:32] think he believes he's best for America [65:34] I think he believes that that being a [65:36] bully is the way to [65:38] go but that doesn't mean he's right that [65:41] doesn't mean it's going to be [65:42] exponential return on investment it [65:44] could be a continuing game of [65:45] diminishing returns Michelle Obama has [65:48] the opportunity to do it differently as [65:51] long as she doesn't come in just paring [65:53] the Joe Biden and Barack Obama School of [65:56] thought what would what do you think she [65:58] would need to say to meet America's [66:00] ideology right now I think she could [66:02] Define America's ideology right now I [66:04] don't think she'd have to meet it I [66:06] think America is lost America has been [66:08] looking down the barrel of the 2024 [66:10] election for a long time knowing it was [66:13] going to boil down to Trump versus Biden [66:16] knowing that it was going to boil down [66:18] to an octogenarian who can't form a [66:21] sentence from a stage sometimes or a [66:25] crazy ass businessman who when he forms [66:29] a sentence it's a nonsensical sentence [66:31] like that's what we've been looking at [66:33] that's that's been the choice doesn't [66:35] really feel like it's a choice anymore [66:37] it's no because after Trump got shot in [66:40] the ear I think I mean I watched those [66:42] scenes as well and I thought yeah this [66:44] guy's won he won and that's the he and [66:47] everybody knows it if you're not willing [66:49] to admit it that's fine everybody knows [66:51] he won the election on that day the day [66:53] he survived that shooting in Butler [66:54] Pennsylvania July 13th he won the 2024 [66:57] election [66:59] unless something even more disruptive [67:04] happens in the marketplace between now [67:06] and November 5th Michelle Obama has the [67:09] power to do that if you were his in his [67:12] marketing team and you were desperate [67:15] you would have shot him in the air that [67:16] day wouldn't you no no way the risk is [67:19] too great I mean if you if you knew it [67:21] was going to hit his ear and you in his [67:23] marketing team you would have shot him [67:24] in the ear that day like if I I because [67:26] that was as we both said he won the [67:28] election that day yeah and he won the [67:29] election because he many people will now [67:31] see him as some kind of [67:33] hero so I I'll tell you how a CI officer [67:36] thinks about this right if you wanted to [67:38] Stage an attempted [67:40] assassination if that's what you want to [67:41] do was stage an attempt at assassination [67:43] you would never shoot at the person who [67:47] was the principal you would shoot away [67:50] shoot up in the principle the principle [67:52] is the primary target that you're trying [67:54] to support right so Donald Trump was the [67:57] principal if I was trying to Stage an [67:59] assassination to give to win him popular [68:02] praise I would not shoot at him because [68:04] the risk is too great that the shot [68:06] would either Miss and hit him possibly [68:10] hit him fatally or it would miss him and [68:12] hit someone in the audience and then a [68:14] rally member dies and now we have to [68:16] account for why somebody at the rally [68:17] died like people were killed and people [68:19] were hurt at the at the Donald Trump [68:21] rally in Butler Pennsylvania if you [68:22] wanted to Stage an assassination you [68:23] would shoot 3540 de off Target well away [68:27] from anybody accidentally getting hit [68:28] because what's going to happen [68:29] everybody's going to hear the gunshots [68:31] so the gunshots will still cause the [68:32] Panic the Secret Service would still [68:35] jump in they'd still cover him there'd [68:37] still be all the same news worthiness [68:40] without the risk of killing somebody and [68:43] if you really really wanted to make it [68:45] like so it it made headlines you could [68:48] even potentially stage some kind of cut [68:50] that's covered up with a small skin [68:52] colored Band-Aid so that when the shots [68:54] go off you can wipe off or pull off the [68:56] Band-Aid and then there's going to be [68:57] active red spots right you would never [68:59] actually shoot at the principal that's [69:01] what people don't understand about [69:03] conspiracies is that when you actually [69:05] plan to carry out a covert action you [69:08] plan to carry out the covert action in [69:09] the safest possible way you don't run [69:11] the risk of actually shooting the [69:12] principal so but let's play out the [69:14] scenario that it was a conspiracy so [69:17] what could have happened there and I I I [69:18] was in an office the other day one of [69:20] the companies that I'm involved with and [69:22] there was a group of people C gathered [69:24] around a laptop watching the footage and [69:26] half of the people thought it was some [69:27] kind of conspiracy and that maybe he [69:29] fell down and then like cut his own ear [69:32] and then the other half of the people [69:33] thought that that was that was craziness [69:35] what side of the fence do you sit on you [69:36] think it was a real shooter I think it [69:38] was a real shooter I absolutely think it [69:40] was a real shooter the the principles [69:42] that CIA teaches us about how to analyze [69:44] a situation are twofold they teach us [69:46] how to analyze a situation but they also [69:48] teach us how to predict a conspiracy and [69:51] conspiracies have a very clear Anatomy [69:53] they have a very clear process all [69:55] conspiracies start with something that [69:57] is factual something really does happen [70:01] and then immediately following the [70:02] factual thing there's a lack of [70:05] information inside of that lack of in of [70:08] information the third piece of the [70:11] puzzle is [70:13] speculation now speculation and [70:16] suspicion are very close cousins [70:19] suspicion is healthy right you've heard [70:21] of healthy suspicion speculation is not [70:24] healthy specul ation is what it takes [70:26] for you to create an answer to a story [70:28] that's not based on facts which is where [70:30] the fourth element of a conspiracy comes [70:32] from a a story that closes the loop [70:35] because when there's information missing [70:37] it creates an open loop well guess what [70:39] human brains like conveniently closed [70:42] Loops so we can't handle an open loop [70:44] very well for very long so then we start [70:47] speculating on what might have happened [70:48] until someone defines for us an answer [70:51] and then all of a sudden you have an [70:52] answer that closes the loop and you have [70:53] a conspiracy [70:55] conspiracies happen all the time [70:56] conspiracies happen in your own home [70:58] who's the last one that ate the who ate [71:00] the last piece of bread right who's the [71:02] one that drank the last bit of milk how [71:05] is there how are there no more eggs left [71:06] in the refrigerator right lack of [71:08] information leads to speculation and [71:09] then we close a loop with a story in our [71:11] mind when you look at what happened in [71:13] Butler Pennsylvania there's all the [71:16] elements for a for a conspiracy there's [71:18] facts a lack of information speculation [71:22] and somebody's closing the story Loop [71:24] and all these different spires are [71:25] gaining momentum but when you look at [71:27] the factual analysis of what happened [71:30] there are pictures there are diagrams [71:32] there's there's a Corps of a 20-year-old [71:35] shooter holding a high powerered rifle [71:37] on top of a roof aimed at the stage [71:40] there's reports of local sheriff and [71:42] local police officers being notified of [71:44] that there's bystanders who have [71:46] reported that there's there's technology [71:48] that's been that's been uh employed to [71:50] verify that there's enough facts there [71:52] to know that there really was someone [71:55] who was Young by name who took a shot at [71:58] the president that's what we know guess [72:01] what happens tomorrow we learn more we [72:05] don't have to know all the answers today [72:07] more information will come as soon as [72:10] Donald Trump was shot I called up one of [72:11] my friends who's a who's a secret [72:13] service a retired Secret Service Officer [72:16] and I said to [72:17] him that from my point of view from what [72:20] I understand about close protection [72:22] everything was done pretty close to [72:24] right [72:25] there's always gaps always gaps at any [72:29] kind of political rally that's why [72:30] they're dangerous you can't make it 100% [72:32] secure that's why there's snipers on the [72:34] roof there's not snipers on the roof [72:36] because they're they feel like the [72:37] grounds are safe there's snipers on the [72:39] roof because they know that there's gaps [72:41] there's not Secret Service on the sides [72:43] of the stage carrying guns because they [72:45] think that they're safe there's Secret [72:46] Service on the sides of the stage [72:47] because they know that there's gaps of [72:49] course there's gaps you can't you can't [72:50] manage all [72:51] risks the person took a shot from over [72:54] 400 feet 400 ft is a long difficult shot [72:58] empirically it's a long difficult shot [73:00] even though the newspapers come out and [73:02] say it's a turkey shoot or an easy shot [73:04] or a standard shot or a basic shot it is [73:06] not any hunter out there will tell you [73:08] 400 yards is a difficult shot and you [73:11] have to have a high-powered rifle built [73:14] for that kind of distance to shoot that [73:15] length so there's all kinds of [73:17] misinformation that's going around as [73:19] people try to spin up a story so for me [73:22] it was a real assassination attempt by a [73:24] real person whose motives are still [73:27] unknown I was I was listening to [73:29] something and the person was saying that [73:31] maybe this you know the CIA or some [73:34] somebody infiltrated this young man and [73:36] you know encouraged him over a period of [73:38] time to get up there on that roof and [73:40] all these kinds of things the the heart [73:43] of the problem here is we don't we don't [73:45] we're quite distrusting and we don't [73:47] have answers and most of us aren't [73:50] informed so there's basically the small [73:52] life that we live and then above us we [73:54] see like billionaires and powerful [73:56] people and we hear that they do and or [73:58] have historically done very nefarious [74:01] malicious things and that becomes our [74:04] sort of shed is that we are the average [74:07] person and then up there outside the [74:09] shed there's all these billionaires [74:10] powerful illuminarti and they are doing [74:13] these really malicious things now in [74:15] part that's [74:16] true but maybe only in part and we kind [74:19] of assume this broad strr approach to [74:21] anything that happens and we go [74:23] government Matrix [74:25] conspiracy um and you know the C CIA [74:28] does have history of doing things like [74:31] this true true we we're coming into a a [74:36] conversation that's twofold one we're [74:37] talking about a pre- 911 [74:40] CIA pre- 911 post 911 is important to to [74:44] create a distinction for CIA because [74:47] prior to September 11th CIA was a small [74:51] highly [74:52] funded organization with very little [74:55] oversight they could come up with crazy [74:57] stuff like trying to you know trying to [75:00] poison Fidel Castro so his his beard [75:02] fell out or trying to create the Bay of [75:04] Pigs invasion or trying to do all sorts [75:06] of wacky stuff from you know MK Ultra to [75:09] whatever else that was a wacky pre- 911 [75:13] unsupervised Wild West kind of CIA post [75:18] 911 the 911 Commission written in 2003 [75:21] highlighted that CIA failed to do its [75:23] job for September 11th so now there's [75:25] tons of oversight it's now a very large [75:28] very fat well-funded [75:31] bureaucracy whereas before it was a [75:34] well-funded free-for-all if it was a [75:36] conspiracy which department or which [75:38] organization would be responsible in [75:41] your opinion if it was a conspiracy [75:43] there would be no Department in charge [75:45] of the conspiracy so it would be [75:47] something else correct right because [75:51] when governments act when individuals in [75:53] a government act in a conspiratorial [75:57] manner it's not formalized if it was [75:59] formalized it would be a policy right [76:02] they act independently and there's all [76:04] sorts of instances where people act [76:06] independently from from Edward Snowden [76:09] all the way to aldri GES right there are [76:11] people who actually carried out [76:13] conspiratorial efforts to try to gain [76:16] some kind of Leverage that worked for [76:18] them for a while and then worked against [76:19] them if that bullet had hit Donald Trump [76:23] in the head how do you think the US [76:26] would be [76:28] different I was thinking about this when [76:29] I was driving down the street yesterday [76:31] it's hard to Define that really I was [76:33] thinking we probably wouldn't be sat [76:34] here now because there probably would [76:35] have been quite bit of unrest [76:37] potentially potentially I don't know I [76:39] don't know like I it it would have I [76:42] think we would have still been sitting [76:43] here I was wondering I would have gotten [76:45] my ass on a plane to come sit with you [76:46] at [76:48] least right so you never know how these [76:50] sort of domino effects can happen and [76:52] people can break out on the streets and [76:54] you know cuz what might happen let's [76:55] just play out the scenario Donald Trump [76:57] gets shot then some crazy right-wing [77:00] person comes out and shoots someone [77:02] else and then and then the streets of LA [77:04] look very different to the streets of LA [77:06] today and we sat here in La so do you [77:08] know what I mean that's kind of the [77:09] domino effect that was playing out in my [77:10] mind there'd be some kind of Revenge [77:12] right well I don't know that's what's [77:13] interesting so politically motivated [77:15] violence is tough if Donald Trump would [77:17] have been shot chances are the shooter [77:19] would have also been shot so from the [77:22] eyes of the American people and for sure [77:24] from the from the messaging that would [77:25] have come from the White House the [77:27] threat was neutralized and it's a [77:29] tragedy that we lost an American a [77:31] former American president Donald or Joe [77:34] Biden would have come out and would have [77:35] made kind caring remarks about Donald [77:37] Trump nobody would be talking about him [77:39] as crazy or whatever else he'd go down [77:41] as a hero following the Democratic [77:43] process for something he believed in [77:45] history would have been written a very [77:46] different way oh I don't know because I [77:48] think if Donald Trump had been hit I [77:50] mean this is just from chilling on [77:51] Twitter if Donald Trump had been hereit [77:54] regardless of whether that kid had been [77:55] shot and regardless of whatever people [77:58] would have believed that it was some [78:00] kind of deep State CIA left wing Hillary [78:03] Clinton involvement even if there was a [78:06] body fingerprints and they found the [78:07] kids hard drive and he was planning it [78:08] there's a group of people that still [78:09] would have believed that Absolut like [78:11] because there's a group of group of [78:12] people is you know that believe anything [78:14] correct and that group someone in that [78:15] group of people would have taken a [78:16] retaliatory action and then that this [78:18] this starts the stone throwing that I [78:20] think so they would have you know gone [78:21] they would might have been they might [78:22] have gone to a left [78:25] I don't know black uh event festival and [78:29] done something and then you have the the [78:32] ti for tat I don't I don't disagree that [78:34] it's a it's a possibility but the [78:36] question is whether or not a group would [78:38] have reached critical mass to take some [78:40] kind of action okay yeah right because I [78:42] mean think about the alternative the [78:43] alternative is is the streets of you [78:47] name the conservative State Texas [78:49] Florida whatever Pennsylvania maybe a [78:52] giant parade Fit For A King [78:55] right parading Donald Trump through the [78:57] streets something that and and Donal and [78:59] Joe Biden happily endorsing the money [79:02] for it to happen because he's an [79:03] ex-president and because that's showing [79:06] like unity and nationality it could have [79:08] been a chance to really bring the whole [79:10] country together and end some of the [79:13] bipolar division it could have there [79:15] would have still been just like you said [79:17] there would have been a group of people [79:18] who believed in some sort of deep State [79:19] action and there may have been follow-up [79:20] violence you're right again I think all [79:22] of those things are possibilities but it [79:24] is also Al a possibility that it would [79:26] have gone in the other direction there [79:28] still would have had to be a new a new [79:30] candidate identified by the Republican [79:32] National Convention so things would have [79:33] gone differently from that day very [79:35] interesting so going back to the shed [79:37] the person's come out of the shed they [79:39] understand this idea of perspective and [79:41] perception I'm really what I'm really [79:42] trying to get out here is I'm trying to [79:44] help people get out of the life they're [79:45] living that they hate and closer towards [79:48] the life that is aligned in whatever way [79:50] they Define alignment as so that they [79:53] can live the life they want to live so [79:54] they can start to kind of bend the world [79:56] in their favor and I use this term bend [79:58] the world intentionally because it's [79:59] something that I've come to learn in the [80:01] entrepreneurs that I've met and just the [80:02] people that seem to have the most power [80:04] they understand that the world they live [80:06] in is malleable and maybe that's the [80:08] analogy of being able to break out of [80:09] your shed but they understand that they [80:11] can like have an idea pursue the thing [80:13] and kind of convince their way to a goal [80:16] bend the world out of their way and [80:18] that's kind of what I want to equip the [80:19] people that are listening right now with [80:20] that ability to kind of bend the world [80:23] out of your way or to the shape in which [80:25] you want it to be I've got two things [80:27] that come to mind right the first is [80:29] there's this lesson that I learned at [80:31] CIA that I still teach now in my [80:32] training with Executives and individuals [80:34] and [80:35] entrepreneurs [80:37] where CIA warns us not to get tracked [80:40] not to get trapped in What's called the [80:42] Perfection [80:43] Paradox and the Perfection Paradox is [80:45] not the same thing as perfectionism the [80:47] Perfection Paradox is the idea that you [80:50] keep making incremental improvements to [80:53] a plan [80:55] but you never actually act on the plan [80:57] so you're seeking Perfection and you're [80:59] making genuine improvements but you're [81:02] not actually taking action so the impact [81:05] of your improvements is not felt so they [81:09] warn us against getting trapped in this [81:11] Perfection Paradox because you can [81:12] imagine if you're planning an operation [81:14] for whatever it's very very easy to just [81:16] start how do we make it this 5% better [81:19] how do we make it 2% better how do we [81:21] make it 1% better what if tomorrow's [81:22] intelligence gives us new information [81:24] what if intelligence the next day gives [81:26] us better information so you get trapped [81:28] in this Paradox and instead what they [81:30] tell us to do is engage in something [81:32] called the uh called Excellence through [81:36] execution Excellence through execution [81:38] is the idea that by executing you will [81:41] make mistakes and then you will improve [81:44] upon the mistakes because you will [81:45] execute again so Your Excellence comes [81:48] from [81:49] execution after 911 as a simple example [81:52] after 911 President Bush declared war [81:56] people were immediately deployed to the [81:58] mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan [82:01] immediately did they plan an operation [82:03] yes in about 48 hours and then they were [82:06] deployed and then you had paramilitary [82:09] people on Horseback with mules carrying [82:11] stuff through the mountains the only way [82:14] that's possible is [82:16] through Excellence through execution get [82:19] them on the ground and let them figure [82:21] it out from there because the stakes are [82:23] so high the impact has to be felt right [82:25] now so to your question how do we give [82:29] people the ability to bend the rules [82:31] bend the world around them it's [82:34] understanding that there is excellence [82:35] and execution and also understanding [82:38] that there is a paradox with perfection [82:42] so if you want to feel the impact you [82:44] can't keep planning you have to take [82:46] action and you have to understand that [82:48] the action you take may only be 20% of [82:50] what it will be one day but today you [82:54] take the lumps you make the mistakes and [82:56] you get the impact that you need the [82:58] second thing that came to my mind is [83:00] actually coming from a I have a ctim [83:01] millionaire client that I work with [83:02] frequently and he was talking about this [83:05] idea of centimillionaire I've never had [83:07] that term before I know what it is yeah [83:09] yeah I have a ctim millionaire client [83:10] who who was working with me on a on a [83:13] process to try to resolve some of the [83:17] challenges that he was having from from [83:19] the trauma that he was wired that was [83:20] wired in him as a kid right and how that [83:22] trauma has played out in his personal [83:24] life and his business life and [83:25] everything else and he made this awesome [83:27] breakthrough where he was like you know [83:29] therapists and counselors and spouses [83:33] because he's been married more than once [83:35] they all tell you to go through your [83:37] pain right it's like you've got to face [83:39] your trauma you've got to go through it [83:41] you've got to do the work you've got to [83:43] Bear the burden so that you can heal [83:47] whereas what I teach which is what CIA [83:49] teaches is why would you ever go through [83:52] something when you can go around it [83:55] so if you're trying to accept or recover [83:59] or understand and heal the fact that [84:01] your mom cheated on your dad when you [84:02] were seven you can't change it by [84:05] working through it you might come to [84:07] accept it but what's the point instead [84:10] you can just go right around that pain [84:12] and you can be like my mom cheated on my [84:15] dad and because of that this happened [84:17] and because of that this other thing [84:18] happened and because of that I became a [84:20] self-sufficient independent person who [84:23] didn't rely on my mom or my dad and now [84:25] I'm very successful because all that [84:27] matters is what's forward I can't change [84:30] what's behind and he made this [84:31] Revelation on his own I thought it was [84:32] such a powerful visual because we so [84:34] often think that the point from here to [84:36] here if there's all this mess in the [84:38] middle you have to go through the mess [84:40] when in fact you can also just go around [84:42] the mess and you can go right to the [84:44] point and you you don't have to heal you [84:46] just have to accept understand recognize [84:48] and move forward and so what did he do [84:50] so he he was trying to overcome his [84:51] trauma what how did how does he go [84:53] around it that specific example well [84:56] what he was so in that specific example [84:58] it was under he went back to the [85:00] traumatic incident that he experienced [85:02] and what he realized is that if his mom [85:05] hadn't cheated on his dad then the [85:07] domino effect that would have come after [85:09] that would have probably never led to [85:10] him starting the business that [85:11] ultimately made him an ultra high net [85:14] worth and once he made that connection [85:17] he was like oh well [ __ ] I'm glad my mom [85:19] cheated on my dad because now my [85:22] daughters are taken care of my sons are [85:23] taken care of my wives are taken care of [85:25] like my I've got 500 employees that are [85:28] taken care of I do business in four [85:29] different countries everybody's taken [85:31] care of does that require some time [85:33] though between the thing that happened [85:34] and where you are now because you know I [85:36] was sat here yesterday with a chap who [85:39] lost his son his 18mon year old son in [85:45] April and you know it's hard to in that [85:47] situation go Francis Inu he's a UFC [85:51] champion [85:52] um Harding that situation to try and [85:55] find a way around it it's a couple of [85:58] months ago there's no there's no way [86:01] around tragedy [86:04] that's that's loss that very few of us [86:07] will ever know [86:10] thankfully what I what we don't know is [86:13] how that will shape him in the [86:15] future all we know is what that's doing [86:19] to hurt him in the present right think [86:21] about think about all the famous stories [86:23] all the famous inspirational [86:25] motivational leaders that you've met who [86:27] had some kind of tragedy happen in the [86:29] past well actually funny enough cuz I [86:31] cuz I mentioned the loss of a son I had [86:32] a guy s called Mo Gat who was the ex- [86:35] head of Google X and his son passed away [86:38] in a routine operation that should have [86:39] taken 10 minutes but killed his son and [86:41] then he quit his job at Google and went [86:43] on search of What happiness is and if [86:45] when I asked him on the podcast I said [86:47] would you would you bring back your son [86:50] um now he said no like if you could go [86:54] back and well I'm sure he bring back his [86:56] I think what he's saying to me is that [86:57] if he could go back and um change what [86:59] happened would he change it and he said [87:01] no it's important like it's important to [87:04] understand when you are [87:08] wired for Success because not everyone [87:12] is wired for Success a lot of people are [87:14] wired for mediocrity a lot of people are [87:16] wired for basic survival a lot of people [87:19] are wired for pain and suffering but [87:21] when you are wired for success [87:24] you can't regret what's happened to you [87:26] in the past because to erase it or [87:28] change it would be to make you not the [87:31] person you are now and the person you [87:32] are now is successful do you think some [87:35] people are wired for Success absolutely [87:37] I think people are wired for Success [87:39] what does that means in real terms how [87:41] do I know if I'm wired for success I [87:43] think empirically there's lots of proof [87:45] that you're wired for success but I'm [87:46] talking about you know Dave that's [87:48] listening to this now or Janet um how do [87:50] they know that if they wired for Success [87:52] so what what I have found pretty [87:54] consistently not only in clients that I [87:57] work with but also in the actual CIA [88:01] field operations that I've engaged in [88:04] right and it's important that the reason [88:06] I compare clients to spies is because [88:10] what spies are are people who are living [88:14] in a shed looking through a window and [88:15] realize there's something else on the [88:17] other side you can't cre you can't find [88:20] a happy person living in ignorance in [88:23] their shed and and convince them that [88:25] it's a good idea to commit treason [88:26] against their country you can't because [88:28] they're very happy once somebody's very [88:30] happy and very like satisfied they don't [88:33] aspire to anything so you can't go them [88:37] into telling you Secrets or pay them or [88:39] trick them or force them because they're [88:41] very satisfied where they are so a spy [88:43] is a a an asset in the field is somebody [88:48] who believes that there might be [88:49] something [88:50] better a a actual client wired for [88:54] success also believes that there is [88:56] something better the difference between [88:57] the two is that this person can be [89:00] manipulated which person the the spy in [89:03] the field who's who's desperate to get [89:06] out of the shed that person can be [89:08] manipulated whereas a good client is [89:11] suspicious and aware that people are [89:13] trying to manipulate them so they're [89:16] looking for guidance they're looking for [89:18] something they can test they're looking [89:19] for something they can prove right so [89:23] that's why I compare the two so closely [89:26] both are wired to be successful because [89:29] they already know that there is more [89:31] than just the world around them they [89:32] already know that there is something [89:35] limiting them they already know that [89:37] there's a [89:38] barrier and they by being aware that [89:41] they that there is a barrier that makes [89:43] them want to cross or break the barrier [89:46] that's what being wired for Success [89:48] means it means that you know that [89:50] there's something holding you back and [89:51] you want to overcome the thing that's [89:53] holding you back so for I'm thinking now [89:55] I was in a Black Cab the other day in [89:56] London and there's I have so many [89:59] conversation with conversations with [90:00] black cab drivers in London because they [90:02] a lot of them obviously because their [90:04] the nature of their work they listen to [90:05] podcast and the radio and such and so [90:07] sometimes they recognize me and they'll [90:08] say I was you know listening to podcast [90:10] I love it Etc um and I'm thinking of [90:13] starting a business and I've got this [90:15] idea and this idea and whatever when you [90:18] talk about them knowing that there's [90:20] something more out there but there's [90:22] something in their way can can you speak [90:24] to what that black cab driver is feeling [90:26] in his life I'm just using this as a [90:28] random example but can you cuz I really [90:30] want you to resonate with him so he [90:32] knows you're speaking to him so [90:33] whoever's listening to this now knows [90:35] that they can they go [ __ ] that's me [90:38] when you are conditioned when you're a [90:40] when you're a s when you're wired for [90:42] success but conditioned in our Western [90:44] Society [90:46] especially then you know that there's [90:48] more you want there to be more but you [90:50] also believe that there has to be a [90:52] process road map a recipe a plan to get [90:58] there so you you've got this what we [91:00] call a cognitive [91:02] dissonance you don't believe everything [91:05] you're hearing but you don't know [91:07] anything else to believe so there's this [91:09] dissonance there's this frustration so [91:11] if you want to know what that black Hab [91:12] driver feels they feel frustrated every [91:14] day because they know there's more they [91:16] want more they just don't know how to do [91:18] it even worse they have probably tried [91:21] dude there's this heartbreaking story [91:22] for me it's a business heartbreak [91:23] breaking story I I was in Portland [91:26] Oregon I was sitting with this [91:30] 24-year-old kid who worked part-time at [91:33] a brewery right I must have been 38 [91:36] years old very young and in everyday spy [91:38] everyday spy was was two years old the [91:40] time and I was sitting with this kid and [91:43] he had no ambition he worked part-time [91:46] at a brewery and he was totally happy to [91:48] do he lived with four roommates he drank [91:50] beer every afternoon starting at 2:00 [91:52] funny [ __ ] guy really funny dude to [91:54] hang out with but he had no goals no no [91:56] Ambitions no aspirations and I was like [91:58] what did your parents do and he was like [92:01] oh my my mom ran her own business from [92:04] our farm in whatever it was Idaho or [92:06] something like that I was like oh what [92:07] did she do and he was like well she only [92:09] had her own business for a few years but [92:11] she would cater to the other families in [92:14] the other farming families so she would [92:16] make five or seven dinners and then sell [92:18] that to the other Farmers families so [92:20] they would have extra food so that the [92:21] wives of those families could F could [92:23] take care of their or 12 kids or [92:24] whatever and I was like oh that's [92:26] interesting why don't you want to be an [92:28] entrepreneur if your mom was an [92:29] entrepreneur and he was like oh well she [92:32] was really inspiring to me and at first [92:34] I thought I might want to be an [92:35] entrepreneur but the thing was my mom [92:37] never felt like a success because she [92:39] failed he was like my mom only was able [92:42] to run her catering business for about [92:44] three years before it failed and I was [92:46] like well why did you say she was an [92:48] entrepreneur and he was like because to [92:49] me she was she started a business she [92:53] ran it for three years doing what she [92:54] loved she was an entrepreneur but then [92:57] all that work she still failed in the [93:00] end so his rationale was why even try [93:03] but he still looked up to his mom as [93:05] being an entrepreneur so the thing that [93:07] kills me is that there are so many [93:09] entrepreneurs out there who are trying [93:11] and failing and some of them after they [93:14] failed two or three times they stopped [93:16] trying and they just accept the shed and [93:19] they accept that this is the circle [93:20] that's drawn around me and this is the [93:21] way it has to be they don't even realize [93:24] that one or two or three or four more [93:26] attempts is going to be when they get [93:28] their big breakthrough all they need is [93:30] a recipe so I'm just my goal in every in [93:33] life every day is just get one more [93:35] person to follow the simplest recipe [93:39] what is your favorite case study of [93:41] someone that followed the recipe and [93:42] changed their life in my company yeah my [93:45] my favorite case study is me yeah [93:47] because I'm the one that reaps the [93:49] benefits of it every day I have multiple [93:51] people who have had some pretty awesome [93:53] success I I have uh one gentleman who [93:56] recently wrote to me who told me that [93:58] for the first time in his life I think [93:59] he was in his mid-30s for the first time [94:01] in his life he has a six-figure job now [94:03] and he was an engineer and he wrote me [94:06] to tell me that one of the Frameworks [94:07] that we taught him through our company [94:09] helped him get a $31,000 [94:12] $32,000 raise and a promotion to a [94:16] senior level in his company where for [94:18] The Last 5 Years he'd been asking for a [94:21] promotion asking for a raise and his [94:22] boss has always just told him no or he [94:24] wasn't qualified or he wasn't fit but [94:27] then he started practicing one of our [94:28] Frameworks and nine months later was [94:31] promoted asking which framework he [94:34] didn't tell me which framework oh he [94:35] told me it was coming from our ma we [94:37] have a master course called operational [94:39] thinking and inside that we teach many [94:41] influence Frameworks so it was clearly a [94:43] a framework of influence that he had [94:45] tapped into I also recently had we have [94:48] this event in Las Vegas called the Intel [94:50] Edge where we bring in a number of [94:52] speakers from the intelligence world I [94:54] have an FBI speaker who comes in I have [94:56] a Green Beret who comes in I have a [94:59] exercise scientist come in I even had a [95:01] recently I had a great friend of mine [95:02] who's an emm award-winning journalist an [95:04] investigative journalist come in and we [95:06] teach in Las Vegas we teach hundreds of [95:08] people at a time we had one person who [95:11] wrote from that Intel Edge event um he [95:14] was a Puerto Rican guy his name is [95:16] Emanuel Emanuel if you're listening I [95:18] love you brother but Emanuel just had a [95:21] baby first baby with his wife [95:24] and within the first month of having the [95:26] baby his company laid him off so he had [95:29] all these Life Changes a new baby he was [95:32] so proud and so excited to be a dad and [95:34] then he was facing unemployment and he [95:37] applied our framework specifically our [95:39] framework on mirroring and winning the [95:43] interviewer instead of winning the [95:44] interview and about three months after [95:47] he was laid off he got a new job in a [95:50] science lab that paid him more than he [95:52] had ever earned before [95:54] and he came to the next Intel Edge event [95:56] that we had so we saw him in say October [95:58] and he came back to us again in March [96:00] something like that and he came back and [96:02] he told us this story and the whole my [96:03] whole team lit up my whole team was like [96:05] because we had all seen him when he was [96:09] when he was showing his pictures of the [96:10] baby and then we all saw the email from [96:12] him that said my company laid me off I [96:14] don't know how I'm going to take care of [96:15] my family and then we see him again and [96:18] he's like guys you'll never believe what [96:19] happened like I did this thing I [96:21] followed your mirroring example I W over [96:23] over the interviewer and now I have this [96:26] job that I would have never gotten [96:27] otherwise these are the stories that I'm [96:29] spoiled by I I have my customer service [96:32] team and and even my executive team we [96:36] don't see all the testimonials that we [96:38] get because they've we've become a [96:40] little bit desensitized to them because [96:43] they happen so often and I love it when [96:45] they happen but I'm not surprised when [96:46] they happen because of course the [96:48] recipes work the recipes work because [96:49] they were refined in the in the center [96:53] of CIA they've been working for ages [96:56] they just haven't ever been shared with [96:58] the public I think the reason why I [97:00] loved those two subjects in school that [97:02] I was really good at or at least that I [97:04] enjoyed therefore I was better at um I [97:07] mean for me to be good at something I [97:09] mean I didn't go to many lessons in [97:11] school so I was bad at most things but [97:12] the two lessons that I went to were [97:14] psychology and business and at a very [97:16] young age I think maybe 14 years old [97:17] that had this idea implanted into my [97:19] head that I always have repeated I'm 31 [97:21] now and I think I've definitely repeated [97:24] this this sentence or this this [97:26] phrase 10 times a year since I was 14 [97:29] and the Crux of it is that the only [97:31] thing standing in my way of being the [97:34] world's greatest entrepreneur [97:36] philanthropist sales person is just a [97:38] bunch of people like very early on I had [97:41] the seed in my head that the barriers to [97:43] life the barriers to riches to whatever [97:45] you want are just people so if you can [97:47] understand people and how to influence [97:50] them then you hold the keys to the City [97:53] the proverbial proverbial City so when [97:56] you talked about this influence [97:57] framework I thought maybe that's the [97:58] most important thing to talk about [98:00] because a do you agree with what I said [98:02] as like a foundational seed in your mind [98:04] that it's just people um and then B I'd [98:07] love to talk about how we influence [98:09] people so yes I agree with you that [98:13] people are all that stand in the way and [98:14] we have to remember that we ourselves [98:15] are people yeah so we're part of the [98:18] problem yeah um and influence Frameworks [98:22] are [98:24] powerful [98:25] Frameworks for getting what you [98:28] want I think the place to start because [98:32] not all Frameworks are simple remember [98:33] how we were talking about there's [98:34] foundational Frameworks there's twep [98:36] Frameworks and then there's 12ep step [98:38] Frameworks right the thing to understand [98:40] is Frameworks all fit within each other [98:42] they fit like nesting dolls like Russian [98:43] nesting dolls so when you [98:48] learn any kind of framework that has to [98:51] do with influence what you're also have [98:53] to learn are the sub Frameworks inside [98:56] of it to be able to execute the whole [98:58] thing but the place to really start is [98:59] understand that influence and persuasion [99:01] are not the same [99:02] thing right persuasion is what happens [99:07] when you actively put energy into [99:11] changing someone's mind or getting [99:13] someone to take a certain action with [99:16] active energy influen is what you have [99:19] when you're not [99:22] talking so I can sit here and try to [99:24] persuade you to come with me to dinner [99:27] mhm but that's not influence that's [99:29] persuasion influence is what happens [99:32] when something happens in the world and [99:34] I'm the one that comes into your mind [99:36] and you're like I wonder what Andy [99:37] thinks about that which probably doesn't [99:39] happen but one day hopefully it will [99:41] happen if I gain enough influence right [99:43] that's the difference persuasion takes [99:45] energy influence is passive it doesn't [99:47] happen it takes a lot of experience it [99:49] takes a lot of Engagement it takes a lot [99:51] of assessment energy trust it takes a [99:55] lot of effort to get someone to a place [99:57] where you have influence over them but [99:59] there's a framework for that there are [100:01] Frameworks and Frameworks within [100:02] Frameworks that I'm happy to teach if [100:04] you want to go through those yeah [100:05] whatever you think is most useful for me [100:07] and my [100:08] audience so I'll start with this I'll [100:11] start at the lowest possible place right [100:13] and the lowest possible place if you if [100:15] you think of influence up here MH as a [100:20] umbrella there's a sub frame work inside [100:24] of that umbrella and then there's a [100:25] third inside of that so we're going to [100:27] start with that one first and grow and [100:29] that framework is something called sense [100:31] making because if I want to influence [100:33] you or if you want to influence me we [100:36] have to make sense of the dynamic of our [100:40] relationship meaning one of us has to be [100:43] in power and one of us has to comply [100:45] with the other person's power that's the [100:47] whole goal of sense Mak so that's why we [100:50] we are starting at that framework inside [100:53] sense Mak if you imagine it like a cup [100:55] MH [100:57] right sense Mak is like a cylinder and [101:00] just like you fill a cup with water [101:02] you'll fill this cylinder with scense [101:05] the bottom third of the cup is what we [101:08] call avoidance that's where every [101:10] relationship starts every time you meet [101:12] a new person you try to avoid that [101:14] person it's the first thought you have [101:16] even if you don't want to admit it no [101:18] I'll admit [101:20] it no that's very much the nature of my [101:22] life that's the nature of every that's [101:24] human nature we avoid what's new so the [101:27] first third is avoidance so you've got [101:29] to fill the water you've got to fill the [101:31] relationship you have to put enough time [101:32] and energy into the relationship to get [101:34] past the bottom third now you're making [101:37] sense the next third is called [101:40] competition competition is all about the [101:43] exchange of information the exchange of [101:45] ideas the exchange of energy because in [101:49] an exchange you're building a [101:51] relationship even if you're arguing even [101:53] even if you disagree even if you hate [101:54] the other person and you're yelling in [101:56] their face you're still investing energy [101:58] into that person whereas if you really [102:01] didn't care about them you would just [102:03] avoid them all [102:04] together the last third is called [102:08] compliance the whole reason that you [102:10] compete is to have someone come out with [102:13] compliance and compliance is the part [102:15] where the power Dynamic is is identified [102:19] right so we've invested so much time in [102:22] competition [102:23] that now we're not arguing and fighting [102:25] anymore now we're starting to make sense [102:28] of our relationship you've heard the [102:30] phrase we'll just agree to disagree M [102:33] essentially that is the top of the sense [102:35] making cylinder you've filled the cup [102:38] and where you land at the end is we'll [102:40] just agree to disagree which is kind of [102:42] a mutual understanding of each other's [102:44] position on whatever it was that you [102:46] were competing over but you're still a [102:49] unit you've still invested into a [102:51] relationship so sense making is filling [102:54] that first cup because now what we know [102:57] at the conclusion of this phase is that [102:59] we're in this together I've poured water [103:02] in you've poured water in and if there's [103:04] anything that human beings hate to do [103:06] it's waste their energy so I've put all [103:08] this energy into you you put all this [103:09] energy into me and now we have a dynamic [103:12] between [103:13] us from once there's sense once we [103:16] understand and remember this is if we [103:19] agree to disagree then that's we've made [103:22] sense of our relationship is mutual [103:23] peers on this particular topic [103:27] politics that doesn't mean that we're [103:29] Mutual peers in terms of conversations [103:31] about family or conversations about [103:32] business or conversations about you name [103:34] it exercise right but we have a [103:36] relationship enough that now we can talk [103:38] about those other things so if I want to [103:40] build influence or if you want to build [103:41] influence the first thing we have to do [103:43] is not let people avoid us we have to [103:45] get past the [103:46] avoidance and then we have to compete [103:48] with them to get them to invest their [103:50] time and energy into our relationship [103:51] and then we have to get to a place where [103:53] there's some sort of compliance even if [103:54] it's only the compliance to sit and [103:56] listen to me when I share my opinion [103:57] that you already know you're going to [103:58] disagree with that's still compliance [104:01] that's the foundational framework that [104:03] feeds up into a secondary framework that [104:06] we call no like [104:09] trust no like trust is something that [104:13] actually exists in the social media [104:14] World which was a really awesome [104:16] surprise to me to find it there [104:19] um klt no like trust starts with [104:23] Discovery if you don't know something [104:25] exists you can never like it because you [104:28] don't even know it exists once you know [104:30] something exists you have to decide [104:32] whether or not you like it well how do [104:33] you decide whether or not you like it [104:35] through this this avoidance competition [104:38] compliance sense making process because [104:41] as soon as you discover something new [104:42] it's new so guess what you try to do [104:45] avoid it you see what I'm saying so [104:49] after you get through the end of the [104:50] compliance phase of of sense making [104:54] you're basically you like whatever it is [104:58] or whoever it is that you're dealing [104:59] with maybe you don't like them like [105:02] they're your best friend but you've [105:03] invested all this time and energy into [105:05] them so you do like them the secret [105:08] sauce at CIA that we know that most [105:10] people don't understand is that you [105:12] don't have to like something a lot [105:15] before you start to trust it you've [105:17] heard the term falling in love there's [105:20] also a very real term called falling [105:22] into trust you just spend enough time [105:25] long enough and what happens is without [105:28] even realizing it you start to trust the [105:30] person that you're with that is the [105:32] beginning of [105:35] influence even if I'm wrong even if you [105:38] disagree with me every step of the way [105:39] even if the only thing you like about me [105:41] is going out and having a pint on Friday [105:44] night where we debate and argue and [105:46] [ __ ] at each other about politics you [105:49] still like Friday night going to the bar [105:53] sharing a pint with me you still like [105:55] hanging out with me when we watch our [105:56] two different soccer teams play or [105:58] football teams play so because you like [106:01] me enough to be with me there will come [106:04] a time where I win your trust in some in [106:08] some area maybe it's trust because I'm [106:11] the only person who drinks with you so [106:14] in a moment you decide to tell me about [106:15] how much you hate your boss and now I'm [106:17] the only one that knows you actually [106:18] hate your boss whatever it might be you [106:19] will fall into trust we all fall into [106:21] trust it's one of the things that that's [106:23] natural to human beings that we hate [106:25] about ourselves is we trust the wrong [106:27] people it happens to all of us so [106:30] someone can trust you in terms of [106:31] influence even if they don't like you [106:33] correct because they will be invested [106:36] enough into you that they believe [106:38] something is predictable think about [106:40] somebody that you don't like think about [106:41] somebody you really really don't like [106:43] yeah are there still things about them [106:45] that you would trust them to [106:47] do maybe not things they would do for [106:49] you but there are certain things that [106:51] you would trust that they would do [106:53] I already know that person's going to [106:55] you know say something stupid to my kid [106:57] I already trust that that person is [106:58] going to put their garbage can at the [107:01] end of my driveway so it's it's [107:02] fascinating because we usually think of [107:05] trust as only being a positive term [107:07] trust is an ambiguous it's it's a it's a [107:10] uh it is an agnostic term it doesn't [107:15] mean good things or bad things it just [107:17] means a predictable outcome do you know [107:19] the lens I was thinking about as you [107:20] were speaking I was thinking about [107:22] randomly I was thinking about like [107:23] personal branding and LinkedIn because I [107:26] was thinking about like personal [107:27] branding strategies people go on [107:28] LinkedIn and they have all these hot [107:30] takes and I was wondering through the [107:32] context of what you were saying does it [107:33] matter if people like what I'm saying [107:36] you know if I'm going on LinkedIn every [107:37] day and I'm doing another hot take or [107:39] sharing my opinion can I build trust [107:41] with my audience even if they don't even [107:42] if there's loads of people disagreeing [107:44] with me or is there a certain type of [107:46] content or you know personal brand [107:49] strategy that's going to ultimately [107:51] build more influence [107:54] Ence I love the question because what [107:56] you're getting at is a framework that we [107:58] have called The Power of [108:00] polarity if you want to create power if [108:03] you want to create draw or appeal which [108:05] is power you have to polarize you have [108:08] to stand for something because if you [108:11] don't stand for something nobody really [108:14] knows what you believe in so you have to [108:16] polarize so to your point there's lots [108:20] of people on LinkedIn there's lots of [108:21] people on on Facebook on Twitter or [108:23] whatever who are out there screaming [108:26] something they're they're making a point [108:28] and they're being drowned out by all the [108:30] other people who are out there making a [108:31] point Pi Morgan Elon Musk you know those [108:34] are those are people who already have [108:35] influence okay part of part of how well [108:38] like in the case of P Morgan part of how [108:39] he he's got his influence is by being [108:41] polarity by being y standing for [108:43] something very and not being scared of [108:45] the fact that people going to tell him [108:47] that they don't like him even better I [108:50] want people to tell me that they don't [108:52] like me [108:53] that's even better because what happens [108:55] is when you have when you drive polarity [108:58] when you drive polar [109:01] response you create enemies but you also [109:04] create [109:05] friends and what do friends do when [109:08] enemies [109:09] attack they [109:11] defend right so when you stand for [109:14] something even if only a small group of [109:16] people agree with you they still defend [109:19] you they still support you they still [109:20] invest in you that means they're moving [109:22] from that avoidance competition [109:24] compliance phase into no like trust and [109:27] then when they defend you they can't [109:28] help but fall into trust because what [109:30] are they defending they're putting [109:31] energy in defending you so they're going [109:33] to trust you even more and when that [109:36] group of people trusts you and other [109:38] non-competitive people other observers [109:41] watch that some people are attacking you [109:43] and other people are defending you it [109:44] makes them feel like they have to choose [109:47] between attacking you or defending you [109:49] is there a way to stand for something [109:51] correctly and is there a way to badly [109:54] stand for something and I say this [109:55] because as you were speaking I was [109:56] thinking about my friend my friend is [109:58] really really bad at um LinkedIn and he [110:01] comes to LinkedIn with like very [110:04] inconsistent takes on the world I'm [110:06] going to give you an example for for [110:09] many years for many years he's um had a [110:12] narrative about alcohol being bad and [110:15] he's been sober but then the World Cup [110:17] came around and he was he posted on [110:19] LinkedIn the World Cup was in the Middle [110:21] East that the Middle East should allow [110:22] people to binge drink and posting [110:24] against the sort of religious um [110:26] perspective that says alcohol is bad so [110:28] he was like people should be allowed to [110:29] to binge drink if they want in the [110:30] Middle East but then his other [110:32] perspective has always been that alcohol [110:33] is bad and like why do people binge [110:34] drink and so the [110:36] inconsistency has really [ __ ] him up I [110:38] think well that's showing why he [110:40] probably also doesn't have much [110:42] influence because people don't know [110:45] where he stands so there's nothing to St [110:48] like somebody who who rallies behind him [110:50] like it sounds like when you were [110:51] telling the story to to a certain extent [110:53] you were like proud of him when he was [110:55] like originally yeah when when he was [110:56] clear what he stood for but it's it's [110:58] every day is a different take I'm like [111:00] and that's what cost that's what costs [111:01] you your your influence so he diminished [111:04] his own power by not demonstrating [111:07] polarity he should have just stood a [111:09] ground even if the ground isn't popular [111:11] even if it's not popular or positive if [111:13] you stay in one place and you drive a [111:16] clear polar message or polarizing [111:19] message some people will rally behind [111:22] you some people will attack you either [111:24] way you benefit from it this is one of [111:26] the things I love about YouTube I'm sure [111:28] you've discovered this too for anybody [111:29] out there who's trying to make money on [111:31] YouTube or grow an audience on YouTube [111:32] or do anything with YouTube needs to [111:35] understand the best comments are [111:37] oftentimes the worst [111:39] comments because somebody chimes in and [111:41] talks [ __ ] about something it only [111:44] instigates more people to come in and [111:46] leave a comment and guess what YouTube [111:48] wants comments they just want engagement [111:52] because engagement means people are on [111:54] the platform when there's a split [111:56] between thumbs up and thumbs down it [111:57] means there's polarizing content which [111:59] means even more people are going to stay [112:00] on the platform so they spread it even [112:02] further and wider right so you can't be [112:05] afraid of being polarizing and you have [112:06] to lean into being polarizing the way we [112:09] use it at CIA is when you're talking to [112:10] a spy when you're talking to somebody [112:12] and you want them to commit treason [112:14] against their country you have to be [112:16] able to ask a polarizing question to [112:18] find out whether or not they're going to [112:20] hint that they would be Traders or [112:22] whether they are staunch supporters and [112:24] nationalists but you have to test that [112:27] barrier if you're ever going to actually [112:28] develop the kind of relationship the [112:30] kind of power to convince them to commit [112:32] treason it made me think about Brands as [112:34] well because you know there's a lot of [112:36] Brands out there that have done really [112:37] really well for by standing for [112:39] something by being polarizing okay and [112:41] it was it was um Jane waren on my [112:43] podcast that talked about her brand [112:45] dermal and she said to me she said you [112:47] have to be willing to piss off the 80% [112:50] to get your 20% she goes you don't need [112:53] people um to like you she goes that's [112:56] not a brand you need them to love you or [112:58] hate you she goes that's a brand it's [113:01] genius it's absolutely correct she is [113:03] talking about polarizing she's talking [113:05] about that no like trust process and [113:09] getting people to go beyond like into [113:12] love you or hate you if they love you or [113:14] hate you then they are in the trust side [113:17] of the no like trust process they either [113:19] trust what you say or they trust that [113:22] they're going to hate what you say mhm [113:25] but either way they're in the trust part [113:27] of no like [113:28] trust I was a kid in my bedroom that was [113:31] building my business all on my own one [113:34] of the websites I used religiously was a [113:35] website called Fiverr Fiverr spell f v r [113:39] r and FIV have just released a Tor that [113:43] I think is a game changer for anybody [113:44] that's looking for Quality freelance [113:46] support when you're building a product [113:48] when you're building a company when [113:49] you're building a project and it's [113:51] called Neo you can have a conversation [113:54] with the AI agent called Neo tell it [113:56] about the problem you have and it will [113:58] help you find the solution I.E it will [114:01] help you find the perfect freelancer to [114:03] write a brief for that perfect [114:05] freelancer and all you have to do is [114:07] communicate exactly what your needs are [114:09] it will select them it'll bring you [114:10] together it will update the search [114:12] results based on your conversation as it [114:14] evolves and a couple of days ago when I [114:16] needed a graphic designer for a project [114:17] I used Neo and it got me the perfect [114:20] freelancer in a fraction of the time go [114:23] and check it out right now go to [114:24] fiver.com [114:25] diary and you can check near out for [114:28] yourself so what else do I need to know [114:30] about influence and influencing other [114:32] people um you know you said persuasion [114:35] is not the same uh as what was the other [114:38] one influence influence yeah persuasion [114:40] and influence are two different things [114:41] so what about persuasion then how do I [114:42] persuade somebody persuasion is a [114:45] process that's much easier because it's [114:46] really just a matter of triggering an [114:49] emotional response and then guiding [114:52] rational thought around that emotional [114:54] response honestly persuasion is what [114:56] exists far more in the world than [114:57] influence persuasion is what happens in [114:59] advertising persuasion is what happens [115:01] when you watch a commercial persuasion [115:03] is what happens when you try to convince [115:05] your kids to brush their teeth at night [115:06] or one day you will convince your [115:07] children to brush their teeth T night [115:09] that's all [115:10] persuasion because you're you are [115:12] creating an emotional message it's a [115:15] it's a question of messaging and [115:16] narrative you're creating an emotional [115:18] message that emotional message is [115:20] designed to trigger certain emotion [115:23] emotional responses in the Target that [115:24] you're talking to and then you change [115:27] the message itself but you hit on the [115:30] same [115:31] emotion and the reason that you do that [115:33] is because after they've been hit with [115:34] enough of the same emotional messages [115:37] they start to develop a cognitive [115:42] rational [115:43] narrative that they adopt personally so [115:47] The Narrative of the deep State came [115:51] from lots of emotional messages about [115:53] why you can't trust the government and [115:55] then all those emotional messages turn [115:57] into somebody or a group of people [115:59] thinking well if I can't trust the [116:00] government what I can do is trust that [116:02] the government can't be trusted because [116:05] there's a shadow government right so [116:08] that's how you essentially that's how [116:09] you persuade somebody so if you want to [116:11] persuade someone to buy from your coffee [116:13] shop and not somebody else's coffee shop [116:15] you want to persuade someone to buy a [116:16] Subaru and not a Nissan you want to [116:19] persuade somebody to uh to buy from your [116:22] sales funnel immediately instead of wait [116:26] until your third email in your welcome [116:27] series it's all a matter of being able [116:29] to set up a series of emotional messages [116:32] that drive a rational narrative that [116:35] they decide for themselves that brings [116:38] them to a place where they take an [116:39] action that you want them to take give [116:40] me an example okay so let's say that uh [116:44] you and I are trying to [116:46] sell um what about this whoop on my [116:49] wrist hasht add hash investor hash [116:50] sponsor what about this from Mar all [116:54] right you understand how woot Works what [116:55] is it tell me what it is um it is a it's [116:59] a fitness tracker but it's a sleep [117:00] tracker it's a stress tracker tracks my [117:02] heart rate variability um so it's [117:04] biodata yeah it it syncs your biod dat [117:07] in one convenient place yeah and I can [117:09] see my friends biod dat as well if they [117:11] if they accept so we can kind of compete [117:12] a little bit Ah so it gives [117:13] accountability and and a sort of shared [117:16] Mission yeah Community Etc yeah right so [117:19] if you want to persuade people to buy [117:21] your hashtag spons # product # investor [117:24] what's it called whoop whoop yeah we [117:26] want people to buy a whoop whoop.com [117:28] yeah so so SL [117:33] do perfect so if we want people to buy a [117:36] whoop we don't tell them bi a whoop [117:40] because it's an awesome biot tracker [117:43] that tracks your heart rate and tracks [117:45] your sleep and tracks your body [117:46] temperature we don't tell them that [117:48] because that's what there's other tools [117:49] that do that what we have to do is give [117:51] them some kind of emotional message [117:53] right so first we're going to choose an [117:56] audience that we want to create an [117:57] emotional message for we're both we both [118:00] love the women that we're with so let's [118:02] talk about people who are in a serious [118:03] relationship or a committed [118:06] relationship I very much care whether my [118:09] wife is healthy whether she's sleeping [118:11] well whether she's got high stress so [118:13] now I want to craft an emotional message [118:15] about how whoop will help me make my [118:17] marriage better because I'll be able to [118:19] see what my wife is feeling without [118:21] having to ask her oh God what every man [118:24] wants to be able to read her [118:26] mind [118:27] now people are feeling something right [118:32] says that's amazing say that again down [118:35] the [118:36] camera so why let's come up with another [118:39] message another emotional message for [118:40] the same reason right I really don't [118:43] like bedtime because at bedtime my wife [118:45] always melts down and yells at the kids [118:47] and she melts down because she's had a [118:49] rough day and I'm coming home from a [118:51] rough day and I have no idea how rough [118:53] her day is and it doesn't matter because [118:55] now it's bedtime so if I had a whoop [118:57] what I'd be able to do is call my wife [118:59] on the way home and say hey babe it [119:01] looks like you've had a rough day thanks [119:02] to your whoop why don't you take 30 [119:04] minutes go take a bath do your whole [119:06] self-care routine first and I'll deal [119:08] with the kids and I'll make dinner so [119:09] that you can calm down and then you can [119:10] swap out and help me and we can be a [119:13] team right whoop makes married couples a [119:16] team again I love that so you can now [119:19] what we're doing is we're we're [119:21] messaging to make husbands and [119:24] boyfriends feel a certain way about I [119:28] love her already I want her to succeed [119:30] and I also secretly know that if she [119:32] succeeds I succeed because guess who [119:34] goes to bed with her at night right [119:36] that's what we're making them feel so if [119:38] we did four three four five messages [119:40] like that even if they were bullets on a [119:42] sales page instead of a phone Telecom [119:44] team right if we were to do that what's [119:47] the logical rational outcome that [119:50] any male in a serious heterosexual [119:54] relationship is going to land on they [119:55] take the 30-day free trial [119:57] that that's exactly what they're going [119:59] to do that's exactly what they do with [120:02] high probability that is empirically [120:04] sound that you can measure through [120:06] clicks open rates and view [120:09] time because you've crafted a persuasive [120:13] message and what do people typically do [120:16] they typically Brands will typically [120:17] come out and say something like oh it's [120:19] a they'll sell it on its features [120:22] successful successful Brands which is [120:24] the only kind of brand that really [120:25] exists because you're not a brand until [120:26] you've had success successful Brands [120:28] will do what we what you and I are [120:29] talking about but they won't systematize [120:32] it they'll let it be [120:34] accidental You' you've heard of like I'm [120:36] I'm shocked how often advertising [120:38] agencies create failed ads like bad ads [120:41] because they're just they're just [120:42] throwing spaghetti at the wall they're [120:43] not following a system they're not [120:45] following a process like what we just [120:46] talked about create a series of messages [120:49] and then create a rational response [120:50] that's high probability and then find a [120:51] way to measure it all and then [120:53] systematize it and then scale your ad [120:55] spend to match the thing that you just [120:57] built right they're not that's not what [120:58] they're thinking they're thinking what [121:00] if we just talk about this what if we [121:02] just talk about this this just happened [121:03] in the news let's talk about that so [121:06] they're not using a system the place [121:07] where most people go wrong isn't with [121:09] Brands it's with young entrepreneurs [121:11] it's with young entrepreneurs who become [121:13] so myopically focused on their product [121:16] that they forget that there's four Ps [121:18] for marketing product is just one of the [121:20] four right right there's also price [121:22] there's also place there's also [121:24] promotion promotion is the one that I [121:26] would say should be swapped with [121:28] persuasion because if you can promote [121:30] something in a persuasive way doesn't [121:33] really matter what you price it at [121:34] doesn't really matter where you put it [121:35] and it also doesn't matter what the [121:37] product is people will buy it because [121:39] there's a market for everything so the [121:41] place where people go [121:42] wrong isn't that they're that they're [121:46] not trying the place where people go [121:48] wrong is that they don't realize that [121:50] talking about the benefits talking about [121:52] the rational benefits of the product is [121:54] not persuasive persuasion starts with an [121:57] emotional message how do you translate [121:59] that then to a interpersonal [122:02] relationship context where I'm trying to [122:04] you know convince a you talked about [122:06] interviewing earlier you said that one [122:08] of your case studies is a guy that kind [122:09] of learned how to interview how do I [122:11] translate that so that if I walk into [122:13] any interview ever I'm going to walk out [122:15] with the [122:16] job what do you think every interviewer [122:19] is looking for some someone well okay so [122:23] I've got two answers to this a someone [122:25] to do the job uh and then B someone they [122:28] like that's really what they're looking [122:30] for it's someone they like I do a lot of [122:32] interviewing I spend a lot of my time [122:34] interviewing when I'm not doing this I'm [122:35] basically interviewing people so I've [122:37] come to learn my own biases in that [122:39] regard a little bit but you're so right [122:40] it's heavily about if you like the [122:42] person well guess what I just taught you [122:44] a framework for how to get through [122:45] getting someone to like you m right so [122:48] without a doubt we agree well that was [122:50] to get them me influenc the framework [122:52] wasn't it no like trust we went through [122:55] we went through the sense making [122:56] framework yeah so that you could go from [122:58] no to like to trust so at the top of [123:01] sense making that's when you're in the [123:03] phase where people like or invested in [123:07] you what interviewers really like isn't [123:10] people that they like it's people who [123:13] are alike the interviewer really so I [123:17] guarantee you that the people that you [123:18] have liked interviewing the most I'm [123:20] even willing to bet that you will admit [123:21] in this conversation at some point we'll [123:24] put that on the line that a big portion [123:26] of your hiring is because you see [123:29] elements of yourself in the people that [123:31] you hire I mean like I don't consciously [123:34] know that but I totally believe it [123:37] because when you see someone who has who [123:41] reflects elements of you yeah you [123:43] immediately go through the sense making [123:45] process and you flip to like and Trust [123:47] interesting so we need to clarify this [123:49] because when you say elements of myself [123:52] there's parts of myself that I'm like I [123:53] would never hire correct but that's not [123:55] the part of you that you like yeah it's [123:57] the part of you that you don't like you [123:59] trust that part of you to not be good at [124:01] the job yeah but there's other parts of [124:03] you that you trust to be good at the job [124:05] and that's what you shoot for yeah right [124:07] I'm also willing to bet that there's [124:08] people that you hire because you know [124:09] that they're good at areas that you know [124:11] you're bad at yes so that's all [124:14] interviewers all interviewers everywhere [124:16] what they dream of is that they walk [124:18] into an interview and across the table [124:21] is some someone almost exactly like them [124:24] who they enjoy talking to who they can [124:26] relate to who they feel instant [124:29] connection and chemistry with because [124:31] then it becomes an enjoyable interview [124:33] because what every interviewer hates is [124:34] walking into an interview that is [124:36] draining and and terrible and and hard [124:41] and painful that's what they don't like [124:43] and most of the time the people [124:45] interviewing are not actually the people [124:47] who will be the supervisor for the [124:48] person that gets hired often times [124:50] they're just an intered medary [124:52] interviewer so all they really want is [124:54] to just get find somebody who meets the [124:57] qualifications technically but has some [125:00] sort of common ground with the [125:01] interviewer themselves so how do I make [125:04] sure I'm that [125:06] person you know how do I what what can I [125:08] do to make sure that say that you were [125:09] interviewing me or say that let's do the [125:12] other way around I've got the job um [125:14] that I'm looking for looking to fill and [125:16] you've come for an interview today so [125:19] I'm going to do I'm going to go through [125:20] the sensemaking process okay right as [125:22] soon as I get on this call with you I'm [125:24] new to you so what does that mean I know [125:26] I know that you don't want to be on this [125:27] call With Me true avoidance I can assume [125:31] coming in so what I have to do is I have [125:33] to keep investing enough to get through [125:34] the avoidance phase well what am I going [125:36] to talk about how am I going to invest [125:38] in this conversation I'm going to pull [125:39] as much as I can from verbal and [125:41] non-verbal cues that you give me I'm [125:43] going to look at the decorations on the [125:45] wall behind you whether it's in person [125:47] or whether it's virtual I'm going to try [125:49] to pull from my environment I see that [125:50] you're using an iPad I I see that you [125:52] actually like to write on your iPad I [125:53] see that you use different colors when [125:54] you write on your iPad I also see [125:56] there's a journal under your iPad I can [125:57] assume that inside that journal are [125:58] handwritten notes that are actually done [126:00] in pen and ink right there's certain [126:02] things that I can start to observe you [126:04] have a very clear you put clear effort [126:06] into the way that you shave your face [126:07] you have a very handsome look to your [126:09] hair short much you've got the [126:12] job youve got the job no I don't need to [126:14] himar it's [126:16] yours but I'm going to pull from all of [126:18] this for the competition phase of the [126:21] sense making process because all I need [126:23] to do to get you to comply with my [126:25] wishes my wishes are to get the job what [126:28] I need to get you to comply with the [126:29] wishes I need you to engage in a [126:31] conversation with me that is competitive [126:34] meaning you will invest in me and I will [126:36] invest in you think about how don't [126:39] think of competition like a zero sum [126:40] game with a winner and a loser I hear [126:42] competition I hear arguing that's what [126:44] most people hear most people think of [126:45] competition as Zero Sum game somebody [126:48] wins somebody loses the competition [126:51] think of it more like a scrimmage in [126:54] your in your uh favorite soccer team [126:57] where like the the red shirts play the [126:59] green shirts but it's still the same [127:01] football club right they and they have [127:04] spring training for for baseball in the [127:06] United States it's all the Yankees but [127:09] they're just playing the Yankees to [127:11] practice with each other what are they [127:12] doing they're competing they're honing [127:14] their craft through competition they're [127:16] investing in each other right they're [127:19] pitching and batting and trying to [127:20] strike each other out and trying to [127:21] catch each other at the bases but it's [127:23] all for themselves it's all to improve [127:25] the whole of the team that's the [127:28] competition that exists in the [127:29] sensemaking process I want to invest in [127:31] you with my thoughts and my ideas and my [127:33] questions and I want you to invest in me [127:35] with your thoughts and your ideas and [127:36] your questions and yes sometimes they [127:38] will be different but in the difference [127:40] we will find the [127:42] similarity and regardless of whether we [127:44] find differences or similarities we are [127:46] filling the cup of investment to get [127:48] towards compliance okay so give me a [127:50] specific example of how you might get me [127:52] to go into that competition with you [127:54] okay so I'm going to start in an [127:56] interview most interviewees expect that [127:58] the interviewer will ask most of the [127:59] questions yeah my I would challenge [128:02] anybody going into a job interview ask [128:04] more questions than the interviewer [128:06] really ask more questions than the [128:07] interviewer because when you ask [128:08] questions especially open-ended [128:10] questions it makes the person you're [128:11] talking to feel like they're interesting [128:13] feel like they're important feel like [128:15] they're special and guess what's not [128:17] going to happen with any other interview [128:19] that day nobody is going to ask them [128:21] questions so if you were interviewing me [128:23] for a job and we met on the phone I [128:26] would [128:27] say Stephen thank you very much for [128:29] making time to talk to me how's your day [128:30] today it's been great thank you I'm [128:33] really excited for the job but one of [128:35] the things I have a question about right [128:36] away is when I look you up online it [128:39] looks like a lot of what you do is [128:40] marketing but I don't know if it's like [128:42] social media marketing or if it's more [128:45] like an internet marketing like [128:46] advertising how would you characterize [128:48] the core function of the business it's [128:50] kind of both we do we all of the above [128:52] paid marketing all kinds of marketing [128:53] which one is your favorite my favorite's [128:56] uh probably social media marketing I [128:57] think is it because social media is like [128:59] so Dynamic and always changing or do you [129:01] like social media marketing for some [129:02] other reason uh yeah and also I just [129:05] think I think it's very much the future [129:06] in many respects so I think it's the [129:08] fastest growing medium so that's kind of [129:10] where we we focus I also think it's the [129:12] future and I spend so much time on [129:13] social media and I my family spend so [129:15] much time on social media that I really [129:17] feel like if you want to connect with [129:18] somebody you have to be in the social [129:20] media world because it feels like a [129:22] simulated relationship I completely [129:24] agree so um and then so then I'd start [129:27] asking the questions and would you you [129:29] would ask a question and then I would [129:30] answer your question but I would still [129:31] continue to show investment into you by [129:34] asking questions and what does that do [129:36] so I come away from that interaction and [129:38] you've asked me a lot of questions what [129:40] what do I come away feeling you tell me [129:42] what does it feel like when people ask [129:44] you [129:44] questions feels like you're building a [129:46] relationship feels like you care feels [129:49] like you've thought critically before [129:51] you came here yeah feels like you [129:52] prepared feels like you're curious and [129:55] the oppos well there's two opposites one [129:57] opposite is I just pepper you with [129:58] questions and then you leave um and the [130:01] other opposite is that someone that just [130:03] talks the whole like you pepper me with [130:05] questions I was in I've had a couple of [130:08] interviews and two I remember two last [130:09] week I part of my feedback was I [130:12] basically didn't say [130:14] anything and I it's funny I actually [130:16] said to my chief of staff I said oh God [130:18] interview was an hour long and I go gosh [130:19] I um I didn't say anything in the whole [130:23] in the whole hour and do you know what I [130:24] came away feeling I came away feeling [130:26] that if that's what the job working with [130:29] them is going to be like I don't want to [130:30] work with them because for one hour I [130:32] sat there and this this person just [130:35] like at me and now you say it now I kind [130:38] of understand why I felt that way [130:40] because you you do want people to ask [130:42] you questions and you it's it's I think [130:45] it's that but also part of me was [130:47] worried that every day this person is [130:49] going to just like kill my ear [130:53] or is it just the ego part where I'm [130:55] just like be interested in me I don't [130:57] know or is it both well first of all I [131:00] am not advocating peppering with [131:02] questions yeah so I want to make sure [131:03] that we don't give anybody the mistaken [131:05] idea that that rapid fire questions are [131:07] the way to go yeah I I was giving short [131:08] answers this is the problem it's all [131:10] good because what what the core thing to [131:12] understand here is you didn't like being [131:14] spoken [131:16] at they were talking all the time which [131:18] means they weren't asking you questions [131:19] they asked me were our our inter they [131:21] asked me zero questions and when I said [131:24] to them if you got any questions You' [131:25] like to ask me they asked me one but [131:28] that was actually just tearing them up [131:29] for another 20 another 20 minutes and I [131:32] I walked away and logically I [131:33] rationalized it to my team I was like I [131:35] think that person would be quite [131:36] difficult to deal with because I think [131:37] they'd be quite distracting and this [131:39] particular role is working with [131:41] alongside me personally every single day [131:44] and I just thought gosh I'm not going to [131:45] get anything done but maybe that was a [131:48] prefrontal cortex I think that your [131:50] decision was 100% % correct but what I [131:52] want to do is I want to juxtapose that [131:55] process against the person who would [131:56] have asked you questions which I [131:58] experience a lot so if people ask you [132:00] questions how do you feel at the end of [132:02] those calls I feel like the [132:05] person I I feel like they're more [132:08] thoughtful and I feel like they're [132:10] smarter because why the hell would you [132:12] come into an interview and not ask the [132:13] person questions you're also making a [132:15] commitment for your entire life to this [132:17] company this job to this person you want [132:19] you want to make sure it's correct so a [132:20] smart person would be interviewing me as [132:22] well because they value themselves so if [132:25] I wanted to win you as the interviewer [132:27] yeah and I wanted to win that by making [132:29] you feel like you and I were similar [132:33] people yeah yeah exactly what you just [132:36] said is why the hell wouldn't you ask a [132:37] bunch of questions which makes me think [132:39] that what you believe is if you want to [132:40] work for a company for the rest of your [132:41] life you want to go in there asking a [132:42] bunch of questions yeah so when somebody [132:44] comes in asking questions to you that [132:47] checks the box of this person is [132:49] thoughtful this person is committed this [132:50] person is responsible this person is [132:52] doing what I would do yeah yeah yeah [132:54] yeah yeah and that means on the sense [132:57] making no like trust framework you're [133:00] going to fall into trust for that person [133:03] much faster than you're going to fall [133:05] into trust for the person who comes and [133:06] word vomits on you and that's all we're [133:09] doing we're not saying that every [133:12] employer is going to be the right [133:14] employer for you but what we're saying [133:16] is if you want to take your probability [133:18] of winning an interview from I I don't [133:21] know what my probability is to you have [133:23] a solid predictable 30% chance of [133:26] winning this interview it really is as [133:28] simple as going in there with the idea [133:30] to win the interviewer read their body [133:32] language listen to their verbal cues [133:35] hear the things they talk about reflect [133:37] and mirror their behavior and their [133:39] terminology their tone of voice how fast [133:42] the Cadence of their of their speech [133:44] reflect that back to them and then use [133:47] this this process of asking questions [133:49] open-ended questions that give you more [133:51] information that you can turn into [133:52] knowledge that you can ask questions [133:53] about to create that flywheel of [133:56] information knowledge and experience [133:57] that we talked about this framework that [134:00] you call Rice reward ideology coercion [134:04] ego after you said that I started to [134:07] kind of see it everywhere in my life and [134:08] even in the context of an interview I [134:10] notice it sometimes now um can you [134:13] explain what the framework is before we [134:14] start talking about it CU you're better [134:16] explaining it than I will be so rice is [134:19] a framework that we use to understand [134:21] the core motivations that exist inside [134:23] of all people and it's an acronym R [134:26] stands for reward I stands for ideology [134:28] C stands for coercion e stands for ego [134:31] and the idea is that the core motivation [134:33] of all people to do anything that they [134:35] would ever do the motivation not the [134:37] manipulation but the core motivation is [134:39] tied to one predominant of those four [134:43] core motivators and the other three are [134:46] always still present but at a lower [134:48] level so just like you said once you [134:51] recognize that all people are motivated [134:53] by these same four core motivations you [134:55] do see it everywhere so in terms of [134:58] strength you said to me last time that [135:00] ideology was the strongest correct I [135:02] think you then said that ego was the [135:04] second strongest you said reward was the [135:06] third strongest and and coercion was the [135:08] weakest yes sir I know this because I [135:10] did a a tour and I played your you [135:12] saying that in every country that I went [135:14] to on stage for about 2 minutes so I [135:16] know this really this [ __ ] really well [135:18] my memory is not that good I've been [135:19] I've been talking about this about [135:21] 35,000 people in Australia and [135:22] everywhere I am flattered to have [135:23] traveled with you all over the world [135:25] well yeah I've got some photos I'll show [135:26] you later but um as part of that I [135:29] really started to see it everywhere else [135:30] in my life so I'd come to an interview [135:32] with a candidate and the candidate would [135:33] turn to me and I would hear them [135:35] repeating back to me things that I've [135:37] said in my book or things that I've said [135:40] in an interview so people know that I'm [135:42] very Pro like experimentation for [135:44] example and I use like increasing my [135:47] rate of experimentation increasing my [135:49] rate of failure terms that I use 1% I [135:51] use this term all the time to describe [135:53] marginal gains and this sort of marginal [135:54] process of improvement and so I would [135:56] come to interviews and I I started to [135:58] notice that people were like repeating [136:00] my ideology in business back to me in [136:02] those interviews and it [ __ ] [136:04] worked even though I knew even though I [136:07] knew it um and one of the things I did [136:09] actually is I um I went back through my [136:12] own personal history and I looked at Key [136:14] moments where my life had changed so in [136:17] in the first email this is the email [136:19] that got me my first investor which took [136:21] me from being this broke shoplifting [136:22] student to being a business person and [136:24] then sent me all my mission and then [136:25] this is the email that got me the camera [136:27] equipment which helped me launch the [136:28] marketing of my business it got me [136:29] 10,000s of pounds about about £10,000 [136:32] worth of free camera equipment and these [136:34] were both C emails that I sent and with [136:36] your framework in mind I went back to [136:37] kind of try and understand where I [136:41] deployed these elements of reward [136:42] ideology coercion ego and I think [136:45] they're quite present in my emails so [136:48] here's what I'm going to do I've got the [136:49] email in front of me so anyone that's [136:51] watching this on video can um can take a [136:53] look at this email if you want to see [136:54] what I was like when I was that age I [136:56] want you to tell me how good I did in [136:59] terms of reward ideology coercion and [137:01] ego and I'll put this on the screen if [137:03] you want to because it is screen [137:04] recording you can Circle okay the parts [137:07] you're referring to so everyone else can [137:09] see hello sir my name's so my names did [137:15] I spell it [137:16] wrong that is awesome so my name's [137:20] Steven Bart [137:21] and I'm you [137:24] definitely I can see your I can see why [137:26] you are struggling academically yes I an [137:29] 18-year-old guy from the UK with an [137:31] entrepreneurial head on my shoulders I [137:33] have ran several small businesses since [137:35] I was 12 and made relatively decent [137:37] amounts of money doing so last year I [137:39] was featured on a BBC program here in [137:40] the UK for being a young entrepreneur [137:43] and I was given a few nice things along [137:45] with that but that doesn't really mean [137:46] much to me this is embarrassing for the [137:49] last four months me and a friend friend [137:51] have been working tirelessly on an [137:52] exciting new project that I want to [137:53] share with you I've this this is really [137:58] sweet to see the 18-year-old you here [138:00] man I've been tuned into your blog for a [138:03] long time now and I'm familiar with your [138:05] story so I would love your opinion of [138:07] what I'm doing so this is really good [138:11] stuff your blog your story your [138:16] opinion it also shows that you were [138:19] researching Him in Advance which makes [138:21] me feel like the only reason you're [138:22] reaching this person reaching after this [138:23] person at all is because you already [138:24] know that your story mimics his [138:26] story correct he he um he actually had [138:31] started a pretty similar student website [138:35] in the same city it had gone so well it [138:38] had been sold and he now lived in Monaco [138:40] and was like a super rich millionaire [138:42] was this person also did they also [138:44] struggle in school I actually don't know [138:46] I don't know that much so that's super [138:48] interesting to me okay I'm going to keep [138:49] going all the designs attached in the [138:52] document are my [138:54] own that's interesting too you're [138:56] basically giving away IP up front and [138:59] showing that you prepared more than just [139:01] writing an email which is again feeding [139:04] into some of the ego and the reward [139:07] because this person is whatever they see [139:09] in that document they they're going to [139:12] benefit from [139:13] it I made I made on publisher and at the [139:16] moment I have no expertise in web design [139:18] whatsoever I'm at the stage now where [139:20] I'm looking for a mentor investor to [139:22] guide me in getting the website live so [139:24] please let me know what you think this [139:26] was super smart not asking for an [139:27] investor but asking for a [139:29] mentor because what that did is it [139:33] deloaded the pressure so if they had [139:35] read this far if they got to this place [139:38] you weren't asking for money you were [139:40] potentially just asking for some [139:41] attention and some guidance M let me [139:44] know what you think although we have had [139:45] a few cheeky offers from local Venture [139:47] capitalists we are still looking for the [139:49] right person and after reading through [139:50] your website I believe you are that [139:53] person kind regards and thanks for your [139:55] time Steven Steve Bartlett [140:00] so it's interesting to me because you [140:03] made a very strong ego [140:05] play with referencing all of his success [140:09] yeah the ego was the strongest thing [140:11] that you leaned on showing that you were [140:13] aware showing that you knew the person [140:15] knowing that the story was going to Res [140:17] resonate with him you may have [140:18] accidentally also honestly man seeing [140:20] the typos that are in here you may have [140:23] accidentally triggered a response inside [140:28] him that was [140:31] reciprocity either somebody gave him a [140:33] chance when he didn't know if somebody [140:35] would give him a chance or maybe he [140:36] struggled in school or maybe he has a a [140:38] son or a sister or a brother who [140:39] struggled in school because your typos [140:41] are really quite significant there's no [140:43] way somebody would read this and think [140:44] that you were a well-educated [140:46] 18-year-old do you know what I'm saying [140:48] so you may have really struggled you may [140:49] have accidentally some into something [140:51] awesome I would I don't know if you're [140:52] still in contact with this person but I [140:53] would ask that question we've got four [140:55] core motivators ego is very clear every [140:58] time you talk to them or this person [141:01] about them you're stroking their ego and [141:04] you're not doing it in a glaring way [141:06] however ideology is the strongest of the [141:09] motivators when I see you say that you [141:12] are an 18-year-old guy from the [141:14] UK what I what goes through my head is [141:17] the ideology of who doesn't want to give [141:22] a brave kid writing them an opportunity [141:26] what what millionaire out there what [141:28] decillionaire or centimillionaire or [141:31] ultra high net worth if they get the [141:33] email at all who doesn't want to at [141:36] least give this 18-year-old Brave Brazen [141:39] kid a chance because you know what I [141:41] would have done something like this when [141:42] I was [141:43] 18 right and now you could be tapping on [141:46] ideology without even knowing it well he [141:48] did he did he started a student website [141:50] website in the same city at roughly the [141:53] same age so there you go you you already [141:56] knew that there were going to be [141:57] commonalities between the two of you you [141:58] were winning the interviewer just as [142:01] much as you were [142:02] leveraging the the rice framework what [142:06] about the other email so there's another [142:08] one on there which is here just take a [142:10] look at it if you could this one yeah so [142:12] this was the email that I sent I sent 10 [142:14] of these emails out to every C camera [142:17] company I could Samsung Panasonic um ET [142:20] Etc and within 48 Hours of Panasonic [142:24] receiving that email a guy called leot [142:26] Panasonic I literally just because you [142:27] were coming I went on his LinkedIn to [142:29] see where he now works so thank you by [142:30] the way Lee that used to work at [142:31] Panasonic um for giving me a shot Lee [142:35] from Panasonic responded to that email [142:36] that you have in front of you and said [142:38] what kind of cameras do you want we've [142:39] got some returns I'll send them to your [142:41] doorstep within 40 hours of that email a [142:44] big box of cameras brand like they were [142:47] brand new to me brand new spanking [142:48] cameras came to my doorstep multiple of [142:50] them and that allowed me to do the [142:51] marketing for my business at the very [142:53] early stage again it was just a called [142:54] email that's amazing man all right hello [142:57] there my name is Steven [142:59] Bartlett I'm a 19-year-old student and [143:02] I'm part of an upcoming exciting student [143:04] website so in March last year I began [143:06] developing an idea I had that focused on [143:08] bringing together the student Community [143:10] several months later I have the backing [143:11] and support of all the universities in [143:13] the Northwest who are working with us [143:15] every step of the way we are now a few [143:17] months from launching the website we [143:18] have received so much support from [143:20] company such as dominoes and Subway that [143:22] we are now hoping you guys at vho will [143:25] be kind enough to help us out I'm going [143:26] to circle that for sure because you're [143:28] triggering a little bit of [143:29] competition you wait till the end which [143:32] is really [143:33] [Laughter] [143:34] smart and you're showing credibility [143:37] with the backing of multiple [143:38] universities all right our team includes [143:40] media journalism students who have media [143:42] and journalism students who have a [143:44] passion for producing media content it [143:46] also includes our web developer who [143:47] loves building cool websites it includes [143:49] the univers I ities and the University [143:51] Unions who are supporting us constantly [143:54] and it includes our mentors who are [143:55] social media and web experts you are [143:57] really hitting reward High here because [144:00] you're basically [144:01] saying you all of these people are going [144:03] to know that you're helping like all [144:06] these universities all these students [144:08] media and journalism guess what they [144:09] both need cameras so you're really [144:11] leaning hard into the reward here and [144:13] it's pretty awesome you are also hitting [144:16] on ideology because if it is a [144:19] competitive business it wants to compete [144:22] it doesn't want to be second to Subway [144:23] or dominoes it wants to be side by side [144:26] with Subway and dominoes especially in [144:28] 2012 when both of those companies were [144:31] pretty strong leaders in their [144:32] industry this is going to be a national [144:34] student website and one feature of our [144:36] website involves us producing our own [144:37] video content from the student Community [144:40] this can range from students [144:41] interviewing famous people students [144:42] reviewing student events to student [144:43] reporters covering news events in order [144:45] for this to be the case we are in need [144:48] of an HD video camera and wanted to know [144:50] if V would be kind enough to donate one [144:53] in return we would feature V on our [144:54] website as a sponsor we would also [144:57] promote the camera and vho at the end of [144:59] all videos that we make as a young group [145:02] of students this would really mean a lot [145:05] to us and we would be sure to show our [145:06] appreciation in every opportunity [145:08] ideology again talking about students [145:10] and talking about the youth there's no [145:12] real coercion in this for sure and I [145:16] would also say that ego was was was not [145:20] really you focused on reward rather than [145:23] ego because you didn't know who Lee was [145:24] so it was a bit of coer in the one that [145:26] I sent to the investor wasn't there [145:28] because I said um we've had some offers [145:30] from Venture cap capitalists which is [145:32] kind of saying that I have other offers [145:35] kind of but I'm that's not coercive [145:37] coercion coercion means that you are [145:39] leaning into the shame the guilt some [145:42] sort of negative feeling competition is [145:45] not a negative feel really competition [145:46] is how we build trust okay so me [145:49] mentioning that I have other opport [145:50] unities isn't Co you should always [145:51] mention that you have other [145:52] opportunities even if you don't okay [145:54] always it's one of those areas where you [145:58] you always have other opportunities you [146:01] could always take the opportunity of [146:02] stop trying so there's other [146:04] opportunities always is there ever a [146:06] place for coercion which is the C and [146:08] the rice frame framework in emails like [146:10] this yes there's a place for it but you [146:13] have to use it gingerly because the [146:16] problem with coercion is once you use it [146:19] you violate the trust that you've built [146:23] okay so you can basically use it once or [146:26] if you you once you employ it you [146:28] essentially have to continually use it [146:31] because once it's no longer useful to [146:33] you then the person that you're coercive [146:35] the person that you're coercing is free [146:38] again coercion if you think of coercion [146:40] it's like a cage so you get somebody [146:43] into the cage and then you have control [146:45] over them in the cage but once you open [146:48] them open the door to the cage they're [146:50] going to run out and never get back in [146:51] the cage you talked about these four C's [146:53] of influence have we covered that four [146:57] C's that we're talking about are the [146:58] four seas of building influence rapidly [147:00] specifically building uh building [147:02] influence in a workplace environment [147:05] right it's consideration is the first C [147:09] consistency uh collaboration and control [147:12] those are your four [147:14] C's uh when you consider consideration [147:17] consideration means I put myself in your [147:18] shoes I consider what life is like for [147:21] you you're my boss you're my cooworker [147:24] you have a family you go home you have [147:27] you're trying to exercise you're trying [147:29] to make a living you're trying to do all [147:30] the same things I am so if I if I [147:32] consider your point of view faster than [147:34] you consider my point of view I have the [147:36] advantage that's what the first see is [147:38] consideration that's really perspective [147:40] again right it's perspective again [147:41] exactly it's consideration is [147:43] technically a legal term so attorneys [147:45] and lawyers all know what consideration [147:47] is but it's the rest of us who have not [147:48] gone to law school that don't recognize [147:50] that consideration is another word for [147:51] perspective but it's also a legal term [147:53] that stands for the same thing uh [147:57] consistency is the act of being [148:00] consistent what's powerful is that very [148:02] few people are actually [148:04] consistent most people are inconsistent [148:07] think about the friend that you were [148:08] talking about on LinkedIn who can't even [148:09] have a consistent message can't even [148:10] have a consistent opinion about alcohol [148:13] right the fastest way to burn influence [148:16] the fastest way to to to burn your [148:18] persuasive ability and burn your your [148:21] sense making relationship with people is [148:23] to be inconsistent because nobody wants [148:25] to invest relationship into an [148:28] inconsistent person inconsistent in your [148:30] perspectives your values your beliefs [148:32] your actions what you say what you do [148:34] what you spend your money on like [148:36] consistency is what breeds comfort and [148:39] confidence in people it's what builds [148:40] influence because when the when the [148:42] rubber hits the road when when bullets [148:45] start flying when all hell breaks loose [148:47] you want to know that the person that [148:48] you believe will be there will be there [148:51] and a consistent person is somebody that [148:53] you believe will be consistent even if [148:56] you don't like them even if you don't [148:57] like them right like third C is [149:00] collaboration collaboration becomes [149:02] really powerful because what most people [149:03] are doing is they're trying to find some [149:06] sort of compromise and a compromise [149:08] really just means you don't get what you [149:09] want and I don't get what I want and we [149:11] find something in the middle that [149:12] neither of us wants but we'll both [149:14] accept that's a [ __ ] deal what we really [149:17] actually want is not compromise what we [149:20] want is collaboration collaboration [149:22] means you bring your idea I bring my [149:25] idea and together we create a third [149:28] better outcome for both of us that's [149:31] what collaboration is that's what makes [149:33] collaboration different than compromise [149:35] what we want from our government is a [149:36] collaborative government not a [149:39] government that compromises with each [149:41] other and yet what with the what the [149:42] popular public narrative is is that we [149:44] need a government that compromises well [149:46] [ __ ] a government that compromises is [149:48] always losing a government that [149:49] collaborates rates is always gaining so [149:52] the third C is collaboration if you find [149:55] somebody who is considerate who is also [149:58] consistent and also collaborative do you [150:01] see what we're building here we're [150:02] building influence and then the fourth C [150:05] is control and control is the one that [150:06] is super important and control is the [150:08] thing that people drop all the time when [150:10] they're trying to build influence [150:11] control means that you capitalize you [150:15] execute on all the social benefit that [150:18] you've built with these first three sees [150:20] and now you actually take the action to [150:22] get what you want you ask for the for [150:25] the cameras you ask for the opportunity [150:29] you ask for the interview you ask for [150:31] the favor right or you go out and you [150:34] tell the boss I'm ready to be the one [150:36] that gets promoted to the manager job [150:37] I'm the one that gets to go on vacation [150:39] for Christmas I'm the one that gets to [150:40] do this and then you and you cycle back [150:42] to the fact that you've done the other [150:44] three C's right and you're doing it in a [150:47] way that exercises your control over the [150:49] situation [150:50] the four C's are the tool to build [150:53] influence in a professional environment [150:55] Because the actual thing that you're [150:56] building the term that we use we don't [150:59] we don't call it [151:00] influence inside the walls at Langley we [151:04] call it Social Capital where's Langley [151:07] Langley Virginia is the headquarters for [151:09] CIA okay so we call it Social Capital [151:13] because just like real currency is [151:16] capital when you engage in the process [151:19] of building influence using the four C's [151:21] what you're actually building is a is a [151:23] savings account of Social Capital You're [151:26] Building reciprocity You're Building [151:29] leverage You're Building favors You're [151:32] Building IUS so when you have this pile [151:35] of money the only thing that you can do [151:37] with a pile of money is spend it so you [151:40] have to spend it to get what you want [151:42] and that's what the control is that's [151:44] what the C is in the four C's of [151:46] building influence through social [151:48] capital is that what great leaders do [151:51] what great leaders do is they find [151:53] either they're taught a process similar [151:55] to this or they learn the process over [152:00] time but essentially what the the dark [152:04] side to leadership that people don't [152:05] like to admit to is that very rarely are [152:08] leaders [152:11] well-liked leaders are respected leaders [152:13] are trusted but leaders are very rarely [152:17] liked they might be liked a 100 years [152:20] later like artists but usually in the [152:22] moment they are not well-liked and it's [152:24] because they know how to exercise [152:26] control nobody likes to be controlled [152:29] nobody likes to feel like they are under [152:31] control nobody likes to feel leveraged [152:34] nobody likes to feel sold nobody likes [152:36] to feel [152:38] pressure but when you have that pot of [152:41] Social Capital when you have the [152:42] leverage when you have the power you [152:45] have to exercise it to prosecute the [152:47] vision that you're trying to build so if [152:50] you're the type of leader that never [152:51] that does all these other things they're [152:52] super considerate of other people they [152:55] they're collaborative they're consistent [152:57] but you never exercise control you're [152:59] not a leader what are you you're an [153:01] assertive follower you're a reliable [153:04] partner you're a peer you're a good [153:07] friend are you a coward no I wouldn't [153:09] say that you're a coward because [153:11] remember cowardice is the opposite of [153:13] courage and courage is defined by [153:15] showing courage or showing doing the [153:17] thing that you're afraid of I mean it [153:19] takes a bit of courage to exercise [153:20] control absolutely but not everybody [153:23] wants control there are lots of people [153:25] out there who don't want to be a leader [153:27] if you are a leader if you want to be a [153:30] leader and don't exercise control over [153:33] the leverage and the social capital that [153:35] you've built you are not a leader you [153:38] are an aspiring leader you are a [153:40] developing leader you are a hopeful [153:43] leader but you are not a leader because [153:46] a leader has to be able to take action [153:49] that inspire [153:50] others to follow even if they don't like [153:52] you even if they don't like you because [153:55] here's the reality of it a leader is not [153:58] what you claim to be a leader is what [154:01] you demonstrate to be because a leader [154:05] who leads an army of none is not a [154:09] leader and someone who is leading an [154:12] army but doesn't call themselves a [154:15] leader still a leader what do you think [154:17] make are the sort of core components of [154:19] a great leader leader you must you go to [154:20] a lot of companies you speak to a lot of [154:22] Executives leaders what are the ones [154:24] that you respect the most whether [154:25] they're clients of yours or people [154:27] you've seen within history there's an [154:29] element of honesty that's critical to a [154:32] leader like you have to be honest and [154:35] you have to be objective about what you [154:39] see what you feel what you [154:42] experience because true leadership means [154:46] that you have to execute against a [154:48] vision and you have to inspire people to [154:49] follow you if you're not honest about [154:52] why you do what you do if you're not [154:54] objective about the current reality then [154:57] there's no way that you're going to be [154:59] able to create to cast a vision that's [155:01] realistic and ignite an audience of [155:04] people to follow you towards that Vision [155:07] so honesty is critical objectivity is [155:11] critical leaders also have to have an [155:13] incredible amount of of Courage because [155:16] they're always doing something that [155:18] they're afraid of they're always taking [155:21] the next risk they're always challenging [155:24] the the dis the misbelief or the [155:27] incorrect information they're [155:29] always upsetting their spouse they're [155:31] always missing out on time with their [155:32] children they're always stepping on the [155:34] toes of half of their company they're [155:36] always upsetting somebody you can't be a [155:39] leader without having the courage to [155:42] hurt 80% of the people that you talk to [155:45] because if they're not completely in [155:48] line with the vision that you're trying [155:49] to to lead towards they need to be [155:51] brought in line with the vision that [155:53] you're leading and that sometimes that [155:55] means you're going to tell them bad news [155:57] sometimes that means you're going to [155:58] slap them over the back of the head [156:00] sometimes that means you're going to cut [156:01] them off and let them float so you have [156:04] to have courage which specifically means [156:08] doing the thing that you're afraid of to [156:09] be a leader which is why the I mean to [156:12] me the most important component of being [156:14] a leader is accepting that you will be [156:18] lonely for [156:20] forever that's the unfortunate fact of [156:23] being a leader there it's lonely at the [156:26] top and every General has talked about [156:29] it every president has felt it there's a [156:31] reason presidents go gray Michelle Obama [156:33] will look very good when she's [156:36] gray but you have to be willing to be [156:39] lonely if you're not willing to be [156:41] lonely then you're not courageous enough [156:43] to be lonely then you're not fit to [156:46] lead you walk through life like seeing [156:48] people be honest as kind of Puppets not [156:51] puppets no not puppets I do I do walk [156:54] through life seeing people [156:56] as worthy or unworthy Investments [157:00] interesting where because especially [157:03] like to kind of bring in Full Circle [157:05] back to losing my [157:08] grandmother we only have a certain [157:10] number of minutes seconds breaths [157:15] so I feel like I was blessed and [157:18] privileged to get the skills to rapidly [157:22] identify the people who are worth my [157:24] breath the people who I can invest in [157:27] with my words and my thoughts and my [157:29] actions and my time and those people [157:31] will create an Roi that doesn't pay me [157:35] back but pays back my children and my [157:39] children's children because the people [157:41] who learn and who apply and who who [157:43] support the work that I'm doing are the [157:46] people who will make the future the [157:48] world of tomorrow and the World of [157:50] Tomorrow is not for me the World of [157:51] Tomorrow is for my family so I feel like [157:56] unfortunately that is what a lot of my [157:58] relationships boil down to and the [158:00] people that I [158:01] transactional but all relationships are [158:04] transactional we just don't like to [158:05] admit it for me I feel like because I [158:08] already know all relationships are [158:10] transactional I now cultivate the [158:13] transactions that yield the [158:14] most rather than transactions that just [158:18] happen where so many so many people are [158:21] trapped in relationships where they [158:23] don't have any return on investment from [158:25] that relationship or even worse they [158:27] keep investing in the relationship and [158:29] it's a money pit and it just keeps [158:31] taking and taking it never gives back [158:33] and they don't know how to get out of [158:34] that relationship or they feel trapped [158:35] or they feel lost or they feel they feel [158:38] abandoned if I had to pick between being [158:40] somebody who literally looks at [158:42] everybody as a win or lose transaction [158:46] or being a person who's constantly [158:48] investing in the wrong person I'm very [158:50] happy to be where I'm at on this fence [158:53] does that change your life in some [158:55] respects because if I looked at every [158:56] real what people will be thinking [158:58] they'll be thinking oh God Andrew that's [158:59] a sad life that's a sad life just to see [159:02] everything as a [159:03] transaction it's it's not a sad life [159:06] when seeing things as transactions is [159:09] not the same thing as accepting that [159:11] everything is a transaction I don't see [159:14] everything as a transaction I don't see [159:16] my children as an OP as some sort of [159:19] return on investment I don't see time [159:20] with my wife as some sort of return on [159:21] invest I don't see it as a transaction [159:23] but I accept that what it is is a [159:27] transaction they want love they want [159:30] attention they want affection in return [159:32] for that love time attention and [159:34] affection they will give love time [159:37] attention and and affection and we will [159:39] build positive memories for the future [159:42] it's transactional if I want my wife to [159:44] be okay with me taking a 12-day work [159:47] trip I have to put a little bit of time [159:50] and effort into the 12 days before the [159:52] 12 days that I leave because I have to [159:54] build some Goodwill like we understand [159:56] that this is how it works intrinsically [159:58] we just don't want to accept that what [159:59] we're talking about is a transaction [160:01] going to the bank and saying I'm going [160:04] to take a loan in a little while so I [160:06] need to fill out my paperwork and get [160:07] pre-approval like it's the same concept [160:10] it's the same process it doesn't mean I [160:12] see everything through a lens of cold [160:15] hard transactional relationships I see a [160:17] lot of life that way but I don't see all [160:20] of life that way and the parts of life [160:23] that I do see as transactional I I [160:25] leverage that perspective so that I can [160:28] maximize my investment in the [160:30] relationships that I do not see as [160:32] transactional it's so true I think the [160:34] big takeaway for me and all of that as [160:35] well as just thinking about the [160:37] relationships that are really doing [160:38] nothing for you I've got a couple [160:39] relationships like that that really [160:41] probably aren't doing anything for me [160:43] and it sucks even at our level it sucks [160:45] because you still see yourself doing it [160:47] yeah like like why am I yeah why am I [160:49] doing this like shouldn't I know better [160:51] by now and inevitably like you come back [160:54] it's like getting drunk I guess you [160:55] don't know what it's like to do that [160:57] most people know what it's like I used [160:58] to get drunk you get drunk you get sick [161:01] from being drunk and what's the next [161:02] thing you tell yourself I'm never [161:04] getting drunk [161:06] again it happens again and you feel like [161:09] an idiot it happens it happens in [161:11] business it happens in life it happens [161:13] some people do really waste their entire [161:15] lives just like entertaining [161:17] relationships that are doing zero for [161:20] them they like go for lunch and brunch [161:22] and like the 2hour phone call and the [161:24] small talk on WhatsApp just for [161:26] nothingness said pouring all of their [161:28] life into these nothing relationships [161:30] these sewers these leeches of [161:33] relationships if they don't recognize [161:35] that it's a transaction and they ask [161:37] themselves continually what is this [161:38] doing for me correct and then you can't [161:40] feel guilty asking yourself what is this [161:43] relationship doing for me that is just [161:45] you being objective that is just you [161:47] being focused on accountability and [161:50] honesty like any good leader should be [161:52] when's your book coming out um you've [161:54] got a book your new book that you told [161:56] me last time was on the way but the CIA [161:58] weren't approving it correct they have [162:00] they have still not approved it we are [162:03] actually expecting by end of month this [162:04] month to get their formal approval U [162:07] once it happens I will let you know for [162:08] sure because trust me my publisher is [162:10] also very nervous about when CIA [162:12] approves the book so the book is called [162:14] Red Cell Red Cell probably going to be [162:17] released in summer 2025 but pre-order [162:19] will be available maybe by the time this [162:21] episode comes out if that's the case [162:23] we'll link it below oh that would be [162:24] exciting the pre-orders absolutely um [162:27] very exciting what is the book about the [162:29] the book is finally my wife and I get to [162:32] releasee the details of our operational [162:34] history together and that is what the [162:36] red cell is about oh wow it's about what [162:38] we did together in the field as a tandem [162:40] clandestine couple how we operated how [162:43] we worked together how we managed our [162:44] marriage and our operations uh and the [162:47] team that we built around us it was all [162:49] very unique at the time and uh and we're [162:51] very proud of it but it's sensitive and [162:55] CIA does not like telling sensitive [162:56] stories for anybody else that wants to [162:58] check out where you can support them in [163:00] the meantime everyday spy is the key [163:02] place to go to the website everyday [163:03] spy.com absolutely everyday spy.com you [163:05] can also find us on YouTube on the [163:08] everyday spy podcast and of course you [163:10] can find us on social media everywhere [163:11] at everyday spy you Channel I really [163:14] love it I appreciate it um I really love [163:16] all the work that you do and I think [163:18] it's so [163:19] important because you're so honest and [163:22] there's very little [ __ ] with you [163:25] there's very little um virtue signaling [163:28] which means that we can just be growing [163:31] ups and talk about the reality of things [163:32] we don't have to fluff around things so [163:35] it's really really really great to talk [163:36] to you all the time and I think that's [163:37] also why you're so resonant because [163:39] people they trust you and it goes back [163:41] to what we were saying even if they [163:43] don't like me even if they don't like [163:44] you they trust you I think people like [163:45] you people love you people in our [163:46] comment section obviously you get the [163:48] conspiracy the lot I think you're still [163:50] like part of the CIA or whatever but [163:52] side of that people are so so so um [163:55] happy and they do appreciate the work [163:57] you're doing because it really it does [163:58] help people change their lives because [164:00] as you said so many people are trapped [164:01] in that shed and as you said they know [164:04] that there's something out there better [164:06] but and they've tried a bunch of [ __ ] [164:08] and they're still in the shed and you [164:10] give them a rubric a framework to start [164:13] to run tasks in their life to see if um [164:16] if there's a a way out the shed and it's [164:18] not going to be simple and it's not [164:19] going to be easy because if it was it [164:21] wouldn't be worth it but there is a way [164:22] and that hope alone I think can really [164:24] get people off the soff and towards the [164:26] life that they that that they deserve so [164:28] thank you Andrew we have a closing [164:30] tradition where the last guest leaves a [164:31] question for the next question left for [164:33] you is presumably you either do or don't [164:37] lean toward believing in an afterlife or [164:40] something after death if your belief [164:43] were proven definitely wrong how would [164:46] it change your behavior [164:50] today so which one do you believe I [164:52] guess I believe in an afterlife [164:54] interesting I believe in an afterlife I [164:56] don't [164:57] think I can conceptualize what that [165:00] would be but I believe that there is [165:02] something after we [165:05] pass and if that was proven definitively [165:09] wrong you know what's really [ __ ] up [165:11] is if that was proven definitively wrong [165:12] I would probably still challenge the [165:15] proof it would be hard to let that go it [165:18] would be hard to trust [165:21] proof you know I guess the answer then [165:24] to my to the question is how would my [165:26] life change I would spend a lot more [165:30] time thinking and challenging the belief [165:35] that I currently spend no time [165:37] reflecting or thinking [165:40] about does that make sense so yeah you [165:42] you'd spend more time challenging the [165:44] belief that there's an afterlife yes [165:48] which is kind of crazy [165:49] I would spend more time and energy [165:52] challenging the proof that proves my [165:55] fundamental belief wrong I would spend [165:57] more time in that thought process than I [166:00] spend in that thought process now why to [166:03] try and change it I I don't think it I [166:05] think it's because it would create such [166:08] a a a sense of dissonance in my head [166:12] because I've I've believed it for so [166:14] long and now it's definitively proved [166:16] wrong it's not like you can just flip a [166:17] coin and be like oh I was wrong but in [166:20] in this example you would basically be [166:22] there you'd be proven I know so you'd be [166:25] you'd be convinced so you wouldn't [166:26] actually be interrogating it because [166:28] that's what you would believe so so I [166:30] guess you're right if if the if the if [166:32] the question is assuming that as soon as [166:34] the proof comes out I accept the proof [166:37] and I accept the new reality yeah I can [166:40] I can that's a fair question too that's [166:42] a fair interpretation um I think I would [166:46] probably be that much more cautious [166:49] careful with the life that I have to [166:50] know that there is no Second Life there [166:52] is no SEC there's no after chance there [166:55] is [166:56] no coming back and visiting your [166:58] children their dreams there is no [167:00] meeting them In Heaven There is no [167:02] Nirvana there really is just black after [167:06] you pass would make me that much more [167:09] invested in the moments that I have now [167:11] because it's all I [167:12] got would it change any decision you've [167:15] made in the past yeah just like the [167:17] day-to-day decisions would you damn it [167:20] would hold this question sucks man good [167:23] question shitty answer I would if I knew [167:27] that and I had to go back I would change [167:29] all sorts of things I would take less [167:30] risks like less physical body bodily [167:33] risks I would have never learned how to [167:36] ride a motorcycle I would have never [167:37] skydived I would have never learned a [167:39] free dive I would have never learned a [167:40] sail I would have never I would have [167:43] never joined the CIA if I knew there was [167:46] no chance that like that this is the one [167:49] chance you get I would probably live a [167:51] very dull boring and conservative life [167:53] do you know what's interesting is I [167:55] don't think there's an [167:57] afterlife and I Skydive and I think I [168:01] take [168:03] risks but I'm okay with the fact that I [168:06] don't think anything happens after I die [168:08] yeah because I [168:10] think I was totally okay someone said I [168:13] think it was Ricky J said this once I [168:14] was how did you feel 100 years ago [168:18] I want I want us I want us to have a [168:23] beer 6 weeks after you have a [168:26] baby and talk about this question again [168:29] can we put that on a calendar I guess we [168:30] can't put that on a calendar yet or else [168:32] or else you have a much happier [168:35] partner because children's change [168:37] children change everything too children [168:40] change everything when it comes to your [168:42] tolerance for risking [168:44] yourself I I know you're telling the [168:46] truth a because I believe you be because [168:49] my brother who's a year older than me [168:51] has three kids and he said something [168:54] very peculiar to me one day I said Jason [168:57] why don't you fly to London and he goes [168:59] Stephen and he's um he's I think he was [169:01] Investment Bank for 12 years actal [169:03] scientist so literally his job was to [169:04] like assess probability probability [169:06] Super Genius at maths um he was like I [169:09] know this makes no [169:11] sense but I don't want to get on a plane [169:14] if my kids aren't on [169:16] it I love this [169:19] I had such I had a similar conversation [169:23] with somebody [169:24] recently and they were shocked when I [169:26] said almost the same thing because they [169:29] were like why would you want to get on a [169:31] plane if if you're afraid of getting on [169:33] a plane without your kids it's because [169:35] you're afraid the plane will crash and I [169:37] was like correct well then if you're [169:39] willing to get on a plane with your kids [169:42] aren't you afraid it will crash and for [169:44] me I'm like of course it could still [169:46] crash but now I'm I can be with my kids [169:49] to comfort them in that moment rather [169:52] than they have to live a life without [169:55] dad's comfort and without dad [169:57] forever I don't know why it makes sense [170:00] to me but I know that it makes sense to [170:02] me and I know that half of the people I [170:03] explain that to think it's really [ __ ] [170:05] up maybe people that don't have kids but [170:07] that's what my brother said to me and I [170:08] sat there because he's such a logical [170:09] smart guy and he knows the probability [170:11] he said it because I know the [170:12] probabilities of planes I know they're [170:13] safe because this makes no sense but [170:16] this is how I feel I don't want to get [170:17] on a plane and come to unless my kids [170:19] are on the plane with me wow and I [170:21] thought that makes no sense to [170:23] me the way you've R you've explained it [170:25] does help me to understand so maybe six [170:27] weeks after I have a kid maybe I will be [170:30] a bit more attached to some kind of [170:32] afterlife or or maybe not I mean and I'm [170:33] not saying I'm not saying the [170:36] afterlife I'm saying that the Reckless [170:40] like the fact that you take yeah you're [170:42] not afraid of death right now yeah I'm [170:43] not afraid of death no I feel like when [170:46] you have children it changes because now [170:48] it's not just your life that you're [170:49] impacting that's so crazy that's so [170:52] interesting and I know that there's so [170:53] many parents that are about to DM [170:55] LinkedIn me Instagram me and also you [170:58] and say exactly that they're going to [171:00] agree with you so Andrew thank you it's [171:03] been such an honor and I really really [171:05] enjoy speaking to you so um thank you [171:07] again for coming to do this and thank [171:08] you so much for the value you've brought [171:09] to the audience because you know you're [171:11] very much in every sense of the word One [171:12] of a Kind so I appreciate you Stephen I [171:14] appreciate being here thank you very [171:15] much for for the friendship and for the [171:17] opportunity and uh and you always come [171:19] so well prepared dude it's easy to have [171:21] a good time with [171:23] you perfect Ted has quite frankly taken [171:26] the nation by storm a small green energy [171:29] drink that you've probably seen popping [171:30] up to a Tesco or to a waitrose they've [171:33] grown by almost [171:36] 10,000% in a very short period of time [171:39] because people are sick and tired of the [171:42] typical unhealthy energy drinks and [171:44] they've been looking for an alternative [171:46] perfect Ted is the drink that I drink as [171:47] I'm sat here doing the podcast because [171:50] it gives me increased focus it doesn't [171:52] give me crashes which sometimes might [171:54] happen if I'm having a 3 four 5 6 hour [171:56] conversation with someone on the podcast [171:58] and it tastes amazing it's exactly what [172:00] I've been looking for in terms of energy [172:02] that's why I'm an investor and that's [172:04] why they sponsor this podcast and for a [172:06] limited time perfect Ted have given dire [172:08] of CEO listeners only a huge 40% off if [172:13] you use the code diary 40 at checkout [172:16] don't tell anybody about this and you [172:19] can only get this online for a limited [172:20] time so make sure you don't miss out [172:25] [Music] [172:42] [Music]