## Background
Published by The Diary Of A CEO with Steven Bartlett on YouTube on December 15, 2025, this episode features Harvard behavioral scientist Professor Alison Wood Brooks. The video description highlights her conversational framework and research-backed insights into overcoming communication anxiety, improving negotiation skills, and creating genuine connections.
## TL;DR
Professor Alison Wood Brooks breaks down the science of human interaction, introducing her T-A-L-K framework (Topics, Asking, Levity, Kindness) to help listeners navigate high-stakes and daily conversations. She explores practical communication tactics, including reframing performance anxiety, using follow-up questions to build rapport, and practicing strategic authenticity in workplace environments. The discussion also touches on the limits of AI in human dialogue and the critical role of face-to-face connection in modern relationships.
## Atmosphere & style
The conversation carries an engaging, intellectually curious, and warmly conversational tone between Steven Bartlett and Professor Brooks. It balances rigorous academic research with deeply practical human insights, creating a dynamic that feels both educational and intimate. The dialogue flows seamlessly from lighthearted reflections to vulnerable discussions about connection, making the deep dive into behavioral science feel accessible and immediately applicable.
## Key takeaways
- [47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2873s) Status is built on two key psychological dimensions: warmth/charm (which generates likability) and competence (which commands admiration and respect).
- [49:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2989s) The T-A-L-K Framework provides a practical system for conversation, standing for Topics, Asking, Levity, and Kindness.
- [49:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2994s) Spending 10 to 30 seconds prepping topics before a conversation reduces anxiety, lowers filler words like 'um' and 'uh', and prevents accidental blurting.
- [49:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2994s) The Topic Pyramid moves from Small Talk (entry-level ritual) to Tailored Talk (personalized topics) and ultimately Deep Talk (peak connection unique to the dyad).
- [01:01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3665s) Asking follow-up questions is a primary driver of connection because it makes the other person feel validated and heard, whereas 'boomerang asking' immediately pulls focus back onto oneself.
- [01:07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4033s) Rapid vocal agreement like 'yeah, yeah, yeah' during meetings is often used as a covert tactic to silence speakers and seize conversational control.
- [01:17:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4626s) Expressing levity and warmth combats conversational boredom and re-engages listeners, whose minds wander approximately 25% of the time during typical talk.
- [01:20:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4817s) Callbacks demonstrate active listening and memory retention while offering an effective, warm exit strategy for closing conversations.
- [01:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5223s) In group dynamics, dominating airtime without subject-matter expertise or making low-value commentary penalties an individual's contribution score, causing others to discount their future input.
- [01:58:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7087s) People frequently conflate agreement with listening; using validating prompts like 'Tell me more' or 'It makes sense that you feel this way' acknowledges perspective without faking agreement.
- [01:58:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7110s) True persuasion relies on building trust through deep listening, targeted follow-up questions, and validation rather than delivering a high-pressure pitch.
- [02:02:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7335s) In the era of automated AI communications, intentionally keeping human flaws or using face-to-face interaction is critical to maintaining authenticity and trust.
- [01:59:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7149s) 'Strategic authenticity' involves adapting delivery and conversational tone to the context without abandoning one's core values.
- [02:05:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7537s) Communication audits show that face-to-face interactions remain the only medium that feels fully 'real' both live and in memory.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=0s) Introduction and The Promise of Effective Communication
Professor Alison Wood Brooks, a behavioral scientist at Harvard, opens the conversation with Steven Bartlett by introducing a foundational truth: everyone wants to be better liked, yet few know how to execute it scientifically. She teaches a Harvard course titled *Talk* and wrote the bestselling book *Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves*.
Steven asks what practical value listeners will gain from this episode. Alison explains that because all of life centers on relationships—and relationships are built on talking—mastering even a single strategy can transform work, romance, friendships, and overall productivity. While adults assume conversation should come naturally because they have practiced it since toddlerhood, Alison stresses that looking "under the hood" reveals immense cognitive complexity. This hidden friction explains why people frequently end up awkward, defensive, hostile, or boring.
- **Participant background:** Alison Wood Brooks is a Harvard professor and behavioral scientist with two decades of experience researching conversational dynamics.
- **The Core Premise:** Talking feels intuitive, but effective conversation requires deliberate strategy to overcome missteps and social anxiety.
---
[04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=264s) The Anxiety of Giving Wrong Impressions and Group Dynamics
The discussion shifts to the internal anxiety people experience when attempting to make a good impression. Steven admits that despite hosting a major podcast, he frequently feels nervous, gets paralyzed when meeting new people (like the families of his team members), and endlessly ruminates over awkward interactions weeks after they happen. Alison points out that high achievers and C-suite executives are often the most self-aware about their conversational missteps because they recognize how vital communication has been to their success.
Steven shares that he identifies as an introvert who prefers being alone or around familiar people. When he leaves his home, he experiences mild paranoia and feels "on edge," which causes him to shut down socially when he actually wants to appear open. Furthermore, he confesses his intense dislike for small talk and large gatherings, recalling an instance where he turned down an invitation from one of the world's most prestigious individuals because he could not stomach being in a room with 100 people for four hours. Alison validates his reaction, explaining that large group conversations are cognitively overwhelming because tracking who should talk, when, and about what requires immense mental effort compared to intimate one-on-one dialogues.
- **Cognitive Load:** Group conversations require managing complex social structures, making them significantly more exhausting than one-on-one interactions.
- **Introversion vs. Expression:** Social anxiety often causes individuals to appear closed off when they actually desire authentic connection.
---
[10:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=617s) Studying Communication through the Lens of Identical Twins
Alison details her personal trajectory and how her upbringing shaped her scientific focus. Raised in upstate New York, she loved team sports and female friendships. Crucially, being an identical twin to her sister, Sarah, provided a unique vantage point on human behavior.
Having an identical twin felt like having another version of herself navigating the world in real time. Watching Sarah fail taught Alison what to avoid, while watching Sarah land a great joke or handle a question proved to Alison that she possessed the exact same capability due to their shared genetic makeup and shared environment. This subconscious realization fueled her lifelong desire to help non-twins achieve that same deep level of mutual understanding and connection through optimized conversation.
- **Research Scale:** Alison notes that despite fields like social psychology existing for decades, few researchers had bothered to transcribe and analyze real, large-scale conversations until she began her work 15 years ago.
- **Twin Dynamics:** Observing an identical twin served as an early, natural laboratory for studying social risk, success, and conversational mechanics.
---
[12:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=746s) The Science of Reframing Anxiety as Excitement
Alison outlines her foundational research on social anxiety, which began during her graduate studies 20 years ago. Rather than focusing on clinical anxiety requiring therapy or medication, she investigated the everyday social anxiety people experience in high-stakes environments like public speaking, advice-seeking, and negotiations.
Her key scientific breakthrough—detailed in her landmark paper *"Get Excited"*—was demonstrating that individuals can reframe anxiety as excitement. Mechanically, anxiety and excitement are nearly identical state-wise: both are high-arousal emotions characterized by elevated heart rate, elevated cortisol, high energy, and sweaty palms. Trying to force oneself to "calm down" from anxiety requires moving from high arousal to low arousal, which is extremely difficult. However, reframing anxiety as excitement keeps the high arousal state intact while shifting the mind's cognitive appraisal from a focus on **threats** to a focus on **opportunities**. Saying the words "I'm excited" out loud directly alters performance for the better.
- **Cultural Impact:** Alison’s research on anxiety reappraisal was featured directly in a scene in the Disney-Pixar film *Inside Out*, where the character Joy redirects panic into positive scenario planning.
- **Negotiation Pitfalls:** In her 2011 "Nervous Nellie" negotiation study, Alison proved that when people feel anxious during negotiations, their default impulse is to escape the discomfort—either by making immediate, unnecessary financial concessions or by exiting the deal entirely.
<ElicitationsGroup message="Where should we explore next?">
<Elicitation label="Explore the TALK Framework" query="Tell me about the TALK framework for mastering conversations mentioned in the show notes."/>
<Elicitation label="Learn Salary Negotiation Tactics" query="How can I apply Alison's research to ask for a salary raise effectively?"/>
</ElicitationsGroup>
[14:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=891s) Reframing Anxiety into Excitement
Saying "I'm excited" out loud directly flips a person's mindset from focusing on potential threats to seeking opportunities. This simple verbal intervention has dramatic downstream consequences: it improves public speaking, leads to better singing performances, and fosters more effective collaboration.
In a study where participants were brought in and told they had to sing karaoke in front of an audience, the researchers tested this mechanic directly. Before taking the stage, an experimenter asked participants how they felt, directing some to reply "I'm anxious" and others to say "I'm excited." Software measuring their singing revealed that those who uttered "I'm excited" sang significantly better—staying more in tempo, on pitch, and in rhythm—compared to those who stated they were anxious.
* **Boundary Conditions:** While this shift works well when torn on the margin between feeling nervous or excited (e.g., taking an exam or playing basketball), it cannot fix profound distress or terminal real-world tragedy.
* **The Upward Spiral Effect:** Consistently repeating this habit before high-stakes events (such as late-night TV appearances or interviewing high-profile guests like Bill Gates) builds an accumulating, positive upward momentum over time.
---
[18:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1113s) The Impact of Anxiety on Negotiation Performance
Anxiety is the baseline state for most people entering a negotiation because of the intense, high-stakes environment. Studies show that when people experience unmanaged anxiety during these interactions, they suffer poor outcomes: they are far more likely to leave the conversation prematurely, lower their expectations, or make unnecessary financial concessions just to alleviate their internal discomfort.
To combat this during raise negotiations, individuals need to establish personal power. One of the strongest strategies is strengthening your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), such as securing a competing job offer before entering the meeting. If you lack a strong BATNA, you must realistically assess your leverage and ask investigative questions beforehand to ensure you are speaking to the right decision-maker and verifying the company's budget.
* **The Mindset Shift:** Rather than making aggressive demands ("I deserve more money"), the most effective way to earn a raise is to prioritize what the boss and organization find valuable, making yourself indispensable so that compensation follows naturally.
* **The "K" in TALK:** Kindness in communication is not purely altruistic; it functions as a reciprocal loop where providing value to others naturally results in getting what you want in return.
---
[24:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1466s) The Conversational Compass
To navigate complex dialogue, speakers can plot their underlying motivations on a two-axis grid called the "Conversational Compass":
```
High Informational
│
Connection │ Efficiency
│
Low Relational ──────────┼────────── High Relational
│
Savoring │ Fun
│
Low Informational
```
The horizontal axis tracks relational goals, ranging from low relational (self-serving motivations, like offloading personal guilt) to high relational (serving the partner or relationship, such as ensuring someone feels understood). The vertical axis measures informational exchange, ranging from low informational (where precise facts are secondary to emotional comfort or time constraints) to high informational (exchanging accurate, clear data).
* **Beyond Transactional Talk:** A common mistake in communication is treating every conversation as a high-informational exchange where speakers merely bounce facts back and forth; lower-informational quadrants like savoring or having fun are equally vital.
* **Navigating All Four Quadrants:** Effective communicators do not stay in just one area of the compass; each quadrant serves a distinct positive purpose depending on the situation's constraints and relational goals.
[30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1820s) Navigating the Conversational Compass
Alison Wood Brooks continues breaking down the four quadrants of her Conversational Compass model. While many of her Harvard students hyper-focus on the top-right quadrant—treating conversations as purely task-oriented vehicles for persuasion, decision-making, and brainstorming—they often overlook the essential prosocial and relational dimensions. She stresses that if people do not enjoy simply being together, they will not look forward to future interactions, whether in a professional setting or in their personal lives.
```
HIGH INFORMATIONAL
│
Persuasion │ Connection
Decision-Making │ Relationship Building
Brainstorming │ Shared Joy / Savoring
│
LOW ────────────────────────┼──────────────────────── HIGH
RELATIONAL │ RELATIONAL
│
Protection │ Discernment
Concealing / Secrets │ Protecting Reputation
Time Management │ Making Good Impressions
│
LOW INFORMATIONAL
```
In contrast, the lower-left quadrant represents **protection** and **discernment**: guarding one's time, maintaining confidentiality, moving conversations along efficiently, and managing one's reputation to appear capable, warm, calm, and trustworthy. While staying on the right side of the compass (prosocial and relational) is a virtuous goal for building strong bonds, Brooks notes that no one can live there exclusively. Managing relationships effectively requires moving fluidly across all four quadrants based on practical needs and context.
- **The Four Quadrants**:
- **Upper-Right**: Prosocial / High Informational (Connecting, bonding, enjoying mutual company).
- **Lower-Left**: Protection / Discernment (Guarding time, keeping secrets, managing self-impression).
- **Upper-Left**: High Informational / Self-Serving or Task-Focused (Persuading, deciding, brainstorming).
- **Lower-Right**: Relational / High Trust (Sustaining long-term connection through mutual respect and confidentiality).
- **Core Principle**: Successful communicators move fluidly across the compass rather than locking into a single quadrant.
---
[32:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1951s) The Anatomy of an Effective Apology
Turning to apologies, Steven Bartlett references a past personal experience where he needed to apologize to his partner. He describes his approach as purely relational: keeping it simple without offering lengthy justifications, excuses, or defenses—just directly taking ownership by admitting he messed up. Brooks strongly validates this strategy, noting that standard instincts lead most people to re-examine the original issue and make excuses, which reduces the apology's effectiveness.
The most critical component of a successful apology, according to Brooks, is making a concrete, measurable **promise to change**. By offering a clear plan for how behavior will differ in the future, the speaker allows the recipient to evaluate follow-through over time. Regarding frequency, Brooks highlights research showing that apologizing more than twice in a single conversation backfires, serving only as an unwanted reminder of the transgression. However, in extreme contexts like parole hearings, data reveals that higher apology frequency combined with specific action plans (e.g., enrolling in AA or securing housing) significantly increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
- **Key Components of a Powerful Apology**:
- Direct ownership without excuses or re-hashings of the conflict.
- A clear, measurable promise to change future behavior.
- **Frequency Insights**:
- *Casual/Everyday*: More than two apologies in a single discussion creates a negative loop by repeatedly reminding the listener of the offense.
- *High-Stakes/Parole Hearings*: Frequent apologies coupled with concrete plans for reform directly correlate with higher rates of parole approval.
---
[35:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2101s) Reconceptualizing "Difficult Conversations" and the Layers of the Earth Model
When Steven asks how to prepare for difficult conversations—noting that avoiding them often causes the most harm—Brooks offers a fresh perspective. She cautions against viewing conversation as cleanly split into "easy" and "difficult" categories. Instead, she conceptualizes every interaction as a dynamic landscape containing potential "moments of difference" across multiple subterranean layers.
```
[ Words & Sounds ] ← Surface Level (What is said)
──────────────────────────────
[ Emotions ] ← Feeling excited vs. tired/bored
[ Motives ] ← Competing goals on the Compass
[ Beliefs ] ← Opposing stances (e.g., AI vs. Immigration)
==============================
[ IDENTITIES ] ← Deep "Hot Magma" (Culture, Nationality, Core Self)
```
Using a **"Layers of the Earth"** analogy, she places spoken words at the surface, underlain by emotional states (e.g., one person feels energetic while the other feels exhausted), individual motives (competing goals on the Conversational Compass), foundational beliefs, and finally, the "hot magma" of core identity (such as nationality or fundamental self-concept). Fleeting moments of friction can occur at any layer during routine interactions—whether on a date, on a drive with a spouse, or while watching a movie with friends. The essential skill lies in managing these thermal spikes before the conversational temperature gets too hot.
- **Layers of Difference**:
- **Surface**: Words, sounds, and active phrasing.
- **Emotions**: Incongruent moods (e.g., excitement vs. fatigue).
- **Motives**: Differing conversational goals (e.g., wanting to give advice vs. wanting to vent).
- **Beliefs**: Contradictory viewpoints on real-world topics.
- **Identities**: Core personal and cultural identification ("hot magma").
---
[37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2237s) Conversational Receptiveness and "The Validation Trick"
To handle moments of disagreement effectively, Brooks introduces the concept of **conversational receptiveness**, grounded in research by Julia Minson, Mike Yeomans, and Hannah Collins. Receptiveness involves overriding the natural urge to judge opposing views as "crazy" or to treat disagreements as battles to be won. Engaging in accusation and defense modes destroys connection and locks participants out of their primary conversational goals.
To counteract this defensive posture, Brooks advocates using explicit emotional validation before offering any counterpoint. Even when confronted with an absurd statement—such as someone asserting the sky is purple—one should validate the underlying feeling or perspective using phrases like, *"It makes sense that you feel X about Y."* Validate the emotion rather than endorsing a false fact (noting the distinction between validating *feeling* versus validating *thinking*). This validation helps the other person feel secure, signaling that you are joining them on "their side of the table" to explore the issue together rather than attacking them.
> "Validation... we are all so hungry for validation that even ridiculous validation feels amazing."
- **Core Researchers**: Julia Minson, Mike Yeomans, and Hannah Collins.
- **The Validation Formula**: Use *"It makes sense that you feel [X] about [Y]"* to acknowledge emotional realities before addressing differences.
- **Classroom Insight**: In Harvard training exercises, students report that receiving explicit validation feels remarkably comforting and constructive, even when they know it is part of a structured exercise.
---
[41:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2506s) The Trap of "I Disagree" and the Neurobiology of Opposition
Steven shares an anecdote about a former employee whose immediate response to any new idea was to open with, *"I disagree."* He recalls how instantly this phrase raised his defenses, pointing out the irony that such language completely undermines the speaker's goal of persuasion. Brooks agrees, explaining that genuine persuasion rarely happens through blunt confrontation; rather, it occurs gradually over time through gentle, trusted interactions. Opening with an explicit contradiction triggers an immediate threat response.
Reflecting on research by neuroscientist Tali Sharot, Brooks and Steven discuss what happens in the brain during moments of explicit opposition. Brain-imaging studies demonstrate that active disagreement is cognitively taxing and causes neurological "alarm bells" to go off. When a speaker hears *"I disagree,"* brain activity associated with open receptiveness drops significantly, effectively shutting down the listener's willingness to process new information.
To keep conversations constructive, Brooks recommends several strategic framing techniques:
- **Avoid Direct Negation**: Refrain from starting statements with *"I disagree"* or asserting facts with absolute certainty.
- **Use Hedging Language**: Frame points with openness (e.g., *"I wonder if..."* or *"Is it possible that..."*).
- **Divide Yourself into Parts**: Hold multiple perspectives simultaneously to maintain rapport. For example:
- *"As your friend, I find that idea fascinating, but as a manager, I have a few practical questions."*
- *"As your daughter, I hear where you're coming from, but as a representative of Gen Z, my peers might see it differently."*
<ElicitationsGroup message="Explore more conversational strategies from Alison Wood Brooks:">
{/* Reason: The user is engaged in learning Brooks's specific communication frameworks, so providing options to explore her other core tools is a helpful next step. */}
<Elicitation label="Explain the TALK Framework" query="What is the TALK framework mentioned by Professor Alison Wood Brooks, and how do you apply it in conversation?"/>
<Elicitation label="How to Reframe Anxiety into Excitement" query="Explain Professor Alison Wood Brooks's research on reframing anxiety into excitement using the single word 'I am excited'."/>
</ElicitationsGroup>
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this transcript section:
[45:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2750s) The Power of "Yes, And" over "But"
The conversation opens with a discussion on how to handle disagreements without ruining a relationship or creating immediate hostility. Instead of launching into an argument with "I disagree," the speakers advocate for validating the other person's perspective first—using phrases like "that's so intriguing" or "it makes sense that you might feel that way." Steven shares an anecdote about a woman named Anne who consistently replaced the word "but" with "yes, and" during conversations. Even when Anne was expressing a total disagreement, framing it this way completely transformed the interaction.
Alison explains that while "yes, and" is famous as an improv comedy technique, comedians actually stumbled upon a deep psychological truth about human connection. Approaching conversations from a "yes, and" mindset means giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, even when their ideas sound slightly crazy. Failing to validate people in those moments is "how we kill our relationships." Steven asks if society needs to eliminate the word "but" entirely, noting that using "but" acts like an eraser over whatever compliment or validation was just offered. Alison enthusiastically agrees, joking that she would love to eliminate "but with one T." Using "but" signals to the other person that you were merely waiting for your turn to speak and holding an antagonistic stance on the tip of your tongue.
[47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2873s) Likability, Status, and Introducing the T-A-L-K Framework
Steven notes that viewers and listeners deeply care about likability—they want to know what makes people disliked and how to build rapport. Alison explains that likability is a core component of status, which is built on respect, admiration, and liking. She breaks this down into two psychological dimensions:
* **Warmth & Charm:** Generates feelings of being liked.
* **Competence:** Generates admiration and respect.
Ideally, people want to project both warmth and competence simultaneously. To structure how to achieve this across all interactions, Alison introduces her **T-A-L-K Framework**, calling it "the most comprehensive, teachable, practical, scientifically rigorous framework in the world for communication." She reflects that when she wrote her book, she did not state its power strongly enough, but now realizes its unique value:
* It covers *all* conversations (casual, fun, and everyday interactions), not just high-stakes or difficult ones.
* Its underlying methodology utilizes natural language processing and machine learning, allowing both humans and AI to use it as a rubric to coach and evaluate conversation quality.
[49:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2994s) "T" is for Topics: Prepping and Moving Up the Topic Pyramid
Alison breaks down the first letter of the framework: **T for Topics**. Topics are the fundamental building blocks of conversation. While people assume topic choices only happen at the start of an interaction (like an opening line), we are actually making micro-decisions to stay on or switch topics every time we speak. Recognizing this gives speakers immense agency to guide the conversation.
To improve conversation quality and lower cognitive load in real time, Alison strongly advocates for **topic prep**. This does not mean writing a rigid script, but taking 10 to 30 seconds before a call or meeting to think about what to discuss or ask.
* Alison shares that she practiced this right before the interview by preparing questions for Steven's team member, Cassie, about moving from London to LA and working with Steven.
* In her research, randomly assigning people to prep topics for just 30 seconds resulted in conversations that felt significantly less anxious and much smoother, with fewer disfluencies ("um"s, "uh"s, and stutters), broader topic coverage, and less accidental "blurting" of unwanted information.
* Practical habit: Adding two or three quick bullet points into a Google Calendar invite days or weeks in advance when an idea pops into your head (e.g., asking a friend about their child's guitar lessons or a major work presentation).
Alison then introduces her classroom exercise on likability, where she asks students to rate behaviors on a 1-to-10 scale:
* **1/10 Likability:** Walking in quietly, staring at a phone, ignoring people, making snide remarks, being rude, taking phone calls to boast about oneself, interrupting, or getting someone's name wrong.
* **5/10 Likability:** Being bland or "blasé"—engaging without offense, but lingering on generic, unpersonalized small talk.
* **10/10 Likability:** Showing total focus, giving sincere compliments, cracking genuine jokes, remembering personal details (like grandchildren's names), and moving up the topic hierarchy.
```
/ \
/ \ Deep Talk (Peak connection, unique to the dyad)
/ \
/-------\ Tailored Talk (Personalized, relevant to interests)
/---------\
/ \ Small Talk (Entry-level social ritual; weather, etc.)
/-------------\
```
Alison clarifies that small talk is not bad—it serves as a necessary social ritual to signal "we are having a conversation now." However, the major mistake people make is lingering there too long. After a single beat of small talk, speakers should transition into tailored talk or deep talk. Steven admits he used to scare off girls at age 11 by texting them about the meaning of life on his mother's old Nokia phone; Alison responds that his impulse was correct, but his pacing was off.
[59:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3570s) "A" is for Asking: The Power of Question-Asking
Alison transitions to the second letter of the framework: **A for Asking**. Topics and asking are deeply intertwined because asking a question is the most common tool people use to switch topics or dive deeper into the topic pyramid via follow-up questions.
While asking questions sounds obvious, doing it effectively in practice is a rare skill. Research demonstrates that strong question-askers experience higher success across multiple domains:
* More successful on romantic dates.
* More effective in business meetings and team collaborations.
* Higher success rates for entrepreneurs seeking investment funding.
The single crucial piece of advice for most people is simply to ask more questions and avoid being a "zero question asker." People who ask zero questions on a first date or in a pitch meeting alienate their counterpart, fail to gather crucial information, and rarely get a second date or funding opportunity.
[01:01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3665s) Asking Questions on Dates and the Power of Follow-Ups
When going on a first date, two people have everything to learn about one another, making question-asking an essential tool. Research involving a thousand speed dates shows a dramatic correlation: individuals who ask more questions are significantly more likely to be requested for a second date. In fact, the data reveals that across twenty first dates, asking just one extra question per date is enough to convert an additional date into a second date. While this pattern holds true for both men and women, it is particularly impactful for men because they ask fewer questions on average, whereas men are also generally less discerning and more likely to agree to second dates overall.
Asking questions makes the other person feel heard and demonstrates genuine interest, while also providing the information needed to ask even better follow-up questions. Indeed, the benefits of asking questions are almost entirely driven by the power of follow-ups. Alison illustrates this with an example where she tells Steven about taking a morning walk down the Sunset Strip, reaching a crossroads where she had to decide between viewing cultured landmarks (the Frank Lloyd Wright house and Marilyn Monroe's apartment) or giving in to morbid curiosity by seeing the Menendez brothers' house. When Steven responds with curiosity and asks which route she chose, she notes that his supportive follow-up question made her feel validated rather than embarrassed about sharing vulnerable personal details.
- **Speed Dating Study**: Conducted by a Stanford research group roughly 10 years prior, analyzing transcripts from 1,000 speed dates to measure question counts against second-date outcomes.
- **Conversion Metric**: Asking just one additional question per date increases second-date conversion across a sample of 20 dates.
- **Gender Dynamics**: Men ask significantly fewer questions on average on dates compared to women, but are less discerning about agreeing to second dates.
[01:05:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3910s) The Pitfall of "Boomerang Asking" and Egocentricity
Conversely, a common conversational blunder occurs when someone responds to a shared story by immediately hijacking the focus. Alison dubbed this phenomenon "boomer asking"—short for a boomerang—where a person asks a question or hears self-disclosure, but instantly bounces the topic back to themselves. For example, if Steven mentions his favorite restaurant is Mr. Chow's, a boomerang asker skips inquiring about his experience and immediately cuts in to talk about their own past visits to Mr. Chow's.
```
Conversational Dynamics Comparison:
[Boomerang Asking]
User A: "My favorite restaurant is Mr. Chow's."
User B: "Oh, I went to Mr. Chow's with my friends last week and..." (Focus pulled to self)
[Effective Follow-up]
User A: "My favorite restaurant is Mr. Chow's."
User B: "Nice! Who did you go with / what did you order?" -> [Allows answer] -> "I've been there too!"
```
This behavior is widespread because the human brain is naturally egocentric; people know their own lived experiences with 100% accuracy, so hearing keywords constantly triggers personal memories. However, falling prey to this instinct undermines connection. Even inserting a single follow-up question—such as asking "Who did you go with?"—before bringing up one's own experiences makes a massive difference in helping the other person feel valued.
[01:07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4033s) Disruptive Behaviors in Meetings and Career Growth
In professional settings, similar conversational flaws manifest as disruptive habits. Steven shares an example of colleagues who repeatedly utter "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah" while someone else is speaking. Rather than indicating active listening, this rapid agreement is often an attempt to "yeah them into silence" so the listener can take the floor and make their own point. Objective observers recognize this behavior as a sign of not listening, prompting Steven to tactfully coach team members on how it damages their workplace reputation.
Communication self-awareness exists on a wide spectrum. While hyper-vigilance and extreme self-awareness can lead to people-pleasing and burnout, a complete lack of conversational self-awareness acts as a heavy "gravitational force" holding back talented, hardworking professionals. Alison emphasizes that conversation is not merely a soft, fuzzy topic; it is a trainable skill with measurable economic value. When students in her Harvard courses recognize their blind spots, they gain a clear-eyed perspective that allows them to continuously improve their communication skills and career trajectory over time.
- **"Yeah-ing" into Silence**: Using rapid vocal acknowledgments as a covert tactic to cut off a speaker and seize control of the conversation.
- **Self-Awareness Spectrum**: Ranges from hyper-vigilant/people-pleasing at one extreme to unaware/disruptive at the other, directly influencing long-term career growth.
[01:12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4359s) The "K" in T-A-L-K: Practicing Practical Kindness and Respect
Continuing through her T-A-L-K framework, Alison highlights "K," which stands for Kindness. While people are taught the virtue of kindness in childhood, many struggle to practice it effectively in adult conversations. Practical kindness relies heavily on making respectful language choices—such as correctly learning and using people's names and matching the appropriate level of formality, whether that means saying "Dr. Brooks" or using casual terms of endearment depending on the context.
To illustrate the tangible power of respectful communication, Alison references a body-camera study examining traffic stops between police officers and citizens in Oakland, California. The research revealed that language respectfulness directly affected the outcome of the interaction: higher levels of respect led to significantly fewer conflicts and smoother resolutions without further infractions. Subtle choices in language carry real weight, showing that small adjustments in respect and kindness can profoundly alter everyday human interactions.
- **Framework Context**: "K" represents Kindness within Professor Brooks's T-A-L-K framework for conversational mastery.
- **Oakland Police Study**: Analyzed body-cam footage and transcripts of traffic stops in Oakland, California, finding that respectful linguistic choices directly decreased conflict and escalated outcomes.
[01:15:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4508s) Energy Management in Conversation and the Power of Grace
Conversations require immense mental energy and effort. On days when someone is sleep-deprived or running on low energy, their ability to remain kind, thoughtful, and engaged drops significantly. People naturally tend to fall back on egocentrism, boomeranging the topic back to themselves, or using disrespectful language without taking the time to repair it. Even experienced communicators frequently fall short of their own expectations simply because their brains are not supercomputers and they lack the energy to sustain active listening and follow-up questions.
To manage this, self-awareness and transparent boundaries are critical. Citing a conversation with Brené Brown, the speakers discuss how admitting low energy levels—such as telling a partner or colleague, "I'm at a two out of 10 today"—allows others to offer grace. Maintaining healthy relationships at work and home requires both acknowledging your own bandwidth limits and extending forgiveness to others when they are similarly depleted.
- Conversation is cognitive work; when energy is low, people default to self-centered patterns like topic-hijacking or failing to fix disrespectful remarks.
- Admitting a low energy state (e.g., "I'm on 10% today") prevents unnecessary friction and sets realistic social expectations.
- Healthy personal and professional relationships rely on mutual grace during low-bandwidth days.
---
[01:17:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4626s) The L in T-A-L-K: Using Levity, Humor, and Warmth
Moving through the T-A-L-K framework, the "L" stands for **Levity**, which encompasses humor and warmth. While hostile, high-conflict arguments grab attention because they are loud and memorable, the most pervasive enemy of everyday conversation is actually boredom and disengagement. Research shows that human minds wander approximately 25% of the time during normal conversation. Without mutual engagement and active interest, people cannot achieve core conversational goals like persuasion, joint decision-making, brainstorming, or personal connection.
For those who feel inherently serious or naturally unfunny, levity does not require becoming a stand-up comedian overnight. Anyone can increase their warmth through accessible conversational moves:
- **Expressing Gratitude:** Explicitly thanking the other person for their time or attention.
- **Offering Compliments:** Using genuine flattery or positive feedback.
- **Active Topic Switching:** Sensing when a topic has gone stale and assertively pivoting to keep the interaction dynamic.
- **Callbacks:** Explicitly referencing a detail mentioned earlier in the chat—or even weeks prior.
---
[01:20:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4817s) Conversational Callbacks and Graceful Exit Strategies
Callbacks function like magic in dialogue. Referring back to something a companion said demonstrates that you listened, retained the information, and were clever enough to connect it to the present moment. Callbacks double as an ideal tool for wrapping up an interaction gracefully, replacing awkward pauses with a warm, memorable send-off (for example, "I hope you have a great time at the movie with your girlfriend this weekend!").
Ending conversations is notoriously tricky because there is no universal signal for the final topic switch. Rather than hesitating or feeling embarrassed, it is often best to exit assertively. Handing out contact information—such as a business email during a quick workout set—can bring a conversation to a natural close without coming across as overly dismissive, provided it is done with genuine intent to connect later. Protecting one's time and social capacity is necessary, especially for individuals who feel overwhelmed by an oversized social portfolio.
- **Callback benefits:** Proves active listening, demonstrates intellectual retention, creates humor, and offers a smooth exit ramp.
- **Exit rule:** There is no perfect mathematical moment to end a chat; assertiveness prevents drawn-out awkwardness.
- **Email strategy:** Sharing an email address provides a firm, respectful boundary while leaving the door open for future follow-up.
- **Managing social capacity:** More conversation isn't always better; protecting mental health and personal bandwidth requires setting bounds against over-connection.
---
[01:23:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5022s) Social Energy: Introverts, Extroverts, and the Guacamole Rule
The distinction between introversion and extroversion often comes down to personal preferences regarding how social environments affect energy. For instance, while one person might recharge after a taxing week by sitting in a crowded, buzzing coffee shop, another might need to retreat to a dark, quiet room alone. Both recovery methods are completely valid ways to recharge.
A reliable indicator of introversion versus extroversion is how a person reacts to an awkward silence in a group setting. An extrovert feels it is their personal duty to step up and rescue the room from silence. In contrast, an introvert is more likely to retreat to the snack table and let the awkwardness resolve itself, viewing the tension as someone else's responsibility.
- **Extrovert response to awkward silence:** Feels personally responsible for saving the room and filling the silence immediately.
- **Introvert response to awkward silence:** Prefers to "loiter by the guacamole," avoiding the obligation to fix the mood.
- **New Quiz Framework:** Categorizes conversational tendencies into three core types:
1. **Approach types:** Jump in to resolve tension (with the risk of oversharing or lowering their perceived value).
2. **Avoiders:** Stay in the room but remain completely quiet.
3. **Exiters:** Recognize an uncomfortable dynamic and leave the event entirely.
---
[01:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5223s) Managing Your "Contribution Score" in Group Dynamics
Group conversations introduce complex political and social dynamics, particularly around how airtime is shared. High-status or high-power individuals naturally dominate airtime, which can inadvertently silence lower-power attendees. While dominant speaking time is appropriate when a single subject-matter expert is sharing vital domain knowledge (such as an aerospace engineer walking a team through a complex project), unearned dominance hurts group productivity.
Every individual in a group carries an informal "contribution score"—similar to a credit score—built on the quality and thoughtfulness of their past remarks. When a person over-talks or frequently offers low-value comments, others begin to mentally discount or prepare counterarguments before that person even finishes a sentence. Conversely, when a quiet individual speaks rarely but delivers insightful points, the entire room falls silent to listen. Protecting your contribution score requires balancing airtime and speaking only when you have something meaningful to add.
- **Airtime imbalance:** High-power individuals often take up too much airtime naturally and must actively constrain themselves to make space for others.
- **The Expert Exception:** Airtime dominance is only productive when the person speaking holds specific expertise required by the group.
- **Contribution Score concept:** High-value, concise speakers command instant attention when they speak up.
- **The Over-talker penalty:** Constant, low-value commentary degrades a speaker's social credit score, causing others to dismiss their input prematurely.
<ElicitationsGroup message="Where would you like to go next with these insights?">
<Elicitation label="Explore the T-A-L-K framework in detail" query="Can you break down all four letters of the T-A-L-K framework and how to apply them?"/>
<Elicitation label="Learn techniques for managing over-talkers" query="What are effective strategies for managing or redirecting over-talkers in business meetings?"/>
</ElicitationsGroup>
[01:29:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5361s) Alternative Roles and Bad Switches in Group Dynamics
The discussion explores how talking isn't the only way to add value to a group conversation, highlighting various non-verbal or administrative roles that shape discussion outcomes. Alison points out that individuals who act as timekeepers, agenda keepers, or note-takers on whiteboards often wield significant influence because they actively curate what information gets recorded and prioritized. Steven transitions this into the concept of "bad switches" in business settings—people who derail conversations by interjecting irrelevant personal thoughts instead of following the group's direction.
Steven shares a comical example of a team discussing a Starbucks marketing campaign in Manhattan, where a bad switcher abruptly announces they once went on holiday to Manhattan and that it was ranked in Forbes' top 15 places to visit. Alison notes that while momentary sidebars for levity can be refreshing, persistent bad switching stems from egocentrism and a failure to read the room or serve the group's collective goals.
- **Whiteboard Power**: The person holding the marker or taking official notes often holds the most influence over group decisions by choosing what gets recorded.
- **Coordination Kerfuffle**: Adding a third person to a conversation fundamentally alters the dynamic from intimate co-creation to a complex coordination effort where anyone can trigger off-topic sidebars.
- **Podcasting Parallel**: Steven explains why he dislikes having a podcast co-host, noting that unaligned co-hosts frequently derail promising lines of inquiry just as a conversation reaches a critical insight.
---
[01:33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5606s) The Control Dynamic in Interviewing and Group Conversations
Alison challenges Steven on whether his preference for one-on-one conversations over group interactions is ultimately driven by a desire for control over the flow and depth of the dialogue. Steven validates this perspective by recounting a recent experience interviewing three job candidates alongside a colleague. When he let his colleague lead the first interview, he enjoyed observing her linear progression. However, during the second interview, when both attempted to co-lead without clear boundaries, friction arose.
As Steven was step-by-step circling a delicate topic to expose what he suspected was a red flag in the candidate, his colleague abruptly interjected with an entirely unrelated question. The abrupt shift destroyed his momentum and forced him to restart his line of questioning from scratch. Afterward, Steven established a clear operational rule with his colleague: they must explicitly designate a single topic leader for each interview segment while the other passively listens.
- **Topic Leader Clarity**: Establishing an explicit primary interviewer or topic lead prevents chaotic derailments in group conversations.
- **Depth vs. Small Talk**: Steven reiterates his preference for deep, one-on-one dialogues over surface-level group banter, which often feels disingenuous to him.
---
[01:35:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5708s) What Audiences Really Care About in Communication
When Steven asks what the most important omitted topic is regarding likeability, Alison pushes back, arguing that likeability is a very narrow objective in conversational science. Steven explains that his audience feedback consistently highlights five core communication concerns: dealing with "narcissists," navigating difficult conversations, being liked, avoiding undetected behaviors that make them disliked, and mastering persuasion.
Alison reframes the obsession with "narcissists" as a symptom of people struggling with disagreement, noting that people frequently label anyone who strongly disagrees with them as a narcissist. She points out that while people fixate on high-stakes, memorable moments of conflict or persuasion, they remain completely blind to everyday conversational flaws—such as being boring, talking too much about themselves, or failing to listen.
- **The Listening Paradox**: Quoting sound expert Julian Treasure, Steven notes that while people desperately want to learn persuasion, almost nobody expresses a desire to improve their listening skills.
- **Mismanaging Conflict**: Alison emphasizes that persuasion, managing difficult conversations, and the desire for likeability all stem from the same root issue: failing to handle moments of difficulty or disagreement effectively.
---
[01:38:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5892s) The Reality of Conversation: Being Interested vs. Being Interesting
Alison addresses a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of conversation, explaining that it is not a platform for delivering "mini speeches or mini TED Talks" on one's niche personal interests, such as Pokémon. Instead, authentic conversation is an interactive journey co-created by two minds seeking shared ground. The true goal is to explore another person's thoughts and feelings about a mutual interest, allowing both parties to feel seen, heard, and understood.
She highlights the critical distinction between trying to be *interesting* and being genuinely *interested*. Entrepreneurs frequently fall into the trap of treating every discussion like a pitch on *Dragons' Den* or *Shark Tank*. Instead of immediately pitching their product, successful communicators ask extensive questions to understand the other person's pain points, personal background, and underlying priorities first.
> "Life is not about walking through life giving like mini speeches or like mini TED Talks, right? It's about... conversation is interactive. It's co-created with two independent minds."
---
[01:40:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6009s) Perspective vs. Perception: The Spy Technique for True Understanding
Steven shares an insight from former CIA operative Andrew Bustamante regarding the crucial difference between *perspective* (what you physically see from your vantage point) and *perception* (the internal mental landscape and interpretations of the person facing you). In intelligence work, agents are trained to actively adopt the other person's perception rather than relying on their own perspective, as true persuasion is impossible without understanding the subject's exact mental state.
Alison expands on this, citing psychological research showing that human beings are remarkably poor at guessing other people's internal realities or visual perspectives. Because self-referential guessing routinely fails, the only reliable method to uncover what another person thinks, feels, or perceives is to ask direct, open-ended follow-up questions.
- **Bustamante's Spatial Example**: Steven illustrates the concept by noting that from his seat, he can see two cameras, a mirror, an award, a wooden beam, and green tape behind Alison that she cannot see from her viewpoint.
- **Active Questioning**: Rather than assuming another person's feelings or views, Alison stresses directly asking questions like, "How does that make you feel?" or "What do you see behind me?" to bridge perceptual gaps.
---
[01:41:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6102s) Sponsor Break: SimpliSafe and Ketone-IQ
Steven delivers mid-show promotional messages for two podcast sponsors:
* **SimpliSafe**: Steven recounts asking his assistant, Sophie, to find a home security system for his LA property. He details SimpliSafe's proactive approach using AI-powered cameras and live human agents who can verbally address intruders, activate spotlights or sirens, or dispatch police without locking customers into long-term contracts.
* **Ketone-IQ**: Steven shares how he became a co-owner and sponsor of Ketone-IQ after trying a box left on his desk by team member Lily, noting that roughly 35% to 40% of his team now considers it a daily essential.
- **SimpliSafe Promotion**: Offers a 50% discount on security systems at `[simplisafe.com/doac](https://simplisafe.com/doac)`, backed by a 60-day money-back guarantee.
- **Ketone-IQ Direct Access**: Available directly via `ketone.com`.
[01:43:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6223s) Breaking the Ice with "What Are You Excited About Lately?"
When entering a high-stakes business meeting or trying to pitch a candidate to join a company, the conversation should open with strategic curiosity. Professor Alison Wood Brooks advises asking open-ended questions, listening carefully to the answers, and using those responses to guide the next question. Her personal favorite icebreaker is simply: "What are you excited about lately?" Everyone has an answer to that question, even if they are feeling down, because it immediately reveals what is top-of-mind for them.
Steven Bartlett highlights that Brooks's question inherently implies a existing relationship—it subtly suggests you cared about what they were excited about in the past and want to check in on their journey now. By staying on that topic and asking how you can help them achieve those goals, you create an effortless path forward. Steven demonstrates this principle in real time by making a "callback" to their chat three hours prior, recalling that Brooks had mentioned wanting to get her communication curriculum into schools and referencing a recent study she conducted on male friendships.
- The question "What are you excited about lately?" signals active care and gives the other person full permission to share their current passions.
- Following up with "What could I do to help you do that?" transforms a casual icebreaker into a collaborative connection.
- Demonstrating memory through callbacks reinforces trust and shows the speaker was genuinely listening in past interactions.
---
[01:45:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6310s) The Cragged Reality of Male Friendships and the Vulnerability Gap
When looking under the hood, real-world human conversation looks less like a polished TV script and more like a messy train wreck. It requires constant course-correction, checking for understanding, and making apologies. Beyond general conversational clutter, Brooks highlights stark gender differences in how friendships are conducted: women typically sit face-to-face and talk, whereas men bond shoulder-to-shoulder through activities like fishing, playing basketball, or managing fantasy sports leagues.
While observing live interactions of men meeting each other for the first time, Brooks found the dynamic visually striking and emotionally jarring. Hundreds of male participants repeatedly struggled with vulnerability—the very pillar that friendship experts identify alongside consistency and positivity. Instead of discussing struggles, hopes, or deep goals (topics women often hit within the first three minutes), the men defaulted to basic surface-level commentary about their immediate physical surroundings or local sports teams.
The leap from being "basketball buddies" to having vulnerable, meaningful dialogue feels so risky to men that many refuse to take it, directly accelerating the modern loneliness epidemic.
- **40% of men** report having zero close friends.
- Men are **400% more likely** than women to report having no one to turn to during a personal crisis.
- Half of all men report being dissatisfied with their current friendships.
- The average number of close friends men maintain has dropped by **30% to 40% since 1990**.
- In heterosexual relationships, men tend to rely almost exclusively on their partner for emotional support, whereas women maintain external friendship networks that sustain them through tragedy or bereavement.
---
[01:49:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6548s) Crossing the Chasm: How Men Can Build Real Connections
To break out of superficial routines, men must actively signal a willingness to take a "courageous leap" in conversation. In Brooks's observational study, typical male interactions consisted of banal surface narration: complaining that a hot dog tastes gross, mentioning where they grew up, or arguing over the Chicago Bears. To transform those dead-end chats into real bonds, a speaker needs to push just one step further into personal territory—for example, shifting a sports chat by asking, "Did you ever feel vulnerable when you played high school football?" or "What did you struggle with back then?"
Steven shares a story about a talk he gave in London's Canary Wharf to 500 young professionals in their early twenties. A young man in the front row stood up and asked straight out: "How do you make friends?" The moment was poignant because 499 of his peers were standing right next to him, yet making genuine contact felt daunting. Brooks emphasizes that overcoming this requires the basic courage to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself, and break the norm of sitting silently on your phone.
- **Bridge Questions for Vulnerability:**
- *"What have you been struggling with recently?"*
- *"What's something you've been thinking about that you haven't shared with anyone else?"*
- *"What do you hope to achieve next?"*
- Taking the initiative to say hello breaks social friction, even in environments where cold introductions feel culturally unexpected or awkward.
- Moving past transactional facts into personal reflection is what elevates an acquaintance into a genuine friend.
---
[01:52:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6763s) "10 Questions to Fall in Like"
Drawing inspiration from psychologist Arthur Aron's famous study (*36 Questions to Fall in Love* published in *The New York Times*), Brooks created a distilled 10-question framework for her Harvard classroom called "10 Questions to Fall in Like." The exercise is designed as a reciprocal back-and-forth that forces speakers out of standard chit-chat and into meaningful personal discovery.
"Vulnerability is the doorway to connection," Steven notes, recalling a time in his youth when he texted a crush to play Arthur Aron's 36-question game step-by-step. For people who feel self-conscious or anxious asking deep questions—especially men socialized to view vulnerability as a weakness—Brooks offers a playful strategy: use her as a scapegoat. Instructing people to say, "I saw this crazy Harvard professor on a podcast and she challenged me to ask this," gives hesitant speakers the social cover they need to take the leap.
### The "10 Questions to Fall in Like" List
1. **What are you excited about lately?**
2. **What is something you're good at, but don't like doing?**
3. **What is something you're bad at, but love to do?**
4. **Is there something you'd like to learn more about?**
5. **Is there something you'd like to learn how to do?**
6. **What can we celebrate about you?**
7. **Has someone made you laugh recently?**
8. **What's something cute your kid, friend, pet, or partner has been doing?**
9. **Did you grow up in a city?**
10. **Have you fallen in love with any new music, books, movies, or shows lately?**
- Keep 1–2 go-to questions in your back pocket at all times to spark meaningful dialogue.
- Always follow up on initial answers by digging deeper (e.g., asking *"Why do you connect with that character?"* or *"What does that reveal about you?"*).
- Real friendship requires three distinct elements: consistency of interaction, positivity/fun, and deep vulnerability.
---
[01:56:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6990s) The Secret to Persuasion: Listening Over Preaching
When it comes to workplace persuasion—such as pitching an innovative project to a boss or selling an idea to colleagues—people often make the mistake of assuming persuasion happens in a single, high-pressure monologue. In reality, persuasion is built over time through trust, competence, and rapport. People allow themselves to be persuaded by those they like, respect, and view as reasonable.
Instead of trying to push an agenda aggressively, effective persuaders sit on the "same side of the table" as the other person to untangle complex problems together. This requires demonstrating high conversational receptiveness: asking questions, validating the other person's perspective, and making them feel genuinely heard. When people feel understood rather than targeted, their defensive walls drop, making them far more open to listening to counter-propositions over the long haul.
- Persuasion rarely occurs in a single conversation; it is an ongoing process built on established trust.
- Actively validating opposing viewpoints makes the other party more willing to stay engaged and reconsider their position.
- True listening requires setting aside the urge to win an argument in favor of exploring the problem collaboratively.
[01:58:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7087s) Validation vs. Agreement in High-Stakes Disagreements
Steven and Alison discuss how validating someone’s perspective acts like a "magic trick" in intense conversations. Steven notes that in past relationships, when he failed to validate the other person, the discussion became a "broken record" with the partner endlessly repeating themselves because they didn't feel heard. Once he started validating, the record player stopped, allowing him to present his case. Alison reinforces this, emphasizing that "validation is not equivalent to agreement." A speaker can validate another person's feelings continuously and then still vehemently disagree with their stance.
The underlying psychological barrier is that people habitually "conflate agreement with listening." Most individuals mistakenly believe someone is only truly listening if they agree with them. If a person disagrees, the counterpart assumes they weren't heard, operating under the assumption that their argument is so compelling that any attentive listener would naturally share their view. To break this cycle, Brooks advises avoiding insincere statements like "I agree" and instead opening with validating prompts like: "Tell me more," "It makes sense that you feel this way," and "I'd like to understand how you came to hold this viewpoint."
- **The Listening Paradox:** Steven references communication expert Julian Treasure, who created two TED Talks—one on speaking and one on listening. The speech on speaking garnered roughly 40 million views, whereas the talk on listening received only a small fraction of that traffic.
- **Why Public Speaking Dominates Interest:** Public speaking triggers intense anxiety, making people hungry for any tactic that reduces performance nervousness. Listening is viewed as passive ("just say nothing"), even though true listening is highly active and mentally taxing.
- **Mental Wandering Rate:** Human minds naturally wander at least 25% of the time, making sustained focus on a speaker extremely difficult.
- **Perception of Charisma:** Truly magnetic, likable, and savvy individuals are rarely admired for what they say, but rather for *how* they listen and react to others.
---
[02:00:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7258s) The Intelligence Officer's Strategy & Advanced Listening
Steven recounts a conversation with former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker regarding the tradecraft of influence and intelligence gathering. Baker recounted landing in a country like Afghanistan and targeting a taxi driver who regularly transported a high-value government official. Baker would spend up to seven consecutive weeks riding in the taxi, doing nothing but asking simple follow-up questions and letting the driver speak without interruption.
Because most people rarely experience 10 full minutes of uninterrupted, focused attention, the taxi driver would gradually reveal intimate details about his life and core motivations. By week seven, Baker learned the driver's son suffered from a severe knee injury. In week eight, Baker finally presented his pitch: offering top-tier medical care for the son in exchange for access or information. Alison connects this to her advice for entrepreneurs: building a relationship through relentless questioning must precede any commercial proposal.
```
[ Weeks 1–7: Active Listening ]
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Ask open-ended questions │
│ Allow uninterrupted sharing │
│ Uncover core motivations & pain points │
└──────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
[ Week 8: Targeted Pitch ]
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ "I know your son has a bad knee... │
│ we can take care of him." │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
```
Alison contrasts simple one-dimensional relationships with multi-faceted ones using the concept of **multiplexity**:
* **Multiplexity in Close Relationships:** A romantic partner or close colleague occupies multiple overlapping roles (e.g., romantic partner, friend, household task manager, co-chef). Sorting through these overlapping roles creates structural conflicts of interest, making communication far more complex than interacting with someone who serves a single purpose (like a driver).
* **The Three Components of Listening:**
1. *Perception:* Taking in visual, physical, and acoustic environment cues, alongside auditory signals like vocal tone, speed, and subtle affirmations ("mhm").
2. *Processing:* Elaborating on selected details and thinking deeply about what was said (since processing 100% of incoming data is impossible).
3. *Reflection:* Returning information to the speaker to demonstrate comprehension and curiosity (e.g., "That's so interesting that you met a spy in a taxi—can you tell me more about that?").
* **Active Listening Tiering:**
* *Level 101 (Basic):* Nonverbal cues like smiling, nodding, and leaning forward. These do not guarantee actual cognitive focus—someone can smile and nod while mentally reviewing their grocery list—but omitting them is socially jarring.
* *Level 201/301 (Advanced):* Using explicit verbal cues—validating, affirming, asking targeted follow-up questions, or summarizing group discussions ("Steven said X, Cassie said Y, so overall we're discussing status").
---
[02:05:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7537s) Silence, Digital Slop, and the Communication Audit
When Steven asks if any major conversational dimension was missed, Alison points to **silence**—a topic she originally drafted as a book chapter before realizing it warranted its own standalone work. She emphasizes that immense meaning is communicated between the lines or through a single shared glance. However, the meaning of silence shifts depending on relationship maturity:
* **Early-Stage Relationships / First Dates:** Long pauses signal that a conversation is faltering. Individuals experiencing awkward silences should actively prepare discussion topics or targeted questions beforehand to maintain momentum.
* **Established Relationships:** Prolonged silence is a mark of high intimacy and comfort, reflecting an ability to share space without pressure to generate dialogue.
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE SPECTRUM OF SILENCE │
├────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┤
│ EARLY-STAGE RELATIONSHIPS │ ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS │
├────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Long pauses signal failure │ • Long pauses signal comfort │
│ • Causes panic & anxiety │ • Reflects high intimacy │
│ • Requires prepped topics │ • Shared space feels natural │
└────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────┘
```
The conversation then turns to digital communication and generative AI. Steven notes that AI-generated messages on Slack, email, WhatsApp, and social media are creating an environment saturated with "AI slop." He finds himself disengaging from these polished, emotionless interactions, even resorting to intentional typos and abandoning strict grammar on LinkedIn to signal authentic human authorship.
Alison shares a practical exercise she assigns to her Harvard students: a **communication audit**. Students record every incoming and outgoing message across all mediums—DMs, emails, texts, phone calls, Zoom meetings, and face-to-face chats—over a 20-to-30-minute window.
- **Communication Overwhelm:** Students realize the modern volume of communication is exponentially higher than it was 20 years ago, forcing individuals into constant cognitive context-switching.
- **Attention Allocation:** Toggling rapidly between different topics and platforms creates mental exhaustion. Because allocating attention is fundamentally an act of care ("attention is love"), people struggle to decide who deserves immediate response priority when forced to look beyond whoever is physically in front of them.
- **The Primacy of In-Person Interaction:** The central finding from the audit is that "only face-to-face conversations feel real" both in the moment and in memory. Digital channels suit transactional exchanges, but human brains evolved specifically for face-to-face connection.
- **The Cost of Disconnection:** Seducing users away from real-world presence into digital portals causes widespread loneliness. Even placing a smartphone on a table or hearing it buzz distracts from deep, meaningful interactions.
---
[02:12:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7935s) The Personal Cost of Automating Workplace Comms
Steven shares a direct workplace example of AI over-reliance. Several of his team members began using generative AI like ChatGPT to author all of their email updates and project summaries. Despite trusting their expertise, Steven began ignoring their emails entirely.
Because the automated formatting and synthetic tone made the updates feel detached from their actual lived experience, the communications lost their value. After three or four weeks of ignoring these automated reports, Steven recognized that automating away human voice damages professional relationships and erodes trust.
> "In a digital age, in an AI world, do we need to start communicating differently so that people know it's really us?"
- **Transactional vs. Relational AI Use:** Using AI tools to streamline routine data transfers is functional, but relying on LLMs for interpersonal communication strips messages of authenticity and connection.
- **Signaling Authenticity:** Stripping away over-polished syntax, keeping text messages brief, or deliberately leaving in minor human flaws helps break through synthetic noise and preserve trust.
[02:13:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7984s) AI Feedback and the Human Touch in Conversations
Steven Bartlett shares a story about confronting a colleague after noticing their interview feedback began sounding suspiciously like ChatGPT. He explains that even though he knew the person was using an AI bot to generate the text, he just wanted to feel the candidate feedback coming directly from a human whose intuition and judgment he trusted. After bringing it up, the colleague was thankful and adjusted the system prompt to make the output sound more natural. Steven notes with a laugh that he can no longer tell the difference, even though he knows AI is still involved.
Alison Wood Brooks points out two key psychological dynamics at play. First, humans invest emotionally in other people; when we realize we are interacting with a proxy rather than a real person, our motivation to engage rapidly drops. Second, Large Language Models (LLMs) push communication toward a "reversion to the mean," flattening out the unique personality, weirdness, and creativity that make human interactions compelling.
[02:14:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8084s) Experimenting with an AI Version of Myself
Alison reveals a risky experiment she conducted in her Harvard course where she had students hold office hours with an AI version of herself. While noting that most chatbots are deeply problematic, she designed this AI strictly as a coach to help students prep for real human conversations. She surprisingly admits that her AI clone is better than her in several distinct ways:
* **Constant Availability:** The AI is available 24/7, whereas scheduling time with Alison in real life is notoriously difficult.
* **Removal of Conflict of Interest:** Because the AI does not grade the students, they don't feel intimidated or worry about looking silly by asking basic questions, nor does Alison have to question whether students are visiting just to brownnose for grades.
* **Granular Feedback:** The AI can analyze the interaction and immediately provide detailed metrics to 200 students at once—tracking topics covered, question frequency, moments of levity, active listening, and acts of kindness.
Despite these benefits, Alison remains torn on artificial intelligence. While AI makes individual lives easier and more efficient, its convenience makes regulation incredibly difficult. Steven adds that as AI reliance grows, developing true, real-life human conversational skills will become a rare and valuable superpower. Alison agrees, emphasizing that conversation is the ultimate human advantage over AI. Looking toward the future, she notes that even if work or technological innovation were to disappear, the fundamental human need to connect respectfully and joyfully in real life will remain.
- Steven compares generational conversational abilities, suggesting Baby Boomers are better conversationalists than Gen Z because they accumulated more real-world "reps."
- Alison explains that generational friction often stems from cohorts developing distinct social skill sets by growing up in vastly different technological realities.
[02:19:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8349s) Strategic Authenticity at Work
Turning to the subtitle of Alison's book, *Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves*, Steven asks whether people should bring their full, authentic selves to work. Alison immediately responds with NYU scholar Juliana Pillemer's concept of **"strategic authenticity."** She argues that bringing your *unfiltered* self to work would be a total nightmare for everyone involved.
Alison uses her classroom exercise on 13 positive and 13 negative conversational personality types (such as the "curious cat" or "chatterbox") to illustrate that rigid types are a straw man. People's behavior shifts radically based on context—for instance, one does not act the same way at a bachelorette party in Las Vegas (which Alison jokes involves "hot pink wigs and Chippendales dancers") as during bath time with their children.
Good conversationalists live by the rule "athletes adjust." Rather than forcing a static identity into every room, strategic authenticity means staying true to your core uncompromising values while adapting your conversational behavior to serve the room and the goals of the interaction.
* **Managing Fleeting Insincerity:** Asking a polite question you aren't dying to hear the answer to (e.g., "How was your weekend?") isn't evil or manipulative; it is a micro-adjustment to keep a conversation warm and functional.
* **Searching for Sincerity:** The temporary insincerity vanishes the moment you actively listen to the response and pick out a genuine point of interest to ask a meaningful follow-up question.
[02:23:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8593s) Preparing for Parenthood and Raising Conversational Kids
Steven opens up about a personal life milestone, sharing that he and his girlfriend are currently trying to have a baby. Alison expresses genuine excitement for him, calling parenthood one of the most miraculous human experiences. Steven reflects on his feelings about the process, describing it as entering the "great unknown" and making a "great sacrifice."
Alison validates his perspective, describing parenting as paradoxically the most self-interested and least self-interested thing a person can do:
> "Self-interested in the sense you're... making a copy of yourself... But it's just... life is no longer about you."
She reassures him that he isn't giving up his current self, but rather evolving into a new version for someone he hasn't met yet. Moving past the birth process, Alison emphasizes that the true 18-year project of parenting is teaching children how to talk to others.
To foster real communication skills, Alison stresses the importance of daily role modeling, guiding kids through both failures and successes, and strictly limiting screen time.
- **Screen Time Rules:** Alison limits her own children to 20 minutes of screen time per day on a stationary desktop computer that cannot be moved around.
- **Smartphones and Social Media:** Her children know they will not get a personal smartphone until at least ninth grade, with social media delayed even further.
- **Academic Research:** Alison highlights work by researchers like Jonathan Haidt, Angela Duckworth, and Matt Gentzkow at Stanford, who are addressing digital addiction and device policies in schools.
[02:26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8799s) The Podcast Closing Question
Following the show's tradition, Steven reads a question left by the previous guest: *"If your life was a movie and the audience were watching up to this point, what would they be screaming at the screen telling you to do right now?"*
After taking a moment to reflect, Alison answers: **"Leave Harvard. Save the children with talk."**
She explains that she feels a deep urgency to devote her full time and resources to teaching conversational skills to high schoolers worldwide. She views communication not as a zero-sum game, but as an essential human skill that can save younger generations from digital addiction and severe loneliness. When Steven teasingly presses her on whether she is officially announcing her departure from Harvard on the podcast, she laughs it off with a quick "TBD," leaving the door open for what comes next. Steven closes the interview by thanking her for her timely and important research.
[02:28:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8902s) The Groundbreaking Science Behind 'Talk'
Steven Bartlett offers a heartfelt tribute to Professor Alison Wood Brooks and her book, *Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves*. He praises the work for being deeply grounded in scientific research and empirical evidence, contrasting it with typical discussions on communication that are often filled with empty platitudes, opinions, and generic advice. Steven warmly jokes about his own position as a layperson, admitting the book makes high-level scientific concepts completely accessible even to "muggles" like himself who "don't understand big words sometimes."
The conversation turns to the profound real-world impact of conversational skills. Steven emphasizes that communication isn't just an abstract topic; it serves as the foundational bedrock for life's most meaningful areas, including family dynamics, friendships, romantic relationships, and achieving personal goals. He commends Dr. Brooks for providing readers with a practical roadmap to reaching their highest potential "through this thing called talk."
- **Key Focus:** Translating complex behavioral research into practical, accessible tools for everyday communication.
- **Impact Areas:** Family relationships, friendships, professional goal pursuit, and personal growth.
[02:29:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8978s) Conversation Resources and Final Acknowledgments
When asked where people can discover more of her research, Dr. Brooks directs viewers to her official website, pointing out an interactive online quiz designed to help individuals discover their specific "conversation type." The platform provides tailored advice and practical tips for navigating diverse social interactions, accompanied by the underlying science driving those strategies. She also highlights an upcoming project at TalkStudios, where her team is developing a specialized communication curriculum aimed at high school students to teach foundational conversational skills early in life.
The main interview segment concludes with warm mutual gratitude. Steven thanks Dr. Brooks for sharing her research, while Dr. Brooks expresses her appreciation to Steven for amplifying her work, telling him, "I just think what you're doing here is fabulous."
- **Website Resources:** Interactive conversational quiz and science-backed advice at alisonwoodbrooks.com.
- **Educational Initiative:** High school conversational curriculum underway at talkstudios.com.
[02:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=9015s) Announcement of the DOAC Inner Circle
As the interview wraps up, Steven Bartlett transitions to a special invitation for the show's dedicated audience, announcing the launch of a private inner circle community limited to the first 10,000 members. He reveals that members of this exclusive group will gain rare behind-the-scenes access to content never shown on the main channel.
Steven details the perks of joining the community, explaining that members will receive direct access to the interview briefs on his iPad, unreleased video clips, candidate discussions, and entire full-length episodes that were never publicly released. Furthermore, community members will have direct contact with Steven to help shape the future of *The Diary Of A CEO*, offering feedback on show directions and suggesting upcoming guests.
- **Community Name:** DOAC Circle (DOACcircle.com).
- **Membership Limit:** Capped at the first 10,000 members.
- **Exclusive Content:** Research briefs, unreleased guest interactions, vaulted episodes, and direct input on future guest selections.
## Notable quotes
> [46:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2813s) but with one T — Alison Wood Brooks
> [48:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2929s) the most comprehensive, teachable, practical, scientifically rigorous framework in the world for communication — Alison Wood Brooks
> [01:38:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5892s) Life is not about walking through life giving like mini speeches or like mini TED Talks, right? It's about... conversation is interactive. It's co-created with two independent minds. — Alison Wood Brooks
> [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1200s) Tell me more — Alison Wood Brooks
> [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1200s) It makes sense that you feel this way — Alison Wood Brooks
> [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1200s) I'd like to understand how you came to hold this viewpoint. — Alison Wood Brooks
> [02:00:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7258s) Steven said X, Cassie said Y, so overall we're discussing status — Alison Wood Brooks
> [02:05:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7537s) only face-to-face conversations feel real — Alison Wood Brooks
> [02:02:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7335s) In a digital age, in an AI world, do we need to start communicating differently so that people know it's really us? — Steven Bartlett
> [02:06:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7599s) If your life was a movie and the audience were watching up to this point, what would they be screaming at the screen telling you to do right now? — Steven Bartlett
> [02:06:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7599s) Leave Harvard. Save the children with talk. — Alison Wood Brooks
> [02:09:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7778s) I just think what you're doing here is fabulous. — Alison Wood Brooks
## Mentioned
Alison Wood Brooks, Steven Bartlett, Anne, Cassie, Stanford University, Mr. Chow's, Menendez brothers, Frank Lloyd Wright, Marilyn Monroe, Google Calendar, Nokia, T-A-L-K Framework, Oakland Police Department, Brené Brown, Julian Treasure, Andrew Bustamante, CIA, SimpliSafe, Ketone-IQ, Arthur Aron, The New York Times, Dragons' Den, Shark Tank, Starbucks, Forbes, Chicago Bears, Mike Baker, Juliana Pillemer, Jonathan Haidt, Angela Duckworth, Matt Gentzkow, Harvard University, ChatGPT, Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves, TalkStudios, DOAC Circle, Slack, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Zoom
Behavioral scientist Alison Wood Brooks argues that conversation is a cognitively complex, trainable discipline rather than an intuitive reflex. By deliberately applying strategic frameworks—such as emotional reframing, active validation, and follow-up inquiry—speakers can overcome egocentrism, lower social friction, and cultivate meaningful relationships.
Cognitive Demands and Conversational Goal Mapping (24:26)
Everyday conversation requires substantial cognitive effort, which explains why individuals frequently experience anxiety, awkwardness, or defensiveness. To alleviate performance anxiety, Brooks points to experimental research demonstrating that verbally stating "I'm excited" shifts an individual's mindset from threat avoidance to opportunity seeking. In a karaoke experiment, participants who uttered "I'm excited" sang with measurably better pitch and rhythm than those who declared they were anxious, illustrating how simple verbal reframing generates upward psychological momentum.
To navigate interactions purposefully, Brooks introduces the "Conversational Compass," which categorizes motives across two dimensions: informational exchange (low to high data accuracy) and relational focus (self-serving to prosocial). A frequent communication pitfall is treating every interaction as a high-informational transaction focused exclusively on persuasion or brainstorming. Brooks stresses that adept communicators fluidly traverse all four quadrants, valuing low-informational quadrants like savoring, fun, and protective discernment to preserve rapport and personal boundaries.
Conversational Receptiveness and the Validation Formula (37:17)
Brooks conceptualizes conversation using a "Layers of the Earth" model, where surface words rest above emotional states, personal motives, underlying beliefs, and core identity. When friction occurs, entering accusation and defense modes destroys connection. Drawing on research by Julia Minson, Mike Yeomans, and Hannah Collins, Brooks highlights "conversational receptiveness" as the practice of setting aside the impulse to brand opposing views as unreasonable.
Neuroscientific findings highlighted by Tali Sharot demonstrate that hearing "I disagree" sounds neurological alarm bells, significantly dampening brain activity associated with open-minded processing. Furthermore, words like "but" act as erasers over previous affirmations. To de-escalate tension, Brooks advocates the improv concept of "yes, and" alongside explicit emotional validation using the formula: "It makes sense that you feel X about Y." Brooks emphasizes that validating an emotional experience is distinct from agreeing with factual assertions; validation reassures the speaker that they are understood, facilitating collaborative problem-solving.
Effective Inquiries Versus Boomerang Asking (59:30)
Within the practical T-A-L-K framework, managing topics (T) and asking questions (A) govern dialogue flow. Experimental trials show that taking 10 to 30 seconds to prepare topics before a meeting substantially reduces speech disfluencies, calms anxiety, and limits accidental oversharing. In dating research analyzing 1,000 speed dates, asking just one additional question per date steadily increased an individual's likelihood of securing a second date, an effect driven almost entirely by thoughtful follow-ups.
Despite the power of questions, people routinely fall into "boomerang asking"—an egocentric habit where a listener hears a detail and immediately diverts the focus back to their own personal experiences. Similarly, disruptive behaviors such as rapidly repeating "yeah, yeah, yeah" often serve to rush speakers into silence rather than signal genuine listening. Brooks notes that authentic dialogue requires shifting focus from trying to appear interesting to becoming actively interested in the other person's reality.
Strategic Authenticity and Social Bandwidth (139:09)
Brooks rejects the notion that professionals must bring their raw, unfiltered selves to every situation, citing NYU scholar Juliana Pillemer's concept of "strategic authenticity." Just as athletes adjust to changing conditions, skilled conversationalists adapt their delivery to fit specific social environments while remaining anchored to their core values. Courteous adjustments and pleasantries are not manipulative, but necessary tools to keep interactions functional.
Effective dialogue also depends heavily on managing social energy and recognizing vulnerability gaps. Observational studies of male interactions reveal that men frequently stall at superficial narration—such as local sports or physical surroundings—due to difficulty embracing vulnerability, an essential pillar of enduring friendship alongside consistency and positivity. Because active listening demands considerable energy, individuals who are sleep-deprived or depleted tend to revert to self-centered defaults. Brooks and Bartlett emphasize the necessity of explicitly acknowledging low energy reserves to invite mutual grace.
While conversational habits can be systematically trained and assessed—even through automated feedback models—Brooks notes clear boundary conditions: cognitive reframing cannot resolve profound real-world tragedy, and conversational dynamics shift radically with relationship maturity. The enduring challenge remains balancing behavioral adaptability with sincerity across increasingly fragmented professional and digital settings.
## Background
本期内容由知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 12 月 15 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。视频特邀哈佛商学院行为科学家 Alison Wood Brooks 教授做客，深入拆解为什么人们的日常沟通频繁受挫、如何重塑社交焦虑、TALK 沟通框架以及建立深层人际连接与有效说服的实证科学法则。
## TL;DR
哈佛大学 Alison Wood Brooks 教授结合自身二十年的对话科学研究与海量实证数据，揭示了人际交往中普遍存在的认知盲区与沟通硬伤。她提出将社交焦虑口头重构为“兴奋感”以激活大脑契机导向，并通过涵盖话题选择（Topics）、深度提问（Asking）、轻松幽默（Levity）与善意（Kindness）的 TALK 框架来系统提升交谈质量。访谈深入剖析了道歉公式、确认他人感受与赞同观点的界限、现代男性的孤独与脆弱感困境，以及职场中的“发言信用分”与策略性真实，最终呼吁在数字泛滥时代重拾线下面对面深谈的不可替代价值。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对话在浓厚的学术思辨与亲切自然的私密探讨之间自如流转，充满启发性与知性张力。Steven Bartlett 带着极度坦诚的自我剖析与敏锐提问，与 Brooks 教授严谨扎实却又生动风趣的实证案例碰撞出极强共鸣，现场即兴约会模拟与积木演示更添互动趣味。节目从破解个体的社交窘迫与自卑防备切入，步步递进至对抗现代社会疏离孤独的宏大呼吁，兼具实用工具的穿透力与触动人心的温暖底色。
## Bulletin
- [12:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=746s) 焦虑心理重塑机制：生理上焦虑与兴奋共享心率加快、皮质醇上升等高唤醒指标，口头默念“我很兴奋”能迅速将大脑认知从威胁防御转向捕捉机遇，显著提升考试、演讲与谈判表现。
- [59:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3566s) 提问与好感度实证数据：分析1000场快速约会数据显示，多提问是提升好感度的强相关因素，每场多提1个问题就能显著增加获得二次约会的几率，其中核心红利由高质量的追问驱动。
- [01:47:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6468s) 现代男性友谊与孤独危机：研究显示高达40%男性缺乏亲密朋友，危机时求助无门概率比女性高出400%，核心症结在于男性社交多局限于肩并肩的事实解说，难以跨越展露脆弱性（Vulnerability）的门槛。
- [01:58:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7113s) 倾听不等于赞同：人类天生极易混淆“倾听”与“赞同”，高难度说服的关键在于先给予“情绪确认”（Validation），坐到桌子同一侧并肩拆解问题，而非开局条件反射式使用“我不同意”。
## Key takeaways
- [12:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=746s) 将焦虑重塑为兴奋：高唤醒状态无法瞬间转为平静，但通过口头与认知重构，可以促使大脑将注意力从规避威胁转向把握机会。
- [20:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1202s) 谈判中的焦虑陷阱与筹码构建：焦虑常促使谈判者过早妥协甚至放弃，提升谈判底气的根本在于确立外部更优的退路方案（BATNA）。
- [27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1629s) 对话罗盘（Conversational Compass）：交流目标涵盖关系与信息两大轴线构成的四个象限，健康成熟的沟通者应在不同象限间灵活切换，而非盲目只追求关系连结。
- [32:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1951s) 有效道歉的黄金法则：高效道歉需彻底承担过错并给出具体的未来改变承诺，同一对话中反复道歉超过两次反而会阻碍双方翻篇。
- [37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2237s) 情绪确认（Validation）降温术：面对荒谬观点，确认对方主观的“感受”而非错误的事实认知，能为对抗情绪降温，建立安全的沟通通道。
- [45:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2748s) 即兴原则与消除对抗：在交流中用“Yes, and...”替代“But”，避免让转折词像橡皮擦一样抹杀前文的肯定与尊重。
- [49:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2994s) TALK框架之T（Topics）：话题选择贯穿交谈始终，提前30秒构思备选话题可显著卸载认知负荷，减少口误与尴尬冷场。
- [01:05:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3910s) 警惕回旋镖式提问（Boomerang Asking）：克服大脑以自我为中心的冲动，在将话语权拉回自身经历前，务必克制本能向对方追问至少一个细节。
- [01:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5223s) 职场中的“发言信用分”（Contribution Score）：无休止的冗长发言会透支个人信用，懂得在合适时机克制话语权的人其发言往往更具分量。
- [01:14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4441s) TALK框架之K（Kindness）：沟通是极其耗费脑力的生理活动，在精力告罄时适度示弱并设立边界，是维系长期关系的基石。
- [01:17:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4626s) TALK框架之L（Levity）：交谈中人脑约有25%的时间处于走神状态，幽默与“回溯呼应”（Callbacks）能有效唤醒双方注意并实现得体退场。
- [01:37:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5864s) 打破“迷你演讲”误区：优质对话是双向的思维共创，而非将自己单方面狂热的兴趣或路演观点强行倾倒给对方。
- [01:46:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6362s) 男性友谊的破局之道：深厚友谊依赖持续性、积极情绪与脆弱性，必须主动跨越单纯的环境解说与赛事闲聊，勇敢探问深层心境。
- [01:52:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6763s) “让人喜欢上你的10个提问”：口袋常备富有探索性的走心问题，是化解尬聊并顺着话题金字塔向上攀升的高效工具。
- [02:03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7413s) 倾听能力的进阶分级：传统的点头微笑仅是基础规范，高阶倾听必须借助口头确认、定向追问以及群体观点归纳等言语回馈来体现。
- [02:08:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7714s) 沟通审计与面对面交谈的独特性：现代数字信息过载严重割裂注意力，唯有线下面对面的真实交互才能在神经与情感层面建立起不可替代的深度联结。
- [02:19:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8349s) 职场中的“策略性真实”（Strategic Authenticity）：不加筛选的完全袒露往往带来灾难，高情商沟通者在坚守核心价值观的同时，懂得如专业运动员般临场调适言行。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=0s) 引言与哈佛沟通科学：为什么人们总是不讨喜？
播客开篇，哈佛大学行为科学家 Alison Wood Brooks 教授切入了一个人人都在意却鲜有人能解决的普遍焦虑：人们极其关心到底是什么让自己不受欢迎，并渴望知道如何才能招人喜欢。Alison 在哈佛大学开设了一门广受欢迎的课程，其中包含一个名为“让人心生好感的10个提问”（10 questions to fall in like）的经典练习。主持人 Steven Bartlett 追问，如果对别人提出这些问题，对方真的会喜欢自己吗？Alison 表示这只是一个极佳的起点，她建立的沟通框架是全球最具可教授性、实用性且经过严谨科学验证的体系。Steven 兴奋地回应：“我当然想听！我想成为世界上最具说服力、最有影响力、最讨人喜欢的沟通者，我全听你的带路。”
Alison Wood Brooks 教授花了二十年时间专注于对话科学（conversational science），揭示了人们在日常沟通、谈判以及建立人际连结中普遍存在的误区。尽管所有人成年后都觉得谈话应当是件自然而然的事，但一旦以科学视角审视对话的底层机制，就会发现人类充斥着无数的尴尬时刻、说错话、枯燥乏味、甚至引发敌意与愤怒的场景。Alison 强调，解决这些问题有非常清晰的科学策略：
- **焦虑重塑**：她最具代表性的研究成果之一，是将社交焦虑重塑为“兴奋感”，这一转变能促使大脑将注意力从威胁转向机会，该论文的研究结论甚至被皮克斯动画电影《头脑特工队》（Inside Out）所引用。
- **闲聊（Small Talk）的金字塔法则**：多数人都讨厌客套寒暄，但闲聊是必不可少的敲门砖，人们最大的误区在于在浅层闲聊中停留太久，未能沿着话题金字塔向上攀升。
- **数字化沟通与当代男性友谊**：在数字时代改善文本沟通的具体规则，以及关于男性交友困境的最新研究所揭示的严峻现实。
在正式对谈展开前，Steven 向常客听众发起倡议，提醒大家顺手检查是否已点击订阅 YouTube 频道，支持团队将节目长久且高质量地制作下去。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话科学核心框架
accDescr: 展示从沟通底层焦虑到深层人际连接的科学转化路径
subgraph Mindset["心理机制重塑"]
A["社交焦虑 / 威胁导向"] -->|"重新框定 (Reframe)"| B["兴奋感 / 机会导向"]
end
subgraph Progression["对话进阶结构"]
C["浅层闲聊 (Small Talk)"] -->|"跨越误区：勿长期停留"| D["话题金字塔攀升"]
D --> E["深度连结与说服"]
end
B --> Progression
```
---
### [02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=140s) 为什么我们天天说话，却依然不擅长沟通？
谈话正式开始，Steven 邀请 Alison 阐明她的学术身份及其研究对普通大众的深远意义。Alison 介绍自己是哈佛商学院的行为科学家，创立了哈佛课程《Talk》，并出版了著作《Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves》（对话：交谈的科学与做自己的艺术）。对于刚点开这期节目的听众，Alison 给出了一个核心承诺：人生的本质是人际关系，而人际关系的载体就是交谈；哪怕只掌握一个能够改善对话的策略，工作、浪漫关系、友谊乃至个人生产力都会迎来翻天覆地的转变。
Steven 笑着提出反问：“但交谈不是很简单吗？张嘴说话不就行了？”Alison 剖析了这种普遍认知误区的心理根源：
1. **练习时长的错觉**：人类通常在一岁到一岁半就开始呀呀学语，在往后的每一天里，我们都在与无数的对象进行对话练习。这种长达数十年的日常重复，让人误以为成年后理所当然会成为沟通专家。
2. **底层机制的超高复杂度**：一旦揭开对话的“引擎盖”，就会发现人脑在实时交互中承受的极端负荷。正因系统如此繁杂，现实中才会充斥着尴尬冷场、失言误解、防御心理以及无谓的言语伤害。
---
### [04:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=264s) 表达的筛选悖论与沟通动机的复杂性
Steven 提出一个深刻的问题：世上是否充斥着大量因为不会表达而四处碰壁、被人误解甚至遭人讨厌的人？Alison 坦言，在她状态最悲观的日子里，她常常担忧“每个人走在大街上都在被误解”。人类大脑无论如何都不可能将脑海中完整的思维、情感和人格全盘倾倒出来，我们在说话的每一瞬间都在做**实时内容剪辑**（curating），试图挑选出一小部分信息通过语言传达。然而，几乎没有人能把这项剪辑工作做得十全十美。
当 Steven 询问人们在交谈中到底在追求什么目标时，Alison 指出绝非单纯的“寻求连结”，背后潜藏着极其复杂的动机星系：
- **情感需求**：渴望被喜欢、被爱，追求愉悦有趣的谈话体验，避免对话变成痛苦折磨。
- **安全本能**：希望感到自身安全、受保护，避免陷入可怕、耗时且消耗元气的言语交锋。
- **功利目标**：在职场中推动进程、取得成就、获取升职并做出卓越决策。
---
### [06:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=369s) 高管的沟通盲区与 Steven 的内向困扰
Steven 坦诚分享了自己的困扰：尽管自己以访谈为生，面对关键对话时依然会感到呼吸停滞与思维僵住。例如最近他初次去拜访某位团队核心成员的家人，那种仿佛被全家人暗中审判的压力让他神经紧绷；而在激烈的商务谈判中，他同样常常感到被动与卡顿。Alison 对此非常认同，并指出一个反直觉的行业现象：她接触过大量高层 C-suite 高管与顶尖成功人士，**地位越高、越成功的人，反而越清醒地意识到沟通能力是自己能够走到今天的决定性因素，也越清楚自己存在巨大的改进空间**。
当被问及自己在对话中最明显的弱点时，Steven 进行了深刻的自我剖析：
- **内向与名声带来的心理防御**：他自认骨子里是一个内向者，更喜欢独处或与极度熟悉的朋友待在一起。随着公众知名度的上升，他外出（如去健身房）时常伴随着一种轻微的被注视感和警惕心。这种防备状态导致他在偶遇交谈时显得封闭、冷漠，难以在需要敞开的时刻切换状态。
- **极端厌恶浅层闲聊**：Steven 直言自己痛恨无意义的客套寒暄，这也正是他热爱播客的原因——访谈能让他合法地跳过所有表面文章，直奔对方灵魂深处最硬核的话题。
### [08:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=520s) 闲聊的消耗与“社交组合”的认知重塑
对很多人来说，在大型聚会或社交场合中进行无意义的“闲聊”（small talk）是一件极耗心力的事情。Steven 提到自己曾经收到过地球上声望最高的人物之一发出的邀请，但他果断拒绝了，因为现场会有上百人，而他无法忍受在长达四个小时的派对中和一大群人周旋。他的团队当时甚至抓狂地劝他：“你必须去那个该死的活动，而且要好好享受！”但他依然表示拒绝。他承认自己热爱深度、亲密的一对一谈话，但极度厌恶肤浅的社交寒暄。
Alison 对此表示理解，并明确指出这并非性格上的“弱点”，而是一种对自己社交偏好的清醒认知。群体对话对人类大脑的要求极高：你必须时刻计算谁在对谁说话、何时插话、话题该如何流转，这种复杂的互动结构会给大脑带来巨大的负荷；相反，私密的一对一沟通目标清晰，且完全在掌控之中。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 大型社交与一对一对话的脑力负荷对比
accDescr: 对比大型群聊与一对一交流在控制感与认知负荷上的差异
subgraph Group["百人群聊 / 社交派对"]
A1["多边互动关系复杂"] --> A2["需时刻计算发言时机与对象"]
A2 --> A3["失控感高，产生严重精力耗竭"]
end
subgraph Solo["深度一对一对话"]
B1["目标明确且关系扁平"] --> B2["节奏与话题易于双向把控"]
B2 --> B3["掌控感强，能实现高质情感连接"]
end
```
Alison 提出了“社交组合”（social portfolio）的概念：每个人都需要审视自己的社交生态——你在与谁交流？是否选对了人？互动的规模和形式是否舒适？与其因为害怕大场面而自我苛责，不如将其视为重新配置社交资产的过程。
---
### [10:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=610s) 从湖畔女孩到哈佛教授：同卵双胞胎如何启迪对话科学
谈及自己走上对话研究之路的渊源，Alison 回忆起在纽约州北部小镇湖畔度过的童年。成长过程中的团队运动经历、深厚的女性友谊，尤其是她作为一名同卵双胞胎（identical twin）的身份，深刻塑造了她对沟通的痴迷。
她的双胞胎姐妹名叫 Sarah。对于 Alison 而言，拥有一个同卵双胞胎就像在这个世界上活着另一个版本的自己：她们共享同一个卧室、参加同样的运动队、在同一个乐队演奏。在成长过程中，她就像近距离观察另一个自我一样看着姐妹的一举一动：
- 当 Sarah 遭遇挫折或社交失败时，Alison 能够抽离出来，暗下决心避免走同样的弯路。
- 当 Sarah 讲出一个绝妙的笑话，或者给出惊艳的回答时，Alison 意识到自己也完全有能力做到，因为她们拥有相同的 DNA 与潜质。
这种独特的亲密体验成为她毕生研究的潜意识驱动力：她希望帮助更多人在友谊、爱情与工作协作中，也能体会到那种双向奔赴、高度理解的默契连接。进入大学乃至来到哈佛大学执教后，Alison 发现社会心理学和传播学虽然理论繁多，却极少有人真正去大规模转录、标注真实对话并展开实证分析。这促使她在过去的十五年里，专注于运用大规模对话转录数据来揭示沟通背后的行为机制。
---
### [12:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=746s) 焦虑重塑法：将生理唤醒从“恐惧”拨向“兴奋”
Alison 在研究生阶段便开始探索情绪对行为决策的影响，尤其是日常生活中频繁出现的“社交焦虑”。这种焦虑并非需要药物干预的临床病症，而是普通人在谈判、公开发言、寻求建议时挥之不去的紧张感。
在这项历时多年的研究中，她最具代表性的发现之一便是**将焦虑重新评估为兴奋**（reframing anxiety as excitement）：
| 情绪状态 | 生理唤醒度 (Arousal) | 皮质醇 / 心率 / 掌心出汗 | 认知评估 (Cognitive Appraisal) | 行为倾向 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **焦虑 (Anxiety)** | 极高 | 显著升高 | 聚焦于**威胁**与失败后患 | 逃避现场、被动妥协、发挥失常 |
| **兴奋 (Excitement)** | 极高 | 显著升高 | 聚焦于**机遇**与成功潜力 | 迎难而上、动作精准、表现优异 |
在生理机制上，焦虑与兴奋几乎共享完全相同的生理特征：心跳加速、掌心冒汗、皮质醇激增。试图从高唤醒的“极度焦虑”瞬间跳崖式转为低唤醒的“冷静放松”几乎是不可能的；但由于两者的生理状态同属高频唤醒，只需通过语言与认知进行轻微拨动，就能完成心理重塑。
这项研究直接被皮克斯动画电影《头脑特工队》（*Inside Out*）所借鉴引用：片中主角在恐慌发作前夕，代表快乐的“乐乐”（Joy）冲进满是焦虑小人的工位，大声喊道：“别再画那些事情会变糟的倒霉画面了，赶紧画事情会如何顺利发展！”
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 焦虑转为兴奋的重塑路径
accDescr: 展示生理唤醒度在焦虑与兴奋之间的平移转变过程
subgraph Physiological["高生理唤醒状态 (High Arousal)"]
H1["心率加快"]
H2["皮质醇上升"]
H3["掌心出汗"]
end
Physiological --> Danger["焦虑 (Anxiety)<br/>聚焦潜在威胁"]
Physiological -.->|"口头重构：'我很兴奋' (I'm excited)"| Opportunity["兴奋 (Excitement)<br/>聚焦潜在机会"]
Danger --> Fail["逃避行为 / 谈判妥协"]
Opportunity --> Win["表现优异 / 状态全开"]
```
---
### [14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=888s) 唱卡拉OK的心理实验与登台吉米·法伦秀
Alison 详细拆解了她发表的标志性论文《Get Excited》背后的实验设计：
1. **实验场景**：研究团队招募被试人员，并告知他们必须在实验人员和观众面前唱卡拉OK，被试者随即产生本能的紧张情绪。
2. **语言干预**：在登台开唱前的一瞬间，实验人员询问被试者的感受。一组被要求口头回答“我很焦虑”（I'm anxious），另一组则被要求大声说“我很兴奋”（I'm excited）。
3. **数据测量**：系统利用专业声学软件，对演唱者的音准、节奏（pitch and tempo）进行客观打分。
4. **实验结果**：仅仅是大声说出“我很兴奋”的被试者，演唱表现显著好于那些承认“我很焦虑”的人，不仅音准更稳，节奏感和现场表现力也大幅提升。
在 2011 年关于谈判的研究中 Alison 也发现，当人在谈判桌上感到焦虑时，往往急于逃离那种充满不确定性和失控感的压抑环境，从而盲目做出巨大让步。而将思维锚定在“我很兴奋”上，能促使大脑从防御“威胁”切换到捕捉“机遇”，这一技巧在公开演讲、歌唱演出乃至高难度协作中均具有强大的积极后续效应。
Alison 补充道，这种心理重塑法适用于存在摇摆空间的日常高压情境（如重要考试、球赛竞技或见同事家人），但若面临的是亲人重病这类不可逆的真实悲剧，该技巧自然无法适用。
Steven 随即分享了自己的真实经历：他曾登上美国知名深夜脱口秀节目《吉米·法伦今夜秀》（*The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon*）。作为一个平时严肃且不善临场逗乐的人，要在短短 7 分钟内完成搞笑互动，让他台前感到极其恐慌。在后台帷幕拉开前，他不断对着自己和团队默念：“这绝对会是一场绝妙的经历！我等不及了！我已经完全准备好了！”虽然当时他觉得这些自我安慰可能只是胡话，但走上台后他确实体验到了极其流畅的状态。听完实验结论，Steven 笑称：“我以前没有科学证据支撑，现在我终于有严谨的论文证据了。”
### [17:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1060s) 从自我对话到对话科学的萌芽
Alison Wood Brooks 教授回顾了自己科研探索的起点：人们对自己说话的方式以及对他人说话的方式，具有极其深远的力量，尤其是在不断重复的情况下。如果一个人在登台吉米·法伦（Jimmy Fallon）的深夜秀前对自己说“我很兴奋（I'm excited）”，接着在拜访同事家人前、在专访比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）前都这样自我暗示，一旦将这种“把焦虑重塑为兴奋”的对话内化为固定习惯，长年累月下来就会产生令人惊叹的向上螺旋效应（upward spiral effect）。
这启发了她将学术视野进一步拓宽：如果一句简单的自我暗示口号能产生如此显著的心态转变，那么人与人之间层层递进、动态展开的真实对话又蕴藏着怎样的规律？学者过去从未系统性地研究过对话中“每一个来回的话轮（every turn of a conversation）”，这也正式开启了她在对话科学领域的前沿探索。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: "自我对话到对话科学的递进演变"
accDescr: "从单次重塑焦虑到养成习惯，再从个体心智模型跃升至对话科学的研究演化路径。"
subgraph SelfTalk["个体心智重塑"]
A["单次重构焦虑为兴奋<br/>（如面对重大采访/演讲）"] --> B["固化为重复性自我对话<br/>形成向上螺旋效应"]
end
subgraph ConversationalScience["对话科学跃升"]
B --> C["突破单句研究局限"]
C --> D["解构人际互动中<br/>逐轮展开的对话机理"]
end
```
---
### [18:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1113s) 谈判心理学：焦虑如何让人做出糟糕决策
当 Steven Bartlett 问及谈判研究背后的作用机制时，Brooks 教授指出，商学院和法学院研究商业谈判已有数十年历史，但直到大约 15 年前，学术界才开始真正正视“情绪”在谈判桌上的核心作用。内心真实感受（如愤怒或紧张）与向对方表达出来的情绪之间，存在着关键的区隔。
研究表明，绝大多数人在谈判前和谈判过程中都会本能地感到高度焦虑，因为这是一个高压对峙环境。商学院谈判课程最大的价值往往不在于教导精妙的算计，而是通过不断模拟实战（reps），让人适应这种心理不适。焦虑会带来极其危险的连锁反应：
- **提前放弃离场**：为了尽快摆脱由焦虑引起的心理压力，人们往往急于结束谈话，早早离开谈判桌。
- **过度妥协让步**：谈判者会主动降低期望，甚至做出不必要的经济让步或提出糟糕的开价，以此换取紧张情绪的缓解。如果谈判目标是争取最大价值，这种受情绪驱使的妥协无疑是自毁长城。
---
### [20:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1202s) 如何科学要求加薪：BATNA 与“先给予再索取”法则
针对“向老板提加薪”这一典型的职场高压谈判，Steven 提问：如果一个人紧张不安，很容易降低预期、草率接受糟糕方案并草草收场，那究竟该如何破解？
Brooks 教授指出，最根本的底气来自于个人的**谈判筹码（power）**。在专业谈判理论中，这被称为 **BATNA**（Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement，即“最佳替代协议”）：
- **强化退路**：在找老板谈判前，先在外面拿下一个更好的工作 offer。如果老板回绝加薪要求，员工可以有底气地表示已经获得了街角竞争对手更丰厚的待遇。
- **避免理所当然的索取姿态**：许多人常犯的错误是双手叉腰冲进办公室说“我值得更多薪水”。在提要求前，必须通过大量提问做足调研：*“我找对决策人了吗？”、“公司目前有批准加薪的财务预算吗？”、“我该如何以让对方心悦诚服的方式陈述理由？”*
针对 Steven 追问的“假如我是你老板，你会如何说服我”，Brooks 教授暂时脱去学者身份，分享了自己的核心价值观：“获得加薪最好的方式，就是让自己变得无可挑剔（The best way to get a raise is to be awesome）。”
- **不可替代的价值创造**：如果一个人专注于交付超预期的业务价值，甚至都不需要开口，老板自然会千方百计提供优厚报酬挽留人才。
- **满足他人需求的逆向思维**：Steven 也极力赞同这一观点——把“我想要什么”放在第一位的人往往一无所获；而把“我能贡献什么”放在第一位的人，最终都会得到自己想要的。在后续将展开的“TALK 框架”中，字母 **K** 代表“善意（Kindness）”，这并非单纯的利他道德，而是一种商业互惠闭环：全力帮助组织与上级解决问题，这种价值最终必将反哺到自己身上。
---
### [23:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1416s) 诊断真实对话与“对话罗盘”的提出
进入实操推演阶段，Steven 主动退居辅助者角色，配合 Brooks 教授用写着“T-A-L-K”的实体积木道具展开框架解析。Brooks 教授首先要求 Steven 还原一段近期持续 5 分钟以上的真实对话。
Steven 坦诚分享了一段与女友的道歉经历：他在某个重要时刻因为没有全身心投入（absent）而搞砸了，因此他展开谈话，彻底承认自己的过失并向对方道歉。在 Brooks 教授的引导拆解下，Steven 剖析了自己当时复杂的多重目标：
- **承认责任（Admission of blameworthiness）**：不找借口、不试图辩解，客观看待自己本该陪伴但没做好的事实，承担全部过错。
- **对方的感受目标**：让女友感到被完全理解（understood）与被重视，不必再重申委屈，建立深层的信任与连接。
- **自身的心理目标**：卸下心中的负罪感（offload the guilt），不再被良心的不安折磨。
- **时间现实**：整场谈话只有大约 20 分钟的窗口期。
Brooks 教授总结道，人们在复盘对话时会立刻发现，**对话目标从来都不是单一维度的，而是极其错综复杂的**。为了在纷繁的言语交流中精准导航，她提出了“**对话罗盘（Conversational Compass）**”模型。正如在荒漠或森林中使用指南针辨别行进路线一样，对话罗盘不是用来指引行走的物理方向，而是用来指引交谈的发展方向。
### [27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1629s) 对话罗盘的坐标轴与四大象限
对话罗盘（Conversational Compass）建立在两个核心维度上：横轴代表“关系目标”（Relational Goals），纵轴代表“信息目标”（Informational Goals）。横轴的右侧是高关系目标，指那些旨在关怀对方或促进彼此关系、属于亲社会（prosocial）范畴的意图；左侧则是低关系目标，更偏向服务自身利益（如排解自己的内疚感）。纵轴的高信息端聚焦于准确交换信息，这是人类进化出语言沟通的原始动机——将自己脑中的想法精确传递给对方；而低信息端则不以海量信息交换为目的，甚至可能涉及信息的隐藏或简化。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话罗盘四大象限
accDescr: 展示以信息交换为纵轴、关系导向为横轴的对话罗盘四个象限及核心功能
subgraph HighInfo["高信息交换 (High Informational)"]
direction LR
Q1["左上：说服与决策\n(Persuasion / Decisions)\n低关系 · 高信息\n工作导向、头脑风暴"]
Q2["右上：深度连结\n(Connection)\n高关系 · 高信息\n真诚交流、深度理解"]
end
subgraph LowInfo["低信息交换 (Low Informational)"]
direction LR
Q3["左下：自我保护与审慎\n(Protection / Discernment)\n低关系 · 低信息\n保护时间、声誉与隐私"]
Q4["右下：品味与乐趣\n(Savoring / Fun)\n高关系 · 低信息\n享受相处、轻松幽默"]
end
Q1 --- Q2
Q3 --- Q4
```
艾莉森·伍德·布鲁克斯（Alison Wood Brooks）指出，罗盘的每一个象限都有其正面价值，健康的沟通者会在所有象限中灵活切换，而不是非得执着于某一个区域：
* **右上象限（高信息 + 高关系：连结 Connection）**：许多沟通专家往往只片面强调“连结”，但这绝非对话的唯一目的。
* **右下象限（低信息 + 高关系：品味 Savoring / 乐趣 Fun）**：这里的交流并不依赖密集的信息传递。例如两人安静坐着、哼着歌，或者随口夸一句对方的衣服好看。很多人误以为对话必须高度事务性（transactional），非得“把自己知道的事情砸向对方，再等对方砸回来不可”。布鲁克斯在哈佛的学生常忽视这个象限，认为不进行说服或决策就是在虚度光阴；但事实上，如果人与人之间无法享受彼此相处的时光，未来根本不会期待再次交谈。
* **左下象限（低信息 + 低关系：保护与审慎 Protection / Discernment）**：其本质是保护自身利益，包括保护个人时间与精力、守护秘密与敏感信息、快速推进流程，以及维护自身在他人心目中的良好形象（如展现出聪明、温暖、冷静与值得信赖）。
* **左上象限（高信息 + 低关系：说服与工作 Persuasion）**：主要集中于职场目标，如说服对方、达成决策、开展头脑风暴等。
---
### [31:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1880s) 为什么不能永远只待在“关系导向”的一侧？
面对斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出的疑问——“如果我想受人喜爱并拥有良好的人际关系，是不是永远待在罗盘右侧就行了？”——布鲁克斯给出了明确的反驳。她反问：如果一个全心信任你、深爱你的人向你透露了绝密隐私，而你转头就告诉了其他人，结果会怎样？答案显然是失去信任。因此，左下角的“审慎与保守秘密”（Discernment）对维持长久关系同样至关重要。
在现实人际互动中，即便与伴侣或密友相处，也必须进入左上象限协作解决问题，比如商量“今晚去哪里吃晚饭”，这需要高效的协调与决策。尽可能抱持亲社会的心态向右侧靠拢固然值得追求，但每个人都有切实的现实需求与资源限制（时间、认知带宽），不可能永远活在罗盘的右侧。真正成熟的沟通者善于在不同象限之间自如穿梭，根据具体情境服务于当下真正重要的目标。
---
### [32:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1951s) 道歉的心理学：最有效的道歉公式与频率边界
斯蒂芬回顾了自己之前对伴侣道歉的经历：那是一场典型的高关系、低信息的互动，核心只是为了让对方知道自己深感抱歉，没有给出冗长的解释、辩解或借口，而是坦承“我搞砸了”。布鲁克斯对此高度赞赏，并指出绝大多数人的道歉之所以失败，正是因为本能地想要重提问题、寻找借口或解释自己为何犯错，这种做法极其低效。
有效的道歉公式包含两大核心要素：
1. **彻底承担责任**：诚恳坦白“我搞砸了，我非常抱歉，我心里很难受”。
2. **给出具体的改变承诺（Promise to Change）**：这是道歉中最具说服力的部分。明确告诉对方“我已经意识到自己的错误，我未来绝不会再犯，接下来我会通过这几个具体步骤进行改变”。这种承诺具有明确的可衡量性，对方能在日后的相处中切实检验你是否践行了承诺。
关于“道歉是否会过量”的研究，布鲁克斯分享了团队的实证发现：
* **日常对话中的道歉频率**：虽然过度道歉在日常中并不常见，但数据显示，**如果在同一场对话中道歉超过两次，效果就会适得其反**。反复道歉不再传达诚意，反而会不断唤醒对方对负面事件的痛苦记忆，将情绪死死锁在负面氛围中，阻碍彼此向前翻篇。
* **假释听证会的大数据研究**：研究团队分析了涉及严重罪行犯人的大量假释听证会记录。在这种极端严肃的语境下，道歉似乎“多多益善”。更重要的是，凡是在陈述中给出了切实、具体未来规划的犯人（例如出狱后参加戒酒匿名会 AA、搬去与祖母同住、已找好具体工作等），获得假释释放的概率明显更高。
---
### [35:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2101s) 重新定义“艰难对话”：对话的地质分层模型
当斯蒂芬询问面对人生中不可避免的“艰难对话”（Difficult Conversations）或难缠的人时该如何准备，布鲁克斯指出，“艰难对话”这一概念本身就是一种认知误区。世上并没有被截然划分为“容易”与“艰难”的两类对话；事实是，**在任何一场看似寻常的对话中，随时都可能出现微小的“分歧时刻”（Moments of Difference）**。
布鲁克斯将对话结构比作“地质分层”（Layers of the Earth）：
| 对话层次 | 对应层级 | 现实表现与潜在分歧 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **地表之上** | 语言与声音 (Words & Sounds) | 对话中实际听到的字句、语调。双方可能在用完全不同的词汇表达同一含义。 |
| **地表浅层** | 情绪层 (Emotions) | 双方情绪状态的不协调（例如一人兴高采烈，另一人却身心疲惫、索然无味）。 |
| **地表深层** | 动机层 (Motives) | 双方在对话罗盘上的目标冲突（例如一人极力想给建议，另一人完全不想听）。 |
| **地心深处** | 身份认同 (Identities) | 底层的身份与文化差异（例如美国人与英国人的文化思维落差）。 |
一场对话之所以突然变得棘手，往往正是因为在这些不同的地质层面上瞬间碰撞出了不一致。识别这些微小落差的发生位置，才是化解沟通卡点的前提。
### [36:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2193s) 对话罗盘的底层冲突：从观点差异到身份认同
每个人的脑海中都携带着一个独特的沟通罗盘，导致不同个体在对话中的追求大相径庭。在表面交流之下，潜藏着人们根深蒂固的信念体系——例如一个人可能深信移民问题是当务之急，而另一个人则坚持认为人工智能构成的威胁远大于人类移民。更深一层，这些信念直接扎根于如同地壳内部滚烫岩浆一般的“自我身份认同”（Identities）。这种结构意味着，即便在最轻松日常的场景中，比如约会现场、夫妻驾车途中或是朋友围坐看电影时，对话双方都可能因为微小的触动而瞬间踩中雷区，陷入对立。此时，对话者必须具备一种核心沟通技能，以防止情绪的温度升至临界点。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话冲突的三层心理结构
accDescr: 展示从表面目标到深层身份认同的对话分层模型
subgraph Layers["对话的深层心理结构"]
L1["表层：目标与沟通罗盘<br/>各自想要达成的目的"]
L2["中层：信念与观点分歧<br/>如移民问题 vs. 人工智能威胁"]
L3["底层：滚烫岩浆般的身份认同<br/>核心自我认知与价值观"]
end
L1 --> L2
L2 --> L3
```
- **地质层模型**：从表层目标到底层信念，最终触及滚烫的个人身份认同，微小分歧极易引爆深层冲突。
- **降温技能的必要性**：无论对话多轻松，随时都可能发生摩擦，必须依靠科学的沟通机制稳定局势。
---
### [37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2237s) 展现接纳度：化解荒谬观点的“情绪确认”秘诀
哈佛大学学者 Julia Minson、Mike Yeomans 与 Hannah Collins 针对“对对立观点的接纳度”（Receptiveness to Opposing Viewpoints）进行了深入研究。当对方抛出一个荒谬绝伦的观点时，人类的原始本能通常是立刻启动防御或攻击模式，心想“这太荒谬了，我一定要纠正你、战胜你”。然而，一旦进入指控与防卫的对抗状态，对话不仅丧失了连接（Connection）、品味（Savoring）、保护（Protecting）或推进（Advancing）的可能，更彻底脱离了原本的目标轨道。
面对匪夷所思的言论——比如对方坚称“天空其实是紫色的”——最有效的化解策略是运用心理治疗师常用的确认话术：“你感觉天空是紫色的，这完全说得通（It makes sense that you feel that the sky is purple）。”关键在于确认对方的“感受（Feel）”而非“认知（Think）”，因为对方脑海中的感受是其无法被否定的主观现实。唯有先在言语上肯定对方的情绪，让对方感受到心理安全，双方才能并肩坐到桌子的同一侧，共同拆解问题。此时再去探问“你是如何产生这种感觉的？你是否有辨色上的不同？”，对方才会敞开心扉。
- **核心句式**：“你对 Y 产生 X 的感觉是完全说得通的（It makes sense that you feel X about Y）”。
- **词汇差异**：确认“感受（Feel）”而非“想法（Think）”，既不违心承认错误事实，又能提供充分的情感安全感。
- **课堂实验验证**：在课堂上进行五人轮流分享喜好歌曲（如泰勒·斯威夫特 Taylor Swift 的歌）并强制彼此确认感受的训练，尽管学生初时觉得刻意，但事后一致表示获得确认的体验令人极度舒适；这为后续分享生活中的真实痛苦建立了良性沟通习惯。
---
### [41:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2506s) 避免条件反射式反驳：用谦逊话语与多重视角推进长期说服
许多人在沟通中习惯以“我不同意（I disagree）”作为发言的第一句话，这种条件反射式的对抗不仅会激起对方本能的戒备心（Get one's back up），更是说服策略上的严重倒退。真正的信念改变绝不可能发生在单次的刀光剑影中，它往往发生在多轮高质量的互动里——当对方感受到尊重与倾听，才会在温和的引导下逐渐软化立场。若以反驳开场，对话的情感纽带便瞬间断裂，更遑论长远的说服效果。
根据接纳度研究的框架，高情商的沟通者善于运用“模糊修辞（Hedging Language）”并“将自我拆分为不同角色”。例如面对“天空是紫色的”这一论调，可以说：“作为你的朋友和一名画家，我对你的视角感到非常着迷；但如果作为气象学者，我们或许可以一起去验证一下。”神经科学家塔莉·沙罗特（Tali Sharot）的脑成像实验同样证实了这一现象：当人类大脑感知到被反驳时，神经警报会瞬间拉响，认知负荷骤增，大脑会直接对外界信息关闭接纳通道（类似于杏仁核劫持现象）。正因如此，学会“不要直接反对”，通过表露不确定性和拆解自我立场来维持对话，才是维持长期影响力的终极法宝。
- **模糊修辞与条件限定**：多用“我在想是否可能……”来替代绝对化断言，降低对话侵略性。
- **自我身份拆分法**：同时持有并表达两种合理视角（例如：“作为女儿我非常理解你，但作为年轻一代的朋友……”），既维系关系又表达差异。
- **脑神经科学机制**：面对反驳时大脑会进入生理层面的防御与抗拒，直接关闭对新观点的接纳度，因此沟通的首要法则是维持情绪通道的畅通。
### [45:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2748s) 沟通中的“即兴原则”：用“Yes, and...”取代“But”
在探讨如何表达不同意见时，Steven 强调绝对不要把“我不同意”（I disagree）当作开口的第一句话。更聪明的做法是先展现好奇与肯定——比如“你这么说太有意思了，我很着迷，而且你这么想完全合情合理；不过我也在想，是不是可能……”。Steven 分享了一个叫 Anne 的女孩给他的深刻印象：她在对话中永远用“对，而且……”（yes and）来代替“但是”（but）。哪怕她紧接着要表达完全相反的观点，这种句式转换也会让整场对话听起来非常舒服、充满建设性。
Alison 指出，这正是即兴喜剧（improv comedy）的核心法则。在人际对话中，这种思维具有深刻的哲学意义：它代表一种“给予对方合理推测”（give the benefit of the doubt）的善意包容姿态。当对方说出某些看似荒谬或疯狂的想法时，如果你立刻以否定的方式回应，就是亲手扼杀彼此的关系。两人一致认同应该彻底在人际交往中抛弃“但是”（but with one 't'）这个词。因为每次只要一说出“你说得很有道理，‘但是’……”，听众就会感觉那声“但是”就像一块橡皮擦，瞬间把你前面所有的肯定全抹掉了。它暴露了说话者其实根本没在倾听，只是急不可耐地想反驳对方，带有强烈的敌对与对抗意味。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话回应方式对比
accDescr: 对比“Yes, and”与“But”在对话中所带来的心理感受与关系影响
subgraph Negative["消极对抗模式：使用 'But'"]
A["对方表达想法或感受"] --> B["表面附和：'你说得对，但是...'"]
B --> C["如橡皮擦抹杀前文，暴露对抗与急躁"]
C --> D["对方感到被否定，损害人际关系"]
end
subgraph Positive["积极共情模式：使用 'Yes, and...'"]
E["对方表达想法或感受"] --> F["肯定与接纳：'太有意思了，而且...'"]
F --> G["传递善意包容，给予合理推测"]
G --> H["顺畅引入新观点，深化双向连接"]
end
```
### [47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2873s) 讨喜度与 TALK 沟通框架的诞生
聊到受众痛点时，Steven 观察到大家最渴望知道的永远是“别人为什么讨厌我”以及“如何变得招人喜欢”。Alison 剖析道，被喜欢（liking）是人类追求社会地位（status）的核心驱动力之一。但地位是由两部分构成的：
- **受人喜爱（Liking）**：通常源自于散发出的**温暖（warmth）**与亲和魅力。
- **令人钦佩（Admiration）**：主要建立在外界对你个人**能力（competence）**的认可上。
最理想的社交状态，是同时展现温暖与能力。为了系统化解决所有场景的沟通难题，Alison 提出了自己创立的 **TALK 框架**。她自信地指出，这是全球最全面、最具可操作性且经受过科学实证的沟通工具体系：
- **突破传统边界**：市面上大部分沟通训练仅局限于“艰难谈话”（difficult conversations），而 TALK 框架覆盖个人与职场中的所有谈话，包括那些理应轻松愉快的日常闲聊。
- **与现代 AI 技术同构**：研究团队在构建该体系时运用了自然语言处理（NLP）和机器学习，因此它既适用于人类日常自省，也可以作为机器评估沟通质量的系统化标尺。
### [49:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2994s) T 代表 Topics：话题选择与“30秒提前备弹”技巧
TALK 框架的第一个字母 **T** 代表 **话题（Topics）**。话题是整场对话的基石，代表我们选择谈论的内容。Alison 揭示了一个大多数人忽视的盲区：话题选择绝不仅仅发生在打招呼的破冰开场（opener），而是**在整场谈话的每分每秒中都在持续发生**。每一次发话，我们其实都在做出微小举动，决定是温和地停留在当前话题，还是巧妙转折。这意味着每个人都拥有随时微调谈话走向的主动权。
为了在谈话中游刃有余，Alison 给出的核心策略是：**提前卸载大脑的认知负荷（offload cognitive work beforehand）**。即时对话极为消耗心力，如果在开口前花上 10 到 30 秒进行预先思考，效果就会天差地别：
- **这不是死板写大纲**：给父母或伴侣打电话并不需要准备商务议程，而是提前想想对方最近的动态——比如“朋友的孩子最近要学吉他，我待会儿顺口问一句”、“同事前几天有场大汇报，记得问问进展如何”。
- **实证科研结论**：随机对照实验表明，只要在交流前花区区 **30 秒**准备话题的人：
- 对话焦虑感显著降低，互动更加流畅自如；
- 语言中断词（如 um、uh、停顿结巴）明显减少；
- 能覆盖更多优质话题，踩中深度共鸣点的概率更高；
- 大大减少“脱口而出”（blurt）说错话、暴露隐私或事后后悔的尴尬情况。
- **实用习惯分享**：Alison 习惯在 Google Calendar 的日程备注里随手写两三个 Bullet Points。即便提前一周突然想到“Steven 想不想要小孩”，也可以先记在日程里，到了见面时就能自然聊起。
这种展现对他人的好奇与关心，不仅让对方感到被重视，更会大幅拉高你的受人喜爱度与温暖形象。在进入下一个字母前，Alison 还分享了她在哈佛课堂上给学生布置的经典反思练习：如果走进一个房间，任务分别是让大家对你的喜爱度达到 1分/10分、5分/10分 或 10分/10分，你各自会采取什么样的行为？并顺势邀请 Steven 思考 1 分的场景。
### [55:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3304s) 好感度评分模拟：从 1 分的傲慢到 10 分的关注
两人探讨了一个关于“讨人喜欢程度”（Likability）的思维实验。史蒂芬（Steven Bartlett）和艾莉森（Alison Wood Brooks）探讨如何分别表现出 1 分、5 分和 10 分的行为表现：
- **1 分（极不受欢迎）**：表现得极其目中无人——低头看手机、完全无视对方、不产生任何眼神接触、言语粗鲁带刺；甚至在对方面前接打电话，大肆吹嘘自己有多了不起，或者在对方试图交谈时直接打断说“现在别烦我”，连对方的名字都能叫错，直接传达出“你对我毫无意义”的信号。
- **5 分（平庸中庸）**：态度显得懒散、不以为意（blasé）。虽然参与了互动但心不在焉，聊的都是一些任何人都能套用的闲聊话题，没有针对个人的定制化内容，不具攻击性却极其乏味。
- **10 分（极具吸引力）**：把注意力完全集中在对方身上，真诚地赞美、适度幽默、准确记住名字，甚至主动询问对方孙辈的情况。艾莉森指出，赞美必须发自肺腑才不会显得阿谀谄媚（obsequious）。
---
### [57:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3434s) 话题金字塔：寒暄、定制化话题与深度对话
针对 10 分的沟通模式，艾莉森剖析了“话题”（Topics）维度的转换规律。许多人误以为要彻底避免闲聊（Small Talk），但艾莉森澄清，闲聊其实是陌生人或久未见面的熟人之间极其重要的社交润滑仪式，用于确立“我们正在交谈”的信号。
人们真正容易犯的错误是**在闲聊层面停留过久**——在谈论“天气真好、像加州夏日一样”之后，多过一个节拍就该迅速切入个人化内容，顺着“话题金字塔”向上攀升：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 话题金字塔模型
accDescr: 展示从底层的闲聊过渡到定制化对话再到顶层的深度对话的层级金字塔
subgraph Pyramid["话题金字塔 (Topic Pyramid)"]
Top["深度对话 (Deep Talk)<br/>- 顶峰：唯有彼此能以此独特方式探讨的话题<br/>- 脆弱性与真正深厚关系的基石"]
Mid["定制化对话 (Tailored Talk)<br/>- 进阶：更个性化、切合对方兴趣与激情的领域"]
Base["闲聊 (Small Talk)<br/>- 底部基础：任何人都能聊的大众话题（如天气）<br/>- 社交启动仪式，但停留不可超过一个节拍"]
end
Base -->|“提问切换 / 追问推进”| Mid
Mid -->|“展现脆弱 / 深度共鸣”| Top
```
史蒂芬笑称自己 11 岁时曾用母亲的旧诺基亚手机发短信，一上来就追问女孩“人生的意义是什么”，结果对方直接不回短信。艾莉森指出问题不在于探讨人生意义，而在于“节奏”（Pacing）太急促：对话无法直接空降到金字塔尖，必须经历自然攀登的仪式过程，而深厚关系正是建立在登顶的脆弱时刻。
---
### [59:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3566s) TALK 框架中的 A：提问的力量与追问技巧
艾莉森由此引入 TALK 框架中的“A”——**Asking（提问）**。提问与话题转换密不可分，人们转换话题最常用的方式就是抛出一个问题（例如“你最近对什么事最兴奋？”或“你最喜欢的播客嘉宾是谁？”），而一旦进入话题，则必须依靠**追问（Follow-up questions）**来向金字塔顶端深入。
艾莉森给绝大多数人的首要建议就是：**提出更多的问题**。提问看似是人人皆知的简单常识，但在实践中却极难掌握。擅长提问的人在约会、职场会议、团队协作甚至创业融资中都更加成功。成为“零提问者（Zero Question Asker）”往往意味着得不到第二次约会、拿不到投资，也根本无法了解对方。
- **斯坦福约会研究数据**：研究团队曾分析了 1,000 场快速约会（Speed Dating）的对话实录。数据显示，提问数量与能否获得第二次约会直接呈强相关。以 20 场初次约会为例，每场约会哪怕**仅仅多提 1 个问题**，就能多成功转化出一场二次约会。
- **性别差异**：多提问对男女皆有效，但对男性尤其是一剂良方，因为数据表明男性在约会中的平均提问数显著少于女性；同时，男性在决定是否进行二次约会时普遍更加宽容、不那么挑剔。
- **追问的核心魔力**：提问不仅能让对方感到被倾听，更为后续对话提供素材。提问带来的所有红利，几乎完全是由**高质量的追问**驱动的。
艾莉森与史蒂芬在现场即兴模拟了一段约会追问示范：当对方说起早晨去了日落大道（Sunset Strip）散步时，倾听者立刻敏锐追问“真的吗？我一直想去，快跟我讲讲感觉怎么样？”，顺畅地引出对方在岔路口抉择去参观玛丽莲·梦露的公寓/弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特的建筑，还是去看奈飞（Netflix）纪录片里梅嫩德斯兄弟（Menendez brothers）凶杀案故居的精彩个人故事。
### [01:04:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3850s) 约会模拟复盘：追问如何赋予脆弱感以安全感
在结束两人模拟约会的角色扮演后，艾莉森·伍德·布鲁克斯（Alison Wood Brooks）和史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）复盘了刚才的互动体验。在扮演过程中，艾莉森坦白了自己在洛杉矶日落大道（Sunset Strip）散步时，曾在满足“有修养的文化好奇”与满足对梅嫩德斯兄弟案（Menendez brothers）的“猎奇窥探欲”之间做心理挣扎，最终因为独自一人害怕而选择了前者。艾莉森称赞史蒂文在互动中提出的问题非常棒，宛如在为她“加油鼓劲”，表达出他是真的渴望聆听这个故事，而不是冷淡敷衍。
艾莉森指出，当一个人在谈话中主动袒露内心脆弱、分享私密经历时，倾听者的反应至关重要。如果对方表现得漠不关心，分享者往往会立刻感到尴尬和羞耻，觉得自己“说了太多不该说的私事”；然而，史蒂文通过持续的追问，向对方释放出极其强烈的安全信号——“他想知道更多，他正在陪我一起踏上这段叙事旅程”。反之，如果当时史蒂文顺着她的话锋突然插嘴打断，比如冷不丁抛出一句“哦，日落大道上我最爱的是一家寿司店，我还逛了爱马仕买了双靴子”，就会瞬间摧毁这种连结，让倾诉者感受到被否定和忽视。
---
### [01:05:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3910s) “回旋镖式提问”与大脑的自我中心陷阱
艾莉森将那种看似在关心别人、实则为了引出自己话题的行为定义为“回旋镖式提问”（Boomerang Asking）——提问者把话茬抛出去，只是为了让它像回旋镖一样飞回自己手中。例如提问：“史蒂文，你最喜欢的餐厅是哪家？”对方真诚回答：“是 Mr. Chow。”提问者却立刻接话：“哦！我也去过 Mr. Chow！上次我和一大群朋友去，其中有个朋友特别搞笑……”任何形式的自我袒露在人际交流中都是一份“珍贵的礼物”，但回旋镖提问者却弃之不顾，毫不关心“你当时和谁去的”、“你点了什么菜”或“里面的氛围怎么样”，而是以最快速度把聚光灯抢回自己身上。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 回旋镖式提问对比深度追问模型
accDescr: 展示回旋镖式提问夺取焦点的负面循环与深度追问建立连接的正向循环对比
subgraph Bad["回旋镖式提问 (Boomerang Asking)"]
A1["抛出表面问题\n'你最喜欢哪家餐厅？'"] --> B1["对方自我袒露 (赠送礼物)\n'Mr. Chow'"]
B1 --> C1["话题强行拉回自身\n'我也去过！上次我和朋友... '"]
C1 --> D1["剥夺对方焦点\n导致好感度被蚕食"]
end
subgraph Good["建立连结的高情商追问"]
A2["抛出开放问题"] --> B2["对方坦诚分享"]
B2 --> C2["至少追加一个追问\n'你和谁去的？/ 点了什么招牌菜？'"]
C2 --> D2["倾听完整反馈后再产生共鸣\n'原来如此，其实我也去过那里'"]
end
```
这种现象在聚会和商务晚宴中屡见不鲜，做出此类举动的人往往毫无自知之明。艾莉森从神经与认知心理学角度解释了背后成因：人类的大脑在进化机制上就是高度“自我中心”（egocentric）的。我们对自己百分之百真实经历过的过往记忆犹新，因此在对话中听到任何词汇（如餐厅名），大脑的联想网络都会立刻被电击般激活，自动调出自己过去的精彩经历。这种自我中心的联想冲动是高品质沟通的最大敌人。艾莉森给出的破局法则是：**在把话题拉回自己之前，务必克制本能，至少再追问对方一个问题**，哪怕仅仅是一句“你当时和谁去的”，也能让对方感受到应有的尊重与在场感。
---
### [01:07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4033s) 会议中的致命习惯：用“对对对”把别人逼入沉默
史蒂文分享了他在职场会议中频繁目睹的一个恶习：当某人在发言时，坐在一旁的倾听者不停地念叨“对对对、是是是、没错没错”（Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah），语速极快。这种行为在本质上并不是认同，而是企图“用‘对对对’把对方催促到闭嘴”，好让自己能够立刻抢过话筒发表高见。史蒂文曾私下极其委婉地提醒过这样做的团队成员，指出这种下意识的口头催促在旁观者看来完全是不耐烦、不尊重、心不在焉的代名词。
艾莉森对此深有共鸣，称这是谈话中极具破坏性的一种恶习，但背后的心理动机同样是因为大脑注意力极易游离且极度兴奋于自我表达。她强调，在指出这些沟通硬伤时必须保持非审判的心态，因为人类天生注意力就容易涣散，且极易沉溺于自己的视角：
- **好感度的“千刀万剐”（Death by a thousand cuts）**：缺乏倾听意愿、无法抑制插嘴冲动、不会追问细节、无法在后半段对话中巧妙“回溯呼应”（call back）对方早前提到的细节，这些微小的失误会悄无声息地将一个人的亲和力与好感度彻底蚕食。
- **团队反馈的现实代价**：史蒂文回忆，他之所以不得不介入提醒，是因为收到了多位同事针对该员工的负面反馈，大家一致觉得“这个人根本不听别人说话”。
---
### [01:09:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4154s) 沟通自知力：职业生涯轨迹上的无形引力
史蒂文提出了一个深刻的职场现象：如果将职场人士排布在一条“沟通自知力”（communication self-awareness）的坐标轴上，人群呈现极端的两极分化。一部分人似乎天生通透、深谙进退；而另一部分人虽然极度勤奋、专业能力拔尖，却对自己在沟通中的糟糕表现完全处于盲视状态。这种自知力的匮乏，往往成为了阻碍他们职业晋升的唯一且最沉重的“重力加速度”。他向艾莉森提问：沟通自知力究竟是天生基因决定的，还是可以通过后天刻意习得而改变的？
艾莉森明确表示：**沟通自知力完全可以通过训练重塑**，并客观分析了光谱两端的利弊：
- **过度自省（Hyper-vigilant / Too self-aware）**：时刻紧绷地监视自己的言行容易导致注意力分散，甚至演变成无底线的“讨好型人格”（people-pleasing），最终引发职业倦怠与精力耗竭。
- **极度缺乏自知力（Lack of self-awareness）**：这正是她在哈佛商学院课堂上最喜欢接管并雕琢的学生群体。许多顶尖学子在入学时根本不知道自己的沟通优缺点，仅觉得自己“讨厌社交”或“不擅言谈”。
- **量化经济价值的硬技能**：通过系统的谈话框架训练，学生们彻底转变了认知。他们意识到沟通绝非模糊空洞的“软实力”，而是一项能够对商业底线产生量化经济价值的核心硬技能。即便三个月的课程无法让人脱胎换骨，但只要学员睁开双眼、认识到这是一种可以被终生习练的技术，他们未来的成长轨迹就已被彻底改写。
### [01:12:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4326s) 赞助商插播与细微失误如何削弱人际好感度
在一段关于赞助平台 Shopify 的简短赞助插播后——其集成了店面设计、支付、库存、物流及 AI 工具等功能——主持人 Steven Bartlett 将对话拉回人际交往的核心议题。他向 Alison Wood Brooks 教授提问：在成为“满分 10 分的沟通者”以及一个真正讨人喜欢的人的过程中，除了显而易见的错误之外，是否还存在类似于“千刀万剐”（death by a thousand cuts）般的隐形微小行为？即人们日常可能在无意之中不断犯下、持续蚕食自身好感度的小过失。
Alison 随即指出，这正好切入到她沟通框架中的“K”要素（Kindness，善意）。尽管按照 TALK 框架的顺序先跳过了“L”，但她强调“K”是不可忽视的根基。人们从小就被教导要“保持善良”，但在实际生活中，绝大多数人往往很难在日常言行里将其贯彻到底。Alison 长期痴迷于研究真正善良的人究竟在想些什么、如何与他人互动、做出了怎样的沟通选择。而在语言的“尊重程度”上所犯的小失误，正是最常见的慢性破坏源：比如记错或叫错对方的名字，这往往会带来相当负面的感受；此外，称呼中缺乏恰当的分寸与礼貌程度（Formality）也极易引发问题——何时适合亲切地叫一声“亲爱的”（honey），何时必须正式称呼“Brooks 博士，幸会”，完全取决于对语境和关系的敏锐感知。
### [01:14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4441s) 尊重性语言的研究与人际精力消耗
为了说明言辞分寸的真实力量，Alison 分享了一项以加州奥克兰（Oakland）警察执法为对象的研究。研究人员调取了大量警车截停（traffic stops）时的执法记录仪视频与对话文字稿，深入分析警察在查处超速等违章时所使用的语言尊重度。研究结果显示出令人深思的模式：一方面，警察在面对黑人市民时使用的尊重性语言明显少于面对白人市民，揭示了系统性种族偏见往往正是从日常言语的细节中泄漏出来的；另一方面，无论具体情境如何，只要警察使用了更为尊重的语言，随后的互动就会显著平稳顺利得多，不仅现场冲突大幅减少，车主驾车离开时也不会引发额外的违规或纠纷。尊重性语言涉及语言学上的数百个细微特征，展现出渐进式的光谱效应，却能对交流走向产生决定性影响。
听到这里，Steven 提出一个实际困扰：人们的身体和情绪状态是否严重制约了展现善意的能力？他坦言，自己最难保持友善的日子往往是严重缺眠的时候，遇到那种状态甚至恨不得避开所有人。Alison 对此深表赞同，并指出这是她多年研究得出的最核心洞察之一：**沟通是极度耗费精力的（conversation is remarkably effortful）**。
- 人类的大脑并不是无限算力的超级计算机，时间与能量都极其有限。
- 即使是理论上深谙沟通技巧的人，在能量耗尽时也会心有余而力不足：缺乏力气去构思新话题、没精力继续追问后续问题，甚至容易任由自我中心主义（Egocentrism）占上风，导致失误频发、使用不尊重语言且无法及时修补关系。
- 面对这种局限性，强大的“自我觉察”（Self-awareness）与关系韧性至关重要。Alison 引用了学者 Brené Brown 的习惯：当回家后筋疲力尽时，她会直白地对伴侣坦承：“听着，我今天电量只有 10% 了，我现在实在没法处理这件事。”如果能在职场和家庭中建立足够坚固的信任，让人能够坦言“我今天状态只有两分，请多担待”，便能获得彼此的宽容（Grace）与理解，而这正是长久健康关系的基石。
### [01:17:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4626s) “L”要素：以轻松幽默抵御漫不经心与走神
随后，Alison 将话题转回 TALK 框架中的“L”——即 **Levity（轻松幽默/欢快）**。她指出，谈及沟通失控，人们通常首先联想到争吵、叫喊、彼此防备或情绪受伤等充满火药味的激烈冲突，因为这类事件极为显眼、记忆深刻。但事实上，沟通中最普遍、最致命的隐形敌人其实是**无聊与走神（boredom and disengagement）**。
- 几乎每一场人际交谈都会不可避免地穿插着注意力断层与兴致索然的阶段。
- 科学研究显示，人类在日常交谈中有高达 **25% 的时间**大脑处于走神状态（mind wandering）。
- 良好的交流必须建立在双方彼此倾注注意力的基础之上。如果一方开始无聊走神，任何谈判说服、共同决策、头脑风暴或情感联结都无从谈起。因此，以幽默和温暖构成的“轻松感”（Levity）不仅能带来愉悦的氛围，更是维系注意力、防止交流滑向冷淡断层的关键安全绳。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 沟通中的破坏因素与轻松感的作用
accDescr: 对比显性冲突与隐性走神对沟通的危害，并展示轻松感如何激活持续参与
subgraph Threats["沟通面临的威胁"]
T1["显性破坏：冲突与争吵<br/>（情绪受伤、防御心强，显眼但偶发）"]
T2["隐性破坏：无聊与走神<br/>（人脑交谈中约25%时间走神，极普遍）"]
end
subgraph Solution["解法：轻松感（Levity）"]
L1["幽默（Humor）"]
L2["温暖（Warmth）"]
end
subgraph Outcomes["达成的沟通效果"]
O1["维持双向注意力与参与度"]
O2["促进说服、决策与深层联结"]
end
T2 --> Solution
L1 & L2 --> O1
O1 --> O2
```
### [01:18:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4731s) 幽默不够，温暖来凑：妙用“回溯呼应”的魔法
针对 Steven 略带自嘲的担忧——“如果一个人天生严肃、不苟言笑该怎么办？”，Alison 拆解了“Levity”的内部构成：它由**幽默**（Humor）与**温暖**（Warmth）两部分组成。她在哈佛商学院讲授此课时常对学生直言：“如果你天生不搞笑，甚至认为自己永远不会搞笑，没关系。在短短两个月内我也很难把一个极度严肃无趣的人变成喜剧大师；但我深信，**任何人都完全能够学会变得更加温暖**。”
展现温暖的策略丰富而具操作性，主要包括：
- **真诚表达感激**：例如明确告诉对方“非常感谢你今天花时间倾听我的内容”。
- **适度的赞美与肯定**：拉近彼此心理距离。
- **敏锐切换话题**：及时捕捉到对方开始感到乏味或疲惫的信号，勇敢而果断地转换讨论主题，让对话重新焕发活力。
- **巧妙运用“回溯呼应”（Callbacks）**：回溯呼应指的是在交谈中引用两人先前聊过的某个细节、笑点或观点，甚至可以是数周乃至一个月前旧事重提。Alison 称其为“纯粹的魔法”：它不仅直接向对方证明“我一直在全神贯注倾听你、记住了你的话，并且能机智地重新关联起来”，而且旧话重提往往天然具备极佳的幽默感与默契感。最后，Alison 提到在解答许多人困惑的“如何体面收尾一场对话”时，回溯呼应同样是行之有效的绝佳法宝。
### [01:21:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4865s) 体面结束对话的艺术与设立社交边界
在人际互动中，结束对话是最关键也是最困难的一步。Alison Wood Brooks 教授指出，结束对话本质上是“最后一个话题切换”和“最终的协同选择”。许多人在想要离开时总是犹豫不决、吞吞吐吐，甚至感到尴尬和抱歉。然而，现实中并不存在所谓“完美的收尾时刻”，因此与其拖泥带水，不如果断、坚定地选择离开。为了让退场更为体面，她提供了一个极其实用的策略——“话题回调”（Callback）。在对话进入尾声时，你可以主动提及对方在半小时甚至更早前提到的细节，例如：“祝你周末和女朋友玩得开心！”或是“希望你周末看那部电影看得愉快！”这种回调不仅证明你一直全神贯注地倾听，还能为双方搭建一个自然而舒适的离开台阶。
对话中，Steven Bartlett 分享了自己在日常生活中应对尴尬对话的个人技巧：直接给对方提供自己的真实邮箱。他提到，当自己在健身房满头大汗、正处于组间休息时，常有人走过来推销商业项目并开始冗长的路演。此时 Steven 会主动伸手握手并说道：“发我邮件吧，这是我的邮箱。”对话随即干脆利落地结束。Alison 非常赞同这种做法，她指出，虽然这可能略显生硬，但对方能够理解他人并不想在举铁时探讨复杂的商业构想；更重要的是，给出真实邮箱相当于为对方打开了一扇沟通的大门，表明自己并非冷漠应付。
Alison 进一步引申指出，在日常交流中，“说得更多”并不等于“沟通得更好”。很多时候，对话的低信息目标——保护个人时间与心理健康——更为重要。虽然当今社会孤独感泛滥、许多人社交不足，但对于一部分人而言，问题恰恰在于“社交过度”，他们的社交组合过载，有太多人向其索取精力与时间。因此，学会建立策略以防御“过度对话”，并在不想深聊时放过自己，是维持心理平衡的关键。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 对话优雅退场流程
accDescr: 展示从识别边界、采用策略到优雅退场的逻辑链条
subgraph 识别边界
A["察觉社交过载 / 场景不适"] --> B{"选择退场策略"}
end
subgraph 落地策略
B -->|"日常闲聊"| C["话题回调 Callback<br/>呼应先前细节"]
B -->|"职场/突发打扰"| D["转移渠道 / 递出邮箱<br/>保留后续跟进可能"]
end
subgraph 最终结果
C --> E["果断、得体地终止对话"]
D --> E
end
```
---
### [01:23:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5022s) 内向、外向与尴尬场面中的三种应对人格
谈及社交偏好时，Steven 提出了关于内向者（Introvert）、外向者（Extrovert）以及中间性格者（Ambivert）的真实性疑问。他举例对比道：自己团队中的 Zara 在经历了极其忙碌的一周后，周五下班最想做的事居然是去一家人声鼎沸的咖啡馆，置身于陌生人群中来重新充电，这让 Steven 觉得匪夷所思；而他自己在同样疲惫的一周后，唯一的渴望就是独自躲在一个又冷又黑的房间里静静待着。Alison 解释说，这两种反应都是完全正常且健康的，关键在于了解自己的偏好。这并不单纯取决于所谓的性格标签，而是关乎个人在对话频率、互动对象以及交流话题上的具体倾向。
Alison 认为，衡量一个人是否偏向外向，一个绝佳的试金石不是看他喜欢身边围绕多少人，而是看他如何应对群体场合中的“尴尬冷场”。
- **外向者的典型心态**：“这是我的人生首要任务，别担心，我来拯救冷场，我就是为了打破尴尬而生的。”
- **内向者的典型反应**：“我还是去牛油果酱旁边站着吧，这根本不是我的问题，我一点都不想掺和。”
针对人们在棘手社交场景下的本能反应，Alison 在其网站上发布了一套全新的行为测评，将人群在面对尴尬社交时的表现划分为三种核心原型：
| 行为类型 | 面对尴尬冷场的本能反应 | 潜在优势与风险 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **进取型 (Approach)** | 倾向于主动介入、主导控场并试图打破僵局 | **优势**：能迅速活跃气氛；<br/>**风险**：容易慌不择言，说出让自己后悔的话，反而降低个人价值。 |
| **回避型 (Avoidance)** | 选择留在现场，但保持沉默、隐身观察 | **优势**：不引人注目、情绪稳定；<br/>**风险**：容易被边缘化，错失交流契机。 |
| **退场型 (Exiter)** | 迅速判定“这个聚会糟透了”，立刻寻找时机离开 | **优势**：高效保护时间与精力；<br/>**风险**：常被视作不合群或缺乏耐性。 |
---
### [01:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5223s) 职场会议中的“发言信用分”与发言时间分配
过度表达不仅会在社交中带来困扰，在职场和董事会会议中同样具有破坏性。Steven 分享了自己多年前在管理团队时总结出的**“发言信用分”（Contribution Score）**理论。这一概念源于他在纽约和曼彻斯特两地办公室观察到的鲜明对比：
- **纽约办公室的个案（化名 Katie）**：由于她平时发言过于频繁且废话连篇，导致她的发言信用分严重透支。当她再次在会议上开口时，话还没说完半句，旁边的人就已经在心里预先反驳或将其过滤无视。
- **曼彻斯特办公室的个案**：该同事平时极少发声，但一旦他开口，整个会议室瞬间鸦雀无声，所有人都会本能地转过头来全神贯注地倾听，因为大家知道“重磅观点要来了”。
Steven 强调：“每个人都有自己的发言信用分，务必保护好它。”
Alison 高度评价了这一概念，并从群体动力学角度剖析了会议发言时间（Airtime）的分配机制。群体沟通极其复杂，其核心挑战之一在于发言时间的平衡：
- **权力失衡**：在组织中处于高权力地位的人往往会本能地霸占更多发言时间，这不仅毫无建设性，还会让低层级成员感到受压制而不敢发声。高层管理者必须主动克制这一冲动。
- **专业匹配度与发言垄断**：霸占会议发言时间本身就是低效的，尤其是当发言者并不是该领域的专家时，危害尤甚。唯一合情合理霸占发言时间的例外情况，是团队面临特定技术壁垒，而全场十个人中只有一位专业人士（例如唯一的一位航空航天工程师）——此时，全场静听该专家讲满 45 分钟才是最高效的沟通。
### [01:29:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5356s) 会议中的多元角色与“糟糕的转换者”
在群体对话中，话语权的分配往往决定了沟通的成败。艾莉森（Alison Wood Brooks）指出，当霸占发言时间的人既非唯一的专家、甚至根本不是相关领域的专家时，对话就会陷入灾难。然而，发言绝非在群体中创造价值的唯一途径。团队中的角色是极其多元的：有人担任时间守门人（timekeeper），有人负责梳理议程，时刻提醒大家“我们最初设定的目标是什么、我们今天要达成什么决策”。艾莉森特别强调了“执笔人”的力量——在白板上做笔记、画图表的人往往才是会议中最有权力的人，因为“是他们在决定什么内容才值得被写在板上”。一个好的团队不仅需要明确的目标和清晰的角色分工，更需要维系团队温度的“灵魂”。
斯蒂芬（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个逻辑指出了职场中另一类“贡献得分极低”的人——他们被称为“糟糕的话题转换者”（bad switchers）。这类人往往缺乏倾听和顺应团队方向的意愿，甚至表现出一种“必须开口说话”的强迫症。斯蒂芬举例说，当整个团队正在全神贯注地讨论为星巴克策划的营销活动、探讨“是否该在曼哈顿办一场线下活动”时，这种人会突然跳出来插一句毫无意义的私事：“我以前去曼哈顿度过假，而且它还在《福布斯》最值得去的地方榜单上排名前 15 呢。”这种毫无关联的插嘴瞬间让全场陷入尴尬与困惑。
艾莉森对此给出了行为科学的视角的剖析：如果那个人抛出的是一个关于纽约的机智笑话，迅速活跃了气氛并让大家会心一笑，随后又立刻把话题切回正轨，那么这种短暂的幽默偏离（levity）是非常健康的，甚至能把大家从对同一个话题枯燥的死循环中解救出来。然而，如果只是为了彰显自我而硬生生插话（“听我讲讲当年我去纽约的经历”），那就是纯粹的“以自我为中心”（egocentrism）。这表明该成员既没有阅读空气的能力，也完全不把团队的共同目标放在心上。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 群体对话中的话题偏移与建设性引导
accDescr: 对比以自我为中心的低贡献发言与建设性幽默或角色引导对会议走向的不同影响。
subgraph Problematic["破坏性偏离（以自我为中心）"]
A["团队聚焦核心议题<br/>（例：星巴克曼哈顿活动方案）"] --> B["强行插入无关个人琐事<br/>（'我曾去曼哈顿度假...'）"]
B --> C["议题偏航与沟通脱轨"]
end
subgraph Productive["建设性引导（高贡献得分）"]
D["议题陷入僵局或疲惫"] --> E["适度幽默或短暂侧栏<br/>缓解气氛后快速归轨"]
D --> F["多元角色发挥功能<br/>（执笔记录/议程把控/推动决策）"]
E --> G["高效达成团队目标"]
F --> G
end
```
### [01:32:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5520s) 三人对话的协调困境与控制权博弈
斯蒂芬将这种“偏离轨道”的现象延伸到了内容创作领域。他直言自己绝不可能接受拥有一位播客搭档（co-host）。在双主持的播客中，受众经常能看到类似令人窒息的场景：一位主持人正带着嘉宾顺藤摸瓜、步步深入移民政策的核心痛点，另一位主持人却突然打断：“等等，在继续之前我有一件小事要提”，随后把话题拽向完全无关的方向，让原本即将触碰到的关键真相功亏一篑。
艾莉森敏锐地指出，许多人误以为“两人一对一沟通”和“三人小组对话”是同一类任务，但事实上，**一旦第三个人拉开椅子坐下，无论是播客搭档还是酒吧里的朋友，这场对话在本质上就发生了质的转变**：
- **两人对话**：是由两颗心智亲密、同步共创的流动过程。
- **三人对话**：第三方的加入赋予了任何人随意开启“侧栏支线”的权力，整个局面极易陷入复杂的“协调混乱”（coordination kerfuffle）。
当艾莉森追问斯蒂芬排斥搭档是否源于“对对话控制权的执念”时，斯蒂芬坦承这确实关乎控制权与节奏流淌，并分享了自己前不久与同事一同面试三位候选人的亲身经历：
1. **第一场面试**：斯蒂芬明确告知女同事由她主导，自己全程旁听。他非常享受这个过程，看着同事沿着清晰的单线推进，感觉条理分明。
2. **第二场面试**：两人没有提前协商。斯蒂芬在向候选人提问时，正在小心翼翼地旁敲侧击，试图抽丝剥茧地试探出对方身上的某个疑似“危险信号”（red flag）。眼看一步步逼近真相，同事却冷不防插进来问了一个风马牛不相及的宏大问题，瞬间把线索彻底掐断。斯蒂芬在内心崩溃呼喊：“我马上就要弄清楚了！现在又得从零开始！”
这次经历让斯蒂芬在面试结束后立即与同事定下规矩：“以后面试必须明确谁是主导人（topic leader）。一人提问时另一人就专心倾听，反之亦然。”艾莉森赞同这一做法，明确角色与主导权是消除三人及以上群体沟通混乱的关键法则。
---
### [01:35:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5708s) 摆脱“讨喜”陷阱：人们在人际沟通中真正焦虑的问题
当斯蒂芬询问在“如何受人喜欢（likability）与招人讨厌”这一主题下还有哪些未被探讨的核心议题时，艾莉森直截了当地指出，我们应该跳出“讨人喜欢”这个狭隘的概念，因为受欢迎只是优质对话中最表层、最局限的副产品。
斯蒂芬解释了自己为何执着于使用这些词汇——因为这是大众受众最真实、最深切的痛点所在。根据听众的大量反馈，普通人在日常沟通中普遍存在五大核心困惑：
- **如何对付身边的“自恋狂”（narcissists）**：总觉得身边的难搞之人是自恋者。艾莉森指出，这往往是人们在遭遇分歧时的指责性标签，其本质是大家根本不懂得如何应对观点对立。
- **艰难对话（difficult conversations）**：无数人视其为人生梦魇，在职场与生活中能躲则躲，误以为只要攻克了艰难对话就能一顺百顺。
- **渴望被人喜欢**。
- **极度害怕在不知不觉中做出招人讨厌的行为**。
- **如何提升说服力（persuasion）**：人人都想说服别人，却极少有人在乎如何倾听。斯蒂芬提到知名演讲专家朱利安·特雷谢尔（Julian Treasure）曾做过的研究也印证了这点——大众只热衷于“表达与说服”，对“倾听”毫无兴趣。
艾莉森分析道，这些看似分散的焦虑其实全部指向同一个根源：**人们完全不懂得如何管理冲突、分歧与尴尬时刻**。人类对于沟通的直觉存在巨大的认知盲区。人们总是将目光过度聚焦在那些具有强烈情绪冲击力的“分歧高光时刻”——比如一场导致情侣分手、朋友翻脸的激烈争吵，痛苦地反思“当时有多糟糕”。
然而真实的人际交往要宽广得多，人们忽视了更加致命的盲点：在日常 80% 的时间里，大多数人的沟通其实“超级无聊”（super boring）。人们错失真正建立深层连接的机会，并不是因为那场爆发的争吵，而是因为在绝大多数正常交流中，他们根本没有在认真倾听他人、不肯花时间提问，更缺乏提出有价值的追问（follow-up questions）的意识。
### [01:37:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5864s) 对话不是迷你演讲：从宝可梦陷阱到创业融资
人们往往很难意识到自己其实很无聊，因为没有谁会当面直言：“嘿，哥们，你太无趣了。”人们本能地认为，只要是自己感兴趣的事物，在别人眼里也一定很有吸引力。比如一个人极度迷恋宝可梦，便会理所当然地觉得“这是全世界最重要的事情”，随后开始滔滔不绝地向对方灌输自己所知道的一切宝可梦知识。然而，这恰恰是对对话本质的重大误解——对话的目的绝不是把我们脑中的知识一股脑扔向别人，而是去寻找两人共同感兴趣的话题，进而探索对方对此有何想法与感受。在这场穿透彼此思维的旅程中，双方才会来到一个奇妙的境界：你在向对方学习，对方觉得你富有魅力，彼此开怀大笑，感受到自己被真正看见、了解与接纳。
这正是“让自己显得有趣”（being interesting）与“对他人怀有兴趣”（being interested）之间的关键鸿沟。生活不是走过路过发表一场又一场迷你公开演讲或微型 TED 演讲；对话是高度互动的，是由两个独立大脑共同创造的。许多创业者也会陷入同样的误区，他们受到《龙穴之创业投资》（Dragon's Den）或《鲨鱼嚼商业》（Shark Tank）等电视节目的深刻影响，总觉得自己必须站在台上做出一场震撼全场的路演，才能赢得认可。
但在现实商业世界中，大多数创业者或企业主在面对投资人、战略合作伙伴和同事时，所处的全都是双向对话的场景。在急匆匆宣布“让我来向你介绍我这间了不起的公司”之前，创业者真正该做的是提出无数个问题：了解对方的痛点、知道对方有几个孩子、摸清对方真正关心什么。唯有如此，当你足够幸运、手中的产品或服务恰好能精准解决他们的困扰时，你才能顺理成章地给出解决方案，赢得对方的投资。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 演讲式倾倒与共创式对话的对比
accDescr: 对比了单向输出的无聊模式与双向探索的共创连接模式
subgraph 单向输出模式 ["'做有趣的自己'（单向倾倒）"]
A["单方面迷恋主题<br/>（如：宝可梦/创业路演）"] --> B["当成迷你 TED 演讲进行灌输"]
B --> C["对方毫无兴趣，对话陷入乏味"]
end
subgraph 双向共创模式 ["'对他人感兴趣'（双向探索）"]
D["提出问题，探索彼此交集"] --> E["进入对方大脑的认知旅程"]
E --> F["产生共鸣、笑声，感到被理解"]
end
```
### [01:40:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6009s) 间谍的视角思维：不要猜测，直接提问
前美国中央情报局（CIA）特工安德鲁·布斯塔曼特（Andrew Bustamante）曾分享过一个深刻洞见：作为一名间谍，必须受训彻底分清“你的视线角度”（perspective）与“对方的感知现实”（perception）之间的差异。此时此刻，说话者坐在房间里，视线中能看到镜子、奖杯、对方肩膀上方的两台摄像机、一根木梁和一圈绿色胶带；但坐在对面的聆听者背后是这一切，眼前所见的完全是另一副景象。
间谍必须学会将自己置于对方的感知现实中，因为如果做不到这一点，就永远无法说服任何人。人类必须清醒地意识到：坐在对面的人拥有一个截然不同的大脑。虽然我们可以根据自身经验去猜测对方脑子里在想什么——就像身处房间内，可以推测背后应该是一堵墙而不是马路——但海量心理学研究表明，人类极其不擅长仅凭自身经历去推测他人的感知现实。克服这种认知盲区唯一的有效手段不是凭空猜测，而是直接发问：
- “你坐在那里看到了什么？”
- “这给你带来了怎样的感觉？”
- “你认为它为什么会被设计成不对称的？”
- “为什么我能看见书，而你看不见？”
唯有通过主动提问与持续对话，一个人才能真正理解另一个人的内心世界。
### [01:41:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6102s) 赞助商插播：SimpliSafe 与 Ketone-IQ
节目的赞助环节提到了两个产品：
- **SimpliSafe 家庭安防系统**：市面上许多安防方案都属于被动反应型，往往在入侵已经发生后才有所动作。SimpliSafe 采用完全不同的主动防护机制，其 AI 摄像头会在有人潜伏于房屋或办公室周围时及时识别，远程专业坐席人员会扮演保安角色，直接通过扬声器对入侵者喊话，告知其正处于监控之下，必要时可启动警报器、聚光灯进行威慑，或直接呼叫 911 报警。服务不设长期合约和隐性费用，支持随时取消并提供 60 天退款保证，听众访问专用链接可享半价优惠。
- **Ketone-IQ 酮体饮品**：作为一款对团队专注力、能量状态与工作效率产生颠覆性影响的产品，主持人在亲身体验后不仅让团队大比例使用，还成为了该公司的联合所有者。听众可通过专属链接获得 30% 优惠并在复购时获赠礼品，该产品目前也已进驻美国 Target 门店，可提供首支免费试饮。
### [01:43:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6223s) “你最近对什么感到兴奋？”：解锁他人内心世界的黄金提问
当进入一场商业洽谈，或者试图说服优秀人才加入团队时，该如何通过提问来摸清对方的世界观以及他们心中的“英雄之旅”？核心法则是：多提问、认真倾听回答，并顺着答案追问下一个问题。
一个绝佳的破冰开场白是：“你最近对什么感到兴奋？”（"What are you excited about lately?"）这个提问有三大不可替代的妙处：
1. **揭示核心焦点**：它能瞬间展现出目前在对方大脑中占据第一顺位的事物；
2. **蕴含关系的延续感**：问句中的“最近”暗示你关心或了解他们过往的状态，能够自然地搭建起时间跨度上的回访与重温；
3. **极高的包容性**：无论对方性格如何，甚至处于极度沮丧的状态，每个人都能找到一个答案——哪怕只是对于“结交一个新朋友的前景”感到一丝期待。
任何能让对方感到兴奋的话题，都是一座宝藏通道。提问者可以顺着这个线索继续深入：“那我能做些什么来支持你达成这件事呢？”在现场对话中，主持人立刻做出了教科书级的“呼应重提”（callback）：他指出在三个小时前自己向艾莉森提出该问题时，艾莉森给出了两个答案——一是把对话沟通课程引入学校体系，二是一项关于男性沟通与男性友谊的最新研究。这一现场举动不仅展示了强大的倾听与记忆力，也赢得了专家的由衷赞叹。
### [01:45:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6309s) 男性与女性的沟通差异：面对面与肩并肩
谈及男性是否真的不擅长沟通，艾莉森指出，如果仔细拆解任何真实的对话，其底层往往更像是一场“火车相撞事故”（a train wreck），而不是影视剧里精心编排的流畅台词。对话充满了混乱、口误、误解、修补解释与不断道歉，因此对任何人而言，对话的目标都绝非追求完美。
在性别差异方面，学术研究揭示了清晰的模式区别：
- **女性的友谊与沟通**：倾向于面对面（face-to-face），通过相互注视和高密度的言语互动来建立连接；
- **男性的友谊与沟通**：倾向于肩并肩（shoulder-to-shoulder），通常依托共同参与的活动维系连接——例如一起钓鱼、打篮球，或坐在电脑前研究梦幻体育游戏（fantasy sports）。
通过对海量对话实录进行大规模深度文本分析，能够从更深层次揭开男性友谊和日常交流背后独特而微妙的互动真相。
### [01:46:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6362s) 男性友谊的缺失与“脆弱性”困境
艾莉森·伍德·布鲁克斯（Alison Wood Brooks）分享了她最近的一项实地观察研究。与以往在实验室处理冷冰冰的数据不同，这次她现场实时旁观了大量陌生男性初次见面并试图建立友谊的过程。这种直观的体验让她深受触动，也倍感揪心——因为这些男性在展露“脆弱性”（Vulnerability）方面表现得极其艰难。
友谊专家通常指出，建立深厚友谊需要三大要素：**持续性**（Consistency，即反复的互动频率）、**积极情绪**（Positivity，一起享受快乐时光），以及最关键的**脆弱性**（Vulnerability）。脆弱性意味着向对方敞开心扉，不仅分享情绪感受，更要坦陈内心的挣扎、梦想、人生目标以及真实的渴望。然而令布鲁克斯感到抓狂的是，在她旁观的成百上千场男性对话中，几乎没有任何人去问这些问题，也没有人涉及这些话题。作为一个女性，这种反差几乎令她感到震惊，因为女性在陌生社交的前三分钟里往往就会自然切入这类深层分享。布鲁克斯担忧，从“打篮球的球友”或“梦幻体育游戏搭子”跨越到能够进行脆弱交流的挚友，这之间的鸿沟被男性视作巨大且充满风险的深渊，使得他们无法迈出这一步，而这正是阻碍男性建立真正有意义友谊的核心症结。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 建立深层友谊的三大支柱与男性的跨越困境
accDescr: 展示建立友谊所必需的三大核心要素，以及男性在跨越到脆弱性层级时所面临的社交阻碍。
subgraph Pillars ["友谊的三大支柱"]
C["持续性 (Consistency)<br>高频且规律的互动"]
P["积极情绪 (Positivity)<br>一起娱乐、获得乐趣"]
V["脆弱性 (Vulnerability)<br>分享挣扎、目标与内心世界"]
end
subgraph Barrier ["男性的社交障碍"]
M1["浅层社交搭子<br>(球友 / 游戏搭友 / 闲聊)"]
Risk{"跨越风险感<br>(害怕示弱 / 缺乏勇气)"}
M2["深层亲密挚友<br>(情感支持与信任)"]
M1 -->|难以跨越| Risk
Risk -.->|需要开启脆弱对话| M2
end
```
### [01:47:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6468s) 现代男性的孤独危机与社交勇气
史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）与布鲁克斯随之探讨了触目惊心的男性孤独数据。令人难以置信的是，大量男性报告自己没有任何亲密朋友。在传统异性恋婚姻中，男性往往将伴侣作为唯一的情感寄托与支撑来源，而女性则通常拥有自己广泛的朋友支持圈。一旦妻子离世，丧偶男性为了填补情感空白往往急于再婚；反之，若丈夫离世，女性则能依靠庞大的女性朋友圈获得源源不断的情感支持。
- **孤独感与零挚友**：高达 40% 的男性可能没有一个亲密朋友；男性报告在遭遇危机时“无一人可求助”的概率比女性高出 **400%**。
- **友谊满意度**：半数（50%）的男性表示对自己的友谊现状感到不满意。
- **历史下滑**：自 1990 年以来，男性拥有的亲密朋友平均数量骤降了 **30% 至 40%**。
布鲁克斯指出，想要改变这一现状，需要巨大的“勇气与自信”。选择合适的话题、在话题乏味时果断转换、提出有穿透力的提问与追问、寻找幽默感、真诚倾听与道歉，这些沟通技能无一不需要克服内心的畏惧。然而，男性在成长过程中长期接受的社会化训诫是“展现脆弱就是软弱的象征”，导致迈出这一步对他们而言需要承担过度的心理压力。
面对史蒂芬关于“男性该如何交到更多朋友”的提问，布鲁克斯给出的答案是：**一次只推动一场对话**。作为个体，你可以主动释放信号，向其他男性示范这种勇敢的跨越。例如主动提出一些深入的话题：“你最近在跟什么事情较劲？”“你近期最渴望达成什么目标？”或者“有什么事情是你一直在琢磨，但从来没对任何人讲过的？”
### [01:49:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6572s) 摆脱“解说员式闲聊”：从 Canary Wharf 的提问到课堂破冰
布鲁克斯惟妙惟肖地还原了她在实验中观察到的男性日常对话场景。两个陌生男性坐在一起，对话往往沦为对周遭环境的单纯“实时解说”（Narrating）：
- “嘿，伙计，这热狗真难吃。”
- “是啊，确实难吃透了。”
- “我真不喜欢这里的伙食……待会儿我想去睡一觉。”
即便偶尔问一句“你打哪儿来？”，也会迅速退化成事实罗列：“我喜欢芝加哥，那里有橄榄球队。”“我讨厌芝加哥熊队。”“哦对，我想起来当年某某球员在那里打球……”对话完全被局限在体育与事实的表面。布鲁克斯强调，聊体育本身无可厚非，但你完全可以向前多迈出关键的一步：“你高中打橄榄球的时候，体验过那种内心脆弱无助的时刻吗？”或者“你在体育上遇到过最大的挫败是什么？当年为什么没去打大学联赛？”无论初始话题是什么，只要进一步追问与个人心境相关的内容，就能把对话拉入真诚而有趣的维度，从而向真正的朋友迈进一步，而不是单纯互换已知信息的路人。
史蒂芬随后分享了一个生动的真实经历：大约一年前，他在伦敦金丝雀码头（Canary Wharf）面对 500 名刚毕业踏入职场的年轻人（大约 21 岁）做演讲。现场前排突然站起来一个年轻人，当着全场 499 名同龄人的面，勇敢地提问：“史蒂芬，我想知道怎么才能交到朋友？”史蒂芬被这种坦率与勇气深深震撼。
布鲁克斯高度赞同这种勇气的价值。一切关系的开启往往只是从一句“你好”开始。在哈佛的课堂上，她每学期第一次组织沟通练习时，课后总会有大批学生对她说：“这是我第一次转过头去，跟坐在我旁边的同学真正开口说话。”在这个人人都习惯走进教室或礼堂就埋头刷手机的时代，仅仅是转过身打个招呼（“嗨，我是艾莉森，你叫什么名字？来自哪里？”）都需要打破沉默的勇气。史蒂芬笑着吐槽在英国这种行为甚至可能被当成怪异举动（“creepy behavior”），布鲁克斯则笑称确实需要审时度势（Read the room），但一旦建立互动，就要跳出事实交换，通过持续倾听、深度追问去真正了解彼此。
### [01:52:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6763s) “让人喜欢上你的 10 个问题”（10 Questions to Fall in Like）
史蒂芬注意到了布鲁克斯带来的一份问题清单。布鲁克斯解释，这份清单源自心理学家阿瑟·阿伦（Arthur Aron）当年著名的《让人陷入爱河的 36 个问题》（36 Questions to Fall in Love，曾因《纽约时报》的报道而闻名遐迩）。基于这一理论，布鲁克斯提炼并改编了一个精简子集，用于自己的哈佛课堂练习，命名为**“让人喜欢上你的 10 个问题”**（10 Questions to Fall in Like）。
这 10 个问题旨在供两个人来回轮流提问与作答，建立渐进的情感共鸣：
1. **你最近对什么事情感到特别兴奋/期待？**（What are you excited about lately?）
2. **有什么事情是你非常擅长，但其实并不喜欢去做的？**（What is something you're good at but don't like doing?）
3. **有什么事情是你很不擅长，但自己却非常喜欢去做的？**（What's something you're bad at but love to do?）
4. **最近有什么领域或知识是你很想进一步深入了解的吗？**（Is there something you'd like to learn more about?）
5. **有什么技能是你一直渴望学会去做的？**（Is there something you'd like to learn how to do?）
6. **你最近有什么值得我们大家一起为你庆祝的事吗？**（What can we celebrate about you?）
7. **最近有人把你逗得哈哈大笑过吗？**（Has someone made you laugh recently?）
8. **你的孩子、朋友、宠物或伴侣最近做过什么特别可爱/暖心的事吗？**（What's something cute your kid, friend, pet, or partner has been doing?）
9. **你小时候是在哪座城市长大的？**（Did you grow up in a city?）
10. **你最近有没有彻底迷上什么新的音乐、书籍、电影或电视剧？**（Have you fallen in love with any new music, books, movies, shows lately?）
布鲁克斯指出，普通人（尤其是男性）在日常社交中往往极少触及这类问题，但它们是打破浅层社交的绝佳工具。你不必一次性问完 10 个问题，完全可以随身“在口袋里常备两三个”，在社交场合伺机抛出。比如布鲁克斯个人的常用破冰问题就是“你最近对什么事感到兴奋？”或者“你最近有在狂热追什么剧吗？”。然而，问题的提出只是**对话的第一回合**，更重要的是倾听对方的回答，并展开深度追问（“你为什么会对那个角色产生共鸣？”“你从主角身上看到了自己的影子吗？”），沿着话题金字塔不断向上攀登。最后她幽默地向听众建议：如果大家（特别是年轻男生）在提出这些走心问题时感到尴尬或害羞，大可以把责任推到她头上——“你就跟对方说，这是哈佛大学的布鲁克斯教授让我问你的！”
### [01:55:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6904s) 借口与脆弱感：建立深度连接的敲门砖
在尝试开启更深层的对话时，人们往往需要一个化解尴尬的“挡箭牌”。史蒂芬·巴特利特提到，人们完全可以找个借口作为开场白，比如对别人说：“我在《CEO日记》上看到一个疯疯癫癫的女士，她说我应该试试问这个问题，所以我想试一下。”艾莉森·伍德·布鲁克斯教授对此深有同感，她笑着透露，就连她在哈佛商学院的学生也经常把她当作“替罪羊”，在社交中对别人说“这都是我教授逼我问的”。这种外部借口极为有效，无论促使你迈出第一步的是内驱力还是外部推手，只要你把问题抛了出去，对方给出了回答，你就能顺理成章地提出追问，一段深厚的友谊往往就此萌芽。
史蒂芬随即分享了自己年轻时的一段趣事：他当时对一个女孩心生好感，刚好看了一场关于“让人坠入爱河的36个问题”的 TED 演讲，于是便给女孩发短信说：“我想和你玩个游戏，是我刚看的一个东西，你愿意和我一起玩吗？”女孩答应后，史蒂芬便逐一向她提问，并在结束时以一种毫不做作、自然得体的方式向她解释了背后的心理学研究。艾莉森听到这里打趣他是“彻头彻尾的书呆子”（a real dork），但史蒂芬强调，这个举动确实创造了奇迹。这段经历让他深刻领悟到：**脆弱感是通往连接的敲门砖（Vulnerability is the doorway to connection）**。
艾莉森对此完全赞同。她指出，脆弱感正是让一段人际关系变得真实的核心要素；缺乏脆弱感，彼此之间就不可能产生真正的友谊。一段健康的深度关系由以下几个支柱构成：
- **互动的持久性与一致性（Consistency）**：长期稳定的接触与交流。
- **积极的情感体验（Positivity）**：远离负能量、无休止的争吵和愤怒，保持轻松、有趣、愉悦的相处氛围。
- **展现脆弱与独特袒露（Vulnerability）**：主动向彼此袒露深层自我，让对方觉得你是在唯独与他们分享最真实的秘密与想法，从而建立起“彼此真正懂得对方”的深刻联结。
---
### [01:56:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6990s) 说服与销售的本质：坐在桌子的同一侧
史蒂芬将话题转向职场与日常生活中最普遍的痛点——如何说服他人与推销观点。他指出，所谓的“销售技巧”并非指在展厅里推销汽车，而是指在组织内部向上、向下或横向推销创新想法。例如，他在各大企业演讲时，经常有员工提问：“我想说服老板推进某项创新，但他根本不听我的，我该怎么做？”
艾莉森阐述道，在组织与社会的各个层面上，说服的本质是相同的：**我们只会被自己信任、喜欢和钦佩的人所说服**。说服极少能在单一的一场对话中一蹴而就，它需要长期的信任铺垫。如果你想在单次交流中达成突破，关键在于转变对抗姿态，由“面对面博弈”变为“并肩作战”——双方坐到桌子的同一侧，把复杂的议题看作一团缠绕在一起的毛线球，共同探讨：“让我们尽可能多地了解这个复杂的毛线团，看看能不能一起把线头理清楚。”
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 冲突对抗模式与并肩协作说服模式对比
accDescr: 对比了传统的面对面反驳争论模式与坐到桌子同一侧并肩拆解问题的说服模式
subgraph Confrontation["传统对抗模式（极易受阻）"]
direction TB
A1["单向强推观点"] --> B1["对方防御/抵触"]
B1 --> C1["陷入像跳针唱片般的重复争吵"]
end
subgraph Collaboration["并肩协作模式（高效说服）"]
direction TB
A2["提问并探究对方立场"] --> B2["充分认可与确认感受 (Validation)"]
B2 --> C2["对方放下戒备，感到被理解"]
C2 --> D2["共同理清问题线头，达成共识"]
end
```
这种策略的核心在于对反对观点的接纳与确认（Validation）。极具讽刺意味的是，当你越是强迫自己去深入了解对方、确认并接纳对方观点的合理性时，长远来看你就越具有说服力。因为当对方感到自己被倾听、被理解，且确信你讲理、开放、不是一个自以为是的混蛋时，他们才愿意持续与你互动，并反过来倾听你的论点。
史蒂芬结合自己的亲身经历印证了这一原理：
- **缺乏确认时**：争论就像一张“跳针的破唱片”（broken record），对方因为觉得自己的声音没被听见，会一遍又一遍重复同一个论点，沟通彻底卡死。
- **给予确认时**：奇迹瞬间发生，唱机仿佛被按下了暂停键。一旦对方确认你听懂了他们的立场，他们便会停止防御，此时你再提出自己的主张，对方才会真正听进去。
---
### [01:58:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7113s) 倾听不等于赞同：破解说服中的认知混淆
艾莉森强调，人们必须分清“确认对方感受（Validation）”与“赞同对方观点（Agreement）”的根本区别。确认对方的感受并不意味着你同意他们的立场；你可以反复确认对方感受的合理性，随后依然坚定地表达不同意见。更重要的是，在充分确认对方之后再表达异议，沟通效果往往会好得多。
最新研究揭示了一个普遍的人类心理盲区：**人们极其容易将“赞同”与“倾听”混为一谈**。在潜意识中，每个人都认为自己的观点无比明智、逻辑严密，因此会产生一种认知扭曲：“只有当你同意我时，你才是在认真听我说；如果你不同意我，那一定是因为你根本没听懂或者没在听。”
针对史蒂芬半开玩笑提出的反讽策略——“那我以后是不是每句话都该以‘我同意’开头，哪怕我根本不同意？”艾莉森给出了极具操作性的沟通话术：
| 错误应对方式 | 艾莉森推荐的确认话术 (Validation) |
|:--- |:--- |
| 直接反驳对方逻辑：“你这么想是不对的，因为……” | **“多跟我讲讲吧（Tell me more）。”** |
| 虚假附和：“我完全同意你的看法。”（随后又反悔） | **“你有这种感受完全合情合理（It makes sense that you feel this way）。”** |
| 质疑对方立场：“你怎么会产生这种荒谬的念头？” | **“我很想理解你是通过怎样的经历或考量形成这个观点的。”** |
两人进一步探讨了为什么社会大众对“倾听”技能严重缺乏重视。史蒂芬提到声音沟通大师朱利安·特雷热（Julian Treasure）曾做过两场 TED 演讲，一场关于“如何说话”，获得了约 4000 万次播放；而另一场关于“如何倾听”的演讲，播放量却只是前者的冰山一角。
艾莉森解释道，这是因为公众演讲和开口表达是一种显性、主动的行为，而且常常让人极度焦虑紧张，因此人们迫切渴望任何能够减轻焦虑的实用技巧。相比之下，倾听被误认为是一种完全被动的状态——大家觉得倾听很容易，“只要闭嘴坐在那里就行了”。但事实恰恰相反，人类的大脑天生容易走神，至少有 25% 甚至更高比例的时间处于思绪游离状态，真正高质量的倾听需要付出巨大的认知努力。那些在社交场合中极具魅力、讨人喜欢且显得无比精明的人，往往不是因为他们说了多么惊艳的话，而是因为他们展现出了极高水准的倾听与回应技巧。
---
### [02:00:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7258s) 中情局特工的倾听战术与“多重角色关系”的复杂性
为了说明倾听的巨大威力，史蒂芬分享了前美国中情局（CIA）特工迈克·贝克（Mike Baker）的实战案例。在长达 20 年的特工生涯中，迈克·贝克在海外策反目标、获取核心机密的核心手段正是倾听：
- **渗透与潜伏**：在阿富汗等海外执行任务时，特工会找到目标政府官员专职出租车司机的车。
- **长达七周的纯粹倾听**：迈克·贝克可能连续整整 7 周坐在这辆出租车里，什么多余的事都不做，只是专注倾听司机的倾诉，并不断追问细节。
- **利用情感空缺建立掌控**：绝大多数人一生中从未享受过被他人连续 10 分钟不被打断地倾听。只要你真诚倾听并提出跟进问题，对方就会毫无保留地倾倒内心世界。到了第 7 周，特工探听到了司机的核心软肋——他的儿子膝盖受了重伤，全家正为此忧心忡忡。
- **达成交易**：到了第 8 周，特工才正式抛出筹码：“我知道你儿子的膝盖伤得很重，我们有能力治好他。”从而顺利瓦解对方防线。
艾莉森指出，这与商业世界中优秀的创业者推销理念如出一辙：先建立长期关系，连续不断地提问、了解对方的需求与动机，直到时机成熟，才提出最终的合作提议。
针对特工与司机的案例，艾莉森提出了两点深入的学术剖析：
1. **角色多重性（Multiplexity）的差异**：特工与出租车司机的关系非常纯粹单一，司机在特工生活中只承担特定的工具性功能，因此沟通目标清晰、极易处理。然而，在日常亲密关系或职场关系中，人际网络具备高度的“多重角色性”。例如你的伴侣既是恋人、朋友，又是家庭合伙人、共同烹饪者，甚至是你未来孩子的母亲。伴侣的多重身份之间必然存在利益冲突与角色切换的张力——你对待未来孩子母亲的方式，绝不可能等同于你对待厨房助手的方式。这种多重性使得亲密关系中的倾听与沟通远比面对陌生人复杂得多。
2. **倾听的三层结构**：倾听绝非被动的沉默吸收，而是由三个精密环节组成的动态技能，而其第一步便是**感知（Perception）**——调动所有感官去观察、捕捉对方正在发生的一切微小反应与情绪变化。
### [02:03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7413s) 倾听的进阶法则：从“点头微笑”到语言回馈
在人际沟通中，信息的输入是全方位的：除了环境中的视觉细节，还有语音、语调、说话语速，以及诸如“嗯、嗯、是的”等声音线索。面对如此海量的信息，人类的大脑不可能完全处理所有内容，只能选择性地对部分信息进行深入加工。然而，对话最独特的地方在于第三步——**语言回馈（Reflecting Back）**。Alison 举例说明，当你听到对方提起出租车上偶遇特工的奇遇时，直接说一句：“真有意思，你竟然在出租车上遇到过间谍，能跟我多讲讲吗？”这瞬间就向对方明确传达了三层信号：你在认真听、你抱有好奇心、你渴望了解更多。
绝大多数人的本能是将倾听局限在非语言层面，比如安静地微笑、点头或身体前倾。但 Alison 指出，这仅仅是数十年研究所定义的“倾听 101”（入门级积极倾听）。点头和微笑虽然是必不可少的社交规范——如果不做会让人觉得极其突兀和刺眼——但它们其实无法证明你真的在听，很多人完全可以一边微笑着频繁点头，脑子里却在盘算着今晚的买菜清单。而真正高阶的“倾听 201 与 301”，必须动用**口头语言**来展现倾听：
- **确认与肯定（Validating & Affirming）**：用具体的言语正面回应对方的观点与情绪。
- **提出追问（Asking Follow-up Questions）**：抓住对方话语中的核心细节进一步深挖。
- **群体转述与升华（Paraphrasing in Groups）**：在团队讨论中串联各方观点，例如总结道：“Steven 说了这个，Cassie 补充了那个，综合起来，我认为大家真正在探讨的其实是‘地位’问题。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 倾听技能进阶模型
accDescr: 展示从基础的感知处理与非语言反馈，跃升至高阶语言回馈与观点升华的过程。
subgraph Phase1["输入与感知 Processing"]
A["多模态线索<br/>(视觉环境、语调语速、伴随声)"] --> B["选择性深加工<br/>(大脑无法处理全部信息)"]
end
subgraph Level1["倾听 101：基础规范"]
B -.-> C["非语言信号 (Active Listening)<br/>微笑、点头、身体前倾<br/>(不可或缺但易被伪装)"]
end
subgraph Level2["倾听 201 / 301：高阶语言展现"]
B ==> D["口头反馈 (Verbal Reflection)"]
D --> D1["针对性追问深化"]
D --> D2["共情肯定与确认"]
D --> D3["群组转述与主题升华"]
end
```
---
### [02:05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7526s) 对话中的沉默：被删除的章节与关系的温度计
当 Steven 问起是否还有什么关键主题未被触及时，Alison 透露，她在撰写新书《Talk》时删掉了整整一章关于“沉默”的内容，因为这个话题庞大到足以单独写成一本书。她感叹道，这本书取名叫《Talk》本身就带有一种讽刺意味，因为人类大量的沟通其实发生在“字里行间”——甚至仅仅是一个心领神会的眼神交汇，就能传递海量的信息。
沉默与停顿在人际关系的不同阶段扮演着截然相反的角色：
- **关系初期（如初次约会）**：长时间的尴尬冷场往往是对话失败的直接信号。如果你在约会时感到话题枯竭并陷入恐慌，绝不能听之任之，应该提前准备好话题清单或优质问题来打破僵局。
- **成熟深厚的关系中**：长久的沉默反而成了彼此舒适、自在与信任的最高体现。两人即便同处一室相顾无言，也依然能感受到温暖与平静。
---
### [02:06:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7611s) 充斥“AI 废话”的时代：失去温度的数字沟通
Alison 提到她删掉的另一个核心章节是“数字时代的对话”。Steven 对此深有共鸣并大倒苦水，直言当前大语言模型（LLM）正在互联网上制造大量的“AI 废话（AI Slop）”。从社交媒体、工作邮件、Slack 频道到 WhatsApp，充斥着毫无灵魂、带着标配长破折号（Em-dash）和虚假热情赞叹的内容（“天哪，Steven 这太不可思议了！”），明眼人一眼就能看出绝非真人所写。这种充斥着机器合成感的环境让 Steven 感到前所未有的脱节与疏离，以至于他为了证明自己是真人，甚至开始故意在 LinkedIn 动态中保留拼写错误并彻底抛弃语法规范。
Alison 对此表示理解，但她建议更系统地审视文本沟通。针对邮件与文字，基本的优化法则是：尽量简短、多用小标题与要点符号、直奔主题，只提供对方真正需要的信息。然而，更深层的危机并不在文本格式本身，而在现代人整体沟通生态的畸变。
---
### [02:08:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7714s) 沟通审计实验：为什么只有面对面交谈才“真实”
Alison 在哈佛课堂上常让学生做一项震撼的实验——**20至30分钟的“沟通审计（Communication Audit）”**：
- **操作方式**：在半小时内，巨细靡遗地记录下所有输入与输出的信息，涵盖私信（DM）、电子邮件、短信、电话、Zoom 视频会议以及任何面对面的接触。
- **惊人发现**：
1. **信息过载极其严重**：现代人半小时内处理的信息总量令人窒息，大约是20年前的十倍之多。
2. **多模态切换带来的心力交瘁**：我们往往一边与眼前的人说话，一边在桌子底下悄悄回短信，耳朵里还听着新邮件到达的提示音，同时脑子里还惦记着爆满的私信。在不同渠道、不同人际圈和完全不相干的话题线索之间来回跳跃，会引发极度的大脑疲劳。
3. **注意力的道德困境**：“注意力就是爱（Attention is love）。”面对各方信息轰炸，除了本能地优先应对眼前的人之外，我们根本不知道究竟该把宝贵的注意力分配给谁。
学生的审计结果指向了一个极其一致且令人警醒的结论：**无论在发生时还是在事后回想中，唯有面对面的交谈才会让人觉得是“真实的（Real）”**。
人类大脑的演化机制决定了我们是为线下面对面对话而生的。即便一封邮件对于事务性信息交换再重要，它在情感与神经层面上也是虚幻的；哪怕多年后你对一次面对面谈话的记忆已然模糊（只记得对方是个精力充沛的棕发女士），那种真实连接的体感依然会被大脑留存。现代人空前高涨的孤独感与疏离感，正是源于真实互动的缺失。随身携带的智能设备不仅直接取代了对话，哪怕仅仅放在桌面上或者发出轻微震动，都宛如一个通往异处的虫洞，硬生生将人们的注意力从眼前真实的深度互动中扯开。Steven 亦赞同地补充，团队中有些完全依赖 ChatGPT 写报告的员工正逐渐被他无视，因为机器生成的完美汇报毫无温度，他真正珍视并信任的是具体个体的独到经验与真实见解。
### [02:12:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7978s) 职场沟通中的“AI 代笔”危机与心理倦怠
史蒂文分享了自己在团队管理中遇到的真实经历：他发现团队成员提交给他的面试反馈在格式与语调上充斥着明显的 AI 痕迹。因为这种机械化的包装，他开始在心理上对这些内容产生排斥并逐渐忽视。几周后，史蒂文选择坦诚地找对方沟通，直言这种感觉就像在和 ChatGPT 对话，而他真正想看到的是对方本人的判断、经验和直觉感受。对方非常感激这份提醒并立刻做出了调整——虽然背后的 AI 工具依然保留，但通过修改提示词，生成的内容变得更具人情味，史蒂文又重新开始认真阅读这些反馈。
艾莉森指出，这一现象揭示了人际交往中深层的心理机制：人类在沟通中真正投入和在乎的是“具体的人”以及与人之间的真实联结。一旦察觉对方是用冷冰冰的代理工具来敷衍应付，投入对话的动力就会骤减。此外，大型语言模型（LLM）具有将表达拉向“均值回归”（reversion to the mean）的特性，它在抹平语法错误的同时，也剥夺了个性、独特性、怪癖与创造力，让所有表达变得平庸而单调。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 人际沟通与AI代笔反馈机制对比
accDescr: 展示人类面对AI代理内容产生心理倦怠，与调整后恢复互动的心理反应路径
subgraph Problem["传统AI代写问题"]
A["面试官使用标准AI提示词"] --> B["生成均值化、无个性的反馈报告"]
B --> C["管理者感知到冷漠代理"]
C --> D["沟通动力丧失 / 开始忽略内容"]
end
subgraph Solution["优化沟通路径"]
D --> E["面对面坦诚反馈: 渴望真实直觉"]
E --> F["调整提示词注入个人特色与真实温度"]
F --> G["恢复深度关注与有效连接"]
end
```
- **投资于人而非代理**：人们在职场中最看重的是合作者的直觉感受与面对面判断，而不是 AI 总结出的标准模板。
- **均值回归的弊端**：大语言模型倾向于输出中规中矩的文本，这会无形中消除沟通中的鲜活灵魂与创新视角。
---
### [02:14:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8084s) 打造 AI 助教实验：机器效率与真实人性的博弈
艾莉森分享了她在哈佛课堂上进行的一项大胆实验：她为学生们搭建了一个“AI 版艾莉森”，并在答疑时间（Office Hours）替代自己接待学生。虽然艾莉森强调绝大多数聊天机器人存在严重缺陷，但这款专有机器人的目标并不是让用户沉迷于与机器交谈，而是作为对话教练，辅导学生在现实中与真人更好地沟通。她坦承，在某些特定维度上，AI 确实比真实的她更具优势：它 7×24 小时随叫随到，消除了教授排期紧张的问题；更重要的是，AI 不掌握期末评分大权，消除了师生之间天然存在的“利益冲突”。
在现实的办公时间答疑中，学生往往因害怕留下愚蠢印象而不敢提问，或者单纯为了拿高分而试图讨好教授；而面对没有评分权的 AI，学生们能够放下防备、坦诚探索。不仅如此，AI 还能在学生模拟结束后，即时生成包含“提问数量、轻快幽默瞬间、倾听质量、善意表现”等细致入微的复盘数据，这是面对 200 名学生的真人教授完全无力承担的工作量。然而，这种便利也令艾莉森深感担忧：当 AI 让效率和生活变得越来越轻松便捷时，人类极易忽视那些最核心的“面对面沟通（IRL）”技能。那些坚决不让 AI 替代自己表达、懂得如何与真人建立深度联结的人，将在未来拥有极度稀缺的职场与生活“超级力量”。
- **消除利益冲突的提问空间**：AI 助教消除了考核压力，为学生提供了免受评判的心理安全感。
- **个性化反馈的规模化**：机器能够在几秒内从倾听、善意、幽默等维度量化长篇对话，弥补人类精力带宽的不足。
- **面对面交流的未来稀缺性**：在自动化普及的时代，与真人建立真实、充满尊重且富有乐趣的交谈能力，是人类不可被替代的终极护城河。
- **跨代际沟通的技能断层**：婴儿潮一代（Boomers）相较于 Z 世代拥有更多的现实社交练习次数（reps），这种生活现实的差异导致了两代人在面对面沟通技巧上的显著鸿沟。
---
### [02:19:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8349s) 职场中的“策略性真实”与情境调适
针对艾莉森新书副标题《聊天的科学与做自己的艺术》，史蒂文抛出一个关键问题：我们在职场中究竟该不该展现“百分之百真实的自我”？艾莉森引用了纽约大学学者朱莉安娜·皮勒默（Juliana Pillemer）提出的“策略性真实”（strategic authenticity）概念，明确指出如果毫无保留地将全部自我带入职场，对当事人及周围的所有人来说都将是一场灾难。
艾莉森解释说，人的行为在不同场景下会发生剧烈转变，比如参加拉斯维加斯的单身派对与在家里给孩子洗澡时的表现绝不可能相同，否则就是违背常理。好的沟通者就像杰出的运动员一样，具备极强的“临场调整能力”（athletes adjust）。这并不意味着虚伪演戏或操纵他人，而是坚守那些决定个人特质的核心价值观，同时根据环境需求灵活调整言行方式。哪怕在采访中为了推进对话而提出一个自己并非迫切想知道答案的问题，也是出于优秀沟通者的职业素养，是带着善意让对话顺畅流动的专业体现。
- **策略性真实（Strategic Authenticity）**：不盲目追求全盘坦白，而是在坚守核心原则的前提下，使言行举止适配特定场合与对方的需求。
- **优秀对话者随机应变**：“运动员临场调适（Athletes adjust）”，高情商的交流者时刻都在敏锐地阅读环境并调整节奏。
- **真诚与技巧的平衡**：出于对整体对话质量和对方感受的考量而运用沟通策略，并不等同于自私、虚伪或操纵。
### [02:21:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8519s) 对话中的“短暂不真诚”与宏观真诚
Alison 深入探讨了沟通中关于真实性（Authenticity）的常见误区。人们往往对对话中出现的短暂客套或轻微的“不真诚”过度敏感，甚至将其视为虚伪的信号。然而在 Alison 看来，这完全是一种误读：如果这种短暂的客套是服务于一个更崇高的宏观目标——做一个善良的人、成为优秀的对话者、真诚地为他人需求服务——那么它就具备正面价值。换言之，一个人可以在“追求真诚的过程中表现出轻微的不真诚”。
为了具体说明这种心理机制，Alison 举例提到日常寒暄：“周末过得怎么样？”尽管发问者可能并非真的迫切想要知道答案，这一瞬间的不真诚会在对方开口的刹那烟消云散。因为只要对方给出回答，发问者就会发自内心地去寻找其中真正感兴趣的信息，进而提出跟进追问，将对话推向更深、更好的层面。Steven 笑着打趣道，Alison 一开始见到他时也问了他这一天过得如何，现场气氛轻松而幽默。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 短暂不真诚与真诚对话的关系
accDescr: 展示从日常寒暄的短暂客套过渡到深层真诚连接的心智流转过程。
subgraph Phase1["初阶互动：破冰启动"]
A["寒暄发问<br/>（如‘周末过得如何’）"] --> B["表面客套与轻度不真诚"]
end
subgraph Phase2["转折与跟进：深层倾听"]
B --> C["对方给出回答"]
C --> D["发掘对方回答中的真实兴趣点"]
end
subgraph Phase3["深层连接：宏观真诚"]
D --> E["针对性追问与互动"]
E --> F["达成宏观真诚：<br/>尊重彼此、相互学习、真诚连接"]
end
```
### [02:23:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8584s) 育儿的本质：十八年的“对话养成工程”
Steven 随后开启了他一直迫切想探讨的话题：生儿育女。他透露自己与女友目前正处于备孕阶段，Alison 闻言极为兴奋地向他祝贺，形容这是“作为人类所能经历的最奇妙的事情之一”，是一项能为人生简历添上浓墨重彩的一笔的全新体验。Steven 坦言，这对自己而言既是一场充满未知的大冒险，又在某种程度上像是一种“伟大的自我牺牲”。Alison 极为精辟地概括了养育孩子的双重矛盾性：从某种意义上说，这是最自私、最以自我为中心的事，因为“你是在复制另一个自己”，堪称极致的自恋；但另一方面，它又是最无私的事，因为从此你的生活将彻底不再以自我为中心。
当 Steven 提到放弃原有自我去面对一个素未谋面的人让人感到敬畏甚至害怕时，Alison 修正了他的措辞——并非“放弃”，而是“为了他们进化成另一个版本的自己”。一个人在生孩子前拥有的自由和资源越多，初期的失落感可能越强烈，但随之而来的收获也成倍增加。Alison 强调，社会舆论往往过度关注生育、怀孕这些阶段性的节点，却忽略了童年是一段长达 18 年的漫长旅程。在这个漫长的工程中，父母最核心的任务正是帮助孩子学会如何与他人对话、建立有效沟通。
- **父母的言传身教**：孩子学习沟通的过程发生在每一天的每一刻互动中，父母本身就是对话示范的榜样，需要陪伴他们面对生活中的挫折与成功。
- **TALK 课程下沉**：Alison 的团队正在筹划将哈佛的 TALK 沟通课程进行改编，以适配高中生乃至更年幼的儿童。
### [02:25:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8727s) 严格限制屏幕时间与远离社交媒体的育儿策略
面对当今数字时代的挑战，Steven 追问是否需要让孩子彻底远离 YouTube 和各种电子屏幕。Alison 斩钉截铁地连答了三个“是的”。她指出，数字产品具有极强的上瘾性，“给他们一英寸，他们就会索取一英里”，极易形成难以戒除的习惯。
谈及自己家中的屏幕管理规定，Alison 分享了极度严格的家规：
- **时长限制**：每天仅允许使用 20 分钟。
- **设备形态**：只能在固定的台式电脑上使用，严禁携带可以随身移动的设备。
- **手机与社交媒体**：Alison 坦言自己的态度越来越趋向严格，甚至觉得“永远不给手机”才是理想状态；在家里的实际执行中，孩子至少要到 9 年级（约 14-15 岁）才可能拥有真正的手机，而接触社交媒体的时间则会被推迟得更晚。
- **学术倡导与支持**：Alison 提到了 Jonathan Haidt、好友 Angela Duckworth 以及斯坦福大学的 Matthew Gentzkow 等学者正在积极推动的研究与行动，旨在帮助学校和家庭应对青少年过度沉溺数字屏幕的严峻危机。
### [02:26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8799s) 压轴提问：离开哈佛，用“TALK”拯救下一代
节目进入标志性的收尾环节——上一位嘉宾为 Alison 留下的盲盒问题：“如果你的生活是一部电影，观众看到这一幕时，他们会冲着荧幕大喊、命令你现在立刻去做什么？”
在沉思片刻后，Alison 给出了极其有力且震撼的回答：“离开哈佛。用 TALK 拯救孩子们。倾尽你所有的时光和资源，帮助全世界每一个高中生更好地学会这项能力。”当被问及为什么使用“拯救”（Save）这样强烈的字眼时，Alison 解释道，当下的孩子们正深陷在数字成瘾与极度孤独的双重深渊中，社会已经到了必须踩刹车的危险境地。
- **破局路径**：第一步是将移动设备彻底清除出校园，并尽可能从家庭生活和孩子手中拿走；第二步则是填补屏幕被拿走后的真空，而她精心构建的 TALK 沟通课程正是一套能取而代之的系统方法。
- **沟通的非零和属性**：对话是人类终极的核心能力，而且它不是零和博弈；世界上掌握高质量沟通技巧的人越多，整个社会就会变得越美好。
- **离开哈佛的悬念**：当 Steven 追问这是否意味着她即将宣布从哈佛离职的重磅独家新闻时，Alison 笑着回应“待定”（TBD）。
### [02:28:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8897s) 节目总结与商业社区招募
Steven 对 Alison 的研究成果表达了高度赞赏。他指出，许多关于沟通的书籍和言论充斥着毫无营养的陈词滥调与主观臆断，而 Alison 的《Talk》则是完全建立在严谨的科学研究基础之上，并用通俗易懂的语言呈现给普通大众。良好的对话能力是维系家庭、友谊、恋爱关系以及实现人生目标的最底层基石。Alison 随后指引听众访问她的个人网站 alisonwoodbrooks.com 参与趣味对话类型测验（获取个性化建议与科学原理解读），并关注即将上线的 talkstudios.com 以获取高中生沟通课程的最新资讯。
访谈在双方热烈的致谢中落下帷幕。节目结尾播出了 Steven 为《The Diary Of A CEO》核心社群（DOAC Inner Circle）招募首批 10,000 名专属会员的宣传片段，会员可享有未公开剪辑花絮、录制提纲、未播剧集以及直接与 Steven 交流策划节目的专属权益。
### [02:30:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=9055s) 闭幕致辞与 DOAC 社群邀请
在节目的尾声，主持人 Steven Bartlett 向观众发出了加入其私密专属社群的邀请。他提醒大家注意加入的截止时间，呼吁希望参与深度交流与连接的听众尽快行动。
观众可以通过视频下方简介中的链接，或者直接访问专属网址 DOACcircle.com 申请加入。Steven 亲切地表示期待在社群内部与大家展开进一步的交流与互动，随后节目在标志性的片尾音乐与人声吟唱中圆满落幕。
- 官方私密社群访问网址：DOACcircle.com
- 加入方式：点击视频下方描述栏链接或直接访问官网（名额及时间有限）
## Notable quotes
> [02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=140s) 人生的本质是人际关系，而人际关系的载体就是交谈；哪怕只掌握一个能够改善对话的策略，工作、浪漫关系、友谊乃至个人生产力都会迎来翻天覆地的转变。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [20:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1202s) 获得加薪最好的方式，就是让自己变得无可挑剔（The best way to get a raise is to be awesome）。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [32:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=1951s) 如果在同一场对话中道歉超过两次，效果就会适得其反。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2237s) 你对 Y 产生 X 的感觉是完全说得通的（It makes sense that you feel X about Y）。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [49:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=2994s) 只要在交流前花区区 30 秒准备话题的人，对话焦虑感显著降低，互动更加流畅自如。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [59:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=3566s) 每场约会哪怕仅仅多提 1 个问题，就能多成功转化出一场二次约会。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [01:14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=4441s) 沟通是极度耗费精力的（conversation is remarkably effortful）。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [01:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5223s) 每个人都有自己的发言信用分，务必保护好它。 — Steven Bartlett
> [01:32:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=5520s) 一旦第三个人拉开椅子坐下，无论是播客搭档还是酒吧里的朋友，这场对话在本质上就发生了质的转变。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [01:55:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6904s) 脆弱感是通往连接的敲门砖（Vulnerability is the doorway to connection）。 — Steven Bartlett
> [01:56:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=6990s) 我们只会被自己信任、喜欢和钦佩的人所说服。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [01:58:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7113s) 人们极其容易将‘赞同’与‘倾听’混为一谈。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [02:08:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=7714s) 无论在发生时还是在事后回想中，唯有面对面的交谈才会让人觉得是‘真实的’。 — Alison Wood Brooks
> [02:26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg&t=8799s) 离开哈佛。用 TALK 拯救孩子们。倾尽你所有的时光和资源，帮助全世界每一个高中生更好地学会这项能力。 — Alison Wood Brooks
## Mentioned
Alison Wood Brooks, Steven Bartlett, Harvard Business School, Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves, The Diary Of A CEO, Jimmy Fallon, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Bill Gates, BATNA, Julia Minson, Mike Yeomans, Hannah Collins, Tali Sharot, Arthur Aron, Andrew Bustamante, Julian Treasure, Mike Baker, Brené Brown, Juliana Pillemer, Jonathan Haidt, Angela Duckworth, Matthew Gentzkow, SimpliSafe, Ketone-IQ, Shopify, Wispr, Inside Out, Menendez brothers, Mr. Chow, Starbucks, Dragon's Den, Shark Tank, ChatGPT, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Slack, Zoom
## Video description
Why do your conversations keep going wrong? Harvard behavioural scientist Professor Alison Wood Brooks reveals the SECRETS to better communication, real connection, negotiation skills and difficult conversations!
Professor Alison Wood Brooks is a behavioural scientist with 2 decades of experience in conversational science. She teaches a Harvard course on negotiation and communication, and is the bestselling author of ‘Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves’.
She explains:
◼️The ONE word that transforms anxiety into peak performance
◼️The TALK framework for mastering any conversation
◼️Why being "too polite" is secretly destroying your relationships
◼️Why 99% of apologies fail, and the exact formula that works
◼️The question technique that creates connection with anyone
00:00 Intro
02:20 People Need This to Communicate Well
04:24 Giving Wrong Impressions
06:09 Being a Better Speaker and Group Conversations
11:17 Experimenting With Communication Skills With My Identical Twin
12:26 The Science on How to Reframe Anxiety
18:33 If You're Nervous, You're More Likely to Make a Bad Decision
20:02 Asking for a Salary Raise
24:26 The Conversational Compass
32:31 How People Should Really Apologize and When It's Too Much
37:17 The Validation Trick in Any Dispute
41:46 Don't Do This When You Disagree
47:53 How to Be Liked
49:48 The T-A-L-K Framework
51:33 Easy Ways to Have More Casual Conversations
54:59 If You Want to Be Liked, Don't Do This
59:10 The Importance of Asking in Conversations and Dates
01:03:13 Never Do This on a Date
01:07:13 The Meeting Mistake You Shouldn't Make
01:09:14 Poor Communication Skills Might Be Holding Back Your Career
01:11:48 Ads
01:12:39 The Importance of Kindness in Any Conversation
01:17:06 When to Incorporate Levity
01:23:42 The Science Behind Introverts and Extroverts — Is It Real?
01:27:03 Your Contribution Score in a Conversation
01:41:46 Ads
01:52:43 10 Questions to Be Liked
01:56:29 How to Persuade People and Be a Better Salesperson
01:58:33 People Confuse Agreement With Listening
02:09:07 This Is the Only Conversation That Feels Real
02:14:44 What Happens When Replacing Myself With AI
02:19:09 Show Your Real Self at Work: Yes or No?
02:25:01 How to Teach Your Kids to Speak
Follow Alison:
Instagram - https://bit.ly/3YoQOc4
Website - https://bit.ly/4aH172A
TalkStudios - https://bit.ly/3MzbXxF
You can purchase Alison’s book, ‘Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves’, here: https://amzn.to/3L64JAY
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼️Get the 2026 Goal Setting Guide - https://bit.ly/ytgoalsettingguide
◼️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:
Wispr - https://wisprflow.ai/DOAC
Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett
SimpliSafe - https://simplisafe.com/DOAC to save 50% on a SimpliSafe home security system.
Ketone - https://ketone.com/STEVEN for 30% off your subscription order
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXzR5KahEg)
Source quotes
[2:20] Alison Wood Brooks: 人生的本质是人际关系，而人际关系的载体就是交谈；哪怕只掌握一个能够改善对话的策略，工作、浪漫关系、友谊乃至个人生产力都会迎来翻天覆地的转变。
[20:02] Alison Wood Brooks: 获得加薪最好的方式，就是让自己变得无可挑剔（The best way to get a raise is to be awesome）。
[32:31] Alison Wood Brooks: 如果在同一场对话中道歉超过两次，效果就会适得其反。
[37:17] Alison Wood Brooks: 你对 Y 产生 X 的感觉是完全说得通的（It makes sense that you feel X about Y）。
[49:54] Alison Wood Brooks: 只要在交流前花区区 30 秒准备话题的人，对话焦虑感显著降低，互动更加流畅自如。
[59:26] Alison Wood Brooks: 每场约会哪怕仅仅多提 1 个问题，就能多成功转化出一场二次约会。
[74:01] Alison Wood Brooks: 沟通是极度耗费精力的（conversation is remarkably effortful）。
[87:03] Steven Bartlett: 每个人都有自己的发言信用分，务必保护好它。
[92:00] Alison Wood Brooks: 一旦第三个人拉开椅子坐下，无论是播客搭档还是酒吧里的朋友，这场对话在本质上就发生了质的转变。
[115:04] Steven Bartlett: 脆弱感是通往连接的敲门砖（Vulnerability is the doorway to connection）。
[116:30] Alison Wood Brooks: 我们只会被自己信任、喜欢和钦佩的人所说服。
[118:33] Alison Wood Brooks: 人们极其容易将‘赞同’与‘倾听’混为一谈。
[128:34] Alison Wood Brooks: 无论在发生时还是在事后回想中，唯有面对面的交谈才会让人觉得是‘真实的’。
[146:39] Alison Wood Brooks: 离开哈佛。用 TALK 拯救孩子们。倾尽你所有的时光和资源，帮助全世界每一个高中生更好地学会这项能力。
Source quotes
[46:53] Alison Wood Brooks: but with one T
[48:49] Alison Wood Brooks: the most comprehensive, teachable, practical, scientifically rigorous framework in the world for communication
[98:12] Alison Wood Brooks: Life is not about walking through life giving like mini speeches or like mini TED Talks, right? It's about... conversation is interactive. It's co-created with two independent minds.
[20:00] Alison Wood Brooks: Tell me more
[20:00] Alison Wood Brooks: It makes sense that you feel this way
[20:00] Alison Wood Brooks: I'd like to understand how you came to hold this viewpoint.
[120:58] Alison Wood Brooks: Steven said X, Cassie said Y, so overall we're discussing status
[125:37] Alison Wood Brooks: only face-to-face conversations feel real
[122:15] Steven Bartlett: In a digital age, in an AI world, do we need to start communicating differently so that people know it's really us?
[119:09] Alison Wood Brooks: strategic authenticity
[126:39] Steven Bartlett: If your life was a movie and the audience were watching up to this point, what would they be screaming at the screen telling you to do right now?
[126:39] Alison Wood Brooks: Leave Harvard. Save the children with talk.
[129:38] Alison Wood Brooks: I just think what you're doing here is fabulous.
Original transcript
[0:00] People really care about what's making
[0:02] them disliked and they really want to
[0:03] know how to be liked.
[0:04] >> Okay, so first, this is an exercise that
[0:06] I do in my class at Harvard called 10
[0:08] questions to fall in like.
[0:10] >> So if I ask someone those questions,
[0:11] they're going to like me. It's a great
[0:12] starting point, but let's talk about
[0:14] this because there are going to be
[0:15] little clues about how to be better
[0:17] liked and it's the most teachable,
[0:19] practical, scientifically rigorous
[0:21] framework in the world for
[0:23] communication. Do you want to hear about
[0:25] it, Steven?
[0:25] >> Of course I want to hear about it. I
[0:26] want to be the most persuasive,
[0:28] influential, likable talker in the
[0:30] world. So I shall follow your lead.
[0:32] >> Oh my gosh. It's a lot of power.
[0:34] >> I love it. I love it so much. Harvard
[0:36] Professor Alison Wood Brooks is a
[0:38] behavioral scientist
[0:39] >> who has spent two decades [music]
[0:40] studying conversational science. And
[0:42] she's revealing the communication
[0:44] mistakes we all make, the art of
[0:45] negotiation, and how to get anyone to
[0:48] like you. We all get to adulthood and we
[0:50] feel like conversation should be easy,
[0:52] but as a scientist, when you look under
[0:54] the hood, you realize this is why we
[0:56] have so many awkward moments, why we say
[0:58] things that we shouldn't, why we are
[1:00] boring, why we get angry and hostile,
[1:02] and there's very clear strategies to
[1:03] help us with all of that. Like one of my
[1:05] biggest findings was how we reframe
[1:06] social anxiety [music] as excitement,
[1:08] which makes you focus on opportunities
[1:10] rather than threats, and that paper
[1:12] ended up being featured in Inside Out,
[1:14] the movie. And then there's small talk.
[1:16] I hate small talk. I'm going to help you
[1:17] reframe that because it's really
[1:18] important, but the mistake that people
[1:20] make is that they stay there way too
[1:21] long and they need to move up this topic
[1:23] pyramid.
[1:24] >> What about in a digital age? Do we need
[1:25] to start communicating differently?
[1:27] Yeah, there's clear things that we
[1:28] should do to make our text-based
[1:30] communication better and we'll go
[1:32] through all of them.
[1:33] And you said you'd done an interesting
[1:34] study recently about male friendship.
[1:36] >> Yes, and it's quite troubling.
[1:39] So how can I make more friends as a man?
[1:41] Yeah, let's talk about that.
[1:45] I see messages all the time in the
[1:47] comment section that some of you didn't
[1:48] realize you didn't subscribe. So if you
[1:50] could do me a favor and double-check if
[1:52] you're a subscriber to this channel,
[1:53] that would be tremendously appreciated.
[1:54] It's the simple, it's the free thing
[1:57] that anybody that watches this show
[1:58] frequently can do to help us here to
[2:00] keep everything going in this show in
[2:01] the trajectory it's on. So, please do
[2:03] double check if you subscribed and thank
[2:05] you so much because in a strange way you
[2:07] are you're part of our history and
[2:09] you're on this journey with us and I
[2:10] appreciate you for that. So, yeah, thank
[2:12] you.
[2:14] >> [music]
[2:20] >> Professor Alison Wood Brooks.
[2:23] What is it that you do and why do you
[2:26] think it matters so much to the world? I
[2:28] am a professor at Harvard and I'm a
[2:31] behavioral scientist. I study
[2:34] how people talk to each other and how
[2:36] they can do it better.
[2:38] I teach a course that I created there
[2:40] called talk.
[2:41] I wrote a book about it also called
[2:43] talk, the science of conversation and
[2:45] the art of being ourselves. And
[2:48] if someone's chosen to listen to this
[2:50] conversation now, they've just clicked
[2:51] on it and they're thinking, you know,
[2:52] should I stay or should I should I go?
[2:55] What promise can we give them if they
[2:57] stay and listen to this conversation
[2:58] that is based on the work you've done in
[2:59] your book and all the research you've
[3:00] done?
[3:01] What is it that you think the average
[3:03] person can come away with that will have
[3:04] a meaningful impact on their day-to-day
[3:06] life? All of life is about relationships
[3:10] and relationships are about talking. So,
[3:13] if they can learn even one strategy that
[3:16] helps them in their conversations, it
[3:18] will massively improve their lives. If
[3:20] you think of everything from work to
[3:24] romantic relationships, friendships,
[3:26] productivity, all of it hinges on having
[3:30] excellent conversations.
[3:31] But, conversations are easy, right? Like
[3:34] >> [laughter]
[3:34] >> you just talk. We all feel that way. We
[3:36] all get to adulthood and we feel like
[3:38] conversation should be easy because we
[3:40] started learning how to do it when we
[3:42] were one one and a half years old as
[3:45] toddlers and we practice doing it with
[3:48] an enormous number of partners,
[3:51] conversation partners, every day of our
[3:53] lives. So, by the time we become adults,
[3:56] it feels like we should be experts, like
[3:58] we should be great at it. But, as a
[4:00] scientist, when you look under the hood
[4:02] and you see, "Oh my goodness, all of the
[4:03] complexity that's happening under the
[4:05] hood." You realize, "Oh, this is why we
[4:08] have so many awkward moments, why we say
[4:10] things that we shouldn't, why we don't
[4:12] say things that we should, why we hurt
[4:14] each other, why we get defensive, um why
[4:17] we are boring, why we get angry and
[4:19] hostile." And there are very clear
[4:21] strategies to help us with all of that.
[4:24] As you were saying that, I was thinking,
[4:26] do you think there's a lot of people
[4:27] that are going through life giving off
[4:29] the wrong impression because they don't
[4:30] know how to talk? Maybe they are
[4:33] disliked, maybe they are misunderstood
[4:35] because they haven't mastered the
[4:37] science of how to have a great
[4:38] conversation. On my worst days, I worry
[4:41] that everybody's walking around being
[4:42] misunderstood. When you think about
[4:45] talking, uh even as I'm talking right
[4:47] now,
[4:48] there's no way to take the entire
[4:50] contents of your mind and all of your
[4:52] personality and say it out loud. And so,
[4:55] we're always curating, we're always
[4:57] choosing what some subset of stuff to
[4:59] share with other people through
[5:01] conversation.
[5:02] And almost no one is doing that
[5:05] perfectly and I and I fear that many
[5:07] people are are really struggling with
[5:09] it. If you had to pinpoint just a few
[5:11] things that
[5:12] people want
[5:14] when they think about becoming a great
[5:16] conversationalist, like what is it that
[5:18] we actually are aiming at?
[5:19] Is it to be, you know, what is that?
[5:21] >> Yeah, usually people want to be liked,
[5:24] even loved. Usually, we want to enjoy
[5:27] our conversations, to not have them be
[5:29] miserable. We want to feel safe and
[5:31] protected and and not have it be
[5:33] dreadful and time-consuming. And we want
[5:35] to achieve professional goals, so
[5:37] advancing and achieving and making great
[5:40] decisions. So, already the very basic
[5:43] drives of what people are trying to
[5:45] achieve in conversation are actually a
[5:46] little bit more complicated than just
[5:48] like, oh, we're looking for connection.
[5:50] Um and then when you really dig into it,
[5:53] within all of the goals that people want
[5:55] in those categories, it's like a vast
[5:58] constellation of of motives.
[6:01] I would like you to teach me how to talk
[6:03] really, really well. I don't know if you
[6:04] need my help that much, Stephen, but I'd
[6:06] love to Even the best communicators have
[6:08] room for improvement.
[6:09] >> think I do. I think I do. [laughter] Cuz
[6:11] I I you know, I was thinking about this
[6:12] last this last week and all the
[6:14] conversations I've had, the different
[6:16] types of conversations. I had one
[6:17] conversation where I met someone's
[6:20] family for the first time who works with
[6:22] me. And it was, you know, it was a
[6:24] little bit nerve-racking because Yeah.
[6:26] that contact, you know, people have have
[6:28] these moments where they meet the
[6:29] in-laws or whatever or they meet Um for
[6:31] me it's often meeting someone who works
[6:32] with me's family I find quite
[6:33] nerve-racking cuz they're like I think
[6:35] they're kind of probably judging me.
[6:36] I've also had difficult business
[6:37] conversations
[6:38] >> Because they are judging you. Yeah, they
[6:39] are judging me.
[6:40] >> [laughter]
[6:40] >> And I can feel it and as I go towards
[6:42] those conversations I'm like, oh my god,
[6:43] I'm going to
[6:44] And then I know just like freezing or
[6:45] being a little bit paralyzed. And you'd
[6:47] think as some someone like me who does
[6:48] this for a living living finds
[6:50] conversations easy. I absolutely do not.
[6:52] Do you I I actually the more
[6:54] uh you know, I talk to very high-level
[6:57] C-suite um very successful people and in
[7:00] fact, the higher and more successful
[7:02] people are, the more likely they are to
[7:04] be aware that this is really important
[7:08] and that they have room for improvement.
[7:10] It's almost like you're aware that this
[7:12] skill is probably what helped you get
[7:14] where you are
[7:15] and therefore you want to get even
[7:17] better at it and you're keenly aware of
[7:19] when you have awkward moments or make
[7:21] mistakes or missteps and you're like, I
[7:23] would really like to get that out of my
[7:25] life, please. Amen. I like ruminate on
[7:27] an awkward encounter I had like two and
[7:29] a half weeks ago.
[7:29] >> Of course. I was like, I should have
[7:30] just da da da da. But actually in
[7:32] reading some of your work I thought
[7:33] about what I could have done. And we'll
[7:35] get to this this idea of preparing for
[7:37] those moments, which I typically don't
[7:39] because I assume I I be a natural. Can I
[7:41] ask you, as you were talking about these
[7:42] different examples of things that you're
[7:44] ruminating about, um do you feel like
[7:47] you have a
[7:49] a a weakness or like a a recurring thing
[7:52] that you suspect you need to get better
[7:55] at? I think one of them is I am a bit of
[7:57] an introvert in my sort of
[7:59] self-classification.
[8:00] >> Mhm. And as people know who I am more in
[8:03] the world, I think I've become more
[8:04] introverted.
[8:05] >> Mhm. So and sometimes that can be
[8:07] perceived in the wrong way. So my like
[8:09] happy state is kind of being alone or
[8:11] around people that I'm extremely
[8:12] familiar with.
[8:14] If I leave the house and I go say to a
[8:15] gym or something,
[8:16] I have a little bit of paranoia. Yeah.
[8:18] So I'm always kind of on edge, which
[8:20] means that this kind of shuts me down
[8:22] more. So when I do have conversations, I
[8:23] can sometimes feel appear to be a bit
[8:25] more shut down. Yeah. I don't want to
[8:26] carry that into moments where I need to
[8:27] be a bit more open.
[8:30] And then I would say
[8:32] generally I just like hate small talk.
[8:34] Yeah, you're not alone there. And
[8:36] [laughter] I just say it's like a point
[8:37] like this is why I think I podcast
[8:38] because you can just skip straight into
[8:39] the deep stuff and I can ask people
[8:40] about their trauma. Like it's just You
[8:41] can do that in normal conversations,
[8:44] too, actually. Do you find that you get
[8:46] stuck in small talk? Yes. A good bit? I
[8:48] just try to avoid it. So I I've got this
[8:50] funny story. One of the most that the
[8:52] most prestigious people on planet Earth
[8:53] invited me to come to a thing and I said
[8:56] no because there would be 100 other
[8:57] people there and I just didn't want to
[8:58] be in a room for 4 hours with a bunch of
[9:00] other people. Like it just for me it's
[9:02] so exhausting.
[9:02] >> Yeah. And if I told you that it what
[9:04] this context was, you'd burst out
[9:06] laughing.
[9:06] >> [laughter]
[9:07] >> My team were like, you go TO THAT
[9:09] [ __ ]
[9:11] YOU GO TO AND YOU ENJOY IT. AND I'M
[9:12] LIKE, NO, I'M NOT GOING. THERE'S TOO
[9:14] [laughter] MANY PEOPLE THERE.
[9:15] BUT THAT'S that's kind of what I'm like.
[9:16] I love this environment, but I hate
[9:18] small talk and I hate I don't know if
[9:20] that's a weakness as much as it is you
[9:21] learning your preferences. Mhm. I think
[9:24] it's okay.
[9:25] Uh maybe we'll get there, but large
[9:27] groups are very stressful. Group
[9:29] conversation and figuring out the
[9:30] structure of like who should be talking
[9:32] to whom when and about what is very
[9:34] overwhelming for the human mind.
[9:37] It's quite different than
[9:39] one-on-intimate one-on-one conversation,
[9:41] which is much more within your control
[9:42] and it's much clearer what the purpose
[9:45] is.
[9:47] So, we should think about it maybe not a
[9:49] we can reframe it and it's not a
[9:51] weakness, but thinking about your social
[9:53] portfolio. Who are you talking to? Is it
[9:56] the right people and are is it in the
[9:58] right arrangements in the right group
[9:59] size? So, what we're doing right now
[10:01] one-on-one is a categorically different
[10:04] task than going to a party with 100
[10:07] people. So, I'm going to help you
[10:08] reframe that later on. [clears throat]
[10:10] Why did you choose to do this? All the
[10:12] other things you could have done with
[10:12] your life. Yeah.
[10:14] It's isn't it life so fascinating? I
[10:16] often think about the paths not taken.
[10:19] But, I'm very happy to be on this path.
[10:22] I grew up in upstate New York on a small
[10:24] lake in a small town. I was a lake girl,
[10:26] just gorgeous place.
[10:28] And I love playing sports, team sports
[10:32] in particular. I love female friendship
[10:34] from an early and probably most
[10:37] formatively, I'm an identical twin.
[10:40] And all of the things I just described,
[10:44] I think are either
[10:46] indicators of how much I love
[10:47] conversation or formed my love of
[10:50] conversation. But, either way I I
[10:52] arrived at college deeply interested in
[10:55] understanding humans and their behavior.
[10:58] And by the time I got to Harvard, I
[11:01] realized, "Wow, there are whole fields
[11:03] like social psychology and communication
[11:05] that are purportedly about
[11:07] communication, but nobody's bothered to
[11:09] actually
[11:10] transcribe real conversations and study
[11:13] them at very large scale." And so,
[11:14] that's what I've been up to for the last
[11:16] 15 years.
[11:17] How has being an identical twin been
[11:19] formative in this regard?
[11:20] So, my twin's name is Sarah.
[11:23] Being an identical twin, I'm There are
[11:25] many things that are similar to being a
[11:27] close sibling, I'm sure. But, an
[11:28] identical twin, it's like you have
[11:30] another version of you in the world. And
[11:33] we share a bedroom, we were on the same
[11:35] sports teams, we played in band
[11:37] together.
[11:38] And so it's sort of like watching a
[11:40] version of yourself up close. And I got
[11:43] to see
[11:44] how she failed and thought, "Oh, well,
[11:48] I'm I'm going to avoid that." And I
[11:49] would see how she succeeds. She hits a
[11:52] an amazing joke, she answers answers an
[11:54] amazing question. I know that I'm able
[11:56] to do that because we have the same DNA,
[11:58] the same abilities. In a sort of
[12:00] subconscious way, I think I've just been
[12:02] chasing trying to help other people find
[12:05] that in their relationships, uh in their
[12:07] friendships, in their romantic
[12:08] relationships, in their work
[12:09] collaborations. Because I've
[12:12] gotten to see how amazing that can be
[12:15] for two human beings, how close you can
[12:16] be, and how much you can actually
[12:18] understand each other when you
[12:19] communicate well.
[12:21] And what research have you done? Like,
[12:23] what are the reference points you're
[12:24] pulling on? Do you do your own research?
[12:26] >> So much. And give me a flavor of the the
[12:28] the volume
[12:29] >> probably. I uh it's almost like I'm
[12:31] over-covering academic. I've been
[12:33] working in academia doing behavioral
[12:35] science research for 20 years. I know I
[12:37] look impossibly young. Um
[12:39] I started in graduate school studying
[12:41] emotions, especially anxiety. And and
[12:44] not the kind of anxiety that requires
[12:47] medication or therapy necessarily, but
[12:49] the types of social anxiety that people
[12:51] feel constantly all day long.
[12:54] And figuring out, okay, how does it
[12:56] affect different behaviors, like how we
[12:57] negotiate or how we take advice from
[13:00] each other or how we perform when we're
[13:02] public speaking. Uh these types of
[13:04] things. And then figuring out strategies
[13:08] and tips to help people manage that
[13:09] anxiety more effectively. And one of my
[13:12] biggest findings was how we reframe
[13:14] anxiety as excitement. Uh it's a very
[13:17] easy flip to move from it's essentially
[13:20] they're the same emotion because they're
[13:21] both high arousal.
[13:23] High energy, high cortisol, the hormone,
[13:25] um high heart rate, uh sweaty palms, you
[13:28] just change how you think about it in
[13:29] your mind. So, literally saying things
[13:31] out loud like I'm excited, change you
[13:35] how your appraisal of it. So, you
[13:36] actually experience excitement, it helps
[13:38] you perform a lot better in a lot of
[13:39] different ways. So, you did a study in
[13:41] 2011? Yes. Yes. The uh, nervous Nellie
[13:44] negotiation study? So, that one was
[13:46] about negotiation specifically. The um,
[13:49] this excitement reappraisal, the paper's
[13:51] called get excited. And that paper
[13:53] actually ended up being featured in uh,
[13:55] Inside Out, the movie. Oh, wow. Yeah,
[13:58] there's a great scene where the main
[13:59] character is about to have a panic
[14:00] attack. And Joy sneaks into the little
[14:03] cubicle farm of minions and says, "Stop
[14:05] drawing all of these projections about
[14:07] how things are going to go badly." And
[14:09] instead draw how things could go well.
[14:12] Which is so great. I was sitting in the
[14:13] movie theater with my kids and my
[14:15] husband kind of looked down the way and
[14:16] he was like, "Is that your thing?" And I
[14:18] was like, "Yeah, yeah, [laughter] yeah,
[14:19] it's my thing." So, what what did that
[14:21] study show, those two studies? The the
[14:22] nervous Nellie one, but also the the one
[14:24] about excitement. When we feel
[14:25] [clears throat] anxious, as most people
[14:28] do in negotiations, because it's an
[14:29] intense environment uh, filled with
[14:32] uncertainty and a lack of control, which
[14:34] is the recipe for anxiety, we tend we
[14:36] want to escape. We either want to
[14:38] relieve that feeling by making
[14:40] concessions or get out of there, right?
[14:42] Just exit the interaction. That was the
[14:44] main finding of the nervous Nellie
[14:46] anxiety and negotiation paper.
[14:48] The reframing anxiety as excitement
[14:51] paper is
[14:52] lots of different ways to convince
[14:54] yourself that you're feeling excited
[14:56] just by saying I'm excited out loud. And
[14:58] in doing so, that makes you focus on
[15:00] opportunities rather than threats, how
[15:02] things could go well rather than poorly.
[15:04] And it has incredible downstream
[15:06] consequences. Helps you sing better,
[15:08] helps you do public speaking better, it
[15:10] helps you collaborate more effectively.
[15:12] Um, so it's just a very it's a very
[15:13] powerful intervention. And what was the
[15:15] sort of mechanics of the study? So, we
[15:17] would have bring people in, you tell
[15:19] them, "Hey Stephen, you're going to be
[15:21] singing karaoke in front of an audience.
[15:24] People start to feel quite nervous about
[15:26] this, naturally.
[15:28] Then, right before they're going to get
[15:30] up and sing the song, we say, "Okay, an
[15:32] experimenter is going to ask you how
[15:34] you're feeling.
[15:35] Some of you, we want you to say you're
[15:36] feeling excited. And some of you, we
[15:39] want you to say you're feeling anxious."
[15:41] And that alone, when I say, "Steven, how
[15:43] are you feeling right now?"
[15:45] And you say, Anxious. Great. Okay, let's
[15:47] go sing the song. You go. People who
[15:50] said, "I'm anxious." sing worse
[15:53] compared to people who say, "I'm
[15:54] excited." They get out there, they're
[15:56] more in tempo, more on pitch, they have
[15:58] better rhythm. We measure it with a
[16:01] software when they're actually singing
[16:03] in front of the experimenters. Just by
[16:05] me saying, "I am excited." Yeah.
[16:07] >> So, the other day when I met my team
[16:09] members' family,
[16:10] I should I should have been saying to
[16:12] myself, "I'm so excited to meet them."
[16:13] Among other things. So, so this And this
[16:16] is important. It doesn't always work,
[16:18] right? If you're terrified,
[16:21] and it's really something dreadful, like
[16:23] you're terrified that your mother's
[16:25] going to die, and turns out it's going
[16:27] to be hard to get excited about that if
[16:29] she has a terminal illness.
[16:31] But on the margin, if you're sort of
[16:32] torn between feeling nervous or excited
[16:35] in your mind, if you can really convince
[16:37] yourself that you actually are excited
[16:39] and that things could go well, I'm going
[16:41] to crush this exam, I'm going to I'm
[16:43] going to tear it up on the basketball
[16:44] court, that flip, if repeated enough,
[16:47] actually becomes more likely to come
[16:49] true. And certainly before a high-stakes
[16:51] conversation, like meeting your
[16:53] colleagues' family.
[16:54] So interesting. I I really I have this
[16:56] behind-the-scenes channel called Behind
[16:57] the Diary on YouTube. And the other day
[17:00] when I did Jimmy Fallon, because it's
[17:01] kind of outside of my wheelhouse to go
[17:03] on like late night TV in America and
[17:04] like 7 minutes to be funny or whatever.
[17:06] So, I was [ __ ] myself because I'm a
[17:07] very serious guy.
[17:09] >> [laughter]
[17:10] >> So, but before I went out, there's a
[17:11] video of me, and I said to my team, what
[17:14] I said to myself before the little
[17:15] curtain opened was,
[17:17] "This is going to be amazing. I can't
[17:18] wait. You've you've like prepared for
[17:20] this. I don't know. I said all this
[17:22] nonsense in my head thinking that it was
[17:23] nonsense. And I walked out and had the
[17:24] best time of my life. It was went so
[17:26] great.
[17:26] >> Great. And I I made a video about that
[17:29] how, you know, I'm not one to believe in
[17:31] things that without like rigor and
[17:33] evidence and I didn't have it.
[17:35] Now you do. Now I do.
[17:37] >> [laughter]
[17:37] >> Now I have a study that proves that it's
[17:38] not
[17:38] >> This one is interesting. I think this
[17:40] was the beginning of my scientific
[17:42] journey realizing that the way we talk
[17:45] to other people and the way we talk to
[17:46] ourselves, especially in a repeated
[17:49] sense. If you think about, okay, you did
[17:51] that before Jimmy Fallon. Now what if
[17:53] you do it before the next time you meet
[17:54] a colleague's family. Now what if you do
[17:56] it before you interview Bill Gates,
[17:57] before you do it, right? If you then get
[17:59] in the habit of telling yourself you're
[18:01] excited and that becomes effective for
[18:04] you, it's incredibly meaningful in
[18:06] accumulation over time. Right? So just
[18:08] focusing on one time, yes, it's helpful,
[18:11] but if you can make it habitual, it has
[18:13] this sort of upward spiral effect on
[18:15] people. It was the beginning of my
[18:17] scientific journey thinking, oh,
[18:19] well, if we can study one phrase like
[18:21] get excited or I'm excited, what if we
[18:23] start studying the cascading unfolding
[18:26] ways that people talk to each other and
[18:27] not just one line, but like every turn
[18:30] of a conversation. No one had done that
[18:32] before.
[18:33] And this negotiation study you did, what
[18:35] was the mechanism for that? Yeah.
[18:37] That was a more class of the the
[18:39] literature. People have been studying
[18:40] negotiations for decades now and there's
[18:44] a really great negotiation course at
[18:46] almost every business school and law
[18:47] school that's based in all of this
[18:49] rigorous work. What had not been studied
[18:51] on in terms of negotiating are people's
[18:53] emotions. It was a It was about 15 years
[18:56] ago that people, even including
[18:57] scholars, came to the point where we
[18:59] were like, oh, people's feelings matter.
[19:00] When they feel nervous or when they feel
[19:02] angry, that's actually important
[19:04] distinction, how you feel on the inside
[19:06] versus what you're expressing to your
[19:08] counterpart.
[19:09] So in this paper what we found is as a
[19:11] base rate, most people feel anxious
[19:13] before and during a negotiation because
[19:15] it is an intense environment. It's
[19:17] probably one of the greatest benefits of
[19:20] taking a negotiation course is that you
[19:21] just get reps, and so you get more
[19:23] comfortable with the process of doing
[19:25] it. That might be the biggest takeaway
[19:27] from doing a training course like that.
[19:29] And so in this paper, we have that sort
[19:31] of base rate look, everybody's feeling
[19:33] anxious. Um and then, what are the
[19:35] downstream consequences of feeling
[19:37] anxious? And what we find people we had
[19:39] people doing negotiations, playing these
[19:41] negotiation games. What we find is that
[19:44] people are much more likely to sort of
[19:45] leave prematurely or make more
[19:48] concessions to relieve the feelings of
[19:50] anxiety. Make bad offers. Yeah. Or it
[19:54] depends on your goals, right? If you If
[19:56] your goal is to claim a lot of value,
[19:58] then making concessions and giving money
[20:00] away is not going to help you in with
[20:02] that. So if I'm asking my boss for a pay
[20:04] rise, for example, am I and I'm very,
[20:05] very nervous, I'm much more likely to
[20:09] um lower my expectations, accept a bad
[20:11] offer,
[20:13] and leave the situation prematurely.
[20:15] >> Absolutely. So what do I do about that?
[20:17] Oh, so many things. If we're talking
[20:19] about asking for a raise, um
[20:21] what you want is to go in there with as
[20:23] much sort of personal power as you can.
[20:26] One way to do that is to get another job
[20:29] offer somewhere else first.
[20:31] So we talk about this as the best
[20:33] alternative to a negotiated agreement, a
[20:35] BATNA.
[20:36] You want to strengthen your BATNA. So if
[20:38] your boss says, "No, I'm not giving you
[20:39] a raise," you can legitimately say,
[20:43] "I'm going to go take this other job
[20:44] offer cuz I just got a better offer from
[20:46] the guy down the street." What if you
[20:48] don't want to take the the other offer?
[20:51] Then you need to be honest with yourself
[20:52] about how much power you have in the
[20:54] negotiation. You also probably A lot of
[20:57] people make the mistake of going in sort
[20:58] of hands on hips like, "I deserve more
[21:00] money." There are lots of questions that
[21:02] you should ask first to know, "Am I
[21:04] negotiating with the right person?
[21:07] Does my company have the funds to
[21:08] actually give me more money? Why what
[21:11] how can I justify this in a way that's
[21:13] compelling to them, right? It's it's not
[21:16] up to you. It's that they they need to
[21:18] want to keep you and to feel like you
[21:22] are being fairly and generously
[21:24] rewarded. And all of that requires
[21:27] asking a lot of questions before you go
[21:28] in and start making demands.
[21:30] In that context, how would you try and
[21:32] persuade me if you work for me? So
[21:34] what would you say? Because I do think,
[21:36] you know, it's very easy to get
[21:37] someone's back up when you walk in and
[21:39] ask them for money. If you do it 100%. I
[21:44] it's hard for me to answer this because
[21:47] um
[21:47] maybe this is sort of my personal
[21:49] values. It's almost like I'm taking off
[21:50] my expert hat for a moment.
[21:52] I think the best way to get a raise is
[21:54] to be awesome.
[21:57] Do things that are valuable
[22:00] and your company is going to give you
[22:01] more money
[22:02] without even having to ask for it. So in
[22:05] my heart, uh this question of how do we
[22:08] have a conversation where I ask for more
[22:09] money? It's almost like I I would hope
[22:12] that you don't even get to that point.
[22:14] If you are truly making yourself almost
[22:17] irreplaceable and incredibly valuable,
[22:20] your boss is going to be coming to you
[22:21] and saying, I have to keep you around.
[22:23] You're amazing. You're so incredible.
[22:25] That's much easier conversation to have
[22:27] than walking in and saying, I I'm I-
[22:29] it's not fair. I don't make enough. I do
[22:31] think that holds to be true. I think
[22:33] that generally if people's first
[22:34] priority
[22:36] what they want,
[22:37] then they often don't tend to get what
[22:39] they want. But people who have the
[22:40] priority, their first priority is what I
[22:42] can give, tend to get what they want.
[22:44] >> That's right. It's so um it's a bit of a
[22:47] sort of like a
[22:49] mindset shift. If you prioritize other
[22:52] people's needs, if you're thinking about
[22:54] what your boss finds valuable, what the
[22:56] organization finds valuable, and you
[22:59] rise to meet those needs, you make
[23:01] yourself valuable, which is going to
[23:03] come back to you.
[23:05] Um hopefully, that's what that's the
[23:06] hope. And I think often that is the
[23:08] case. Almost always that is the case. In
[23:11] the TALK framework, and we'll get there,
[23:12] the K is for kindness, and it's not
[23:14] kindness in the sense of like altruism
[23:16] because I'm going to help my boss and do
[23:18] everything he wants because I
[23:20] care so deeply. That can be part of it,
[23:23] but also it's this sort of loop of like,
[23:25] well, if you give him everything every
[23:26] if you give the organization what it
[23:28] needs, that's going to come back to you.
[23:30] You will actually become valuable and
[23:32] get what you want as well. That's how
[23:34] relationships work.
[23:36] Usually when I interview people, I lead
[23:37] the way. Today, I'm going to follow.
[23:40] Okay, [laughter] because you know the
[23:41] outcome that me and the audience want to
[23:43] get to. So, I have all this stuff here.
[23:46] I love it. Props.
[23:47] >> props.
[23:48] >> Fabulous. I have these blocks that for
[23:50] anyone that can't see the conversation,
[23:52] say T A L K on them, talk. Fabulous. And
[23:56] you tell me the best place to start. You
[23:57] know the outcome, you know where I want
[23:58] to get to. I want to be the best
[24:00] conversationalist, the best talker, the
[24:01] most persuasive,
[24:03] influential, likable
[24:05] talker in the world.
[24:07] Um so, I shall follow your lead. Oh my
[24:09] gosh. It's a lot of power. I love it. I
[24:12] love it so much. Um let's start with
[24:14] this. Um
[24:17] I want you to think of a conversation
[24:18] that you had recently.
[24:21] It has to be more than 5 minutes long.
[24:24] More than 5 Yes, I can think of one
[24:25] immediately. It was a conversation I had
[24:26] with my girlfriend where I just wanted
[24:28] her to know that I accept the fact that
[24:30] I [ __ ] up. Like I I I accept the fact
[24:32] that I should have been more present in
[24:34] a particular moment, and I wasn't. And I
[24:36] just wanted to like
[24:38] Own it. Own it. And and convey that to
[24:41] her.
[24:41] >> And convey that I'm sorry and I get it.
[24:42] >> Yep. And this is not one where I'm going
[24:44] to try and justify my whatever. No,
[24:47] actually
[24:48] I I objectively I should have been more
[24:50] attentive and present. Yep. I just
[24:52] wanted her to know that. Yep. So, you
[24:54] start off with an admission of
[24:55] blameworthiness.
[24:57] Uh why? Why did you want to do that?
[25:00] Because I felt that she was right and I
[25:02] regretted my behavior. Yeah. So,
[25:05] sometimes I don't feel like she's right.
[25:07] Sometimes I'm here to
[25:09] you know, respond. In this particular
[25:11] scenario, I thought, you know, actually
[25:12] on balance, I should have been more
[25:14] present. This was an important time for
[25:16] her and in hindsight,
[25:20] ah, that's not how I wish I'd behaved.
[25:22] Okay.
[25:23] How did you want her to feel during and
[25:26] at the end of this conversation?
[25:30] Understood. Mhm. And
[25:34] I really under- That's really it. It's
[25:36] like I wanted her to feel understood and
[25:41] I guess like connected to me, but it's
[25:43] more it's really more I just wanted her
[25:44] to
[25:45] not worry that I didn't understand. So,
[25:48] she didn't have to say it again. Like I
[25:49] just wanted her to know that I I get it.
[25:51] Mhm. Mhm. And that in future I wish I'd
[25:53] behaved differently.
[25:54] How did you want to feel during and
[25:58] after this conversation? I guess I
[25:59] wanted to offload the guilt. Aha.
[26:01] [laughter]
[26:02] Aha. Good. Yeah, cuz I felt bad. I felt
[26:04] like, no, actually And it was weighing
[26:06] on your conscience. You were like, I got
[26:07] to I I got to say that. I got to own
[26:09] this cuz it's making me feel like a [ __ ]
[26:11] head. Yeah. Okay. Fabulous. Okay.
[26:14] When we look back on our conversations
[26:16] and try and describe what our goals
[26:18] were, very quickly you start to realize
[26:20] that our goals are very complicated,
[26:23] that we want a lot of things. I'm also
[26:25] guessing there may have been a time
[26:26] component. Can you talk a little bit
[26:27] about that? Like how much time did you
[26:29] have to
[26:31] achieve these goals? I mean, I never
[26:33] seem to have enough time. So, it was
[26:34] like it was
[26:35] >> [laughter]
[26:36] >> Yeah, so I I I had about probably about
[26:39] 20 minutes. Great. Hey, that's pretty
[26:41] good. Mhm. I wish I had 20 minutes with
[26:43] my husband. Okay. Um,
[26:45] so
[26:47] I have a framework that helps us think
[26:49] about conversational goals and I call it
[26:52] the conversational compass. Okay? And
[26:55] like a compass that you might use to
[26:56] find your way out of the desert or the
[26:59] forest,
[27:00] the compass helps you decide which way
[27:02] not to walk, but to talk. Okay? So, the
[27:06] X axis I'll put this on the screen for
[27:09] anyone that's can see the video.
[27:10] >> Great. Um the X axis, which runs
[27:13] horizontally, is about your
[27:14] relationship. Also, I'll link it below.
[27:17] So, this relational axis, high
[27:18] relational goals are things that you
[27:20] care about that are serving the other
[27:22] person or your relationship. This
[27:24] conversation sounded very high
[27:26] relational. You're truly like I just
[27:28] really want her to know that I feel like
[27:31] a [ __ ] and that I'm owning it and
[27:33] like I care and I maybe won't do it
[27:36] again. Something like that.
[27:38] Low relational goals are things we care
[27:39] about that serve us. So, in this case,
[27:42] you said something like I want to
[27:43] offload give her to my guilt. I wasn't I
[27:45] was feeling bad.
[27:46] >> [snorts]
[27:47] >> The Y axis is about information
[27:49] exchange. High informational goals are
[27:52] hinge on exchanging accurate
[27:54] information. It's sort of the reason
[27:56] human beings learn develop the ability
[27:58] to communicate at all, right? Way back
[28:00] when is to take what's in my brain,
[28:02] communicate it to you accurately.
[28:05] But, we care about tons of stuff that is
[28:06] low informational. So, it's not about
[28:08] exchanging information and sometimes
[28:10] it's about concealing it. In this case,
[28:12] you had a high informational goal. You
[28:15] wanted to sort of persuade her prove to
[28:16] her that you're a good guy and that she
[28:19] should stay with you essentially trust
[28:21] you. But, you also had low informational
[28:23] goals like you didn't want it to be
[28:25] emotionally unpleasant to have this
[28:27] conversation. You also had low
[28:29] informational goals like a time
[28:31] constraint. You needed to protect your
[28:32] time and her time.
[28:34] Uh and so, we're always limited by time
[28:37] and cognitive resources.
[28:39] So, the point of this is to help us plot
[28:42] all of those goals in a logical way.
[28:45] Uh each quadrant is good. We live in all
[28:48] four quadrants. We're not trying to get
[28:50] to one or another. It's just to help us
[28:52] describe
[28:54] all of the many things that we actually
[28:55] care about. Almost to validate them and
[28:58] say, "Listen, it's legit that you wanted
[29:00] to relieve your guilt. It's super
[29:01] admirable that you wanted to signal to
[29:04] her that like you're owning this
[29:05] mistake. It's legit that you have time
[29:07] constraints. It's legit that you don't
[29:10] want your conversations to be
[29:11] unpleasant." So, each of the quadrants
[29:13] get a gets a positive name. Uh, high
[29:15] informational, high relational is about
[29:16] connection. Okay? Often you'll hear
[29:19] communications, uh,
[29:20] experts just talk about connection,
[29:22] which is, um,
[29:23] too narrow. It's not the only thing that
[29:25] we care about. Down here, low
[29:27] informational, high relational is about
[29:30] savoring. What does informational mean?
[29:32] Mhm. In this context?
[29:33] >> Like, how much, uh, accurate information
[29:36] you are trying to, you need to exchange
[29:40] with each other. If we just sat here
[29:42] kind of quietly and I hummed a song
[29:45] because we
[29:46] that and I said something like, "Hey,
[29:48] love your shirt." We're not exchanging a
[29:50] lot of information, but we might be
[29:52] having a very lovely interaction with
[29:55] each other. So, not every conversation
[29:57] is about high information exchange,
[29:59] though many people think that it is.
[30:03] You know these people. They're very
[30:04] transactional. They feel like a
[30:06] conversation is where you just say
[30:08] things you know at other people and that
[30:10] they're going to say things they know
[30:12] back at you. That's a big mistake. So,
[30:15] having fun I can see is in the bottom
[30:16] right quadrant.
[30:17] >> yes. Because it's not about huge
[30:19] informational exchange. That's right.
[30:20] But it is about connections.
[30:22] Okay.
[30:22] >> Oh, and it's really important. Many of
[30:24] my students at Harvard almost forget
[30:26] about this quadrant. They're like, "If
[30:27] we're not persuading and making
[30:29] decisions, we're not living." Right?
[30:30] Like, this is really important.
[30:32] Especially over time, if we're not
[30:35] enjoying being with each other, I'm not
[30:36] going to look forward to talking to you
[30:38] again. That's true at work and outside
[30:41] of work.
[30:42] Lower left is essentially discernment.
[30:44] We call it protection. It's protecting
[30:46] your time, protecting your reputation,
[30:48] protecting information. So, concealing,
[30:51] keeping secrets, moving quickly. We
[30:53] can't sit here for hours and hours and
[30:54] hours. Um and then protecting your
[30:57] reputation like I you care about making
[30:59] a positive impression on other people. I
[31:00] want you to see me as smart and warm and
[31:04] calm and trustworthy. These are
[31:07] self-serving, low relational or low
[31:09] informational goals. And then we get up
[31:11] to upper left, which is low relational,
[31:13] they're self-serving, high
[31:15] informational. This is a lot of
[31:17] work-related goal, persuasion, making
[31:18] decisions, brainstorming, etc. So, if I
[31:21] want to be
[31:23] liked and have great relationships, I
[31:24] need to be on the right side of this.
[31:26] Is that accurate? So, what happens if
[31:29] someone who trusts you and loves you
[31:31] tells you something in confidence and
[31:33] then you go tell everybody else?
[31:37] You lose trust. Yeah. So, it's not that
[31:39] you can only live on this side of the
[31:42] compass because discernment matters for
[31:45] relationships. Okay. Right? So, and here
[31:49] you are going to be in a relationship
[31:50] where hopefully you're going to be like
[31:52] brainstorming things together, making
[31:53] decisions together. Even with a friend,
[31:56] you're like, "Oh, where should we go to
[31:57] dinner tonight?" You need to make that
[31:59] coordinate that choice well together.
[32:02] So, I think it one aspiration is to try
[32:04] and be over on the right side as much as
[32:06] you can. In fact, having the mindset of
[32:09] pushing yourself to try and think about
[32:12] your goals that are more prosocial more
[32:14] often is a virtuous goal. But like
[32:16] listen, we all have actual needs. So,
[32:18] like you can't only live on the right
[32:21] side of the compass.
[32:23] It's about moving around in a way that
[32:25] is savvy and and actually serves what
[32:28] you care about.
[32:31] Yeah. Got you. Do you have a sense of
[32:33] where your goals from that conversation
[32:35] that you described would be? Apologize.
[32:37] Mhm.
[32:37] >> Which is highly relational.
[32:40] And not very high on informational cuz I
[32:42] didn't have a bunch I didn't have a lot
[32:43] to say. It was just very simply about
[32:46] letting her know that I was sorry. And
[32:47] it wasn't I didn't have a big
[32:48] explanation or a bunch of excuses or
[32:51] justifications. It was just listen, I
[32:53] [ __ ] up. Yeah, I get it. Can we talk
[32:54] about apologies for a second?
[32:55] >> Sure. I love that you chose this as your
[32:58] example because
[33:00] and the way you're describing it. I love
[33:01] how you're saying um
[33:03] I didn't go into a huge explanation of
[33:05] why I did it or anything. More people
[33:08] should apologize that way. A lot of
[33:09] people their instinct when they're
[33:11] apologizing is to revisit the problem
[33:13] and sort of make excuses or explain why
[33:15] they
[33:16] did the thing wrong.
[33:18] It's not effective. Um what is more
[33:21] effective is what you're describing,
[33:23] taking ownership and saying, "Look, I I
[33:25] just messed up and I'm so sorry and I
[33:27] feel awful about it." And the most
[33:30] effective component of an apology is
[33:32] actually making a promise to change.
[33:34] If you say to your girlfriend, "I've
[33:36] realized I messed up here. I'm not going
[33:38] to do it again. Here's how I'm going to
[33:40] be different in the future." Like a
[33:41] concrete plan.
[33:43] It's so compelling to hear that you've
[33:45] thought about that. And that And then
[33:47] it's measurable because she can see in
[33:49] the future do do you actually live up to
[33:51] that promise? Do you follow through on
[33:54] this promise to never do make the
[33:55] mistake again? Is there a point where
[33:57] you can apologize too much?
[33:59] We studied this. I ran some studies on
[34:01] this. Um we started by looking at um
[34:05] frequency of apologies made during
[34:07] normal conversations. It's quite rare
[34:09] for someone to over-apologize, but it
[34:11] does seem like within one conversation
[34:13] if you apologize more than twice, it
[34:16] starts to be more of a reminder of the
[34:18] bad thing that happened. Like you just
[34:20] keep revisiting it and it brings you
[34:22] back to the negativity rather than
[34:24] moving forward.
[34:27] We also studied apologies in a really
[34:29] large data set of parole hearings. Like
[34:31] among people who had committed really
[34:33] serious crimes, and we looked at the
[34:36] types of apologies that they made in
[34:37] their parole during their parole
[34:39] hearings. And there it seems like you
[34:41] actually can't over apologize, like more
[34:44] is better. And again, the most effective
[34:46] component is making a promise to change
[34:48] in the future.
[34:50] I'm going to go I'm when I get out, I'm
[34:51] going to be in AA, I'm going to live
[34:53] with live with my grandmother, here's
[34:55] the job I'm going to do, whatever the
[34:57] plan is,
[34:58] you're actually more likely to get out
[34:59] of jail.
[35:01] And going into those difficult
[35:02] conversations, is there anything one
[35:05] needs to do to prepare? Mhm. Because we
[35:07] our lives are full of difficult
[35:08] conversations, and actually it's the
[35:09] avoidance of them that ends up messing
[35:11] up our lives the most. So, when you
[35:12] think about difficult conversations that
[35:14] we all have to have or with difficult
[35:15] people,
[35:17] is it do I have to prepare for that? So,
[35:18] this is very natural. Almost every
[35:20] person that you hear talk about
[35:21] communication tends to focus on
[35:23] difficult conversations.
[35:25] I'm going to suggest to you that that is
[35:27] a very narrow view of the conversational
[35:29] world, actually. And in fact, thinking
[35:32] about difficult conversations is a
[35:35] little bit of a misnomer. It's not like
[35:37] there are some conversations that are
[35:39] difficult and some that are easy. It's
[35:41] that in every conversation, there can be
[35:43] moments of difference, where we use
[35:46] different language to mean the same
[35:48] thing, where we have an incongruence in
[35:50] our emotions, where we have a difference
[35:52] in motives. I want to give you advice,
[35:54] but you don't want to take it.
[35:56] Or something dips down to a difference
[35:58] in our identities. I'm American and
[36:00] you're a Brit. So,
[36:02] anytime you encounter these little
[36:04] fleeting moments of difference in all of
[36:06] these different ways, and maybe there
[36:08] was an image here. Let me see. No, it's
[36:09] not here.
[36:10] It looks like layers. We talk about it
[36:12] like layers of the earth. And above the
[36:14] surface are the words and sounds that
[36:16] you hear while people are talking. Right
[36:19] at the surface are people's emotions.
[36:21] So, I feel excited, but you feel tired
[36:24] and bored. That's going to be a
[36:27] Right below that are people's motives.
[36:29] What I want to achieve it goes back to
[36:31] the compass. What I want to achieve is
[36:33] different than what you want to achieve.
[36:34] We're all walking around with a compass
[36:36] in our mind and they're different from
[36:37] each other.
[36:38] Right below that are our beliefs, right?
[36:41] I believe that immigration is a problem
[36:44] and you believe that AI is a way bigger
[36:47] problem than human immigration.
[36:51] Um how do we talk about that in a way?
[36:52] And then all of it gets dipped down to
[36:53] the the sort of hot magma in this layers
[36:55] of the earth model of our identities. So
[36:58] even an easy conversation, we're on a
[37:00] date or we're two spouses are driving in
[37:03] a car or friends are hanging out
[37:04] watching a movie, like you can stumble
[37:07] upon these little moments of difficulty
[37:09] anytime for any reason and you need to
[37:12] have the skill set to be able to make
[37:14] sure the temperature doesn't get too
[37:16] hot. What is that skill set? There's a
[37:18] fabulous research on this. I have found
[37:20] it incredibly helpful in my life. Um
[37:23] research by Julia Minson, Mike Youngman,
[37:25] Hannah Collins called receptiveness. So
[37:27] it's receptiveness to opposing
[37:29] viewpoints. And it's both the mindset
[37:33] when you when someone comes to you with
[37:35] something that seems crazy,
[37:37] you don't judge it negatively. You have
[37:39] to fight the human instinct to think of
[37:41] it as like that's crazy. That's wrong.
[37:45] And now I'm going to win and now I'm
[37:48] going to be right and prove you wrong
[37:50] because all of those instincts ruin our
[37:53] conversations and our relationships.
[37:55] Why?
[37:56] It makes us defensive on the receiving
[37:59] end. It makes us sort of accusatory and
[38:01] hostile on the attack end. Once we get
[38:04] into an accusation and defense mode, the
[38:07] conversation is broken down. It's no
[38:09] longer
[38:11] about connection, savoring, protecting
[38:13] and advancing. We're now in this new
[38:15] world that is not achieving any of our
[38:17] goals. So let's say someone comes to me
[38:19] and comes to you and says something's
[38:21] crazy. They say, "You know, the sky is
[38:23] purple." Yeah.
[38:25] It's actually it's not blue, it's
[38:26] purple. Here's a magical phrase that you
[38:28] can say in that moment. It makes sense
[38:30] that you feel that the sky is purple.
[38:33] It makes sense that you feel excited to
[38:35] tell me that the sky is purple. It makes
[38:37] sense that you feel X about Y. Makes
[38:39] sense that you feel skeptical about
[38:42] podcasts. It makes you It makes sense
[38:44] that you feel
[38:46] annoyed that I speak quickly. It makes
[38:48] sense that you are worried about AI.
[38:51] Whatever people are feeling, whatever
[38:53] they express to you,
[38:54] we can validate that feeling because
[38:57] whatever's going on in their mind is
[38:58] their reality. And we have to say that
[39:01] out loud before we go on to do anything
[39:03] else, even if we're about to disagree
[39:04] with them vehemently.
[39:06] But we have to say the validation piece
[39:09] first, just like therapists do all the
[39:11] time.
[39:12] In order for them to feel heard and
[39:14] like, "Oh, yeah, I'm safe here." So that
[39:16] I can join you on your side of the table
[39:18] and now we're going to untangle this
[39:19] weird problem together.
[39:22] You say the sky is purple, tell me more.
[39:24] Like, what How did you come to feel like
[39:26] the sky is purple? Um are Do you Are you
[39:29] color blind? Are you Do you see
[39:31] everything in purple? Like, now I can
[39:34] ask you questions about how you came to
[39:36] that perspective and we can learn I can
[39:38] learn about it.
[39:39] >> I guess the risk is you don't want to
[39:40] validate something wrong.
[39:42] >> Yeah.
[39:42] Why not?
[39:43] >> You don't want to appear to be saying
[39:45] cuz if I say, "It makes sense that you
[39:47] think the sky is purple, but it's
[39:48] actually blue." The word thinks is
[39:50] important. It's It makes sense that you
[39:52] feel
[39:53] X about Y. Mhm. Not it makes sense that
[39:56] you think X about Y. Thinking is like a
[39:59] cognition. Is there a risk of it
[40:00] sounding patronizing? Maybe, but in in
[40:03] practice, it feels really, really good.
[40:06] When I run this So, I run an exercise in
[40:08] my class where we go around, let's say
[40:10] there's there's a group of five
[40:11] students,
[40:12] and you have to share something. We
[40:15] start easy, like share one song you
[40:17] love. And then the next person has to
[40:19] validate that before they share their
[40:21] favorite next song. And you go around
[40:23] and around very quickly.
[40:25] And so it feels very contrived to say,
[40:27] "Okay, you have to say, I love that you
[40:29] love that Taylor Swift song. That's so
[40:30] interesting. I actually don't like
[40:32] Taylor Swift." It feels very contrived,
[40:35] but when you talk to the students after
[40:37] it, they say, "Yes, I knew what we were
[40:39] doing. It did feel over the top to say
[40:41] that about people's song preferences.
[40:43] And still, it felt amazing to have the
[40:45] person next to me say, 'I love that you
[40:48] love that Taylor Swift song.'"
[40:50] Validation, we are all so hungry for
[40:52] validation that even ridiculous
[40:54] validation feels amazing. So then, when
[40:57] you get to round two and everybody's
[40:59] sharing something that they're really
[41:00] struggling with,
[41:02] and the person next to them says,
[41:04] "Wow, I'm so sorry. That sounds really,
[41:05] really hard. It makes sense that you
[41:07] feel upset about your mom."
[41:09] Now you've got that habit, and you're
[41:12] making them feel quite good about
[41:14] something that actually does deserve
[41:16] that validation. So it's all about like
[41:19] developing these habits, no matter where
[41:22] the difference or disagreement is coming
[41:24] from. What's the opposite of that? The
[41:27] opposite is what how people naturally
[41:30] respond, tend to naturally respond,
[41:32] which is by trying to win and prove them
[41:34] wrong and prove that they're right.
[41:36] So you say the sky is purple and I say,
[41:38] "That's crazy. Sky's blue."
[41:42] And then where does our conversation go?
[41:44] It feels terrible for you. It's so I
[41:46] learned this um
[41:48] >> [clears throat]
[41:49] >> because I employed this person once and
[41:51] this person, when we'd talk about ideas,
[41:53] the first word out of their mouth was
[41:55] always, "I disagree." And then they'd
[41:57] make their point.
[41:58] >> That's right. And I don't know what it
[42:00] was about it, but I noticed that it
[42:02] would like get my back up.
[42:03] >> Of course. And so I'd say, I don't know,
[42:06] I'd say, "I think we should do it like
[42:07] this." "I disagree." Yeah. And then
[42:08] they'd make their point. And I remember
[42:09] thinking, "Gosh, that's such a" And it's
[42:11] so ironic because their goal is to
[42:14] persuade you. At the end of it, they
[42:16] want you to agree with their position.
[42:18] That's not at all how persuasion works.
[42:21] The only way that we change our beliefs
[42:23] is is usually across many conversations,
[42:26] and we're around someone we like talking
[42:28] to and respect and have admiration for,
[42:31] and then over time we sort of bend to
[42:33] the gentle pressure of their differing
[42:35] viewpoint.
[42:37] If I say, I disagree. Now let's fight
[42:40] about it. Mhm. You're you get your back
[42:42] up and you're not having you're not
[42:44] enjoying talking to me. Even if you're
[42:46] right and right like it's not about
[42:48] being right or wrong in that moment.
[42:51] The goal here is to keep the
[42:53] conversation in an emotional place where
[42:55] it can continue. So you can continue to
[42:57] engage. And that's what these
[42:59] researchers find in this receptiveness
[43:01] research is they're if you qualify your
[43:03] statement saying like, I wonder if the
[43:05] sky could be a different color rather
[43:06] than the sky is blue with certainty.
[43:10] There are all of these sort of hedging
[43:12] language. You can divide yourself into
[43:14] multiple parts. So if you said to me the
[43:15] sky is purple, I would say, oh my gosh,
[43:17] as your friend and as a painter, that is
[43:19] so intriguing to me.
[43:21] As a biologist or as an as a
[43:23] meteorologist,
[43:24] maybe we should investigate that. Mhm.
[43:26] Um literally dividing yourself into two
[43:29] disagreeing parts. It's usually how we
[43:31] actually feel. So if your mother says
[43:33] something crazy to you that seems crazy
[43:35] to you, you could say as your daughter,
[43:36] I'm so intrigued that you've come to
[43:38] hold that perspective. I'd love to hear
[43:40] more.
[43:40] You know, as a representative of Gen Z,
[43:43] I know my friends would want you want me
[43:44] to say this.
[43:46] It means that you can hold two
[43:48] perspectives at once and it is very
[43:50] helpful to the other person to keep the
[43:52] conversation going. But all of the
[43:54] elements of this receptiveness recipe
[43:55] have have this flavor. It's a little
[43:57] surprising. I think often people think
[44:00] of these types of things as weakness
[44:02] because it's like our our instinct is to
[44:04] try to win and be right. And instead,
[44:07] what I'm saying is, no, hedge your
[44:08] claims. Show that you're uncertain about
[44:11] stuff. Validate their feelings. Divide
[44:13] yourself into disagreeing parts because
[44:15] you're not certain about anything
[44:17] in order to keep the conversation going,
[44:20] so that you have any shred of hope of
[44:21] persuading them over the longer term.
[44:24] I remember Tali Sharot telling me about
[44:25] study. Either she told me, she's a
[44:26] neuroscientist in London, and she told
[44:29] me they put
[44:30] two people in a brain imaging scanner
[44:33] and got them to like look at photos and
[44:35] come to agreement on the price of
[44:37] something.
[44:38] >> Yes. And then eventually in these
[44:39] studies, I'm super paraphrasing here.
[44:41] She's probably like cringing at
[44:42] >> I know what study you're talking about.
[44:43] >> Oh, do you? Could you explain it in a
[44:44] Yeah. So, so they studied what what
[44:47] lights up in your brain when you're in a
[44:49] situation of disagreement versus
[44:51] agreement. And it is actually more
[44:53] taxing to your mind when someone is
[44:55] disagreeing with you. It's like these
[44:57] neurological
[44:59] um alarm bells go off and all of a
[45:01] sudden like you described, what was your
[45:03] friend? My back goes up? What was Yeah,
[45:05] my back goes up. I get my back up. Yeah.
[45:06] >> That's it. It's actually in your brain.
[45:07] Your brain goes up. And it's hard it's
[45:09] it's very hard to continue to engage
[45:12] once that process is underway. Yeah.
[45:14] Right? Some people call it amygdala
[45:16] hijacking, which is not quite right. Um
[45:19] but your brain does look different when
[45:21] you're in a situation of disagreement.
[45:23] So, whatever we can do conversationally
[45:24] to sort of tamp that down so that your
[45:27] back doesn't go up
[45:28] >> Mhm.
[45:28] >> [clears throat]
[45:28] >> is going to be quite helpful. She showed
[45:31] pictures of the brain in these scans
[45:33] when someone disagrees with you. And I
[45:35] think, and I might be getting this
[45:37] inverted, that it was almost like the
[45:38] brain had shut down to receptiveness
[45:41] Yes. in that moment. It was like So, I
[45:43] always I wrote a chapter in my book
[45:44] called Do Not Disagree. It's It's an
[45:46] intentionally provocative chapter cuz
[45:48] people think, what do you mean? Never
[45:48] disagree with anybody? But I mean like,
[45:50] don't make the first thing you say I
[45:52] disagree.
[45:53] >> That's right. It can come later.
[45:54] >> 100%.
[45:55] >> later, but first has to come like,
[45:56] that's so intriguing that you said that.
[45:58] I'm so fascinated. And it makes sense
[46:00] that you might feel that way. I wonder
[46:01] if and then you can go on instead of I
[46:04] disagree. I met a girl called Anne who
[46:08] always said yes and instead of but.
[46:11] >> Good. And it shocked me cuz it was so
[46:13] different. I having a conversation with
[46:15] how you say something to her and you go,
[46:17] I think this and she goes, yes and and
[46:19] then she would make her point. And it
[46:20] could be a complete disagreement, but I
[46:22] noticed she was doing it and I loved it.
[46:24] >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. And you we often think
[46:26] of the yes and as part of sort of improv
[46:28] comedy, humor, etc. They were the
[46:31] comedians are really onto something much
[46:33] more profound about conversation
[46:35] broadly. If you can come from a sort of
[46:38] mindset or like spiritual place of yes
[46:41] and essentially you're saying I'm going
[46:44] to give you the benefit of the doubt
[46:45] here even though it what you're saying
[46:47] seems a little crazy. Mhm. That's what
[46:50] is required to have great relationships.
[46:52] It's like we're all going to have these
[46:53] moments where someone feels something or
[46:55] says something that seems crazy and if
[46:58] you react to it
[46:59] in an invalidating way
[47:02] that's how we kill our relationships. Do
[47:05] we need to kill the word but? Because
[47:07] what ends up happening is someone will
[47:08] say the thing you just said about
[47:09] validating relationships, yes I
[47:11] completely understand I think you made a
[47:13] great point Allison, but and the minute
[47:15] I say but it's kind of like I've just
[47:17] taken an eraser to everything you just
[47:18] said.
[47:19] >> I would love to get rid of the word but.
[47:21] Not but with two t's but but with one t.
[47:23] Yes.
[47:24] >> [laughter]
[47:27] >> Yeah, you never need it. You can make
[47:29] the same point and say and.
[47:33] But
[47:34] >> [laughter]
[47:34] >> Like it just completely it just it
[47:36] immediately says It reveal it also
[47:38] reveals that you're sitting there
[47:41] in a state of I I can't wait I'm like on
[47:44] the tip of my tongue is something I
[47:46] can't wait to say that's opposite of
[47:48] what you're saying and it's the the
[47:50] spirit of it is is antagonistic.
[47:53] One of the things we notice when we have
[47:54] conversations on this show about
[47:56] about conversation is people really care
[48:00] about likeability. Yes. Like they they
[48:02] really want to know what's making them
[48:04] disliked and they really want to know
[48:05] how to be liked. Good. So, being liked
[48:08] is a huge drive um
[48:12] but it's just one of many things that we
[48:14] we care about in terms of gaining
[48:16] status. So, status is respect,
[48:18] admiration, liking in the eyes of other
[48:20] people. Liking is usually comes from
[48:22] sort of warmth and charm.
[48:24] Admiration often comes from like
[48:26] perceptions of competence. So, we want
[48:29] warmth and competence at once ideally.
[48:32] Okay, let's go back in time. Should we
[48:33] talk about the talk framework because
[48:35] there are going to be little
[48:37] clues about how to be better liked
[48:38] across the whole framework. Okay.
[48:40] [laughter] Okay.
[48:41] Let's start with T.
[48:43] I'm going to push these to the side. T
[48:46] is First, I just want to say as a whole
[48:48] framework, T A L K
[48:50] is the most comprehensive, teachable,
[48:53] practical, scientifically rigorous
[48:55] framework
[48:57] in the world for communication. Did you
[48:59] invent it? I did.
[49:01] >> say that. But I didn't When I first
[49:02] wrote the book, I didn't say it strongly
[49:04] enough.
[49:05] And in the last almost year, I've come
[49:08] to realize why.
[49:10] One part is because most people focus
[49:12] only on difficult conversations and here
[49:14] we are focusing on all conversations,
[49:16] even the ones that seem like they should
[49:17] be easy and fun.
[49:19] It's all conversations everywhere,
[49:20] personal and professional.
[49:23] The other piece is that I didn't even
[49:24] really intend this as a scientist, but
[49:26] the way we do research is essentially
[49:29] natural language processing machine
[49:31] learning fits into this new world of AI.
[49:33] So, the framework can be used by humans
[49:37] or machines to coach people to be better
[49:39] conversationalists and use as a rubric
[49:41] after the fact of saying, "Okay, how did
[49:43] this go? Did you do well? Let's look at
[49:45] T A L K and evaluate." Okay, it's the
[49:49] best in the world ever. I I agree with
[49:50] that.
[49:51] >> Okay. Thank you. Um thank you for
[49:53] recognizing.
[49:53] >> Oh, yeah, no, yeah.
[49:54] >> Okay. T is for topics. Topics. Topics.
[49:58] Topics are the building blocks of
[50:00] conversation. It is what we choose to
[50:03] talk about.
[50:04] >> Okay. Very simple. We all have an
[50:05] intuitive understanding that we sort of
[50:08] work through different chunks. First,
[50:10] we're going to talk about your
[50:11] conversation with your girlfriend, then
[50:13] we're going to talk about the talk
[50:14] framework, then we're talk about the
[50:15] compass, whatever. Working through
[50:16] topics.
[50:18] What I think most people don't realize
[50:19] is that we're choosing topics every time
[50:22] we talk. It's not just at the beginning
[50:25] of a conversation like an opener.
[50:27] Like, "Hey, what do you think of this,
[50:29] you know, the diplomat?" No, it's every
[50:30] time you're talking, we're making moves
[50:32] to gently stay on topic or switch to
[50:35] something else.
[50:36] What's so beautiful about that is it
[50:38] means we all have power. We all have
[50:40] control to nudge the conversation one
[50:44] way or another.
[50:46] And we can all do a better job with it.
[50:49] So, what's the game here to pick better
[50:51] topics, to know what topic we're aiming
[50:53] at?
[50:54] >> There's a lot of goals. It's both about
[50:55] choosing better topics. It's also about
[50:58] how can we make any topic better?
[51:01] Okay. One
[51:03] huge piece of advice that when you start
[51:05] to realize how much your mind is do-
[51:07] doing during a live conversation is to
[51:10] offload some of that cognitive work to
[51:12] beforehand. Okay. Okay. So,
[51:13] [clears throat] prepping topics ahead of
[51:15] time. This does not mean writing out an
[51:18] agenda before you call your parents or
[51:20] before you call your girlfriend. What it
[51:22] does mean is spending even 30 seconds,
[51:25] maybe even 10 seconds, before you're in
[51:27] the chaos of a conversation to think
[51:29] about what you could talk about or what
[51:31] might be important for you to remember
[51:32] to talk about.
[51:33] >> do that today? Always.
[51:36] Sometimes you don't have to, right? Like
[51:37] you did it today. You did extensive
[51:39] prep. Um you even have things printed on
[51:41] cards here. And in a way,
[51:44] [clears throat]
[51:44] I have been prepping for this
[51:45] conversation for 20 years. I've been
[51:47] studying these things. I designed the
[51:49] framework myself. I've gone on 80 other,
[51:51] you know, podcasts. I That's all prep
[51:55] for this moment. What about in your
[51:57] personal life? Yeah. Can you give me an
[51:58] example of where you prepared topics?
[52:00] >> Every conversation that I know is coming
[52:02] Give an example. So, with Cassie, uh,
[52:05] before I got here, Which is a member of
[52:07] our team.
[52:08] >> Yes, thank you.
[52:09] I thought about I wanted to ask her what
[52:12] it's like to be moving from London to
[52:15] LA.
[52:16] I wanted to ask her what it's like to
[52:17] work with you.
[52:18] >> She said all good all good things.
[52:20] >> [laughter]
[52:21] >> All good things. Next question. What
[52:23] does A mean?
[52:24] >> [laughter]
[52:26] >> So funny. Um, I often will, um, so you
[52:30] can It's not rocket science. It's
[52:32] literally just a little bit of
[52:33] forethought. What kinds of questions or
[52:36] topics could I ask you that will make
[52:38] our conversation feel a little bit
[52:40] better than just like winging it in the
[52:41] moment and talking about like some
[52:43] random thing I see in the room. Mhm.
[52:45] >> [clears throat]
[52:46] >> I try to do this before every
[52:47] conversation because now I know how
[52:49] powerful it is and how kind it is. If
[52:51] you are calling somebody and you're
[52:53] like, "Okay, oh yeah, their kid was
[52:54] going to take guitar lessons. I should
[52:56] remember to ask about that." Or, "Oh, my
[52:58] friend had this big presentation at
[52:59] work. I should remember to ask how that
[53:02] went."
[53:03] That means you're going to remember to
[53:04] ask them and that's super kind and it
[53:06] they're excited to talk about it, too.
[53:08] It makes everything better.
[53:10] So, topic prep is a huge deal. In our
[53:12] research what we find when you randomly
[53:13] assign people to prep topics or not, the
[53:16] conversations where people have thought
[53:18] ahead even for 30 seconds, they feel
[53:20] less anxious, they're much smoother,
[53:22] there are fewer disfluencies, so um's,
[53:24] uh's, stutters between topics. They
[53:27] cover more topics, which is usually a
[53:29] good thing. More likely to land on good
[53:31] topics. You're less likely to blurt, so
[53:33] you're less likely to share things that
[53:35] you don't want to share with people.
[53:37] It's just an incredibly powerful
[53:40] strategy and it doesn't need to be
[53:42] complicated. I've gotten in the habit of
[53:44] putting like two or three bullet points
[53:46] for people in my Google Calendar notes
[53:48] when you know you have a meeting coming
[53:49] up. And and you don't even have to do it
[53:51] right before. Like, oh, a week ahead of
[53:53] time if it pops in my head that I want
[53:55] to ask Steven about, do you want to have
[53:57] children? I might write that as a little
[53:59] bullet point in my calendar note for the
[54:01] time that I'm going to be here with you.
[54:03] And then I'll be more likely to remember
[54:04] it. Do you feel skeptical about this?
[54:07] No.
[54:08] I was just thinking it probably makes
[54:10] you more, going back to the point about
[54:11] likeability, it probably makes you more
[54:13] more likable person.
[54:14] >> Much more likable. Yeah. In fact, if you
[54:16] can achieve more of your goals, whether
[54:19] they're high informational, low
[54:20] informational, high relational, low
[54:22] relational, um all of that makes you
[54:25] more likable. You're you're seen more
[54:26] competent, you seem more warm,
[54:28] especially when you lean towards those
[54:29] prosocial, high relational, uh goals.
[54:32] Cuz everyone talks about how if you're
[54:33] interested in someone else, like you're
[54:34] interested in Cozy. Yes. That must have
[54:37] felt good for her, which must make her
[54:39] like you more.
[54:39] >> We should go ask her.
[54:42] That's a good point.
[54:43] >> I ask um I have my students sometimes do
[54:45] a reflection task where I say, if you
[54:46] had to walk into a room and your your
[54:48] job was to make people like you a one
[54:50] out of 10, a five out of 10, or a 10 out
[54:54] of 10, what are the behaviors that you
[54:56] would do to try and pursue those three
[54:59] worlds? Okay, so if I wanted people to
[55:00] like me one out of 10,
[55:02] >> Yeah. what what What would you do? You
[55:04] tell me.
[55:04] >> me, you're the expert.
[55:05] >> [laughter]
[55:06] >> I want to hear your I want to hear your
[55:07] guesses. My guesses, I would walk in
[55:11] quiet, on my phone,
[55:13] and I would ignore them. Yeah.
[55:16] >> And maybe [clears throat] I'd look up
[55:16] and make some kind of snide comment. I
[55:19] definitely wouldn't notice that they
[55:20] were there. Yeah. And I
[55:24] wouldn't make eye contact with them. I
[55:28] They become
[55:28] >> be rude, like maybe like take a phone
[55:30] call.
[55:30] >> Mhm. I was going to say, you know, one's
[55:32] really low, so you probably insults,
[55:35] probably offend them. Yeah, offend
[55:37] [clears throat] them.
[55:37] >> Yeah, make it not not good.
[55:39] >> Maybe take a phone call and then while
[55:40] you're on the phone call talk about how
[55:42] great you are or or something, right?
[55:44] Like some sort of arrogance, etc.
[55:46] >> Yeah. Um maybe if they try and talk to
[55:48] you, interrupt them. Yeah. Uh be like,
[55:51] "Not now." Or look at my phone midway
[55:53] through what they're saying.
[55:54] >> Uh-huh. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So, there's
[55:55] lots of things you can imagine there.
[55:57] Okay. Already we've touched on topics
[55:59] though, right? When you think about,
[56:01] "Okay, I'm talking on the phone in front
[56:02] of them." And what am I going to be
[56:04] talking about that reduces my likability
[56:07] even for someone who's like just
[56:08] observing you talking? I'd get the name
[56:10] wrong.
[56:10] >> That's great. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. That's
[56:12] a good way to say you don't matter to
[56:13] me. Yeah. Yeah. Five out of 10 is an
[56:16] interesting one. You want to do it
[56:18] probably more blasé. Like you engage
[56:21] with them, but not very well.
[56:23] Talk about small talk topics, like you
[56:25] were saying, things that you could talk
[56:27] about with anyone that are not
[56:28] personalized at all, seem a bit
[56:30] disinterested.
[56:32] Um but not offensive, just bland. Okay.
[56:35] Okay. Then we get to 10 out of 10 world.
[56:38] You
[56:38] >> 10 out of 10 likability. Yeah. What are
[56:40] What are you doing if you're trying to
[56:41] get 10 out of 10? I'm completely focused
[56:44] on them. Good. Um I'm attentive. I'm
[56:47] complimentary. I'm going to flatter
[56:48] them.
[56:49] >> Yep. Um Do you think it will seem
[56:51] obsequious?
[56:52] Not if I get it right. Okay.
[56:54] Um cuz I'm going to mean it.
[56:56] >> Yeah, cuz it's going to be sincere.
[56:57] >> It's going to be really sincere. Yeah.
[56:59] I'm going to crack a great joke. Yes.
[57:01] Knock knock. Yeah. Who's there?
[57:03] >> know. I can't
[57:03] >> [laughter]
[57:04] >> You're losing me. I don't know my panic.
[57:06] Exactly. So, yeah. I'm going to flatter
[57:08] them, crack jokes,
[57:10] be very attentive, get their name right,
[57:11] ask them about their grandchild. Good.
[57:14] Okay, let's pause. I want to
[57:16] In that description, already you're
[57:18] moving quite quickly through topics and
[57:20] as you're interacting with them, you
[57:22] know that you can't be circling the
[57:24] drain talking about the weather
[57:26] for long periods of time. So, just
[57:28] briefly let me say, we don't need to
[57:30] avoid small talk. In fact, it's a very
[57:33] important social ritual for people who
[57:35] are strangers to each other, people who
[57:37] haven't seen each other in a long time.
[57:38] It's where we land and say, "Oh, we're
[57:41] doing conversation now."
[57:43] The mistake that people make is
[57:46] they stay there too long.
[57:47] Way too long. Any more than like one
[57:50] beat of "Oh my goodness, the weather's
[57:52] really warm. It's like summer in
[57:54] California." Then you
[57:57] need to make it more personal and move
[57:58] up this topic pyramid towards medium
[58:00] talk, deep talk quickly, right? So,
[58:03] small talk is at the bottom. These are
[58:04] topics anybody can talk about. Tailored
[58:06] talk is more exciting, more
[58:08] personalized, more relevant to your
[58:10] interests. Deep talk is the peak of this
[58:12] pyramid. Only we can talk about this
[58:15] thing in this special way. Not every
[58:17] conversation is bound to get to the deep
[58:19] talk, but when it does, we should feel
[58:21] very appreciative. It's one of the most
[58:23] magical things about being humans. Um
[58:26] so, we don't need to get to deep talk
[58:27] with like the barista at Starbucks or
[58:29] with your neighbor when they're taking
[58:31] out their trash, but it does happen
[58:33] sometimes and it's quite lovely. I think
[58:35] I used to put girls off when I was 11
[58:37] because I used to ask them like the
[58:38] meaning of life too quickly on my
[58:39] mother's old Nokia phone.
[58:40] >> Yeah. And so, they would stop texting
[58:42] back.
[58:43] >> Yeah. So, I I think I learned early that
[58:45] like some people just don't like
[58:46] >> Well, the joke's on them now. Now you
[58:48] get to do it for your for your life's
[58:49] work.
[58:50] >> No, but I think we were you were onto
[58:51] something there. It's not that you asked
[58:53] them about the meaning of life at all.
[58:54] You asked it too quickly. So, getting
[58:57] it's about the pacing as we move up
[58:59] here. Most people stay too long at the
[59:01] bottom, but we also cannot jump to the
[59:04] top often. You kind of have to do the
[59:05] ritual of climbing to feel like you get
[59:08] there in a natural way. And is that
[59:10] where relationships are built, deep
[59:11] ones? For sure.
[59:12] >> At the top. Moments at the top,
[59:14] probably, right? This is where
[59:16] vulnerability takes you. Um often asking
[59:19] lots of questions, especially follow-up
[59:21] questions, gets you up the pyramid more
[59:23] quickly. So, shall we shall we shift to
[59:26] the A of the talk framework? Because A
[59:28] is for Aha.
[59:30] asking.
[59:31] Uh topics and asking are intimately tied
[59:34] to each other. The most common way that
[59:36] people switch topics is by asking a
[59:39] question.
[59:40] So, you can use questions like, "What
[59:42] are you excited about recently?" or
[59:43] "What has been your favorite guest to
[59:45] talk to?" or "What have you and your
[59:47] girlfriend done together recently?" You
[59:49] can use do that to switch topics. Once
[59:51] you're on a topic, we use follow-up
[59:53] questions to kind of dive deeply and
[59:56] move up the topic pyramid.
[59:59] So, you're saying I should ask more
[60:01] questions?
[60:01] >> Yes. Okay. Well, ask more than they're
[60:04] asking me?
[60:05] >> Maybe not you because you spend a lot of
[60:06] time asking questions, but most people
[60:09] the top line advice to make their
[60:11] conversations better is to ask many more
[60:13] questions.
[60:15] Asking It sounds so simple, and it's
[60:18] almost like everybody already knows
[60:19] that, but doing it in practice is
[60:22] quite hard, and it's a skill.
[60:24] And people who do it well are more
[60:26] successful on romantic dates, they're
[60:29] more successful in work meetings,
[60:31] they're more successful as
[60:32] collaborators, they're more successful
[60:34] as entrepreneurs in getting funding. All
[60:36] of it hinges on on question asking. So,
[60:40] the top line advice, just ask more
[60:41] questions. At the very least, don't be a
[60:44] zero question asker. What happens to the
[60:47] fate of zero question askers?
[60:48] >> Uh they're not They're not getting a
[60:50] second date. They're not going to get
[60:52] that funding. They're not They're not
[60:53] learning enough about their partner to
[60:55] enable them to succeed. If you go on a
[60:59] first date and you're asking zero
[61:01] questions, which like imagine that,
[61:02] we've all sort of been on that date
[61:04] probably,
[61:05] you want to leave within 10 minutes.
[61:08] When you're on a first date, you have so
[61:09] much to learn about each other.
[61:12] You [clears throat]
[61:13] have everything to learn about each
[61:15] other. So, if someone's not asking,
[61:17] it's a real real real problem,
[61:19] especially
[61:21] I think this is a very especially good
[61:22] hack for men Um and on heterosexual
[61:25] dates.
[61:26] Often what they're getting wrong is that
[61:29] they're not asking enough questions.
[61:30] How'd you know this?
[61:32] From data.
[61:33] >> [laughter]
[61:33] >> From data? Yeah, yeah. So we have a
[61:34] thousand speed dates and we
[61:38] the outcome is does your the other
[61:40] person want to go on a second date with
[61:41] you?
[61:42] And we have transcripts. It was an
[61:44] amazing study run by this incredible
[61:46] research group at Stanford about 10
[61:48] years ago.
[61:49] And you can just measure it. Measure how
[61:51] many questions they asked on each date.
[61:53] People who ask more questions are
[61:55] enormously more likely to get asked to
[61:57] on a second date. So much so, imagine
[62:00] you go on 20 first dates
[62:02] and I say, "Okay, Stephen, you just have
[62:04] to ask one extra question on those 20
[62:07] dates.
[62:09] If you do, you'll convert another date
[62:11] into a second date from just one
[62:13] question per date." According to the
[62:15] data? Yes.
[62:17] It's true for both men and women,
[62:20] but it's particularly helpful for men
[62:22] because they ask fewer questions on
[62:23] average than women do. Really? Yeah.
[62:26] Significantly less?
[62:27] >> Yes.
[62:28] And the other funny gender effect in the
[62:30] data is that men are just more likely to
[62:32] agree to go on second dates. They're
[62:33] less discerning in general.
[62:36] But if they want if if men want to get
[62:38] asked on the second date, just ask more
[62:41] questions. What is it me asking more
[62:43] questions doing to the other person? It
[62:45] makes them feel heard and like you want
[62:47] to know their answer, that you're
[62:48] interested in them. And so it signals
[62:51] your interest, but also you learn what's
[62:53] in their mind and what their experience
[62:55] is, which gives arms you with more
[62:57] information that to then ask more better
[62:59] questions.
[63:00] So it's not just about asking more,
[63:02] although that's a good start. It's about
[63:04] asking [ __ ] great follow-up questions.
[63:06] The the the benefits of question asking
[63:09] are almost entirely driven by the power
[63:11] of follow-up questions. So what give me
[63:14] an example of of a great follow-up
[63:15] question.
[63:16] >> We're on a date. It's There's food, it's
[63:18] going really well.
[63:19] >> Yeah. I've just shared with you that I
[63:21] went on an amazing walk down the Sunset
[63:23] Strip this morning.
[63:25] And then I would say, "Really? Oh my
[63:27] god, I've always wanted to go. Tell me
[63:29] Tell me about it. How was it?" Oh,
[63:30] incredible. Um so, I got to this point.
[63:33] I had never been here there before.
[63:35] There was I had to decide was I going to
[63:37] veer off and go see um the Marilyn
[63:40] Monroe apartment, which by the way is
[63:42] right next to the Frank Lloyd Wright
[63:43] house, or was I going to go a few blocks
[63:46] away was the um Menendez brothers'
[63:48] house. Who's that? The two brothers who
[63:51] killed their parents.
[63:52] >> Oh, on Netflix?
[63:53] >> Yeah. Oh, wow. Okay. So, I would
[63:55] literally right in between and I was at
[63:57] this crossroads, do I choose
[63:59] cultured, do I choose morbid curiosity?
[64:03] Um And which one did you choose? I went
[64:05] with cultured. I was too afraid by
[64:06] myself [laughter] by myself. You're so
[64:08] cute.
[64:10] So, okay, so we Okay, we're off our date
[64:12] now. That was so fun. You were asking
[64:14] such lovely questions and it really
[64:17] helped to like cheer me on. Like you
[64:18] actually wanted to hear this story. Mhm.
[64:21] Um even though it might like someone
[64:23] else might have been like not that
[64:25] interested and then you feel
[64:26] embarrassed. Like, "Oh, I just shared a
[64:28] bunch of vulnerable stuff. I was a
[64:29] walking alone in LA. I had morbid
[64:33] curiosity about these two brothers and
[64:35] this story.
[64:37] Um
[64:38] it's very easy to make someone feel
[64:40] invalidated in that moment, but
[64:41] follow-up questions make me feel like,
[64:44] "Oh, he wants to know more. He's coming
[64:45] with me on this journey." So, did I do
[64:47] the right thing then? Yeah, you were
[64:48] doing great. Okay. Yeah.
[64:50] >> the wrong thing to have done? For me to
[64:51] have just
[64:53] just Oh, imagine if I had been like,
[64:55] "Oh, I went on this an amazing walk down
[64:57] the Sunset Strip." And you said, "Oh, my
[64:59] favorite restaurant on the Strip is a
[65:00] sushi place."
[65:01] >> Oh, [ __ ]
[65:02] >> Um I I went to this amazing restaurant
[65:04] and I went to this amazing store. Uh
[65:05] yeah, they carried Hermes. I bought an
[65:07] amazing pair of boots. Um People do that
[65:10] all the time.
[65:10] >> Constantly. So, this is called boomer
[65:12] asking. Boomer asking?
[65:14] >> Not because of boomers. We love
[65:15] >> you saying? It's for people of all ages.
[65:18] Commit boomer ask. It's a boomerang. Oh,
[65:20] okay.
[65:20] >> So, I say to you um Do I not subscribe
[65:23] this? No. [laughter]
[65:25] We love boomers. So, I say to you like
[65:27] Stephen, what's your favorite
[65:28] restaurant?
[65:29] Mr. Chow's. Oh, I've been to Mr. Chow's.
[65:31] Last time I went to Mr. Chow's, I went
[65:33] with a whole bunch of friends and I had
[65:34] a friend who was really
[65:35] >> the time. So, I've asked a question.
[65:37] You've shared something with me that is
[65:39] such a gift. Any sort of self-disclosure
[65:42] is such a gift. And instead of saying,
[65:44] "Oh, who did you go with? Or what did
[65:45] you order? Or what is it like inside?
[65:48] How did you like it?" Um I bring it the
[65:50] focus of the conversation right back to
[65:52] myself.
[65:54] People that do that don't know they do
[65:55] it. Ah, correct. Cuz I will obviously,
[65:59] you know, I will go for dinner or we'll
[66:00] have, I don't know, 10 of my colleagues
[66:02] there. And then sometimes I'll have one
[66:04] particular colleague who is doing
[66:05] exactly that.
[66:06] >> Yes. And they have no idea
[66:08] >> Don't you want to be like, "Stop." Yes,
[66:10] stop. Like, "No, just like ask them
[66:12] about their thing. They're new here.
[66:13] We're trying to make them feel
[66:14] comfortable." Even one follow-up
[66:16] question might be enough. And so, if you
[66:19] use this mindset of like, "Ask the next
[66:21] question before you pull it back to
[66:24] yourself." It sometimes can be enough.
[66:26] Probably many more follow-up questions
[66:28] is better. But even just one where I was
[66:30] like, "Oh, who did you go to Mr. Chow's
[66:32] with?" And I let you answer. Then I say,
[66:34] "Oh, I've been there, too." You can see
[66:35] it happening in their head because you
[66:36] say the word Mr. Chow's is your favorite
[66:38] restaurant and they immediately
[66:39] >> amazing Oh, I've got a brilliant story
[66:41] about Mr. Chow's that I need to tell
[66:43] everybody.
[66:43] >> It makes sense that people do this. Our
[66:45] brains are incredibly are wired to be
[66:48] egocentric. We know all of our lived
[66:50] experiences our own with 100% accuracy.
[66:54] We lived it. It's all up here. So,
[66:56] anything that we see or hear in our
[66:58] conversations is of course going to
[66:59] trigger all of these memories and
[67:01] associations in your mind about your
[67:03] lived experience. And it's such an enemy
[67:06] of good conversation because it
[67:08] constantly tugs you away from being
[67:10] interested in the other person first.
[67:13] The other thing I've seen in meetings,
[67:14] which I've had to have a converse couple
[67:15] of conversations about historically, is
[67:17] when someone will be talking and then
[67:19] someone's listening going, "Yeah, yeah,
[67:21] yeah, yeah, yeah." And I know I'm like,
[67:22] "Oh my god, they've got something to
[67:23] say." And they're like, "Yeah, yeah,
[67:25] yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah." They're
[67:26] yeahing them out.
[67:28] >> Yes.
[67:28] They're trying to yeah them into silence
[67:30] so that they can get their point across.
[67:32] >> Yes. And I've had to send messages in
[67:34] the past to say, "By the way, you were
[67:35] saying, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.'
[67:36] And it made it seem to an objective
[67:38] observer like you weren't listening and
[67:39] actually you were just trying to say
[67:40] something. So, I just in the interest of
[67:42] your like,
[67:43] you know, maybe Maybe don't.
[67:45] >> Just don't say like,
[67:46] >> How do they respond to that, people?
[67:47] >> Well, because I didn't I constructed it
[67:49] more
[67:50] Tactfully?
[67:50] >> tactfully than I just [laughter]
[67:51] described. But I thought about it a lot
[67:53] and I just wanted to cuz I'd seen them
[67:55] doing this uh
[67:57] 30, 40 times in meetings. And I don't
[67:59] think they realize how it's perceived.
[68:02] Now you know how I feel during so many
[68:04] conversations for so many different re-
[68:06] There are so many things like that where
[68:08] you see other people doing the dastardly
[68:11] conversational thing.
[68:12] And
[68:14] it's totally understandable why. They're
[68:16] excited. They have a thing they want to
[68:18] say and it's preventing them from
[68:20] actually engaging with the person who's
[68:22] talking and and what they're saying. All
[68:25] of these things are understandable. I
[68:27] It's important to come from a place of
[68:28] like of non-judgment.
[68:30] >> Mhm. It's because our brains were built
[68:32] to wander, not focus on another person
[68:36] Mhm. because we're deeply egocentric
[68:38] beings and we focus on our own
[68:39] perspective.
[68:41] Both of those things hold us back from
[68:43] really being able to engage with someone
[68:45] else. I want to go back to your thing of
[68:46] like a 10 out of 10 likability.
[68:49] That those are the little things, the
[68:51] little um death by a thousand cuts to
[68:53] your likability are these things where
[68:55] it's like you're not able to actually
[68:57] really focus on someone else and really
[69:00] engage with what they're saying and ask
[69:02] follow-up questions. And then later in
[69:04] the conversation, call back to something
[69:06] they said earlier because you're just
[69:08] that clever.
[69:09] Um are so much stands in the way of of
[69:12] doing that.
[69:13] In that particular example I'm thinking
[69:15] about, I started to get
[69:18] negative feedback from people that
[69:20] worked with this person and I noticed
[69:22] one day the negative feedback was, "I
[69:24] don't think they're even listening to
[69:26] me."
[69:26] >> Yeah. Um Cuz they're not.
[69:28] >> Cuz they they weren't really listening.
[69:30] And so the minute I got the feedback was
[69:31] the minute I thought, "You know what,
[69:32] Stephen, you've you've watched this
[69:33] happen. You know it's objectively true.
[69:36] You owe it cuz you're this person's
[69:38] report to have a conversation with them
[69:39] about it because it's getting in the way
[69:40] of their success." The fascinating thing
[69:43] for me is if I plot everybody I know and
[69:45] work with on an axis of like
[69:46] self-awareness as it relates to their
[69:47] communication, some people
[69:50] are just they kind of just got to have
[69:52] it.
[69:53] >> Yep. And then some people are on the
[69:55] other end of this spectrum where
[69:57] there's like no apparent self-awareness
[69:59] of of like how they're coming across.
[70:01] And they're so talented and so hard
[70:03] working, but this one thing of like
[70:05] their communication self-awareness is
[70:09] honestly in some cases the single thing,
[70:11] the single gravitational force on their
[70:13] career trajectory. Yes. And like can
[70:15] people change or are they is it just
[70:17] like a genetic thing?
[70:18] >> They can. Let First, let me address
[70:21] there are pros and cons to being at both
[70:23] ends of that spectrum. If you are
[70:25] too hyper-vigilant and too self-aware,
[70:28] it can be distracting. It might mean
[70:30] that you're sort of people-pleasing,
[70:32] too, which can lead to burnout and
[70:33] exhaustion.
[70:34] If you're at this lack of self-awareness
[70:37] end, of course it's going to be a real
[70:39] problem. And so
[70:41] I love teaching and coaching people at
[70:43] that end because you can become more
[70:45] self-aware.
[70:47] So many of my students at Harvard come
[70:49] into the course and that's how they are.
[70:52] What you mean? They are
[70:54] not aware of what their strengths and
[70:56] weaknesses are. They don't know what
[70:57] they're doing right and wrong. They just
[71:00] know they either hate conversation or
[71:02] aren't good at it. And so, just by going
[71:05] through this talk course, they become
[71:07] much more sort of clear-eyed and open to
[71:10] the fact that conversation is a skill
[71:13] that matters profoundly, not in a sort
[71:15] of soft skill fuzzy way, but as a in a
[71:17] quantifiable way that impacts everything
[71:20] that matters to them.
[71:22] Like a like a bottom line, almost as
[71:24] like an economic value to them.
[71:26] And so, just having their eyes open to
[71:28] the fact that like this is a skill and a
[71:29] skill they need to get better at,
[71:32] even if I don't see them getting
[71:33] massively better in the course of 3
[71:35] months, it means that they are likely to
[71:37] get better at it over the longer term,
[71:38] because now they know. Now they get it,
[71:40] and now they know that they aren't great
[71:42] at it yet.
[71:43] The world of business looks entirely
[71:45] different today than it did 15 years
[71:46] ago. Back then, building a brand meant
[71:48] having huge budgets, warehouses, office
[71:49] space, and lots and lots of staff. But
[71:52] now you can start a business with your
[71:53] laptop, an idea, and the right tools.
[71:55] And I would know more so than anybody
[71:57] else, because that's exactly what I did.
[71:58] Shopify is one of our long-standing
[72:00] sponsors on this show, and they're a
[72:01] brand I often refer people to when
[72:03] they're starting their businesses,
[72:05] because it's a tool that contains many
[72:06] more tools within itself. And when
[72:08] you're starting out, everything is
[72:10] everywhere. It's messy and it's
[72:11] confusing, so having everything in the
[72:12] same place is incredibly useful. Shopify
[72:15] puts store design, payments, inventory,
[72:17] shipping, and even AI tools all in one
[72:20] place. And you can sell directly from
[72:21] your website or on social media,
[72:23] essentially wherever your customers
[72:25] spend their time. It's truly a brilliant
[72:27] business tool. So, if you want to give
[72:29] it a go, head to shopify.com/bartlett
[72:32] and sign up for your $1 per month trial
[72:35] period. That's shopify.com/bartlett.
[72:39] Are there anything else that, you know,
[72:40] we talked about death by a thousand cuts
[72:42] as it relates to being a 10 out of 10
[72:43] conversation list and like a likeable
[72:45] person? Are there any of these other
[72:47] small things that we do
[72:50] which are harming us by tiny that most
[72:52] people don't know they're doing.
[72:54] >> Let's move to K. And because I'm moving
[72:56] along in this framework, um we're
[72:58] skipping L for now, which we would never
[73:00] skip L forever. K is for kindness. Um
[73:03] often we're all taught this virtue of
[73:06] kindness when we're children
[73:08] and spend the rest of our lives sort of
[73:10] falling short of actually doing it in
[73:12] practice.
[73:13] I've forever been obsessed with this
[73:15] idea of what are like people who are
[73:17] actually kind? What are they thinking
[73:20] about and how are they interacting with
[73:21] other people? What kinds of choices are
[73:23] they making? How do they talk to other
[73:24] people? And so when you say death by a
[73:26] thousand cuts, there are
[73:28] these sort of mistakes that we make in
[73:30] the respectfulness of our language that
[73:33] undermine our actual kindness to other
[73:35] people. Making sure you use someone's
[73:37] name, you gave this example in the one
[73:39] out of 10 is like use the wrong name.
[73:41] That is really meaningful. You need to
[73:43] know people's names and use them
[73:44] correctly. And with appropriate
[73:46] formality, right? Sometimes it's
[73:48] wonderful to say like, "Hey, honey." And
[73:50] sometimes you need to say, um "It's nice
[73:52] to meet you, Dr. Brooks." Right? Like it
[73:54] You need to be able to read that. Um
[73:57] there is this paper um where they
[74:01] studied conversations between police
[74:03] officers and citizens in Oakland,
[74:05] actually close to here, in normal
[74:07] traffic stops. So when police pulled
[74:09] over citizens and walked up to the car
[74:10] and said, um "You were speeding." you
[74:12] know. And they used body cam footage and
[74:15] got all the transcripts from these
[74:16] interactions and then measured the
[74:18] respectfulness of the language that the
[74:20] police officers were using.
[74:22] There are some really, you know, not
[74:25] surprising but terrible findings that
[74:27] police officers were using less
[74:28] respectful language towards black
[74:31] citizens compared to white citizens. But
[74:33] sort of more uh broadly speaking, the
[74:36] interactions where they were using more
[74:37] respectful language went better. There
[74:39] were less conflicts. There were They
[74:42] walk They drive away without further
[74:43] infractions. So the tiny choices we make
[74:47] in our language and
[74:49] the language of respect is varies along
[74:52] like hundreds of features of language
[74:55] and it's a very gradient concept, but
[74:56] they
[74:57] have a real impact on how these
[75:00] interactions go.
[75:01] When we think about sort of like things
[75:03] like systemic racial bias, that's it's
[75:06] comes from that kind of stuff. That's
[75:08] where it leaks out is in the language we
[75:10] use with each other.
[75:12] So, we can all learn to use more
[75:14] respectful language. Do you
[75:17] think much about
[75:19] how our emotional state is impacting our
[75:23] ability to accomplish any of these
[75:24] things? Cuz I think, you know, the days
[75:25] where I'm least likely to be kind are
[75:27] the days where I haven't slept. Yeah. I
[75:29] should probably be be avoiding all
[75:31] conversations that day. It's really I
[75:33] think one of the biggest things I've
[75:34] learned from all of this work is that
[75:36] conversation is remarkably effortful.
[75:39] And it requires quite a bit of energy.
[75:41] Even if you know how to be a good
[75:43] conversationalist, often we don't have
[75:45] the energy to actually do it. Oh, I
[75:48] don't have the energy to brainstorm
[75:50] topics. I don't have the energy to
[75:51] continue asking follow-up questions. I'm
[75:53] going to let my egocentrism take over
[75:55] and boomer-ask till the sun comes down
[75:57] goes down. Not boomers. Yeah, not
[75:59] boomers.
[76:02] >> [laughter]
[76:03] >> I'm going to accidentally use
[76:05] disrespectful language and not repair
[76:07] that, not correct it. That's kind of
[76:09] what keeps me up at night is that human
[76:10] beings do have limitations. We are
[76:12] limited in time. We're limited in our
[76:15] energy. Our brains are not
[76:16] supercomputers. And so, in practice,
[76:20] people who are great communicators will
[76:23] often fall short of their own hopes
[76:25] because they don't have the energy to do
[76:27] it. I think Brene Brown said to me that
[76:29] when she comes home and she's out of
[76:31] energy, she'll just say to her partner,
[76:33] "Listen, I'm on 10% today, so I can't
[76:34] deal with this now." And what talk about
[76:36] self-awareness. Boy, if you can do that,
[76:38] if you can say and you have sturdy
[76:40] enough relationships at work and at home
[76:42] that you could say, "Dude, I'm like a
[76:44] two out of 10. You got to cut me a break
[76:45] today."
[76:47] It would be tremendously helpful. It
[76:48] requires a quite a bit of self-awareness
[76:51] to recognize that you're at a two out of
[76:53] 10. Mhm. And a lot of grace from the
[76:56] people around you, which means that
[76:58] you're going to have to give them grace
[77:00] in response at some point. Um
[77:03] that's what good relationships are.
[77:06] And the L. L. Shall we put them in the
[77:08] correct order? L E L K. L is for levity.
[77:12] So, we've talked a bit about difficult
[77:14] conversations and how they can so easily
[77:16] get overheated. When you think about
[77:18] chats that go off the rails, it's quite
[77:21] easy to think of hostile conflict,
[77:24] difficult conversations, because they're
[77:25] very salient, they're very memorable.
[77:28] There's might be shouting, there's going
[77:29] to be hurt feelings, defensiveness.
[77:32] The more common enemy of conversation is
[77:34] actually boredom
[77:36] and disengagement. So, yes, do we get
[77:38] annoyed with each other? Absolutely.
[77:41] But, almost every conversation has
[77:43] stints of disengagement where people
[77:46] aren't interested.
[77:48] And so, levity is humor and warmth to
[77:51] help us avoid disinterest and boredom.
[77:55] And levity is important for sort of
[77:58] happiness and engagement sake itself.
[78:00] You know, it matters that we're enjoying
[78:01] our time together.
[78:03] But, maybe even more profoundly
[78:06] if we are not leaning towards each other
[78:09] and interested in what the other person
[78:10] is saying, we can't achieve any of our
[78:12] other goals. Good conversation requires
[78:15] mutual engagement. So, if I'm bored and
[78:17] my mind is wandering, which happens a
[78:19] lot, cuz I have attentional issues. It
[78:21] happens to a lot of people a lot. Um
[78:23] the human mind wanders uh
[78:25] 25% of the time during conversation.
[78:28] So, it's quite common.
[78:31] If your mind is wandering and you're not
[78:33] engaged with each other, then you can't
[78:34] do anything else, either. Persuasion,
[78:36] making decisions together,
[78:37] brainstorming, connecting, um um none of
[78:40] it. So, the L is very important because
[78:43] it makes things fun and enjoyable, but
[78:45] it's also important because we need to
[78:46] stay here with each other and not
[78:49] disengage. What if you're not
[78:51] uh a warm person?
[78:53] >> [laughter]
[78:54] >> It's so funny. I'm talking about a
[78:56] friend. Yeah, yeah, yeah. People say to
[78:57] me People say to me a lot, like, "You're
[78:59] very serious." I'm like, "Really? I'm
[79:01] I think I come across as serious
[79:02] sometimes." I think you may come across
[79:04] as serious. I would I think but across
[79:06] as very warm. And so, that's an
[79:08] important distinction. You're using
[79:10] flattery. I've seen that when you're
[79:11] comfortable.
[79:12] >> I'm not. I'm giving I'm giving very
[79:13] direct feedback.
[79:15] >> started using flattery. [laughter]
[79:16] Flattery here. High relational. I'm onto
[79:18] you.
[79:20] So, there's levity is two parts. It's
[79:22] humor and warmth. And I always start
[79:25] this part of my class at Harvard by
[79:27] saying to my students, "If you're not
[79:29] funny
[79:30] and you think you never will be, it's
[79:32] okay.
[79:33] >> [laughter]
[79:34] >> Beca- I don't think I'm going to be the
[79:35] one to make you funny within the span of
[79:37] 2 months if you are a deeply serious,
[79:40] unfunny person.
[79:41] Other people will believe that you can
[79:43] get funnier over time. We can talk about
[79:44] that in a in a moment. Um what I do
[79:47] deeply believe is that anyone can be
[79:49] more warm.
[79:51] And so, warmth moves include anything.
[79:53] Expressing gratitude, "I'm so grateful
[79:55] for your time today. I'm so grateful for
[79:56] you engaging with the content of my
[79:59] work."
[80:00] Flattery, giving compliments, just
[80:02] shifting topics. So, if you can get
[80:04] better at sensing when people are
[80:06] getting bored with a topic and getting
[80:07] more courageous and assertive about
[80:09] switching more frequently can be very,
[80:11] very helpful for keeping the
[80:13] conversation sort of bubbling along.
[80:15] Call backs.
[80:17] Call backs are any reference back to
[80:20] something that you've talked about
[80:21] previously. Oh. They're total magic.
[80:25] It shows that you were listening to
[80:27] someone earlier in the conversation,
[80:29] maybe even earlier in your relationship,
[80:31] like a month ago. If I can call back to
[80:33] something we talked about,
[80:36] it shows I heard you,
[80:38] I was thinking about what you said,
[80:40] I was able to retain it in my mind, and
[80:42] I'm clever enough to reference back to
[80:44] it now. And often it has this really
[80:47] amazing quality where if I bring it up
[80:49] again,
[80:50] it's funny, cuz you're like, oh [ __ ]
[80:52] that's super clever. Mhm. Um often
[80:55] people A lot of people ask me, how do we
[80:57] end conversations well?
[80:59] And I have two pieces of advice there.
[81:01] I'm going to bring this back to
[81:02] callbacks. One is nobody knows when to
[81:05] end conversations. It's the final topic
[81:07] switch, it's the final coordination
[81:08] choice. There's no way to know. There is
[81:11] no right answer. Um so it's better to
[81:13] just end it. Like be assertive, walk
[81:15] away, rather than hemming and hawing and
[81:17] feeling bad and embarrassed about it.
[81:19] The second piece of advice is that it's
[81:21] a great time to try a callback.
[81:23] The very last bit of the conversation,
[81:25] you can say,
[81:27] "And I hope you have a great time with
[81:28] your girlfriend this weekend." Right?
[81:29] Like whatever you they they they had
[81:31] mentioned, "Oh, I'm going to go We're
[81:32] going to go to see this movie." "I hope
[81:34] you have a great time at the movie this
[81:35] weekend." Right? Showing that like, oh,
[81:37] I heard you 30 minutes ago when you told
[81:39] me this thing. That can help to smooth
[81:41] the exit ramp away.
[81:44] I find it really useful to give people
[81:45] my email address to end the
[81:46] conversation.
[81:47] That's so interesting. It just ends the
[81:50] conversation immediately.
[81:51] >> Yeah. Someone will come up to me and
[81:52] say, "Hey, I've got this business idea I
[81:54] want to pitch." And then they'll start
[81:55] pitching. Mhm. And if I could you know,
[81:56] "Send me Here's my email." The convers-
[81:58] And I shake their hand, the conversation
[82:00] ends immediately. Do you feel it is
[82:02] dismissive? Maybe.
[82:05] However,
[82:06] in the context of like being in the gym,
[82:08] Yeah.
[82:09] >> and I'm like mid-set, Yeah, that's fair.
[82:11] >> comes over and says I And I go, "Oh,
[82:12] here's my email. Here's If you want to
[82:14] It seems to end the conversation." And
[82:16] it feels to be like
[82:18] Please help me here.
[82:20] What would be a better way to I know, I
[82:23] think that's quite good because it it
[82:25] could be perceived as a little
[82:26] dismissive, but that person in the gym
[82:27] is going to be like, "Yeah, he probably
[82:28] doesn't want to talk about my business
[82:30] while he's, you know, lifting."
[82:32] And you're opening the door to them.
[82:34] You're saying, "I really would love to
[82:36] receive an email from you." Um It is my
[82:38] real email as well. I'm not giving out a
[82:40] fake one.
[82:40] >> Yeah, exactly. Yeah, you should feel
[82:42] like a jerk if you were giving out a
[82:43] fake [laughter] email.
[82:44] >> I do read them. Yeah, exactly.
[82:46] Um depending on your tolerance, I I also
[82:49] don't
[82:50] I think most people wouldn't be excited
[82:51] about having a deep conversation with a
[82:53] stranger at the gym.
[82:55] And I think giving yourself grace for
[82:57] that is also helpful. Like it doesn't
[83:00] make you a bad person. I think of of an
[83:02] important thing that we take from the
[83:04] book in this course is like
[83:06] talking more is not always the answer.
[83:09] Often it's not. Often it's important.
[83:12] It's these low informational goals,
[83:14] right? Like protecting your time,
[83:17] protecting your mental health.
[83:19] Some people most people are under
[83:21] social. Loneliness is a real problem.
[83:24] They don't have enough friends. They're
[83:26] not connected enough. But some people
[83:28] probably are over connected and your
[83:30] social portfolio is too large and
[83:32] there's too many people who need too
[83:33] many things from you. And so thinking
[83:35] carefully about what are your strategies
[83:36] to sort of stave off
[83:38] over conversation is quite worthwhile.
[83:41] And is this introvert ambivert extrovert
[83:44] stuff real? It's a great question.
[83:46] People have preferences about what makes
[83:48] them feel connected to other people.
[83:51] Some people would love to go to that
[83:53] party with a hundred famous people.
[83:55] >> Tell me about it. Zara and my team said
[83:57] that the thing she wants to do on a
[83:58] Friday after really, really, really,
[83:59] really, really busy week is she wants to
[84:02] go to a busy coffee shop and be around
[84:03] loads of people. And I was like, "What?"
[84:05] She goes, "Yeah, it recharges me." I'm
[84:06] like, "What? Are you like psychopath?"
[84:08] Yep.
[84:08] >> And then there's me who after the same
[84:10] week all I want to do is be in a dark,
[84:13] cold room
[84:15] Yep.
[84:15] >> on my own. Yep. Totally. And both of
[84:17] those are fair and fine. And knowing
[84:21] that about yourself is really helpful.
[84:23] I don't know as that relates to
[84:24] introversion and extroversion as much as
[84:26] like where what are your preferences for
[84:29] conversation. It's both about how
[84:31] frequently, who do you want to be
[84:32] interacting with, and what topics are
[84:34] exciting. Is she going to that coffee
[84:36] shop and talking about work still, or is
[84:37] she like, "No, I can't wait to talk
[84:39] about this weird other stuff to try and
[84:41] get work off my mind?" But there's these
[84:42] people though in society, we all know
[84:44] them, that are like around people they
[84:46] just become like a social butterfly.
[84:48] Yeah.
[84:49] They like to talk loads, they're really
[84:51] engaged, they're energized by it. Sure.
[84:53] And then there's us lot who are just
[84:55] drained by that stuff. And I look at
[84:57] these people and go, "I'm almost jealous
[84:58] of them." I go, "I don't know how you do
[84:59] that." Sometimes
[85:02] for sure, whether you when you get
[85:03] excited around lots of people can be a
[85:06] huge advantage because we need to do
[85:08] that sometimes. I actually think a
[85:10] possibly a better indicator of
[85:12] introversion might be if you went into a
[85:15] party, or you were in a group
[85:16] conversation, and it was super awkward.
[85:19] Nobody's talking.
[85:20] Do you feel like it's your job to fix
[85:23] it?
[85:24] Extroverts would be like, "That's my
[85:26] number one job in life.
[85:29] I am the one Don't worry, I'm here.
[85:32] I'm here to save the awkwardness."
[85:34] Introverts are often like, "I'm going to
[85:36] go loiter by the guacamole. It is This
[85:39] is not my problem, and I don't want no
[85:41] part of it." Yeah. So sometimes it's not
[85:43] even about the number of people that are
[85:45] around, but how you're managing
[85:47] conversation. I just put a new quiz on
[85:49] my website that helps people figure out
[85:51] what are your preferences, what are your
[85:52] natural habits in tricky situations like
[85:55] that.
[85:56] And it gives you a sort of type of type,
[85:58] what type are you? Do you tend to sort
[86:00] of be avoidant? Do you tend to approach
[86:02] and try and fix things? And then
[86:04] strategies to use.
[86:06] >> you see in terms of percentages there,
[86:07] Erin? We're going to find out, it's new.
[86:09] It's new. Yeah, yeah, we're just
[86:10] launching it, so I'm going to find out.
[86:12] And does it have classifications in
[86:14] terms of like Yeah. how many
[86:15] classifications? Yeah, so it's only
[86:17] three types that you could be um with
[86:19] this quiz and then sort of like
[86:21] strategies that whatever your type is,
[86:23] this is going to help you in terms of
[86:25] topics, asking, levity, and kindness.
[86:28] And what are the three categories one
[86:29] one could be? So, some one person could
[86:31] be sort of an approach person who's like
[86:34] and I guess probably correlated with
[86:35] extroversion, we'll find out.
[86:38] If it's awkward and quiet, you're the
[86:39] one that wants to jump in and fix it.
[86:41] There are pros and cons to this, too. If
[86:43] you jump in and
[86:46] you might say things and do things that
[86:48] you don't actually aren't very proud of.
[86:50] And might lower your value. Correct.
[86:52] Yeah. There are avoiders who are like,
[86:54] "No, thank you. I'm just going to I'm
[86:55] going to stay here, but I'm going to not
[86:57] say anything." And then there are people
[86:59] who are like, "I'm out of here. This
[87:00] party sucks." Right? Like they're the
[87:01] exit the exit people. I feel attacked.
[87:04] >> [laughter]
[87:05] >> No, but I do I you know, this
[87:06] interesting because
[87:08] is it true that some people who over
[87:10] talk are less respected? Can you over
[87:13] talk? I I had this
[87:16] this thought many years ago based on
[87:17] again observations I'd seen in
[87:18] boardrooms that I'd been in and I'd see
[87:21] 12 of my team members in a boardroom
[87:23] trying to come to an idea for a a
[87:25] campaign we were doing.
[87:26] >> Yeah. And I noticed that one particular
[87:28] person who I shan't name many years ago
[87:30] in our New York office
[87:32] would talk so much and too
[87:35] I would say too much to the extent that
[87:38] the next time they spoke, I could see
[87:40] everybody in the room not paying
[87:42] attention and discounting it before it
[87:43] had come. So, I came up with this idea.
[87:45] I was like, I think we all have a
[87:46] contribution score. Yeah. Like a credit
[87:48] score. Love that.
[87:49] >> And it's based on how thoughtful
[87:52] and valuable our previous contributions
[87:56] have been. Yeah. And what I would see is
[87:58] with this particular person, I shall
[87:59] call her Katie, the minute she spoke
[88:02] halfway through her first sentence, I
[88:03] could see the person sat next to her
[88:04] basically just pre-rebutting it. Yeah.
[88:07] Like pre-dismissing it.
[88:08] >> Yeah. And then on the contrary, there's
[88:10] another particular person in our in our
[88:12] Manchester office back in the day who
[88:14] spoke so little that the minute they
[88:16] spoke, it was like the room fell silent
[88:19] and we all just swung our heads over to
[88:20] them because you're like, here comes a
[88:21] really good take. So, I thought
[88:23] everybody has a contribution score,
[88:24] protect yours. Yes, so group
[88:27] conversation is incredibly complicated
[88:29] and one of the most difficult things
[88:31] that's so obvious is just how do we
[88:32] share airtime?
[88:33] Uh there are always going to be people
[88:36] who have high power tend to take up more
[88:38] airtime just naturally. It's something
[88:40] that high power people need to fight
[88:41] against because it's not productive. And
[88:44] it makes [clears throat] lower power
[88:45] people feel like they're not welcome to
[88:47] join. But then if you just look at
[88:49] airtime balance, the person who's
[88:51] dominating the airtime, that is not
[88:52] productive right? Like especially if
[88:55] they're not the expert.
[88:57] Okay? That's where things get
[88:58] problematic. You can imagine a balance
[89:00] where, okay, there might be a group
[89:01] where we are all dying to hear
[89:04] we need to talk about aerospace
[89:05] engineering and only one out of the 10
[89:07] of us is an aerospace engineer. I want
[89:10] to hear that guy talk for 45 minutes and
[89:13] I want to learn everything I possibly
[89:14] can
[89:15] in that in that [clears throat] time.
[89:16] The it becomes problematic when the
[89:18] person dominating the airtime is not the
[89:21] sole expert or maybe not an expert at
[89:23] all.
[89:25] There's another piece to this and I love
[89:27] your idea of a contribution score.
[89:29] Where talking is not the only way to add
[89:32] value to a group.
[89:33] There are so many roles that people
[89:35] play. There are timekeepers, there's
[89:37] someone who's writing on the board at
[89:38] the same time. Often the person holding
[89:40] the pen ends up being the most powerful
[89:42] person cuz they're making diagrams and
[89:44] taking notes and they decide what is
[89:46] worthy of being up on the board. There
[89:48] are people who keep the agenda. So,
[89:50] we're saying, okay, here are the topics
[89:52] we want to talk about, here are the
[89:53] goals we came in with, we want to make
[89:55] this decision. I'd like to note that we
[89:57] haven't moved to the pasture where we're
[89:59] going to make the decision.
[90:00] Right? The person who is sort of
[90:02] facilitating
[90:04] the meeting becomes very valuable.
[90:07] So, there's all kinds of So, there's
[90:08] goals, there's roles in a group, and
[90:11] then there's the soul, the warmth of it
[90:14] all.
[90:15] The other thing in line with that that
[90:16] I've noticed from people with a low
[90:18] contribution score in businesses that
[90:20] I've been whatever is
[90:22] they're bad switches. Mhm. And it
[90:25] appears to be linked. What I mean by a
[90:26] bad switcher is
[90:29] the group will be talking about
[90:30] >> Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. They're not
[90:31] They're unwilling to go where the group
[90:33] wants to go. They come They keep coming
[90:35] back to their thing or their They're
[90:37] like Yeah, or something completely
[90:39] unrelated as if they just needed to say
[90:41] something.
[90:42] >> Yeah. And it just it veers the group off
[90:45] the subject. So, the group are talking
[90:47] about Let's just say we're talking about
[90:49] a campaign we're doing for Starbucks.
[90:51] And we're saying, "Do you think we
[90:52] should do
[90:53] an event in Manhattan?" And because it
[90:56] it almost seems like they can't not
[90:57] talk, they'll say
[91:01] "I went on holiday to Manhattan once and
[91:03] it was um
[91:05] and it was it was voted in the top 15 on
[91:07] the Forbes list of best places to go."
[91:09] >> [laughter]
[91:10] >> And you just go and you just look and
[91:11] go, "What That's not what What if that
[91:13] person, let me play devil's advocate for
[91:15] a second. What if they made a joke about
[91:18] New York that was actually funny?
[91:19] Slightly off topic,
[91:21] >> Great. but actually funny, and then you
[91:22] get right back into
[91:23] >> Right. It's great. So, it's not about In
[91:26] that case, it's not about bad switching,
[91:28] it's about egocentrism. You're not
[91:31] reading the room well, you're not
[91:33] serving the goals of the group. Yeah.
[91:35] Right? Levity, moments of levity often
[91:38] are about briefly switching to an
[91:40] adjacent topic and then switching back.
[91:43] Yeah. And it's actually worth that side
[91:46] bar because it's fun, and everybody's
[91:48] like, "Oh, thank god, we don't have to
[91:49] like circle the drain on New York for a
[91:51] million more minutes." Um the problem is
[91:54] this guy's chiming in being like, "Let
[91:56] me tell you about the time I went to New
[91:58] York." Yeah, and and and the the the
[92:00] collective are trying to go in one
[92:01] direction. I actually think this about
[92:02] this a lot in the context of podcasting.
[92:05] I would hate to have a co-host.
[92:08] And I I It would be very hard. It would
[92:09] be so hard because in my mind there's a
[92:11] particular direction I'm I'm going in.
[92:14] Yes. And if they weren't aligned with
[92:16] the direction I'm going in, it's rough.
[92:18] And you see it sometimes with on podcast
[92:20] with a co-host where they're going in a
[92:21] direction talking about immigration. And
[92:23] they say like, "But wait, wait, wait,
[92:24] there's one thing, one quick thing
[92:26] before we move on." And then you go back
[92:27] and you go to a different direction. Oh,
[92:29] no. And it is a viewer you're like, "Oh,
[92:30] you were making progress towards the
[92:32] crux of the issue, but this
[92:33] But I think that's what I'm talking
[92:34] about. Like, how do you make sure you're
[92:35] moving in the right direction as the
[92:37] group?" And it's And this is a great
[92:39] example because we are we often think of
[92:42] one-on-one conversation is the same task
[92:44] as a three-person group. As soon as a
[92:47] third person pulls up a chair, whether
[92:48] it's a podcast co-host or a friend at a
[92:51] bar, that task it's a categorically
[92:54] different task now. Because that third
[92:56] person has the power to take you on
[92:59] sidebars. Mhm. It's no longer being
[93:01] co-created intimately between two minds.
[93:04] All of a sudden we get into this like
[93:05] coordination kerfuffle that
[93:08] can be very, very frustrating. I suspect
[93:10] that's part of why you don't like
[93:11] groups, actually. Is that you like so
[93:14] strongly prefer one-on-one.
[93:17] Yeah, I think that's true. I think
[93:19] that's true. I prefer one-on-one. I
[93:20] prefer the depth. And
[93:24] >> small talk feels like really
[93:25] disingenuous sometimes.
[93:26] >> Can I push you? Do you think it's about
[93:28] control?
[93:30] Because I imagine you had a co-host. The
[93:33] problem that you The reason you'd feel
[93:34] so frustrated with that Yes, it's about
[93:36] the flow of the conversation getting to
[93:38] a magical moment. It's also like, "Oh,
[93:40] you have to like relinquish control to
[93:42] someone else in that moment." It's
[93:44] interesting cuz um I was with a
[93:46] colleague of mine the other day
[93:48] and we were interviewing some people.
[93:51] Mhm. So we just say we're interviewing
[93:52] three people.
[93:53] >> Yeah. The first interview, I told her to
[93:56] lead the interview.
[93:57] and I enjoyed the interview because I
[93:59] could watch her go in her direction.
[94:01] Felt very like a straight line. The
[94:03] second interview, I didn't say anything
[94:06] and what happened is I started asking
[94:07] them a question. Now I'm sat there
[94:09] asking this guy a question because I'm
[94:10] trying to figure out this particular
[94:11] answer. So I'm kind of like circling
[94:13] this issue, not kind of giving it away
[94:15] and I'm getting one step closer and
[94:17] another step closer. And then my
[94:18] colleague comes in and asks a completely
[94:20] different question. AND YOU'RE LIKE,
[94:22] "OH!" AND I'M LIKE, "OH, NO! I WAS LIKE
[94:24] SO CLOSE TO figuring out this thing
[94:26] about them that I suspect is a red
[94:27] flag." So like and then she she came and
[94:30] asked a question and then I'm sitting
[94:32] there like, "Oh my god, no, no, I have
[94:32] to go right back to this completely
[94:34] different subject and start being So and
[94:35] you're never going to get your answer.
[94:37] So anyway, afterwards I had a
[94:38] conversation with her and I said,
[94:39] "Listen, when we do interviews, I think
[94:40] we need to clarify who's leading."
[94:42] That's right. I'll sit and listen when
[94:43] you do it, then when I do it, you sit,
[94:45] and you know. And so I I think that's
[94:47] part of it. That's part of the roles
[94:49] thing I was talking about before, too,
[94:50] right? Like there's this roles of like
[94:52] you're describing, you're keeping time,
[94:54] you have your but also being having
[94:56] clarity about like who's the topic
[94:58] leader here.
[94:59] And clarity especially in a group of
[95:00] three can be incredibly helpful. And
[95:03] lack of it is chaotic. A nightmare.
[95:08] What is the most important thing we
[95:09] haven't talked about as it relates to
[95:10] likeability and having great
[95:11] conversations and dislikability if
[95:13] that's a word.
[95:15] I want to distance ourselves from
[95:16] likeability. I think likeability is one
[95:18] very narrow goal of good conversation.
[95:21] What other things do people care about?
[95:23] Do you know why I used certain words?
[95:25] Tell me. Is because the audience have
[95:27] told me.
[95:28] So I'll tell you what they care about.
[95:29] They care about dealing with
[95:30] narcissists. They care about how to have
[95:33] difficult struggle with it?
[95:36] I guess so, yeah.
[95:37] >> Yeah. It's an interesting label. It's
[95:39] very accusatory of other people. Yeah.
[95:42] Because I think everybody thinks the
[95:43] person they disagree with is a
[95:44] narcissist. It's like in my street it's
[95:46] like just So in a reframe of it is they
[95:48] struggle with
[95:50] disagreement. Yeah.
[95:51] >> Okay. other thing is they care a lot
[95:53] about um difficult conversations.
[95:56] It's the bane of their life. They
[95:57] struggle with them. They avoid them.
[95:59] They think if they could only get good
[96:00] at it, then they'd be everything they
[96:01] want to be.
[96:02] >> Yeah. They care about being liked.
[96:04] >> Yeah. Um they care about avoiding things
[96:07] that make them disliked that they're
[96:09] unaware of Ah. they're doing.
[96:10] >> Mhm. I would say
[96:14] and I I guess the fifth the fifth one is
[96:16] they they care a lot about persuasion.
[96:18] Remarkably, and I Julian Treasure who
[96:20] did that TED Talk about speaking told me
[96:22] this, people don't really care much
[96:24] about listening.
[96:25] Yeah. He told me he did two people
[96:26] >> don't know. It's funny. It's it's so
[96:29] interesting to hear you say those
[96:31] things. To me, those are all very
[96:34] related to each other and revealing that
[96:37] people don't have great instincts about
[96:40] their strengths and weaknesses and
[96:42] what's hard and easy about conversation.
[96:45] Persuasion, difficult conversations,
[96:48] thinking other people are narcissists,
[96:50] um
[96:52] and being liked,
[96:54] they're all related to mismanaging
[96:57] conflict and disagreement and and have a
[96:59] struggling to manage moments of
[97:02] difficulty well.
[97:04] The social landscape of all conversation
[97:07] is so much broader than people realize,
[97:10] I think,
[97:11] because they are so narrowly focused on
[97:13] these very noticeable,
[97:16] memorable, salient moments
[97:19] of disagreement that we're like, "Oh,
[97:21] [ __ ] that's hard and we got mad and it
[97:22] ruined and we broke up." Of course. But
[97:25] you're also super boring like 80% of the
[97:28] time. [laughter]
[97:30] And also you're you're not really
[97:32] listening other people. You're missing
[97:34] so many opportunities to actually learn
[97:36] from people because you're not
[97:37] listening. You're not asking enough
[97:39] follow-up questions.
[97:41] You're not asking enough questions at
[97:42] all. You're talk spending too much time
[97:44] talking about yourself. Like obviously
[97:47] this is what people Like, because
[97:49] the thing that I will remember the most
[97:51] is the conflict, the issue, the problem,
[97:53] the emotional situation. People don't
[97:55] think they're boring. Like, on I know.
[97:56] It's It's a It's a It's hard to It's a
[97:58] such a It's a much harder thing to
[98:00] notice. Yeah. And it's a much harder
[98:03] thing to get feedback about because no
[98:04] one's going to be like, "Hey, bro,
[98:06] you're boring." Yeah, and if the things
[98:08] I'm interested in, by way of me being
[98:10] interested, I think they're interesting.
[98:11] Yeah.
[98:12] >> So, I think that I'd I'm just making
[98:14] stuff up. Pokémon I think that's the
[98:16] most important thing in the world. And
[98:17] let me now tell you everything I know
[98:19] about Pokémon. Yeah. It's like this It's
[98:22] like this misunderstanding of what is
[98:24] the purpose of conversation is not to
[98:26] say things we know at other people. It's
[98:29] about finding things we're both
[98:30] interested in and then learning
[98:32] everything that you know about that
[98:34] thing. Like, now I'm just going to
[98:36] like take a journey through your brain
[98:38] of everything that you think and feel
[98:39] about this thing that we're both
[98:41] interested in. And on that journey, we
[98:43] might land in this magical place where
[98:45] I'm learning stuff from you, you find me
[98:47] quite charming, we're laughing together,
[98:49] and we feel seen and known and
[98:51] understood.
[98:52] But, it's definitely not going to be me
[98:54] telling you about Pokémon if you're
[98:55] deeply disinterested in it. And this is
[98:57] the the difference between being
[98:59] interesting and interested. We think
[99:00] that Yes.
[99:02] Like, I think that the the game of being
[99:03] interesting is to show you Life is not
[99:06] about walking through life giving like
[99:08] mini speeches or like mini TED Talks,
[99:11] right? It's about convers- conversation
[99:14] is interactive. It's co-created with two
[99:17] independent minds.
[99:19] Entrepreneurs make this mistake a lot,
[99:20] too. They They
[99:22] maybe driven by, you know, Dragon's Den
[99:25] and Shark Tank, you feel like It's not
[99:27] your fault. You feel like you need to
[99:29] stand up there and like pitch your idea.
[99:32] And in order to be successful, you give
[99:34] the most compelling public speech about
[99:36] it. Most entrepreneurs or business
[99:39] owners actually are talking to investors
[99:42] and colleagues and potential partners,
[99:43] strategic partners in conversation. And
[99:46] so, before you get to the point where
[99:47] you're like, let me tell you about my
[99:49] amazing company, you need to ask them a
[99:51] million questions and get to know them
[99:54] and understand what their pain points
[99:55] are and how many kids they have and what
[99:57] they actually care about. So, if you're
[99:59] lucky, the thing that and product or
[100:02] service you have actually fills that
[100:04] need and be like, guess what? I have
[100:05] this amazing thing for you. Wouldn't you
[100:07] love to invest in it?
[100:09] Andrew Bustamante said something to me
[100:11] about this. He said, um, he's a spy for
[100:13] the CIA for about 10 years. And he said
[100:15] one of the things you you have to train
[100:17] yourself to understand as a spy is that
[100:19] there's a difference between
[100:22] your perspective, which is like what I
[100:24] see right now. And in my perspective, I
[100:26] see a mirror over there and there's an
[100:27] award and I see some things behind you.
[100:28] I see two cameras over your shoulder, I
[100:30] see that. There's a wooden beam over
[100:31] there behind you, by the way. And
[100:33] there's like some green tape above
[100:34] there. And then there's your perception.
[100:36] >> Yes. Your perception is all this [ __ ]
[100:38] Like I couldn't see any of this stuff.
[100:39] >> Yeah. behind me.
[100:41] >> And he said like as a spy, they train
[100:43] you to sit in the other person's
[100:45] perception. Because if you can't do
[100:46] that, you're never going to be able to
[100:47] persuade them. Like you have to realize
[100:48] that actually you sat in front of me
[100:50] have a different brain. And the only I
[100:53] can guess what's in your brain. I can
[100:55] guess maybe there's a mirror behind me,
[100:57] maybe there's art, maybe there's just a
[100:59] wall. I can guess based on what I see,
[101:02] based on what I've experienced. We're in
[101:05] a room, so I'm going to guess there's
[101:06] some sort of wall behind me and not out
[101:07] into the street.
[101:09] But we're really bad at guessing. Tons
[101:12] of psychological research suggests that
[101:13] human beings are terrible at using our
[101:15] own experiences to guess other people's
[101:18] perceptual realities, guess your
[101:20] perspective. So, instead of guessing, I
[101:23] need to ask you,
[101:25] Hey Steven, what do you see behind me?
[101:27] I need to ask you directly, how does
[101:29] that make you feel? Why do you think it
[101:31] was built that way? What do you feel
[101:32] when you're sitting here? Why do you
[101:33] think it's asymmetrical? Why are Why do
[101:35] I see books but you don't? The only way
[101:37] to truly understand another person's
[101:39] mind is to ask them and to talk about
[101:41] it.
[101:42] I asked my assistant Sophie to find me a
[101:44] reliable security system for my new
[101:45] place in LA. What she discovered is that
[101:47] most available options have the same
[101:49] issue. They're reactive and only take
[101:51] action after someone has broken into
[101:54] your house. SimpliSafe, who sponsors
[101:56] this show, has a completely different
[101:57] approach. If someone's lurking near your
[101:59] home or office, their AI-powered cameras
[102:02] detect them, then human agents who act
[102:04] like a remote security guard take
[102:06] action, speaking directly to the
[102:08] intruder, letting them know they're
[102:09] being watched on camera, and if
[102:11] necessary, triggering a siren or
[102:13] spotlight to scare them off. Or, they
[102:15] can call 911 for police dispatch. This
[102:17] immediate response is why I went with
[102:19] SimpliSafe. No one else approaches
[102:21] security in the same way. But, they have
[102:23] no long-term contracts or hidden fees,
[102:25] so you can cancel at any time. They also
[102:27] have a 60-day money-back guarantee. My
[102:29] audience can save 50% on a SimpliSafe
[102:32] home security system at
[102:34] simplisafe.com/doac.
[102:36] That is simplisafe.com/doac.
[102:39] There's no safe like a SimpliSafe.
[102:42] You know, every once in a while you come
[102:43] across a product that has such a huge
[102:46] impact on your life that you'd probably
[102:48] describe it as a game-changer. And I
[102:51] would say
[102:52] for about 35 to 40% of my team, they
[102:56] would currently describe this product
[102:58] that I have in front of me called
[102:59] ketoneIQ, which you can get at
[103:01] ketone.com,
[103:03] as a game-changer. But, the reason I
[103:04] became a co-owner of this company and
[103:06] the reason why they they now are a
[103:07] sponsor of this podcast is because one
[103:09] day when I came to work, there was a box
[103:11] of this stuff sat on my desk. I had no
[103:12] idea what it was. Lily in my team says
[103:14] that this company have been in touch.
[103:16] So, I went upstairs, tried it, and quite
[103:19] frankly, the rest is history. In terms
[103:20] of my focus, my energy levels, how I
[103:23] feel, how I work, how productive I am,
[103:26] game-changer. So, if you want to give it
[103:27] a try, visit ketone.com/steven
[103:29] for 30% off. You'll also get a free gift
[103:32] with your second shipment. And now you
[103:34] can find Ketone-IQ at Target stores
[103:36] across the United States, where your
[103:38] first shot is completely free of charge.
[103:43] So, when I go into a business meeting or
[103:44] I'm trying to persuade someone to, I
[103:46] don't know,
[103:46] join our company, whatever,
[103:48] at the beginning of that conversation,
[103:51] are there key questions that I should be
[103:53] using to understand their ideology?
[103:56] Like, understand the
[103:58] the hero's journey that they they have
[104:00] in their head of them. You should ask
[104:02] more and listen to their answers and
[104:04] then ask the next question. What kind of
[104:06] questions?
[104:07] >> A good one that I like to start with is
[104:08] what are you excited about lately? Okay.
[104:11] Right? It's very [clears throat]
[104:11] revealing of what there's is top of
[104:13] mind. You asked me that question today,
[104:15] loved it. It
[104:17] It also implies that you knew what they
[104:19] were excited about previously, so it can
[104:21] help you kind of revisit that a bit over
[104:24] time. Whatever there Everyone has an
[104:26] answer to that question, even if they're
[104:28] terribly depressed. They're excited
[104:30] about something, maybe the prospect of
[104:32] making a friend.
[104:33] Um and anything that someone is excited
[104:35] about means you can stay on that topic
[104:37] and ask more. Oh, well, what what could
[104:39] I do to help you do that? Um right?
[104:42] Like, we we can just carry carry on down
[104:45] that path. When I asked you that
[104:46] question 3 hours ago, you said two
[104:47] things. You said about putting
[104:49] curriculum this curriculum into schools,
[104:51] but you also talked about men and their
[104:53] conversations. You said you'd done a
[104:55] study recently Yeah. about men. This is
[104:58] me remembering what you said. This is a
[104:59] callback.
[104:59] >> Loving it. Loving it. Thank you for
[105:01] that. But, men in their conversations.
[105:03] You said you'd done an interesting study
[105:04] recently, which you can't go into the
[105:05] details about, but it was revealing
[105:08] about male friendship.
[105:09] >> Yes.
[105:10] Are men bad at communication? If so, why
[105:12] are we bad at communication?
[105:13] Conversation's hard. When you look under
[105:15] the hood, it's looks more like a train
[105:17] wreck. You're being diplomatic. Then I
[105:19] will be I'll be less diplomatic in a
[105:20] moment. Um looks more like a train wreck
[105:23] than a sort of tidy script that you
[105:24] would see on a TV show.
[105:26] It's messy. We make mistakes. We have to
[105:28] repair it. We need to check our
[105:31] understanding. We need to make apologies
[105:32] constantly.
[105:34] So, perfection is not the goal for
[105:36] anyone
[105:37] in conversation. When you look at gender
[105:39] differences,
[105:41] there are real gender differences. Um we
[105:43] know that in friendship, women tend to
[105:46] actually face each other and talk to
[105:47] each other. Men tend to do activities,
[105:49] right? Shoulder to shoulder. We're
[105:50] fishing. We're playing basketball. We're
[105:52] in fantasy sports on our computers.
[105:56] This project that I did recently, I
[105:57] always spend lots of time analyzing
[106:00] transcripts at very large scale. This
[106:02] project, though, I was observing
[106:04] conversations live.
[106:06] And for whatever reason, that was much
[106:08] more visceral than what I usually do as
[106:09] a scientist. And it was all men
[106:13] meeting other men for the first time and
[106:15] sort of trying to forge friendships.
[106:17] And what was so hard to watch
[106:20] is that they don't They really struggled
[106:23] with vulnerability.
[106:25] Vulnerability is such a key component of
[106:27] friendship. We Friendship
[106:29] [clears throat] experts say you need
[106:30] consistency, so interacting
[106:33] repeatedly,
[106:34] positivity, having fun together, but
[106:37] maybe most importantly, vulnerability.
[106:39] Like sharing not only your feelings with
[106:41] each other, but like what are you
[106:42] struggling with? What are your What are
[106:43] your hopes and dreams? What are your
[106:44] goals? What do you want to get out of
[106:45] this?
[106:46] It was so maddening to watch
[106:50] these men have hundreds of conversations
[106:53] and like none of them asked those
[106:55] questions or talked about those things
[106:57] with each other. As a woman, it was it
[106:59] was
[107:00] almost shocking because it's sort of
[107:02] like what women would probably talk
[107:04] about within the first 3 minutes
[107:06] of the conversation. And I couldn't
[107:08] believe I was like, "Wow, this is really
[107:11] This really seems like a massive
[107:13] difference." And I worry
[107:15] that large scale,
[107:17] the leap from being
[107:19] basketball buddies or fantasy sports
[107:21] buddies into vulnerable conversation
[107:24] feels so scary and
[107:26] risky
[107:28] that men are unable to make the leap and
[107:30] that's a huge part of what's holding
[107:32] back men from having meaningful
[107:35] friendships. And we know that loneliness
[107:37] is so much worse for men than for women.
[107:39] And they have way less friends. Yes,
[107:41] yes.
[107:43] Ridiculous proportion of men say report
[107:45] having zero close friends.
[107:48] 40% potentially.
[107:51] Wow.
[107:52] It's quite troubling and I think that I
[107:55] think that conversation skills and
[107:57] courage
[107:59] Listen, everything that we've talked
[108:00] about, choosing good topics, shifting to
[108:02] new topics when they get boring, asking
[108:04] good questions, asking follow-up
[108:05] questions, finding moments of levity, um
[108:09] apologizing, listening, all of these
[108:11] things take a surprising amount of
[108:12] courage
[108:14] and confidence.
[108:16] And it feels like this thing for men who
[108:18] have been socialized to believe that
[108:19] vulnerability is a sign of weakness,
[108:22] it feels like it it it's like almost
[108:24] takes too much courage for them to make
[108:27] that leap in their relationships and
[108:29] it's
[108:30] quite problematic. Men are 400% more
[108:33] likely to say they have no one to turn
[108:35] to in a time of crisis.
[108:37] Um half of men say they are unsatisfied
[108:39] with their friendships.
[108:40] Men's number of close friends has
[108:42] dropped by 30 to 40% since 1990.
[108:47] Men come to rely on their in
[108:49] heterosexual relationships, come to rely
[108:50] on their partner for emotional
[108:52] fulfillment and support.
[108:54] Women do not. So when, you know, woman
[108:57] female spouse dies, men have to remarry
[108:59] to fill that void. They don't have that
[109:01] friendship. When a
[109:04] husband dies, the woman
[109:06] has her friends to support her. So how
[109:08] can I how can I make more friends as a
[109:10] man? I think it's really one
[109:12] conversation at a time. The power you
[109:14] have is as an individual is signaling to
[109:17] other men, "Hey, let's take this
[109:19] courageous leap." Like, here's a
[109:21] question you can ask. "What have you
[109:23] been struggling with recently?
[109:25] What do you hope to achieve? But what
[109:27] have you been What kind of thing have
[109:28] you been thinking about that you haven't
[109:30] shared with anyone before?" And in the
[109:32] study you did, what kind Give me a
[109:33] flavor of how the conversation sounded.
[109:35] "Hey man, you want to get Oh, this this
[109:37] hot dog is gross."
[109:40] "Yeah, it's really gross."
[109:42] "Yeah, this is Yeah, I don't like the
[109:44] food."
[109:46] >> [laughter]
[109:48] >> "I'm going to go take a nap."
[109:50] It's like narrating what's happening
[109:52] around you. Sometimes they'd be like,
[109:56] "Where are you from?"
[109:58] or And then that would turn into a
[110:00] narration. Yeah. I love Chicago. It has
[110:03] the football team.
[110:05] Uh I hate the Chicago Bears.
[110:08] Uh Oh yeah, I remember when so-and-so
[110:09] played there. Then you devolve into the
[110:11] sports talk, which can be important, but
[110:13] you Can you move a step beyond and be
[110:15] like,
[110:17] "Did you ever feel vulnerable when you
[110:20] played football in high school?" Right?
[110:21] Like or like, "What did you struggle
[110:22] with
[110:23] in terms of sports?
[110:25] Why didn't you play college sports? I
[110:27] Whatever Wherever the Whatever the topic
[110:29] is, you can take that next step to make
[110:31] it actually
[110:33] personal and vulnerable and interesting
[110:36] so that you walk away
[110:38] one step closer to having an actual
[110:39] friend and not just someone you
[110:42] say things you know to.
[110:45] I did a talk in Canary Wharf a couple of
[110:48] week couple of
[110:49] Maybe a year ago and a kid stood up in
[110:50] the front row. You got to bear in mind
[110:52] there's 500 young I say young, I mean
[110:55] probably 21.
[110:56] They're all working in this part of
[110:57] London called Canary Wharf where you
[110:58] kind of your first job after university.
[111:01] 500 people in this room, kid stands up
[111:02] front row, says, "Hi, my question is um
[111:06] I
[111:07] want to know how to make friends." Mhm.
[111:10] And it was shocking to me because I
[111:12] could see 499 of his peers stood next to
[111:14] him. Mhm. But he had the guts to stand
[111:16] up in front of all these people and say,
[111:18] "Hi Steven, my question is how do you
[111:19] make friends?"
[111:20] It's a fabulous question, isn't it? If
[111:22] he'd asked you that question,
[111:25] he might be listening now. Hello,
[111:26] friend.
[111:28] Starts with hello.
[111:30] And the number of times that I have run
[111:33] at conversation exercises as part of my
[111:35] class and the students at the end of
[111:37] that very first session say, "This is
[111:39] the first time I've turned to the person
[111:40] next to me and actually talk to them."
[111:43] It's like every time I do that first
[111:44] session. Thank you. Thank you for the
[111:46] opportunity to turn the giving us a
[111:48] reason to turn to each other and
[111:50] actually talk, get to know my
[111:51] classmates. Mhm.
[111:53] >> [clears throat]
[111:54] >> Even that takes tremendous courage,
[111:56] especially if there are norms of not
[111:58] doing of coming in, sitting down at a
[112:00] desk or in an auditorium and being on
[112:02] your phone.
[112:03] So, literally turning to the someone
[112:04] next to you and saying like, "Hey, I'm
[112:06] Allison. What's your name? Where are you
[112:07] from?" Starting, right? God, we don't do
[112:09] that in the UK. It's like creepy
[112:11] behavior. It's okay. And that's it. You
[112:13] do need to read the room, right? Like
[112:14] it's maybe not appropriate in all
[112:16] situations. It's a It can be a shame.
[112:17] Depends on the norms. Once you are
[112:20] engaged with people, it's all of the
[112:22] talk things. What topics will they
[112:24] actually find helpful to them? Are you
[112:26] asking questions? Are you listening and
[112:28] asking follow-up questions? Are you
[112:30] moving beyond just trading things you
[112:33] know?
[112:35] Are you learning about each other
[112:38] in a way that feels revealing?
[112:40] That's where real relationships come
[112:42] from.
[112:43] What is What are these here? Yeah, let's
[112:45] find out.
[112:46] This list of questions here. Oh, this is
[112:49] an exercise that I do. This is based on
[112:51] a very well-known exercise called 36
[112:52] Questions to Fall in Love. Oh, I heard
[112:54] about that.
[112:54] >> Yeah, Arthur Aron. It was famous in the
[112:56] New York Times many years ago. It's
[112:58] based on some academic research. This is
[113:00] 10 a subset of 10 of those 36 questions.
[113:03] An exercise I do in my class called 10
[113:05] Questions to Fall in Like
[113:08] instead of love. So, if I ask someone
[113:09] those 10 questions, they're going to
[113:10] like me?
[113:11] Probably, yeah. More than if you didn't
[113:14] ask the questions. Um what you want to
[113:16] do is you actually go back and forth and
[113:18] ask each other these questions. So, the
[113:21] first one is what are you excited about
[113:22] lately? Next is what is something you're
[113:24] good at but don't like doing? What's
[113:25] something you're bad at but love to do?
[113:27] Is there something you'd like to learn
[113:28] more about? Is there something you'd
[113:30] like to learn how to do? What can we
[113:32] celebrate about you? Has someone made
[113:33] you laugh recently? What's something
[113:35] cute your kid, friend, pet, or partner
[113:37] has been doing? Did you grow up in a
[113:39] city and have you fallen in love with
[113:40] any new music, books, movies, shows
[113:42] lately? It's just 10 questions that are
[113:45] of this flavor that
[113:48] many people, but I suspect lots of men,
[113:50] don't ask. Mhm. That are a great
[113:53] starting point. It's just the first
[113:55] turn, right? You have to actually listen
[113:57] to what the person says and ask
[113:59] follow-up questions to really deepen the
[114:01] conversation and move up that topic
[114:02] pyramid.
[114:04] But, these are good questions. You could
[114:06] prep just one or two of them. You could
[114:09] carry two of them in your back pocket
[114:11] all the time
[114:12] as go-to topics for people. So, when
[114:14] this
[114:15] opportunity arises, you could ask them.
[114:18] I like the one, "What are you excited
[114:19] about lately?" That's my go-to with a
[114:21] lot of people. Also like, "Have you Are
[114:23] you obsessed with any shows right now?"
[114:25] is pretty a pretty good one, too. But,
[114:27] the key is not just asking that question
[114:29] but actually asking follow-up questions
[114:31] about like, "Why do you connect with
[114:32] that show? What do you see in the main
[114:33] character? Do you see anything from the
[114:35] main character that you see in
[114:36] yourself?" You know, you got to get more
[114:39] got to get deeper into it. The original
[114:42] research with the 36 questions to fall
[114:44] in love suggests that going through
[114:45] these 36 questions
[114:47] makes you like each other a lot.
[114:49] Um and certainly these 10 questions
[114:51] would help you
[114:52] start.
[114:54] If you need the excuse, I would love for
[114:56] your listeners to blame me.
[114:58] If you're feeling if they feel nervous
[115:00] to ask questions like this, especially
[115:02] boys or men.
[115:04] Say like I saw this crazy lady on Diary
[115:06] of a CEO and she said I should try
[115:08] asking this question. So I'm going to
[115:10] try.
[115:11] I my even my students at Harvard find
[115:13] that quite helpful to have a scapegoat
[115:15] to point at me and say my professor made
[115:17] me do this.
[115:19] It doesn't matter who makes you do it,
[115:22] whether it's yourself or someone else.
[115:23] The fact is that you're doing it and
[115:26] they're going to answer this question
[115:27] and then you can ask a follow-up and
[115:29] it's the beginning of a friendship.
[115:33] I did that when I was younger to go a
[115:35] girl I was interested in. I'd seen that
[115:36] TED Talk about the 36 questions or
[115:37] whatever and I said to her over text
[115:39] message. I was like um I want to play a
[115:41] game with you. Something that I've just
[115:43] watched.
[115:44] Yeah you get are you willing to play it
[115:45] with me? She said yes. I asked her these
[115:47] 36 questions and at the end of it I told
[115:49] her about the research and whatever in a
[115:51] non-creepy way. You're a real dork,
[115:53] yeah. But like but it did it did exactly
[115:55] that. We
[115:56] I it taught me that vulnerability is the
[115:58] doorway to connection. That's right.
[116:00] It's the doorway to connection. It's
[116:01] what makes relationships real. Without
[116:03] it you don't have real friendship,
[116:05] right? It's again it's consistency of
[116:07] interaction, positivity, so you can't be
[116:10] plagued by negativity and fighting and
[116:12] and anger, but positivity, fun, being
[116:15] relaxed around each other, having
[116:17] positive experiences, but then
[116:19] vulnerability. You have to learn these
[116:21] things about each other so that you feel
[116:24] known to each other and feel like
[116:26] they're uniquely sharing stuff with you.
[116:30] What about
[116:32] persuasion? Have you got any
[116:35] any useful actionable advice for me on
[116:37] how to be a better sales person? And
[116:40] when I say sales person, I don't mean
[116:41] I'm trying to sell someone a car. I mean
[116:43] trying to convince other people of my
[116:44] ideas. So like I when I do talks in
[116:46] companies, often times someone will
[116:48] stand up and say I'm trying to persuade
[116:50] my boss to do X innovative thing. They
[116:52] won't listen to me. Have you got any
[116:54] tips for me to persuade them? But also
[116:56] persuasion is at all levels, right? Up,
[116:58] down, left, right in organizations and
[117:00] in in the world. We are persuaded by
[117:02] people we trust and like and admire,
[117:05] right? It's people we interact with and
[117:07] over time we bend to their view or we
[117:10] are compelled by what they're sharing
[117:11] with us because we know that they are
[117:13] smart and trustworthy and we like them.
[117:15] Persuasion doesn't often happen within
[117:17] the bounds of one conversation.
[117:22] It could if you are asking lots of
[117:25] questions and able to sort of sit on the
[117:26] same side of a table together and say,
[117:28] "Hey, let's learn as much as we can
[117:29] about this complicated tangle of yarn,
[117:32] whatever that topic is. Let's see if we
[117:34] can pull threads together and figure
[117:36] this out." We were talking earlier about
[117:38] receptiveness to opposing viewpoints.
[117:40] Ironically, if you push yourself to
[117:43] learn as much as you can about the other
[117:45] person
[117:46] and validate their views, however you
[117:49] you
[117:51] view those views, over the longer term
[117:53] you are more likely to be persuasive
[117:56] because they're willing to stay engaged
[117:58] with you and listen to what you have to
[117:59] say in return. Because they feel heard
[118:02] and understood. Yeah. And they trust
[118:04] that you're not a jerk and that you're
[118:05] reasonable and that you're open even to
[118:07] their crazy viewpoints.
[118:09] I have learned that actually in my
[118:10] relationships that if I make the other
[118:13] person feel heard and understood, they
[118:14] Validate. You validate.
[118:16] >> validate, that's a good word.
[118:17] >> Validate it's and and validation is not
[118:20] equivalent to agreement. You can
[118:21] validate, validate, validate, validate,
[118:23] validate and then go on to vehemently
[118:25] disagree. Yeah. And probably that
[118:28] disagreement is going to go a lot better
[118:30] after you've validated them. Quite a
[118:32] bit. Like the the mistakes I made in
[118:35] maybe past relationships where when I
[118:36] didn't validate, it was kind of like a
[118:37] broken record. The person continued to
[118:39] make the same point because they didn't
[118:41] feel heard and understood. But if I
[118:42] validate,
[118:44] remarkable thing happens where they the
[118:45] kind of record player stops and then you
[118:47] can make your case. It's like a magic
[118:49] trick. Um there's really beautiful
[118:51] research recently that um, people
[118:54] conflate agreement with listening.
[118:59] I only think you're listening when
[119:01] you're agreeing with me. And then and
[119:03] when you disagree with me, I feel like
[119:05] you're not hearing me. You're not
[119:07] listening because obviously what I'm
[119:08] saying is so sensical and so compelling
[119:11] that if you're disagreeing with it,
[119:12] you're literally not hearing me.
[119:16] Agreement and listening are not the same
[119:17] thing, but in our minds we get mixed up
[119:20] about it. Okay, so I should start every
[119:22] sentence with I agree, even if I don't.
[119:24] Interesting, I agree. I think you should
[119:25] start with tell me more. It makes sense
[119:29] that you feel this way and I'd like to
[119:31] understand how you came to hold this
[119:32] viewpoint. I think you should start with
[119:34] validation.
[119:36] Before [clears throat] you do anything
[119:38] else.
[119:40] Yeah, Ju- Julian Treasure, what he said
[119:41] to me was that he did two TED Talks, one
[119:44] of them about speaking, one of them
[119:45] about listening. Rough numbers, he said
[119:47] the one about speaking
[119:49] did 40 million views. The one about
[119:51] listening did like a fraction of that.
[119:53] Yeah. It listening is a is a is a weird
[119:56] concept to codify and most people don't
[119:58] realize that it's a
[120:00] very, very high-level skill.
[120:03] It's interesting as to why they don't
[120:04] think it's important. I think we think
[120:06] of things
[120:08] active things.
[120:09] >> That's right. And speaking in
[120:10] particular, public speaking is very
[120:12] nerve-racking. It's like an activity
[120:13] that makes people incredibly nervous.
[120:16] So, any little thing that you could toss
[120:19] my way that might reduce even a sliver
[120:21] of that anxiety and make me better at
[120:23] it, people are so hungry for. It's it's
[120:25] sort of like more obvious. Yeah. Right?
[120:27] It's more salient, it's more active,
[120:28] like you're saying. Listening's easy,
[120:30] just say nothing. Literally, oh, uh,
[120:31] listen, people think that listening is
[120:33] like, oh, just sit there. Yeah. When in
[120:35] fact it's incredibly effortful. It's
[120:37] incredibly hard cuz our minds are built
[120:39] to wander, right? Our minds are
[120:40] wandering at least at 25% of the time,
[120:42] probably a lot more than that.
[120:44] And people who are good at it, when we
[120:46] think of people who are charismatic,
[120:48] likable, smart, savvy,
[120:51] it's not because of what they're saying,
[120:53] it's because of how they're listening
[120:55] and reacting to what they've heard.
[120:58] Mike Baker, who's another spy, who's a
[121:00] spy for 20 years I think with the CIA in
[121:02] America, said to me that much of the job
[121:04] of being a spy and persuading and
[121:06] manipulating a target in a foreign land
[121:09] to give over secrets, he said to me that
[121:11] he would
[121:12] for example, let's just say it was in
[121:13] Afghanistan. He'd land in land in
[121:15] Afghanistan. He would find the taxi
[121:17] driver that was driving the government
[121:19] official who he wanted secrets from. He
[121:21] said to me, he might spend 7 weeks in
[121:24] that taxi doing nothing but listening to
[121:27] this guy. Yes. Listening to the taxi
[121:29] driver. Because he said most people in
[121:31] their life have not had someone listen
[121:33] to them uninterrupted for like 10
[121:34] minutes. And when you listen to someone,
[121:36] they will offload about themselves.
[121:38] Especially if you ask follow-up
[121:40] questions. Exactly. So he and he and he
[121:42] asked like, "So what are you doing when
[121:43] you're listening?" He goes, "Just asking
[121:44] them and just, you know, asking a
[121:46] follow-up question and they would take
[121:47] me down the path they wanted to take me.
[121:49] And by week seven of the eight weeks,
[121:52] I would understand what motivates them."
[121:54] >> That's right. And I'd I would have heard
[121:55] in week seven that their son has a knee
[121:57] injury and they're very worried about
[121:59] their son's health. And then in week
[122:01] eight when I got in the taxi, I'd make a
[122:03] proposition to them. I'd say, "I know
[122:04] your son has a bad knee. We can take
[122:07] care of him."
[122:07] >> This is exactly the same thing that I
[122:09] was saying about entrepreneurs, right?
[122:11] You can you got to have a relationship,
[122:13] ask questions, questions, questions,
[122:14] questions, questions before you finally
[122:16] get to the thing where you're like, "I
[122:18] have a proposition for you." Yeah.
[122:20] Right?
[122:21] Two things about listening. First, I'm
[122:23] not surprised to hear that. A taxi
[122:25] driver is a very simple relationship.
[122:28] They're serving one very clear purpose
[122:30] in that person's life. Interacting with
[122:32] someone like a romantic partner or a
[122:34] work colleague, they what we it's called
[122:36] multiplexity. They're serving many more
[122:38] roles. Your girlfriend
[122:40] is lover,
[122:42] friend, co-chef. You keep a home
[122:45] together. You're coordinating domestic
[122:47] domestic task tasks. So, she's serving
[122:49] all of these purposes. That's much more
[122:51] complicated to sort through, and there
[122:53] will be conflicts of interest between
[122:55] those roles that she plays in your life.
[122:57] A way that you would talk to the future
[122:58] mother of your children is quite
[123:00] different than how you would talk to
[123:02] your chef.
[123:03] And yet, she is both of those things to
[123:05] you, right? So, a taxi driver is easier
[123:08] to talk to in a way Cuz it's
[123:10] >> simpler. Mhm. Okay, [clears throat]
[123:11] that's one thing. The next thing is
[123:12] about listening as a skill, like the spy
[123:15] is saying. I'm not surprised to hear
[123:16] that he's asking follow-up questions.
[123:18] Often, people think of listening as
[123:20] something that happens silently. You're
[123:22] just sitting there absorbing, and that
[123:25] is part of it. But, listening is
[123:26] actually three parts. The first is
[123:29] perception. I'm seeing you. I'm
[123:31] observing everything that's happening
[123:33] about you during our conversation and
[123:35] everything in your environment. There
[123:37] And then, there's auditory cues. I'm
[123:38] hearing your voice. I'm hearing these
[123:40] acoustic things, like mhm, mhm, yeah,
[123:42] mhm.
[123:43] And the tone of your voice and how
[123:45] quickly you speak.
[123:47] So, [snorts] we take in all this stuff.
[123:49] Then, we process some of it. We
[123:51] elaborate on some of the things that
[123:53] you've said, and I think more deeply. I
[123:54] can't process all of it, cuz it's a lot
[123:56] of information.
[123:58] What's so unique about conversation is
[124:01] there's a third step where I can reflect
[124:03] back to you what I've heard. I can say,
[124:07] "Oh, that's so interesting that you met
[124:09] this guy who was a spy who rode in the
[124:11] taxi. Can you tell me more about that?"
[124:14] I've now indicated to you that I was
[124:15] listening, that I'm curious, that I want
[124:17] to know more.
[124:19] So, our instincts are to think about
[124:21] nonverbal cues, like smiling and nodding
[124:24] quietly, leaning forward.
[124:27] Advanced listening. People who really
[124:29] develop the skill of listening actually
[124:31] use their words to show people that
[124:32] they've heard them.
[124:34] By validating, affirming, asking
[124:37] follow-up questions. In a group, you can
[124:38] paraphrase and say like, "Oh, Steven
[124:41] Steven said this, Cassie said this, then
[124:43] he said this. I think together what
[124:44] we're really talking about is status."
[124:47] You know that nodding and that
[124:49] stuff. Is that good or bad?
[124:51] >> It's useful. That's what we think of as
[124:53] active listening, which has been studied
[124:54] for decades. It doesn't indicate that
[124:56] someone is hearing you at all. They
[124:58] could be thinking about their grocery
[124:59] list and smiling and nodding at the same
[125:01] time. It is useful though to convince
[125:03] your partner that you're listening to
[125:05] them and that matters even if it's not
[125:08] connected to what you're thinking about
[125:09] at all. If you were to not smile and
[125:12] nod,
[125:13] the omission of it would be jarring.
[125:15] So, in that sense, it's like normative.
[125:17] You have to do it. It's sort of like
[125:19] listening 101.
[125:20] But listening 201 301 is using these
[125:23] verbal cues to show someone you've heard
[125:25] them.
[125:26] You understood the objective when we sat
[125:28] down. I want to become the best talker,
[125:30] conversationalist,
[125:32] the most persuasive, most likable person
[125:34] on earth. That was the objective that I
[125:35] gave you the brief.
[125:37] Is there anything that we haven't talked
[125:39] about
[125:41] that we should have talked about? We
[125:42] haven't talked about silence.
[125:44] Uh wrote a chapter about silence that I
[125:46] dropped because I think it's an entirely
[125:48] separate book. It's kind of ironic that
[125:50] this book is called talk
[125:52] because we do so much communicating
[125:54] between the lines. There's so much
[125:56] information exchanged in just a shared
[125:58] glance.
[125:59] When people don't know each other well,
[126:02] long pauses are a sign that the
[126:03] conversation's not going well.
[126:05] So, if you're on a first date and you
[126:07] feel like the conversation is dying and
[126:09] you're in have that panicky feeling of
[126:10] what do we talk about next, that's
[126:12] legit. You should not let that happen.
[126:14] You should go in with topics prepped and
[126:16] not let or or this list of lovely
[126:18] questions and ask those questions. Later
[126:21] in a relationship, after you've known
[126:23] someone a long time,
[126:25] longer pauses are a sign that you're
[126:26] comfortable with each other. That you
[126:28] could [clears throat] sit in total
[126:29] silence and in
[126:31] silence and that it's comfortable and
[126:33] nice.
[126:35] So, it means different things as
[126:36] relationships evolve. There's so much we
[126:39] can do in our conversations that are not
[126:42] about the words we say to each other,
[126:44] too.
[126:47] There's another chapter I dropped. Do
[126:48] you want to hear about it, Steven? Of
[126:50] course I want to hear about it. It's
[126:51] about talking in the digital age. Uh so,
[126:54] this is this is what I was going to ask
[126:55] you about as well is
[126:56] now we have large language models which
[126:58] are writing lots of AI slop for us. Yes.
[127:01] And if you log into social media, even
[127:03] email, Slack channels, sometimes in
[127:05] WhatsApp,
[127:07] I look at the messages that I that I
[127:09] look, I'll take it responsible as well.
[127:10] Sometimes that I'm sending, sometimes
[127:11] that I'm receiving. And because of AI,
[127:20] they're getting increasingly less
[127:23] soulful. Mhm.
[127:25] When I scroll certain social media
[127:27] platforms, which I shan't name,
[127:29] um
[127:31] >> [laughter]
[127:32] >> I feel disconnected Mhm. from people
[127:35] now. Yes.
[127:35] >> Because my comments are all like AI slop
[127:37] stuff. Yeah. With a big M-dash and oh my
[127:39] god, this is so amazing, Steven. And uh
[127:42] and you know that no human writes like
[127:43] that.
[127:44] Yeah. In a digital age, in an AI world,
[127:47] do we need to start communicating
[127:48] differently?
[127:50] So that people
[127:53] Do you know what I started doing?
[127:54] Intentional spelling mistakes.
[127:56] I love that.
[127:57] >> If you go on my LinkedIn, you'll notice
[127:59] that I have totally disregarded grammar.
[128:01] Okay.
[128:03] Let me start by telling you about an
[128:04] exercise that I do in my class. I think
[128:06] it'll be thought-provoking for you. So,
[128:08] your question is about the content of
[128:10] what we type to each other. It's a
[128:12] text-based communication, whether it's
[128:15] on social media or over text or over
[128:17] email.
[128:18] And there are
[128:21] clear things that we should do to make
[128:23] our text-based communication better.
[128:24] Mostly, make it shorter. Emails shorter.
[128:28] Use headings, use bullet points, get to
[128:30] the point, think about what other people
[128:31] need, only give them that. Okay?
[128:34] But I think more broadly
[128:37] what is quite thought-provoking is to
[128:39] think about how your life proceeds these
[128:41] days, your conversational life unfolds.
[128:43] So in my class I ask my students to do a
[128:45] communication audit of like 20 to 30
[128:47] minutes in their life where you
[128:49] transcribe every incoming and outgoing
[128:52] message
[128:53] across all digital and face-to-face
[128:57] modalities.
[128:58] So your DMs, your emails, your texts,
[129:02] your phone calls, your Zoom calls, your
[129:04] face-to-face interactions, all of it.
[129:07] Can you imagine? No.
[129:10] It's quite hard. Yeah.
[129:12] It's the sort of top-line thing you
[129:15] notice is that it's
[129:16] so much. It's just a crazy amount of
[129:20] communication that's happening in our
[129:22] lives now.
[129:23] When only maybe 20 years ago it was like
[129:27] 10% of what it is now. I think we all
[129:29] feel that, sort of overwhelm.
[129:32] Not only is it a lot,
[129:34] it's a we're constantly sort of toggling
[129:36] and adjusting from one mode of
[129:38] communication to the next. So I'm like
[129:40] talking to you while I'm like texting
[129:42] under the table while I hear my emails
[129:44] going and knowing that my DMs are
[129:45] blowing up.
[129:47] That mental adjustment is really
[129:50] exhausting.
[129:51] And across each of those modes we're
[129:53] like engaging in different ideas, and
[129:55] different threads, different topics with
[129:57] different people.
[129:59] And so you start to realize how braided
[130:02] and overlapping all of these things are,
[130:05] and it's quite hard to keep it all
[130:07] straight, and to make all of these
[130:09] decisions about like, well who does who
[130:11] should I be responding to?
[130:14] We all then default to the people who
[130:16] are right in front of us.
[130:18] But any other mode of communication
[130:20] we're like, well who should come first?
[130:22] Who gets my attention first? And
[130:24] attention is love, right? Like, who gets
[130:26] my love, essentially?
[130:29] The thing that my students note about
[130:31] this exercise, which is completely
[130:33] mind-blowing, and I would recommend that
[130:35] anybody try it, is that only
[130:37] face-to-face conversations feel real,
[130:41] in retrospect and while they're
[130:42] happening. Yeah.
[130:45] Now, that doesn't mean that the other
[130:46] ones aren't important. Of course, email
[130:47] is so important for transactional
[130:49] information exchange, but it's not real.
[130:52] It's not what the human brain was built
[130:53] to do. Our brains evolved to do this,
[130:57] face-to-face. It's why I prefer doing an
[130:59] interview like this in person than on
[131:00] Zoom.
[131:02] Because it's real, and we're going to
[131:03] have it's so engaging, and we're going
[131:05] to have a real memory of it later.
[131:08] And that memory might be sort of vague.
[131:10] You'll be like, oh, I knew this like,
[131:11] you know, middle-aged white woman with
[131:13] brown hair. She had a lot of energy,
[131:15] right? Like, that might be the extent of
[131:16] what you remember. But, it's it was
[131:19] real, and we can hold that memory. And I
[131:22] think what I find so
[131:24] troubling,
[131:26] there's a lot I find troubling, but
[131:28] this, um, our conversational lives have
[131:30] become very unreal.
[131:36] And
[131:38] that's
[131:39] why we feel so disconnected and lonely,
[131:43] and that loneliness is just outrageously
[131:45] high.
[131:46] We're not having real interactions and
[131:48] real relationships.
[131:50] Even Even having this device here, by
[131:52] the way, is it is a portal to another
[131:55] place. So, devices
[131:58] replace our conversations because we're
[132:00] on here instead of engaging. They also
[132:03] disrupt. It's So, if it's on a table in
[132:06] front of you, or you hear it buzzing or
[132:07] dinging in the background, it distracts
[132:10] your attention away from having a real,
[132:13] engaged interaction. Do you have any,
[132:15] um, advice for anybody in a world of AI
[132:17] where it's going to be really easy to
[132:18] make our communications Yeah.
[132:20] generatively using ChatGPT or whatever
[132:23] else.
[132:25] I just I just have noticed that what I
[132:28] start what I've started to discount
[132:30] and there's certain
[132:32] there was there's certain team members
[132:33] that I have that have really lent into
[132:36] the use of AI for all of their comms and
[132:38] I noticed myself ignoring them. Yeah.
[132:41] Because when they sent me an email
[132:43] report of something that happened in one
[132:45] particular scenario, every email report
[132:47] I knew was written by AI so I didn't
[132:49] think it was worth reading because I
[132:51] actually want to hear from them. Yeah. I
[132:53] trust them and their opinion. My
[132:54] relationship is to their experience and
[132:56] their knowledge and if I when I realized
[132:58] that it was all just AI because of the
[132:59] formatting of it, I start I started
[133:01] ignoring it. Then three or four weeks
[133:02] goes past and I thought, you know, I
[133:04] should tell them. Yeah, they should
[133:05] know. So I went and told had a
[133:06] conversation with them. I said, this is
[133:08] just a perception thing but I've noticed
[133:09] myself now not paying the same attention
[133:12] I used to because I want to know what
[133:14] you think. And because it feels like I'm
[133:16] speaking to ChatGPT. What's their
[133:18] comeback to that? They were really they
[133:20] were really thankful and they completely
[133:21] changed and it completely immediately
[133:23] even though I now know they're still
[133:25] using it. It's so crazy because I know
[133:26] they're still using it. They built this
[133:28] bot basically for this particular part
[133:30] of feedback which
[133:32] um
[133:33] which they're using. All they've done is
[133:35] change the the prompt into the bot to
[133:37] make it sound a little bit more human.
[133:39] >> Yeah, yeah. And I'm now reading it again
[133:40] cuz I can't tell the difference. Oh my
[133:42] goodness. That's so thought-provoking. I
[133:44] think there's two things going on there.
[133:45] One, you are invested in people. That's
[133:48] what we get invested in. We care about
[133:49] people and relationships. As soon as you
[133:51] feel like you're not getting them and
[133:54] you're getting some weird proxy of them,
[133:56] we're less motivated to engage with it.
[133:58] That's going to be that's totally
[133:59] normal. I'll tell you the context. It
[134:01] was a it's interview feedback. So
[134:03] they're interviewing someone and then
[134:04] the feedback they're sending me
[134:06] I see. was written by AI.
[134:08] >> Yeah. I trust their experience and their
[134:10] intuition and their ability just to feel
[134:12] someone. I don't know if I trust ChatGPT
[134:15] to interview my candidates.
[134:16] >> Yeah.
[134:17] So, I just wanted to feel like you I was
[134:19] getting it from that person.
[134:21] >> So, there's this relational replacement
[134:23] thing where you're like, "Ooh." and you
[134:24] just want to disengage. There's this
[134:25] other piece that's sort of more meta,
[134:28] which is that LLMs sort of push us our
[134:30] communications of reversion to the mean,
[134:33] like like it right to the middle. So, it
[134:35] literally is taking out the personality
[134:37] and weirdness and creativity out of it.
[134:40] Can I tell you I I did an experiment
[134:42] this semester in my class. I had my
[134:44] students do office hours with an AI
[134:46] version of me.
[134:48] Okay.
[134:49] >> Okay.
[134:50] You pre-fighted? Well, It's a risky
[134:53] experiment. [laughter]
[134:54] That's a risky The reason I actually
[134:56] think she is better than me in some
[134:57] ways.
[134:58] I I want to preface this by saying I
[135:00] think chatbots are most chatbots are
[135:02] deeply problematic, but this one its
[135:04] goal is not to convince users to talk
[135:06] more with her. It's to sort of coach
[135:08] them
[135:10] on their questions related to
[135:11] conversations so that they can prep and
[135:13] perform better in their real
[135:14] conversations with humans. Okay?
[135:17] I do think she's better than me in many
[135:19] ways. Most importantly, she's available.
[135:21] She's available all the time whenever
[135:23] they need her, and I'm a nightmare to
[135:25] schedule with. Uh number two, she's not
[135:27] grading them. So, anytime a student
[135:29] comes to me and has office hours,
[135:31] there's this conflict of interest where
[135:33] they're
[135:34] worried.
[135:35] They should be. I am grading them. Like
[135:37] I I do care about them as people, and
[135:39] also I am going to grade them at the end
[135:41] of the semester. That's a weird That
[135:43] makes a relationship quite weird.
[135:45] >> So, they don't want to ask dumb
[135:45] questions. And I have to question their
[135:48] motives because I'm like, "Are you here
[135:49] because you're actually interested in
[135:51] what you're asking me or because you're
[135:52] trying to impress me and get a better
[135:53] grade?" Right? That's a weird context.
[135:56] So, she's less judgmental in a way, I
[135:58] guess. The other thing that she can do
[136:00] is what you were saying, which is
[136:03] after they talk with her and get advice
[136:05] about their conversations, She gives
[136:07] them feedback about how the conversation
[136:09] went. She says, "Here are the topics we
[136:12] covered. Here's how many questions you
[136:13] asked. Here were the moments of levity.
[136:15] Here's how well you were listening and
[136:16] doing kindness."
[136:18] Even if I as a human
[136:21] can think those things, I do not have
[136:22] the bandwidth or time to craft the
[136:24] feedback to the students to 200 students
[136:27] at once.
[136:30] So, I
[136:31] in short, I feel incredibly torn about
[136:34] all things AI. I think there are use
[136:36] cases like this that are
[136:38] really amazing and intriguing and make
[136:41] things easier and more efficient.
[136:44] And as a manager, policy maker, that's
[136:47] why it's so troubling because as long as
[136:49] things continue to
[136:51] AI continues to make individuals' lives
[136:53] easier
[136:55] and more convenient,
[136:57] I don't know how we can stop and
[136:59] regulate
[137:01] regulate it. I think as well that in a
[137:04] world of AI and robots, it's going to be
[137:07] very tempting to
[137:09] overlook
[137:10] the most human skills. Yes. And those
[137:12] that don't, those that fight against the
[137:15] ease of allowing a chatbot to speak for
[137:19] you will develop a superpower, one
[137:22] that's going to be in even more scarce
[137:24] in the future, which is all the things
[137:26] you said in this framework. Yeah. Like
[137:27] really understanding how to be with a
[137:29] person IRL and have great conversations.
[137:31] I think it's going to be such a
[137:32] superpower. It is.
[137:34] Talk
[137:36] is the advantage that humans have over
[137:38] AI.
[137:39] It has always been true that
[137:41] conversation is the skill that we
[137:44] that matters most for achieving
[137:45] everything you want in life. Mhm. But,
[137:48] it just seems more obvious now that we
[137:51] need to lean into that even more.
[137:54] The irreplaceably human stuff. Correct.
[137:57] And some of it I don't even know if
[137:59] irreplaceable is the right word. It's
[138:01] like the things that no matter what the
[138:02] future holds for us, the things that are
[138:04] still going to matter. I'll put all my
[138:06] chips on a bet
[138:09] when I think about what I need to be
[138:10] teaching my kids. I can imagine worlds
[138:12] where like work is no longer a thing and
[138:15] when innovation is no longer a thing,
[138:17] but I cannot imagine a world where
[138:20] they're not going to need to connect
[138:21] with other human beings and talk to them
[138:24] well and joyfully and with respect. In
[138:27] real life.
[138:27] >> In real life.
[138:29] Yeah.
[138:30] I think
[138:31] you were talking about boomers earlier
[138:33] on. I think
[138:34] boomers are much better
[138:34] conversationalists than
[138:37] Gen Z's and Because they have more reps.
[138:40] They have more repetitions and they grew
[138:41] up in the real world where they were
[138:43] forced to develop skills.
[138:44] >> That's right. It's part of the reason
[138:45] that I think we see a lot of sort of
[138:47] like misunderstanding and judgment
[138:49] between the generations is that right
[138:50] now the people who are alive
[138:53] have experienced very, very different
[138:55] realities.
[138:56] And the skills that you did have
[138:58] developed in those different realities
[139:01] are quite different and
[139:03] it means that we're we actually are more
[139:05] different from each other across the
[139:07] generations.
[139:09] Um on on the front of your book talk, it
[139:10] says the science of conversation and the
[139:12] art of being ourselves.
[139:14] Do you think we should show up to work
[139:16] as our authentic selves?
[139:20] There's a great phrase What a great
[139:21] question. Um there's a great phrase by a
[139:24] scholar named Juliana Pillemer who's at
[139:26] NYU
[139:27] um called strategic authenticity.
[139:30] Okay.
[139:32] If you were to bring your full self to
[139:35] work,
[139:36] it would
[139:37] be
[139:39] a nightmare
[139:40] for you and everyone around you. Tell me
[139:42] about it.
[139:43] At the beginning of my class I have
[139:45] people do this thing that's like, okay,
[139:46] identify your type your conversation
[139:48] types.
[139:49] And there's like 13 good types and 13
[139:52] bad types.
[139:54] You know, there's like the asker and the
[139:56] curious cat and the chatterbox, and
[139:58] whatever.
[139:59] The whole thing is a straw man because
[140:01] we're all all of those things. We all
[140:04] have habits that are good
[140:06] sometimes, and habits that are bad
[140:09] sometimes. And our behavior shifts
[140:11] radically from one situation to the
[140:13] next. I'm not going to behave the same
[140:15] way at a bachelorette party in Vegas as
[140:17] I do when I'm doing bath time with my
[140:19] children. If you did, it would be
[140:22] insane, and it wouldn't serve anybody's
[140:24] goals. What happens in Vegas?
[140:27] >> [laughter]
[140:28] >> Hot pink wigs, apparently, and
[140:29] Chippendale's dancers. Um,
[140:32] um
[140:34] The point is that our behavior shifts
[140:37] from one conversation to the next, even
[140:40] from one moment to the next in every
[140:41] conversation, and it should. That's what
[140:43] it means to read the room and read the
[140:46] context. And again, my my husband has a
[140:48] saying, "Athletes adjust."
[140:50] And it's exactly right. Good
[140:51] conversationalists adjust.
[140:53] So, if you in your mind are like, "This
[140:55] is who I am, and I'm going to bring that
[140:57] whole self to every space that I
[141:00] inhabit." It's not going to go well.
[141:03] Strategic authenticity. Yeah. Bring
[141:05] Bring the things that make the values
[141:07] that make you you, bring them to work.
[141:10] It's the things that you
[141:12] care about and are uncompromising about.
[141:15] But you can adjust your behavior to to
[141:17] fit the needs of the situation. Do you
[141:20] pretend and act?
[141:21] No, this is a great question. I We like
[141:23] to debate this in my class about um
[141:27] authenticity,
[141:29] manipulation, what is real, what's
[141:31] sincere. I guess sincerity might be the
[141:33] right word to use.
[141:35] Let's use question asking as an example.
[141:37] Imagine that we get to a point in an in
[141:39] the interview where you're like, "Oh, I
[141:40] think I need to ask
[141:42] a question right now."
[141:43] You might not be dying to hear the
[141:45] answer to it, but you know as a good
[141:47] interviewer that you need to ask that
[141:48] question in that moment.
[141:51] That doesn't mean that you are
[141:54] evil, unkind, insincere, manipulative.
[141:58] It means that you're trying to live up
[141:59] to the goal of the conversation and
[142:02] trying to live up to the goal of hey,
[142:03] we're going to learn as much as we can
[142:05] from each other. I want to show you
[142:06] respect and interest in your
[142:08] perspective. I want to have a good
[142:09] conversation.
[142:11] That itself lives up to who you are.
[142:13] Like that's the whole point of being
[142:15] here.
[142:18] You know what I mean?
[142:18] >> Yeah, of course. Yeah. So these fleeting
[142:20] moments of like insincerity, it I think
[142:22] people overfocus on that as a signal of
[142:25] inauthenticity. Okay, fine. If it's tied
[142:28] to an more overarching goal of like I
[142:30] want to be a good human being and a good
[142:32] conversationalist, often because I want
[142:34] to serve the needs of others.
[142:36] So you can be slightly insincere
[142:38] >> [laughter]
[142:39] >> um in in the pursuit of sincerity. As
[142:43] and the those those moments of
[142:45] insincerity are gone in an instant. As
[142:48] soon as I ask this question that maybe
[142:49] I'm not dying to hear, how was your
[142:51] weekend?
[142:53] Um you're going to give me an answer and
[142:54] I'm sincerely going to search for
[142:56] something in there that I am interested
[142:57] in and I'm going to ask a follow-up
[142:59] question and make it better. Okay. So
[143:01] when I met you, you did ask me how how
[143:02] was day. Was that I The question I've
[143:04] been dying to ask you is about children.
[143:08] Uh me and my girlfriend are trying at
[143:10] the moment. So hopefully
[143:11] >> Steven, no, I'm so excited for you.
[143:14] >> you excited about?
[143:15] >> I just think it's one of the most
[143:16] miraculous things that you can
[143:18] experience as a human being and I'm
[143:20] hopeful for you. Yeah. Good luck. Yeah.
[143:23] I hope you get to experience that. It's
[143:25] a very um
[143:27] it's a very
[143:29] different experience to add to your
[143:30] resume.
[143:31] I know. I think that's why I'm excited
[143:33] by it because
[143:35] it is the great unknown.
[143:37] And in some respects my head, this might
[143:38] be the wrong framing, but it feels like
[143:39] the great sacrifice. Yeah. It's both.
[143:42] And you know what I always say, it's
[143:43] like the most self-centered
[143:44] self-interested and
[143:46] uh least self-interested thing you can
[143:49] do. Self-interested in the sense you're
[143:50] like making a copy of yourself. Okay?
[143:52] Like talk about narcissism.
[143:54] But it's just incre- it really life is
[143:57] no longer about you. That's terrifying
[143:59] to hear. Mhm. It is terrifying to hear
[144:01] objectively. Like I understand what
[144:02] you're saying and I and I agree. But
[144:04] it's also as a statement for anybody to
[144:08] know that they're kind of giving up
[144:10] Your current self, sense of self. For
[144:13] someone else you've never met. Oh,
[144:15] you're giving it up not you're giving
[144:18] Giving up might not be the right phrase.
[144:19] You're change You're evolving into a
[144:21] different version of you for them. Mhm.
[144:24] The more freedom and like resources you
[144:26] have before kids means it's you may
[144:29] experience that as a more as a loss. Oh,
[144:31] that's good.
[144:32] >> [laughter]
[144:34] >> But you also have more to gain. It
[144:36] really is it's
[144:37] really incredible. It's easy to focus on
[144:39] like fertility and having children and
[144:41] to ask probing prying questions about
[144:43] you know how many do you want and
[144:44] whatever. But I I I think it's easy to
[144:47] focus on like the birth process and and
[144:50] overlook how long childhood is. It's 18
[144:53] years and I think the major project of
[144:55] it is helping kids learn to talk to
[144:59] other people.
[145:01] And how do you do that? I'm sure there's
[145:02] lots of parents screaming right now like
[145:04] how do I
[145:05] How do I set my kid up so that they can
[145:06] talk well? Yeah.
[145:07] >> Communicate well. I think it's what you
[145:09] we're doing every moment of every day.
[145:11] You're interacting with them directly
[145:12] and sort of role modeling what you think
[145:14] that looks like. Helping them through
[145:16] difficult moments. Helping them both
[145:18] fail and succeed. It's very important.
[145:21] Um and we're hoping to adapt the talk
[145:24] course for high schoolers and younger
[145:26] children quite soon. Do I need to get
[145:27] them off YouTube and all that stuff and
[145:29] Yes. And screens?
[145:32] Yes.
[145:33] Yes. Is a little bit of YouTube okay? A
[145:36] little bit of anything might be okay.
[145:38] Digital stuff is hard though because
[145:39] they you give them an inch they take a
[145:41] mile and it becomes habitual. So, what
[145:43] do you do with your kids?
[145:45] It's a constant um
[145:47] evolution and learning, and we give them
[145:50] 20 minutes. A day? Yeah.
[145:53] On a computer that doesn't move.
[145:55] And nothing moves. They can't carry it
[145:57] with them. And what age does that
[145:59] change? Uh
[146:00] to be determined. They know that they're
[146:02] not getting a phone, like a
[146:05] phone phone. Um now I'm getting more and
[146:08] more extreme. I feel like maybe never,
[146:09] but um
[146:11] certainly not until ninth grade, and
[146:12] then social media much later than that.
[146:15] I mean, if
[146:17] I I It's like It's an interesting We'll
[146:18] see how it goes, but
[146:20] it's a it's it's just such a slippery
[146:22] slope, but it's so bad for them.
[146:24] Jonathan Haidt's done a wonderful job.
[146:26] Angela my friend on Angela Duckworth is
[146:27] doing great work. Matt Genso at Stanford
[146:30] um
[146:31] trying to help schools sort this out.
[146:34] I have that stuff forward, too.
[146:36] >> [laughter]
[146:37] >> Teenage problems.
[146:39] Alison, we have a closing tradition
[146:40] where the last guest leaves a question
[146:41] for the next guest, not knowing who
[146:42] they're leaving it for. And the question
[146:44] left for you is, if your life was a
[146:46] movie and the audience were watching up
[146:48] to this point, what would they be
[146:50] screaming at the screen telling you to
[146:53] do
[146:54] right now?
[146:55] What a fabulous question. Thank you,
[146:58] previous guest.
[147:05] Leave Harvard.
[147:07] Save the children.
[147:09] With talk.
[147:13] Devote all of your time and resources to
[147:16] helping every high schooler in the world
[147:19] learn to do this
[147:21] better.
[147:23] Why?
[147:24] I think it's the ultimate human skill,
[147:26] and everyone has the potential to do it
[147:29] well. And it's not a zero-sum game. The
[147:31] more people who do it well, the better
[147:33] off we'll all be. You said save.
[147:35] Why did you use the word save? I think
[147:37] we're in a period where we actually are
[147:39] needing to save them from
[147:42] digital addiction and and loneliness.
[147:45] We've gotten to a place that we need to
[147:47] roll back and it's really scary.
[147:51] And I think one
[147:54] first step is let's get the devices out
[147:56] of schools, ideally out of families in
[147:59] their hands, but then the next step is
[148:01] like what rises to replace it and I
[148:03] think it could be this talk curriculum.
[148:06] So, are you going to do that? Mhm.
[148:08] You're going to leave Harvard? TBD.
[148:10] So, is that an announcement? Are they
[148:12] >> [laughter]
[148:13] >> Is it an exclusive?
[148:15] Is that the thumbnail?
[148:17] Alison, thank you so much. Thank you for
[148:19] the work that you do cuz it's very
[148:20] important work and it's very timely work
[148:21] considering everything that's going on
[148:22] in the world
[148:23] um at this moment in time and this book
[148:26] is the definitive book on the art of You
[148:28] said it yourself, the framework that
[148:29] you've you've built here is one that's
[148:31] deeply based on science and research.
[148:33] And often times when I have
[148:34] conversations about communication, this
[148:37] it's full of platitudes and opinions and
[148:39] a lot of generic things that aren't
[148:40] supported by scientific rigor, but
[148:42] you've done the research. You've
[148:44] committed so much of your life to this
[148:45] subject and you've managed to write it
[148:47] all in a way that's truly accessible to
[148:48] people like me who uh
[148:51] simply you know, muggles
[148:54] and don't [laughter] understand big
[148:55] words sometimes. So, it's it's a
[148:57] wonderful entry, but also
[149:00] um a a sort of a an expansive look into
[149:03] the science of great talk.
[149:07] We've touched on several things in this
[149:08] book, but there's so much more we could
[149:09] have gone through. So, I'm going to
[149:10] leave that to the audience. I'm going to
[149:11] link it below for anyone that wants to
[149:12] read it. But also, thank you because
[149:15] I think of these issues as being issues
[149:16] that are really foundational to the most
[149:17] important things in our lives like
[149:19] family, like friendships, like
[149:20] relationships, like the success in the
[149:22] pursuit of our goals and what you're
[149:23] giving people here is a road map
[149:26] to
[149:26] reach their highest potential. Yeah,
[149:28] thank you.
[149:28] >> through this thing called talk and
[149:29] that's a really wonderful thing.
[149:31] So, if anyone wants this book, it's
[149:33] linked below. Highly recommend. Is there
[149:35] anywhere else one should go to get more
[149:36] of your work? Is there a place?
[149:38] >> Sure. Allisonwoodbrooks.com
[149:40] has this new quiz that's so fun. Find
[149:43] out your conversation type, get really
[149:45] clear advice, little tips about how to
[149:48] navigate things, and all the science
[149:49] that's underlying those tips.
[149:52] Very, very soon you can go to
[149:53] talkstudios.com and look up find out
[149:55] more about this curriculum that we're
[149:57] developing for high schoolers. I'll link
[149:59] both of them below.
[150:02] Dr. Allison Wood Brooks. Thank you so
[150:04] much. Thank you so much, Steven. Thank
[150:05] you for amplifying my work, and I just
[150:08] think what you're doing here is
[150:09] fabulous. So, thank you. Thank you.
[150:12] >> [music]
[150:15] >> Make sure you keep what I'm about to say
[150:16] to yourself. I'm inviting 10,000 of you
[150:19] to come even deeper into the Diary of a
[150:21] CEO. Welcome to my inner circle. This is
[150:24] a brand new private community that I'm
[150:26] launching to the world. We have so many
[150:28] incredible things that happen that you
[150:29] are never shown. We have the briefs that
[150:32] are on my iPad when I'm recording the
[150:33] conversation. We have clips we've never
[150:36] released. We have behind-the-scenes
[150:37] conversations with the guest, and also
[150:39] the episodes that we've never, ever
[150:41] released, and so much more. In the
[150:44] circle, you'll have direct access to me.
[150:46] You can tell us what you want this show
[150:47] to be, who you want us to interview, and
[150:49] the types of conversations you would
[150:51] love us to have. But, remember for now,
[150:53] we're only inviting the first 10,000
[150:55] people that join before it closes. So,
[150:58] if you want to join our private closed
[150:59] community, head to the link in the
[151:00] description below, or go to
[151:01] DOACcircle.com.
[151:05] I will speak to you there.
[151:09] >> [music]
[151:16] [music]
[151:25] >> Oh.
[151:25] >> [singing]
[151:27] >> Oh. [music]
[151:30] Oh.
[151:32] Oh.
