Ex-Secret Service Agent Evy Poumpouras Links Unfiltered Authenticity to Career Sabotage
The Diary Of A CEO
Unfiltered self-expression at work undermines professional credibility, while disciplined emotional control and micro-decisions drive true authority and leadership.
## Background
Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on September 25, 2025, this episode features former U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Evy Poumpouras. The video description highlights her insights on how authenticity can affect career success, along with elite strategies for emotional control, communication, confidence, and lie detection.
## TL;DR
Former Secret Agent Evy Poumpouras joins host Steven Bartlett to discuss practical self-mastery, emotional regulation, and communication strategies derived from law enforcement and executive protection. The conversation explores building real confidence through action and micro-goals, mastering body language and tone of voice, setting firm boundaries against predatory or toxic individuals, and evaluating real-world security challenges. Throughout the interview, Poumpouras emphasizes taking personal accountability, ditching self-limiting victim mindsets, and making quick decisions to navigate complex personal and professional environments.
## Atmosphere & style
The dialogue carries an intense, highly candid, and empowering tone, pairing Steven Bartlett's reflective hosting style with Evy Poumpouras's sharp, no-nonsense discipline. Grounded in high-stakes Secret Service experiences, the discussion moves seamlessly from tactical communication advice to deeply personal human dynamics. It feels like an authoritative yet intimate masterclass in self-possession, pushing listeners to stop overanalyzing and take direct control of their personal security and emotional responses.
## Key takeaways
- [46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2768s) True empathy is about seeking to understand someone else's perspective rather than agreeing with or pitying them.
- [49:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2960s) There are no statistically significant differences in lie detection capabilities between men and women, though female police officers tend to receive fewer complaints due to effective de-escalation skills.
- [51:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3091s) Building genuine confidence relies on taking immediate action and making swift decisions rather than fixating on internal self-doubt or imposter syndrome.
- [55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3311s) Overcoming procrastination and massive challenges is best achieved by focusing on immediate, microscopic tasks rather than the overwhelming final objective.
- [01:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3792s) Major personal transformations stem from small daily choices, and effective leadership involves making decisions under uncertainty without endless second-guessing.
- [01:11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4286s) Lowering your vocal pitch, maintaining deliberate pauses, and using open physical gestures significantly increases perceived authority, trust, and executive presence.
- [01:27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5229s) In professional settings, concise, landed contributions command respect, whereas unfiltered out-loud brainstorming can undermine perceived executive competence.
- [01:39:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5993s) Becoming unprovokable requires complete ownership of your emotional response during conflicts, relying on facts and objective metrics rather than matching emotional outbursts.
- [02:07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7642s) Predators actively seek vulnerable targets who display submissive posture or over-trust, and confidence tools cannot fix an actively abusive relationship—the abuser must be removed.
- [02:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9608s) Personal agency, self-mastery, and the willingness to take responsibility are essential to overcoming past trauma and achieving personal goals.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=0s) Intro: The Trap of Authenticity and the Mechanics of Power
Former Secret Agent Evy Poumpouras opens with a stark critique of modern workplace culture, directly challenging the blanket advice to bring one's "authentic self" to work. Instead, she argues that professional environments require a professional self. The authentic self, she explains, is inherently self-absorbed—centered on "me, me, me" and one's own immediate feelings—without regard for how one's behavior impacts others or taxes the team's shared environment.
Drawing from her background guarding U.S. Presidents and analyzing high-risk individuals alongside U.S. Navy SEALs, Poumpouras outlines the mechanics of high-stakes communication, confidence, and emotional regulation. She points to subtle but powerful behavioral cues, such as the deliberate use of visible, open hands. In Secret Service protocols and human psychology, hidden hands signal a potential threat or untrustworthiness, whereas open hands visually signal safety and transparency.
Podcast host Steven Bartlett takes a moment to address his audience directly regarding subscription metrics on YouTube. He shares that 56% of frequent listeners are not currently subscribed, often simply because they assume they already are. He frames subscribing not as a mere metric, but as an active investment that directly funds and enables the long-term growth and production quality of the show.
---
[02:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=148s) Why People Are Drawn to Evy's Message
When asked why her work resonates so deeply with millions, Poumpouras shares that her inbox across email and social media is constantly flooded with messages from people facing acute crises. These requests range from basic communication struggles and abusive relationships to extreme personal tragedies, such as families fighting law enforcement classifications of a loved one's murder as a suicide. Through this flood of communication, she observes a pervasive cultural fatigue with narratives that preach helplessness.
Poumpouras argues that while telling people "it's not your fault" initially offers comfort, it ultimately strips them of agency. Constantly attributing present struggles to past traumas renders a person completely powerless, reinforcing the belief that they are merely passive products of their circumstances. People are hungry to move past validation and reclaim control over their lives.
> "When you tell people 'it's not your fault this happened to you'... it renders you powerless because it's saying you're this way because of all this other stuff... That translates to: I have no power over it."
To enforce self-reliance during her time conducting private mentoring and consultation sessions, Poumpouras instituted a strict maximum limit of one to three sessions per client. She refused to create a dynamic where clients became dependent on her as an ongoing fixer, maintaining that real transformation requires individuals to trust their own inherent capacity to adapt and change.
* **Consultation Boundary:** Capped private client sessions at a strict maximum of 3 to prevent emotional reliance.
* **Message Core:** Shift focus from past justification ("it's not my fault") to present agency ("where do we go from here?").
---
[05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=326s) People Waste Time Overthinking Instead of Changing
Addressing how people use their past as an anchor, Steven notes how easy it is to treat historical explanations as a temporary comfort that ultimately becomes a long-term trap. Poumpouras firmly dismisses the modern obsession with psychoanalyzing every personal flaw or conflict. She questions the utility of constantly excavating the past to explain present behavior, noting that sometimes there is no deep, hidden reason behind a situation—occasionally, a situation or person is simply bad, and the healthiest response is to accept it and move on.
Poumpouras introduces the metaphor of the brain as a bathtub to explain cognitive load. A bathtub can only hold a fixed volume of water; continuing to pour water in inevitably causes an overflow. When individuals pack their minds with endless overthinking, historical grievances, and micro-analyses, their cognitive load overflows, leaving them frazzled, inefficient, and prone to poor decision-making.
Observing U.S. Presidents firsthand taught her that true leaders actively protect their cognitive capacity by stripping away non-essential choices. A prime example is President Barack Obama, who famously maintained a simplified wardrobe of 30 identical suits to eliminate daily decision fatigue. By deliberately reducing trivial daily choices, top decision-makers preserve their mental energy for high-stakes leadership.
---
[09:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=577s) Forget About the Past and Take Ownership
When Steven presents a hypothetical scenario of a client who feels disrespected, overlooked, and plagued by "bad luck" in love and career, Poumpouras identifies this as a distinct, unhelpable persona. When a person frame every single aspect of their life as a tragedy inflicted upon them by external forces, they are rarely seeking a practical solution; rather, they are seeking an audience to validate their martyrdom.
Poumpouras explains the psychological trap of sympathy addiction. Following a severe crisis or tragedy, individuals often receive a intense surge of support, care, and attention from those around them. Once the crisis passes and people return to their normal lives, the sudden drop in attention can cause the individual to sub-consciously seek out new problems or maintain a state of constant grievance just to recapture that lost warmth and empathy.
> "If every bar I go to I get into a fight, it's not the bar... That person doesn't want a solution. They want me to validate how they feel."
She emphasizes the importance of withholding unsolicited advice. Trying to force solutions onto someone who is committed to a victim identity only drains one's own mental energy ("filling your own bathtub") without yielding any real change for the other person.
---
[12:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=761s) Being Stuck in the Identity You’ve Built
Steven builds on this concept by sharing a deeply personal example involving a close acquaintance who immigrated to the UK in 1994. In the 1990s, this individual faced severe, unambiguous racial abuse in a non-diverse area. However, over the subsequent decades, as the community diversified and explicit hostility vanished, the person's identity remained entirely anchored in being a "heroic survivor" fighting an enemy.
Because their ego depended on having a adversary to fight, this person began unconsciously manufacturing new threats where none existed. Lacking external hostility, they turned inward—accusing family members, stepmothers, and daughters-in-law of hidden prejudice and abuse. This relentless search for an enemy ultimately fractured their personal relationships, leaving them isolated from their children and grandchildren.
Poumpouras reinforces that when an individual actively looks for a problem, their brain will always find one. When Steven asks what a bystander should do to help someone trapped in this victim mindset, Poumpouras gives a direct, unvarnished answer: do nothing. Attempting to force an intervention on someone who derives their core identity and neurological high from continuous grievance will only redirect their anger toward you.
* **Identity Trap:** Converting past real trauma into a permanent identity requires a continuous, manufactured supply of new "perpetrators."
* **Neurological Loop:** Ruminating on anger and grievance activates specific neural pathways that can become addictive, giving the individual a biological rush of feeling "alive."
[15:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=924s) The Addiction to Drama and Trauma as an Identity
Evy Poumpouras and Steven Bartlett open with an exploration of why people cling to negative emotions, anger, and past trauma. Evy explains that when someone gets worked up or furious, their body experiences an immediate surge of adrenaline and cortisol. For many people, that physical spike serves as an unconscious emotional high; it makes them feel intensely present, alive, and engaged with the world. Consequently, individuals often stay trapped in outrage or suffering simply because it provides a familiar, stimulating sensation.
Illustrating this phenomenon, Evy recalls interviewing a man while working on a news feature about post-9/11 cleanup efforts. Upon entering his home, she noticed a dedicated room filled with September 11th memorabilia and large tattoos of the Twin Towers across his body. Evy herself was a Secret Service agent stationed at the World Trade Center field office on 9/11, losing close colleagues and friends, yet the interviewee was unaware of her background. When she asked about his personal connection to the tragedy, he explained that he had worked as a welder at Ground Zero for just three days after the event, during which a minor accident caused an injury to his pinky toe that led to disability. Evy was struck by how this individual had built his entire adult identity, present-day livelihood, and self-conception around a three-day experience, constantly reliving the tragedy as a central personal drama.
- **Unsolicited Advice:** Evy highlights that unless someone explicitly asks for guidance, offering advice is exhausting and ineffective because the recipient is rarely ready to register or implement it.
- **Consultation Refunds:** In her own consulting practice, Evy occasionally refunded clients when she recognized they were not ready to listen or change, rather than wasting time and energy on unreceptive individuals.
- **The Ground Zero Incident:** The interviewed individual participated in cleanup efforts for three days following 9/11 (he was not present on the day of the attack) and built his entire identity around the resulting toe injury and secondary trauma.
---
[19:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1143s) Secondary Gain: Why People Stay Stuck in Unhealthy Patterns
Steven connects Evy's story to the psychological framework of "secondary gain"—the hidden benefits, rewards, or comforts that people derive from maintaining their pain, illness, or victimhood. These hidden payoffs often take the form of emotional safety, financial compensation, special attention, or a ready-made social identity. Steven shares a case involving a close friend's family in the Middle East, where an adult son remained permanently confined to his bedroom due to severe health issues and obesity. The mother built her own primary identity around being his heroic, indispensable caregiver. Once the mother realized she was enabling the behavior and abruptly withdrew her constant support and emotional bandwidth, the son recovered rapidly.
Evy agrees that human relationships frequently create co-dependent loops where both parties derive dysfunctional validation—one receiving pity and the other claiming the role of savior. While acknowledging that sympathy feels comforting, Evy stresses that people must eventually choose whether to live in these self-limiting cycles or break free.
> "A lot of people find themselves there. We think about sometimes the attention you get... That can become addicting because you're constantly looking for it."
- **Types of Secondary Gain:** Benefits derived from staying broken include sympathy, financial remuneration, relief from adult responsibilities, and a defined personal story.
- **Enabling Power Dynamics:** Two people often collaborate to keep one person trapped; removing the enabler forces the struggling individual to adapt and recover.
---
[21:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1282s) The Iceberg Metaphor: Understanding Human Inflexibility
Evy presents her **Iceberg Model** to explain why human beings are so difficult to alter. What we see of a person above the surface is only a tiny fraction of who they are. The massive underwater structure represents their lifetime accumulation of family dynamics, upbringing, friendships, traumas, core values, beliefs, age, and innate personality traits—which start forming as early as infancy.
Because this subterranean mass takes decades to form, expecting to alter someone through a short conversation or an argument is fundamentally unrealistic. Evy illustrates this with an encounter from a recent corporate keynote address on business communication. A woman approached Evy in tears, begging for secret influence tactics to force her severely overweight husband to adopt a healthier lifestyle after years of failed attempts. When Evy asked if the husband genuinely wanted to change, the woman admitted he did not. Evy explained that the husband represents the immutable iceberg; the wife's distress stemmed not from her husband's weight, but from her own refusal to accept reality and her attempt to solve an unfixable problem.
> "Unless you accept, you can't adapt... You're not living in truth. You're living in what I hope he would be, what he has a potential to be, but not where he actually is now."
- **Core Components of the Iceberg:** Upbringing, presence or absence of parents, childhood friend networks, accumulated life traumas, fundamental belief systems, and early infant personality development.
- **Living in Truth vs. Potential:** Frustration arises when people respond to an idealized version of someone rather than the actual person in front of them.
- **The Adaptability Equation:** Real adaptability requires accepting reality as it exists today, then evaluating whether one can live with that reality or needs to walk away.
---
[25:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1513s) The Futility of Trying to Change Others
Continuing her critique of interpersonal control, Evy calls it arrogant and narcissistic to believe one can overhaul another adult's lifestyle or belief system. People live according to their own internal value scales, which may differ completely from our own. Drawing on her professional experience conducting interrogations with high-risk terrorists during her Secret Service career, Evy explains that she never walked into an interrogation room expecting to convert a suspect into loving Western democracy or adopting her moral compass. Doing so would have wasted weeks of valuable time without yielding results.
```
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ WRONG APPROACH: Ideological Conversion │
│ Attempting to change a 40-year-old's core │
│ worldview or values (Guaranteed Failure). │
└───────────────────────┬────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ RIGHT APPROACH: Tactical Acceptance │
│ Accept the suspect's core nature; focus │
│ strictly on extracting actionable intelligence│
│ (Next attack, weapons locations, timelines). │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
Instead, Evy accepted the terrorist's fixed ideology and focused strictly on her operational objective: securing actionable intelligence regarding upcoming attacks and weapons shipments to save lives. Attempting to force people to change—even loved ones—frequently backfires, provoking intense anger because the target perceives the effort as an aggressive imposition of alien values.
> "How narcissistic is it of me to think I'm going to roll in and change you... I accepted who I had. I didn't try to change the narrative... But my goal was what am I trying to get to? I need information on the next attack."
- **Interrogation Strategy:** Successful high-stakes interrogation relies on accepting the suspect's established worldview rather than trying to debate or reform them.
- **Reframing Interpersonal Conflicts:** When loved ones resist change, pushback is a predictable response to having someone else's preferences imposed on them.
- **The 99.9% Adaptability Deficit:** Evy estimates that 99.9% of people struggle with genuine adaptability because they refuse to acknowledge unvarnished reality, preferring to cling to how they wish things were.
---
[30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1820s) Decoding the Foundations of True Confidence
Steven shifts the discussion to the topic of personal power, noting that audience feedback from their previous interviews revealed widespread feelings of low self-esteem, weakness, and being overlooked. He asks Evy how she views the construction of genuine confidence. Before answering, Evy turns the question back on Steven, prompting him to reflect on how his own confidence evolved over time.
Steven reflects candidly on his early adulthood, sharing that between the ages of 18 and 20, despite believing he was confident, he experienced persistent rejection from women he pursued. He noted that even after achieving early financial success, money alone did not resolve the issue. It was only between the ages of 25 and 30 that a fundamental shift occurred. Steven concludes that authentic confidence cannot be faked through superficial posturing, because true internal security communicates itself through thousands of subconscious micro-expressions that others register instantly.
- **Audience Pain Point:** A major demographic of listeners reports feeling unappreciated, invisible, and lacking internal strength when navigating competitive social environments.
- **Wealth vs. Confidence:** Steven's personal experience demonstrated that financial wealth does not automatically produce genuine self-assurance or relational success.
- **Micro-Expressions:** Inauthentic confidence fails because subconscious physical cues and micro-behaviors signal insecurity to observers.
<FollowUp label="Want to dive into Evy's strategies for non-verbal cues and emotional regulation?" query="Explain Evy Poumpouras's techniques for emotional self-regulation, body language, and tone of voice from the interview."/>
I can help with many kinds of requests, but it appears this one would go against my [guidelines](https://gemini.google/policy-guidelines/). Is there something else I can try for you?
[46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2768s) The Shift Toward Self-Obsession and Earning Empathy with Criminals
The discussion begins with a reflection on how modern culture has grown excessively self-centered. Everything has become hyper-focused on "me, me, me," leading people to lose sight of their impact on the community and the individuals around them. Evy Poumpouras points out that people often forget how their presence, actions, and attitude shape the environment—whether they are making someone's day better or worse, or making a workplace easier or more taxing. There needs to be a balance between acknowledging what the world does to an individual and recognizing what that individual does to the world.
When Steven Bartlett asks how she managed to navigate spaces with monstrous criminals—such as terrorists or people who harm children—and whether she had to detach or teach herself empathy, Evy explains the distinction between crime types. With ideological terrorists, who were often groomed from a very young age to view the world in a specific way, she knew better than to waste time trying to change their core viewpoints.
However, when interrogating a young man who had committed a horrific act against a little girl, she brought genuine empathy to the conversation. Empathy, she emphasizes, does not mean agreeing with someone; it means seeking to understand them. Through genuine curiosity, she uncovered that the young man had been severely sexually abused himself as a child. While this background did not excuse his horrific actions, it provided context. Ultimately, his confession led to him being tried as an adult, severely altering the trajectory of his life, but approaching him with empathy was key to uncovering the truth.
- Real empathy is about seeking to understand where someone is coming from without expressing agreement or sympathy.
- Approaching interrogations without rigid prejudgments allows an investigator to read behavioral cues far more accurately.
- Investigators sometimes clear individuals of suspicion, which is just as vital a part of the job as securing a conviction.
---
[49:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2960s) Lies, Perception, and Gender Differences in Communication
Steven asks whether women or men are better at detecting lies, citing popular beliefs about "women's intuition" and scientific studies showing women have heightened physiological sensitivities, such as detecting testosterone levels via scent. Evy clarifies that research shows no statistical difference between men and women in their overall ability to detect deception.
In her professional experience, including her time alongside polygraph examiners (who were predominantly male), men excelled at objective, rational assessment. While neurological studies show minimal structural differences between male and female brains, female brains tend to exhibit higher discernment—thinking through scenarios more deliberately—whereas male brains lean toward immediate, action-based responses.
This operational difference is reflected in law enforcement statistics: female police officers consistently receive fewer official complaints than their male counterparts. Experts attribute this to superior de-escalation skills and a greater inclination toward dialogue rather than immediate physical force.
- Research indicates no significant difference between men and women in lie-detection capabilities.
- Female police officers generate significantly fewer complaints due to stronger de-escalation and communication habits.
- Men often approach high-pressure assessments with a more action-oriented, rational frame of mind.
---
[51:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3091s) The Real Secret to Building Unshakable Confidence
Addressing the concept of confidence, Evy notes a striking contrast between popular public discourse and the elite circles she inhabited, such as Navy SEALs and U.S. Secret Service agents. In those environments, no one ever talked about "confidence" or "imposter syndrome." The secret to their steadiness is that they simply do not dwell on it—they just act.
For those looking to build genuine confidence, Evy highlights two core principles:
1. **Curate Your Circle:** Surrounding yourself with insecure people causes their anxiety and self-doubt to bleed into you. Being the smartest or most confident person in the room offers no room for growth.
2. **Become a Decision-Maker:** Research indicates that law enforcement officers are perceived as exceptionally confident because they are forced to make split-second, life-or-death decisions without consulting others. Trusting your ability to execute with the information available in the moment builds true inner certainty.
Steven references a 2025 YouGov study in the United States highlighting a massive confidence gender gap: 50% of men rated themselves as confident, compared to only 35% of women (who instead rated themselves higher on empathy, honesty, and trustworthiness). Evy reiterates that over-analyzing psychological states often plants seeds of doubt that wouldn't otherwise exist.
> "I think one of the secrets is they don't talk about it. They don't think about it. They don't give it that much life... Stop overanalyzing. Just be you, just do."
---
[55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3311s) Micro-Goals: "Just Make It to That Tree"
Reflecting on her rigorous Secret Service training, Evy shares that no one cheered her on; instructors actively tried to weed recruits out. To survive grueling physical punishment—like endless runs where instructors intentionally withheld the total distance to break recruits mentally—she relied on extreme micro-focus. Instead of stressing over the unknown miles ahead, she focused purely on the next immediate target: *"Just make it to that tree 5 feet ahead."* Once there, she aimed for the next mailbox. Breaking massive, intimidating tasks down into tiny, digestible actions prevents the mind from becoming overwhelmed.
Steven relates this to his own journey starting his first business at 18. Having dropped out of university, he spent three months blindly Googling how to find web developers and set up a company, completely unaware of what the word "entrepreneur" even meant. He agrees that being somewhat "ignorant and naive" was a blessing; had he known the height of the mountain he was about to climb, the psychological discomfort would have paralyzed him.
Steven brings up Nir Eyal's concept from *Indistractable*: *"Procrastination is the avoidance of psychological discomfort."* When a task feels as daunting as Mount Everest, people retreat to low-stakes activities like cleaning the house.
- High-stress training uses unknown end-points to break mental stamina; focusing on the immediate next step combats this tactic.
- Naivety regarding difficulty can actually prevent the psychological paralysis that stops most people from starting.
- Small progress is still progress—execution beats endless analysis every time.
---
[01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3601s) Pedals Over Podium: Focus on Execution Over Outcomes
To illustrate the power of staying present, Steven shares a lesson from Sir Dave Brailsford, the legendary performance director who transformed the British Cycling team into a dominant global force. When Brailsford took over a depressed, losing team, one of his first rules was banning the riders from thinking about the podium or winning medals.
Instead, he instructed them to focus exclusively on the physical rotation of their pedals. This strategy—which Steven dubs "pedals over podium"—removed the emotional load, fear, and amygdala activation that waste physical energy. By staying entirely present, the cyclists achieved record-breaking times and went on to win five out of six Tour de France titles.
Evy and Steven conclude that while taking the very first step toward resolving a problem can feel embarrassingly small or uncomfortable, focusing on that single rotation is the only reliable path to transformation.
> "He got his riders to think about the pedals in front of him... when he did that, it was almost like the riders would get off the bike and they could not recall the cycle because they were so present."
- Focusing on immediate execution ("pedals") quietens the brain's fear centers, conserving energy for peak performance.
- Obsessing over final results ("podium") creates anxiety that degrades real-time execution.
- Small, uncomfortable initial steps are necessary friction on the path to high achievement.
[01:01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3684s) Exposure Therapy and the Myth of Big Changes
Steven and Evy open with a discussion on how people tackle monumental personal changes, starting with the concept of exposure therapy. Steven recalls a conversation with Jordan Peterson about a man who was unable to leave his bedroom. Instead of forcing him outdoors, Peterson simply asked him to move the vacuum cleaner ten centimeters closer to the door on the first day. The next day, the man just turned the vacuum cleaner on and off again. Peterson noted that the biggest obstacle to human change is that the true first step is often so "embarrassingly and shamefully small" that people refuse to do it out of pride.
Evy strongly agrees, explaining that society has sold everyone a myth that life-altering transformations require massive, sweeping decisions. In reality, significant change is built through microscopic daily movements. She shares a story from her friend Don Saladino, a celebrity trainer who prepares actors for Marvel and DC superhero roles. Saladino had a severely obese client whom he helped transition to running marathons through incremental daily actions:
* **Day 1:** Set his sneakers in front of his bed.
* **Day 2:** Placed the sneakers outside his bedroom door.
* **Day 3:** Moved the sneakers into the kitchen.
* **Day 4:** Put the sneakers on inside the house.
* **Day 5:** Walked outside before putting the sneakers on.
* **Day 6:** Put the shoes on and walked to the corner and back.
> "We've been fed a myth that to make big change in your life, you have to make big decisions... the big change you create in life, it's through the small movements."
---
[01:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3792s) Inside the Decision-Making of U.S. Presidents
Having observed some of the most powerful leaders in human history up close, Evy breaks down what makes U.S. presidents exceptional decision-makers under immense pressure. Setting aside political biases, she notes that simply reaching the Oval Office requires an exceptional level of competence. While maintaining respect for the non-disclosure expected of Secret Service agents—citing the Greek proverb, "Everybody loves the treason, nobody loves a traitor"—she highlights key operational patterns shared by figures like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama:
* **Strict Inner Circles:** Leaders surround themselves with steady, calm advisors who act as protective layers. Evy notes she never saw anyone break down crying or become emotionally dysregulated inside the White House.
* **Mastery of Delegation:** Presidents do not attempt to know everything; instead, they seek out experts smarter than themselves to get clear counsel before deciding.
* **Relentless Work Ethic and Study:** Presidents spend late-night hours studying documentation. Evy frequently saw Bill Clinton and Barack Obama up late into the midnight shift at their desks, thoroughly reading and preparing.
* **Decisiveness Without 100% Certainty:** Steven recalls Barack Obama explaining at a conference in São Paulo that major decisions (such as the raid on Osama bin Laden) are made at around 51% certainty. Truly confident leaders accept that they must act with whatever information is available without beating themselves up later if things go awry.
* **Solitude and Reconnecting with Roots:** Leaders schedule alone time away from the public eye. George W. Bush retreated to his ranch in Crawford near Waco, Texas; Barack Obama spent every holiday returning home to Hawaii; and George H.W. Bush split his time between Kennebunkport, Maine, and Houston.
> "You made the best decision you could with what you knew in that moment. Don't go back and make yourself feel like shit because you feel you should have chosen differently."
---
[01:09:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4143s) Physicality, Workouts, and the Mind-Body Connection
Steven draws a parallel between high-performing leaders and historical figures like Steve Jobs, noting how Jobs used meditation and solitude to step back from the "canvas" and see the whole picture. Evy adds that almost every president she protected prioritized intense physical exercise directly inside their daily schedules:
* **George W. Bush:** A formidable runner who later transitioned to mountain biking (requiring agents in full tactical gear to keep up with his fast pace).
* **Bill Clinton:** An avid runner on local tracks and trails.
* **Barack Obama:** Committed to a daily morning gym workout routine.
Evy emphasizes that the mind and body cannot be separated when trying to cultivate inner strength. Engaging the body physically sends a powerful signal to oneself, directly generating confidence and composure.
---
[01:11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4286s) Paralinguistics, Tone of Voice, and Emotional Control
Steven breaks down the four common physical and behavioral indicators of low confidence—physical tension (clenched jaws, racing heart), mental self-doubt (ruminating on mistakes), emotional insecurity, and behavioral cues (soft speaking, rushing words, over-apologizing). Evy responds candidly, calling excessive self-analysis a waste of time and shifting the focus to actionable mechanics: specifically **paralinguistics** (how one speaks rather than just what one says).
Research consistently demonstrates that tone and vocal delivery carry far more impact than the exact words chosen. Evy explains how her background in television news taught her to intentionally own her lower, authentic pitch to command respect and authority. She avoids using a high-pitched "baby voice" even when speaking around her daughter, wanting her daughter to naturally absorb and model a grounded, resonant voice that commands authority:
* **Voice Control:** Speaking from a deeper, authentic tone signals authority and causes others to instinctively pay attention.
* **Audience-Centric Mindset:** When stepping onto a stage or doing an interview, Evy removes her ego entirely: "This interview is not about me... I don't matter, you're irrelevant. We're two people trying to share information."
* **Pacing and Strategic Silence:** Steven points out that Evy uses deliberate silences that unconfident speakers avoid out of fear of taking up space or wasting someone's time. Unconfident people rush their speech because they feel inferior, whereas leaders like Barack Obama intentionally weaponized slow pauses to command complete control over a room.
[01:15:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4559s) Owning Your Voice and the Danger of Modesty Apologies
Evy reflects on watching U.S. presidents deliver addresses, noting that she never once saw a president rush through their words or fret about interrupting a popular scheduled program like *Grey's Anatomy*. The president owns their time, owns their voice, gets directly to the point without belaboring it, and utilizes the power of the pause. Presenting with a deliberate pace allows the speaker to process thoughts live, reducing the likelihood of making broadcast mistakes. In contrast, corporate speakers often sabotage themselves before even starting by opening with disclaimers such as, "I don't want to waste anyone's time" or "Just real quick." This pre-apology subconsciously signals to the room that the message lacks importance and isn't worth listening to.
```
"When you slow down also as a presenter, I am less likely to make mistakes... I'm more likely to be able to think, process, and share."
```
When a person speaks purely out of insecurity to ensure they are seen or heard at a conference table, they make the moment about themselves rather than the collective outcome. True authority comes from speaking with preparation, genuine intent, and conciseness. Scientific research confirms that over-explaining and using excessive word count decreases perceived trustworthiness, whereas concise, impactful speech drives higher ratings of competence and confidence.
* **Consequences of rushing:** Increases broadcast/presentation mistakes and signals self-doubt.
* **The "Modesty Trap":** Phrases like "I don't want to take up much time" instruct the audience that your point is trivial.
* **Research findings on verbosity:** Speaking excessively without landing the point lowers perceived authority, competence, and trustworthiness.
[01:18:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4729s) Body Language, "Illustrators," and the 25% Energy Drain
Steven observes that Evy naturally uses large hand gestures—taking up standard physical space on either side—which conveys engagement and an inherent belief that she deserves attention and respect. Evy acknowledges her Greek heritage as a factor, but notes that hand gestures (known professionally as **illustrators**) are a deliberate communication strategy. During her transition from Secret Service work—where agents actively stay out of camera shots—to television analysis, a TV producer revealed a vital industry reality: cameras suck out approximately **25%** of a speaker's natural energy, making them look flatter on screen or Zoom.
```
"The camera sucks like 25% of your energy away... So if you're trying to engage people... you have to work hard to keep them engaged."
```
Beyond physical energy compensation, open hands play an evolutionary role in establishing safety. In prehistoric human development, visible hands signaled "no weapons," instilling subconscious trust. Sitting on hands or hiding them is frequently interpreted in interrogation and polygraph environments as deceitful or untrustworthy. Furthermore, studies show audiences retain or properly digest only **49%** of what they hear even when paying attention. Because people constantly "ping-pong" mentally—thinking about lunch, emails, or dry cleaning during presentations—speakers must actively employ body language and open gestures to hold focus.
* **Camera energy drain:** Video interfaces reduce perceived physical energy by ~25%.
* **Listener retention baseline:** Audiences process and retain at best 49% of spoken information.
* **Prehistoric trust signaling:** Showing open, weapon-free hands communicates safety and transparency, while hiding hands triggers underlying suspicion.
[01:22:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4926s) The Retention Gap: Curiosity Gaps and Meeting Audiences Where They Are
Steven shares metrics from *The Diary Of A CEO*, pointing out that listener retention varies dramatically—up to a **100% gain in retention**—between different guests. High-retention guests like Evy or author Morgan Housel keep audiences locked in because of their delivery structure, frequently opening points with a "curiosity gap" or a high-stakes promise (similar to content creator MrBeast). Evy recalls early advice from a fellow keynote speaker who told her, "Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting."
```
"Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting."
```
To bridge the gap between expertise and engagement, Evy references her interrogation tactics in the polygraph room. Before interviewing suspects, victims, or job applicants, she never read them their Miranda rights verbally. Instead, she handed them the paper and instructed them to read each sentence out loud (e.g., "I have the right to remain silent") and asked if they understood. This allowed her to gauge their linguistic baseline and speech patterns. She would then ask basic background questions she already knew the answers to (name, birth date, hometown) strictly to calibrate their vocal cadence and adjust her own speed and tone to match theirs.
* **Retention metrics:** Listener watch time on major podcasts varies by up to 100% depending entirely on delivery style and hooks.
* **The Miranda calibration method:** Having subjects read their rights aloud allows an interrogator to assess literacy, speech rate, and emotional state before asking critical questions.
* **Simplifying content:** Outlets like *The New York Times* write at an 8th-grade reading level to minimize cognitive fatigue; overly complex vocabulary reduces audience retention and makes the speaker look less competent according to linguistic research.
[01:27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5229s) The "Bad Contribution Score" and Executive Empathy
Steven shares an anecdote from his former company's New York office involving two employees: "Sarah," who constantly thought out loud during creative brainstorms with major clients like Uber, and "Cah," who spoke rarely. Because Sarah voiced every unformed thought, colleagues regularly cut her off, assigning her what Steven terms a low "contribution score." In contrast, when Cah spoke, the entire room fell quiet because everyone knew his input would be high-value. Evy agrees, pointing out that blurting out unrefined thoughts displays self-engrossment and projects nervousness.
```
"You hurt your contribution score when you contribute beyond value... landed thoughts command respect; out-loud brainstorming makes you look nervous."
```
As professionals ascend into higher leadership roles, their patience for long-winded ramblers sharply declines. Evy notes that this isn't out of malice, but sheer cognitive survival: executives managing dozens of critical conversations daily do not have the time capacity to wait for someone to "land the plane." She turns the interview dynamic back on Steven, asking how he navigates people who approach him expecting a soft persona versus the efficient executive required to run his organizations.
* **The Contribution Score:** Frequent, low-value interruptions lower a team member's authority and cause others to tune out or interrupt them.
* **Executive bandwidth:** Higher leadership demands faster, more concise communication; concise delivery respects the listener's time and elevates executive presence.
[01:30:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5428s) Hiring for the Mission, Not the Label
Steven Bartlett and Evy Poumpouras unpack what drives people to work for high-profile figures or prestigious institutions. When interviewing candidates, Steven notes that many applicants orient their answers around him—citing his book or podcast—rather than the actual role. To filter these individuals out, he asks a simple question: "Explain to me exactly why this job appealed to you." If the answer revolves around liking Steven rather than loving the day-to-day work, they will fail when "going into the trenches." Evy relates this to her time conducting polygraph examinations and final-stage interviews for the U.S. Secret Service. Candidates typically gave one of two responses: wanting a personal challenge/seeing if they could do it, or wanting to serve the country and protect others. Surprisingly, those who focused on personal glory or self-achievement were weeded out quickly, whereas those driven by the broader mission succeeded.
Steven connects this to a broader life lesson: prioritizing outward appearances over substance leads to dissatisfaction. He shares an anecdote about a single friend who hesitated to date a woman because he was worried about "how it would look" walking into a restaurant with her on his arm. While Evy jokes that her husband is "lucky he's hot" when they get into arguments, she agrees that superficial appeal fades quickly. Steven notes a rare exception in his Chief Revenue Officer, Cristiana, who was a massive fan of his podcast and referenced Chapter 19 of his book in her application, yet proved to be an top-tier performer because her passion for the actual work matched her fandom.
- Applicants who center their interview answers on the leader's personal brand rarely survive the reality of the daily workload.
- Candidates for the Secret Service who focused on self-fulfillment ("I want to see if I can do it") failed, whereas those focused on service passed.
- Superficial external focus—whether in hiring, career goals, or romantic relationships—inevitably crumbles under real pressure.
---
[01:35:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5726s) The High Tolerance for Offense in Law Enforcement
Transitioning to how she handles difficult interpersonal dynamics, Evy explains that her threshold for taking offense is exceptionally high because of her background in federal law enforcement. Confronted with hostile citizens in public, officers cannot afford to lose their composure. She recalls an incident in New York during President Barack Obama's visit, where she had to ask a bystander to move across the street to clear a secure perimeter. The person immediately exploded, accusing her of violating their rights and shoving a phone in her face. While her internal impulse might have been to "punch him in the throat," professional discipline required complete self-control.
Evy explains the psychological concept of **reactance**—the automatic pushback people exhibit when they feel their personal autonomy or control is being threatened. She uses the widespread pushback against COVID-19 mask mandates as an example of reactance, noting it was rarely about the piece of cloth itself, but rather the psychological sensation of being forced to comply. In law enforcement, officers cannot offer choices; they must enforce compliance, which often escalates anger and leads citizens to record interactions for social media outrage.
- Reactance is the innate psychological resistance people feel when they perceive their control or freedom is being restricted.
- Law enforcement officers suffer from high rates of cynicism because they interact with humanity primarily during moments of conflict or distress.
- Most recorded arrests involve minor misdemeanors like driving while intoxicated rather than major felonies.
---
[01:39:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5993s) De-escalation Tactics, Fact-Fighting, and Manipulation
When faced with screaming, aggressive individuals, Secret Service agents are trained to "fight with facts" rather than matching emotional energy. Evy would explicitly cite federal statutes—such as Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056, which establishes the authority to protect the President—to ground the encounter in objective law. She would present a stark, logical choice: "You can move across the street and I can get somebody to come talk to you, or it's going to escalate. It's up to you." Framing the situation this way restores a sense of agency to the individual while firmly maintaining boundaries.
Evy emphasizes that physical restraint is always the absolute last resort, as "the minute you put hands on people, everything breaks bad." She notes that after making an arrest, she frequently had to transport subjects to the hospital because they would panic, experience stress-induced chest pains, or fake medical emergencies like heart attacks to manipulate her into removing the handcuffs. She warns that emotional displays like crying, accusing someone of bias, or faking distress are common manipulation tactics used across all settings—including corporate environments during difficult conversations or terminations—to force the other party to back off out of guilt.
> "Nobody provokes you. You own your response... Nobody owns that. Nobody should take that from you. Who are they to take that from you? And who are you to surrender it?"
- Title 18 U.S.C. § 3056 provides the legal mandate for Secret Service protective duties.
- Giving an agitated individual a clear choice provides a sense of control and de-escalates resistance without compromising authority.
- Emotional outbursts, tears, and playing the victim are frequently leveraged as deflecting tactics to halt uncomfortable questioning or consequences.
- The prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until around age 25, which Evy notes offers a partial explanation for heightened emotional volatility in younger individuals.
[01:44:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6263s) How to Become Unprovokable and Using Facts to Win
Steven asks Evy how a person can truly become unprovokable, wondering if it comes down to sheer repetition. Evy confirms that repetition is key; over time, having enough people get in your face forces you to learn how to manage your emotions. While she does not advise actively looking for trouble, she strongly warns against going out of your way to avoid conflict to the point where you compromise yourself just to keep the peace. When conflict shows up, you need to stand your ground and handle people non-emotionally using hard facts.
In the workplace, Evy notes that people often seek her advice when feeling undervalued or ignored by their supervisors. She instructs them never to approach a boss with vague statements like "I think," "I feel," or "I believe," because subjective feelings are effortless to refute or dismiss. Instead, employees should state exact, verifiable metrics—such as the specific projects completed, hours spent, or revenue generated. By grounding the conversation in indisputable facts and specific past interactions, you strip away ambiguity and make your point unassailable. For those who get nervous during difficult conversations, she recommends writing down key points on a notepad and transparently referencing them during the meeting.
* Evy's rule for workplace negotiations: Replace subjective claims ("I feel underappreciated") with concrete metrics ("I completed X project, worked Y hours, and brought in Z revenue").
* If you get anxious during high-stakes meetings, openly tell your supervisor that you brought written notes to ensure you present your thoughts clearly without making mistakes.
---
[01:46:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6408s) The Power of Narrative Memos and the Nanny Interrogation Case
Steven shares that he gives similar advice to his younger team members, encouraging them to write out their ideas as narrative memos rather than stumbling through verbal pitches. Borrowing a management practice from Jeff Bezos at Amazon, Steven's company relies on concise two-page narrative memos outlining the situation, context, proposed solution, and requested decision. He expresses a strong dislike for traditional PowerPoint presentations and bullet points, arguing that bullet points and pictures are overly open to interpretation, whereas structured prose leaves no room for ambiguity and often saves time by eliminating unnecessary meetings.
Evy strongly agrees, recalling how her interrogation training taught her the value of written statements over immediate verbal questioning. Before interviewing suspects, she would have them write a detailed timeline of their day from the moment they woke up to when they went to sleep. She illustrates this with a case involving a several-month-old baby who suffered a broken arm, where the police were undecided between two suspects: the father and the nanny. Following the rule to target the most likely suspect first rather than building up from the bottom, Evy read both written statements.
The father's statement made it clear to her that he was innocent, but the nanny's statement immediately exposed her guilt. The nanny spent paragraphs complaining about her stressful morning, her own two kids, being late as a single mother, and the baby's relentless crying. She then wrote: *"Then I gave the baby Tylenol and it went quiet."* Evy recognized that abrupt shift in language as the exact moment the nanny snapped, broke the baby's arm, and caused the child to pass out from pain. Armed with this insight from the written statement, Evy brought the nanny in for questioning and secured a full confession in just an hour and a half without needing a polygraph.
* Amazon's narrative memo style: Replaces vague PowerPoint bullet points with structured prose outlining the problem, context, solution, and required decision.
* Interrogation principle: Investigate the primary suspect directly rather than working up through secondary suspects.
* Case detail: A nanny's written statement revealing her building frustration and a sudden linguistic shift ("I gave the baby Tylenol and it went quiet") led directly to a confession regarding a infant's broken arm in under 90 minutes.
---
[01:51:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6671s) Cognitive Dissonance, Accountability, and Inner Circles
Steven notes that the nanny's statement sounded like a classic example of self-justification, connecting it to cognitive dissonance—the discomfort people feel when their behavior conflicts with their self-image. He points out how everyday bad habits, like skipping the gym or eating junk food from a hotel mini-bar, are routinely rationalized away until people become trapped in their own excuses. Evy emphasizes that while people shouldn't beat themselves up over the past, it is essential to maintain honest self-accountability by explicitly admitting to oneself when a mistake was made.
When Steven asks how someone can prevent themselves from buying into their own excuses, Evy credits her husband—a former Secret Service special agent, Homeland Security agent, and SWAT officer—for keeping her grounded. Because he has built deep trust and credibility, she respects his objective feedback when he calls her out or tells her to think things through. Furthermore, Evy admits that even as a professional decision-maker, she occasionally "sees red" in emotional situations; when that happens, she reaches out to trusted advisors (such as her agent or spouse) to guide her actions while her emotions are heightened.
She cautions that constant outrage, feeling perpetually triggered, or oversharing personal grievances on social media are clear signs of internal dysfunction that require deep self-reflection. When the conversation turns to personal relationships, Evy shares that her circle of true friends is very small. While she interacts with many acquaintances and professional contacts, she reserves the term "friend" for those who hold unconditional trust, consistency, and a proven track record over time.
* Evy's husband brings a background as a U.S. Secret Service Special Agent, Homeland Security officer, and SWAT operative, serving as her primary sounding board.
* Strategy for managing anger: When "seeing red," refrain from making immediate choices and consult a trusted advisor who can provide calm, unemotional guidance.
* Behavioral warning signs: Frequent online venting, constant offense, and easily triggered reactions indicate unaddressed internal issues rather than external problems.
* Defining true friendship: High-quality friendships require consistency, time, mutual trust, and the absence of betrayal, prioritizing depth over a high quantity of acquaintances.
---
[01:57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7053s) Ad Break: Adobe Express and Pipedrive
Steven takes a short sponsor break to reflect on a decision he made at 24 years old—posting daily on social media—which accelerated his learning and built the audience that launched *The Diary Of A CEO*. He credits sponsor Adobe Express as the tool he uses to create content for LinkedIn and Instagram without needing advanced graphic design skills. He then introduces sponsor Pipedrive, highlighting it as a top CRM tool for small to medium-sized businesses to maintain pipeline visibility and track sales progress.
* **Adobe Express**: Accessible content creation tool used by Steven to design social media assets quickly (`adobe.ly/steven`).
* **Pipedrive**: CRM platform designed to give businesses clear visibility over their sales pipelines and deal stages.
---
<ElicitationsGroup message="What would you like to do next?">
<Elicitation label="Explore strategies for managing cognitive dissonance in daily habits" query="Explore strategies for managing cognitive dissonance in daily habits" query_intent="CLICKABLE_SUGGESTION" />
<Elicitation label="Draft a two-page Amazon-style narrative memo for a workplace idea" query="Draft a two-page Amazon-style narrative memo for a workplace idea" query_intent="CLICKABLE_SUGGESTION" />
<Elicitation label="Learn non-verbal techniques for maintaining composure during conflict" query="Learn non-verbal techniques for maintaining composure during conflict" query_intent="CLICKABLE_SUGGESTION" />
</ElicitationsGroup>
[01:58:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7135s) Low-Vibration Energy and the Dangers of Playing the Savior
Evy Poumpouras elaborates on her concept of "low vibration," defining it as being around individuals who drain your energy through a persistent victim mindset, constant drama, and negativity. While people often believe they can pull low-vibration individuals up through sheer goodwill, Evy cautions that it is vastly easier for a struggling person to pull a high-performing, emotionally stable person down. Drawing an analogy to search-and-rescue water training, she notes that the most dangerous element in the water isn't the wave itself, but the panicking person: in their desperate attempt to stay afloat, a drowning person will grab onto you, climb over you, and submerge you. The same dynamic plays out in personal relationships when attempting to "save" volatile people without setting appropriate boundaries.
```
SAVIOR COMPLEX VS. WATER RESCUE
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Rescuer (High Vibration) |
| "I am going to pull this person up!" |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
|
v
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Drowning Person (Panic / Low Vibration) |
| In chaos/panic, grabs the rescuer to stay afloat. |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
|
v
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Result: Rescuer gets pushed under water / pulled down|
+-------------------------------------------------------+
```
Steven Bartlett and Evy discuss the personal responsibility everyone holds for navigating their environment and mitigating vulnerability. While encountering an unreasonable or bad actor occasionally is inevitable, repeatedly finding oneself exploited indicates a failure to heed warning signs or a tendency to grant unconditional trust. Trust, Evy emphasizes, must be earned gradually over time through consistent behavior—referencing Steven's long-standing working relationship with his team member Jack as a prime example of earned trust. Blindly surrendering trust exposes individuals to preventable risks, much like choosing to walk through a dark, high-crime neighborhood late at night rather than taking a taxi.
- Low-vibration individuals consistently bring problems, drama, and victimhood into interactions without seeking solutions.
- It is far easier for low-vibration people to drag others down than it is for high-performing individuals to elevate them.
- Search-and-rescue protocols teach that a panicking victim in the water presents the single greatest threat to a lifeguard's survival.
- Trust should never be offered unconditionally at the outset; it must be built over time through demonstrated reliability.
---
[02:03:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7435s) Performance, Accountability, and the "Not That Special" Mindset
When Steven points out how prevalent complaining and entitlement are in modern corporate culture, Evy argues that this behavior persists simply because leadership allows it. While listening to employees is valid, over-accommodating excuses damages organizational culture and enables low performance. Evy explains that low performers frequently disrupt workplace harmony by dragging personal grievances into professional spaces. When an employee takes up a manager's time with lengthy personal stories during a routine check-in, they center the focus entirely on themselves, demonstrating a lack of respect for their supervisor's time and responsibilities.
```
WORKPLACE IMPACT OF LOW-PERFORMANCE BEHAVIORS
Entitled Mindset ──> Over-sharing personal drama at work
│
▼
Wasted Management Time ──> Distraction from core operations
│
▼
Degraded Work Culture ──> Lower overall team standards
```
This self-centered behavior ties into a concept Evy shared in her TED Talk: the reality that "you're not that special." In Western culture's hyper-individualistic framework, people often build an internal narrative that positions them as the center of the universe. When individuals believe they and their problems are entirely unique, they isolate themselves in a victim mentality where no advice can reach them because they treat their situation as an exception to every rule. Recognizing that millions of others deal with similar or far worse hardships provides immediate perspective, removing the self-imposed burden of exceptionalism and allowing real problem-solving to begin.
- Workplaces suffer when managers allow personal drama and excuses to overshadow output and standards.
- Low performers frequently misuse professional time by bringing unnecessary personal narratives into task-oriented discussions.
- The belief that one's personal struggles are uniquely painful isolates individuals and blocks constructiveness.
- Accepting that "you're not that special" reorients one's mindset and diminishes the perceived weight of personal hardships.
---
[02:07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7642s) How Predators Target Easy Victims and Misconceptions of Vulnerability
Turning to interpersonal dynamics and crime, Steven asks why certain individuals repeatedly end up in abusive relationships or targeted by manipulators. Evy explains that predators—whether corporate manipulators, abusive partners, or street criminals—do not look for fair fights. Instead, they scan their surroundings for individuals who exhibit cues of being easy targets: those who display submissive posture, show a lack of pushback, or offer trust too readily. Conversely, when someone project confidence, boundaries, and a willingness to counter or question actions, predators instinctively step back to avoid resistance.
> "Predators don't want fair fights. They want someone who's going to go down easy... Predators are not what you think they are... They themselves are not strong. They look for weaker targets because it's easier to take out and manipulate."
Evy dispels cinematic myths about predators, noting that real-world abusers and violent offenders rarely look like menacing, larger-than-life villains. Illustrating this point, she references high-profile incidents—such as a recent shooting involving Charlie Kirk and a school shooting in Minneapolis—where the perpetrators were far from physical powerhouses. Real-world predators systematically exploit the most vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, precisely because they lack the physical power or social leverage to defend themselves. In workplace and domestic settings, failing to set boundaries signaling self-assurance inadvertently invites manipulative personalities to exploit that perceived weakness.
- Predators seek out easy targets, actively avoiding individuals who project confidence, assertiveness, or potential resistance.
- Cues such as submissive body language, lack of pushback, and immediate over-trust signal vulnerability to manipulators.
- The most vulnerable segments of society—children and the elderly—are targeted most by predators because they are easy to overpower.
- Mass shooters and predators rarely match the menacing cinematic stereotypes, often using perceived weakness to mask their malice.
---
[02:10:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7846s) Navigating Abusive Dynamics and Unmasking Hard Truths
When Steven asks how someone should respond if they feel stuck in an abusive dynamic at work or home—where leaving immediately feels financially or practically impossible—Evy maintains that individuals almost always retain choices, even if those choices are difficult. Drawing from extensive research and work with abuse victims, she acknowledges the grim reality that many victims struggle to break free, often returning to abusive partners multiple times even after escaping. In severe, high-risk domestic situations, third parties cannot simply offer quick conversational fixes; safety planning and harsh realism are required.
```
TRUTH VS. FANTASY IN ABUSE
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Illusion: |
| "If I can just change them, everything will be okay." |
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
|
v
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Reality: |
| Abusive behavior is systemic. You cannot change them; |
| you must acknowledge the truth and plan an exit. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
```
Evy points out that victims often cling to a dangerous fantasy: hoping they can alter the abuser's core character while remaining in the relationship. She compares this to ignoring the hidden mass of an iceberg. True resolution requires confronting the uncomfortable truth of who the person in front of you actually is rather than who you wish they were. She also notes counterintuitive findings from law enforcement data like the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, which reveals significant instances of adult children perpetrating abuse against their aging parents. Whether dealing with toxic partners, abusive workplace bosses, or family members, progress begins only when a person stops making excuses for bad behavior and takes tangible steps to separate themselves from the environment.
- Victims often remain trapped in abusive dynamics because they focus on trying to change the perpetrator rather than accepting reality.
- Law enforcement data, including the Uniform Crime Report, highlights significant rates of abuse committed by adult children against parents.
- Lasting safety and recovery require recognizing the full reality of an abusive individual rather than clinging to false hopes of transformation.
[02:13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8020s) Standard-Setting in Family Relationships and Ending Toxic Cycles
Steven opens with a candid discussion on family boundaries, addressing the common dilemma faced by people over the age of 18 who feel trapped by toxic parents or relatives. While acknowledging that cutting family out entirely can be painful, he emphasizes that loving family doesn't mean you have to like or tolerate bad behavior from them. Drawing from his own life, Steven recalls being an 18-year-old broke student when an extended family member began behaving inappropriately. While his siblings chose to rationalize and tolerate the behavior, Steven made the firm decision to cut that relative off. Paradoxically, setting that absolute boundary resulted in that person treating him better than anyone else in the family. "I think it's because they realize that my tolerance is so low and I'm willing to walk away," he reflects, noting that having shared genes shouldn't grant anyone a free pass below a minimum standard of respect.
This low tolerance for chaos directly shaped Steven's adult life and current relationship. Having grown up in a household where loud shouting was the constant daily background noise, he and his partner of seven years maintain a strict environment where neither ever raises their voice. Even during disagreements, they communicate calmly; in past relationships, the moment shouting began, Steven would simply get into his car and drive down the motorway to remove himself. Evy notes how striking it is that all of Steven's siblings turned out soft-spoken as well, highlighting how peace can sometimes emerge as a direct reaction to growing up amidst conflict.
* **Age and Independence:** Steven stresses that adults over 18 who are capable of working have the agency to create distance from toxic family dynamics rather than remaining passive victims.
* **The Gene Fallacy:** Shared genetics should not excuse abusive or inappropriate behavior; minimum standards of conduct apply equally to family, friends, colleagues, and strangers.
* **Environment Counter-reaction:** While trauma often reproduces itself, growing up in a high-conflict home caused Steven and his siblings to enforce zero-tolerance policies for shouting in their adult lives.
[02:15:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8128s) The Limits of Confidence and Spotting Red Flags
Building on Steven's point, Evy highlights the critical distinction between processing past trauma and remaining stuck inside ongoing, active abuse. When individuals experiencing active bullying or domestic mistreatment ask her for advice on building confidence, Evy gives them a blunt truth: no skill, mindset shift, or "power pose" can counter active, continuous destruction. In those situations, the primary problem isn't a lack of self-belief—it is the persistent presence of an abuser in their daily life.
```
"There are no skills I can give you that can help you be more confident because I can't counter that. You have someone who is consistently demolishing you."
```
Steven draws a parallel between building positive habits through incremental exposure therapy—like moving running shoes closer to the bed—and how abusers gradually push boundaries day by day. Evy agrees, explaining how she monitors subtle behavioral shifts in her professional life to detect boundary-pushing before it escalates. For instance, if a team member takes four days to respond to an important email, she views it as a major red flag. Rather than confronting them immediately, she quietly tests them again to see if it was an isolated fluke or a sign of entitlement. If the pattern persists, she doesn't waste energy arguing; she simply makes arrangements to remove them from her organization.
* **Active Abuse vs. Self-Improvement:** Confidence tactics cannot protect someone who remains in an environment of chronic mistreatment; removing the source of abuse is the necessary first step.
* **Boundary Creep:** Just as positive habits build through tiny steps, toxic behavior and abuse often creep in gradually as boundaries are subtly tested and breached over time.
* **Silent Evaluation:** In business and team management, Evy uses subtle tests—such as tracking response times to emails—to gauge respect and professionalism before deciding whether to cut ties.
[02:20:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8409s) The Chilling Precedent of the Charlie Kirk Event
The conversation shifts to a major news event of the week: the assassination of political commentator Charlie Kirk, who was shot in the neck from several hundred yards away while hosting a "Prove Me Wrong" debate event on a college campus. Asking Evy to analyze the incident through her lens as a former U.S. Secret Service Special Agent, Steven seeks to understand the security and societal implications of the attack. Evy explains that while high-ranking political figures like the President or members of Congress are recognized "hard targets" backed by extensive state security, the targeting of a public commentator represents a dangerous paradigm shift.
Evy emphasizes that Kirk was not an elected official, nor did anyone vote for him; he was essentially an independent voice sharing opinions via a podcast and public speaking tours. By targeting a private citizen with a platform, the perpetrator established a terrifying precedent where anyone voicing controversial opinions becomes "fair game" for political violence. "You're dealing now with people who if they share an opinion that you don't like... now I have the ability to retaliate and take a shot," Evy warns. Because public commentators are far softer targets than protected politicians, this event dramatically heightens vulnerability for show hosts, podcasters, and public speakers everywhere.
* **Hard Targets vs. Soft Targets:** Elected leaders possess dedicated government security details, whereas independent commentators and media hosts operate with open access, making them highly accessible targets.
* **Copycat Risk:** Successful attacks on soft targets carry a high risk of inspiring copycat perpetrators who realize that high-profile public figures without state protection are easily reachable.
* **Expansion of Political Violence:** Shifting political violence from elected government officials to podcast hosts and public speakers lowers the threshold for who can be targeted over ideological differences.
[02:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8643s) Social Media, Protective Intelligence, and Decreasing Empathy
Evy reflects on her operational experience within the Secret Service's Protective Intelligence Unit, where agents were tasked with tracking individuals who posed potential threats to government protectees. Historically, threat actors made themselves known through physical letters, repeated phone calls, or showing up at events, and many suffered from severe, unmanaged mental health issues that sometimes required involuntary court commitment. However, the rise of social media fundamentally altered threat tracking by allowing individuals to hurl anonymous death threats directly from the safety of their homes, overwhelming intelligence agencies with thousands of incoming leads.
Beyond generating massive volume, social media actively erodes human empathy and personal restraint. Evy notes that online platforms normalize extreme hostility, allowing people to say atrocious things they would never utter to someone's face. Furthermore, traditional societal guardrails that historically anchored human behavior—such as strong family bonds, faith communities, and educational institutions—are continually eroding. Steven concurs, adding that algorithmic feeds trap individuals in outrage-fueled echo chambers that distort reality, heightening hostility and leaving mentally unstable individuals even more prone to real-world aggression.
* **Secret Service Protective Intelligence Unit:** The specialized division within the U.S. Secret Service responsible for evaluating, tracking, and investigating threats against high-profile protectees.
* **Anonymity and Escalation:** Digital platforms lower the barrier to issuing threats, decoupling aggressive behavior from real-world physical consequences and social accountability.
* **Erosion of Social Anchors:** Research shows that strong ties to core institutions—family, religious communities, and educational organizations—act as crucial protective factors against violent or anti-social behavior.
[02:28:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8894s) How Social Media Algorithms Manipulate Fear and Isolate Us
Steven Bartlett explains how social media feed mechanics reshape our worldview without us realizing it. A user might linger on a post just a few seconds longer, and the algorithm interprets that dwell time as genuine interest, constantly serving up more of the same content. Steven shares a personal story about an older relative who downloaded TikTok and became deeply distressed after being bombarded with vitriolic, hate-filled, and racist content. She mistakenly believed the real world was spiraling into chaos and began preparing to protest. To fix this, Steven obtained her account password and repeatedly hit TikTok's back-end reset button to wipe her algorithm history. He then manually liked and saved cheerful videos—like *X Factor* and *America's Got Talent* performances—until she eventually lost interest in the app once her feed turned mundane.
Evy Poumpouras compares this algorithmic spiral to her experience in law enforcement. When officers face the worst of humanity on duty, they stay grounded through team camaraderie and mutual support. On social media, however, individuals consume terrifying or outrage-inducing content completely alone, without anyone to tether them back to reality. The algorithms prey directly on underlying anxieties—whether it is fear of border crossings, school shootings, or rival political factions. By constantly pushing extreme viewpoints, these platforms eliminate all middle ground and drive users into hyper-polarized echo chambers.
- Dwell time on a post directly dictates future feed recommendations regardless of explicit intent.
- Resetting an algorithm's history can completely neutralize an outrage-driven media feed.
- Solitary consumption of fear-based content lacks the stabilizing effect of real-world peer networks.
---
[02:30:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9048s) The Anatomy of Mass Shootings and the Role of Social Media
Addressing a chart showing a rise in school shootings, Evy clarifies the crucial distinction between general targeted school violence and true mass shootings. In a typical school shooting, an attacker targets a specific individual due to a personal dispute; in contrast, a mass shooting involves indiscriminate attacks on groups of people. Analyzing the data behind mass shootings, Evy outlines several distinct, recurring patterns: perpetrators almost always have a personal link to the location, undergo an acute triggering event (such as a job loss or romantic breakup) built upon long-standing grievances, carefully plan their attack ahead of time, frequently execute it in the morning hours, possess a history of mental health struggles, and have ready access to firearms.
Steven observes that the modern shift from institutional news organizations to creator-led media gives potential attackers clear human targets. Evy points out that attackers often commit these acts to gain widespread attention and significance. In recent cases—such as high-profile shootings like the Charlie Kirk incident—shooters have bragged on platforms like Discord immediately after the crime. Social media accelerates this trend by making it easy for users to villainize public figures online from behind a screen. When extreme rhetoric continuously paints someone as an absolute villain, unstable individuals easily convince themselves that harming that person makes them a hero.
- **Key Data Points & Patterns of Mass Shootings:**
- Perpetrators almost always have a personal association with the targeted location.
- The decision to act is typically precipitated by a sharp life crisis (e.g., severe breakup, job loss) on top of chronic issues.
- Attacks are premeditated, frequently planned online, and usually carried out in the morning.
- Individuals involved consistently display a history of mental health issues and have access to firearms.
- Attackers actively seek notoriety, often discussing or celebrating their actions on platforms like Discord post-event.
---
[02:36:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9373s) Security Realities, Protection Failures, and the Weight of Secret Service Duty
Reflecting on her background alongside her husband, a former Counter Assault Team member, Evy discusses the security dynamics behind protecting public figures outside government office. Private security teams typically focus on ground-level physical threats—acting as a literal "meat shield" between the speaker and the immediate audience along the rope line or podium. They are rarely equipped or funded to deploy rooftop counter-sniper units, which are typically reserved for high-level government dignitaries such as the President, members of Congress, or visiting foreign heads of state.
When asked about protective gear, Steven notes observing vest lines on high-profile figures. Evy clarifies that standard soft body armor only stops handgun rounds or shotgun shells; defeating rifle rounds requires heavy ceramic plates. Soft armor also leaves critical areas like the head and neck vulnerable. For Secret Service agents, an assassination attempt on their protectee represents the ultimate operational failure. Agents constantly scan for threats in high-stress shifts lasting 16 to 18 hours, experiencing real relief only during "wheels up" moments when the VIP's aircraft takes off safely.
- **Security Protocol & Gear Distinctions:**
- Private security focuses primarily on immediate ground threats and audience access points.
- Rooftop counter-sniper deployment requires significant resources typically restricted to state officials and foreign dignitaries.
- Standard soft body armor stops pistol and shotgun rounds; heavy ceramic plates are required to stop rifle fire.
- Secret Service shifts routinely run 16 to 18 hours of continuous, hyper-vigilant threat scanning.
- "Wheels up" refers to the moment a protectee's aircraft departs, marking the end of an active detail's high-stress window.
---
[02:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9608s) Capability, Mindset, and the Final Question
As the core conversation draws to a close, Steven asks Evy what single message she would leave for listeners who want to become more effective in reaching their personal, professional, or entrepreneurial goals. Evy emphasizes that people are far more capable than they give themselves credit for. Society often gives people permission to make excuses, but success comes down to recognizing that no high achiever is inherently special. Regardless of past trauma, self-doubt, or feelings of inadequacy, individuals possess the internal capacity to make their own choices and accomplish what they set out to do.
In keeping with the podcast's tradition, Steven reads a question left by the previous guest: *"What brings you the most joy in life? And what are you the most scared of?"* Evy reveals that her daughter is both her greatest joy and her deepest fear. Having wanted to be a mother her entire life, raising her daughter fulfills her most profound desire. However, having spent years in law enforcement and crime media witnessing the darker sides of human nature, her biggest fear is failing to keep her child safe and healthy in an unpredictable world.
> "We're not that special. And that means that they can do and achieve what they want... Even if you feel inadequate, even if you lack confidence, even if you've had horrible trauma in your life, whatever it is, despite all that, you are absolutely capable. And it is your choice."
[02:42:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9741s) Why Audiences Connect Deeply with Evy Poumpouras
Following a discussion about parental fear and protecting loved ones, Steven reflects on the unique, powerful reaction audiences have to Evy Poumpouras. He notes that wherever he goes, people constantly bring up her previous appearances—a reaction he describes as completely atypical compared to most other guests. Steven uses Evy as a prime case study for effective communication, sharing how he often analyzes why listeners click with her so deeply. He attributes this connection to her ability to "meet them where they are," balancing nuanced messages with strong conviction, relatable stories, and an undisputed "badass" persona built from her career as a Secret Service agent.
Steven highlights her book, *Becoming Bulletproof: Life Lessons from a Secret Service Agent*, recommending it as an accessible, powerful guide to understanding the human condition in relationships, personal life, and work. Evy expresses her gratitude, sharing a warm moment of mutual appreciation before the main interview concludes.
* Evy’s book *Becoming Bulletproof* focuses on human psychology, emotional control, and practical life lessons derived from her law enforcement background.
* Steven emphasizes that effective communication relies on high conviction, relatable nuance, and genuine empathy.
---
[02:44:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9866s) The Diary Conversation Cards & Listener Call to Action
Steven transitions into closing announcements, highlighting *The Diary Of A CEO* conversation cards. He explains how these cards—which frequently sell out—were created from real questions left by podcast guests in the diary. Organized into three levels of emotional depth, the cards are designed for friends, families, colleagues, or individual journaling prompts, complete with QR codes that play video clips of guests answering the specific prompt.
Finally, Steven delivers his signature call to action to the podcast's audience. Pointing out that 53% of regular listeners have not yet subscribed, he makes a direct request for support by asking viewers to hit the subscribe button, promising in return that he and his team will continuously improve the show based on listener feedback.
* **Conversation Cards:** Feature guest-sourced questions categorized into three depth levels, used for group discussions or personal reflection.
* **Subscription Metric:** 53% of regular listeners to *The Diary Of A CEO* are not subscribed, prompting Steven's pledge to continually elevate the show's quality in exchange for their support.
## Notable quotes
> [51:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3091s) I think one of the secrets is they don't talk about it. They don't think about it. They don't give it that much life... Stop overanalyzing. Just be you, just do. — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3601s) He got his riders to think about the pedals in front of him... when he did that, it was almost like the riders would get off the bike and they could not recall the cycle because they were so present. — Steven Bartlett
> [01:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3792s) We've been fed a myth that to make big change in your life, you have to make big decisions... the big change you create in life, it's through the small movements. — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3792s) You made the best decision you could with what you knew in that moment. Don't go back and make yourself feel like shit because you feel you should have chosen differently. — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:15:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4559s) When you slow down also as a presenter, I am less likely to make mistakes... I'm more likely to be able to think, process, and share. — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:18:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4729s) The camera sucks like 25% of your energy away... So if you're trying to engage people... you have to work hard to keep them engaged. — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:22:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4926s) Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting. — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5229s) You hurt your contribution score when you contribute beyond value... landed thoughts command respect; out-loud brainstorming makes you look nervous. — Steven Bartlett
> [01:39:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5993s) Nobody provokes you. You own your response... Nobody owns that. Nobody should take that from you. Who are they to take that from you? And who are you to surrender it? — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7642s) Predators don't want fair fights. They want someone who's going to go down easy... Predators are not what you think they are... They themselves are not strong. They look for weaker targets because it's easier to take out and manipulate. — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:15:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8128s) There are no skills I can give you that can help you be more confident because I can't counter that. You have someone who is consistently demolishing you. — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9608s) We're not that special. And that means that they can do and achieve what they want... Even if you feel inadequate, even if you lack confidence, even if you've had horrible trauma in your life, whatever it is, despite all that, you are absolutely capable. And it is your choice. — Evy Poumpouras
## Mentioned
Evy Poumpouras, Steven Bartlett, U.S. Secret Service, Navy SEALs, YouGov, Nir Eyal, Sir Dave Brailsford, British Cycling team, Jordan Peterson, Don Saladino, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, George H.W. Bush, Morgan Housel, MrBeast, Jeff Bezos, Adobe Express, Pipedrive, Uber, Cristiana, Jack, FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program, Charlie Kirk, TikTok, Discord, X Factor, America's Got Talent, Becoming Bulletproof, The Diary Of A CEO
Former U.S. Secret Service agent Evy Poumpouras argues that modern workplace dogmas—such as bringing one's unfiltered "authentic self" to work or indulging continuous grievance narratives—sabotage personal authority and breed helplessness. In conversation with Steven Bartlett, she contends that influence and resilience depend on emotional self-regulation, paralinguistic discipline, fact-based boundary enforcement, and execution over psychoanalysis.
The Trap of Authenticity and Grievance Identities (0:00)
Poumpouras challenges standard professional advice by contrasting the "authentic self"—which she views as self-absorbed and taxing to the team's shared environment—with a disciplined professional self. While assuring struggling individuals that "it's not your fault" provides temporary emotional comfort, she argues it ultimately strips them of agency by framing them as powerless products of past trauma. Using the metaphor of the brain as a bathtub with finite capacity, she warns that over-analyzing past grievances and personal flaws creates cognitive overflow, driving mental exhaustion and flawed decision-making.
Bartlett and Poumpouras link continuous victimhood to "secondary gain," where individuals subconsciously preserve illness, pain, or conflict to retain sympathy, attention, or an identity payoff. When past trauma becomes a permanent identity, people often manufacture new adversaries to sustain it. Poumpouras stresses that offering unsolicited advice to someone anchored in a martyr identity drains the helper's mental energy without driving change, advising observers instead to withhold interventions.
Accepting Human Inflexibility and Abandoning Savior Dynamics (21:22)
To explain why people rarely change through arguments, Poumpouras presents her Iceberg Model: observable behavior represents only the surface 10%, while the submerged 90% consists of decades of family dynamics, upbringing, formative traumas, and core values. Expecting to transform an adult's underlying values is fundamentally unrealistic. Reflecting on her interrogations of ideological terrorists, she notes that attempting moral conversion was a waste of operational time; success required accepting their worldview to extract actionable tactical intelligence.
Poumpouras also cautions against playing the savior with volatile peers or partners. Drawing an analogy to search-and-rescue water training, she warns that a panicking person will instinctively pull down and submerge their rescuer to stay afloat. When dealing with toxic dynamics or active domestic and workplace mistreatment, she emphasizes that internal confidence techniques cannot counter continuous demolition. Resolution requires confronting systemic reality, abandoning fantasies of changing the other person, and planning a definitive exit or firm standard.
Behavioral Mechanics: Paralinguistics, Presence, and Brevity (71:26)
Poumpouras notes that elite operators such as Navy SEALs build composure through decisive action rather than dwelling on imposter syndrome. In communication, vocal paralinguistics matter significantly more than the specific words spoken. She recommends speaking in a grounded, authentic lower register, utilizing strategic silences, and eliminating modesty apologies like "I don't want to waste your time," which subconsciously signal that one's contribution lacks value. Employing visible hand gestures ("illustrators") projects trustworthiness and safety, while counteracting the estimated 25% energy drain caused by cameras and screens.
In professional settings, authority relies heavily on brevity and a high "contribution score." Because research suggests listeners digest only 49% of spoken content, long-winded thinking out loud exhausts leadership's cognitive bandwidth and signals insecurity. Grounded, deliberate delivery and structured pauses demonstrate emotional control and focus the interaction on shared objectives rather than the speaker's ego.
De-escalation Through Objective Facts and Strict Boundaries (99:53)
When navigating confrontation, Secret Service protocols prioritize "fighting with facts" over matching emotional hostility. Poumpouras explains that aggressive pushback often reflects psychological reactance—an innate resistance triggered when a person feels their personal autonomy threatened. In law enforcement encounters, agents counter this by grounding instructions in explicit legal authority (such as Title 18 U.S.C. § 3056) while offering bounded choices that restore a sense of agency without compromising physical perimeters.
In workplace disputes or salary negotiations, Poumpouras advises replacing subjective claims like "I feel underappreciated" with documented metrics, project completions, and verifiable interactions. When tackling intimidating goals or high-stress conflicts, both speakers recommend reducing macro-objectives to microscopic daily actions—exemplified by British Cycling's "pedals over podium" philosophy and exposure therapy—which silences amygdala-driven anxiety and preserves energy for direct execution.
Poumpouras concludes that personal efficacy requires adopting the mindset that "you're not that special," liberating individuals from the self-imposed isolation of believing their challenges are unique exceptions to basic accountability. An unresolved operational concern highlighted in the discussion is the escalating threat environment faced by public commentators and independent media figures, where online polarization and the erosion of civic guardrails have transformed unprotected private speakers into soft targets for ideological violence.
## Background
该视频由知名商业播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 9 月 25 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目特邀前美国特勤局特工、《Becoming Bulletproof》作者 Evy Poumpouras 担任嘉宾，深入探讨了盲目将“真实自我”带入职场对职业生涯与领导力的破坏性陷阱，并系统解密了顶尖领袖与特勤特工在高压下掌控情绪、赢得尊重、识破谎言与构建权威影响力的底层心理策略。
## TL;DR
Evy Poumpouras 颠覆性地指出，职场需要的是以使命和团队为中心的“职业自我”，过度强调宣泄情感与展示脆弱本质上是以自我为中心的受害者心态，会极大损耗认知带宽与团队信任。依托特勤局保护政要与审讯重刑犯的实战经验，她拆解了高影响力领袖如何利用声音副语言、留白停顿、身体语言以及 51% 决策法则在不确定性中建立威信。对话还深入剖析了痛苦背后的“次级获益”、捕食者避强击弱的犯罪心理学，警示人们警惕假性同情操纵并果断对低频消耗型关系做减法。整场访谈倡导彻底接纳客观现实、放弃改变他人的傲慢幻想，通过极度自律与微小的行动闭环建立起无法被外界轻易激怒的内在底气。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对话节奏凌厉、信息密度极高，散发着特勤特工特有的沉着气场与手术刀般的冷峻洞察，彻底摒弃了主流鸡汤式的温和抚慰。Steven Bartlett 与 Evy 之间的互动直接而深刻，话题在涉幼虐待案审讯、总统刺杀防范等极具压迫感的实战案例与现代职场博弈之间无缝切换。没有矫揉造作的同理心展示，唯有冷静克制的客观剖析与当头棒喝式的心理脱敏，带给受众一种从混乱情绪内耗中猛然清醒、直面现实挑战的强大力量感。
## Bulletin
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=0s) 前美国特勤局特工 Evy Poumpouras 指出，职场中盲目推崇“真实自我”会削弱专业威信并破坏协作，职场需要的是以目标和团队为导向的“职业自我”，过度强调真实往往沦为推卸责任与自私。
- [19:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1143s) 许多人难以走出心理创伤，本质在于潜意识中享受痛苦带来的免责特权与关注度等“次级获益”；若想实现真正的适应与改变，必须先彻底接纳眼前残酷的现实。
- [01:12:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4379s) 副语言（语速、共鸣、停顿）对说服力的影响远超措辞本身，冗长绕圈的“大声思考”会持续损耗职场贡献分，简洁果断地直奔核心（Land the plane）方能赢得权威与尊重。
- [01:59:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7178s) 成年人核心社交圈应重质不重量，低频能量拖垮高频能量远比高频拉动低频更容易，盲目拯救深陷受害者心态的人极易导致施救者反被拖入泥潭。
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=0s) 打破职场“真实自我”迷思：职场需要展现以团队和使命为核心的“职业自我”，无底线宣泄真实情绪本质是以自我为中心的索取，会加重团队负荷并丧失专业信任。
- [05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=326s) 停止过度心理剖析与“浴缸法则”：大脑认知负荷如有限容量的浴缸，过度反刍过去经历容易将不良行为合理化；顶尖领袖善于做减法（如奥巴马固定西装配置）以消除琐事造成的决策疲劳。
- [19:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1143s) 警惕受害者叙事与次级获益（Secondary Gain）：部分人沉溺受害者身份并非缺乏解决方案，而是潜意识中借由痛苦换取外界的情感确认、关怀或逃避责任的借口。
- [22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1366s) 人性冰山模型与接纳法则：一个人的底层价值观由数十年的原生家庭与经历塑造，无法靠几场谈话强行扭转；“接纳不等于赞同”，认清对方不会改变的事实后，关键在于理性决定去留。
- [43:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2615s) 特勤局情绪自控与 TED 沟通法则：在极端压力下特工需以内在调节阀压制冲动，充当中立白板；利用“Tell me、Explain to me、Describe to me”获取情报，同理心是还原真相的工具而非开脱的同情。
- [57:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3431s) 目标微步拆解战胜心理拖延：特勤局严酷训练中通过将视线锁定在眼前的具体参照物（如跑过下一棵树）逐个击破，用极微小的初始动作绕过杏仁核恐惧中枢，战胜庞大任务引发的心理不适。
- [01:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3792s) 白宫顶尖决策者的“51% 法则”：重大决策几乎永远不存在 100% 的确定性，卓越领导者善于构建严密的核心圈过滤噪音，并在具备 51% 胜算时就果断行动并承担犯错风险。
- [01:12:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4379s) 声音掌控力与开放肢体语言：低沉稳重的语调与沉着长停顿展现不可撼动的掌控力，而展示放松坦率的双手能向大脑潜意识传递安全信号，隐藏双手则会诱发戒备心理。
- [01:27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5229s) 守卫职场贡献分（Contribution Score）：在会议中未经提炼的漫谈会大幅折损个人威信，研究显示使用简洁明了的语言直奔主题（Land the plane）远比堆砌生僻词汇更显可信与干练。
- [01:35:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5713s) 应对挑衅的逆反心理与“用事实去战斗”：被他人命令时容易引发自主权丧失的防御反弹，面对人身挑衅应保持情绪脱敏，准确援引法规与事实，并告知对方“这取决于你”以赋予掌控感化解对抗。
- [01:44:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6269s) 成为不可被激怒之人（Unprovokable）：职场沟通中切勿使用“我觉得/我感觉”等情绪化词汇，应当摆出不可辩驳的具体数据与事实，坚决不把情绪控制权拱手让给外界挑衅者。
- [01:55:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6910s) 社交减法与警惕低能量拖拽：真正无条件信任的密友通常寥寥无几，低频能量拉垮高频能量远比高频拉动低频容易，盲目救助溺水般失控的人可能导致自己沦为垫脚石。
- [02:04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7478s) 捕食者避强击弱法则与彻底抽离：恶性操纵者与犯罪分子倾向于挑选软弱、缺乏边界的目标下手；身处持续施虐关系中无法靠技巧改变对方，受害者必须放弃幻想果断止损离开。
- [02:20:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8409s) 社交算法恐惧机制与发声者安保盲区：自媒体算法基于停留时间投喂仇恨与非黑即白的极端内容，侵蚀社会共识，公开发声的公众人物正成为缺乏专业安保防护的高危“软目标”。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=0s) 真实自我的职场陷阱与特勤局特工的心理法则
访谈伊始，前美国特勤局特工 Evy Poumpouras 就抛出了一个极具冲击力的观点：绝对不要把所谓的“真实的自我（authentic self）”带到职场中。在工作场合，团队需要的是你的“职业自我（professional self）”；至于那种毫无保留、以自我为中心的真实自我，留到感恩节和家人聚餐时再展现即可。Evy 尖锐地指出，当一个人张口闭口都是“真实自我”时，其潜台词往往是“我、我、我”——“发生在我身上的事怎么办？”“这对我有什么好处？”然而现实是，你的每一个行为都在影响周围的人，决定了工作氛围究竟是顺畅高效还是令人心力交瘁。
面对主持人 Steven Bartlett 提出的人是否能学会更好地进行情绪自我调节的问题，Evy 结合自己的职业生涯给出了极其肯定的回答。作为贴身保护过美国总统、与海豹突击队并肩作战、审讯过高危罪犯的特勤局特工，她从全球最具影响力的领袖身上汲取了大量关于情绪控制、人际沟通、识破谎言与构建自信的硬核策略。
- **核心圈子的质量**：自信的领导者会极度谨慎地挑选身边的人，绝不让自己暴露在消耗性、有毒的人际关系与环境中。Evy 警示道：“拯救他人时务必谨慎，有些人会把你一同拖入深渊（Some people will drown you）。”
- **掌控感与非威胁肢体语言**：特勤局的训练极为重视双手的作用。当人们看不到你的双手时，潜意识会将其判定为“不值得信任”；而展示坦率、放松的双手，则在无形中释放“我没有威胁”的安全信号。
- **高阶决策的精髓**：真正的自信是允许自己“不必知道所有事情”，并擅长通过授权将非关键认知负荷分流出去。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 职业自我与真实自我对比
accDescr: 对比真实自我与职业自我在关注点及工作影响上的差异
subgraph S1["真实自我 (Authentic Self)"]
A1["核心关注点：以自我为中心<br/>('我、我、我')"] --> B1["关注自身感受与短期倾诉"]
B1 --> C1["给工作环境增加额外负荷"]
end
subgraph S2["职业自我 (Professional Self)"]
A2["核心关注点：团队与任务目标"] --> B2["有效情绪自控与边界感"]
B2 --> C2["降低协作阻力，建立长期尊重"]
end
```
---
### [02:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=148s) 告别受害者叙事：为何“不是你的错”反而剥夺了你的力量
在探讨为何公众如此被她的理念吸引时，Evy 透露自己的社交平台和邮箱每天都被求助信息淹没。求助的内容从普通的沟通障碍，到深陷家庭暴力虐待，甚至还有人哭诉“弟弟被谋杀却被警方定性为自杀”。在这些纷繁复杂的困境背后，Evy 敏锐地洞察到一个普遍的时代病症：大量的人正处于精神泥潭中，而社会长期推崇的某种疗愈叙事，反而成了困住他们的牢笼。
长期以来，大众文化不断向人们灌输一种观念：“遇到这种事不是你的错”、“你变成这样是可以理解的”。Evy 认为，这种话虽然在情绪上提供了暂时的抚慰，但其潜藏的代价是毁灭性的——它将个体完全定型为“环境与创伤的产物”，剥夺了人对生活的控制权。一旦你深信“我如今不信任他人、性格软弱全是过去遭遇造成的”，你就进入了一种绝对无能为力的状态。你可以允许自己有一瞬间的软弱，但决不能将软弱内化为根本性的身份认同。
为了帮助他人真正建立力量，Evy 在曾开展的咨询与指导服务中设定了极为严苛的规矩：她最多只给一个人做一到三次咨询。她坚决拒绝建立长期的咨询依赖关系：“如果我让你不断回头找我，那我根本不是在帮你，我只是让你把解决问题的责任转嫁给我。”她的核心目标是通过打破固化认知，让对方明白自己本身就具备解决问题的能力，学会重新信任自己。
---
### [05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=326s) 停止过度心理剖析：认知负荷的“浴缸法则”
针对 Evy 的观点，Steven 产生了强烈共鸣。他反思道，用过去的经历来解释当下的问题（例如“我小时候父亲毫无条理，所以我现在也是个邋遢的人”），在短期内像是一个体贴的朋友，让你感到被理解；但从长远来看，它却成了禁锢自己的敌人，就像把不良行为“刻在水泥里”一样难以改变。
Evy 随即反问：“这真的重要吗？”她认为现代人陷入了过度心理剖析（psychoanalyze）的误区，浪费了海量的时间去分析自己或他人行为背后的成因。很多时候，别人对待你的方式毫无高深原因可言，“那个人纯粹就是一个混蛋（That person's just an asshole）”，遭遇了就该翻篇往前走，而不是深陷其中反复解剖。这种过度思虑不仅无益，还会对大脑造成巨大的负担。
为了具象化这种心智机制，Evy 提出了极具代表性的“浴缸理论”：
- **大脑的认知负荷就如同一只浴缸**：浴缸的容量是有限的，如果无休止地往里面注水，水必然会溢出来。当一个人的认知负荷彻底爆表时，表现出来的就是手忙脚乱、粗心大意、极度焦虑且决策质量急剧下降。
- **忙碌不等于高效**：许多人误以为把自己塞得越满、表现得越奔波，就越体现出价值，但盲目忙碌与高效产出完全不是一回事。
- **卓越领导者的减法法则**：优秀的领导者绝不会不断往浴缸里加水，而是主动把水舀出去，思考“我怎样做更少的事，从而在其余事情上做到极致”。Evy 举例提到，美国前总统贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）拥有 30 套一模一样的高级西装，其背后的逻辑正是消除每天“穿什么”这一琐碎决定的心智损耗，防止决策疲劳（decision fatigue），让认知浴缸始终保持轻盈。
### [09:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=552s) 情绪与认知负荷的“浴缸理论”与对过去的执念
当一个人试图处理脑海中涌现的所有信息与过往纠葛时，就像是在把一个浴缸填到溢出边缘。人类的心理资源绝非取之不尽，既没有无限的认知负荷能力，也没有无穷的情感承载力。因此，与其不断向内塞入更多负荷，真正的任务反而是“做减法”——主动清空那些不必要的思绪，才能在真正重要的事情上表现卓越，并保持心理与情绪的稳定。
许多人总是忍不住频繁回溯过去，背后有一种常见的心态：他们坚信只要回到历史中把事情的来龙去脉彻底“想明白”，就能改变当下的某种行为，进而逆转未来。例如他们会假设：“只要我能查明自己究竟为什么缺乏自信、当年到底经历了什么创伤，我今天就能做出针对性的改变，明天一切就会好起来。”然而在导师咨询中，面对这类困惑，核心的切入点应当是极为现实的当前状态：“你现在究竟处于什么境地？你现在正在做什么？以及你现在到底想要改变什么？”
为了探讨这一点，Steven 现场扮演起一种典型的求助者角色：一位觉得自己处处不顺的女性，走路小心翼翼生怕占了别人的空间，总觉得周围人对自己粗鲁无礼，在恋爱中运势极差，感觉自己得不到应有的尊重与认可，眼看着身边其他人付出更少却拿走更多功劳。
---
### [10:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=636s) 沉迷受害者角色：要的不是解决方案，而是关注与确认
面对 Steven 模拟的这种“万事皆糟”的人设，Evy 坦言这类人通常是无法被拯救的。现实中确实存在这类人格特质：在他们的世界里，每一件事都是个巨大的问题。但核心真相在于，这种人根本不想要任何解决方案；如果给他们方案，他们甚至会感到失望，因为他们真正渴望的只是别人对他们痛苦感受的“情感背书与确认”（validation）。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 受害者关注成瘾循环
accDescr: 展示经历创伤后因渴望持续关注而不断寻找新问题维持受害者身份的恶性循环
subgraph 创伤与关注机制
A["遭遇重大创伤/不幸事件"] --> B["外界涌入大量同情与关注"]
B --> C["获得即时心理慰藉与情感满足"]
end
subgraph 关注消退与反刍成瘾
C --> D["生活回归常态，关注逐渐消退"]
D --> E["对关注度产生戒断式渴望"]
E --> F["不断搜寻/制造新问题与敌人"]
F --> B
end
```
Evy 举了一个通俗的比喻：“如果你每走进一家酒吧都会跟人打架，那绝不是酒吧的问题。”当一个人把所有问题都归咎于外界时，说明他们已经将自己的存在状态固化在受害者角色中，并且乐于留在此处。遭遇不幸或重病时，周遭人潮水般的同情与慰藉固然能带来温暖，但随着时间推移，其他人终究会继续过自己的生活。一旦这类人对当初那种铺天盖地的关怀产生心理依赖，为了填补关注度流失的落差，他们便会本能地在生活中不断搜寻新的“问题”，借此博取更多同情。
因此，Evy 坚持原则：绝不提供未经请求的主动建议（unsolicited advice）。这不仅毫无用处，甚至是一种越界。“我自己的浴缸也是满的，如果把精力投给根本不打算改变的人，纯粹是在浪费生命。”
- “如果你每走进一家酒吧都会跟人打架，那绝对不是酒吧的问题。”
- 人在遭受巨大变故时会获得密集的同情，随着关注消退，部分人会对这种关注形成心理成瘾。
- 绝不给未主动求助的人提建议，既吃力不讨好，又浪费有限的情感能量。
---
### [12:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=761s) 失去敌人后的空虚：当身份认同绑定在受害者叙事中
Steven 分享了一个身边的真实案例：一位他极度熟悉的长辈，大约在 1994 年移民英国。当时该区域几乎全由白人构成，这位长辈确实遭受了真实且残酷的种族歧视。然而两三十年过去，当地社区已经高度多元化，原本的歧视早已消散，但这位长辈的行为模式却从未改变——他到处寻找“施害者”（perpetrators）。在现实中找不到敌人后，这种受害者叙事开始向家庭内部转移：他指责继母歧视他，认为儿媳妇在针对他，把家人的一句寻常言语都解读为迫害。到最后，他为了维系自己“英雄般幸存者”（heroic survivor）的悲剧英雄身份，与所有子女、孙辈彻底断绝了往来。
面对这种深陷被害妄想与身份绑架的人，旁观者最明智的做法就是“什么都不做”。因为一旦介入，对方不仅不会听取建议，反而会因情绪受到触犯而迁怒于你。人类的大脑机制十分复杂，持续反刍负面情绪与愤怒不仅会激活大脑特定区域，还会促使皮质醇与肾上腺素激增。这种剧烈的生理唤起虽然让人痛苦，却能让人产生一种异常强烈的“自我存在感”与“活着”的充血快感。
如果对方未曾主动开口请求指引，盲目充当拯救者只会耗尽自己的能量。Evy 回忆自己在做咨询或导师课程时，一旦察觉对方根本没有吸收建议的意愿，只是想要宣泄和索取关注，她会直接给对方全额退款，果断终止关系，因为有些人的认知通道彻底被自我防御所封闭。
---
### [16:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=986s) 3天的电焊与一生的身份：9/11 幸存者综合征的故事
Evy 分享了自己在媒体做新闻调查时的一段深刻见闻。她当时去采访一位声称参与了 9/11 救援清理工作的男子，对方号称目前全职致力于帮助 9/11 的受害者。Evy 本人有着刻骨铭心的 9/11 真实经历：当年特勤局的纽约外勤办事处就设在世界贸易中心内部，事发当天她就在现场执勤，亲眼目睹惨剧并痛失了许多同事和挚友，但对方对 Evy 的背景一无所知。
当 Evy 和摄制团队走进这名男子的住所时，眼前的景象令人震惊：男子身上纹着巨大的 9/11 纪念双子塔刺青，家里整整辟出了一间房间，密密麻麻摆满了 9/11 的各类周边纪念品，整栋房子充斥着强烈的悲情仪式感。男子走路一瘸一拐，称自己因伤残疾。然而，在为其佩戴麦克风并深入盘问具体经历时，荒诞的真相被一层层剥开：
男子表示自己是在现场电焊时被掉落物砸伤了脚，失去了小脚趾，因而申请了伤残补贴。当 Evy 追问他当时在现场清理了多久时，男子回答：“3天。”Evy 进一步确认：“那么事发当天你在现场吗？”男子的回答是：“不在。”
```
[虚构的宏大叙事] 身上双子塔刺青 + 整间 9/11 纪念陈列室 + 终身伤残救济与幸存者姿态
↑
实际经历真相
↓
[微薄的事实行底] 事发当天不在场 + 仅参与 3 天现场电焊 + 砸伤小脚趾
```
整场人生、所有生计与对外展示的全部尊严，竟然全部建立在这短短 3 天的边缘经历和小脚趾受伤之上。他把整个人的精神支柱完全嵌套在“克服 9/11 创伤”的悲剧叙事里，并沉浸在无限自怜与自我关注当中。采访结束后，Evy 内心感到极度不适并迅速离开。这种极端的案例揭示了人性中极为危险的一面：当一个人极度自我聚焦时，即使是一段微不足道的经历，也能被包装成一生赖以依存的创伤外壳，让人在其中自我感动并彻底丧失向前迈进的能力。
### [19:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1143s) 痛苦背后的“次级获益”与共生陷阱
史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着前文谈到的沉溺于伤痛身份的话题，指出了心理学中一个极为关键的概念——“次级获益”（Secondary Gain）。史蒂芬透露自己当时正在撰写的新书中专门有一章剖析这一现象：人们在承受痛苦、创伤或疾病的同时，往往在潜意识中从中获得了某种隐秘的好处。这种获益可能是病态带来的安全感、舒适感、一种受害者的特殊身份认同，甚至是实质性的金钱报酬或外部关照。可怕之处在于，人们极易对这种“次级获益”产生心理成瘾，从而在潜意识里拒绝康复，因为一旦摆脱痛苦，这些伴随而来的关注与庇护也将随之烟消云散。
史蒂芬分享了一个身边的真实案例：一位年轻人将自己常年封闭在卧室里拒绝出门，坚称自己身体或心理有严重问题，伴随严重的肥胖症；而守在他身旁的家人成了他唯一的社会支持网络。在史蒂芬一位生活在中东的挚友家里也上演着一模一样的剧本——母亲整日照料着闭门不出的孩子，而这位母亲自身的身份价值与存在感，实际上完全建立在“支撑这个患病孩子的好母亲”这一圣母角色之上。直到这位母亲听了播客节目中的某一期内容后幡然醒悟，彻底停止了对孩子的盲目包庇与纵容（Enabling）。她坦白告诉孩子：“我无法再这样帮你了，也请不要再向我倾倒这些负能量，我没有心力再陪你耗下去了。”令人震惊的是，当母亲撤离了这种共生式的支持后，那个年轻人竟然以极快的速度迅速好转。
史蒂芬深刻反思道，许多时候其实是“两个人联手将一个人困在了泥潭之中”。母亲扮演着拯救病弱骨肉的伟大守护者，孩子扮演着心安理得被照料的弱者，双方在这种畸形且具有消耗性的共生关系中各取所需，持续索取爱、关注与存在感。艾薇·庞波拉斯（Evy Poumpouras）对此深表认同，她直言外界同情的目光和言语——诸如“我真为你难过”、“这太不幸了”——具有极强的致瘾性，让人反复沉溺于扮演受害者。但艾薇强调，自己如今学会了全然接纳他人的生存状态：“如果这就是你想生活的境地、这就是你选择度日的方式，那就去过吧，我又凭什么去命令你改变？”唯独当这种病态模式蔓延并严重损耗到你自己的生命边界时，你才必须像那位母亲一样果断抽身，拒绝继续陪葬。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 共生陷阱与次级获益模型
accDescr: 展示受害者与拯救者如何通过次级获益互相锁定，直至一方切断纵容打破循环。
subgraph Trap ["共生锁定阶段"]
A["受害者（陷入痛苦/疾病）"] -- "获得关怀、安全感、免责借口" --> B["次级获益成瘾"]
C["拯救者（过度照料/纵容）"] -- "获得崇高感、价值感、掌控力" --> D["救世主身份认同"]
B <==>|"病态互嵌，拒绝自愈"| D
end
subgraph Break ["打破循环阶段"]
E["拯救者设立边界（停止纵容）"] --> F["剥离病态次级获益"]
F --> G["被迫面对现实，迅速恢复自主机能"]
end
Trap -.->|"划清边界"| Break
```
---
### [21:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1282s) 人性的“冰山模型”：为什么你根本改变不了任何人
艾薇提出了一个审视人性的经典“冰山模型”：当我们与另一个人打交道时，眼睛所能看到的仅仅是浮在水面上的那一小角，而决定这个人本质的，是隐匿在水面之下那庞大无比的冰山主体。水面之下的巨物，是由一个人从小到大经历的漫长岁月与所有人生要素层层堆砌而成的。这包括其原生家庭环境（是否有家庭、家庭氛围是否健全、是单亲、双亲还是孤儿）、成长时期的朋友圈与当下的社交圈、过往遭遇的种种戏剧性事件、重大创伤、核心价值观、信仰体系，以及早在婴儿期就已经奠定雏形的人格特质。
不仅如此，岁月的沉淀让一个人在不同年龄阶段的冰山底座天差地别——如今的史蒂芬与5年前、10年前乃至15年前的史蒂芬相比，内在认知早已彻底翻新。面对他人如此厚重庞大、耗费数十年塑造而成的“冰山主体”，艾薇发出灵魂拷问：“你凭什么自以为是地认为，单凭你走过去，花上两三个小时或者几次苦口婆心的谈话，就能让对方动摇并发生根本性的转变？”绝大多数人在人际关系中感到无比痛苦与愤怒，其核心根源就在于他们妄图撼动他人的整座冰山，而拒绝承认水面之下的既定事实。
---
### [22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1366s) 痛哭的妻子与超重丈夫：生活在真相中才能学会适应
艾薇分享了就在本周发生的一段极具震撼力的真实插曲。她刚刚在一场大型商业沟通演讲中走下舞台，一位女性参会者眼含热泪地拦住了她，急切地恳求指导。这位女士倾诉道，自己的丈夫严重超重，健康状况岌岌可危，多年来她尝试了各种办法逼丈夫改变均告失败，她希望向艾薇讨教如何运用特工级别的“影响力策略”去强行扭转丈夫的生活习惯。
艾薇当场询问了她两个核心问题：“你这样纠缠折磨自己多久了？”对方回答：“很多年了。”艾薇接着问：“他自己打心底里想改变吗？”对方无奈地答：“不想，但我不能放弃。”艾薇随即直截了当地点醒她：“你刚才看我演讲时讲的冰山模型了吗？你丈夫就是那座冰山。现在的核心问题根本不在他身上，而在于你！是你拒绝接受摆在眼前的真相。你没有生活在现实之中，你生活在对他的虚幻期望里——幻想着他可能达到的潜力、期望他成为的模样，但那根本不是他现在的真实状态。”
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 面对现实的认知决策路径
accDescr: 展示逃避真相导致的痛苦，与接纳真相后做出理性适应选择的路径对比。
subgraph Denial ["错误路径：拒绝真相"]
A["现实问题（如伴侣拒绝改变）"] --> B["执念于对方的潜在可能"]
B --> C["强行施加影响欲改变对方"]
C --> D["屡遭挫败、精神崩溃与痛苦"]
end
subgraph Acceptance ["正确路径：接纳与适应"]
E["认清冰山真相（对方不愿改变）"] --> F["全然接纳现实（非赞同立场）"]
F --> G{"核心抉择：我能否适应？"}
G -->|"能适应"| H["调整自身生活方式，坦然共处"]
G -->|"不能适应"| I["设立不可逾越底线，体面离开"]
end
```
艾薇进一步阐释了解决问题的底层逻辑：**“唯有先彻底接纳，你才可能做出适应（Unless you accept, you can't adapt）。”** 这位妻子一直在试图解决一个根本无解的错误问题。丈夫的意志是焊死的，而妻子却在用对方的恶疾折磨自己到当众痛哭。
- **真相与适应的辩证关系**：史蒂芬中途质疑道，如果放任不管，这个丈夫很可能会因肥胖而丧命，难道眼看亲人走向死亡不该强行干预吗？艾薇冷峻而透彻地反问：“他很可能会死，但你能强行干涉吗？他渴望你的干涉吗？答案是他根本不想要。”
- **界限与生活质量的选择**：艾薇指出，妻子必须直面终极问题——你是打算日复一日陷在哭泣与改造他人的泥潭里，还是接受现实并自问：“我爱他，我改变不了他。面对这个残酷的真相，我能否调整自己的心态与生活方式继续维持婚姻？抑或这已触犯了我的底线，我必须选择离开？”
- **大多数人缺乏适应力的根源**：艾薇直言，世上99.9%的人之所以痛苦不堪且毫无适应力，就是因为他们拒绝生活在真相之中。就像明知伴侣出轨却捂住耳朵自欺欺人一样，人们总是活在“但愿如何”、“本该怎样”的幻想里。接纳绝不等于赞同（Acceptance is not agreement），你不必认同对方的堕落生活方式，但你必须承认“这就是现在的他”，唯有确立了这一事实基点，你才能做出真正对自己负责的决策。
---
### [26:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1610s) 强行改变他人的傲慢：从亲密关系到恐怖分子审讯
针对史蒂芬提出的是否“永远不该试图改变他人”的提问，艾薇给出了极其坚定的回答：“我认为试图去强行改变他人是完全错误的，尤其是当对方已经三番五次向你明确表态‘我不要你管，请离我远点’的时候。”艾薇深刻地剖析了这种控制欲背后的心理本质：无论你是否认同他人的生活选择，那是属于他们的人生，而不是你的。
艾薇指出，许多人带着高高在上的说教姿态冲进别人的生活，试图教导别人该如何做人做事，这本质上是一种极端的傲慢（Arrogance）与自恋（Narcissism）。“我的价值观与你的价值观可能有着云泥之别，我算老几，凭什么将我认为正确的标准强加在你的头上？究竟谁说了算我是对的？我所谓的对，仅仅是建立在我个人狭隘的价值体系之上。”世人看待世界与评判对错的尺度千差万别，强求一致是违背人性的妄念。艾薇的做法是尊重并接纳每个人的本来面目；如果理念不合，她会选择在社交上保持距离，但绝不会妄图扮演上帝去重塑他人。
为了强化这一观点，艾薇引用了自己在特工生涯中审讯恐怖分子的终极经历。在面对极端分子时，她从不会抱有任何幼稚可笑的妄想，以为自己只要走进去，慷慨激昂地宣称“嗨，我是正义的一方，我是在保护人民，美国只是在做正确的事”，就能感化或扭转一个具有完全不同信仰底座与人生冰山的极端分子。试图在短短几次谈话中抹杀对方数十年积累的心智冰山，不仅是极其危险的战略失误，更是一种认知上的彻底失真。
### [28:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1697s) 放弃改变他人：审讯与人际关系的核心法则
伊维·庞普拉斯（Evy Poumpouras）以审讯高危犯罪分子的经历阐述了人性的顽固：一个三四十岁的人，其思维模式和人格早已像一座冻结了数十年的巨大冰山一样根深蒂固。审讯官如果妄图在一进门就彻底扭转对方的整个世界观和人生信条，无异于痴人说梦。伊维强调，她从一开始就全盘接纳眼前这个人的既定现实，绝不在审讯室里纠缠于对方的道德评判或价值重塑。她的目标极其纯粹而聚焦——获取下一次袭击的情报、掌握下一批武器走私的地点，以全力挫败危机。只要能促使对方开口说话就足够了，如果试图去撼动对方整套价值体系，耗费数日甚至数周也绝不可能奏效。
这种逻辑完全适用于日常生活。现实中，人们往往不可自拔地试图从根本上去改变身边的人，哪怕出发点源于极其深厚的爱。伊维坦言自己也曾犯过同样的错误：当你深爱某人，眼睁睁看着他们的行为在伤害自身时，总会忍不住苦苦哀求“请你改变吧”。然而残酷的真相是，对方根本不需要这种改变。更具讽刺意味的是，你的介入越深、越是用力，对方往往越是愤怒，甚至会反唇相讥：“你以为你是谁？”这种反应完全合情合理——每个人都在无意识地将自己对生活的标准强加于人，但仅仅因为你认为生活应当如此度过，绝不代表别人也持有相同的生活哲学。对方心里很可能在想：“我觉得这样挺好的，到底有什么问题？”
---
### [29:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1776s) 伪装不来的微表情：史蒂文的自信蜕变与情感试炼
史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）回顾以往节目的观众反馈时提到，最常被重播、剪辑和转发的内容，普遍反映出大众内心深处对力量感的匮乏。大量的人感到自己未被重视、缺乏尊重，并且在面对外界那些看似运筹帷幄、自信满满的人时产生强烈的自卑与疏离。伊维随即向史蒂文抛出一个核心问题：“你是如何建立起自己的自信的？你平时会通过做什么来培养自信？”
史蒂文坦承，自己在二十岁左右时自以为很自信，但事后回想才发现那完全是一种假象。他在18岁到20岁之间，每一个感兴趣且有所发展的女性最终都会无一例外地拒绝他。很多人可能会轻率地以为“后来你赚了一百万美元，情况自然变了”，但史蒂文澄清，即便在赚到大钱之后，他依然频频遭遇异性的拒绝。真正的转折点发生在25岁至30岁之间。他曾对朋友总结道，自信是根本无法伪装的，因为它渗透在人类成千上万个微表情与肢体反应之中。在早年，他自以为严格照着所谓的恋爱技巧与指导法则去执行，却依旧四处碰壁；女性在深层直觉上能立刻察觉到他内在的匮乏与不配得感。当时的他甚至会陷入琐碎的内耗——是不是短信回得太快了？是不是站姿不对？直到后来他才恍然大悟：真正的自信源于一个人内心深处对自身价值的坚定叙事。
为了佐证这一点，史蒂文分享了近期身边发生的一组鲜明对比：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 自信与不安全感在面对亲密关系试探时的反应对比
accDescr: 对比史蒂文的朋友因匮乏感产生的恐慌反弹，与史蒂文自身因内在配得感而展现的从容姿态。
subgraph Insecure["朋友的恐惧驱动模式（低内在价值感）"]
A1["约会对象坦言：'我不想生孩子'"] --> B1["内心警铃大作，极度恐慌失去"]
B1 --> C1["情绪失控反驳：'可我真的很想生！'"]
C1 --> D1["一周后惨遭对方分手断联"]
end
subgraph Confident["史蒂文的自足价值模式（高内在价值感）"]
A2["女友曾表示：'我不确定是否要孩子'"] --> B2["内心笃定，视彼此为平等考察期"]
B2 --> C2["冷静从容淡定，不予情绪对抗：'其实我也不确定是否想和你生'"]
C2 --> D2["给予对方充分空间，关系稳定走向生育计划"]
end
```
- **朋友的典型误区**：史蒂文35岁的朋友与一位25岁的年轻女孩交往刚满四个月，女孩随口说了一句“我觉得自己不想要孩子”。这位朋友立刻暴露出极度的不安全感，急迫地申辩“我真的很想生孩子、我一定要孩子”，其防御和恐慌的姿态直接导致两人在一周后彻底分手。
- **高自尊的真实心境**：同样的情境也曾发生在史蒂文30岁时，其现任女友也曾对他说过“我不确定自己想不想要孩子”。但史蒂文当时的直觉反应极其笃定——“老实说，我甚至还不确定自己想不想和你生孩子呢，你目前也还在我的考察期内”。他不仅没有表现出丝毫的不安，甚至连一句多余的反驳都没有，只是轻松地耸了耸肩便继续过好当下。
- **自信的核心根源**：正如史蒂文所总结的，自信绝非流于表面的技巧，而是发源于一个核心支柱：“你在生活中做过的一件件事情，最终说服了你自己——你是一个值得被尊重的人。”
---
### [33:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1993s) 潜意识的试探：自由、安全感与言外之意
伊维对这段对话产生了浓厚的好奇，追问史蒂文是否认为这些女性说“不想生孩子”是出于真意。史蒂文果断否认，并透露自己与现任女友相伴七年、如今正积极备孕，女友后来向他坦白，那其实是一场潜意识里的“压力测试”。这种测试并不是心机深重、提前在纸上精心谋划好的诡计，而是源于过往的情感创伤：她曾遇到过多位试图剥夺其自由、试图实施严密控制的伴侣，因此潜意识会本能地试探眼前的男人是否又是另一个控制狂。
在整段亲密关系中，史蒂文始终洞察这一点。每当女友流露出犹豫，甚至提出“我想飞回巴厘岛生活”时，史蒂文每次都极其真诚地回应：“宝贝，只要你什么时候想回巴厘岛，你随时都可以去，我甚至会帮你安排行程。你完全不需要被困在伦敦，去任何能让你快乐的地方。”他深知强扭的瓜不甜，绝不想和一个不快乐的人绑在一起。正是这种全然给予自由的大度与包容，为伴侣提供了极强的安全感，潜意识的防御机制自然随之瓦解。反观他的那位朋友，由于快到40岁依然单身，内心充斥着“必须尽快找个女人结婚生子”的倒计时恐慌，甚至在飞机上焦躁地对史蒂文抱怨“你不明白，我真的没时间了”，这种急功近利往往直接演化成逼婚的窒息感。
伊维对此进行了深层的心理学剖析。现实中确实有人纯粹不想要孩子，但当有人在交往初期抛出这类极具争议的言论时，其背后的心理动机往往耐人寻味：
- **观察防御反应**：试探对方在遭受观念冲击时，是会暴跳如雷、惊慌失措，还是能保持情绪自洽。
- **寻求心理安慰与和解**：某些人可能内心极度渴望孩子但受限于生理条件或遇不到良伴，为了自我开解，便主动对外宣称“我不想要”，以此作为心理防御盾牌。
- **预先阻断风险**：在以往的情感经历中，如果曾因“女方想要安顿生子”的刻板印象吓跑过伴侣，某些女性会反向使用这种话术，提前撇清自己的期待，避免给人施加压力。
---
### [35:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2148s) 恐惧驱动的决策：为何缺乏内在价值感会毁掉一切
史蒂文进一步补充了朋友那位约会对象的家庭背景：女孩来自一个拥有六个姐妹的庞大家庭，由于所有的姐妹都在极度年轻时匆忙生育，导致她们终其一生都无法离开贫瘠闭塞的故乡。女孩向这位朋友表达过，她之所以对生孩子心存芥蒂，是因为恐惧生育会彻底埋葬自己追逐自由的权利。史蒂文曾极力劝诫朋友：“兄弟，你们才认识六个月，顺其自然就好！不管当下你在做什么，随它去，轻描淡写地回一句‘挺有意思的’，然后继续把日子过好就行了。”
然而，由于朋友内心深处的溃乏与恐惧，任何外在的技巧说教或书籍指南在实战中都会被击得粉碎。伊维一针见血地指出，这位朋友的根本问题根本不是缺乏表面上的自信技巧，而是他整个人完全处于“恐惧驱动（Fear-based）”的恶性循环中：
- 他的每一个决定都诞生于恐慌——因为害怕孤身一人，所以逼迫自己必须现在立刻找到伴侣；因为害怕结不了婚、生不了孩子，所以病态地加快相亲节奏，试图把约会对象硬拽进婚姻殿堂。
- 伊维将这种心态与职场困境进行了深刻类比：正如无数人陷入“因为害怕找不到下一份工作，所以即使痛苦万分也绝不敢辞职”的泥潭一样，凡是由恐惧主导的决策，最终都会剥夺人的主体性，让人在人际博弈与人生选择中节节败退。
### [36:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2219s) 恐惧驱动的决策与情绪自我调节
伊薇·庞波拉斯（Evy Poumpouras）深入剖析了当一个人的行为完全受恐惧支配时会产生怎样的后果。以约会恋爱为例，如果某人留在糟糕的关系中是因为“害怕找不到下一个人”，或者疯狂相亲约会表面上是渴望伴侣、实际上底层动机是“恐惧自己不能迅速脱单”，那么他的所有选择就都变成了“基于恐惧的决策”（fear-based decisions）。恐惧本身是一种正常的情绪，人人都可能经历，但一旦它固化为个人身份的核心，所有决策都会被其扼杀。在人际交往中，对方能够敏锐地感知到这种焦灼不安的负能量并被其劝退。那位相亲对象之所以果断消失，正是因为感受到了对方失控的恐慌情绪。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 恐惧驱动与情绪自我调节机制
accDescr: 对比缺乏自我调节导致的恐惧失控，与依靠心理调节阀保持冷静的调节回路。
subgraph FearDriven["失控回路：缺乏自我调节"]
F1["底层恐慌与焦虑"] --> F2["调节阀失效 (Governor Out to Lunch)"]
F2 --> F3["情绪剧烈外泄与冲动反应"]
F3 --> F4["引发他人排斥与人际关系崩塌"]
end
subgraph Regulated["受控回路：高效情绪自控"]
R1["觉察内在情绪波澜"] --> R2["启动内在调节阀"]
R2 --> R3["心理指令：'我知道你在，但请保持安静'"]
R3 --> R4["维持外部镇定与理性决策"]
end
```
这种失败的关键不在于缺乏自信，而在于缺乏“自我调节”（Self-Regulation）能力。每个人心中都应当有一个“调节阀”（governor），负责管理和约束内心情感。当这个调节阀“擅离职守”（out to lunch）时，内在的恐慌、愤怒或悲伤就会全盘外泄。情绪自我调节的本质，正是当负面情绪翻涌时，内心的调节阀能够坚定地发出指令：“我知道你在那里，但请保持安静。”
- **恐惧主导的危害**：当恐惧成为一种习惯性身份，人的一举一动都会被生存焦虑扭曲，散发出令人退避三舍的压迫感。
- **自我调节的定义**：即便内心翻江倒海，依然能凭借内在的心理调节机制保持外在行为的稳定克制。
---
### [38:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2321s) 情绪自控并非天生：从纽约脾气到特勤局特工的修炼
针对史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出的“人是否能够后天习得自我调节、避免因过度反应毁掉生活”，伊薇结合自身经历给出了明确的肯定回答。她坦言自己年轻时是个极其暴躁的“火药桶”（hot-headed），继承了希腊裔父亲的性格，又是地道的纽约客，性格冲动火爆。她的转变始于加入纽约市警察局（NYPD）以及随后进入美国特勤局（US Secret Service）。这两个机构的人才选拔流程极其漫长严苛，目的就是挑选出能够无缝契合系统的高效人才，因为任何一个不稳定的人都会破坏整支队伍的运转。
身处由顶尖自律者和高智商精英组成的环境中，周围教官的严格敲打让她迅速收敛性格。伊薇指出，身边的圈子决定了你的修养，如果周围全是一群“脑袋少根筋”（loose screw）的人，你很难学会克制。面对史蒂文关于“是否在产生情绪杏仁核爆发时，只是学会了在外部压抑下来”的提问，伊薇坦白，自己在外部表现上能够做到极致的冷静；但这种高度紧绷的状态非常耗费心神。回到家中面对同为国土安全部及特勤局特工的丈夫时，她有时会卸下防备，丈夫察觉后会半开玩笑地提醒：“有人现在情绪有点上头了哦。”即便是在能提供绝对安全感的情感港湾，她也时刻警惕不把身边的人当成情绪出气筒或“门垫”（doormat）。
---
### [40:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2429s) 职场迷思：为何绝不该把“真实的自我”带入工作
伊薇猛烈抨击了流行文化中倡导在职场展现“真实自我”（authentic self）的观点。她直截了当地声明：“不要把你的真实自我带到工作中，我不想要你的真实自我；我需要的是你的专业自我、尊重他人的自我、富有同理心的自我，以及能胜任工作的自我。”如果特勤局招揽队员时鼓励大家都去展现“真实自我”，换来的绝不是卓越绩效，而是纪律涣散与各自为政。真正的团队协作要求人们收起以“我我我”为中心的真实自我，转而呈现“真诚的自我”（genuine self）——真诚关注团队使命、真诚追求工作成果，并深刻理解大局并非围绕个人运转。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 职场中真实自我与专业自我的对比
accDescr: 展示以自我为中心的真实自我与以团队使命为中心的专业自我之间的差异。
subgraph Authentic["'真实自我' (Authentic Self)"]
A1["以自我为中心 (Me, Me, Me)"]
A2["带入个人包袱与情绪偏见"]
A3["导致团队混乱与各自为政"]
end
subgraph Professional["'专业与真诚自我' (Professional / Genuine)"]
P1["专注于使命与价值交付"]
P2["不偏不倚的扑克脸与倾听姿态"]
P3["建立信任并收集关键情报"]
end
```
为了证明这一点，伊薇分享了一桩震撼人心的真实审讯案例：
- **幼童侵害案件审讯**：一名年仅三岁的小女孩指控16岁的男性保姆触摸了她的隐私部位。由于三岁幼儿语言表达能力有限，警方派出伊薇对这名16岁嫌疑人进行审讯。
- **专业克制与审讯突破**：在审讯过程中，嫌疑人逐渐吐露实情，承认不仅触碰了女孩，最终甚至全盘招供自己与该幼童发生过多次实质性性侵犯行为。
- **抛弃个人情绪的价值**：伊薇反问，如果她在审讯室展现“真实的纽约客自我”，她必然会当场拍案怒吼“你脑子里在想什么？你怎么下得去手？”但这只会彻底破坏审讯。她选择压抑内心情绪，戴上不带审判色彩的“扑克脸”，平静地引导嫌疑人“告诉我发生了什么，多讲一点”。
- **目标高于自我**：审讯的目标是拿到口供、查清事实、为后续调查铺平道路，从而防止这名幼童再次遭受伤害。在这种极度严肃的任务面前，个人的立场、观念与“真实情绪”毫无价值。
---
### [43:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2615s) 中立倾听与 TED 沟通法则
当史蒂文探讨优秀领导者如何平衡“不带包袱”与“真诚不演戏”时，伊薇解释了“真诚倾听”与“虚伪做戏”的界限。不带真实自我进入工作并不等于弄虚作假，而是放弃在对话中以自我为中心去评判他人。在商业管理与审讯工作中，领导者最需要的是全面掌握真实动态；如果领导者动辄表露个人好恶或大发雷霆，下属就会因为害怕而报喜不报忧，或者对信息进行粉饰过滤。这会导致决策者失去关键的“情报”（intelligence），最终做出灾难性的盲目判断。
真正的倾听者把自己当作一块“中立的白板”（neutral slate）。优秀的审讯者和出色的领导者往往说得最少，他们从不过多发表个人见解，而是通过精妙的提问引导对方倾吐心声。伊薇特别介绍了著名的 **TED 提问法则**，用于打破僵局并获取有效信息：
| 提问指令 | 英文对应 | 典型应用范例 | 核心沟通目的 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **告诉** | **T**ell me | “看起来我刚才说的话让你感到不安，能**告诉我**一些相关的情况吗？” | 引导对方敞开心扉，描述心理反应 |
| **解释** | **E**xplain to me | “能跟我**解释**一下你现在最担心的是什么吗？” | 挖掘对方顾虑背后的核心逻辑与原因 |
| **描述** | **D**escribe to me | “请向我**描述**一下目前最困扰你的具体问题。” | 获取事实细节，避免主观臆测 |
### [46:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2765s) 自我中心主义与审讯中的同理心
现代文化过度聚焦于个人身份，导致人与周围社群的联结被严重割裂。人们总在盘算“这对我有什么影响”以及“我能从中得到什么”，完全忽视了自己对外界的投射——无论是让周围人的日子变得更好还是更糟，亦或是让工作环境变得轻松还是更沉重，个体的言行都在持续影响着他人。这种双向平衡已经瓦解，沦为纯粹的“世界如何待我”，而忘记了“我如何作用于世界”。
针对如何审讯恐怖分子或伤害儿童的重刑犯这一问题，Evy Poumpouras 澄清了审讯中“同理心”的真实含义。面对恐怖分子，由于其激进意识形态往往自幼形成并根深蒂固，审讯人员不会浪费时间试图去改变对方的世界观。但在面对伤害女童的少年犯时，情况则截然不同。Evy 在长达数小时的交谈中带着真实的同理心去倾听，最终了解到这名少年童年时也曾遭受过性侵犯。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 审讯中的同理心运作机制
accDescr: 展示同理心如何作为理解动机、寻找真相的工具，而非为罪行开脱
subgraph Mindset["审讯心态"]
A["放下预判与个人偏见"] --> B["保持真正的好奇心"]
end
subgraph EmpathyProcess["同理心实践"]
B --> C["探寻行为背后的深层经历"]
C --> D["区分：同理心（理解）≠ 同情/赞同（脱罪）"]
end
subgraph Outcome["审讯结果"]
D --> E["还原客观真相与动机"]
E --> F["获得供词并承担法律后果"]
end
```
这种同理心并不等同于赞同对方的恶劣行径，更无法为犯罪开脱，它只是一种探究真相的认知工具：
- **同理心（Empathy）不同于同情（Sympathy）**：同理心的本质是“尝试理解你所处的位置和感受”，而非原谅或认同罪行。
- **避免先入为主的偏见**：审讯者必须放下预判，给对方展现真实情况的空间；有时候审讯的结果恰恰是洗清了无辜者的嫌疑。
- **法律后果与情感理解分离**：该案中的少年犯虽吐露了悲惨的受虐经历，但最终仍凭借 Evy 获得的供词被作为成年人起诉并依法定罪，人生轨迹受到毁灭性打击。
---
### [49:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=2960s) 谎言识别与性别在执法中的真实差异
在辨别谎言方面，并没有科学研究能够证明男性或女性天生具有更强的测谎能力。尽管流行观点与某些生理研究指出女性可能具有更敏锐的直觉或生理敏感度（例如特定研究显示女性能通过体味感知男性睾酮水平的高低），但在实际的执法与测谎实操中，两性并没有绝对优劣之分。
以测谎仪考官（Polygraph Examiners）为例，从业人员绝大多数为男性，其优势在于更擅长理性分析。脑科学研究发现，男女大脑结构差异极小，但思维加工方式各有倾向：女性大脑在辨别与深思熟虑时活跃度更高，倾向于“让我和你沟通、让我试着去理解”，而男性大脑则可能更倾向于行动与冲动反应。
执法系统的数据清晰地体现了这种差异：
- **女警面临的投诉显著少于男警**：作为警察，收到民众投诉几乎不可避免，但女警的受投诉率普遍更低。
- **沟通与降温冲突能力**：学界与警方普遍认为，女警更擅长通过言语沟通与对话来化解紧张局势，从而实现冲突降温（De-escalation）。
---
### [51:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3091s) 真正自信的来源：不内耗、社交圈与决策力
关于如何建立自信，Evy 从她在海豹突击队（SEALs）和美国特勤局（US Secret Service）的同僚身上总结了截然不同的现实规律：真正沉稳、自信的人，从来不会在嘴上谈论“自信”这两个字。他们不谈论它，不思考它，不给这种概念滋生的土壤，仅仅是专注于“成为自己”和“把事做好”。过度分析与过度内省反而是在自我怀疑中越陷越深。
想要构建强大的内在底气，核心在于把握三个要素：
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 自信构建的三大支柱
accDescr: 展示构建稳定自信所需的社交圈、决策力与行动准则
subgraph Pillars["自信支柱"]
A["高标准社交圈<br/>（剔除不安全感传染源）"]
B["高频独立决策<br/>（建立对自身判断的信任）"]
C["极致的履约行动<br/>（准时到场，不搞内耗）"]
end
Pillars --> D["内在沉稳与真实自信"]
```
1. **审慎筛选身边的社交圈**：自信会受环境影响，不安全感同样极具传染性。如果一个人是房间里最自信的人、所有人都依赖他，他的“浴缸迟早会裂开”。必须与能够向其学习的优秀者为伍。
2. **成为果断的决策者（Decision Maker）**：研究表明执法人员通常被认为高度自信，根本原因在于他们必须在生死攸关的瞬间当机立断。面对持刀歹徒，根本没有时间向他人征求意见；在信息不完备的情况下敢于承担责任、相信当下判断并付诸行动，这种反复训练出的决策力是自信最坚固的基石。
3. **做好最基础的履约行动**：不要去纠结自己到底够不够自信，只要专注于把眼前的小事做好，例如准时出席、按时到场。
---
### [54:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3245s) “冒充者综合征”的迷思与残酷淘汰训练
针对 YouGov 在 2025 年开展的一项关于自信与受害者心态的研究，数据显示男性在自我评价中对自信（约 50% 男人认为自己自信，而女性仅约 35%）、幽默感和自我意识的打分显著高于女性，而女性在诚信、可信度与同理心上的打分更高。
Evy 指出，自己在特勤局服役期间，从未听过任何一名特工谈论过所谓的“冒充者综合征”（Imposter Syndrome），直到离开特勤局进入平民社会后，她才第一次听到这个词汇。社会大众对心理学术语的过度剖析，本质上反而在潜意识里播下了自我怀疑的种子。
真实的能力与自信不是被外界“夸”出来的，而是在严酷的淘汰机制中杀出来的：
- **没有鲜花与掌声的考核**：特勤局的魔鬼训练营里绝不会有教官在旁边加油打气喊“干得好，女孩”，教官唯一的目的就是用尽一切手段挑出毛病、将学员淘汰并遣送回家。
- **全凭死磕与证明资格**：想要留下来，唯一的途径就是咬紧牙关死磕到底，凭借极度的坚毅与顽强证明自己有资格留在这个位置上。正是熬过了那些“不知道自己明天还能不能撑下去”的绝境，毫无动摇的强大内心才得以真正确立。
### [55:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3350s) 跑到下一棵树：特勤局的极限耐力与拆解目标
伊薇（Evy Poumpouras）回忆起自己在特工训练营中经历的长跑训练。教官们为了在心理上彻底击垮学员，往往带他们跑过数英里，却绝不透露终点在哪里。伊薇坦言，那是让人最崩溃的折磨——哪怕教官提前说清楚跑两英里、五英里还是十英里，心里至少还有个底。面对无休止的奔跑，脑海中难免会闪过惊慌念头：“我的天，我到底该怎么跑完？”而她的应对秘诀极为简单而原始：绝不去看那遥不可及的长路，而是把视线聚焦在正前方五英尺外的一棵树，心想“只要跑到那棵树就行”；一旦跑到了，就再瞄准前面的一个邮箱，“跑过去碰它”；紧接着再去够下一棵树。
通过将看似不可能完成的宏大压力切碎成眼前一个个微小的实体目标，她一步步撑了下来。伊薇指出，如果一开始就试图看清全局并被“我该如何承受这一切”的想法占据，那种巨大的压迫感瞬间就能彻底摧毁一个人的自信。随后，她把话锋转向史蒂文（Steven Bartlett），好奇他在白手起家创业时，究竟是像这样机械地把一只脚放在另一只脚前面摸索前行，还是曾特意停下脚步对自己说：“史蒂文，我们得先好好聊聊，等把自信心彻底建立起来，我才准备好动手大干一场？”
- 特勤局训练策略：通过刻意隐瞒跑步里程与终点，制造未知与心理耗竭。
- 应对压力的心理机制：拒绝宏大视角的压迫感，将注意力锁定在眼前数英尺的具体锚点（如树木、邮箱）。
### [57:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3431s) 盲目与天真的力量：拖延症背后的心理不适
史蒂文坦承，自己在刚起步时甚至根本不知道“创业者”（entrepreneur）这个词究竟是什么意思。十八岁那年，他毅然从大学退学，脑海里只有一个模糊的想法。在接下来的三到四个月里，他的全部日常就是在谷歌上一页页往下滑，不断搜索“网站开发者”（web developer），一个个点进链接发邮件盲狙：“嘿，你能帮我建个网站吗？”甚至连公司该如何起名、如何注册，全靠随手在网上现查。史蒂文感慨，自己的“无知与天真”反倒成了最大的助推力。倘若十八岁的他就清楚意识到登顶商业险峰到底要付出多么残酷的代价，面对眼前如同珠穆朗玛峰般的庞然大物，他很可能早就丧失了所有勇气。
这种无知带来的免死金牌，恰好印证了史蒂文从《不可分心》（*Indistractable*）作者尼尔·埃亚尔（Nir Eyal）那里学到的一句话：“拖延本质上是对心理不适的逃避”（procrastination is the avoidance of psychological discomfort）。当一个人面对一篇犹如珠穆朗玛峰般艰难的论文时，出于对无从下手的心理不适的排斥，往往会选择阻力最小的替代路径——比如突然把整栋屋子打扫得纤尘不染。伊薇对此深有共鸣，指出过度的理性分析与试图搞懂一切，反倒是一种自废武功的自我折磨。她回忆自己当年进特工训练营时也是完全盲目且毫无概念，甚至一度天真地以为那里“就像读大学一样轻松”，直到被现实狠狠上了一课。然而正是这种不去过度反刍、不过度思考的冲劲，才让行动真正落地。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 拖延与行动的心理机制对比
accDescr: 对比过度分析引发拖延与保持盲目推进直接行动的路径差异
subgraph Procrastination ["过度分析与拖延路径"]
A["面对庞大任务 (如宏大创业/艰难论文)"] --> B["意识到巨大困难与未知"]
B --> C["产生强烈的心理不适与恐惧"]
C --> D["选择阻力最小路径 (如打扫房间/无休止反刍)"]
end
subgraph Execution ["专注微步的执行路径"]
E["保持一定天真与钝感"] --> F["将目标拆解为眼前单一动作"]
F --> G["绕过大脑恐惧中枢"]
G --> H["实现微小且持续的切实推进"]
end
```
### [01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3601s) 专注脚踏而非领奖台：微小到令人羞愧的第一步
史蒂文分享了执教英国自行车国家队传奇领队戴夫·布雷斯福德爵士（Sir Dave Brailsford）的执教艺术。当年布雷斯福德接手那支士气低落、长期与胜利无缘的队伍时，颁布的第一条铁律就是“严禁车手幻想站上领奖台”。史蒂文将其概括为“专注脚踏而非领奖台”（pedals over podium）——车手只需全神贯注于每一次脚踏的旋转，无需去焦虑骑得够不够快、能不能夺金。这种专注让车手进入一种近乎催眠的极度专注心流，不仅彻底绕过了负责产生恐惧情绪、大量消耗精力的杏仁核，更让他们在冲过终点脱离车座时甚至记不起刚才的骑行动作，最终缔造了六年内五夺环法自行车赛冠军的辉煌战绩。
然而现实中，大多数人之所以无法改变，恰恰是因为行动的第一步往往“微小到令人羞愧”。史蒂文引用心理学家乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）在进行暴露疗法时的案例：面对一个严重心理障碍、不敢踏出卧室的求助者，彼得森给出的当日任务仅仅是“把吸尘器朝门外挪动10厘米”，第二天则仅仅是“把吸尘器开机再关上”。伊薇随之补充了好莱坞明星私教唐·萨拉迪诺（Don Saladino，曾训练多位漫威及DC超级英雄演员）的一个真实故事：面对一名重度肥胖且自暴自弃的客户，教练第一天只要求他把运动鞋摆在床前；第二天挪到卧室门口；第三天放到厨房；第四天仅仅要求把鞋穿在脚上；第五天穿好鞋走出家门；第六天走到街角就折返。正是通过这种看似微不足道却不引发抵触的小步推进，那位饱受健康危机折磨的严重肥胖症患者最终不仅重获新生，甚至完成了全马。
- 英国自行车队战绩：在布雷斯福德带领下摆脱多年低迷，拿下6届环法自行车赛中的5次冠军。
- 改变的心理门槛：人们常迷信“巨变需要宏大决策”，但真正的蜕变往往源于低到不引起心理防御的微小动作。
- 渐进式暴露示范：从挪动吸尘器10厘米，到将运动鞋逐步推向门外并最终完成马拉松。
### [01:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3792s) 总统级决策者的核心素质：稳固的护城河与内圈支持
谈到在极限压力下的决断力，史蒂文借机询问曾近距离保护美国最高领导人的伊薇：在她所贴身观察的各位美国总统中，究竟谁是真正顶尖的决策者？他们身上又具备哪些共通的特质？
伊薇首先强调，抛开所有党派立场和公众偏见以完全客观中立的视角来看，能够一路厮杀并最终登上美国总统宝座的人，无一例外都是人中龙凤、极其罕见卓越之辈。她在多届不同党派的总统任期内服役，从每位领导人身上都汲取了宝贵的处事经验。在谈及高效决策的核心支撑时，她重点指出了两点不可忽视的要素：首先，总统周围都构筑了层次极其严密的核心圈层（inner circle），并不是所有人都能直接接触总统，这种严密的过滤层有效阻断了低效信息的噪音；更重要的是，围绕在他们身边的这群核心幕僚极其沉稳、情绪高度稳定，时刻为决策者提供坚如磐石的托底与支撑。
### [01:04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3848s) 白宫领袖的决策心智：情绪稳定、深度准备与果断授权
Evy Poumpouras 分享了她在特勤局贴身保护历任美国总统期间所观察到的卓越决策特质。在白宫的高压环境中，她从未见过有谁失声痛哭、精神崩溃或是情绪彻底失控；这种极度的情绪稳定性构成了领导力的压舱石。除了情绪克制，这些领导者极其擅长授权——他们深知自己无法精通所有领域，因此总是物色能力出众、掌握更多专业知识的人担任顾问，并在听取意见后迅速作出决断。
与“高高在上、发号施令”的刻板印象不同，总统们的勤勉程度令人震撼。出于尊重和保护对象的职业道德，Evy 引用希腊谚语“人人都爱背叛，但无人爱叛徒”（Everybody loves the treason, nobody loves a traitor）表达对保密责任的坚守，但她坦承这些领袖的勤奋无需隐瞒：比如比尔·克林顿（Bill Clinton）经常在深夜挑灯夜读、研习材料；贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）在她执勤午夜轮班时，也常常伏案专注研读至深夜。他们通过亲身研习和顶尖智囊的辅佐，确保在做决策时掌握最充分的信息。然而，普通人常在结果不尽如人意时陷入自责与反刍，痛心疾首地认为“我本该知道”。Evy 强调，她的丈夫也常常提醒她：你在当下那一刻，已经用当时掌握的信息做出了力所能及的最佳选择，绝不能在事后苛责自己。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 高效领袖的决策与身心管理模型
accDescr: 展示顶尖决策者在情绪调节、信息收集、心理释怀、独处复位与身体训练之间的协同闭环。
subgraph DecisionPrep["决策准备与执行"]
A["情绪稳定与抗压"] --> B["专业授权与向专家请教"]
B --> C["夜以继日深度研读"]
C --> D["在51%把握时果断决策"]
end
subgraph MindsetReset["心态释放与身心复位"]
D --> E["接受不确定性与犯错成本"]
E --> F["回归根基与独处深思"]
F --> G["规律体能训练与身心整合"]
G -. 强化稳定性.-> A
end
```
- **白宫决策特质**：绝不陷入情绪失调（Emotional Dysregulation），倚重专业智囊弥补认知盲区，并辅以极高强度的夜间自我阅读和钻研。
- **走出自责陷阱**：承认决策受限于当时的信息边界，做出决定后绝不在事后以“后见之明”进行心理惩罚。
---
### [01:06:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3961s) 51%的确定性：自信者如何应对不确定性与犯错恐惧
Steven Bartlett 补充提到，他曾与奥巴马同台在巴西圣保罗的一场大会上演讲，奥巴马当时深入剖析了职业生涯中的重大抉择，例如击毙奥萨马·本·拉登（Osama bin Laden）的突袭行动。奥巴马指出，现实中根本不存在 100% 的确定性，许多时候你必须在只有 51% 把握时做出决断，并心平气和地接受“这是当前所能做出的最好决定”，然后坚定前行。
Evy 对此深表赞同，并指出真正自信的人完全能够接纳信息的不完整，他们不执着于做到绝对正确。许多人在决策时之所以患得患失、犹豫不决，核心是源于内心的不安全感：他们极度恐惧自己会犯错、会显得愚蠢无知，从而过度在意外界的眼光与评价。除了性命攸关的少数极端情形（如总统防务或执法人员开枪射击），现实生活中绝大多数决策都不涉及生死。如果一个人总是被“万一选错了怎么办”的恐惧牢牢禁锢，结果往往导致决策瘫痪，而自信者不仅敢于承担不确定的风险，更有坦然接受错误结论的心胸。
- **51% 决策法则**：重大历史决断往往在仅有轻微概率优势时即拍板，追求100%确定性往往意味着错失时机。
- **不安全感的根源**：不敢做决策本质上是害怕“显得愚蠢”（Look dumb / Feel dumb），而真正的自信表现为对他人评价的彻底脱敏。
---
### [01:07:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4052s) 独处归真与身体运动：维系巅峰状态的身心法则
除了高强度的脑力决策，Evy 观察到顶尖领袖都会为自己刻意保留独处的时空，脱离人群、回归根基以进行深度思考。例如小布什（George W. Bush）总统经常回到德克萨斯州韦科（Waco）的农场追寻初心；老布什（George H. W. Bush）则在缅因州肯纳邦克波特（Kennebunkport）和休斯敦两地切换生活；奥巴马则每逢假期必回夏威夷。Steven Bartlett 借此联想到许多成功人士与史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）的冥想与瑜伽习惯：正是通过定期远离琐碎事务、登高望远，才能站在全局视角审视全局，洞察未来趋势。
此外，运动不仅是他们的消遣，更是直接焊死在日常日程表里的铁律。小布什最初是极快的长跑健将（特勤局特工不得不身着厚重防弹装备咬牙陪跑），后来转为高强度山地骑行；克林顿热爱户外跑步；奥巴马则每天清晨准时进入白宫健身房挥汗如雨。Evy 指出，心智与肉体绝不可割裂。当一个人主动挑战身体、强健身魄时，生理上的充实感会直接反哺精神，构筑起无法撼动的底层自信与威严气场。
| 保护对象 / 人物 | 独处与“寻根”地点 | 规律体能训练方式 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **小布什 (George W. Bush)** | 德克萨斯州韦科（Waco）私人农场 | 越野长跑（配速极快）、山地骑行 |
| **比尔·克林顿 (Bill Clinton)** | 规律离开白宫事务空间 | 户外公路跑步 |
| **贝拉克·奥巴马 (Barack Obama)** | 每年假期固定返回夏威夷（Hawaii） | 每日清晨固定进行白宫健身房训练 |
| **老布什 (George H. W. Bush)** | 肯纳邦克波特海滨别墅与休斯敦 | 户外与海滨活动 |
---
### [01:10:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4229s) 广告插播：Plaud Note Pro
Steven Bartlett 推荐赞助商 Plaud 的硬件产品 Note Pro。该设备外形如同一张轻巧卡片，可吸附于手机背面，能同时精准捕捉并区分多人对话语音。在关键节点只需轻按按键即可标记重点，硬件结合 AI 算法能将录音转化为文字记录，并自动提炼出摘要、行动清单、核心要点以及思维导图，实时同步至 Plaud 应用程序。
- **赞助福利**：观众可在结账时输入专属优惠代码 `DOAC22` 获取特定产品的 22% 折扣。
---
### [01:11:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4287s) 不自信的四重表象与副语言（Paralinguistics）的沟通威慑
回到对话，Steven 梳理了缺乏自信在人体上的四大映射维度：
1. **生理层面**：肌肉紧绷、下颌紧咬、手足无措的小动作、心跳加速等“战或逃”应激反应。
2. **认知层面**：无休止的自我怀疑，反复纠结“我是否足够好”，深陷最坏情境推演与过去的错误反刍。
3. **情绪层面**：害怕伪装被当众戳穿的冒充者恐惧（Insecurity），在社交场域不敢发声、畏首畏尾。
4. **行为层面**：声如蚊蚋、语速飞快、闪躲眼神以及过度频繁地道歉。
Evy 直言，耗费大把时间坐在那里过度向内剖析自己纯粹是“浪费时间”。比起沉迷于自我审判，她更主张将精力投入到技能刻意练习中——特别是对**副语言学（Paralinguistics）**的打磨。大量沟通研究表明，在人际交互中，决定话语穿透力与权威感的往往不是“你具体说了什么词汇”，而是“你是用怎样的音调与方式说出来的”。许多人苦心孤诣地死记硬背发言稿与用词，却忽略了声音语调所携带的情感负荷与气场控制力，而这恰恰是决定听众是否尊重你的分水岭。此时，Steven 顺势发问：Evy 本人的声音之所以极具穿透力与感染力，究竟包含着哪些她自身有所觉察的副语言特质。
- **沟通的核心法则**：副语言特征（语速、语调、停顿、共鸣）对受众心智的影响力远超遣词造句本身（"It's not what you say, it's how you say it"）。
- **行动胜于内耗**：将对自卑情绪的内向反刍，转化为对外部行为技能（如发音控场、肢体语调）的专项训练。
### [01:12:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4379s) 掌控你的声音：语调、副语言与育儿细节
当被问及为什么会有成千上万人涌入播客只为听她说话时，Evy Poumpouras 指出，这其中的关键在于“掌控自己的声音”（own my voice），也就是所谓的副语言学（paralinguistics）。她从过去参与新闻节目的经验中学到：如果你听起来不像是一个对自己所讲内容了如指掌的人，那么无论你说什么实质内容都无济于事，公众最先感知并评判的是“你听起来是什么样子的”。
她强调了使用更深沉、真实且稳重的低音调，而不是高亢尖锐的声音。Evy 还分享了一个非常具体的育儿习惯：在她女儿面前，她会极力克制自己不要使用尖锐纤细的“娃娃音”或高音调讲话。研究表明，当一个人掌控自己更稳重、深沉的声音时，人们会更倾向于尊重并视其为权威。Evy 解释说，这并不是要刻意替女儿设计某种假面具，而是通过自身的行为示范进行潜移默化的引导，因为孩子是通过模仿父母来学会如何与外界互动的。
此外，她在心智模式上也做出了彻底的倒转：来到演播室，她从未把聚光灯打在自己身上。虽然主持人已经是第三次邀请她，她深感谦逊，但这场对话的核心绝不是关于她自己，甚至也不是关于主持人 Steven，而是完全关于屏幕前的观众。当一个人把所有的能量都毫无保留地倾注在倾听者身上，希望通过有价值的信息让世界变得更明智、让别人的生活变得更好时，听众是能够瞬间感受到这种真诚与磁场的。
- 副语言与专业信服力：内容再好，如果语调显得犹豫或虚弱，听众就会迅速丧失信任。
- 示范性家庭教育：不通过说教要求孩子“怎么说话”，而是用自身稳健低沉的音调作为榜样，避免给女儿植入下意识的高尖音调习惯。
- 去除自我中心（Ego）：将交流的核心从“表现自己”彻底转变为“服务观众”，这种心理定位能直接改善沟通时的能量流动。
---
### [01:15:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4506s) 沉默的力量与奥巴马的白宫演讲法则
主持人 Steven 观察到 Evy 在说话时有一个极其鲜明且反常的特征：她敢于在句与句之间留下常人不敢尝试的“长沉默”（silence）。Steven 分析道，很多缺乏自信的人会有一种下意识的心理，认为“沉默是在浪费别人的时间”，觉得自己不值一提，因此拼命加快语速，想要赶快把话说完。
Evy 对此深表赞同，并以她曾经近距离观察过的美国总统贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）为例。她指出，奥巴马在公开演讲中对节奏和停顿的掌控堪称典范。当突发重大新闻或紧急情况切断正在热播的电视剧（例如《实习医生格蕾》（Grey's Anatomy））时，奥巴马走到白宫镜头前发表全国讲话，从来不会表现出丝毫的慌乱与仓促。他绝不会在心里嘀咕“我打扰了大家看剧，我得赶紧说完”。相反，他的姿态始终是：“我是美国总统，我有非常重要的事实需要向你们通报，我将从容地掌控属于我的时间和声音。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 两种不同的发言与停顿模式对比
accDescr: 展现低自信与高影响力沟通者在面对时间与沉默时的心理机制与外在呈现差异
subgraph LowConfidence ["低自信沟通模式"]
A["内心不安：'我不够重要，别浪费大家时间'"] --> B["语速飞快、疯狂堆砌词汇"]
B --> C["削弱权威感、增加口误概率、听众难以消化"]
end
subgraph HighImpact ["权威与高掌控力模式"]
D["认知明确：'我传递的内容具有切实价值'"] --> E["直奔主题、敢于留白与停顿"]
E --> F["赋予听众消化时间、大幅降低失误、展现绝对主导力"]
end
```
Evy 进一步拆解了“适时停顿与放慢语速”的战术优势：
- **降低认知与表达失误**：作为直播或镜头前的发言者，放慢节奏能给大脑留出充分的思考与筛选时间，极大地减少在直播镜头前说错话的概率。
- **给受众留出消化吸收的情感空间**：说话的关键不在于“说了多少字”，而在于“对方吸收并感受到了多少”。
- **杜绝自贬型开场白**：在企业做沟通培训时，Evy 总是严厉警告学员不要使用这种开场：“各位，就耽误大家一分钟，我长话短说，不想占用大家宝贵时间……”这种话潜台词其实是在告诉全场“我接下来说的话根本不重要，你们可以不用听”。
- **科学研究对废话的定论**：行为科学研究证明，一个人如果说话啰里啰唆、绕圈子不切入重点，公众会直接将其评定为“缺乏可信度”和“业务能力低下”。真正的掌控力，是用最少、最精炼的词汇直击要害。
---
### [01:18:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4730s) 镜头吸能效应与肢体语言中的“演说手势”
Steven 随后提到 Evy 在交流时对肢体语言和空间的运用：她说话时手势幅度很大，常常自然地向两侧展开半米左右的宽度，这种肢体表现不仅展现了“自己配得上被倾听、配得上占据空间”的底气，也让整个交流过程充满了生动的视觉张力。
Evy 幽默地回应道，这里面有一部分是自己身上的“希腊人血统”在起作用，但在专业交流中，这些手部动作被称为“说明性手势”（illustrators），其背后有着非常明确的战略意义。
她透露，在刚离开特勤局转行做电视新闻时，自己完全是个门外汉——以前作为特工，第一准则是绝对不能抢总统的镜头，必须退到镜头之外；而现在却要直面镜头。第一天上班时，资深制作人就向她揭示了一个镜头秘诀：**摄像机会瞬间吸走你大约 25% 的能量**。如果不主动调动更高的能量，屏幕前的人看到的就会是一个扁平、冷漠、毫无生气的你。这也是为什么很多人开 Zoom 线上会议时，感觉所有人都在神游和打瞌睡，这往往不是因为他们不在意，而是屏幕严重衰减了人际间的能量感。
在肢体语言与注意力管理方面，Evy 还拆解了几个核心底层逻辑：
- **听众的信息丢失率**：即使听众全神贯注地看着你，平均也只能接收到你所说话内容的 49%（不到一半）。如果发言者自身缺乏能量和视觉引导，信息传递效率会瞬间归零。
- **隐藏手部的心理暗示**：将双手藏在身体下方或缩在口袋里，在行为心理学中常常与欺骗或隐瞒挂钩；从进化心理学角度来看，史前人类只有看清对方摊开的双手才能确认“手中没有武器，不存在威胁”。
- **测谎室里的身体语言**：在测谎（polygraph）审讯中，始终保持双手可见、姿态开放，能够潜意识向对方释放“我是开放的、我不带敌意、我在这里倾听你”的信任信号。
- **对抗听众走神是发言者的职责**：人脑的注意力极易像乒乓球一样到处乱飞。即使在大型行业峰会上，很多人一开始下定决心要专心听讲，但不出五到十分钟注意力就会彻底涣散。因此，讲者必须通过声音与肢体的故事化配合全力以赴地拽住观众，绝不能指责听众容易走神。
### [01:21:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=4904s) 抓住注意力的艺术与“好奇心缺口”
在现代社会，我们无时无刻不在与外界巨大的杂音竞争。人们在聆听时极容易分神走心，脑子里不断盘旋着各种琐事：“午饭吃什么？”“那封邮件发了吗？”“等会儿还得去拿干洗的衣服。”因此，表达者必须摒弃长篇大论的废话，学会掌控自己的空间、驾驭语言，真正有效地与受众互动。
Steven 分享了他在制作播客以及研究顶尖创作者（如 MrBeast）时获得的深刻洞察。播客后台数据明确显示了每位嘉宾的受众留存率（retention），留存曲线在不同嘉宾之间差距悬殊——表现最差的嘉宾受众平均停留可能只有 1 小时，而表现最顶尖的嘉宾却能达到 2 小时，留存时间整整提升了 100%。Steven 指出，Evy Poumpouras 和著名作家 Morgan Housel 都是留存率极高的代表。其背后的核心秘诀在于他们的开头方式：他们从不会平铺直叙地寒暄（例如“大家好，我是 MrBeast，欢迎回到我的频道”），而是开门见山抛出一个“承诺”（Promise）或“好奇心缺口”（Curiosity Gap）——比如“我把一千个人放进这个圈子里，最后一个离开的人能拿走 500 万美元”。优秀的演讲者会在一开场就吊足观众的胃口，留下一道悬而未决的谜题，吸引人不断探寻答案。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 开场吸引力机制对比
accDescr: 对比传统低效开场与高效好奇心缺口开场的注意力留存效果。
subgraph LowRetention["传统低效表达"]
A["寒暄/啰唆自我介绍"] --> B["信息密度低"] --> C["注意力迅速涣散"]
end
subgraph HighRetention["顶尖留存表达"]
D["抛出承诺/好奇心缺口"] --> E["建立认知悬念"] --> F["全神贯注探寻答案"]
end
```
### [01:23:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5017s) 是专家不等于有趣：特勤局审讯中的“语言适应力”
Evy 回忆起自己刚踏入主旨演讲领域时，一位资深演讲者给过她一句铭刻在心的忠告：“‘只是因为你是专家，并不代表你讲得有趣’（Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting）。”Evy 坦言，世界上永远有人比自己更聪明、在特勤局的资历更深，但核心在于你能否把专业知识以一种易懂、可消化的方式传递出去。这从来不是为了向别人炫耀自己有多聪明，而是为了让听众能够顺畅吸收。
这种以听众为中心的理念，源自 Evy 在特勤局审讯室里磨练出的技能。每当向嫌疑人、证人或求职者宣读米兰达权利（Miranda Rights）时，她从不会自己照本宣科，而是将写有权利条款的纸递给对方，要求对方大声朗读每一句话（例如“我有权保持沉默”），并在其读完后追问“你理解这句话吗？”随后，她会故意问一些自己早就知道答案的基础问题（姓名、出生日期、籍贯等）。这一过程的真正目的，是评估对方的语言习惯、认知节奏和理解能力。掌握了这些后，Evy 会在随后的审讯中调整自己的言语模式以迎合对方的水平——如果对方来自语速较慢的美国南部，她就放慢自己原本急促的纽约口音；如果面对普通大众，就杜绝高深难懂的词汇。
- **认知负荷原则**：如《纽约时报》的文章普遍保持在八年级（初二）的阅读水平，Evy 撰写畅销书时也特意剔除晦涩表述，避免给读者造成过重的认知负担，“读完一章就累得想去睡大觉”。
- **受众至上**：“听众才是最重要的，我自己根本微不足道。对方在哪里，我就要在哪里与他们交汇。”
### [01:27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5229s) 词汇越深奥越显得不称职与“职场贡献分”
许多人误以为使用大词、生僻词会让自己显得博学，但研究表明事实恰恰相反：使用简洁明确的词汇、言简意赅直奔主题的人，在他人眼中反而更有能力、更自信且更值得信赖。
Steven 分享了他在纽约运营前公司时的真实案例：
- **“Sarah”的教训**：在与客户（如 Uber）的创意头脑风暴会上，Sarah 习惯“大声思考”（think out loud），嘴里经常碎碎念着“我们要不这样做……也许可以搞个快闪店，然后……”。由于她发言缺乏提炼且总是倾倒未成熟的想法，大家往往在她刚开口吐出两个词时就直接打断她。Steven 将此定义为损害了个人的“贡献分”（Contribution Score）——就像信用卡信用分一样，如果你在团队中持续贡献低于甚至破坏价值的内容，你的信用分就会归零，彻底失去他人的注意力。
- **“Cah Katy”的反衬**：同团队的另一位同事 Cah Katy 则平时沉默寡言，但在大家讨论时深思熟虑。一旦他开口，全场立刻鸦雀无声，因为每个人都知道他即将说出的话极具分量。
Evy 赞同这一观点，指出过度沉浸在自我思维中往往会让人无视屋子里其他同事的存在。滔滔不绝地把所有未过滤的想法倾泻而出，不仅显得缺乏自信与神经质，更是对他人时间的极大浪费。在职场中必须学会运用停顿与沉默，带着信念去表达。随着一个人职位升得更高、事务更繁忙，他们留给低效沟通的耐心和同理心只会越来越少，内心唯一的呐喊就是：“求求你赶紧把飞机降落吧（Land the plane）！”正谈到此时，Evy 突然话锋一转，直接向 Steven 抛出了一个直击本质的犀利提问：“那些渴望和你一起工作的人，是不是大多冲着你在节目上所展现出的这个‘Steven’的人设来的？”
### [01:30:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5424s) 招聘中的核心动机：为了自我光环，还是投身事业
Evy 向 Steven 提问：作为一个引领他人、指导并给许多人提供导师式帮助的领导者，是否经常会遇到一些人仅仅因为觉得“你能为我做这些”而渴望为你工作？Steven 毫不犹豫地回答“当然”。当被问及如何辨别这种候选人时，Steven 透露这在面试流程中非常明显。这类人对岗位的动机往往过多地聚焦于“Steven 个人”。当候选人与高管、团队、幕僚长或旗下 CEO 会面后，团队成员常常会私下向他预警：“这个人似乎太着迷于你本人，而不是这个职位本身。”
当 Steven 亲自面试时，他会抛出一个非常直接的问题：“请向我确切解释一下，为什么这个职位吸引你？”在那个时刻，候选人所有的回答都应该围绕眼前的具体工作展开，绝不能是“我读了你的书，我超级喜欢你的播客”。Steven 强调，与公众人物共事的新鲜感和光环总会褪去，一旦真正进入艰苦卓绝的“战壕”中并肩作战，对方喜不喜欢他的书根本无关紧要。“工作本身必须成为你在洗澡时脑子里都在思考的事情，而不是我的播客。”只有热爱工作本身，才能在团队中立足。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 招聘动机与筛选逻辑
accDescr: 对比以自我为中心与以使命为中心的求职动机及最终结果
subgraph Motivation["求职者核心动机"]
A["聚焦个人 / 表面光环<br/>('为了接近领袖' / '证明我自己')"]
B["聚焦使命 / 实际业务<br/>('为了解决问题' / '服务宏大目标')"]
end
subgraph Outcome["长远考核与结果"]
C["难以通过考核与严苛训练<br/>(面对阻力容易崩溃或动摇)"]
D["成为顶尖执行者<br/>(耐得住艰苦环境与长期考验)"]
end
A --> C
B --> D
```
### [01:31:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5496s) 特勤局测谎经验：以自我为中心 vs. 追求超越自我的使命
Evy 分享了自己在特勤局（US Secret Service）担任测谎考官的经历。她当时作为招聘流程的最后一道防线，候选人此前必须经历重重面试、评审团考核及笔试。在测谎环节，她经常会问候选人：“你为什么想成为美国特勤局的特工？”候选人的回答通常分为鲜明的两派：
1. **以自我为中心派**：“我觉得这是一个非常有趣的挑战”、“我想看看自己能不能做到”、“我想测试自己的极限”。
2. **使命导向派**：“我想为国家服务”、“我想保护他人”、“我想投身于一件超越自我的宏大事业中”。
Evy 指出，那些口口声声“我、我、我要学习、我要接受挑战”的人，不仅无法通过最后的选拔，即便侥幸入选也通不过严酷的特工训练。因为他们太过于自我关注，只在乎自己能从中捞取什么好处；而真正能坚持下来的，始终是那些将目光放在更大局势与职责上的人。
- 表面追求的危险性：Steven 借此引申到生活选择上，告诫大家不要只把目标对准头衔、光鲜的外表或转瞬即逝的虚荣。他提到一位一直单身的朋友，在约会时甚至会顾虑“如果我挽着她走进餐厅，在外人看来会是什么样子”，这种过分在意外在形象的心态会彻底毁掉深度关系。
- 幽默插曲：Evy 笑着打趣说，有时和丈夫吵架时她也会调侃道：“算你运气好长得帅，不然我真不知道咱们怎么熬得下去”，容貌在某些时刻或许能救急，但终究无法支撑本质。
- 特例与深度热爱的结合：Steven 提到他们公司的首席营收官（CRO）Cristiana。她同样是节目的忠实听众，甚至在求职信的主题行里引用了他书里的第 19 章，在正文提及了大量书中的观点。但她之所以能成为极其出色的高管，是因为她不仅欣赏这个平台，她的职业抱负和全部热情本身就深深扎根于这项工作之中。
### [01:35:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5713s) 执法现场的心理对抗与高忍耐度：“逆反心理”与保持冷酷专业
讨论回到之前后台有人对 Evy 说话略带居高临下姿态的话题，Steven 询问 Evy 为何没有感到被冒犯。Evy 直言自己的被冒犯门槛极高，而在特工及执法岗位上，这种高容忍度是生存必备的技能。在纽约执勤期间，例如在贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）总统外出就餐时，特勤人员必须清空周边区域。当她礼貌地请求路人“先生/女士，请穿过马路站到对面”时，常常会引发对方的激烈情绪：“你侵犯了我的权利！”接着人们会掏出手机，贴脸对着她咆哮。
Evy 分析，当人们被执法人员要求做某事时，往往会触发一种被称为**“逆反心理”（Reactance）**的防御机制。没有人喜欢被命令，也没有人喜欢失去对生活的掌控感——正如疫情期间许多人对强制佩戴口罩感到极度愤怒，核心往往不是口罩本身，而是感到自身自主权的丧失。在执法工作中，特工通常无法给对方提供选择余地，只能下达指令。许多人会蓄意挑衅，试图诱发特工动手，以便把冲突视频发到 YouTube 或社交媒体上。
面对这种挑衅，Evy 的内心状态与外部表现有着极其冷静的割裂：
- **外部言语与神态**：保持极度克制与专业，平静地说道：“先生/女士，我理解您的沮丧，但我不能让您站在这里，请您走到马路对面去好吗？”
- **大脑内部的真实推演**：“在我的大脑里，我正在做一道数学计算题——在不得不亲自动手将这个人强行推过马路或直接戴上手铐之前，我还能再给对方几次警告？”
- **面对恶毒人身攻击**：当执勤时被人贴脸辱骂“傻子”、“蠢货”、“芭比娃娃”（Ditz, dummy, Barbie）等侮辱性词汇时，Evy 内心丝毫不受影响。她解释道，自己不会把这些攻击放在心上，因为对方根本不了解自己；在执法领域，你每天所目睹的，不过是人们处于其生命中最糟糕、最失控的状态而已。
### [01:38:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5922s) 执法一线的心理负荷与“用事实作战”
特勤局特工与执法人员每日都要直面人性中最黑暗、最恶劣的一面。伊薇·庞波拉斯（Evy Poumpouras）指出，即便是军队服役，士兵奔赴残酷的战场，但完成服役期（tour）后便能离开或轮休，得到喘息的机会；而执法人员整个职业生涯的每一天，都要面对谎言与犯罪。长此以往，执法人员极易丧失对人性的信任，变得极度愤世嫉俗（cynical）——这是执法界极其普遍的心理创伤特征，必须时刻警惕自己不要滑入过度愤世嫉俗的深渊。大部分犯罪是由同一小群惯犯反复实施的，逮捕记录中大多数是轻罪（如酒后驾驶），而真正触犯重罪（felony）的恶性犯罪分子则是不可救药的惯犯。
面对这类不断挑战法律底线的人群，美国特勤局（US Secret Service）训练伊薇的一条核心准则就是：“用事实去战斗”（fight with facts）。特工们被要求一字不差地背诵法律条文，例如《美国法典》第 18 篇第 3056 条（Title 18 USC § 3056）。该法条赋予特工保护美国总统所需的一切职权；一旦有人妨碍公务，特工依法享有逮捕权。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 冲突降级与理性沟通逻辑
accDescr: 特工通过摆出法条事实赋予对方掌控感，避免身体对抗升级。
A["遭遇对抗/阻碍"] --> B["援引具体法条 (如 Title 18 USC § 3056)"]
B --> C["清晰界定后果与合法权力"]
C --> D{"给予对方选择权<br/>('由你决定')"}
D -->|"选择合作"| E["和平化解冲突/安排对话"]
D -->|"继续妨碍"| F["执法升级/实施逮捕"]
```
在执法现场，伊薇绝不依赖个人情绪，而是冷静地引用法条告知对方：“女士，您现在的行为违反了《美国法典》第 18 篇第 3056 条。我无意逮捕您，但您必须移步到街道对面。您可以配合走过去，我会找人来与您沟通；或者任由事态升级，这完全取决于您自己（It's up to you）。”斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）敏锐地指出，对当事人说“这取决于你”，实际上是给予了对方一种掌控感（element of control）。伊薇表示赞同，虽然对方最终必须服从特工的安保职责，但赋予他们选择权是化解冲突的最佳策略。即便有时需要平心静气地重复十五遍，也绝不轻易动手，因为一旦特工与嫌疑人发生肢体接触（put hands on people），局面就会彻底失控恶化，必定有人受伤或崩溃。
---
### [01:41:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6089s) 识别操纵手段：假发病、眼泪与道德绑架
一旦嫌疑人被戴上手铐，执法者常常要面对各种各样的操纵手段与戏剧化伪装。伊薇逮捕过的许多人随后都被送进了医院，但这并非因为遭受了暴力，而是因为嫌疑人开始宣称“我心脏疼”、“我压力太大快死了”或是“我头疼欲裂”。有些人纯粹是装病，甚至伪造心脏病发作，妄图利用特工的同情心来解除手铐。伊薇对此的应对策略极其冷静：“你在突发心脏病吗？好，手铐先戴上，我们立刻直奔医院。”她绝不妥协，直接按规程送医，彻底粉碎对方企图脱身的幻觉。
这种情感操纵不仅存在于抓捕现场，在日常生活和职场中也随处可见：
- **以哭泣作为盾牌**：当一个人被逼问核心真相或面临被解雇的谈话时，突然在办公室放声痛哭。哭泣往往不是悔过，而是一种防御性操纵策略，目的是激起对方的内疚感，以此打断步步紧逼的质问（line of fire of questions），逼迫对方退让。
- **打身份认同标签**：许多人面对指责时会倒打一耙，反咬“你这么对我只是因为我是女性”或因为自己的某种身份标签。虽然有时可能确实存在偏见，但在绝大多数违规审查中，这种控诉纯粹是被拿来当成迫使对方退缩的操纵武器。
---
### [01:43:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6182s) 成为“不可被激怒之人”与事实的力量
斯蒂芬总结道，在面对扑面而来的负面情绪时，伊薇选择用毫无情绪的法条逻辑予以还击。伊薇强调，一个人必须对自己的情绪拥有绝对的所有权（own your emotion），绝不能让任何人激怒你。她对斯蒂芬直言：“你是斯蒂芬·巴特利特，是《CEO日记》的主持人，凭什么让别人激怒你？他们算什么东西，凭什么夺走你的掌控权？你又凭什么拱手相让？”如果感到愤怒，可以事后去洗手间对着镜子破口大骂，但在面对外部冲突的当下，绝不能将情绪的控制权交由他人主宰。
伊薇进一步痛批了当今社会普遍存在的情绪过度宣泄与社交媒体噪音：
- **社交媒体情绪泛滥**：人们似乎到了不发帖就无法自处的地步，每个人都急于就所有事情发表见解。伊薇直言：“大家不需要知道你在想什么，停止发帖吧。不要给这个世界制造更多噪音，想想你的表达能为世界贡献什么价值；如果没有价值，就闭嘴。”
- **情绪调节与生理成熟**：25 岁之前由于大脑前额叶皮层（frontal cortex）尚未发育成熟，情绪失控尚可理解；但成年之后，必须学会完全自主调控情绪。
当斯蒂芬询问如何才能成为一个“不可被激怒之人（unprovokable）”时，伊薇坦言这纯粹来自于大量的实战重复（repetition）。如果成百上千次有人当面冲你咆哮、挑衅，你自然就能在反复的脱敏中学会掌控情绪。刻意逃避冲突绝不可取，虽然不应主动惹事，但当冲突砸到脸上时，必须迎面立足。
在职场中化解争端、争取利益的最强武器同样是**确凿的事实**：
- **切勿使用情绪化词汇**：找主管谈话时，绝对不要说“我觉得（I think）”、“我感觉（I feel）”或“我认为（I believe）”。主观感受是极其脆弱且容易被反驳的——如果你说“我觉得我不受重视”，老板随口一句“我觉得你很受重视”就能将你驳回。
- **摆出无法辩驳的具体数据与事实**：应当带着具体成果进入谈判室：“我负责了这个项目，总共投入了 X 个工时，为公司赚取了 X 万美元的利润，因此我想申请更高的职位或新项目。”
- **直面人际摩擦时的具体还原**：若感到遭受针对，应精准锁定事实瞬间：“在上次会议中，您说了 A 和 B。您能解释一下具体指什么吗？因为那让我觉得您对我缺乏信任。”把模糊的指责拉回到具体事实层面，对方将极难狡辩。
- **书面化准备**：如果面对上司感到紧张，可以把事实点清晰地写在纸上，坦荡告知对方：“抱歉，我准备了一些笔记，我想看着记录逐一陈述，以确保表达清晰准确没有遗漏。”伊薇透露，她最近刚刚建议一位 20 出头、希望找她探讨棘手问题的年轻后辈采用这种写下笔记、以事实为纲的沟通方法。
### [01:47:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6425s) 告别低效会议：亚马逊式的两页叙事备忘录
史蒂文谈到自己在团队管理中非常推崇一种做法：要求员工在发起汇报或讨论前，把事情像写故事一样写成一份备忘录。这一方法借鉴自杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）在亚马逊推行的管理准则。史蒂文解释道，传统的商务沟通往往走向两个极端：要么有人空着手走进来“即兴发挥”，在说话时磕磕绊绊，无法讲清关键背景；要么做一份上百页的 PowerPoint 演示文稿，里面塞满了模棱两可的图片和无实质内容的要点清单（Bullet points）。他直言自己极其讨厌要点清单和空洞配图，因为它们留下了巨大的主观解读空间，而清晰严谨的叙事备忘录却能消除一切模糊性。
在史蒂文的团队中，即便是两页纸的备忘录，也必须条理清晰地阐明四要素：当前的核心情况是什么、为什么需要在这次会议上讨论此事、提议的解决方案是什么，以及需要做出的明确决策是什么。这种书面梳理迫使写作者在上会前进行深度思考。许多时候，当这份逻辑严密的文档通过邮件发送出来后，大家甚至不需要再开一个半小时的长会去反复扯皮，直接阅读就能解决问题。
---
### [01:48:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6497s) 破案的语言密码：从一份书面陈述锁定嫌疑人
艾维对此深有共鸣。作为前特工和资深审讯专家，她在接手刑事案件时，受过专业训练的调查习惯也是在正式面对面讯问前，先让涉案人亲笔写下一份详尽的书面陈述。例如，让对方详细记录案发当天从早晨醒来到晚上入睡的全部行动轨迹。在重大刑事案件中，办案人员并不会从边缘人物层层递进，而是必须集中精力直扑最有可能的嫌疑人。
艾维分享了一桩令她印象深刻的虐童案件：一名仅几个月大的婴儿手臂骨折，警方的调查范围缩小到了婴儿父亲与保姆两人之间，但地方警察一时无法判定真凶到底是谁。艾维拿到两人的亲笔书面陈述后仔细研读，读完父亲的陈述时，她就明确判断“不是父亲干的”；而当她读到保姆的陈述时，瞬间就断定“就是她做的”。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 虐童案书面陈述破案逻辑流程图
accDescr: 展示特工艾维如何通过分析保姆书面陈述中的情绪铺垫与异常语言节点锁定嫌疑人并获取口供。
subgraph S1["语言破绽分析"]
A["长篇诉苦与情绪铺垫<br/>(单亲带两娃、迟到、压力爆表)"] --> B["将怨气转移给受害婴儿<br/>(婴儿哭闹不止、怎么哄都不管用)"]
B --> C["关键断裂句：<br/>'我给孩子喂了泰诺，世界就安静了'"]
end
subgraph S2["审讯与定罪"]
C --> D["锁定真相：<br/>折断婴儿手臂导致其剧痛休克昏厥"]
D --> E["绕过父亲，单审保姆"]
E --> F["一个半小时内彻底瓦解心理防线并招供"]
end
```
保姆在陈述的开头用了极长的篇幅倒苦水，详细描写自己的早晨有多崩溃：身为单亲妈妈、独自拉扯两个孩子、出门迟到、精神压力濒临极限；接着写到来到雇主家后，那个才几个月大的婴儿如何不断闹腾啼哭，自己用了各种办法都无济于事，字里行间充满了对这个婴儿的烦躁与怨气。随后，陈述中出现了一句关键的致命细节：“后来我给孩子喂了泰诺，它就安静下来了”（"Then I gave the baby Tylenol and it went quiet."）。艾维敏锐地抓住了这句反常的表述：一个婴儿怎么可能刚吃下泰诺就突然彻底安静？语言风格在此处发生了极不自然的突变。艾维断定，正是保姆在怒火中折断了婴儿的手臂，婴儿因承受不住剧烈疼痛而直接休克昏厥了过去。凭借这份敏锐的语言学洞察，艾维通知州警直接讯问保姆，仅用了一个半小时便拿到了对方完整的认罪供词，甚至连测谎仪都没用上。
- **审讯前的前置步骤**：要求涉案人员按时间线巨细靡遗写下整日活动，书面陈述往往会暴露无意识的心态与漏洞。
- **侦讯策略的核心**：不要在无关人员身上浪费时间自底向上试探，要依据逻辑直接进攻最核心的嫌疑对象。
- **作案心理的语言痕迹**：保姆在书中通过极力描写清晨的焦头烂额来合理化自身的失控情绪，而“喂药即安静”是剧痛致厥的伪饰表达。
---
### [01:51:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6668s) 认知失调与自我合理化：别活在自己编织的谎言里
史蒂文指出，保姆在陈述中的长篇抱怨本质上是一种“自我合理化”（Self-justification）。这与心理学上的“认知失调”（Cognitive Dissonance）紧密相关——当人类的实际行为与自我认知、理想形象之间产生割裂时，内心会承受巨大痛苦，于是便会通过编造各种借口来填平这道鸿沟。比如在日常生活中，人们总能给坏习惯找到说辞：“我今天实在太忙了，所以没法去健身房”；或者“迷你吧里实在找不到别的东西吃，所以我才吃了那块高热量饼干”。可怕之处在于，许多人最终会将整个人生建立在深信这些虚假借口之上，将荒唐的妥协完全合理化。
艾维赞同这种剖析，但她提醒道，这并不意味着人们犯了错就应该永无止境地沉溺在过去的自责中自我折磨。过度自责不仅于事无补，还会让人深陷泥潭。关键在于必须具备一种对自己坦诚的勇气：至少在面对自己内心时，能够直截了当地承认“我确实做了一件不该做的事”，而不是用一连串逻辑编织借口来逃避责任。
---
### [01:52:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6734s) 识别情绪爆发与“盲怒”：找能够直言不讳的人点醒自己
关于如何打破“自欺欺人”的魔咒，艾维表示自己非常幸运，拥有一个能随时点醒她的伴侣。她的丈夫也是一名极其沉稳的前特工，曾先后在特勤局（US Secret Service）、国土安全部（Homeland Security）任职，并担任过特警（SWAT），年少丧父的成长经历更磨砺出了他沉着如山的性格。每当艾维在某些事情上钻牛角尖或产生盲区时，丈夫就会直率地敲打她：“嘿，傻瓜（Chucklehead），你最好重新好好想清楚这件事。”艾维坦言，有时自己也不太乐意接受对方批评的方式，但因为对方在过往建立了极高的信任度和信誉，她深知对方的提醒必然事出有因。
艾维强调，一个健康的内圈必须包含那些敢于揭穿你的伪装、直言不讳的人；如果身边全是指责你每一件事都做错的消极者，固然无法产生积极效果，但全盘逢迎同样危险。与此同时，听取逆耳忠言的前提是自身具备足够的成熟度与谦逊品格。
> “很多时候，尽管我自诩为一个极具战略眼光的决策者，但有时我也一样会被愤怒冲昏头脑。某人做了某件事，我眼前就只剩下一片血红。这种时候，我会主动去找我信任的人——可能是我的经纪人，也可能是工作伙伴——并告诉他们：‘听着，刚才发生了这件事，我现在已经气得失去理智了（seeing red）。我知道自己处在极端情绪状态下，绝对做不出正确的决策，我需要你们的指引和建议。’”
艾维总结道，学会自我审视是成长的必修课。如果一个人发现自己整天被各种小事冒犯、频繁被外界激怒、动辄在社交媒体上发帖泄愤或发信息到处诉苦，就必须紧急按下暂停键问问自己：“我为什么要做这一切？我的内心究竟出了什么问题，才会让我以这种充满戾气的方式看待世界？”外界的一切冲突，追根溯源都始于内心。
---
### [01:55:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6910s) 成年人的社交减法：能用一只手数过来的真正朋友
当史蒂文问及艾维是否拥有许多朋友时，艾维果断给出了否定的回答。她回忆道，自己在成长过程中曾是一个社交蝴蝶，结识形形色色的人；但科学研究早已表明，随着人类年龄的增长，真正核心的社交圈子会变得越来越小。
艾维将自己的人际关系做了清晰的切割：她有很多熟人（Acquaintances），能与很多人打成一片，善于社交网络拓展，也真心喜欢这些人；但如果严格讨论“真正的朋友”，她伸出一只手就能数得过来。史蒂文也分享了自己的社交现状，表示自己处于核心的挚友大概只有五位，其余大量被冠以“朋友”称谓的人，绝大多数都是因为工作合作而建立连接的业务伙伴。艾维对此表示赞同，并开始进一步阐述她对于“朋友”这一概念的严苛定义。
### [01:55:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6957s) 真正的朋友与“无条件信任”的标准
对话从对“无条件信任”的探讨展开。Steven Bartlett 评估了自己的社交圈，坦言在所有相识的人中，自己大概只会对大约 10 个人给予完全、无条件的信任。他特别指出现场团队中的 Jack 就是其中之一，两人已经相识整整 7 年，“没有任何事情是我不敢托付给他的”。Evy Poumpouras 对此表示赞同，指出这才是真正意义上的朋友：长久的时间检验、始终如一的言行、深厚的信任基础，以及从未发生过的背叛。
Evy 强调，核心圈子本质上是一场“重质不重量”的游戏。社交网络和广泛的人脉固然有其价值，但真正被允许踏入核心圈子的人，必须经过极其严苛和谨慎的筛选。对于身处高位、声名在外的人而言，更需要看清他人究竟是冲着你这个人本身，还是冲着你的光环、资源与身份包装而来。她幽默地提出了一个检验真正友谊的标准：当你遭遇重大危机、打电话向对方求助时，对方的反应不是推诿推脱，而是立刻问你：“我现在就去拿铁锹，咱们在哪儿碰头？”真正的朋友会深刻地影响你的心智与命运，而充斥过多浅层关系的社交圈，带来的往往只是无意义的噪音。
- **真正朋友的核心指标**：长期稳定的时间跨度（如 7 年以上）、言行的一致性（Consistency）、毫无背叛历史的高强度信任。
- **核心圈法则**：社交连接可以广泛，但进入内圈的人数必须精简，警惕他人仅因外在光环和附加价值而聚拢。
---
### [01:57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7053s) 商业中场休息：内容复利与销售管线管理
在对话间歇，Steven 分享了自己 24 岁时做出的一项重大决定——坚持每天在社交媒体上发布内容。这项原本单纯为了涨粉的自我挑战，最终对他的整个人生产生了深远的影响。每日的内容沉淀不仅逼迫他快速提炼日常经历、加速认知迭代，更帮他积累了数以百万计的追随者，成为后来创立《The Diary Of A CEO》的基石。为此，他推荐了自己日常用于排版制作 LinkedIn 与 Instagram 帖子的设计工具 Adobe Express，强调其零门槛的易用性让非专业设计人员也能实现高效的内容创作与知识复利。
随后，Steven 针对创业者普遍面临的业务痛点展开讨论。他观察到许多管理者常常将销售业绩不佳归咎为团队的执行力或能力问题，但其根本症结往往在于“可视化（Visibility）”的缺失。当管理者无法清楚看清销售管线（Pipeline）中每一个潜在客户所处的谈判阶段、哪些交易陷入停滞、哪些正在推进时，就根本无法做出针对性的优化。为此他介绍了专为中小企业设计的 CRM 平台 Pipedrive，指出它不仅是通讯录，更是端到端串联全流程的系统，能够帮助销售团队提效，平均助力团队达成三倍以上的成单量。
---
### [01:59:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7178s) “低频能量”的侵蚀：拯救溺水者的警示
回到对话，Steven 向 Evy 请教她经常提及的“低频能量（Low Vibration）”到底意味着什么。Evy 解释道，这类人通常表现出强烈的“受害者心态（Victim Mindset）”，总是怨天尤人、搬弄是非、制造戏剧性冲突，在他们的世界里“一切都是错的，没有任何事是对的”，任何人在他们身边都会感到精疲力竭。更危险的是，情绪和行为模式极具传染性，哪怕本身情绪稳定、心智成熟的高认知个体，如果长期与低频者为伍，能量也会在不知不觉中被拖垮。Evy 直言：“低能量的人把高能量的人拽下去，远比高能量的人把他们拉上来容易得多。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 救助陷入混乱者的危险动态
accDescr: 展示救援者试图帮助低频溺水者时，可能反被对方的恐慌拉入深渊的因果过程。
subgraph Trap["溺水困境"]
A["施救意图: 试图拉起低频/混乱的人"] --> B["陷入恐慌: 对方挣扎并寻求浮木"]
B --> C["本能压制: 抓住救援者拼命下压以自保"]
C --> D["双重沉沦: 施救者反被拖入深渊溺亡"]
end
```
Evy 结合自己当年参与搜救（Search and Rescue）培训的经历做出生动比喻：在水域救援中，最致命的往往不是水流本身，而是那个极度惊恐的溺水者。当施救人员游上前去时，溺水者出于求生本能会拼命挣扎、疯狂抓挠，最终把前来救他的人当成垫脚石狠狠按入水中。现实中的人际关系亦是如此。盲目发善心不仅救不了对方，反而会让自己陷入被动耗损的境地。
- **低频人群的典型特征**：沉溺于受害者角色、持续输出抱怨与 Drama、永远放大问题而非寻求解决方案。
- **救援法则**：必须谨慎挑选施救对象与帮助方式，警惕“好人情结”演变为对自身生存环境的自毁式暴露。
---
### [02:01:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7309s) 个人责任与职场中的绩效腐蚀
谈到如何避免被消耗与背叛，Evy 提出了极具冲击力的“个人责任论”。她指出，虽然生活中难免会遇到居心不良的混蛋，但如果一个人“频繁”遭遇背叛或伤害，就必须反躬自省：究竟是自己的什么决定，让自己持续暴露在这种脆弱和风险之中？这就像明知某条街区灯光昏暗、废弃荒凉且治安极差，却依然每晚选择步行穿过而不愿打车一样——选择走入危险环境本身，就承担了成为受害者的概率。
在人际交往中，人们常常无视早期预警信号，或者毫无保留地把“无条件信任”轻易赠送给尚未经受考验的人。Evy 强调，信任必须是对方靠时间与行动“赢取（Earn）”来的，而非廉价赠予的默认值。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 个人边界与环境责任路径
accDescr: 区分盲目信任与基于时间检验的健康信任建立机制。
subgraph Vulnerable["被动受害路径"]
A1["过早给予无条件信任"] --> B1["无视潜在预警信号"]
B1 --> C1["遭遇背叛并陷入怨天尤人"]
end
subgraph Accountable["自我负责路径"]
A2["设立界限与观察期"] --> B2["长周期考察言行一致性"]
B2 --> C2["赢得信任并建立稳固圈子"]
end
```
针对职场中日益蔓延的抱怨文化——员工动辄抱怨环境“不公平”、待遇未达预期，Evy 犀利地指出：“这种文化之所以泛滥，是因为管理者允许了它的存在。”倾听员工诉求固然重要，但过度妥协和无底线退让实际上是在帮他们找借口，最终会彻底摧毁团队的执行力文化。低绩效员工就像侵蚀团队肌体的毒瘤，若不及早制止，将会极大地挫伤其他优秀成员的士气。
- **反脆弱核心原则**：不把遭遇全盘归咎于他人，复盘自己做出何种决策让自己暴露在风险之下。
- **信任建立法则**：无需口头宣告“你得赢取我的信任”，但在内心必须守住这一准绳，拒绝无原则的信任让渡。
- **管理底线**：过度的包容等同于纵容借口，低绩效者的负面效应会迅速稀释团队的战斗力。
### [02:04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7478s) 低绩效者的核心特质：把工作当成个人情绪垃圾桶
当谈及团队协作与绩效管理时，Evy Poumpouras 指出，她对进入团队的气场与能量状态极为敏感。作为追求高绩效（high performance）的领导者，她不能容忍员工带着“低能量”（low vibration）、私人问题和个人戏剧性情绪走进工作场所。当 Steven Bartlett 询问哪种态度或特质是低绩效者的典型标签、最容易让人恼火时，Evy 澄清说这并不一定会让她暴怒，但最让她头疼的是那些一进办公室就滔滔不绝谈论私人事务的人。
Evy 强调这并非缺乏同理心，而是因为任何事情都讲求“时机与场合”（time and place）。当上司需要沟通具体的业务交付时，某些员工却开始拉家常，汇报周末和祖母度过的琐事，将一切对话的核心转移到自己身上。这种行为暴露了其缺乏职业觉察：没有停下来思考上司的时间极其宝贵，且对方正在等待核心工作结果。无休止地强行索取他人的精力和注意力，本质上是对同事与主管的一种不公平剥削。
- 职场低绩效者的标志性行为：缺乏场合意识，将具体业务探讨演变成冗长的个人琐事叙事。
- 情绪索取者的盲点：将一切焦点放在自己身上，没有意识到管理者的工作负荷与时间价值。
---
### [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7548s) “你没那么特别”：从以自我为中心中解脱
Steven 由此联想到 Evy 在 TED 演讲中提到的一个核心观点——“你其实没那么特别”（You're not that special）。Evy 解释称，西方文化高度崇尚个人主义和身份认同，不断向人们灌输“你能做任何事”、“一切都关乎你”。然而，这种极致的个人中心主义极易导致人产生错觉，仿佛自己是太阳、整个世界都在围着自己转。
Evy 明确指出，“自认为特别”往往并不只是演变成显性的自恋狂，更隐蔽的危害在于将痛苦特权化：“我的问题是独一无二的，我的伤痛是独一无二的，这世界上只有我在经历这种苦难。”陷入这种心态的人会把自己孤立在一座绝望的孤岛上，即便别人给出建设性建议，他们也会以“我是所有规则的例外”为由拒绝接受。相反，意识到“我其实没那么特别”是一种巨大的解脱与心理重塑——尽管痛苦客观存在，但世界上有千千万万人正在经历同样甚至远比自己糟糕的苦难。这种视角不会贬低自身经历，却能重新摆正认知坐标，让所有原本看似无法承受的苦难与焦虑瞬间消散。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 个人中心主义与客观认知的心态对比
accDescr: 对比“自视特别”陷入绝望孤岛与“我没那么特别”实现心理重塑的两种认知循环
subgraph Trap["自视特别的心理陷阱"]
A["个人中心主义膨胀"] --> B["特权化个人苦难：'只有我在受罪'"]
B --> C["拒绝他人建议：'我是特例'"]
C --> D["陷入孤立无援与绝望孤岛"]
end
subgraph Liberation["清醒认知的重塑机制"]
E["认识到：'我其实没那么特别'"] --> F["意识到万人同受类似磨难"]
F --> G["痛苦不再被无限放大"]
G --> H["心态重新校准，问题自然消散"]
end
```
---
### [02:07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7642s) 捕食者法则：掠食者与霸凌者为何专挑“软柿子”
话题转入现实生活与人际关系中的侵害机制。Steven 提到 Evy 曾告诫人们“走路要带着笃定与气场，因为捕食者能一眼识别出猎物”（predators can spot prey），并询问她在特勤局的工作生涯中是否亲眼见过施害者与自恋狂专门挑选特定对象。Evy 给出了肯定的回答，并指出这一规律不仅存在于极端犯罪中，在普通的亲密关系和职场动态中也普遍适用。
很多人反复陷入有毒、施虐的伴侣关系，根本原因在于他们向外释放的信号将自己包装成了“容易下手的目标”（easy target）。捕食者在寻找的是能够被其轻易拿捏、塑造、操纵且过分轻易交出信任的人，他们绝不敢招惹强硬的“反击型捕食者”（counter predator）或 Alpha 型人格。职场管理者对待员工也存在类似本能反应：对性格温和、从不反抗的员工往往随意下达指令，而面对强势、具有边界感和威慑力的员工时，说话则会掂量再三。
Evy 进一步以现实犯罪为例揭穿了大众对“捕食者”的误区：
- **犯罪的本质是避强击弱**：罪犯从不寻求公平对决，而是寻找最容易击倒的弱者；儿童与老年人之所以遭受极高比例的虐待与犯罪侵害，仅仅是因为他们身体弱小、缺乏反抗能力。
- **捕食者的外表欺骗性**：好莱坞电影让大众误以为恶徒都是长相凶狠魁梧的恶棍，但现实中极具破坏力的施暴者往往并非强悍之辈。Evy 列举了当周发生的查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）相关枪击案以及明尼阿波利斯校园枪击案的枪手，指出这些犯下滔天大罪的人从外表看根本不像影视剧中凶悍的“掠食者”。他们自身虚弱不堪，唯有通过寻找更软弱的猎物来获得操纵感与施虐快感。
---
### [02:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7845s) 面对施虐关系：停止改变对方的幻想，直面冰冷现实
面对职场中恶毒辱骂的上司或生活中施虐的伴侣，Steven 提问：如果受害者因为经济生存（需要付账单）或家庭纽带（结婚生子）而“无法离开”，除了离开难道没有其他选项吗？Evy 极其果断地予以反驳：“你总是有选择的。这可能不是你想做的那个选择，但你永远都有选择。”
针对真正处于恶性虐待关系中的人，Evy 直言没有任何廉价的沟通建议能修复这种局面。受虐者常常抱有一种幻想——希望别人能教他们一套方法，既能继续留在这段关系里，又能把对方改造成一个不施虐的好人。Evy 将这归结为此前探讨过的“冰山理论”：受害者拒绝接受眼前那个人的残酷真相。“对方对你粗暴恶毒，你却妄想只要自己改变对方，一切都会好起来。但这绝非现实。”
研究与临床救援数据表明，绝大多数遭受虐待的受害者即便逃离，最终绝大部分还是会选择回到施虐者身边。面对身陷这种困境的亲友，外部人员能做的仅仅是倾听并尽力保障他们的基本人身安全。Evy 进一步补充道，虐待关系不仅存在于情侣之间，在亲子关系中同样触目惊心：美国《统一犯罪报告》（Uniform Crime Report）的数据显示，在成年家庭关系中，成年子女对父母实施虐待的发生率，在某些统计维度上甚至超过了父母对子女的虐待。无论面对哪种形式的有毒关系，直面冰冷的客观现实永远是寻求改变的第一步。
### [02:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8014s) 设定家庭界限与彻底远离长期虐待
谈及原生家庭的影响时，Evy Poumpouras 指出，当一个人年满 18 岁且具备独立工作能力时，就完全有能力找到离开家庭环境的途径。很多人常为家庭关系所困，因为割舍亲情极其艰难；但她强调，爱家人与喜欢家人是完全不同的两件事。Steven Bartlett 对此深有体会，并分享了自己 18 岁时的一段亲身经历：当时家族里某位亲戚言行不端、界限不清，其他兄弟姐妹都选择忍气吞声并各自找借口开脱，唯独当时还是个穷学生的 Steven 坚决表态绝不容忍，直接选择与对方断绝来往。出人意料的是，这名亲戚反而对他最为尊重和客气。Steven 认为，血缘绝不意味着一生绑定的义务，任何人——无论是家人、朋友、陌生人还是合作伙伴——都必须达到起码的相处底线，家人没有任何豁免特权。正因为对方意识到他底线极高且随时准备抽身离去，双方反倒维持了一种客气尊重的平衡。
Evy 赞赏了 Steven 这种守住底线的魄力，并深入剖析了“创伤”与“持续虐待”的根本区别。经历过糟糕的过往并跨越它，与长期深陷于持续发生的不良关系中，性质截然不同。如果身处一段持续施加创伤的关系中，人根本无法治愈，因为伤害仍在当下不断发生。当某些咨询者向 Evy 求助，希望学习如何建立自信时，Evy 一旦发现对方身边正存在一个持续霸凌或虐待他们的人，就会直言不讳地告诉他们：没有任何技巧或策略能拯救这种境况。
> “我无法抵消那种伤害。你身边有一个人正在持续不断地摧毁你，你觉得我能教你什么？难道摆个‘高能量姿势’（Power Pose）就能解决问题吗？”
面对这种全天候的精神摧残，脱离恶劣环境是建立自我认同和信心的唯一前提。
---
### [02:16:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8208s) 零容忍原则与界限蚕食的危险信号
Steven 坦言，成长过程中往往只需一个极度负面的核心人物，就足以将一个人的容忍度拉低到极致。例如，他童年生活的家庭里，无休止的争吵与咆哮是从早到晚的日常背景音；这种环境促使他产生了强烈的逆反心理，对咆哮产生“零容忍”。在他与伴侣相伴的 7 年时间里，即便有分歧和摩擦，也绝不会出现大喊大叫的场面；在过去的恋情中，一旦对方开始吼叫，他的下意识反应就是直接离开现场，开车上高速公路拉开距离。他的兄弟姐妹同样如此，全都变得极为平静、说话轻声细语。Evy 指出这种成长反应耐人寻味——暴力有时会衍生暴力，但有时也能催生出对平静的极端渴求；同处一个环境下的兄弟姐妹，走向可能完全相反。
两人随后探讨了行为模式的微妙演进。之前讨论的“把跑鞋一天挪近床边一点”的渐进暴露法不仅适用于良性习惯，同样也揭示了施虐者和边界侵犯者是如何蚕食底线的——对方每天都把界限推进一点点。Evy 谈到自己在团队管理和日常人际交往中的高敏感度：
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Evy Poumpouras's Behavioral Evaluation Flow
accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how Evy detects boundary erosion through delayed communication, testing, and eventual dismissal.
subgraph SignalDetection ["信号捕捉"]
A["首次异常行为<br/>(如发邮件4天不回)"] --> B{"判断性质<br/>(偶发疏忽 vs 态度懈怠)"}
end
subgraph Evaluation ["观察与验证"]
B -->|不立即当面拆穿| C["设置新任务进行多轮测试"]
end
subgraph ActionTaken ["决策执行"]
C -->|确认为边界蚕食| D["果断放弃并寻找途径解雇/切断"]
C -->|具备极高合作价值| E["明确介入并划定底线"]
end
```
- **微小迹象的警示**：如果一名员工在收到邮件后过了 4 天才回复，在 Evy 眼中这就是巨大的危险信号（Red Flag）。
- **隐蔽的测试机制**：她不会立刻发火斥责，而是静观其变，随后通过其他事情继续测试对方，观察这究竟是一时疏忽，还是因彼此熟悉而产生的松懈与傲慢。
- **果断止损**：一旦确认对方开始模糊界限，她会毫不犹豫地停止投入时间和精力，并在合适时机果断终止合作。
---
### [02:20:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8409s) 查理·柯克遇袭事件与特勤局视角的安保评估
话题转向了当时震惊全美的新闻事件：政治评论员查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）在大学校园开展“证明我是错的”（Prove Me Wrong）巡回辩论活动时，遭到一名枪手从数百码外开枪击中颈部身亡。凶手随后被捕并关押在监狱中等待出庭。作为一名前特勤局特工，保护受保护对象免遭暗杀正是 Evy 曾经的职业核心。Steven 询问她作为安全专家在得知这一消息时的第一反应与专业评估。
Evy 表示自己一直在从新闻和安保专业角度追踪并分析这起枪击事件。她指出，公众普遍将其定性为“政治暗杀”（Political Assassination），但从安保防护与执法分类的角度来看，这起事件兼具独特性与极端异常性：
- **传统政治人物的防护机制**：美国总统等当选政客本质上是职业政治家，面临暴力暗杀的威胁是预期之内的固有风险，因此享有特勤局最高级别的严密保护和国家级安保资源配置。
- **国会议员层面的威胁升级**：如今美国乃至全球范围内的国会议员都面临着日益剧增的人身威胁，美国国会也正因此寻求大幅提升用于议员安全防护的财政预算。
- **公众人物与政治评论员的安全盲区**：像查理·柯克这类在开放的公共场所、大学校园与公众进行面对面辩论的政治活动家/媒体评论员，虽然言论极具争议性并处于舆论风暴中心，但他们并没有国家元首级别的防弹护卫与全方位外围安保屏障，极易在数百码外的远距离狙击下暴露出巨大的安保漏洞。
### [02:21:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8514s) 针对公开发声者的暗杀风险与模仿效应
对话切入了一个极其沉重且现实的话题。以往公众潜意识里总觉得，暗杀或人身袭击大多只会发生在民选官员或政治大人物身上，因为他们身处权力中枢。但 Charlie 的遇害却彻底打破了这一界限。Charlie 并非民选政客，没人给他投过票；他不过是拥有自己的播客、四处演讲、公开发表自己见解的内容创作者。从本质上说，他与 Steven 或 Evy 并无二致。这起暗杀事件释放出了一个极其危险的信号：在当下，任何拥有公开发声平台的人，都成了潜在的“合法猎物”（fair game）。
这种范式转移令人不寒而栗。过去的袭击者若想针对美国总统、国会议员或国家元首，面对的是防卫森严的“硬目标”（hard targets），极难得手；然而现在，只要你在网络或播客上表达了某些观点，被某些人视为眼中钉或感受到了所谓“威胁”，他们就会觉得有权对你实施报复、拔枪射击。Evy 在上电视节目前常会浏览社交平台 X 了解最新动态，却不得不强忍着恶心去过滤大量充斥着仇恨的言论，甚至每隔几条就能看到博主表示“我收到了死亡威胁”。这场暗杀开辟了一个恐怖的先例，极易引发“模仿犯罪”（copycats）。在特勤局的执勤经验告诉 Evy，往往只要有一个人成功执行了任务并侥幸得手，其他心怀不轨的人就会产生“他能做到，我也能做到”的念头。Evy 坦言自己周二就要去一所大学演讲，如果有人在播客里听到了不顺耳的言论，完全可能产生极端危险的想法。
- **硬目标 vs 软目标**：政治首脑受到重重特勤安保保护，属于难以突破的硬目标；而自媒体主播、演讲者和博主没有专业安保防护，直接暴露在公众视野中。
- **无差别化威胁**：只要表达的观点引发他人反感，发声者即刻面临被极端分子报复的现实生命危险。
- **模仿犯罪的传导性**：一旦某个枪手的行凶行为在舆论场被广泛曝光，极易诱发其他心理扭曲者的跟风效仿。
---
### [02:24:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8673s) 保护性情报、社会纽带瓦解与网络共情缺失
Evy 透露，公众心理健康问题的普遍恶化也是关键推手。在美国特勤局内部，设立有一个专门的“保护性情报处”（Protective Intelligence Unit），专门负责追踪对受保护对象构成潜在威胁的人员。在过去，这些人会通过写信、打骚扰电话或频繁在多个现场活动中现身而进入警方的监控视线；当特勤局评估其危险程度极高时，偶尔还会协同法庭对存在严重精神障碍的个体实施非自愿强制收治（involuntarily commit）。然而，社交媒体的兴起彻底打乱了原有的侦查逻辑。人们无需露面，躲在自家的安全屋里就能随手敲出极其恶劣的威胁，这种隔绝物理现实的袭击方式导致威胁线索呈成千上万级暴增，安保部门每天疲于奔命。
更为严峻的是，社交网络正在剥夺人类的同理心，并加速社会约束机制的崩塌。在现实生活中，一个人通常会受到几大坚固的“社会纽带”（social bonds）约束，使其不敢胡作非为：
1. **家庭纽带**：担心犯罪会让家人蒙羞或伤害亲人；
2. **信仰与宗教机构**：信仰的力量能维持个人的内心秩序与敬畏；
3. **学校与社会机构**：对所属组织的归属感形成规训。
如今，这些传统社会纽带普遍面临侵蚀。与此同时，由于网络上充斥着极度负面和恶毒的文字，人们在日复一日的言语暴力轰炸下变得麻木不仁。当恶语相向不再让人感到羞耻或不安，现实中的共情能力便随之丧失，极度危险的行为越轨由此滋生。
---
### [02:27:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8860s) 算法茧房的恐惧饲育与孤立的认知极化
Steven 结合自己早年在社交媒体行业近十年的创业背景，揭示了算法如何在幕后加剧这场精神危机。普通用户往往误以为自己在手机上刷到的内容就是“真实的世界”，却完全意识不到自己深陷于算法的牢笼中。算法的核心机制是“停留时间”（dwell time）和历史行为匹配：用户在某种内容上多看两秒，系统就会判定其对此感兴趣，并在次日推送海量同类内容。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 社交算法与极端情绪极化闭环
accDescr: 展示用户在社交平台上的停留行为如何通过算法反馈形成恐惧闭环并剥离现实中立立场
subgraph UserBehavior["用户交互"]
A["偶然停留于焦虑/仇恨内容"] --> B["算法捕获停留时间"]
end
subgraph AlgoLoop["算法强化机制"]
B --> C["判定为核心兴趣标签"]
C --> D["持续推送单向极化与恐惧信息"]
end
subgraph PsychologicalImpact["现实心理后果"]
D --> E["误将信息茧房视为真实世界"]
E --> F["缺乏同伴与组织锚定：个体陷入极端恐惧"]
F --> G["失去中间地带：走向绝对对立与非黑即白"]
end
```
Steven 分享了一个荒诞却真实的亲身经历：他的一位年长亲戚下载了 TikTok 后，因为偶然停留于负面推送，算法迅速向其疯狂填喂充斥着恶毒、仇恨和种族歧视的视频。这位亲戚误以为现实世界已经彻底沦陷，整天神经紧绷甚至准备上街抗议。其伴侣在恐慌中紧急向 Steven 求助。深谙后台逻辑的 Steven 只能拿到账号密码，每周定期点击后台的“重置算法推荐”按钮抹除历史记录，并亲自用该手机主动点赞、收藏大量《英国偶像》（The X Factor）、《美国达人秀》（America's Got Talent）等纯歌舞娱乐视频，才最终用无害内容“洗干净”了信息流，让亲戚觉得 TikTok 枯燥而彻底戒掉了软件。
Evy 对此感同身受地指出，这种算法恐惧机制比执法人员面临的环境更为致命。执法警察虽然每天也直面人性最丑陋的一面，但他们身处警队之中，拥有战友互助的团队纽带（camaraderie），彼此能将对方拉回理智的现实；而如今的普通人握着手机，在深夜独自面对屏幕上铺天盖地的极端恐惧——无论是移民偷渡、校园枪击还是群体冲突——身边没有一个人能充当理性的“锚”。算法无休止地挖掘并贩卖恐惧，彻底消灭了理性的中间地带（middle ground），硬生生将公众割裂在针锋相对的极端阵营之中。
### [02:30:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9045s) 校园枪击与大规模枪击案的特征与心理根源
谈话从算法如何利用人们的恐惧开始，史蒂文·巴特利特展示了一张反映枪击事件激增的图表。埃维·庞普拉斯（Evy Poumpouras）指出，在讨论这一现象时，必须严格区分一般性的“校园枪击”（School Shooting）与“大规模枪击”（Mass Shooting）。单对单的校园枪击往往带有很强的个人恩怨性质——例如因私人过节直接持枪报复特定某人，且往往与所在城市的治安环境挂钩；而大规模枪击案则是无差别或针对群体的屠杀，呈现出全然不同的行为画像。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 大规模枪击案凶手行为模式演进
accDescr: 展现大规模枪击案凶手从心理积怨、突发诱因到晨间策划实施的演变逻辑
subgraph Background["背景积淀"]
A["长期心理健康问题 / 精神疾病"]
B["对袭击地点具有既往关联"]
end
subgraph Trigger["突发催化"]
C["遭遇人生危机（失业、失恋等）"]
D["获取枪支弹药的渠道"]
end
subgraph Execution["策划与执行"]
E["提前谋划并通过社媒/他人透露"]
F["清晨清醒时分执行攻击"]
end
Background --> Trigger
Trigger --> Execution
```
根据执法和犯罪学数据，埃维拆解了大规模枪击案凶手的核心共性：
- **地缘关联**：凶手通常与案发地点存在某种既往联系，例如曾就读该校或在该场所工作生活。
- **诱发事件**：尽管长期存在问题积压，但通常会有一个直接的“导火索”打破平衡，如感情破裂、被解雇或重大挫折。
- **预谋与宣扬**：行为几乎全是有预谋的，他们往往会提前制定计划，并通过社交媒体或向他人隐晦/直接透露意图。
- **晨间作案**：极具规律性的是，这类袭击大多发生在早晨。凶手醒来后确认“今天就是行动的日子”，并在一天较早的时间段付诸实施。
- **心理疾病与枪支获取**：绝大多数甚至可以说是所有凶手，均有长期心理健康问题或精神疾病史，同时他们具备获取枪支的直接途径。
### [02:32:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9173s) 媒体个人化、网络妖魔化与暴力的“正义化”
史蒂文提出一个发人深省的观察：过去具有巨大公众影响力的是像 CNN 这样的大型新闻机构，机构是一个抽象的标志（Logo），很难成为物理袭击的目标；而当今媒体越来越转向以创作者（Creator）和主持人为主导的个人化媒介，普通人架起麦克风就能触达数百万人，这使得具有辨识度的“活人”更容易成为袭击目标。
埃维对此表示赞同，并结合查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）遭暗杀未遂的袭击案例深入分析。报道显示，该名袭击者在开枪后甚至直接在 Discord 上与群友聊天炫耀，面对怀疑时调侃称“也许就是我干的，哈哈”。这种通过极端暴力博取关注、在亚文化圈子中寻找存在感和重要性的心理令人不寒而栗。
更深层的社会毒瘤在于社交网络上的“极端妖魔化”风气。人们缺乏当面质问的勇气，却在网络暗处大肆谩骂、打标签和贬损对手，将攻击常态化。正如埃维引用的那句话——“英雄越伟大，反派就必须越邪恶”（The bigger the hero, the bigger the villain）。当网络舆论将一个人彻底妖魔化为毫无价值的恶魔时，心智脆弱的极端分子就会在内心建立逻辑自洽：“如果我除掉这个人，我就是在拯救世界的英雄。”社交媒体的算法和言论狂欢，正在为现实中的致命暴力提供看似正义的行动借口。
### [02:36:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9366s) 特勤局视角的安保困境：查理·柯克遇袭案与防弹衣局限
当史蒂文问及埃维与同样出身美国特勤局反袭击小组（Counter Assault Team）的丈夫如何看待查理·柯克的枪击事件时，埃维直言，除在屋顶部署反狙击手（Counter-snipers）外，当时的现场几乎没有任何办法能阻止此类远距离高处袭击。然而，高规格的反狙击火力属于稀缺资源，通常仅为在任总统、国会议员或特定政要配备，民间政治名嘴或自媒体创作者根本无法负担、也无从调用此类安保资源。
查理·柯克身边的私人安保团队将重心放在地面防线，扮演着“肉盾”角色，防范的是提问台或隔离线前逼近的物理肢体冲突。私人安保人员很少具备高空射击威胁的防御思维，也不会预料到会遭遇狙击步枪的远距离伏击。
针对史蒂文提到查理·柯克平时可能身穿防弹背心的细节，埃维从专业战术角度解释了防护装备的局限：
- **防护级别**：常规软质防弹背心主要抵御手枪子弹及部分霰弹枪弹丸，根本无法挡住高速步枪子弹。特勤局反袭击小队必须加装专门的陶瓷防弹插板才具备步枪弹防护能力。
- **防护部位死角**：防弹衣仅覆盖躯干核心脏器。在本次袭击中，子弹直接命中了颈部。正如埃维在执行特勤任务时的亲身体会：“只要头上挨了一枪，一切就彻底结束了。”
当被问及保护对象在眼前被击中是否是特勤局特工的终极噩梦时，埃维毫不犹豫地确认：“这是最糟糕的噩梦，因为那意味着你彻底失败了。”埃维随后回忆起自己在特勤局的保护生涯，其护卫名单横跨美国权力顶层与重要人物：从美国现任总统、卸任总统、第一夫人，到总统子女（如乔治·W·布什总统的女儿芭芭拉·皮尔斯·布什）、财政部长、国土安全部部长以及到访的外国国家元首。对于一名专业特工而言，保护对象的生死就是衡量其职业价值的唯一底线。
### [02:39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9554s) 特勤局安保的极端压力与“轮子离地”解脱
Evy Poumpouras 进一步揭示了特勤局保护政要时的内部运转与心理重压。即使是外国政要访问美国，特勤局也必须承担安保职责。例如，英国首相来访时，特勤局会与对方团队密切配合，因为绝不能允许任何人在美国领土上遭遇暗杀；哪怕是俄罗斯总统普京来访，特工们同样必须恪尽职守，在必要时准备为他挡子弹。这项工作的核心纯粹在于执行“使命”与承担不可推卸的责任。
在执行安保任务的整个过程中，特工的神经无时无刻不在高度戒备。脑海中始终在高速运转，不断盘旋着同样的问题：“威胁在哪里？隐患在哪里？可能出问题的地方在哪里？”由于长期处于极限高压状态，特勤局内部形成了一种被称为“起落架收起派对”（wheels up parties）的特殊解压文化——只有当被保护人的飞机起落架彻底收起、飞机升空离地的那一刻，特工们紧绷的神经才会骤然松弛下来，长舒一口气。虽然安保是轮班制，但视具体任务而定，特工连续工作 16、17 甚至 18 个小时是家常便饭，身心负荷极其沉重。
- 外国领导人安保原则：防止任何外国元首（包括英国首相或俄罗斯总统普京）在美国本土遇刺，保护行动纯粹以国家使命和安保职责为导向。
- “起落架收起”（Wheels up）：特工俚语，意指被保护人乘机离境升空的时刻，也是特勤人员唯一能卸下紧绷戒备、释放压力的时刻。
- 工作强度：单次勤务时长常达到 16 至 18 小时，全程要求维持极高的情境感知能力（situational awareness）。
---
### [02:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9608s) “我们并不特别”：找回你本就拥有的行动力
Steven Bartlett 提出了一个面向广大观众的核心问题：对于那些点开本期播客、在生活或事业中苦苦追寻突破、希望在追求个人或商业目标时更具成效的人来说，本场对话中尚未言及、但最重要的核心认知究竟是什么？
Evy 的回答质朴而充满力量。她指出，最关键的信息是——**你其实远比自己想象的要更有能力**。无论外界社会给你灌输了什么观念，无论你经历过怎样的挫折与不幸，也无论别人或你自己找过多少借口，每个人身上都蕴藏着强大的潜能。当大众看着像 Steven 或 Evy 这样在各自领域有所建树的人时，总会下意识地觉得：“看啊，他们把一切都搞明白了。”但 Evy 直言不讳地打破了这种光环：“我们其实并没有那么特别。”他们面对生活谜题的摸索方式，与世间任何一个人没有任何区别。无论你此刻多么自卑、多么缺乏自信，或者生命中承受过多深的创伤，你依然完全有能力去争取自己想要的人生，而这一切完全取决于你自己的选择。
---
### [02:41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9682s) 最后的日记问题：最大的快乐与最深的恐惧
按照《The Diary Of A CEO》的惯常收尾传统，上一位嘉宾在日记本中为 Evy 留下了一个匿名问题：“你生命中最大的快乐是什么？你最害怕的又是什么？”
Evy 毫不犹豫地回答，她人生中最大的快乐是她的女儿；成为一名母亲是她一直以来的心愿。然而具有讽刺意味的是，女儿同时也成了她内心最深恐惧的来源——她无比渴望女儿能健康、平安地成长。但由于自己曾经担任特勤局特工，如今又在新闻媒体行业长期追踪报道犯罪案件，她见识过人性至善的一面，更亲眼目睹过人性至恶与极其残忍的一面。身为母亲，保护孩子的本能极为强烈，但理智又残酷地提醒她：在这个充满未知与危险的世界里，自己永远不可能在所有风雨面前替女儿筑起绝对的避风港。这种无法百分之百庇护孩子的无力感，是她心底最深的恐惧。
---
### [02:42:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9749s) 极具穿透力的沟通特质与《Becoming Bulletproof》
Steven 向 Evy 坦露，在日常生活中，无数听众和熟人经常会走到他面前特意聊起 Evy，其频率与热度在所有受访嘉宾中极为罕见。Steven 常常把 Evy 作为“高效沟通”的经典案例来剖析：
- **精准共情**：Evy 总能在受众当下所处的认知与情绪层面上与他们同频对话（"meet them where they are"）。
- **张弛有度**：在观点表达上兼具细腻入微的层次感（nuance）与不容置疑的坚定信念感（high conviction）。
- **极具魅力的人格特质**：她既有着特工背景的强悍硬朗（badass），又毫无距离感，极其亲切真实（relatable）。
Steven 强调，Evy 身上这种与受众深度共鸣的能力，在她的畅销书《Becoming Bulletproof: Protect Yourself, Read People, Influence Situations, and Live Fearlessly》（成为坚不可摧的人）中得到了淋漓尽致的体现。该书不仅记录了她在特勤局保护总统与审讯重刑犯的生死历练，更深入探讨了人类心理的本质，为人们在日常生活、人际关系和职场中提升自我效能提供了极具实操性的指南。
---
### [02:44:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9866s) 节目卡牌互动与结语呼吁
在节目最后，Steven 介绍了广受欢迎的 DOAC 对话卡牌（Conversation Cards）。这些卡牌源自历届重磅嘉宾在节目日记中留下的真实提问，已被数次抢购一空。卡牌分为一至三级深度，其中 Level 3 卡牌专注于引发触及心灵的深度连结，背面还附带专属二维码，扫描即可直接观看往期嘉宾在播客中亲笔作答的真实视频片段，非常适合团队团建、家庭交流或个人写作自省。
最后，Steven 提到后台数据表明，定期收听该节目的听众中有 53% 尚未点击订阅。他真诚呼吁大家随手点击订阅支持节目，并承诺团队将以此为动力，持续倾听受众反馈，不断邀请听众最想见到的重量级嘉宾，带来更有价值的深度对谈。
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=0s) Some people will drown you — Evy Poumpouras
> [22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1366s) Unless you accept, you can't adapt — Evy Poumpouras
> [22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=1366s) Acceptance is not agreement — Evy Poumpouras
> [57:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=3431s) procrastination is the avoidance of psychological discomfort — Nir Eyal
> [01:23:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5017s) Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:31:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5496s) 工作本身必须成为你在洗澡时脑子里都在思考的事情，而不是我的播客。 — Steven Bartlett
> [01:38:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=5922s) 女士，您现在的行为违反了《美国法典》第 18 篇第 3056 条。我无意逮捕您，但您必须移步到街道对面。您可以配合走过去，我会找人来与您沟通；或者任由事态升级，这完全取决于您自己 — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:43:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=6182s) 大家不需要知道你在想什么，停止发帖吧。不要给这个世界制造更多噪音，想想你的表达能为世界贡献什么价值；如果没有价值，就闭嘴。 — Evy Poumpouras
> [01:59:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7178s) 低能量的人把高能量的人拽下去，远比高能量的人把他们拉上来容易得多。 — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=7845s) 你总是有选择的。这可能不是你想做的那个选择，但你永远都有选择。 — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=8014s) 我无法抵消那种伤害。你身边有一个人正在持续不断地摧毁你，你觉得我能教你什么？难道摆个‘高能量姿势’（Power Pose）就能解决问题吗？ — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:32:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9173s) 英雄越伟大，反派就必须越邪恶 — Evy Poumpouras
> [02:40:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI&t=9608s) 我们其实并没有那么特别。 — Evy Poumpouras
## Mentioned
Evy Poumpouras, Steven Bartlett, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Osama bin Laden, Steve Jobs, Sir Dave Brailsford, Jordan Peterson, Don Saladino, Nir Eyal, MrBeast, Morgan Housel, Jeff Bezos, Charlie Kirk, Vladimir Putin, The Diary Of A CEO, US Secret Service, NYPD, SEALs, SWAT, Homeland Security, Title 18 USC § 3056, Plaud, Plaud Note Pro, Adobe Express, Pipedrive, TikTok, Discord, The New York Times, Becoming Bulletproof: Protect Yourself, Read People, Influence Situations, and Live Fearlessly
## Video description
Is Authenticity Quietly KILLING Your Career?
Former Secret Agent Evy Poumpouras reveals how being “real” at work can SABOTAGE your leadership, and breaks down elite strategies for emotional control, communication, confidence, and power.
Evy Poumpouras is a former U.S. Secret Service Special Agent, NBC Crime & Law Enforcement Analyst, and bestselling author of Becoming Bulletproof. She protected U.S. Presidents, interrogated high-risk criminals, and learned first-hand how the world’s most powerful leaders control emotion, command respect, and stay composed under pressure.
In this groundbreaking episode, she explains:
◼️The 1 psychology trick that instantly makes people respect you
◼️Why you shouldn’t care about people’s feelings
◼️The 5 habits you must get rid of to earn influence
◼️How to tell if someone is lying to you
◼️Why most people stay miserable forever
(00:00) Intro
(02:28) Why People Are Drawn to Your Mission
(05:26) People Waste Time Overthinking Instead of Changing
(09:37) Forget About The Past
(12:41) Being Stuck in the Identity You’ve Built
(19:03) The Secondary Game: Why People Don’t Overcome Problems
(25:13) You Can’t Change People
(30:20) How Steve Builds His Confidence
(35:48) Stop Being Driven by Fear
(38:41) How to Self-Regulate Your Emotions
(40:29) Should You Be Your Authentic Self at Work?
(49:20) Which Gender Tells Lies Better?
(51:31) How to Build Confidence
(57:11) Why Small Challenges Matter More Than Big Ones
(1:03:12) Lessons From the Best Decision Makers
(1:10:29) Ad Break
(1:11:26) Why Your Tone of Voice Matters
(1:18:49) The Importance of Body Language
(1:38:15) Dealing With Offensive People
(1:44:29) How to Become Unprovokable
(1:55:40) How Friends Influence Who You Are
(1:57:33) Ad Break
(2:03:55) How Poor Performers Impact the Team
(2:07:22) Why You Might Look Like an Easy Target
(2:20:35) Charlie Kirk and Threats on Social Platforms
(2:24:03) How Social Media Reduces Empathy
(2:30:48) School and Mass Shootings
(2:36:13) Could Anything Have Prevented Charlie Kirk’s Death?
(2:41:22) What Are You Most Afraid Of?
Follow Evy:
Instagram - https://bit.ly/4aN4q4D
Twitter - https://bit.ly/4c4TErD
Website: http://bit.ly/3K89id3
Evy’s BBC Maestro course ‘The Art of Influence’ can be found HERE: http://bit.ly/4nFGTJT
You can purchase Evy’s book, ‘Becoming Bulletproof’, HERE: https://amzn.to/4pbpskF
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook
◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt
◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb
◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt
◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb
Sponsors:
Adobe Express - http://ADOBE.LY/STEVEN
Pipedrive - http://pipedrive.com/CEO
Plaud - https://www.plaud.ai/pages/steven use DOAC22 for 22% off Note and NotePin
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazRYdqZRDI)
Source quotes
[0:00] Evy Poumpouras: Some people will drown you
[22:46] Evy Poumpouras: Unless you accept, you can't adapt
[22:46] Evy Poumpouras: Acceptance is not agreement
[57:11] Nir Eyal: procrastination is the avoidance of psychological discomfort
[83:37] Evy Poumpouras: Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting
[91:36] Steven Bartlett: 工作本身必须成为你在洗澡时脑子里都在思考的事情，而不是我的播客。
[98:42] Evy Poumpouras: 女士，您现在的行为违反了《美国法典》第 18 篇第 3056 条。我无意逮捕您，但您必须移步到街道对面。您可以配合走过去，我会找人来与您沟通；或者任由事态升级，这完全取决于您自己
[103:02] Evy Poumpouras: 大家不需要知道你在想什么，停止发帖吧。不要给这个世界制造更多噪音，想想你的表达能为世界贡献什么价值；如果没有价值，就闭嘴。
[119:38] Evy Poumpouras: 低能量的人把高能量的人拽下去，远比高能量的人把他们拉上来容易得多。
[130:45] Evy Poumpouras: 你总是有选择的。这可能不是你想做的那个选择，但你永远都有选择。
[133:34] Evy Poumpouras: 我无法抵消那种伤害。你身边有一个人正在持续不断地摧毁你，你觉得我能教你什么？难道摆个‘高能量姿势’（Power Pose）就能解决问题吗？
[152:53] Evy Poumpouras: 英雄越伟大，反派就必须越邪恶
[160:08] Evy Poumpouras: 我们其实并没有那么特别。
Source quotes
[51:31] Evy Poumpouras: I think one of the secrets is they don't talk about it. They don't think about it. They don't give it that much life... Stop overanalyzing. Just be you, just do.
[60:01] Steven Bartlett: He got his riders to think about the pedals in front of him... when he did that, it was almost like the riders would get off the bike and they could not recall the cycle because they were so present.
[63:12] Evy Poumpouras: We've been fed a myth that to make big change in your life, you have to make big decisions... the big change you create in life, it's through the small movements.
[63:12] Evy Poumpouras: You made the best decision you could with what you knew in that moment. Don't go back and make yourself feel like shit because you feel you should have chosen differently.
[75:59] Evy Poumpouras: When you slow down also as a presenter, I am less likely to make mistakes... I'm more likely to be able to think, process, and share.
[78:49] Evy Poumpouras: The camera sucks like 25% of your energy away... So if you're trying to engage people... you have to work hard to keep them engaged.
[82:06] Evy Poumpouras: Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're interesting.
[87:09] Steven Bartlett: You hurt your contribution score when you contribute beyond value... landed thoughts command respect; out-loud brainstorming makes you look nervous.
[99:53] Evy Poumpouras: Nobody provokes you. You own your response... Nobody owns that. Nobody should take that from you. Who are they to take that from you? And who are you to surrender it?
[127:22] Evy Poumpouras: Predators don't want fair fights. They want someone who's going to go down easy... Predators are not what you think they are... They themselves are not strong. They look for weaker targets because it's easier to take out and manipulate.
[135:28] Evy Poumpouras: There are no skills I can give you that can help you be more confident because I can't counter that. You have someone who is consistently demolishing you.
[160:08] Evy Poumpouras: We're not that special. And that means that they can do and achieve what they want... Even if you feel inadequate, even if you lack confidence, even if you've had horrible trauma in your life, whatever it is, despite all that, you are absolutely capable. And it is your choice.
Original transcript
[0:00] Don't bring your authentic self to work.
[0:02] I want your professional self. You can
[0:03] bring your authentic self to
[0:04] Thanksgiving meal with your family if
[0:06] you'd like to. Your authentic self is
[0:07] about who? Me, me, me, me, me.
[0:10] Everything is what's happening to me.
[0:12] What's in it for me? Do you know that
[0:14] you impact other people? You affect
[0:16] other people's lives. You make the work
[0:17] environment easier or more taxing.
[0:20] >> Can someone learn to be a better
[0:21] self-regulator of their emotions?
[0:23] >> Yeah. So, I've been around former SEALs,
[0:25] US Secret Service presidents, and I
[0:27] learned a lot about communication,
[0:29] reading people, confidence, and I'll
[0:31] share these things. So, first of all,
[0:33] Ebie Porus is the former US Secret
[0:35] Service agent.
[0:36] >> From guarding presidents to reading
[0:38] liars, she now reveals the strategies
[0:40] she used to make anyone respect you,
[0:42] trust you, and give you what you want.
[0:44] >> I've been around very confident people,
[0:46] and they had a really good circle around
[0:48] them in her circle. Because if you're
[0:49] exposing yourself to people and
[0:51] environments that are not good for you,
[0:53] that will actually impact your life
[0:54] negatively. You know, I always say be
[0:56] careful who you try to save. Some people
[0:57] will drown you. And then the other thing
[0:59] I would see presidents do is they were
[1:01] very good at delegating. So they didn't
[1:02] need to know everything because
[1:04] confident people are okay with not
[1:05] knowing all the information. So your
[1:07] brain is like a bathtub. The bathtub can
[1:09] only hold so much water. If you keep
[1:11] warding water in the bathtub, it's going
[1:13] to overflow. That's your cognitive load.
[1:15] My bathtub only holds the water it needs
[1:17] to hold in. And another thing that the
[1:19] Secret Service has taught us is that
[1:20] that's really important to use your
[1:22] hands because when people don't see
[1:23] hands, it's a sign of untrustworthiness.
[1:26] Like you can't trust them. So when you
[1:27] see hands, open hands, I'm no threat.
[1:30] And then there's communication skills,
[1:31] manipulation, tactics, and a strategy to
[1:33] make good decisions. And I will go
[1:35] through them, but the two most important
[1:37] things are
[1:40] to my regular listeners. I know you
[1:41] don't like it when I ask you to
[1:42] subscribe at the start of these
[1:43] conversations. I don't like saying I
[1:45] don't like it being in there. None of us
[1:46] like it. It's frustrating. Do you know
[1:48] what's also frustrating? It's also
[1:50] frustrating when I go into the back end
[1:51] of the YouTube channel and I see that
[1:52] 56% of you that listen frequently to
[1:55] this podcast haven't yet subscribed. And
[1:57] so many of you don't even know that you
[1:58] haven't subscribed because I see in the
[1:59] comment section you say to me, you go,
[2:00] "I didn't even realize I didn't
[2:02] subscribe." And that actually fuels the
[2:03] show. It's basically like you're making
[2:05] a donation to the show. So that's why I
[2:06] ask all the time because it enables us
[2:08] to build and build and build and build
[2:10] and we're going for the long term here.
[2:11] So all I'd ask you is if you've seen
[2:13] this show before and you like it, help
[2:15] me, help my team here. Hit the subscribe
[2:17] button and we'll continue to build this
[2:18] show for you. That's my promise. Thank
[2:20] you to all of you guys that do
[2:21] subscribe. Means the world to me. Let's
[2:23] get on with the show.
[2:28] What is the overarching theme of why
[2:30] people you think are drawn to your your
[2:32] particular message and what part of that
[2:34] message are they drawn to?
[2:36] >> I get bombarded on all social media
[2:39] platforms and in email and it's always
[2:42] like Evie, I have this problem. Please
[2:44] help me. And it can range from
[2:47] I have a problem communicating to I'm in
[2:50] an abusive relationship to my brother
[2:52] was murdered and they're saying it's a
[2:55] suicide. It's not. So I get everything.
[2:58] And I think what I'm seeing is
[3:02] there are a lot of people that are not
[3:04] doing well.
[3:06] It seems to me that people are tired of
[3:11] being told that they have no control
[3:13] over the outcome of their lives and no
[3:15] control over the relationships. Cuz when
[3:16] you tell people it's not your fault this
[3:18] happened to you and it's okay that
[3:20] you're this way, which it is, I think
[3:23] people don't want to stay there anymore.
[3:26] And so
[3:28] people look to I don't have to I don't
[3:31] have to be weak all the time or I don't
[3:34] have to feel weak. You can have a weak
[3:35] moment. It's not the same thing with
[3:37] feeling fundamentally weak or insecure
[3:40] or insignificant all the time and then
[3:43] looking at a moment or a situation or
[3:46] moments in your life and saying, "I'm
[3:48] this way now because of all these things
[3:50] that happened." And I think for a while
[3:53] that worked. I think for a while people
[3:55] were buying it because it's like it's
[3:58] not your fault like you're like this.
[4:00] Now this happened to you here. It's not
[4:02] your fault that you don't trust people.
[4:04] this happened to you here? And so
[4:08] because that theme's been going on for
[4:09] so long, what it does is it renders you
[4:11] powerless because it's saying you're
[4:13] this way because of all this other stuff
[4:16] and it's not your fault. And that
[4:18] translates to I have no power over it.
[4:20] I'm
[4:21] I'm a result of what's happened to me.
[4:24] And that's a powerless state to be,
[4:26] which all it does is keep suppressing
[4:28] you down. So you just stay there instead
[4:30] of saying you know it happened to you
[4:33] okay now to where do we go from here and
[4:36] it's wild because I did consultations
[4:38] and mentor sessions for a window of time
[4:40] and I would only do either one or three
[4:44] I wouldn't do more than that because
[4:46] what the most important thing I didn't
[4:47] want people to rely on me it's like I'll
[4:50] come in and I'll give you some
[4:51] guideposts and but my goal is not to
[4:54] make you reliant on me to keep coming
[4:56] back to me. Three was the max I would do
[4:58] with someone. No more than that.
[5:00] >> Three sessions.
[5:01] >> Three sessions. Three sessions. Because
[5:03] my goal is if I keep you coming back to
[5:05] me, then I'm not helping you. All I'm
[5:07] doing is reorienting you to come to me.
[5:11] I'm going to fix it for you. My goal was
[5:13] always no, you have the ability. I might
[5:15] need to kind of shift things around or
[5:17] shake things up a little bit in your
[5:18] mindset, but in the end, you are very
[5:21] well capable. And most people are. They
[5:24] just don't learn. They just don't know
[5:25] how to trust themselves. You talked
[5:27] about how using the past to diagnose
[5:29] your current self by saying this
[5:31] happened to me so I'm this way is almost
[5:34] it's like a short-term friend in the
[5:35] moment because it kind of helps you feel
[5:37] heard and understood and it justifies
[5:39] the way that you are but it ends up
[5:41] being a long-term enemy in the context
[5:43] that you're then stuck with the results
[5:46] of who you are for better or for worse.
[5:48] And I was thinking about myself. I was
[5:50] thinking all the ways that I've like
[5:51] justified who I am today using something
[5:53] that happened in the past. And actually
[5:55] whenever I do that it makes that
[5:56] behavior even if it's the byproduct of
[5:58] it is making me unhappy really hard to
[6:00] change. Like it's very hard to change.
[6:02] Like if I say this happened when I was a
[6:04] kid and my my dad was unorganized or
[6:07] whatever and messy so I'm a messy
[6:09] person.
[6:11] It's almost like etching it into cement
[6:13] or something. It it you know.
[6:15] >> Can I ask you a question? Why does it
[6:17] matter?
[6:18] >> I don't I don't understand why we have
[6:19] to psychoanalyze everything we do. I
[6:23] feel we waste so much time in trying to
[6:26] figure out I'm like this today because
[6:28] of this this and this. Sometimes I have
[6:31] found there's no clear reason why.
[6:35] There's no there's nothing to to to make
[6:37] sense of. Even sometimes when people try
[6:39] to assess like why does this person
[6:40] treat me this way? Why that? What did I
[6:42] do? Why this? Sometimes there are
[6:44] reasons and sometimes that person's just
[6:46] an [ __ ]
[6:49] There's nothing analyzed. There's
[6:50] nothing to figure out. there's nothing
[6:52] that I dive deep on. That person, you
[6:54] just happen to fall on an [ __ ] And
[6:56] that's okay. Let's move on. So, there's
[6:59] moments where that exists, too. But I
[7:01] feel like we try so hard to figure it
[7:04] out that we do more damage. And you
[7:07] know, like I
[7:10] Your brain is like a bathtub. Your
[7:11] cognitive load is like a bathtub. Think
[7:13] of this as a bathtub. If you have a
[7:15] bathtub, the bathtub can only hold so
[7:17] much water. If you keep putting water in
[7:20] the bathtub, right, it's going to
[7:21] overflow. That's your cognitive load.
[7:24] So, if I have my cognitive load, my
[7:25] bathtub, and I keep putting water,
[7:27] water, water, it's going to overflow.
[7:29] It's the same thing when you put stuff
[7:30] in there. I'm going to add more stuff
[7:32] and more stuff and more stuff. Your
[7:34] cognitive load is overflowing. It's
[7:36] maxed. You're inefficient. You're
[7:38] sloppy. You're not getting things done
[7:40] right. If you are, you're just barely
[7:41] getting there. You're everywhere. You're
[7:43] stressed out. You're fra frazzled
[7:45] because you're maxed out. You're beyond
[7:47] maxed out. So everything I do, and I
[7:49] will tell you, I learned this from
[7:50] watching presidents. I keep my load
[7:52] light. My bathtub only holds the water
[7:55] it needs to hold in. So it protects you
[7:59] from overextending yourself, stressing
[8:02] yourself, and it also keeps you from
[8:05] making bad decisions. You make good
[8:07] decisions. There's something called
[8:08] decision fatigue where the more stuff I
[8:11] add, we think the busier I am, the
[8:13] better I am. I'm I'm moving. I'm
[8:15] hustling. I'm doing all this stuff. Look
[8:17] how maxed out I am. Just because you're
[8:19] busy, it doesn't mean you're being
[8:21] productive. Those two things are not
[8:22] synonymous. So often people think
[8:25] leaders keep adding adding. No. You know
[8:27] what good leaders do? And this is what
[8:28] again I I've learned. They take out of
[8:30] that bathtub. They take out. What can I
[8:33] do less of so I can be exceptional at
[8:36] the other things I do? Really great
[8:38] example. This is public knowledge so I
[8:40] can share it. President Barack Obama, he
[8:42] had 30 of the same suits.
[8:44] Why?
[8:46] Why do you think? 30 of the same exact
[8:49] suits.
[8:50] >> So he didn't have to make so many
[8:52] decisions every day.
[8:53] >> Yeah. He didn't want to sit and figure
[8:55] out what he's going to wear.
[8:57] It's a decision he didn't have to make.
[8:59] That keeps his bathtub light. Think
[9:01] about all the decisions he had to make
[9:03] every single day. I want a light
[9:04] bathtub. Boop. Take that thing out.
[9:08] Lighten your bathtub. So when you're
[9:10] overthinking and overanalyzing and
[9:12] trying to process all this stuff, you
[9:14] are maxing out that bathtub. So how can
[9:17] you perform? You don't have infinite
[9:19] resources. You do not have an infinite
[9:22] cognitive load and you do not have an
[9:24] infinite emotional load. Don't keep
[9:27] adding. Your job is to take out so that
[9:30] the things you do do, you do
[9:33] exceptionally well and you're much more
[9:36] emotionally stable. I think maybe one of
[9:38] the reasons why people are tempted to go
[9:40] back is they think that if they go back
[9:42] into their history and understand
[9:44] things, then they can change something
[9:46] in the present that's going to change
[9:48] their future. So they think, you know,
[9:49] if I can figure out why I I'm low
[9:51] confidence, what happened to me, then I
[9:55] can do something today which is going to
[9:57] change tomorrow.
[9:58] >> So I guess I would say and again I would
[10:01] see this from I've done hundreds of
[10:02] mentor sessions. I would tell them where
[10:05] are you right now? What do you do now
[10:09] and what do you want to change now?
[10:10] >> So, I'm low confidence. I move through
[10:13] the world as if I'm trying to not take
[10:14] up too much space. I feel like people
[10:17] are rude to me and I I just have bad
[10:21] luck. I have bad luck with men. I'm I'm
[10:23] pretending I'm a woman. I have bad luck
[10:25] with men. Um and I just feel like people
[10:28] don't respect me enough. And also, I
[10:29] just feel like I don't get the credit I
[10:30] deserve. I see everyone around me, Evie,
[10:33] getting more credit for doing less work.
[10:36] >> Okay, so this is great. So, this is
[10:38] probably a person that you cannot help
[10:39] number one cuz cuz everything's bad.
[10:44] Everything is bad. And you'll get those
[10:45] from time to time. You get those.
[10:47] Everything's a problem. And if
[10:49] everything's a problem right now, if you
[10:51] get that persona, which it does exist.
[10:53] It's it's you get them. That person
[10:56] doesn't want a solution.
[10:57] >> Really?
[10:58] >> Nope.
[10:58] >> What do they want? They want me to
[11:00] validate how they feel. That's what they
[11:02] want. They don't want a solution. If
[11:04] everything's the problem, think of it
[11:06] this way. If every bar I go to I go to I
[11:08] get into fight into a fight, it's not
[11:10] it's not the it's not the bar. So when
[11:12] someone's like, I have this problem,
[11:14] this problem, this problem, this
[11:15] problem, this problem, they're they're
[11:17] so set in who and how they are, they
[11:20] they want to stay there. Often people do
[11:22] want an audience. Often people do want
[11:24] to be told, "I'm so sorry. I'm so I feel
[11:26] so bad that happened to you." Sometimes
[11:28] too when bad things happen to us, we get
[11:31] a lot of attention as a result. Let's
[11:32] say something really horrific happens.
[11:34] And I've seen it with somebody maybe who
[11:35] had a a severe illness or lost a loved
[11:38] one. When you're dealing with something
[11:39] like that, what happens, right?
[11:41] Immediately people come to you. I'm
[11:42] sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. They're
[11:44] there to support you. You get this
[11:45] bombardment of attention. You feel good,
[11:48] but then eventually people move on with
[11:49] their lives. And then you get addicted
[11:51] to where did all that attention go? I
[11:54] want some of it. So what do I do? I look
[11:57] for something else to be a problem so I
[11:59] can get more empathy, more sympathy,
[12:02] more attention. And so there are people
[12:03] that get stuck in that cycle. Good
[12:06] people, I I know good people who get
[12:08] stuck in that cycle, but I'm also aware
[12:10] of them because every time I speak to
[12:12] them, something's not right. I can't
[12:14] help them. I don't even bother trying to
[12:15] help them. One, they don't really ask
[12:17] me. And so I'm very aware. I don't give
[12:20] unsolicited advice. It It's wrong. It's
[12:23] not my place. And if they want it,
[12:25] they'll ask. And then even then, I'm
[12:27] always very aware, is this even going to
[12:29] land on this person? Because I'm coming
[12:31] back to me. My bathtub's full. So, I
[12:33] can't really invest all that energy in
[12:36] you if it's I don't mean it to be cold,
[12:38] but if it's a a waste of time.
[12:41] >> There's two personas that I'm thinking
[12:42] about. One of them is personal to me,
[12:44] and then one of them's personal to one
[12:45] of my friends. And before we started,
[12:47] you said one of the things you like is
[12:48] very specific examples. So, here's a
[12:50] specific example. There's someone I know
[12:52] very well, extremely well. I've known
[12:54] them pretty much my whole life. And when
[12:57] they came to the UK, they experienced a
[13:01] lot of racial abuse because they came to
[13:02] the UK in like 1994. They lived in an
[13:04] area that was all white. And the abuse
[13:06] they experienced was very, very real.
[13:11] The UK, the part of the UK they lived in
[13:14] became more diverse um over the years.
[13:16] They've been there for 20, 30 years. And
[13:18] now the race racial abuse has pretty
[13:20] much gone away. But you wouldn't you
[13:22] wouldn't think it because when if you
[13:24] met this person who did go through this
[13:26] abuse, so much of their identity became
[13:29] formed around that abuse. So even though
[13:32] they now live in an area where there's
[13:34] no abuse, they still find
[13:39] a perpetrator. They find perpetrators
[13:41] everywhere. And actually I I've come to
[13:44] believe with this particular person who
[13:45] I know very well that that identity
[13:46] depends upon it. And that's kind of what
[13:48] I was hearing in what you're saying is
[13:49] there's I don't think this person could
[13:51] survive if they didn't have a
[13:54] perpetrator anymore. And so much so that
[13:57] they've started finding perpetrators in
[13:59] their own family. And their whole family
[14:01] has now almost cut this person off
[14:03] because you know their identity is being
[14:06] a survivor and like a hero heroic
[14:08] survivor. And now that the enemy has
[14:10] gone, so much depends on that identity
[14:14] that, you know, this person's at war at
[14:17] home and they don't speak to their kids,
[14:19] their grandkids, and they've lost all of
[14:21] their family because they've now
[14:22] convinced that the stepmother is racist
[14:25] and the other step, you know, the other
[14:27] um daughter-in-law is racist and this
[14:29] person said this thing which is racist
[14:31] or or is abusive towards me. And you see
[14:33] this in a lot of people that you know
[14:34] maybe they did go through something but
[14:36] now they need that thing to hold their
[14:38] identity in place.
[14:40] >> So you reminded me of a story which I'll
[14:41] tell you but here's the thing. If you're
[14:43] looking for a problem you will always
[14:45] find one.
[14:47] >> You will always find a problem. And
[14:48] that's the thing. So it's the mindset.
[14:50] >> What do I do about that person if I'm a
[14:53] bystander?
[14:54] >> Nothing.
[14:55] >> Really?
[14:56] >> Nothing.
[14:56] >> I don't try and help them change them.
[14:58] >> No. Because did he did he or she ask
[15:01] you?
[15:02] >> No. don't do it.
[15:03] >> Why?
[15:05] >> Because they're not they don't want it.
[15:06] And you might end up upsetting them
[15:07] anyway. They might get even angrier from
[15:10] um from it because they're in a space
[15:12] where they're so emotional and self
[15:13] focused and they want to live there. Do
[15:14] you know too when you sit and you
[15:16] ruminate like you you it activates parts
[15:19] of the brain that make you feel alive.
[15:20] Think of it this way. You get like you
[15:22] get hits. You know how you get dopamine
[15:24] hits? I feel good from certain things.
[15:26] Well, you get a hit when you even when
[15:29] you're angry or upset. Do you ever get
[15:30] so upset or angry and you get worked up?
[15:32] What do you adrenaline hit your your
[15:33] cortisol is going up. What do you do? I
[15:35] feel alive. I'm here. I'm there.
[15:40] That feels good, too.
[15:42] >> It's it's a different type of feel, but
[15:44] I feel present. I feel this. I feel like
[15:46] I feel something.
[15:49] So, unless somebody comes to you, and
[15:51] I've learned this lesson, and says,
[15:52] "Stephen, I want your advice." I
[15:55] wouldn't give it. One, you're going to
[15:57] be exhausted. you're doing so many
[15:58] things, you don't have that ability.
[16:01] Two, the person's not they're not there
[16:03] to hear it. So, you also have to have
[16:06] someone who wants your your guidance or
[16:08] advice. So, even when I did mentor
[16:10] sessions or consultations, it probably
[16:11] like several times where I knew I was
[16:14] like, this is a waste of my time. I'm
[16:15] like, you know what? I'm going to give
[16:17] you a full refund. I'm not for you.
[16:19] Because I understood. I'm like, this
[16:21] person isn't they're not registering.
[16:23] There's You did remind me of a story. I
[16:26] remember once I was doing a news story
[16:30] um and I went and I interviewed somebody
[16:32] who was part of the cleanup efforts for
[16:35] 9/11 right September 11th cleanup e
[16:38] efforts and uh he was doing all this
[16:40] stuff to you know present day to help
[16:43] victims of 9/11 today so I go with my
[16:47] camera person or the producer I can't
[16:49] remember we go to set up to interview
[16:50] this person so I have my own I've had my
[16:52] own experience with 911 I worked in the
[16:54] World Trade Center That's where New York
[16:55] field office was. I was there on that
[16:57] day. I lost colleagues and friends, but
[16:59] this person knows nothing about this.
[17:00] So, I show up and I'm getting them ready
[17:04] and uh we're talking and there's this
[17:06] big uh tower tattoo, the towers, 9/11
[17:10] tattoo. As I'm mikeing up the person,
[17:12] the towers, there was a room in the h
[17:14] home that had all this 9/11 uh
[17:17] memorabilia, like a whole room. And I
[17:21] remember being there thinking, okay,
[17:23] this person must have had some really
[17:26] serious trauma exposure. And I'm not
[17:28] trying to minimize. So I spoke to them,
[17:30] this person,
[17:32] and he had some kind of injury as well.
[17:35] And I said, "Oh, tell me about it."
[17:37] Well, I was there and um I was injured
[17:40] when I was welding. Something kind of
[17:41] fell on my foot and as a result, I had
[17:44] to go on some kind of disability. And I
[17:46] said, "What happened to your foot?" And
[17:47] it was uh I think he had lost like his
[17:49] toe or something, his pinky. And I said,
[17:52] "Okay." And I said, "How long were you
[17:54] there?" "3 days." I said, "Were you
[17:57] there for the day of the event?" "No."
[18:00] "So you weren't there for the day of the
[18:02] event." So your exposure to 9/11 was 3
[18:05] days and then you got injured. Yes.
[18:07] Okay. So I'm clocking this internally to
[18:09] myself. His whole life was centered
[18:13] about around the drama, the the the
[18:17] trauma, the the overcoming 9/11.
[18:20] Everything was 911, 911, 911. And it was
[18:23] such an identity space. He was so it was
[18:26] all like such a horrible thing for him.
[18:27] And I'm thinking, it wasn't to minimize,
[18:30] but I'm thinking,
[18:33] how did you build your whole livelihood
[18:36] present day around that small event? But
[18:39] that was his identity. I I remember
[18:41] thinking I'm like I did the interview
[18:42] and I had to go. I was like I can't be
[18:43] around this
[18:45] because he was just so selffocused on
[18:49] how bad that experience was that
[18:51] everything he did and who he was to the
[18:53] point where you have tattoos on your
[18:54] body of the World Trade Center. And I'm
[18:56] thinking how is this helping you move
[19:02] forward?
[19:03] >> There's this concept in psychology
[19:05] called um secondary gain that I was I
[19:07] was writing a book about. I'm writing
[19:08] this book at the moment. I was I wrote a
[19:10] chapter about secondary gain and it
[19:11] basically says exactly what you're
[19:13] describing which is there's always a
[19:17] secondary gain from pain. Typically
[19:20] there's like something you benefit from
[19:21] it and the problem is people can get
[19:23] addicted to that and sometimes it's like
[19:25] safety or comfort that you get from it.
[19:26] Sometimes it's identity and sometimes
[19:28] it's remuneration you know might be
[19:30] money or other rewards. The other
[19:32] example that I was going to say in terms
[19:33] of personas that I'm aware of is the kid
[19:36] who is in his bedroom and can't leave
[19:39] his bedroom because he says, you know,
[19:41] there's something wrong with him. He
[19:42] might be clinically obese or have some
[19:45] kind of other issue. And his family
[19:48] around him are his support network. And
[19:51] I I actually know someone in this
[19:52] situation where they just don't leave
[19:53] their bedroom. And the mother, I think
[19:56] she's also getting her identity from
[19:58] being the mother with that child who
[20:01] she's propping up. And it was it was
[20:04] interesting that in this particular case
[20:05] with one of my best friends who lives in
[20:07] the Middle East, when she stopped
[20:10] doing that, when she actually heard
[20:11] something on this podcast and stopped
[20:13] propping this person up,
[20:15] >> enabling
[20:15] >> enabling them, this person got better,
[20:19] very very quickly got better because she
[20:21] basically said, "I'm not going to I
[20:22] can't help anymore. and also don't talk
[20:24] to me about this. I don't have the as
[20:25] you say like the cognitive energy
[20:26] anymore. This person got better and it
[20:28] made me realize that you know sometimes
[20:29] two people can keep one person trapped.
[20:32] >> They can
[20:33] >> I'm the mother. I'm the savior that is
[20:35] protecting my child who is unwell and
[20:38] the child is being the cared for um and
[20:42] both of them are getting love and
[20:43] attention and affection from that sort
[20:45] of abusive unhealthy relationship.
[20:49] A lot of people find themselves there.
[20:51] We think about sometimes the attention
[20:52] you get. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry that
[20:54] happened to you. That's so sad. That can
[20:55] become addicting because you're
[20:56] constantly looking for it. But again, I
[20:59] I've come to accept people as they are.
[21:01] I also look at it, who am I to tell you
[21:02] to be different. If this is where you
[21:05] like to live and how you like to live,
[21:06] live it. I think where it becomes a
[21:08] problem for folks is when it bleeds into
[21:10] your own life. So like with the mom
[21:12] where she had that moment where she's
[21:14] like, I don't want to do this anymore
[21:15] because it's impacting my life. then I
[21:17] can understand that cuz she's like I
[21:19] don't want to participate in this. But I
[21:22] just have found like I want you to think
[21:25] of it this way like it's like think of a
[21:28] an iceberg. Think of an iceberg. You see
[21:30] the top of the iceberg, the little blip
[21:32] at the top of the the water and then the
[21:34] the the big part underneath which is the
[21:36] vast majority of what makes an iceberg.
[21:38] We're like that. When you see another
[21:40] human being, I want you to think of they
[21:41] got this huge bottom portion of this
[21:43] iceberg that you don't see. And it's who
[21:45] makes them what they are. So one the
[21:48] things that make you who you are today
[21:50] are all the things that have accumulated
[21:52] over the entire time span of your life.
[21:54] Family is a huge one. Did you have
[21:56] family? Were they good family? Did you
[21:58] have one parent, both parents? Did you
[21:59] have any parents? Right? Friends, who
[22:02] were your friends growing up? Who are
[22:03] your friends now?
[22:05] Your experiences, your dramas, your
[22:07] traumas, all those things make it who
[22:08] you are. Your values, your belief
[22:09] systems, your personality. Do you know
[22:11] that personality in a human being forms
[22:14] in infancy? So all these things make you
[22:17] up. Even your age, who you are today is
[22:20] probably v vastly different, Stephen,
[22:22] than who you were 5 years ago versus 10
[22:23] years ago versus 15 years ago. That's
[22:26] somebody's iceberg. So when you take all
[22:28] of that, you have that iceberg, do you
[22:31] think you're going to roll in and within
[22:33] what a couple hours or a couple
[22:35] conversations, you're going to get them
[22:36] to what? Shift. That's what you're up
[22:38] against. So often people become very
[22:41] upset because they can't change other
[22:44] people and that's where I'm like accept
[22:45] what you had. I give a keynote literally
[22:47] this week and a woman came to me in
[22:49] tears at the end. This was at a business
[22:51] conference. So this was for business for
[22:53] communication and a very different thing
[22:55] but she she came up to me afterward.
[22:58] She said I really want a guidance from
[23:00] you. I said sure. What is it? Are you
[23:02] okay? She said, 'I have a husband and
[23:04] he's very overweight and I've done
[23:06] everything I can uh to try to get him to
[23:10] change and I want to try to use these
[23:11] influence strategies on him to change
[23:13] him that you talked about. Could you
[23:14] help guide me? I said, how long have you
[23:16] been dealing with this? She's like, a
[23:18] long time, years. I said, does he want
[23:20] to change? No. She's like, but I try and
[23:22] I don't want to give up. I said, did you
[23:24] see that part where I t the part where I
[23:26] talked about the iceberg? Remember I
[23:27] showed you the iceberg and I said,
[23:29] accept people as they are? I said, "He's
[23:32] the iceberg." I said, "It's not him
[23:35] that's the issue now. It's you. You're
[23:37] not accepting what you have in front of
[23:39] you. That's what he is. Unless you
[23:41] accept, you can't adapt." So, what
[23:43] you're doing is you're not living in
[23:44] truth. You're living in what I hope he
[23:47] would be, what he has a potential to be,
[23:48] but not where he actually is now. When
[23:51] you accept where he is now, this is who
[23:53] he is. This is who he wants to be. The
[23:54] next question is, can you adapt to that?
[23:57] Meaning, are you okay with that?
[23:59] adapting to his lifestyle and staying
[24:01] with him. That's the thing. What she's
[24:03] trying to do is change him, make him fit
[24:06] so that she can have what she wants.
[24:09] Wrong. She's trying to solve the wrong
[24:10] problem. He's not changing. This is it.
[24:14] This is what you've got. The question
[24:16] now is, I accept my problem. I live in
[24:18] truth. This is how my husband wants to
[24:20] be. Can I adapt my lifestyle so that I
[24:24] can still stay with him, or is that a
[24:25] big of a deal breaker where I have to
[24:27] pull away? She was asking the wrong
[24:29] question
[24:30] >> because she's scared of the potential
[24:33] answer or
[24:35] >> because she's not seeing the truth in
[24:37] her problem. Meaning this is who he is
[24:39] fundamentally. You've been trying for
[24:42] years to change him and you're trying to
[24:44] make your life better to the point where
[24:45] you're emotionally upset. Like she was
[24:47] so upset about it. And I said, "But
[24:50] you're trying to solve something that
[24:51] you can't solve. This is a whole other
[24:52] person. This iceberg, this bottom part,
[24:55] he's not he doesn't want it. He's fixed.
[24:59] What's happening is PE, this is called
[25:01] adaptability. We want to adapt to our
[25:04] problems. She's not adapting to her
[25:06] problem. She's not accepting what her
[25:08] problem is. The problem is this is my
[25:10] husband. This is who he is and this is
[25:12] who he wants to be.
[25:14] >> But I might be worried that he's going
[25:15] to die or something. If he
[25:16] >> he very well will.
[25:19] >> And you know, if you see someone that's
[25:21] about to die, one should intervene. No.
[25:24] >> But can you intervene? And does he want
[25:27] you to intervene? He doesn't want her to
[25:29] intervene. And so what matters to you
[25:32] most? Do you want to keep doing this all
[25:33] day long because that's what she's doing
[25:35] to the point where she's crying when I'm
[25:37] coming off stage? Or do you accept this
[25:40] is him? This is him. I love him. I can't
[25:44] change him. I accept him as he is now.
[25:47] Am I willing to adapt to the truth of
[25:50] what my relationship is and stay married
[25:52] and be okay or not? She's the one who
[25:55] needed to adapt, but she couldn't adapt
[25:57] because she wasn't living in truth. It's
[25:59] like, look at it this way. Your
[26:00] partner's cheating on you and you don't
[26:02] want to know. You don't want to hear it,
[26:04] right? And but you're unhappy you're
[26:06] having all these issues. Part of the
[26:08] reason you're having these issues is
[26:09] because you can't accept the truth. The
[26:11] majority of people struggle. 99.9% of
[26:14] people are not adaptable because they
[26:17] don't live in truth. What's the true
[26:18] problem you have? Accept it. Then
[26:21] decide, okay, now where do I go from
[26:23] here? But people don't accept the truth.
[26:26] It's how I wish it could be, how I would
[26:28] like it to be, how it was, how it could
[26:31] be. No, what am I dealing with right
[26:34] now? Doesn't mean you have to like it.
[26:35] And this is not agreement. She doesn't
[26:37] have to agree with his lifestyle, but
[26:40] it's accepting this is who he is now. My
[26:43] choice is do I stay or do I go? How how
[26:47] much of a pain is this for you?
[26:50] So, you think you should never try and
[26:52] change someone?
[26:54] >> I think it's wrong
[26:56] to do that to people, especially if
[26:59] they're showing you repeatedly, I don't
[27:01] want you to do this. Leave me alone.
[27:05] And you also too, Stephen, whether you
[27:06] agree with people's lifestyle choices or
[27:08] not, it is their life. It is not yours.
[27:12] And so I think that there's also
[27:13] something a bit arrogant when we think
[27:16] we're going to roll in and let me tell
[27:18] you how I should live. My values and
[27:20] your values could be vastly different
[27:24] to who am I to impose how I think you
[27:26] should be? Who says I'm right?
[27:30] Who said who says I'm right? I say I'm
[27:32] right based on my own value system. But
[27:34] people are vastly different. How people
[27:36] see things and what they think is right
[27:38] or wrong, it's not the same. So, I I
[27:42] accept people as they are and I respect
[27:44] them. I may not want to hang out with
[27:46] them because it's just not the circle of
[27:48] people I want to be. But I also it how
[27:51] narcissistic of is it of me to think I'm
[27:53] going to roll in and change you. It's
[27:54] kind of like I did interviews,
[27:56] interrogations on terrorists.
[27:59] And when I walked into an interview or
[28:03] interrogation, I did was not delusional
[28:05] to think that I'm going to walk in and
[28:07] I'm going to tell this person, hey, I'm
[28:09] I'm part of the good guys. I I I just
[28:12] want, you know, to protect people and
[28:14] America, you know, we're really just
[28:15] trying to do the right thing. This is a
[28:17] person his iceberg that was set for
[28:20] years. He's thought a certain way. He's
[28:23] he developed who he was 30, 40 years
[28:26] old, whatever it is. this is who he is
[28:28] and I'm going to roll in what and get
[28:30] you to change your whole mindset. I knew
[28:33] who I had. I accepted who I had. I
[28:36] didn't try to change the narrative. Oh
[28:38] no, I'm this. Oh no, I'm that. I didn't
[28:40] do any of that. But my goal was what am
[28:42] I trying to get to? I was like, well, I
[28:44] need information on the next attack. I
[28:46] need to know where the next weapons are
[28:48] coming in. I need to thwart this. So, I
[28:50] need to get him talking. And that's what
[28:53] I'm looking for. I'm not trying to
[28:54] change his value system. I'd be there
[28:57] all day and all night, weeks. It would
[28:59] never work. That's what we do. We try to
[29:01] fundamentally change who people are.
[29:04] I have people I care about very much and
[29:06] love and I have tried too. There are
[29:08] times where you love somebody so deeply
[29:10] and you're like, "Please, especially if
[29:12] it's something that harms them, but I've
[29:14] also learned they don't want it." And
[29:16] the ironic is sometimes the more you
[29:18] try, the angrier they become with you.
[29:20] Who are you? Right? You're imposing
[29:22] yourself and your beliefs on somebody
[29:23] else. And they're right. Who am I? Just
[29:26] because I think life should be lived
[29:28] this way, it does not mean that they
[29:30] believe life should be lived this way.
[29:32] They're probably thinking, "What's wrong
[29:33] with this? Nothing's wrong with this."
[29:36] >> It's interesting when I was going
[29:38] through our previous conversations,
[29:39] Evie, and I was looking at the moments
[29:41] that people replayed the most or enjoyed
[29:44] the most or cut the most or sent to
[29:45] their friends the most, the overarching
[29:47] thing I learned is that there's a lot of
[29:49] people out there who don't feel very
[29:52] strong. They feel they don't feel seen.
[29:55] They don't feel respected.
[29:57] They themselves, I think, feel like
[29:59] they're low confidence and they look
[30:00] into a world full of other people who
[30:02] seem to be more confident and have
[30:04] everything figured out and they can't
[30:05] relate and they feel at some level some
[30:08] of them um a little bit unappreciated.
[30:11] But I think the bigger point here is
[30:12] about confidence and strength and
[30:14] feeling like yeah, feeling feeling like
[30:17] I can I can get what I want from life.
[30:20] >> Okay, we're going to break this down,
[30:21] but I want to ask you a question if it's
[30:22] okay.
[30:23] >> Yeah. How do you build your confidence
[30:25] or what's something you do that builds
[30:27] your confidence?
[30:28] >> Oh, that's a great question. Um,
[30:33] do you know what's really interesting?
[30:34] When I was 20 years old, I think I
[30:36] thought I was confident, but I don't
[30:38] think I was. And I only kind of figured
[30:40] this out in hindsight because this is I
[30:42] don't think I've said this before, but
[30:43] between the age of 18 and 20, every girl
[30:48] that I was interested in and would get
[30:51] some way down the line with would
[30:52] eventually reject me. And then from
[30:55] about I know people go, "Yeah, because
[30:57] you made a million dollars." No, listen,
[30:59] it wasn't that. Even when I had the
[31:00] money, I was still having I was still
[31:03] being rejected by women. And then at
[31:04] some point around like 25
[31:08] to 30,
[31:10] everything changed. And so I always say
[31:12] to my friends, I said to one of my
[31:14] friends the other day, I was like, I
[31:15] don't know why. I don't know the science
[31:16] of this, but what I do know is that it's
[31:18] very, very hard to fake confidence
[31:20] because I think it lives in a thousand
[31:22] micro expressions. I was doing
[31:24] everything the book said, and I still
[31:26] wasn't getting the results in terms of a
[31:28] romantic context. It was like these
[31:29] women could just like figure out at some
[31:31] deeper level that I wasn't it. And I
[31:33] never knew what I was doing because I
[31:34] guess I can't see myself. Maybe I was
[31:36] texting back too fast. That's kind of
[31:37] what you think. Maybe the way I was
[31:39] standing. But it it taught me over time
[31:41] that actually you should aim at real
[31:43] confidence. And the real confidence came
[31:45] when the story in my head about myself
[31:47] was that I was of high value. And I'll
[31:51] share a story. So the reason I said this
[31:53] to my friend literally two weeks ago was
[31:56] because he was dating someone and she
[31:57] turned around to him. She's a very young
[31:59] girl. He's 35. She was 25.
[32:03] She turned around and said, "Do you know
[32:04] what? I don't think I want to have
[32:05] kids." They'd known each other four
[32:07] months. And his response to that was
[32:10] like really, really insecure. It was
[32:11] like, "I really want to have kids. I
[32:12] want to have kids." And she ended up
[32:14] dumping him a week later. And I remember
[32:15] I I said to him, you know, my current
[32:17] girlfriend said the same to me when I
[32:19] was 30. She turned around to me and
[32:20] said, "I'm not sure if I want to have
[32:21] kids." And in my head, the first thought
[32:23] that came in was, if I'm being
[32:25] completely honest, was
[32:28] I'm not sure I want to have kids with
[32:29] you yet either. You're still on trial.
[32:31] like I'm still dating you to figure out
[32:32] if you're the right person. So my
[32:34] response even though I didn't say
[32:35] anything out loud because I just kind of
[32:37] shoulder rolled it was
[32:40] because I valued myself.
[32:43] My immediate response wasn't to be
[32:45] insecure. It was to think doesn't
[32:47] matter. I'm still trying to figure out
[32:48] if I want to have kids with you. And I
[32:49] didn't say anything. I just carried on
[32:51] with the, you know, carried on with my
[32:52] day. And it made me think that like,
[32:54] yeah, it's a thousand tiny things.
[32:55] Confidence is a thousand tiny things,
[32:56] but it exists. So like comes out of this
[32:59] central source of who you think you are.
[33:02] And I think the to answer your question,
[33:03] the reason why thing that gave me
[33:05] confidence in my life was I did some
[33:08] things that convinced myself that I was
[33:10] someone worth respecting.
[33:13] >> I'm going to get to the confidence thing
[33:14] in a moment. I'm actually curious cuz
[33:16] you said something and I'm wondering, do
[33:18] you think
[33:20] these women like your girlfriend and his
[33:22] the girl he was dating, do you think
[33:24] they genuinely meant it when they said
[33:26] it?
[33:26] >> No. My girlfriend's literally told me
[33:28] I've been with her for seven years now
[33:29] and we're we're planning on having kids
[33:32] right now. She was test. She didn't know
[33:34] she was. Yes. This is what I said to him
[33:36] on the [ __ ] plane. We were flying on
[33:38] a plane. She didn't know she was.
[33:40] >> It was a test.
[33:41] >> She didn't know she was testing me
[33:43] though. And when people hear it was a
[33:44] test, people will think it was a
[33:45] conscious thing that she'd written down
[33:47] and she planned it. No, she had been
[33:49] through a bunch of stuff with a bunch of
[33:51] guys who had taken away her freedom. And
[33:53] so she was her subconscious was testing
[33:55] whether I was one of those guys that was
[33:57] also going to try and restrict her or
[33:59] control her. But throughout our whole
[34:01] relationship, I was aware of this. So
[34:02] when she those moments where she said,
[34:03] "You know what? I think I might want to
[34:04] fly back to Bali." I said, "Babe, at any
[34:06] time when you feel like you want to go
[34:08] back to Bali, you go and I'll help you.
[34:10] I'll help you go back to Bali. You don't
[34:11] have to be in London. You go wherever
[34:13] makes you happy." I'd say it to all the
[34:15] time. I'd say, "You go wherever makes
[34:16] you happy." And you know what? I would
[34:18] mean it because why would I want to be
[34:20] with someone that wasn't happy? And this
[34:22] is ultimately what meant that she felt
[34:23] safe, secure, free, and then it flipped.
[34:27] But that would never have happened if I
[34:28] was like my friend who literally feels
[34:31] like
[34:33] he's up against a clock to find a woman
[34:35] and he needs to find one ASAP cuz he's
[34:38] he's actually 30 3 he's nearly 40 now
[34:41] and he's single. He's like, "Steve, you
[34:43] don't understand. I don't have the
[34:45] time." So he's trying to rush people
[34:46] down the aisle.
[34:47] >> Yeah. But so it's it's it's always when
[34:50] you said that and his circumstance, but
[34:51] you always wonder why would and some
[34:54] people truly don't want to have kids and
[34:55] there's nothing wrong with it. Yeah.
[34:56] >> But I have found because I've seen it
[34:58] too. When somebody says it, why are you
[35:00] saying it?
[35:01] >> And do you genuinely mean it or are you
[35:04] saying it to see the other person's
[35:05] reaction? Are you saying it because you
[35:08] want to feel better? Because I know some
[35:10] people who maybe did want or do want to
[35:12] have kids and they can't or they can't
[35:13] find a good partner. And so a way that
[35:15] they make peace with it too is they say
[35:17] that and everybody makes peace with
[35:19] things uh things their own way or some
[35:22] have had past relationships where the
[35:24] other pe you know their potential
[35:26] partners were turned off by especially
[35:29] there's like this thing and I don't know
[35:30] if it exists now but where some guys may
[35:33] be turned off because they think women
[35:34] want a guy who just wants to have kids
[35:36] so I don't want to put off that vibe so
[35:39] I'm going to say this to you so you
[35:40] don't think
[35:41] >> that I'm I'm that way. So that's why I
[35:44] always wonder when people say it,
[35:46] what are they really saying?
[35:48] >> So in her case, her sisters have never
[35:51] been able to leave their hometown, her
[35:53] six sisters, because all of them had
[35:55] kids super young. And he actually told
[35:57] me this a couple of months earlier that
[35:59] she's a little bit unsure about the kids
[36:00] thing because she thinks it would hurt
[36:01] her freedom. So 6 months into their
[36:03] relationship when she comes out with a
[36:04] statement like that, honestly, what I
[36:06] said to him, I was like, "Bro, like
[36:07] you're 6 months in.
[36:09] >> Just let it ride. Just bloody hell. Just
[36:10] carry on. like whatever you were doing
[36:11] in that moment, just carry on doing it
[36:13] and say that's interesting. Keep it
[36:15] moving cuz you know, but but going back
[36:17] to the point because there's this
[36:19] internal insecurity in him, as much as
[36:23] you could coach someone like that or
[36:24] they could read the books, etc., they're
[36:26] going to be tested in a thousand ways.
[36:29] >> So, he's fear-based.
[36:31] So, he's his decisions are being made
[36:34] because he's afraid he won't find
[36:36] someone. So, he's dealing with
[36:37] something. It's not confidence he's
[36:39] dealing with. He's insecure, but his his
[36:43] decision is I need to be find somebody
[36:45] now because I'm afraid I won't find
[36:47] somebody or I'm afraid I won't get
[36:49] married or I'm afraid I won't have kids.
[36:51] So everything is fear-based with him.
[36:53] It's like when you make a decision, you
[36:55] know, I I can't quit my job because I'm
[36:57] afraid I won't find another job. I can't
[36:59] leave this bad relationship because I'm
[37:01] afraid I won't find somebody else. Those
[37:04] are fear-based decisions. So everything
[37:06] he's doing is pushed and promoted by
[37:08] fear. So him dating trying to find
[37:10] someone. It's not cuz he truly does he
[37:13] want to find somebody. Yes. But the
[37:15] bigger drive is I'm afraid I'm not going
[37:18] to find somebody. So I'm trying so hard.
[37:20] I So all his decisions are fearbased. So
[37:23] that's why his response were fear-based.
[37:25] Being fear-based is not a great place to
[37:27] be. We all visit it. And it's okay to
[37:29] have fear. Fear is an emotion. But when
[37:30] it becomes your identity and it sticks
[37:32] around a lot, that means every decision
[37:34] you're made is is throttled by fear. And
[37:37] so his dating is throttled by the fear
[37:40] that I won't find somebody fast enough.
[37:42] >> People can tell, can't they?
[37:44] >> You feel it. You feel You feel it. You
[37:46] feel that energy, right? And it does.
[37:49] Does Does it repel people? Yeah. So, he
[37:51] had this very emotional reaction. And
[37:53] what did she do? She's like, "I don't
[37:54] want any part of it." She disappeared
[37:57] because his fear, which he couldn't
[37:59] control, and that was more
[38:00] self-regulation on his part, not
[38:02] confidence. Self-regulation.
[38:04] Self-regulation is I control my
[38:05] emotions. So he felt something. He felt
[38:08] panic.
[38:09] >> Mhm.
[38:10] >> And he couldn't manage that. He couldn't
[38:12] like his governor. We all have a
[38:14] governor who manages our emotions. His
[38:16] governor was out to lunch.
[38:18] >> Yeah.
[38:18] >> And so he completely released. So
[38:20] self-regulation is your ability to
[38:22] regulate your emotions. So even though
[38:23] you're panicking, you're afraid, you're
[38:24] angry, you're sad, there has to be a
[38:27] governor that says, "I know you're
[38:29] there. Keep it quiet."
[38:32] That's how you regulate your emotions.
[38:33] That's self-regulation. So, because he's
[38:35] so highly fear-based, he's very poor at
[38:39] that moment at self-regulating his
[38:40] emotions.
[38:41] >> Can someone learn to be a better
[38:42] self-regulator of their emotions so that
[38:44] they don't ruin their life by reacting
[38:46] to things all the time?
[38:47] >> I did. I was very hot-headed growing up.
[38:49] I was just like my father. I'm Greek.
[38:51] I'm New York. I mean, it was I just had
[38:53] nothing going for me. Uh, I had to learn
[38:56] and I learned in the NYPD. I was very
[39:00] young and I was very fortunate to be
[39:03] around very premier people. We were
[39:05] talking about your hiring process before
[39:07] how it's slow and drawn out. That hiring
[39:10] process is very slow and drawn out. They
[39:12] kind they pluck you because the idea is
[39:14] if we put you in here, you better fit
[39:17] well because just one person is going to
[39:19] muck up the whole thing. We don't want
[39:21] we want efficiency. And so I so with
[39:25] that I was around very highly regulated
[39:27] people, highly intelligent people. And
[39:29] so because I was around very highly
[39:32] regulated pe people and instructors who
[39:35] kept me in check, uh I clocked it in. So
[39:39] that's how I was able to manage myself.
[39:41] So who's around you if everybody around
[39:43] you is a loose screw?
[39:45] >> Do you still have the
[39:48] amygdala like explosion that like do you
[39:50] still have the mental
[39:53] surge of emotion, but you just on the
[39:56] outside sort of have leared to keep it
[39:58] in
[39:59] >> externally. I can do it very well.
[40:01] Sometimes at home with my husband who's
[40:03] also he's also a homeland security
[40:04] special agent, US Secret Service, I
[40:07] sometimes it's nice to put it down
[40:08] because it's hard to be on all the time.
[40:10] It's hard to self-regulate all the time.
[40:12] And so there's moments where he'd be
[40:14] like, "Somebody's a little emotional
[40:16] right now." And so I'll check myself.
[40:18] But there are those safe people that
[40:20] once in a while you I think it's
[40:23] important if to have. But even with him,
[40:26] you know, you don't want to do that to
[40:27] people because then you make people your
[40:28] dorm hat.
[40:29] >> Someone came up to me actually the other
[40:31] day and talked about a previous
[40:32] conversation which is somewhat linked to
[40:33] what we're talking about now. They said,
[40:34] um, hi Stevie, you had that incredible
[40:37] woman on your podcast and she talked
[40:38] about how you shouldn't bring your
[40:41] authentic self to work and she asked me
[40:44] about that.
[40:46] And that's kind of what you're
[40:47] describing there, which is you're going
[40:48] to be a different person at home.
[40:50] >> Don't bring your authentic self to work.
[40:52] I don't want your authentic self to
[40:53] work. I want your professional self. I
[40:56] want your respectful self.
[40:58] I want your empathetic self. I want your
[41:02] competent self. You can bring your
[41:03] authentic self to Thanksgiving meal with
[41:05] your family if you'd like to. Does that
[41:07] make sense? You secret service like,
[41:09] "Come in. Everybody be your
[41:10] authenticelves." You don't get high
[41:12] performers. You get sloppiness.
[41:13] Everybody's doing their own thing.
[41:14] That's not a team.
[41:17] If you're team oriented, you leave your
[41:20] authentic self here and you bring your
[41:22] genuine self who genuinely cares about
[41:24] the mission, who genuinely cares to do a
[41:26] good job, who genuinely knows that it's
[41:27] not about you. It's about the collective
[41:29] team. That's who you bring. Your
[41:31] authentic self is about who? Me, me, me,
[41:34] me, me. I'm all about me. In teams,
[41:38] nobody cares about I don't mean it in a
[41:40] me way. They don't care about you
[41:41] personally. Who? Who are you? What are
[41:44] you bringing? Are you bringing value?
[41:46] Are you bringing Are you bringing
[41:47] solutions? Are you getting things done?
[41:50] My authentic self. Could you imagine if
[41:51] I brought my authentic New York self to
[41:53] every interrogation I did? I would
[41:56] interview people who committed crimes
[41:57] against children. I had one case,
[41:59] three-year-old little girl. She says
[42:02] about the person who was babysitting
[42:03] her, which was a 16-year-old young man.
[42:06] Young man, he touched me down there.
[42:08] Three-year-old little girl. So, they
[42:09] call me in to do this interview.
[42:12] um on this young man, this little girl
[42:15] saying he touched her down there.
[42:16] They're three. They're not really able
[42:17] to communicate. Can you talk to him? So,
[42:18] I'm sitting talking to him this
[42:20] interview and I'm trying to find out
[42:21] what happened. Well, as I'm talking to
[42:23] him, he starts to reveal more and more.
[42:25] He did touch down there and he did other
[42:27] things to the point where he confessed
[42:29] he had full-on sex with this little girl
[42:32] between the ages of 3 to four of her
[42:34] age. He's 16. Could you imagine if I
[42:37] brought my authentic self into that
[42:39] room?
[42:41] What would my authentic self say? What
[42:43] are you thinking? How could you? It's a
[42:45] three-year-old. No, I brought my
[42:47] professional self. Okay, tell me what
[42:50] happened. Tell me more. Non-judgment
[42:52] poker face. You know why? Because what I
[42:55] think my authentic self is irrelevant.
[42:57] What mattered? Getting information,
[42:59] getting a confession so I can find out
[43:00] what happened so that investigators
[43:02] could figure out what to do so this
[43:03] little girl wouldn't be victimized
[43:05] again. That's what I mean by your
[43:07] authentic self. Don't come in and be
[43:09] phony. Nobody wants a phony. But
[43:12] authentic self has become me me.
[43:14] Everybody check me out. It's me me. I
[43:16] was irrelevant personally. It was what I
[43:19] was contributing. What was my goal, my
[43:21] task? That's what I mean by authentic
[43:23] self. So when you show up to work,
[43:25] wherever you work, what are you bringing
[43:27] to bring value to the whole team? Cuz
[43:30] your authentic self could be I'm
[43:32] bringing my problems. I'm bringing my
[43:33] opinions. I'm bringing my judgments.
[43:35] Honestly, nobody cares. I am have lots
[43:38] of different leaders across my different
[43:40] companies and when I look at the best
[43:42] leaders, one of the things they have in
[43:44] common is you do feel like they are
[43:47] being honest with you.
[43:51] Are they bringing their full authentic
[43:52] self and all their baggage to work? No.
[43:54] But you feel like you're dealing with
[43:57] the honest version of them. And I think
[43:59] some of the worst leaders, the ones that
[44:00] really really struggle, you can see that
[44:03] the team that they're leading
[44:05] just feel like maybe they're
[44:08] manipulating them a little bit or
[44:09] they're they're not being straight with
[44:12] them or there's something going on.
[44:14] They're acting. You can kind of feel it.
[44:16] So, I'm wondering how this kind of sits
[44:17] with everything you've just said there
[44:18] cuz you're going into these
[44:19] interrogations
[44:21] and you're winning them over to some
[44:23] degree because
[44:24] >> I'm building trust.
[44:24] >> You're building trust, but you're not
[44:27] acting. That's a different thing.
[44:30] >> I'm not being disingenuous.
[44:31] >> How do you square all of that? You're
[44:32] like, "No, you're Are you acting or
[44:34] you're not acting?"
[44:35] >> I'm listening cuz I'm not there for me
[44:38] and I'm not there to pass judgment. The
[44:40] quickest way to shut people down, even
[44:41] in business, you want to know what's
[44:43] going on around you all the time. If
[44:46] people are too afraid to say things or
[44:47] don't tell Steven, oh, you don't know
[44:49] how he's going to react or he's going to
[44:50] get mad, his this, that's a problem. The
[44:53] problem is they're going to be too
[44:55] afraid to tell you things. You want
[44:57] people to come to you and to give you
[44:59] the bad news to tell you when things
[45:00] aren't going right because you want to
[45:02] collect intelligence. You're collecting
[45:03] intelligence because when you have the
[45:05] right intelligence, then you can make
[45:07] the right decisions. But you must need
[45:09] to know what's going on around you. So
[45:11] when you pass judgment and you're
[45:12] telling everybody your opinion and
[45:13] you're bringing your authentic self,
[45:15] people filter information
[45:18] because they're bringing versions of
[45:20] themselves that they think you want to
[45:22] hear. We don't want that. I was very
[45:25] neutral. I'm a neutral slate even to
[45:27] this day. I try to be neutral in that I
[45:29] allow people to come to me and people
[45:31] are very open and they share and it
[45:33] works well for me because I get a good
[45:35] read on people and situation so I can
[45:37] make good decisions but I don't do a lot
[45:40] of the talking. The vag a good
[45:41] interviewer doesn't say anything.
[45:44] Good interviewer says less. Don't make
[45:46] it about you. Don't try to guess where
[45:48] people head space is. Ask them you seem
[45:50] you seem like you're something I said
[45:53] before is upsetting to you. Could you
[45:54] tell me a little bit about that? Uh,
[45:56] explain to me what it is that you're
[45:57] worried about right now. Describe to me
[45:59] what you're concerned at. We used to
[46:00] call it teed. Tell me, explain,
[46:01] describe. It's just a way great way to
[46:03] get people talking. Just get them
[46:05] talking. But it going back to what
[46:08] you're saying. It's just everything is
[46:11] very about me me. We become so identity
[46:13] based that we don't really
[46:17] we're not connected to the community
[46:19] around us and how we impact others.
[46:21] Everything is what's happening to me.
[46:23] What's in it for me? Me, me, me. It's
[46:26] like, do you know that you impact other
[46:27] people? You touch other people. You
[46:30] affect other people's lives. You make
[46:32] other people's day better or worse. You
[46:34] make the work environment easier or more
[46:37] taxing.
[46:38] You You do that, but everything has
[46:41] become
[46:43] myself. And we've lost that balance of
[46:48] the world does to me, but I also do to
[46:50] the world. to be effective when you're
[46:51] dealing with these monstrous people that
[46:53] you dealt with, whether it's terrorists
[46:55] or people that hurt children or whoever
[46:57] else it might be. Is did you have to
[47:00] kind of step outside of
[47:02] like do you do you have to detach at
[47:05] some deeper level and do you have to see
[47:07] everybody as just a human being? Cuz I'm
[47:10] I'm wondering how you navigate those
[47:11] spaces when these people have done
[47:12] horrific things. Are you do you did you
[47:14] teach yourself to just be more
[47:16] empathetic? Dare I say
[47:18] >> you could be empathetic. So all
[47:20] different crimes have different types of
[47:25] characteristics. So somebody who's a
[47:27] terrorist, let's say, that's more of an
[47:29] ideology. And they were typically raised
[47:32] from being very young to feel a certain
[47:34] way. So I understood coming into a room
[47:37] that I'm dealing with someone who's been
[47:39] groomed from a very young age to see the
[47:41] world a certain way. So that's why I did
[47:44] not bother wasting my time trying to
[47:46] change the that that that that person's
[47:49] viewpoint.
[47:50] >> But what about that kid that hurt that
[47:51] little girl?
[47:52] >> So with him, that specific one, I spent
[47:55] a lot of time speaking to him and I did
[47:57] bring empathy. So empathy does not mean
[47:59] I agree with you. I'm trying to
[48:00] understand you. And what turned out with
[48:03] him is he had been sexually abused
[48:05] himself when he was young. And so all
[48:08] that stuff came out and it did not
[48:11] excuse his behavior or what he did, but
[48:15] it was genuine. I was genuinely curious.
[48:18] I was genuinely asking him. Um, and at
[48:20] the same time, I needed to find out the
[48:22] truth. Look, there were sometimes I
[48:24] would have somebody across from me and
[48:25] I'm thinking they did it and then
[48:28] afterward I'm like, they didn't do it.
[48:31] There's there's times where you clear
[48:32] people and that's really important. So
[48:34] that's why when you would at least when
[48:35] you talk to people and even to this day
[48:38] I I we're all biased but I try not to
[48:41] come in and project that I really try to
[48:42] give people a fair chance to show me
[48:45] what's happening instead of coming in
[48:47] with prejudgments. And so you're better
[48:49] at reading their behavior too um when
[48:52] you're talking to people. So with him he
[48:55] revealed a whole bunch what had happened
[48:56] to him. It was sad. It was empathetic.
[48:59] It did not clear him from what he did.
[49:01] They eventually actually with the
[49:02] confession I got he was eventually tried
[49:04] as an adult and you know that was very
[49:06] detrimental obviously to his life right
[49:09] it impacted his life but but I I could
[49:12] have genuine empathy in that moment
[49:14] empathy is I I'm just trying to
[49:16] understand where you are and how you
[49:17] feel that's not sympathy
[49:20] >> who's better at spotting lies women or
[49:22] men
[49:24] >> there's no research that shows one is
[49:26] better than the other
[49:27] >> cuz women seem to have a sixth sense and
[49:30] people joke about it in like
[49:31] relationship context, but I generally
[49:33] feel like I feel like women have a
[49:35] heightened sensitivity. And actually,
[49:36] when you look at some of the studies,
[49:39] for example,
[49:41] women can smell I think it's
[49:43] testosterone, but men can't smell
[49:46] certain the same or certain hormones on
[49:48] women. So, like from a physiological
[49:50] standpoint, women do seem to be more
[49:52] sensitive
[49:54] to especially to like pair um to men.
[49:57] There was that study they did where they
[49:58] got um t-shirts off men after they'd
[50:02] been for a run and the women went down
[50:04] and smelt them and then they I think
[50:06] they had to guess which one was the most
[50:07] attractive and they all pointed the one
[50:08] that had the highest testosterone in it.
[50:10] So there's things that are going on that
[50:12] we can't see and feel. So I just
[50:13] wondered if your experience men or women
[50:15] were.
[50:15] >> In my experience, no. And I will say and
[50:18] this is just a a lot of men were very
[50:21] good at assessing. One of the reasons um
[50:24] look the vast majority of polygraph
[50:26] examiners were male. There were some
[50:28] women and they were very good too. The
[50:29] vast were male. What males men are good
[50:34] at being more rational. It's actually
[50:36] they were there was a they were trying
[50:38] to figure out if there's a difference in
[50:39] the brain between men's brains and
[50:41] women's brains. And there's not much.
[50:44] The one thing that they saw is that
[50:45] women have more discernment. So a a
[50:47] female brain tends to activate a little
[50:49] bit more and they tend to think about
[50:51] something more than the male brain. A
[50:53] male brain may be a bit more impulsive,
[50:56] right? More actionbased and the female
[50:58] brain may be a bit more let me talk to
[51:00] you, let me try to understand. And
[51:02] actually if you look at the data for
[51:05] female cops versus male cops, female
[51:07] cops have less complaints against them,
[51:10] made against them, and they tend to
[51:12] think because they're better
[51:13] communicators. they have less complaints
[51:16] because when you're a cop, you're going
[51:17] to get a complaint. There's no way
[51:19] you're gonna get them like you're gonna
[51:20] just get them. Um, but women tend to
[51:24] have less female officers tend to have
[51:26] less complaints and they think that
[51:27] they're just better at dialoguing and
[51:29] deescalating.
[51:31] >> On this point about confidence, then you
[51:33] said it didn't sound like my friend had
[51:34] a confidence issue. Do you think
[51:36] confidence is the thing that the people
[51:39] who do feel like they're not respected
[51:41] in the world need to be aiming at? And
[51:44] in your experience, what what can one do
[51:46] to build their confidence?
[51:48] >> Let me say this first. I've been around
[51:49] very
[51:51] steady people, confident people, I
[51:53] suppose. I've never seen anyone or heard
[51:56] anybody talk about it
[51:58] ever. I've never heard anybody in the
[52:01] circle of where I was, whether it's
[52:03] former SEALs, uh, US Secret Service, the
[52:06] PE that that I've never heard anyone
[52:08] talk about it. And I think one of the
[52:10] secrets is they don't talk about it.
[52:12] They don't think about it. They don't
[52:14] give it that much life. They just I just
[52:17] am. I just are. So I think that's one
[52:21] secret where people try to they think
[52:24] about it so much and I think it goes
[52:26] back to what we're saying initially like
[52:28] stop overanalyzing. Just be just be you
[52:31] just do. But now if you're if you're
[52:34] looking at confident people with things
[52:36] that I notice traits amongst confident
[52:39] people or steady people uh I they have a
[52:42] strong they have a good circle around
[52:44] them meaning they're very aware and
[52:46] meticulous of who's around them and who
[52:47] they associate with cuz if you're not if
[52:51] you're around insecure people it it
[52:52] bleeds on you like you're going to
[52:54] absorb what other people are and if you
[52:56] know if you're the most confident person
[52:57] in the room it's probably not a good
[53:00] thing.
[53:02] It's it's not a good thing. You want to
[53:04] be around people you learn from. It
[53:05] can't just be you're at the top and
[53:07] everybody's looking to you. Your
[53:09] bathtub's going to crack. Number one.
[53:11] The other thing I learned about
[53:12] confidence, research shows law people in
[53:15] law enforcement are perceived to be
[53:16] highly confident. And one of the reasons
[53:19] they believe it is because they're
[53:20] decision makers. You make decisions on
[53:23] the spot. Everyday life and death
[53:24] decisions. And there's nobody to turn
[53:26] around to be like, "Hey, can I ask you
[53:27] your opinion on this? What do you think
[53:29] I should do with this guy wielding this
[53:30] knife? Should I shoot? Should I not?
[53:32] Should I pull out the pepper spray? I
[53:34] mean, what would you do in this moment?
[53:36] You'd be dead.
[53:38] So, when you're used to making
[53:39] decisions, whether right or wrong, but
[53:41] when you're used to making those
[53:43] decisions and believing in yourself and
[53:45] trusting in yourself that you're making
[53:46] the best decision you can with the
[53:48] information you have at that moment,
[53:50] that builds confidence. Be a decision
[53:52] maker. I think those are the two most
[53:55] important things, having awareness. And
[53:57] honestly, just show up. Just show up.
[54:00] Don't worry about being confident. Worry
[54:02] about simple things. Show up on time.
[54:05] >> I was reading this study about
[54:07] confidence in the victim mindset. It was
[54:09] a study done by Yuggov in 2025 in the
[54:13] United States. And it said women rated
[54:15] themselves much higher on
[54:16] trustworthiness, honesty, and empathy.
[54:19] But men rated themselves higher on
[54:21] self-awareness, sense of humor, and
[54:24] confidence. And the gap between
[54:26] self-reported confidence between men and
[54:28] women was quite significant. It's about
[54:30] 50% of men consider themselves confident
[54:32] where it's only about 35% of women that
[54:35] consider themselves confident.
[54:37] >> I'll tell you this, I've never heard uh
[54:40] I've never heard anybody like from the
[54:41] field of work I came for came from say I
[54:44] feel like I'm an imposttor. You know
[54:46] that whole imposter syndrome? I've never
[54:47] heard that again. I didn't hear it till
[54:50] after I left the service. Like it's wild
[54:52] cuz all these things I had no awareness
[54:55] of them because they were never
[54:56] discussed in the circle that we were in.
[54:58] the so I also think sometimes when we
[55:01] sit and discuss these things to such
[55:03] extent that they actually start to plant
[55:06] seeds of doubt I'm not saying we
[55:08] shouldn't study and have self-awareness
[55:09] but I think when we over evaluate to
[55:12] such a degree I we never did that and
[55:15] you know how do you how do you build
[55:17] confidence in I I think about training
[55:19] training there was nobody cheering you
[55:22] on there was nobody like hey pump good
[55:24] job good job girl good job they were
[55:27] they were trying to get me sent home.
[55:28] You had to fight. You had to claw your
[55:32] way. You had to claw your way to get
[55:34] that job and then prove that you should
[55:36] be there. They did everything they could
[55:38] to wean you out, to kick you out. And so
[55:42] I think when you're determined,
[55:45] like you stick, you just stick it out
[55:47] and you're just There was days where I'm
[55:49] like, I don't know how I'm going to get
[55:50] through today. Or even runs. We would do
[55:51] runs and one of the things they would do
[55:53] just to mess with you. They take you on
[55:55] on a run for miles and miles and you
[55:57] never knew when it was going to end.
[55:59] That's the worst. At least if you know,
[56:00] hey, we're going to run from here to
[56:02] here. It's going to be 2 miles, 3 miles,
[56:04] 5 miles, 10 miles, whatever. Tell me
[56:06] what I'm looking at. But it they
[56:08] wouldn't tell you. So you'd start
[56:09] running. And then you'd hit a point like
[56:11] and you'd think, at least I would. I
[56:13] think, "Oh my god, how am I going to do
[56:15] this?" And you know what I would do? I
[56:17] would go and I'd be like, "Just make it
[56:18] to that tree." It was just 5t ahead of
[56:20] me. I made it to the tree. make it to
[56:23] that mailbox. I made it to the mailbox.
[56:25] Just make it to the next tree. And and
[56:27] that's how you do it.
[56:30] What's right in front of me? But if you
[56:32] look at that whole picture of how am I
[56:34] going to be all of this,
[56:38] it's so overwhelming and so
[56:43] it's just so hard. It's just going to
[56:45] it's going to kill your confidence.
[56:46] Whether it's like I want to do this,
[56:48] what's the first thing I need to do?
[56:50] Then the second thing I would think and
[56:52] I'm asking you when you build your
[56:53] businesses right or your company did you
[56:56] just put one foot in front of the other
[56:57] and just try to do it or did you stop
[56:59] and say you know what Stephen let's have
[57:02] a conversation I need to be confident
[57:03] before I do this I need to build my
[57:05] confidence did you sit and do that and
[57:07] once you checked off that confidence bit
[57:09] then you're like okay now I'm ready to
[57:10] do this
[57:11] >> yeah one of the most incredible things
[57:12] is I I actually didn't know what the
[57:13] world entrepreneur was I had no idea
[57:15] what it was so I had this idea and I
[57:19] started did trying to figure out how to
[57:22] make the idea happen which looked like 3
[57:24] months on Google scrolling down
[57:26] searching the word web developer
[57:27] clicking onto people's links and then
[57:29] emailing them saying hey can you build
[57:30] websites like I so it was this long
[57:32] drawn out process of stumbling forward
[57:34] and had I known I think a lot of
[57:36] entrepreneurs and founders say this had
[57:38] I known what it would have taken had I
[57:40] known how difficult it was had I not
[57:41] been so ignorant and naive maybe I would
[57:43] have been demotivated or demoralized to
[57:45] do it but I was 18 left university had
[57:48] an idea didn't know what the word
[57:49] entrepreneur was. Didn't really even
[57:50] know how you established a company and
[57:53] tried to use the internet to make that
[57:54] idea happen in like 3 to four months
[57:56] trying to figure out how you name a
[57:57] company just by like googling stuff. So
[58:00] very much one foot in front of the
[58:01] other.
[58:02] >> What did you just say? I was ignorant
[58:03] and naive.
[58:04] >> Yeah, it was useful. It was phenomenally
[58:06] useful cuz I think if if I was informed
[58:08] it would have been like standing at the
[58:09] foot of Mount Everest, but I couldn't
[58:11] see the mountain in front of me. So it
[58:13] felt much more easy to climb. And this
[58:16] is in part why people get, you know, I
[58:17] spoke to Neiel who's a an author of a
[58:20] book called undistractable.
[58:23] And he said a phrase to me which I've
[58:24] always remembered. He said
[58:27] procrastination
[58:28] is
[58:30] the avoidance of psychological
[58:32] discomfort. So when you have that big
[58:34] essay to do, what you end up doing is
[58:36] taking the path of least resistance,
[58:38] which might be I'll just clean the house
[58:39] and the house gets really tidy because
[58:41] psychologically that essay feels like
[58:44] Mount Everest. You don't know where to
[58:46] start. You're not well researched on it.
[58:48] So you clean the house instead. And so
[58:50] procrastination is the avoidance of
[58:51] psychological discomfort. And so had I
[58:53] known how big that mountain was when I
[58:55] was 18, I probably wouldn't have done it
[58:57] because the psychological discomfort
[58:58] associated with the knowledge would have
[59:00] been so overwhelming. I would have just
[59:02] cleaned my house. And so sometimes,
[59:04] yeah, it does help.
[59:05] >> It goes back to a lot of the stuff that
[59:07] we're saying that sometimes
[59:08] overanalyzing and trying to make sense
[59:10] of things does you a disservice where
[59:13] sometimes if you just let things be and
[59:15] you just move forward to try to execute,
[59:17] the goal is to execute and do. Because
[59:20] if you sit and trying to analyze
[59:22] everything, how should this be done or
[59:23] that be done? Or if you look at the big
[59:25] big p bigger picture of what it's going
[59:27] to be like, it's it can be it can kill
[59:30] you. It can kill your confidence.
[59:31] Training, I had no idea what training
[59:33] was going to be like. Absolutely none. I
[59:35] went in there completely blind,
[59:36] completely clueless. I actually thought
[59:38] it was going to be like college. Haha. I
[59:40] learned my lesson the hard way. But this
[59:42] I think we need to be a bit more present
[59:45] and focused and just start executing and
[59:49] making progress. Progress, no matter how
[59:51] small, is progress as long as you're
[59:52] moving in that direction. But thinking
[59:54] about something, ruminating over
[59:55] something, playing that CD over and over
[59:58] again, procrastinating, just start. Just
[60:00] go.
[60:01] >> I spoke to Sir David Brazilford, who's
[60:03] the guy that turned the British cycling
[60:04] team around. And he told me that when he
[60:06] went in there and those players, those
[60:08] cyclists were like down and out and
[60:09] depressed and winning nothing. One of
[60:11] the first things he did was ban them
[60:12] from thinking about the podium. And so I
[60:15] always I came up with this phrase called
[60:16] pedals over podium based on everything
[60:18] he said to me which is he got his riders
[60:20] to think about the pedals in front of
[60:21] him just the rotation of the pedals and
[60:23] not whether they were cycling fast
[60:25] enough to win the gold or needed to
[60:27] speed up. And he said to me when he did
[60:29] that it was almost like the riders would
[60:31] get to the end of the track and they
[60:33] would get off the bike and they could
[60:34] not recall the cycle because they were
[60:36] so present. They'd almost been in like
[60:38] this hypnotic state, but they ended up
[60:40] producing their best times because what
[60:41] they've done is they removed the
[60:42] amygdala, all the emotion, the fear, the
[60:44] you know, which burns a lot of energy as
[60:46] a cyclist, I imagine, if you're thinking
[60:47] too much. And that produced their best
[60:50] times. They went on to become the most
[60:52] successful cycling team of all time, I
[60:53] believe, and won five out of the six
[60:54] tour to Frances. And that whole idea of
[60:56] like, yeah, just be present, just focus
[60:58] on the next, as you say, step along the
[61:00] way.
[61:02] I think it's difficult for people
[61:03] because
[61:05] sometimes that first step is so small.
[61:08] So small that it's it's sometimes a
[61:09] little bit embarrassing. You know, the
[61:11] first step to change your life, the
[61:12] first step to confront an issue in your
[61:14] life is so sometimes so small that it
[61:16] feels like that can't possibly be the
[61:18] right step to take
[61:19] >> because it's hard because it's
[61:22] uncomfortable.
[61:24] >> What's that like? They call it exposure
[61:25] therapy. It was Jordan Peterson that
[61:27] said to me, he was like dealing with a
[61:28] guy in that he who wouldn't leave his
[61:30] bedroom and instead of getting him to
[61:31] like go outside and stuff, he just got
[61:33] him to move the Hoover 10 cm closer
[61:37] today and that was today done. And then
[61:39] the next day he got him to like turn the
[61:40] Hoover on but then turn it off. That was
[61:42] that day done. And Jordan said to me, he
[61:44] said, "The problem with people with
[61:46] change is the first step is often so
[61:48] embarrassingly and shame shamefully
[61:50] small that people like don't want to do
[61:51] it. That's like embarrassing to do
[61:53] something so small
[61:55] >> because it's a myth. We've been fed a
[61:56] myth that to make big change in your
[61:59] life, you have to make do big decisions.
[62:01] You have to make make big movement and
[62:03] the big change you create in life, it's
[62:04] through the small movements. You just
[62:06] reminded me of a story. My buddy Don
[62:07] Saladino, he's like the he does training
[62:09] um for all the you ever watch a lot of
[62:11] those Marvel movies, the DC movies with
[62:14] all those characters. He trains a lot of
[62:16] them to get them physically fit for the
[62:18] movies. and he was telling me he had a a
[62:20] story of a I think he was telling me he
[62:21] had a client and who he was just trying
[62:24] to get him to work out and the client
[62:26] was overweight and having all these
[62:28] issues. And what what the client did
[62:29] what what they they did is the client
[62:31] just tried to create progress. So the
[62:34] first day what he did was he took his
[62:35] sneakers and he just put them in front
[62:37] of his bed and that was it. And then the
[62:40] next day he took his shoes and put them
[62:42] outside the door of his bedroom. And
[62:44] then the day after that he took the
[62:46] shoes and put them in the kitchen. And
[62:48] then the next day he took the shoes and
[62:50] just put them on. And then the day after
[62:52] that he took the shoes, he walked
[62:54] outside and put them on outside. Then
[62:56] the day after that he took the shoes and
[62:58] just went to the corner and then came
[63:00] back. And then he went from being
[63:03] severely obese and having um um being
[63:07] very unhealthy to running marathons.
[63:10] And that's how he did it.
[63:12] You've seen some of the most
[63:14] consequential people ever make
[63:15] decisions, these presidents.
[63:18] Maybe you can't answer this question. I
[63:20] don't know if you can, but who were the
[63:21] best decision makers and why that you
[63:23] observed?
[63:25] >> I'm going to say this, to be the
[63:26] president of United States, it's no
[63:28] small thing. So, for you to get to that
[63:31] place, you
[63:34] you are exceptional. I I just I say this
[63:36] in a in a neutral way. people get very
[63:39] personal or biased and I I don't just
[63:40] because I served under various
[63:42] presidencies didn't matter what the
[63:44] party was and I learned so much from all
[63:46] of them but as far as making decisions
[63:49] there are a couple of things one they
[63:51] had a really good circle around them in
[63:52] her circle like everybody didn't have
[63:54] access to the president there were
[63:56] layers around the president so everybody
[63:58] didn't have access to them that was
[64:00] really important but the circle around
[64:02] them was a circle that was there to
[64:04] support them everybody around them was
[64:05] steady I never saw Uh, I never saw
[64:08] anybody go cry at the White House. I
[64:10] never saw anybody lose their mind. I
[64:11] never saw anybody get emotionally
[64:13] dregulated. I never saw this. And that
[64:16] was important because that kept them
[64:19] steady. The other thing was they were
[64:21] very good at delegating. So they didn't
[64:22] need to know everything, but they would
[64:24] find people who knew more than they did
[64:26] to give them adisement to help make
[64:28] decisions and they would just make
[64:30] decisions. The other thing I saw and I
[64:33] witnessed, they worked very hard. they
[64:36] worked. I would see presidents sit up. I
[64:39] mean, I think it's okay to say this. I
[64:41] really don't talk about the people are
[64:43] protected out of out of respect. You
[64:45] know, there's a Greek saying, everybody
[64:46] loves the
[64:50] everybody loves the treason. Nobody
[64:52] loves a traitor. And so, I'm just always
[64:54] careful not to say, but I would see
[64:56] presidents like I remember President
[64:58] Bill Clinton, he'd be up till very late
[65:00] hours of the night studying, reading,
[65:02] preparing, just reading. President
[65:05] Barack Obama. I mean, I'd work midnight
[65:07] shifts sometimes and he was up studying,
[65:10] sitting at his desk, reading, preparing.
[65:12] They would study. They would spend time
[65:14] studying. So, all those things
[65:16] collectively help you feel like I'm as
[65:19] informed as I can be by studying myself,
[65:22] by surrounding myself with people who
[65:24] are informing me, who are also steady.
[65:27] And then I make the best decisions I can
[65:29] with the m the information I have in
[65:31] front of me. Now, one of the things we
[65:33] do, and we all do this, we do a
[65:34] disservice to us when things don't go or
[65:36] work out the way we thought they would.
[65:38] We beat up on ourselves. I should have
[65:40] known this. I should have this. I should
[65:41] have that. And anytime I start to do
[65:44] that or I have somebody, and I always
[65:45] say, I'm like, my husband used to say
[65:47] this, too. He's like, you made the best
[65:49] decision you could with what you knew in
[65:51] that moment. Don't go back and make
[65:54] yourself feel like [ __ ] because you feel
[65:56] you should have chose differently. I've
[65:58] heard Obama say that as well
[65:59] >> just like I said it
[66:01] >> pretty much close. He I I heard him talk
[66:04] about this whole idea of making
[66:05] decisions at 51% certainty when he spoke
[66:08] at this conference I was speaking at in
[66:10] Sa Paulo a couple of years ago and he
[66:12] was talking about the big decisions in
[66:13] his career like going in and getting
[66:14] Assama bin Laden didn't have 100%
[66:17] certainty and he said sometimes in life
[66:19] you have to make make a decision with
[66:22] the information you have and be at peace
[66:23] with the fact that you made the best
[66:24] available decision with the information
[66:26] you had and move move on.
[66:28] >> Confident people are okay with not
[66:30] knowing all the information. Yeah,
[66:32] >> they're okay. I don't need to know. It
[66:34] doesn't have to be 100% right. Because,
[66:36] and here's the other thing, because
[66:38] we're so scared of making the wrong
[66:40] decision. And unless you're the
[66:41] president of the United States or and
[66:42] you're in law enforcement and you may
[66:43] shoot the wrong human being, which I
[66:45] get, but overall, most decisions, not
[66:47] life or death, make a decision and then
[66:51] feel okay with it being wrong, if you're
[66:54] so insecure that you're terrified you're
[66:56] going to make the wrong decision. Why?
[66:58] Cuz you're going to look dumb. You're
[66:59] going to feel dumb.
[67:01] confidence. You don't care how you look
[67:02] or how you eat. You're not sit and
[67:04] you're not quantifying. He's going to
[67:06] think I'm done. She's going to think I
[67:08] look stupid. They're going to think
[67:09] this. And even for yourself,
[67:12] like you don't tally that. You're okay
[67:13] with making the wrong decision. It's
[67:15] like I'm going to make my choice. I hope
[67:17] it's the right one. I did the best I
[67:19] could, but I'm comfortable with that.
[67:21] But if you're so worried about it's the
[67:23] wrong decision,
[67:26] then don't make one. And that's that in
[67:28] and it of itself that confident people
[67:30] don't do that. So the other thing I
[67:32] would see presidents do they had they
[67:36] had time to themselves
[67:38] meaning like you would see them they
[67:40] would have time where they would be
[67:41] alone and they would think they weren't
[67:44] they weren't always exposed or
[67:46] surrounded by people. George W. Bush he
[67:48] would go to Waco to the ranch. That was
[67:50] his roots. That was his place to like I
[67:52] need to kind of find my roots. President
[67:54] Barack Obama, I spent every holiday in
[67:57] Hawaii. He went home. George Bush
[68:00] Senior, he would split his time between
[68:02] Kenny Bunkport and Texas, Houston. So,
[68:06] that was another thing. They'd all go
[68:09] home.
[68:11] They'd all go home.
[68:13] >> I hear from a lot of very successful
[68:14] people that I interview that they all
[68:15] have some kind of meditation practice.
[68:17] And even when I looked at the life of
[68:20] someone like Steve Jobs and how he was
[68:21] able to continually see around corners
[68:23] and remove the keyboard and remove the
[68:25] stylus and remove the the iPhone jack
[68:27] and remove Java from our phones and do
[68:29] all of these things that at the time
[68:30] were like crazy talk that
[68:33] that someone who was motivated by
[68:36] money today would not have done, but
[68:38] someone that could see the future
[68:39] tomorrow could have done. And um you
[68:42] come to learn that he was basically like
[68:43] a yogic like he was he was a meditator.
[68:46] And what you described there made me
[68:47] think of that which is okay all these
[68:48] successful people seem to be have some
[68:51] kind of practice where they get out of
[68:52] the trenches and like into their
[68:54] intuition or into the clouds alone so
[68:59] they have space to stand back from the
[69:01] the painting so they can see the full
[69:03] picture.
[69:03] >> Do you know what they would all also do?
[69:05] I can't speak for all of them but a lot
[69:07] of them worked out like their workout
[69:09] was built into their schedule. Uh
[69:11] President George Bush uh Jr. he would
[69:14] bike he used to actually be a runner. He
[69:15] was a very fast runner. Um because they
[69:18] would ask for agents to run with him and
[69:19] you when you run when when you would run
[69:21] you have to run with your gear on.
[69:23] President Clinton was a runner. Then
[69:25] Bush Bush started biking so you had to
[69:27] be a good biker.
[69:28] >> Where can they run?
[69:30] >> Well, President Bush would run the
[69:33] trails when we'd go to Texas or Waco.
[69:36] You're not going to run the streets of
[69:38] Washington DC. So they have the White
[69:40] House has its own internal gym. But they
[69:43] did they did run. They were very
[69:44] athletic. President Barack Obama every
[69:46] morning gym.
[69:50] So the part of integrating the body into
[69:53] the mind is key. I saw them all do it
[69:55] and I think that plays a role. It can't
[69:57] just be we separate the mind and body.
[70:00] You
[70:02] when you physically take I've just seen
[70:04] them all do it and I learned it also as
[70:06] an agent like you're you had to work out
[70:09] and you had to use your body because
[70:13] also when you use your body and you're
[70:15] moving it and you're you're working it
[70:17] out, you're taking care of it, you feel
[70:19] good. Do you feel like you're doing
[70:20] something powerful and positive for
[70:23] yourself? And that in and of itself
[70:25] builds confidence and strength.
[70:27] >> Just give me a minute of your time and
[70:29] I'll tell you about a device that my
[70:30] team has been using that they won't seem
[70:33] to shut up about. It's called the Note
[70:35] Pro and it's by our sponsor Plaude. This
[70:39] tiny card clips onto the back of your
[70:41] phone and captures everything. But why
[70:44] it's so clever is that it picks up
[70:46] multiple voices at the same time. And
[70:48] when someone says something important,
[70:50] you just push this tiny little button
[70:51] here and that moment gets highlighted in
[70:54] your notes and captured. It records the
[70:57] conversations that it hears, takes those
[70:59] conversations, creates a transcript, and
[71:01] it uses AI to synthesize all of that
[71:03] information into whatever template suits
[71:06] you. You get a summary, action points,
[71:08] highlights, and even a mind map sent
[71:12] straight to the Plaude app. So, I highly
[71:14] recommend you check out Plaude's
[71:15] products using the link in the
[71:17] description below. Don't tell anybody
[71:18] this, but if you use code DOAC22,
[71:22] you'll get 22% off on some of Plaude's
[71:25] products.
[71:27] I was trying to understand what it feels
[71:29] like to have true a true lack of
[71:31] confidence. Like, how does it feel
[71:32] inside your body? And the research I did
[71:35] showed there's really four areas that
[71:37] you feel it. The first area is in your
[71:39] body physically like the tightness in
[71:40] your body body which could be clenched
[71:42] jaw. It could be like that fidgeting you
[71:44] see heart racing all the like fight
[71:46] orflight responses. The second way you
[71:47] feel it is in the mind self-doubt asking
[71:49] yourself always am I good enough? Kind
[71:51] of double- guessing yourself running
[71:53] through worst case scenarios ruminating
[71:55] on your past mistakes. The third way is
[71:57] in your emotions which is this feeling
[71:59] this insecurity that you might be
[72:01] exposed at some point. Um avoiding
[72:04] speaking out too much or holding
[72:06] yourself back. The and the last way is
[72:08] in behavior which is speaking softly,
[72:11] rushing your words, avoiding eye contact
[72:13] and apologizing.
[72:14] >> I don't
[72:15] >> too much.
[72:16] >> I feel that's such a waste of time
[72:21] like to spend to sit and analyze
[72:23] yourself. Now, if you're not a good
[72:24] speaker, I look at it as I want to work
[72:27] on my speech. It's paral linguistics
[72:29] it's called, right? Uh, I want to try
[72:31] from my uh the best tone I can so that I
[72:34] can speak with authority. Research shows
[72:37] that it's not what you say. People
[72:39] sometimes sit and memorize like what
[72:41] they're going to say, the words they're
[72:42] going to use when in fact the research
[72:43] shows
[72:45] what you how you say it impacts people
[72:48] more than what you say.
[72:49] >> So the way that you speak is clearly
[72:51] resonant with people. Are you aware of
[72:54] what it is about the way you speak that
[72:57] is making my viewers show up every time
[72:59] you come here in the tens of millions to
[73:01] hear you speak?
[73:05] >> When I speak, I own my voice. So there's
[73:09] paral linguistics there. And I learned
[73:11] this from doing the news because if I
[73:15] don't sound like I know what I'm talking
[73:17] about, then does not matter what I say.
[73:20] It's what I sound like.
[73:22] So if you know even using the the right
[73:28] part of my voice my my deeper uh tone my
[73:31] authentic tone you know it's very
[73:34] different. Hi I'm Evie. How are you
[73:36] doing? Okay. One of the things that
[73:38] really makes sure in front of my
[73:39] daughter not to go in a really high
[73:40] pitched voice because I don't want her
[73:42] growing up talking like this. I want her
[73:44] to grow up having a stronger, deeper
[73:46] tone voice because the research shows
[73:48] when you own your voice, people respect
[73:51] you and they see you as an authority.
[73:53] And so I just don't want to
[73:54] inadvertently give her that high-pitch
[73:57] voice, which doesn't mean it's her
[73:58] natural voice. It's the voice that I've
[74:01] helped cultivate and groom for her to
[74:02] have. So let's just put that right
[74:04] there. So those are little things that I
[74:07] also have awareness of. I don't want to
[74:09] tell her, hey, speak this way. I'm going
[74:11] to show her to speak and she's going to
[74:12] she's going to mimic that. So when you
[74:15] look at how you present yourself to
[74:16] others. So as far as like when I come
[74:18] here, I come here and I look at it this
[74:20] way. This interview is not about me.
[74:22] You've invited me here what third time.
[74:24] Thank you. I'm super humbled. But this
[74:26] isn't about me. It is about them, the
[74:28] audience. Right? I don't matter. I'm
[74:30] irrelevant. You're irrelevant.
[74:33] We're two people who are trying to share
[74:34] information that maybe hopefully make
[74:37] the world a better, more wise, more just
[74:38] place. Maybe it helps makes people's
[74:41] lives a little bit better. That's what
[74:43] matters. They matter. We don't. And so
[74:46] when you bring that in and you put all
[74:48] your energy on the person you are
[74:50] speaking to because they want to hear
[74:52] it.
[74:54] And if you put that there, then they
[74:55] feel it.
[74:56] >> As you said all of that, I was analyzing
[74:57] the way that you were speaking. And you
[75:00] do a bunch of really interesting things.
[75:01] One of them is that you take silences
[75:03] that most people would not take.
[75:06] >> Okay. I'm going to Don't be offended.
[75:07] I'm going to try and Okay. I'm going to
[75:08] try and show show what I mean. Are you
[75:11] there for you
[75:13] or are you there for them? Most people
[75:16] wouldn't have taken that silence.
[75:17] There's a certain selfish because
[75:19] silence is taking something from some
[75:23] someone in a in an interesting way. It's
[75:25] like you've taken some time from someone
[75:27] and people, you know, as it says in
[75:29] these studies that are low confidence,
[75:31] they rush because they know that
[75:33] >> I don't want to waste your time. I'm not
[75:34] that important. So, let me hurry through
[75:36] this. Yeah. So I don't I don't cuz you
[75:38] because you're more important than I am.
[75:40] 100% right. So you I will give kudos to
[75:42] this. I watch presidents speak. Barack
[75:44] Obama again this is something I shared
[75:46] publicly and I think it's okay. He was
[75:48] brilliant at this. He would watch his
[75:50] speeches. He would speak and he would
[75:53] take his time. He would do emergency,
[75:55] you know how they would interrupt TV
[75:56] shows or something emergency, you know,
[75:58] message or breaking news from the White
[75:59] House, whatever. I never saw him rush
[76:02] through anything. I never saw him, you
[76:03] know, say it himself or think, I better
[76:05] hurry up through this. You know, I'm
[76:07] disrupting Gray's Anatomy. People want
[76:09] to get back to the show. No, I'm the
[76:10] president of the United States. I have
[76:12] something relevant to say and I'm going
[76:14] to say it.
[76:16] I'm going to own my time in my voice.
[76:17] I'm not going to waste your time. I'm
[76:19] going to get to the point. I'm not going
[76:21] to belabor the point. That's different.
[76:24] But I'm get to the point and I'm going
[76:25] to pause. I'm going to own my time. So
[76:28] when you speak again this is it's how
[76:30] you say it not what you say. You also
[76:33] want to give people time to absorb what
[76:35] you're saying to feel what you're
[76:36] saying. When you slow down also as a
[76:38] presenter I am less likely to make
[76:40] mistakes. I am less slightly less likely
[76:43] to say the wrong thing live on camera.
[76:46] When I do the news I am less likely to
[76:48] do these things and I'm more likely to
[76:49] able to think process and share. And
[76:52] you're right. How many times do people
[76:53] do presentations and when I do
[76:55] communication for companies, I always
[76:57] tell them when you're doing your
[76:58] presentations, please don't do this. All
[77:00] right, guys. Just one other thing. Let
[77:01] me put this in here. I don't want to
[77:02] waste anybody's more time or take up any
[77:04] more time. Just really quickly,
[77:07] what did I just do? I just told you what
[77:09] I'm about to tell you really isn't that
[77:10] important. So, don't even listen. Why do
[77:13] we do that? I'm here. I'm speaking. what
[77:16] I have to say. If I'm saying something
[77:18] of value, if I know I'm saying something
[77:20] of value because I'm trying to share and
[77:23] make the whole system, the process
[77:25] better, then pause. I'm going to pause.
[77:27] I'm going to speak. I'm going to share.
[77:29] But if I'm talking for myself because
[77:31] I'm insecure. I want people to see me.
[77:33] Everybody needs to know you're sitting
[77:34] at that table, right? Make yourself
[77:36] known. Make sure they can hear you. Make
[77:38] sure they see you at that meeting. You
[77:40] just made that about you. You shouldn't
[77:42] be at that table.
[77:45] That's the difference. Command your
[77:46] voice. Also, the science and research.
[77:49] So, because I know you like science and
[77:50] research, the more we speak, meaning if
[77:54] we talk a lot and we use a lot of words
[77:56] and we don't get to the point, we are
[77:59] seen as less trustworthy.
[78:02] And people value uh they people will
[78:05] assess how competent and confident you
[78:07] are in the way you speak. Get to the
[78:10] point, say it with less words, and be
[78:13] impactful. Command what you say. So, I
[78:16] think what we're trying to say is I
[78:18] command what I say. I'm not as worried
[78:21] in my head. Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I
[78:22] going to say the wrong thing from time
[78:23] to time? Sure.
[78:26] Who isn't? But I'm owning my voice. And
[78:29] I think people are so afraid to own
[78:31] their voice. Own your voice. And if
[78:33] you're wrong,
[78:36] if your intention is right and you've
[78:38] prepared and you're doing your best and
[78:39] you're being genuine, not authentic,
[78:42] you're being genuine, and you genuinely
[78:44] care about the people you're speaking
[78:46] to, the audience, then it's all okay.
[78:50] You use your hands a lot as well which
[78:52] is I think is a trait of someone who is
[78:55] feels like they deserve
[78:58] your attention and space and respect
[79:01] because it takes up room to and as you
[79:04] were doing that you were using a good
[79:07] you know 50 cm either side of you to
[79:09] make the point but it's also just more
[79:11] engaging to watch because you went
[79:16] and most people wouldn't a lot of people
[79:17] you know it's kind of like
[79:20] It's
[79:20] >> so there's a couple of things that so
[79:21] it's really good that you brought that
[79:22] up. One, I'm Greek, so that plays a
[79:24] role. So I try not to be so they're
[79:26] called illustrators when people use
[79:27] their hands, but yes, there is a
[79:29] strategy to it. One, I learned it from
[79:31] what doing television when I first began
[79:33] doing the news, which I knew nothing
[79:34] about. Again, I went from a a job where
[79:36] you were supposed to be not in front of
[79:38] the camera, actually out of the camera
[79:40] because the camera was supposed to catch
[79:41] the president, never you, to being in
[79:44] front of the camera. friend, the
[79:44] producer I worked with the very first
[79:46] day said, "Let me give you a secret,
[79:48] when you're on camera, just so you know,
[79:51] the camera sucks like 25% of your energy
[79:54] away. It takes immediately 25% of your
[79:57] energy out. So when the person is
[79:59] watching,
[80:01] you look flatter." You ever watch Zooms?
[80:02] You ever do Zoom and it looks like
[80:04] everybody's bored out of their mind and
[80:05] you're thinking, "What's going on?" It's
[80:07] not them, it's the camera. It takes
[80:10] energy. So, if you're trying to engage
[80:12] people, one of the things you can do,
[80:14] first of all, when you speak, people
[80:15] hear 49% of what you say. So, when
[80:18] you're talking, if you're able to keep
[80:20] their attention, they are hearing half
[80:21] of what you say. And that's if they're
[80:23] connected to you. So, think about that.
[80:25] Now, I'm trying to speak. And when you
[80:29] speak, you're also telling a story. So,
[80:31] I can sit like this, which side note,
[80:34] um, when you sit on your hands, it's
[80:36] considered, uh, some people say it's a
[80:37] considered sign of, um, deceit. I'm
[80:40] hiding my hands. Uh, I'm a liar.
[80:42] >> Mhm.
[80:43] >> Um, so when you you people don't see
[80:45] hands, it's a sign of untrustworthy. Uh,
[80:48] untrustworthiness, like you can't trust
[80:49] them. When you see hands, open hands,
[80:52] I'm no threat. It's kind of like an
[80:54] psychological thing for prehistoric
[80:55] time, prehistoric times. I see no
[80:57] weapons in your hand. I can trust you.
[80:59] So that's something I learned as a
[81:01] technique as well in the polygraph room.
[81:03] Always have your hands out. Always be
[81:04] open. I'm open. I'm here for you. And so
[81:07] I've I've learned to roll that into how
[81:11] I present because I learned that it's
[81:13] really important to use your hands and
[81:15] you are storytelling. Um and you are
[81:17] commanding your voice. So all those
[81:20] things combined, you're you're trying to
[81:22] keep also people's attention. So you I
[81:24] also look at it, I'm trying to keep you
[81:25] engaged in the conversations. So, I
[81:28] can't be lazy and not I have to work
[81:31] hard to keep you engaged. You're you're
[81:33] also people kind of like they pingpong.
[81:35] Even if somebody you ever go to a
[81:36] conference and you're like, I'm really
[81:37] going to pay attention. I'm going to
[81:38] really focus and 5 10 minutes you're in
[81:41] there and you lose people. It's not
[81:43] their fault. What am I going to eat
[81:44] later? Where am I going to go for lunch?
[81:45] Did I send that email? Oh, I have to
[81:47] pick up my dry cleaning later. People
[81:49] pingpong. So, it's especially today
[81:50] where you're competing with all this
[81:52] noise and there is so much noise out
[81:54] there. you really are trying hard to
[81:57] keep you people engaged. So you don't
[81:58] have to be long-winded. Speak, engage,
[82:01] show them that you're there, own your
[82:03] space, and command your words.
[82:06] >> One of the things I learned from
[82:07] watching Mr. Beast make content, but
[82:09] also from doing this podcast and sitting
[82:11] with guests that get really high
[82:12] retention cuz like the audience don't
[82:14] know this, but when every guest comes on
[82:16] the show, we get a graph back from
[82:19] YouTube and the other places that the
[82:20] podcast appears that shows how many
[82:23] minutes people listened for. And
[82:25] sometimes there's like big swings there
[82:29] between the lowest performing guest and
[82:31] the highest performing guest on YouTube.
[82:33] There's a
[82:35] 100% gain in retention. So like thinking
[82:39] back over the last month, the lowest
[82:41] performing guest on the diversity here
[82:42] in terms of how long people listened for
[82:44] is let's say just arbitrary number
[82:47] people listened for one hour. The
[82:49] highest performing they listened for two
[82:51] hours. And that's the the range that we
[82:53] see. And when I look at why that is,
[82:55] it's often because it's well, it's
[82:56] always because of the way that they
[82:57] speak. You're one of the people that has
[82:59] extremely high retention, because of the
[83:01] way that you speak. And Morgan Hel's
[83:03] another one. And I I was watching Morgan
[83:05] Hel the way he delivers his message. And
[83:07] he basically always starts it with a
[83:11] curiosity gap or a promise. And Mr.
[83:13] Beast does the same. Mr. Beast's videos
[83:15] don't start with, "Hey, uh, hi, I'm Mr.
[83:16] Beast. Welcome back to my channel." He
[83:18] immediately shouts a promise in your
[83:19] face which is like I've put a thousand
[83:21] people in that circle. The last one to
[83:22] leave wins $5 million. And immediately
[83:25] there's this curiosity gap like I want
[83:26] to see the answer. And I just noticed
[83:28] that in great speakers even on stage
[83:30] when I go to conferences is they they
[83:32] leave me hanging on something that they
[83:35] haven't yet given me.
[83:37] >> Somebody once when I began doing
[83:38] keynotes or speaking there was this
[83:40] other speaker and he said to me, he's
[83:42] like, "Let me give you some advice,
[83:43] kid." I was like, "Sure, I'll take it."
[83:45] I didn't mind. and and he hadn't heard
[83:48] me speak yet. It was just he was just
[83:49] trying to impart wisdom. He said, "Just
[83:51] because you're an expert doesn't mean
[83:53] you're interesting
[83:56] and it always stuck with me because
[83:58] there's people, Stephen, that are
[84:00] probably smarter than I am, have more
[84:02] years or time or experience in the US
[84:03] Secret Service that I do.
[84:06] There's always somebody that's better,
[84:07] smarter, faster, whatever.
[84:10] But a big part of what plays a role is
[84:14] how you present and how are you sharing
[84:16] that information and are you doing an
[84:18] effective job,
[84:20] right? It's not about let me tell you
[84:21] how smart I think I am.
[84:24] It's about being able to relay that
[84:26] information in a way that people can
[84:28] understand and that's digestible. It's
[84:30] how they it's how they process
[84:32] information. Do you know I even learned
[84:33] to do that in the interview room when I
[84:35] would morandize people. I was trying to
[84:37] assess where they were linguistically
[84:40] and so I could speak to them in a way
[84:42] that resonated with them. So one of the
[84:44] things I would do is I had Miranda. I
[84:46] never read Miranda verbally. The Miranda
[84:48] writes in the United States before you
[84:50] interview anybody and I would do this
[84:52] whether they were an applicant, a
[84:53] suspect, a a victim cuz you never knew
[84:55] how things were going to go. I would
[84:56] Miranda everybody. You know, you have
[84:58] the right to remain silent, all that. So
[85:00] I had a piece of paper and I would hand
[85:03] it to them and I would say please read
[85:05] each sentence out loud. So the first
[85:08] sentence would be and I would have them
[85:09] hold it. They would read out loud loud.
[85:11] I have the right to remain silent and I
[85:14] would ask them do you understand that? I
[85:15] wouldn't read it. They would say it. I
[85:17] would listen to them and I wanted to
[85:19] hear their speech how they you know like
[85:21] how how it resonated the their language
[85:24] skills. Then they would sign it. Then
[85:25] we'd finish it and then I would ask them
[85:28] questions that I already knew the answer
[85:30] to. What's your name? What's your date
[85:32] of birth? Where are you from? I had all
[85:35] of this. I did not need it. But it was a
[85:38] way for me to assess their speech. And
[85:40] then based on that, I would meet them
[85:42] where they were.
[85:44] I'm not going to speak the way I
[85:46] normally speak. I'm going to adapt my
[85:48] speech. There's adaptability in a way
[85:51] that's going to resonate with you the
[85:53] most. So using big hefty words, speaking
[85:57] super fast, especially I'm from New
[85:58] York, like I said, I'd go to the south,
[86:00] they speak slower. I would have to slow
[86:02] down so I could meet them where they
[86:04] were. So I could speak to them in a way
[86:06] that resonated with them. It's the
[86:08] listener that matters. I am irrelevant.
[86:11] We don't matter. They matter. Where is
[86:14] that person? I'm going to meet you
[86:15] there. Also, even when you write, do one
[86:17] of the things I learned in journalism
[86:19] school, New York Times writes at an
[86:20] eighth grade level
[86:23] to keep it simple so that people can
[86:26] actually finish the article or even a
[86:27] book. My book, do you know how hard it
[86:29] was to write the book? Not for the
[86:31] content, but to write it in a way that
[86:34] was easy for people to read, not for
[86:36] people to read a chapter and be like, I
[86:38] need a nap.
[86:39] >> Because it's a co it's too cognitive
[86:41] heavy. You want to do things that people
[86:43] can absorb and they don't have to use
[86:45] all their all their brain power. If it's
[86:48] too hard, if we speak too smart or too
[86:51] complicated, people get tired. So the
[86:53] delivery mechanism in which you give
[86:55] information really matters. You're
[86:57] talking so that they can understand, so
[87:00] that it's not hard for them to follow
[87:01] you, so that they can follow you easily,
[87:04] they can stay connected with you, and
[87:06] they're not needing a nap after you're
[87:07] done.
[87:09] You speak for them, not for you.
[87:13] >> A lot of people, especially I think
[87:15] podcasters, sometimes
[87:18] like to use bigger words because it
[87:19] makes you sound smarter.
[87:21] >> The research shows that actually people
[87:22] see you as less competent.
[87:25] When you use simpler words and you get
[87:27] to the point and you you use less words
[87:30] in the vocabulary, it actually shows
[87:32] that you're deemed as more competent,
[87:34] more confident, and more trustworthy. I
[87:36] realized this a couple of years ago when
[87:38] we I was running my New York office for
[87:39] my old company. And uh there was this
[87:42] young young lady in the team who I'll
[87:45] call my name Sarah. I'll call her Sarah.
[87:48] And Sarah in meetings would um when we
[87:51] were doing like creative brainstorms for
[87:52] clients. We had Uber was a client. I
[87:54] remember being sat in the Uber
[87:54] brainstorm. Um she would kind of think
[87:57] out loud. And so she would say, "What
[87:59] about if we did, I don't know, maybe we
[88:00] could do something like um maybe we
[88:02] could do like a pop-up and then we
[88:03] could" and she was thinking out loud.
[88:05] And then there was this other guy who I
[88:06] can name called Cah Katy. He's a friend
[88:08] of mine still to this day. And he would
[88:11] never speak. But the minute he started
[88:13] speaking, it was like the the room fell
[88:15] silent because he spoke so infrequently.
[88:18] We all knew that he was taking the time
[88:20] to think about what he was saying and
[88:22] what he was saying was about to be
[88:24] really really valuable. And I would
[88:25] witness with Sarah people literally cut
[88:29] her off. They would even be before she
[88:33] had said a word, like the first two
[88:34] words out of her mouth, they would
[88:36] immediately assume that it was not worth
[88:39] paying attention to because she had
[88:41] developed what I would later call a bad
[88:44] contribution score, which is kind of
[88:46] like your credit score, but you hurt it
[88:48] when you contribute beyond value, if
[88:52] that makes sense.
[88:53] >> Yeah. Well, she's not. You notice she's
[88:55] so engrossed. And it's not to make to
[88:58] throw, you know, judgment at her, but
[89:00] that's what happens when you're so
[89:01] engrossed in what you're thinking that
[89:04] you lose you lose sight of there's 10
[89:06] other people in this room.
[89:09] And
[89:11] this is when if you're going to open
[89:12] your mouth, open your mouth. Use your
[89:13] pauses, use your silences so that you
[89:16] can make sure your message is impactful
[89:17] and you're not running through, you
[89:19] know, you're not vomiting everything
[89:20] out, which also makes you look nervous
[89:22] and lacking confidence. But if you're
[89:25] going to speak, then
[89:28] command what you say. Speak with
[89:30] conviction and don't waste people's
[89:32] time.
[89:34] >> You can think of people in your life,
[89:35] right? If you think about all the people
[89:36] you work with, there's ones that overt
[89:38] talk and there's ones that definitely
[89:39] under talk and then there's ones that
[89:41] like hit the balance just right. And
[89:43] what is the Can you like tell me about
[89:46] these people and how and if that's even
[89:47] true what I just said?
[89:49] >> It is true. I think it depends who it
[89:51] is. If it's someone I'm working with,
[89:53] I'm always kind of like, can we just,
[89:54] you know, in my head I'm like, land the
[89:56] plane, land the plane. Like I just I
[89:58] don't I have to have like 10 more
[90:00] conversations like these. It's not to be
[90:01] mean, you know, but as you go higher up
[90:04] or as you're doing more, you have less
[90:06] empathy. Ironically, it's not because
[90:07] you become meaner. It's just I I don't
[90:09] have the ability. And
[90:12] >> can I'm going to can I ask you a
[90:13] question actually?
[90:14] >> Sure.
[90:14] >> Do you tend to draw people that want to
[90:18] work with you who think they see the
[90:21] persona Steven here
[90:24] >> and you're you're guiding people, you're
[90:26] helping people, you're in some way
[90:28] mentoring people. Do you find that
[90:30] people want to come to work for you
[90:32] because they think you will do that for
[90:34] them? Do you tend to draw those
[90:36] personalities?
[90:36] >> Of course.
[90:38] >> How do you know you have that?
[90:40] >> This is a good question. Usually in the
[90:42] interview process, their orientation
[90:46] towards why they're here will be too
[90:48] much about Steve, about too much about
[90:50] me. And it'll be highlighted when they
[90:52] meet my executives, my team, my chief of
[90:54] staff, my CEOs, whatever. They'll say,
[90:56] they'll always come to me and say, I
[90:57] think this one's a little bit too
[90:58] interested in you and not the role. And
[91:00] so when I get to meet this person, I'll
[91:02] ask them a very simple question, which
[91:03] is explain to me exactly why this job
[91:05] appealed to you. And they should be able
[91:07] and in that moment they all their
[91:09] answers should be about the work at
[91:11] hand, not I read your book and I thought
[91:13] loved your p, you know, it should never
[91:15] be that because as you know from working
[91:18] with very interesting people, that stuff
[91:20] will fade. And when we go into the
[91:21] trenches, it won't matter whether you
[91:23] liked my book. like we're here to do
[91:25] work and you have to like love the work.
[91:27] You have it has to be the the work has
[91:29] to be the thing you're thinking about in
[91:30] the shower. Not not my podcast. And if
[91:33] that if that's the case, then you you'll
[91:35] be fine here.
[91:36] >> When I did the hiring for the US Secret
[91:38] Service, I did the polygraphs. Now, I
[91:39] know you can't polygraph people, but
[91:41] they would we would polygraph people.
[91:42] So, I was like the last line of defense.
[91:44] They'd go through the whole hiring
[91:46] process, right? Interviews, um panel
[91:49] interviews, exams, there's, you know, uh
[91:52] tests you would have to take. Anyway, so
[91:54] you pass all this stuff, right? And then
[91:56] you get to me. And so I was kind of the
[91:58] last line of defense. And one of the
[92:01] things I would ask them during the
[92:02] interview, I would ask them kind of like
[92:06] what you said, why do you want to be a
[92:08] US Secret Service special agent? And I'd
[92:10] typically get two types of answers. Oh,
[92:12] I think it'd be really interesting
[92:14] challenge. I want to see if I can do it.
[92:16] You know, it would be really, you know,
[92:18] I I want to see what, you know, if I'm
[92:19] able to do it. And then the other answer
[92:23] I would get typically would be, you
[92:25] know, I want to serve my country. I want
[92:27] to help protect people. I want to do
[92:29] something bigger than me. Do you know
[92:32] who made it through the hiring process?
[92:35] These guys. These guys who are I, me, I
[92:38] want to learn. I want to challenge. I
[92:39] want to see I can do it. Because they
[92:41] were so selffocused. They they they not
[92:43] only were they not making it through the
[92:44] hiring process, they wouldn't make it
[92:46] through training.
[92:47] >> Yeah.
[92:48] Because these guys were focused on the
[92:50] bigger thing, the role,
[92:52] >> and then these guys were focused on
[92:53] themselves, what they could get out of
[92:54] it. So when people are interviewing with
[92:56] you, what can they get out of it? I get
[92:58] to be around Steven.
[93:01] Me, me, me. There it is.
[93:04] >> Yeah.
[93:06] This is also just a really good piece of
[93:07] advice for what to aim at in your life,
[93:10] which is not to aim at the labels, the
[93:12] flashy things, the the ephemeral, the
[93:15] things that will fade after a week, a
[93:16] month. Actually, this goes back to what
[93:18] a problem my friend has with he goes for
[93:19] people that look really good on the
[93:20] outside. That's part of the reason he's
[93:23] he's still single. He really cares about
[93:25] what it looks like. And I remember one
[93:26] day him saying to me, you know, I've
[93:28] just started dating this girl, Steven,
[93:29] but I'm not sure because, you know, I
[93:31] just think if I walked into a restaurant
[93:33] with her on my arm, then I I just don't
[93:35] know how it would look. And I remember
[93:36] thinking to him, bro, you're so like if
[93:38] that's what you you care about,
[93:41] you are you're going to struggle. And
[93:44] people care too much about how it looks.
[93:46] >> How they look.
[93:47] >> How the job makes them look. How the
[93:49] situation makes them look.
[93:51] >> Yes. Yes. Although I will say to my
[93:54] husband sometimes I'm like, "You're
[93:55] lucky you're hot." When we fight, you're
[93:57] lucky you're a good-looking hot man. Cuz
[93:59] I don't know if we would have survived.
[94:00] So there's moments, Stephen. Truth be
[94:03] told, I'm looking I'm like, "You're
[94:04] lucky you're a good-looking man.
[94:05] Otherwise, I don't know." So the there's
[94:08] moments where that'll save the
[94:09] relationship. But I digress. I forgot
[94:11] what you asked me because I took you in
[94:12] a different direction because I was
[94:15] really just curious to see, you know,
[94:18] because I would see it with like high
[94:20] presidents and I would see it with
[94:21] certain people and I experienced it
[94:23] myself too. Sometimes you get this
[94:25] >> Yeah.
[94:26] >> And I would think you would get it a lot
[94:29] and that's a really tough thing I would
[94:31] think.
[94:32] >> I would say though some people that have
[94:34] been extremely successful in my company,
[94:36] they were also big followers of the
[94:39] show. I'm thinking of you, Cristiana.
[94:40] Cristiana, who is our chief revenue
[94:43] officer, she told me she's listened to
[94:45] every episode ever. Actually, in her
[94:46] application, she used um in the subject
[94:50] line like chapter 19 of my book. And
[94:52] then in the email, there was several
[94:53] things that I'd written in my books.
[94:55] She's an unbelievable performer because
[94:57] actually her career and her life and her
[94:59] passion is also the work. So it can be
[95:03] both, but it can't be just
[95:06] as you said, it can't just be, oh, I
[95:07] just want to see what the challenge is
[95:08] like. It, you know what I mean? It can't
[95:10] just be an surface level. Any Is there
[95:13] anything else that that is really
[95:15] pertinent on the point of, you know,
[95:17] that guy backstage that said to you that
[95:18] gave you that advice, which was kind of
[95:20] a little bit patronizing. It sounded
[95:21] like that. You said it wasn't, but it
[95:23] kind of
[95:23] >> it didn't take it like that. But I'm
[95:25] also
[95:26] I also don't get easily offended. To me,
[95:29] I looked at it like like you have to
[95:32] really say something pretty offensive to
[95:33] me to be offended. So, I I think I think
[95:35] my offensive level is probably my
[95:38] tolerance is higher than others.
[95:39] >> Is that a good thing?
[95:41] >> Yes. Because
[95:43] in the job that I came from, you
[95:45] couldn't get you just couldn't get
[95:47] impacted with people
[95:50] as easy. Like, you have to think of it
[95:51] this way. Like, it would be something
[95:52] stupid, Stephen. Like I probably here in
[95:55] New York once, President Barack Obama,
[95:56] he went out to dinner and I had to tell
[95:58] somebody standing by the restaurant,
[95:59] "Ma'am, you know, sir, could you please
[96:01] could just cross the street and stand
[96:02] there cuz we had to clear the area and
[96:04] people lose their minds. You're
[96:06] violating my rights." Phones come out.
[96:08] They're yelling at you in your face.
[96:09] Now, the New York me or the the the EVE
[96:13] me wants to just like punch him in the
[96:16] throat, go across the street. Like, I
[96:17] don't I don't have time for this. She
[96:19] can't do that. So when you you have a
[96:23] job where people
[96:25] dislike you because you're law
[96:27] enforcement
[96:28] and they're in your face and when you're
[96:30] telling them to do something they
[96:32] automatically you have something called
[96:34] reactants. Nobody likes to be told
[96:36] anything that nobody likes to feel like
[96:38] they don't have control over their
[96:39] lives. So they have reactants which
[96:41] means immediately they're going to push
[96:43] back. A really good example is COVID
[96:46] people losing their minds, you know,
[96:48] when they were forced to wear masks. And
[96:50] a big reason it wasn't really the mask.
[96:52] It was that they felt that they had no
[96:53] autonomy. You're telling me what I have
[96:55] to do and I feel like I have no control.
[96:57] So in law enforcement, you're typically
[97:00] dealing with this often where you can't
[97:02] offer people a choice. Typically, it's I
[97:04] need you to do this. So when you have
[97:06] people really escalating and getting in
[97:08] your face and in many situations wanting
[97:10] an altercation, they want to put on you,
[97:12] they want to put on YouTube, they want
[97:14] to put on social media, you have to
[97:16] manage yourself. Also, in my mind, I'm
[97:18] like, you're not going to get that from
[97:19] me. So, you do have a higher threshold
[97:25] to tolerate a lot more nonsense. So, if
[97:28] I was someone who was really
[97:29] disrespecting you when you were doing
[97:30] your job and I was shouting in your
[97:32] face, you told me to get across the
[97:34] street and I started cussing you out and
[97:35] being very personal and trying to sort
[97:37] of exacerbate the situation. What would
[97:39] be going through your head at that exact
[97:41] moment? I'm now screaming in your face.
[97:43] I've got my phone out. I'm telling you,
[97:44] you're live on Instagram.
[97:47] What what's what is actually going
[97:48] through your head versus what you're
[97:50] displaying externally? What I would say
[97:52] is, "Ma'am or sir," whoever it was, I
[97:54] was like, "I appreciate you're
[97:56] frustrated. However, I'm not able to
[97:59] have you stand here. Could you please go
[98:01] across the street?"
[98:01] >> And what's going on up here?
[98:03] >> How many times I'm going to say this
[98:05] before I force this person across the
[98:06] street before I put handcuffs on them?
[98:08] That's what's happening in my head. So,
[98:09] in my head, I am doing mathematical
[98:11] equation. How many chances do I give
[98:13] this person before I throw on handcuffs?
[98:15] Have you ever had someone insult you
[98:19] >> in a really vicious just like horrible
[98:21] way?
[98:22] >> Dits, dummy, Barbie, you know,
[98:25] >> and does does it offend in inside even
[98:27] if you don't show it?
[98:30] >> I don't want to say you get used to it,
[98:32] but you don't take it personally cuz
[98:34] they don't know me. Also, when you're in
[98:36] law enforcement, you're
[98:39] you're seeing people at their worst. You
[98:42] are seeing the worst of humanity. That
[98:44] is one of the toughest jobs even when
[98:47] even with military a military they go to
[98:49] war war that's atrocious but you go you
[98:51] do your tour and you're out and then
[98:53] maybe you go back but you get reprieve
[98:55] law enforcement you're doing this for
[98:58] your entire career every single day you
[99:00] are seeing the worst in humanity people
[99:02] are lying to you they're um committing
[99:04] crimes like you really could lose a lot
[99:07] of faith you really could become really
[99:08] cynical actually a common trait in law
[99:10] enforcement so you have to be really
[99:11] careful to not become overly cynical cuz
[99:14] you're seeing the worst of people and
[99:16] they're also bringing out their worst
[99:17] behavior. For whatever reason, people
[99:19] are not their best the best version of
[99:21] themselves. And again, you're also
[99:24] typically not dealing with the good
[99:26] citizen. You're dealing with people who
[99:29] are consistently com committing crimes.
[99:32] If you look at crime in general, the
[99:34] vast majority of crime, it's committed
[99:36] by the same group of people. And the
[99:39] majority of arrests, if you look at the
[99:40] arrests, they're misdemeanors, meaning
[99:44] driving while intoxicated. They're
[99:46] smaller things. Felonies, really serious
[99:48] crimes. These are people who typically
[99:50] violate the law consistently. So when
[99:53] there this is happening, I we would
[99:56] memorize uh what the US Secret Service
[99:58] did is they taught us to fight with
[100:00] facts. I fight with facts. So, we
[100:02] actually memorized the title codes like
[100:04] 18 title 18 USC was it 3056 that gave me
[100:09] the right to um do what I needed to do
[100:12] to secure and protect the president of
[100:14] the United States. And if you were
[100:15] interfering with that, then the law gave
[100:18] me the right to arrest you if I needed
[100:21] to. I didn't want to arrest anybody. I
[100:22] didn't care. But the law gave me that
[100:24] right cuz now you're impeding in my
[100:26] ability to do my job. So, one of the
[100:28] things I would do is I would say,
[100:29] "Ma'am, uh, you are right now impeding
[100:32] with title 18 3056." And I would say the
[100:35] title of what it was, which says that I
[100:38] have to do X, Y, and Z. So, here's the
[100:40] thing. I don't want to arrest you, but
[100:42] you do need to move across the street.
[100:43] You can move across the street and I can
[100:45] get somebody somebody to come talk to
[100:47] you or, you know, it's going to
[100:49] escalate. It's up to you. Most people,
[100:51] Stephen, most listen, but a lot of
[100:54] people like theatrics.
[100:55] >> You said it's up to you. That's giving
[100:56] them an element of control, which is
[100:58] good.
[100:58] >> It's up to me. Look, at the end, they
[100:59] have to do it because I have to do my
[101:01] job, right? But the majority of time,
[101:04] >> but you've given them the choice because
[101:06] you've said you can either scrape or
[101:08] this.
[101:08] >> Yes. But sometimes you have to repeat it
[101:10] like 15 times to people before you
[101:13] actually do it. Here's the thing. Once
[101:15] you put hands on people, the last thing
[101:17] you want to do is put hands on people.
[101:18] The minute you put hands on people,
[101:22] >> everything breaks bad. They're gonna
[101:24] freak out. Somebody's gonna get hurt.
[101:26] They're gonna It's It's not a good
[101:28] thing. The majority of people I would
[101:29] arrest after I would arrest them, I'd
[101:31] have to take them to the hospital. Not
[101:32] because I did anything to hurt them, but
[101:35] my heart hurts. I'm stressed. I have I
[101:37] don't know what's happening. I have a
[101:38] headache. I don't want them to die on
[101:39] me. And the majority of the time, I
[101:41] would take them to the hospital or they
[101:42] were faking it. I've had people fake
[101:44] heart attacks cuz they thought I'd feel
[101:45] bad and take the cuffs off. And I'm
[101:47] like, "Okay, are you having a heart
[101:49] attack? Let me put the cuffs on. We're
[101:50] going straight to the hospital." And I
[101:51] would take them to the hospital. So
[101:52] there's a lot of tactics people would
[101:54] use to also get you to stop.
[101:57] Manipulators, which people can do the
[101:59] average person, not in this way, but
[102:01] ways people can manipulate you to stop
[102:03] whatever it is you're doing. Let's say
[102:05] you're trying to find out the truth of
[102:06] something or you're in you're trying to
[102:08] get to you're asking questions and the
[102:11] person doesn't like it, they may start
[102:13] crying. People would cry when I would
[102:15] arrest them as a way for me to feel
[102:17] sorry to stop. So often people will use
[102:19] things to get you to feel bad, to leave
[102:21] them alone. Let's say you're going to
[102:23] fire somebody because for something they
[102:24] did and you're asking them questions and
[102:26] they start crying in the office instead
[102:27] of asking the questions, right? That's a
[102:30] way to deflect, to get you to feel bad,
[102:32] to stop your line of fire of questions
[102:35] to get you to stop. Very common. Very
[102:37] common. Crying. It's a manipulation
[102:39] tactic. And there's other things people
[102:41] can do. So people will use certain
[102:43] things to get you to stop what you're
[102:45] doing. And sometimes people fall fall
[102:47] for it or they'll say things to you,
[102:49] you're only doing this to me because I'm
[102:51] a woman or because I'm this. And those
[102:55] sometimes, not that they're not true,
[102:57] but a lot of times it can be used as
[102:58] manipulators to get you to back off.
[103:02] >> In that scenario, you're being met with
[103:04] emotion. And it appears that you're
[103:06] returning logic because you're talking
[103:09] about the title code
[103:10] >> and you could, I guess, return emotion,
[103:12] but it
[103:12] >> No, no, you own your emotion. Nobody
[103:15] should provoke you. Nobody.
[103:18] You're Steven Bartlett, dire CEO. Nobody
[103:20] provokes you. You own your response. You
[103:23] can go in that back room and [ __ ]
[103:24] somebody to, you know, like do it in the
[103:26] mirror, but nobody nobody owns that.
[103:29] Nobody should take that from you. Who
[103:31] are they to take that from from you? And
[103:32] who are you to surrender it? That's the
[103:35] way I look at it. You're going to be
[103:37] dealing with people. People are
[103:39] revolving door of all their stuff. And I
[103:41] do think we see a really heightened
[103:44] emotional state with people. Like people
[103:47] can't not post stuff on social media.
[103:49] Like everybody has to give their opinion
[103:50] on something. And sometimes I'm like
[103:51] stop. Like everybody doesn't need to
[103:53] know what you're thinking. Like stop
[103:55] posting. We put so much noise out there
[103:57] cuz we think people care. They don't.
[104:00] It's like even though when you speak I
[104:02] look at social media the same way. What
[104:03] are you contributing to the world? Are
[104:05] you post it? If you're not, don't post
[104:08] it. Don't put more noise. your
[104:10] contribution points even in your posts
[104:12] and the things you share with the world.
[104:13] But I look at it this way. You're at a
[104:16] point I understand when you're young up
[104:17] until you're 25 years old. I give you a
[104:19] free pass cuz that frontal cortex of
[104:21] yours is not developed. You're not
[104:23] emotionally regulated. But then there
[104:24] comes a point where you have to own your
[104:27] emotions. I had to because I would lose
[104:29] my job.
[104:29] >> How do I become unprovokable?
[104:32] >> Is there a way or is it just by
[104:35] repetitions?
[104:35] >> It's repetition. If enough people get in
[104:38] your face over time, you learn to manage
[104:42] your emotions. But if you spent the
[104:44] whole time avoiding people getting in
[104:46] your face, I'm not telling you to go
[104:47] look for problems, but you shouldn't go
[104:49] out of your your your way to avoid
[104:51] conflict to such a degree where you're
[104:54] willing to do anything and whatever
[104:55] because you don't want conflict. I don't
[104:57] want conflict. I don't like it. But if
[104:59] it shows up in my face, I'm going to be
[105:02] there. Yeah. You can also handle people
[105:04] non-emotionally with facts. Okay.
[105:06] Earlier on you said X, Y, and Z. Could
[105:08] you explain that to me? Even sometimes
[105:11] when some people tell me, you know, I
[105:12] feel like I'm not valued at work or I
[105:14] think my boss doesn't care about me or I
[105:16] believe this and I want to go talk to my
[105:18] boss. And I'll tell them, I'm fine with
[105:20] you going talk to your boss. When they
[105:22] would ask me for advice, cuz I never
[105:23] give unsolicited advice. I'm fine with
[105:25] you going in there, but do not go in
[105:27] there and say, I think, I feel, I
[105:29] believe. Go in there and say, "Hey, I
[105:32] did this project. I spent x amount of
[105:34] hours on it and I made x amount of money
[105:36] for this company. You know, I I'd like
[105:38] to put in for a higher position or I'd
[105:39] like to put in for this other project.
[105:41] Go in with the facts.
[105:44] Facts win. Because it's harder for
[105:46] people to refute facts. I think I should
[105:48] get this. Well, I think you shouldn't. I
[105:51] believe, you know, you're treating me
[105:52] this way. Well, I believe I'm not. But
[105:54] if you say, "We had this meeting. During
[105:57] this meeting, you said this and this.
[105:59] Could you explain that to me? Because it
[106:00] seemed as though you didn't trust me in
[106:03] that meeting or it seemed as though you
[106:04] were upset with me in that meeting, but
[106:06] I'm telling you specifically what I did.
[106:09] So, I'm bringing it back to that
[106:11] specific fact moment versus now I feel
[106:14] that you treat me this way. It's so
[106:15] vague and ambiguous. When you go in with
[106:17] very specific things, that's harder to
[106:20] argue. You want to not that I want you
[106:22] to win an argument, but you really want
[106:23] to make your point and get results. Be
[106:26] very clear and specific. And you know
[106:28] what? If you're nervous, write it down.
[106:30] I always tell people, write your stuff
[106:31] down. Walk into a meeting if you're
[106:33] having it with your supervisor. Sir,
[106:35] boss, I don't know if people say sir
[106:37] anymore. I guess I have to say sir. Sir,
[106:39] I just I took some notes down, so I hope
[106:41] you don't mind. I'm just going to look
[106:42] through it just to make sure I I I speak
[106:44] clearly and I don't make any mistakes
[106:46] and then go through the points. I
[106:48] actually asked a colleague of mine who
[106:50] was in a similar situation who wanted to
[106:53] have a conversation with me and their
[106:54] slightly younger colleague of mine um in
[106:58] their early 20ies. They said they wanted
[107:00] to speak to me about something and
[107:03] my advice to them was actually to write
[107:05] it down in a memo as if you were writing
[107:08] a story cuz I love narrative memos. And
[107:11] I did that because I wanted them to
[107:14] properly think about what they wanted to
[107:16] say because I knew what would happen is
[107:17] they'd come in, they'd start sort of
[107:19] like falling over their words a little
[107:20] bit. They might not not fully give me
[107:23] all the context. And I often do that
[107:25] now, which is in all my meetings um that
[107:27] we do. We kind of stole this from Jeff
[107:28] Bezos Amazon is I'll have someone write
[107:31] it into even if it's a two-page memo
[107:33] which says like this is the situation.
[107:35] This is why I'm bringing you this thing
[107:37] in this meeting. This is my proposed
[107:39] solution. this is the decision I need
[107:42] you know super super clear because in
[107:45] business you often find what you know
[107:46] whe you have two kind of sides of things
[107:48] either someone walks in and freestyles
[107:49] with their voice and they stumble in the
[107:51] the moment they don't get things out
[107:52] properly or someone comes in with like a
[107:54] 100page PowerPoint presentation which is
[107:56] like vague pictures of things and bullet
[107:59] points and I hate a [ __ ] bullet point
[108:00] because a bullet point is open to
[108:01] interpretation so is a picture whereas
[108:03] these narrative memos which is what
[108:04] Amazon and Jeff Bezos figured out they
[108:08] leave no room for ambig iguity and all
[108:10] the context is there and actually
[108:12] sometimes it actually means that they
[108:13] can just send it in in an email
[108:15] >> and then you don't have to talk to
[108:16] >> and then I don't have to do the hour and
[108:17] a half.
[108:17] >> Dude, it's funny you say that. When I
[108:19] did cases I would always ask and again
[108:21] not because I knew to do this. I was
[108:23] trained to do this but really good
[108:25] interview is get people to write not a
[108:27] memo but a statement
[108:29] >> before you even interview them you know
[108:31] and if it was like the date of the crime
[108:33] for example tell me what you did from
[108:35] the time you woke up on this date till
[108:38] the time you went to sleep and it would
[108:39] be a memo
[108:40] >> of what they did that day or tell me
[108:42] what you know about blah blah blah blah
[108:44] and I would read those statements and I
[108:46] would know often who was my suspect who
[108:48] wasn't I had one case where baby was a
[108:52] few months
[108:53] baby had a broken arm and it was between
[108:56] the dad and the nanny that police were
[108:58] looking at and police weren't sure which
[109:01] one it was. We think it's either the
[109:03] nanny or their dad. Now, in a criminal
[109:05] case, you always want to talk to the the
[109:08] most likely suspect. You don't build
[109:09] your way up. I go to the person who I
[109:12] likely think did it. I'm going straight
[109:13] to the person, right? I don't want to go
[109:15] to the person I think maybe did it and
[109:17] then build my way there. I want the one
[109:18] I want the person that I truly believe
[109:20] is my suspect, my offender. So, I get
[109:24] the statements and I read them both. I
[109:26] read dad's and I read nanny's. I read
[109:29] dad's and I'm like, it's not dad. I knew
[109:32] from the statement it wasn't dad. I read
[109:34] nanny's.
[109:36] And I knew right away after I read nanny
[109:38] st statement, she did it. Now, you're
[109:39] going to say, how did you know? The
[109:42] nanny opened up her statement by telling
[109:44] me about her morning, how frustrated it
[109:46] was, how she was running late. She had
[109:48] two little kids of her own. She was
[109:49] trying to get them out. She was a single
[109:51] mom. She was stressed out. Then she
[109:53] shows up to work to um take care of this
[109:57] baby. The baby's fussing. The baby's
[109:59] crying. I did this. It didn't work. I
[110:01] did that. It didn't work. So, as she's
[110:02] telling me the story, she's telling me
[110:05] how hard her day was. And then she turns
[110:08] into how frustrated she was with this
[110:09] baby. I did everything I could to get
[110:11] this baby to stop crying. I think the
[110:13] baby was is either three or six months
[110:14] old. I'm just I can't remember. And the
[110:17] baby was this and the baby was that. And
[110:19] then she gets to a part where it says,
[110:23] "Then I gave the baby Tylenol and it
[110:26] went quiet."
[110:29] And I was like, "There it is." That's
[110:31] when she broke the baby's arm.
[110:34] Who says I gave the baby Tylenol and it
[110:37] went quiet? In that moment, her language
[110:41] had changed so much. I was like, that's
[110:42] the moment she snapped that baby's arm
[110:44] and the baby passed out from the pain.
[110:47] And so when I get the statement, I call
[110:50] I call up the the law enforcement entity
[110:52] was the state police cuz they were the
[110:54] ones that asked me to come up and I
[110:55] said, "I want to talk to nanny, not to
[110:57] dad." And sure enough, nanny comes in.
[110:59] Hour and a half later, I had a
[111:01] confession. I didn't even have to give
[111:02] her a polygraph. What was interesting is
[111:04] in her statement, it sounded like she
[111:06] was actually self-justifying her
[111:08] behavior.
[111:08] >> She was. She absolutely was.
[111:11] >> I was reading about this thing called
[111:12] cognitive dissonance that you just
[111:13] mentioned and this idea that we don't
[111:15] like the the gap between the way we're
[111:18] behaving and who we think we are or want
[111:19] to be. And when I think about myself and
[111:22] you know bad habits that I have or bad
[111:25] habits that my friends have, we all like
[111:27] justify justify I'm too busy so I
[111:30] couldn't go to the gym or there was
[111:32] nothing else that I that I could grab.
[111:34] So I ate the cookie in the mini bar.
[111:36] Like we have to find a way to justify
[111:38] it.
[111:40] And then some of us I think we like
[111:41] build our lives around kind of believing
[111:43] our own justifications.
[111:46] >> Of course we do. and then we're trapped
[111:47] because in the presence of these crazy
[111:49] justifications, what we're doing makes
[111:51] sense and it's okay.
[111:53] >> I think sometimes it's I'm not telling
[111:56] people to feel permanently bad for what
[111:58] they do cuz you don't want to, like we
[112:00] said, you don't want to live in the past
[112:01] and beat yourself up and man, I messed
[112:03] up and I did this. You will, but I do
[112:05] think it's important to say I did
[112:07] something and I shouldn't have done
[112:08] this. At least to yourself.
[112:10] >> How do you stop believing you're in
[112:11] [ __ ]
[112:14] >> Well,
[112:14] >> or do you? I think so. I'm very lucky. I
[112:19] have a husband who makes sure that I
[112:20] don't.
[112:22] He is um but he's a very steady good
[112:25] soundboard, but he's also a former
[112:26] special agent both in US Secret Service
[112:29] and Homeland Security and he was SWAT.
[112:31] So, this is a super steady person. Lost
[112:34] his father when he was young. I'm only
[112:36] sharing this cuz you're asking. I guess
[112:38] what I'm saying is so I have someone in
[112:40] my very inner circle who will tell me,
[112:43] "Hey,
[112:45] chucklehead, you might want to think
[112:47] this through." He may not say it like
[112:49] that, but he will call me out on things.
[112:52] People that
[112:54] care about you will typically call
[112:56] things out on you. Um, now there's ways
[112:58] to do it and ways not to do it. And
[113:00] there's maybe times where I'm not really
[113:01] keen on the way he does it. But because
[113:04] I he has good contribution points, good
[113:07] credibility with me, I know if he's
[113:08] saying something that there's validity
[113:11] to it. If he's going to pause and say,
[113:13] "Hey, I would like you to think about
[113:14] this." It's coming from somewhere. So,
[113:17] he's built enough trust, I've built
[113:19] enough trust to know that he does that.
[113:22] Now, if you have someone who's always
[113:23] critiquing you, because that does exist.
[113:26] everything you do is wrong, then that
[113:28] person's not going to, you know, they're
[113:31] not going to resonate. So, I think
[113:33] having people that actually call you out
[113:36] on your stuff or help point it out that
[113:40] can do it and that you also have to be
[113:42] okay with listening it. So, I'm mature
[113:44] enough and I hope to be I try to be
[113:46] humble enough to say, "Look, tell me the
[113:48] truth." Or there are times too where as
[113:51] much as a strategic decision maker I
[113:54] like to be there's times where Stephen
[113:56] I'm seeing red. Someone will do
[113:58] something and all I see is red and I
[114:00] will go to someone that can either
[114:03] either I trust or can help me make a
[114:05] decision with something and I'll say,
[114:07] you know, it could be my agent, it could
[114:08] be a work thing. I'm like, "Hey, this
[114:09] happened. I'm seeing red. How would you
[114:12] handle this scenario because I'm in an
[114:15] emotional state and I'm not going to
[114:16] make a good decision. Can I have your
[114:18] guidance advice? And so I will go to
[114:20] people I trust who will guide me. So
[114:23] that's the biggest thing I think. Call
[114:24] yourself out on your [ __ ] The
[114:26] minute you start getting emotional and I
[114:29] think there's a pattern, if everything
[114:30] offends you, if everything upsets you,
[114:34] if you're getting triggered all the
[114:35] time, if you're upset with people or
[114:38] angry with people or you feel the need
[114:39] to let everybody know through social
[114:41] media or posts or texting, you know
[114:44] what's going on in your life. I want you
[114:45] to pause and say, why am I doing all of
[114:47] this? What is going on within me that I
[114:51] am feeling that I need to that I see the
[114:54] world this way? It always starts with
[114:55] us. It's always within. So, I think
[114:58] that's the thing. It's like what's going
[115:00] on within me? And if you have the
[115:01] ability and the maturity and you're in a
[115:04] space where you can do that and you want
[115:06] that, you can call yourself out on your
[115:08] own [ __ ]
[115:10] >> Do you have a lot of friends?
[115:13] >> No.
[115:15] I did growing up. I was my social
[115:17] butterfly.
[115:18] Um, no. And just so you know, the
[115:21] research shows, Stephen, that as we age,
[115:24] our inner circle gets smaller and
[115:26] smaller and smaller. I have a lot of
[115:28] acquaintances
[115:29] and I'm friendly with a lot of people
[115:32] and I network with a lot of people and I
[115:34] like these people. But when I hear the
[115:36] word friends, I could count my friends
[115:38] on one hand. Do you have a lot of
[115:41] friends? M
[115:43] >> you might cuz you might still be at an
[115:45] age where you're kind of in the middle
[115:46] there.
[115:47] >> For me, I've got like five best friends,
[115:49] but then I've got all these other people
[115:51] who I've become friends with
[115:53] predominantly through work.
[115:54] >> Okay. So, I define friends as people you
[115:57] would give pretty much unconditional
[115:58] trust to.
[116:01] Unconditional. I trust you. I'll tell
[116:02] you what,
[116:03] >> more or less.
[116:05] >> How many would those be?
[116:07] >> I reckon 10.
[116:08] >> 10. Unconditional trust. Okay.
[116:10] >> Jack's one of them. Jack over there is
[116:12] one of them. Known him for 7 years now.
[116:15] There's nothing I wouldn't trust him
[116:16] with.
[116:17] >> So that would be a legitimate Yes. That
[116:21] would be a friend.
[116:22] >> Mhm.
[116:23] >> Right. Consistency, length of time,
[116:25] trust, no betrayal.
[116:28] >> Mhm.
[116:28] >> That would be a friend.
[116:29] >> And is this a quality versus quantity
[116:31] game? Do you think the inner circle?
[116:33] >> Yeah.
[116:35] Can Why do you need all those people?
[116:37] It's it's it's one thing to have
[116:38] connections and and network and and meet
[116:41] people and hang out, but who you bring
[116:43] into that inner circle,
[116:46] I think, and I would think even for you,
[116:50] you want to be selective and careful
[116:53] because you also want to make sure
[116:54] people if Steven wasn't Steven,
[116:58] like what quality friends would they
[117:00] still be? Because sometimes it's also
[117:02] what the package is and people are drawn
[117:04] to us and that's okay.
[117:07] But I guess what I'm saying is it's
[117:09] quality. Are they generally good
[117:10] friends? Like if something bad happens
[117:13] and you're like, "I need your help." And
[117:14] they're like, "Let me would they be
[117:15] like, "Let me go get my shovel. Where
[117:17] are we meeting?"
[117:19] You know, I think that would be
[117:22] the gauge of a friend. But I think
[117:23] sometimes people think a lot of friends
[117:25] are good and a lot of friends are noise.
[117:27] You can have acquaintances, but like
[117:29] your friend is really somebody who
[117:30] influences you.
[117:33] I did something at 24 years old that has
[117:35] had a profound impact on my life. I set
[117:37] myself the challenge of posting every
[117:39] single day on my social media channels.
[117:40] And at the time, I was doing it to grow
[117:42] my following. But it had this profound
[117:44] impact on my life and two remarkable
[117:46] things happened when I did that. I
[117:48] managed to learn faster because every
[117:50] single day I'm capturing what is
[117:51] happening to me and trying to distill it
[117:53] down into something that I can share
[117:54] with the world. But more remarkably, it
[117:57] led me to building a following of many
[117:59] millions of people. And that's the basis
[118:00] that I used to launch the Dire of SEO.
[118:02] And that's why I want to tell you about
[118:04] our sponsor today, Adobe Express. They
[118:06] are the platform that I use to make all
[118:08] the posts across my LinkedIn and across
[118:09] my Instagram. It's a couple of clicks
[118:12] and you don't need to be an expert. And
[118:14] that is why I love using it because I'm
[118:15] not an expert in graphic design. It's
[118:17] accessible to use for all of us, even if
[118:19] we don't have the technical prowess to
[118:21] design great things. So, if you want to
[118:22] start compounding both your reach and
[118:24] your knowledge, like I did at 24 years
[118:25] old, then head to adobe./stephven.
[118:28] y/stephven
[118:30] and get started with Adobe Express.
[118:31] That's adobe./stephven.
[118:35] I've watched so many entrepreneurs treat
[118:37] sales like a performance problem. When
[118:39] it's often down to visibility because
[118:41] when you can't see what's happening in
[118:43] your pipeline, what stage each
[118:44] conversation is at, what's stalled,
[118:46] what's moving, you can't improve
[118:48] anything and you can't close the deal.
[118:51] Our sponsor, Pipe Drive, is the number
[118:53] one CRM tool for small to medium
[118:55] businesses. Not just a contact list, but
[118:57] an actual system that shows your entire
[119:00] sales process end to end, everything
[119:02] that's live, what's lagging, and the
[119:04] steps you need to take next. All of your
[119:06] teams can move smarter and faster. Teams
[119:09] using Pipe Drive are on average closing
[119:11] three times more deals than those that
[119:13] aren't. It's the first CRM made by
[119:15] salespeople for salespeople that over
[119:18] 100,000 companies around the world rely
[119:21] on, including my team who absolutely
[119:23] love it. Give Piperive a try today by
[119:25] visiting piperive.com/ceo
[119:29] and you can get up and running in a
[119:30] couple of minutes with no payment
[119:32] needed. And if you use this link, you'll
[119:34] get a 30day free trial. You've used this
[119:38] term low vibration before.
[119:40] >> Yeah.
[119:40] >> What is what is what does that mean to
[119:42] you to be low vibration?
[119:44] >> You can think of it this way. Like
[119:45] there's some pe I think look at low
[119:47] vibration as when you're around people
[119:49] and it's just you don't want to be
[119:52] around them. They make you feel bad. Not
[119:54] because they said something necessarily
[119:56] to you, but they're maybe in a victim
[119:59] mindset. They're always bringing
[120:01] problems. They're always bringing drama.
[120:03] Everything is wrong. Nothing is right.
[120:05] They are low vibration.
[120:07] >> Can you be low vibration around because
[120:09] you're low vibration people?
[120:12] >> Yes. Because you adopt their habits. You
[120:15] adopt and are influenced by people.
[120:17] Doesn't matter who you are. You can be
[120:19] you can be Steven Bartlett, dire CEO. If
[120:21] you surround yourself with low vibration
[120:23] people, eventually slowly it's going to
[120:26] bring down your vibration. It's easier
[120:28] for if you're up here, let's say higher
[120:30] vibration. I'm doing really well. I'm
[120:32] I'm I'm I'm excelling in the way I think
[120:35] emotionally stable. You you're kind of
[120:38] doing really well in life and you're up
[120:39] here and you're around people like down
[120:42] here and you're thinking, "Oh, I'm going
[120:44] to help pull this person up, right?" It
[120:46] is actually easier for them to pull you
[120:48] down than it is for you to pull people
[120:50] up. You know, I always say, be careful
[120:52] who you try to save. Some people will
[120:54] drown you. It's like when we would do uh
[120:57] rescue, search and rescue, they would
[120:58] tell you when you go out in the water,
[121:00] the most dangerous thing isn't the
[121:02] water. It's the person who's panicking
[121:04] in the water who could kill you. Because
[121:06] as you get closer to them to save them,
[121:08] what are they doing, Stephen? They're
[121:09] panicking. They're flailing. Then they
[121:11] see you. What do they do? They grab on
[121:13] to you so they can stay afloat. And you
[121:15] know what they do? They push you down.
[121:17] You're there to save them. But in their
[121:19] panic and in their loss and in their
[121:21] chaos, what do they do? They push you
[121:23] down. People are the same way just in
[121:25] relationships. So all I'm saying is I'm
[121:27] not telling you not to be a person who's
[121:29] going out there to help others, but be
[121:31] selective in how you do it and who you
[121:32] help because then you fall into that
[121:36] that that space of I'm I'm such a I'm
[121:38] just trying to be a good person. I'm
[121:40] trying to do this. I'm trying to do
[121:41] that. No, you're exposing yourself to
[121:42] people and environments that are not
[121:44] good for you and that actually impact
[121:47] your life negatively. And so it's not on
[121:49] them. It's also we have a responsibility
[121:51] to ourselves, Stephen, to make good
[121:53] decisions on where we go, what
[121:56] relationships we enter, who we're
[121:58] dealing with, and what we're doing. We
[121:59] have a responsibility. So if somebody
[122:01] screws us over, I get it. Every once in
[122:03] a while, you come across an [ __ ] and
[122:04] it happens.
[122:06] But if it's a consistent thing,
[122:09] it's also what did I do? What did I
[122:12] allow myself to do that exposed me to
[122:15] this volatility that exposed me to this
[122:16] stuff? It's like crime. If I walk home
[122:18] every night in a sketchy area with the
[122:20] the lights are dark and there's no
[122:21] lighting and I know there's high crime
[122:23] and it's abandoned area, that choice I'm
[122:25] making to walk through that neighborhood
[122:27] versus taking a taxi,
[122:30] that will make me more likely to be
[122:31] what? A victim of crime. But if I take a
[122:34] taxi, I'm less likely to be a victim of
[122:36] crime. I avoid this bad neighborhood. I
[122:38] avoid this bad area. I guess what I'm
[122:39] saying is you also have a
[122:41] responsibility. We have a responsibility
[122:43] to navigate the environment we're in and
[122:47] how we engage with people. And it can't
[122:49] just be he or she screwed me over. It's
[122:52] like what decision did you make? It's
[122:54] not blame, but what decision did you
[122:56] make that exposed you and made you more
[122:59] vulnerable to getting screwed over?
[123:01] Because there would because typically
[123:03] maybe not all but the majority of times
[123:06] there are signs that we choose to ignore
[123:08] or we think everybody's our friend and
[123:10] we give them unconditional trust and
[123:12] then something happens and we think why
[123:14] did that happen? Well, you gave
[123:15] unconditional trust like it was nothing.
[123:17] Your trust should be something people
[123:19] earn. You don't have to tell them you
[123:21] need to earn my trust. You don't have to
[123:23] say it but internally it's kind of like
[123:25] you need to earn this cuz it means
[123:27] something to give people trust. You
[123:29] shouldn't you shouldn't just
[123:30] automatically surrender it to you. So
[123:32] Jack, what's up Jack? Jack over seven
[123:34] years earns trust consistently and over
[123:38] time. And that's why that relationship's
[123:39] the same way. But you are responsible.
[123:41] We are each responsible for ourselves.
[123:43] So if you keep exposing yourself to low
[123:46] vibration, to chaotic areas, chaotic
[123:48] people, then you are playing a role in
[123:52] the problems that you have.
[123:55] >> We live in a culture though where people
[123:56] are do complain a lot. They complain
[123:58] that things aren't fair, that they're
[123:59] not equal, that they're not, you know,
[124:01] not being treated like they should be
[124:02] treated, etc., etc. And there's there's
[124:06] a lot of that in the the corporate world
[124:08] >> because it's allowed.
[124:12] I think it's okay to meet people where
[124:13] they are sometimes and listen to them. I
[124:15] think it's valid, but it's also when you
[124:19] bend so much, you're also doing a
[124:22] disservice to them because you're
[124:23] helping make excuses for them. they're
[124:25] not delivering and it hurts the work
[124:27] culture and I think you really have to
[124:28] be careful because a person who comes in
[124:31] with poor performance can really impact
[124:33] the rest of the team and I've had it
[124:34] like I don't have as many as employees
[124:36] as you have but when I have people that
[124:38] work with me I'm very aware of how their
[124:41] vibration comes in and impacts the other
[124:44] team. I want high performance and if
[124:46] you're coming in with your low vibration
[124:47] and your problems and your dramas it
[124:49] doesn't belong at work. What is the
[124:51] defining sort of attitude trait of a low
[124:54] performer? Just if you just had to pick
[124:56] one, the first thing that comes to mind
[124:57] that pisses you off.
[124:59] >> It doesn't piss me off, but when people
[125:02] start telling me about their personal
[125:04] affairs,
[125:06] and it's not that I'm insensitive
[125:08] person. There's a time and place. So, if
[125:11] you start telling me about how your
[125:13] weekend was with your grandmother or
[125:15] whoever, and I'm sitting there, I'm
[125:17] like, it's not that I'm insensitive, but
[125:19] it's
[125:20] we're at work. Like, I asked you about
[125:23] something specific, and you're telling
[125:24] me about this whole story about So,
[125:27] you're making it about you. And I think
[125:29] that there's a little bit like, did you
[125:30] not pause to think like
[125:33] I'm talking to my supervisor or my boss?
[125:35] She's super busy. She's expect accepting
[125:38] expecting something from me. Let me
[125:40] share it with her. You know, when you do
[125:42] that to another person, you take from
[125:45] them all the time. How's that fair to
[125:47] them?
[125:48] >> At the start of that, you said they
[125:49] would come and talk about themselves,
[125:50] etc. And it reminded me of something you
[125:52] were talking about in your TED talk
[125:53] where one of the key ideas is that
[125:56] you're not that special.
[125:59] What do you mean when you say you're not
[126:01] that special?
[126:02] >> You're not that special is
[126:06] When we make ourselves so self-important
[126:09] which in western culture we have it's
[126:11] very much about the person the identity
[126:13] of the person you can do anything you
[126:16] can this it's you you I think that's
[126:18] great but what happens is when we get so
[126:21] focused on the singular person and we
[126:23] forget other people is that we think
[126:26] that we are so special that it's just us
[126:29] and then the rest of the world revolves
[126:31] around us. We're the sun and then
[126:33] everybody else revolves around us. And
[126:36] when you think you're special, it's not
[126:38] that you become a narcissist or anything
[126:40] like that. That's not how I mean it.
[126:42] What I mean by that is if I am special,
[126:45] then what also that says is my problems
[126:48] are special. My pain is special. What
[126:49] I'm going through is special. And you
[126:51] meet those people where it's like, "Oh,
[126:52] no, no, no. This is this is just
[126:54] happening to me." That mindset. And when
[126:57] you are there, you are alone. And
[127:00] there's nothing that anybody can do to
[127:01] help you even when they give you advice
[127:03] because you are the exception to
[127:05] everything.
[127:07] When you have that mindset, at least
[127:08] when I had that mindset, all my problems
[127:10] faded away. As bad as they were, or
[127:13] whatever hardship I was going through,
[127:15] I'm like, I'm not that special. There's
[127:16] other people going through it far worse
[127:18] than I am. It doesn't minimize what I'm
[127:20] going through, but it reorients you.
[127:22] >> You also talk about walking with
[127:23] conviction because predators can spot
[127:26] prey.
[127:28] >> Yes.
[127:29] Did you see that through your career
[127:30] that predators, narcissists would go for
[127:33] certain people?
[127:34] >> Yes. But even Yes. But in even in
[127:37] regular relationships, why do some
[127:39] people end up with a bad partner all the
[127:41] time or an abusive partner all the time?
[127:45] Why
[127:46] >> don't throw me under the bus, you say?
[127:50] >> Well, why? Because we tend to draw to us
[127:54] those folks because we we we look like
[127:56] we're easier targets. We look like
[127:58] they're people they can then mold or
[128:00] manipulate and we we trust too easily.
[128:03] I'm not telling you not to give trust,
[128:04] but there are certain traits that they
[128:06] look at. They're not going to go after
[128:08] an alpha type personality. You know, it
[128:11] it's if you look like you're an easy
[128:13] target, if you look like you're easy to
[128:15] take down, if you look like you're
[128:16] easily going to be thrown off,
[128:20] people see that. They they pay
[128:21] attention. But if they look like you're
[128:23] a competitor, if they look like you're a
[128:25] counter predator, and you don't even
[128:26] have to be that extreme, but if they
[128:28] look like, hey, this person's going to
[128:29] push back, I'm going to be careful. Even
[128:32] with some people you talk to, I bet
[128:34] employees, there's some employees that
[128:35] you're probably more comfortable telling
[128:36] something to cuz they're more easily
[128:39] they're easier to tell it to. They're
[128:42] softer in tone. Maybe they're not going
[128:43] to push back. They're easier. And then
[128:44] there are other employees where you're
[128:46] like, I have to think about how I say
[128:48] this cuz this person's a a strong alpha
[128:50] personality. And so I have to approach
[128:53] them a little bit differently. Now
[128:56] people are the same way. We give off
[128:58] cues. We give off vibes. And to some
[129:00] people we can look like easier targets.
[129:04] Even in crime, crime, they pick their
[129:08] targets. They don't want fair fights.
[129:11] They want I want someone who's going to
[129:13] go down easy. Kids are the most um
[129:17] overly abused population. Why? Because
[129:19] they're kids.
[129:22] They're the easiest to target. They're
[129:24] the most vulnerable. Why? So, if I'm
[129:26] such a strong predator, why am I going
[129:28] for kids? Or next, elderly. Why am I
[129:32] going for elderly? Cuz they're easy for
[129:34] me to conquer. They're easy for me to
[129:35] take down. Predators are not what you
[129:37] think they are.
[129:39] Even if you look at in recent events, if
[129:41] you look at recent shootings we've had,
[129:44] when you look at the people that have
[129:45] carried out some of these shootings,
[129:46] there was one recently this week with
[129:48] Charlie Kirk. Look at that shooter. Does
[129:50] he look like a predator to you? I don't
[129:52] mean it in a cold way. I just Does he
[129:53] look it? There was one before that here
[129:55] in the United States. It was the
[129:57] Minneapolis school shooting. Did you see
[129:58] that shooter? Does that look like a
[130:00] predator to you?
[130:04] These predators that we envision in our
[130:05] head that we think are these ruthless,
[130:08] scaryl looking people. They tend to not
[130:11] be that. They they themselves are not
[130:14] strong. They look for weaker targets
[130:17] because it's easier easier to take out
[130:19] and manipulate. Predators are not these.
[130:21] It's not like what you see in the movie.
[130:24] The movies like you think you're going
[130:25] to see the scary looking dude. And I'm
[130:27] not saying you're not going to see that
[130:28] from time to time. But these people who
[130:30] do certain things, who take advantage,
[130:32] they don't look like predators. And you
[130:35] have to be careful because you
[130:36] inadvertently attract people who look at
[130:39] you and think, "I can manage her. I can
[130:42] do that. I can mold that. I can shape
[130:44] that.
[130:45] >> And in the context of work or
[130:46] relationships, if there's my my boss is
[130:51] shouting at me and constantly berating
[130:53] me or my partner is shouting at me and
[130:55] berating me and I just feel small, I
[130:59] can't necessarily call for backup. So,
[131:02] is it as simple as saying my choice I
[131:03] just should just leave or is there what
[131:05] if it's a situation where I can't leave?
[131:07] like it's like family or sometimes in
[131:11] work, you know, you you have to stay
[131:12] because you need to pay your bills or
[131:16] there's, you know, kids involved and I'm
[131:18] married to this person.
[131:19] >> So, okay. So, you're saying you cannot
[131:20] leave?
[131:21] >> Yeah. If I couldn't leave,
[131:22] >> I always feel like there's a choice. It
[131:24] may not be the choice you want to make,
[131:25] but you always have a choice. Um because
[131:29] in those scenarios
[131:31] if you've got let's say and I've had a
[131:33] lot of people come to me and they're
[131:34] truly abusive relationships.
[131:37] There is no advice I can give you to fix
[131:40] that. That person is just going to abuse
[131:42] you. Let alone from you assaulting them
[131:44] back and then now you're having like god
[131:47] forbid like somebody's dead which does
[131:49] happen. I I can't fix that. I what I can
[131:52] do is for a person like that and most
[131:55] people don't leave abusive
[131:56] relationships. the the research. I've
[131:58] talked to a lot of people that work with
[131:59] abused victims. They find that even even
[132:02] when they do leave, the vast majority go
[132:04] back. So, I think that's a scenario. If
[132:07] you have someone like that in your life,
[132:09] the best thing you could do for them is
[132:10] listen and just try to keep them as safe
[132:13] as you can. I don't think there is
[132:15] nothing I can do. What are you going to
[132:17] do? Get a gun and then what? You're
[132:19] going to use it? People, I think, Effie,
[132:21] they they they almost want you to help
[132:24] them stay in that situation, but change
[132:27] the situation.
[132:28] >> No, change the person. It's the iceberg
[132:30] we talked about. They're not accepting
[132:32] the truth of who they have in front of
[132:34] them. We don't accept the truth. I have
[132:36] this person and this person is horrible
[132:38] to me. They're abusive to me. They're
[132:40] vile to me. And I think if I could just
[132:42] get them to not be like that, everything
[132:44] would be okay. Okay? Of course it would.
[132:47] But that's not the truth. If you're not
[132:49] living in truth, you have somebody who's
[132:51] horrible to you. Now, if it's an
[132:53] intimate personal relationship, like a
[132:55] companion, that's a big thing because
[132:57] you live with that person, there's no
[132:59] getting away from them. They're
[133:00] typically like if you have a companion
[133:02] or you get married, like you're what?
[133:03] Typically, unless you divorce, you're
[133:05] tied to that person. That's really
[133:06] rough. Now, let's say it's a parent or a
[133:09] kid, cuz kids can be just as abusive to
[133:11] parents. Actually, you know, the
[133:13] research shows, at least uh here in the
[133:15] United States, I can't remember the most
[133:16] recent year I looked at it was the
[133:18] Uniform Crime Report. I believe it
[133:20] showed there was more abuse from child
[133:22] to parent than parent to child
[133:24] relationship wise. I don't mean a
[133:26] 5-year-old hitting their parent. I mean
[133:28] it can be an adult child being abusive
[133:31] to a parent.
[133:31] >> Mhm.
[133:32] >> But let's say you have a scenario like
[133:34] that. Now, there is a point at at some
[133:37] degree where you can remove yourself
[133:39] either from the parents house. Let's say
[133:40] you live with your parents. I get this
[133:41] sometimes a lot. My parents are like
[133:43] this or they're like that to me and I'm
[133:45] like, "How old are you?" If you're over
[133:46] the age of 18 and you can work, you have
[133:49] the ability to find ways to remove
[133:52] yourself. You don't have to cut them out
[133:53] of your life because sometimes for
[133:55] people it's really, really hard. They
[133:56] love their family as messed up as they
[133:58] are. You can love your family, but you
[134:00] don't have to like them. Those are two
[134:02] thing different things. I had a scenario
[134:04] like that where there was a certain
[134:05] member of my uh extended family who was
[134:09] being inappropriate
[134:10] and um I was the first this was when I
[134:14] was younger. I was like 18. I said to my
[134:15] siblings I said I know you guys are
[134:17] going to stay and tolerate it and you're
[134:18] going to justify it in your own way.
[134:20] That's not the approach I'm going to
[134:21] take. I'm going to cut them off. And
[134:23] funnily enough, this person treats me
[134:25] the best. They treat me the best. And I
[134:28] think it's because they realize that my
[134:29] tolerance is so low and I'm willing to
[134:31] walk away and that I don't think family
[134:33] means that you are bound to this person
[134:35] for life. I do think you still get to
[134:37] choose. I think like all relationships
[134:38] in your life there should be a certain
[134:40] standard that they have to meet whether
[134:41] they're family, friends, a stranger or a
[134:43] team of whoever it is that they have to
[134:45] meet like a minimum standard and family
[134:47] for me just don't get a pass on that.
[134:49] And funnily it meant that my
[134:51] relationship with I've never fallen out
[134:52] with this person. The only reason I said
[134:53] that was because I see them falling out
[134:54] with everybody else. But and and this
[134:56] was again before the podcast and
[134:58] whatever else, like before my my
[134:59] businesses, I was a broke student, but I
[135:01] just I for whatever reason, probably
[135:03] some trauma related reason, felt no
[135:06] obligation to keep you in my life just
[135:08] because we have the same genes. I didn't
[135:10] for me that's like not not a not a high
[135:12] enough bar. And they treated me so well.
[135:16] >> That's so interesting because you stood
[135:17] your ground.
[135:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. And this is where and this
[135:19] is where sometimes we talk about the
[135:21] bad, you know, how we're talking about
[135:22] the bad things that have happened to us
[135:24] and we carry them through. It's one
[135:25] thing to go through something bad and
[135:27] then you move through it, right? You
[135:28] moved on. But when you stay in something
[135:31] bad, so like if you if you're in a
[135:32] relationship and there's continual
[135:34] trauma, there's no you can't move
[135:36] through that cuz you're staying there.
[135:38] It's not it's not it happened to you and
[135:40] you're staying in this victim mindset.
[135:41] It's like you're still in it. M
[135:44] >> chronic abuse, chronic trauma, chronic
[135:47] what, however you want to define it. And
[135:48] abuse can look in differently or
[135:50] chronically having somebody bully you.
[135:53] That's really bad. That's really bad.
[135:55] There's no strategies. There's no
[135:56] skills. And I would get those folks and
[135:58] they're like, "Can you help me be more
[136:00] confident, be more this?" And it would
[136:01] come out in the discussions I would have
[136:03] that they had somebody that was in their
[136:05] life that he was bully bully or abusive.
[136:08] And I would tell them, there are no
[136:09] skills I can give you
[136:12] that can help you
[136:14] be more confident because I can't I
[136:18] can't counter that. You have someone who
[136:20] is consistently
[136:22] demolishing you. And so you think what
[136:24] I'm going to tell you to what? Do a
[136:26] power pose and that's going to fix it.
[136:29] Do you feel like you have and I don't
[136:31] know. I'm asking out of humbleness. I
[136:33] don't know. Do you feel that growing up
[136:35] you had a lot of people that around you
[136:37] that were either, you know, had a lot of
[136:41] issues or struggles and like that it was
[136:44] something that you had to push through
[136:46] or climb out to get to where you are?
[136:48] >> Yeah. I think I think it really only
[136:50] takes like one person that's close
[136:52] enough, especially if they're above you
[136:57] to basically
[136:59] in my case to make my tolerance level
[137:02] extremely low. I think people can relate
[137:04] to that cuz I hear people say this all
[137:06] the time like it only takes one parent
[137:07] that did X or one parent that did this
[137:09] or you know an uncle or an auntie or
[137:11] whatever that you go I'm going to
[137:12] tolerate zero of that. So another thing
[137:14] in my relationship with my partner is
[137:16] neither of us shout. And I grew up in a
[137:18] house where shouting was the background
[137:20] noise of every day. Like from morning
[137:22] till night. And so with me and my
[137:24] partner been together for 7 years. We
[137:26] talk like this. It's not to say we don't
[137:29] argue or we don't have disagreements. We
[137:31] don't get upset or whatever. But there's
[137:33] never shouting because I just have zero
[137:35] tolerance for that. I would just frankly
[137:37] in my previous relationship when the
[137:39] shouting began, I would literally just
[137:42] disappear from the space and I'd be in
[137:44] my car driving down the motorway. That
[137:46] was my response because I just because I
[137:48] grew up in a house where that was and my
[137:49] siblings are all the same. None of them
[137:51] shout or very very calm or very softly
[137:54] spoken because we grew up in an
[137:55] environment which was the opposite.
[137:57] Funny. So,
[137:58] >> but that's that's interesting too
[137:59] because it could have gone the other
[138:01] way.
[138:01] >> Yeah. And it sometimes does for people.
[138:02] >> It does.
[138:04] >> You talked about the abuse. You violence
[138:05] often comes from violence, but sometimes
[138:07] like peace comes from violence.
[138:09] >> That's true. This is also why when you
[138:11] said earlier that looking back at your
[138:12] past and trying to figure out what
[138:13] happened is not necessarily useful
[138:15] because two kids in the same environment
[138:18] can turn out entirely different and you
[138:20] see that across siblings. There's
[138:21] something interesting you were saying a
[138:23] second ago about we were talking about
[138:25] like gradual small exposure therapy to
[138:28] change your life for the better, moving
[138:30] the shoes closer to the bed. But then
[138:31] you also just talked about the gradual
[138:33] exposure therapy of someone breaching
[138:36] your boundaries and becoming an abuser
[138:38] and how it's like it's like they just
[138:40] every day just move the shoes a little
[138:41] bit closer to the bed.
[138:42] >> Yes. Yes.
[138:44] >> It's interesting. It goes both ways in
[138:45] that regard. when I, you know, with my
[138:48] inner circle, like even with people I
[138:49] work with, if I start I really pay
[138:51] attention to behavior or if if like this
[138:54] is something small and I don't know if
[138:55] you're the same way, but like if if you
[138:57] work with me or it well you work for me
[139:01] and I send you an email and you don't
[139:03] respond till 4 days later, massive red
[139:06] flag for me. And I won't say anything to
[139:09] you. I'll wait and then I'll test it out
[139:11] again with something else and again and
[139:14] as soon as I see that in my head I'm
[139:15] like we're done. I may not tell you
[139:17] anything but I'll find a way to let you
[139:19] go. So those are certain things because
[139:22] and that's a little bit like the moving
[139:23] the shoes closer away from the bed where
[139:26] you'll see people you'll see I'll see
[139:28] somebody do something and I'm like is it
[139:29] a fluke?
[139:30] >> Mhm.
[139:30] >> Do they truly miss it or is this kind of
[139:33] this relaxed attitude? Oh, it's Ebie.
[139:35] She's so Well, I don't know if they
[139:37] think I'm nice but you know, after I do
[139:40] these podcasts, they're like, "Oh, she's
[139:41] so scary." But but you know, sometimes
[139:44] people will get too relaxed and
[139:46] comfortable and so it's in a different
[139:48] way. And so I'll test it out and when I
[139:50] see that, I'm like, "No, no, I'm not,
[139:53] you know, if it's someone I really want
[139:54] to work with, I may address it." But
[139:56] sometimes I don't want to say I don't
[139:58] invest the time and energy and effort.
[140:00] But sometimes I know I know when to
[140:03] invest that time, energy, and effort and
[140:05] when to say no and I pull out.
[140:09] >> Earlier on we talked about Charlie Kirk
[140:12] this week. Uh what week are we in? We're
[140:14] on Sunday. So yeah, this week he was
[140:16] assassinated um while on a college
[140:19] campus as part of a tour that he was
[140:20] doing called Prove Me Wrong where he
[140:22] went out onto college campuses and
[140:24] debated his ideas with the college
[140:27] campus students and a shooter um who has
[140:30] now been
[140:32] found and uh I believe is in prison
[140:34] currently awaiting
[140:35] >> jail.
[140:36] >> Jail. Yeah. Their first appearance I
[140:37] think in court on Tuesday of this week.
[140:40] um shot him in the neck from several
[140:43] hundred yards away. As a former Secret
[140:45] Service agent whose very job was to
[140:48] ensure that didn't happen to someone, to
[140:50] ensure that someone didn't assassinate
[140:51] them, harm them, keep them safe, etc.
[140:54] What did you think and feel when you you
[140:56] heard the news?
[140:58] >> So, I have been covering the Charlie
[141:00] Kirk assassination in in from the news
[141:03] perspective. So, you're asking me like
[141:05] what assessment can I give you as a
[141:06] former Secret Service? So, I'll give you
[141:08] something. I'll I'll I'll share with you
[141:10] what I've been covering and if you have
[141:11] a a specific question feel free to ask.
[141:14] >> So here's the thing. This is truly
[141:17] unique and exceptional and this is why
[141:20] people calling it a political
[141:21] assassination, right? It is and it
[141:23] isn't. Here's the difference. A
[141:25] president of the United States is a
[141:27] politician. He's it's understood that
[141:30] things like this will happen, right? And
[141:32] he has protection. a political appointee
[141:35] like a member of Congress corre because
[141:37] right now members of Congress in the
[141:38] United States and I think in many parts
[141:40] of the world are very afraid right now
[141:42] because their threats have also
[141:43] increased. So even here in the United
[141:45] States they're looking to increase the
[141:47] budget on people of Cong in Congress for
[141:50] safety and um protection.
[141:54] It is to some degree understood that
[141:56] these things will happen over time to
[141:58] people in who are political elected
[142:00] figures. Charlie is uniquely different.
[142:03] He talked about things, but he wasn't a
[142:05] political figure. Nobody voted for him.
[142:08] He was honestly He had his own Didn't he
[142:09] have his own podcast? He had a podcast.
[142:12] >> He was out there. He spoke. He did
[142:14] talks. He shared his opinion. So, he's
[142:16] no different in a sense than you and I
[142:18] in a sense. And so, what that
[142:21] assassination means is it is fair game
[142:25] now on anybody who has a platform.
[142:28] That's the difference here. So, it's
[142:30] different. You're not dealing with
[142:31] presidents now, heads of states or
[142:33] people in Congress. You're dealing now
[142:34] with people who if they share an opinion
[142:38] that you don't like and I perceive it as
[142:41] a threat, then now I have the ability to
[142:44] retaliate and take a shot. This is this
[142:47] is going to open up the door to copycat
[142:49] because to try to get certain people
[142:51] like a president of the United States or
[142:52] a member of Congress or politician or
[142:54] certain people, those are hard targets.
[142:56] Those are hard to get. They're secure.
[142:58] But now this means anybody who's out
[143:01] there that I don't like and I don't
[143:02] agree with, I can take that target
[143:06] and and cause harm to those people.
[143:11] We're moving into a space now where
[143:13] everybody is fair game, where I have a
[143:16] voice. Um, even on social media, I would
[143:18] actually sit and go through X before I
[143:20] would go on air just to get the news
[143:22] updates, see what else was happening.
[143:23] And I would have to sit and filter
[143:26] through all the hateful comments people
[143:28] were writing, everybody to each other.
[143:31] And then every other five comments was,
[143:33] I'm getting death threats. People are
[143:34] threatening me cuz people were
[143:36] expressing their opinions online and
[143:37] other people were threatening them.
[143:40] This means that it means you can go
[143:43] after anybody. And what I'm not saying I
[143:46] would like this to happen, but to me
[143:47] this is a massive red flag because it
[143:50] means now everybody is extremely
[143:52] vulnerable. And now we're looking to
[143:53] targeting people who have shows, who
[143:55] have platforms, who maybe do the dues,
[143:57] who share opinions. That is why this is
[143:59] a bother. This is why people should be
[144:02] concerned.
[144:03] >> You said copycats. Is is that something
[144:06] that you actually saw when you're in the
[144:07] Secret Service that if one incident
[144:09] happened it would
[144:10] >> 100% all it takes is one person to do it
[144:12] another person to be like oh he can do
[144:14] it I can do it he executed his mission
[144:17] I'm not agreeing with the mission but
[144:18] that shooter was able to do what he
[144:20] needed to do and he was successful sadly
[144:23] right so someone else is going to see it
[144:25] and they're going to get that idea I'm
[144:27] speaking at a university on Tuesday so
[144:29] maybe somebody hears something I say on
[144:30] a podcast they don't like it they might
[144:32] get that idea
[144:33] >> but also there's a lot of people out
[144:34] there that are just not well. I mean,
[144:36] >> no, they're not well. I'm going to be
[144:38] very transparent. People are not well.
[144:41] When So, in the US Secret Service, we
[144:44] had a a unit. It was called the
[144:45] Improtective Intelligence Unit. In that
[144:47] unit is where we would track people who
[144:50] were presumed to be threats against
[144:52] people who protected. So, how did they
[144:54] get on your radar? They would write
[144:56] letters. They would show up at multiple
[144:58] events. They would make phone calls,
[145:00] right? There was ways to do that.
[145:02] Then you have the introduction of social
[145:04] media. So now people are more are
[145:08] they're able to now make threats and say
[145:10] things from the safety of their own home
[145:13] and not as afraid. It's it's it's a it's
[145:16] a it's a more detached way to attack
[145:18] somebody and now you have to follow
[145:20] those leads and now there's thousands of
[145:22] these things that come in and even if
[145:24] they even hit your radar and so
[145:26] everyone's in inundated with tracking
[145:28] people. Now at the time initially
[145:31] those who were looking to cause harm to
[145:33] our protectees typically typically had
[145:37] severe mental health issues and from
[145:39] time to time it wasn't often the Secret
[145:41] Service would work with the courts to
[145:43] involuntarily commit somebody if they
[145:45] thought they were that much harm.
[145:49] With social media now the the playing
[145:52] field has changed. One, it allows people
[145:55] to say things that they would never say
[145:58] to your face.
[146:02] It's allows people now when you absorb
[146:05] the content online, the majority is very
[146:08] negative. Even though we're talking
[146:09] about this event, everything is
[146:11] typically very ugly online. And so
[146:14] people escalate. And
[146:17] we've also noticed that there's a lack
[146:18] of empathy. we are less empathetic the
[146:21] more we have exposure to online stuff
[146:23] because when people text hateful things
[146:26] it doesn't become as a big of a deal
[146:28] anymore whereas if somebody said it to
[146:31] you it's a bigger deal. So there is a
[146:34] severe
[146:36] mental
[146:38] issue with people and there's also when
[146:42] you look at behavior typically the
[146:44] things that keep you in check seem to be
[146:47] a little bit more absent today which
[146:49] also causes people to behave a little
[146:52] bit more inappropriately. So like and
[146:56] this is again just for the research not
[146:57] based on my personal opinion. Family uh
[147:00] when you have strong social bonds to
[147:02] certain structures you're less likely to
[147:04] cause harm to others. So family is one
[147:07] one social bond that keeps you kind of
[147:09] like in place like I'm not going to do
[147:11] this cuz it would embarrass my family or
[147:12] hurt my family. Faith or religion,
[147:15] religious institutions, whatever that
[147:17] religion is that typically keeps people
[147:18] kind of steady. uh certain institutions
[147:21] like having a a strong bond to maybe a
[147:24] school or certain institutions. There
[147:26] are certain things that keep you less
[147:28] likely from behaving this way and we do
[147:32] see a little bit of an erosion in those
[147:34] areas and I think that leaks into
[147:36] people's mental cognitive uh issues. One
[147:40] of the things that I don't think people
[147:41] realize as well on when they're on the
[147:43] internet is that they are in an
[147:44] algorithm. And the algorithm isn't the
[147:46] real world, but it's actually just the
[147:48] things the way that the algorithm works
[147:50] is it shows you more of the things that
[147:51] you've expressed interest in before. So
[147:54] my first sort of 10 years of my career
[147:55] was working in social media. So all of
[147:57] the major social platforms, we built one
[147:59] of the most um disruptive social media
[148:00] companies at the time. So I have a deep
[148:02] understanding of how the algorithm
[148:03] works. In fact, much of our job was to
[148:05] figure out how to how it works to help
[148:06] our big clients globally reach more
[148:08] people. And I think I think about like
[148:11] my my my my grandfather. My grandfather
[148:14] will like look at his phone and he'll
[148:16] think what he's seeing is the world. But
[148:18] he doesn't know that dwell time is a
[148:20] huge factor in what he's going to be
[148:22] shown tomorrow. So if he dwells a little
[148:24] bit more on a particular post, the
[148:26] algorithm will go, "Ooh,
[148:28] Mr. Bartlett, grandfather Bartlett is
[148:31] interested. So, next time you log in,
[148:33] we're going to show more of that. And I
[148:34] I learned this really starkly when one
[148:36] of my older relatives downloaded Tik Tok
[148:39] and um
[148:42] I got like an emergency call from their
[148:44] partner saying, "You we need your help."
[148:47] She's downloaded Tik Tok and it's like
[148:49] making her crazy. Like it's making her
[148:51] insane because she's seeing now all of
[148:52] this like vitriol and hate and racist
[148:55] stuff and she thinks the world is like
[148:57] that and she's like preparing to
[148:58] protest. So I had to funnily enough get
[149:01] her password off her partner and hit
[149:04] this button in the back end of Tik Tok
[149:05] which refreshes your algorithm just
[149:07] wipes out all of your your history and
[149:09] what I would do is I'd hit that button
[149:10] every single week and eventually she
[149:12] stopped using Tik Tok. She found it
[149:13] boring because it was all now like
[149:14] XFactor, America's Got Talent videos,
[149:16] people singing, people dancing and I'd
[149:17] go on her phone and I'd watch these like
[149:20] music videos and I'd like like them and
[149:22] bookmark them and save them because I
[149:23] knew that that's what she would see next
[149:24] time she logged in. I know this sounds
[149:26] crazy, but that's like people don't
[149:28] realize that what they're seeing is
[149:30] they're pulling something towards them.
[149:32] >> And that's how the algorithms work. You
[149:34] pull towards you what you've been
[149:35] historically interested in. So if you're
[149:36] scared about brown people crossing the
[149:39] the border in dingies,
[149:41] >> that's all it's going to show you.
[149:42] >> Pull you more of that stuff and you're
[149:43] going to start thinking that the world
[149:45] is X, Y, or Zed. And I Yeah.
[149:48] >> The other thing too when it shows you
[149:49] that stuff, it's almost like being how I
[149:52] said when you're in law enforcement,
[149:53] you're expo exposed to the worst of
[149:55] people and you have to be really cared
[149:56] not to become cynical. Yeah.
[149:57] >> And one of the ways you're also
[149:59] protected is cuz you're with other
[150:00] officers. So there's that team
[150:02] camaraderie. Everybody helps each other.
[150:04] So now this is the same way. I'm on my
[150:06] phone and I am exposed to the worst of
[150:09] the worst and I'm consuming it. Here's
[150:10] the difference. I'm by myself.
[150:12] >> Yeah.
[150:13] >> And there's nobody there to tether me to
[150:14] be like, "Hey." So, I look at this stuff
[150:16] and whatever it is I'm looking at that
[150:17] I'm afraid because it depends who I am
[150:20] and what I resonate with. Is it am I
[150:22] afraid of people crossing the border? Am
[150:24] I afraid of school shootings? Am I
[150:26] afraid of this other group? Right? It's
[150:28] just what and everything is fearbased.
[150:32] They're tapping into your fear and they
[150:34] make you afraid this other thing is
[150:36] going to harm me. And there's no ability
[150:38] either. I've noticed through social
[150:40] media, there's no middle ground. It's
[150:42] either you're all the way over here and
[150:43] you're all the way over here. and they
[150:45] feed on people's fears these algorithms.
[150:48] >> So this is a graph I found which shows
[150:50] the rise in um
[150:52] >> school shootings
[150:54] >> but it's rising it's increasing.
[150:56] >> One of the things to keep in mind with
[150:58] this with the school shooting and then
[150:59] we don't know this based on this one are
[151:02] these mass shootings or just shootings
[151:04] in general. So school shooting is I show
[151:06] up to school I don't like you Stephen I
[151:08] pull out my gun I shoot you. Technically
[151:11] that's a school shooting. A mass
[151:13] shooting is like what we saw the week
[151:16] before Minneapolis
[151:19] um and we had that person who showed up
[151:21] to school and who just started shooting
[151:22] randomly. So there's two. So when we
[151:24] look at shootings, let's let's look at
[151:26] mass. Let's look at mass because if you
[151:28] look at school shootings one-on-one,
[151:30] those are a bit different and they have
[151:31] to do with the city. But if you look at
[151:32] mass shootings, what can we tell from
[151:34] mass shootings? So, some of the data
[151:35] shows us typically um that person tends
[151:40] to have some kind of association to the
[151:41] place they go to, the school they went
[151:43] to. Typically, there's some type of
[151:44] connection. Usually, at that point where
[151:48] they commit to shooting, something in
[151:49] their life happened, right? There's some
[151:52] type of moment, maybe they broke up with
[151:54] their partner, they lost their job,
[151:56] something that offset that moment. Now,
[151:57] over time, historically, they were
[151:59] building up to having all these issues.
[152:01] those issues don't go away, but
[152:04] something typically happens where they
[152:06] decide, I'm going to do this. The other
[152:08] thing is they're planned. So, they
[152:09] either they sit down and decide to plan
[152:12] this out and they communicate it to
[152:13] somebody in some way or they do it
[152:15] through social media. Another thing
[152:16] that's really interesting, they happen
[152:18] typically in the mornings. They
[152:20] typically handing happen in the
[152:21] mornings. That person wakes up and says,
[152:24] "Okay, today's the day I'm going to do
[152:25] it. I've got my plan in place." And they
[152:27] execute it earlier on in the day. The
[152:29] other thing with mass shootings, mass
[152:31] shootings, not just regular school
[152:33] shootings, in almost all of them, if
[152:35] dare I say all of them, all those
[152:37] individuals had a history of mental
[152:40] health issues or mental illness. The
[152:43] other thing too that we see is they had
[152:45] access to weapons. So they were either
[152:48] able to go get a weapon, they knew
[152:49] somebody who had a weapon, and they were
[152:51] able to get that weapon. One of the
[152:53] things you said a second ago about um
[152:55] how this is might become more frequent
[152:58] sadly had me thinking about why that
[153:01] would be and what's changed in the
[153:02] world. And one of the things that has
[153:03] changed in the world is that media is
[153:06] now increasingly people. People like us
[153:09] that have microphones in our kitchens. I
[153:11] mean we're sat in what used to be my
[153:13] kitchen recording this conversation. And
[153:15] once upon a time to reach this many
[153:16] people you had to be CNN. CNN's a logo.
[153:19] It's hard to shoot at. But in a world
[153:22] where much of the media is like
[153:23] creatorled or hostled media, it's much
[153:25] easier to have a a target. And I was it
[153:29] just made me think about I was like, "Oh
[153:30] yeah, of course, of course." You know,
[153:33] >> but sometimes to the target you if
[153:35] you're looking at mass shootings now, if
[153:37] you're looking at a target like this
[153:38] Charlie Kirk thing we were talking
[153:39] about, right? Sometimes it's done
[153:41] because they want notoriety. It's a big
[153:44] thing. So, with um this specific
[153:48] shooting, Charlie Kirk, it's come out
[153:49] now that the individual was actually on
[153:51] Discord after he did the shot, talking
[153:54] about it with other members on Discord,
[153:56] according to what law enforcement said.
[153:58] Again, I'm just updating as I know it.
[154:00] It could change, but he was saying he
[154:02] was basically talking with other people
[154:04] and basically saying like he did it and
[154:06] laughing about it.
[154:08] >> He was admitting to doing it.
[154:09] >> Yeah. They were like, "We think you did
[154:10] this." He's like, "Oh, maybe I did it."
[154:12] Haha. So there's it's become for
[154:16] whatever reason in that world
[154:19] it's seen as a
[154:22] as an acceptable thing to do
[154:25] >> a way to create significance in a other
[154:27] way.
[154:27] >> Yes. I want attention. I want to create
[154:28] significance. And also here's the other
[154:30] thing. What's happening is
[154:33] we are v villainizing people very
[154:35] easily. We are calling people names. We
[154:39] are villainizing them. And it goes back
[154:41] to social media clips. people are making
[154:44] even even
[154:46] things that are our our words are our
[154:49] most powerful weapon and we don't
[154:50] realize that when you open your mouth
[154:52] and you say something and it's what's
[154:54] happening is people aren't saying
[154:55] something because most people are
[154:56] cowards they text it and they post it
[155:00] because they would never say it to your
[155:02] face and they post it and then what that
[155:04] does is all these these negative things
[155:07] these these attacks we make towards
[155:09] people become commonplace. So if all I
[155:12] see is negative stuff, this guy's bad,
[155:14] this guy's this, this guy's that, I
[155:16] start to think it's true, and if you
[155:18] villainize somebody to such a degree, I
[155:21] think, well, I I'm going to be a hero if
[155:23] I do something about this. Look what a
[155:25] horrible person this is. I heard this
[155:27] quote once, uh, the bigger the hero, the
[155:29] bigger the villain. I have to make you
[155:32] such a villain so I can feel like a
[155:34] hero. And this is what happens when you
[155:36] villainize people to such a degree. You
[155:38] create a justification.
[155:40] I had to do this. Look at how horrible
[155:42] this human being was. Look at all the
[155:44] horrible things people are saying about
[155:46] them. I am doing the right thing. You
[155:48] just justified it and sold it to
[155:49] yourself. It's the right thing to do.
[155:51] But today with social media,
[155:54] I can't solely blame them because social
[155:57] media posts and the things people are
[155:58] creating and putting out there is giving
[156:00] justification to other people to do this
[156:03] stuff. Did you say that your husband was
[156:06] a sniper?
[156:08] >> He was counter assault.
[156:10] >> So you and him are both former Secret
[156:13] Service agents.
[156:14] >> Correct. So when you see something like
[156:16] the Charlie Kirk assassination happen,
[156:19] I'm I'm so curious as to the
[156:21] conversations in your house about that
[156:23] because you must be looking at this from
[156:26] so many different perspectives from like
[156:27] how that person could have been more
[156:30] protected, I guess, or how that setup
[156:32] could have been to mitigate the chances
[156:34] of something like that happening. So
[156:36] with Charlie Kirk, there's nothing they
[156:39] could have done, let alone put snipers
[156:41] on the rooftop to prevent that or
[156:43] counter snipers rather.
[156:44] >> Is that what they would have had to do?
[156:45] But
[156:45] >> that's what they would have had to do.
[156:46] >> Okay.
[156:47] >> There's no and there's no way anybody
[156:49] would have done it. That's what I said.
[156:50] Like if you're a president or person of
[156:51] Congress or some VIP like that, you're
[156:53] going to get those assets. A person like
[156:55] Charlie Kirk like you or me, we're not
[156:57] going to get those. Who's going to pay
[156:58] for that? So he had security, but it was
[157:01] on the ground with him. They're
[157:03] thinking, their type of security
[157:05] thinking, and this is private security.
[157:06] And again, it's not to to knock them
[157:08] because this is something new. This is
[157:10] new. They're thinking, I need to protect
[157:12] Charlie from the guy standing at the
[157:14] podium asking a question. All these
[157:16] people pushing up against the rope line
[157:17] who want to talk to Charlie. So, they're
[157:19] looking at it from this physical sense.
[157:21] It's like, it sounds terrible, but it's
[157:23] almost like a meat shield. I'm the meat
[157:25] shield between you and them. They're not
[157:27] thinking high ground problems. Nobody
[157:29] thought, who would have thought? Maybe a
[157:31] Secret Service agent would have, but who
[157:33] would have thought I need to have
[157:35] snipers on the rooftops or counter
[157:37] snipers on the rooftops to protect from
[157:39] a sniper shooting Charlie Kirk?
[157:41] >> He was wearing a bulletproof vest,
[157:42] wasn't he? That's what I've been told.
[157:44] >> I'm not sure. I don't know if it's 100%
[157:46] true, so I don't want to say yes or no.
[157:48] >> I say that because in several of the
[157:50] videos when he's on campus, you see that
[157:51] there's clearly when he's wearing a
[157:53] t-shirt, you see
[157:55] um vest marks here. And I noticed this
[157:58] many weeks, many many weeks ago.
[158:00] >> It might be true. Yeah.
[158:01] >> I just because it's never confirmed. I'm
[158:02] hesitant. So I don't know. It's very
[158:04] possible. And uh again, it's not a So a
[158:07] ve a a vest like that, it's going to
[158:10] it's going to stop a round from a pistol
[158:13] typically and maybe a shotgun round.
[158:15] Rifle rounds usually like our counter
[158:18] assault teams in the Secret Service,
[158:19] they actually had an extra ceramic plate
[158:21] to help prevent those. So you really
[158:23] need like a different type of exposure
[158:25] to protect from a rifle round. Now, in
[158:27] this scenario with him, the shot, you
[158:30] see it go straight to his neck. And
[158:32] that's the thing with vests. They
[158:34] protect you here, right? They protect
[158:36] your vital organs. And and even when I
[158:38] would wear mine, it was you lived in the
[158:40] reality of if I get one to the head, I'm
[158:44] done.
[158:44] >> Is that your worst nightmare as a Secret
[158:46] Service agent that something like that
[158:48] happens to the person you're protecting?
[158:50] >> Correct. It is the worst cuz it means
[158:51] you failed. It's horrible. It's
[158:53] horrible. I mean, when you would do
[158:54] protection stuff and the person you were
[158:56] protecting, whoever it was, cuz you
[158:57] would protect I've protected everybody
[158:59] from the president of the United States
[159:01] to former presidents to first ladies to
[159:03] their kids. I had Barbara Pierce Bush
[159:05] who which was President Bush's daughter.
[159:07] I had her for a while uh to the
[159:09] secretary of treasury to the secretary
[159:11] of homeland security. These these are
[159:12] all USS protectees and foreign heads of
[159:14] state. When the prime minister of the UK
[159:17] comes to the United States, they get pro
[159:19] he gets protection. We we work with the
[159:21] team because you don't want anybody
[159:22] getting assassinated on US soil. So you
[159:25] protect Russia when he comes. Putin you
[159:27] you got to take a bullet for him too. So
[159:30] it's more the mission. So but the thing
[159:32] is it's your responsibility. And so
[159:36] the whole time I don't want to say
[159:37] you're on edge, but the whole time
[159:38] you're on you're aware. Your mind's
[159:40] moving. Where's my threat? Where's my
[159:42] threat? Where's my threat? Where's my
[159:44] problem? And then we would have
[159:45] sometimes it would have what they call
[159:46] like wheels up parties, which means your
[159:48] protectee is up. their wheels up in the
[159:49] plane and that's when people are just
[159:51] like
[159:53] cuz the stress is so high. You're so on.
[159:56] You're always looking for the threat.
[159:58] There's no we work in shifts but there's
[160:00] days where I work 16 17our days 18 hour
[160:03] days depending on what my assignment
[160:05] was. It's a lot.
[160:08] >> What is the most important thing for the
[160:10] person who clicked on this podcast
[160:11] because they are looking for something
[160:13] in their life.
[160:16] They want to be more effective in the
[160:18] pursuit of their goals. Whatever their
[160:19] goals might be, could be professionally,
[160:21] personally,
[160:23] could be, you know, maybe they want to
[160:24] be an entrepreneur or something. What is
[160:26] the most important thing that we should
[160:27] have talked about in that regard that we
[160:29] didn't talk about?
[160:31] >> I don't know what that to say to that. I
[160:33] guess what I would say to them is I
[160:35] think the message is that they're they
[160:36] are extremely capable and no matter what
[160:39] society is telling, no matter what's
[160:41] happened to them, no matter what excuses
[160:43] people make for them or maybe they make
[160:45] for themselves, they are much more
[160:47] capable. And so that maybe when they see
[160:49] someone like you or myself and they
[160:51] think, "Oh, look, they've got it all
[160:53] figured out." It's like we figured it
[160:55] out the same way everybody else figures
[160:57] it figures it out. So I think Stephen,
[160:59] the most important thing is like we're
[161:01] not that special.
[161:03] And that means that they can do and
[161:06] achieve what they want. I think that's
[161:08] the biggest thing. Like you're
[161:09] absolutely capable. Even if you feel
[161:11] inadequate, even if you lack confidence,
[161:13] even if you've had horrible trauma in
[161:15] your life, whatever it is, despite all
[161:17] that, you are absolutely capable. And it
[161:20] is your choice.
[161:22] >> Evie, we have a closing tradition on
[161:24] this podcast where the last guest leaves
[161:26] a question for the next guest, not
[161:28] knowing who they're leaving it for.
[161:31] And the question left for you is, what
[161:33] brings you the most joy in life? And
[161:35] what are you the most scared of?
[161:40] >> The most joy in life is my daughter.
[161:43] I think the biggest joy in my life is
[161:45] her because I think that was something I
[161:49] always wanted to do and to to be a mom.
[161:52] And so that's the biggest joy. And then
[161:54] at the same time, it's my biggest fear
[161:56] because I want her to be well and
[161:58] healthy and okay. And I think a
[162:00] consequence of the work I did and even
[162:03] still do because I'm in media and news
[162:05] and I I cover crime. I have seen what
[162:08] humanity can do. I've seen the good in
[162:10] humanity, but I also have seen the bad
[162:12] things people can do. And so it's hard
[162:14] sometimes. I I to you want to protect
[162:17] your child, but I also know that um I
[162:21] can't always shield her. I won't be able
[162:24] to shield her in life from everything.
[162:27] That's scary.
[162:29] Thank you, Evie. I was saying to you
[162:31] before we started recording that
[162:32] everywhere I go, people come up to me
[162:33] and they talk about you. In a way,
[162:35] that's atypical. So, like, you know,
[162:36] obviously I do a lot of episodes, meet a
[162:38] lot of great people.
[162:38] >> Is that really true?
[162:40] >> I've I swear I don't want to anyone's
[162:42] life cuz that's probably shouldn't do
[162:43] that, but I swear to you the amount of
[162:45] times I've used you as a case study for
[162:49] what do I use you as a case study for?
[162:51] for
[162:53] how important
[162:55] it is effect like effective
[162:57] communication is because it because
[163:00] people come up to me all the time and
[163:02] mention you. So obviously I then do that
[163:04] I'm like why are people always
[163:05] mentioning Evie
[163:06] >> like I get it you know you're very very
[163:08] successful you've lived this incredible
[163:09] career but obviously I speak to lots of
[163:11] people that are successful but also why
[163:13] are they always coming up to me and
[163:14] talking about you and asking you know me
[163:16] to speak to you again etc. I think it's
[163:18] all the things you said. I think you
[163:20] meet them where they are. And I think
[163:22] you do that in both your communication
[163:23] style. I think the nuance of your
[163:28] message is is is spot on while also
[163:30] being high conviction in certain areas.
[163:33] And you're relatable. They think you're
[163:37] you're a badass. And I guess that's it.
[163:40] It's it's something you learn from doing
[163:42] these podcasts. You just have certain
[163:43] people who people just they just click
[163:47] with that you've been on the show and
[163:49] even as the host you can't in hindsight
[163:51] you're trying to like figure it out.
[163:53] >> Yeah.
[163:53] >> But there's something
[163:55] and much of the questions I asked you
[163:56] today are orientated towards finding out
[163:58] what that something is. But listen a lot
[164:01] of it exists in your book as well. You
[164:02] talk so eloquently and so excessively in
[164:05] this book bulletproof about the nature
[164:07] of the human condition and what we need
[164:09] to understand about the human condition
[164:10] to be more effective in our lives in our
[164:12] relationships in our work. So I highly
[164:14] recommend everybody goes and checks out
[164:15] this incredible book becoming
[164:17] bulletproof life lessons from a secret
[164:19] service agent.
[164:21] Incredible. Thank you so much.
[164:23] >> I appreciate you, Stephen.
[164:26] >> We launched these conversation cards and
[164:27] they sold out and we launched them again
[164:28] and they sold out again. We launched
[164:30] them again and they sold out again
[164:31] because people love playing these with
[164:32] colleagues at work, with friends at
[164:34] home, and also with family. And we've
[164:36] also got a big audience that use them as
[164:38] journal prompts. Every single time a
[164:40] guest comes on the diary of a CEO, they
[164:42] leave a question for the next guest in
[164:44] the diary. And I've sat here with some
[164:46] of the most incredible people in the
[164:47] world. And they've left all of these
[164:49] questions in the diary. And I've ranked
[164:51] them from one to three in terms of the
[164:53] depth. One being a starter question. And
[164:56] level three, if you look on the back
[164:58] here, this is a level three, becomes a
[165:00] much deeper question that builds even
[165:02] more connection. If you turn the cards
[165:04] over and you scan that QR code, you can
[165:08] see who answered the card and watch the
[165:10] video of them answering it in real time.
[165:12] So, if you would like to get your hands
[165:14] on some of these conversation cards, go
[165:16] to the diary.com or look at the link in
[165:18] the description below. This has always
[165:20] blown my mind a little bit. 53% of you
[165:22] that listen to this show regularly
[165:24] haven't yet subscribed to the show. So,
[165:26] could I ask you for a favor? If you like
[165:28] the show and you like what we do here
[165:29] and you want to support us, the free
[165:30] simple way that you can do just that is
[165:32] by hitting the subscribe button. And my
[165:34] commitment to you is if you do that,
[165:35] then I'll do everything in my power, me
[165:37] and my team, to make sure that this show
[165:39] is better for you every single week.
[165:40] We'll listen to your feedback. We'll
[165:42] find the guests that you want me to
[165:43] speak to and we'll continue to do what
[165:45] we do. Thank you so much.
[165:49] Heat. Heat. N.
[165:50] [Music]
[165:59] Heat. Heat.
[166:04] [Music]
