Ex-Secret Service Agent Rejects Manipulation in High-Stakes Talks

前特勤局特工：高风险对话中摒弃操纵手段 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔（Desmond O’Neill）指出，有效的沟通与影响力源于积极倾听、透明度以及确立明确的目标，而非给人贴标签或依赖操纵策略。 前特勤局特工戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）分享了他在30年执法生涯及高风险审讯中总结的经验，并提出了用于在冲突中保持情绪控制的 PLAN 框架（目标、倾听、提问、引导）。他打破了大众对测谎与非语言行为的常见迷思，证明了积极倾听、认知抑制以及明确意图的效果远胜于操纵手段或敌对态度。通过详述过往案例（包括审讯连环罪犯菲利普·加里多 (Phillip Garrido) 的经历），奥尼尔阐释了自我一致性、透明度以及摒弃不良沟通习惯如何建立真正的信任并实现高效的领导力。 在艰难对话中草率给对方贴上“自恋狂”或“煤气灯操纵”等标签是严重的战略失误，这不仅阻断了真诚沟通，还容易让人逃避责任；PLAN 框架（明确目标、专注倾听、深入提问、推进解决）为在情绪对抗中保持掌控提供了清晰路径。 (0:00) 多重目标理论（Multiple Goals Theory）指出，当任务目标、个人身份目标（渴望证明自己是正确的）与关系目标发生冲突时，沟通最容易脱轨；现代审讯科学已从早期的强制施压转向基于证据的认知亲和力构建。 (11:06) 自发性的自我纠错和讲述中包含现实中的曲折波折是诚实表达的关键特征，而编造的谎言往往过于工整顺畅；此外并不存在能直接断定说谎的单一肢体语言，非语言信号的变化仅代表情绪状态的转变，应以好奇心求证而非妄加揣测。 (18:16) 听者的大脑处理速度（每分钟 400–600 词）远高于说话者的表达速度（每分钟 120–150 词），必须主动调动“认知抑制”收窄闲置带宽才能做到真正倾听；在剧烈情绪冲突中人类的共情准确率会骤降至 15%，通过澄清式提问进行求证远比主观推测更可靠。 (21:39)

Drawing from thirty years across SWAT, polygraph examination, and the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, former Secret Service agent Desmond O'Neill argues that staying in control during manipulation and conflict requires replacing emotional retaliation and rigid labels with purposeful, evidence-based communication. The PLAN Framework for Dark Conversations (0:00) O'Neill cautions that reflexively branding difficult counterparts as narcissists or accusing them of gaslighting is a strategic mistake that abdicates accountability. To structure high-stakes interactions, he introduces the PLAN framework: Purpose, Listen, Ask, and Next Steps. Purpose serves as the primary anchor, relying on Multiple Goals Theory to balance task, identity, and relational goals. For instance, prioritizing an identity goal to prove oneself right can sabotage long-term relational objectives with a colleague or superior. Overcoming the Limits of Cognitive Bandwidth (21:39) Active listening requires cognitive inhibition to manage excess mental capacity. While speakers vocalize 120 to 150 words per minute from an internal monologue of 800 to 1,000 words per minute, listeners process speech at 400 to 600 words per minute. This gap often leads listeners to formulate replies rather than understand the counterpart. Furthermore, research on empathy accuracy indicates that individuals correctly infer another's thoughts only about 20% of the time with strangers, 30% with friends, and 40% with significant others—a figure that drops to 15% during emotional conflicts. Distinguishing Influence from Manipulation (44:32) O'Neill separates influence from manipulation by defining influence as nudging someone toward a mutually beneficial outcome through transparency and consistency, whereas manipulation uses deceit solely for personal benefit. In high-pressure contexts, attempting to provoke a reaction is a common evasion tactic. O'Neill illustrates this through an Internal Affairs investigation where an interrogator lost composure and screamed back at a hostile subject, ultimately failing his duty because emotional outbursts surrender control. Leadership and Decision-Making Under Ambiguity (55:14) True leadership, according to O'Neill, is maintaining calm under chaos rather than relying on titles. Referencing a study on decision-making where college students facing ambiguous exam results were paralyzed from booking vacations compared to those who knew they passed or failed, O'Neill emphasizes that ambiguity exhausts cognitive bandwidth. Effective leaders must decide without waiting for 100% certainty, avoiding hindsight bias by evaluating past decisions strictly on the information available at the moment they were made. Habits to Extinguish for Authentic Rapport (71:34) Improving communication often depends on eliminating counterproductive behaviors rather than acquiring new techniques. O'Neill highlights three habits to extinguish immediately: trying to be right, giving unsolicited advice, and declaring "I understand." Claiming to understand someone's unique grief or stress flattens their personal experience and shifts the conversation's focus onto oneself. Instead, building authentic rapport requires addressing the other person's immediate state and listening without immediately trying to solve their problem. O'Neill emphasizes that mastering communication provides no magic formula to guarantee that every difficult conversation will resolve favorably, as fairness remains subjective. The standard of success lies in handling confrontations with discipline, purpose, and self-ownership, regardless of whether the counterpart chooses to reciprocate.

前美国特勤局特工兼测谎专家 Desmond O'Neill 指出，在充满冲突或操纵意图的高压对话中，保持掌控力的关键在于放弃草率贴标签与情绪化反击，转而依靠明确的目标锚定、严谨的倾听提问机制以及真实的共情。 摒弃病理标签与重塑沟通目标 (0:00) 在面对具有挑衅性或操控性的对话时，人们习惯将对方贴上“自恋狂”或“煤气灯操纵者”等心理学标签。O'Neill 认为，这种草率定性本质上是一种逃避自我责任并完全归咎他人的防御手段，会形成阻碍真实连接的认知盲区。缺乏同理心或自我中心往往受情境和压力影响；研究数据显示，人类准确推断他人内心状态的同理心准确率在常态下仅约 40%，而在情绪剧烈波动时会骤降至 15% 左右。进入冲突前，必须清空预设的敌对标签。 为防范情绪被带偏，沟通者必须确立核心目标。O'Neill 引用“多重目标理论”（Multiple Goals Theory）指出，人在对话中同时权衡任务目标（解决问题）、身份目标（维系自身正确与形象）和关系目标（保护长期信任）。对话失控通常源于目标错位——例如为了在争论中证明自己正确而牺牲了长远关系。将终极意图（如查明行为诱因或划定底线）作为锚点，才能抵御对方的言语挑衅和情绪泛滥。 执行 PLAN 框架以化解对话阻力 (11:06) 为在高压互动中维持主导权，O'Neill 提出了“PLAN”四步沟通框架：目标（Purpose）、倾听（Listen）、提问（Ask）与下一步行动（Next Steps/Navigate）。在倾听环节，发言者的思维速度通常达每分钟 800 至 1,000 词，但语速仅为 120 至 150 词；倾听者的大脑处理能力达 400 至 600 词。这种多余的认知带宽容易让人分心或预判回应。有效的倾听需要运用“认知抑制”，主动抑制走神，全力捕捉对方的信息与状态变化。 在提问与推进阶段，非语言信号（占沟通的 66%）是状态改变的线索，但并非撒谎的绝对证据。面对防御姿态，应采用观察型措辞（如“看起来好像……我理解得对吗？”）而非武断下结论。在收尾规划“下一步行动”时，应主动询问对方能否达成双方认可的解决路径，并具体定义实际落实方式，而非单方面强加指令。若遭遇直接侮辱，不应以恶制恶，而需在现场指明具体行为并要求对方解释根源，从而守住个人尊严与对话界限。 辨识叙事真实度与审讯科学演变 (6:10) 美国执法部门的审讯科学在过去一个世纪经历了从 20 世纪初肉体折磨（所谓的“第三级”手段），到后来的心理操纵与疲劳战术，再到现代循证审讯的演进。以高价值在押人员审讯组（HIG）为代表的现代科学，强调认知共情、战略性提问与建立透明沟通。O'Neill 在长达 36 小时对绑架犯 Phillip Garrido 的高压审讯中，始终保持专业克制，即便遭到对方挑衅与人格侮辱也不脱离查明未结悬案的核心任务。 在评估复杂陈述的真实性时，O'Neill 强调不能依赖肢体语言的刻板印象，而应关注叙事特征。说真话的人在跨越数天的陈述中时间线高度一致，且会自然出现“自发性自我修正”（例如中途纠正记忆先后顺序），并主动包含现实中的意外挫折或失误。相比之下，说谎者往往提供过于平滑、缺乏瑕疵的故事，刻意省略可能引发矛盾的复杂现实细节。 划定影响力边界与同理心陷阱 (44:32) O'Neill 严格区分了影响力与操纵行为：影响力是在特定情境下推动对双方皆有利的结果，而操纵则是通过欺骗或投机手段仅为自身谋利并留下一地鸡毛。真正的领导力与说服力建立在透明度与真实暴露脆弱之上。对于人际信任，O'Neill 将其划分为三个同心圆：最内层是对自我的问责与信任，中间层是仅向极少数亲友开放的无条件信任，最外层则必须基于长期的言行一致来谨慎给予，防范盲目的“晕轮效应”。 在日常沟通优化中，O'Neill 主张“先戒断再习得”——相比学习新技巧，剔除阻碍对话的坏习惯更为关键。他强调应立即停止三类行为：执着于争夺谁对谁错、未经请求便提供建议，以及脱口而出“我理解你”。因为每个人的内心体验都是独特的，一句轻率的“我理解”往往会剥夺对方体验的独特性并将焦点转移到自身。卓越的共情往往只需如 Simon Sinek 所言“坐在泥泞中陪伴”，给予对方倾诉空间而不急于扮演问题解决者。 在模糊环境中果断决策与摒弃后视偏差 (56:22) 卓越领导者的核心特质在于“混乱之中的冷静”，其影响力取决于在极端压力下带给周围人的感受。心理学实验表明，不确定性与结果未知比单纯的坏消息更能消耗认知带宽并引发决策瘫痪。优秀的决策者在信息不完备时依然敢于拍板；O'Neill 援引奥巴马总统在仅有约 51% 确信度下授权突袭本·拉登住所的案例，说明承担模糊风险是高难度决策的常态。 面对决策结果，O'Neill 倡导以个人问责制彻底摒弃“后视偏差”。只要决策基于当时的最佳信息且未受失控情绪驱动，无论结果如何都应坦然接纳。正确的决策带来印证，错误的决策提供经验；将过去的试错视为通往当下自我认知的必要基石，才能避免陷入毫无建设性的反悔与自我消耗之中。 O'Neill 的核心方法论表明，无论面对极端嫌疑人还是职场与生活中的操控者，掌控权永远来自于内在的情绪纪律、清晰的意图锚定与对人性的客观审视，而非外部技巧的胜负欲。然而，该框架也承认“公平”具有极强的主观性，沟通无法解决所有固有的人际障碍；当成熟的对话努力彻底失效时，保持自尊与平静并果断抽身，同样是不可或缺的最终选项。

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 12 月 1 日发布。视频特邀拥有超过 30 年谈判与审讯经验的前美国特勤局特工兼高价值在押人员审讯小组（HIG）教官戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill），深度解析应对艰难对话的四步法则、识破煤气灯操纵与自恋标签误区，以及如何在极度对抗中建立真正的情感连接与领导力。 ## TL;DR 奥尼尔基于特警突击、测谎考评及重案审讯的实战经验，提出了化解冲突的“PLAN 框架”（明确目的 Purpose、深度倾听 Listen、精准提问 Ask、落实行动 Next steps）。他警示人们切勿滥用“自恋狂”等标签或随口敷衍“我懂你”，并揭示了人在激动时共情准确度会断崖式暴跌的认知科学真相。面对人身攻击与挑衅，唯有摒弃“以自我为中心”的盲区、坚持客观指认现实并牢牢锁定核心使命，才能真正掌控对话并建立坚不可摧的长期信任。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对谈氛围冷静深邃且充满张力，既有特勤局生死博弈案例带来的压迫感与震撼，又有剖析亲情回忆时的温情与触动。奥尼尔沉稳克制、直击本质的特工气场，与主持人充满求知欲的敏锐追问形成了绝佳的互动张力。听众仿佛置身于一场高维度的心理推演室，伴随对话层层剥开人性的防线与偏见，体验从剑拔弩张的对抗回归理性坦荡的心理沉淀。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=0s) 前美国特勤局特工戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔提出应对冲突的 PLAN 框架（Purpose 目标、Listen 倾听、Ask 提问、Next steps 下一步），强调在艰难对话中应聚焦核心使命并拒绝贴上“自恋狂”等主观标签。 - [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1460s) 心理学共情准确度研究显示，人类对陌生人意图的猜测准确率仅约 20%，对伴侣最高为 40%，而在情绪高压对抗中会断崖式暴跌至 15% 以下，盲目主观揣测是破坏沟通的核心诱因。 - [21:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1299s) 语言输出语速（120-150 词/分）与听者处理语速（400-600 词/分）之间存在巨大的认知带宽落差，多余带宽极易诱发走神与预设反驳，必须主动调用认知抑制来维持深度倾听。 - [01:11:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4289s) 高级沟通遵循“先剔除后习得”的减法原则，应立即停止执着于证明自己正确、随口说“我懂你/我理解你”、以及提供未经请求的建议。 ## Key takeaways - [08:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=501s) 在艰难对话开场前，绝不能轻易将对方定性为“自恋狂”或“煤气灯操纵者”，随意贴标签是一种推卸责任的思维懒惰，会彻底阻断理解对方真实动机的可能性。 - [11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=666s) 多元目标理论指出人会同时追求任务、身份与关系目标，沟通崩溃往往源于个人自尊与身份目标压过了真正的核心任务。 - [18:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1085s) 真实陈述的核心特征包含前后叙述高度一致、自发性修正以及坦承事情中的波折与意外；相反，刻意编造的故事往往过于顺遂和平滑。 - [21:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1299s) 倾听是掌控对话权力的真正来源，大部分人倾听只是为了等待回复，而真正的积极倾听需要收窄多余认知带宽并保持好奇心。 - [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1460s) 情绪激动时共情准确度会骤降至 15% 以下，解决歧义的最佳方式不是主观推断，而是提出澄清式问题以核实对方真实感受。 - [28:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1705s) 肢体语言无法直接作为测谎依据，其核心价值在于结合具体语境和时间节点，捕捉对方基线行为与心理状态的突发变化。 - [31:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1875s) PLAN 框架中的 N 代表下一步（Next steps），艰难对话必须围绕双方对未来的具体行动方案和解决机制达成明确共识。 - [33:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2004s) 面对人身攻击与挑衅时反唇相讥会彻底丧失掌控权，正确的破局策略是平静地“指认现实”，直接指出对方的具体言行并要求解释其原因。 - [39:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2398s) “我我我综合征”源于过度的自我中心视角，顶尖谈判者会将绝大部分精力用于向外观察他人与换位思考，体察不同人截然不同的认知现实。 - [46:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2777s) 影响与操纵的根本分水岭在于是否追求双向有益与保持诚实透明；利用谎言走捷径虽能带来短期获利，却会摧毁长期信任基础。 - [51:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3075s) 信任应呈现严格的同心圆结构：核心是自我信任，无条件信任圈仅限于极少数生死托底之人，其余所有关系都应属于需要用行动持续证明的“有条件信任”。 - [53:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3205s) 警惕光环效应导致的信任错配，切勿因一个人在某方面的卓越表现而盲目推定其在品格与秘密守护上也无懈可击。 - [56:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3382s) 未知的模糊性会大幅消耗大脑认知带宽并导致行动瘫痪，卓越领导力的本质是在信息不完全的混乱状态中保持沉着并果断决断。 - [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4046s) 建立真正融洽关系的核心法则是“在开启我想谈的话题之前，必须先谈你想谈的话题”，通过主动化解对方当下的后顾之忧来触发深度心理互惠。 - [01:13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4400s) 随口对他人说“我完全懂你”会抢夺对方的情感聚光灯，真正让对方感到被理解的姿态是“陪对方坐在泥坑里”，接纳情绪而不急于提供建议。 - [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4688s) 真正的自我领导力体现在坚决对自己的所有决定负全责（Radical Ownership），拒绝事后诸葛亮偏差，把过往的一切弯路与错误转化为成长的养分。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=0s) 艰难对话的误区与沟通框架预览 面对人际交往中极度棘手、剑拔弩张的对话时，绝大多数人往往在开口前就犯下致命错误——例如直接将对方贴上“自恋狂（narcissist）”的标签。戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）一开场便明确指出，简单粗暴地给人定性会彻底阻断你理解对方真实为人及行为成因的可能。在长达30余年的执法与特勤生涯中，他总结出一套应对复杂黑暗对话的四步法则（PLAN框架），同时也警告人们必须立即停止某些自我感动的沟通坏习惯，其中最典型的就是随口对别人说“我懂你/我理解你（I understand）”。 奥尼尔以科学研究为支撑，拆解了人在情绪激动时沟通失效的神经机制。在PLAN框架中，“P”代表目标（Purpose），即时刻牢记自己为何身在此处、谈话的最终诉求是什么，因为情绪一旦失控，掌控权就会彻底丧失；“A”代表发问（Ask），许多人以为自己对伴侣或对手的心思了如指掌，然而心理学上的“共情准确度（empathy accuracy）”研究表明，普通人对他人想法的猜测准确率仅为40%左右，一旦对话陷入激烈的情绪对抗，这一数字甚至会断崖式暴跌至15%。奥尼尔曾在特警队（SWAT）历经“你在猎杀目标、目标同时也在暗中猎杀你”的极端生死考验，后又在联邦特勤局与情报机构训练精英，他将审讯科学与生命危险中磨炼出的沟通直觉凝练为可在日常生活中落地的方法论。 - **共情准确度（Empathy Accuracy）数据**：日常状态下仅约40%，在情绪激烈的高压对抗场景中可跌至15%以下。 - **PLAN框架先导要点**： - **P (Purpose)**：明确对话终极目标，防止情绪冲动偏离核心方向； - **A (Ask)**：主动提问以打破盲目臆测，避免因自以为是而破坏深层信任； - **L & N**：涵盖倾听与中和情绪的关键步骤，将在后续深入剖析。 --- ### [02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=146s) 面对“阴暗对话”：在极度抗拒中建立真实连接 史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）询问听众能从这场对话中获得什么核心收获。奥尼尔直言，在轻松愉悦的交谈中，任何人都能从容地维持良好的体态、完美的眼神交流和有力的握手；然而，真正考验人际交往能力的，是那些潜藏在心底阴影中、让人避之不及的“阴暗对话（dark conversations）”。这些对话充斥着强烈的负面情绪与剑拔弩张的张力，比如感觉自己在升职中被主管恶意忽视、夫妻间爆发剧烈争吵，或是遭遇密友的背叛。 在长达三十年的职业生涯中，奥尼尔打交道的大多数审讯对象根本不想同他开口说半个字。他的核心职责从来不是简单的“审问”，而是在对抗中找到破局点，建立起真正的情感连接，促使对方自愿敞开心扉并提供关键情报。奥尼尔强调，这绝非冷酷的审讯术，而是关于纯粹的“人际连接”。掌握这套方法的核心目的，是在直面最艰难的情感死结时，不仅能有效深化关系或达成某种共识，更重要的是让人在事后不再陷入无休止的反刍与精神内耗，反复纠结自己当时“哪句话说错了、原本该怎么做”。 --- ### [04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=275s) 从特警到测谎与内务调查：直面同行者的审讯挑战 当被要求用简短时间概述其背书与经验渊源时，奥尼尔梳理了自己极其罕见且跨越多个高压维度的履历。他的职业生涯始于惩教人员（狱警），随后转为城市警察并入选特警队（SWAT）；之后他跨入联邦执法体系，加入美国特勤局（US Secret Service），并成为专业的测谎考评专家（polygraph examiner）。测谎的本质是借助生理与心理反应指标来判定被测者在面对特定提问时的真实心理状态，在这个阶段，奥尼尔接触了无数人在极度压力下坦白的最深沉、最黑暗的秘密。 随着履历的演进，奥尼尔调入内务调查处（Internal Affairs）执掌内部反腐与违纪侦查。这项工作的难度提升到了全新层级：他审讯的不再是普通嫌疑人，而是本系统内的同行——那些一年前还在街头并肩作战的战友，而且这些警官自身往往受过专业的反侦查与审讯技巧培训，对提问套路、肢体线索和互动策略了如指掌。在这种双方知根知底的心理博弈中，旧有的审讯套路彻底失效，调查员必须对每一次互动保持高度敏锐，在极度敏感的指控调查中寻找真相。 --- ### [06:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=371s) 审讯科学的演进与 HIG 的三位一体架构 审讯方式在过去一个世纪经历了根本性的范式变迁。奥尼尔回顾道，20世纪初期的美国警务审讯普遍充斥着肉体暴力，即臭名昭著的“第三度酷刑（third degree）”，通过磨损牙齿、施加肉体折磨来强行屈打成招；随着文明演进，物理折磨逐渐被心理操控手法所取代。然而，直到2014年奥尼尔进入内务处工作时，他深感主流的心理操纵手法同样已经陈旧过时，无法满足现代执法与真实连接的需求。 在入读海军研究生院（Naval Postgraduate School）攻读硕士学位期间，奥尼尔在导师的建议下接触并加入了高价值在押人员审讯小组（High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, 简称 HIG）。HIG 由科研、实战专家与培训师三大支柱组成，彻底革新了情报审讯的理论基础。作为身兼培训师与一线执行者的专家，奥尼尔不仅直接负责跨国关键目标的审问，更深入探究其背后的行为科学机理，成为了打通“前沿心理科研”与“高压审讯实战”之间鸿沟的桥梁。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: HIG三位一体审讯架构 accDescr: 展示高价值在押人员审讯小组如何将科学研究、一线实战与专业培训相结合以实现科学审讯。 subgraph HIG["HIG (高价值在押人员审讯小组) 架构体系"] R["科研部门 (Research)<br/>探索行为心理学与实证规律"] P["实战部门 (Practitioners)<br/>执行重大跨国在押人员审问"] T["培训部门 (Trainers)<br/>奥尼尔所在分支：传授实证审讯法"] end R -->|"提供实证理论依据"| T P -->|"反馈前线审讯案例与数据"| R T -->|"搭建科学与实战的落地桥梁"| P ``` --- ### [08:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=501s) 避免先入为主：为何绝不能先给对方贴上“自恋者”标签 巴特利特抛出一个大众在职场与生活中普遍面临的情景假设：如果自己正准备与一个极难相处、经常对自己进行煤气灯操纵（gaslight）、并且疑似具有“自恋型人格障碍（narcissist）”的人展开严肃对质，在走进房间前心里充满焦虑与精神内耗，第一步究竟该从哪里着手？ 奥尼尔几乎毫不犹豫地打断并纠正了这个预设：“你要做的第一件事，就是绝不能用你刚才的方式去给对方贴标签。”他直言，过早使用“自恋者”这类流行心理学术语是一种极其危险的思维懒惰。巴特利特随后承认，给对方贴标签在心理上能让自己迅速站在道德高地上把责任全盘推给对方。奥尼尔顺势发起反问：“在你的认知里，到底什么才算自恋者？”由此揭示出人们如何常常用宽泛的贬义词汇代替了对复杂人性的客观观察，导致沟通从一开始就走入不可挽回的对立僵局。 ### [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=533s) 撕掉标签：为何不要轻易将对方定义为“自恋狂”或“煤气灯操纵者” 在面对充满火药味的人际冲突时，人们往往习惯迅速给对方贴上负面标签。斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）描述了一种典型的棘手对手画像：极度缺乏同理心、以自我为中心、情绪激进且具有攻击性。戴斯蒙·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）立刻打断并反问斯蒂芬：“在你的整个人生中，你是否也曾有过缺乏同理心的时刻？”当斯蒂芬承认确实有时，戴斯蒙指出，同理心具有高度的情境性（situationally based）与主观性。当人们武断地指责“这个人是个自恋狂（narcissist）”时，其实只是在图省事，通过推卸责任把过错完全推到对方头上，这会彻底阻断你深入理解对方行为动机的可能性。因此，进入艰难对话的第一步，必须是剥离这些主观标签。 随后两人探讨了近年来被泛化的“煤气灯操纵（gaslighting）”。斯蒂芬提到自己常遇到的情形：每当提出自己的感受或问题时，对方不仅不倾听，反而倒打一耙，让自己觉得全都是自己的错，甚至暗示是自己做了什么才“罪有应得”。戴斯蒙解释，真正的煤气灯操纵核心在于试图贬低你的可信度（discredit you），让你怀疑自己的记忆与认知。当对方情绪失控、以攻击性的态度“淹没全场”（flood the zone）导致你陷入闭锁状态时，必须依靠一套结构化的思维工具来维持掌控力。 --- ### [11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=666s) PLAN 框架与多元目标理论：守住对话的核心使命（Purpose） 为了在暗潮汹涌的艰难沟通中保持清醒与专注，戴斯蒙提出了名为 **PLAN** 的四步应对框架。其中最基础、最关键的第一步就是字母 **P —— 目的（Purpose）**。戴斯蒙强调，在开口之前，你必须无比清楚自己为什么坐在这里，你的最终“使命（Mission）”到底是什么。使命决定了你应采取的战术；唯有明确使命，当对方突然变得极具攻击性、出言不逊或试图激怒你时，你才不会被轻易带偏。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 多元目标理论结构图 accDescr: 展示沟通中同时存在的任务目标、身份目标与关系目标及其平衡关系 subgraph MGT["多元目标理论 (Multiple Goals Theory)"] direction TB Task["任务目标 (Task)<br>推进事项、解决问题、达成结果"] Identity["身份目标 (Identity)<br>自我认同、尊严面子、情绪感受"] Relation["关系目标 (Relational)<br>维护人际连接、长期信任与合作"] end P["核心使命 / 目的 (Purpose)"] --> MGT MGT --> Align{"目标是否协同？"} Align -->|"协同 (Aligned)"| Success["有效沟通与协作"] Align -->|"失衡 (Misaligned)"| Friction["情绪失控、争吵或关系破裂"] ``` 戴斯蒙引入了传播学中的“多元目标理论（Multiple Goals Theory）”。该理论指出，人在任何特定时刻都会同时追求三种目标： 1. **任务目标（Task）**：想要完成的具体事务或业务结果； 2. **身份目标（Identity）**：自己在过程中的情绪感受、自尊心及自我认同（“我是不是那个表现出色的人”）； 3. **关系目标（Relational）**：与对方维系和建立的人际关系。 很多时候，这三者可以完美协同，但一旦失衡就会引发严重问题。戴斯蒙以体育团队为例：团队的任务是赢球，但如果某位球星（例如像罗纳尔多那样的球员）变成了“独霸球权的独行侠（ball hog）”，不肯传球只顾自己射门，就说明其“维护超级巨星形象的身份目标”凌驾于“赢球的任务目标”之上。而在职场环境中，如果老板在一场关乎成交的关键会议上说错了话，员工面临两难：是当众纠正老板（满足“我对了”的身份与事实任务），还是保全老板的面子并在事后私下沟通（维护关系目标并保住职业生涯）？在充满情绪波动的对话中，人们极易被身份层面的愤怒绑架，从而彻底偏离最初的任务目的。 - **呼叫中心案例**：斯蒂芬回忆起早年工作经历，旁边坐着一位总是冷嘲热讽、居高临下的女同事。斯蒂芬当时只想让她“闭嘴停止”，但戴斯蒙指出，真正高阶的目的不仅是制止表象，而是弄清楚对方为何要这样做（Why she's doing it），唯有洞察原因才能从根源上化解僵局。 --- ### [14:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=885s) 36小时生死审讯：前特工如何面对连环绑架犯的挑衅 为了证明“坚守目的”的实战威力，戴斯蒙分享了职业生涯中最严苛的一场真实审讯。1991年，年仅11岁的女孩杰西·杜加德（Jaycee Dugard）被菲利普·加里多（Phillip Garrido）与其妻子南希绑架，并被囚禁了整整18年；期间菲利普致使杰西两度怀孕产子（分别在她14岁和17岁时）。直到2009年，这对夫妇在加州大学伯克利分校落网，并在2011年被正式定罪。而早在杜加德案发生前3年（1988年），邻近的阿拉米达县（Alameda County）曾发生过另一名小女孩米凯拉·加雷希特（Michaela Garecht）失踪案，遗骸至今未寻获，警方强烈怀疑加里多也是该案凶手。 加利福尼亚州埃尔多拉多县检察官弗农·皮尔森（Vern Pierson）联系了戴斯蒙，希望他能前往监狱审讯加里多以求破案。当被问及需要多长时间时，戴斯蒙直接要求：“我需要整整4天。”加里多此前曾写过一本声称能“治愈恋童癖”的怪异宣言，戴斯蒙深入研读了这份材料。在监狱会面第一天，加里多态度傲慢地问：“你是谁？”戴斯蒙亮明身份：“我是特工奥尼尔，我读了你的宣言，有些问题想和你聊聊。”加里多犹豫后声称“肩膀上的天使告诉我，这是一场有益的谈话”。戴斯蒙每天与他详谈8到9个小时，为他带食物，并在每天结束时利用加里多的认知语境顺势说道：“菲利普，我明天还会在这里。如果‘你肩膀上的天使’告诉你该来，就请过来；如果不来，那也很高兴认识你。” 在长达36小时的极限交锋中，加里多情绪多次失控，极具攻击性与优越感。他指着戴斯蒙破口大骂，称戴斯蒙是“骗子”、质疑他根本不是联邦探员，并全面攻击戴斯蒙的职业操守与人格诚信。戴斯蒙坦言，自己内心完全可以反唇相讥：“你绑架了一个11岁的小女孩，把她囚禁了18年生了两个孩子，你现在居然在质疑我的诚信？”但他生生克制住了反击的冲动。因为戴斯蒙清楚自己的唯一目的（Purpose）是撬开悬案的线索，而不是证明自己比一个罪犯更聪明或更有道德。正因为牢牢锁定了核心使命，他没有掉入情绪陷阱，在狂风暴雨般的羞辱中始终掌握着审讯的主动权。 ### [18:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1085s) 识别真相的线索与“专业”的真正定义 在这场针对连环强奸犯的长达数日审讯结束时，戴斯蒙·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）直接走向检察官，斩钉截铁地表示对方并不是杀害米凯拉·加雷希特（Michaela Garecht）的凶手。面对检察官“你确定吗？”的质疑，奥尼尔毫不犹豫地回应：“我拿我的职业生涯打赌。”这种绝对的笃定并非来自直觉，而是建立在一整套观察人陈述真实信息时的行为特征之上。 从周二、周三到周四、周五，嫌疑人在连日的盘问中展现了高度的内容一致性；当被要求进一步澄清时，他能毫无阻滞地提供细节；更为关键的是他表现出了“自发性修正”（Spontaneous Correction）——会在叙述中突然主动停下并纠正自己：“等等，这件事其实发生在那件事之前。”此外，奥尼尔特别强调了“波折与并发状况”（Complications）在识别谎言中的核心价值。现实生活从来不会完美顺遂，这名嫌疑人在交代自己过往驾车绑架、性侵搭车女性的罪行时，坦率提及了许多行动受挫的狼狈细节，例如受害女性激烈反抗并成功逃脱的过程。说谎者往往倾向于将虚构的故事编织得过于平滑严密，绝不敢轻易引入节外生枝的波折；而讲真话的人因为只是在如实还原记忆，反而会自然带出生活原本的曲折与混乱。整个过程中没有任何欺骗线索（Cues to deception），也没有需要警方强行拼凑的诡异断层。后续警方的物证检验也证实了他的判断——技术人员提取到了新的指纹，最终成功锁定并定罪了真正的凶手。 奥尼尔借此案例阐释了沟通中牢记“核心使命”（Purpose）的意义。在面对令人极度反感的罪犯时，只有将注意力牢牢钉在受害者家庭与寻求真相的使命上，才不会被厌恶感等情绪冲昏头脑。他指出，“拥有一份职业”（Having a profession）仅仅代表你在做什么，而“成为一名专业人士”（Being a professional），则意味着在特定时刻为了特定使命，把自己过往所积累的全部能力与素养汇聚调动出来。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 识别真话的核心行为特征 accDescr: 展示审讯中说真话者表现出的一致性、自发修正与处理复杂情况的特征。 subgraph TruthIndicators["陈述真实的核心特征"] A["多日连贯陈述<br/>跨时间细节保持高度一致"] --> B["自发修正 (Spontaneous Correction)<br/>主动调整记忆顺序与细枝末节"] B --> C["真实波折 (Complications)<br/>坦承失控、意外与失败环节"] end subgraph Contrast["对比撒谎者表现"] C -. 对比.-> D["虚构故事刻意平滑<br/>回避不可控波折与自发修正"] end ``` - **真实陈述的关键特征**：跨周期的前后叙述一致、有问必答且能补充细节、主动出现自发性修正、坦然包含意外与失败等生活波折。 - **案件后续**：调查人员随后重新梳理物证，通过提取到的关键新指纹，成功逮捕并起诉了真正的凶案罪犯。 --- ### [21:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1299s) 认知带宽悖论：倾听为何是极难掌控的对话控制权 在涵盖沟通四步法的“PLAN”框架中，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）坦言自己在第一步“目标”（P - Purpose）上就经常栽跟头，尤其是在与伴侣发生矛盾、互相指责的情绪化时刻。奥尼尔随后翻开了第二张卡片——“L”（Listen，倾听）。他直言，倾听是绝大多数人表现最差的一环，因为人的生理与认知机制本身就在给深度倾听制造障碍。 奥尼尔以两人当下的对谈拆解了这一“认知带宽悖论”。当他在开口说话时，其大脑内部的思维运作和词汇流速高达每分钟800到1000个词，但他实际向外说出的语速只有每分钟120到150个词。在这期间，大脑不仅要对大量涌现的想法进行飞速筛选与编辑，还要同时调用“心智理论”（Theory of Mind），时刻紧盯史蒂文的语言与非语言反馈，揣摩“我说的内容史蒂文和他的听众想听吗？打动他了吗？我是不是把他讲丢了？”一旦发现对方眼神或肢体有微妙变化，他就必须立刻重新校准讲话内容。与此同时，坐在对面的史蒂文在接收这每分钟120到150词的信息时，大脑的处理速度却高达每分钟400到600词。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 倾听中的认知带宽落差 accDescr: 展现讲话者内部语速、实际输出语速与听者处理速度之间的带宽落差及走神诱因。 subgraph Speaker["讲话者 (Speaker)"] S1["内部思维与词汇<br/>800 - 1000 词/分"] --> S2["实际输出语速<br/>120 - 150 词/分"] end subgraph Listener["听者 (Listener)"] L1["大脑处理速度<br/>400 - 600 词/分"] L2["产生过剩认知带宽<br/>走神、自以为是、准备反驳"] L3["认知抑制 (Cognitive Inhibition)<br/>主动收窄带宽以保持专注"] L1 --> L2 L2 -. 需要调用.-> L3 end S2 --> L1 ``` 这种巨大的速度差导致听者拥有过剩的“认知带宽”。听者的大脑在处理完接收到的信息后仍有大量余力，因此极易开始走神、遐想其他事务，或是盯着记事本自以为“已经猜到他接下来要说什么了”。这种状态会让人从“充满好奇”退化为“自以为是”（Convinced rather than curious）。要实现真正的积极倾听，人必须主动启动“认知抑制”（Cognitive Inhibition），强行收窄多余的心智带宽，把注意力死死锚定在说话者身上，同步观察对方的言辞与微表情。正如史蒂芬·柯维（Stephen Covey）的警世名言：“大多数人倾听并不是为了理解，而是为了回复。”如果只是在按捺着等待轮到自己发言，两人之间根本没有建立真正的连接。掌控对话的终极权力并非来自滔滔不绝的口才，而是来自深度倾听。 --- ### [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1460s) 共情准确度骤降与提问的艺术（Ask） 当对话从倾听（Listen）推进到框架的第三步——“A”（Ask，提问）时，真正的深层沟通才拉开序幕。如果双方都在一味遵循“让对方多说”的教条，对话只会陷入停滞。提问是顺应对方语言与肢体线索、向更深处挖掘的关键动作，它直接向对方传递出“我在全神贯注、我对你充满好奇与开放”的信号。 奥尼尔在此引入了心理学中极具颠覆性的“共情准确度”（Empathy Accuracy）数据： - **面对陌生人**：我们准确推测其内心想法与心智状态的概率仅有约 **20%**； - **面对朋友或密友**：这一概率仅上升到约 **30%**； - **面对长期生活的亲密伴侣**：共情准确度最高也不过 **40%**。 这意味着，即使面对最亲密的伴侣，单凭猜测你也有整整六成的概率完全猜错。而一旦对话掺杂了争吵与情绪，这一数值会断崖式暴跌至 **15%**。因为此时个人的“自尊心”（Ego）被推到了风口浪尖，人会本能地转入自我防御，“当你的自尊上线时，你的耳朵就会下线”（When your ego is on the line, your ears go offline）。 | 面对对象 | 常规共情准确度 | 情绪激动/自尊防御状态 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **陌生人** | 约 20% | - | | **密友** | 约 30% | - | | **亲密伴侣** | 约 40% | 骤降至 15% 甚至更低 | 为了具体说明如何通过提问化解认知偏差，奥尼尔举了一个极为接地气的日常例子：你清晨健身后精疲力竭地回到家，伴侣问你练得怎么样，你随口回了句：“挺艰难的（It's pretty tough）。”此时伴侣通常有三种截然不同的应对方式： 1. **完全沉默不语**：这会让你立刻感觉到对方冷漠、对此毫无兴趣或根本不想搭理你。 2. **凭主观臆断回应**：“亲爱的，难怪你身材保持得这么好。”此时伴侣其实是误以为自己准确理解了“艰难”的含义；如果你当时感受到的并非肌肉酸痛的成就感，而是身体不适或极度挫败，这种假设就会让你瞬间产生情感隔阂与距离感。 3. **主动发起提问**：“你说的‘艰难’具体是指什么？”“艰难”本身是一个充满歧义的模糊词汇，伴侣抛出这句话，便是在直截了当地告诉你：“我正在同频关注你，我想真正弄懂你的感受。” 正是这种通过提问澄清模糊语义的微小动作，构成了加深关系厚度与建立深层信任的基石。沟通中不仅有言语层面的交锋，非语言行为更是占据了人类信息传递的 66%。当对方在交流中突然做出交叉双臂等肢体变化时，它可能只是单纯的习惯性姿势，也可能暗含着对当前话题的抵触与防御，而唯有敏锐观察并适时提问，才能看破表象背后的真实意图。 ### [27:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1631s) 肢体语言的观察与求证：从“似乎”到开放式核实 Desmond O'Neill 继续深入剖析如何正确指出对方的非语言信号。在沟通中如果注意到对方出现某些抗拒动作，切忌使用“我认为（I think）”这类主观评判的词汇。因为“我认为”是一种以自我为中心的表达，对方的下意识反应往往是“我才不在乎你怎么想”。更有效的切入方式是用观察性的语言：“看起来好像……（It seems like…）”。例如，可以直接说：“看起来你刚才那样做，可能是因为不太认同我说的话，因为我注意到你双臂抱胸还翻了个白眼。我的理解对吗？” 这种提问方式把选择权还给了对方：他们可以选择承认并说明原因，也可以澄清说“没有，我只是抱胸坐着更舒服而已”。Desmond 强调，并非所有的肢体动作都是红牌警报；平时普通聊天时双手交叉完全无所谓，但如果当前对话带有某种情绪张力、涉及重要议题，而对方突然出现后仰、抱胸或翻白眼，就必须结合语境求证。例如：“嘿，Steven，我注意到当我提到家里这件事情时，你往后靠、把手臂交叉还翻了白眼。看起来你对此并不赞成，我的感觉对吗？”这样对方就必须为自己的肢体反应给出合理解释。 - **用词对比**：使用“看起来好像（It seems like...）”替代“我认为（I think...）”，前者聚焦于客观观察并邀请澄清，后者则充满主观归咎。 - **验证闭环**：指出具体动作后加上一句“我的理解对吗？（Do I have that right?）”，把解释的主动权交回对方手中。 --- ### [28:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1705s) 模式识别与肢体语言真相：变化与时机才是关键 主持人 Steven Bartlett 分享了自己作为访谈者的亲身经验。过去五年里，他常常进行长达四五个小时的长时间访谈，逐渐摸索出嘉宾的肢体语言模式。最常见的一个规律是：每当抛出一个让对方感到潜在不适或难以回答的问题时，嘉宾几乎总会下意识地双手交叉抱胸。Steven 提到自己通常不会打断去问“你为什么抱胸”，因为这一动作本身已经传递出明确的情绪信息，他会把这当成一个内在信号，转而在接下来的提问中探讨那段回忆带给对方的感受。 Desmond 肯定了 Steven 这种依靠“模式识别（pattern recognition）”得来的敏锐直觉，但这只代表对方出现了情绪波动，并不等同于读心术。针对大众常问的“肢体语言真能看出一个人是否在撒谎吗”，Desmond 给出了斩钉截铁的否定回答：“不能。”他指出，观察肢体语言的核心在于捕捉**状态的变化（change in state）**以及这种变化发生的**时机（timing）**。当触及敏感话题时对方抱胸，可能是一种下意识的心理自我防御机制，但切忌妄下定论；一旦先入为主地臆测对方的动机且猜错了，整场沟通就会彻底脱轨。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 肢体语言观察与应对逻辑 accDescr: 展示从识别肢体语言基线变化到验证情绪与调整沟通策略的完整判断流程。 subgraph Detect["阶段一：识别变化"] A["观察常态基线行为"] --> B["捕捉突发状态变化<br/>（如双手交叉抱胸、翻白眼、身体后撤）"] B --> C["结合提问时机与情绪语境评估"] end subgraph Act["阶段二：求证与应对"] C --> D{"选择处理方式"} D -->|"直接核实"| E["使用观察性语言：<br/>'看起来似乎……我的理解对吗？'"] D -->|"策略性调整"| F["不直接点破，<br/>调整提问方向探索内在感受"] end E --> G["避免主观臆测，维持对话掌控"] F --> G ``` --- ### [31:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1875s) PLAN 框架的最后一步：落实下一步（Next Steps） 在回顾了处理艰难对话的 **PLAN 框架**——**P** 代表坚持沟通目标（Purpose）、**L** 代表倾听（Listen）、**A** 代表提问（Ask）之后，Desmond 详细拆解了最后一个字母 **N**：**下一步（Next steps）**。许多人在艰难对话中最大的失误，就是谈完之后没有就未来达成任何行动共识。所谓的“下一步”，本质上是探讨彼此希望如何解决冲突、终极目标是什么，以及双方可以做些什么来维持步调一致。 当面对极其棘手、甚至被贴上“自恋者”标签的沟通对象时，如果你的目标是达成和解，就必须主动询问解决方案，例如：“你觉得我们俩能否找到一个体面的相处方式，以后互动时大家都能开开心心的，而不至于把气氛搞僵？你觉得我们未来有可能做到吗？”如果对方同意，再顺势跟进：“那具体应该怎么做？我之所以找你谈，是因为我很在乎这段关系，但目前发生的一些事情确实令人沮丧。我们怎样才能妥善解决？”Desmond 坦言，世上没有任何能够让每次对话都完美的灵丹妙药；公平本身就是高度主观的，最重要的是掌握正确的沟通方法，即便最后事情并未向理想方向发展，也能坦然放手、问心无愧。 - **PLAN 完整框架**： - **P (Purpose)**：明确核心目的，不被情绪带偏。 - **L (Listen)**：深度倾听对方表述背后的意图与情绪。 - **A (Ask)**：提出澄清式、开放式的高质量问题。 - **N (Next steps)**：共同确立下一步行动方案与解决方案。 --- ### [33:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2004s) 遭遇当面羞辱与人身攻击时的破局策略 Steven 提出了一个极具现实挑战的情境：如果在对话过程中对方直接开始人身攻击、破口大骂该怎么办？例如在呼叫中心工作时，邻座同事当面辱骂你。Desmond 的第一反应依然是拉回底层核心：“你留在这场对话中的目的是什么？”如果当下的目的是制止对方的粗鲁行为，就必须在侮辱发生的瞬间立即当面指出来，而且必须**极其具体**。 单纯指责对方“你太粗鲁了”毫无意义，因为对方很可能会反问“我怎么粗鲁了”，或者认为自己只是“性子直、说话坦率”。正确的做法是把对方的具体言行原样摆上台面。例如对方骂了脏话，你可以平静且直接地回应：“看起来你现在非常傲慢无礼，你刚才直接对我进行了人身攻击，用脏话骂了我。你能具体解释一下现在为什么要这么说吗？是我有什么让你讨厌的地方？还是你看不惯我的工作态度或做事方式？你在这里的资历比我老，是不是我有什么地方没做好？因为我完全无法理解你的愤怒、你的恶毒以及辱骂我的必要，我想弄明白这究竟是为什么。” Desmond 总结道，这种针锋相对的明确对话并不保证一定能感化对方——“对方可能纯粹就是个混蛋（She could just be an asshole）”。但这种应对方式的核心价值在于：你当场划定了界限，既没有以牙还牙变成同样满嘴脏话的人，也尽自己所能处理了局面。随后 Steven 顺势切入下一个深度话题，向曾任特勤局审讯专家的 Desmond 请教：当对方劈头盖脸辱骂你、体内皮质醇飙升、怒火中烧时，审讯人员到底掌握着怎样的情绪自控秘诀？ ### [35:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2132s) 当情绪失控与遭遇侮辱：审讯员如何保持掌控 Steven Bartlett 提出一个现实中的沟通难题：当人们被情绪挟持、杏仁核被激活并感到极大压力时，往往会忍不住反唇相讥，甚至破口大骂。他好奇审讯专家是否会接受类似呼吸调控等生理技巧的训练来保持冷静。Desmond O’Neill 坦言，在剑拔弩张的当下，根本没有时间让你去做深呼吸练习；一切都是实时发生的。关键在于进入对话前是否明确自己的目标——即回归 PLAN 框架（包含目标与计划）。如果你的目标是从对方口中获取信息，而对方因为不想坦白，策略性地对你发起人身攻击，一旦你忍不住辱骂回去，不仅彻底拿不到任何有效信息，更是直接落入了对方的圈套。 面对这种挑衅，正确的做法是直接挑明并核实当下的互动状态，例如平静地指出：“我注意到当我问你这个问题时，或者不知为何，我们之间的氛围突然变了，你变得极具攻击性。为什么会这样？”这种不断“指认现实”（calling it out）的做法，本质上是要求对方为自己的情绪拿出合理解释。如果对方只是在虚张声势、试图顾左右而言他来转移焦点，直接点破就能戳穿其伪装；同时这也向对方传达明确的信号：你毫不畏惧这种对抗行为，你一直在以真诚且友善的态度沟通，但绝不会任由对方摆布，更不会情绪化地以牙还牙。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 应对挑衅与情绪失控的决策路径 accDescr: 展示在受到言语攻击时，落入情绪陷阱与保持专业掌控的不同后果 A["对方发起挑衅 / 人身攻击"] --> B{"你的应对方式"} subgraph Trap["情绪失控陷阱"] B -->|"反唇相讥 / 互相辱骂"| C["杏仁核劫持，失去冷静"] C --> D["彻底丧失信息获取与掌控权"] D --> E["落入对方圈套，关系彻底破裂"] end subgraph Control["专业掌控路径"] B -->|"指认现实 / 保持冷静"| F["直接点破攻击行为并追问原因"] F --> G["迫使对方澄清情绪动机"] G --> H["展示自信与专业，牢牢锁定核心目标"] end ``` ### [36:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2214s) 谁是房间里真正的混蛋？内务调查中的路怒审讯案例 当 Steven 询问这种克制是否是为了展示“强大”时，Desmond 纠正道，这与“显得强大”无关，核心在于展现**专业能力（competent）与自信（confident）**。在任何对话或审讯中，一旦你失去理智（lose your cool），你就彻底失去了掌控权（lose control）。 为了说明这一点，Desmond 分享了自己监督的一起内务调查（Internal Affairs）案例： - **案件背景**：一名特工被指控在一场路怒事件（road rage）中对平民拔枪，该案件的主办特工正在审讯室对涉案特工进行问询，Desmond 则在单向透视镜后观察，并准备在后续环节视情况进行测谎。 - **冲突升级**：审讯过程中，被调查的特工态度极其嚣张且愤怒，大声抱怨道：“我不知道你为什么就是不信我！我翻来覆去把这些情况讲了无数遍，你还在问同样的问题，这纯属扯淡（BS）！”然而，主办调查员没有稳住阵脚，反而直接对骂：“因为我认为你就是个骗子！你根本没跟我说实话，你在这浪费我们大家的时间，这是个大问题！”两人随即隔着桌子扯着嗓子对吼起来。 - **角色的错位**：Desmond 评价道，维持冷静从来不是被调查嫌疑人的责任，而是调查员的职责。调查员的使命是查清“拔枪事件究竟有没有发生”，而不是为了在气势上贬低对方；但他完全把核心目标抛在了脑后。 - **荒谬的结局**：调查员气冲冲地走出审讯室问 Desmond 的看法，Desmond 直截了当地拒绝测谎：“他现在情绪激动成这样，根本不可能测谎。”调查员余怒未消地骂道：“这家伙就是个混蛋（jerk）！”Desmond 则在心中暗想：“房间里真正的混蛋其实是你。”因为调查员任由自己被拉下水，把一场专业的调查变成了一场“看谁是更大的混蛋”的较量。 正如 Steven 所总结的，许多人在沟通中就像卷进了“洗衣机”，在毫无锚定目标的状态下不断旋转、内耗，最终把人际关系彻底摧毁。真正的力量恰恰体现在：即便对方暴怒、侮辱你，你依然泰然自若、提出高质量的问题并掌控自己。 ### [39:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2398s) “我我我综合征”（Me Me Me Syndrome）与视角的盲区 Steven 追问 Desmond 常提到的“我我我综合征”（Me Me Me Syndrome）究竟意味着什么。Desmond 解释称，这是一种将世间万物都以自我为中心来审视的认知局限。在西方文明等推崇“尊严文化”（dignity culture）的社会环境中，人们的注意力普遍集中于内在感受，个人的工作、成功与成就被视作全部，外部世界往往退居次席。这种文化导致人们虽然善于“自我反思”（self-reflection），却极少向外去“反思与观察他人”（outward reflection）。相比之下，最顶尖的谈判专家往往会将超过一半的时间精力用于换位思考、琢磨他人的视角。 为了具象化这种认知盲区，Desmond 讲述了一段极为触动内心的亲身经历： - 他 21 岁时，与癌症抗争了三年的父亲在全家人的陪伴下于家中离世，当时母亲以及包括 Desmond 在内的五兄妹全部在场。 - 数年后的父亲忌日，他和姐姐及三个弟弟围坐在一起追忆当天的情景。 - 姐姐突然感慨道：“唉，我现在每次看《辛普森一家》（*The Simpsons*）都会想起爸爸。” - Desmond 感到十分困惑并追问缘由，姐姐解释说：“当时房间里的电视一直开着，正在播《辛普森一家》，我永远忘不了那个画面。” - Desmond 震惊地反问：“当时房间里有电视？”姐姐不可置信地问他怎么可能不记得，但 Desmond 的确对电视的存在毫无印象——因为在巨大的悲痛中，他的大脑完全没有对电视进行信息编码，那不是他关注的核心。 这个生活切片生动地说明，即便是面对同一场景、经历同一场人生变故，不同的人由于接收和感知世界的方式迥异，内心的体验与创伤记忆也截然不同。如果你陷在“我我我”的狭隘天地里，对他人完全不同的主观体验缺乏感知与体谅，就绝不可能与他人建立起深刻、真诚且充满连接的人际关系。 ### [43:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2635s) 建立信任的桥梁：自我暴露与投其所好是否可行？ （注：00:42:52 至 00:43:55 为播客主办方 Steven Bartlett 对赞助商 Adobe Express 及《One Better Guide》的设计工具推广插播。） 重新回到对谈后，Steven 分享了自己在主持对谈时摸索出的沟通心得：如果想要提高对方敞开心扉、吐露心声的概率，最有效的方法之一就是“自我暴露”（share myself）。比如，当询问嘉宾童年经历而对方感到不适并戒备地双臂环抱时，他通常会先暂停追问，主动分享一段自己童年的经历来缓解紧张氛围。Steven 进而向 Desmond 请教：如果在审讯或日常沟通中，发现对方的核心价值观之一是“想成为一个顾家的好男人”，审讯员是否也可以通过主动提及自己也是个重视家庭的人，来搭建信任的桥梁？ Desmond 肯定了这一提问的深度，并强调这种做法的前提必须是“诚实（honest）”，随后展开了关于真诚与操控界限的深入剖析。 ### [44:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2670s) 调动对方的核心价值观：从“好父亲”到勇于担责 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）指出，在沟通中试图引导对方时，关键在于信息必须真实，并且必须契合当下的谈话语境。如果审讯者为了拉近距离而撒谎附和——例如假装“我也是个顾家的人，你也是，咱们彼此彼此”——那就彻底沦为了操纵。真正的沟通高手会深入探寻对方内心深处坚守的真实价值观，例如对方是否在骨子里渴望成为一个诚实的人，或者极度渴望在子女眼中树立一个“正直男人”的榜样形象。 在实际对话中，戴斯蒙德会巧妙地借用对方的话来引导逻辑：“正如你刚才告诉我的那样，你是一个顾家的人。”他不会越俎代庖去给对方下定义，而是复述对方的自白。接着，他会进一步挖掘父亲这一角色的精神内涵——既然犯罪的事实注定了当事人可能面临漫长刑期、无法在物理意义上陪伴孩子成长，那么谈论“陪伴”就毫无意义；此时应当将焦点转移到另一种父职价值上：“如果他想教给孩子们如何为自己的错误负责（own your mistakes），这便是我切入的方向。”这种引导完全建立在开诚布公、真正理解眼前之人的基础之上。 --- ### [46:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2777s) 操纵与影响的本质界限：双赢还是自私捷径 在解析影响（Influence）与操纵（Manipulation）的界限时，戴斯蒙德给出了清晰的界定：“影响是在特定时刻将一个人推向某个特定方向，而这个方向对你和他双方都是有益的。”相反，操纵则是纯粹出于自身利益去推动对方，“这对你有好处，对他们却没有好处”。为了达成交易、榨取利益，操纵者不惜编造谎言、不择手段，其结果往往伴随着破坏性的负面代价。 针对这一点，史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了审讯场景下的尖锐质问：如果一名嫌疑人承认杀害了儿童就会面临终身监禁，坦白显然严重损害嫌疑人自身的世俗利益，审讯官为了套取秘密而使用的手段难道不是纯粹的操纵吗？戴斯蒙德坦言，在美国法律层面，执法人员在审讯中向嫌疑人撒谎确实是合法的，但“撒谎往往成了一条走捷径的手段”，也是沟通彻底滑向操纵的临界点。他强调，无论在审讯室还是商业职场，真正的长期影响力必须扎根于诚实、清晰与透明。真诚不仅能免去圆谎带来的巨大认知负荷（cognitive load），更能凸显一个人的人格底线，让人确信其提议的客观与公正。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 影响与操纵的决策路径差异 accDescr: 对比展示影响（追求双赢透明）与操纵（追求单方利益且包含欺骗）的核心路径分歧 A["沟通动机与意图"] --> B{"价值导向"} subgraph InfluencePath ["正向影响路径"] B -->|"双向受益 (双赢)"| C["诚实与透明沟通"] C --> D["降低认知负荷<br/>建立长期信任基石"] end subgraph ManipulationPath ["恶意操纵路径"] B -->|"仅自身获利 (零和/损人)"| E["欺骗与虚假捷径"] E --> F["短期达成私利<br/>埋下长期反噬隐患"] end ``` --- ### [48:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2916s) 破除“说服执念”：真诚与脆弱才是最高维度的影响力 史蒂芬提到市面上关于影响力的畅销理论，一度将戴尔·卡内基（Dale Carnegie）与罗伯特·西奥迪尼（Robert Cialdini）的《影响力》（*Influence*）相混淆，戴斯蒙德纠正并指出西奥迪尼的影响力法则确实是他们培训课程中会传授的技术，但他本人在日常生活中绝不会整天琢磨着“如何去影响别人”。他观察到当今社会几乎所有人都在执迷于“施加影响”，这背后往往隐藏着纯粹为了满足自我目标的自私诉求。相比之下，他所参与指导的 Beyond Bulletproof 培训学院始终强调开放与真诚：“你为什么来到这里？我们如何能真正帮助你？” 为了证明最高维度的影响力源于真诚而非技巧，戴斯蒙德谈到了两人初次相识时的交锋。当时史蒂芬曾将自身公司 Flight Story 旗下播客的巨大成功归功于“优秀的营销团队，而非自己是一名出色的采访者”，戴斯蒙德当场表示反对。他直言，史蒂芬之所以能深深打动并影响受众，根本原因在于其在采访中展现出的极端真实与脆弱（vulnerability）：“你并没有试图去刻意影响谁，你只是在展现真实的自己。”这种理想自我与现实行为高度统一的“自我一致性”（self-congruence），以及敢于公开自身生活混乱面的坦荡，反而构建出了无坚不摧的信任纽带。 --- ### [51:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3075s) 信任的同心圆：从自我信任到无条件信任圈 在戴斯蒙德看来，建立信任的核心逻辑在于自我暴露的安全性：“我与你分享的这些秘密，放在你手里是否稳妥？”为了现场检验信任机制，他突然向史蒂芬发问，询问其心中是否藏有一个从未向任何人、或仅向一两个人透露过的绝密。史蒂芬坦承自己确实有这样的秘密，但当场拒绝公开，因为台下有数百万观众收看，一旦说漏嘴必定会有人“切片传播（clip it）到网上公开处刑”。戴斯蒙德随即点破：拒绝袒露并非因为两人缺乏私交，而是源于对不可控后果的理智权衡。 随后，戴斯蒙德系统地提出了“信任的同心圆模型”： - **最核心圈（自我信任 / Self-Trust）**：同心圆的最中央必须是自己。个体必须相信自己能够履行承诺、保持自律与负责。那些从不自己做决策、事事请示他人的人，本质上是对自我判断力极度匮乏，必须优先修补内在的自我决策信心。 - **次核心圈（无条件信任圈 / Unconditional Trust）**：紧邻自我信任圈的外层，仅由极少数经过岁月筛选的核心人员组成。对这部分特定对象，人们愿意不设防地交付全盘信任与绝对信念。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 信任同心圆模型 accDescr: 展示从中心自我信任向外扩展至核心少数人无条件信任的层级结构 subgraph CoreRing ["核心层"] A["自我信任 (Self-Trust)<br/>• 严格自我约束与责任感<br/>• 坚定的独立决策能力"] end subgraph InnerCircle ["次级核心层"] B["极少数核心圈 (Handful of People)<br/>• 经过检验的极少数人<br/>• 交付无条件信任 (Unconditional Trust)"] end A --> B ``` ### [53:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3205s) 信任圈法则与光环效应的陷阱 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 信任的分层机制与风险示意图 accDescr: 展示无条件信任与有条件信任的区别，以及光环效应如何导致信任错配与崩溃。 subgraph Circle["信任边界"] direction TB A["核心圈：无条件信任<br/>（配偶、手足、极少数密友）"] B["外围圈：有条件信任<br/>（需要时间与行动去赢得）"] end subgraph Risk["信任破裂的成因"] direction TB C["光环效应 (Halo Effect)<br/>某处表现优异 → 盲信处处优秀"] D["遭遇背叛与彻底毁灭<br/>失去后极难重新建立"] end B --> C C --> D ``` 在人际关系中，信任的圈子必须极度精简，而绝大多数人恰恰在这一关键点上犯了错。许多人习惯于倾囊相助、对人大包大揽地全盘托出，甚至对普通关系施以“无条件信任”，结果一旦被对方辜负，便会遭受毁灭性的打击。德斯蒙德·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）指出，他自己的无条件信任圈极度狭窄，仅包含感情非常亲密的四个兄弟姐妹、妻子，以及极少数只要一个电话就能彼此托底的挚友。除此核心圈之外，所有人都应当处于“有条件信任”（Conditional Trust）的范畴内。信任不应免费奉送，他人必须通过行动来证明自己配得上信任；反过来，如果你获得了别人的信任，也必须予以极高的尊重。 现实中许多人随意交付信任，往往源于心理学上的“光环效应”（Halo Effect）。当一个人在某个特定领域表现出色时，观察者容易产生认知偏差，武断地认为对方在其他方面也同样靠谱，从而盲目扩大信任边界。这种把对方在某处的优秀当成全方位值得信赖的心理投射，往往会导致严重背叛。当那份被肆意辜负的信任崩塌时，当事人感受到的是一种沉重的情感践踏与毁灭感。 - **核心圈的定义**：无条件信任仅留给极少数人（如核心家庭与经受过极端考验的生死之交），其余人一律属于有条件信任。 - **光环效应的危险**：切勿因一个人在单一技能或外在形象上的出色，就预设其在品格与秘密守护上也无懈可击。 - **信任的不可逆性**：轻易给出的信任一旦被撕碎，造成的心理创伤极难愈合。 --- ### [54:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3290s) 修复信任的唯二法则：彻底担责与持续一致 被彻底粉碎的信任几乎不可能复原，但在极少数情况下，如果确实想尝试挽回，必须遵循严格的法则。德斯蒙德强调，修复信任的第一步是毫无保留地承担责任（Radical Accountability），明确针对自己造成伤害的具体原因认错，绝不能推诿或含糊其辞。其次，修复绝非一朝一夕之功，它需要耗费极其漫长的时间，并凭借日复一日、持续且毫无动摇的“言行一致性”（Consistency），反复向对方证明自己已经重新成为一个值得信赖的人。即便做到了这些，信任也并不保证百分之百能够重塑。 --- ### [55:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3314s) 混沌中的从容：领导力的本质是一种感受 真正的领导力往往被大众所误解。德斯蒙德将卓越领导者定义为“在混乱与高压中保持从容冷静的人”（Calm under chaos）。领导力本质上不是头衔或职位，而是一种主观的“心理感受”——在于领导者的一言一行能否让下属在内心深处产生信赖与安全感。如果下属在混乱中感受不到这种依托，所谓的领导便名存实亡。 这种感悟源于德斯蒙德早年在特警队（SWAT，Special Weapons and Tactics）的服役生涯。在生死悬于一线的极端高压环境下，他亲眼见证了优秀的指挥官和队长是如何带领团队突进的。面对致命威胁与未知危险，那些最顶尖的指挥官从不慌乱，他们展现出的极致沉着与情绪定力，正是维系整个队伍战斗力与士气的定海神针。 - **领导力是一种感受**：下属感受到的从容与稳定，决定了管理者是否具备领导力特质。 - **SWAT 的残酷洗礼**：在枪林弹雨与极度危险中，唯有保持镇静自若的指挥官才能稳固团队阵脚。 - **职位不等于领导**：和平时期坐享高薪与头衔并不叫领导者，真正的试金石唯有混乱与危机时刻。 --- ### [56:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3382s) 模糊性陷阱与信息极低条件下的决断力 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 考试结果与决策行动的关系研究 accDescr: 展示大学生在得知成绩及未知成绩情况下做出度假决定的行为对比。 A["大学生考试研究"] --> B["确知已通过"] A --> C["确知已挂科"] A --> D["结果未知 / 成绩延迟"] B --> E["高比例选择购买夏威夷度假<br/>（作为庆祝奖励）"] C --> F["同等高比例购买夏威夷度假<br/>（作为心理安慰）"] D --> G["陷入决策瘫痪 (Decision Paralysis)<br/>认知带宽被模糊性消耗，无法做决定"] ``` 人类大脑天生对“不确定性”存在巨大的认知阻抗。德斯蒙德与斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）探讨了一项关于决策与确定性的经典大学实验：三组大学生在完成期末考试后，被询问是否愿意购买前往夏威夷的度假套餐。第一组学生被明确告知考试已经通过，第二组学生被明确告知考试挂科，第三组学生则被告知评分系统故障、成绩暂时未知。结果显示，无论是通过考试（作为庆祝）还是彻底挂科（作为安慰），前两组学生中选择购买度假产品的比例都相当高；然而，唯独第三组成绩悬而未决的学生，大多数人陷入了彻底的犹豫与拖延，极少有人愿意付款。未知的模糊性极大地消耗了人类的大脑认知带宽（Cognitive Bandwidth），当人们不知道未来走向何方时，本能往往是停滞不前。 能够在确定性极低的情境下迅速决断，正是卓越领袖与平庸之辈的分水岭。正如斯蒂芬分享他在巴西圣保罗听美国前总统贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）演讲时的见闻：当年白宫下令突袭巴基斯坦阿伯塔巴德的奥萨马·本·拉登藏匿大院时，美方实际上从未通过肉眼或视觉影像百分之百确认本·拉登就在屋内。奥巴马必须在确定性仅有约 51% 的极低情报把握下，赌上士兵的生命与国家政治声誉按下行动按钮。现实世界中，百分之百的确定性只存在于事后诸葛亮的“后见之明”中。 - **夏威夷度假实验启示**：确定的好消息或坏消息都能促成行动，唯有未知的模糊性会导致行动彻底瘫痪。 - **奥巴马的 51% 确定性法则**：顶尖政治家与领袖的常态就是在极低情报确定性下做出影响巨大的生死决断。 - **认知带宽的掠夺**：悬而未决的未知状态会抽空大脑的思维资源，迫使人们在停滞中承受更持久的精神消耗。 --- ### [01:00:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3649s) 掌控你的决定：深夜公路上的警徽抉择 很多人在日常生活中连微小的决定都企图追求百分之百的安全感，宁可忍受当下“确凿的痛苦”，也不敢迈入“未知的可能性”，这本质上是对不确定性的恐惧与决策瘫痪。德斯蒙德强调，决策的核心在于“敢于拥有并承担你的决定”（Own your decision）。只要在决策时剔除了强烈的情绪冲动，并在当下拥有的最好信息基础上竭尽全力做出选择，就无怨无悔——“选对了是确认，选错了是经验”。 为了阐释何为在不确定性中承担抉择的重量，德斯蒙德讲述了自己早年担任巡警时的一段深夜经历： > 在一个深夜，德斯蒙德独自驾驶巡逻车停在一条偏僻的双向公路旁观察。一辆豪华轿车风驰电掣般呼啸而过，甚至直接无视并闯过了十字路口的停车让行标（Stop sign）。德斯蒙德拉响警报将该车截停。走上前去，驾驶座上是一名年仅 16 岁的少年，浑身散发着浓烈刺鼻的酒气，处于彻底的大醉状态；而副驾驶上的乘客更是早已人事不省、完全断片。 > > 少年面对警察，惊慌失措地问的第一句话不是关于自己，而是：“你会给我爸打电话吗？这是他的车，他会气疯的。”德斯蒙德返回巡逻车核查该少年的背景，发现对方此前没有任何违法犯罪记录，驾驶记录也完全干净。此时，现场处置的自由裁量权（Discretion）完全落在了德斯蒙德一人的肩膀上：他既可以呼叫专门的酒驾处置小组（DWI Unit）前来进行现场清醒测试，依法将这名少年逮捕入狱并留下终身污点；也可以选择绕过正式刑事程序，直接给少年的父亲打电话。面对这个可能彻底改变年轻人一生命运的瞬间，德斯蒙德必须当机立断。 ### [01:02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3740s) 承担决定的后果：警务裁量权与摆脱“后见之明” 在治安官巡警的任职经历中，戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔曾面临一个极其艰难的现场抉择：面对一名酒后驾驶父亲车辆的年轻男孩雅各布，究竟是按惯例将其关进监狱、拖走车辆，还是冒着风险给男孩的父亲打电话，寄希望于家庭管教能够彻底杜绝后患？当时已是深夜十一点，奥尼尔通过调度中心联系到了男孩的父母。接电话的母亲声音颤抖、惊慌失措，在得知孩子身体无恙后，立刻把电话转交给了父亲。这位父亲在电话那头郑重承诺：“谢谢你，我保证这种事绝不会再发生，我五分钟内就赶到现场。”奥尼尔当即拍板，选择让父亲将孩子领回。 事后，奥尼尔在“Beyond Bulletproof”社群中分享了这个案例，他的妻子伊芙向社群学员抛出了一个问题：“如果换作你们，有多少人会做出和戴斯蒙德相同的选择？”社群评论区迅速形成对立，许多人赞扬这种宽容的做法，认为不该让一个年轻孩子背上进监狱的污点；但伊芙本人却直言不讳地表达了完全相反的立场。她认为正确的做法必须是依法收押并拖车，因为谁也无法保证父亲的管教是否真能胜过法律惩罚的威慑力，“万一放他走后，他根本不在乎父亲的想法，下周又继续酒驾呢？” 奥尼尔借此阐述了决策的核心法则：两人立场迥异，但都基于各自合理的逻辑，最关键的是双方都能为自己的决定承担全部责任。在现实生活中，许多人因为害怕犯错而陷入决策瘫痪，甚至在事后陷入“后见之明偏差”（Hindsight Bias），懊恼地哀叹“我当初要是知道就好了”。奥尼尔强调，人不可能像倒带一样逆向生活，真正的自我领导力（Self-Leadership）正是在信息不完全与充满不确定性的当下，果断运用裁量权做出判断，并对随之而来的一切后果全盘买单。 - **裁量权困境**：当场逮捕拘留并强制拖车，还是信任家庭管教并承担二次犯错的潜在风险。 - **家属连线细节**：深夜 11 点致电，父亲在电话中承诺“5 分钟内抵达现场并严肃管教”。 - **伊芙的批判性反思**：家庭惩罚的不确定性可能无法抵消法律制裁的震慑力，放任可能导致行为重演。 - **自我领导力心智**：拒绝用事后诸葛亮的视角生活，在不确定的现实中果断拍板并“全权拥有自己的决定”（Own Your Decision）。 --- ### [01:05:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=3916s) 中场赞助：系统数据安全与全身深度健康检测 企业在日常运转中对底层数据的依赖远比想象中更加脆弱。无需遭受蓄意黑客攻击，仅仅是一次文件损坏、一条逻辑跑偏的自动化工作流，或是失去约束而产生漂移的 AI 智能体，都可能瞬间导致整个业务瘫痪。播客赞助商 Rubrik 为企业提供了数据安全防线，不仅能覆盖云端、SaaS 和本地部署环境，防范勒索软件和内部误操作，还能将系统状态精准“倒带”回事故发生前的一刻；其新推出的 Rubrik Agent Cloud 更能全面监控 AI 智能体的实时动作并设置安全护栏。 随后，联合创始人杰克分享了另一赞助商 Function Health 的体验。该机构提供涵盖荷尔蒙、体内毒素、炎症指标、心血管健康和压力等维度的 100 多项深度实验室检测。杰克表示，作为每期节目的常驻旁听者，面对海量的健康知识往往无从下手，而这份详尽的体检报告不仅直观标明了各项超标与正常指标，还内置了医生团队与海量科研数据支撑的 AI 咨询工具，支持用户随时提问解读。该服务包含年度大检与年中复查，费用为每年 365 美元。 --- ### [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4046s) 颠覆认知的沟通法则：如何真正建立高维度的“融洽关系” 在被史蒂文问及多年的审讯与沟通研究中何种发现最令人震惊时，奥尼尔直言，真正颠覆他认知的核心在于“融洽关系”（Rapport）所蕴含的决定性力量。绝大多数人对建立融洽关系存在严重误区，以为它无非是表现得过分客气、堆砌溢美之词，或者随口聊几句天气等无关痛痒的客套话。然而，真正的融洽关系本质上是对他人核心价值观、心理状态与深层需求的精准体察；是通过倾听让对方感受到自己被看见、被听见、被理解，进而触发心理学上的互惠机制。 奥尼尔提出了一个极具颠覆性的审讯与沟通原则：“在开启我想谈的话题之前，我必须先谈你想谈的话题。”审讯人员必须具备极强的现场感知力（Read the room），将自己的预设问题清单暂时搁置。他现场还原了一段审讯实战示范：当看到嫌疑人情绪极度低落、坐立难安时，奥尼尔绝不会照本宣科，而是主动走到对方面前打破僵局： > “史蒂文，我是戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔。我知道你今天早上被带到这里是因为这些原因。但我现在能看出来，你非常难过。你能告诉我你现在脑子里在想什么吗？” 当嫌疑人卸下防备，吐露自己从未进过监狱、正为家中重病且无人照料的母亲而濒临崩溃时，低段位的审讯者往往只会轻描淡写地敷衍一句“那真倒霉”，随后强行拉回口供提纲；而真正的高手则会立刻跟进：“那我怎样才能在这件事上给你最大的帮助？”这种做法不仅展现了共情，消除了环境的未知与模糊感，更确立了真诚的连接。当调查人员真正兑现承诺、安排家属照顾其母亲并回访反馈后，嫌疑人便会在心理互惠的驱使下，主动配合后续极其关键的案件调查。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 建立融洽关系的双路径对比 accDescr: 对比传统机械提问与基于共情和互惠机制的高效沟通路径。 subgraph ErrorPath ["机械沟通模式（失效）"] A1["察觉对方情绪崩溃"] --> B1["虚伪客套或敷衍：'真倒霉'"] B1 --> C1["强行切回预设问题清单"] C1 --> D1["对方关闭心扉 / 形成防御对抗"] end subgraph MasterPath ["深度融洽模式（有效）"] A2["察觉对方情绪状态"] --> B2["搁置自身议程：先谈对方关心的事"] B2 --> C2["探询困境并提供实质帮助：减少未知恐惧"] C2 --> D2["言出必行落实反馈：确立深度信任"] D2 --> E2["触发心理互惠机制：平稳过渡至核心审讯"] end ``` - **融洽关系的伪概念**：过度的客套、浮于表面的赞美以及天气寒暄，无法建立真正的心理连接。 - **核心沟通定律**：“在我开启我想聊的话题之前，必须先开启你渴望聊的话题。” - **审讯室危机介入范例**：面对初次入狱且担忧患病母亲的嫌疑人，优先解决其后顾之忧而非逼问口供。 - **互惠效应闭环**：通过消除不确定性、展现真实同理心并落实验证（如核实其母亲已被阿姨接走照料），彻底瓦解心理防线。 ### [01:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4219s) 互惠还是交易：言行一致的真正底线 当史蒂文提到心理学家罗伯特·西奥迪尼（Robert Cialdini）著名的“互惠原则”（reciprocity）时，他提出疑问：此前戴斯蒙德主动提出去探望并照看嫌疑人母亲的举动，是不是正是利用互惠原则来提高对方开口招供的概率？戴斯蒙德对此给出了非常明确的界定。他指出，真正的互惠是在不设具体索取条件的前提下给予对方善意，并相信善意未来可能产生回响；而如果带着“我做这件事唯一的目的就是换取你的回报”这种心态，那就彻底沦为了冷冰冰的“交易”（transaction）。 戴斯蒙德强调，他之所以遵守承诺去照看那位嫌疑人的母亲，并不是为了诱使对方招供的筹码。即便对方当场反悔说：“我感谢你照看我母亲，但我现在要找律师，一个字都不会跟你多说。”戴斯蒙德依然会去照看那位母亲。因为这是他给出的承诺，关乎他个人的“自我一致性”（self-congruence）——“当我向他人许下诺言时，我必会践行到底，因为这就是我的为人准则。”在困难谈话与审讯博弈中，建立威信靠的从来不是精于算计的权谋，而是言出必行的底层品格。 ### [01:11:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4289s) 沟通中的“减法法则”与绝不能踩的三大雷区 在探讨如何应对棘手谈话与难缠对象时，史蒂文询问在“PLAN 框架”之外是否还有遗漏的关键技巧。戴斯蒙德指出，高阶沟通的核心往往不是不断做加法、把事情复杂化，而是遵循“先剔除后习得”（extinction before acquisition）的减法原则。在掌握新技巧之前，必须先改掉那些暗中摧毁沟通的坏习惯。 戴斯蒙德提出了在日常沟通中必须立即停止的三件事： - **停止执着于证明自己是对的**（Stop trying to be right）。 - **停止对别人随口说“我懂你 / 我完全理解你”**（Stop telling people you understand）。 - **停止给出未经请求的主观建议**（Stop giving people your unsolicited opinion）。 戴斯蒙德重点剖析了第二条——为什么永远不要轻易说“我理解你”。你或许能够听懂对方说话的字面意思，但你绝不可能百分之百体会到对方具体而独特的心境状态。戴斯蒙德举了一个极具杀伤力的典型场景：如果史蒂文向他倾诉父亲离世的悲痛，而戴斯蒙德立刻回应“史蒂文，我完全理解你，我父亲年轻时也去世了，所以我们同病相怜”，这一刻看似在拉近关系，实际上却极其残忍。这种回应瞬间把聚焦在对方身上的聚光灯抢到了自己头上，彻底将对方的情感时刻据为己有。每个人对丧亲与至亲情感的体会都是截然不同的，自以为是地断言“我理解你”，不仅短视，而且直接扼杀了真正的倾听与共情。 ### [01:13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4400s) “陪对方坐在泥坑里”：如何真正让对方感到被理解 史蒂文随即分享了自己在亲密关系中的真实困惑：他的女友有时会明确要求他表达“我理解”，女友本质上是渴望“被理解的感觉”（to feel understood）。史蒂文感到纠结：虽然自己能听懂女友在说什么，但确实无法感同身受她当下的情绪体验，那么在不说虚伪的“我理解”的前提下，该如何让对方真正感受到被接纳与被理解？ 戴斯蒙德拆解道，要让一个人感受到被理解，核心在于全身心地倾听并确认对方的感受，例如坦诚地说：“听起来这真的太不容易了，看得出这件事情一直压在你的心头。”这正好与第三个戒律“停止给出未经请求的意见”紧密相连。当伴侣倾诉内心波澜时，绝大多数时候根本不需要你去当指导教师或救世主。很多人的第一反应往往是掏出“工具箱”试图排查并修好问题（“让我告诉你我的想法”、“你可以这样做”），而这恰恰忽略了情绪背后的复杂性。 史蒂文深有感触地引述了畅销书作家西蒙·斯涅克（Simon Sinek）曾对他说过的一句话：“大多数时候，人们只是希望你能陪他们一起坐在泥坑里（sit in the mud with them）。”面对亲密伴侣，男性的理性思维往往下意识想去“修好”局面，但伴侣寻找的其实是一个能够接纳情绪的回音壁。除非对方转过头明确问你“如果是你，你会怎么做？”，否则永远不要主动兜售你自作聪明的建议。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伴侣沟通中的反应模式对比 accDescr: 对比错误习惯（抢夺焦点与试图修好问题）与正确姿态（共情倾听与坐在泥坑里） subgraph WRONG["常见误区：剥夺关注与急于解决"] A["对方倾诉痛点或情绪"] --> B["随口说'我完全懂你' / 讲述自身类似经历"] B --> C["注意力被转移到自己身上（Me Me Me 倾向）"] A --> D["掏出'工具箱'急于给出方案、试图修复问题"] D --> E["忽视情感复杂性，让对方感到未被倾听"] end subgraph RIGHT["正确姿态：提供空间与情感共在"] F["对方倾诉痛点或情绪"] --> G["确认感受：'这听起来真的很不容易'"] G --> H["西蒙·斯涅克法则：'陪对方坐在泥坑里'充当回音壁"] H --> I["仅在对方主动询问建议时才提出行动思路"] end ``` ### [01:16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4569s) Beyond Bulletproof 的使命与“最懊悔决定”的终极拷问 在访谈尾声，戴斯蒙德简要介绍了自己与埃维·庞珀拉斯（Evy Poumpouras）共同创立的培训平台“Beyond Bulletproof”。该平台主要围绕三大核心支柱展开：帮助人们“深度思考”（think）、“付诸行动”（act）以及“有目的地领导”（lead with purpose）。戴斯蒙德表示，很多人在生活中饱受情绪失控的折磨，在人际关系与沟通交流中陷入挣扎与迷茫，而他选择淡出社交媒体，将全部精力投入到这项培训事业中，正是为了给这些人提供清晰的心理认知与情绪调节工具。 随后，史蒂文开启了节目的保留传统——由上一位飞行嘉宾为下一位留下一道深度拷问：**“你人生中最懊悔的决定是什么？如果当初做出不同的选择，事情会不会变得更好？”** 听到这个犀利的问题，戴斯蒙德坦言这确实是个狠角色（“a spicy one”）。但他经过深思熟虑后给出了极其坚决的回答：他可以斩钉截铁地说，自己的一生中没有任何一个希望重新改写的决定。戴斯蒙德解释，这贯穿了他一直恪守的“对自己的决定负全责”（radical ownership）哲学。哪怕是在早年当警察时因年轻冲动违规与醉酒青年对饮的错误决策，他也全然承担。正是所有经历的试错、阵痛与选择交织在一起，才造就了他今天的模样，让他得以坐在这里从容对话。他从不依赖“事后诸葛亮偏差”（hindsight bias）去幻想平行宇宙中的完美路径，而是将过往的一切决策转化为成长与蜕变的养分。 ### [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4688s) 重新审视遗憾：错误如何塑造当下的我们 当谈及过往的人生抉择时，戴斯蒙·奥尼尔（Desmond O'Neill）直言自己毫无悔恨，因为一旦做出任何不同的决定，今天或许就不会坐在这里。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有感触却提出了另一种视角：如果换作别人问他同样的问题，他能列出一长串“后悔清单”——比如曾经作为雇主在处理某些职场情况时不够妥当，说过不该说的话、做过不理智的举动；又或者在伴侣倾诉时自己没能好好倾听，如果当时倾听了，两人的关系或许会更加亲密，还有那些曾执拗放不下的怨怼等。史蒂文感叹，这些充满瑕疵的决定，正是“作为感性人类不可避免的混乱与盲区”。 面对史蒂文的坦诚，戴斯蒙分享了自己对“但愿我曾……”和“我真后悔……”这类心态的深层思考。他认为，一味执念于重返过去修正错误，实际上会动摇“你是谁”的根基。戴斯蒙回忆起当年撰写论文的经历：他每次拿着草稿去找论文导师，导师总是不留情面地否定，让他把不成熟的内容挪到暂存区（parking lot）里放着。等到整篇论文最终完成时，戴斯蒙发现那个暂存区里堆积了整整 30 页被剔除的废稿。他沮丧地向导师坦白：“我感觉自己犯了太多错误。”然而导师却看着他说：“你必须经历并写出这 30 页的弯路，才能最终磨砺出如今这篇成果（You had to have this to have this）。” 戴斯蒙指出，人们生活中的每一个视角、每一桩琐碎的微小挫折，都在无形中编写着个体的底层认知，将你重塑为一个全新的人。如果你在过去采取了不同做法，今天必然会成为另一个截然不同的人，这无关变得更好或更坏，因此过去绝非用来悔恨的借口。史蒂文随即被这番话点醒，他意识到，如果过去没有犯下那些过错，这些错误极有可能会在未来的某个节点卷土重来；能够敏锐地识别并检视过往的失误，恰恰证明自己的自我意识（self-awareness）正是在这些代价中孕育而生的。因为吸取了教训，懂得往后绝不能再用那种方式对待别人、绝不能再说出那样伤人的话，当下的自己才真正变成了一个更好的人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 错误转化为自我认知的演进过程 accDescr: 展示过往经历中的错误如何通过暂存与反思演化为成品的思维模型。 subgraph Experience["经历与试错"] A["做出不成熟的决定/草稿"] --> B["放入'暂存区'堆积30页错误"] end subgraph Transformation["导师启示与重塑"] B --> C["导师准则：'唯有经历这些，才能得到成品'"] C --> D["将教训编码进个人视角"] end subgraph Outcome["认知升级"] D --> E["避免未来重复踩坑"] D --> F["滋长深层自我意识与人格成熟"] end ``` ### [01:19:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4796s) 播客首秀的致谢与深层连接的意义 在对话的尾声，史蒂文真诚地向戴斯蒙致谢，感谢他毫无保留地分享专业战术与人生智慧，并格外兴奋地提到，这竟然是这位拥有 30 余年特工与审讯背景的专家职业生涯中的“第一场播客访谈”。戴斯蒙微笑着确认了这是自己的播客首秀，向节目组致谢，宣布这场深度对话正式画上圆满句号。 随后，史蒂文借由这次深入灵魂的对谈延展出对人际关系的观察。他感慨道，身处当下这个疏离浮躁的现代世界，人类比以往任何时候都更加渴望真实的深度连接（connection）。每当他在演播室里与嘉宾坐在一起促膝长谈时，总会发生某种奇妙的化学反应——双方在推心置腹中建立起极其紧密的精神共鸣。为了将这种深度对话的魔力延伸到大众的现实生活中，《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）团队基于每位受访嘉宾在节目最后留给下一位客人的提问，设计研发了对话卡牌（Conversation Cards）。 史蒂文特别介绍了该套卡牌的全新第二版： - **卡牌机制**：收录了历期节目嘉宾留下的真实尖锐提问，并融入了增加互动变数的“转折牌”（twist cards），让日常生活中的交谈更具张力与趣味。 - **限量黄金卡**：在全新的卡牌版本中，史蒂文有史以来第一次加入了装有其独家亲笔提问的“黄金卡”（Gold Card）。该专属卡片仅限量内置于第一批首发的对话卡牌套装中，售完即止。史蒂文最后呼吁有需要的观众点击视频下方的链接获取，借助深度提问打破日常寒暄的隔阂。 ## Notable quotes > [08:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=501s) 你要做的第一件事，就是绝不能用你刚才的方式去给对方贴标签。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [14:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=885s) 菲利普，我明天还会在这里。如果‘你肩膀上的天使’告诉你该来，就请过来；如果不来，那也很高兴认识你。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [18:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1085s) 拥有一份职业仅仅代表你在做什么，而成为一名专业人士，则意味着在特定时刻为了特定使命，把自己过往所积累的全部能力与素养汇聚调动出来。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1300s) 大多数人倾听并不是为了理解，而是为了回复。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (引述史蒂芬·柯维 Stephen Covey) > [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1460s) 当你的自尊上线时，你的耳朵就会下线。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [27:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=1631s) 看起来你刚才那样做，可能是因为不太认同我说的话，因为我注意到你双臂抱胸还翻了个白眼。我的理解对吗？ — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [36:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2214s) 在任何对话或审讯中，一旦你失去理智，你就彻底失去了掌控权。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [46:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=2777s) 影响是在特定时刻将一个人推向某个特定方向，而这个方向对你和他双方都是有益的。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4046s) 在开启我想谈的话题之前，我必须先谈你想谈的话题。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [01:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4219s) 当我向他人许下诺言时，我必会践行到底，因为这就是我的为人准则。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill) > [01:13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4400s) 大多数时候，人们只是希望你能陪他们一起坐在泥坑里。 — 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (引述西蒙·斯涅克 Simon Sinek) > [01:18:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4&t=4688s) 你必须经历并写出这 30 页的弯路，才能最终磨砺出如今这篇成果。 — 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (引述其论文导师) ## Mentioned Desmond O'Neill (戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔), Steven Bartlett (史蒂芬·巴特利特), The Diary Of A CEO, Beyond Bulletproof, High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), US Secret Service (美国特勤局), SWAT (特警队), Jaycee Dugard (杰西·杜加德), Phillip Garrido (菲利普·加里多), Nancy Garrido (南希·加里多), Michaela Garecht (米凯拉·加雷希特), Vern Pierson (弗农·皮尔森), Stephen Covey (史蒂芬·柯维), Dale Carnegie (戴尔·卡内基), Robert Cialdini (罗伯特·西奥迪尼), Influence (《影响力》), The Simpsons (《辛普森一家》), Barack Obama (贝拉克·奥巴马), Osama bin Laden (奥萨马·本·拉登), Evy Poumpouras (埃维·庞珀拉斯), Simon Sinek (西蒙·斯涅克), Adobe Express, Rubrik, Function Health, Flight Story ## Video description Ex-Secret Service interrogator DESMOND O’NEILL reveals the 4-step formula for difficult conversations, how to decode narcissism, the secret to communication and real connection - AND debunks the biggest myths about interrogation! Desmond O’Neill is a former special agent for the US Secret Service with over 30 years of experience in negotiation and interrogation. He has worked for the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) training and conducting research on interrogation, and is a co-instructor for the online platform ‘Beyond Bulletproof’, covering influence, communication, and confidence. He explains: ◼️Why you should never label someone a narcissist ◼️The No.1 habit silently ruining your communication ◼️Why “me me me” syndrome is sabotaging your relationships ◼️How gaslighting really works, and how to shut it down fast ◼️Why your brain lies to you when emotions take over 00:00 Intro 00:04:35 The Real Experiences That Shaped These Tactics 00:06:10 What Violent Interrogations Reveal About Human Behavior 00:08:21 How To Handle A Difficult Conversation Without Losing Control 00:09:45 How To Spot Gaslighting Before It Breaks You 00:11:06 The PLAN Framework: What Most People Get Wrong 00:14:45 The Hardest Conversations And What They Teach You 00:19:27 The Subtle Signs Someone Is Lying To You 00:21:39 Why Listening Is Your Most Underrated Advantage 00:23:55 The Counterintuitive Truth: Control Comes From Listening 00:24:20 How Asking The Right Questions Changes Everything 00:28:25 The Body Language Signals You Should Never Ignore 00:31:15 How To Actually Resolve Conflict (Not Just End It) 00:33:24 What Happens When They Turn To Insults 00:35:18 How To Keep Your Emotions From Costing You 00:36:54 How To Stay In Control When Pressure Rises 00:39:58 The “Me Me Me” Syndrome And Why It Fails 00:42:52 What Happens During The Break (Ads) 00:43:55 How To Get Someone To Finally Open Up 00:46:17 Manipulation Vs. Influence: Where The Line Really Is 00:48:36 How To Influence People Without Crossing The Line 00:51:14 How Trust Is Built (And Broken Faster Than You Think) 00:54:50 Can You Ever Get Trust Back Once It’s Gone? 00:55:14 What Actually Makes A Great Leader 00:56:22 How To Make Better Decisions Under Pressure 01:00:49 Why Owning Your Decisions Changes Everything 01:05:15 What Happens During The Break (Ads) 01:07:25 How To Build Instant Rapport That Lasts 01:11:34 The Key Takeaways That Change How You Communicate 01:13:20 Why Saying “I Understand” Can Backfire 01:17:01 The One Decision They Regret Most (And Why It Matters) You can learn more about ‘Beyond Bulletproof’, here: https://bit.ly/43SKyMW 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 - https://Adobe.Ly/OneBetter Rubrik: To learn more, head to https://rubrik.com Function Health: https://Functionhealth.com/DOAC to sign up for $365 a year. One dollar a day for your health. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQyLnNAXr4)

[8:21] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 你要做的第一件事，就是绝不能用你刚才的方式去给对方贴标签。 [14:45] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 菲利普，我明天还会在这里。如果‘你肩膀上的天使’告诉你该来，就请过来；如果不来，那也很高兴认识你。 [18:05] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 拥有一份职业仅仅代表你在做什么，而成为一名专业人士，则意味着在特定时刻为了特定使命，把自己过往所积累的全部能力与素养汇聚调动出来。 [21:40] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (引述史蒂芬·柯维 Stephen Covey): 大多数人倾听并不是为了理解，而是为了回复。 [24:20] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 当你的自尊上线时，你的耳朵就会下线。 [27:11] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 看起来你刚才那样做，可能是因为不太认同我说的话，因为我注意到你双臂抱胸还翻了个白眼。我的理解对吗？ [36:54] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 在任何对话或审讯中，一旦你失去理智，你就彻底失去了掌控权。 [46:17] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 影响是在特定时刻将一个人推向某个特定方向，而这个方向对你和他双方都是有益的。 [67:26] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 在开启我想谈的话题之前，我必须先谈你想谈的话题。 [70:19] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (Desmond O'Neill): 当我向他人许下诺言时，我必会践行到底，因为这就是我的为人准则。 [73:20] 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (引述西蒙·斯涅克 Simon Sinek): 大多数时候，人们只是希望你能陪他们一起坐在泥坑里。 [78:08] 戴斯蒙德·奥尼尔 (引述其论文导师): 你必须经历并写出这 30 页的弯路，才能最终磨砺出如今这篇成果。

[6:10] Desmond O’Neill: There is in the US a very historical evolution of interviewing and interrogation... It started in the 1900s... physical abuse, they called it the 'third degree'... As we've evolved as a society, that started to go away in lieu of psychological manipulation. [21:59] Stephen Covey (quoted by Desmond O’Neill): Most people don't listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. [35:18] Desmond O’Neill: If you lose your cool, you lose control... It wasn't the subject's job to maintain his composure, it was the investigator's. [31:15] Desmond O’Neill: Do you think that you and I can find an amicable way forward where we can really enjoy each other's time and this thing not go bad? [33:24] Desmond O’Neill: You're being very condescending right now and you've called me a name. Can you explain to me specifically why that is? Is there something about my work ethic or the way I'm doing this that you think is wrong? [67:25] Desmond O’Neill: Before I can have the conversation I want to have, I probably have to have the conversation you want to have. [73:05] Simon Sinek (quoted by Steven Bartlett): Most of the time people just want you to sit in the mud with them. [77:01] Previous guest (read by Steven Bartlett): What decision do you most regret, and would things have turned out better if you had made it differently? [78:41] Thesis Advisor (quoted by Desmond O’Neill): You had to have this to have this.

[0:00] I've got a difficult conversation I want [0:01] to have with someone. And they might be [0:02] a narcissist. So, let's stop there [0:04] because if you just blatantly label [0:06] somebody as being a narcissist, you're [0:08] not going to be able to really [0:09] understand who this person is and and [0:11] why they are the way they are. But when [0:13] you need to go into a dark conversation, [0:14] to make things simple, there are four [0:16] things that you can do. Because we all [0:18] have those conversations. We have a [0:19] supervisor who we feel is overlooking us [0:21] in a promotion, maybe our spouse we got [0:23] into a fight with, your friend who's [0:24] betrayed us. And they're cloaked in so [0:26] much emotion or so much tension that you [0:28] don't know how to handle that. But [0:29] there's also three things that you [0:31] should stop doing, such as stop telling [0:33] people you understand. [0:34] >> Telling me you understand. Why? This is [0:36] what we're going to talk about. For over [0:37] 30 years, former Secret Service agent [0:39] Desmond O'Neill has used science-backed [0:41] interrogation techniques against some of [0:43] the world's biggest liars. He's trained [0:45] elite teams from the FBI to the CIA. And [0:47] now, in his first public conversation, [0:49] he's laying out the frameworks you need [0:50] to communicate effectively, how to lead, [0:52] and how to get anyone to open up. When [0:54] it comes to being able to communicate [0:56] with somebody, the victory lies in the [0:58] little things that you do. So, you need [0:59] to have a plan. P is for purpose. So, [1:02] why are you there? What is the goal of [1:03] the conversation? Because especially in [1:05] emotional conversations, it becomes [1:07] really easy to get distracted. And if [1:09] you lose your cool, you lose control. [1:11] And then there's the A, which is ask. [1:13] Because most of us think we know what [1:14] our partner's thinking, right? But the [1:15] research shows we're only accurate about [1:17] 40% of the time. And if that [1:19] conversation gets emotional, that 40% [1:21] can go down as low as 15. It's called [1:23] empathy accuracy. And so, the power of [1:25] asking questions is important. But when [1:27] you fail to do that, you are going to [1:29] have a really hard time having a deep, [1:31] honest relationship with somebody. And [1:33] then there's the L and the N, which most [1:34] people do wrong. And we'll go into that. [1:36] And then, what about body language? Can [1:37] you tell if I'm being deceptive by how [1:39] much I look at someone? So, there's a [1:41] few indicators of somebody telling the [1:42] truth. And we'll talk about them. And [1:43] what about leadership principles? So, I [1:45] learned the true essence of leadership [1:47] when I was on a SWAT team from [1:49] situations like when you're hunting [1:50] someone and they're hunting you as well. [1:52] So, let's get into the details. [1:55] I see messages all the time in the [1:56] comment section that some of you didn't [1:58] realize you didn't subscribe. So, if you [2:00] could do me a favor and double-check if [2:01] you're a subscriber to this channel, [2:02] that would be tremendously appreciated. [2:04] It's the simple, it's the free thing [2:06] that anybody that watches this show [2:07] frequently can do to help us here to [2:09] keep everything going in this show in [2:11] the trajectory it's on. So, please do [2:13] double-check if you subscribed and thank [2:15] you so much because in a strange way you [2:16] are you're part of our history and [2:19] you're on this journey with us and I [2:20] appreciate you for that. So, yeah, thank [2:22] you. [2:26] Desmond O'Neal. [2:28] For those people that have just clicked [2:29] onto this conversation, [2:31] what are they going to walk away from [2:33] our discussion with? [2:36] So, I've been a law enforcement for 30 [2:38] years and I've served a lot of different [2:41] roles in that. [2:42] And above everything else, the one thing [2:45] that I've learned is when stress is [2:49] high, [2:50] when emotions are strong, when it [2:52] matters, how do you authentically [2:54] connect and communicate with somebody [2:56] else? [2:57] There's something to be said [2:59] about when a conversation is easy, [3:02] right? When it's fun, when everybody [3:04] wants to be there. You can focus on your [3:07] handshake, you can focus on the eye [3:08] contact, how great your posture is. [3:11] What about the dark conversations? What [3:13] about those conversations that kind of [3:15] they live in the shadows of your mind [3:17] because you don't want to face them. You [3:18] don't want to have those, right? They're [3:19] they're cloaked in so much emotion or so [3:22] much tension that you just you don't [3:24] know how to handle that. We all have [3:26] that, right? We have a supervisor who we [3:28] feel is overlooking us in a promotion. [3:30] We have, you know, a family member who [3:32] we feel that we're just no longer [3:34] getting along with. Maybe our spouse we [3:36] got in a fight with. Maybe a friend [3:38] who's betrayed us. [3:39] So, how do you have that conversation? [3:42] Like, what does that look like? Because [3:44] it comes from [3:46] you know, for the 30 years that I've [3:48] been doing this, most of the people that [3:49] I I to didn't want to talk to me. And my [3:52] job was to connect with them, [3:56] to find a way to get them to open up, to [3:59] find a way to have some type of [4:00] understanding, and get the information [4:02] that I needed. So, this is not about [4:04] interviewing or interrogation. This is [4:06] This is human connection. If your [4:08] audience cares [4:10] to understand how to have a dark [4:13] conversation where [4:15] you can deepen that relationship, [4:18] or at least come to some type of [4:19] understanding, [4:20] or [4:22] at the very least, [4:23] not walk away ruminating on everything [4:27] you said, trying to figure out what went [4:28] wrong, what could you have done [4:30] different. If you've had that, and [4:32] you're interested in knowing, then this [4:33] is this is where we're going to talk [4:34] about that. [4:35] And to summarize in, I guess, 30 seconds [4:38] why you're the guy [4:39] that is best placed to deliver this [4:41] information. [4:42] What is What are the reference points, [4:43] the experiences, the the variety of [4:45] experience you've had that feeds into [4:48] the answers and the actionable advice [4:50] that I can give my audience. [4:51] My initial career started as a [4:53] corrections officer. [4:54] I became a police officer, and I was a [4:56] SWAT officer, as well. From there, I [4:58] went to the federal government, so I [4:59] went to the Secret Service. Uh with the [5:00] Secret Service, I also started a [5:02] polygraph career. [5:04] So, now I have people [5:06] that are giving me their deepest, [5:07] darkest secrets. [5:08] And just for context, polygraphing is a [5:11] lie detection test. [5:12] >> Polygraph is a lie detection test. So, [5:13] it gives you a psychological or a [5:16] physiological response in terms of how [5:18] somebody answers a particular question. [5:20] Where else did your career take you [5:22] after that point? [5:23] I went into internal affairs. [5:27] And so, that is now policing the people [5:29] within our organization. So, now I'm [5:31] talking to men and women who have had [5:33] some of my interrogation training. [5:35] They kind of know the questioning going [5:36] on. They know the interaction. They've [5:38] done themselves interviews and [5:39] interrogations. [5:41] Oh, okay. So, this is [5:43] law enforcement officers who have [5:45] committed a crime or some kind of [5:47] misconduct, right? Or been reported for [5:49] something, and your job is to [5:51] investigate them. Yes, but [5:54] think about that for a minute. Like, [5:55] you're now talking to somebody else who [5:57] you know, maybe a year ago you were out [5:59] in the street doing work with, and now [6:01] you're asking them [6:02] these questions [6:04] or these for clarification on some type [6:06] of allegation. [6:08] You got to be You got to be mindful of [6:09] that. Like, that's a big deal. [6:11] And the the interview methods that were [6:14] prevalent at that time, you felt were [6:16] outdated. [6:17] They were. So, there is in the US [6:20] there's a very historical [6:22] evolution of interviewing and [6:23] interrogation. You know, it started in [6:25] the 1900s when policing came in. In that [6:28] circumstance, it was physical abuse. [6:29] They called it the third degree. [6:31] Where you would go in and, you know, [6:33] people would grind down your teeth or [6:34] they would cause pain for you to talk to [6:36] them. [6:36] As we've evolved as a society, that [6:39] started to go away in lieu of [6:43] psychological manipulation. So, it was [6:44] less about hands-on and more about [6:47] trying to get people to talk to you from [6:49] a psychological perspective. [6:51] And right about [6:53] 2014 when I went into [6:56] internal affairs, I was like, Steven, I [6:58] was like, I just [6:59] there's got to be something different. [7:01] Like, we've had to have evolved in some [7:02] way in terms of what that is. And so, [7:05] you know, you have my thesis there, [7:06] right? Right about that time, I was [7:10] accepted into the Naval Postgraduate [7:12] School to pursue a master's. [7:14] And because I was looking for a better [7:17] way to interview, [7:19] one of my thesis advisor said, "Hey, [7:20] have you ever heard of the High-Value [7:23] Detainee Interrogation Group, which the [7:25] acronym is HIG?" [7:26] Had never heard of it, but the HIG when [7:28] it was created [7:30] was was three-pronged, meaning that it [7:33] had a a a research department, right? [7:35] And then it had a practitioner [7:37] department, so the people that would do [7:38] the the the interrogations. And then it [7:41] had the trainer department. Now, the [7:42] trainer department, we would do [7:44] interviews interrogations, but we also [7:46] understood the science behind that. [7:48] The reason that's important is because [7:50] you could be a really good practitioner [7:53] and not understand why something is or [7:55] isn't working. [7:57] And so, being able to cross the bridge [7:59] between [8:00] the the science and understanding that [8:02] and being able to apply it in the room, [8:05] that hybrid, that connection, that sweet [8:06] spot, that is what I did. [8:09] So, you did research and you continue to [8:11] do research on how to get people to give [8:15] information, how to get information from [8:17] people, how to get them to offer up [8:18] information. Is that the crux of it? [8:20] Yeah. So, if I'm, you know, I've got a [8:23] difficult conversation I want to have [8:24] with someone. This person is [8:26] antagonistic, they often gaslight me, [8:29] they might be a narcissist, and I'm [8:31] walking into that conversation or I'm, [8:32] you know, I'm overthinking it. I'm [8:33] thinking, "God, I can't need to have [8:34] this conversation." [8:36] Where's the first place to start? [8:38] So, the first place that I would start [8:39] is don't label the people how you just [8:41] label them. Okay. And that's a problem. [8:43] So, you just labeled somebody a [8:44] narcissist. Why does that matter to you? [8:47] I think it allows me to blame them, I [8:48] guess, and or Well, it allows you to [8:49] blame, but but tell me tell me in your [8:51] perspective, what's a narcissist? That [8:53] they are they are low empathy, they are [8:56] self-centered, they are a little bit [8:57] aggressive, maybe. [8:59] >> Okay. So, let's stop there. [9:01] Do you think, personally, that there are [9:03] times in your life where you lack [9:05] empathy? Yeah. Okay. So, empathy is very [9:08] situationally based. [9:10] So, meaning that it's also subjective, [9:12] meaning if you feel this person is not [9:14] giving you certain empathy, [9:15] okay, maybe. [9:17] Um a bit self-centered, a bit [9:19] aggressive. You The reason I ask you [9:21] these things is because if you just [9:23] blatantly label somebody as being like, [9:25] "This person is a narcissist." You've [9:26] just you've just made it easy for [9:28] yourself. You've just put blame on them [9:30] and you're not going to be able to [9:32] really understand who this person is and [9:34] and why they are the way they are. So, [9:36] the first thing that I would do is I [9:37] would take away the labels as how you [9:40] define them as you're going into that. [9:42] What was the other thing you said in [9:43] terms of what they were? They were a [9:43] narcissist, they were something else. Um [9:46] they [9:47] gaslight. So, second thing, uh which is [9:49] interesting because we actually within [9:51] our training [9:52] uh program, we just did a big class in [9:54] gaslighting because it's important to [9:56] understand [9:57] what is gaslighting and what it when is [10:00] it not gaslighting? So, for you, cuz you [10:02] said this person gaslights you, what is [10:04] what are they gaslighting you about? [10:07] Um when I bring something up, they [10:10] make me feel like [10:12] I'm to blame. When I When I bring up how [10:14] I feel, maybe they make me feel like I'm [10:16] to blame, like I did something wrong. [10:18] Okay. [10:18] Does that always happen? [10:21] More often than not. [10:22] >> Okay. More often than not. So, it's [10:23] something that it sounds like that when [10:25] you go in and you're talking to this [10:26] different person, whatever the [10:28] circumstances is, they are or they're [10:30] trying to discredit you or make you feel [10:32] like maybe you don't know really what [10:33] happened. They're not listening. They're [10:34] just always throwing it back on me [10:36] saying that I did something to deserve [10:37] it. And what was the third thing you [10:39] said? It's a little bit like aggressive, [10:41] antagonistic, so Okay. their their their [10:43] emotions go up and it kind of makes me [10:45] shut down. [10:46] Okay. They kind of flood the zone. So, [10:48] when you need to go into a dark [10:49] conversation, here are the four things [10:52] that you can do to stay engaged and [10:55] involved in in in what's about to [10:56] happen, right? In in how this is going [10:59] to hopefully go through. And what we say [11:02] is you need to have a plan. [11:04] And there's the acronym about that. P, [11:07] right? L A N. So, the P is for purpose. [11:11] And the purpose is why are you there? [11:14] What's the reason? [11:16] What's the mission? [11:17] You have to understand your mission [11:19] because your mission is going to drive [11:20] your tactics. Your mission is going to [11:21] determine [11:23] if things get off track, if this person [11:25] becomes aggressive, this person starts [11:26] being insulting, if my mission at that [11:29] moment is to deepen my conversation with [11:31] them, and deepen my relationship in some [11:33] way, and this starts to get ugly in the [11:35] middle, your mission should keep you on [11:37] track because you can get pulled from [11:38] that very quickly. There's something [11:40] called multiple goals theory. [11:42] And multiple goals theory is the [11:44] understanding that at any given time, we [11:47] will pursue simultaneous goals. [11:50] And typically those goals would be [11:51] something task-oriented. You know, I [11:53] want to I want to finish a task and I [11:55] want to get something done. There's [11:57] going to be a component of identity in [11:59] there, meaning that how do I feel and [12:01] what are my emotions going on during the [12:02] course of this? And then there's going [12:04] to be relational. So, it's going to be [12:06] my relationship with this person at the [12:08] time. Now, a lot of times within [12:11] multiple goals theory, those things can [12:12] align. [12:14] So, and I'll give you example. Like if [12:15] you're playing a sport, you're on a [12:16] team. [12:17] Uh the team goal, your goal within that [12:19] team, the task is to win, to put on more [12:22] points than the other person. That's the [12:23] task. The identity aspect of that is am [12:28] I a good player? Do Do I want the ball? [12:30] Do I get the ball? Am I contributing? Am [12:32] I the superstar? Is there some type of [12:34] identity and how this makes me feel [12:36] about myself being being a sports star [12:39] in some capacity? And the relationship [12:41] part of that is [12:43] how do my teammates feel about me? Am I [12:46] Am I a good teammate in terms of what [12:47] the was? Those things can align. You can [12:49] see when that is misaligned, when all of [12:51] a sudden somebody what they would call a [12:52] ball hog, somebody takes the shot all [12:54] the time and they won't pass it around [12:55] and you're like Ronaldo. What are you [12:57] doing? Right? And it's one of these [12:58] things where like you are more concerned [13:00] about your identity than you are about [13:02] the team winning. That's a problem. [13:04] That's when you can see there's a [13:05] misalignment of goals. Or something [13:07] that's even more simple [13:09] would be let's say you're in a meeting [13:11] with [13:12] uh a boss or a colleague and it's a [13:14] pretty important meeting. You're You're [13:15] trying to close a deal and your boss [13:18] says something that's wrong. [13:21] Now, [13:22] you have to make a decision. You could [13:24] either [13:25] correct your boss [13:27] in front of everybody. [13:29] Or you could preserve his or her dignity [13:32] and address them at a later time. You [13:33] have to decide which one of those is [13:34] most important. You have to understand [13:36] your purpose of being in that meeting [13:39] because maybe I could let this go, it's [13:40] not that big of a deal because if I [13:42] correct my boss this may affect my [13:44] relationship with them at a later time. [13:46] This could ruin my career in terms of [13:48] being transferred or not being on a [13:50] project. So when you're looking at goals [13:53] you have to understand what the overall [13:55] objective is. It becomes even it becomes [13:57] especially in emotional conversations [14:00] it becomes really easy to to get [14:02] distracted. Really easy. So I go into [14:04] that conversation with my colleague who [14:06] is problematic. My goal with them let's [14:08] say is to get them to stop. I'm actually [14:10] thinking about earlier in my career when [14:12] I used to work in call centers on the [14:13] phone. And um [14:16] there was one particular lady that sat [14:18] next to me that was always a little bit [14:19] rude and always put me down a little [14:20] bit, bit patronizing. So [14:23] I I in hindsight wish I could have you [14:25] know [14:26] got taken her aside and had a [14:27] conversation with her and said listen [14:29] the way you're speaking to me is very [14:30] disrespectful or you're putting me down [14:31] or patronizing me. Please can you stop [14:33] doing that. My goal would have been to [14:34] to get her to stop. It is to get her to [14:37] do that but the crux of that is to [14:38] understand why she's doing it because [14:40] that's going to allow me to [14:42] fix this in some way if it if it's [14:44] fixable. I'll share the story with you. [14:47] In 1991 [14:49] an 11-year-old girl named Jaycee Dugard [14:51] was kidnapped by a man named Phillip [14:53] Garrido and his wife Nancy. And Phillip [14:56] and Nancy kept Jaycee Dugard for 18 [15:00] years. [15:01] He fathered two children with her. One [15:03] when she was 14 and one when she was 17. [15:05] And in 2009 [15:08] they found her and him at Berkeley. They [15:10] arrested him, arrested his wife. 2011 [15:14] he was you know tried, convicted. Three [15:16] years prior to that [15:19] there was a young girl named Michaela [15:21] Garrett who had gone missing, never been [15:24] found, in a county over in west west of [15:27] El Dorado in a county named Alameda [15:28] County. [15:29] There is a lot of suspicion that Philip [15:32] was the one who did this as well. And [15:34] one of my one of my colleagues was the [15:37] prosecuting attorney for El Dorado [15:39] County, California. His name is Vern [15:40] Pierson. [15:41] And Vern said, "I'd like to close this [15:43] or get some type of understanding. Can [15:46] you go [15:47] and interview Philip?" So, I looked at [15:50] all the information on Philip. He had [15:51] written a manifesto in terms of how to [15:53] cure pedophilia. [15:54] And I went to Vern and I said, "All [15:56] right, I'm let's go do this." And he [15:57] goes, [15:58] "What do you need? Like a a day, couple [16:00] of hours?" And I said, "Need 4 days." [16:02] And my goal was to do a a deep dive into [16:05] the things that he had done. He was a a [16:07] serial rapist, a serial kidnapper, and [16:11] to understand his life in the time frame [16:13] by which Michaela Garrett went missing. [16:15] And so, this was the evolution of what I [16:17] was trying to do. So, I show up. He [16:19] walks in. [16:20] Says, "Who are you?" [16:21] I said, "Well, I'm Special Agent O'Neal. [16:23] I'd like to talk to you about um your [16:26] history. I read your manifesto and I had [16:28] some questions." And he said, [16:31] "You know, [16:32] uh when they told me I had a visitor," [16:33] he goes, "I wasn't going to come in." He [16:34] goes, "But the angels on my shoulder [16:36] tell me that this would be a good good [16:37] talk." So, he said, "Let's do it." We [16:40] talked in detail every day for probably [16:42] 8 to 9 hours. I brought him food. And [16:44] the end of each day, I would say, [16:46] "Philip, [16:47] um I will be here tomorrow. If the If [16:50] the angels on your shoulder tell you to [16:51] show up, please do. If not, then it was [16:53] nice to meet you." And every day he [16:55] showed up. Why did you say that? [16:57] There's a There's a depth of [16:58] understanding in terms of the head space [17:00] that he is in. And so, when you can [17:02] connect like genuinely connect with [17:04] that, [17:05] you truly try to understand another [17:06] person and [17:09] there's power with that. In the course [17:11] of those 36 hours, multiple times, he [17:15] was very aggressive. [17:17] He was very condescending. [17:19] He called me a liar. Things he accused [17:21] me of, you know, I don't believe you are [17:22] who you say you are. I don't believe [17:24] you're here for the things you're saying [17:25] you're here for. [17:26] Um, I don't even know if you work for [17:27] the federal government. And he's [17:30] essentially questioned my integrity. [17:32] Now, my purpose [17:35] is not to make him feel that I'm smarter [17:37] than him. It's not to [17:41] belittle or berate him or or have a a [17:43] question of, you know, integrity cuz I [17:45] could have said, you kidnapped [17:47] an 11-year-old girl and kept her captive [17:49] for 18 years, fathered two children with [17:51] her, the first one at the age of 14, and [17:53] you're questioning my integrity? [17:55] I didn't do that. [17:56] Because that's not why I was there. [17:59] And so, despite the fact that he got [18:01] upset, despite the fact that he called [18:02] me and accused me of all these different [18:03] things, I stayed on my purpose. I stayed [18:05] on my mission. [18:07] And when we were done, when we finished, [18:09] I went back to prosecuting attorney and [18:11] said he's not your guy. [18:12] And he said, "Are you sure?" And I said, [18:14] "I bet my career on it." [18:16] How did you know? [18:17] There's a lot of things in regards to [18:19] when you're looking at people from the [18:21] perspective of [18:23] telling the truth in terms of the way [18:25] that they they talk and engage with you. [18:27] Our conversation on Tuesday and our [18:30] conversation on Wednesday and our [18:31] conversation on Thursday and our [18:33] conversation on Friday all stayed very [18:35] consistent. If I'm asking him for [18:36] further clarification, he's providing [18:38] for for further clarification. If I'm [18:40] talking to him about, you know, [18:42] something and there's some type of [18:43] spontaneous correction where he's like, [18:45] "Okay, wait a minute. This happened [18:47] uh before this." Those are those are [18:49] indicators of truth. [18:51] And if there are things that, [18:54] you know, he he talks about in terms of [18:56] like things that are of complication. [18:58] Nobody's day goes perfect. And, you [19:02] know, there were many times when he was [19:03] telling me about the things he had done [19:05] because, [19:06] you know, he was [19:07] a serial rapist, you know, and a and a a [19:10] you know, kidnapper. And he would drive [19:12] around and pick up women and hitchhiking [19:14] and he would, you know, rape them and [19:15] let them go. Often times we would get [19:17] into the details of like when those [19:19] didn't go well, right? And when all of a [19:21] sudden that the girl would would fight [19:22] him off and run away. And so there was [19:24] all these different complications and [19:25] different things that he would talk [19:26] about. He handled the complications [19:28] consistently is what you're saying. [19:31] When complications are introduced to a [19:32] story, right? People who lie don't do [19:35] that, right? It's truth tellers will [19:36] often do that because it's just like [19:38] this is just what happened. Like these [19:39] are the things that happened. This is my [19:40] life in terms of where things were going [19:42] to go. Overall in terms of how that [19:44] conversation went, there were those type [19:47] of indicators that just made it [19:49] trend more truthful than not. Like there [19:51] wasn't this big gap or this big weird [19:53] moment when we're talking about Michaela [19:55] Garrett to where all of a sudden it's [19:57] like missing pieces that I have to put [19:58] in. There There are no cues to [20:00] deception. There are things that all of [20:02] a sudden seem different and require you [20:04] to do more [20:06] questions, more asking. But that didn't [20:08] occur around time that we were looking [20:10] for with that. Okay. So we finally when [20:13] we finished and then they went back and [20:15] they looked at the evidence, they found [20:17] a new fingerprint and were able to [20:20] uh charge and convict uh the person who [20:23] did that. The reason I bring all of that [20:25] up is because for the purpose aspects of [20:27] what we're talking about, [20:30] not losing sight of what your mission [20:32] is, being focused in terms of what that [20:34] is, the power of communication and [20:36] staying online as it relates to [20:39] what you want to accomplish is really [20:42] powerful because it keeps you on track [20:45] and it keeps you engaged and reminds you [20:47] of why you're there. Not every [20:48] relationship deserves that. Like there's [20:50] just some relationships you're like, [20:51] this just isn't worth it for me. If it [20:53] matters to you, that mattered to me. It [20:55] mattered to me not because for me, it [20:57] mattered to me before that family. And [21:00] there is a difference between having a [21:02] profession and being a professional. [21:04] Having a profession is what you do. [21:05] Being a professional is the culmination [21:07] of everything that you've done at that [21:09] moment at that time for a specific [21:11] purpose. [21:12] And that's what I had to bring in with [21:13] that because that was what was at stake [21:15] with us. [21:17] Um so you have [21:18] this these four cards in front of you. [21:20] We've done the P, which is staying [21:22] focused on your purpose and you're going [21:23] to conversation to to fend off the [21:25] emotion which might distort you and take [21:26] you off. And I'm so guilty of that. [21:28] Everybody is. So guilty of that with [21:30] especially with like, you know, [21:32] conversations with with my partner where [21:34] there's emotion involved and there's [21:36] some areas where, you know, blame might [21:37] be [21:38] prevalent. So the L [21:41] that you have there. So the L [21:44] is [21:46] listen. [21:47] This becomes the thing that people are [21:49] worst at [21:51] because it's a lot to do. Think about [21:54] right now. Think about my conversation [21:57] with you at this moment. I'm speaking. [21:59] So internally, my internal vocabulary [22:02] and the conversation that I'm having in [22:03] my head is running at about 800 to 1,000 [22:06] words a minute. [22:07] I'm speaking to you in about 120 to 150 [22:10] words a minute. There's a lot that's [22:12] being edited. There's a lot of things [22:13] that I think that I'm saying or I want [22:15] to say. I'm trying to engage with you. [22:17] There's also something called theory of [22:19] mind, which is me watching you and [22:22] trying to understand [22:24] is what I'm saying on point with what [22:27] Steven wants to hear or wants to hear [22:28] for his audience. Do I need to change [22:30] anything? Does this landing on him? And [22:33] then if your nonverbals change and your [22:34] verbals change, then I have to readjust [22:36] maybe what I'm editing and my theory of [22:39] mind will readjust, too, because I'm [22:40] like, "Ooh, I just lost him here. I have [22:42] to I have to readjust." Simultaneously, [22:45] you are listening to me [22:47] and you're listening to the 120 to 150 [22:50] words I'm giving you, but your brain can [22:52] process this at like 4 to 600 words per [22:55] minute. So you have too much cognitive [22:57] bandwidth. [22:58] You have the ability to listen to me and [23:00] then do multiple other things, which is [23:02] often times why people will drift out or [23:04] you'll start thinking something else or [23:05] you'll think of your your notepad [23:07] because you got it. You got to figure it [23:08] out. And this is when it becomes really [23:10] easy to be [23:12] convinced and not curious because you're [23:13] like, "Ah, I kind of know where this is [23:15] going." And so you check out. So you [23:17] actually have to do something called [23:18] cognitive inhibition. You have to kind [23:20] of narrow that bandwidth to stay fully [23:22] engaged with me. That's why when you [23:24] hear people say like active listening, [23:25] it's hard. [23:27] It's hard to do because you have to be [23:29] attentive to the other person. You have [23:31] to listen. You have to look. You have to [23:33] pick up their verbal and their nonverbal [23:35] behavior. And you then you have to do [23:37] something with that. Stephen Covey says, [23:40] "Most people [23:41] don't listen with the intent to [23:44] understand. [23:46] They listen with the intent to reply. [23:49] And if you are simply just waiting for [23:51] your turn to talk, [23:52] then you and I are not are not [23:54] connecting. [23:56] Controlling conversation comes from [23:58] listening, not talking. [24:00] So if I'm trying to if I'm trying to get [24:02] some information out of someone, [24:04] I should have a bias towards just [24:06] letting them speak at me. You should. [24:08] You know, you you hear about this like [24:09] always let the other person talk more. [24:10] That's great, but if both people are [24:12] doing that, then the conversation's not [24:13] progressing. The conversation is an [24:15] extension of what you and I are speaking [24:18] with. And when we've gone from listening [24:21] in terms of what that looks like, the [24:22] next thing you have to do, which gives [24:24] into this, is the A, which is which is [24:27] ask, right? [24:28] So the A being this. [24:31] If you are paying attention to me [24:33] and you're picking up on things that I'm [24:34] saying, [24:36] the changes in my body language, [24:39] and there's something you don't [24:40] understand, [24:42] you need to ask. This is where you're [24:44] going to deepen the conversation. This [24:45] is where you show somebody that you're [24:46] active listening, you're curious, and [24:49] you're open, and you're trying to [24:50] understand them. If you look at empathy [24:53] research, we typically think that we can [24:57] get understand our significant other or [24:59] different people at a much higher level [25:00] than we actually do. For a stranger, [25:03] it's called it's called empathy [25:04] accuracy. [25:05] For a stranger, your ability to [25:08] understand their headspace is like 20%. [25:11] For [25:12] a friend, somebody close to you is like [25:14] 30. [25:15] For your significant other, it's no [25:18] higher than 40%, which means that [25:20] despite you thinking that you know what [25:22] she's thinking, [25:24] you got a four out of 10 chance of being [25:26] right. And if that conversation gets [25:29] emotional, that 40% can go down as low [25:31] as 15 because you start to pull in to be [25:34] like, I'm I'm guarding myself here. I'm [25:36] guarding my ego. When your ego is on the [25:38] line, your ears go offline because you [25:40] stop hearing what she's having to say [25:42] and you start protecting yourself in [25:44] terms of what you're trying to do. So, [25:46] your ability to be empathetic when [25:48] things are hard becomes harder. And you [25:52] have to be very mindful of that. Let's [25:53] say you come home from early morning [25:55] workout. [25:57] And your spouse says, "Hey Steven, how [25:59] was it?" And you say, "It's pretty [26:01] tough." [26:02] There's a lot that you can do with that. [26:04] This is what she could do. She could say [26:05] nothing. So now maybe you understand [26:07] that maybe she doesn't want to talk [26:08] about this or she's not interested in [26:09] it. That's one. [26:11] The second thing she could say to you [26:12] would be like, "Well, [26:13] sweetheart, that's why you look the way [26:15] you do." She has now made the [26:18] assumption, right? Her her empathy [26:20] accuracy, that she knows what you meant [26:22] by the word tough. And so if she says to [26:24] you, "Well, that's how you look." And [26:25] that's not what you meant, now you feel [26:26] that there's a separation between what [26:28] you're hoping she would pick up on and [26:29] what she actually said. The third thing [26:31] she could say would be like, "What do [26:34] you mean by tough?" [26:35] Because the ambiguity of that is the [26:37] word tough. Who knows what that means? [26:39] It could be a lot of different things. [26:40] She's now showing you, I'm into you. I'm [26:42] tuning in. In the power of something [26:44] like that, when you talk about deepening [26:46] relationships and increasing that [26:48] connection, that's how it happens. [26:51] The same thing with your nonverbal [26:52] behavior, right? You look at nonverbal [26:54] behavior, 66% of what we give is [26:56] nonverbal. And so if I, through the [26:58] course of my conversation with you, if [27:00] all of a sudden we're talking and you're [27:01] just like [27:03] Folding my arms. So folding your arms [27:06] could be a sign of just you're folding [27:07] your arms. It could be a sign of you not [27:10] liking my question if you roll your [27:11] eyes. So if I see that and it matters to [27:14] me, [27:15] then I need to say something to the [27:17] effect of it seems like [27:19] versus I think. Cuz I think is the [27:21] pronoun saying that's about me and it's [27:22] just like I don't care what you think. [27:24] It seems like what you just did maybe [27:27] was because you didn't like what I had [27:28] to say because I saw you cross your arms [27:30] and roll your eyes. [27:33] Do I have that right? [27:34] So now you have a choice where you can [27:36] either say you Yes, you got that right [27:38] for these reasons or no, I just folded [27:40] them because I was comfortable and you [27:42] know, whatever the case may be. But it [27:44] is a matter if I see you and they're in [27:46] it's and it's in harmony with the [27:48] conversation that we were having that [27:50] seems like it's a, you know, something [27:52] that shows that it could be [27:55] potentially a problem, I need to ask [27:57] about it. You and I having a [27:58] conversation right now and you folding [28:00] your arms isn't going to be like a red [28:01] flag that I'm like, oh, I just saw you [28:03] folded your arms when I said that. But [28:04] if it's something that there's some [28:05] emotional layer on that and it's [28:07] important and I'm trying to express [28:09] something to you when I see you roll [28:10] your eyes or cross your arms, [28:13] Hey Hey Steven, I noticed when I brought [28:14] up this thing about our family, um you [28:17] kind of leaned back and crossed your [28:18] arms and rolled your eyes. It seems like [28:20] you didn't approve of that. Is Is that [28:21] Do I have that right? [28:23] So now it's on you to explain that or [28:24] not. On this point of body language, um [28:27] as someone that sits here and I guess [28:29] interviews people for like, I you know, [28:31] four, five hours at a time sometimes. [28:35] Over the last five years I have come to [28:36] learn certain body language um patterns [28:39] in my guests. Okay. [28:41] One of the most obvious ones is when I [28:43] ask the guest a question that is causing [28:45] them some potential discomfort in some [28:47] way. And when I say discomfort, I should [28:49] probably define that as [28:51] maybe [28:53] it's a difficult question for whatever [28:55] reason. [28:55] >> Sure. [28:56] What I tend to see is I tend to see them [28:58] cross their arms. Okay. That's like a [29:00] really consistent pattern. It's almost [29:02] like a It's almost as if they're telling [29:03] me that this is a little bit difficult. [29:05] And it's it holds to be true. [29:07] >> Do you ask them? I noticed when you [29:08] crossed your arms, you know, when I [29:10] asked you that question, is it something [29:11] with this question that bothered you? Or [29:13] do you just let it go? I let it go. But [29:15] it But it's They've already told me. [29:16] Okay. So I've already They I don't need [29:18] to ask them because I I know I now know [29:20] that there's something there where [29:22] there's emotion. Sure. It's kind of the [29:23] way that I I see it. [29:25] >> It's what it is. More than likely it's [29:26] what it is. And I think there's power to [29:28] that because your perception, right? So [29:31] it's you bring this back like your [29:33] pattern recognition of all the guests [29:35] that you've done and the association or [29:37] the the connection of that in terms of [29:39] the question that you ask and they cross [29:41] their arms like that's where that comes [29:42] from. That's where that all of a sudden [29:43] that thing where you're just like I feel [29:45] it but I don't really know it. It's just [29:46] like you don't know that to be the case [29:48] because it could be a number of [29:49] different things. But because of the [29:51] pattern recognition you see it all the [29:52] time, that gives you the chance to say [29:53] in this is there's some emotion here. So [29:55] either engage it or tread lightly [29:57] depending which way you want to go. [29:59] >> Both. Yeah. And that's what happens. So [30:00] instead of saying like, you know, why [30:01] why did you cross your arms? I will [30:03] ask them maybe potentially how how that [30:05] memory makes them feel or what they they [30:07] feel about that and [30:08] and that tends to be It's just It's so, [30:10] you know, cuz people always talk, you [30:11] know, they say, does body language [30:12] matter? Does it count for anything? Can [30:14] you interpret someone's body language to [30:16] understand if they're telling you the [30:17] truth? [30:19] Is any of this stuff true in your in [30:20] your view? No. [30:23] You should You should look at body [30:24] language because it it it it is a [30:26] language [30:27] in terms of what somebody is is showing [30:29] you. You look at body language and if [30:31] you see something that is a change, just [30:34] like the crossing your arms, then you [30:36] need to be curious about it. So it's [30:38] really about a change in state. [30:39] >> It's a change of It's a change of what [30:41] somebody's doing and the timing of that. [30:43] So, you just said like when I ask [30:44] something that is [30:46] personal or emotional, they'll talk [30:48] about it, they'll cross their arms [30:49] because maybe it's just now like the [30:51] psychological thing where I want to [30:52] guard myself a little bit, maybe I want [30:53] to kind of close up a little bit. Who [30:55] knows? [30:56] But, if it's something where you're just [30:58] like I noticed it and you don't need to [30:59] use it. Like you could ask them if you [31:01] wanted to, but you're just like, "Oh, [31:02] they already they already told me so I [31:04] don't need it." But, for anybody else, [31:06] if you see that and you're talking and [31:08] somebody crosses their arms, [31:10] don't just assume that's what it is. [31:11] Because if you assume and you're wrong, [31:13] you're going down the wrong track. [31:15] Mhm. [31:17] And so, throughout this framework for [31:20] having hard conversations, we've covered [31:21] the P, which is [31:23] stick to your purpose, the L the list [31:25] which is listen, A which is to ask. Ask. [31:28] Is there anything else in the framework? [31:31] The N. [31:33] Which is the next steps. [31:35] So, [31:37] to have a plan [31:39] means to understand all of these [31:40] different things and the way that you [31:41] approach that. And the next steps is, [31:43] how do you want to resolve this? Like [31:45] what's the end goal with this? Is there [31:47] anything that I can do [31:49] that we can, you know, further our [31:51] relationship where both you and I can [31:53] can be in alignment. Do you ask them [31:55] would you propose? I would always ask [31:57] them. If I'm engaged, right? So, perhaps [31:59] let's go back to the [32:01] the conversation that you may have with, [32:03] you know, this this individual you're [32:04] just like this person's a narcissist and [32:05] so forth. [32:07] If you're engaging them and you're the [32:08] one who wants to really have this [32:10] conversation [32:11] and you're hoping that you can find some [32:13] type of resolution, you have to ask if [32:15] there's resolution with that. [32:17] So, something to the effect of, "Do you [32:18] think that you and I can find an [32:20] amicable way forward where when I when [32:22] you and I engage, you know, we can [32:23] really enjoy each other's time and and [32:25] this thing not go bad?" Like do you see [32:26] that in our future at all? [32:28] Yes or no. And then it's either yes, [32:30] okay, what does that look like for us? [32:32] Like how do we have that? Because I am [32:34] I'm having this conversation with you [32:35] because my relationship with you [32:36] matters, but there are things that [32:38] happen within that are that are [32:40] frustrating and that cause me not to [32:42] really want to engage. I do want to find [32:44] a way to do that because that is most [32:45] important to me. How best do we do that? [32:48] There is no magic bullet by which makes [32:50] everything every conversation go [32:51] perfect. There's none. [32:53] You are you are part of the [32:55] conversation, the other person's part of [32:56] the conversation, you have your [32:58] perspective, they have their [32:59] perspective. [33:01] You have what you think is right or or [33:03] or think is fair. Fairness is a [33:05] subjective because what you think is [33:07] fair is just means what you think is [33:09] fair. And so [33:11] the hardest part is to walk away and [33:13] feeling like you should there should [33:15] have done more you can do. The power [33:17] becomes knowing how to address that and [33:19] if it doesn't go right, then you walk [33:21] away and be like, you know what? It just [33:22] didn't go right and I'm okay with that. [33:24] What if they start insulting you in the [33:26] conversation? [33:27] Okay, what's your purpose of being in [33:29] the conversation? [33:31] I'm trying to get them to stop being so [33:32] rude to me when we're [33:34] on the same bank of [33:35] telephones at the call center. [33:37] So it is a matter of [33:40] if she's being rude to you it's it's [33:41] addressing that at the moment, right? [33:43] You know, I I noticed that we're having [33:45] this conversation that you're being [33:46] really aggressive, really rude and [33:48] really condescending. So you call it [33:50] out. [33:51] >> Yeah, be very specific in terms of what [33:53] it is. Like you know, if she if she [33:55] calls you and she uses you know, she [33:56] calls you a name or whatever the case [33:58] may be. You're like, you know what? [33:58] You're being rude and she's just like, [34:00] what did I do? And you're like, you're [34:01] just being rude. That's not helpful. [34:02] Like give her the context by which you [34:04] feel that she's being rude because maybe [34:07] she does something outside of a name [34:09] where you're like, you're being rude and [34:11] maybe to her that's not rudeness. Maybe [34:12] it's her directness, right? But if she's [34:14] like, you know what? You're [34:16] Stephen, you're just an or [34:17] whatever the case may be and I would [34:19] say, hey, it it seems like at the right [34:20] now like, you know, you're very [34:22] condescending. You've called me a name [34:23] to include an Can you explain [34:25] to me specifically right now why that [34:26] is? [34:27] And make her back it up. Make her [34:30] explain to you what it is that Is there [34:32] something about Is there something about [34:33] me you don't like? Is there something [34:35] about my my work ethic that you don't [34:37] like? Or maybe the way that I'm doing [34:38] this? You've been here longer than me. [34:39] So, is perhaps there's something else [34:42] that [34:43] I'm doing or not doing that you think is [34:45] wrong because I am not understanding [34:47] your anger and your venom and your need [34:50] to insult me and I would really try to [34:53] understand what that is. [34:54] So, you're having a very direct [34:55] conversation with her very specific to [34:57] what she's saying. It does not mean [35:00] that that's going to fix it. She could [35:02] just be an [35:03] And it's one of those things where you [35:05] have to be like, "I am going to address [35:07] this. I'm not going to return in kind. I [35:10] don't have to turn into that person as [35:11] well. I can walk away from that [35:14] conversation and be like, you know what? [35:15] I handled that the best I could." [35:17] Doesn't mean it's going to fix it. Are [35:18] there any tactics that interrogators are [35:21] taught or that you teach interrogators [35:23] for keeping your emotions in check? [35:26] Because, you know, we we go into these [35:28] conversations, someone calls you an [35:30] You you cortisol starts spiking, you get [35:32] into your amygdala, you get stressed, [35:33] you get emotional, you end up calling [35:34] them an back. But is there I [35:36] don't know is there breath work? What [35:37] what do interrogators get taught? [35:39] In the heat of the moment, [35:42] at the at that time, you have no time to [35:44] do breath work. This is real-time stuff [35:46] in terms of what you're trying to do. If [35:47] you go in and you understand your [35:49] purpose and again, I don't mean to go [35:50] back to the plan, but what happens is [35:52] you become you can be pulled out very [35:54] quickly. And all of a sudden, if you are [35:56] trying to get information from somebody [35:59] and one of their strategies, because [36:02] they maybe don't want to give you [36:03] information, one of their strategies is [36:04] to insult you [36:06] and now you're insulting them back, [36:08] one, you're not going to get anything. [36:10] Two, you fell into their strategy. So, [36:12] what you have to do is you have to [36:13] address that. I am Something to the [36:15] effect of I see that when I asked you [36:17] that or now all of a sudden like it [36:18] seems like there's a change in our [36:19] relationship to where now you're being [36:21] really aggressive. Why is that? So, [36:23] you're continually calling it out. [36:25] >> Yes, because [36:26] I am asking you to back up your [36:28] emotions. [36:29] It It because if it's if it's [36:32] BS, if you're just doing that because [36:34] you're trying to hide the ball someplace [36:35] else, I'm going to call you out on it. [36:37] It's also showing me that I am not [36:39] afraid to confront this type of behavior [36:42] and I'm seeing it and I am I am really [36:44] trying to engage with you in a very [36:46] amicable, genuine way. [36:48] And if you were going to treat me a [36:49] certain way, I am going to understand [36:51] what it is. You're also showing that [36:52] you're not doing it in kind. Is part of [36:54] the is showing that you're strong? [36:57] It's less about being strong and more [36:59] about being [37:00] competent [37:02] and confident in what you're doing. [37:03] Because if you allow [37:06] in anybody, not just an interrogation [37:08] room, in any in any conversation, if you [37:12] lose your cool, [37:13] you lose control. [37:15] You have to be mindful of that. I was [37:17] overseeing a an internal affairs [37:19] interview. Uh and I was going to go in [37:21] and talk to this person at the end. I [37:22] was thinking about doing a polygraph [37:23] with them, but before that was going to [37:25] happen, the the case agent, the person [37:28] who had the investigation, was talking [37:29] to the subject. It was a road rage [37:32] incident where this [37:34] uh agent uh had been accused of road [37:37] rage and pulling his gun out on a a [37:39] civilian. So, this was the conversation [37:41] they were that they were having. And I'm [37:42] listening to this [37:44] in an interview room, right? And then in [37:45] terms of like a two-way two-way mirror. [37:48] And [37:49] the subject [37:50] is very aggressive, he's very angry, and [37:53] he's very angry to the point like he's [37:55] like, "I don't know why you don't [37:56] believe me with this. [37:58] I keep telling you these things and you [37:59] keep asking me the same questions. I [38:01] think this is a bunch of BS." The [38:04] investigator comes back and he's just [38:05] like, "Because I think you're a liar [38:07] and you're not telling me the truth in [38:09] terms of what it is [38:11] and you're causing us to be in this room [38:13] a lot longer and this is a problem. So, [38:15] now they're both yelling at each other, [38:17] like yelling at each other. [38:19] And And was one of these things where [38:21] I'm watching this unfold [38:23] and [38:24] it wasn't the subject's job to maintain [38:27] his composure, it was the [38:28] investigator's. Because his goal is not [38:30] to belittle this other agent, his goal [38:34] was to find out did this or did this not [38:36] happen? [38:37] And he lost sight of that. And he came [38:39] out of the room to me and he's like, [38:40] "What do you think?" And I'm like, [38:41] "Well, I'm not going to polygraph him. I [38:42] mean, this guy's so emotional right now, [38:44] like that's not going to happen." And he [38:46] goes, "You know what? This guy's just an [38:47] anyway." And I'm like, "I don't [38:48] think he's the in the room." [38:50] The other guy was the in the [38:51] room. Because he allowed himself to get [38:53] pulled out of what he should have been [38:55] doing [38:56] because now he wanted to have the game [38:58] of who's the bigger who's the bigger [39:00] jerk in the room. [39:01] You can do it. And again, if you want to [39:04] burn that bridge, burn it. But if if you [39:07] want to maintain a relationship or you [39:09] want to maintain your profession or you [39:11] were trying to get to some resolution, [39:14] you cannot lose your cool. I guess that [39:16] was what it comes down to is most of the [39:17] time we're not clear on the goal going [39:19] into the conversation, so [39:21] we we have nothing to be anchored to. So [39:24] >> True. it's it's we it's just like [39:25] getting into the washing machine. [39:27] Absolutely what it is. We just spin [39:28] around and around and around and [39:29] walk away with a less relationship. the [39:32] power really comes from if this person [39:34] is insulting you and they're angry and [39:36] they're doing these things and you're [39:37] sitting there and you're asking good [39:38] questions, you're keeping your [39:39] composure, there is a lot of power with [39:41] that. [39:42] And I mean power in a in a way that [39:44] shows like I'm in I'm in control of [39:46] myself. [39:47] I am [39:48] well aware of what's going on [39:51] as this relationship and this [39:52] conversation is is happening. [39:54] Uh I am not going to fall into this [39:56] because this matters to me in terms of [39:58] this other thing. I've heard you say [39:59] that you think people suffer from me me [40:02] me syndrome. [40:04] What does that mean? [40:05] So, the me me me syndrome is [40:09] everything [40:11] everything is about me, right? I mean, [40:13] it seems obvious with that, but like you [40:15] can even look at things from like a [40:16] cultural perspective. You can look at [40:18] like here, you know, in the in the US [40:20] and Western civilizations, like we are [40:22] primarily like a dignity culture. Well, [40:24] we are it's all about us, right? It's [40:26] all about that internal that internal [40:28] feeling that that we have. And so [40:30] everything is predicated on our job, our [40:33] success, the things that we do. The [40:35] external world doesn't really matter in [40:36] terms of our our success or failure. So, [40:39] a lot of it is [40:41] what is in your headspace and how do you [40:44] manage that? The problem that I see and [40:48] what I think [40:50] comes within communication is [40:53] we do [40:56] a lot of self-reflection. [40:58] We rarely do a lot of outward reflection [41:01] on the other person. Some of the best [41:02] negotiators there will spend more than [41:04] half of their time thinking about [41:06] somebody else. So, a very personal [41:08] story. [41:09] Um when I was 21, my father passed away. [41:13] And he had been battling cancer for for [41:15] 3 years. And so when he passed away, [41:18] uh I have four siblings and my mom was [41:20] there. So, when he passed away, he [41:21] passed away at home and all five of us [41:23] were there. [41:25] Several years later, [41:26] uh I'm having this conversation on the [41:28] day that my dad died about the day that [41:30] my dad died. I'm having this with my [41:32] my sister and my three younger brothers. [41:35] And we're talking about where we were [41:36] and so forth. And my sister says, "Yeah, [41:38] I I can't watch The Simpsons without [41:41] thinking of of Dad." And I said, [41:44] "What do you What do you mean?" She's [41:45] like, "Well, the the the TV was there [41:47] and The Simpsons were on and she's like, [41:48] I always just remember that." And I was [41:50] like, [41:51] "There's a There's a TV in the room?" [41:53] She's like, "You don't remember TV being [41:54] in the room?" And I'm like, "I have [41:56] absolutely not. I have no idea that [41:58] there was a TV in the room. I didn't [41:59] code it. That wasn't the thing that was [42:01] important." Her perspective [42:03] and the way that she saw that moment [42:06] affected her differently than everybody [42:08] else in that room. And so to go back to [42:10] the me me me, when you fail to take in [42:13] consideration that other people have [42:14] other experiences [42:16] based on [42:18] how they [42:20] pick up the world, how they do things in [42:22] the world, and you think that it's just [42:24] about you, [42:25] you're you are going to have a really [42:27] hard time having a deep, honest, [42:30] connective relationship with somebody. [42:32] If it's just about you. You can do it, [42:34] and a lot of people do it. You know, [42:36] they're looking for that that way to [42:38] you know, make people drawn to them and [42:40] make people connect to them. And and [42:41] that's fine, [42:43] but if you are trying to [42:47] I guess Stephen, if you just want to be [42:49] like a genuine person and you want to [42:50] have a relationship, don't make it about [42:52] you. [42:53] I've just finished writing my third [42:55] book. I haven't firmed up the title yet, [42:57] but I have started mocking up some [42:58] different designs, and I've been doing [43:00] this with Adobe Express, which is one of [43:02] our sponsors. What I love about Adobe [43:04] Express is that it makes it so easy for [43:06] me to obsess over the tiniest details, [43:08] the typography, the font, the color, the [43:09] text placement. [43:11] The stuff that might sound petty to most [43:13] people, but actually compounds to create [43:15] something that stands out, something [43:16] that's one better than the rest. And [43:19] designing my cover art has reminded me [43:21] of how many creative things I've learned [43:22] over the year, but it's also reminded me [43:24] that there are so many creative minds [43:26] around me that are also sitting on their [43:28] own secrets. So, I've created the one [43:30] better guide in Adobe Express to bring [43:32] those tips to you. And in it, you'll [43:34] find principles from the very, very best [43:36] in their industry turned into quick and [43:38] easy practices for you to apply. So, you [43:40] can train yourself to create exactly [43:42] like the best performing teams in the [43:43] world do. Just head over to [43:45] adobe.ly/onebetter [43:47] to download Adobe Express now. And make [43:50] sure you visit the learn tab to discover [43:52] how you can become one better than the [43:54] rest. [43:56] I was thinking this earlier. I was [43:57] thinking one of the things in the this [43:58] podcast that I've learned is if I [44:01] if I want to increase the probability [44:02] that someone opens up and tells me [44:03] something, [44:04] one of the things I do is I share [44:06] myself. Yeah. So, you know, I might be [44:08] asking someone about their childhood. [44:10] And it's quite clear to me now that one [44:11] of the ways, especially if they end up [44:13] crossing their arms and get up [44:14] uncomfortable, [44:15] >> Yeah. is just to pause for a second and [44:16] share my own childhood. Yeah. So, if [44:18] I've identified that one of your values [44:19] is, I don't know, you want to be a good [44:21] family man, [44:22] might you mention that you're a family [44:23] man yourself as a way to build a bridge? [44:26] So, if it's honest. So, so that's a [44:28] great question, but this becomes a thing [44:30] where you have to look at things if you [44:32] were trying to influence or manipulate [44:33] somebody. If it's honest [44:36] and it fits within that conversation at [44:37] that moment because this is what I, [44:39] based on our conversation, I think this [44:40] person needs to hear, [44:42] then sure, if it's real. [44:44] If it's not, if I'm lying to him because [44:47] I'm trying to say, "Well, I'm a family [44:48] man, you're a family man, like we're [44:49] we're good." Now you're [44:51] Now you're manipulating the person. [44:53] And that's a whole different [44:55] conversation. So, to go back to what you [44:57] said, if if I understand this guy's [44:59] values and I understand that there is a [45:01] sense of [45:05] Let's say a sense of honesty. Maybe [45:07] there's a a part of this person that's [45:08] also honest or there's also a sense of [45:11] he wants to be [45:13] I don't know, he wants his kids to see [45:15] him as a as a as a man of integrity. [45:18] Right? Let's just say that. So, maybe [45:20] maybe that starts to become a [45:21] conversation that we have as it relates [45:23] to, [45:24] um, you know, I can only imagine, you [45:25] know, the difficulty that this has with [45:28] you as as you've told me, you know, [45:30] you're a family man. I'm not going to [45:31] say you're a family man. I'm going to [45:32] say as you told me you're a family man. [45:34] And one of the things that you said [45:35] about being a family man was [45:37] how important is your kids to to kind of [45:39] like lead by your your model, like your [45:41] role model aspects of that. By honesty [45:45] and openness [45:46] and and and those type of things. So, do [45:48] you hear where I'm going? So, I'm [45:48] trending in the direction by which that [45:51] I am trying to bring online still his [45:54] father, but a different value under what [45:55] it means to be a father. Cuz I don't [45:57] want to talk about being present cuz [45:59] that's probably going to go away, but if [46:01] he is trying to teach his kids [46:04] to own your mistakes, then maybe that's [46:06] the direction I go. But, how am I going [46:08] to get that? I'm going to get that [46:09] because I'm going to start off my [46:10] conversation with him in a very honest, [46:12] genuine way that I'm going to try to [46:13] understand who is this person across [46:16] from me. [46:17] And what's the difference between [46:18] manipulation and influence? [46:21] Influence is about nudging a person [46:25] in a certain direction at a certain time [46:27] that's beneficial for both you [46:30] and them. [46:31] That's influence. [46:32] Got it? Mhm. [46:34] Manipulation is you nudging a person in [46:36] a specific direction [46:39] because it's good for you. [46:40] It's not good for them. And so, you'll [46:42] lie, you'll you'll do whatever you need [46:44] to do to to close the deal, to get them [46:46] to do something, to give them to give [46:48] you something. That's manipulation [46:50] because it's often one of those things [46:52] that it has negative consequences to it [46:54] in terms of the person who did it. You [46:56] know, maybe they never know, but you [46:57] manipulated them. Which is [46:59] interrogations, no? Because this guy's [47:01] going to go he's going to get life in [47:02] jail if he admits that he killed this [47:04] child. [47:05] So, I'm that's not in his interests, but [47:07] it's in mine. So, I'm going to [47:08] manipulate him to give me the secrets. [47:10] If that's what you want to do, and [47:11] that's the direction you think you need [47:12] to do, [47:13] then by all means you can do it. And [47:15] here in the US, it is legal that you can [47:18] lie to [47:19] Oh, so subjects, but So, you're saying [47:21] lying is the the the moment where it [47:23] becomes manipulation? Yes, that becomes [47:25] the shortcut, and that becomes a way not [47:27] just within the interrogation room. [47:28] Like, I think what becomes important and [47:30] I've seen this come up a lot, people are [47:31] all about like influence, like you hear [47:33] that come up quite a bit. [47:35] If you want to influence somebody, this [47:36] is how you do it. You're honest with [47:37] them, you're clear, and you're [47:39] transparent because influence is about [47:42] how do I feel about you? Not about all [47:44] the things that you're doing at that [47:45] moment. Because if I don't if trust [47:46] isn't isn't even on the table, if I [47:48] don't trust you to begin with, or I [47:50] think that to go back to what you had [47:52] said, there's this pattern recognition [47:53] where I'm like, I just think there's [47:54] something wrong with this, you're not [47:56] going to be able to influence me. [47:58] If I am honest with you in everything [48:00] that I do because that's how I carry [48:01] myself. [48:03] Not only does it lower your cognitive [48:04] load because you're not lying to [48:05] somebody else, but it underscores who [48:08] you stand for and who you are as a [48:09] person. And with that people are going [48:11] to see that and say, "You know what? [48:14] Steven's very transparent. He said this [48:16] was a good deal and I believe that for [48:18] these reasons." It's a matter of you [48:20] being honest with that. I [48:21] I always question now like it cuz I see [48:23] it a lot and it came up in the in the [48:25] questions that that I was talking to [48:26] your team about. It's like [48:28] why does everybody want to influence [48:29] somebody? Like why [48:31] why do they what what is that? Do you [48:33] know? [48:34] Like why does it come up all the time? [48:36] Because [48:37] what are people trying to accomplish? [48:39] Is they want to accomplish something. [48:40] They have a goal. For who? For [48:42] themselves. [48:43] >> Right. So is that is that influence? [48:48] But it gets the job done for some for [48:50] some people. [48:51] >> Sure, it does. I was thinking about [48:53] that. Is it Carnegie? What's that book? [48:55] But it's probably behind me somewhere [48:56] called influence and it talks about the [48:58] the [48:59] five pillars of influence. Things like [49:01] it gets you to [49:01] >> so it's Robert Cialdini. Oh, yeah. We [49:04] teach that, right? It's one of those [49:05] where you can understand why influence [49:08] works, the different strategies of [49:10] influence, like what they all stand for [49:11] and when they fit within the within the [49:14] conversation. You can do it. I do it, [49:16] but I can I can tell you Steven, being a [49:19] being a communication specialist, [49:22] I don't spend my day walking around [49:24] trying to influence people. [49:26] I will be honest with people. I will be [49:27] transparent. I will answer their [49:29] questions with the best information that [49:31] I have and if people are inspired by [49:33] that and and and that causes somebody to [49:36] be influenced by the things that I said, [49:39] that's that's what I want, right? And I [49:41] brought this up earlier, but the the [49:43] training academy that that you know that [49:45] I instruct with, it is all about [49:47] openness. It's all about honesty. It's [49:49] all about trying to help people based on [49:52] why they've come to us [49:53] and it's not about manipulating people [49:55] to to come in and be a member. It's [49:58] about why are you here and how can we [50:01] help you? And this is the best way we [50:02] can do that. And that influences people [50:04] and that inspires people to to listen to [50:08] what you have to say. Why why is your [50:09] podcast this successful? The first time [50:12] you and I met you said something that I [50:14] disagreed with. What was that? And it [50:16] was you were talking about Fight Story [50:18] and you were talking about the different [50:19] things you you you know with Fight Story [50:20] and the success of the podcast. [50:22] And you said it's not because I'm a good [50:24] interviewer, it's because they're really [50:26] good at marketing. You're a good [50:27] interviewer because of the [50:29] vulnerabilities that you do. Every time [50:31] I've been surprised on how vulnerable [50:34] and open you are in terms of sharing [50:36] with yourself like there's that story [50:37] arc in terms of how that connection is [50:39] because of that you influence me [50:42] not because you were trying to, not [50:44] because your team reached out, but [50:46] because of the way you carried yourself [50:48] in your podcast and the questions that [50:50] you ask and the vulnerability that [50:52] you're showing, there is a level of [50:53] trust that comes with that. And so you [50:56] in you weren't trying to influence, you [50:58] were being you. And there's a part of [51:00] your self-congruence, who you are, your [51:03] ideal self, which is just like this is [51:05] just what I do. And my life's not [51:06] perfect and I'll share the parts that [51:08] are messy and I'm trying to use this as [51:11] a platform to help millions of people. [51:13] That's a big deal. [51:15] And is this how you build trust with [51:17] people? [51:18] Or is trust a different or adjacent [51:20] point? So trust is about being [51:23] vulnerable. [51:25] Trust is about being open [51:28] and sharing a little bit about yourself. [51:32] So truly Steven, the question becomes is [51:34] what I've shared with you in good hands? [51:37] Because if it's not, that's a problem. [51:40] Right? Mhm. Let me ask you a question. [51:42] Do you have a secret [51:44] that maybe you've never told anybody or [51:46] you've told just one or two people? [51:47] >> Yeah. You do. You got one in mind? Yeah. [51:49] What is it? [51:52] I can't. There's millions of people [51:53] listening. [51:53] >> Okay, but but if these millions of [51:56] people weren't watching, would you tell [51:57] me? [51:59] Yeah. Okay. So, the reason that you're [52:02] not telling me or in front of these [52:04] millions of people is why? [52:06] Why are you not Why are you not telling [52:08] us your secret? Um because of [52:11] consequence. [52:12] Okay. Some Someone's going to clip it. [52:14] Someone's going to put it on the [52:15] internet. Someone's going to me up. [52:16] There's a reason for it, right? There's [52:18] a reason that you're not trusting in [52:19] terms of what it was. Maybe you trust me [52:22] just because of the the relationship [52:23] that we've built to this point. [52:25] Um but there's probably other things [52:26] that you wouldn't trust me with. When [52:28] you talk about trust, [52:30] if you look at concentric rings, you [52:32] know, in terms of the the the trust [52:34] around you, [52:35] the center ring should be self-trust. It [52:38] should be you. You should be able to [52:39] trust yourself more than you trust [52:41] anybody else. If you don't, you probably [52:43] need to do a little bit of work, right? [52:45] What does that mean in reality of me [52:46] trusting myself? [52:48] Do you trust that you will do the things [52:49] that you [52:51] want to do or you ought to do? Or do you [52:53] do you keep yourself in that direction? [52:54] Do you keep yourself accountable? Right? [52:56] That becomes this thing where can you [52:58] make decisions or are you a person like [52:59] I don't make any decisions, I let [53:01] somebody else make decisions, or I run [53:02] everything by everybody else because I [53:04] don't trust myself to make the right [53:05] decision? Then you have to work on your [53:07] decision-making because you have to find [53:09] a way to build your trust up. [53:11] Outside of that initial ring, it's it [53:14] should be a ring of [53:16] a handful of people that have [53:18] unconditional trust, right? And these [53:19] are the people that no matter what, like [53:21] you've given them [53:23] that trust. You You believe in them. [53:25] And it should be a small circle. And [53:28] this is where I think people go wrong. [53:29] They're like, "Ah, you know what? I I I [53:31] share everything with people." [53:33] Then they then they're crushed when [53:36] one of those people that they you've [53:37] given unconditional trust with break it. [53:40] That's a problem. I have probably [53:43] you know, my siblings are all really [53:44] close to me, so I have them. There's [53:45] four of them. [53:46] Um outside of that, I have my, you know, [53:48] I have my wife and a select few friends, [53:51] you know, that I know that enough if I [53:53] call they're like, but I'm we're good. [53:55] Um outside of that, [53:57] you should everybody else should be [53:59] conditional trust. People should earn [54:02] your trust, right? They should be [54:03] honored to have it. Like don't give it [54:05] away for free. And if you have [54:06] somebody's trust, you should respect [54:08] that if they've given that to you. Be I [54:10] But I think and I've seen it I people [54:12] give away trust way too much because the [54:15] person will be amazing in this one spot [54:17] and all of a sudden they get the halo [54:19] effect and they're like, well, they're [54:20] great here, they must be great here. [54:22] It's this it's this arc of they're [54:24] awesome everywhere and so I'm going to [54:26] trust them with these other things. [54:28] Then when, again, [54:31] they break it, they violate it, [54:36] the way you feel [54:38] is just this this this this violation [54:40] of, you know, somebody took what you [54:41] gave them and just destroyed it. It's [54:43] hard to come back from that. It's hard [54:44] to Once you Once you lose trust, like if [54:48] you lose somebody's trust, it's really [54:49] really hard to get back. Is there [54:51] anything you can do to get back, do you [54:52] think? [54:53] What I know that you can do, it doesn't [54:55] always work, [54:57] you have to be accountable for why you [54:58] lost it. Whatever that is, very [55:01] specific, [55:02] it's going to take time and a lot of [55:06] consistency. To consistency meaning that [55:08] you show them consistently time and time [55:10] again that you are a person that, you [55:13] know, can be trusted. On um [55:16] on leadership principles, something I've [55:18] heard you talk about as well. [55:19] Um [55:20] What do you think are the most important [55:22] principles as it relates to leadership? [55:23] Because we've talked about trust there [55:25] and other things around communication [55:26] and all these things. Is there Is there [55:28] anything we haven't covered as it [55:29] relates to being a great leader in your [55:31] perspective? [55:33] Somebody who's calm under chaos, that [55:36] would be my definition of a leader. [55:38] However, and I say that because [55:40] leadership is a feeling, Steven. How do [55:43] you make these people feel as it relates [55:45] to my qualities as a leader? Do I do the [55:48] things that register with you as [55:51] leadership? Cuz I can tell you when I [55:52] was on a a SWAT team, which is the [55:54] special weapons and tactics, this is [55:56] where I learned the true essence of [55:58] leadership because I had some amazing [56:01] commanders [56:03] and and team leaders on that team were [56:05] under [56:06] high stress. Under a stress like that, [56:09] if you have people around you that are [56:11] keeping their composure, that's [56:12] leadership. [56:14] One of the elements there, I guess as [56:16] when you're in the SWAT as well as [56:17] dealing with huge amounts of uncertainty [56:19] when [56:20] pressure's on, when your life's at risk. [56:23] I was reading about a study which I [56:24] think you mentioned sometime ago [56:27] where they look at three groups of [56:28] people doing the same exam and we're [56:30] sort of trying to ascertain how people [56:32] make decisions with different degrees of [56:35] certainty and information. [56:36] >> Yeah, what the the study showed was [56:40] there were a group of students that, you [56:42] know, [56:42] were taking a test in college and they [56:45] were told that, you know, they had [56:46] either passed or failed or they had no [56:48] idea whether they passed or failed. But [56:51] prior to that, they were asked if they [56:52] would, you know, take a a vacation. And [56:55] the people who passed and the people who [56:56] failed, there was a higher percentage of [56:59] them who chose to take a vacation after [57:01] getting news that they had either passed [57:04] college or failed college. [57:06] The group that didn't know, there was a [57:07] third group that was just like, [57:10] I'm un- I'm unsure. [57:11] weren't able to really make a decision. [57:13] And and so what the what the [57:14] >> to be clear then on that third group, [57:15] they didn't have their exam results [57:17] back, so they didn't take the action to [57:19] book a vacation. [57:20] >> were told They were told that there was [57:22] some malfunction in ability to score [57:24] their test and they would get their [57:26] results at a later time. Okay. And so [57:28] then they were asked to, [57:30] you know, if they would also buy a [57:32] vacation. and uh a farther fewer [57:33] percentage, I don't remember what it [57:34] was, but a farther uh a much less [57:37] percentage of them would take it than [57:39] the people who both passed, cuz I think [57:41] there was like half the people who [57:43] passed or or were told they passed like [57:45] took the bought the vacation package. It [57:47] was like a vacation trip to Hawaii. [57:49] Around the same percentage, I believe, [57:51] who failed the exam bought the vacation [57:53] trip, but the people who [57:55] couldn't decide just they didn't have [57:57] the cognitive bandwidth to to really [57:58] make a decision. So, the ambiguity [58:01] of not knowing [58:03] really lessens our cognitive ability to [58:05] to go in a certain direction. And so, [58:08] when we don't know where to go, we often [58:10] don't go anywhere. [58:12] That is a hallmark of great leaders that [58:13] they're able to decide even when there's [58:16] very low certainty. Sure. I would think [58:18] that would come with [58:19] you know, the territory. I think if [58:21] you're if you're only a leader when it's [58:23] calm, then you're not really a leader, [58:26] you're somebody with a higher salary and [58:27] a title. Like leadership really shows up [58:30] in those type of circumstances when when [58:32] things are uncertain. And so, [58:34] you know, having the ability [58:37] to [58:39] manage things when not all the [58:40] information's there and doing the best [58:42] you can with it because, [58:44] you know, often times that the best [58:46] decision to make is the right one and [58:48] the worst one is to not make a decision [58:50] at all. And so, if you have those type [58:52] of leaders who just can't think through [58:53] that problem, then that's not a leader. [58:55] I remember when I spoke in South Paulo [58:57] many years ago, Barack Obama was on [58:58] stage and he said that as president, [59:00] like when he went and got Bin Laden in [59:02] that compound in Pakistan, [59:04] that they didn't know if Bin Laden was [59:06] there. They'd never visually properly [59:07] ID'd him. So, he had to make that [59:09] decision to risk American lives with, as [59:11] he said, 51% certainty. Yeah. Or a very [59:13] low certainty. And he says that's the [59:15] the thing about being the president of [59:17] the United States. You make huge calls [59:19] with very little certainty. Yeah. And [59:21] I've always thought about that in in [59:22] terms of my day-to-day life and [59:24] it all has made me conclude that [59:27] the most successful people that I've met [59:29] do have that ability to be low certainty [59:31] and make big calls. Yeah. Um with the [59:33] peace of mind that they've made that [59:34] call with the best available [59:35] information. And then the sort of [59:37] inverse of that is some people listening [59:40] right now [59:41] with even small decisions are trying to [59:43] get to 100% certainty when obviously [59:45] 100% certainty only exists in hindsight. [59:48] You know, and that that's that's a [59:49] really good that's a really good point. [59:51] I think that's a lot of people struggle [59:52] with that when it comes to just just own [59:54] your decision. Like like own it. Like [59:57] whatever you choose to do [60:00] if you if you make it not under high [60:02] emotion and you do the best you can with [60:04] the information that you have at that [60:06] time, make a decision. Like, you know, [60:08] as as they say it's you know, if you [60:10] make the wrong decision then it's [60:11] experience. If you make the right [60:12] decision then it's confirmation. [60:13] I think about this a lot. I think about [60:15] um how [60:16] maybe everyone listening could have a [60:18] conversation with themselves about their [60:20] own relationship with uncertainty. Like [60:22] how good are you dealing with situations [60:23] where you don't have much information? [60:25] Yeah. Um are you the type of person [60:27] that's able to make a decision and not [60:28] like sit in sit in paralysis and [60:31] many people that come up to me in the [60:32] street and say they want a new life or a [60:34] new this or new that [60:35] are um are choosing like the certain [60:38] misery of their current life versus the [60:41] uncertainty they see as they look out [60:42] into the void of like quitting the job [60:44] and going and playing violin in Peru or [60:46] something. [60:47] And um [60:49] You know, [60:50] you you you bring up you bring up [60:51] something that um so in one of our one [60:54] of our recent classes that we taught [60:56] this month, we talked about owning [60:57] decision, right? And I shared this story [61:00] with the community and it had a pretty [61:02] profound effect. And so [61:04] I was uh as a police officer I was on [61:06] patrol. It was late at night. I'm [61:09] driving down just this two-lane road [61:12] kind of in the middle of nowhere and I [61:14] pull over to the side and I'm just kind [61:16] of like watching from a from an angle [61:18] just people driving up and down this [61:19] road. [61:21] This car flies by, goes through a stop [61:22] sign, doesn't stop. It's a very nice [61:25] luxury sedan. So, I turn on my lights, [61:28] pull him over, and I said, "How you [61:30] doing?" And he's like, "I'm all right." [61:32] I could tell this guy is just like he's [61:33] flat drunk. And I shine my light into [61:36] his passenger, and he's just like he's [61:38] passed out. Like he has he has [61:40] he's not even coherent that I'm probably [61:42] standing there. So, I get his driver's [61:43] license and I'm like, "Look, man, you're [61:44] you're pretty bad off." And he's like, [61:47] "Are you going to call my dad?" And I [61:48] said, "Why would I do that?" He goes, [61:50] "Man, he goes this is his car. He's like [61:51] he's going to be upset." [61:53] I said, "All right." So, [61:55] I go back to my patrol car and I I I [61:57] look at this kid in terms of he's had no [61:59] priors. He's 16. He has no prior driving [62:02] record. So, I'm making So, what's my [62:04] decision now? I can call for a DWI unit [62:08] to come and and give this guy a field [62:09] sobriety test and he's going to fail [62:12] just because I could tell how drunk he [62:13] was. Or I could call his dad. [62:16] Now, I have to make a decision cuz I [62:18] have that type of discretion. So, I have [62:20] to think, do I take this kid to Do I [62:21] have this kid go to jail and tow his [62:23] dad's car? [62:25] Or do I call his dad and hope that's the [62:28] right decision because his dad will find [62:30] a way to make sure this doesn't happen [62:31] again. [62:32] So, I had our dispatch give me his phone [62:35] his parents' phone number and I called [62:36] his dad. It's 11:00 at night and [62:39] mom answers and I'm like, you know, [62:41] um you know, Mrs. Smith, this is, you [62:43] know, Deputy O'Neal. Um [62:46] I'm out here with your son, [62:48] Jacob. Oh my god, how is he? I'm like, [62:50] he's fine. And I'm like, I think he's [62:51] been drinking too much and I want to [62:54] know if you want to come get him. [62:55] She's like, "Can you talk to my [62:56] husband?" I said, "Sure." He gets on the [62:57] phone, same thing. And he's like, "Thank [63:00] you. [63:01] I will make sure this doesn't happen [63:02] again. I will be there in 5 minutes." [63:04] I have no idea what happens at the end [63:05] of this, but I made that decision at [63:07] that time. The reason I'm sharing this [63:09] is because when I told that story in our [63:11] community, [63:12] I asked everybody on the platform [63:14] because it's very engaging and I said, [63:16] "And Abby asked this question, [63:17] actually." And she said, "How many of [63:19] you would do the same thing Desmond [63:20] did?" Probably should give context there [63:21] that Evie is your wife. [63:23] >> Evie's my wife. I'm sorry. [63:23] >> I had to pump ours. Yes. A lot of people [63:25] put in the comments like, "I would do [63:26] the same thing. Good for him. The kid [63:28] shouldn't go to jail." And Evie was just [63:30] like, "I would do the exact opposite [63:32] thing. I would have taken him to jail. [63:35] I would have towed the car because I [63:37] don't know if the consequences of what [63:39] his dad would do is is going to outweigh [63:41] the fact that he's going to go to jail." [63:43] And she's like, "What if I let him go [63:45] and he does the same thing next week [63:46] because he's not [63:49] you know, he doesn't care what his [63:49] father thinks." [63:51] And she's like, "That to me was the [63:52] decision that I would have made." So, I [63:54] bring that up for this purpose. [63:56] We both made a completely different [63:58] decision. I made it for the reasons I [64:00] did. She made it for the reasons that [64:02] she did. Metaphorically, mine was true. [64:04] This is just what she said she would [64:05] have done. [64:07] The point was is that [64:09] we both owned it. [64:11] And a lot of times I think what happens [64:13] going back to what you just said is [64:15] people are so afraid to make a decision [64:18] for a number of different reasons. [64:20] And so they just choose not to. Now, [64:22] again, people could look at this you [64:23] know, your audience could look at this [64:24] and be like, "He should have taken him [64:25] to jail." I understand all of that. [64:28] I had the discretion and that's the [64:29] decision I made and I would make that [64:30] decision every time. But it's it's it's [64:33] less about that story and more about [64:36] when you decide on something with the [64:38] information you have at the moment, do [64:39] you own it? Or do you as you said, do [64:41] you look back later and have hindsight [64:43] bias and be like, "Ah, [64:45] I should have known." You can't do that. [64:47] So many people try to live their life in [64:48] reverse like that and looking back, it's [64:50] impossible. It's impossible to know. So, [64:53] I do think in kind of like to expand on [64:55] what you said, I do think when it talks [64:57] about owning your decisions and and [64:59] being [65:01] being thoughtful as it relates to [65:04] why you're doing or what you're doing [65:06] and [65:07] taking command of yourself and being [65:09] being a self-leader, decisions is making [65:12] that is is what it is. To go back to the [65:14] uncertainty aspects. [65:16] Protecting your business's data is a lot [65:18] scarier than people admit. You've got [65:19] the usual protections, backups, [65:21] security, but underneath there's this [65:23] uncomfortable truth that your entire [65:25] operation depends on systems that are [65:26] updating, syncing, and changing data [65:28] every second. Someone doesn't have to [65:30] hack you to bring everything crashing [65:31] down. All it takes is one corrupted [65:33] file, one workflow that fires in the [65:36] wrong direction, one automation that [65:37] overrides the wrong thing, or an AI [65:39] agent drifting off course, and suddenly [65:41] your business is offline. Your team is [65:43] stuck, and you're in damage control [65:45] mode. That's why so many organizations [65:47] use our sponsor, Rubrik. It doesn't just [65:49] protect your data, it lets you rewind [65:51] your entire system back to the moment [65:53] before anything went wrong. Wherever [65:55] that data lives, cloud, SaaS, or [65:57] on-prem, whether you have ransomware, an [65:59] internal mistake, or an outage, with [66:01] Rubrik you can bring your business [66:03] straight back. And with the newly [66:04] launched Rubrik Agent Cloud, companies [66:07] get visibility into what their AI agents [66:09] are actually doing, so they can set [66:11] guardrails and reverse them if they go [66:13] off track. Rubrik lets you move fast [66:15] without putting your business at risk. [66:17] To learn more, head to rubrik.com. [66:20] Last month, I told you about our [66:21] sponsor, Function Health, and their [66:23] team, who've developed a way of giving [66:24] you a full 360 view of what's going on [66:26] inside your body. They offer over 100 [66:28] advanced lab tests, covering everything [66:31] from hormones, toxins, inflammation, [66:33] heart health, stress, and so much more. [66:36] So, Jack, who started this show with me, [66:37] got his first blood draw done a couple [66:39] of weeks ago, so I thought I'd let him [66:40] tell you a little bit more about his [66:42] experience. This test really opened my [66:43] eyes to personally what I should be [66:45] doing with my health. I hear a lot of [66:46] information in this podcast. I sit in [66:48] every single recording. So, to know how [66:50] I can relate each one to me personally [66:52] is super valuable. You sign up, and you [66:54] schedule your tests, and once you're [66:55] done, you get a little report like the [66:57] one I have here. I can see my in-range [66:59] results, my out-of-range results, and [67:01] there's a little AI function, too. So, [67:02] if I have any questions about my [67:04] out-of-range results, I can just go in [67:06] there and ask it any question I want. [67:08] And these tests are backed by doctors [67:09] and thousands of hours of research. [67:11] >> an annual draw done and a mid-year [67:13] follow-up. So, if you want to learn [67:14] more, head over to [67:15] functionofhealth.com/doac [67:17] where you can sign up for $365 a year. [67:20] I'll put the link in the description [67:21] below. It is just $1 a day for your [67:24] health. [67:26] Of that research you've done on [67:28] communication, [67:31] is there anything we haven't talked [67:32] about today that really surprised you in [67:34] the research? [67:36] That really caused a paradigm shift in [67:37] what you thought communication was and [67:39] now what you think it is. Yeah. The [67:41] research showed that [67:43] your ability to build rapport with a [67:46] person [67:48] is what gives you the most power in [67:51] terms of that connection. And different [67:52] people, you know, And how do you build [67:54] rapport? [67:55] Most people think that this is one of [67:57] those things where you're just you're [68:00] just you're overly kind, you're very [68:02] complimentary. [68:03] Uh you're talking about the weather. And [68:05] now we've built rapport and then we're [68:06] good. It's not how you build rapport. [68:08] Rapport Rapport is understanding values [68:10] in terms of a person. Rapport is [68:12] understanding, you know, a person's [68:14] presence and what they're needing from [68:15] you. If I'm paying attention to you [68:19] and I'm engaged with you [68:20] and I'm making you feel seen and heard [68:23] and understood and by proxy by the [68:26] reciprocity of doing that, you do the [68:28] same thing for me, [68:30] that's rapport. [68:31] When it comes into [68:34] building rapport with somebody, [68:36] read the room. [68:38] If I came in and I have a list of [68:40] questions [68:41] and I see you that you're there's some [68:44] emotional state that you're showing, [68:46] if I want to connect with you, [68:48] I ask about that. I need to put my stuff [68:50] aside. Before I can have the [68:51] conversation I want to have, I probably [68:54] have to have the conversation you want [68:55] to have. And at that moment, it may be [68:57] understanding what is going on in your [68:58] headspace. I could say, "Hey, Stephen, [69:00] you know, I'm Desmond O'Neal. You know, [69:03] I know you were brought in this morning [69:04] for for these reasons. [69:06] It's obvious to me right now that you [69:08] seem really upset. Can you tell me [69:10] what's going on right now?" [69:12] And you could say, you know, "I don't [69:13] know what's going on. [69:15] I'm super scared. I've never been in [69:16] jail before. My mom's sick at home and I [69:18] don't know if there's anybody to take [69:19] care of her." Now, how much information [69:21] now do I have by the way that I can [69:22] connect with you? Because if you tell [69:24] me, [69:25] "I am freaked out. I don't know what's [69:26] going on." What do I now do? Do I go [69:28] back to be like, "Well, that sucks." and [69:29] go back to my list of questions? Or do I [69:32] say, "How best can I help you with [69:35] that?" [69:35] >> And this builds rapport. Yes. [69:37] Because what I'm doing is I'm showing [69:38] empathy. I'm listening to you. [69:40] I'm I'm giving you what you want. I'm [69:42] lessening your ambiguity. I'm orienting [69:44] you in terms of the direction that [69:46] you're asking me to take you. You're [69:48] asking me for clarity in terms of what's [69:49] going to happen. I'm going to answer [69:51] that. [69:51] I'm showing them that I am paying [69:53] attention to them. I'm being authentic. [69:54] I'm going to follow up with the things [69:56] that I do cuz I'm going to come back [69:57] later and be like, "Hey, we checked on [69:59] your mom. She was good. We pulled your [70:00] aunt in. Your aunt came and took care of [70:01] her. If anything else comes up, let me [70:03] know. I do have some questions that I [70:05] need to get to. This is an important [70:06] part of the investigation, but I I can [70:08] only imagine that there's a lot on your [70:10] mind and if things come up through our [70:11] conversation, please please ask me." [70:13] And that's rapport. In those situations, [70:15] I'm hearing [70:17] many of the things that I read in that [70:17] book Influence by Robert [70:19] >> Cialdini. Cialdini. [70:21] I'm hearing reciprocity. Yep. You've [70:23] done them a favor so now they're more [70:24] likely to answer your questions. [70:26] Reciprocity is [70:30] giving somebody something with with the [70:33] the expectation that somewhere in the [70:35] future they will give you something [70:36] else. It's not a transactional thing. [70:38] It's not like, "The only reason I'm [70:39] doing this [70:41] is because I want something from you in [70:43] exchange." That's [70:45] transaction. [70:47] So So when you [70:48] checked on that person's mom, that was [70:50] reciprocity. [70:52] That was me following up with the [70:53] commitment of saying that this is what [70:55] I'm going to do for you. You can do with [70:56] it what you want. [70:57] >> But you know that doing that is going to [70:59] increase the probability that they [71:00] answer your questions. [71:02] No, I do that regardless. I could have [71:05] He could have said, "You know what? I I [71:06] appreciate you. Thank you for checking [71:08] on my mom. [71:09] Um [71:10] I I want a lawyer. I don't want to talk [71:12] to you." You know what I'm going to do? [71:13] I'm going to check on his mom. You know [71:14] why? Cuz that's what I said I was going [71:16] to do. You know why? Because that's my [71:17] self-congruence. That's what I do as a [71:19] person when I give somebody my word I'm [71:21] going to follow up with it. So, in a [71:23] situation like that, I will do those [71:25] things because that's what he he's [71:26] That's what I've told him I'm going to [71:28] do. [71:29] Is there anything else on on the point [71:31] of having difficult conversations that [71:32] we haven't covered in your mind? Cuz I [71:34] know there's loads of people that they [71:36] want to get better at having those [71:37] tricky conversations and also just [71:39] dealing with [71:40] a thing we see a lot is like people very [71:42] keen to deal with difficult people. Is [71:44] there anything there that we haven't [71:45] touched on? We've got the plan [71:47] framework, but just [71:49] just want to check there's nothing we've [71:50] missed. No, I just think it was I just [71:52] think it was a plan framework and it's [71:53] not about making things complicated. [71:55] It's actually about you know, there's [71:57] there's things that you should take out, [71:59] you know, when it comes to [72:01] communication as opposed to always [72:03] adding things in. You know, it really [72:05] becomes like extinction before [72:07] acquisition. So, I can I can tell you [72:09] when it comes to better communication, [72:11] there are three things that you should [72:12] stop doing right now. [72:14] One of them is to stop trying to be [72:16] right. [72:17] One of them is to stop telling people [72:19] you understand. [72:21] And the third one is [72:22] stop giving people your unsolicited [72:24] opinion. [72:25] Now, to break those down, stop Stop [72:27] trying to be right. We talked about that [72:29] one a little bit. The The second one [72:31] is [72:32] stop telling people you understand. This [72:34] is what I mean by that. You can [72:35] understand You can understand a person's [72:37] words. [72:38] You will never understand their [72:39] headspace in terms of the specificity of [72:42] that. And so, what you will see is [72:45] if if you're sharing a story, like if [72:47] you shared a personal story with me. [72:48] Let's say, you know, let's say your [72:50] father had passed away. [72:51] And I'm like, you know what, Stephen, I [72:52] completely understand. [72:54] Um my dad passed away too when I was [72:56] young. So now we're connected. I have [72:58] just [73:01] I've just taken away [73:03] a moment for you because I made it about [73:05] me cuz I I thought that I understood [73:08] something that you had experienced. In [73:10] fact, your experience of a death or your [73:12] experience of your father at that moment [73:14] is going to be completely different than [73:15] mine. But for me to tell you that I [73:17] understand [73:18] is is short-sighted. My girlfriend tells [73:21] me sometimes that she wants me to say [73:23] that I understand. [73:25] And I think what she's saying is that [73:27] maybe she wants to feel understood. [73:31] And so she might be explaining how she [73:32] feels and then [73:34] if I say, "Do you know what? I I know I [73:35] I I do understand." [73:37] But do you? [73:39] Sometimes I get to the point where I I [73:40] do understand what she's saying. You [73:42] understand what she's saying, but do you [73:43] understand how she truly feels? [73:45] >> No. Okay. But that becomes cuz I don't [73:46] feel that. You don't feel it. [73:48] >> But she just wants me to acknowledge [73:49] >> She wants you to acknowledge it. So the [73:50] difference is in terms of it was being [73:52] genuine where you're like, "Look, I I [73:53] really understand how you feel." You [73:55] probably don't. [73:56] >> How do I make her feel understood in [73:57] that regard then without telling her I [73:59] understand? [74:01] To feel understood is to is to listen to [74:04] her, to be like, "Look, you know, I I [74:06] sounds sounds tough. Sounds, you know, [74:08] like this is something really on your [74:10] mind." Like and it kind of goes into our [74:11] other thing where like, "Stop giving [74:12] people your opinion." You know, if she's [74:14] if she's expressing things to you and [74:16] she's sharing how she wants to feel, [74:18] she's probably not looking for you to [74:19] tell her what to do unless she's asked [74:20] you for that. The first thing that we [74:22] always do and it happens all the time is [74:24] like, "Let me tell you what I think." [74:25] Try and fix it. Try to fix it without [74:27] having all of the the emotions and the [74:29] the complexities of why it's not being [74:32] done. And so to go back to with your [74:34] girlfriend, it really is just a matter [74:36] of trying to understand, seeing where [74:37] she's going with it, asking her, you [74:39] know, if there ways that that, you know, [74:41] we can we can work to make it better or [74:43] help you with this. But if Stephen is [74:45] she's just like, "I I want you to [74:46] understand." I would just tell her I [74:47] understand. Just because that's what [74:49] she's looking for. [74:50] You're not going to have it in there, [74:52] but if you generally went to somebody [74:53] and you're like, oh, I understand, [74:55] that's what I'm asking you not to do. [74:57] That's what you shouldn't do. [74:58] You shouldn't generally think that you [75:00] truly understand another person because [75:01] then you're going like you're convinced [75:02] that you know and you're no longer [75:03] curious in terms of how they actually [75:05] feel. Mhm. [75:08] And on that last point about giving [75:09] giving the opinion, a lot of the time [75:11] people, you know, when they're sharing [75:13] something, they [75:15] just want you to create the space. Simon [75:17] Sinek said to me, he goes, most of the [75:19] time people just want you to sit in the [75:20] mud with them. [75:21] And like, I I naturally show up with [75:23] like my toolbox to try and fix the [75:24] situation, but a lot of the time, [75:25] especially with my my girlfriend, maybe [75:27] she just wants me to listen. [75:29] Most people do, right? It becomes like [75:31] this identity headspace where people [75:33] just are looking for the sounding board. [75:35] For you, for your girlfriend, like [75:36] you're the you're the guy, you're the [75:38] person, and that's what she comes to you [75:39] for. That's your job in a lot of ways. [75:41] And I don't mean that in a negative [75:42] thing, but it's just one of those things [75:43] where if that's what she needs from you, [75:45] then that's what you give her. And a lot [75:46] of people just want as as as Simon Sinek [75:48] said, where you said it like, just sit [75:49] in the mud with them, and that's what [75:50] they're ask you. If she turns to you and [75:52] says, "Steven, what would you do here?" [75:55] then she's asking you. But if not, then [75:57] don't give it. [75:59] Something I need to work on. [76:01] Yeah, we all do. [76:02] Yeah, cuz you cuz you I don't know, [76:04] something about maybe the male brain, [76:06] but it's probably not just men. [76:08] Can I talk real quick and just about our [76:09] training community before we go? Is that [76:11] okay with you? [76:11] >> Yep. [76:12] Because it is one of those where like [76:14] now [76:15] uh what I spend all my time with is is [76:18] I'm an instructor for Beyond [76:19] Bulletproof, which is a training [76:21] platform that that Evy and I that Evy [76:23] and I host, and it really comes down to [76:25] three prongs of how do people helping [76:29] people think, helping people act, and [76:31] helping people lead with purpose. And I [76:33] know we talked about those things, but [76:34] the reason I bring that up is because [76:36] there are so many people, Steven, that [76:38] just as you had talked about, they're [76:39] they're looking for [76:41] they're looking for some help, they're [76:42] looking for some clarity, they're [76:43] looking for somebody to influence them [76:45] in some way because they don't have good [76:48] emotional regulation and they're trying [76:49] to get better in their relationships. [76:51] We've been fortunate to to have that and [76:53] that's kind of where, you know, I don't [76:55] I don't do a lot of social media, you [76:56] know, I don't do [76:58] uh a lot of other other things cuz I [77:00] spend my time here. As you know, we have [77:02] a closing tradition on the podcast where [77:04] the last guest leaves a question for the [77:05] next. And the question that's been left [77:06] for you is [77:09] what decision do you most regret and [77:12] would things have turned out better if [77:15] you had made it differently? [77:18] Ouch, that's a spicy one. [77:20] So, [77:22] I hm [77:26] as much as this wants to be a spicy one, [77:28] I can I can categorically tell you that [77:30] there's not a decision that I've made [77:32] that I wish I would have re- made [77:33] different. And I say that because it [77:35] kind of goes back to [77:37] I own my decisions in terms of the [77:39] things that I have done. I mean, even [77:40] when the story that I shared about, you [77:41] know, when I was a police officer with [77:42] the kid who was drinking, like, I own [77:44] those decisions and [77:46] in truth, like, all of those decisions [77:49] have manifested itself for me to sit [77:51] down here with you today and have this [77:52] conversation. And so, I can't tell you [77:54] that there's something that I look back [77:55] to that I regret because I think that [77:57] there's things we learn from, but I [77:58] think for the most part, I don't use [78:00] hindsight bias. I don't look back to say [78:02] I wish there was something else. I use [78:03] those things to uh to grow and to learn [78:06] and be better and you know, had I made a [78:08] different decision, maybe you and I [78:09] wouldn't be sitting here. So, none. [78:11] But you still I mean, if someone asked [78:13] me that, I'd have loads of answers. Like [78:15] what? Just like ways that I handled [78:17] situations in my life as an employer. [78:19] Like, actually, no, I shouldn't have [78:20] shouldn't have said that. Shouldn't have [78:21] done that. I Do you know when my [78:22] girlfriend said that, do you know, I [78:24] should have just listened. And I wish I [78:25] had because I think our relationship [78:27] would be better or [78:29] you know, some grudge I held or [78:31] whatever, you know, like the the [78:32] messiness of being a but emotional [78:35] human. So, let me let me ask this. And I [78:38] think you know, [78:40] I I do question at times that that type [78:43] of I wish and I regret, [78:45] I think that also changes [78:47] who you are as a person. If you're like, [78:49] I would have gone back and done the We [78:51] We can all do that in some And I don't [78:53] mean that's petty, but in all some petty [78:54] way. When I was writing my my thesis, [78:57] I would always come to my thesis advisor [78:58] and she'd be like, "No, this isn't good. [78:59] This isn't good. This isn't good." And [79:01] so, when I was done, [79:03] there was like I had like 30 pages She [79:04] was like, "Just put this in the parking [79:05] lot. Like, maybe we'll look at this, [79:07] maybe we won't." So, when I was done [79:08] with my thesis, I had 30 pages that were [79:11] in the parking lot. And I went to her [79:12] and I go, "I feel like this is [79:14] a lot of mistakes." And she goes, "You [79:15] had to have this [79:16] to have this." And so, when when I hear [79:20] that, when it's just like, "Oh, I wish I [79:21] would have done these things different." [79:22] You would be a different person, right? [79:24] It's all those perspectives. It's all [79:26] those little things that you code and [79:27] become a different person. You would be [79:29] a different person if you had done those [79:30] things differently. I'm not saying [79:31] better or worse, but I'm saying I don't [79:33] I don't think that's a reason to look [79:34] back and regret things. Yeah, I probably [79:37] would still have those mistakes in my [79:38] future if I hadn't made them in the past [79:40] as well. So, maybe maybe the very fact [79:42] that I can identify them means that my [79:43] self-awareness grew based on them. I [79:47] like I'm never going to treat someone [79:48] like that again, or I'm never going to [79:49] say that thing again because [79:51] I learned the lesson, so I'm a better [79:52] person [79:53] today because of that. Yeah. [79:56] Desmond, thank you. Thank you. Thank you [79:57] so much for doing what you do. And uh [79:59] this is you you said this is your first [80:00] podcast, which is [80:02] exciting. [80:02] >> It's my first podcast. Thank you so [80:04] much. We're done. [80:08] >> If there's anything we need, it is [80:10] connection, especially in the world [80:12] we're living in today. And that is [80:13] exactly why we created these [80:15] conversation cards, because on this [80:17] show, when I sit here with my guest and [80:18] have those deep, intimate conversations, [80:21] this remarkable thing happens time and [80:23] time again. We feel deeply connected to [80:26] each other. At the end of every episode, [80:28] the guest I'm interviewing leaves a [80:29] question for the next guest, and we've [80:31] turned them into these conversation [80:33] cards. And we've added these twist cards [80:35] to make your conversations even more [80:37] interesting. And there are so many more [80:39] twists along the way with the [80:40] conversation cards. This is the brand [80:42] new edition, and for the first time [80:43] ever, I've added to the pack this gold [80:45] card, which is an exclusive question [80:48] from me. But, I'm only putting the gold [80:50] cards in the first run of conversation [80:53] cards. So, get yours now before the [80:55] limited edition gold cards are all gone. [80:57] Head to the link in the description [80:58] below.