Van Edwards Links Monologues Past 45 Seconds to Career Sabotage
The Diary Of A CEO
Standard social scripts and speaking turns exceeding 45 seconds trigger cognitive autopilot and alienate colleagues, while structured questions and concise turn-taking establish immediate psychological safety.
## Background
Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on September 10, 2026, this episode features behavioral researcher and author Vanessa Van Edwards. The discussion explores actionable communication techniques, non-verbal cues, and psychological frameworks designed to overcome social autopilot, master conversation mechanics, and build charismatic connections.
## TL;DR
Vanessa Van Edwards details how to navigate Dan McAdams' three psychological levels of conversation, moving past robotic autopilot questions like 'What do you do?' into shared narratives and emotional resonance. She breaks down the science of conversational turn-taking, noting that speaking turns between 15 to 30 seconds build chemistry while monologues over 45 seconds trigger social friction and stem from insecurities about wanting to be understood. The conversation also explores five distinct story archetypes, the difference between redemption and contamination mindsets, and non-verbal cues for projecting warmth, competence, and vocal resonance.
## Atmosphere & style
The interaction strikes an energetic balance between rigorous behavioral analysis and warm, vulnerable self-reflection. Steven Bartlett and Vanessa Van Edwards share an engaging, inquisitive rapport, using real-world demonstrations of body language, vocal pitch, and awkward conversational scripts that make the advice feel tangible. The tone shifts naturally from sharp, tactical communication coaching to thoughtful, empathetic reflections on digital isolation and the universal need for human belonging.
## Key takeaways
- [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=131s) Conversational ability is a learned skill rather than an innate personality trait, functioning as essential career and relationship insurance in an era dominated by AI and digital isolation.
- [04:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=285s) Approaching conversations with a mindset of discovery rather than attempting to impress prevents performative exhaustion and unlocks authentic connection.
- [08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=508s) Standard conversational scripts like 'What do you do?' or 'How are you?' act as social dead ends, whereas optimistic openers like 'What was the highlight of your day?' break conversational autopilot.
- [12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) Dan McAdams' three levels of interaction—Level 1 (General Traits & Facts), Level 2 (Personal Concerns & Values), and Level 3 (Narrative Identity)—must be navigated progressively to avoid intrusive questioning or vulnerability regret.
- [40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2440s) Optimal conversational turn-taking lasts between 15 and 30 seconds; exceeding 45 seconds crosses into monologuing, while undertalking (under 15 seconds) creates conversational scarcity.
- [54:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3267s) Conversational narcissism and overtalking typically stem from root insecurities—such as the primal urge to feel understood, chosen, and loved—rather than genuine malice.
- [01:26:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5178s) Asking diagnostic questions like 'Are you lucky?' reveals whether a person operates from an empowering internal locus of control (redemption narrative) or feels like a passive victim of circumstances (contamination narrative).
- [01:35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5711s) Understanding interpersonal archetypes—such as the Ambitious Hero, Contented Pragmatist, Selfless Helper, Creative Disruptor, and Unlucky Struggler—allows tailored communication that respects differing emotional drivers.
- [01:55:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6943s) Applying the peak-end rule through a graceful exit—combining a future cue with a definitive action and tonal shift—protects conversational rapport from awkward endings.
- [02:00:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7230s) First impressions rely heavily on balancing warmth and competence; signaling friendliness and trust first opens receptivity to technical competence.
- [02:08:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7739s) Projecting charisma and aura is enhanced by open physical posture and speaking at the Maximum Resonance Point (MRP) on an exhalation to avoid high-pitched vocal cord tension.
- [02:12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7972s) Maintaining optimal eye contact of 60% to 70% allows for emotional bonding via oxytocin while managing the cognitive load required to process thoughts and recall information.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=0s) Episode Overview: The Crisis of Connection and Conversational Autopilot
The episode opens with a high-stakes preview of the science behind interpersonal dynamics. Vanessa Van Edwards highlights subtle non-verbal cues that reveal conversational friction, such as the "open fish"—when a listener repeatedly parts their lips to speak because the other person has held the floor too long. With studies showing that 95% of people have worked alongside a chronic overtalker, identifying these blind spots is critical. Van Edwards frames herself as a "recovering awkward person" who spent two decades decoding human connection after realizing that modern society is slipping into a loneliness epidemic where one in six people worldwide feels isolated. In an era where people increasingly default to asynchronous, one-sided communication—such as sending "selfish" nine-minute voice notes—mastering real-time dialogue has become a rare competitive edge.
To crack the mechanics of dialogue, Van Edwards conducted experiments with 500 speed networkers across three distinct trials. Her findings demonstrate that standard scripts like "How are you?" or "What do you do?" cause conversations to stall almost immediately, whereas purpose-built prompts like "What was the highlight of your day?" spark immediate engagement. Beyond opening lines, navigating human interaction requires understanding conversational turn-taking, decoding five core psychological story archetypes, avoiding conversational narcissism, and knowing how to exit a dying interaction gracefully without causing offense.
Following the preview, host Steven Bartlett shares a channel update, noting that 58% of regular viewers are not yet subscribed, and invites listeners to subscribe to support production quality and future guest bookings.
---
[02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=131s) Conversation as "Career Insurance" in the Age of Technology
Opening the discussion from page five of her book *Conversation*, Steven Bartlett notes Van Edwards' premise: society is currently navigating a severe "connection crisis" where conversations feel increasingly difficult, awkward, and unsatisfying. When Bartlett asks why this book is urgently needed today, Van Edwards explains that interpersonal communication skills are now the ultimate form of career and relationship insurance. In professional settings, technical competence alone is rarely enough; people naturally prefer to hire, collaborate with, and promote colleagues who are pleasant and engaging to converse with.
Van Edwards warns of an impending generational tipping point: the current era may be the very last generation where humans learn conversation primarily from other humans rather than from artificial intelligence and automated technology. As everyday human-to-human interactions diminish, individuals who actively cultivate conversational mastery will possess an outsized psychological and professional advantage.
---
[03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=200s) Why Social Health Requires "Conversation Reps"
Bartlett asks what concrete transformations a person experiences once they master dialogue. Van Edwards defines conversation as the foundational vehicle for achieving nearly every life goal:
- **Career advancement**: A natural, engaging rapport with leadership makes an individual memorable when promotion opportunities arise.
- **Romantic connection**: Building depth with a potential partner requires peeling back surface layers to discover mutual values.
- **Longevity and well-being**: Replacing isolation with energizing, meaningful friendships delivers measurable longevity and emotional health benefits.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Social Fitness Loop
accDescription: Flowchart illustrating how conversation practice builds social and emotional health.
subgraph MentalFramework["Mindset Shift"]
A["View conversation like physical fitness"] --> B["Treat interactions as 'conversation reps'"]
end
subgraph CoreBenefits["Realized Outcomes"]
B --> C["Career Insurance: Rapport with leaders"]
B --> D["Romantic Depth: Soulmate connection"]
B --> E["Longevity: Genuine, energizing friendships"]
end
```
A core mistake leaders and ambitious professionals make is treating conversation as a secondary, decorative afterthought while focusing entirely on their business, product, or ideas. Van Edwards argues that social health should be viewed identically to physical fitness: it requires consistent "conversation reps." Because conversational ability is a learned craft rather than an innate personality trait, deliberate practice yields compounding returns across a lifetime.
---
[04:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=285s) Impress vs. Discover: The Hallmarks of Master Conversationalists
Reflecting on her personal history, Van Edwards explains that her early struggles with social awkwardness stemmed from a flawed psychological posture: she entered rooms trying to *impress* others rather than *discover* them. When an interaction is driven by the desire to impress, it turns into a performative, draining spectacle that produces soul-crushing small talk. In contrast, 20 years of studying master conversationalists revealed that top communicators operate with authentic curiosity, drawing genuine energy from interactions regardless of whether they are introverts or extroverts.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Performative vs Discovery Conversation Models
accDescription: Comparison between a performative conversation mindset and a discovery conversation mindset.
subgraph Performative["Performative Mindset (Exhausting)"]
direction TB
P1["Goal: Impress the other person"] --> P2["Internal overthinking & rehearsing scripts"]
P2 --> P3["Outcome: Dread, fatigue, feeling misunderstood"]
end
subgraph Discovery["Discovery Mindset (Mastery)"]
direction TB
D1["Goal: Discover the other person"] --> D2["Active curiosity & dynamic presence"]
D2 --> D3["Outcome: Mutual energy, assertiveness, clarity"]
end
```
Van Edwards details the three diagnostic symptoms of an "exhausted conversationalist":
1. **Dread**: Looking at upcoming calendar events or social invitations with sinking anxiety and emotional fatigue.
2. **Cognitive overwhelm and social overthinking**: Being trapped inside one's head during an exchange, constantly agonizing over what to say next instead of actively listening.
3. **Leaving misunderstood**: Walking away from a conversation feeling like an inferior, inaccurate version of oneself.
When conversations are handled with mastery, people walk away not just liking the speaker, but feeling as though they understand *themselves* better.
---
[06:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=401s) Decoding Connection: The 500-Person Speed Networking Experiment
To move beyond anecdotal social advice, Van Edwards designed a rigorous empirical study eight years prior to identify the hidden mechanics governing successful dialogue. Her team recruited 500 speed networkers across three distinct experimental setups. The testing rooms were equipped with four corner cameras to track non-verbal behavior alongside audio metrics:
- **High-chemistry indicators**: Frequent expressive gestures, forward physical leaning, high vocal charisma, and dynamic volume shifts.
- **Low-chemistry indicators**: Slumped postures, flat monotones, low volume, and apologetic facial expressions.
Participants were assigned specific conversation starters—ranging from intuitive prompts to standard business icebreakers—and were instructed to score each timed exchange on a 1-to-5 scale (where 1 represented excruciating awkwardness and 5 meant an immediate desire to marry the person or connect professionally on LinkedIn). By analyzing the resulting behavioral and rating data, her team uncovered which questions reliably unlock human warmth and which instantly stall dialogue.
[08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=508s) The Autopilot Trap: Why Typical Conversation Starters Fail
When evaluating conversation starters and common opening questions in behavioral research, the data revealed clear winners and decisive losers. The questions that generated the most awkwardness and the weakest connections were socially scripted defaults. Ranked fifth from the bottom was *"How are you?"*, while dead last was *"What do you do?"*
These standard questions plunge the brain immediately into conversational autopilot. Instead of fostering an authentic interaction, they turn the exchange into a sterile performance where people rapidly run out of things to say. They fall into the trap of Level 1 conversation—a dynamic centered strictly around dry, fact-based inquiries like *"Where are you from?"*, *"Got any kids?"*, or *"Are you married?"* Because facts function as social dead ends, participants remain locked in rigid, scripted routines that prevent genuine rapport from forming.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Autopilot Trap vs. Story Openers
subgraph Trap["The Level 1 Autopilot Trap"]
A["Scripted Opener: 'What do you do?' / 'How are you?'"] --> B["Brain Enters Autopilot & Performance Mode"]
B --> C["Fact-Based Dead Ends (Stop Signs)"]
end
subgraph Shift["The Dopamine-Driven Alternative"]
D["Optimism-Priming Opener: 'Highlight of your day?'"] --> E["Breaks Autopilot & Prompts Active Thinking"]
E --> F["Emotional Narratives & Intrigue (Doorways)"]
end
```
---
[09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=570s) The Winning Openers: Priming the Brain for Optimism
The top-performing question in the study was a surprise front-runner: *"What was the highlight of your day?"* This opener works psychologically because it strikes a careful balance—it remains casual without overstepping boundaries. Extroverts frequently make the mistake of asking overly intense questions too quickly (such as *"What is your greatest goal in life?"*), which can alienate someone they have just met. Asking for a daily highlight serves as an effortless upgrade to *"How are you?"* by actively directing the other person's brain to search for optimism. The moment someone pauses to reflect on what went well, conversational autopilot breaks, engaging their mind in fresh, novel thinking.
Two other top-tier questions produced similarly positive results by inviting people to focus exclusively on good feelings and forward-looking excitement:
- **"Have anything exciting you're working on?"**: Acts as an empowering substitute for *"What do you do?"* If someone loves their job, they can reframe their work with enthusiasm; if they do not identify strongly with their career, they are free to bring up a hobby or personal interest instead.
- **"Do you have any fun plans coming up?"**: Naturally prompts the listener to anticipate enjoyable experiences, stimulating positive energy across other facets of their life.
---
[10:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=651s) The Polarizing Level 3 Trap: "What's Your Story?"
A fourth question in the study nearly broke the research model due to the extreme polarization of its responses: *"What's your story?"* Participants either rated it a 5 out of 5—describing it as the most deeply connective interaction of their week—or gave it an unprompted score of zero.
Extroverts tend to default to *"What's your story?"* in an attempt to bypass superficiality and jump straight into meaningful territory. However, in psychological terms, this is an advanced Level 3 question. When posed to introverts or individuals who do not have an elevator pitch for their identity prepared, it immediately triggers a fight-or-flight response, spiking cortisol levels. Confronted with the pressure of summarizing their entire life on command, the listener experiences conversational fear rather than closeness. This finding proved that human connection relies on navigating a distinct, progressive hierarchy rather than forcing instant depth.
---
[12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) McAdams' Three Levels: Turning Fact Stop Signs into Story Doorways
Drawing on the personality psychology research of Dr. Dan McAdams, human conversation operates across three distinct tiers rather than moving completely fluidly:
| Tier Level | Focus Area | Conversational Function | Example Approaches |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **Level 1** | General Traits & Facts | Initial social triage; gathering low-intimacy baseline context. | Swap *"What do you do?"* for *"What's your personal passion project?"* |
| **Level 2** | Personal Concerns & Values | Exploring motivations, perspectives, and active life goals. | *"Working on anything exciting these days?"* |
| **Level 3** | Narrative Identity & Story | Deep personal history, worldview, and core life themes. | *"What's your story?"* (Best reserved for established rapport). |
The human brain naturally processes interpersonal data along a continuum from least intimate to most intimate. Basic facts cannot be bypassed entirely, because people rarely feel safe discussing their deepest worries or dreams with someone who does not even know the fundamental context of their life. The secret to mastering Level 1 is transforming fact-checks into narrative opportunities: *"A fact is a stop sign. A story is a doorway."*
Asking an opener like *"What's your personal passion project?"* hunts for narratives and values rather than dry biographical data. While asking these questions requires a small amount of "conversational courage"—since sticking to *"How are you?"* feels safer—the reward is richer engagement where people organically share their family, values, and lifestyle through authentic storytelling.
---
[14:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=875s) Competing with the Feed: Dopamine, Confetti, and Information Gaps
Modern interpersonal communication no longer exists in a vacuum; it is in direct competition with the smartphone feed. At a local parent-teacher association (PTA) meeting after moving across the country, the reality became obvious: entering a room hoping to make friends, everyone was staring down at their screens scrolling. To pull someone away from their email or social feeds, conversation must deliver genuine dopamine, motivation, and what can be called "conversational confetti."
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Howard Stern Information Gap Strategy
A["Conversational Superlative<br/>('Craziest', 'Weirdest', 'Most surprising')"] --> B["Creates Psychological Information Gap"]
B --> C["Brain Demands Closure / Puts Phone Down"]
C --> D["High Engagement & Connection"]
```
To understand how master communicators captivate attention, an analysis of thousands of interview transcripts from Howard Stern revealed a consistent technique: creating psychological **information gaps**. Stern regularly leverages superlatives and curiosity hooks:
- *"What's the weirdest thing you've ever done?"*
- *"The most surprising thing happened to me yesterday. You want to hear what it was?"*
The human brain experiences tension when faced with an unresolved curiosity gap; it hates not knowing the punchline. Announcing *"The craziest thing happened to me yesterday"* immediately commands the room and causes people to put down their phones. By framing everyday discussions with these intrigue-building hooks, speakers inject excitement and lift the emotional energy of the entire exchange.
[17:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1036s) The Shared Future Question and the Introvert's Dilemma
Vanessa explains that she agonized over selecting the third question for Level 1 interactions: *"Have any fun plans coming up?"* Psychologically, human beings bond deeply when they feel a sense of potential shared future—the feeling that they could participate in something fun together, or that the other person is pursuing an enjoyable activity they would also love to try. Beyond the immediate exchange, cultivating a reputation for asking thoughtful questions pays long-term dividends. When friends and colleagues realize someone is genuinely hunting for excitement and inquiring about personal passions, they start proactively bringing those topics up. These answers also function as conversational "callbacks," providing effortless jumping-off points for future check-ins like, *"Hey, last time we were talking you mentioned XYZ. How’s that going?"*
Steven pushes back on behalf of introverts and skeptics who might wonder what the point is when they are already starting from low energy and an aversion to socializing: *"I don't like people anyway, and it's so much energy, and I've got to ask these questions and pretend to be interested. This is going to drain me."* Vanessa agrees that both realities can coexist. Trying harder takes energy, but enduring hollow, predictable small talk is just as exhausting. Standing backstage or at a networking mixer chatting about empty pleasantries while secretly wishing to go home and watch Netflix is its own form of misery. Instead of enduring that version of "hard," one can choose the active alternative: breaking the script, triggering a hit of dopamine, and learning something new that might spark genuine joy.
---
[19:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1186s) Why Great Conversation Is a Competitive Advantage for Leaders
Steven asks how asking about upcoming fun plans could possibly serve someone striving to become a better CEO, founder, or parent. Vanessa directly refutes the common corporate assumption that casual conversation is wasteful or anti-productive. Many leaders worry that allowing team members to chat diminishes output, but organizational research reveals the exact opposite: connected employees collaborate far more effectively, and engaged teams work significantly better together.
The underlying culprit behind poor organizational performance is **communication friction**. When friction is pervasive, employees experience self-doubt, psychological safety collapses, brainstorming stalls, and team members begin siloing information or withholding insights altogether.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Impact of Communication Friction vs Level 1 Connection
subgraph Friction["High Communication Friction"]
F1["Awkward scripts & self-doubt"] --> F2["Lack of psychological safety"]
F2 --> F3["Information silos & withholding"]
F3 --> F4["Lost productivity and revenue"]
end
Vanessa stresses that leaders do not need to reach deep, Level 3 emotional intimacy with every colleague, client, or Uber driver. Instead, mastering effortless Level 1 small talk—knowing a peer's side passion or weekend plans—transforms the first five minutes of a meeting into an engaging, frictionless experience where people actually want to show up on time and collaborate.
- **The Cost of Friction:** Communication barriers create silos and hesitation, directly costing companies money and time.
- **The Power of Loose Ties:** Research indicates that maintaining casual, comfortable "loose ties" across an organization dramatically boosts overall productivity and cross-functional problem-solving.
- **The Pitfall of Forced Warmth:** Highly technical or analytical leaders often attempt warmth by reciting robotic scripts like *"How are the kids?"* or *"How are you? Good, busy, but good,"* which only magnifies friction rather than eliminating it.
---
[22:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1338s) The "Tell Me Something Good" Intervention and Avoiding Toxic Positivity
To bridge the gap without wasting time, Vanessa recommends a specific team ritual for virtual and in-person workplaces: dedicating three to five minutes at the beginning of a weekly meeting to ask, *"Tell me something good."* Going around the room quickly for one small win establishes a strictly positive, time-boxed container. This deliberate framing prevents meetings from defaulting to spontaneous griping about traffic, bad weather, or corporate headaches, instantly building team cohesion.
When Steven asks whether the core of Level 1 is simply prompting any positive response, Vanessa clarifies that one must avoid falling into **toxic positivity**, which kills conversational rapport. The ultimate goal of a great question is not forced cheerfulness, but evoking **authentic emotion and story**.
If someone responds to an inquiry about a personal passion project by admitting they do not have one, or reveals they are enduring a rough period with zero spare energy, that is not a conversational dead end—it is an invitation for genuine connection. The speaker can immediately pivot to empathy by asking:
- *"Wow, is there anything I can do to help?"*
- *"Do you want to talk about it?"*
---
[24:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1454s) Jerry Seinfeld’s Numbers Trick and Fast-Paced Meet-and-Greets
When interacting with someone who is intimidated, introverted, or starstruck, Vanessa highlights a technique used by Jerry Seinfeld. After stand-up performances, fans meeting Seinfeld often freeze up under pressure. To instantly dissolve social paralysis, Seinfeld relies on **numbers-based, fact-oriented questions** rather than open-ended emotional inquiries:
- Instead of asking vague questions like *"Where do you live?"* or *"How are you?"*, he asks: *"How long have you two been together?"*
- If the couple answers with a large number like 38 years, the immediate follow-up is: *"Oh, what’s been the highlight of your 38 years?"*
- If they answer that they just started dating, the follow-up naturally shifts to: *"Oh, you’re in the honeymoon phase—that’s the best part!"*
Because a numbers-based question requests an objective fact, it places zero emotional strain on the other person while providing an immediate springboard into a narrative.
Steven connects this to his own experience doing fast-paced "step-and-repeat" meet-and-greets in Las Vegas, where event handlers aggressively usher guests through the line and there are only seconds to exchange words. Vanessa notes that after speaking events, she prefers asking, *"What was your favorite part?"* or *"What did you learn the most?"* That type of inquiry bridges directly from Level 1 small talk into Level 2, encouraging people to process ideas and share what they are actively learning.
[26:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1563s) The "No Work Talk" Party and the Treasure Hunt Mindset
While immersing herself in Dan McAdams’ framework and conducting her conversational research, Vanessa Van Edwards was invited to one of the most unusual gatherings she had ever attended. Upon arrival, guests were instructed to remove their shoes—a subtle psychological trap that meant she was committed and could not simply slip out the door. The hosts then dropped a bombshell house rule: absolutely no one was permitted to talk about what they did for a living. For a room packed with highly accomplished, career-driven individuals who fundamentally defined themselves by their professional output, panic set in. Deprived of the default conversational crutch that dominates almost every adult interaction, Van Edwards felt her brain immediately snap off autopilot.
Forced into creative problem-solving, she decided to treat the constraint as a puzzle: could she figure out who these people were without directly asking about their jobs? That epiphany led her to realize that Level 1 interactions—the basic factual groundwork—should be approached not as a mundane checklist, but as an active treasure hunt. When you enter an interaction hunting for conversational gold, the entire energy and intention behind your inquiries changes. Her breakthrough question of the night became: *"What do you talk about when you don't talk about work?"* It broke the ice and granted everyone immediate emotional permission to discard scripted platitudes in favor of whatever genuinely engaged or excited them in the present moment.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: McAdams Conversational Levels Transition
subgraph L1["Level 1: General Traits & Basic Facts"]
A["Avoid Autopilot Traps"] --> B["Approach as a 'Treasure Hunt'"]
B --> C["Establish Baseline Safety & Rapport"]
end
subgraph L2["Level 2: Personal Concerns"]
D["Uncover Motivations & Values"]
E["'Pet Projects' (Pride & Desires)"]
F["'Pest Projects' (Shame & Anxieties)"]
end
C -->|"Level Up without Skipping Steps"| D
D --> E
D --> F
```
[27:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1655s) Entering Level Two: Personal Concerns, Motivations, and Dream Building
Dan McAdams' second tier of personality and interaction is known as "Personal Concerns." While Level 1 establishes the baseline traits and context, Level 2 is where people begin connecting on a genuinely deep emotional plane, exploring core motivations, goals, values, and secret anxieties. Van Edwards cautions that an eager conversationalist must never bypass Level 1 in a rush to attain intimacy. Leaping straight into raw, heavy topics feels unearned, invasive, and akin to a police interrogation. The sweet spot of Level 2 is achieved once baseline rapport is set, allowing you to discover both what gets someone energized to wake up in the morning and what gnawing worry keeps them tossing and turning at night.
To help listeners audit their social circles, she suggests mentally mapping out the five people they interact with most often to see which level those relationships currently inhabit. In her own life, Van Edwards admits she is naturally drawn to Level 2 and is tempted to blast through Level 1 as quickly as possible to unearth people's secret side hustles and hidden dreams. The central objective at this second level is ensuring the other person feels deeply heard and understood, which is best achieved through an approach she terms "dream building." Everyone harbors an unvoiced ambition or hidden passion project, and serving as a conversational partner who actively draws out and validates that private desire cements a powerful emotional bond.
- **Level 1 vs. Level 2 Pitfall**: Skipping Level 1 triggers defensive alarms; people feel interrogated rather than engaged.
- **The Level 2 Diagnostic**: You have reached Level 2 with someone when you know both the primary engine driving their days and the central worry keeping them awake at night.
- **Dream Building Core Concept**: Identifying someone’s quiet side hustle, daydream, or aspirational pursuit and actively holding space for them to expand on it.
[29:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1765s) Pet Projects vs. Pest Projects
To navigate the internal landscape of Level 2, Van Edwards introduces the conceptual framework of "pet projects" versus "pest projects." A pet project mirrors a beloved animal at home: it is something a person nurtures, daydreams about, and pours affection into with genuine pride. In her own case, she revealed that her current pet project is quietly writing and pitching a television show. Conversely, a pest project is like an infestation of pests scratching around inside an attic: it represents an unresolved, frustrating problem that creates persistent friction and worry. People desperately want assistance or relief from their pest projects, but they rarely bring them up because these problems carry significant embarrassment and shame.
The psychological hurdle of Level 2 lies in cultivating enough conversational psychological safety so that the other person feels secure exposing both their vulnerable dreams and their hidden insecurities. While pet projects brim with pride and optimism, pest projects require a delicate touch to avoid making someone feel judged. A skilled communicator reads the room and provides a judgment-free container where a conversation partner feels equally safe celebrating their secret ambitions or admitting the sticky dilemmas they have struggled to solve alone.
| Dimension | Pet Project | Pest Project |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **Metaphor** | A beloved household pet | Unwanted pests scratching in the attic |
| **Dominant Emotion** | Pride, enthusiasm, hope | Shame, embarrassment, anxiety |
| **Mental Space** | Daydreams, creative ambitions, side hustles | Lingering stressors, difficult roadblocks |
| **Conversational Need** | Encouragement, validation, co-dreaming | Psychological safety, non-judgmental support |
[30:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1834s) Questions that Spark Dopamine and Growth Mindsets
To gracefully nudge an exchange into Level 2 territory, Van Edwards relies on intentional inquiries designed to bypass defensive walls. One of her favorites is, *"What have you always wanted to learn?"* This phrasing intentionally targets a "growth mindset"—the psychological belief that one’s intelligence, skills, and personal narrative are malleable rather than fixed. Asking what someone wants to learn fundamentally tests whether they are open to evolving and invites them to imagine personal growth in real time. Another reliable staple is asking, *"What is your biggest goal right now?"* This inquiry can be smoothly anchored around temporal landmarks such as birthdays, New Year’s celebrations, quarterly business reviews, or performance evaluations.
Discussing forward-looking ambitions triggers measurable neurochemical effects: picturing our future selves and articulating aspirations stimulates dopamine pathways in the brain, creating an energizing surge of natural motivation. Van Edwards observes that contemporary culture has become obsessed with purely *intrapersonal* self-development—such as private journaling, solitary affirmations, morning mantras, and productivity trackers—which inadvertently trains people to hoard their greatest ambitions in isolation. Bringing those private sparks into an *interpersonal* dialogue allows you to transition from a casual acquaintance into an active ally in their personal journey.
- **Growth Mindset Prompt**: *"What have you always wanted to learn?"* signals openness to transformation and shared curiosity.
- **Goal-Oriented Inquiries**: *"What is your biggest goal right now?"* works naturally when tied to temporal landmarks (birthdays, January planning, new quarters).
- **The Intrapersonal Bottleneck**: Modern self-help isolates goals inside personal notebooks; vocalizing them in safe company unlocks shared motivation and external camaraderie.
[32:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1956s) Conversational Bids, Introverted Processing, and Knowing When to Walk Away
When deploying Level 2 questions, communicators inevitably encounter dead ends, pauses, or cold shoulders. Van Edwards points out that introverts frequently require extra processing time; when asked about their major goals or learning pursuits, they may draw a blank simply because they need quiet reflection before verbalizing an answer. In these instances, dead air should not be treated as failure. It offers a natural opening for the speaker to share their own aspirations or give the other person breathing room to gather their thoughts without rushing them.
Steven Bartlett raises the scenario of conversational brick walls, noting that many taxi drivers—who are often natural, prolific conversationalists—routinely encounter passengers in the back seat who meet their opening inquiries with stony silence. When someone clearly signals they do not wish to engage, Van Edwards insists the only correct response is respectful retreat. Drawing on the psychological concept of having the *"courage to be disliked,"* she explains that conversation starters are merely "bids"—testing the waters to see if the other party wishes to banter, operate at Level 1, or venture into Level 2. If a bid is rejected, it simply means that person is carrying their own burdens or is not compatible in that moment. There is no utility in forcing rapport where it is not welcomed. Instead, questions should always be lightly adapted to the specific context—whether a taxi driver asking, *"Are we going anywhere exciting today?"* or an author at a book signing asking, *"Did you learn anything new today?"*
[34:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2075s) Activating McAdams' Research and the Intent to Care
Vanessa emphasizes that conversational frameworks should never feel like rigid prescriptions; rather, they are flexible guidelines designed to translate dense academic behavioral science into everyday social interactions. Reflecting on her career reading 30-page academic papers laden with jargon just to extract a single actionable nugget, she notes how Dan McAdams' personality research initially felt too abstract to implement. To make it functional, she translated it into distinct stages:
* **Level 1 (Treasure Hunt):** Put the other person at ease, discover what they love, and harvest their stories.
* **Level 2 (Personal Concerns):** Give the person permission to share a dream, a secret desire, or an underlying worry.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The McAdams Conversation Levels Flow
subgraph L1["Level 1: General Traits"]
A["Treasure Hunt"] --> B["Put Person at Ease & Harvest Stories"]
end
subgraph L2["Level 2: Personal Concerns"]
C["Give Permission to Share"] --> D["Reveal Dreams, Desires, or Worries"]
end
subgraph L3["Level 3: Narrative Identity"]
E["Deep Life Narrative"] --> F["Core Identity & Meaning"]
end
L1 --> L2
L2 --> L3
```
When Steven Bartlett challenges whether someone needs to authentically care about the other person's answers when asking these deeper questions, Vanessa explains that you often do not know if you care *yet*. Because you have just met them, you cannot predict whether this person will become your next best friend or provide a pivotal "aha moment" that transforms your business. When Steven presses further on whether it is acceptable to pretend to care, Vanessa counters that simply taking the initiative to ask the question demonstrates you "care enough to try." Much like leaders who intentionally project warmth even when they do not naturally feel it, adopting the intent to be a master conversationalist is sufficient to initiate meaningful connection.
---
[36:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2208s) Breaking the Script: Answering "What Do You Do?"
Turning to conversational dead ends, Vanessa singles out what she considers the worst phrase in conversational history: asking someone, *"Been busy?"* However, when receiving standard, uninspired questions like *"What do you do?"*, Vanessa sees an opening to break the social script and surprise the other person. People ask this question to establish who you are and assess your status, creating an opportunity to deliver a compelling hook without burning unnecessary "conversation calories."
Vanessa illustrates this with an interaction she overheard while eavesdropping for her book research at a coffee shop. A man on a date was asked what he did and replied: *"I have a system for maximizing achievement in young learners."* Puzzled, his date pressed him until he clarified that he was simply a fifth-grade teacher. While his intent was to sound impressive rather than saying "I'm just a fifth-grade teacher," his overly complex, resume-style phrasing imposed cognitive strain. To navigate the "social hierarchy of facts," people require the basic *what* before they can appreciate the *how*.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: The What Do You Do Response Framework
A["I do [BLANK]"] --> B["for [WHO]"]
B --> C["by [HOW]"]
```
To structure an effective response that avoids cognitive overload, Vanessa recommends a clear three-part formula:
- **I do [blank]:** Provide a clear, recognizable label so the listener's brain can immediately contextualize your role.
- **For [who]:** Specify the target audience so the listener can identify if it applies to them or someone they know.
- **By [how]:** Add the unique differentiator or hook (e.g., *"I'm a fifth-grade teacher, and for the last 10 years I've developed a unique system that speeds up student reading"*).
---
[40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2440s) Multi-Hyphenates and the Mechanics of Turn-Taking
For modern multi-hyphenates juggling multiple disciplines—such as creators, speakers, or performers—Vanessa suggests leaning directly into the complexity rather than avoiding it. People naturally appreciate duality and transformation stories, making phrases like *"I daylight as a fifth-grade teacher, but I moonlight as a cinematographer"* or sharing a mid-career pivot (*"I've worked in marketing for 20 years, but I'm thinking about going back to school for psychology"*) highly compelling.
Beyond conversational content, Vanessa delves into the structural mechanics of interaction, citing data from the CANDOR Corpus on turn-taking dynamics:
* **Optimal Turn Duration:** The ideal conversational turn lasts between 15 and 30 seconds.
* **The Monologue Threshold:** Once a turn stretches past 45 seconds, the interaction shifts from a balanced dialogue into an uncomfortable monologue.
* **Overtalkers vs. Undertalkers:** Undertalking (speaking under 15 seconds) produces conversational scarcity and fails to give the other person enough to work with, while overtalking monopolizes the space.
Vanessa concludes with a critique of podcast culture, warning that consuming hours of recorded interviews erodes real-world conversational instincts. Podcasts are performative, asymmetrical interviews characterized by unnatural turn lengths and structured notes, which creates false expectations for everyday dinner conversations.
[43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2588s) The Atrophy of Our Conversational Muscle
Vanessa explains that the modern social landscape is directly eroding the core mechanics of human interaction, causing the brain's conversational muscle to atrophy. A primary culprit is the explosion of asynchronous communication, particularly long voice notes. Vanessa admits that she frequently sends nine-minute voice notes to friends, but stresses that a voice note is not a conversation—it is a monologue. In a voice note, there are no organic interjections, disagreements, or turn-taking dynamics like *"Oh, it's my turn,"* *"Me too,"* or *"I don't agree."* Calling it *"the most selfish form of conversation,"* she points out that voice notes allow the speaker to talk without considering the other person's input, while the listener often passively multitasks by cooking, cleaning, or working out. When people habituated to asynchronous exchange re-enter face-to-face dialogue, normal conversations feel exhausting and difficult.
This conversational decline is exacerbated by widespread isolation and our evolving relationship with technology. Vanessa shares that only three in ten Americans socialize on a daily basis, spending far more time alone due to remote work, extensive self-care routines, and fitness regimens, while one in six people worldwide suffers from loneliness. Furthermore, people have transitioned from talking *through* technology to talking *to* technology. Talking to artificial intelligence fosters aggressive, blunt communication styles that people would never use with another human being. She humorously recalls sitting beside her husband while he worked; he commanded his AI tool, *"Do better. That's terrible work. Do better,"* prompting Vanessa to caution him never to use that tone with her. Because the human brain does not cleanly compartmentalize these interaction styles, our capacity for nuanced, respectful dialogue continues to degrade.
The consequences of this conversational decline show up vividly in the workplace:
- A survey of over 1,000 Americans revealed that **95%** of respondents have worked with someone who talks too much.
- These excessively chatty colleagues spend an average of **90 minutes** of their workday just talking.
- **71%** of respondents reported that over-talkative coworkers actively prevented them from getting their own work done.
---
[45:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2743s) Turn-Taking Cues: The "Open Fish" and Eyebrow Raises
To diagnose whether you are an over-talker, Vanessa recommends reviewing recordings of your Zoom meetings to time your speaking turns. In natural dialogue, an appropriate speaking turn lasts between 15 and 45 seconds, with 45 seconds representing the absolute upper limit before friction sets in. She emphasizes watching for subtle non-verbal cues that signal the listener wants a turn to speak, most notably the *"open fish"* cue—where someone slightly parts their lips as if preparing to speak, but politely waits. Steven acknowledges that he regularly uses this cue during interviews, noting that highly perceptive guests pick up on it immediately, whereas others completely miss it. Having conducted over 700 interviews, Steven observes that some guests are on high alert, constantly surveilling his face for approval, while others behave as though he is not even in the room.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Turn-Taking Feedback Loop
subgraph Feedback["Conversational Feedback Dynamics"]
A["Speaker Turn<br/>(Optimal: 15–45 seconds)"] --> B{"Listener Facial Cues"}
B -->|"Open Fish" Mouth Movement| C["Polite Signal:<br/>Wants turn to speak"]
B -->|Eyebrow Raise| D["High Interest:<br/>Double click / Go deeper"]
B -->|Blank Stare / Looking Away| E["Boredom / Disengagement:<br/>Wrap up turn immediately"]
end
C --> F["Yield the Floor"]
D --> G["Provide Story or Example"]
```
Vanessa views conversational mastery not as wielding a megaphone to shout at someone, but as an ongoing feedback loop of micro-adjustments. She watches closely for eyebrow raises, citing astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who explained that every book he writes is essentially a compilation of the eyebrow-raising ideas he tested on strangers during airplane flights. Whenever someone's eyebrows lift in intrigue, Vanessa uses that cue to *"double click"* on the topic, unpacking another layer, example, or story. Conversely, if a conversational partner shows no facial feedback—no eyebrow movement, no vocal reactions like *"ooh"* or *"wow"*, or if they display the open fish mouth—it is a direct indicator to stop talking, wrap up the point, or politely yield the floor.
---
[48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2902s) Sponsors: Shopify and Fiverr Pro
Steven transitions into the show's sponsors, opening with Shopify for aspiring entrepreneurs looking to bring business ideas to life. He notes that starting a company used to feel like a massive risk, but Shopify eliminates the initial friction through tools like a drag-and-drop website editor, an integrated AI sidekick, detailed analytics, and an optimized checkout system that remembers customer information. Because complicated or costly setup hurdles often kill early entrepreneurial momentum, Shopify's conversion-focused infrastructure allows founders to start selling immediately at `shopify.com/bartlett`.
He then highlights Fiverr Pro as a strategic resource for modern businesses aiming to scale quickly without taking on the heavy overhead of large internal teams. Steven shares that his own company frequently relies on Fiverr Pro to bring in high-level specialized talent across emerging fields, including AI-native strategy, no-code builds, and product workflows. By offering pre-vetted, elite freelancers who keep pace with fast execution speeds and high quality standards, the platform enables businesses to stay agile, accessible at `pro.fiverr.com`.
---
[50:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3027s) Entertainers vs. Appreciators: The Green Room VIP
Returning to the discussion of over-talking, Steven shares his own frustration with chronic over-talkers who converse as if nobody else exists in the room. He describes interacting with someone recently who spoke as though their eyes were completely shut, showing zero awareness of the listener and only stopping once they had physically exhausted everything they wanted to say.
Vanessa introduces a core psychological distinction: the divide between *"entertainers"* and *"appreciators."* She frequently receives questions from people asking how to successfully talk to high-status individuals, executives, or VIPs, and explains that many of these figures naturally fall into the entertainer archetype. Vanessa traces this realization back to a speaking event where a massively famous guest entered the green room before going on stage. As other attendees queued up and made clumsy attempts to converse with him, Vanessa closely observed the underlying social dynamics that separate engaging communication from conversational failure.
[51:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3094s) Entertainers vs. Appreciators: Decoding Conversational Archetypes
Vanessa illustrates the dynamics of interacting with high-status figures or bosses by recounting an observation backstage. Most people approaching a VIP rely on one of two default strategies: paying a compliment ("Oh, I love your stuff so much... you changed my life") or asking an advice question ("What's the best thing you've ever done? Do you have any advice for me?"). Both approaches routinely fail because high-profile individuals hear them endlessly; they result in a brief, disengaged reaction like a polite nod and a quick selfie. The dynamic shifted completely when an AV technician approached the VIP while attaching his microphone and simply asked, "Can I tell you the funniest story?" He proceeded to share hilarious anecdotes about watching the VIP's movies and playing sports with his siblings. The VIP was immediately engaged, laughing heartily, and began asking the technician questions.
This revelation highlighted two distinct conversational profiles: **Entertainers** and **Appreciators**. Entertainers thrive on sharing stories, telling jokes, and offering advice; their conversational love language is receiving adoration and engagement from their listeners, though they run the risk of talking too much. Appreciators—a category Vanessa places both herself and Steven into—talk extensively for work and prefer to listen, laugh, and absorb intriguing or surprising stories when off the clock. When speaking to bosses or VIPs, recognizing whether they are an Entertainer (who prefers being asked questions so they can perform) or an Appreciator (who wants to sit back and be entertained by engaging stories) is critical.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Entertainers vs Appreciators Dynamic
accDescr: Comparison between conversational entertainers and conversational appreciators.
subgraph ENT["Entertainers"]
E1["Energized by sharing stories & advice"] --> E2["Love adoration & laughter"]
E2 --> E3["Thrive when asked engaging questions"]
end
subgraph APP["Appreciators"]
A1["Energized by listening & laughing"] --> A2["Prefer hearing wild/funny stories"]
A2 --> A3["Thrive when others take the conversational lead"]
end
```
[54:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3267s) The Psychology of the Conversational Narcissist
Steven notes that while entertainers can be fun, some people hijack interactions solely to talk about themselves in an effort to prove their worth. Vanessa identifies this behavior as "conversational narcissism." These individuals frequently race through all three conversational levels on their own—answering their own surface questions, unprompted goals, and deep vulnerabilities—resulting in an exhausting stream of verbal vomit. When dealing with someone you care about who exhibits this habit, Vanessa advises setting firm conversational boundaries by directly intervening with phrases like, "Is it my turn yet?" or "Do you want to hear about my goal?"
```
"My bet is they're trying to find something to raise your eyebrows, but they don't realize that the more they talk, the more you're like, 'Can I go home?'"
```
The underlying root of conversational narcissism is almost always deep insecurity rather than malice. Many chronic over-talkers are acutely aware of their habit and actively dislike themselves for it, yet they feel powerless to stop. When Vanessa’s team surveyed roughly 4,000 people about their greatest conversational fear, the top answer was not rejection or judgment, but awkward silences and running out of things to say. Terrified of a pause in the dialogue, insecure talkers keep speaking incessantly to avoid the dreaded void.
- **Survey Finding**: Across 4,000 respondents, fear of running out of things to say and awkward silences ranked higher than fear of direct rejection.
- **Root Cause**: Over-talking is driven by performance anxiety and an attempt to prevent conversational dead air.
[57:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3420s) Assertive Curiosity and Breaking Relational Ruts
To rehabilitate conversational narcissism, Vanessa prescribes "assertive curiosity." Rather than offering passive follow-ups like "tell me more," the speaker must deliberately interrogate the other person's world using structured queries—probing the *what*, *how*, *why*, and *when* behind their goals and experiences. If someone continues to dominate the dialogue despite knowing they over-talk, Vanessa challenges the listener to ask directly: "Are you curious about me, or do you not feel the curiosity?"
```
"If you're in a conversational rut... this is going to break the rut because the whole point of this is turn taking."
```
This dynamic frequently infects long-term relationships, marriages that have devolved into pure logistics, and friendships with habitual over-talkers. Vanessa recommends using a structured framework—such as going through nine dedicated conversational questions together—to break the autopilot script. By establishing intentional turn-taking, partners and friends can reignite mutual curiosity and disrupt entrenched conversational ruts.
[59:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3552s) Conversational Generosity: Being Interested over Interesting
Reflecting on classical communication philosophy, Steven recalls the foundational principle popularized by Dale Carnegie: the key to charismatic interaction is being *interested* rather than trying to be *interesting*. Vanessa credits Carnegie with reframing conversations away from self-centered performance anxiety. Entering a room wondering, "How can I be impressive, smart, and funny so they like me?" creates intense internal pressure and inherently prioritizes the self.
```
"When I started thinking, 'How can I go into conversation putting this person at ease? How can I make them feel like they can impress me?'... That is a very selfless conversational generosity."
```
By shifting focus toward putting the other person at ease and giving them the platform to shine, an individual practices true "conversational generosity." Vanessa emphasizes that this selfless focus not only relieves conversational anxiety but also creates a natural rebound effect, leaving the listener perceived as genuinely charismatic and engaging.
[01:00:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3607s) Taming the Conversational Narcissist Through Generosity
When dealing with a conversational narcissist or chronic overtalker, there are three primary responses: explicitly asking for a turn ("Hey, can I have a turn?"), sitting back and letting them treat you as an audience ("cuz they're entertainers"), or leaning in and asking even deeper questions. Research shows that the most popular and well-liked individuals are those who have the longest lists of people they genuinely like. Achieving likability requires an aggressive, assertive posture toward finding things to appreciate in others, approaching interactions with the mindset of "How could I like you more?" rather than obsessing over self-presentation.
Vanessa posits that an overtalker's endless stream of words often stems from deep-seated insecurity—specifically a feeling of not being liked, understood, or chosen. When someone sits across from an intimidating figure like Steven Bartlett, their impulse may be to fill the void. Paradoxically, the quieter and more polite the listener becomes, the less chosen and understood the speaker feels, causing them to accelerate their talking out of sheer anxiety. By asking level-two or level-three questions, the listener can provide the validation the speaker desperately craves, helping them feel grounded enough to finally quiet down.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Overtalker Insecurity Loop
subgraph OvertalkerLoop["The Overtalker Feedback Loop"]
A["Overtalker feels insecure / unchosen"] --> B["Compulsively overtalks to impress"]
B --> C["Listener retreats into quiet politeness"]
C --> D["Overtalker senses distance and lack of warmth"]
D --> B
end
subgraph Intervention["The Generous Intervention"]
C -.->|"Break cycle with"| E["Ask deeper Level 2/3 questions"]
E --> F["Validates need to feel liked and understood"]
F --> G["Speaker calms down and opens space"]
end
```
Steven observes that people who exhibit conversational narcissism often ramp up their behavior around specific targets—such as an attractive woman or an intimidating figure—triggering a total verbal deluge. Vanessa explains that conversational overtalkers resemble bad drivers who become increasingly erratic when they sense their passengers judging them:
- **The Core Insecurities**: Vanessa highlights three primal conversational desires: "I'm understood," "I'm chosen," and "I'm loved."
- **The "Bad Driver" Dynamic**: When someone knows they are rambling and senses that everyone at the table thinks they are doing a terrible job, their tension spikes, causing them to drive even worse.
---
[01:03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3783s) Dream Killing vs. Dream Building: The Trap of Intellectual Fact-Checking
A major pitfall among highly intelligent leaders is "dream killing"—the immediate impulse to dismantle someone's enthusiasm with cold logic. Vanessa contrasts "gut-checking" with "fact-checking" or "accuracy killing." When a smart person constantly fact-checks an idea before it has had room to breathe, it triggers conversational scarcity. The other person feels attacked and doubles down, talking even more aggressively to defend and prove their point.
Steven shares an example from his previous company: a candidate with extraordinary credentials and intelligence was interviewed, yet the internal team gave neutral to negative feedback. Steven recognized that the applicant was so rigidly devoted to the pursuit of objective truth that they disregarded social pleasantries and emotional rapport. Vanessa affirms that competence without warmth creates suspicion. If someone demonstrates high intellect without interpersonal warmth, the human brain registers them as a potential threat. Navigating level-one conversation is not a waste of time; it is the essential warmup phase that builds baseline trust and psychological safety.
---
[01:05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3920s) Reverse-Engineering Signature Questions and Behavioral Interviewing
After testing over a hundred different questions across professional environments, domestic settings, and interactions with children, Vanessa introduces the concept of a "signature question." Rather than relying on generic scripts, individuals should reverse-engineer conversation starters from their authentic passions. When Steven mentions that he loves human psychology and why people behave the way they do, Vanessa notes that his ideal signature prompts should center on motivations—asking people *why* they chose a specific path or *how* they arrived at a major decision.
This psychological lens applies directly to behavioral interviewing. Standard prompts like "What's your greatest weakness?" or "Tell me about a time you managed a project" result in polished, rehearsed PR answers. Vanessa recommends introducing specific constraints to bypass scripted responses:
- **The Third-Party Perspective**: Ask "What would your last manager say is your greatest weakness?" or "When I call your previous manager, what are they going to tell me is your greatest weakness?" This forces the candidate outside their own ego and references a verifiable source.
- **Recency Constraints**: Instead of asking for any past project, demand an example from the last two or three months. Restricting the timeline prevents candidates from dusting off an old, over-rehearsed anecdote and instead reveals their current, real-world habits.
[01:08:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4092s) Signature Questions: Designing Your Bespoke Level Two Inquiry
Vanessa explains that high-performing communicators and interviewers often have a "signature question" grounded in what they personally love discussing. For example, at the end of her podcast, Amy Poehler consistently asks guests, "What are you laughing about? What's making you laugh recently?" Another example from Vanessa's book is Ginny Yurich, creator of the *1000 Hours Outside* challenge—which encourages families to spend a thousand hours outdoors each year playing screen-free. On her show, Yurich always asks guests about their favorite childhood outdoor memory because she thrives on discussing the outdoors and childhood nostalgia.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Crafting a Signature Question
subgraph SQ["Signature Question Mechanics"]
A["Identify Personal Passion / Research Domain"] --> B["Craft Bespoke Level 2 Question"]
B --> C["Deploy in Conversation"]
C --> D["Elicit Shared Joy & Genuine Curiosity"]
end
```
Steven initially wonders whether this means asking a conversation partner, "What do you love to talk about?" so you can steer future chats toward their interests, like sports or psychology. Vanessa clarifies that the sixth question is actually bespoke to *you*, the speaker: you engineer a question reflecting what you love so you can naturally steer dialogue toward subjects you find fascinating. Vanessa shares how her signature question shifts depending on her current research:
- While researching *Captivate*, she asked, "What's your favorite body language cue?" or whether people ever think about non-verbal signals.
- While working on *Cues*, her go-to was, "Who's the most charismatic person you know?"
- For her book *Conversation*, she asks, "What's your favorite conversation starter?"
Because Steven loves human behavior and psychology, Vanessa suggests his bespoke signature question should tap into behavioral drivers before they advance into Level Three territory.
---
[01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4200s) The "Do You Talk Too Much?" Diagnostic and the Yap Challenge
Before advancing to Level Three questions, Steven pauses to review Vanessa's five-question self-assessment from her book, designed to determine whether someone is an "overtalker." Vanessa emphasizes that all five items secretly measure a single underlying metric: "Are you curious enough?" Curiosity acts as the essential antidote to monopolizing a conversation, and one cannot successfully enter Level Two interactions without it.
| # | Diagnostic Assessment Question | Steven's Response |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| 1 | "I leave a conversation realizing I don't know much about the other person." | Rarely |
| 2 | "After I finish speaking, people nod politely, but don't always respond." | Sometimes |
| 3 | "I love telling long detailed stories, especially when people are too polite to interrupt." | Rarely (only on stage when paid to do so) |
| 4 | "I've been told gently or not so gently that I talk a lot." | Rarely (never) |
| 5 | "While I'm mid-story, I notice people glance around the room." | Sometimes |
Scoring "often" on three or more indicates a serious overtalking habit that creates conversational friction, particularly in workplace settings. To recalibrate answering length, Vanessa introduces the "Yap Challenge." A person opens their phone camera and speaks on an opinion or topic without notes:
- **15 to 30 seconds**: Ideal conversational answer length.
- **45 seconds**: The absolute conversational maximum before friction builds.
- **1 to 2 minutes+**: An indicator of chronic overtalking and conversational pacing issues.
While introverts sometimes risk cutting responses too short, Steven admits that because his mind organizes ideas into narrative arcs first, answering concisely in under 15 seconds can feel challenging.
---
[01:12:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4351s) The First Date Dilemma: Phone Numbers vs. Instagram Handles
Vanessa and Steven debate a practical dating scenario to test conversational instincts: if you approach someone on the street, should you ask for their Instagram handle or their phone number? Steven defends asking for an Instagram handle, arguing that a phone number grants intrusive access to private and professional spaces, whereas an Instagram profile provides a lower-stakes public surface where a suitor can "earn" the phone number.
Vanessa strongly disagrees, arguing that trading social media handles ruins first dates and strips away the organic pleasure of interpersonal discovery:
- **Social feeds are curated and performative**: Knowing ahead of time that someone hikes, has multiple siblings, or owns a dog named Stewie replaces genuine human-to-human curiosity with hollow pre-screening.
- **Premature Level Two dynamics**: By uncovering biographical Level One facts via social feeds before ever sitting down for a date, daters feel pressured to skip straight into Level Two depth without the foundational conversational runway, making interactions feel stiff, forced, and awkward.
- **Text and phone banter tests character**: Trading a number or messaging directly on WhatsApp or iMessage forces both parties to find out whether the other person has wit, asks thoughtful questions, or acts like a conversational narcissist.
Vanessa concludes that having less performative context up front yields far richer, more spontaneous conversations than scouring a curated feed before meeting in person.
[01:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4553s) The Social Pitfalls of Skipping Casual Banter
Vanessa Van Edwards emphasizes how exchanging social media handles instead of phone numbers undermines the natural development of human connection. When you look at someone's Instagram feed, you are viewing a curated, performative highlight reel rather than the reality of their daily life. While it creates the illusion of intimacy—making followers feel as though they truly know the person—it actually robs both individuals of essential "Level 1" casual banter. Skipping this preliminary phase damages potential relationships by introducing premature awkwardness and friction. Therefore, Vanessa challenges single people to stop trading social handles and start asking for phone numbers instead.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Pitfall of Social Media vs Casual Banter
subgraph S1["Social Media Shortcut"]
A["Curated Instagram Feed"] --> B["Illusion of Deep Intimacy"]
B --> C["Skipped Level 1 Banter"]
C --> D["Social Friction & Awkwardness"]
end
subgraph S2["Healthy Conversational Progression"]
E["Exchange Phone Numbers"] --> F["Level 1 Casual Banter"]
F --> G["Gradual Authentic Trust"]
G --> H["Level 3 Deep Narrative"]
end
```
Steven Bartlett pushes back, noting that modern romance largely occurs through dating apps, which are inherently performative. Vanessa defends dating apps over endless social media feeds, explaining that dating profiles contain finite information (such as six to ten photos and set prompts) rather than years of personal history. While acknowledging that people frequently complain about dating apps, she argues they have become indispensable in an era where everyone walks around in public with AirPods on, discouraging spontaneous real-world encounters. However, she maintains that individuals should still gate their personal platforms, advising people to respond to handle requests with: *"It's just for my friends and family. Let's try to get there."*
[01:18:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4683s) Vulnerability Regret and Gating Level 3
Transitioning into deeper conversational dynamics, Vanessa warns against the dangers of going too deep too quickly. While modern culture celebrates vulnerability and authenticity, crossing into deeply intimate territory prematurely—especially in professional settings—creates severe discomfort. Over-disclosing often triggers "vulnerability regret," the painful, soul-crushing realization that you exposed raw emotions in an unsupportive or inappropriate environment.
Steven validates this dynamic with a recent interview experience:
- An applicant spent the first 25 minutes of a standard job interview recounting intense early childhood trauma.
- Steven felt forced to abruptly adjust his role from a professional interviewer to an impromptu counselor.
Vanessa explains that because of these boundary violations, "Level 3" communication must be strictly gated and reserved exclusively for trusted, significant relationships.
[01:19:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4777s) Self-Narratives: Redemption vs. Contamination
Vanessa defines Level 3 as the **self-narrative**—the internal framework individuals use to make sense of their purpose and life journey. These internal stories are inherently self-creating: how a person views their history directly dictates how they experience future events.
| Narrative Type | Core Belief System | Typical Conversation Leaks / Clues | Life Outcomes |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **Redemption Narrative** | Hardships are challenges that can be overcome through grit, resilience, and personal agency. | "There's always a silver lining"; "Just my luck, I got it"; focuses on opportunities and growth. | Better health, stronger immune function, greater longevity, higher relationship satisfaction. |
| **Contamination Narrative** | Hardship ruins everything; the individual is a passive victim of bad luck and circumstance. | Absolutes and superlatives: "always", "never", "Everything bad always happens to me." | Chronic feelings of powerlessness, higher stress, recurring interpersonal friction. |
Because self-narratives are malleable rather than fixed personality traits, safe Level 3 conversations provide an opportunity to help people reframe and rewrite contamination stories into redemption stories.
[01:21:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4902s) Narrative Hints and Internal Locus of Control
Human brains are naturally wired for storytelling, meaning individuals continuously reveal their core narratives through conversational "hints." People with contamination narratives frequently use absolute, black-and-white phrasing (such as *"everyone always zigs and I zag"* or *"yet another thing"*), viewing setbacks as permanent and insurmountable. Conversely, individuals with redemption narratives exhibit an **internal locus of control**—a psychological disposition rooted in personal agency. Rather than believing they are victims of circumstance, they believe that while hardships occur, they retain complete power over how they interpret and react to those events.
[01:23:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5026s) The Roller Coaster vs. The Bird: Agency and Belief in Fate
Continuing the discussion on how people derive their sense of worth, Vanessa Van Edwards highlights the vulnerability of relying entirely on external sources. People trapped in an external mindset constantly look outward for reassurance: feeling validated only when someone compliments their appearance, measuring their self-esteem through vanity metrics such as follower counts and likes, or worrying about whether they receive invitations to social gatherings. Steven Bartlett offers an illustrative analogy, suggesting that people fundamentally see themselves either as a roller coaster or as a bird. A roller coaster runs along a rigid, predetermined track where the passenger has zero control over the twists, loops, drops, or turns, merely holding on for the ride. In contrast, a bird possesses complete agency, navigating the sky free of tracks and rails.
Vanessa connects this analogy directly to Level 3 conversational depth and the psychology of fate. In ordinary conversation, inquiring whether someone believes in fate or luck serves as a diagnostic tool. Those with an unwavering belief in predetermined fate often view life as a roller coaster, convinced that circumstances are fixed regardless of their actions. She questions whether harboring such an external locus of control ultimately harms mental health, as relinquishing personal agency can leave individuals feeling helpless in the face of life's downturns.
[01:25:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5109s) Vulnerability and Meaningful Questions
Reflecting on having conducted nearly 700 interviews with world-class figures, Steven observes that genuine vulnerability serves as the true doorway to connection. After spending two to three hours in deep dialogue with a guest, a profound bond inevitably forms. He details the tradition where departing guests write a prompt into *The Diary Of A CEO*, a collection now curated into the DOAC Conversation Cards. Steven explains how using these cards with his fiancée, team members, and family creates analog spaces for human-to-human engagement in an increasingly digital world, demonstrating the transformative impact of asking the right question at the right moment.
[01:26:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5178s) The "Are You Lucky?" Diagnostic: Decoding the Three Responses
Returning to conversational "contaminators" and Level 3 psychological probes, Vanessa introduces what she calls a "sneaker" question: asking someone casually, "Are you lucky?" While seemingly innocent, their answer reveals critical narrative hints about their inner operating system. According to Vanessa, responses consistently fall into three distinct categories:
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Three Responses to "Are You Lucky?"
Q["Question: 'Are you lucky?'"] --> R1["1. Immediate 'Yes'"]
Q --> R2["2. Firm 'No'"]
Q --> R3["3. Hesitant 'Kind of / Not sure'"]
subgraph SG1 ["High Agency & Optimism"]
R1 --> D1["High gratitude & agency"]
D1 --> D2["High confidence & fast response"]
end
subgraph SG2 ["Curiosity Required"]
R2 --> D3["Avoid toxic positivity"]
D3 --> D4["Inquire into past flips/circumstances"]
end
subgraph SG3 ["Pacing or Introspection Gap"]
R3 --> D5["Low introspection / never considered it"]
R3 --> D6["Feels unsafe / moved to Level 3 too fast"]
end
```
The first category consists of an immediate, enthusiastic "Yes." Both Steven and Vanessa place themselves here, acknowledging deep gratitude and privilege for their unique careers. A rapid positive response indicates strong gratitude, internal agency, confidence, and often optimistic realism. Because the whole objective of Level 3 interaction is predicting future behavior, knowing someone views themselves as lucky provides a reliable roadmap for how they will show up in relationships, friendships, and professional settings.
The second response is a clear negative: "What? No, I don't think I'm lucky." Vanessa strongly warns against responding with toxic positivity by attempting to convince them otherwise or listing things they should be grateful for. Preaching gratitude typically causes people to become defensive and feel misunderstood. Instead, the correct conversational move is engaging pure curiosity without judgment: asking when that shift occurred, exploring past circumstances, and finding out if they ever felt lucky before.
The third category is hesitation—individuals who pause, stammer, and say, "Um, well... kind of." Vanessa notes that this reaction signals one of two underlying realities:
- **A lack of introspection:** The person has genuinely never reflected on their life through this lens, and they are actively trying to process their entire personal history on the spot.
- **A lack of psychological safety:** The conversation transitioned into Level 3 too quickly. The person feels unready to open up, or harbors unresolved shame or painful, unlucky experiences from their past that they do not yet feel safe sharing.
[01:30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5402s) Dr. Richard Wiseman's Luck Research and Designing "Luck Labs"
Steven asks whether scientific literature validates the question of personal luck. Vanessa notes that behavioral researcher Dr. Richard Wiseman developed an official 10-question diagnostic luck test to evaluate perceived fortune, an assessment she and her team have replicated in their own behavioral research lab. Steven points out that Dr. Wiseman’s research revealed that individuals who believe they are lucky actually construct their own good fortune through distinct, measurable behaviors:
- **Lower anxiety levels**, allowing them to notice unexpected opportunities.
- **Higher extraversion**, prompting them to initiate conversations and build expansive relationship networks.
- **High openness to experience**, paired with relentless optimism.
Vanessa explains why she is exploring the creation of a "luck workshop" or "luck labs" focused entirely on helping people cultivate their own sense of good fortune. While she expresses skepticism toward traditional gratitude exercises—viewing them as occasionally guilt-inducing or shaming—she considers harvesting an authentic feeling of personal luck to be immensely empowering, healing, and one of the highest-yield investments an individual can make in their own long-term happiness.
[01:31:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5516s) Fact vs. Frame: Contamination vs. Redemption Narratives
Steven turns to the audience with an open challenge, asking listeners to leave an honest answer in the comments about whether they truly feel lucky in life. He anticipates immediate pushback, acknowledging that people who feel unlucky will likely express anger and explain in detail why terrible life events make the idea of luck offensive. The two joke about who will take the heat in the comment section—Vanessa jokingly telling the audience to get mad at Steven, while Steven laughs that he has no protective shell. Steven clarifies that his curiosity comes from a place of gratitude for his own privileged perspective; he genuinely wants to understand how others experience the world, especially knowing that some people endure horrific circumstances yet still emerge feeling fortunate.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Fact versus Frame in Narrative Psychology
subgraph Event["Objective Fact (e.g., Painful Breakup)"]
A["Adverse Life Event"]
end
subgraph Framing["Cognitive Framing / Self-Authorship"]
A --> B["Contamination Narrative"]
A --> C["Redemption Narrative"]
B --> D["'It destroyed me; I will never trust again.'\n(Permanent loss, victim identity)"]
C --> E["'It was horrific, but it made me stronger.'\n(Anti-fragility, growth, future discernment)"]
end
```
Vanessa explains that this divide comes down to "fact versus frame." While the objective facts of an event cannot be altered, the cognitive frame placed around those facts determines personal agency. True self-authorship begins when an individual takes up the metaphorical pen and questions their own assumptions: "Why do I have that idea? What is the evidence for that idea?" To illustrate, she points to how people talk about romantic breakups:
- **Contamination Narratives:** Individuals describe the event as an irreversible catastrophe ("The breakup nearly destroyed me," "I don't trust men anymore," "I feel like a shell of myself"). Even long after the immediate heartbreak has passed, they remain psychologically anchored to the belief that the experience permanently diminished them.
- **Redemption Narratives:** Even after a devastating breakup, individuals adopt an anti-fragile frame ("It was horrible. It was one of the worst times of my life, but I will never do that again... It made me feel stronger"). They extract valuable discernment about who to choose in the future, using pain as raw material for resilience.
[01:34:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5648s) The First-Date Luck Test
Steven poses a hypothetical dating scenario: if someone on a first date was asked whether they considered themselves lucky and flatly replied, "Absolutely not," would Vanessa grant them a second date? Steven admits he probably wouldn't, prompting Vanessa to tease that the comment section will roast him for being "so cooked" and "so single." Vanessa counters by asking what Steven would do in practice. Steven clarifies that while he wouldn't abruptly walk out of the date, hearing that response would trigger intense curiosity about *why* they held that view.
However, if their subsequent answers revealed deep, entrenched pessimism, Steven concedes it would be an immediate dealbreaker. Sustained negative framing drains too much energy, making long-term compatibility nearly impossible for someone with an optimistic temperament. Vanessa agrees, noting that conversational hints about luck and contamination narratives provide an immediate diagnostic window into a person's underlying psychological architecture.
[01:35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5711s) The Five Story Archetypes and the Ambitious Hero
Vanessa connects these narrative styles to a broader framework she developed after analyzing hundreds of personal life stories. Unlike fixed personality profiles such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or the Enneagram, these are fluid "story archetypes"—psychological lenses through which people view their current narrative arc. An individual's active archetype deeply shapes their conversational turn-taking, their relational attraction, their romantic and platonic bonding patterns, and how they define efficiency and effectiveness in their professional lives. She notes that these archetypes can be uncovered by asking questions such as:
- "If you had to write a memoir, what would the title of your memoir be?"
- "What book, movie, or TV character are you most like in terms of life choices, core values, and personality?"
Vanessa introduces the first archetype, **The Ambitious Hero**, which she believes both she and Steven embody. Driven by an internal monologue that constantly repeats "I got this, I can do this... hustle, more, bigger," ambitious heroes use grit and resilience to triumph over immense obstacles. Yet their relentless pursuit creates distinct psychological vulnerabilities:
- **The Chronic Void:** They struggle with perpetual dissatisfaction, never feeling that any achievement is enough.
- **Burnout and Over-Regulation:** Work serves as an emotional regulator ("When I'm working, I'm like, I'm being so productive. We are helping people. Help more people"), which inevitably pushes them toward physical and mental exhaustion.
- **"Shiny Object Syndrome":** They frequently overwhelm teams by continually throwing new initiatives into the ring before previous projects are finished. Steven relates, citing Jeff Bezos's observation that founders naturally possess enough ideas to sink their own company and must consciously meter their release at a cadence the organization can handle.
- **Relational Strain:** They frequently face accusations of promoting toxic "hustle culture," unintentionally burning out colleagues and partners by forcing them to match their intense pace.
To demonstrate how the archetypal questions operate, Vanessa highlights Steven's previous answer when asked which character he identifies with: Chris Gardner from *The Pursuit of Happyness*. Steven explains that when he was 18 or 19 years old, shoplifting groceries just to eat, swerving landlords while five months behind on rent, and playing constant survival games to keep the lights on, he watched the film while lying in bed. The scene where Gardner is forced to sleep on the floor of a locked public subway restroom with his young son mirrored the emotional reality of his early struggle, permanently anchoring his self-identity as an ambitious hero who triumphs through grit.
[01:39:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5977s) Uncovering Self-Narratives and the Claire Dunphy Archetype
Vanessa emphasizes that when engaging someone in Level Three conversations, the crucial rule is never to assume what a character means to them. When asking someone which fictional or historical figure they relate to, the golden follow-up question is always: "Why? What traits?" The specific characteristics they name immediately unlock how they perceive their own identity, regardless of whether outside observers agree with their self-assessment. Vanessa points out that this is often the most inconvenient and challenging aspect of Level Three depth: you may ask someone who they resonate with, hear them respond with "Mother Teresa," and inwardly balk, thinking, *"What?"* Yet their explanation reveals the exact lens through which they interpret their life.
When Steven asks Vanessa to reveal her own character archetype and reasoning, she shares that she relates most closely to Claire Dunphy from *Modern Family*, especially during Claire's entrepreneurial era. While outsiders view Vanessa primarily as an entrepreneur and researcher, she clarifies that she identifies first and foremost as a mother, spending the bulk of her daily life with her children. Describing herself as "a little awkward" and "very neurotic," she perpetually wrestles with the internal tug-of-war of the ambitious working mother. Because of her Ambitious Hero archetype, she constantly demands perfection of herself in both motherhood and business—a balancing act that is functionally impossible to achieve.
For individuals struggling to identify their own narrative character, Vanessa suggests using AI as an objective brainstorm and role-playing partner. By prompting an AI model with one's core roles, personality quirks, and values, users can generate character matches that mirror their internal self-narrative:
```text
Prompt Template:
"What book, movie, or TV character is most like me in the way that I treat you?
I am [e.g., mom, entrepreneur, neurotic].
My personality is [insert traits].
My core values are [insert values].
What character is most similar to me?"
```
---
[01:42:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6124s) Archetype 2: The Contented Pragmatist
Vanessa introduces the second narrative archetype: the Contented Pragmatist. While narrative archetyping is "a little more art than science," this persona captures individuals who are thoroughly satisfied with the status quo. Unlike the Ambitious Hero, they are grounded, comfortable, and operate by the philosophy: "If it's not broken, don't fix it." They prioritize habits, rituals, and traditions over relentless personal development. Relationally, they experience deep friction when pushed to grind harder or set bigger goals, responding with genuine bewilderment: "I'm good. Life is good. Why would we change things?"
Vanessa highlights this tension using her own relationships. As an Ambitious Hero who comes up with a new goal every month, she frequently baffles the Contented Pragmatists in her circle. When one makes delicious granola or smoothies, Vanessa instinctively urges them: "You should bottle it up and sell it at farmers markets!" only for them to reply, "But why?" Steven notes how frequently this dynamic plays out in romantic partnerships and startups, where a visionary founder's ambition is constrained by a pragmatic partner advising them to "be realistic." Vanessa points out that pragmatists are not inherently negative; rather, their hyper-practical perspective can stem from fear or simply a desire for stability.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Organizational Fit for Conversation Archetypes
subgraph AH["Ambitious Hero Archetype"]
A["Drivers: High Growth & Rapid Change"]
B["Ideal Roles: Rainmakers, Visionaries, Founders"]
C["Risk: Crushed by slow bureaucracy"]
A --> B
B --> C
end
subgraph CP["Contented Pragmatist Archetype"]
D["Drivers: Stability, Ritual & Tradition"]
E["Ideal Roles: Finance, Compliance, Bookkeeping"]
F["Risk: Frustrated by rapid, unneeded change"]
D --> E
E --> F
end
```
Vanessa and Steven outline key organizational and conversational applications for both types:
- **Organizational Alignment**: Ambitious Heroes thrive in growth-oriented, rainmaking, and fast-moving leadership positions. Placing them in heavy fiduciary, banking, or tightly regulated roles can suffocate them. Conversely, Contented Pragmatists excel in corporate governance, compliance, and accounting, where steady hands, risk aversion, and institutional adherence are essential.
- **Conversational Triggers for Ambitious Heroes**: They experience massive dopamine surges when discussing milestones, metrics, and progress. Vanessa jokes that when asked "How are you?", she actively restrains herself from blurting out stats like having "305% growth on Instagram."
- **Conversational Triggers for Contented Pragmatists**: They thrive on discussions centered around rituals, savoring life's pleasures, and expressing gratitude. They are the individuals who want to spend three uninterrupted hours enjoying Thanksgiving dinner, honoring traditions rather than debating next year's targets.
- **Relational Complementarity**: In healthy relationships, a Contented Pragmatist serves as an essential anchor for an Ambitious Hero, reminding them to pause, take in the view, and appreciate how far they have come.
---
[01:46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6371s) Archetype 3: The Selfless Helper and High-Conflict Traps
The third archetype—and what Vanessa considers the most critical yet least understood—is the Selfless Helper. This archetype's entire identity and sense of purpose are constructed around service and giving to others. Driven by an underlying belief that "to have worth is to help," they gravitate toward caring professions such as teaching, coaching, nursing, medicine, and training.
The psychological danger for Selfless Helpers is an inability to separate their personal self-worth from their caretaking output. When they cannot say no, they run headfirst into severe compassion fatigue and burnout, pouring from an empty cup until nothing remains. Vanessa notes that many parents abruptly transition into Selfless Helpers the second their child is born, orienting their entire existence around keeping that tiny human alive. While their nurturing nature makes them deeply supportive partners, their chronic people-pleasing, inability to enforce healthy boundaries, and habit of putting themselves last make them vulnerable.
Without strong protective boundaries, Selfless Helpers almost inevitably attract exploiters and takers. In particular, they become prime targets for "high-conflict people"—a behavioral profile defined in the work of author and legal mediator Bill Eddy, who estimates that approximately 10% of the general population fits this destructive pattern.
[01:48:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6500s) The Selfless Helper and High-Conflict Dynamics
High-conflict personalities thrive on interpersonal friction, see the world in black-and-white absolutes, and weaponize emotions or psychological concepts to manipulate situations. Referencing the research on high-conflict individuals, Vanessa Van Edwards highlights how these figures frequently recruit enablers to fight their battles. By planting grievances in the ear of a "Selfless Helper," the high-conflict person easily prompts them to intervene and champion the cause, often drawing the helper into toxic disputes that are not their own.
In everyday dialogue, communicating with a selfless helper requires distinct conversational generosity because they reflexively view talking about themselves as an act of taking. When asked personal questions, they deflect with phrases like *"Oh no, no, enough about me, how can I help you?"* Vanessa shares that she often struggles to get her selfless helper friends to accept assistance, requiring explicit reassurance:
> "Getting to know you is not taking from me. It's giving to me. I have to tell my friends, it makes me feel good to help you. It makes me feel good to hear about what's going on for you. You're actually giving to me by telling me about yourself, not taking from me."
In professional environments, selfless helpers can make exceptional managers because they are deeply attuned to individual strengths and know how to elevate team performance toward key performance indicators (KPIs). While naturally prone to conflict avoidance, highly skilled communicators among them succeed by framing difficult feedback around support and shared purpose: *"The reason I'm giving you this feedback is cuz I so want you to succeed."*
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Selfless Helper Dynamic
subgraph Trap["The Vulnerability"]
HCP["High-Conflict Person<br/>(Manipulates / plants seeds)"] --> SH["Selfless Helper<br/>(Feels compelled to fight for others)"]
end
subgraph Reframe["Conversational Reframe"]
SH --> Deflect["Deflects attention<br/>'Enough about me'"]
Deflect --> Support["Reassurance Needed:<br/>'Sharing with me is giving, not taking'"]
end
```
---
[01:51:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6702s) The Creative Disruptor Archetype
The Creative Disruptor represents the most challenging archetype for structured communicators. Governed by a desire to break established systems, go anti-norm, and reject traditional blueprints, disruptors thrive on pushing boundaries and questioning conventional wisdom. While their contrarian nature fuels outside-the-box thinking, ground-breaking entrepreneurship, and legal litigation, it frequently creates friction in routine conversations where they appear as "dream killers."
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Creative Disruptor Archetype Dynamic
A["Creative Disruptor"] -->|"Default Mode"| B["Anti-Norm / Contrarian Challenge"]
B -->|"Constructive Impact"| C["Builds Anti-Fragility & Innovation"]
B -->|"Conversational Risk"| D["Exhaustion & Dream-Killing"]
```
Vanessa uses Edward Snowden as a classic public example of someone driven to break and reinvent an institutional system. Steven Bartlett notes that interviewing disruptors is highly engaging because their default contrarianism forces interviewers to refine their own perspectives. However, Vanessa cautions that engaging with them requires emotional preparedness:
- **Anti-Fragile Refinement**: Engaging when you want tough pushback that strengthens an idea.
- **Burnout Risk**: Avoiding deep engagement when feeling emotionally delicate or depleted by constant cynicism.
- **The "I Hate Everything" Friend**: Vanessa shares an anecdote about posting an Instagram video describing a friend whose default text message is *"I hate everything"*—only for the algorithm to serve the exact video directly to that friend, prompting him to text her: *"Is this me?"*
---
[01:54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6873s) The Unlucky Struggler and the George Costanza Effect
The Unlucky Struggler is defined by a deep contamination narrative—the enduring belief that regardless of their efforts, life is permanently stacked against them. Feeling perpetually overlooked, misunderstood, and stuck, they mirror characters like George Costanza from *Seinfeld*. While their extreme self-deprecation and humility make many of them brilliant comedians, their internal reality is often tortured.
The biggest conversational hazard occurs when an "Ambitious Hero" interacts with an unlucky struggler. Heroes possess an overwhelming urge to fix the problem, offer unsolicited optimization advice, or argue that the person is actually lucky. Vanessa emphasizes that trying to force an unlucky struggler out of their perspective creates resistance; instead, one must appreciate their self-awareness and humor without imposing unwarranted optimism.
---
[01:55:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6943s) The Peak-End Rule and Executing a Graceful Exit
When caught in an unproductive or draining conversation, exiting cleanly without causing offense relies on behavioral psychology, specifically the **Peak-End Rule**. While most people disproportionately obsess over opening lines and first impressions, human memory primarily retains two distinct components of an interaction:
1. **The Peak**: The highest point of emotional intensity or engagement during the exchange.
2. **The End**: The final moments and concluding phrases of the conversation.
Because the conclusion dictates the lasting impression of the entire interaction, mastering a structured "graceful exit" ensures that even brief or challenging conversations end on an elevated, positive note.
[01:56:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6985s) The Formula for Gracefully Escaping an Awkward Conversation
Vanessa Van Edwards outlines a repeatable conversational formula to eliminate anxiety when an interaction runs its course or stalls into awkwardness. The structure relies on two distinct elements: a **future cue** paired with a **compliment or an action**. A future cue shifts the listener's mental state away from the present moment to something happening later (such as asking about upcoming weekend plans or upcoming projects).
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Graceful Conversation Exit Formula
subgraph ExitStrategy["The Graceful Exit Formula"]
A["1. Future Cue<br/>(Shift focus to 'later')"] --> B["2. Action or Compliment<br/>('Exit Voice' + Clear Boundary)"]
B --> C["3. Physical Disengagement<br/>(Angle body & step back)"]
end
```
To demonstrate, Vanessa and Steven role-play a scenario at a cocktail party where the conversation has run dry. Vanessa asks Steven about his weekend plans, and when he mentions visiting a wine bar across town, she validates his plan, recommends a Chardonnay, and pairs that future cue with an actionable closing statement: *"It was so lovely talking to you. I hope you have a great time at that wine bar. I'm going to go get some more coffee."*
Steven points out that people sometimes miss the hint and continue talking. To counter this, Vanessa emphasizes the necessity of delivering a clear, definitive action using a distinct "exit voice"—a tonal shift signaling closure. She pairs verbal boundaries (*"I'm going to run to the ladies' room," "I'm going to say hi to the host,"* or *"I'm going to head home"*) with subtle physical disengagement cues, such as angling the torso toward the door and taking a deliberate step back. She urges listeners to be assertive when closing interactions, warning that lingering awkwardness (*"Well, this has been good... so, um..."*) is absolute "kryptonite for charisma."
[01:59:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7148s) Demystifying Charisma, "Aura", and "Rizz"
Steven transitions to modern colloquialisms, asking Vanessa how behavioral science defines cultural buzzwords like "aura" and "rizz" (short for charisma), and how one actually cultivates them. Vanessa recalls explaining charisma to her eight-year-old daughter after she overheard one of Vanessa's YouTube videos. She defined it simply: a charismatic person is someone people inherently want to be around—the person others naturally gravitate toward to sit near, listen to, work with, or play with.
When Vanessa asked her daughter if anyone at school fit that description, the eight-year-old instantly named the exact two classmates Vanessa had already privately identified as the most charismatic children in the room. Vanessa explains that whether termed charisma, aura, or rizz, the phenomenon represents a magnetic pull drawn from verbal cues, physical non-verbal signals, and biological/hormonal presence.
[02:00:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7230s) Cultivating Charisma: Signaling Liking, Warmth, and Competence
To build charisma from the ground up, Vanessa advises starting with level-one basics: being exceptionally easy to talk to and loudly broadcasting social warmth. Many individuals suffer from **signal amplification bias**—the mistaken belief that our internal feelings of appreciation are obvious to others when, in reality, people consistently fall victim to the "liking gap" and underestimate how much others enjoy their company. Charismatic communicators actively eliminate this ambiguity by overtly verbalizing praise (*"It's always so fun talking to you,"* or *"I love when you're put on my team"*).
To illustrate human vulnerability to being liked, Vanessa shares an embarrassing personal anecdote about vetting a potential partner for a friend (whom she jokingly nicknames "Schmobbert"). After a Mediterranean dinner date where she initially judged him as merely lukewarm, her friend called the next morning to report that Schmobbert had raved about Vanessa, bought her audiobook on Audible, and thought she was hilarious. Vanessa admits that despite her professional expertise, she immediately felt an irrational surge of warmth toward him simply because he liked her.
Vanessa connects this dynamic to core behavioral science:
- **Warmth & Competence:** Research shows that 82% of human first impressions hinge entirely on warmth (answering the subconscious question *"Can I trust you?"*) and competence (answering *"Can I rely on you?"*).
- **Dual Signaling:** High-charisma individuals first broadcast openness and friendliness, followed immediately by capability and assertiveness.
- **Intentionality:** While her previous book *Cues* focused on decoding non-verbal signals, her book *Conversation* trains people to assertively drive social interactions with clear intention and confidence.
[02:04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7475s) The Danger of Trying to Be Impressive
When people enter conversations fixated on sounding smart and listing their accolades, they inadvertently create emotional distance rather than connection. Charismatic individuals guide conversations naturally toward deeper levels—talking about passions, dreams, and character—without needing to boast. Vanessa shares a formative experience from when she lived in Austin, Texas, and attended a VIP networking party surrounded by high-profile creators and entrepreneurs. Feeling intense imposter syndrome, her anxiety peaked when the group formed a circle for introductions. As the circle progressed, each person attempted to outdo the last with staggering achievements—amounting in her mind to claims like being a billionaire who invented the internet or someone who cured cancer.
When it reached Vanessa, rather than reciting her impressive achievements to compete, she embraced vulnerability and stated, "My name is Vanessa and I'm a recovering awkward person and I help smart awkward people with my books and my YouTube channel," adding that she had no idea why she was invited. The room visibly relaxed with laughter. That single moment altered the room's dynamic: subsequent speakers admitted they were also recovering awkward people. When the group dispersed to network, the majority gravitated toward Vanessa rather than the billionaires or industry titans simply because she had made herself the most approachable and relatable person in the room.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Connection vs Impressiveness Flowchart
subgraph Impressive["The Impressiveness Trap"]
A["Focus on Accolades & Wealth"] --> B["Creates Psychological Distance"]
B --> C["Intimidates Others & Halts Connection"]
end
subgraph Vulnerable["The Connection Approach"]
D["Authentic Vulnerability & Warmth"] --> E["Lowers Room Tension & Elicits Relatability"]
E --> F["Magnetic Presence & Approachability"]
end
```
- **True High-Status Behavior**: Truly accomplished individuals and billionaires often downplay their success and behave with humility because they have already established their status and feel no need to prove it.
- **Relatability Over Status**: The people who possess the strongest "aura" are rarely the most credentialed in the room; they are simply the ones people genuinely enjoy spending time with.
- **Introverts vs. Extroverts**: Master conversationalists are not exclusively extroverts; introverts and ambiverts frequently excel because they are less prone to conversational narcissism.
---
[02:08:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7739s) Defining "Aura" and Mastering the Maximum Resonance Point
Aura is both an internal disposition and an external physical and vocal manifestation. Individuals who command a room—such as Michelle Obama or Tony Robbins—physically claim their space through subtle micro-adjustments rather than aggressive posturing. Research demonstrates that high-presence individuals maintain measurable physical openness: greater distance between their ears and shoulders, relaxed neck alignment, and natural space between their torso and arms. When people feel anxious or insecure, they physically constrict, tucking themselves in, tightening their neck and shoulders, and rushing their speech.
Beyond physical presence, vocal control is crucial to charisma through what is known as the **Maximum Resonance Point (MRP)**—the lowest end of one's natural vocal range that communicates calm, pride, and authority. Anxious individuals frequently hold their breath and speak from the top of their breath (a common pitfall on Zoom calls where greetings sound strained and pitched up), which constricts the vocal cords and signals distress. Speaking relaxed on the outbreath engages the MRP, immediately transforming vocal delivery so that listeners perceive the speaker as competent, grounded, and engaging.
- **Micro-movements Matter**: Claiming physical space does not mean overt posturing; it consists of small cues like dropping the shoulders, lifting the head slightly, and keeping arms naturally away from the torso.
- **Vocal Cord Physiology**: Speaking while tense or rushed robs the voice of breath, resulting in an unnaturally high pitch that sounds breathless and ungrounded.
- **The Outbreath Technique**: Initiating speech—especially the initial greeting—on the exhale rather than at the peak of an inhale anchors the voice into its natural resonance and conveys instant confidence.
[02:12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7972s) Vocal Intent and the Nuance of Eye Contact
Vanessa emphasizes that emotional intention naturally leaks through the voice. When someone lacks vocal care or genuine intent, listeners tune out almost instantly. Conversely, highly charismatic individuals infuse their speech with a calm, winning confidence that is magnetic. When Steven asks whether other physical factors—specifically eye contact—play a major role and notes how much confidence it takes to maintain direct eye contact while asking deep questions, Vanessa explains the underlying neurobiology.
Direct eye contact triggers oxytocin, which generates warmth and social bonding. However, it also creates severe cognitive load: the human brain cannot easily perform complex cognitive tasks or recall detailed memories while maintaining intense eye contact. That is why people instinctively look away when calculating a complex math problem or recalling facts. In Western cultures, the ideal amount of eye contact is roughly 60% to 70%, rather than 100%. Looking away is a natural, necessary mechanism for internal social processing and memory retrieval.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Eye Contact Dynamics in Conversation
subgraph Cognitive ["Cognitive Processing & Delivery"]
A["Direct Eye Contact at Greeting"] -->|"Oxytocin Spike & Rapport"| B["Look Away to Think / Process"]
B -->|"Access Memories & Data"| C["Deliver Point & Re-engage Eyes"]
end
subgraph SocialFeedback ["Visual Feedback Loop"]
C --> D{"Read Reaction"}
D -->|"Lower-Lid Flex"| E["Intense Focus / Questioning"]
D -->|"Eyebrow Raise / Scowl"| F["Doubt / Misunderstanding"]
D -->|"Lighting Up"| G["Rapport / Engagement"]
end
```
- **Greeting Window:** Make strong eye contact in the opening seconds of a meeting or video call to deliver an oxytocin boost.
- **The Delivery Return:** Speakers naturally look away during deliberation and re-engage direct eye contact at the moment of delivery to check whether the listener believes them or exhibits skepticism.
- **Visual Feedback:** Maintaining observational eye contact allows speakers to detect whether the other person is lighting up with interest or pulling back, allowing quick conversational pivots.
---
[02:16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8171s) Decoding Warmth and Competence Listening Cues
When Steven asks how to be an exceptional listener—noting how confusing it can be when some people interrupt, others cheerlead, and some unintentionally scowl—Vanessa explains that accidental expressions are often mere "facial punctuators." These are non-verbal baseline habits at rest that do not necessarily reflect negative emotional states. Genuine listening relies on displaying non-verbal cues signaling warmth and competence.
Vanessa details the specific body language markers that signal deep listening:
- **Nodding & Triple Nods:** Universal warmth signals encouraging the speaker to keep going (with cultural nuances in places like India, Bulgaria, and Pakistan).
- **Head Tilt:** A warmth cue where tilting the head exposes the ear, signaling receptive listening.
- **Forward Lean:** Combines warmth and competence by physically closing the distance to understand the speaker better.
- **Lower-Lid Flex:** A competence cue where a listener hardens or hoods their lower eyelids to block out light and focus their visual attention. In conversation, it signifies intense cognitive focus and deep engagement rather than disapproval.
Being a great conversationalist requires dynamic agility rather than rigid adherence to a script. Vanessa warns "planners" against treating a list of great questions like a transactional checklist where they ask a question, tick a box, and abruptly move on to the next.
If an opening question like "What's your personal passion project?" sparks real enthusiasm, speakers should lean into that topic and spend hours exploring it. Great conversation pairs advance preparation with real-time responsiveness to the other person's emotional reactions.
When Steven asks about important practical concepts from Vanessa's book *Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count*, she highlights how to handle predictable, boring questions. Because people inevitably face the same industry or biographical questions repeatedly, they should proactively craft answers that act as "conversational gifts."
Instead of delivering flat, closed responses, answers should feature engaging anecdotes, relatable details, or open-ended hooks that invite replies such as "Me too!", "Really?", or "What got you into that?" Steven agrees, observing how distinct background details—such as an acquaintance who attended Bible school for three years—invariably trigger the exact same predictable inquiries, making intentional storytelling essential to avoid conversation dead ends.
[02:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8446s) Designing Conversational Gifts and Scripted Responses
Vanessa and Steven discuss how people can transform routine interactions by preparing engaging answers to predictable questions. Vanessa highlights an example from her book involving her friend Jason Feifer, the editor-in-chief of *Entrepreneur* magazine. Because his role requires attending constant dinners, Jason frequently encounters standard questions like, "What are you ordering?" In response, Jason shares a unique personal fact: he has no sense of taste or smell. He turns this back onto the table by asking, "So what's your favorite thing? What should I taste? If I could taste something, what would you have me taste?" This unexpected prompt creates memorable dialogues—so much so that mutual acquaintances like Nicole Lapin instantly recall Jason through those distinct stories.
Steven summarizes this strategy as having a prepared script for frequently asked questions that acts as a "gift" to the listener. Vanessa stresses that while having a conversational framework provides confidence and a sense of control—especially for those who have historically struggled with social awkwardness—one should feel free to deviate from it. If a conversation feels exciting and organic, follow the momentum; conversely, if the connection feels completely misaligned or uncomfortable, it is entirely acceptable to gracefully exit.
---
[02:22:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8543s) Who the Book Is For: Conquering Dread and the Loneliness Epidemic
When asked who *Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count* was written for, Vanessa explains that it is tailored for anyone who feels a sense of dread around small talk. Over the years, her students frequently voiced anxiety about walking into networking mixers, speaking with their bosses, filling the first five minutes of team video calls, or enduring awkward first dates. She emphasizes that having a clear conversational plan transforms these scenarios from dreadful obligations into enjoyable interactions, regardless of whether a date turns out to be "your person."
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Impact of Conversational Tools on Loneliness
subgraph Problem["The Modern Dilemma"]
A["Dread of Small Talk & Social Awkwardness"]
B["Digital Isolation & Age of AI"]
end
subgraph Solution["Conversational Framework"]
C["Clear Conversational Plans & Tools"]
D["Active, Engaging Social Scripts"]
end
subgraph Outcome["Human Connection"]
E["Restoring the Joy of Conversation"]
F["Combating the Loneliness Epidemic"]
end
Problem --> Solution
Solution --> Outcome
```
Steven observes that the book arrives at a pivotal moment, noting that modern technology and AI risk eroding genuine human interactions, while schoolteachers increasingly report students lacking foundational interpersonal skills. Vanessa reflects that the project took twenty years of work to bring to fruition, aiming to counter the widespread loneliness epidemic by restoring the simple joy of everyday human dialogue.
---
[02:24:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8656s) The Closing Question: Career Sacrifices and Motherhood
Steven introduces the show's closing tradition, presenting an anonymous question left by the previous guest: *"Do you feel like there are things you sacrificed in your personal life to build your success that you regret and wish you could now get back?"*
Vanessa shares openly about the heavy toll of relocating to Austin for work earlier in her career. While the move spurred professional growth, she deeply regrets being geographically separated from her mother and sister during the time her children were babies. Experiencing early motherhood without a close familial support system led to profound feelings of isolation, and she wishes she could reclaim those early years to experience them within a communal family setting. Now relocated back near the beach in Los Angeles, she expresses gratitude for having her family close at hand once again. Steven concludes the interview with warm congratulations on the release of her book.
## Notable quotes
> [09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=570s) What was the highlight of your day? — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) A fact is a stop sign. A story is a doorway. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [22:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1338s) Tell me something good. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [26:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1563s) What do you talk about when you don't talk about work? — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [30:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1834s) What have you always wanted to learn? — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [36:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2208s) Been busy? — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2588s) the most selfish form of conversation — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [54:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3267s) Is it my turn yet? — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [59:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3552s) When I started thinking, 'How can I go into conversation putting this person at ease? How can I make them feel like they can impress me?'... That is a very selfless conversational generosity. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4553s) It's just for my friends and family. Let's try to get there. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:48:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6500s) Getting to know you is not taking from me. It's giving to me. I have to tell my friends, it makes me feel good to help you. It makes me feel good to hear about what's going on for you. You're actually giving to me by telling me about yourself, not taking from me. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:56:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6985s) It was so lovely talking to you. I hope you have a great time at that wine bar. I'm going to go get some more coffee. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [02:04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7475s) My name is Vanessa and I'm a recovering awkward person and I help smart awkward people with my books and my YouTube channel — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [02:24:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8656s) Do you feel like there are things you sacrificed in your personal life to build your success that you regret and wish you could now get back? — Steven Bartlett
## Mentioned
Vanessa Van Edwards, Steven Bartlett, Dan McAdams, Howard Stern, Jerry Seinfeld, The Diary Of A CEO, CANDOR Corpus, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Shopify, Fiverr Pro, Dale Carnegie, Amy Poehler, Ginny Yurich, 1000 Hours Outside, Captivate, Cues, Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count, Instagram, WhatsApp, iMessage, AirPods, DOAC Conversation Cards, Dr. Richard Wiseman, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Enneagram, Jeff Bezos, Chris Gardner, The Pursuit of Happyness, Claire Dunphy, Modern Family, Bill Eddy, Edward Snowden, George Costanza, Seinfeld, Michelle Obama, Tony Robbins, Jason Feifer, Entrepreneur, Nicole Lapin, Audible
## Video description
Are you sabotaging yourself with terrible communication habits and unconscious body language? Unlock the secrets of human connection to cultivate charisma, forge deeper connections, and eliminate awkward small talk for good.
Vanessa Van Edwards is a behavioral researcher and the author of Cues, Captivate, and her new book, Conversation. She returns to decode the underlying dynamics that shape relationships, providing actionable techniques to bypass social autopilot. She helps master non-verbal cues to prevent communication friction from harming your career and personal life.
In this episode, she explains:
■ The Conversation Blueprint: How to navigate the three distinct psychological levels of interaction
■ The Autopilot Trap: Why socially scripted questions like "How are you?" or "What do you do?" actually destroy connection.
■ The Mechanics of Rizz: The exact science behind conversational turn taking, why speaking for more than 45 seconds creates friction.
■ Command with Body Language: How to instantly project warmth and competence by finding your maximum resonance point.
■ The Five Story Archetypes: How to decode the psychological narratives of the people around you.
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:11 How to Connect With Anyone
00:03:20 Why Great Conversation Is a Superpower
00:06:41 The 3 Questions That Build Instant Connection
00:17:59 The Fastest Way to Build a Real Connection
00:23:45 How to Get to Know Someone Fast
00:32:41 Why Genuine Curiosity Makes You More Charismatic
00:35:32 The Questions That Secretly Kill Conversations
00:40:40 What’s Worse: Talking Too Much or Too Little?
00:44:15 How to Know If You Talk Too Much
00:45:22 How to Spot a Conversational Narcissist
00:48:34 Ads
00:55:11 How to Know If You’re a Conversational Narcissist
01:08:50 The Real Reason First Dates Go Wrong
01:13:47 Can You Go Too Deep Too Quickly?
01:18:03 How to Rewrite the Story You Tell Yourself
01:22:50 The Psychology of Taking Control of Your Life
01:25:16 Ads
01:30:02 What Science Reveals About Luck and Success
01:36:04 The 5 Personality Archetypes Explained
01:42:36 Why Your Personality Changes How You Should Communicate
01:51:45 The Psychology of the “Unlucky Struggler”
01:55:43 How to Escape an Awkward Conversation
01:59:08 How to Build Aura and Rizz
02:00:30 How to Become More Charismatic
02:04:51 The Hidden Habits That Kill Your Charisma
02:08:59 What “Aura” Actually Means
02:13:21 The Eye Contact Trick That Builds Connection
02:16:11 How to Become an Exceptional Listener
02:22:23 Who This Book Was Really Written For
Let Steven know if you feel “lucky” here!
https://doyoufeelluckychallenge.web.app/
You can pre-order Vanessa’s book, Conversations here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/A69YXE2
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/BWjLTZK
◼ Shop The Diary Of A CEO collection: https://thediary.com/collections/shop
◼ Get email updates - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/5IB1H6E
◼ Follow Steven - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/AGU9QP4
Sponsors:
Fiverr - https://fiverr.com/diary and get 10% off your first order when you use code DIARY
Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett
## Background
该内容由 YouTube 频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 9 月 10 日发布。节目邀请了行为学研究员、《Cues》与新书《Conversation》的作者凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards），深度探讨现代人普遍遭遇的沟通摩擦与社交孤独。简介指出，本期对话深入拆解了人际互动的三个心理层级、打破社交“自动导航”的提问技巧、掌控身体语言展现气场的方法，以及如何解码支配人际关系的五大故事原型。
## TL;DR
凡妮莎系统性地拆解了人际沟通的三大认知层级，指出“你是做什么工作的”等程式化寒暄会让大脑切换至迟钝的“自动导航”，主张用激发多巴胺的高效提问与故事狩猎打破僵局。她深入剖析了日常交谈的力学机制，指出单次发言若超过 45 秒极易引发压迫感与交谈自恋，并传授了识别倾听者“张嘴鱼”微表情预警、运用进取型好奇心促成双向互动的技巧。对话详细解读了“雄心英雄”、“倒霉挣扎者”等支配沟通的五大故事原型，指导受众通过区分救赎叙事与污染叙事来建立掌控生活的内部控制点。最后，她给出了通过调节最大共鸣点（MRP）发声、优化肢体语言、执行优雅退场公式并展现“对话慷慨度”来塑造个人气场与核心魅力的全套实操指南。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对谈兼具行为科学的严谨敏锐与推心置腹的情感温度，既像是一堂干货密集的社交心理学大师课，又是一场直面社交焦虑与孤独感的治愈之旅。凡妮莎与史蒂芬之间的互动充满探索张力，穿插着大量生动的肢体演示、即兴实验与自嘲式的生活案例。随着讨论从台前的谈话力学层层推进到幕后的救赎叙事、育儿孤立与个人遗憾，谈话的情感弧度从机敏理性的技巧传授升华为真挚动人的灵魂共鸣，带给观众极强的沉浸感与解脱释然的心理安全感。
## Bulletin
- [06:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=401s) 针对 500 人的极速社交实验发现，诸如“你是做什么工作的”与“你好吗”等常规开场白效果最差，易使大脑切换至冷淡敷衍的自动导航模式；改用“你今天最开心的亮点是什么”最能激发多巴胺与真实连接。
- [41:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2485s) 语料库研究表明，日常对话的最佳单次发言时长为 15 至 30 秒，一旦发言超过 45 秒听众便会产生听单向独白的沉重压迫感，95% 的职场人士曾受说话过度的同事困扰。
- [01:01:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3709s) 面对面第一印象评估有 82% 取决于热情与能力两大维度，但若缺乏温度，纯粹的高智商胜任力极易引发戒备与怀疑，破坏人际信任。
- [12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) 对话遵循三层递进理论：从第一层基础特质与事实，到第二层个人抱负与关切，再到第三层核心叙事与身份认同；跳过铺垫过早袒露创伤容易诱发“脆弱后悔”。
- [01:19:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4777s) 人际叙事直接映射心理控制点：自认幸运者多具备“救赎叙事”与内控自主权，而自认倒霉者常受困于“污染叙事”与外控宿命论。
## Key takeaways
- [01:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=103s) 在人机交流与异步通讯泛滥的时代，面对面深度沟通能力正成为极具壁垒的“职业保险”与社交健康核心。
- [04:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=285s) 劣质沟通源于试图“取悦他人（trying to impress）”而非“探索对方（trying to discover）”，这常导致社交疲惫、过度紧绷与被误解感。
- [12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) 事实是一张红灯停步牌，而故事是一扇敞开的大门；在第一层级对话中，应学会用制造“信息缺口”和探寻兴奋点来打破寒暄脚本。
- [27:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1655s) 第二层级沟通的核心在于“造梦术”，通过探寻对方的“爱宠项目（副业/梦想）”或“害虫项目（焦虑/困境）”，促使自己成为对方的人生盟友。
- [36:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2208s) 介绍职业时应避免使用消耗认知的抽象行话，推荐采用万能公式：“我为【针对群体】做【核心工作】，通过【独特方法】实现”。
- [45:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2722s) 单次发言应严格控制在 15 至 45 秒内；倾听者微微张开的“张嘴鱼”表情是急欲插话或疲倦的非语言预警，而“挑眉反应”则代表好奇与兴奋。
- [54:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3249s) “对话自恋症”本质源于对尴尬沉默的不安全感，自救的关键在于培养“进取型好奇心”，主动把话语权交给他人。
- [58:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3485s) 卓越的沟通者保持“对话慷慨度”，追求“对自己感到好奇（Interested）而非试图表现得有趣（Interesting）”。
- [01:17:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4666s) 过快进入深层脆弱话题容易引发“脆弱后悔”，在真实表达（Authenticity）与过度袒露（Over-vulnerability）之间必须建立准入门槛。
- [01:26:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5178s) 提问“你觉得自己是个幸运的人吗？”可快速探测对方的心理控制点——内控者倾向从逆境中提炼“救赎叙事”，外控者则易沉沦于“污染叙事”。
- [01:34:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5648s) 人类行为受五大故事原型支配（雄心英雄、满足实用主义者、无私奉献者、创新颠覆者、倒霉挣扎者），针对不同原型需采取差异化的沟通姿态。
- [01:56:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6985s) 结合“峰终定律”，优雅退场公式为“未来线索 + 赞美或具体行动”，配合收尾语调与躯干朝向出口的微撤离，避免冗长尴尬的道别。
- [02:04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7475s) 强大的气场并非刻意炫耀，而是拉开耳肩距、手臂舒展以物理占据空间，并在呼气过程中发声以达到沉稳自信的“最大共鸣点（MRP）”。
- [02:12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7972s) 眼神接触会占用认知带宽，构思逻辑时移开视线是正常的生理减负，社交对视的黄金比例在 60% 至 70% 之间，交回观点后需重新对视确认反馈。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=0s) 话多还是话少？开场精华与现代人的“连接危机”
判断一个人是否“话太多”（overtalker）最直接的线索往往藏在非语言信号中。当倾听者开始走神、心不在焉，或是微微张开嘴巴欲言又止时——瓦妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）将这种微妙的神态形象地称作“张嘴的鱼”（the open fish）——这通常是一个危险的信号，说明说话者已经霸占对话太久了。现场甚至抛出了一个扎心的统计数据：近期研究表明，高达 95% 的人在职场中都曾遇到过说话过度的人。对此，瓦妮莎准备了一套包含五道测试题的自测清单，如果你的肯定回答超过三道，很大概率你就是一个“滔滔不绝的过度表达者”。
在开篇的高能提炼中，瓦妮莎分享了她对当下人际沟通环境的深刻担忧。作为一名自封的“尴尬社交康复者”，她过去二十年一直在潜心研究顶尖沟通大师的秘诀，深知对话不仅是一种技能，更是达成人生目标的终极载体。然而，现代人正不可逆转地滑向与技术交流多于与真人交流的深渊：全球目前有六分之一的人深陷孤独症结，人们越来越倾向于向朋友发送长达九分钟的语音留言，而这种单向输出在瓦妮莎看来恰恰是“最自私的对话形式”。
为了帮助人们走出无聊而尴尬的寒暄套路，瓦妮莎建立了一套清晰的对话蓝图。在针对 500 名参与者开展的极速社交（speed networking）实验中，她发现诸如“你好吗？”或“你是做什么工作的？”等陈词滥调几乎在问出的瞬间就会让谈话陷入死胡同，而真正能瞬间点燃火花的开场白竟然是“你今天最开心的亮点是什么？”。此外，对话中还潜藏着五大人格原型，它们不仅左右着职场晋升与灵魂伴侣的寻找，还决定了我们该如何在不冒犯他人的情况下体面地结束一段糟糕的谈话。
- **非语言预警**：对话中倾听者露出“张嘴的鱼”（open fish）表情，代表对方渴望插话或已感到疲倦。
- **职场现状**：95% 的职场人曾遭遇过说话过度的同事。
- **社交现实**：全球六分之一的人面临孤独危机，9 分钟的单向语音条成为缺乏互动的自私沟通代表。
- **最佳破冰切入点**：“你今天最开心的亮点是什么？”（What was the highlight of your day?）。
---
### [01:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=103s) 订阅呼吁与《对话》新书背景：为何对话是未来的“职业保险”
在正题展开之前，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向观众分享了一个冷门事实：当前收看节目的观众中约有 58% 尚未点击订阅。他坦诚地向大家发起号召，如果本节目曾为大家带来过哪怕一丝价值，不妨顺手点击免费的订阅按钮，这不仅能给予制作团队莫大的支持，也能帮助节目组把更多资源反哺到嘉宾邀约与内容制作中。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话能力作为未来职业保险的价值闭环
accDescr: 展示技术变革时代人类沟通能力退化如何促成卓越对话者的独特竞争优势
subgraph Crisis ["当前的社交连接危机"]
A["技术主导交互<br/>人机交流激增"] --> B["人类对话能力退化<br/>寒暄浮于表面且尴尬"]
end
subgraph Solution ["核心护城河：高阶对话力"]
B --> C["投资对话技能<br/>建立人际深度连接"]
C --> D["职场优先推荐<br/>'职业保险'"]
C --> E["优质社交支持<br/>延长健康寿命"]
end
```
回到对谈中，史蒂文翻开瓦妮莎的新书《对话》（*Conversations*）第五页。书中明确指出，人类如今正经历一场空前的“连接危机”（connection crisis）——沟通正在变得越来越困难、越发尴尬，并且越来越令人感到索然无味。当被问及为何在写过诸多畅销书后选择此时聚焦“对话”这一主题时，瓦妮莎强调，在剧烈的技术变革浪潮下，精进对话技能正是每个人当下最该配置的“职业保险”（career insurance）。
瓦妮莎解释道，无论身处何种环境，人们本能上都渴望与擅长沟通的人共事、相处与约会。当年轻一代越来越习惯面对冰冷的屏幕和 AI，人类可能正处于“通过真人学习真实对话”的最后一代。在人人逐渐丧失深层连接能力的时代，那些能够掌握高超对话艺术的人，无疑将在职场与生活中建立起极具壁垒的竞争优势。
---
### [03:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=214s) 对话是实现一切的载体：从“社交健身”到自我提升
史蒂文随即追问：一个人是否真的可以通过后天学习成为对话大师？如果练就了这一本领，它到底能给听众的日常生活带来怎样立竿见影的改变？
瓦妮莎直言，对话就是你“获取一切想要之物的载体”：
1. **职场晋升**：当你想获得晋升，能够与老板建立深度信任与共鸣，对方在考虑人选时才会第一时间想到你；
2. **亲密关系**：想要找到真正契合的灵魂伴侣，必须穿透表象，通过走心、深刻的对话完成灵魂层面的双向确认；
3. **健康长寿**：对抗孤独并结识能给予情感滋养的知心好友，其带来的健康与长寿增益早已被科学研究所证实。
瓦妮莎犀利地指出，绝大多数人犯下的致命错误，在于将“对话”当成一种无关紧要的“附赠品”（extra）或者退居二线的次要技能。许多商业领袖和创业者将全部心血倾注在产品构想、底层技术或商业模式上，唯独彻底忽略了最关键的“人的要素”。她提出，我们必须像看待“去健身房举铁”一样来看待对话练习——人们在身体健康上投入了极大的精力，但“社交健康”同样是我们情感健康的生命线。对话不是与生俱来的神秘天赋，而是一门可以通过不断做“对话组数”（conversation reps）来习得和打磨的硬技能，而且它是一项一旦掌握就终身受益的核心资产。
---
### [04:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=285s) 试图取悦 vs. 抱持探索：对话疲惫者的三大典型症状
那么，普通人该如何觉察自己在沟通上存在缺陷？瓦妮莎回忆起自己早期糟糕的沟通经历，她表示自己作为一名“尴尬社交康复者”，曾有很长一段时间深陷劣质对话的泥潭。造成这一切的根源，在于她当时在交流中带着完全错误的意图：她是在“试图给人留下深刻印象”（trying to impress），而不是去“探索对方”（trying to discover）。
一旦你的出发点是取悦和表演，对话就会沦为一场高度紧绷的“表演性活动”（performative），原本旨在连接彼此的闲聊也会随之变成摧毁灵魂的折磨。相比之下，那些真正的沟通高手在生活中的状态截然不同：他们往往更快乐、更自信、更具真实坚定的主见；不论是内向者还是外向者，大师们都能在对话中“汲取能量”而非“被掏空精力”。瓦妮莎总结了身心耗竭的对话者身上最常见的三大核心症状：
| 症状维度 | 心理与行为表现 | 根源与大师对比 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **社交恐惧与厌烦 (Dread)** | 翻看日程表看到社交活动时只有满心抗拒与沉重感。 | 健康的对话应当是“供能”而非“耗能”，若只有厌恶感，说明沟通模式已出现严重系统性偏差。 |
| **过度思考与紧绷 (Overwhelmed)** | 在交谈时大脑高速过载，无法停下内耗，满脑子都在预演“我下一句该接什么”。 | 缺乏对基本对话力学蓝图的认知，处于无意识的慌乱中。掌握框架后思考负荷会大幅下降。 |
| **沟通后感到被误解 (Misunderstood)** | 离开对话后满心懊恼，觉得“自己展现出了最差的一面”或“无法做真实的自己”。 | 低水平对话止于表演；大师级沟通能让对方在交谈后惊叹：“和你聊完后，我感觉自己更了解自己了。” |
---
### [06:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=402s) 破解谈话密码：500人的极速社交实验与非语言信号
为了从科学层面彻底拆解对话的底层密码，瓦妮莎从八年前开始主导了一项极具开创性的“极速社交实验”（speed networking experiment）。在长达二十年的观察中，她隐约察觉到顶尖沟通者心中似乎都遵循着某种看不见的“行动脚本”，为了将这些隐性规律转化为可落地的科学法则，她招募了 500 名极速社交者展开了三组对照实验。
实验现场的四个角落全部布设了高清摄像机，全程捕捉参与者的一举一动。瓦妮莎指出，高质量的对话在视觉与听觉层面上与劣质对话有着天壤之别：
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 高质量对话与劣质对话的非语言特征对比
accDescr: 对比展现了高能量优质对话与低能量低质对话在肢体动作、声音特征与面部表情上的差异
subgraph HighQuality ["高质量对话特征"]
direction TB
H1["肢体语言：手势丰富、身体前倾倾听"]
H2["声音魅力：语调起伏分明、音量自然提高"]
H3["能量流动：双向互动、彼此赋能"]
H1 --- H2 --- H3
end
subgraph PoorQuality ["劣质对话特征"]
direction TB
P1["肢体语言：姿态僵硬拘谨、空间退缩"]
P2["声音特征：语调低沉扁平、声音微弱无力"]
P3["面部表情：带有勉强与歉意的尴尬神态"]
P1 --- P2 --- P3
end
```
在实验中，研究团队为受试者精心分配了六组不同的开场白（其中三组被团队预测为“表现优异”，另外三组则被认为“前途未卜”）。在每一轮限时交流结束后，受试者需要立即对刚刚完成的谈话质量进行打分：从 1 分（“这是我经历过最糟糕、最尴尬的对话”）到 5 分（“这是我经历过最好的对话，我想立刻嫁给这个人或者加他的 LinkedIn”）。通过量化打分与海量摄像机画面的比对，瓦妮莎及其团队开始抽丝剥茧，揭开决定人际化学反应的底层机制。
### [08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=508s) 破坏沟通的“最差开场白”与自动导航陷阱
在关于社交开场白的大规模实验与评分中，参与者的反馈呈现出极其分明的“赢家”与“输家”。最让人感到尴尬、最难建立真实连接的话题几乎垫底。史蒂文猜测垫底的可能是谈论天气，但瓦妮莎公布的结果更令人意外：排在倒数第二的是漫不经心的“你好吗？”（How are you?），而表现最差、稳居倒数第一的，竟是职场社交中最常见的“你是做什么工作的？”（What do you do?）。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 社交开场白心理反应差异
accDescr: 对比传统问答模式与故事激发型开场白的心理反应机制
subgraph Trap["低效提问：自动导航陷阱"]
A["常规事实提问<br/>'你是做什么工作的？' / '你好吗？'"] --> B["触发大脑预设社交脚本"]
B --> C["被动应答与事实罗列<br/>（死胡同 / 停步牌）"]
end
subgraph Solution["高效提问：情绪激发机制"]
D["探索式提问<br/>'今天有什么高光时刻？'"] --> E["打破脚本，促使主动检索"]
E --> F["唤醒积极情绪与多巴胺<br/>（故事的大门）"]
end
```
这种看似礼貌的开场白之所以效果极差，是因为它们高度“公式化”（socially scripted）。一旦被问及这类问题，人类的大脑会瞬间切换到“自动导航模式”（autopilot）。回答变成了一种例行公事的应酬表演，对话完全缺乏活力与兴奋感，很快就会陷入无话可说的死寂。这类问题属于“第一层级对话”（Level 1 conversation）的典型陷阱——它们纯粹基于事实，诸如“你家住哪里？”、“结婚了吗？”、“有孩子吗？”。事实本身是对话的死胡同，由于被困在僵化的社交脚本中，对话者很难借此跳脱出来展开有深度的交流。
### [09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=570s) 唤醒大脑多巴胺的优质替代提问
在研究的所有开场白中，表现最好、以巨大优势胜出的黑马问题是：“你今天最精彩的时刻是什么？”（What was the highlight of your day?）。从心理学机制来看，这个问题既听起来随和自然，又把握了恰到好处的深度。外向者常犯的一个社交错误是一上来就问太宏大的问题，比如“你人生最大的目标是什么？”，这往往会让对方产生戒备心并感到突兀。而“今天的高光时刻”巧妙地替代了苍白的“你好吗？”，它在潜意识中引导对方的大脑去搜寻生活中的乐观与美好瞬间。
当对方停顿一下，思考“我今天有什么开心事”时，自动导航就被瞬间打破了。大脑第一次认真调动思考，感到“我们终于能聊点新鲜有趣的事了”。在此基础上，另外两个同样高效的开场白也展现出极强的破冰效果：
- **“最近在忙什么让你兴奋的事吗？”（Have anything exciting you're working on?）：** 这是对“你是做什么工作的？”的高段位替代。如果对方热爱自己的本职工作，他们会借机以饱满的情绪重新诠释它；如果他们并不想用工作来定义自己，就会顺势分享生活中的其他热爱。
- **“接下来有什么好玩的计划吗？”（Do you have any fun plans coming up?）：** 这个简单的提问促使对方去期待未来的快乐，为当下注入期待感。
这三个核心提问的本质，都是在引导对方去主动检索生活中的正向事物，为大脑泵入多巴胺，激发出对其他生活维度的热情。
### [10:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=651s) 极度两极分化的提问：“你的故事是什么？”
在研究的第四个问题上，数据出现了一种前所未有的极端撕裂，甚至差点破坏了统计模型。这个问题便是看似充满深度的：“你的故事是什么？”（What's your story?）。受访者对此的评价呈现出极致的两极分化：有人给它打出了满分5分，称这是整整一周内感受到的最深刻、最强烈的灵魂连接；而另一些人则直接给出了0分——尽管在实验设计的评分量表里根本没有“0”这个选项。
外向型人格在社交中往往本能地偏爱这类提问，渴望快速进入深层互动。但从沟通层级来看，“你的故事是什么？”属于典型的“第三层级提问”（Level 3 question）。对于性格内向、或者尚未在脑海中梳理过个人叙事的人而言，这种跨越式提问过于突兀，会瞬间触发皮质醇激增，让他们进入生理上的“战或逃”（fight or flight）应激反应。对方会陷入困惑与恐慌：“我的故事是什么？我怎么可能在刚见面的几分钟内全盘托出？”提问者在无意之中将谈话推入了恐惧的悬崖。
### [12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) 麦克亚当斯对话三层次理论：从事实通往故事
这种两极分化的现象促使瓦妮莎意识到，人与人之间的交流存在着不可逾越的心理位阶。借由心理学家丹·麦克亚当斯博士（Dr. Dan McAdams）的研究，对话并非如我们想象的那般随意流动，而是遵循着三个截然不同的发展层级：
| 对话层级 | 心理阶段 | 典型特征与局限 | 正确的破局方式 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **第一层级 (Level 1)** | 基础特质与事实 (General Traits) | 类似 Google 事实核查（居住地、婚姻、职业等）。大脑处理社交事实遵循“从最不亲密到最亲密”的顺序，不可省略但容易陷入死板脚本。 | 将干瘪的事实转化为故事与情绪。用“事实是停步牌，故事是一扇门”作为准则。 |
| **第二层级 (Level 2)** | 个人关注与应对方式 (Personal Concerns) | 探索对方的价值观、动力、挑战、当前生活追求。 | 通过优质的开放式问题探寻其价值倾向与个人追求。 |
| **第三层级 (Level 3)** | 核心叙事与身份认同 (Life Narrative) | 探讨人生最深层的梦想、恐惧、底层故事与自我定义。 | 必须在第一、二层级充分铺垫后才能自然迈入，不可生搬硬套。 |
在刚认识的前几分钟，大脑必须先掌握对方的基本事实，因为如果我们连最基本的背景信息都不了解，就不可能贸然谈论最深层的梦想与忧虑。然而，高情商的第一层级对话，绝不是生硬查户口，而是将事实转化为故事与情绪——“事实是一张红灯停步牌，而故事是一扇敞开的大门”（A fact is a stop sign. A story is a doorway.）。
例如，尝试抛出“你个人的热情所在是什么？最近在钻研什么感兴趣的副业或爱好吗？”（What's your personal passion project?），便是在第一层级中精准“狩猎故事”。虽然这种提问需要一定的“社交勇气”（conversational courage），远不如抛出一句干瘪的“你好吗”来得安全，但它能撬动意想不到的精彩叙述。在分享热情的过程中，对方往往会顺带透露自己的家庭状况、生活状态与价值观底色。
### [14:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=876s) 对抗手机信息流：信息缺口与“对话彩屑”
瓦妮莎分享了自己搬家后的一次切身体验：为了结识新朋友，她兴冲冲地去参加了一场学校的家长教师联谊会（PTA会议）。然而走进房间的那一刻，现场死一般的沉寂，所有家长都在低头紧盯屏幕、无休止地下滑刷新动态。这让她猛然意识到，当今时代的面对面沟通面临着全新的残酷挑战：对话已经不仅仅是结交朋友的手段，它必须直接与手机里的信息流（Feed）竞争。
如果现实中的互动无法提供足够的多巴胺和兴奋感，人们的大脑就会毫不犹豫地缩回邮箱或社交媒体的世界中。优秀的沟通者必须在谈话中制造瓦妮莎所称的“对话彩屑”（conversational confetti）——注入令人眼前一亮的火花。
瓦妮莎在拆解著名访谈大师霍华德·斯特恩（Howard Stern）数千份访谈实录时，发现了一个极具杀伤力的核心技术：**制造信息缺口（Information Gaps）**。
- 人类大脑天生极其厌恶“未知”状态。当听到最高级或反差强烈的词汇时，大脑会产生强烈的探究欲，本能地想要填补这个空白。
- 斯特恩极其擅长使用诸如：“你做过最古怪的一件事是什么？”、“我昨天经历了一件最不可思议的事，你想听听是什么吗？”
- 当你走进聚餐并说道“伙计们，昨天发生了一件我经历过最离谱的事”，所有人都会立刻放下手机抬头倾听。
- 诸如“最尴尬的”、“最奇葩的”、“最重大的”这类带有信息差的词汇，能瞬间营造出悬念与吸引力。
随后，对话顺理成章地承接到了唤醒乐观期待的第三个优质提问：“接下来有什么好玩的计划吗？”通过调动对方对假期的向往与规划，对话自然而然地脱离了乏味冰冷的事实清单。
### [17:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1036s) 第三个破冰问题：“近期有什么好玩的计划吗？”与寻找兴奋感
凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）谈到她在第一层沟通（Level 1）中打磨许久的第三个核心问题——“你近期有什么好玩的计划吗？”（Have any fun plans coming up?）。她解释道，从心理学机制来看，人与人建立联结的关键往往在于感受到“我们未来可能会一起做有趣的事”，或者“对方正在做一件我也很想尝试的趣事”。这是一种巧妙探寻彼此“共享未来”（shared future）的提问方式。
通过习惯性地抛出这种问题，你可以逐渐树立起一种“善于探寻兴奋点”的个人社交标签。当身边的同事或朋友熟悉你的这种风格后，他们甚至会主动带着自己的生活趣事来找你分享，因为他们知道你真的在乎这些个人热情。这不仅能迅速打破生硬的气氛，还能为未来的交往埋下绝佳的“回忆呼应点”（call backs）——当下一次碰面时，你可以自然地跟进：“嗨，上次听你提到那件事，进展得怎么样了？”这让后续所有的对话都变得轻而易举。
### [18:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1084s) 内向者的困境：在“无聊寒暄”与“破除脚本”之间选择你的疲惫
史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了许多内向者的现实困惑：每个人的社交技能、意愿和能量底线天差地别。许多内向的听众可能会冷淡地想：“这到底有什么意义？反正我也不喜欢社交，去假装对别人感兴趣只会彻底榨干我的能量。”
凡妮莎对此深表理解，并指出一个常被忽视的事实：努力去开启一段对话确实消耗能量，但陷入毫无营养的肤浅闲聊（shallow small talk）同样极其耗能。在活动现场或后台与人虚与委蛇、谈论毫无意义的琐事，只会让人觉得百无聊赖，一心只想赶紧回家瘫在沙发上看 Netflix。凡妮莎强调，人生总要面对一种消耗（"That's one hard"），但与其选择乏味、可预测且让人过目即忘的社交，不如选择另一种耗能方式——主动“打破既定脚本”（break a script），尝试在第一层沟通中激发一点多巴胺，探寻一些未曾了解的新信息。史蒂芬补充道，即便是内向者也有极具野心的人生目标，如果能向他们证明这些技巧能切实帮助他们成为更优秀的 CEO、创始人或更棒的父母，他们才会真正愿意投入精力。
### [19:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1186s) 商业与管理视角：消除“沟通摩擦”如何提升团队生产力
针对企业创始人与高管，凡妮莎指出商业界普遍存在一个误区：很多领导者认为社交寒暄是“反生产力”的，担心员工闲聊会浪费工作时间。然而大量行为学研究和商业逻辑得出了相反的结论：彼此有联结感的员工协作更顺畅，而高敬业度的团队配合度也更高。
这里的核心概念是“沟通摩擦”（communication friction）。当一家企业内部充斥着沟通摩擦时，员工会陷入自我怀疑，丧失心理安全感，在头脑风暴时不敢开口，甚至刻意隐瞒信息，从而形成严重的“信息孤岛”（information silos），造成真金白银的利润损失。职场沟通并不需要你与每一位同事或 Uber 司机都深入到触及灵魂的第三层，但只要建立起轻快、低摩擦的第一层互动（如了解对方的个人爱好或周末计划），团队会议的前 5 分钟就会从沉闷尴尬变为令人期待的愉快互动。这种由“弱连接”（loose ties）构筑的安全感，不仅能让员工准时参会，更能直接提升团队的整体产出。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 沟通摩擦对企业效益的影响路径对比
accDescr: 对比高沟通摩擦导致的信息孤岛与低沟通摩擦带来的高效协作流程
subgraph HighFriction["高沟通摩擦 (传统生硬互动)"]
A["缺乏心理安全感"] --> B["头脑风暴受阻与隐瞒信息"]
B --> C["形成信息孤岛与企业内耗"]
end
subgraph LowFriction["低沟通摩擦 (有效的第一层沟通)"]
D["掌握个人兴趣与轻松寒暄"] --> E["建立微小弱连接与信任感"]
E --> F["会议前5分钟破冰与深度协作"]
end
```
### [21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1290s) 高效连接策略与“说件好事”团队练习
对于时间极度匮乏、性格严谨甚至略带社交笨拙的高管而言，生硬地模仿“温暖”往往会适得其反。许多领导者误以为展现关怀就是照本宣科地问一句：“孩子们最近怎么样？”或者套用标准社交脚本：“最近如何？”对方只能机械地回答：“挺好的，挺忙的。”这种形式主义的互动毫无价值。
凡妮莎建议采用高度结构化、省时高效的团队干预工具：在每周固定的团队例会（无论线上远程还是线下）开场时，留出 3 至 5 分钟，让所有人轮流分享一件好事（"Tell me something good"）。
- **设定正向边界**：这一指令给对话设立了明确的心理框架，彻底杜绝了传统破冰时对天气糟糕、交通堵塞等消极抱怨的蔓延。
- **严格控制时长**：每个人只需快速说出一个大或小的亮点，整项流程耗时极短，凡妮莎自己的团队在每周二例会上也会坚持践行。
- **快速激活连接**：通过在受控的时间盒（time-boxing）内引发积极的情绪检索，迅速消除成员间的生疏与防备。
### [23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1395s) 拒绝虚假积极：真实情绪与杰瑞·宋飞的“数字提问法”
史蒂芬提问，第一层提问的核心是否就是为了激发正向的搜索与反馈。凡妮莎明确否定了盲目的乐观，警告“有毒的积极性”（toxic positivity）会瞬间扼杀对话氛围；交谈真正追寻的是“真实的情绪与故事”。
如果向对方提问“你最近有什么热衷的个人项目？”，而对方回答“我完全没有，最近日子过得很艰难，连轴转”，这绝非对话的终结，反而是建立深度联结的绝佳契机。此时你不必强行注入正能量，而是可以真诚地回应：“听到这个我很遗憾，有什么我能帮上忙的吗？”或者“你愿意和我聊聊吗？”
针对不擅长情感表达的内向者与高管，凡妮莎分享了喜剧大师杰瑞·宋飞（Jerry Seinfeld）的标志性社交技巧——**基于数字的提问法（Numbers-based question）**。宋飞在演出结束后常遇到激动到语无伦次、不知所措的观众，为了打破僵局，他从不问抽象的感受，而是抛出客观事实类的数字问题：
- 比如对一对夫妻提问：“你们两位在一起多久了？”
- 如果对方回答“38年”，便可顺势切入故事：“天哪，这38年里最精彩的高光时刻是什么？”
- 如果对方回答时间很短，则可以调侃：“看来你们还在蜜月期，那是最好的阶段。”
这种基于事实数字的提问极易回答，没有任何心理压力，却能天然充当跳板，迅速引申出一段生动的人生故事。
### [25:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1514s) 粉丝见面会的高速互动：从第一层跨向第二层
史蒂芬分享了自己在拉斯维加斯举办活动后的切身经历：在类似红毯拍照与快速握手（step-and-repeat meet and greet）的环节中，工作人员不断催促排队的人群快步通过，留给每个人的交流时间只有短短几秒。史蒂芬很想知道，在这种极端碎片化的高速社交场景下，怎样提问才能迅速了解对方。
凡妮莎给出了自己的实战做法：在演讲或新书活动结束后，她会直接看着观众提问：“刚才的内容里，你最喜欢哪一部分？”或者“你收获最大的是什么？”这种提问能够促使对方在带走观点的同时快速表达自我见解。凡妮莎指出，询问他人“你一直在学习什么”或者“你渴望了解什么”，实际上已经开始跨越简单的破冰，逐步踏入更深层次的“第二层沟通”（Level 2）。
### [26:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1563s) 摆脱工作话题的“寻宝”游戏与第一层级交流
Vanessa Van Edwards 分享了自己在深入研究 Dan McAdams 的人格层次理论时经历的一件趣事。当时她受邀参加一个聚会，进门就被要求脱鞋，这意味着大家都已经“被套牢”，无法轻易抽身离开。这时主办方宣布了一条硬性规定：“今晚所有人绝对不能谈论自己的工作。”在场的宾客几乎都是事业有成的专业人士，这个规定立刻引发了一阵恐慌——包括 Vanessa 自己，因为多数成功人士的自我认同很大程度上是由自己的职业所定义的，平时社交时话题总会不自觉地滑向工作。
这一限制瞬间强行关闭了 Vanessa 的“社交自动巡航”（autopilot）模式。面对大脑一片空白的恐慌，她不得不逼迫自己设计更有创意的破冰方式。她将这一过程视为一场“不主动提问、纯靠线索发现对方职业”的解密探险，并提出了一个绝妙的问题：“当你不谈工作时，你通常会聊什么？”这一提问赋予了全场一种前所未有的交流自由。Vanessa 指出，我们必须将交流的第一层级（通用特质与基础信息）当作“寻宝游戏”去对待——你的目标是挖掘对方身上的对话宝藏，而不是遵循陈词滥调；高质量的对话完全可以聚焦在任何让人当下感到兴奋和投入的事物上。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 社交对话的三个心理学层级
accDescr: 展示从第一层级的通用特质，过渡到第二层级的个人关切，再到更深层的递进架构。
subgraph Level1["第一层级：通用特质 (General Traits)"]
L1_Desc["基础信息与外在表现<br/>• 视作'寻宝游戏'<br/>• 避免自动化脚本<br/>• 建立基础安全感"]
end
subgraph Level2["第二层级：个人关切 (Personal Concerns)"]
L2_Motivations["内在驱动力与恐惧<br/>• 目标、价值观、野心<br/>• 早起动力 vs 彻夜焦虑<br/>• 爱宠项目 vs 害虫项目"]
end
subgraph Level3["第三层级：叙事认同 (Narrative Identity)"]
L3_Desc["深层人生叙事<br/>• 核心意义与身份重塑"]
end
Level1 -->|"平稳过渡，切忌越级"| Level2
Level2 -->|"建立信任后深入"| Level3
```
---
### [27:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1655s) 步入第二层级：个人关切与“造梦术”
第一层级奠定了基本事实，绝不能被直接跳过。许多人在社交中常犯的严重错误就是“过快深入”，直接跳过第一层级强行探问隐私，这会让人感到具有侵犯感甚至像被警察审讯。唯有妥善完成第一层级，才能升维到第二层级——“个人关切”（Personal Concerns）。这一层级关乎对方的核心动机、目标、价值观以及内心的焦虑与担忧。判断你是否与某人处于第二层级的心理检验标准很简单：你是否清楚究竟是什么目标驱动着他们每天清晨起床？同时，你又是否知道是什么担忧让他们在深夜辗转难眠？
```
第一层级 vs 第二层级核心差异：
┌───────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 对话维度 │ 核心目标与心理机制 │
├───────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 第一层级 (基础特质)│ 发现“社交宝藏”，建立基本连接与安全感 │
│ 第二层级 (个人关切)│ 让对方感到“被看见、被倾听与被理解” │
└───────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
Vanessa 指出，在第二层级中最关键的能力是“造梦术”（Dream Building）。每个人内心深处都有秘而不宣的渴望、秘密副业或隐藏的激情，造梦术的本质就是作为盟友协助他们展现这些梦想。例如在播客录制前，Vanessa 曾悄悄向 Steven 透露自己正在撰写并推销一部电视剧，这就是属于她的“秘密副业”。她进一步提出了“爱宠项目与害虫项目”（Pet or Pest Project）的概念：
- **爱宠项目（Pet Project）**：就像家中精心饲养的宠物，是人们满怀憧憬、倾注骄傲与热情的事物；
- **害虫项目（Pest Project）**：好比阁楼里令人烦躁的害虫，是深埋在心底、充满焦虑与耻辱感的问题，他们极度渴望寻求帮助却又羞于启齿。
在第二层级中，核心任务就是创造一个足够安全的社交场域，让对方有安全感去坦陈自己的骄傲或脆弱。
---
### [30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1838s) 激发成长型思维的高级提问与情境锚定
要顺理成章地开启造梦过程，提问必须能够精准激活对方的“成长型思维”（Growth Mindset）与未来想象。Vanessa 列举了数个极具穿透力且能有效提升对话层级的问题：
- **“你一直以来最想学习的是什么？”**：该提问能直接探查对方是否相信自己能够重塑人生轨迹，发出“你是否愿意与我一同成长”的邀请。
- **“你现阶段最宏大的目标是什么？”**：当人们思考未来自我与长远目标时，大脑特定区域会被激活并分泌多巴胺，激发起强烈的内在驱动力。
为了不让这些深刻的提问显得突兀，Vanessa 建议结合具体时间节点进行“时间锚定”（Time-Anchored）：
- 朋友过生日时，趁机提问：“在新的一岁里，你最大的目标是什么？”
- 逢年过节（如元旦前后、每年 12 月或 1 月），询问身边的每个人目前最看重的事项；
- 在季度交替或年度绩效考核等职业转折点提出此类探讨。
Vanessa 观察到，现代人过度沉迷于“个人内在修行”（Intrapersonal），在社交媒体上随处可见个人冥想、积极咒语、手账规划与生产力管理，人们习惯于在日记本前独自消化所有激情与抱负，反而在公众面前羞于提及自己的“秘密副业”和内心热望。倘若能在对话中主动打破禁忌，给予对方谈论抱负的许可，你就能从普通的倾听者瞬间跃升为对方的人生盟友。
---
### [32:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1956s) 应对社交死胡同与“被讨厌的勇气”
面对深刻的第二层级提问，对话并不总是一帆风顺，常常会遭遇冷场或回答不上来的死胡同。Steven 提出，很多人可能根本没有想清楚自己的目标是什么，或者出租车司机遇到后座完全不想搭话的乘客该怎么办。Vanessa 对此给出了明确的应对策略：
- **包容内向者的处理节奏**：许多内向者（Introverts）在听到抽象宏大的问题时需要更长的时间去心理加工。面对沉默，提问者完全可以主动分享自己的目标，起到示范和破冰的作用。
- **将提问视为“社交投标”（Bids）**：每一次提问本质上只是一次试探性的出价（“你愿意和我接招吗？想聊第一层还是浅尝第二层？”）。如果对方毫无回应，必须果断撤退并尊重对方的边界。
- **具备被讨厌的勇气**：对方不想交谈往往是因为自身正处于某种低谷或情绪困扰中。既然对方并非同频之人或不在连接的状态，就无需浪费多余的社交能量去强行撬开话匣子。
- **因地制宜调整问题**：第二层级的句式并非刻板教条，应灵活替换。例如出租车司机的经典开场白“今天有什么令人兴奋的去处吗？”，就是极佳的第一层级变体；而在新书签售会或演讲结束后，将问题微调为“今天你学到了什么新东西？”或“你最喜欢哪一部分？”，能自然顺畅地拉近与听众的距离。
### [34:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2075s) 对话的三层维度与“你必须真正关心对方吗？”
研究沟通与人际互动的关键，在于将晦涩的学术理论转化为切实可行的生活指南。正如出租车司机会将破冰问题自然地调整为“今天要去什么好玩的地方吗？”，这些话术从来都不是死板的教条，而是极具弹性的工具。心理学家丹·麦克亚当斯（Dan McAdams）的研究极其深刻，但其论文往往充满了学术术语（如一般特质、个人关注点等）。将其拆解后，便形成了清晰的沟通阶梯：第一层是“寻宝”（Treasure Hunt），旨在让对方放松，聊他们热爱的事物并挖掘故事；第二层是赋予对方分享梦想、内心欲望或潜在担忧的许可；而第三层则关乎更深层的核心叙事。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 三层对话互动模型
accDescr: 展示从浅层破冰到深层共鸣的递进关系
subgraph Levels["对话深度阶梯 (Dan McAdams 理论转化)"]
L1["第一层：寻宝 (Level 1)"] -->|"挖掘热爱，缓解紧张"| L2["第二层：情感许可 (Level 2)"]
L2 -->|"袒露梦想、担忧与秘密欲望"| L3["第三层：核心叙事 (Level 3)"]
end
```
当面对“问这些问题时，你真的必须打心底关心对方的答案吗？”这一尖锐提问时，答案是：在刚认识一个人时，你完全可以“暂时还不关心”。因为在开启对话前，谁也无法预知眼前的陌生人会不会成为未来的挚友，或是某句话会不会彻底改变你的事业轨迹。提问本身就代表着你“在乎到愿意去尝试”，这种带有善意与开放性的意图已经足够，无需在一开始就背负虚伪或道德负担。
---
### [36:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2208s) 告别“最近忙吗”：如何漂亮地回答“你是做什么的？”
在所有日常寒暄中，“最近忙吗？”（Been busy?）堪称对话史上最糟糕的问题，它不仅把人推向枯燥死板的回答，还会彻底掐死互动。无聊的提问会让提问者显得乏味，但当别人向你抛出枯燥问题时，这反而是打破常规脚本、制造惊喜的绝佳契机。其中最普遍的场景莫过于被问及“你是做什么的？”（What do you do?）。人们问这个问题往往是在探寻你的社会坐标，甚至潜意识里在评估你的价值。
多数人回答时的致命误区在于“消耗对方过多的大脑卡路里”。例如，在咖啡馆里曾有一位男子在约会时故弄玄虚地回答：“我有一套最大化提升年轻学习者成就的系统。”这让女方一头雾水，追问后才发现他其实只是一名小学五年级的老师。这种像背诵简历般堆砌行话的回答，既模糊又复杂，完全违背了认知规律。大脑在社交中需要最轻便的路径，遵循“先知事实，再听过程”的层级结构：
* **错误示范**：先抛出抽象复杂的方法论（如“我有一套提升年轻学习者成就的系统”），导致信息超载且充满距离感。
* **优秀范式**：先给出一个简单明确的标签，再带出引发好奇的钩子（Hook）——“我是五年级老师，过去十年里我研发了一套非常独特的系统，能大幅提升孩子的阅读速度”。
* **万能公式**：`我为【针对群体】做【核心工作】，通过【独特方法】实现`（"I do [blank] for [who] by [how]"）。这能让对方迅速在脑海中为你归类，并自然产生“你能否帮到我或我的朋友”的联想。
针对越来越多身兼数职的“多杠青年”（Slash / Multihyphenate）或处于职业转型期的人群，不必强求用单一标签定义自己。人类天生理解复杂性，完全可以用极具画面感的表达展现反差与叙事弧光：
- **跨界斜杠者**：“我白天（Daylight）是一名五年级教师，晚上（Moonlight）则是一名电影摄影师。”
- **职业转型者**：“我在市场营销领域工作了20年，目前正打算重返校园攻读心理学。”
---
### [41:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2485s) 对话力学：话轮时长与播客引发的社交错觉
除了寻找故事和传递情绪的“艺术层面”，对话还有严格遵循科学规律的“力学层面”（Mechanics）。大规模人际互动研究《坎德语料库》（Candor Corpus）揭示了日常交谈中话轮（Conversational Turn）的生理舒适区间：
* **最佳单次发言时长**：通常维持在 15 到 30 秒之间，这是最自然的互动节奏。
* **独白警戒线**：单次发言超过 45 秒，听众就会产生听独白（Monologue）的压迫感，觉得对方占用对话太久。
* **过度沉默与话痨**：单次发言低于 15 秒容易造成“对话稀缺感”，显得冷漠敷衍；而话太多则剥夺了对方的表达空间。
现代社会的对话艺术正在被无意识地剥离，罪魁祸首之一恰恰是风靡全球的播客。人们在闲暇时间大量倾听播客，潜意识里将其当作交流范本，但这其实是一种认知偏差。播客本质上是带有表演性质的深度访谈，双方都有提纲、笔记，单次发言往往长达数分钟，这与现实生活中那种需要高频轮替、相互试探的真实晚宴对话完全是两码事。
### [43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2588s) 异步沟通与“对话肌肉”的退化
现代生活方式正在悄然侵蚀人类大脑中的“对话肌肉”，其核心诱因之一便是异步沟通的激增。凡妮莎（Vanessa Van Edwards）坦言，自己现在经常给朋友发送长达 9 分钟的语音留言（voice notes），而对方也以同样的方式回复。然而，语音留言本质上根本不是真正的对话，而是一场纯粹的“独白”。在语音留言中，对话的双向机制完全失效，说话者接收不到任何实时的互动反馈——既没有“轮到我说了”、“我也是”、“你怎么敢这么说”，也没有“我不喜欢这样”或“我不同意”。凡妮莎直言，这是最自私的一种沟通形式：说话者无需顾及听者的即时反应，想讲多久就讲多久，而听者通常也在一边做饭、打扫卫生或健身一边多任务处理。这种长期缺乏即时往复的互动，导致人们在进入现实真实对话时感到异常吃力。
与此同时，面对面的日常社交频率正在急剧下降。数据显示，目前仅有十分之三（30%）的美国人在日常生活中进行社交活动，这意味着绝大多数人把更多的时间留给独处。人们忙于异步办公、自我关怀、追求长寿和日常锻炼，与他人共同度过的时间大幅缩水；全球范围内，每六个人中就有一人正遭受孤独感的困扰。
更深层的危机在于，人类开始频繁地“与技术本身对话”，而不仅仅是“通过技术对话”。人对人工智能说话的语气与人际交流截然不同。凡妮莎举例提到，她的丈夫在工作时对着 AI 严厉发号施令：“做好点，这做得太烂了，重新做！”当丈夫转头跟她说话时，她立刻警惕地提醒：“你最好别用命令 AI 的语气跟我说话。”这种对技术单向施压的沟通模式会不知不觉迁移到现实人际交往中，因为人类的大脑并不总能厘清对机器与对真人的边界，进一步加速了社交肌肉的萎缩。
- 仅 30% 的美国人每天会进行面对面或即时社交。
- 全球约有六分之一的人口受到孤独感（loneliness）的影响。
- 语音留言剥夺了对话中的即时轮替与情感校准，演变为单向输出的独白。
---
### [45:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2722s) 如何察觉自己说得太多：微表情与非语言线索
一项针对 1,000 多名美国人的调查揭示了职场中普遍存在的“过度倾诉”现象：高达 95% 的受访者曾与话太多的同事共事。这些过于健谈的同事平均每个工作日要花上整整 90 分钟闲聊，而 71% 的受访者明确表示，这些滔滔不绝的同事严重阻碍了他们完成本职工作。
针对如何判断自己是否说话超时，凡妮莎给出了具体的诊断与干预方案：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话自我审视与非语言反馈机制
accDescr: 展示如何通过时长控制和识别对方非语言微信号来避免过度倾诉
subgraph TimeControl ["时长自检"]
A["回顾 Zoom 等会议录像"] --> B["单次发言控制在 15 至 45 秒"]
end
subgraph NonVerbalCues ["捕捉听众微表情"]
C["微张嘴巴 / '张嘴鱼' 动作"] --> D["听者想要争取发言权"]
E["挑眉反应 (Eyebrow Raise)"] --> F["触发兴趣点 / 展开深入讨论"]
G["移开视线 / 面无表情"] --> H["听者已走神 / 应主动停顿让出麦克风"]
end
```
凡妮莎建议翻看过去的 Zoom 录像并为自己的发言计时，适宜的单次发言时长通常在 15 秒到 45 秒之间，45 秒是单次表达的上限。其次，必须学会捕捉听众的非语言退出信号。最典型的线索是对方微微张开嘴巴，就像一条吸气的鱼（凡妮莎称之为“张嘴鱼”形态），这表明对方内心正跃跃欲试想要插话，只是在礼貌克制地等待气口。在录制现场，史蒂文此前正是做出了这一微动作，凡妮莎敏锐察觉后便立刻停顿让出话语权。这也是礼貌打断他人长篇大论的绝佳技巧。
史蒂文分享了他完成 700 多场长对话播客后的观察：有些嘉宾时刻在警惕地“监视”主持人的微表情，一旦主持人稍有动作或移开视线，对方的节奏就会被彻底打乱；而另一些嘉宾则旁若无人，完全察觉不到主持人的存在。凡妮莎指出，真正高超的沟通者绝不把对话当成宣泄声音的“大喇叭”，而是视其为一个持续的反馈闭环。她提到知名天体物理学家尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）的创作秘诀：泰森在新书里写下的每一个金句，都是他在飞机上与陌生人聊天时测试出来的——只要对方听完猛然挑眉（eyebrow raise），泰森就会立刻把这句话记下来。在对话中，挑眉代表着听众的兴奋与好奇，也是提示发言者“双击深入”、展开故事或举例的关键风向标；若对方既无挑眉也无赞叹，甚至开始眼神涣散，发言者就必须立刻收尾。
---
### [48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=2902s) 中场赞助：Shopify 与 Fiverr Pro
史蒂文在中场插入了商业赞助信息：
自主创业曾被视为巨大的风险，但如今门槛已被数字化工具彻底重塑。对于拥有商业构想的创业者而言，Shopify 提供了从拖拽式建站编辑器、AI 智能助手（AI Sidekick）到专业数据分析的一站式电商解决方案。其顶级的结账系统不仅能保存客户信息以促进复购，更能大幅提高转化率，让新业务在第一天便顺利实现资金回笼。观众可访问 `shopify.com/bartlett` 开启免费试用。
而在企业扩张过程中，聪明的策略是在不盲目扩招全职员工的前提下具备大公司的作战能力。针对 AI 原生战略、无代码构建及产品工作流等前沿专业领域，史蒂文的团队长期借助 Fiverr Pro 引入经过严格资质审核的高端专业人才，使团队在保持敏捷节奏的同时确保交付品质。相关需求可通过 `pro.fiverr.com` 寻找对口顶尖专家。
---
### [50:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3027s) 对话者两大类型：表演者与欣赏者
广告结束后，史蒂文顺着前文话题坦言，他身边确实存在极具代表性的“过度表达者”：这类人在开口说话时，给人的感觉是他们根本意识不到房间里还有其他人的存在，甚至仿佛“全程闭着双眼”，只有等到他们把脑子里的存货全部倒空、彻底讲完之后才会停下来。
凡妮莎随即指出了人际沟通中的重大分类框架——人类在对话中主要分为两大类：**表演者（Entertainers）**与**欣赏者（Appreciators）**。
在日常咨询中，凡妮莎最常被问及的问题之一便是“如何与公司高管、老板或 VIP 大人物交谈”。这一框架正是解决该痛点的关键。凡妮莎回顾了她总结出该理论的契机：在一次大型演讲活动的后台贵宾休息室（Green Room），一位极具知名度的超级巨星走了进来。在登台前的候场空当里，后台的工作人员和嘉宾们纷纷上前搭话，凡妮莎在旁静静观察了一位又一位上前尝试与这位 VIP 建立连接的人，并从中捕捉到了不同沟通风格激烈碰撞的微妙动态。
### [51:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3094s) 面对大人物：取悦型表达与“表演者” vs “欣赏者”
当人们面对老板、VIP 或名流时，几乎无一例外会掉入相同的交流误区：要么是奉承夸奖（“我太喜欢你的作品了，我从小就看你的节目，你彻底改变了我的人生”），要么是提出宽泛的大问题（“你做过最成功的事是什么？你对我们年轻人有什么建议吗？”）。凡妮莎观察过许多人这样接近一位知名人士，而那位 VIP 的反应极其冷淡，只是礼貌性地敷衍“你好”、“很高兴认识你”，拍个合影就迅速抽身，完全没有真正互动。
出人意料的是，现场负责调试麦克风的视听（AV）工作人员打破了这种尴尬。那位工作人员走上前，直接开口问：“我能给你讲个最好笑的故事吗？”那位原本冷漠的名人眼神一亮，立刻说：“好啊！”接着，这位工作人员生动讲述了自己第一次看对方电影时的糗事，以及自己和兄弟姐妹玩体育比赛时的爆笑经历。名人和工作人员一起开怀大笑，随后那位大人物反而主动向工作人员提问。
凡妮莎借此指出对话中的两种核心心理角色：
- **表演者（Entertainer）**：他们渴望在对话中娱乐他人，容易讲话时间过长、有滔滔不绝的风险。他们的“社交爱语”是获得他人的赞赏、笑声和倾听，喜欢给出建议，说话比例往往远高于倾听。
- **欣赏者（Appreciator）**：这类人（包括凡妮莎和史蒂文自身）在日常工作中已经说了太多话，私下社交时根本不想继续高谈阔论。他们喜欢听别人讲奇闻异事、尴尬糗事或惊喜故事，乐于当个合格的听众，反而不愿轻易暴露个人底牌。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Conversational Archetypes
accDescr: 对话中的表演者与欣赏者模式及应对策略
subgraph Roles["对话中的两大人格角色"]
E["表演者 (Entertainer)<br/>• 渴望娱乐他人、分享故事<br/>• 说话时长较长，风险是过度倾倒<br/>• 需要被提问和倾听"]
A["欣赏者 (Appreciator)<br/>• 渴望听故事与被逗乐<br/>• 不愿主动袒露自己<br/>• 害怕被逼问深层隐私"]
end
subgraph Strategies["与 VIP / 老板沟通策略"]
VIP_E["若对方是【表演者】<br/>➡️ 提问、捧哏、倾听建议"]
VIP_A["若对方是【欣赏者】<br/>➡️ 讲好玩故事、逗对方开心、勿索取建议"]
end
E --> VIP_E
A --> VIP_A
```
- 面对 VIP 时，必须先辨识对方是表演者还是欣赏者：表演者需要你抛出好问题让他们发挥，而欣赏者更希望你讲一个精彩的故事来让他们放松。
---
### [54:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3249s) 揭穿“对话自恋症”：不安全感与致命的冷场恐惧
史蒂文提出疑问：如果有些人走上前根本不是为了讲有趣的故事，而是没完没了地炫耀自己、试图证明自己有多厉害，这算什么？凡妮莎指出，这在心理学上被称为**对话自恋症（Conversational Narcissism）**。这类人会把对话强行当成自己的独角戏，一个人直接冲上“对话三层级”的最顶峰，在第一层级替自己回答，喋喋不休地倾倒自己的宏伟目标，甚至倾泻极其深层的隐私，造成可怕的“言语倾倒（Verbal Vomit）”。
这种行为并非出于傲慢，而是源于极其深层的**不安全感（Insecurity）**。凡妮莎的研究实验室调查了数千人（样本量达 4,000 人）最大的社交恐惧。凡妮莎原以为会是“被拒绝”或“被评判”，但调查结果显示，人们最害怕的竟然是**“尴尬的沉默”或“不知道接下来该说什么”**。对话自恋者正是因为极度恐惧出现沉默而被对方抛弃，于是不受控地用自言自语填满每一个空白。
史蒂文提到自己认识的朋友就陷入这种困境：尽管多次收到反馈、明明自知说得太多，但因为童年根深蒂固的模式，一旦坐下来就停不住嘴。面对这类对话自恋者，有几种应对和干预策略：
- **主动夺回球权**：对于重要且在乎的人，可以直接亮出界限，半开玩笑地提醒：“现在轮到我了吗？你想听听我的目标吗？”
- **用进取型好奇心自救**：过度倾谈者若想改正，必须从自说自话转向“进取型好奇心（Assertive Curiosity）”，积极追问对方的“What、How、Why、When”，深度挖掘对方的想法。
- **检验双向流动**：史蒂文如果面对这样的朋友，可以问一句“你对我刚才说的感到好奇吗？”，以此确认对方是否有倾听意愿，还是完全沉浸在自己的焦虑中。
---
### [58:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3485s) 打破对话僵局与“对话慷慨度”
在长期的关系中——无论是老朋友、夫妻，还是习惯了单方面输出的关系——对话极易陷入只聊琐事物流的枯竭状态。为了打破这种惯性，凡妮莎建议引入规则化的**基石对话（Cornerstone Conversation）**，利用轮流作答的结构（例如凡妮莎书中的 9 个核心问题）强行重置交流节奏。你可以对伴侣或朋友说：“我朋友凡妮莎在播客里分享了 9 个问题，咱们今晚一起做个测试吧，我先来答第一个。”这种机制能迫使习惯性多说的人停下来倾听，帮助双方打破恶性循环。
史蒂文随后引用了一句经典沟通准则：“卓越对话的关键在于**保持好奇（Interested），而非试图表现得有趣（Interesting）**。”
凡妮莎对此高度认同，并坦承这是深受戴尔·卡耐基（Dale Carnegie）启发的智慧。当一个人抱着自私的心理进入对话时，满脑子都是“我怎样才能显得聪明风趣？怎样才能让他人喜欢我？”，这不仅自私，而且给自己背上了沉重的表现包袱。而当心态转变为**对话慷慨度（Conversational Generosity）**时，目标变成了：
- “我如何能让眼前这个人感到安心自在？”
- “我如何创造空间，让他们有机会展现自己的才华与亮点？”
- “我怎样全神贯注地对他们保持好奇，从而让他们变得引人入胜？”
这种无私的慷慨不仅能迅速卸下交流双方的防御，更会产生奇妙的“反弹效应”，最终让倾听者自己也成为极具魅力与吸引力的人。
### [01:00:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3607s) 为什么受欢迎的人往往最懂得“主动去喜欢他人”
在应对社交中滔滔不绝、霸占对话的人时，倾听者其实可以表现得更有包容心：既可以直接礼貌地表达“嘿，能不能轮到我讲两句”，也可以把他们当作天生的表演者，索性让他们尽情展示，或者顺水推舟提出更多问题。这呼应了一项针对人际吸引力的心理学研究：校园里最受人喜爱的孩子，往往并不是那些最耀眼的人，而是“拥有最长喜爱名单”的孩子。换句话说，如果想要变得讨人喜欢，最有效的策略是积极主动地在他人身上寻找值得欣赏的地方。当一个人带着“我怎样才能更喜欢你”、“我如何能发现你身上更多的优点”这种心态进入交流时，对话的重心就从证明自己转移到了烘托对方，所提出的问题也会自然而然引导对方展现出最可爱的一面。
凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）针对史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）之前提到的“对话自恋者”（Conversational Narcissist）提出了一种逆向解法。她直言很想亲自接触一下那位朋友，看看如果主动提出更深层次的问题，引导对方进入更具情感连接的第二层甚至第三层沟通，对方是否会逐渐平静下来。很多过度表达的背后隐藏着深层的不安全感，他们在内心深处极度渴望确认三件事：“我被理解了吗？我被选中了吗？我是被喜爱的吗？”凡妮莎指出，史蒂文本身是一个气场强大、让人产生敬畏感的人；如果对方在交流中感受不到自己被理解和接纳，面对倾听者出于礼貌而展现出的沉默，反而会将其误读为冷淡与否定，从而为了掩盖不安而变本加厉地一直说下去。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对话自恋者的心理循环与破局之道
accDescr: 展示对话自恋者因内在渴望与外界反应形成的恶性循环，以及通过深度倾听与认可打破循环的过程。
subgraph Trap["恶性循环"]
A["内在不安全感<br/>(渴望被理解、被选中、被爱)"] --> B["过度倾诉 / 霸占话语权"]
B --> C["倾听者沉默或尴尬抽离"]
C --> D["误判为被冷落 / 不被认可"]
D --> A
end
subgraph Solution["破局之道"]
E["主动提出深层问题 (Level 2/3)"]
F["给予情绪确认: '我看见你、认可你'"]
G["紧绷神经放松，停止自恋式倾倒"]
end
D -.->|"改变应对方式"| E
E --> F --> G
```
### [01:01:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3709s) 为什么聪明人容易陷入“梦想扼杀”与逻辑审查
史蒂文观察到，某些具有对话自恋倾向的人在特定对象面前表现得尤为剧烈。比如面对漂亮女性或渴望给对方留下深刻印象的人时，这种人往往会进入彻底的“话语倾倒”（word vomit）状态。这恰恰印证了凡妮莎的观点：他们内面对特定对象时，那种“渴望被理解、被选中、被爱”的欲望被急剧放大，导致表达彻底失控。凡妮莎用了一个生动的比喻：霸占对话的人就像车上的司机，如果车上的乘客纷纷流露出“天哪，你开得太烂了”的嫌弃神情，这位糟糕的司机只会变得更加神经紧绷、把车开得更险象环生。对话的关键在于如何让掌控方向盘的人感到安心，而不是用冷淡甚至苛责让他陷入恐慌。
在现实交流中，“梦想构建”（dream building）的反面是“梦想扼杀”（dream killing）。许多智商极高的人常常会无意中沦为“梦想扼杀者”——他们习惯用纯粹的逻辑、事实核查（fact-checking）去审判别人的谈话，而不是基于情感直觉（gut-checking）去感受对方。当对方还在满怀憧憬地表达一个未经雕琢的想法时，聪明人若是立刻进行严丝合缝的纠错与打假，就会在对话中制造出一种极度的稀缺感与防御感。这种打击会让对方觉得“我必须证明自己、我必须说服你”，进而引发更剧烈的倾倒与争辩。
史蒂文分享了自己此前公司招聘中的真实案例：有一位应聘者智商极高、资历无懈可击，但在面试结束后，所有面试官给出的评价却全都是中立甚至负面的。原因就在于这位候选人过分沉迷于“追求绝对真理”，把人际好感与情感顾虑完全抛在脑后，只在乎对方说的话在事实上是否绝对正确。凡妮莎指出，这正是研究反复证实的结论：**“没有温度的胜任力容易让人产生怀疑（Competence without warmth is likely to leave us feeling suspicious）。”** 哪怕一个人是全场最聪明的人，如果缺乏建立情感共鸣的沟通技巧，大脑机制就会让对方本能地产生戒备与抗拒。因此，基础寒暄的第一层交流（Level 1）绝不能轻易跳过，它的核心使命是建立放松感与亲和力，让对方感受到自己被倾听、被接纳。
### [01:05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3920s) 标志性问题：如何通过“行为提问法”获取真实洞见
在测试了100多个问题后，凡妮莎总结出了一套适用于职场、家庭甚至亲子沟通的高效提问模型。其中第六个核心问题被称为“标志性问题”（Signature Question）。这项技巧要求提问者首先进行逆向工程：思考自己在交流中最享受谈论什么话题。当史蒂文表示自己最沉迷于讨论人类心理与行为动机时，凡妮莎解释道，这就意味着史蒂文在日常沟通与访谈中，应当大量运用探究“如何”与“为何”的行为提问——探寻对方为什么会做出某个特定抉择、是什么驱动了他们的人生转折。
这种基于行为的提问理念在职场面试中同样具有颠覆性：
- **颠覆传统的缺点提问**：传统面试官常问“你最大的缺点是什么？”，求职者往往给出早已排练好的虚假说辞。更高级的问法是：“**如果我给你上一任主管打电话，你觉得他会说你最大的缺点是什么？**”这种提问迫使求职者跳出自身视角，站在第三方客观监督的立场审视自己，不仅瞬间打破了预先准备好的套路，还能通过后续的背景调查进行事实核验。
- **强化时间近因与行为落地**：不要宽泛地要求对方“讲讲你过去管理某个项目的经历”，因为候选人必然会挑选数年间包装得最完美的故事。更精准的提问方式是明确限定时间：“**请讲讲你在过去两三个月内，最近一次管理项目的真实经历。**”通过锁定近期发生的行为细节，能够剥离经过反复修饰的谎言，挖掘出一个人未经排练的真实行为模式。
### [01:08:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4092s) 打造你的专属“标志性问题”
Vanessa 进一步阐明对话第二层（Level 2）中的第六个核心问题——“标志性问题”（Signature Question）。许多杰出的沟通者和访谈者都有属于自己的固定提问：例如 Amy Poehler 在她的播客结尾总是会问嘉宾：“你最近在为什么事情发笑？是什么让你开心大笑？”；再如发起“万小时户外活动”（1000 Hours Outside，倡导家长带孩子放下屏幕走进大自然）倡议的 Ginny Yurich，在播客中逢人必问：“你童年最难忘的户外记忆是什么？”因为她本人热爱户外与童年怀旧话题。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 标志性问题演变流
accDescr: 展示 Vanessa 在不同研究阶段为自己量身定制的标志性问题
subgraph SQ ["不同研究阶段的标志性问题"]
A["《Captivate》时期<br/>'你最喜欢的肢体语言信号是什么？'"]
B["《Cues》时期<br/>'你认识的最具魅力的人是谁？'"]
C["《Conversation》时期<br/>'你最喜欢的破冰开场白是什么？'"]
end
A --> B --> C
```
当 Steven 误以为这一步是在对话中直接问对方“你最喜欢聊什么”从而投其所好时，Vanessa 纠正了他的理解：标志性问题不是让对方定调，而是由**你**为自己量身定制的武器，用来把对话引向你真正热爱、深具热情的领域。
- 比如 Steven 热爱行为学与心理学，他的专属问题就可以围绕人类动机设计（如“是什么驱动着你前行？”）。
- Vanessa 分享了自己的演变轨迹：写《Captivate》时，她逢人便聊“你最喜欢的肢体语言信号是什么？”；研究《Cues》时，她问“你认识的最有魅力的人是谁？”；而当下推广《Conversation》，她的标志性提问则是“你最喜欢的破冰开场白是什么？”
---
### [01:10:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4204s) “你话太多了吗？”5道自测题与喋喋不休挑战
在推进到对话第三层（Level 3）前，Vanessa 拿出了书中针对“交谈过度”（Overtalking）的诊断测试。这套测试的底层逻辑全部指向同一个核心——“你是否保有足够的好奇心？”如果一个人总是滔滔不绝，说明他缺乏向对方探索的好奇，根本无法顺畅过渡到更深层级的交流。
Steven 现场逐一回答了这 5 道测试题（若回答“经常”达到 3 次以上，通常代表有严重的交谈过度倾向）：
1. **聊完后发现对对方知之甚少**：“离开对话时，我突然意识到自己根本不了解对方。”（Steven：极少）。
2. **话音落下却无人实质回应**：“我说完话后，大家只是礼貌点头，并不真正接话回应。”（Steven：偶尔）。
3. **沉溺于细节冗长故事**：“我喜欢讲又长又细的故事，尤其是当别人碍于礼貌不好意思打断时。”（Steven：仅在有人付费请我上台演讲时才会，平时极少）。
4. **被外界委婉或直接提醒**：“曾有人委婉或直截了当地告诉我‘你话太多了’。”（Steven：从未）。
5. **讲话时对方眼神游离**：“当我讲故事讲到一半时，常注意到旁人在环视四周。”（Steven：偶尔）。
测验结果显示 Steven 顺利通关。Vanessa 随即提出了一项极具实操性的**“喋喋不休挑战”（Yap Challenge）**：
- **测试方法**：打开手机前置摄像头，在毫无底稿准备的情况下，针对某个随机观点（例如“对纯素食主义的看法”）即兴表达见解并按下录制键。
- **评判标准**：
- **15 至 30 秒**：理想区间，对话节奏紧凑精炼；
- **45 秒**：临界上限，超过此限度极易在日常社交中引发交谈摩擦；
- **1 至 2 分钟以上**：严重过载，说明日常单次发言长度往往大幅超标。
- 多数内向者在测试中能自然保持精炼，甚至往往表达过短；而外向者则极易不知不觉掉入长篇大论的陷阱。
---
### [01:12:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4351s) 搭讪要微信还是社媒账号？初次约会的“剧透陷阱”
为了现场实测 Yap Challenge，Vanessa 抛出了一个刚与朋友讨论过的真实社交议题：“在街头偶遇搭讪时，对方要 Instagram 账号而不是私人电话号码，你赞成还是反对？”
Steven 在短短 12 秒内给出了他的赞成逻辑：在毫无铺垫的街头偶遇中，直接索要电话号码具有很强的侵入性，仿佛在硬闯私人领地；相比之下，公开的 Instagram 是一个更合理的社交缓冲区，相当于给彼此一个“通过互动来争取获得电话号码”的渐进阶梯。
Vanessa 则强烈反对这种观点，两人随即展开了一场关于现代约会困境的精彩交锋：
| 维度 | 索要 Instagram / 社交账号（Steven 的缓冲视角） | 坚持私人通讯方式 / 留白交流（Vanessa 的深度视角） |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **信息真实性** | 充斥着精心编排与表演性质的公共人设（Public Persona）。 | 还原未经滤镜修饰的人格本真，依赖真实的言谈举止来展现。 |
| **初次约会体验** | **提前剧透**：对方的宠物名字、家庭关系、度假地点全被看光，剥夺了当面探索的惊喜，导致约会缺乏开场话题而陷入尴尬。 | **未知驱动**：从“你有养宠物吗？”这种基础问题自然发酵，充满层层挖掘的好奇与探索乐趣。 |
| **机智与互动检验** | 沦为静默的“线上背景审查”，无法检验彼此的接梗与幽默感。 | 通过短信互动与言语交锋，直接测验对方幽默感、提问水平以及是否属于“交谈自恋狂”。 |
Vanessa 直言，现代人初次约会之所以频繁遭遇尴尬冷场，正是因为社交媒体提前“剧透”了所有原本属于第一层探索的内容。当双方带着对彼此社交动态的浅层认知坐在一起时，被迫在毫无线下情感铺垫的情况下强行切入第二层话题，这种不自然且缺乏现场温度的信息前置，彻底扼杀了人际交往中最宝贵的发现之乐。
### [01:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4553s) 跳过基础社交的代价：为什么别向陌生人索要社交账号
Vanessa Van Edwards 探讨了社交媒体与真实交往之间的脱节。她指出，社交媒体（如 Instagram）本质上只是经过精心策划与表演的人生精彩集锦（curated highlight reel），它会让旁观者产生一种虚假的熟悉感，误以为自己非常了解对方。然而现实生活中，每个人在社交平台上展示的都只是冰山一角。如果单身男女在初次相识时直接索要对方的社交账号，就等于跳过了至关重要的“第一层级（Level 1）”日常闲聊。这种基础闲聊看似轻松琐碎，却在社会交往中起着关键的奠基作用；一旦直接略过它，不仅会增加日后相处的尴尬感与摩擦力，还会破坏潜在的深度连接。
面对 Vanessa 给单身人士提出的挑战——“别再要社交账号了，直接要电话号码”，Steven 提出了现实的反驳：如今大多数人都是通过约会软件（Dating Apps）相识，而约会软件上的照片和展示往往更具表演性。Vanessa 则为约会软件辩护，她认为约会软件通常只有 6 到 10 张照片和有限的设定问题，无法像 Instagram 那样让人一路翻看到高中时期的全部历史，因此不会给人一种“我已经把你看透了”的错觉。她坦言，虽然大家都抱怨约会软件，但在人人都戴着 AirPods 耳机穿梭于健身房等公共场合、彼此彻底封闭物理感官的今天，约会软件几乎成了为数不多能打破孤岛的方式。她建议，如果初次认识的人索要社交账号，完全可以礼貌而坚定地回答：“我的社交账号只对家人和亲密朋友开放，我们先从彼此了解开始吧。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 社交接触模式对比
accDescr: 对比直接索要社交账号与循序渐进通过第一层级沟通的区别
subgraph SkipLevel1["跳过第一层级：直接互换社交账号"]
A["索要 Instagram 账号"] --> B["浏览经过精心剪辑的精彩集锦"]
B --> C["产生虚假的熟悉感与预设立场"]
C --> D["缺乏基础日常互动，引发社交摩擦与尴尬"]
end
subgraph GradualConnection["健康渐进沟通：守住基础层级"]
E["索要电话号码 / 限额约会资料"] --> F["展开第一层级（Level 1）轻松闲聊"]
F --> G["建立真实的社交舒适感与双向了解"]
G --> H["为后续进入深度连接打下稳固基础"]
end
```
### [01:17:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4666s) 过快深度的危险：职场边界与“脆弱后悔”
虽然深入的对话极为宝贵，但 Vanessa 警告说，这必须留给生命中最重要的人。许多人在社交中害怕过快走入深层对话，而这种恐惧是完全合理的——如果在不合适的场合（尤其是职场环境）过早敞开胸扉，人们往往会被视作怪异。这就引发了一种极其痛苦的心理现象：“脆弱后悔（Vulnerability Regret）”。当你毫无保留地分享了极为脆弱隐秘的心事，却发现对方并不能提供一个安全的接纳空间，甚至给出了冷淡或尴尬的回应，那种心碎与懊悔将是毁灭性的。
Steven 对此深有体会，并分享了一个切身经历：就在两周前的一次面试中，应聘者在开场的 25 分钟里滔滔不绝地倾诉了极其深沉且私密的童年早期创伤。Steven 感到措手不及，他原本做好了评估专业能力的准备，结果瞬间被逼到了不得不充当“心理咨询师”的尴尬境地。Vanessa 借此强调，当代文化过度推崇“全然的脆弱与真实”，导致许多人混淆了真实表达（Authenticity）与不合时宜的过度袒露（Over-vulnerability）之间的界限。第三层级的深度对话必须设立一道“门禁”，不可随意向泛泛之交敞开。
### [01:19:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4777s) 第三层级对话：救赎叙事与污染叙事
进入最高维度的第三层级对话，核心探讨的是个体的“自我叙事（Self-Narrative）”。所谓的自我叙事，是每个人在内心深处向自己讲述的关于自己是谁的故事，它构建了人们理解人生旅程与生命意义的方式。值得警惕的是，这种叙事具有自我实现的创造力（self-creating）：如果你认定自己的人生是一场厄运连连的苦难史，你就会在现实中遭遇更多困难并吸引更多坏运气。研究表明，人类的自我叙事主要分为两类：
- **救赎叙事（Redemption Narrative）**：拥有这种叙事框架的人，无论生命中遭遇了何种打击或变故，都会将事实框定为“只要凭借努力、坚韧（Grit）与韧性，就一定能够战胜困难”。这种认知模式会贯穿他们的人生全局，在职场、恋爱、家庭育儿等各个维度反复呈现。
- **污染叙事（Contamination Narrative）**：持有这种叙事的人，则认为所有的艰难险阻与不幸都是冲着自己来的（happened to them），觉得自己无力克服。无论自己付出多少努力，终究只是环境的牺牲品。他们普遍感觉自己极其不幸，对人生缺乏掌控感。
Vanessa 强调，人生的本质并不在于发生了哪些客观事实，而在于你如何为这些事实搭建认知框架（Frames）。好在叙事并非一成不变的固化性格特质，它可以通过高质量的沟通加以重构。在安全且充满信任的双向对话中，当一个人真正感受到被理解与接纳时，便拥有了将“污染叙事”扭转为“救赎叙事”的契机。
### [01:21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4903s) 捕捉叙事漏洞与重塑认知框架
人类的大脑天生就是讲故事的机器，日常交流中处处都在散播关于自身定位的线索。Vanessa 提出了“叙事线索（Narrative Hints）”的概念，指出倾听者可以通过语言习惯精准捕捉对方的心智模式：
- **污染叙事的语言标志**：倾向于使用非黑即白的绝对化最高级词汇（Superlatives），例如反复抱怨“每个人都往东走，偏偏倒霉的我往西走”、“为什么坏事*总是*发生在我身上”、“果不其然，*又*来一件破事”。他们习惯将逆境视为永久的、不可逆的定局。
- **救赎叙事的语言标志**：频繁流露出积极的叙事漏洞，例如“好事*总是*眷顾我”、“凡事总有一线希望（Silver lining）”、“我运气向来不错，这次也扛过去了”。
科学研究证实，持有救赎叙事的人往往更快乐、更健康且寿命更长，其免疫系统功能也更为强大。究其根源，是因为他们坚信自己能够妥善应对一切外部冲击。Vanessa 呼吁，这种能力是可以通过沟通后天习得的；当父母与孩子、伴侣与伴侣之间展开关于叙事的对话时，就能引导对方认识到自己对人生故事拥有主动权与成长空间。
### [01:22:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=4970s) 控制点心理学：内控者的掌控力
对话随后深入探讨了心理学中的“内控点（Internal Locus of Control）”。Steven 回忆起自己大约 16、17 岁在高中心理学课上首次接触这一概念时的震撼，并向 Vanessa 探寻其背后的科学验证与深远意义。
Vanessa 阐释道，所谓内控点，是指个体深信自己对人生具备自主权（Agency）和决定权。他们清醒地意识到，虽然生活中无法预测的变故不可避免地会发生，但自己永远拥有选择如何应对、如何行动的主动权。与此形成鲜明对比的是外控点（External Locus of Control）人群，他们往往将生活的境遇归咎于外部力量、运气或他人，从而在困境面前陷入习得性无助与被动挣扎之中。拥有强大的内控点，正是打破污染叙事、走向自我拯救的基石。
### [01:23:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5026s) 鸟与过山车：外部控制点与宿命论的隐喻
在探讨个人如何获取价值感时，凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）指出，许多人习惯完全依赖外界来确认自我价值——只有当别人称赞他们外表出众、夸奖他们表现优异时，他们才能感到良好。他们狂热地追逐所谓的虚荣指标（vanity metrics），例如点赞数、粉丝量、朋友数量、受邀参加派对的频率，或是他人给予的奉承。
史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个逻辑提出了一个精妙的比喻：人们在看待人生时，往往将自己归类为“小鸟”或“过山车上的乘客”。坐过山车的人沿着既定轨道行进，无论自己做什么，车都会上下俯冲、左拐右旋，乘客只能死死抓紧扶手听天由命；相反，鸟儿则拥有绝对的自主权（agency），它没有预设的轨道，想飞往哪里就飞往哪里。
凡妮莎对此深表赞同，并指出这正是探测对方是否处于“第三层级对话”（Level 3，即核心价值观与人生叙事）的关键切入点。如果一个人强烈相信“命运”（fate），他们就更容易认为自己被绑在人生的过山车上，一切起落皆为宿命。这种强烈的外部控制点（external locus of control）不仅决定了他们的世界观，从心理学角度来看，也可能对心理健康产生长期的负面影响。
---
### [01:25:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5109s) 脆弱是连接的入口：700场深度对谈后的卡牌实验
史蒂芬谈到自己在主持节目时积累的深刻洞察：在与全球近700位顶尖人物进行深度访谈之后，他意外发现“展现脆弱是建立连接的真正入口”。每次经过两三个小时毫无防备的畅聊，他与嘉宾之间都会产生深厚的羁绊，而每位嘉宾在离开前都会在《CEO日记》笔记本上留下一道直击灵魂的问题。
团队将这些来自各领域杰出访谈对象的问题制作成了实体对话卡牌。史蒂芬分享说，自己无论是与未婚妻在家独处，还是与公司同事增进默契，抑或是家庭聚会，都会抽空玩这套卡牌。在数字媒介泛滥的当下，它提供了一个重返现实世界、实现人与人深度共鸣的绝佳契机。恰如其分的提问拥有非凡的力量，能瞬间瓦解社交假面。
---
### [01:26:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5178s) 伪装成随口一问的深度试金石：“你觉得自己幸运吗？”
凡妮莎将话题拉回如何捕捉谈话中的“叙事线索”，并抛出了一个极具杀伤力的隐蔽问题：“你觉得自己是个幸运的人吗？”这个问题听起来极度随和自然，甚至像一句不经意的寒暄，但回答者的第一反应却能泄露大量底层心理机制。回答通常可以清晰地划分为三类：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 三种关于运气的回答心理模型
accDescr: 展示面对你觉得自己幸运吗这一提问时，三种不同回答所映射的底层心理特质。
Q["核心问题：'你觉得自己幸运吗？'"] --> A1["坚定肯定：'是的，我极度幸运'"]
Q --> A2["坚决否定：'不，我一点都不走运'"]
Q --> A3["含糊迟疑：'嗯……算是有吧 / 不好说'"]
subgraph SG1["肯定型画像"]
A1 --> R1["高度感恩与特权意识"]
A1 --> R2["强大的个人控制力与主动权"]
A1 --> R3["决策果断、自信乐观"]
end
subgraph SG2["否定型画像"]
A2 --> R4["可能遭遇重创事件（认知翻转）"]
A2 --> R5["警惕有毒正能量；需以好奇心倾听"]
A2 --> R6["感知外部力量压制，感到不被理解"]
end
subgraph SG3["迟疑型画像"]
A3 --> R7["内省程度较低，从未思考过该问题"]
A3 --> R8["缺乏心理安全感，防备过早进入第三层级"]
A3 --> R9["过往存在未消解的耻感或创伤经历"]
end
```
第一种回答是毫不犹豫地脱口而出：“是的，我非常幸运。”当凡妮莎此前向史蒂芬提出这个问题时，史蒂芬便毫不迟疑地承认自己享有极大特权并深感幸运；凡妮莎同样认为能从事自己热爱的事业是无上的幸运。这种回答速度极快的人，通常具备极高的感恩之心、强烈的个人自主权，以及对生活的底气与掌控感。
第二种回答则是断然否定：“什么？不，我根本不觉得自己走运。”凡妮莎特别提醒，遇到这种回答千万不要落入“有毒正能量”（toxic positivity）的陷阱，试图去纠正对方或强行劝导“你要看到生活中值得感恩的事”。这种居高临下的劝导只会让对方进一步筑起心防、感到被彻底误解。明智的做法是唤起真诚的好奇心，询问他们经历过什么转折、何时开始觉得自己不走运。很多时候，一个人从相信幸运骤变到自认倒霉，背后往往埋藏着遭遇重大挫折的创伤叙事。
史蒂芬对此大受启发，甚至当场考虑将这个问题纳入招聘面试和初次约会的必备清单。凡妮莎强调，第三层级对话的核心目标就是“预测行为”：一旦掌握了对方如何看待运气，就能极大概率预判出他们在亲密关系、职场协作乃至友谊中的具体表现与应对机制。
---
### [01:28:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5332s) 迟疑与未知：第三种回答背后的内省度与安全感边界
面对成千上万人的测试，凡妮莎归纳出了最微妙的第三种反应——那些支支吾吾、眼神闪烁并回答“呃……嗯，算是有吧”或者“我其实不知道”的人。这种不置可否的停顿往往指向两种深层心理情境：
- **缺乏自我内省的习惯**：对方可能在整个人生中从未思考过“自己是否受上天眷顾”这一维度。他们甚至会当场愣住，坐在椅子上现场回溯整个人生。凡妮莎指出，内省是她个人的核心价值观之一，如果约会对象缺乏内省能力，这本身就是一个必须知晓的关键信号。
- **心理安全感尚未建立**：这也可能是一个危险信号，说明提问者推进得太快，生硬地把对话拽入了第三层级。对方或许背负着羞耻感，抑或隐藏着一段充满不幸甚至痛苦的过往，在彼此未建立足够的信任前，他们根本没有准备好向你袒露心扉。
---
### [01:30:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5402s) 科学揭示幸运的秘密：创造好运的行为模式与“运气工坊”
关于“运气”的研究绝非唯心论。理查德·怀斯曼博士（Dr. Richard Wiseman）对此进行过极其扎实的学术探索，并设计过包含10道题目的专业运气测评工具。史蒂芬现场援引了怀斯曼的研究发现：那些自认幸运的人，实际上是通过一整套可量化的特定行为模式“自我创造”了好运。
- **低焦虑倾向**：精神状态更为松弛，因而能留意到周围随机出现的潜在机会。
- **高外向性与社交广度**：他们热衷于与大量陌生人交谈，积极拓展人际关系网络，从而极大增加了机遇碰撞的概率。
- **高经验开放度与不屈的乐观主义**：面对未知挑战始终抱有探索欲，即使受挫也能迅速调整归因。
凡妮莎补充道，自己的实验室正在进一步探索运气感知如何决定一个人的收入水平、年龄分布以及阶层跨越。她甚至设想开设专门的“运气工坊”（Luck Workshop / Luck Lab），通过系统性的训练帮助人们在生活中收割属于自己的好运感。她直言：“感受幸运比强迫自己感恩要有力得多；感恩有时甚至带着某种道德绑架的羞耻感，但真正笃信自己无比幸运，却是一种能彻底重塑幸福感的赋能体验。”
### [01:31:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5516s) 事实与叙事框架：面对倒霉与挫折时的心理反脆弱
节目中，主持人向所有听众发起了一个提问："你们觉得自己是一个幸运的人吗？" 他呼吁大家在评论区留下最真实的回答。他深知那些觉得自己不幸的人一定会非常坦诚地倾诉，因为他们往往经历过极度糟糕的事情，甚至可能会愤怒地反问："你怎么敢轻飘飘地对我说幸运是种选择？" 主持人打趣道，如果有人要发火，最好对着 Vanessa 发火，但他也坦言自己之所以好奇，是因为他站在一个充满感激和特权的视角，很难完全体会其他人为何会觉得自己毫无运气。然而，现实中也存在许多经历过客观上极其悲惨的事情、却依然坚信自己很幸运的人。
Vanessa 随即指出了这背后的核心差异——"事实"与"叙事框架"（Fact vs. Frame）的博弈。人类重写自身故事的关键在于"自我作者身份"（Self-authorship）：你不仅是在听大脑讲故事，你更是自己生活叙事的执笔者。要拿起这支笔，就必须拷问自己的思维假设："我为什么会有这种看法？支持这一看法的证据到底是什么？" 客观事实虽然无法更改，但每个人套用在事实上的解释框架却大相径庭。
以"失恋分手"为例，Vanessa 指出，只要问一个人如何看待过去的一段痛苦分手，就能精准辨别出他是"污染叙事"（Contamination Narrative）还是"救赎叙事"（Redemption Narrative）：
* **污染叙事（Contamination Narrative）**：经历严重情伤后，这类人会说"那次分手几乎彻底毁了我"、"我再也不会相信男人/女人了"，觉得自己变成了空壳。虽然每个人失恋时都会难过，但他们永远困在阴影中，坚信那次变故在根本上把自己变得更糟。
* **救赎叙事（Redemption Narrative）**：即便面对同样凄惨的分手，他们最终会得出积极结论——"我绝不会重蹈覆辙"、"那段经历让我变得更强大"。虽然那是人生中最灰暗的日子之一，但它教会了自己该选择谁、避开谁。这就是典型的心理反脆弱（Anti-fragile）。
---
### [01:34:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5648s) 约会中的运气测试与五大人生故事原型
主持人和 Vanessa 展开了一段充满幽默的推演：如果在第一次约会上问对方"你觉得自己是一个幸运的人吗？"，而对方斩钉截铁地回答"绝不幸运"，你会给他第二次约会的机会吗？主持人坦言自己大概率不会，因为如果对方随后展现出极度悲观的态度，这种负能量会过度消耗自己，两人根本不是同一路人。Vanessa 笑着调侃他这样说肯定会被网友围攻"活该单身"，但她也非常赞同这种沟通背后的信号价值。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 叙事线索与故事原型映射
accDescr: 从日常生活问题中提取故事原型并影响人际互动的流向图
subgraph Signals["叙事线索输入"]
A["探测问题: 你觉得自己幸运吗？"]
B["探测问题: 你的回忆录叫什么？"]
C["探测问题: 你最像哪个影视角色？"]
end
subgraph Processing["叙事认知分析"]
D["区分事实与框架<br/>(污染叙事 vs 救赎叙事)"]
E["投射出 5 种人生故事原型<br/>(非固定人格，随情境流动)"]
end
subgraph Impact["现实行为表现"]
F["职场行为与工作效率"]
G["人际交往与恋爱吸引"]
H["沟通模式与对话摩擦"]
end
A --> D
B --> D
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
E --> G
E --> H
```
Vanessa 指出，对话中对"运气"和"救赎/污染"的探讨，直接通向了一个更宏大的框架：**五大故事原型（The Five Story Archetypes）**。她从数百个真实案例中提炼出这些叙事模型。与迈尔斯-布里格斯性格分类（MBTI）或九型人格（Enneagram）等相对稳定的人格测验不同，故事原型是一种流动的心态，反映了一个人在当下如何看待自己的人生剧本。它深刻支配着一个人的行为模式：
- 决定你在职场中如何工作、如何看待效率与有效性；
- 影响你与人沟通、建立连接与情感纽带的方式；
- 决定你在柏拉图式友谊和浪漫亲密关系中会被谁吸引。
---
### [01:35:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5751s) 原型之一："雄心英雄"的驱动力与发光物体综合征
Vanessa 介绍的第一个原型是**雄心英雄（The Ambitious Hero）**。她认为自己和主持人很可能都属于这一类。这类人的核心特质是经历过重重困难与阻碍，但依靠坚韧的毅力（Grit）和韧性克服了难关。然而，他们的内心困境在于"永远无法感到满足"。
雄心英雄的内在独白通常是："我能搞定、我能做到、往前冲、做更多、做得更大、我可以做得更好！" 他们在行为与人际互动中展现出一组高度鲜明的特征：
- **发光物体综合征（Shiny Object Syndrome）**：常常陷入不断追逐新点子的循环。就像许多创业者一样，第一个项目还没收尾，就迫不及待地抛出一堆全新提案。主持人对此深有共鸣，并引用了杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）的名言——"我有足够多的新点子把公司搞垮"，因此必须建立机制，以公司组织能够承受的节奏来释放这些想法。
- **以工作来调节自我与过度倦怠**：Vanessa 坦言，工作对她来说几乎是一种情绪调节机制，只要在工作，她就会感到极高的效能感，内心不停喊着"去帮更多的人、帮所有人"，但这往往会导致严重的职业倦怠（Burnout）。
- **人际沟通中的步调失衡**：在团队和亲密关系中，周围人往往难以完全理解他们近乎疯狂的驱动力。他们容易被贴上推崇"拼搏文化"（Hustle Culture）的标签，甚至因为强行拉着他人以同样极端的节奏和时长拼命，而导致周围人精疲力竭。
要探寻一个人是否属于雄心英雄，一个极佳的破冰问题是："你觉得自己最像书本、电影或影视剧中的哪个角色？"（指精神特质与人生轨迹，而非外貌）。主持人透露自己选的是《当幸福来敲门》（The Pursuit of Happyness）中的主角。在十八九岁时，他曾穷困潦倒到靠偷便利店的食物度日，房租拖欠了整整五个月，整天忙着躲避房东并艰难求生。当他卧病在床看到电影里主角带着儿子躲在残疾人洗手间过夜的那场戏时，瞬间感同身受，而那种凭借意志在绝境中逆袭的历程，正是"雄心英雄"最真实的写照。
### [01:39:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5977s) 挖掘角色投射背后的自我叙事与 AI 辅助探索
在谈及斯蒂芬所认同的人物特质时，凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）特别指出了沟通中的关键机制：面对对方说出的角色，绝不能妄加揣测，而是必须追问“为什么”以及“你看中了哪些特质”。因为对方接下来说出的每一句话、每一个形容词，都会赤裸裸地揭示他们如何看待自己。凡妮莎打趣道，如果有人自称最像“特蕾莎修女（Mother Teresa）”，即便你内心完全不认同甚至暗自嘀咕，但对方接下来的解释依然精准折射出其内心的自我神话与身份建构。这也是人际沟通中“第三层深度（Level 3）”最微妙且棘手的地方——你往往并不同意对方给自己的设定。
随后斯蒂芬反问凡妮莎最像哪个荧幕人物。凡妮莎坦言自己最契合的是《摩登家庭》（Modern Family）中的克莱尔·邓菲（Claire Dunphy），特别是她投身创业的那段时期。多数人会以为凡妮莎首先是个企业家，但她内心最先认同的身份其实是母亲，每天绝大部分时间都在陪伴孩子。她将自己形容为“有点笨拙、高度神经质”，时常在雄心勃勃的职场妈妈角色中剧烈挣扎。作为典型的“雄心英雄（Ambitious Hero）”，她渴望把母亲和创业两件事都做到尽善尽美，却发现现实中根本无法兼顾。
对于那些在社交中回答不出“自己像谁”的人，凡妮莎建议将人工智能（AI）当作头脑风暴与情境模拟的陪练工具。通过给 AI 提供特定维度的提示词，可以非常直观地梳理出自我画像：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: AI 人物画像提问流程
accDescr: 借助 AI 梳理个人特质并匹配荧幕原型的结构图
subgraph Input["输入个人特质"]
A["身份定义<br/>（如：母亲、创业者、神经质）"]
B["个性特征<br/>（如：描述性性格词汇）"]
C["核心价值观<br/>（如：追求卓越、家庭第一）"]
end
subgraph AI["AI 对话交互与检索"]
D["Prompt: 结合以上特质与互动模式，<br/>哪个书籍/影视角色最像我？"]
end
subgraph Output["原型输出与反思"]
E["匹配出高契合度虚构角色"]
F["识别自身潜意识的叙事原型"]
end
Input --> D
D --> Output
```
- **第三层沟通的核心法则**：询问对方心目中的代表角色后，紧接着追问“为什么”，对方所提炼的美德或特质正是其自我认同的核心切片。
- **AI 角色辅助提示框架**：输入自己的核心身份（如：母亲、企业家）、性格特质及核心价值观，让 AI 检索匹配的文学或影视原型，辅助完成深度自我剖析。
---
### [01:42:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6124s) 原型之二：满足的实用主义者与团队角色配置
凡妮莎接着拆解了第二个故事原型——“满足的实用主义者（Contented Pragmatist）”。与不知疲倦的雄心英雄相反，满足的实用主义者信奉“东西没坏，就别去修它”，对当下的生活状态高度自足。他们深深扎根于现有的生活节奏，沉浸于习惯、仪式感与传统之中，抗拒被外界催促着去拼命或做出改变。凡妮莎笑着分享了自己生活中的真实案例：她身边有两位朋友对她动辄抛出的雄心大感头疼。当朋友做出好喝的冰沙或美味的燕麦脆片时，凡妮莎会本能地建议：“你应该装瓶拿到农贸市场上去卖！”而朋友只是一脸困惑地反问：“为什么要做这个？”凡妮莎下意识回答“为什么不呢”，这种思维落差让实用主义者在雄心英雄眼里常被误解为不思进取，但他们实际上只是“完全满足于现状”。
斯蒂芬对此深有共鸣，指出在现实的恋爱或初创公司中，常常出现实用主义者制约雄心英雄的情形。许多创始人常常倾诉，自己怀揣着宏大的创业构想，伴侣却反复敲黑板提醒“面对现实吧”。凡妮莎补充道，满足的实用主义者并非消极悲观，只是思维底层带有一丝基于风险的审慎，因而表现出极度务实。在职场与团队搭建中，认清这一原型至关重要：
| 原型维度 | 雄心英雄 (Ambitious Hero) | 满足的实用主义者 (Contented Pragmatist) |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **驱动核心** | 追求增长、突破瓶颈、达成新指标 | 维护稳定、恪守传统、坚守既定规程 |
| **适配岗位** | 破局开拓者、业务增长线、变革型领导 | 财务会计、合规风控、高度监管的传统行业 |
| **沟通痛点** | 无法忍受停滞不前与过度繁复的合规 | 抗拒被施压要求“多做一点”或颠覆常态 |
| **人际互补点** | 能够激发团队向外拓展的进取心 | 能提醒雄心英雄适时停步、品味当下成果 |
在企业招聘中，如果在需要严谨合规、维持账目稳定的财务岗位上放一个雄心英雄，对方很可能会被缓慢的节奏击垮；而满足的实用主义者则极其适合坐镇后方，稳健守护企业的资产。
---
### [01:44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6278s) 原型匹配的沟通策略：多巴胺刺激与感知当下
针对不同原型的心理需求，沟通方式也需要截然不同的切入路径。对于雄心英雄而言，谈论目标、新机会与突破进展能瞬间激发大量的“多巴胺”。他们热衷于分享与探讨增长指标。凡妮莎坦言，当别人问她“最近怎么样”时，她得竭尽全力克制自己不去报业务数据，因为“如果在社交场合脱口而出‘我们 Instagram 账号增长了 305%’会显得非常怪异”，她只能克制地回答“一切都好，业务正在爆发式增长”。同时，她也极度热衷于倾听他人的野心，每当问候朋友的副业时，她本能想知道的都是“流量怎么样？书卖了多少本？电影票房如何？”
与之形成鲜明对比的是，满足的实用主义者渴望交流的是生活中的仪式感与那些行之有效的稳定经验。他们极度擅长“品味生活（Savoring）”，热衷于表达感恩并重温习惯。
- **与实用主义者的绝佳场景**：一顿长达三个小时的感恩节丰盛晚宴，实用主义者希望安安静静地品尝每一道菜，聊聊去年甚至前年的美好回忆，全然不愿在餐桌上讨论明年的战略规划或宏大愿景。
- **两者的良性共生**：当实用主义者与雄心英雄结为伴侣或搭档时，前者能够成为关键的刹车片，真诚地提醒疲于奔命的英雄：“你已经付出了这么多努力，坐下来欣赏一下沿途的风景吧。”
---
### [01:46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6371s) 原型之三：无私的奉献者及其背后的付出陷阱
凡妮莎随后指出了她认为所有人性原型中最关键、却也最容易被误解的一个——“无私的奉献者（Selfless Helper）”。这类人的自我叙事完全建立在“给予”与“提供服务”之上，凡妮莎往往在对话的前几分钟就能精准识别出他们。由于内心根深蒂固地认为“有价值等同于能够提供帮助”，他们往往会选择教师、教练、护士、医生等服务型职业。许多父母在孩子诞生的那一刻，也会瞬间切换成这一原型，因为照顾新生儿成为了他们存在的全部意义。
然而，这种原型的致命软肋在于**缺乏自我价值边界**。无私的奉献者往往认为“如果不提供帮助，自己就一文不值”，因而极易陷入以下恶性循环：
- **同情疲劳与精力耗竭**：他们一味向外输出，直到自身彻底被榨干，患上严重的同情枯竭（Compassion Burnout）。
- **讨好型人格与拒绝障碍**：不懂得如何设立心理防线，不懂得说“不”，永远把自己的需求排在最后一位。
- **极易招引“索取者”与高冲突人格**：由于无底线包容，他们就像磁铁一样吸引自私的索取者以及高冲突人群（High Conflict People, 简称 HCP）。
凡妮莎援引了冲突解决专家比尔·埃迪（Bill Eddy）的研究指出，人群中大约有 10% 属于高冲突人格，而缺乏防御机制的无私奉献者往往成为这部分人最容易下手的索取目标。因此，在亲密关系中，面对奉献型伴侣，最健康的支持往往不是继续接受其馈赠，而是鼓励并保护他们学会为自己挺身而出。
### [01:48:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6500s) 高冲突人格的操纵手段与“无私助人者”的沟通之道
在人际交往中，有一类高冲突人格（High Conflict People）极其热衷于戏剧性冲突。他们在人际关系中制造阻碍，喜好挑起艰难对抗，看待事物非黑即白、毫无细致入微的灰度，甚至将情绪武器化，利用心理学知识占人便宜。正如比尔·埃迪（Bill Eddy）的研究指出的那样，最危险的高冲突人格往往充当操纵者或唆使者（Enablers），擅长煽动他人替自己冲锋陷阵——例如在“无私助人者”（Selfless Helper）耳边吹风，激起对方“他们怎敢如此”的正义感，从而让助人者为了捍卫在乎的人而陷入原本不属于自己的纷争。
对于“无私助人者”这一人格原型，与他们交流时最大的挑战在于：他们潜意识里认为谈论自己就是在“索取”。当被问及近况时，他们往往会摆手推辞：“别聊我了，多聊聊你吧，我能帮你做点什么？”凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）提到自己的助人者朋友时笑道，自己几乎永远无法从他们嘴里套出需要什么帮助，因为他们满脑子都在关注别人。助人者害怕接话球，担心关注自身需求显得过于自私，但事实上他们的需求同样至关重要。因此，与助人者沟通时最好的礼物就是给予极大的对话慷慨度，明确向他们表达：“了解你并不是你在向我索取，而是你在给予我；能够倾听并帮助你，让我感觉非常好。”
在职场环境中，无私助人者往往能成为非常出色的管理者。他们极其敏锐地关注他人的需求，擅长挖掘员工的专长与潜能，激发全员的最佳工作表现，同时也能紧盯关键绩效指标（KPI）与投资回报率（ROI）。尽管他们天然倾向于回避冲突，但优秀、善于沟通的助人者管理者能将负面反馈和坏消息重新框架为共同成长的契机：“我之所以给你这个反馈，是因为我非常渴望看到你成功。”这种真诚的出发点能让下属充满信任感。只要他们学会坚定自信（Assertiveness），就能成为极具影响力且深受爱戴的沟通者。
- **高冲突操纵术**：利用非黑即白的极端思维与心理学工具，通过向富有同理心的助人者灌输仇恨或不公，借刀杀人。
- **对话慷慨原则**：面对习惯退缩的助人者，必须主动消除其负罪感，让其相信“分享自我是一种礼物，而非索取”。
- **管理赋能优势**：助人型主管能够精准识别员工的“专家权力”（Expert Power），用“休戚与共（We're in this together）”的框架化解对抗。
---
### [01:51:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6707s) 颠覆规则的“创新颠覆者”：思维磨刀石还是梦想粉碎机
“创新颠覆者”（Creative Disruptor）被凡妮莎视为最富挑战性的人格原型。这类人的核心特质就是蔑视规则、打破常规，天生反传统、反文化，拒绝任何既定蓝图或模板。在社交媒体评论区里，那些高呼“因为这几种原因，你的理论完全不适用于我”的往往正是颠覆者。这种特质是一把双刃剑：积极的一面在于，他们是极具创造力的突破性思考者，敢于跳出既定框架挑战陈规；但在日常沟通中，这种好斗与挑衅往往会让人心力交瘁。诉讼律师、极具颠覆性的创业者以及斯诺登（Edward Snowden）等挑战旧有体系的人物，都属于这一原型的典型代表。
史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）表示，自己其实非常喜欢采访具有颠覆特质的嘉宾，因为他们骨子里是逆向投资者（Contrarian），言论视角极其独特；与这样的人对话能倒逼自己梳理并打磨观点。然而，范·爱德华兹指出，颠覆者在生活中经常扮演“梦想粉碎机”（Dream Killers）的角色。如果一个人感到脆弱、需要呵护，颠覆者的尖锐批判就会令人难以承受；只有当人们想要构建“反脆弱”（Anti-fragile）的强大内心时，颠覆者的破坏性挑战才是一剂良药。
颠覆者有时也会带有悲观厌世的色彩。凡妮莎分享了一个趣闻：她有一位颠覆者朋友，日常发短信总是抱怨“我讨厌这世上的一切”（I hate everything）。后来凡妮莎专门录制了一条探讨这一特质的 Instagram 视频，结果平台的智能算法极其精准地将视频推送给了那位朋友。朋友随即发信息质问：“你这说的是我吗？”凡妮莎直截了当地回复：“没错，就是你。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 创新颠覆者的双面影响
accDescr: 展示创新颠覆者在不同心理状态与环境下的积极与消极影响路径
A["创新颠覆者 (Creative Disruptor)"] --> B["核心动机：反传统、破除规则、挑战现状"]
subgraph Positive ["积极价值：思维磨刀石"]
B --> C["打破陈规陋习"]
B --> D["逆向思考 (Contrarian)"]
D --> E["助人构建反脆弱性 (Anti-fragile)"]
end
subgraph Negative ["潜在摩擦：梦想粉碎机"]
B --> F["好辩喜争、热衷摩擦"]
B --> G["消极否定 (如'讨厌一切')"]
G --> H["耗尽他人心力、打击脆弱构想"]
end
```
---
### [01:54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6873s) “倒霉挣扎者”的心态泥潭与谈话的“峰终定律”
最后一个人格原型是“倒霉挣扎者”（Unlucky Struggler）。这类人内心深植着“污染叙事”（Contamination Narrative），无论付出多少努力，总觉得自己时运不济、陷入困境、怀才不遇且饱受误解。情景喜剧《宋飞正传》（Seinfeld）中的乔治·科斯坦萨（George Costanza）就是绝佳缩影——永远被生活折磨，满腹苦水。尽管倒霉挣扎者常常极其风趣，擅长自嘲，骨子里谦逊幽默，许多顶尖喜剧演员正是出自这一原型，但他们内心的自我怀疑与低自尊却十分沉重。对于凡妮莎这样充满动力的“雄心英雄”（Ambitious Hero）而言，最难克制的人性冲动就是强行去“拯救”或说服他们其实很幸运，而这种做法往往会适得其反。
当遇到性格不合或陷入令人疲惫的尴尬谈话时，如何体面抽身成为关键。凡妮莎引出行为心理学中的“峰终定律”（Peak-End Effect）：人类记忆往往主要由对话的高潮点（Peak）和结尾（End）决定。多数人在社交中过度关注“第一印象”与开场白，却忽视了对话的尾声。实际上，退场时的状态才是他人心中沉淀下来的最终感受。因此，掌握一套优雅退场（Graceful Exit）的科学公式，远比绞尽脑汁构思完美开场更能保护彼此的关系与精力。
- **倒霉挣扎者画像**：被负向命运观绑架，具备极高幽默感与自嘲能力，需要被倾听而非被强行灌输正能量。
- **峰终定律（Peak-End Rule）**：大脑对互动体验的记忆并非线性均摊，而是牢牢锁定在情绪极值与最后几分钟。
- **优雅退场（Graceful Exit）**：避免不告而别或生硬打断，精心设计收尾流程，给谈话画上体面从容的句号。
### [01:56:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6985s) 终结尴尬对话的优雅退场公式
当社交对话陷入停滞、彼此“不来电”，或者客观上不得不离开时，人们往往会被社交焦虑所困扰。凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）给出了一个极为清晰的退场公式：“未来线索（Future Cue）+ 赞美或具体行动（Compliment or Action）”。所谓“未来线索”，即主动询问或提及对方未来即将发生的事物，这能以极其微妙的方式让对方的大脑从“当下”切换到“未来”的维度。两人现场进行了派对即兴模拟：当派对上喝着红酒无话可说时，率先提问“这周末有什么好玩的计划吗？”对方回答打算去市区的某家葡萄酒吧，紧接着顺势送上祝福：“太棒了，祝你玩得开心！如果你喜欢白葡萄酒，一定要尝尝霞多丽。”这样一来，对话便顺畅地过渡到了未来场景。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 对话优雅退场两步法
accDescr: 展示未来线索与赞美或行动结合的退场机制
subgraph Step1["第一步：思维转移"]
FC["抛出未来线索<br/>(Future Cue)"] --> Shift["大脑聚焦未来<br/>离开当下场景"]
end
subgraph Step2["第二步：闭合与离场"]
Shift --> Close["赞美 / 行动承诺<br/>(配合收尾语调)"]
Close --> Body["肢体语言撤离<br/>(后撤、朝向出口)"]
end
```
然而，对方有时会顺着话题继续追问。此时第二部分——明确的“赞美或行动”配合“收尾语调（Exit Voice）”就至关重要。凡妮莎演示了这种语调的变化：“和你聊天真是太开心了，祝你周末在酒吧玩得尽兴！我要去续杯咖啡了。”除了口头声明接下来的动作（如去跟主办人打招呼、去洗手间、或准备动身回家），还必须同步辅以微小的非语言信号：身体向后慢退半步、双脚或躯干朝向大门，潜意识中向对方传达“准备脱离现场”的信号。凡妮莎强调，在终结对话时必须果断坚定，因为社交中最具破坏力、最消耗魅力的“氪星石”（kryptonite），莫过于那种拖泥带水、含糊其辞的残留尴尬（“呃，那……今天挺好的，你觉得呢？嗯，好吧……”）。
- **未来线索（Future Cue）**：通过询问周末安排、接下来的项目等，把大脑注意力引向“未来的时间与地点”。
- **闭环行动与理由**：使用明确的行动收尾（如“去添杯咖啡”、“去跟房东打个招呼”、“去趟洗手间”）。
- **非语言撤离信号**：身体后撤半步，躯干与脚尖自然侧向门口。
- **坚定果断的收尾态度**：犹豫不决、无话硬找的尴尬拖延是个人魅力的最大杀手。
---
### [01:59:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7148s) 什么是“气场”（Aura）与“魅力”（Rizz）
针对时下流行的网络热词“气场”（Aura）和“魅力”（Rizz），凡妮莎分享了她八岁女儿引发的一段思考。当时女儿听了她的 YouTube 视频后好奇地问：“妈妈，到底什么是魅力（Charisma）？”凡妮莎向女儿解释道，所谓气场、Rizz 或魅力，本质上就是“一种让人极度渴望靠近的特质”——当那个人走进房间时，你会不由自主地想要走过去找他们说话、想坐在他们身边、渴望倾听他们、想和他们一起共事或玩耍。当被问及班上是否有这样的人时，女儿脱口说出了两个同学的名字，而这两个孩子恰恰是凡妮莎早就在暗中观察并认定极具魅力的社交核心人物。
这种特质并不神秘，它是一种在言语和肢体层面让人难以抗拒的吸引力。无论是小学的班级环境还是成年人的社交名利场，具有“气场”和“Rizz”的人，都在无形中散发着一种让周围人自发聚拢的心理引力。
---
### [02:00:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7230s) 打造魅力的核心机制：明确释放好感与传递掌控力
如果要系统性地培养气场与魅力，凡妮莎基于二十年的行为研究指出，最底层的基本功就是“成为一个让人相处极度轻松的人”（Be really easy to talk to）。人类天生抗拒那些肢体语言一片死寂或反应不足的“静音人”，而极度渴望与“明确喜欢自己”的人交往。然而，心理学中存在所谓的“信号放大偏差”（Signal Amplification Bias）与“好感差距”（Liking Gap）——人们总以为自己表露的友好已经很明显，但对方实际接收到的好感却大打折扣。因此，必须大声、清晰地释放赞赏，直白地说出：“每次和你聊天都特别开心”、“你总是能逗笑我”、“我最喜欢跟你分在同一个项目组了”。
凡妮莎用一段尴尬又真实的亲身经历印证了“被喜欢”的心理威力：朋友经常拜托她以“行为学专家”的身份帮忙把关相亲对象。一次三人聚餐吃地中海拼盘，男方（化名“施莫伯特” Schmobbert）给凡妮莎的初印象十分平淡，顶多算中规中矩，毫无出彩的绿旗信号。然而次日朋友致电转告：“你知道吗？他昨晚简直崇拜死你了！他说你太风趣了，甚至立刻去下单了你的 Audible 有声书，觉得和你聊天是莫大的享受。”凡妮莎坦言，听到这番话的瞬间，自己的心理防线彻底瓦解，立刻反思道：“其实……他人真的很聪明、很有幽默感。”这种即便身为专家也无法抗拒的心理映射揭示了一个真相：**当别人明确向我们传递喜爱时，我们会本能地对对方产生极大的好感与吸引力。**
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 核心魅力双维度模型
accDescr: 展示魅力建立在热情与能力两大支柱上的结构
Impression["第一印象评估<br/>(82% 取决于两大维度)"]
Impression --> Warmth["热情 / 亲和力 (Warmth)<br/>回答：我能信任你吗？"]
Impression --> Competence["能力 / 靠谱度 (Competence)<br/>回答：我能依靠你吗？"]
Warmth --> WAction["主动且明确地表达好感<br/>开放的身体语言与真诚赞赏"]
Competence --> CAction["掌控交谈节奏、坚定自信<br/>言之有物、带目标与意图沟通"]
```
除了毫不吝啬地释放好感，打造魅力的第二大支柱是“热情与能力（Warmth and Competence）”的平衡。研究表明，人们对初识者的第一印象中有 82% 纯粹基于这两个维度，核心是为了回答两个深层安全感问题：“我能信任你吗？”以及“我能依靠你吗？”。高魅力者不仅能通过友善开放让人感到温暖安全，更能展现出高效、坚定和胸有成竹的能力感。正如凡妮莎在《Cues》一书中拆解线索，并在新书《Conversation》中所强调的：卓越的沟通不是随波逐流，而是带有清晰的掌控感与意图（Intention）。当你在交谈中展现出决断力与引领对话的能力时，人们就会自然觉得“跟这个人在一起，一切稳妥可靠”，这正是终极气场的基石。
- **信号放大偏差（Signal Amplification Bias）**：误以为自己传递的善意很明显，导致实际表现出的好感远低于对方感知阈值。
- **好感互惠效应**：人类对“喜欢自己的人”会无意识地赋予更高的智商、幽默感与魅力评价。
- **82% 定律**：人际第一印象的 82% 由“热情（能否信任）”与“能力（能否依赖）”决定。
- **对话掌控力**：带着意图和坚定态度主导对话节奏，能瞬间拉高他人对自身靠谱度与专业度的评价。
### [02:04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7475s) 试图引人瞩目的陷阱：奥斯汀 VIP 聚会的破冰启示
有魅力的人往往能够在对话中主导节奏、托底全场，有策略地推进深度互动并挖掘对方的性格特质。然而，当被问及人们常犯哪些无意中削弱自身气场（Aura）的错误时，凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）明确指出：**试图表现得令人惊叹（trying to be impressive）**。在社交场合中，许多人急于展示自己的头衔、履历与过往成就，一心想让自己显得聪明过人，结果反而制造了心理距离与隔阂。
为了说明这种心理机制，凡妮莎分享了自己曾居住在得克萨斯州奥斯汀时的一段真实经历。当时她受邀参加一场顶尖名流云集的 VIP 聚会。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）在此插话打趣道，凡妮莎现在搬到了洛杉矶的海滩附近，如果有人想找她吃早午餐，他要把她的电话置顶在评论区。凡妮莎笑着接续回忆说，刚踏入那个派对时，她立刻认出了几位知名 YouTube 博主和业界大亨，强烈的“冒充者综合征”（Imposter Syndrome）油然而生，心里直犯嘀咕自己为何会被邀请。
活动开始不到五分钟，主持人便要求全场围成一个圆圈进行自我介绍。前几个人的发言充满了令人咂舌的头衔与成就，在凡妮莎听来简直就像是“我是个亿万富翁，我发明了互联网”，接着下一个人又像是“我攻克了癌症”。每个人都在用尽全力说出能够震撼全场、引人惊叹的词句，竞争氛围越演越烈，令人窒息。轮到凡妮莎时，她意识到自己若搬出奖项头衔也无法比拟，于是决定卸下面具，展现真实的脆弱：“我是凡妮莎，我是一个正在康复中的社交笨拙者（recovering awkward person），我通过写书和 YouTube 频道来帮助那些聪明却笨拙的人。而且老实说，我根本不知道自己为什么会被邀请到这个聚会。”
此话一出，全场爆发出笑声，所有人仿佛如释重负般深吸了一口气。紧接着发言的人纷纷放下防备，也跟着坦白“其实我也是个正在康复中的笨拙者”。派对的气氛彻底改变了。随后的自由交流环节中，大部分人没有围着亿万富翁或攻克癌症的精英转，反而主动走到凡妮莎身边，倾诉自己在社交中的不安与窘迫。凡妮莎总结道，她并不是场上最成功的人，但她是“全场最让人感到舒适、最好聊的人”。
- **刻意炫耀的反效果**：在对话中用力过猛地堆砌成就，只会建立防御与疏离，而非真正的连接。
- **自嘲与脆弱的力量**：主动承认自己的笨拙或局限，能瞬间消除现场的竞争紧张感，给他人提供松弛感与情感出口。
- **气场的真正内涵**：真正让人想与之共处的人，往往不是履历最光鲜的人，而是谦逊、容易接近且能让人感到安全的人。
---
### [02:08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7725s) 肢体空间与最大共鸣点（Maximum Resonance Point）
很多人误以为顶级的沟通高手必然是外向者，但凡妮莎指出，外向者有时反而更容易陷入“对话自恋”的泥潭，而内向者与中向性格者（Ambiverts）往往表现得极具亲和力。针对那种“一走进房间就吸引全场目光”的强大气场（Aura），史蒂芬提到了像米歇尔·奥巴马（Michelle Obama）和托尼·罗宾斯（Tony Robbins）这样的人物。凡妮莎分析，这种气场的形成源自**物理空间与声音能量的双重占据**。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 状态对抗：紧张收缩 vs 气场舒展
accDescr: 对比紧张焦虑导致的身体与声音收缩状态，以及高气场所展现的物理舒展与最大共鸣点发声。
subgraph 焦虑收缩状态 ["低气场 / 紧张模式"]
A1["身体收缩: 耸肩、含胸、缩紧下巴"]
A2["呼吸短促: 憋气发声、语速过快"]
A3["声带紧绷: 声调偏高、缺乏底气"]
end
subgraph 沉稳掌控状态 ["高气场 / 赢家模式"]
B1["占据空间: 耳肩间距拉开、微抬头部"]
B2["呼气发声: 气息充分、语速沉稳"]
B3["最大共鸣点 MRP: 自然音域低端、传递平静与自信"]
end
```
行为学研究显示，具有气场的人往往在物理上占据更多的空间：
1. **耳肩间距拉大**：双肩自然下沉，颈部充分舒展，而不是因紧张而耸肩缩脖。
2. **手臂与躯干间距**：手臂不会紧紧贴在肋骨两侧，而是自然张开，占据合理的物理边界。
3. **微动作调整**：并非夸张的高举双手，而是细微的挺拔、下沉肩膀与抬高下巴，这种姿态会立刻反哺个人的内在心理与声音状态。
当人处于焦虑或恐惧状态时，喉部声带和颈部肌肉会本能收缩，导致音调不由自主地上浮，语速变快且呼吸急促，传递出一种不自信的紧迫感。相反，高气场者善于使用**最大共鸣点（Maximum Resonance Point, MRP）**——即个人自然音域的低端区域，这一音色能够精准传递出内心的平静、自信与威严。
为了展示两者的悬殊差异，凡妮莎在现场带领史蒂芬进行了一个声音实验：
- **吸气发声（吸满气后立即开口）**：模仿许多人在 Zoom 视频会议开头憋着气打招呼的状态（“Hello everyone...”），此时声带高度紧张，音调偏高尖锐，显得极其仓促且缺乏专业信服力。
- **呼气发声（在呼气过程中自然发声）**：先深吸一口气，在均匀呼气的同时说出“Hello”。此时声带处于彻底放松的状态，声音低沉、圆润且充满共鸣。
史蒂芬亲自尝试后，音色立刻从先前的微弱单薄转为醇厚沉稳。凡妮莎强调，在职场与社交环境中，善用“最大共鸣点”发声的人不仅更容易被他人认真倾听，还会自然散发出强大的气场与魅力。提问的设计固然重要，但**声音的承载方式与语言本身同等关键**。
### [02:12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7972s) 声音意图与眼神接触的生理学机制
声音中的冷漠与缺乏诚意是无法被伪装掩盖的。凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹（Vanessa Van Edwards）指出，如果说话者内心缺乏真正的关切意图，这种疏离感会立刻从语调中泄露出来，导致听众在潜意识里迅速切断注意力；相反，极具魅力的人会在声音中注入一种笃定而从容的自信，这种磁场极具感染力，会吸引他人主动靠近并产生共鸣。
当史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及除了声音之外，眼神接触（Eye Contact）在交谈中扮演的角色时，他坦言长时间直视对方双眼往往需要巨大的自信。凡妮莎从神经化学和认知负荷的角度揭示了眼神接触的双刃剑效应：目光接触能在体内触发催产素（Oxytocin）的分泌，强力促进人际联结，但它同时会严重占用大脑的认知带宽。在面对复杂思考、提取深层记忆或心算难题时，人类会本能地移开视线；若强迫自己维持凝视，大脑便无法顺畅进行复杂的逻辑处理。
在西方社交文化中，全神贯注且持续不断的目光凝视反而是不适甚至不自然的，理想的眼神接触比例通常在 60% 至 70% 之间。当交谈者正在进行社会化思考或梳理记忆时，减少眼神接触是给大脑留出计算空间的必要机制。史蒂文结合自身习惯补充道，自己在构思观点时会本能地看向别处，但在输出关键论点的一刹那又会把视线重新锁定在对方脸上。凡妮莎对此深表认同，并解释了这背后的双重动机：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 眼神接触在观点构思与输出时的流转逻辑
accDescr: 展示思考阶段移开视线与观点交付阶段重新锁定目光的心理和生理机制
subgraph Processing["深度思考阶段"]
A["提取记忆 / 构思复杂逻辑"] --> B["本能移开视线（降低认知负荷）"]
end
subgraph Delivery["观点输出阶段"]
B --> C["交付核心论点"]
C --> D["重新对视：释放催产素建立联结"]
C --> E["捕捉微表情反馈：下眼睑收紧 / 挑眉 / 怀疑"]
end
```
- **初次相遇的黄金数秒**：在刚进入对话的寒暄阶段（如视频会议接通或线下碰面的瞬间），眼神直视能够释放第一波催产素，奠定温暖的信任基调。
- **观察反馈而非全程凝视**：在对话中后期，眼神接触的核心价值在于“探针功能”——观察对方是否挑眉、皱眉或流露出怀疑，从而判断对方是对话题充满热情还是感到厌烦，进而决定是继续深入还是灵活转向。
---
### [02:16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8171s) 倾听者的非语言信号与动态对话
谈及如何成为一名出色的倾听者，史蒂文提到社交中常见的几类人：有的喜欢频繁插话“对对对对”，有的像拉拉队一样热情点头，还有些人会不自觉地面露凶相或皱眉，这往往让具有“讨好型人格”的人感到极度不安。凡妮莎分享了自己的亲身经历，她的一位朋友面部静止时会无意识呈现出类似厌恶的微表情（Disgust microexpression），但这其实只是一种“面部标点”（Facial punctuator）或无意识习惯，并不代表内心的真实情绪。
凡妮莎强调，优质倾听的核心在于传递“温暖”与“能力”的非语言线索：
- **倾听温暖信号（Warmth Cues）**：包括连续三次轻微点头（Triple nod，注：在印度、保加利亚和巴基斯坦等国点头含义有所不同）、头部倾斜（Head tilt，通过露出颈部与耳朵展现无害与接纳）。
- **复合信号（Warmth & Competence）**：身体微微前倾（Lean），代表身体上想要更加靠近，试图更深入地理解对方。
- **能力与专注信号（Competence Cue）**：下眼睑轻微收紧（Lower lid flex）。这是一种源于生理本能的对焦动作，如同人们眯起眼睛遮挡多余光线以看清远处细节一样。当听众在交谈中微微收紧下眼睑，代表其大脑神经被深度激活，正在极其严肃、专注地消化刚刚听到的内容。
凡妮莎建议，无论是在高管会议、投资者路演还是日常交谈中，一旦注意到听众出现下眼睑收紧的动作，演说者应立即意识到这句话触动了关键点。此时可以停下来进行“动态互动”，主动询问对方的想法或补充细节。优秀的沟通者绝不能死板地把准备好的话题当作待办清单机械式打勾，而应保持高度的动态性（Dynamic）——如果对方对某个个人兴趣话题展现出强烈共鸣，哪怕顺着这个话题聊上几个小时，也是一次极致成功的深层互动。
---
### [02:19:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8359s) 为常被问及的问题准备“对话礼物”
在探讨新书《对话》（*Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count*）中尚未提及的实战建议时，凡妮莎指出了一个绝大多数人都会忽视的准备环节：每个人在日常工作和社交圈中，因其行业、职业或所在地，必然会反复被问及某些固定的无聊问题。
与事到临头给出索然无味的平庸回答相反，凡妮莎建议主动拿出纸笔，梳理出自己最常被问到的三五个问题，并精心雕琢出具有“对话慷慨度”（Conversationally generous）的答案。一个优秀的回答不仅要有新意，更要像一份赠予对方的“社交礼物”，能够自然抛出钩子，引导对方发出“我也是这样！”、“真的吗？”或“你当初为什么会做这个选择？”的感叹。
- **拒绝社交死胡同（Conversational Dead End）**：回答切忌仅仅罗列关于自己的枯燥客观事实，而应包装成富有画面感的微型轶事或心路历程，使对方轻松接话。
- **挖掘自身的最有趣标签**：史蒂文深表赞同并举例说明，他的一位女性友人职业履历极度丰富，但其中最吸睛、最常被反复问及的经历是她曾读过整整三年全日制圣经学校（Bible school）。面对这种注定会被一次次问及的独特经历，如果提前储备好一段引人入胜的背景故事与心理转折，就能将可预见的话题转化为引爆高质量深度对话的绝佳契机。
### [02:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8446s) 定制高频回答：把无聊寒暄变成“对话礼物”
在社交中，与其被动等待他人开启精彩话题，不如主动将自己最常被问到的问题打造成抛砖引玉的“对话礼物”。凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹举了好友、《Entrepreneur》杂志主编杰森·菲弗（Jason Feifer）的例子。由于工作性质，杰森频繁参加各种商务晚宴，但他本人完全没有嗅觉和味觉。每当餐桌上有人客套地询问“你打算点什么”时，他从不敷衍了事，而是特意回答：“其实我没有味觉和嗅觉。所以你最喜欢这里的哪道菜？如果我能尝到味道，你最推荐我尝什么？”这个出人意料的切入点瞬间激活了对话氛围，甚至多年后财经专栏作家兼电视主持人妮可·拉平（Nicole Lapin）向凡妮莎提起杰森时，依然清晰记得这个独具魅力的故事。凡妮莎建议大家根据自己的高频社交场景（例如咖啡小聚或商务正餐），提前打磨好属于自己的趣闻与应答脚本，为彼此的顺畅沟通铺路。
凡妮莎强调，制定对话计划的核心目的，是让人在互动中感到更有掌控感与自信心。作为曾经长期缺乏社交自信、频频陷入尴尬对话的人，她深知“带着善意去沟通”能给人多大的底气。但这套方法论并非僵化的死板规条：当聊得尽兴、火花四溅时，大可彻底脱离预设路线顺势而为；而一旦察觉彼此磁场不合、索然无味，你也完全拥有果断抽身离场的自由。
- **高频问题预案**：针对最常被问及的日常话题（点餐、近况、职业背景等）预设富有启发性的答案，主动向听者赠送谈资。
- **环境情境化植入**：结合经常身处的场景（如喝咖啡、吃工作餐）准备个性化故事，强化记忆点。
- **计划与弹性的平衡**：对话蓝图旨在赋能自信与掌控感，现场完全允许随心发挥或在感到不适时体面退场。
---
### [02:22:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8543s) 战胜社交恐惧：写在孤独流行病与 AI 时代的新书
谈及写作新书《对话：如何与任何人建立联系并让每一次互动都富有成效》（*Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count*）的初衷，凡妮莎坦言，她是为所有“对闲聊深感恐惧”的人而写的。无论是硬着头皮参加商务社交酒会、畏惧与老板单独交谈、讨厌视频会议开始前尴尬的五分钟寒暄，还是在约会时手足无措，这种社交焦虑普遍存在。凡妮莎指出，初次约会如果拥有清晰的对话思路，即便最终发现对方并非对的人，互动本身依然可以充满乐趣。在当前全球蔓延的“孤独流行病”背景下，如果人类遗忘了深度沟通带来的愉悦，就会彻底退缩闭塞；消除对话中的恐惧与尴尬，正是帮人走出孤立、重建连结的关键。
斯蒂芬·巴特利特深有共鸣地表示，这是一本所有人都在迫切需要的适时之作。在当下人工智能与计算机日益普及的时代，人际对话的纯粹快乐正悄然被剥夺；许多教师甚至反映，如今课堂里的年轻一代已经严重缺乏通过面对面交谈建立联系的基本技能。这部凝聚了凡妮莎二十年心血与研究结晶的著作，恰恰为数字时代的社交断层提供了修复指南。面对斯蒂芬的真诚盛赞，凡妮莎动情地回应道：“这一切都源于我对人类由衷的痴迷与热爱。”
---
### [02:24:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8656s) 成功背后的代价：作为新手母亲的孤独与缺席的家庭支持
节目迎来了标志性的压轴传统：回答上一位未曾谋面的嘉宾留下的隐秘提问——“在打拼成功的过程中，你是否曾牺牲过个人生活中的某些东西，至今感到后悔并希望能重新挽回？”凡妮莎坦率地承认确实存在遗憾。为了事业打拼，她曾背井离乡搬迁到奥斯汀。尽管那段经历带来了显著的事业成长，但她最大的痛楚是在孩子尚在襁褓幼年时，被迫远离了自己的原生家庭与挚友圈。
在没有母亲和姐姐陪伴与帮衬的日子里独自抚育新生儿，让她感到极度孤单无援。生育孩子原本应是一段被亲情与友谊环绕的温情时光，但为了事业拼搏，她不得不独自承受作为新手妈妈的无助与孤立，这是她深感亏欠自己与孩子、希望能换一种方式重来的岁月。如今，她已重新搬回洛杉矶海滩边，回归到亲人身旁；在录制节目的当下，她的姐姐正陪伴在家中照看孩子们。在二人相互打趣的轻松告别声中，本期对谈圆满落下帷幕。
## Notable quotes
> [12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=728s) A fact is a stop sign. A story is a doorway. — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=1290s) Tell me something good — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:01:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=3709s) Competence without warmth is likely to leave us feeling suspicious — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:26:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5178s) 你觉得自己是个幸运的人吗？ — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:35:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=5751s) 我有足够多的新点子把公司搞垮
> [01:42:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6124s) 东西没坏，就别去修它 — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [01:48:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=6500s) 别聊我了，多聊聊你吧，我能帮你做点什么？
> [02:04:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=7475s) 我是凡妮莎，我是一个正在康复中的社交笨拙者，我通过写书和 YouTube 频道来帮助那些聪明却笨拙的人。而且老实说，我根本不知道自己为什么会被邀请到这个聚会。 — Vanessa Van Edwards
> [02:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8446s) 其实我没有味觉和嗅觉。所以你最喜欢这里的哪道菜？如果我能尝到味道，你最推荐我尝什么？ — Jason Feifer
> [02:22:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ&t=8543s) 这一切都源于我对人类由衷的痴迷与热爱。 — Vanessa Van Edwards
## Mentioned
Vanessa Van Edwards（凡妮莎·范·爱德华兹）, Steven Bartlett（史蒂芬·巴特利特）, Dr. Dan McAdams（丹·麦克亚当斯博士）, Howard Stern（霍华德·斯特恩）, Jerry Seinfeld（杰瑞·宋飞）, Neil deGrasse Tyson（尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森）, Dr. Richard Wiseman（理查德·怀斯曼博士）, Jeff Bezos（杰夫·贝佐斯）, Bill Eddy（比尔·埃迪）, Edward Snowden（爱德华·斯诺登）, Michelle Obama（米歇尔·奥巴马）, Tony Robbins（托尼·罗宾斯）, Jason Feifer（杰森·菲弗）, Nicole Lapin（妮可·拉平）, Dale Carnegie（戴尔·卡耐基）, Amy Poehler（艾米·波勒）, Ginny Yurich（吉妮·尤里奇）, 《对话》（Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count）, 《魅力》（Captivate）, 《线索》（Cues）, 《当幸福来敲门》（The Pursuit of Happyness）, 《摩登家庭》（Modern Family）, The Diary Of A CEO, Candor Corpus, 1000 Hours Outside, Shopify, Fiverr Pro, Instagram, YouTube, Zoom, Audible
## Video description
Are you sabotaging yourself with terrible communication habits and unconscious body language? Unlock the secrets of human connection to cultivate charisma, forge deeper connections, and eliminate awkward small talk for good.
Vanessa Van Edwards is a behavioral researcher and the author of Cues, Captivate, and her new book, Conversation. She returns to decode the underlying dynamics that shape relationships, providing actionable techniques to bypass social autopilot. She helps master non-verbal cues to prevent communication friction from harming your career and personal life.
In this episode, she explains:
■ The Conversation Blueprint: How to navigate the three distinct psychological levels of interaction
■ The Autopilot Trap: Why socially scripted questions like "How are you?" or "What do you do?" actually destroy connection.
■ The Mechanics of Rizz: The exact science behind conversational turn taking, why speaking for more than 45 seconds creates friction.
■ Command with Body Language: How to instantly project warmth and competence by finding your maximum resonance point.
■ The Five Story Archetypes: How to decode the psychological narratives of the people around you.
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:11 How to Connect With Anyone
00:03:20 Why Great Conversation Is a Superpower
00:06:41 The 3 Questions That Build Instant Connection
00:17:59 The Fastest Way to Build a Real Connection
00:23:45 How to Get to Know Someone Fast
00:32:41 Why Genuine Curiosity Makes You More Charismatic
00:35:32 The Questions That Secretly Kill Conversations
00:40:40 What’s Worse: Talking Too Much or Too Little?
00:44:15 How to Know If You Talk Too Much
00:45:22 How to Spot a Conversational Narcissist
00:48:34 Ads
00:55:11 How to Know If You’re a Conversational Narcissist
01:08:50 The Real Reason First Dates Go Wrong
01:13:47 Can You Go Too Deep Too Quickly?
01:18:03 How to Rewrite the Story You Tell Yourself
01:22:50 The Psychology of Taking Control of Your Life
01:25:16 Ads
01:30:02 What Science Reveals About Luck and Success
01:36:04 The 5 Personality Archetypes Explained
01:42:36 Why Your Personality Changes How You Should Communicate
01:51:45 The Psychology of the “Unlucky Struggler”
01:55:43 How to Escape an Awkward Conversation
01:59:08 How to Build Aura and Rizz
02:00:30 How to Become More Charismatic
02:04:51 The Hidden Habits That Kill Your Charisma
02:08:59 What “Aura” Actually Means
02:13:21 The Eye Contact Trick That Builds Connection
02:16:11 How to Become an Exceptional Listener
02:22:23 Who This Book Was Really Written For
Let Steven know if you feel “lucky” here!
https://doyoufeelluckychallenge.web.app/
Follow Vanessa:
YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/4sKjzqT
Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/8fFNJdo
TikTok - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/CWueu1F
You can pre-order Vanessa’s book, Conversations here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/A69YXE2
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/BWjLTZK
◼ Shop The Diary Of A CEO collection: https://thediary.com/collections/shop
◼ Get email updates - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/5IB1H6E
◼ Follow Steven - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/AGU9QP4
Sponsors:
Fiverr - https://fiverr.com/diary and get 10% off your first order when you use code DIARY
Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2cg1gEYWJQ)
Source quotes
[12:08] Vanessa Van Edwards: A fact is a stop sign. A story is a doorway.
[21:30] Vanessa Van Edwards: Tell me something good
[61:49] Vanessa Van Edwards: Competence without warmth is likely to leave us feeling suspicious
[86:18] Vanessa Van Edwards: 你觉得自己是个幸运的人吗？
[95:51] 我有足够多的新点子把公司搞垮
[102:04] Vanessa Van Edwards: 东西没坏，就别去修它
[108:20] 别聊我了，多聊聊你吧，我能帮你做点什么？
[124:35] Vanessa Van Edwards: 我是凡妮莎，我是一个正在康复中的社交笨拙者，我通过写书和 YouTube 频道来帮助那些聪明却笨拙的人。而且老实说，我根本不知道自己为什么会被邀请到这个聚会。
[140:46] Jason Feifer: 其实我没有味觉和嗅觉。所以你最喜欢这里的哪道菜？如果我能尝到味道，你最推荐我尝什么？
[142:23] Vanessa Van Edwards: 这一切都源于我对人类由衷的痴迷与热爱。
Source quotes
[9:30] Vanessa Van Edwards: What was the highlight of your day?
[12:08] Vanessa Van Edwards: A fact is a stop sign. A story is a doorway.
[22:18] Vanessa Van Edwards: Tell me something good.
[26:03] Vanessa Van Edwards: What do you talk about when you don't talk about work?
[30:34] Vanessa Van Edwards: What have you always wanted to learn?
[36:48] Vanessa Van Edwards: Been busy?
[43:08] Vanessa Van Edwards: the most selfish form of conversation
[54:27] Vanessa Van Edwards: Is it my turn yet?
[59:12] Vanessa Van Edwards: When I started thinking, 'How can I go into conversation putting this person at ease? How can I make them feel like they can impress me?'... That is a very selfless conversational generosity.
[75:53] Vanessa Van Edwards: It's just for my friends and family. Let's try to get there.
[108:20] Vanessa Van Edwards: Getting to know you is not taking from me. It's giving to me. I have to tell my friends, it makes me feel good to help you. It makes me feel good to hear about what's going on for you. You're actually giving to me by telling me about yourself, not taking from me.
[116:25] Vanessa Van Edwards: It was so lovely talking to you. I hope you have a great time at that wine bar. I'm going to go get some more coffee.
[124:35] Vanessa Van Edwards: My name is Vanessa and I'm a recovering awkward person and I help smart awkward people with my books and my YouTube channel
[144:16] Steven Bartlett: Do you feel like there are things you sacrificed in your personal life to build your success that you regret and wish you could now get back?
Original transcript
[0:00] How do you know you talk too much? So,
[0:01] first thing is non-verbal cues. Someone
[0:03] is checking out if they are opening
[0:04] their mouth as if to say something. I
[0:07] call it like the open fish. And that's a
[0:09] subtle cue that you talk too much.
[0:10] >> Do you think they're listening right now
[0:11] and think [ __ ] that's me?
[0:12] >> Yes.
[0:13] >> And there was a recent study where they
[0:14] found that 95% of people have worked
[0:16] with someone who talks too much.
[0:18] >> Well, I have a do you talk too much
[0:20] test?
[0:20] >> So, there's five questions here and if
[0:22] you answer more than three times, you're
[0:24] probably an overtalker.
[0:25] >> Yeah.
[0:25] >> Cuz my next question is like which one's
[0:26] worse, over talking or underalking?
[0:28] Well, I have spent the last 20 years
[0:30] studying master conversationalists and I
[0:32] found that it's the vehicle to get what
[0:33] you want and I'm a recovering awkward
[0:35] person and I really struggled with bad
[0:37] conversation for a long time. But I
[0:39] think the next generations will be
[0:41] talking to technology more than they
[0:42] talk to humans. And because we're having
[0:44] less conversations, one in six people
[0:46] worldwide are affected by loneliness.
[0:48] And I now more than ever am sending
[0:49] 9-minute voice notes to my friends. But
[0:51] a voice note, it's the most selfish form
[0:53] of conversation. that in this age of
[0:55] technological change, the people who are
[0:58] masterful at conversation are going to
[1:00] have an advantage. But there's a
[1:01] blueprint to good conversation. And once
[1:03] you know the blueprint, it becomes
[1:04] easier. For example, we devised three
[1:06] different speed networking experiments
[1:08] with 500 speed networkers. And the best
[1:10] conversation starter was actually what
[1:12] was the highlight of your day? Because
[1:13] the moment we asked how are you, what do
[1:15] you do? They ran out of things to talk
[1:16] about. But the worst question in the
[1:18] history of conversations is but I also
[1:20] have a formula to immediately bypass
[1:23] that small talk. Also a secret door to
[1:25] charisma but also there are five
[1:27] archetypes and this is going to impact
[1:28] getting our promotion and finding your
[1:30] soulmate.
[1:30] >> We're going to go through all of them
[1:31] but one of the ways to get out of a bad
[1:33] conversation without offending people.
[1:35] >> Well, we tend to focus a lot on the
[1:36] first impression, but we don't really
[1:37] think about the end. But it's all really
[1:39] important and I discovered this
[1:40] framework. So
[1:43] >> here is a strange fact. Most of the
[1:45] people watching this right now, about
[1:47] 58% of you, aren't yet subscribed to
[1:49] this channel. Statistically, that is
[1:51] probably you. So, could I ask you a
[1:53] small favor? If this channel has ever
[1:55] given you any value at all, please could
[1:57] you do me a favor and hit the subscribe
[1:58] button. It costs nothing. It helps us
[2:00] more than you could know. And the bigger
[2:02] the channel gets, as you've seen, the
[2:03] more we can invest in the guests and the
[2:05] production. So, thank you so much, and I
[2:06] hope you enjoy this episode.
[2:11] Vanessa Van Edwards, on page five of
[2:15] your new book, Conversations, you talk
[2:16] about how we're in a connection crisis,
[2:19] and you say that conversations are
[2:21] getting harder, more awkward, and less
[2:23] satisfying.
[2:25] >> At some level, I feel that too. My
[2:28] question to you is, why did you choose
[2:29] to write this book based on, you know,
[2:31] everything you could have written about,
[2:33] everything we've talked about before?
[2:34] Why is this book needed at this time?
[2:36] People who are investing in conversation
[2:38] skills right now are creating career
[2:40] insurance. We like to work with people
[2:43] who are great at conversation. We like
[2:44] to be with people who are great at
[2:46] conversation. We like to date people who
[2:47] are good at conversation. And in this
[2:50] age of tremendous
[2:52] technological change, the people who are
[2:56] masterful at conversation are going to
[2:58] have an advantage. So, I wrote this
[3:00] right now because we are slowly losing
[3:04] our ability to connect. And I think this
[3:07] is the last generation that will
[3:12] learn about conversation via human. I
[3:16] think the next generations will be
[3:18] talking to technology more than they
[3:19] talk to humans.
[3:20] >> Is it possible to be great at
[3:22] conversation? And if I become great at
[3:24] conversation through what we're about to
[3:25] talk about today, what is the advantage
[3:27] that you're speaking about there? What
[3:28] advantage will I experience in my life?
[3:30] For everybody listening now, what
[3:31] advantage will they see in their life
[3:33] relative to where they are now?
[3:34] >> Conversation is the vehicle to get what
[3:36] you want, right? If you want a promotion
[3:39] and you can chat with your boss where
[3:41] they connect with you, you're more
[3:42] likely to be thought of for that
[3:43] promotion. If you want to meet your
[3:44] soulmate, you have to have deep,
[3:46] connected, meaningful conversation to
[3:47] truly get to know each other. If you are
[3:49] lonely, finding friends that are
[3:51] actually fulfilling and give you the joy
[3:54] of conversation is going to give you a
[3:56] longevity boost. I think that the
[3:58] mistake that we have made is we think of
[4:01] conversation as extra. You know, we sort
[4:04] of put it second. I know leaders focus
[4:06] on this a lot where they're focused so
[4:08] much on their idea, on their technology,
[4:10] on their business, but they forget about
[4:11] the human element. And I think we have
[4:14] to start thinking about conversation
[4:15] almost like going to the gym. You know,
[4:17] we we focused a lot on our physical
[4:19] health, but our social health is
[4:21] critical to our emotional health, right?
[4:24] If we are doing conversation reps, if we
[4:26] can truly become good at conversation
[4:28] and conversation, I think is a skill to
[4:29] learn. I don't think it you're born with
[4:31] it or you're not. I think you can learn
[4:33] to be good at conversation. And it's the
[4:34] one skill that keeps on giving.
[4:36] >> Do people tend to know if they're good
[4:37] or bad at conversation? Like are there
[4:39] symptoms one experiences when they when
[4:42] they're not good at conversation? Are
[4:43] they aware of that?
[4:45] >> Yes, there is symptoms of being a bad
[4:47] conversationalist. And by the way, I
[4:48] should back up. As you know, I'm a
[4:50] recovering awkward person
[4:53] and I really struggled with bad
[4:54] conversation for a long time. And I
[4:57] realized it was because I was asking the
[4:58] wrong questions and I was approaching
[5:00] conversation the wrong way. And the
[5:02] wrong way to approach conversation is
[5:04] trying to impress, not discover.
[5:07] If you're trying to impress people,
[5:08] conversation becomes performative. And
[5:10] that is so deeply unfulfilling. Right?
[5:13] That is when small talk becomes soul
[5:15] crushing. I have spent the last 20 years
[5:18] studying master conversationalists.
[5:21] Master conversationalists, they live
[5:23] differently in the world, and I only
[5:25] know this cuz I wasn't one for a long
[5:27] time. They are not only more joyous, but
[5:30] they're also more confident. They're
[5:33] more authentically assertive. They get
[5:35] more energy from interactions, whether
[5:36] they're an introvert or extrovert,
[5:38] because their conversations are giving
[5:39] them energy, not taking energy. The
[5:41] symptom of bad conversation and I I hate
[5:44] to give someone a label of being a bad
[5:45] conversationalist, an exhausted
[5:47] conversationalist is you dread it. Dread
[5:50] is a really important emotion. If you
[5:52] open your calendar and you see only
[5:54] dread or you feel only dread, there's
[5:55] something wrong, right? Conversation
[5:57] like boosts us, gives us energy. So you
[6:00] feel dread in social interactions. Um
[6:02] you feel overwhelmed when you're in
[6:04] conversation. So if you're in
[6:05] conversation and you're social
[6:06] overthinking, you cannot turn your brain
[6:08] off. All you're worried about is what
[6:09] you're going to say next. It's actually
[6:11] just because you probably haven't
[6:12] learned the mechanics of conversation
[6:14] blue. There's a blueprint to good
[6:15] conversation. We're going to talk about
[6:16] it. Once you know the blueprint, it
[6:18] becomes easier. And the last symptom of
[6:20] bad conversation is that you leave
[6:22] feeling misunderstood.
[6:24] You leave feeling like I was the worst
[6:26] version of myself or I wasn't able to be
[6:28] my best self. I think really good
[6:30] conversationalist people leave
[6:32] conversation with them thinking, wow, I
[6:34] after talking to you, I feel like I
[6:36] understand myself better. And that's a
[6:38] very different way of thinking about oh
[6:40] I want to impress somebody.
[6:41] >> So how long have you spent doing the
[6:43] research that feeds into what we're
[6:45] going to talk about today and feeds into
[6:46] this new book.
[6:47] >> Okay. So accidentally I've been doing
[6:49] research for this my whole life because
[6:50] I was very bad at conversation for 20
[6:52] years. Then 20 years ago I realized that
[6:54] there are these hidden blueprints behind
[6:56] our interactions. I wasn't quite sure
[6:58] what they were but I could see that very
[7:00] good conversationalists they were
[7:01] following some kind of plan. Then eight
[7:04] years ago, this is when the real
[7:06] research began. And it started with an
[7:08] experiment. I call it my speed
[7:09] networking experiment. This
[7:11] fundamentally changed the way I think
[7:12] about conversations. So here's what we
[7:14] did. I knew there was some secret the
[7:17] conversationalists had and I was like,
[7:18] I'm going to find it. So we devised
[7:20] three different speed networking
[7:22] experiments with 500 speed networkers.
[7:24] We brought them in these rooms and we
[7:25] had cameras set up in all four corners
[7:27] of the room because good conversation
[7:29] looks different. Really good
[7:30] conversation. You've seen you do you
[7:31] ever like you know show a lot
[7:34] >> of restroom like are they having a bad
[7:37] day? Um, so you know a good conversation
[7:39] is a lot of gestures, a lot of leaning.
[7:41] It, you know, has that high energy. You
[7:43] see a lot of vocal charisma. The volume
[7:45] goes up. In a bad conversation, it sort
[7:47] of sounds like this.
[7:52] Like it has like very low energy, like
[7:54] apologetic facial expressions, like low
[7:57] volume. Then I assigned these networkers
[8:00] six conversation starters. Now, I picked
[8:02] these conversation starters. I'm going
[8:03] to tell you what they are very
[8:04] carefully. Three of them I thought could
[8:07] do really well and three of them I
[8:08] wasn't sure about. I wanted to see. We
[8:11] gave them these six conversation
[8:12] charters and we asked them after each
[8:14] timed conversation to rate the quality
[8:16] of it. One being that was the worst most
[8:19] awkward conversation I've ever had to
[8:22] five being that was the best
[8:23] conversation I ever had. I want to marry
[8:25] this person or I want to connect with
[8:26] them on LinkedIn. Then we took all these
[8:28] ratings and we ranked them and there
[8:29] were clear winners and clear losers. The
[8:32] losers, the conversations that produced
[8:34] the worst connection, the most
[8:35] awkwardness were last choice. Want to
[8:38] guess what last choice was?
[8:39] >> Last
[8:40] >> in terms of an opener
[8:41] >> in in terms of just a question.
[8:44] A typical question you ask my first
[8:45] minutes.
[8:46] >> Number five, that was the fifth worst.
[8:48] Very close to the bottom. Sixth was
[8:51] >> something about the weather.
[8:52] >> That what do you do?
[8:53] >> What do you do? That was the worst.
[8:54] >> The worst.
[8:55] >> Okay.
[8:56] >> Why? So these last two, how are you and
[8:58] what do you do? They're very socially
[9:00] scripted, right? The moment we ask those
[9:01] questions, our brain goes into
[9:02] autopilot. So, uh there's a lack there a
[9:05] is more of a performance. There's a lack
[9:07] of like excitement in the conversation
[9:09] and they ran out of things to talk
[9:10] about. They're fact-based questions and
[9:12] this is the trap of what we'll call
[9:14] level one conversation which is you are
[9:17] trapped in fact. Where are you from? Got
[9:20] any kids? Married? The facts are dead
[9:23] ends, right? So, they're there it's very
[9:25] hard for someone to break out of that
[9:26] fact because they're stuck in that
[9:27] social that social script. The best
[9:30] conversation starter was actually a
[9:32] sneaker. I was like, interesting that
[9:33] this one did best by lot. It was, "What
[9:36] was the highlight of your day?"
[9:39] Now, what this question does
[9:40] psychologically, it sounds casual. Well,
[9:42] first of all, it's not too deep. A
[9:44] mistake that extroverts can make is they
[9:46] ask too deep too question too quickly,
[9:48] right? They they're like, "What is your
[9:49] greatest goal in life?" And you're like,
[9:51] "I don't know you." Right? So, it's not
[9:53] too deep, but it's a subtle replacement
[9:56] for how are you? You're actually asking
[9:59] the other person's brain to search for
[10:01] optimism. You're literally inviting
[10:03] their brain to think like what was good
[10:04] and then they think well highlight of my
[10:06] day. So one we just broke autopilot. The
[10:07] most the moment someone goes oh and
[10:10] they're thinking for the first time
[10:12] their brain goes oo we get to we get to
[10:14] do something new. So they got to think
[10:15] of something new and it was immediate
[10:17] like it wasn't like a too big of a
[10:18] question.
[10:19] >> The second question was have anything
[10:21] exciting you're working on.
[10:23] >> This is kind of a subtle replacement for
[10:25] what do you do? Right? Right? If someone
[10:26] likes what they do, they're going to
[10:27] talk about it, but they're going to
[10:28] reframe it in something exciting. And if
[10:30] someone someone isn't defined by what
[10:32] they do, they're going to share
[10:34] something better. The third question,
[10:36] very, very simple, was do you have any
[10:38] fun plans coming up? These questions,
[10:40] the three first three are literally
[10:43] searching for good. You're inviting
[10:45] other person to only think about good
[10:47] things and we're juicing excitement for
[10:49] other parts of their life. Now, the
[10:51] fourth question, the middle one, almost
[10:54] broke my data.
[10:56] And this is where things really got
[10:57] interesting for me as a researcher. This
[11:00] fourth question, people either loved it
[11:03] or they hated it. They either gave it a
[11:05] five, that was like the most connective
[11:07] thing I felt all week, or a zero. And a
[11:10] zero wasn't even an option on my scale.
[11:12] It was the question, what's your story?
[11:17] Now, what's your story? Have you ever
[11:19] been asked that question, by the way?
[11:20] >> Derivatives of that question.
[11:22] >> Okay. So extroverts tend to default to
[11:25] that question because they want to go a
[11:27] little bit deeper. But actually that is
[11:29] a level three question. It is way too
[11:32] advanced for someone who's introverted
[11:33] or someone who has never like framed
[11:35] their story that quickly. They're
[11:37] immediately put into cortisol. They're
[11:38] immediately put into fight or flight.
[11:40] They're like what's my story? Like how
[11:42] can I give that to you so quickly? So
[11:44] you're by accident putting them into
[11:47] conversational fear. This is when I
[11:49] realize there's a hierarchy.
[11:52] We have to move through our
[11:54] conversations with different levels,
[11:55] right? This is why we have this.
[11:56] >> So for anyone that can't see because
[11:58] you're listening on Apple Music or
[11:59] Spotify or whatever, we have a three
[12:02] tier little stage in front of us. Tier
[12:05] one, tier two, tier three. What are
[12:07] these three tiers?
[12:08] >> Okay, so Dr. Dan McAdams found that
[12:12] conversation is actually not as fluid as
[12:14] we would like to think. that actually
[12:16] when we're trying to connect with
[12:17] someone else, we are trying to move
[12:19] through three distinct levels. Level one
[12:22] is called general traits. This is why in
[12:24] those first few minutes you're basically
[12:26] trying to Google fact check someone like
[12:28] where are you from? What do you do?
[12:30] Married? Where do you live in LA? Right?
[12:31] Like you're trying to ask all those
[12:32] questions because there's a sort of
[12:34] social hierarchy. Our brain processes
[12:36] social facts from least least intimate
[12:41] to most intimate. So we cannot get to
[12:44] know someone on their deepest dreams and
[12:47] worries if we don't know the basic facts
[12:49] about them. So that is why we often fall
[12:51] into that trap of those fact-based
[12:54] questions. The key here is that really
[12:56] good level one question is taking those
[12:58] facts but adding story but adding
[13:01] emotion. So the the best way to to do
[13:04] level one better is you're swapping out
[13:07] those bad questions, right? How are you?
[13:09] What do you do with looking for a story?
[13:11] I truly believe a fact is a is a stop
[13:14] sign. A story is a doorway.
[13:16] >> Give me an example of both.
[13:17] >> Okay. So, um one of them we're actually
[13:19] we can place it on here is what's your
[13:20] personal passion project? Okay. Now,
[13:22] what's your personal passion project is
[13:24] actually a hunt for stories, right?
[13:26] >> And would you open with that? Is that
[13:27] what you're saying? Or is it doesn't
[13:28] really matter?
[13:29] >> It has to come it can come in the first
[13:31] few minutes. Now, I probably wouldn't
[13:32] walk into a room and be like, "What's
[13:33] your personal passion project, Stephen?"
[13:35] Right? It's it's a little bit much. We
[13:37] have to do our basic first impression
[13:38] and we can talk about you know first 10
[13:40] words in a little bit but as an opener
[13:42] question it's better than how are you
[13:45] and I have to pause here and say
[13:47] everything I'm going to share takes a
[13:49] little bit of conversational courage
[13:51] >> it's really safe to ask how are you
[13:54] really safe to ask what do you do but if
[13:56] you want to be memorable if you want to
[13:58] actually spark connection those won't
[14:00] serve you so it does take a little bit
[14:01] of courage to ask this but the answers
[14:03] you're going to get are incredibly
[14:04] interesting you're going to get stories
[14:06] you're going to a hint at values. If you
[14:08] want to know if they're married or have
[14:10] kids, they probably will tell you by
[14:12] accident. So, it's like a hunt for
[14:13] stories. Same with, right, I mentioned
[14:16] this one in the study. So, working on
[14:17] anything exciting these days. This is
[14:19] again one of my favorite swap questions
[14:21] cuz you're hunting for something good.
[14:22] Now, when I think about conversation in
[14:25] level one, you're trying to gift someone
[14:27] a chemical cocktail a little bit. And I
[14:30] think in level one, these two questions
[14:32] are doing a lot of heavy lifting. They
[14:35] are now competing with your feed. I went
[14:38] uh to a PTA meeting recently and those
[14:41] are torture if you've ever been to one
[14:43] for any parents. PTA meeting. Oh, a
[14:44] parent teacher meeting.
[14:46] >> Okay.
[14:46] >> Right. So, a bunch of other parents in
[14:48] the room and I wanted to go meet other
[14:50] moms cuz I just moved across the country
[14:52] to try to meet more people. And I was
[14:54] like excited. I was like, "Okay, I'm
[14:55] going to meet more moms. Here we go."
[14:57] And I walk in the room and everyone's
[14:59] scrolling. Everyone's on their feed. And
[15:01] I realized, wow, conversation now. not
[15:04] is not just about a way for me to make
[15:06] friends. It actually has to compete with
[15:08] that feed.
[15:09] >> Mhm.
[15:10] >> I have to make my questions and my
[15:12] answers so dopamine worthy that they're
[15:14] actually going to beat that feed.
[15:16] Otherwise, they're going to go right
[15:17] back to their phone.
[15:19] That is why these have to do more
[15:21] lifting. Because if I want to compete
[15:22] with the feed, I have to produce
[15:24] dopamine, a little bit of excitement, a
[15:26] little bit of motivation. I also have to
[15:27] create what I would call, forgive me for
[15:30] this word, but conversational confetti.
[15:33] This is like we got to we got to lift a
[15:36] little bit more in our conversations
[15:37] because otherwise someone's going to go
[15:39] right back to scrolling. Their brain is
[15:41] somewhere else. Either their brain is in
[15:42] their email list or their brain is on
[15:44] their feed. In this research when I was
[15:46] studying amazing conversationalists, one
[15:48] of the one people I studied is Howard
[15:50] Stern. So, however you feel about Howard
[15:53] Stern, he is a master conversationalist.
[15:55] I mean, he can carry on long very
[15:57] interesting. He gets people to say
[15:58] things that I could never imagine. So, I
[16:00] analyzed thousands of transcripts of his
[16:03] interviews and I found one pattern. He
[16:06] does a very good job of creating
[16:08] information gaps. So, he'll say, "What's
[16:11] the weirdest thing you've ever done?"
[16:14] Or he'll say, "The most surprising thing
[16:17] I heard that happened to me yesterday.
[16:18] You want to hear what it was?" And your
[16:20] brain doesn't like not knowing. So, when
[16:22] it hears the most surprising, the
[16:24] weirdest, the biggest, the worst, the
[16:26] most embarrassing, the brain creates
[16:28] this gap. like this is information gap
[16:29] where the brain is like I have to know
[16:31] >> what is the weirdest thing. So also what
[16:33] happens with these kinds of questions is
[16:34] we're creating these little information
[16:36] gaps and actually saying and using in
[16:39] conversation these phrases is a way that
[16:42] we can create more intrigue and
[16:44] interest. And I I know that sounds like
[16:46] what? But think about this. If something
[16:49] crazy happened to you yesterday and you
[16:50] walk into dinner and you're like guys
[16:52] the craziest thing happened to me
[16:53] yesterday. Everyone's like phone's down.
[16:56] >> Mhm. Right now, I couldn't say something
[16:57] boring. I couldn't be like, I was stuck
[16:59] in traffic unless you want to be funny.
[17:01] >> But I think that looking for
[17:03] opportunities to create that little bit
[17:05] of conversational confetti, they come up
[17:06] with questions like this.
[17:08] >> This is the last one.
[17:10] >> So, have any fun plans coming up? Now,
[17:14] the reason why this one is important,
[17:16] and I agonized over this, over this
[17:17] third question, cuz there's three
[17:18] questions for each level, is have any
[17:21] fun plans coming up, is a subtle way to
[17:25] bring up potential shared future.
[17:28] Psychologically speaking, we bond with
[17:30] someone when we feel like we could do
[17:32] something fun with them or they're doing
[17:34] something fun that I would also like to
[17:35] do. I think that part of these questions
[17:38] is being known for asking better
[17:40] questions like being known for searching
[17:42] for hunt or hunting for excitement
[17:43] because what will happen is with people
[17:45] who know you at work or your work
[17:47] friends or uh outside of work friends is
[17:49] they'll bring these things to you. They
[17:51] know that you're going to ask out
[17:52] personal passions. So next time you get
[17:53] to say, "Hey, last time we were talking
[17:56] you mentioned XYZ. How's that going?" So
[17:59] they also become your call backs. They
[18:02] make conversation easier later.
[18:04] Everybody's starting from a remarkably
[18:06] different place here, aren't they? In in
[18:08] terms of both skill, but also like will
[18:12] >> and energy and like willing to do it.
[18:14] >> Energy. Like I think there'll be a lot
[18:15] of uh one might say introverts listening
[18:17] right now that just think what's the
[18:18] [ __ ] point? Like
[18:20] >> you know I don't like people anyway and
[18:21] it's so much energy and I've got to ask
[18:23] these questions and pretend to be
[18:24] interested. This is going to drain me.
[18:26] >> Oh my gosh. I I agree. And two things
[18:29] can be true. It's very exhausting in the
[18:32] sense of you're trying, right? Like
[18:34] we're putting energy into conversation,
[18:36] but it's also exhausting to have really
[18:38] shallow small talk.
[18:40] >> I find it exhausting to stand at an
[18:42] event or be smoozing with people
[18:44] backstage and be talking about nothing.
[18:47] Do you want to have very boring,
[18:49] predictable conversation where you're
[18:50] less memorable and they're less
[18:51] memorable and you're just waiting to get
[18:53] home to Netflix? That's one heart.
[18:55] That's not what I would choose. Or do we
[18:58] choose the heart of I'm gonna break a
[19:00] script, right? I'm gonna try to do level
[19:03] one better. I'm going to try to, you
[19:04] know, trigger a little bit of dopamine.
[19:05] I'm going to try to learn something that
[19:07] I didn't know before, which is going to
[19:09] maybe, just maybe, bring joy. If you get
[19:11] a really great answer, by the way,
[19:13] there's two sides of conversation,
[19:14] talking and asking.
[19:16] >> I I think even for those introverts,
[19:18] they have really, really big goals in
[19:21] their life that they care about. Yeah.
[19:34] >> Cuz if you can tell me how asking have
[19:36] any fun plans coming up is going to help
[19:38] me become a better CEO or founder or
[19:42] >> whoever I want to be, father, mom,
[19:43] daughter, whatever, then I'm in.
[19:46] >> Yes. Okay. So, let's talk about founders
[19:48] and CEOs specifically. There is a
[19:50] mistaken belief and I work with a lot of
[19:52] companies, right? I work with a lot of
[19:53] founders. They believe that conversation
[19:56] is anti-productive.
[19:58] They worry that I don't know if I want
[20:01] my employees to talk a lot. You know, I
[20:03] I can't waste time on small talk.
[20:07] The research shows the opposite. And
[20:08] also, logically, if you think this
[20:10] through, connected people collaborate
[20:14] better.
[20:16] Engaged employees work better together.
[20:20] We are more productive when we feel
[20:22] good. And in fact, the key word here is
[20:25] friction. When you have a company who
[20:27] that has a lot of communication
[20:29] friction, you have employees who doubt
[20:32] themselves. You don't have psychological
[20:34] safety. They have a really hard time
[20:36] brainstorming. You have people who
[20:37] withhold information. You have more
[20:39] information silos. Communication
[20:42] friction cost companies money. And so if
[20:45] you have a community of employees who
[20:47] have very easy level one, they don't
[20:48] need to get to level three. Like you
[20:50] don't need to get to level three with
[20:50] everyone in your company. You don't need
[20:52] to get to level three with your Uber
[20:53] driver. But if you have really easy
[20:55] smell small talk, easy banter where
[20:57] someone knows, oh yeah, I know exactly
[20:59] what their personal passion project is.
[21:00] I know who they are. I know what fun
[21:02] plans they have coming up. The first 5
[21:04] minutes of your meeting becomes not only
[21:06] frictionless but actually pleasurable.
[21:08] People show up on time. People are more
[21:11] productive. People want to be there
[21:13] because they actually want to connect
[21:14] and and collaborate with her and this is
[21:15] remote or in person, right? Because they
[21:18] know they have these very loose ties and
[21:20] loose ties actually make us more
[21:22] productive and so we are looking for
[21:24] frictionless communication and that
[21:26] happens at level one. In fact, work
[21:27] conversations should be really ideal
[21:29] level ones.
[21:30] >> Is this in part also the fastest way to
[21:33] get to connection?
[21:35] >> Yes.
[21:36] >> Because these CEOs or founders or you
[21:37] know busy people generally are very time
[21:39] poor
[21:39] >> for sure. So they don't have, you know,
[21:41] 30 minutes to move their way to
[21:43] connection. But are you saying that
[21:44] >> this is these are shortcuts. Okay.
[21:46] >> Right. So like what's it's way worse for
[21:47] a co to be like, shoot, I've been told I
[21:49] better be warmer.
[21:51] >> I have a lot of like most of my students
[21:52] are brilliant, very talented, very
[21:54] smart, but a little awkward and want to
[21:56] get it done, right? They're much more
[21:57] focused on the confidence and the
[21:58] warmth. So they try to do warmth because
[22:00] they they feel like they should.
[22:02] >> And they're like, "How are those kids?"
[22:06] And then it's like a social script.
[22:07] Good. Or how are you? Good, busy, busy,
[22:10] but good. And they're like, "It's not
[22:12] working. It was anti-productive." No,
[22:15] I'd rather you skip ahead. Make this
[22:17] level quick and good. Right? So, like
[22:18] the team intervention that I encourage
[22:20] every virtual or inerson team to do is
[22:24] once a week at the start of a meeting,
[22:25] start with tell me something good. Very,
[22:27] very quickly, everyone goes around very
[22:28] quickly and they share one win or
[22:30] something good. It can be small, it can
[22:31] be big. That can take less than 3
[22:34] minutes, less than 5 minutes, depending
[22:35] how big your team is. We do it on our
[22:36] Tuesday team calls at my team. What it
[22:38] does is you've just created a safe, very
[22:41] contained space for good level one. It's
[22:44] only good. So otherwise, otherwise
[22:45] people will accidentally complain,
[22:46] right? They'll be like, "Oh, the weather
[22:48] traffic, right?" But you're you're
[22:50] putting a frame around it that's good.
[22:52] You're time boxing it, right? Everyone
[22:53] goes around really quickly, but you're
[22:55] very quickly creating these these team
[22:57] connections. So creating time in your
[23:00] meetings, but also um in your culture to
[23:02] ask slightly better questions. All of
[23:05] these level one things have one thing in
[23:06] common which is they provoke a positive
[23:09] search and response.
[23:10] >> Yes.
[23:11] >> So that's really the crux of level one.
[23:12] It just a question that's producing a
[23:14] positive
[23:15] >> it's not always positive.
[23:19] I do believe in toxic positivity and
[23:20] toxic positivity can kill a
[23:22] conversational vibe very quickly. What
[23:23] we're actually looking for is emotion
[23:26] and story.
[23:27] >> Okay.
[23:28] >> Right. So I might say and by the way the
[23:30] the my introverts I love my introverts.
[23:31] They they always say, "Well, what if
[23:33] someone says they don't?" That you ask
[23:35] them, "What's your personal passion
[23:37] project?" And they say, "I don't have
[23:39] one." Well, great. What an opportunity.
[23:42] If someone doesn't have a personal pass
[23:44] project or they're going through a hard
[23:45] time, they're having a bad day, you have
[23:47] an opportunity to connect even better.
[23:50] So, sometimes, it doesn't have to be
[23:51] positive. You're looking for any kind of
[23:53] real emotion. So, then someone says,
[23:54] "You know what?
[23:56] I've been really going through a hard
[23:57] time and you know I don't haven't had
[24:00] much energy to work on personal passion
[24:01] these days and then you have the choice
[24:03] you can say wow is there anything I can
[24:05] do to help or you can say do you want to
[24:07] talk about it so it's not always
[24:09] positive it's looking for authentic
[24:11] emotions and ideally story and this is
[24:14] another uh one of the other master
[24:15] conversationalists I study who is
[24:17] excellent at level one is Jerry Seinfeld
[24:20] so Jerry Seinfeld has a little
[24:22] conversational trick and I this is in
[24:23] level one of the book which is he often
[24:26] meets people after his event and they're
[24:28] so starruck by him that they don't know
[24:30] what to say and conversation is really
[24:31] awkward. He has a little awkward to meet
[24:33] he's developed a trick and this works
[24:34] really well for CEOs and introverts
[24:37] which is ask a numbersbased question.
[24:41] So instead of how are you you know where
[24:43] do you live? So how long have you two
[24:45] been together and then if it's 38 years
[24:48] you say oh what's been the highlight of
[24:50] your 38 years? If it's really short oh
[24:52] you're in the honeymoon phase. That's
[24:54] the best part. So, it's a numbers
[24:56] question and this works really well for
[24:58] introverts as well is because it's
[25:00] fact-based. So, it's like an opener and
[25:02] then usually from there it's a jumping
[25:03] off point to a story. So, it's not that
[25:05] level one should always be positive.
[25:07] That's great if it can be, but
[25:09] practically speaking it actually more is
[25:11] that there's a small p a small emotion
[25:13] or a small story.
[25:14] >> Okay. So the other day I was in Las
[25:16] Vegas and I was doing this sort of like
[25:17] step and repeat meet and greet thing
[25:19] with after the event and people come up
[25:21] and they're kind of ushering them
[25:23] through very quickly. So I always want
[25:25] to you know say something to learn a
[25:27] little bit about a person in that time.
[25:29] >> What would you recommend? And this might
[25:30] be applicable for networking generally
[25:32] but what would you recommend?
[25:33] >> Okay. So I always whenever after
[25:34] speaking about books I say what was your
[25:36] favorite part or what did you learn the
[25:37] most?
[25:38] >> So I immediately ask a question that I
[25:40] want them to take home with them and
[25:42] that's actually level two which we can
[25:43] we can skip. We're not going to skip too
[25:44] far ahead, but what have you always
[25:46] wanted to learn or what are you learning
[25:48] is actually going to level two. So you
[25:50] can ask it, especially if someone's just
[25:51] spent an hour listening to you.
[25:52] >> Well, what's the difference between
[25:53] level one and level two?
[25:54] >> Oh, sorry. Yes, we skipped ahead. Okay,
[25:56] so this we'll put a pin in this. One of
[25:58] the thing I want to say about that
[25:59] question is um I I read this framework.
[26:03] I read about Dan McAdam's framework and
[26:04] I was doing this conversation research
[26:06] and then I got got invited to a party,
[26:10] one of the weirdest parties I've ever
[26:11] been invited to. And I get in and they
[26:14] tell me to take off my shoes so I'm
[26:16] committed, right? I can't leave. Yeah.
[26:18] And then they go, "Guess what? We have a
[26:20] rule for this party." I'm like, "What?"
[26:22] They're like, "You cannot talk about
[26:24] what you do." Now, this was a party of I
[26:28] think very other successful people. And
[26:29] all of us are like, "What?" Cuz I don't
[26:32] know about you, but I'm I'm pretty
[26:33] defined by by what I do. I talk about
[26:35] it. I love it. So, I start to panic
[26:38] because I'm like, "What do you even talk
[26:39] about if you don't talk about that?"
[26:41] because so many of our conversations
[26:42] veer into work and so I had to one my
[26:46] brain was flipped off autopilot
[26:47] immediately and I had to get more
[26:50] creative with my questions and I had to
[26:52] also think that I want I was like I'm
[26:54] just going to discover things them I'm
[26:55] going to try to figure out what they do
[26:56] by not asking and that was an aha moment
[27:00] of we should treat level one these these
[27:02] three bottom questions as a treasure
[27:04] hunt that if you're going into it
[27:07] looking for some kind of conversational
[27:08] gold your questions have much different
[27:10] int attention and especially what I
[27:13] ended up asking was what do you talk
[27:15] about when you don't talk about work
[27:18] which was sort of this freedom it gave
[27:21] us this freedom in conversation where I
[27:24] want to give everyone permission that
[27:25] really good conversation does not have
[27:27] to stick to the same old boring topics
[27:28] it does not have to be what you do it
[27:30] can be about anything that is engaging
[27:33] you or exciting you in that moment that
[27:35] is level one level two so we have
[27:38] general traits we must start there. We
[27:41] cannot skip too quickly to level two.
[27:43] Level two is called personal concerns.
[27:45] Personal concerns is where we begin to
[27:47] connect deeply. This is our motivations,
[27:50] our goals, our values, our worries.
[27:54] >> And I'm assuming you do level two once
[27:56] you've got past level one connection.
[27:58] >> Exactly.
[27:58] >> So, this is us going deeper with the
[28:00] person.
[28:00] >> Exactly. Or or leveling up as you wish.
[28:02] Right. As you wish. So, the mistake
[28:05] traps people make is they skip level
[28:06] one. They try to go too deep too quickly
[28:08] and people feel like it's invasive.
[28:09] Right? Especially when you're like,
[28:11] "Whoa, slow down." Or it can feel like
[28:12] an interrogation. So, we must know those
[28:14] basics first, as long as we do them
[28:16] better. Like, we don't do them in
[28:17] autopilot way. Level two is when you
[28:18] start to understand what motivates
[28:20] someone. The kind of mental trick that I
[28:23] use is, you know, you're on level two
[28:24] with someone if you know what gets them
[28:26] up in the morning, like what goal is
[28:28] driving them all day, but you also know
[28:30] what keeps them up at night,
[28:31] >> what worries them. I, you know, I I
[28:34] encourage people as they're reading like
[28:35] think of the five people you interact
[28:37] with most and place them on a level.
[28:40] Like, do you only know the basic facts
[28:41] about them? Are you all the way at level
[28:43] three, which we're going to get to? It's
[28:44] sometimes helpful. You'll notice
[28:46] patterns. Like, I don't know about you,
[28:48] but I love level two. Like, I want to
[28:50] get through level one as quickly as
[28:51] possible. I I want to get to your
[28:53] motivations. I want to get to your
[28:54] secret side hustle. I want to get to
[28:55] your dreams and passions. I want to know
[28:57] what keeps you up at night, but I can
[28:58] sometimes jump too fast. Mhm.
[29:00] >> Level two is about making someone feel
[29:03] heard and understood.
[29:05] And this is different than discovering
[29:07] treasure. And the biggest skill that we
[29:09] can do in level two is what I call dream
[29:11] building.
[29:12] So dream building is everyone has like a
[29:16] secret desire, a secret dream, a secret
[29:18] side hustle, a secret passion. Can you
[29:20] be there and help them uncover it?
[29:22] That's the goal of level two.
[29:25] >> So give me an example of dream building.
[29:27] >> Okay. So before we started, I said to
[29:29] you, I have I have a new goal, right?
[29:31] Like I'm I'm pitching a TV show. That's
[29:33] like my secret side hustle. That's level
[29:35] two for me. It's something that I've
[29:36] been working on secretly and quietly.
[29:38] And if we were at lunch, we would have I
[29:40] would have told you all about it. We
[29:41] double clicked on it. So like that's an
[29:42] example of one. Another example to think
[29:44] about is what does someone daydream
[29:46] about, right? Like what is what is
[29:48] occupying their mind in a good way? The
[29:50] other way that I a framework that I give
[29:52] for folks uh is a pet or pest project.
[29:57] So, what is someone's pet project? Like
[29:59] a pet at home, you kind of think about
[30:00] it, you dream about it, you hope about
[30:02] it. Like, what is someone hoping to
[30:04] achieve or find or do? And what is their
[30:06] pest project? Like, a pest in the attic.
[30:09] It worries you. You wonder like, how can
[30:11] I get rid of that pest? How can I um
[30:15] eradicate it? And they want help with
[30:16] it, but they're too afraid to ask. Pest
[30:18] projects have a lot of shame.
[30:21] On level two, people have to feel safe
[30:23] enough to expose what they feel shame
[30:25] about. But pet projects, the things they
[30:27] love, have a lot of pride. And so you're
[30:30] trying to figure out in conversation,
[30:31] could you let someone feel safe enough
[30:33] to share either one?
[30:34] >> And are there questions that evoke dream
[30:37] building?
[30:38] >> Yes. Okay. So what have you always
[30:39] wanted to learn is an interesting
[30:41] question because it it triggers growth
[30:42] mindset, right? So growth mindset is
[30:46] when someone believes they can change
[30:48] themselves, change who they are, change
[30:50] their trajectory, learn something new.
[30:52] So we we like this question because
[30:53] you're asking, "Are you willing to grow
[30:55] with me? What have you always wanted to
[30:57] learn?" The other easy one is, "What is
[31:00] your biggest goal right now?" So what is
[31:01] your biggest goal right now is a great
[31:03] question, and you can also time anchor
[31:05] it. Anytime someone has a birthday, you
[31:07] can ask, "What's your big goal this
[31:08] year?" That's actually a level two
[31:10] question, right? you're like like
[31:12] leveling them up in a safe way because
[31:14] they're talking about their birthday any
[31:15] around New Year's January and December.
[31:16] I ask everyone I know what's your
[31:18] biggest goal right now, new quarter, new
[31:21] performance review. When we talk about
[31:23] goals, it activates a part of our brain
[31:25] that triggers dopamine. When we think
[31:27] about our future self, it activates a
[31:29] part of ourselves that wants to get
[31:30] motivated. And so level two is also
[31:33] giving someone motivation that in
[31:35] conversation, they're actually
[31:36] discovering an aspect of themselves.
[31:38] They're tapping into their own resource
[31:40] for motivation.
[31:41] >> It gives them permission to dream a
[31:43] little bit and to
[31:44] >> Yeah. And you're giving them the
[31:45] motivation that they already have, but
[31:47] you're bringing it into the
[31:48] conversation. I think recently we are so
[31:52] into intrapersonal. Like a lot of what
[31:55] you see on social media right now is
[31:57] mindset and mantra and affirmation and
[32:01] productivity. And I love all of those
[32:03] things. But that means that people are
[32:05] actually using all that excitement alone
[32:08] when they're journaling or when they're
[32:09] meditating or when they're working on
[32:11] their to-do list. We have forgotten,
[32:14] I've noticed, to bring those goals into
[32:16] conversation. We're almost like
[32:17] embarrassed. I don't know if you've
[32:18] noticed this, but I've it's almost like
[32:20] people are like embarrassed to talk
[32:21] about their secret side hustle or
[32:22] they're embarrassed to talk about their
[32:24] secret passion. If we give someone
[32:26] permission to bring in what they have
[32:29] been motivated about privately into
[32:30] conversation, they get you get to be an
[32:32] ally. with a dead end when you ask these
[32:35] kind of level two questions.
[32:36] >> Well, then you get to answer
[32:37] >> because some people haven't quite
[32:38] figured out what their biggest goal is.
[32:40] >> Absolutely. Especially also sometimes um
[32:42] introverts in conversation and I've
[32:44] asked these questions to thousands of
[32:45] people and all different kinds of things
[32:47] happen when I do that. Introverts also
[32:50] need more time to process. So you might
[32:52] ask them, you know, what are you
[32:53] learning right now or what's your
[32:54] biggest goal? And they might in the
[32:56] moment not know. They just need a little
[32:58] bit of time to process. And so two
[33:00] things can happen is if they don't have
[33:02] it yet, that's okay. You also have
[33:05] opportunity to share.
[33:06] >> But what if I, you know, I ask, I'm
[33:08] thinking because, you know, I know a lot
[33:09] of uh taxi drivers listen to this
[33:10] podcast cuz I get in taxis and we talk
[33:12] about it.
[33:13] >> Taxi drivers, you know, they're
[33:15] conversationalists, often very good
[33:17] ones. Um, but sometimes I guess a taxi
[33:19] driver might be faced with the scenario
[33:20] where the person in the back seat
[33:21] doesn't want to talk and they might hit
[33:24] them with one of these, you know, level
[33:25] ones and then the level twos and and
[33:26] they're just getting brick walls.
[33:28] >> Then I would respect that, right? If
[33:30] someone doesn't want to talk to you,
[33:31] >> do you just back out?
[33:32] >> Yeah.
[33:33] >> Okay.
[33:33] >> Because then they're going through their
[33:35] own thing, right? Like if if
[33:38] you have to have also courage to be
[33:40] disliked,
[33:42] >> right? Like you can try your best in
[33:44] conversation. You can bring the best
[33:46] questions, but if someone is not your
[33:48] person or they are not ready to connect,
[33:51] why would you waste your energy on that?
[33:53] So, I also think that asking some of
[33:54] these are like bids. It's like a bid to
[33:56] see like, can we can we do this? You
[33:58] want to banter with me? Should we have
[33:59] level one? Should we even dip into level
[34:00] two? Great. If not, cool. They're not
[34:02] your person. It's not their day.
[34:03] >> So, if they don't take the bait,
[34:05] >> it's okay.
[34:06] >> Okay.
[34:06] >> I The taxi drivers usually ask me, um,
[34:08] got anything exciting today?
[34:10] >> Are we going anywhere exciting? Great.
[34:12] That's a great swap for level one. I
[34:13] should say by the way these questions
[34:15] are suggestions. If you can modify them
[34:19] to the to fit what you are doing even
[34:22] better. Like for example, you and I are
[34:23] in book signings or we we are meeting
[34:25] after speaking events. It makes sense
[34:27] for us to modify the learning or goal
[34:29] question to say hey you know what did
[34:30] you learn or did you learn anything new
[34:33] or what was your favorite part? Right?
[34:35] We're modifying that for us. A taxi
[34:36] driver is going to modify it for are we
[34:37] heading anywhere exciting
[34:39] doing anything exciting today? So like
[34:41] these are not prescriptions right? They
[34:44] are guidelines to try to
[34:47] make the research applicable. You know,
[34:49] I've spent most of my career looking at
[34:51] research, reading academic studies, and
[34:52] some of them are 30 pages of jargon with
[34:54] one nugget. And Dan McAdams research is
[34:57] so incredible, but when I first read it,
[34:59] I did not know how to use it. I was
[35:01] like, general traits, personal concerns,
[35:03] like level one. I wasn't sure. So, a lot
[35:05] of these are just ways to activate the
[35:07] behavioral research, the guideline
[35:08] that's driving all of our interactions,
[35:10] but you get to have flexibility with it
[35:11] as it works for you. The goal in level
[35:13] one, treasure hunt. Put someone at ease.
[35:17] Ask them about what they love. Harvest
[35:19] story. The goal of level two is to give
[35:22] someone permission to share a dream, a
[35:24] secret desire, or a secret worry. And
[35:27] level three we get to get to in a little
[35:29] bit when you're ready. Oh, we have one
[35:30] more level. Level three. Hold on. Level
[35:31] two question
[35:32] >> on these questions. Do you have to
[35:34] actually care about the answer? Do you
[35:36] have to authentically care about what
[35:38] their biggest goal is right now or what
[35:40] their personal passion project is? Does
[35:42] it matter if you don't actually care?
[35:44] >> There have been times in conversation
[35:47] where I'm not sure if I care yet.
[35:50] So, I would say you don't care yet. What
[35:54] if you ask the question and you're not
[35:55] sure, you're not bought in yet, but then
[35:57] you hear an answer that deeply resonates
[35:59] with you or you deeply care about. I
[36:02] think we don't know always if we're
[36:04] going to care about someone cuz we've
[36:05] just met them. But maybe you will,
[36:07] right? Like, you never know who's going
[36:08] to be your next best friend, right? You
[36:10] never know when when you're going to
[36:11] hear an aha moment that's going to
[36:13] change your business. Like so many of
[36:14] the pivot points in my business have
[36:16] been from random conversations where I
[36:18] happen to ask the right question and
[36:19] someone gives me a brilliant piece of
[36:21] advice.
[36:21] >> So is it okay to pretend to care?
[36:24] >> If you're asking the question, you care
[36:26] enough to try.
[36:28] Right? If you're listening to this
[36:30] podcast, you already care enough to be
[36:32] like,
[36:34] I know I should
[36:36] >> Yeah.
[36:36] >> I know I should be a a master
[36:38] conversationalist. Like so many leaders
[36:39] who I work with, they might not feel
[36:41] warm, but they know they need to be
[36:43] warm. I think that's intent enough,
[36:46] right? We just got to find the ones that
[36:47] work for you.
[36:48] >> And you talked a second ago about these
[36:49] questions that lead to dead ends, which
[36:51] are like,
[36:52] >> "What do you do? What are the other
[36:54] examples you gave?"
[36:55] >> Okay. I have a a question that I I hate
[36:57] a lot. I hate it a lot. I want it to
[37:00] leave our vocabulary. It's the worst
[37:02] question in history of conversation. It
[37:04] is been busy.
[37:06] >> Okay. Yeah.
[37:07] >> Right. like
[37:08] >> been busy. What do you do when you're on
[37:10] the receiving end of those kinds of
[37:12] questions?
[37:13] >> Yes.
[37:13] >> What What how do I counter that? Cuz I'm
[37:15] going to get that everywhere forever.
[37:17] So, how do I counter that?
[37:18] >> Okay. So, every time, first of all,
[37:19] boring questions make you boring. We
[37:21] know this.
[37:22] >> But boring questions asked of you are an
[37:24] opportunity. In fact, I think you can
[37:27] really surprise and delight someone by
[37:29] breaking the script on their boring
[37:31] question. You are going to be asked a
[37:32] lot of boring questions. Let's talk
[37:34] about two buckets here. The first bucket
[37:37] is when you're asked what do you do and
[37:40] you're going to be asked a lot. You
[37:41] better have a great answer. I think
[37:44] having a great answer to what do you do
[37:46] is creating opportunities for yourself.
[37:48] What most people make the mistake of
[37:50] with what do you do and I have an entire
[37:51] chapter about it in the book is when
[37:53] you're asked what do you do, they're
[37:55] looking for something, right? They're
[37:56] trying to understand who you are. Maybe
[37:58] they're even asking what are you worth?
[38:00] >> Mhm.
[38:00] >> Maybe. So now the ball's in your court
[38:03] to break the script and to surprise
[38:05] them. You want to give an answer that
[38:07] explains exactly what you do, but then
[38:09] gives them a little bit of a hook
[38:11] >> as in like creates that curiosity gap,
[38:12] >> a little bit of a little bit of
[38:14] information gap, a little bit of
[38:15] curiosity. And we don't want to over
[38:17] complicate or be vague. So for example,
[38:21] I was sitting in a coffee shop. I was
[38:22] researching this book and I was
[38:23] eavesdropping on everyone's
[38:24] conversations because that's the best
[38:25] way. You know, if you listen to
[38:26] Conversations of the Wild, oh, the
[38:28] things you hear are great. And I was on
[38:29] my computer and I heard um she said so
[38:32] what do you do? I think they were on
[38:33] like a date and he goes oh I'm I'm have
[38:36] a system I have a system for maximizing
[38:38] achievement in young learners.
[38:40] And she was like what? And he goes yeah
[38:43] I you know I work with fifth grade
[38:45] students and I have a system for how
[38:46] they can learn math and reading. And she
[38:47] goes oh you're a teacher. He goes yeah
[38:50] I'm a fifth grade teacher. And I was
[38:52] like wow. The intention there was to be
[38:55] interesting right? He didn't want to
[38:56] say, "I'm just a fifth grade teacher."
[38:58] But he gave the brain too many calories,
[39:01] like conversation calories. The conver
[39:03] the brain wants the simplest, easiest
[39:06] road possible. If we want to put people
[39:07] at ease, what doesn't put people at ease
[39:09] is having acting like you're reading
[39:10] your resume.
[39:11] >> Mhm.
[39:12] >> If you're what answer to what do you do?
[39:14] Sounds like you're reading your resume.
[39:15] You are turning people off, right? It's
[39:17] either jargonfilled or it feels too
[39:20] formal or too complex.
[39:21] >> So that answer that he gave was vague.
[39:24] It was um
[39:25] >> complex
[39:26] >> complex
[39:27] >> and it wasn't the social also didn't
[39:30] didn't give me a late right like the
[39:32] social hierarchy of facts. I have to
[39:34] know what you do before I can know your
[39:36] how.
[39:36] >> So what should he have said?
[39:38] >> Okay, what he should have said is not
[39:40] the how but the what. I love why but I
[39:43] think that that needs to come second.
[39:44] What he should have said is I'm a fifth
[39:46] grade teacher and I've been working for
[39:48] the last 10 years. I developed this
[39:49] really unique system that speeds up
[39:51] reading.
[39:53] Now we're talking because my brain went,
[39:54] "Got it. Check." Fifth grade teacher.
[39:56] Got it. Then I got to hear the how. Wow.
[39:59] 10 years. That answered another question
[40:00] that we always have. How long have you
[40:01] been doing that? Right? You're trying to
[40:02] skip ahead. And then it added this hook
[40:04] of I figured out how to get students to
[40:06] read faster. So when you think of what
[40:08] to do, I have a little formula if you're
[40:10] willing to play around with it. And
[40:11] again, a formula, always take it
[40:12] loosely, make it fit.
[40:14] >> I do blank
[40:17] for who by how.
[40:21] that is doing some it's like a gift to
[40:23] the other person. You're giving them a
[40:24] very clear label of what you do so they
[40:27] can put you in a box. And I hate I hate
[40:29] being put in a box, but unfortunately
[40:30] our brains need it. Especially if it's
[40:32] very easy to understand by who? Because
[40:34] people always want, can you help me? Can
[40:36] you help my friend? Is it for my sister?
[40:38] And then if it fits your how.
[40:40] >> A lot of people listening now are more
[40:42] multihyenated than ever before.
[40:43] >> Love a multi.
[40:44] >> They do a this, a that, a violin, a
[40:46] creator, a LinkedIn thing, a speech, a
[40:48] dance, an improv.
[40:49] >> So how do those people answer when
[40:50] they're multihyphenators?
[40:51] >> Oh, I love it. Okay. So, two things. A
[40:54] multih high. We We understand complexity
[40:56] as humans. We get it. So, you can say,
[40:59] you know, I daylight as a fifth grade
[41:01] teacher, but I moonlight as a
[41:03] cinematographer, right? You can
[41:04] literally say you're hyphen. If you're
[41:06] in a career pivot, we have a lot of
[41:08] students who come to us who are mid-
[41:09] pivot. We love a hero story, right? So,
[41:12] you can say, you know, I've been working
[41:14] in marketing for the last 20 years, but
[41:15] I'm thinking about going back to school
[41:16] for psychology, right? Like we think
[41:19] that people can't handle it, but
[41:21] conversation can handle a lot and it
[41:23] doesn't take a long time. Now, I do want
[41:25] to make a note here, the mechanics of
[41:28] conversation. So, there's two aspects of
[41:30] conversation. There's the art, right?
[41:31] Like weaving in excitement and
[41:33] harvesting story, and I love that, but
[41:35] there's also the mechanics. So, let's
[41:38] talk about that first. So, uh the Cander
[41:40] Corpus is a huge research study on the
[41:42] mechanics of conversation. So, how long
[41:44] do you think a typical turn should take
[41:46] in conversation? Like how long should
[41:48] our turns take?
[41:50] >> 15 seconds.
[41:51] >> Wonderful. 15 to 30 seconds.
[41:52] >> Okay.
[41:53] >> So, in um average conversation, we like
[41:55] 15 to 30 seconds. 45 seconds is okay,
[41:58] but we start to turn to a monologue.
[42:00] >> By this, you mean how long we speak for
[42:02] each each
[42:03] >> before I let you speak.
[42:04] >> Yes. Before we start to feel like I'm
[42:06] talking too much, it's not my turn. So,
[42:07] 15 to 30. And by the way, if you want to
[42:09] go listen to previous Zoom
[42:10] conversations, it can be helpful to know
[42:11] if you're an overt talker or an
[42:13] undertalker. Right. under 15 seconds you
[42:15] might be actually creating
[42:16] conversational scarcity like not asking
[42:18] like not asking enough not talking to
[42:19] talking enough
[42:20] >> which one's worse do you find
[42:24] >> well I'm an overt talker so I'm going to
[42:25] say undertalking
[42:27] >> cuz I'm an overt talker so I'm going to
[42:28] say it's worse I'm going to say it's
[42:30] worth talking by the way can I take a
[42:32] hit at podcast for just a second
[42:33] >> sure
[42:34] >> so the other reason I wrote this book is
[42:37] I think the art of conversation is being
[42:40] systematically stripped away piece by
[42:42] piece and it's well-intentioned
[42:44] This is not a natural conversation,
[42:46] right? Like I'm in an interview. I would
[42:49] never normally take this long on turns
[42:50] if we were having dinner. You're reading
[42:52] notes. I'm I have notes. But more and
[42:54] more of our
[42:56] off time is listening to podcast
[42:58] conversations, but those are not real
[42:59] conversations. Those are interviews. So
[43:01] one is we are hearing conversations that
[43:03] are not real. They are a bit
[43:06] performative, right? And they're not
[43:08] following the mechanics of conversation.
[43:10] That is affecting our conversational
[43:12] muscle in our brain. Second is we're
[43:14] having more and more asynchronous
[43:15] conversations. I now more than ever am
[43:17] sending 9minute voice notes to my
[43:19] friends.
[43:20] >> Damn. Wow.
[43:22] >> Right. They send them back to me. What a
[43:24] voice note is is not a conversation. A
[43:27] voice note is a monologue. And when
[43:29] you're giving a voice note, I don't get
[43:31] the, "Oh, it's my turn. Me too. How dare
[43:34] you. I don't like that. I don't agree."
[43:37] Like, there's no back and forth. In
[43:38] fact, it's the most selfish form of
[43:40] conversation. And this is from someone
[43:42] who sends a lot of voice notes because I
[43:44] don't get I don't need to hear your
[43:45] opinion. I get to go as long as I want.
[43:47] I don't have to worry about whatever
[43:49] you're doing. And I'm usually
[43:51] multitasking, right? I'm listening to my
[43:53] best friend's voice note while I'm
[43:54] cleaning or cooking or exercising. So
[43:56] that has skewed it because we then get
[43:58] into real conversation and it feels hard
[44:01] because our muscle has been atrophying
[44:03] with this asynchronous. And then we are
[44:06] also conversing less. You know, only
[44:09] three in 10 Americans socialize on a
[44:11] day-to-day basis. Only three in 10
[44:13] Americans socialize on a daily basis.
[44:15] Meaning they're having more time alone
[44:16] and they are conversing less. And that
[44:19] is because we're able to do so much work
[44:20] asynchronously. We also spend so much
[44:23] time on our on our self-care, our
[44:24] longevity, our workouts that we are just
[44:26] doing less with other people. And one in
[44:29] six people worldwide are affected by
[44:31] loneliness. And I think that is because
[44:33] we are having less conversation. And if
[44:35] we're having it, it's happening
[44:36] asynchronously or and this is the last
[44:39] hardest point is we are now talking to
[44:42] technology more than talking to each
[44:45] other. And I don't just mean through
[44:47] technology. Yes, we've been talking
[44:49] through technology for a long time, but
[44:51] only recently are we talking to
[44:53] technology. And when I talk to my
[44:55] technology, it sounds different than
[44:57] when I talk to you. Like I was sitting
[44:58] next to my husband and he was working
[45:00] and he was like talking to his AI and he
[45:03] was like, "Do better. do that's terrible
[45:05] work. Do better. And then I asked him a
[45:08] question. He turned to me and I was
[45:09] like, "You better not tell me to do
[45:10] better." You know, and that is because
[45:12] I, you know, we're talking technology in
[45:14] a way that we would never talk to other
[45:15] humans, but our brain doesn't always
[45:18] know the difference. And so I think this
[45:20] muscle is atrophying. And on this point
[45:22] of like knowing whether you are a good
[45:25] conversationalist talker, um there was a
[45:27] recent study of over a thousand
[45:28] Americans and they found that 95% of
[45:30] people have worked with someone who
[45:32] talks too much. These chatty co-workers
[45:35] spend an average of 90 minutes of their
[45:37] workday just talking and 71% of
[45:39] respondents said talkative co-workers
[45:41] prevented them from getting their work
[45:42] done.
[45:43] >> Yes.
[45:43] >> How does one know if they are the person
[45:45] that talks too much? First is let's do
[45:47] an intervention on this is go back if
[45:50] you have recorded zoom calls and just
[45:51] time yourself. There is a kind of
[45:53] appropriate right 15 to 45 seconds 45
[45:55] seconds the most. Second non-verbal cues
[45:58] someone is checking out if they are
[46:00] opening their mouth
[46:03] as if to say something. That is a subtle
[46:05] cue that someone wants a turn but they
[46:08] are going to wait. So if someone is
[46:09] opening their mouth I call it like the
[46:11] open fish.
[46:13] It means they want to turn. Like you did
[46:14] it to me earlier and I totally stopped.
[46:15] >> Yeah you did. Yeah.
[46:16] >> Yeah. Cuz I was I was like, "Oh, he
[46:17] wants to say something."
[46:18] >> Yeah. No. So, I do I actually do give
[46:20] people cues that I want to say something
[46:22] >> sometimes. And some of them see them and
[46:24] some of them just do not.
[46:25] >> And I was like fully distracted. I was
[46:26] like,
[46:27] >> you you you're on this more sensitive
[46:28] end of the scale where you're almost
[46:30] watching what I'm doing. And it's and
[46:32] you know, having done what 700 of these
[46:33] interviews now, it's really fascinating
[46:34] to me that some people I have to like
[46:36] remain completely utterly ski still
[46:39] because they are surveilling me for cues
[46:40] that they're doing a good job or they
[46:42] want them. And so if I move or like look
[46:44] away, I they immediately change.
[46:46] >> Whereas other people don't even know I'm
[46:47] here, which is actually what I prefer
[46:50] >> because then I can like grace these
[46:52] notes and look in the books and I can
[46:54] like go to the toilet and come back and
[46:56] you know, it's just easier.
[46:57] >> And this is why this is not natural
[46:58] conversation.
[46:59] >> But I think people like you are better
[47:00] at conversation because you see
[47:02] conversation not as a megaphone in which
[47:04] you're shouting through. You see it as
[47:06] continual feedback. And that's why I
[47:07] have to sometimes be on edge with people
[47:09] like you cuz
[47:09] >> Yeah.
[47:10] >> I know that you're taking cues from me,
[47:11] >> right? And also like I'm looking for
[47:13] your eyebrow raises.
[47:14] >> Yeah.
[47:14] >> Right. Like one is Neil Degrass Tyson
[47:17] says that every book is every eyebrow
[47:19] raising thing he's ever said because
[47:21] he'll go on airplanes. He'll just talk
[47:22] to people and when they go that he
[47:25] writes it down.
[47:26] >> And so I'm doing the same thing for you
[47:27] is I'm looking at your eyebrows very
[47:29] closely. Don't ever get Botox. It'll be
[47:31] so hard to read you. And so if you raise
[47:34] your eyebrows, I want to double click on
[47:35] it. Right? Because you're you're the
[47:37] taste maker, right? I know I'm I'm
[47:40] saying things interest me but might not
[47:41] interest you. So if you say something if
[47:43] you raise your eyebrows I'm going to go
[47:44] deeper or give you an example or tell
[47:46] you a story and and this is like this is
[47:48] why this is not a normal conversation
[47:49] and conversation will go like this those
[47:51] moments go viral.
[47:52] >> Mhm.
[47:53] >> Right. Like when you go
[47:56] >> like those are like the replayed parts
[47:57] >> like the amputt thing
[47:58] >> right and and and unfortunately we're
[48:00] all here cuz we're trying to to reach
[48:02] people right and so if you are going and
[48:05] you raise your eyebrows and I'm going to
[48:06] double click. So, if no one is doing
[48:08] that to you, if you're in a conversation
[48:10] back and forth and there are no eyebrow
[48:12] raises and there's no ooh a wow and they
[48:14] are either looking away or having that
[48:15] open mouth, and by the way, that's also
[48:17] how I can interrupt someone. If I want
[48:18] interrupt someone politely, I'll go,
[48:22] it used to be that working for yourself
[48:24] was a massive, massive risk. But that
[48:26] world has completely changed. If you've
[48:28] got a business idea that you can't stop
[48:29] thinking about, I think you owe it to
[48:32] yourself to at least try and make it
[48:34] happen. And that is where our show
[48:36] sponsor Shopify comes in. Their smart
[48:39] platform includes everything you need to
[48:40] start selling and get that idea off the
[48:42] ground. They have this drag and drop
[48:43] editor. They have this AI sidekick and
[48:45] helps you. They have analytics and you
[48:47] don't need to be an expert to get going.
[48:49] Shopify's best-in-class checkout makes
[48:51] sure that you're getting paid from day
[48:54] one. It helps more of your customers
[48:56] finish their purchase because their
[48:57] checkout is so efficient and it saves
[48:59] their info for next time. Personalized
[49:01] checkouts like that equal more
[49:03] conversion equal a faster growing
[49:05] business. Nothing kills that early
[49:07] enthusiasm you have for a new idea than
[49:09] that first initial step to get going
[49:12] being difficult, complicated, or
[49:13] expensive. And you need to save as much
[49:15] time and money so that you can focus all
[49:17] of it on growing your actual business.
[49:20] And that's what Shopify gives you. Head
[49:22] over to shopify.com/bartlet
[49:25] and you can start your free trial right
[49:27] now. One of the smartest things a
[49:30] business can do is build like a bigger
[49:32] company without actually hiring like
[49:35] one. But the problem we all face is that
[49:36] most companies don't have every skill in
[49:38] house. So when I look at the businesses
[49:40] seeing real success today, the
[49:42] consistent pattern with all of them is
[49:44] how quickly they move. They bring in
[49:45] specialists with skills and emerging
[49:47] areas to keep themselves ahead. Even in
[49:49] our company, we've spent the last year
[49:50] pulling in talent across areas like AI
[49:53] native strategy, no code builds, and
[49:55] product workflows. And we find this
[49:57] talent for our longtime partner, Fiverr
[49:58] Pro. Their premium service only shows
[50:00] you vetted talent, so you've always got
[50:03] the safeguard that anyone you pull in to
[50:05] help you with a complex project has the
[50:07] skills that you're after and will
[50:09] deliver to the same high standards as
[50:11] your internal team. And most
[50:13] importantly, they'll keep up with the
[50:14] pace. It's a simple strategy, but it
[50:15] lets us stay agile without compromising
[50:17] on quality. So if you need these kind of
[50:19] skills in your business, head to
[50:20] pro.fr.com to find pioneering talent to
[50:23] fill your business's gaps. That's
[50:24] pro.fr.com. fiverr.com.
[50:27] >> I'll be honest, Vanessa,
[50:29] >> I was thinking about um someone that I
[50:32] might consider to be in the overalking
[50:33] category.
[50:34] >> Yeah.
[50:35] >> And when they talk, I don't think they
[50:37] have any concept that there's anybody
[50:39] else in the room.
[50:40] >> Yeah.
[50:40] >> I think they they might as well have
[50:42] their eyes completely closed. That's
[50:44] kind of I was just thinking about it the
[50:45] other day when I was with this person
[50:46] and they might as well be sat there like
[50:48] this and they're just and they're going
[50:50] to finish when they feel like they've
[50:51] run out of things.
[50:53] Okay, this is there are two types of
[50:55] conversational people. There's
[50:56] entertainers and appreciators.
[50:59] >> One of the biggest questions I get is
[51:01] how do I talk to VIPs? How do I talk to
[51:02] my boss? And this is exactly this. And I
[51:05] don't know if they're a VIP or not. It
[51:07] actually doesn't matter. They are an
[51:08] entertainer. The way I discovered this
[51:10] framework is I was in the green room for
[51:12] a speaking event and a very famous
[51:14] person came in. I can tell you who it
[51:16] was later. Very, very famous.
[51:18] >> Who was it?
[51:19] >> We're going to cut this. No, we keep it
[51:20] in.
[51:24] >> He's I think he's pretty famous.
[51:26] >> Massively famous.
[51:26] >> Okay. Okay. He comes in and we have like
[51:28] a little bit downtime before he has to
[51:29] go up. And I watched person after person
[51:33] try. You know what? You know when you
[51:34] watch someone try and this is the same
[51:36] thing when someone's approaching their
[51:37] boss or a VIP and they all tried the
[51:40] same way. Either a compliment or a
[51:42] question. Oh, I love I love your stuff
[51:45] so much. I've been, you know, watching
[51:47] you since I was a kid. Oh my gosh, you
[51:49] changed my life, right? Compliment or
[51:50] question. Oh, what's what's the best
[51:52] thing you've ever done? I won't get too
[51:53] specific, you know? What's what was your
[51:55] you have any advice for me as a young
[51:56] person, right? It was either compliment
[51:58] or question. He was just not having it.
[52:01] Yeah. Yeah. Nice to meet you, right?
[52:04] Like quick selfie, just not engage. And
[52:06] I was like, wow, that's what I would
[52:08] have advised back then. Either go with a
[52:10] compliment or a question. No. Then one
[52:12] person came up. It was actually one of
[52:13] the AV guys, so he was going to mic him.
[52:15] And he said, "Can I tell you the
[52:18] funniest story?" He's like, and you
[52:20] could literally see him was like,
[52:22] "Yeah." And this guy begins to tell him
[52:25] hilarious stories about the first time
[52:27] he watched one of his movies, hilarious
[52:29] stories about him and his siblings
[52:31] playing sports and you know, he's
[52:34] laughing. The guy is laughing and then
[52:36] he starts asking him questions. And I
[52:38] realized he wants to be entertained. He
[52:40] doesn't want to entertain him. So what I
[52:43] realized was there are certain people
[52:46] who want to entertain. They speak longer
[52:48] so they're they're more at risk of
[52:49] talking too much. They want you to laugh
[52:51] at their jokes. They want to share their
[52:52] stories. Their love language in
[52:55] conversation that what gives them energy
[52:56] is other people giving them adoration or
[52:59] listen to their stories, listen to their
[53:00] ideas. They love giving advice. They're
[53:02] they talk more in conversation. The
[53:04] other type of person, and I think this
[53:06] is you, and actually this is me, even
[53:07] though it doesn't look that way on
[53:08] podcasts, we are appreciators. I talk
[53:11] all day long for my work. The last thing
[53:14] I do when I want to go to dinner is
[53:15] talk. In fact, when people ask me deep
[53:18] questions, I sometimes I'm like, "Can we
[53:19] go back to level one and can you just
[53:20] tell me everything?" Appreciators talk
[53:23] less. They love to laugh at other
[53:26] people's stories. They love to hear
[53:28] interesting, awe, weird, surprising,
[53:31] embarrassing things. They are much more
[53:33] hesitant to open up about themselves.
[53:35] Like, as long as we've been talking, we
[53:37] are not personally on level three,
[53:39] right? like we are able to hide that
[53:40] because we keep it back. It is critical
[53:43] when you're talking to bosses or VIPs to
[53:45] know which one you're talking to.
[53:47] Entertainers want questions, but
[53:50] appreciators want people to tell them
[53:52] stories, right? They don't want a lot of
[53:53] questions. So, your friend is an
[53:55] entertainer. So, you get to make the
[53:57] choice of are you going to go into their
[53:59] superpower and let them just entertain
[54:01] you and keep going and keep talking as
[54:02] much as they want, or do you want the
[54:04] ball? What if the thing they're saying
[54:06] is
[54:09] because when you hear entertainer, I I
[54:12] interpret that as you're coming up to
[54:13] someone and sharing something that is
[54:14] fun and interesting and whatever. But
[54:16] there's some people that roll up and
[54:17] they say
[54:18] >> they're boring.
[54:19] >> They talk about themselves and that's
[54:21] what they want to talk about. They want
[54:22] to, you know, could be a self-esteem
[54:24] issue. They want to convince you that
[54:26] they are whatever.
[54:27] >> Conversational narcissist.
[54:29] >> Okay. Is that a thing?
[54:30] >> Yeah. So, these are people in
[54:31] conversation and this is when the levels
[54:34] still hold. In fact, sometimes a
[54:35] conversational narcissist will take
[54:36] themselves. They'll walk themselves
[54:38] right up all three levels. They'll
[54:39] they'll answer for themselves in level
[54:41] one. They'll tell you all about their
[54:42] goals and they'll tell you the most
[54:43] deepest things that you did not want to
[54:45] know. And that's when you get like
[54:46] verbal vomit, right? Like someone just
[54:47] like they won't stop talking and they're
[54:49] just telling you things you didn't even
[54:50] want to know. You have a choice. You can
[54:53] either try to teach them that that's not
[54:55] the way that they should be in
[54:56] conversation and you can literally say,
[54:57] "Is it my turn yet?
[55:00] Do you want to hear about mine? Do you
[55:03] want to hear about my goal? Right? Like
[55:05] if this is a person you're going to
[55:06] invest in and you care for and you like,
[55:08] you have to you have to stand up for
[55:10] what you want to share.
[55:11] >> In your experience, where does that
[55:13] conversational narcissism come from?
[55:15] Like
[55:16] >> insecurity.
[55:17] >> Yeah.
[55:17] >> Right. This person's insecure. I don't
[55:18] even know them. They are insecure. And
[55:20] also I my bet is they're trying to
[55:22] impress you.
[55:23] >> My my bet is they're trying to find
[55:25] something to raise your eyebrows, but
[55:26] they don't realize that the more they
[55:27] talk, the more you're like Can I go
[55:29] home?
[55:30] >> Do you think they know that they're a
[55:32] conversational narcissist? Do you think
[55:33] they're listening right now and think,
[55:34] "Fuck, that's me or do they not have
[55:36] that level of cuz the person that I was
[55:38] I was referring to, they know they talk
[55:41] too much cuz they say it and they've had
[55:42] the feedback multiple and they literally
[55:44] will say I talk too much but then they
[55:46] can't seem to stop because it's so
[55:47] deeply ingrained in them from their
[55:49] childhood."
[55:51] >> So, I'm wondering if they, you know,
[55:52] they're listening now and they go,
[55:53] "Okay, that's me." Cuz my next question
[55:55] is like how do they fix it?
[55:57] >> Curiosity. Okay,
[55:58] >> that's an easier question. I actually
[55:59] don't think there's a hard and fast
[56:00] rule. Some conversational narcissists
[56:02] are aware of it and hate themselves for
[56:04] it.
[56:04] >> Like they literally know they're doing
[56:06] it and they're so they're like, "Why?
[56:08] Stop talking." Like they literally know
[56:10] what's happening and they're like, "Why?
[56:12] Why am I doing this?" But they can't
[56:13] stop cuz they're so scared of the
[56:14] awkward silence. And by the way, we we
[56:16] asked, you know, a couple thousand
[56:18] people, what is your greatest
[56:19] conversational fear? I thought it was
[56:21] going to be rejection or judgment. No,
[56:23] it was awkward silences
[56:25] or not knowing what to say. very
[56:27] mechanical and I thought, "Wow, 4,000
[56:30] people, their biggest conversational
[56:32] fear is not being rejected." That was
[56:34] one of the options on the multiple
[56:36] choice. It's running out of things to
[56:37] say. So, the reason they're talking too
[56:40] much is cuz they are terrified of that
[56:42] moment where they're sitting with Steven
[56:44] Bartlett and there's a silence and then
[56:47] you're like, "Bye."
[56:49] >> I like the silence. I mean, as a
[56:51] podcast, you have to come to terms with
[56:52] the fact that the guest might stop
[56:53] talking at any moment and you might not
[56:55] have anything else to say.
[56:57] >> That's why I don't have a podcast. I
[56:58] don't have a podcast. So, and then the
[57:00] way the way that they fix it is
[57:01] curiosity, right? I I do believe in like
[57:03] assertive curiosity. Like not just the
[57:06] followup like tell me more, but like the
[57:09] what, the how, the why, the when. I
[57:12] think that those like what, how, why,
[57:14] when, that assertive curiosity of like
[57:16] let's actually dig into this dream. Like
[57:18] let's really talk about it. Wait, I'm
[57:20] confused. So, if we had a conversational
[57:22] narcissist here,
[57:23] >> Yeah.
[57:23] >> are you telling me how they would
[57:26] recover from that?
[57:27] >> They would recover from it by being
[57:28] aggressively or assertively curious
[57:30] about you.
[57:31] >> Okay. But they know they know. I feel
[57:33] like they know that. I feel like they
[57:35] know they talk too much.
[57:36] >> Okay. Then I'm going to say something
[57:37] you're not going to like it. Maybe
[57:38] you're not giving them enough to be
[57:40] curious about. What I would ask next
[57:42] time is, are you curious about me or do
[57:46] you not feel the curiosity? Because
[57:48] saying do you want to know my answer or
[57:50] is it my turn yet is a way of being like
[57:52] is there curiosity there?
[57:54] >> M
[57:54] >> I think that's really important like I
[57:56] think in relational patterns like there
[57:58] are rel conversational patterns that we
[57:59] can have. So we're talking a lot about
[58:01] newish people but how about the people
[58:03] you've known for a long time. My ch my
[58:05] goal my my deepest wish for this this
[58:08] podcast is that you will go have a
[58:10] conversational a cornerstone
[58:11] conversation with someone and ask all
[58:13] nine questions. Now, if you're in a
[58:15] conversational rut, and this can happen
[58:17] in friendships,
[58:20] it can happen with people who are used
[58:22] to being the overt talker in the
[58:23] relationship. It can happen in marriages
[58:27] or marriages where you only talk about
[58:28] logistics.
[58:30] This is going to break the rut because
[58:33] the whole point of this is turn taking.
[58:35] So, I would be just so curious if you go
[58:37] to dinner with this person and you're
[58:38] like, "Hey, my friend Vanessa came on
[58:40] the pod and uh she gave us nine
[58:42] questions. Do you want to do them
[58:43] together? I'll go first.
[58:46] Could she do it? It's a she, right?
[58:49] >> He
[58:49] >> he could he do it. Right. Could he do
[58:52] it? And so that this is how you can
[58:56] break that rut to see if there's actual
[58:57] curiosity there because I have I I
[58:59] always assume the best in people. I'm
[59:01] hoping that this person is very
[59:03] well-intentioned, just has deep
[59:04] insecurity.
[59:04] >> It is that it is the case.
[59:07] >> If you were to give a framework, it can
[59:08] sometimes break you out of a
[59:10] conversational rut with someone.
[59:12] >> H I remember I think it was you that
[59:13] said to me that the key to great
[59:15] conversations or interactions was being
[59:18] interested not interesting.
[59:20] >> Yeah. After Dale Carnegie. Yes. I wish I
[59:22] had created with it. So Dale Carnegie is
[59:24] sort of the the person who
[59:27] allowed me to think about being less
[59:29] selfish. I think that if you go into a
[59:32] conversation thinking all about
[59:33] yourself, how can I be impressive? How
[59:35] can I be smart and funny? And how can I
[59:37] get them to like me? That's okay. But
[59:39] it's quite selfish and it's a lot of
[59:41] pressure. It's a lot of pressure. When I
[59:43] started thinking, how can I go into
[59:45] conversation putting this person at
[59:46] ease? How can I make them feel like they
[59:49] can impress me? How can I be interested
[59:52] so to make them interesting? And by
[59:54] hopefully that has a rebound effect of
[59:56] making me interesting. That is a very
[59:58] selfless conversational generosity.
[60:02] One small goal for the book was to
[60:04] create more conversational generosity.
[60:07] that if you're in conversation and
[60:09] someone is overtalking, you can be
[60:11] generous enough to either say, "Hey, can
[60:14] I have a turn or to let them entertain
[60:16] you cuz they're entertainers?" or to ask
[60:18] even more questions.
[60:19] >> And you said to me last time that there
[60:21] was a study that found the most liked
[60:23] people were those that were interested
[60:24] in others in conversation.
[60:26] >> The most popular kids were the kids who
[60:29] had the longest list of people they
[60:31] liked.
[60:33] Meaning, if you want to be likable, you
[60:36] have to go around assertively and
[60:38] aggressively liking as many people as
[60:40] possible. Because if you go into
[60:42] conversations thinking, "How could I
[60:43] like you? How could I like you? How
[60:44] could I like you more?" It's less about
[60:47] you and you're asking questions that are
[60:48] setting them up to be likable. I wonder
[60:50] and I wish I could take a crack at this
[60:52] conversational narcissist that you know,
[60:54] if I were to ask more questions of them,
[60:57] like really set them up to entertain me,
[60:59] to get deep, to actually let them go to
[61:01] level two and maybe even level three if
[61:02] they want to, would they calm down?
[61:05] Would their insecurity feel I'm
[61:08] understood? I'm chosen. I'm loved. I
[61:12] think, and this is just you're an
[61:14] intimidating person, right? Like I I
[61:17] thank goodness have confidence, but if I
[61:18] was dinner with you, I think I would
[61:19] feel a little bit nervous, too. Maybe
[61:21] not anymore, but when I first met you,
[61:23] for sure two years ago, my guess is that
[61:26] this person doesn't feel liked, doesn't
[61:29] feel understood by you, and doesn't feel
[61:31] chosen by you. And the quieter you
[61:33] become when you're just trying to
[61:34] respect them, the quieter you become,
[61:35] the more they don't feel those three
[61:36] things as they keep talking. So, I would
[61:39] try to ask better, deeper questions,
[61:41] like lean into it and see if that can
[61:44] get them calm enough to be like, "Oh, he
[61:46] chose me. He loves me."
[61:49] >> What's interesting is I observe with um
[61:52] people like that that that they step
[61:56] more into the conversation narcissism
[61:58] with certain people.
[61:59] >> Yes. Yes.
[62:00] >> So, with certain individuals. So, for
[62:02] example, in this case, if I was a
[62:05] beautiful woman,
[62:07] >> Uh-huh.
[62:08] >> Uh, this individual would would be
[62:11] fullblown like word vomit, like it would
[62:14] fully come out,
[62:16] >> you know?
[62:16] >> Yeah.
[62:17] >> Or just women generally, even if it's a
[62:19] a platonic relationship,
[62:21] >> becomes even more like intent on
[62:24] >> wants to be understood, chosen, and
[62:26] loved by that beautiful woman.
[62:27] >> Yeah.
[62:28] >> Right. Like such a deep desire. And so I
[62:30] I wonder if you could disengage it with
[62:32] actually answering those three questions
[62:33] for them, like putting them at ease. I
[62:36] also think it's important to talk about
[62:39] an aspect of bad conversation is making
[62:43] the driver of the conversation feel like
[62:45] they're a bad driver,
[62:48] right? This person is driving
[62:49] conversation, right? Like they know
[62:50] they're an overtalker and they're
[62:51] driving and all the passengers are like,
[62:53] "Oh my gosh, this person's so bad." And
[62:55] what does the bad driver do? They get
[62:56] even more tense.
[62:57] >> Mhm.
[62:58] >> They get even worse at it. And so the
[62:59] flip side of that is how can you make
[63:01] them feel like a better driver? And one
[63:03] way that we accidentally the opposite of
[63:04] dream building is dream killing. So
[63:06] dream killing is when we shut down a
[63:08] dream. We make someone feel not liked,
[63:11] make them feel not understood. I think
[63:13] that very smart people have an
[63:15] accidental effect where they dream kill
[63:18] with
[63:18] >> logic.
[63:19] >> Mhm.
[63:20] >> Yeah.
[63:20] >> You know, I I call it my my lovely smart
[63:23] leader is I say you're fact-checking,
[63:24] not gut-eing.
[63:26] Right. If you're fact-checking all the
[63:27] time, if you're, you know, trying to
[63:29] accuracy kill, but they're not there
[63:32] yet, you're actually creating a a
[63:34] conversational scarcity that's going to
[63:36] make them feel like, I have to prove
[63:38] myself. I have to dig in. Now, I'm going
[63:40] to talk you more cuz I want to convince
[63:41] you. And so, I think um the opposite of
[63:44] dream building is dream killing. And
[63:45] very smart people tend to dream kill by
[63:47] accident. And it shuts down connection
[63:48] completely. Like, not only will you not
[63:50] get to level two and not you'll you'll
[63:51] bounce on level one or you won't have a
[63:52] relationship with that person. I was
[63:54] just thinking about in my previous
[63:55] company, we interviewed somebody and
[63:57] they were extremely extremely
[63:58] intelligent and it was really obvious to
[64:00] me how intelligent they were like
[64:01] unbelievable. Their credentials
[64:03] unbelievable and then they went through
[64:04] the interview process and the interview
[64:06] feedback from the people that met them
[64:08] was like neutral or negative.
[64:11] >> I remember thinking, do you know what it
[64:12] is? This person is so obsessed with the
[64:15] pursuit of truth that they put being
[64:17] liked or being pleased or whatever to
[64:19] the side. They just care if what you're
[64:21] saying is true or not.
[64:22] >> That's it. And that in some respects
[64:25] might hold them back. It's also like why
[64:26] I think that this person is amazing, but
[64:29] getting through like an interview
[64:30] process, all those sort of social
[64:32] dynamics would would be really tough,
[64:33] right?
[64:34] >> And this takes us back to why
[64:35] conversation is essential. Very smart
[64:38] people think all about their ideas,
[64:40] their knowledge, the facts. But you can
[64:43] be the smartest person in the room, but
[64:44] if people don't feel connected to you,
[64:46] they don't believe your smarts. That
[64:48] comes directly from the research.
[64:50] Competence without warmth is likely to
[64:52] leave us feeling suspicious.
[64:55] So you could be incredibly smart, but if
[64:58] you cannot manage the mechanics of
[65:00] connective conversation, people feel
[65:02] suspicious. It literally triggers a part
[65:04] of their brain that goes, "I don't know
[65:06] about this person." And so the reason
[65:07] why level one is so critical, but we
[65:09] can't skip it, is what we're doing is
[65:10] we're trying to create ease. That's
[65:12] another way of saying warmth, right?
[65:13] We're trying to make it so someone feels
[65:14] like they can be understood with us. And
[65:16] then if they're understood, they're
[65:16] chosen. And if they're chosen, they're
[65:18] loved, right? like it's a three. And
[65:20] this actually brings me to the third.
[65:23] I'm so bad at this. Let's see. I was
[65:25] like that. So, I struggled with this uh
[65:28] what are we on? Sixth question because
[65:30] there by the way I started this research
[65:32] with over 100 questions and I was
[65:34] testing them. I mean I was making
[65:36] everyone try every different kind. I was
[65:38] using my students. They were trying
[65:39] them. I was seeing also I wanted to make
[65:41] sure they worked at work. They worked at
[65:43] home and they worked with kids, right?
[65:44] Right? Like you can do a lot of the and
[65:46] you have to alter them slightly, but I
[65:47] want to make sure they work across the
[65:48] board. And the sixth question is
[65:51] actually a signature question. So this
[65:54] is taking a step back and thinking, what
[65:57] do you love to talk about? What do you
[66:00] love to talk about in conversation? What
[66:01] do you love to talk about in
[66:02] conversation?
[66:03] >> When you're talking,
[66:05] >> what do I love to talk about?
[66:06] >> Yeah. Not hear about necessarily, but
[66:08] talk about
[66:09] >> Oh gosh.
[66:09] >> We're going to reverse engineer it. This
[66:11] six question is about reverse
[66:12] engineering your love. I like to talk
[66:14] about psychology,
[66:15] >> of people and stuff.
[66:16] >> Okay. Okay. So, great. Okay. So, we you
[66:19] would want to reverse engineer questions
[66:21] about how and why. If you love
[66:23] psychology and behavior, you're going to
[66:24] want to ask someone why did you make
[66:25] that choice? You know, what made you
[66:27] choose that path? You're going to want
[66:29] to ask more behavioral questions. Even
[66:30] in an interviewing perspective, let's
[66:32] talk about this for a second. So, I
[66:34] believe in behavioral interviewing. I
[66:35] believe in interview questions that
[66:37] actually let you know about someone's
[66:39] behavior, not just their opinions. Mhm.
[66:41] >> So, for example, interviewers will make
[66:43] the mistake of asking, "What's your
[66:45] greatest weakness?"
[66:47] It's not a good question because they're
[66:49] going to answer with a prepared answer.
[66:51] It's not going to be real. It's not
[66:52] going to tell you much. I would rather
[66:54] you ask, "What would your last manager
[66:57] say is your greatest weakness?"
[67:00] That's a very different question. First
[67:01] of all, it's not going to be as
[67:02] practiced. Maybe after now it will be,
[67:05] but you're asking the person to step
[67:07] outside themselves from a behavior
[67:08] perspective. When we step outside of
[67:10] ourselves and think about someone else's
[67:11] opinion, we see different things even
[67:13] about ourselves and likely they're going
[67:16] to call your previous manager.
[67:17] >> Mhm.
[67:18] >> Right. So, they can confirm that in a in
[67:20] a phone call. And you could even say,
[67:21] you know, when I call your previous
[67:22] manager, what would your previous
[67:24] manager say is your greatest weakness?
[67:26] You're going to get a juicy answer,
[67:27] right? And you can go verify it.
[67:29] >> Another behavioral technique, which is
[67:31] why I like behavior so much, is not just
[67:34] asking, "Tell me about a recent time
[67:36] that you managed a project." Right?
[67:38] Right? We always ask for examples in
[67:39] interview. That's okay, but not great
[67:42] cuz they're going to pick the best one.
[67:44] What you're better off saying is, tell
[67:46] me about the most recent time you
[67:48] managed a project. It should be in the
[67:50] last 3 months, 2 months, not a year or
[67:53] two ago. So asking for recency, asking
[67:56] for other people's opinions. The reason
[67:58] why I say this is because that would be
[68:00] crafting a type of answer that you want,
[68:03] trying to craft information about a
[68:05] previous experience that is real and not
[68:06] rehearsed. So for you, you'd be wanting
[68:08] to ask more behavior questions when
[68:10] you're at dinner, when you're here,
[68:12] obviously because that's what you love.
[68:14] Many successful people have signature
[68:17] questions. Like I know Amy Polar at the
[68:19] end of her podcast, she always asks,
[68:20] "What are you laughing about? What's
[68:22] making you laugh recently?" That's her
[68:24] signature question. example I use in the
[68:26] book is Jenny Urick has a challenge a
[68:28] thousand hours outside which is spending
[68:30] a thousand hours with her kids outside
[68:32] playing more outside off of screens and
[68:34] she asks everyone her podcast what was
[68:36] your favorite outdoor memory because she
[68:39] loves talking about outdoors and and
[68:40] childhood nostalgia so the sixth
[68:42] question is inviting what do you love to
[68:44] talk about how can we engineer that in
[68:47] your conversations by looking for
[68:49] opportunities to bring it up
[68:50] >> so at this stage I would turn to
[68:53] somebody when I when I feel like I've
[68:55] got that depth with them and I'd say
[68:56] what do you love to talk about and they
[68:58] might say do you know I really love
[68:59] talking about sports and then are you
[69:01] saying that opens a door and gives me a
[69:03] clue as to how to connect with them so I
[69:05] future conversations with them should
[69:07] orientate towards sports or psychology
[69:08] or whatever their answer was
[69:10] >> no it would be you can ask what do you
[69:12] love to talk about it would be you
[69:14] Steven love to talk about behavior so
[69:16] you are going to ask more behavioral
[69:17] questions of them so you get to create
[69:20] your sixth question
[69:22] >> right so like right now because I'm
[69:24] talking about conversation, my signature
[69:26] question is, "What's your favorite
[69:27] conversation starter?"
[69:29] >> Okay.
[69:29] >> Right. When I was researching cues, it
[69:31] was, "Who's the most charismatic person
[69:33] you know?"
[69:34] >> Mhm.
[69:34] >> When I was researching Captivate, it
[69:36] was, "What's your favorite body language
[69:38] cue?" Right. Or do you ever think about
[69:39] body language? So, it can change based
[69:41] on your interest, but you're creating it
[69:42] for yourself.
[69:43] >> Okay. So, this one's a bespoke one. You
[69:44] get to write this one yourself.
[69:46] >> Yes. Exactly. Exactly.
[69:47] >> Got you. So, I'm interested in
[69:49] psychology. So, this one would be
[69:51] psychology related topics for me,
[69:52] >> right? or like what drives you
[69:53] behavioral.
[69:54] >> I actually think that some of the level
[69:55] three questions might interest you, but
[69:57] I'm curious. Okay,
[69:58] >> let's see. All right, level three. Are
[69:59] you ready?
[70:00] >> Wait, before we do level three, just
[70:01] want to close off on this uh do you talk
[70:03] too much test?
[70:04] >> Okay, so
[70:06] I have a do you talk too much test in
[70:07] the book. It's right here. So, you're
[70:09] going to ask yourself, I leave a
[70:11] conversation realizing I don't know much
[70:13] about the other person.
[70:14] >> Okay,
[70:15] >> that's a secret curiosity question.
[70:17] >> So, there's five questions here. And if
[70:20] you answer often more than three times,
[70:22] you're probably an overtalker.
[70:24] >> That's it. And all of them secretly,
[70:26] Stephen, are saying, "Are you curious
[70:28] enough?"
[70:29] >> Okay?
[70:29] >> Right? Because we know that curiosity is
[70:30] the antidote. So I put this right at the
[70:32] end of level one because you really
[70:34] can't go to level two if you're talking
[70:35] too much.
[70:36] >> Okay?
[70:37] >> You're not curious enough. You're not
[70:38] going to learn their dream.
[70:39] >> So question one. So if I say yes to
[70:41] three of these, then I'm probably an
[70:44] overtalker. Correct? So first one is I
[70:46] leave the conversation realizing I
[70:47] didn't know much about the other person.
[70:49] I'd say rarely. After I finish speaking,
[70:52] people nod politely, but don't always
[70:54] respond.
[70:56] >> Sometimes.
[70:57] >> I love telling long detailed stories,
[70:59] especially when people are too polite to
[71:00] interrupt.
[71:02] >> Do you ever tell a long detailed story?
[71:04] >> Only when I'm on stage and I'm and
[71:06] someone has paid me to.
[71:07] >> That doesn't count. Okay.
[71:08] >> Doesn't count.
[71:08] >> Sometimes I'd say, um, I've been told
[71:10] gently or not so gently that I talk a
[71:13] lot.
[71:15] >> Rarely. I've never been told that.
[71:16] Number five, while I'm midstory, I
[71:18] notice people glance around the room
[71:20] sometimes.
[71:21] >> So, you pass.
[71:23] >> Okay.
[71:23] >> Now, I could have told you that also,
[71:24] but yeah, you pass.
[71:26] >> So, those it's really important because
[71:28] it might be creating conversational
[71:30] friction, right? Especially at work. And
[71:32] the best muscle you can do is asking
[71:34] more, talking less. And a challenge, a
[71:38] very specific challenge,
[71:40] >> please do a yap challenge. Do you know
[71:42] what a yap challenge is? Oh, a yap
[71:43] challenge. A yeah challenge is you open
[71:45] up your phone camera and you teach
[71:47] something or share an opinion about
[71:49] something without notes and you hit
[71:51] record. If you go naturally 15 or 30
[71:54] seconds, you're probably good. If you're
[71:56] hitting 45 seconds, that's the max. If
[71:58] you're up to a minute or 2 minutes, you
[72:00] probably talk too much.
[72:01] >> H about yourself or just
[72:03] >> about yourself about like that. That
[72:05] your typical answering length is longer
[72:08] than conversationally appropriate
[72:10] >> to a question about you. It a yap
[72:12] challenge could be share your opinion
[72:14] about veganism.
[72:16] >> Damn, I didn't think I could get that
[72:18] done in 15 seconds.
[72:20] >> What's your answer?
[72:21] >> No, not to veganism. Just generally like
[72:22] if it's an idea, everything in my head
[72:24] is a story first. So, it's like,
[72:25] >> you know what though? Introverts can.
[72:27] >> Introverts absolutely can. And they'll
[72:29] often go too short.
[72:31] >> Okay.
[72:31] >> Like for example, I'll give I'll give
[72:32] you a yap challenge that I was just
[72:33] thinking about the other day and we're
[72:34] going to do it on social media. We'll do
[72:35] it together. Yap challenge. Someone
[72:38] recently asked my friend out by asking
[72:40] for her Instagram handle, not her
[72:42] number. Agree or disagree?
[72:46] >> It depends
[72:47] >> on
[72:48] >> her vibe. Was she what how what energy
[72:51] was she giving and what was the context?
[72:52] Was that after a 2-hour date? Was that
[72:54] >> just meeting her on the street?
[72:55] >> Rolled up on the street. I think it's
[72:56] actually I agree then because it's less
[72:59] invasive. It's like I will earn your
[73:02] number.
[73:04] >> Oh. Oh wow.
[73:05] >> Give me the chance to earn your number.
[73:07] >> Okay. You just convinced me. That's
[73:08] interesting. So, by the way, I think
[73:09] that was what 12 seconds.
[73:11] >> Okay. Yeah, maybe.
[73:12] >> Right. So, like you you're keeping it
[73:13] tight. I disagree. But that that is an
[73:16] interesting nuance.
[73:18] I'm not going to give you my Instagram
[73:19] because my Instagram is performative.
[73:20] Everyone's Instagram is performative. If
[73:23] you are looking at my Instagram, it's
[73:24] like saying, "I don't want to get to
[73:26] know you through conversation. I'm going
[73:27] to look through everything and know
[73:28] everything about you before I decide if
[73:29] I want to take you out." And you take
[73:32] the joy out of discovery. If I'm with
[73:35] you and I'm like, "Do you have any
[73:36] pets?" And you're like, "Yeah, I have a
[73:38] dog." Then I can, "Oh, how'd you get the
[73:40] dog? What's the dog's name? How'd you
[73:42] choose that name?" Versus, "Uh, look,
[73:44] she has a dog named Stewie."
[73:47] >> But you know, your number is reserved
[73:49] for people in your like personal
[73:51] professional life. So, what you're
[73:52] saying if you roll up on the street is
[73:53] you're saying, "Let me in to your
[73:56] personal and professional environment,
[73:57] stranger." Whereas the public
[74:00] environment, which is Instagram,
[74:02] >> is I think a much more socially
[74:03] appropriate place to invite oneself
[74:05] into.
[74:06] >> Okay, let's fight about this.
[74:07] >> Okay,
[74:08] >> if you do that, your conversation is
[74:09] going to be more awkward on your first
[74:10] date
[74:11] >> because
[74:12] >> because you feel like you've already
[74:13] learned about the person. So maybe
[74:16] you're discovering more of their public
[74:17] persona, but you've seen their kind of
[74:19] friends, where they hang out, what they
[74:21] do on the weekends, do they hike or not,
[74:23] do they have any pets? Oh, look, there
[74:24] they are at Thanksgiving. They have lots
[74:25] of siblings. This is, I think, why we're
[74:27] having awkward first date conversations,
[74:29] why first dates have gotten even worse,
[74:31] is because you're on the first date,
[74:33] you've already discovered all level one
[74:34] stuff that you think you know. So now,
[74:36] even though you have your very first
[74:38] conversation, you you kind of have to go
[74:40] to level two, it's so much harder and
[74:43] it's unnatural. It's unnatural to know
[74:46] all this information that wasn't
[74:47] transmitted human to human that was done
[74:50] in a performative way. And then you have
[74:52] to get in person and it's harder to come
[74:54] up with conversation starters because
[74:56] you already know a lot. I also think
[74:58] what I would say is if someone were I'm
[75:00] not single. I haven't been single a long
[75:01] time. But if someone were to say, "Can I
[75:02] have your Instagram?" I would say, you
[75:04] know, I I have one for just friends and
[75:05] family, but maybe you can get there one
[75:07] day.
[75:08] >> You would say that?
[75:09] >> Yeah, I would.
[75:10] >> No, I never
[75:12] >> because I want you to chat me, right?
[75:15] Like I don't want to show you my
[75:16] Instagram. we're going to see everything
[75:17] and like I'd rather like like let's
[75:19] banter like let's chat are you funny?
[75:22] Are you going to ask me good questions?
[75:24] Are you going to be a conversational
[75:25] narcissist? And then ask me at dinner if
[75:26] it's going well over text or over over
[75:28] the phone.
[75:29] >> So you think less context results in
[75:32] better conversation? So just having
[75:33] their WhatsApp or their iMessage is
[75:35] going to result in more interesting
[75:37] conversations than me knowing that you
[75:38] like hiking and puppies and me being
[75:39] able to be like, "Have you got a
[75:41] Labradoodle, too?" Oh my god, my
[75:42] Labradoodle is just given birth to a
[75:45] couple of triplets. Yes. And less
[75:47] performative context. Like our social
[75:50] feeds are not 100% real. So it's not
[75:53] like you were listening to me talk about
[75:56] something. It's a perform it's a curated
[75:58] highlight reel of my life. So you feel
[76:01] like you know me. Like people who follow
[76:02] me on Instagram like they might feel
[76:03] like they know me, but my life is quite
[76:04] different than my Instagram in the sense
[76:06] of I show a very small piece of what I
[76:08] do. Same right with you, right? And so I
[76:11] know I'm not single, but if I was single
[76:12] and someone asked for my my Instagram,
[76:14] even as a not like public figure, I
[76:17] would have no casual level one banter
[76:20] with them that is critical, socially
[76:23] critical for me to understand their
[76:25] basics. And so when we skip level one,
[76:27] we do damage to our potential connection
[76:28] later. We create more awkwardness and
[76:30] more friction for ourselves. Okay?
[76:32] >> So my challenge for single people is
[76:33] stop asking for handles and ask for
[76:35] numbers.
[76:37] >> Are people going to get mad at me?
[76:40] Well, a lot of them are meeting via
[76:42] dating apps now.
[76:42] >> For sure. And that I think that's okay,
[76:44] right? You know, a dating app is much
[76:45] more limited than an endless feed.
[76:47] >> It's like I don't know how many photos
[76:48] are on dating apps these days, but still
[76:49] like that's like the most performative.
[76:51] It's like look at me at the gym. Look at
[76:52] this car that I bought. Look at
[76:53] >> But it's not forever. Like you can't go
[76:55] back to someone's Instagram since they
[76:56] were in high school, right? Like it's,
[76:58] you know, it's six images or 10 images.
[77:00] You have these pre-subscribed questions.
[77:02] Like I'm actually okay with I love
[77:03] dating apps. I think that actually they
[77:04] can really connect people very quickly.
[77:06] But you don't know everything about you.
[77:07] You don't feel like you know everything
[77:09] about me.
[77:09] >> I feel like people on dating apps hate
[77:10] dating apps.
[77:11] >> Of course. Of course. But how else are
[77:14] we going to meet people if we have our
[77:16] AirPods in all the time? You're not
[77:18] going to meet people if you're at the
[77:19] gym. We talked about this last time. If
[77:20] you have your AirPods in at the gym and
[77:22] someone wants to hit on you, you're not
[77:23] going to hear it. So, we have to use
[77:25] dating apps. I think they're the only
[77:26] way that we'll be able to connect. So, I
[77:28] I'm actually I'm pro dating app. Of
[77:30] course, I would love for people to
[77:31] approach in person, but I'm not pro not
[77:34] talking first. And I think if someone
[77:37] asks for your handle, you're fair to say
[77:38] it's just for my friends and family.
[77:40] Let's try to get there.
[77:41] >> Okay, I concede.
[77:43] >> No, I think you it makes sense. It
[77:45] doesn't make sense. It's hard to repeat.
[77:46] >> Okay, so this is a wonderful level, but
[77:49] it's reserved for your most important
[77:50] people. I think a mistake that people
[77:53] make is they are afraid of going too
[77:57] deep too quickly and they're afraid of
[77:59] going deep deep in conversation because
[78:01] it feels scary to be vulnerable.
[78:03] >> And are they right? They are right.
[78:06] >> Okay.
[78:06] >> If we go too deep too quickly,
[78:08] especially at work, and I wrote this
[78:10] book with work in mind, people are going
[78:12] to think you're weird.
[78:14] >> If we share too much too quickly, it's
[78:16] going to be weird. And there is such a
[78:18] thing as vulnerability regret.
[78:20] Vulnerability regret is you shared
[78:22] something too vulnerable and it wasn't a
[78:24] safe space or it wasn't received well.
[78:26] And the heartache that you get from that
[78:28] is soul crushing. Right? If you share
[78:29] something too or you ask something to
[78:31] deep too quickly, you're like, why did I
[78:32] do it's painful. Has that ever happened?
[78:33] Does that happen to you or No, you don't
[78:35] share.
[78:36] >> Uh, no. I I've walked away from
[78:38] situations and thought actually maybe
[78:39] that wasn't the appropriate situation to
[78:41] share that. But I've also been in
[78:42] situations. I I immediately thought of a
[78:44] meeting I had two weeks ago where I was
[78:47] interviewing someone and the first 25
[78:49] minutes of the interview they shared
[78:51] some really really personal things about
[78:54] their very early childhood that I um
[78:58] >> I almost had to adjust myself
[79:01] >> to you know I thought I was going into
[79:03] an interview
[79:03] >> Yeah.
[79:04] >> to like meet them and ask them about
[79:05] work stuff but I I almost felt myself
[79:07] pivoting away being like oh my gosh I
[79:08] have to be
[79:09] >> more of a a counselor or something.
[79:11] >> Yeah. And so I think that we actually
[79:12] have to gate level three, right? I think
[79:14] we actually have to gate and and it's
[79:15] been a little confusing culturally
[79:17] because I think that we are loving
[79:18] vulnerability and that that's really
[79:19] good and vulnerability and authenticity.
[79:21] There's a very fine line there. Like
[79:23] being authentic is great, but being too
[79:26] vulnerable too quickly is very awkward
[79:29] and sometimes not safe. So I really
[79:31] share when we talk about level three, I
[79:33] want you to reserve it for your most
[79:34] important people. Okay? So level three
[79:37] is called your self-narrative. Your
[79:39] self-narrative is the story you tell
[79:41] yourself about yourself. It is how you
[79:44] make sense of your journey and purpose
[79:46] in life. And the story you tell yourself
[79:49] about yourself is self-creating.
[79:51] Meaning, if you have a narrative of
[79:54] hardship and being unlucky, you are
[79:57] probably going to see more hardship and
[79:59] create more bad luck for yourself. And
[80:01] they've proven that this there's
[80:03] actually two types of selfnarratives.
[80:05] There's a contamination narrative and a
[80:08] redemption narrative. People with a
[80:10] redemption narrative, they have a frame
[80:13] around the facts of their life of no
[80:16] matter what they do, no matter what
[80:17] comes their way, they're going to
[80:18] overcome with hard work and grit and
[80:21] resilience, they can overcome anything.
[80:24] And what's interesting about this in our
[80:25] research is this narrative, it holds
[80:28] across their life. Yes, they're they're
[80:30] facts of their life, but their work,
[80:32] their love, their parenting, they repeat
[80:35] that same redemption narrative in
[80:38] everything they do. The other kind of
[80:40] narrative is a contamination narrative.
[80:42] People with a contamination narrative,
[80:45] they feel that all the hardship and all
[80:48] the challenge and the struggle has
[80:49] happened to them and they can't make it
[80:51] through. They can't overcome. That no
[80:53] matter how hard they've worked, their
[80:54] grit, their strength, their resilience,
[80:56] they're a victim of circumstance. they
[80:58] typically feel very unlucky and very out
[81:00] of control. And when you have that kind
[81:02] of narrative, it's less about the facts
[81:04] of your life and more about the frames
[81:06] of your life, how you're seeing those
[81:08] facts. When you have a contamination
[81:10] narrative or you're in a relationship
[81:12] with someone with a with a contamination
[81:13] narrative, the only way that I think we
[81:15] can change that, cuz our narratives are
[81:17] changeable. These are not fixed
[81:19] personality traits, is via conversation.
[81:22] So, my secret hope with with level three
[81:24] conversation is when you're in a safe
[81:26] relationship, when you can truly share
[81:28] who you are, when you feel understood,
[81:30] you can maybe rewrite your narrative.
[81:33] You can maybe flip from a contamination
[81:35] narrative, the frame of how you've seen
[81:36] your facts into redemption. And that is
[81:39] my secret goal here.
[81:42] >> So, how do we do that?
[81:43] >> Okay, the first thing is beginning to
[81:45] uncover what your narrative is and what
[81:47] someone else's narrative is. So the
[81:49] first thing we have to understand is how
[81:51] our brain works. Our brains are
[81:53] storytellers. Our that's why we love
[81:54] story. And level one, it was kind of a
[81:56] warm-up. Like when we're telling story
[81:57] about our passions and our side hustles,
[82:00] we're also telling a story about
[82:01] ourselves all the time.
[82:02] >> Mhm.
[82:02] >> And so we've told a story about
[82:04] ourselves. And there are what I call
[82:06] narrative hints. In conversation, people
[82:09] will leak the kind of narrative that
[82:11] they have. So they might say, "Oh,
[82:13] everyone always zigs and I zag. Gosh,
[82:17] everything bad always happens to me."
[82:18] Oh, of course, of course. Yet another
[82:20] thing. If people have superlatives,
[82:24] always, never, they tend to be more of a
[82:28] contamination person. People who are in
[82:30] that contamination narrative space, they
[82:31] tend to see things as very black and
[82:33] white. They tend to see things as
[82:34] permanent versus redemption people tend
[82:36] to leak positive hints and they feel
[82:38] very lucky. They say, "Oh, good things
[82:40] always happen to me." Or, "There's
[82:41] always a silver lining. Oh, yeah. You
[82:43] know, just my luck. I got it." Right?
[82:45] They're saying things about how it's
[82:48] happening. They're leaking their
[82:49] narratives.
[82:49] >> Who ends up being more successful,
[82:51] happy, and healthy?
[82:52] >> Absolutely. People with redemptive
[82:53] redemptive narratives. They have found
[82:55] that people with redemption narratives,
[82:57] they live longer. They have better
[82:58] immune systems. They have better
[83:00] connections. They feel happier. And that
[83:01] is because they feel they can handle
[83:03] whatever is thrown at them. They have a
[83:04] great internal locus of control. They
[83:06] feel that no matter what comes at them,
[83:08] they can handle it. And the good news is
[83:10] this is learnable, right? If we begin to
[83:12] talk about our narratives with our
[83:13] children, with our partners, we can
[83:15] begin to teach them actually you have
[83:16] growth here. You have agency over your
[83:18] narrative.
[83:19] >> This internal locus of control thing is
[83:21] something that I learned about when I
[83:22] was probably 16 or 17 in psychology
[83:24] class.
[83:25] >> Yeah.
[83:25] >> And what does it mean? And what what
[83:27] does the study say about the importance
[83:29] of it?
[83:29] >> So an internal locus of control means
[83:32] that you feel that you're in control.
[83:34] You have agency over your decisions,
[83:36] over what happens to you, that things
[83:38] can happen to you in your life, but you
[83:40] can decide how you interact with them.
[83:42] You can decide how you behave. People
[83:44] with an external locus of control get
[83:46] their worth from outside sources. They
[83:49] feel validated when someone else tells
[83:51] them they look good. They feel good when
[83:53] someone else tells them they're doing
[83:54] good. They're looking for external ways
[83:57] to feel better. They look more at like
[83:59] for example vanity metrics, their likes
[84:00] or their follows, how many friends they
[84:02] have, how often they're invited, are
[84:04] they getting compliments?
[84:05] >> I almost the analogy I was thinking of
[84:07] then is it's almost like you either
[84:09] think you're a bird or you think you're
[84:10] on a roller coaster.
[84:12] >> Tell me more.
[84:13] >> You know, a roller coaster has a fixed
[84:14] track
[84:15] >> really irrespective of what you do. It's
[84:17] going to go up, down, left, right, spin,
[84:20] and you're just holding on and going
[84:21] with it. Whereas a bird feels like it
[84:23] has the agency to go go anywhere. No
[84:26] rail. Yeah. M.
[84:28] >> And some people I think do think that
[84:30] they're on a roller coaster.
[84:31] >> Yeah.
[84:32] >> On a track.
[84:32] >> I mean, look, I don't want to get too
[84:33] deep, but if we were in a normal
[84:35] conversation, I would ask you about
[84:37] fate. You know, I think there's
[84:40] questions that can we begin to uncover
[84:43] someone's level three. Do you believe in
[84:45] luck? Do you believe you're lucky? Do
[84:47] you believe in fate? I think if you
[84:49] believe in fate, you're more likely to
[84:50] believe that you're on a roller coaster.
[84:52] that you're on a ride that is
[84:53] predetermined and now it's up and then
[84:54] it's going to go down and they're going
[84:56] to have a loop. So, I wonder I don't
[84:58] know if someone has a high belief in
[85:00] faith or predetermined fate if they
[85:03] would feel an external locus of control
[85:05] and maybe that wouldn't be as good for
[85:06] their mental health. I wonder
[85:09] >> I've done almost 700 interviews with
[85:12] some of the most interesting people in
[85:13] the world and one of the things you
[85:14] learn which is unexpected is that
[85:16] vulnerability is the doorway to
[85:18] connection. And after sitting here for 2
[85:20] three hours with a guest, I feel a deep
[85:22] sense of connection to them. And as they
[85:24] leave, what I get them to do is to write
[85:26] a question in the diary of a CEO. We've
[85:30] taken all of the questions from the
[85:31] diary of a CEO. We have put the question
[85:35] here on this card with the name of the
[85:37] person that wrote it. So you can sit at
[85:39] home as I do with my fiance and my
[85:41] colleagues at work and other people in
[85:43] my life. Whenever we get a minute, we
[85:45] play the diio conversation cards. And it
[85:48] is incredible what happens. These are
[85:50] great if you're in a romantic
[85:52] relationship and you want to connect
[85:53] your partner more. These are also great
[85:54] if you're in a team and you want to bond
[85:56] your team together. And I have to say
[85:58] they're also great for families that
[85:59] want to learn more about each other and
[86:01] that need a good excuse to spend some
[86:03] time in a digital world in the analog
[86:06] environment connecting human to human.
[86:08] It is remarkable what the right question
[86:11] at the right time can do. Go to the
[86:13] diary.com
[86:15] and you can get these conversation cards
[86:17] right now.
[86:18] >> So, going back to this idea of these
[86:20] contaminators.
[86:21] >> So, we're listening for narrative hints
[86:23] and we can ask questions like are you
[86:26] lucky? By the way, if you ask this
[86:28] question, it's it's a it's a sneaker
[86:30] because it sounds so casual when you ask
[86:32] are you lucky, but their answer really
[86:35] matters. Either there's three answers
[86:37] for are you lucky. One, oh yes. Yes, I
[86:40] feel lucky. When I asked you this last
[86:42] time, you said yes.
[86:43] >> Yeah. I think I I can't look at I feel
[86:45] like I have so much privilege in my life
[86:47] that I feel like I have I am lucky.
[86:49] >> Yes. Yes. I feel the same. I'm just I'm
[86:51] so grateful, right, that I get to have
[86:53] this super unique career. So I feel
[86:55] lucky. You feel lucky. So yes, if
[86:57] someone says yes right away, that tells
[86:58] you a lot about them.
[87:00] >> That means they probably have a high
[87:02] amount of gratitude. They probably have
[87:04] a high amount of control or agency. and
[87:07] they also have confidence because it's
[87:09] the the quickness the speed of their
[87:10] answer matters here then there are
[87:12] people who are going to go
[87:14] what no I I don't think I'm lucky now
[87:19] this is a really important thing to know
[87:21] about them and I I don't think you
[87:22] should try to change it right like I
[87:24] think that that's a version of toxic
[87:26] positivity telling someone oh but you're
[87:27] so lucky you know think of all the
[87:29] things that you should be grateful for
[87:31] usually that actually makes someone dig
[87:32] in it makes them feel very misunderstood
[87:34] you're the best thing you can do if
[87:35] someone says they don't feel lucky is to
[87:37] understand it. Why? What are the forces?
[87:40] When did that happen? Did you ever feel
[87:42] lucky before? Sometimes people can flip
[87:45] from lucky to unlucky with a very bad
[87:47] circumstance. And it is crucial that you
[87:50] understand that before you judge it. So
[87:52] curiosity gets engaged. If someone says
[87:54] they're unlucky, I think that's an
[87:55] opportunity to really reach out and meet
[87:57] someone where they're at because in that
[87:58] moment they might.
[88:00] >> Are you going to disagree with me?
[88:01] >> No, no, no. I was just thinking about
[88:02] how wonderful of a question that is for
[88:05] when you first meet someone in in an
[88:07] interview or a first date. I was like
[88:09] maybe I should ask people in an
[88:10] interview.
[88:12] >> Do you think you're lucky?
[88:13] >> You should
[88:13] >> cuz what what is that revealing if they
[88:15] say yes? It's revealing
[88:17] >> multitudes, right? Their gratitude,
[88:19] their perspective on life, their
[88:20] internal locus of control.
[88:22] >> You're an optimist
[88:23] >> often. Not always, but often sometimes
[88:24] it can be realists.
[88:25] >> Okay?
[88:25] >> Right? Like I am objectively lucky
[88:27] because I have all these things that can
[88:29] be realist. But man, you're going to
[88:30] learn a lot. You're the whole point of
[88:32] level three is predicting behavior. If
[88:34] you know their luck, you're going to be
[88:36] able to predict a lot of how they are in
[88:39] a relationship, how they are as a
[88:40] friend, how they are going to be at
[88:41] work,
[88:42] >> right? Fate, I think, is an interesting
[88:44] one to ask someone. And then there's
[88:46] other questions that seem silly but
[88:48] actually have tremendous meaning. And
[88:50] level three is all about meaning. Okay,
[88:52] so the third answer for lucky thank you
[88:55] is that person who is afraid to answer.
[88:59] And I have asked this question of
[89:01] thousands of people and you get this
[89:02] bucket of um well
[89:07] kind of. Now this is very interesting
[89:10] because this tells you they're probably
[89:12] not that introspective. So one of two
[89:14] things they actually don't know. They
[89:17] they literally have not ever thought
[89:18] about it and they will say to you I've
[89:20] never thought about and they're
[89:21] literally sitting in front of you
[89:22] reanalyzing their entire life trying to
[89:24] answer this question for you. They've
[89:25] never considered it. So that's also
[89:27] helpful. That's helpful. You know, if
[89:28] you're in a relationship and someone's
[89:29] not that introspective, that's good to
[89:31] know. Not good or bad, just good to
[89:32] know, especially if you value that. Like
[89:34] introspection is one of my core values.
[89:36] So, you know, that might might not be
[89:38] bode well for me. Or second, they don't
[89:41] feel safe with you yet. It can be a hint
[89:44] that you went too too fast. If someone
[89:47] says I kind of or I'm not sure, you
[89:50] might have jumped to level three too
[89:52] quickly and they are not ready to share
[89:53] or they are embarrassed about something.
[89:56] They have shame or they have something
[89:57] in their past that they feel is very
[89:59] unlucky but they don't feel ready to
[90:01] share it.
[90:02] >> Have they done studies on this this
[90:04] particular question?
[90:05] >> I think only we have.
[90:07] >> Only you have.
[90:08] >> Richard Wisman has done a lot of
[90:10] research on luck specifically and he he
[90:13] there's like a luck test you can give
[90:15] someone. We did this in our in our lab.
[90:18] So, it's a official luck test to see how
[90:20] lucky you think you are. It's like a 10
[90:21] question diagnostic and it asks all
[90:23] these different variations of that
[90:24] question. So, it is academically
[90:26] studied. But I don't think what's
[90:27] studied, at least not yet, is how your
[90:30] answer is going to dictate your life.
[90:32] Like I would love to know maybe future
[90:34] research in our lab is if you consider
[90:36] yourself very lucky, do you make more
[90:37] money?
[90:38] >> Do you make less money? Is there any
[90:39] income? Are you older? Are you younger?
[90:43] Are you a child of privilege or not? So,
[90:47] I I think it's coming. I mean, I think
[90:49] that's where this excitement kind of
[90:51] comes from. At least it gets me excited
[90:53] as a as a behavior researcher.
[90:55] >> I I was just looking at that study by
[90:57] Dr. Richard Wisman. He discovered that
[90:59] people who answer yes, I am lucky
[91:01] actually generate their own good fortune
[91:03] by acting very acting in very specific
[91:05] ways. They have lower anxiety. They have
[91:08] higher extraversion. They tend to talk
[91:10] talk to lots of people and make lots of
[91:12] friendships and relationships. High
[91:13] openness to experience, relentless
[91:15] optimism.
[91:16] That's very very interesting.
[91:18] >> I I have considered I've really
[91:20] considered this doing a luck workshop
[91:22] where all I do in the workshop is help
[91:24] you harvest your own feelings of luck.
[91:27] It is so
[91:29] healing. It is so fulfilling to feel
[91:33] lucky to wake up in the day and feel
[91:35] lucky. It's better than gratitude,
[91:37] right? Gratitude is sort of shaming in
[91:38] its own way. I'm like kind of
[91:39] anti-gratitude, but feeling like you're
[91:41] really really lucky is is so empowering.
[91:44] And so I've thought about creating luck
[91:46] labs, like a little luck workshop where
[91:47] you can come and we're going to we're
[91:48] going to convince you that you're lucky
[91:50] because it's that good of an investment
[91:51] in your in your feelings of happiness.
[91:53] >> I I would like to ask the audience, I'm
[91:54] just super interested. I would like to
[91:56] ask all the uh people listening now if
[91:58] they do you guys feel lucky and I would
[92:01] like honest answers in the comment
[92:02] section. And don't I know you just heard
[92:04] us say that lucky people are going to
[92:06] have uh have better lives. Just be
[92:09] completely honest just for pure research
[92:11] purposes. And do you know what? I know
[92:12] people that don't feel lucky are going
[92:13] to be honest because
[92:15] >> they're going to be honest and they're
[92:16] going to tell you exactly why. And
[92:17] they're going to get really mad at us
[92:18] because they're going to say that
[92:19] something really bad happened to them
[92:20] and how dare we tell them that luck is
[92:21] good.
[92:21] >> That's what's going to happen cuz I've
[92:22] I've heard them do it.
[92:23] >> Can you get mad at Vanessa and not me?
[92:25] I'm
[92:25] >> No, get mad at him.
[92:26] >> No, it's fine. You can get mad at me.
[92:27] It's fine.
[92:28] >> I have no shell. But but but this is why
[92:30] I'm asking because I want to I want to
[92:32] I'm coming from one perspective from one
[92:34] experience that I've had in my life and
[92:35] I feel like I am grateful and I've been
[92:36] very privileged. So I would like to
[92:38] understand why other people do not feel
[92:40] lucky in their lives and you know I I
[92:43] guess it would also be surprising to
[92:44] hear that some people have been through
[92:45] objectively horrific things but they
[92:48] some of them might still feel lucky. So
[92:49] that would be interesting as well. So
[92:50] I'll be reading the comments
[92:51] >> and that is also fact versus frame.
[92:53] >> Okay.
[92:54] >> Right. So the way that we begin to
[92:57] rewrite our story and I believe so much
[92:59] in self- authorship, right? Yes, there's
[93:02] a story you tell yourself about
[93:03] yourself, but you also are the author of
[93:05] your own life, right? You're the author
[93:06] of your own narrative. The way that we
[93:08] begin to take up the pen, like become
[93:10] the author of our own life, is we ask
[93:12] ourselves questions about why do I have
[93:15] that idea? What is the evidence for that
[93:17] idea? The facts might be there, but our
[93:19] frame of them is different. So, for
[93:20] example, take a breakup. And I can
[93:22] almost always find out someone's
[93:23] contamination or redemption narrative if
[93:26] I ask them about a breakup. People with
[93:28] contamination narratives will almost
[93:29] always say, "The breakup nearly
[93:31] destroyed me." The I don't trust men
[93:33] anymore. I don't trust women anymore.
[93:35] You know, it just it it just took from
[93:37] me. I feel like a shell of myself. And
[93:40] it stays that way. Everyone has a period
[93:42] of a bad breakup time, but they never
[93:43] get through that. That they feel like
[93:45] that that breakup fundamentally changed
[93:47] them for the worse. Whereas someone with
[93:50] a a positive or a redemption narrative,
[93:53] even if it was a horrific breakup,
[93:54] they'll say, "I will never do that
[93:56] again." That made me stronger. It was
[93:59] horrible. It was one of the worst times
[94:00] of my life, but I know now who not to
[94:03] choose, and I know who to choose. It
[94:04] made me feel stronger. It's that
[94:06] anti-fragile piece.
[94:08] >> Would you give someone a second date if
[94:11] on the first date they turned to you and
[94:12] when you asked them the question, "Are
[94:13] you a lucky person?" They went,
[94:14] "Absolutely not." I probably wouldn't.
[94:18] You are going to be so mad.
[94:20] >> You are so cooked. They are going to get
[94:22] you. Get it, guys.
[94:24] >> You were so single.
[94:26] >> You were so cooked.
[94:27] >> It's a hypothetical.
[94:29] >> It was a trap. That's what it was.
[94:32] >> You're so mean. You're like, "Look,
[94:34] throwing us into the fire." Well, don't
[94:36] worry. I got a wine bottle coming. So,
[94:40] >> no. I I was thinking I was thinking
[94:42] >> No. Would you Gosh, I'm going to ask you
[94:44] now. If someone if I was on a first date
[94:46] and I said, "Are you a lucky person?"
[94:48] and they said to me,
[94:50] >> "Absolutely
[94:52] not."
[94:53] >> Okay, I'd be curious.
[94:55] >> Sure, of course.
[94:56] >> And I would want to hear what they
[94:57] >> would leave. I wouldn't leave the date.
[94:58] >> But if they were then just like
[94:59] extremely pessimistic, I would probably
[95:01] arrive at this assumption that this is
[95:03] probably not going to be a match cuz
[95:04] that's not my inclination. And it
[95:06] doesn't it takes too much energy out of
[95:08] me. And that is also because I think
[95:11] this is beautiful bridge to the next
[95:13] concept. Once you begin to uncover these
[95:16] narrative hints, okay, you're talking
[95:17] about luck, you're talking about
[95:18] redemption or contamination narrative. I
[95:20] believe and this is more art than
[95:21] science that there are five archetypes
[95:23] of these stories. So I have harvested
[95:26] hundreds, I wouldn't say thousands,
[95:28] hundreds of narratives. It's actually
[95:30] quite hard to ask someone what is your
[95:32] self-narrative? It's very hard question,
[95:34] but there are questions that we can
[95:36] begin to talk about that that do harvest
[95:38] it. I notice patterns. There are the
[95:40] same narratives over and over again, and
[95:42] there about five of them. I think that
[95:44] we share an archetype. I think we do.
[95:46] Now, maybe I'm flattering myself. So,
[95:48] the first archetype is the ambitious
[95:51] hero. And I think this is us, but you'll
[95:53] tell me. So, the ambitious hero um has
[95:55] had challenges and obstacles, but they
[95:57] feel that their grit and resilience have
[95:58] they've been able to overcome. They
[96:01] struggle because they are never
[96:03] satisfied.
[96:04] >> And what is an archetype? Like what is
[96:07] >> I got excited. Yes. So this is not like
[96:10] a personality type. It's not like my
[96:12] brig or anyagram. Those are quite like
[96:13] stable. This is a fluid archetype of how
[96:16] you're seeing your story in this moment.
[96:18] For example, I might ask you if if you
[96:21] had to write a memoir, what would the
[96:23] title of your memoir be?
[96:25] >> And this is going to impact how I have
[96:26] conversations with people.
[96:27] >> This is going to impact how you have
[96:28] conversations with people. how you
[96:30] behave interpersonally, so how you act
[96:33] at work. Like an ambitious hero is going
[96:34] to act very, very differently at work
[96:36] than a contented pragnatist.
[96:37] >> And is it going to impact who I'm
[96:38] attracted to platonically and
[96:40] romantically?
[96:40] >> Absolutely. It dictates your
[96:42] relationship patterns.
[96:43] >> Okay.
[96:43] >> Right. Your conversational patterns, how
[96:44] you converse, how you bond, how you
[96:46] connect, and more importantly, since I'm
[96:48] so interested in work conversations, how
[96:49] you work, how you view effectiveness,
[96:52] how you view efficiency. My founders,
[96:54] right, ambitious hero founders are going
[96:55] to have the same struggles over and over
[96:57] again. They're going to be very
[96:58] different than the contender pragmatist
[96:59] founder.
[96:59] >> So the ambitious hero, what's their sort
[97:01] of internal monologue?
[97:02] >> Their internal monologue is I got this.
[97:04] I can do this. Hustle, hustle more,
[97:06] >> more, bigger, more, bigger, bigger,
[97:08] more. I can do that better. I can do
[97:10] that bigger. Right. It's like we I get,
[97:13] you know, shiny object syndrome is like
[97:15] one of the nicer ways to talk about
[97:16] ambitious heroes. You know, shiny object
[97:18] syndrome.
[97:18] >> No.
[97:19] >> It's like a founder who won't stop
[97:21] trying new initiatives and keeps
[97:22] throwing new ideas on the table when
[97:23] they haven't finished their first one.
[97:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Do you have that?
[97:28] >> Well, yes, but I have put uh systems in
[97:31] place.
[97:31] >> Ah, yeah.
[97:32] >> To make sure that it doesn't uh sink the
[97:34] company as Jeff Basil said. Jeff Basil
[97:36] said, "I've got enough ideas to sync the
[97:37] company and he has to learn to release
[97:39] them at a cadence that the company can
[97:41] tolerate." So, that's
[97:42] >> love it. And that's beautiful cuz that's
[97:45] self-nowledge and everything that we're
[97:46] talking about is self-nowledge, right?
[97:47] If you're able to talk this through, you
[97:49] have self-nowledge to go to your team.
[97:51] When I come to you with a new idea next
[97:52] week, say no.
[97:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[97:55] >> Don't let me do that. It's too much.
[97:57] Right? So in behaviorally if you are the
[98:00] ambitious hero you know you dream big
[98:02] you can burn out because you dream so
[98:03] big. We tend like I tend to like work
[98:06] almost regulates me. Like when I'm
[98:08] working I'm like I'm being so
[98:10] productive. We are helping people. Help
[98:11] more people. Help all the people right
[98:13] like it's like it's too much. And so we
[98:16] can we can burn out from a productivity
[98:18] perspective. We have shiny object
[98:19] syndrome and in conversation in
[98:21] relationships. People sometimes don't
[98:23] always understand our drive. Like we're
[98:25] so driven. We get accused of hustle
[98:27] culture a lot. We can burn other people
[98:29] out by trying to bring them with us on
[98:31] how fast we want to work, how long we
[98:32] want to work. You know, those are not
[98:34] necessarily bad things, but they're
[98:36] traits. They're behavioral traits. Okay.
[98:38] And by the way, so this is um number
[98:40] one, the ambitious hero. Um one way that
[98:43] you can kind of sus these out is asking
[98:45] the question, what character are you
[98:47] most like? What book, movie, or TV
[98:50] character are you most like? not look
[98:51] like life choices, personality, core
[98:54] values.
[98:54] >> And I said pursuit of happiness, which
[98:56] is Yeah.
[98:57] >> Yeah. Which is
[98:58] >> ambitious hero.
[99:00] >> Yeah. But why did you choose that
[99:01] character?
[99:02] >> Because he he the reason why I chose the
[99:05] character was because when I was 18, 19
[99:07] years old and I was literally
[99:09] shoplifting food to feed myself. I
[99:10] watched that movie
[99:12] >> randomly and I was in bed the day that
[99:14] day and it really made me feel like
[99:16] >> like the journey I was on, you know,
[99:18] when he was in the he was in the like
[99:19] disabled toilet with his kid.
[99:20] >> The the toilet scene.
[99:21] >> Yeah.
[99:22] >> And I remember like my life in shades
[99:24] felt a little bit like that at the
[99:25] moment. Just, you know, kind of
[99:27] >> doing things to feed myself that would,
[99:30] you know, and keep the lights on and
[99:31] swerving these landlords cuz my my rent
[99:33] was 5 months late and all the kind of
[99:34] games I played to try and just survive.
[99:37] And then he went on to be successful. So
[99:38] it was it gave me a lot of hope. So and
[99:41] he's also black.
[99:42] >> Mhm. So it was really important in that
[99:44] interaction that I didn't assume about
[99:48] that character. I asked you why and then
[99:50] you told me a story about what you saw
[99:53] and when you saw it. A really critical
[99:55] part of this exercise is that you asked
[99:57] someone about the character and then you
[99:58] say why. What traits? Because the traits
[100:00] that they say next are going to tell you
[100:02] every single thing about that person.
[100:04] For example, I if I ask someone, you
[100:06] know, what what person are you most
[100:08] like? And they say, "Mother Teresa." I
[100:10] say, "Oh, you know, why?" You know, I
[100:13] might not agree with them. Like, maybe I
[100:15] don't see that, but whatever they say
[100:17] next is going to tell me a lot about how
[100:18] they view themselves, whether it's true
[100:20] or not.
[100:20] >> And this is the hardest part about level
[100:22] three, and it's the most inconvenient
[100:23] part of level three. You probably won't
[100:25] agree.
[100:26] >> Okay?
[100:28] >> There's a lot of times where people in
[100:29] my life have told me self narratives,
[100:30] and I'm like, "What?
[100:32] >> What's yours? What character are you
[100:34] most like and why?
[100:35] >> Okay, so I relate most with Claire Duny
[100:38] from Modern Family, especially in her
[100:41] entrepreneurial years. Most people would
[100:43] be surprised that actually identify
[100:44] first as a mother, not an entrepreneur.
[100:47] Most of my day is with my kids. Uh I'm a
[100:49] little awkward. I'm very neurotic. Um
[100:51] and so I resonate most with her. And
[100:55] that um ambitious working mom is sort of
[100:59] what I'm constantly struggling with.
[101:01] Constantly. Yeah, especially as an
[101:03] ambitious hero because I want to do both
[101:05] perfectly and I I cannot. Yeah. So, by
[101:08] the way, if you're having trouble with
[101:10] this question, this is the one way that
[101:12] I think AI can help. You know, I have I
[101:15] have my own, you know, relationship with
[101:17] AI. But, um, AI can be a great
[101:19] brainstorm partner. It can be a great
[101:20] conversational practice partner. It can
[101:22] be a great role playinging partner. And
[101:24] this is actually one way that I like it.
[101:25] So, if you're not sure, if you're like,
[101:26] Vanessa, I don't know. I don't know what
[101:28] character I am. Go to AI and ask this.
[101:31] What book, movie, or TV character is
[101:34] most like me in the way that I treat
[101:37] you? Especially if you have a
[101:38] relationship with your AI. I am fill in
[101:42] the blank. So for me, it was mom,
[101:44] entrepreneur, neurotic.
[101:48] My personality is how describe a person.
[101:52] My core values are
[101:56] what character is most similar to me.
[101:57] And it will pull a bunch of characters
[101:59] that are those traits. So this is the
[102:01] one way that it can help you some
[102:02] sometimes brainstorm.
[102:04] >> Okay. The ambitious hero, right? We
[102:06] started with that.
[102:07] >> Yeah.
[102:07] >> Archetype number one. The second one is
[102:10] called the content. I called it the
[102:11] contented pragmatist. Again, these are a
[102:13] little more art than science. The
[102:15] contented pragmatist is somebody who
[102:18] likes it as it is. They are quite
[102:21] content, very happy with where things
[102:24] are. They don't really need to change it
[102:26] if it's not broken. They are not very
[102:29] ambitious cuz they're very grounded in
[102:31] where they are. They love habit and
[102:33] ritual and tradition in conversation
[102:36] relationally. They struggle when people
[102:39] push them to try harder or do more
[102:42] because they're like, "I'm good. Life is
[102:45] good. Why would we change things?" I
[102:47] have two very specific people in my life
[102:49] who are very annoyed by me as the
[102:51] ambitious hero because I have a new goal
[102:53] every month and I'm constantly like
[102:56] they're like I love smoothies or they
[102:58] make great granola and I'm like you
[102:59] should bottle it up and sell it at
[103:01] farmers markets and they're like but why
[103:03] and I'm like but why not right so
[103:06] relationally um they're often seen as
[103:08] unambitious but actually they're just
[103:10] quite content.
[103:11] >> Mhm. Interesting.
[103:13] >> Do you know someone like that?
[103:14] >> I do. I was just thinking also about
[103:15] just business generally and how when
[103:17] you're hiring teams or even in
[103:18] relationships you can you can get a
[103:20] contented pragmatist holding back an
[103:22] ambitious hero and I've often had
[103:23] friends come to me and say like I've got
[103:24] this big startup idea that I want to
[103:26] launch but my girlfriend or my husband
[103:27] is
[103:28] >> yeah telling me to like be realistic and
[103:30] >> and they tend to be more a little bit a
[103:32] little bit more fear-based. It's not
[103:33] that they're negative but they they are
[103:35] so contented that they're very very
[103:37] hyper practical. I also think on a team
[103:40] it is important to know what role will
[103:42] be best served by this ambitious roles,
[103:46] growth roles, rain maker roles, leaders
[103:50] who are in a industry of change. Some
[103:52] like fiduciary, you know, I do a lot of
[103:55] finance conferences and I work with a
[103:56] lot of folks in banking. Sometimes
[103:59] ambitious heroes can really be crushed
[104:01] in those roles because there isn't a lot
[104:03] of fastmoving growth in those companies.
[104:06] A contented pregnant can do really well
[104:08] in a very stable traditional industry
[104:10] with a lot of regulation because they
[104:12] are very happy to live in that
[104:13] regulation. You might want someone
[104:15] might. I say might because it really
[104:16] depends on your company, but in a
[104:17] corporate culture, you know, you might
[104:19] want a contented pragmatist running your
[104:21] books.
[104:22] >> Mhm.
[104:23] >> They're quite conservative. They're not
[104:25] going to make a big leap here, right?
[104:27] And they're also they're like, "Let's
[104:29] keep it as it is. Let's know what we're
[104:30] doing. Don't don't break don't change if
[104:32] it's not broken." Right? So you have to
[104:33] think about your roles in a hiring
[104:35] manager. It depends on how your what
[104:37] your company is like.
[104:38] >> And in terms of conversation tips,
[104:41] >> are there different tips for different
[104:43] >> archetypes? An ambitious hero, they are
[104:45] going to get so much dopamine talking
[104:48] about goals, talking about new, talking
[104:51] about progress. They are juiced by
[104:54] progress and they want to hear about
[104:56] progress too. So not only are they
[104:57] wanting to like, you know, I when
[104:59] someone asks me how are you? It takes
[105:02] everything in me to not share my
[105:04] metrics. Like I know that's not socially
[105:06] acceptable. So I have to be like I am
[105:08] doing great. The business is exploding
[105:10] and then I just stop, right? Because it
[105:11] would be weird if I was like we have
[105:13] 305% growth on Instagram, you know? Like
[105:15] right cuz we love ambition. I also love
[105:17] ambition in others. My gosh. Like I when
[105:19] I hear about my friend's side hustle
[105:21] that's growing like I'm that's all my
[105:22] text, all my check-in texts. I'm just
[105:24] thinking about you is how's the biz?
[105:26] How's the traffic? How are the book
[105:28] sales? How are the movie sales? Like I
[105:29] want to hear about growth. A canop
[105:31] pragmatist, they want to talk about
[105:33] ritual. They want to talk about what
[105:34] works. They want to savor life life's
[105:37] pleasures. They're very good at
[105:38] savoring. And by the way, this can be a
[105:40] wonderful relationship sometimes.
[105:42] Because sometimes the contented
[105:43] pragmatist reminds the ambitious hero.
[105:46] Enjoy it.
[105:47] >> Enjoy it. You've worked so hard. Like
[105:50] just take in the view for a moment. And
[105:52] so they love gratitude. They love habit,
[105:55] ritual, routine. Um they love to be
[105:57] honored for what works. They're the ones
[105:59] who will make a beautiful Thanksgiving
[106:01] dinner and they want to have that
[106:03] three-hour dinner and savor it and not
[106:05] talk about next year and not talk about
[106:06] goals and just savor this moment and
[106:08] talk about what they did last year and
[106:09] the year before that. A little bit
[106:11] different. Okay. Okay. This is I think
[106:15] the most important one to talk about
[106:16] actually. I think it's the least
[106:17] understood of all the archetypes which
[106:20] is the selfless helper. Okay. This is
[106:24] such a clear narrative. I almost always
[106:26] can predict it within the first few
[106:28] minutes of conversation and that is
[106:30] because selfless helpers their entire
[106:32] story is about giving. Their entire
[106:35] reason for being is being of service.
[106:38] They almost always pick careers that are
[106:40] of service. They almost always pick
[106:42] careers teachers, coaches, trainers,
[106:45] nurses, doctors. And that is because
[106:48] they are so ingrained that to have worth
[106:50] is to help.
[106:52] And often times where they can sometimes
[106:54] get into trouble is they don't feel
[106:59] worthy if they are not helping. And so
[107:02] they help so much that there's nothing
[107:04] left. They have compassion burnout or
[107:07] compassion fatigue because they are
[107:09] giving and giving and giving and giving.
[107:11] They cannot say no. In a relationship
[107:14] they are beautiful to be in a
[107:15] relationship with because they are
[107:16] givers, right? They are they are
[107:18] nurturers. They are giving. They're
[107:19] they're you know a lot of parents can
[107:22] flip into self-el helpers once they
[107:24] become a parent. I've seen this happen
[107:26] with both moms and dads. The moment they
[107:28] have a baby they flip into selfless
[107:30] helper cuz all of a sudden their purpose
[107:32] is there is to take care of this little
[107:33] person. The problem is that they h they
[107:35] they have a really hard time saying no.
[107:38] >> They're people pleasers.
[107:39] >> Yeah. They have they struggle with
[107:41] boundaries. They say yes to too much and
[107:43] they put themselves last. Can be both
[107:46] good and bad in a relationship. And so
[107:47] if you're in a relationship with them,
[107:49] sometimes half of it is just letting
[107:51] them stand up to protect themselves to
[107:53] not give too much. And I mentioned this
[107:55] very briefly earlier, but I've had many
[107:58] friends who are selfless help helpers
[108:00] and they attract takers,
[108:02] right? They attract high conflict
[108:05] people. You know what I mean by high
[108:07] conflict?
[108:07] >> Oh, okay. Yeah.
[108:09] >> A high conflict person is Bill Eddie's
[108:11] work. He estimates that 10% of the
[108:14] population is a high conflict person.
[108:17] A high conflict person is someone who
[108:20] thrives with drama. They create
[108:24] difficulty in their relationships. They
[108:26] almost like to have difficult
[108:28] conversations. They thrive with that
[108:29] kind of drama. They see an absolutes. So
[108:32] they often speak in like black or white.
[108:34] Um they see no nuance. They weaponize
[108:37] emotions.
[108:39] these days they often sometimes use
[108:43] psychology
[108:45] to their advantage by taking advantage
[108:47] of people and the the worst high
[108:49] conflict people and this is where I've
[108:51] noticed it in my work when I was
[108:52] listening and reading Billi's work I was
[108:54] like
[108:55] they actually are enablers they can get
[108:57] other people to do their dirty work for
[108:59] them so they can sometimes put a seed in
[109:02] a selfless helper's ear and the selfless
[109:04] helper will go how dare they and they'll
[109:06] go fight for you and so sometimes
[109:08] selfless helper ers, they are roped into
[109:10] things that are not necessarily what
[109:12] they should be doing because they are
[109:14] standing up for the person they care
[109:15] about.
[109:16] >> And so if you're dealing with a selfless
[109:17] helper in terms of conversation,
[109:19] >> yes, sometimes they even think talking
[109:22] about themselves is taking.
[109:24] >> Okay.
[109:24] >> So you might sometimes in conversation
[109:26] like you're asking them a question and
[109:27] they're like, "Oh no, no, enough about
[109:28] me."
[109:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[109:29] >> Oh, let's talk about you. Oh, I want to
[109:31] help you. How can I help you? It's so
[109:32] funny like my friends who are selfless
[109:33] helpers, I cannot get them to tell me
[109:36] what I can help them with cuz all they
[109:38] want to do is check in on me and I'm
[109:39] like, "No, no, I really do want to hear
[109:41] about you." So sometimes they won't take
[109:43] the ball cuz they're worried it's
[109:44] selfish. And so sometimes getting them
[109:46] to open up can be hard cuz they feel
[109:47] like their needs are not important, but
[109:49] their needs are very important. Like
[109:51] they're such beautiful people. So I
[109:52] think in conversation, the greatest gift
[109:54] we can give a selfless helper is letting
[109:56] them know that you're understood. I
[109:58] value you. And getting to know you is
[110:01] not taking from me. It's giving to me. I
[110:04] have to tell my friends, it makes me
[110:06] feel good to help you. It makes me feel
[110:08] good to hear about what's going on for
[110:09] you. You're actually giving to me by
[110:11] telling me about yourself, not taking
[110:13] from me. So, we have to gift to them. I
[110:16] think we have to be extremely
[110:17] conversationally generous with them.
[110:18] >> Mhm.
[110:19] >> Do you know Do you know anyone?
[110:20] >> Yes, I do.
[110:20] >> Oh, lovely.
[110:22] >> Yeah. And it all it all tracks with
[110:23] everything you said. So,
[110:24] >> and and in corporate like right all
[110:26] these apply to work. These are great if
[110:29] you have a not always but often managers
[110:33] can do great things as selfless helpers
[110:35] because they are so attuned to others
[110:38] but they are very good at bringing out
[110:39] performance. Not always but I've seen
[110:42] really really amazing managers who they
[110:45] know the ROI they know metrics like
[110:47] they're following their KPIs but they're
[110:49] so good at finding how does this person
[110:50] need to be helped? How could this person
[110:52] be their best selves? Oh that person has
[110:53] a great expert power. They're so good at
[110:56] that that they bring up performance in
[110:57] everyone,
[110:58] >> but they might avoid the difficult
[111:00] conversation.
[111:02] These people tend to be a little bit
[111:04] conflict avoidant.
[111:05] >> They can be conflict avoidant, but
[111:07] they're very good at framing everything
[111:09] as we're in this together.
[111:12] So yes, they can be conflict avoidant,
[111:14] but the really good managers who are
[111:15] excellent conversationalists, they are
[111:17] able to frame bad news and hard feedback
[111:19] as I want to help you. Mhm.
[111:22] >> The reason I'm giving you this feedback
[111:24] is cuz I so want you to succeed. And the
[111:26] person on the receiving end goes, "I
[111:27] trust you. I know that." Okay.
[111:30] >> So, yes, if if they're not excellent
[111:31] conversationalist, it's true. They they
[111:33] can be avoidant. But if they learn how
[111:35] to be assertive, and by the way,
[111:36] learning, you know, you can be
[111:37] assertive, then they are uh tremendous
[111:39] in conversation because they're people
[111:41] trust them because they come from a good
[111:42] place. Okay. The creative disruptor.
[111:47] So, the creative disruptor. This is my
[111:50] most challenging archetype. So, I'm
[111:51] really going to try to talk about this
[111:53] archetype in a positive way. Creative
[111:56] disruptors do not like rules. Their
[111:58] entire ethos is
[112:02] breaking things. They want to disrupt.
[112:04] They want to go anti-norm. They want to
[112:07] be countercultural. They're the ones who
[112:09] are like, I don't need a blueprint.
[112:12] And they them and me in conversation is
[112:15] is not always the best. There are
[112:16] probably the ones in the com comments
[112:17] who are like, "Well, this doesn't apply
[112:19] to me because of all these reasons cuz
[112:21] they want to push. They want to
[112:23] challenge." And this is wonderful
[112:26] because they often are the really
[112:28] creative thinkers, right? They often are
[112:30] the ones who are thinking outside the
[112:32] box the most. They're often the ones who
[112:33] are willing to challenge the way
[112:34] something has always been done. The
[112:37] problem is is sometimes that can rub
[112:38] people the wrong way. And sometimes
[112:40] these folks can thrive over conflict in
[112:43] the way of it's just it's fun for them.
[112:44] like it's fun to negotiate, it's fun to
[112:46] push a litigators, my litigators who are
[112:49] watching, I find that my my litigators
[112:51] tend to fall into this into this
[112:52] category
[112:54] >> or very disruptive entrepreneurs.
[112:56] >> I I know there's ones on this show, I've
[112:58] listened to the interviews with them and
[112:59] I go, "Oh, that's a creative disruptor."
[113:01] It's someone who
[113:02] >> they're not only building something, but
[113:04] they're not quite an ambitious hero
[113:05] because they want to break things. Like,
[113:06] they want to build it and break it. They
[113:08] want to reinvent the entire system, and
[113:10] they're doing it. You know, Edward
[113:12] Snowden is is one of the examples I give
[113:14] in the book of like he he wanted to
[113:16] change something and also he he wanted
[113:18] to like stick it to the man like he
[113:20] wanted to break the system that he was
[113:22] in.
[113:22] >> Mhm. H okay.
[113:24] >> Do you struggle with this? Do you like
[113:26] this interviews? They they're very
[113:28] interesting.
[113:28] >> They're really good in interviews. I
[113:29] actually interviewed someone the other
[113:30] day that was like that.
[113:31] >> So interesting
[113:32] >> because they have a contrarian view by
[113:34] nature. Everything they say is like
[113:35] deeply contrarian. Mhm.
[113:37] >> But I think I think having people like
[113:38] that that are challenging around their
[113:40] like default is challenge is quite is
[113:42] quite useful.
[113:43] >> Yes.
[113:43] >> It helps me be sort of refine my my my
[113:45] own points of view
[113:46] >> and they live as dream killers.
[113:48] >> Yeah.
[113:48] >> Right.
[113:50] It can be amazing but it can be
[113:51] exhausting. So in conversation it just
[113:53] it's good to go in prepared to know ah I
[113:56] need this. I want to get stronger. I
[113:58] want to be anti-fragile. They'll break
[113:59] for you to make you stronger or like I'm
[114:01] a delicate flower right now. I cannot do
[114:04] the dream killing. I'm exhausted by it.
[114:05] It's a fine line between that and like
[114:06] pessimism.
[114:08] >> Not always, but a sometimes they are
[114:10] pessimistic. Not always. We have a
[114:12] creative disruptor friend who
[114:16] I did an Instagram post about this and I
[114:18] said, you know, I have a friend who
[114:19] always says I hate everything. Texts. I
[114:22] hate everything. I hate everything. And
[114:24] he Instagram knew it was him and served
[114:26] him the video and he texted me. He's
[114:27] like, is this me? And I was like, yes.
[114:29] >> Instagram knew it was him.
[114:31] >> Instagram. How dare you? Okay, the last
[114:33] one is one we've actually already
[114:34] touched on, which is the unlucky
[114:36] struggler. So, this is someone with a
[114:38] contamination narrative. And they feel
[114:41] that no matter what they've done, they
[114:43] are unlucky. They are struggling. They
[114:46] often feel stuck. They often feel
[114:48] misunderstood. They often feel
[114:50] overlooked.
[114:52] And the problem with unlucky strugglers,
[114:54] the the the character you want to think
[114:55] of is like George Castanza from
[114:57] Seinfeld, right? Like, h everything is
[115:00] bad for me. They can be hilarious, but
[115:03] they are tortured.
[115:04] They are tortured. And in conversation,
[115:08] it's really hard for ambitious heroes to
[115:11] not try to convince them that they're
[115:12] not unlucky. Like my biggest challenge
[115:15] with my unlucky strugglers in my life is
[115:17] to not try to flip them into something
[115:19] that they're not or try to convince them
[115:21] that they're actually lucky.
[115:23] They also in conversation can be very
[115:25] funny. Like they can make fun of
[115:27] themselves. They're so humble. their low
[115:30] self-esteem. Some of the best comedians
[115:33] are unlucky strugglers. And so they're
[115:35] beautiful to be around, but sometimes
[115:38] you wish that they had more confidence
[115:40] in the confidence you see in them, they
[115:42] had it, too.
[115:43] >> If you're in a conversation with one of
[115:45] these people that um you don't gel with,
[115:47] is there a I mean, you talk about it a
[115:49] little bit in the book, but what are the
[115:51] ways to get out of a bad conversation
[115:52] without offending people?
[115:54] >> Oh my goodness. Uh it's called a
[115:55] graceful exit. So there's a behavior
[115:57] concept the peak end effect that we
[115:59] remember the first few minutes of a
[116:00] conversation and the last few minutes of
[116:02] conversation but we tend to focus a lot
[116:04] on the first impression
[116:05] >> peak end
[116:06] >> like like so when you're remembering
[116:08] something you remember the peak of a
[116:09] conversation and the end of the
[116:10] conversation okay yeah we also of course
[116:12] the first impressions are incredibly
[116:13] important as well we tend to overindex
[116:15] on the first impression so we think a
[116:16] lot about our first few minutes our
[116:18] opening line maybe the highlight but we
[116:20] don't really think about the end but
[116:21] actually that's what we leave people
[116:22] with so I I have a formula you know I
[116:25] love a formula
[116:26] This calms my anxiety when I'm in a
[116:28] conversation and it's time to go, right?
[116:30] Either either we're not feeling it, like
[116:31] we're not words we're just not clicking
[116:33] or like we got to go. One, first is a
[116:35] future Q. So, it's future Q plus
[116:38] compliment or action. So, a future Q is
[116:41] when you ask about or mention something
[116:43] coming in the future. The reason for
[116:44] this is it's a subtle way to shift the
[116:46] brain into not here, later.
[116:49] >> Okay, so let's role play.
[116:50] >> Yeah, let's do it.
[116:50] >> We're at a we're at a party. We're
[116:52] having some wine and things get a little
[116:54] bit awkward. We ran out of things to say
[116:55] to each other.
[116:56] >> Do you have any fun plans coming up this
[116:57] weekend? Do you have anything fun?
[116:58] >> Uh, this is wine bar across town that
[117:00] I'm really into, so I'm probably just
[117:01] going to go there, I think, with some
[117:02] friends.
[117:03] >> Oh my gosh. Well, I hope it's lovely.
[117:05] Make sure to try um I love a Chardonnay.
[117:07] I don't know if you like white wine. Be
[117:09] sure to try it. Future cue. So, I I just
[117:11] asked you about a future and I'm going
[117:12] to wish you well on it, which already
[117:14] gets us into future mode. And then I'm
[117:15] going to end on a compliment or an
[117:17] action. It was so lovely talking to you.
[117:20] I hope you have a great time with that
[117:21] wine bar. I'm going to go get some more
[117:22] coffee. Have you got any fun plans
[117:24] coming up?
[117:25] >> I have so many fun plans coming up. My
[117:27] daughter's just started school and so
[117:28] we're having a celebratory Labor Day
[117:30] weekend this weekend.
[117:31] >> What do you love to talk about? That's
[117:33] the
[117:33] >> That's a signature question.
[117:35] >> What have you always wanted to learn?
[117:36] See, I'm What if they just go straight
[117:38] back in though? Cuz that's happened to
[117:39] me before where I've tried to
[117:40] >> Okay, this is where the the action and
[117:42] the compliment that that second piece.
[117:43] So, the future cue is we mentioned
[117:44] future and you're right. They might they
[117:46] might keep going with it. The action and
[117:48] compliment is really important. So
[117:50] wrapping up the conversation sounds like
[117:52] it's been so wonderful talking to you.
[117:54] And I'm using an exit voice. Do you hear
[117:55] the exit voice? Right. Our tone really
[117:57] matters here. So it's been so wonderful
[117:59] talking to you. I I hope that that goes
[118:01] great this weekend. Or be sure to
[118:03] connect with me on LinkedIn. I I I was
[118:04] so happy we were able to trade numbers.
[118:06] So you're mentioning the action that's
[118:08] going to come later. And it's using that
[118:09] closing voice and then the action. I'm
[118:12] going to go grab more coffee. I'm going
[118:13] to go say hi to the host. I'm going to
[118:14] run to the ladies room. I'm going to let
[118:16] head home. Right? like then they cannot
[118:20] right like you've ended it then and you
[118:21] also can use non-verbal cues here so the
[118:23] moment I take a step back the moment I
[118:25] angle my body towards the door our brain
[118:28] subtly sees ah they are literally trying
[118:29] to physically disengage so usually I
[118:31] pair those with those subtle non-verbal
[118:33] cues of like a slow back up and I angle
[118:34] towards the door
[118:35] >> okay
[118:36] >> and remember you can be assertive with
[118:37] this the worst kind of last impression
[118:40] is a lingering awkwardness there is
[118:43] nothing worse than a well this has been
[118:46] good it's it's been good for you. It's
[118:48] It's been good for me. Well, um, so, uh,
[118:53] those are the worst. So, be assertive
[118:55] with this. If you want to end it, if
[118:56] you're feeling it's the end, do it. It's
[118:58] been so great talking to you. I'm going
[119:00] to grab some more coffee. Good luck at
[119:01] the wine bar this weekend. Have so much
[119:02] fun, right? Like, be assertive with it
[119:05] or else it will linger. And that is just
[119:06] kryptonite for charisma.
[119:08] >> On this point of being assertive.
[119:10] >> Oh, yes.
[119:10] >> I was talking to some friends the other
[119:11] day about people that have aura and riz.
[119:15] >> Oh, yeah. Who has aura and rz? Who does
[119:18] >> I don't know. I don't really know what
[119:19] the words mean. I kind of know what aura
[119:20] means, but I don't know really know what
[119:22] rz means. So I I'm curious like how you
[119:24] define those terms and like how does one
[119:26] cultivate aura and riz?
[119:28] >> Okay, I think aura and rz and the only
[119:30] reason this is front of mind is is my
[119:33] daughter asked me, she heard one of my
[119:35] YouTube videos and she said, "What is
[119:36] charisma?" She asked me that and I was
[119:38] like oo like she's eight. I said
[119:41] charisma or rz or aura is someone that
[119:43] you really want to be around. It's when
[119:46] they walk into a room, you want to go
[119:48] over and talk to them, you want to sit
[119:50] near them, you want to listen to them,
[119:52] you want to work with them, you want to
[119:54] play with them. And I said, "Do you know
[119:56] anyone like that?" And she goes, "Oh,
[119:57] yes." And she named it was so
[119:59] interesting. She named two kids in her
[120:01] class that I had already identified as
[120:03] very charismatic. Like I knew I in my
[120:06] mind I knew who the charismatic kids
[120:08] were in her class. I had I had popped
[120:10] them, right? I I saw them. They were the
[120:12] kids that you really wanted to be
[120:13] around. they they have this aura about
[120:15] them and she named those exact two kids.
[120:18] So I think that that definition works.
[120:20] It's someone that we are drawn to
[120:22] verbally, physically. I think it also
[120:24] some of it is can be physical and
[120:26] there's something hormonal there as
[120:27] well. Um but it's someone we're drawn
[120:29] to.
[120:30] >> Okay. So based on the 20 years of
[120:31] research you've done Yes.
[120:32] >> if you were trying to teach me to have
[120:34] aura and rez.
[120:36] >> Yes.
[120:36] >> What are like the basics?
[120:39] >> Be really easy to talk to.
[120:40] >> Okay.
[120:41] >> Right. So the point of level one is to
[120:44] put someone at ease. We like to be pe
[120:46] around people who are one clearly
[120:49] signaling. We don't like people who are
[120:51] mute with their body language. We don't
[120:53] like people who under signal. We like
[120:55] people who clearly like us, right? So we
[120:58] have to be very aloud with our liking.
[121:00] So saying things like, "It's always so
[121:02] fun talking to you." Or, "Oh, you always
[121:04] have the best stories. Oh, you always
[121:06] make me laugh. I love when you're put on
[121:08] my team."
[121:09] So clearly signaling like and verbally I
[121:12] think we there's something called um
[121:13] signal amplification bias which is this
[121:16] bias that we have that we think we're
[121:18] being really obvious with our cues but
[121:19] we are not in fact being obvious. We
[121:21] think that people know that we like
[121:22] them. Of course they know that we like
[121:24] them but actually people underestimate
[121:26] liking. Right? The liking gap. So we
[121:28] like people who are very clearly
[121:30] broadcasting likes. And I have a funny
[121:32] story if I may. So, this hit very close
[121:36] embarrassingly to home because of my
[121:39] job. I don't know if this happens to
[121:41] you. My friends often ask me to sus out
[121:43] their partners, like potential partners.
[121:45] So, like a friend will be like, "Hey, I
[121:46] met a new guy. Can can you go out dinner
[121:48] with us and tell me what you think?"
[121:50] Does that you?
[121:51] >> Absolutely not.
[121:52] >> Oh my gosh.
[121:57] So, I get this a lot and and by the way,
[121:59] I I'm I'm just a regular person, so I'm
[122:01] always like, "Are are you sure you
[122:02] really want to know what I'm Yes. So, I
[122:04] go on a lot of like second or third
[122:06] little ghosty coffee dates to see to sus
[122:09] out the guy that
[122:11] >> I It makes you feel needed. It makes me
[122:13] feel needed." Okay. I also love
[122:15] eavesdropping on like the date
[122:16] conversation. So, she said, "I really
[122:18] want you to meet this guy. Let's call
[122:20] him Schmobbert." Okay.
[122:23] >> Okay.
[122:25] And so we go on this dinner. We have
[122:28] like a Mediterranean platter. And you
[122:31] know, he was okay. You know, I was like,
[122:33] "Okay, he's he's nice, but I wasn't like
[122:36] green flag, green flag." You know, it's
[122:38] kind of like me. So the next day I get
[122:40] the call. She's like, "Hey, what did you
[122:42] think?" And I'm about to say it's only
[122:45] okay when she goes, "You know what? He
[122:47] just loved you." Like, "Oh, what?" She
[122:50] said, "Oh, you know, he thought you were
[122:52] so funny and he already bought your
[122:54] Audible book and he just loved talking
[122:56] to you."
[122:58] Like the most I started to like him
[123:00] more. Like it was so embarrassing cuz as
[123:04] she was telling me all these things
[123:05] about how he liked me, I was like, you
[123:07] know,
[123:09] Robert, he is a great guy. He's clever.
[123:11] He's so smart. He liked my he liked my
[123:14] jokes really. And she's like, yeah, he
[123:16] just, you know, he just really had a
[123:17] good time with you. And I felt like I
[123:20] liked him more in that moment. And I was
[123:21] horrified by my own response. And I
[123:24] realized
[123:25] we so want to be liked that when someone
[123:28] clearly signals liking, it makes us like
[123:30] them more. Right? So we can be
[123:33] charismatic. One is we send clear
[123:35] signals of liking. But also two, and we
[123:37] talked about this a little bit last
[123:38] time, is fundamentally 82% of our
[123:41] impressions of people are based on
[123:42] warmth and competence. So people who are
[123:46] first and is first signaling I'm open,
[123:49] I'm friendly, and then competent, I'm
[123:52] capable, I'm efficient, I'm effective,
[123:55] make us feel like I'm in good hands. In
[123:58] this way, every human being when we
[124:00] first meet, we're trying to answer two
[124:01] questions. Can I trust you? And can I
[124:02] rely on you? So the second thing that
[124:05] charismatic people are doing is they're
[124:06] signaling, you can trust me, and you can
[124:09] rely on me. I'm gonna get it done. I'm
[124:10] gonna only speak when I know something.
[124:12] I'm going to be assertive. I'm going to
[124:14] carry us through this conversation. I
[124:15] think that sort of the this came after
[124:18] Q's in a good way because Q's was very
[124:20] much about picking your signals,
[124:22] >> but conversation is about being a bit
[124:24] assertive about the plan, right? Like if
[124:27] you read this book, you are going to
[124:28] feel in control in conversation. You're
[124:30] going to feel like you're approaching a
[124:31] conversation and you know what you want
[124:32] to do if you have intention. We like
[124:34] that.
[124:35] >> Mhm.
[124:36] >> Charismatic people like they can they
[124:39] carry us, right? Like they're like we we
[124:40] got this. We're going to do level. I'm
[124:42] gonna ask about this. I'm gonna do dream
[124:43] killing. And if I like you, if I like
[124:44] you, we're going to talk about your
[124:45] character. And so I think that that plan
[124:48] is a secret door to charisma.
[124:52] >> Is there anything else that you know
[124:53] people accidentally do that holds them
[124:56] back from being someone of high aura?
[124:59] >> Yes, they try to be impressive. Now, I
[125:02] know we talked about this before, but
[125:05] here's what happens when you go into the
[125:07] conversation trying to sound smart,
[125:10] trying to impress people with your
[125:12] accolades and your background is you
[125:13] actually end up creating distance. And I
[125:16] have um a story where this felt very
[125:18] very real. So, I was um living in
[125:19] Austin, Texas. I I moved since then, but
[125:21] I was in Austin, Texas. And I was
[125:22] invited to a VIP party.
[125:24] >> She lives down at the beach in LA. So,
[125:26] if anyone wants to do lunch or dinner or
[125:28] breakfast with Vanessa, she is I'll
[125:31] share her number in the comment section.
[125:32] It'll be pinned.
[125:36] >> Exactly.
[125:38] So, I was in Austin and I was invited to
[125:40] this VIP party and I was like, "Oh man,
[125:42] like what why am I being invited?" Like,
[125:44] so imposter syndrome. So, we get there
[125:46] and I'm like immed like oh, I know that
[125:48] person's YouTube channel. Like, I know
[125:49] that person. Like, the people I
[125:50] immediately recognized and I'm like,
[125:52] "Wow." And then of course like within
[125:54] the first five minutes the leader of
[125:56] this group says we're going to get in a
[125:58] circle and we are going to introduce
[126:00] ourselves and this is like so we get in
[126:03] a circle and the first person
[126:06] basically is like I'm a billionaire and
[126:09] I invented the internet or something
[126:11] like that and the second person is like
[126:14] >> I would love to know what they actually
[126:15] said. I don't that's what you that's
[126:17] what you heard. That's what I I was like
[126:19] invented.
[126:21] >> Like it was so impressive. It hurt, you
[126:23] know, and I was like, "Okay, okay." It
[126:25] first person is all right. The second
[126:26] person is like, "I cured cancer, right?"
[126:29] Like like like amazing like and it was
[126:32] just like person after person. It was
[126:34] like getting more and more impressive
[126:35] and like it's slowly coming to me and I
[126:38] was like everyone was trying to be
[126:40] impressive, right? Like they're they
[126:42] were saying things that were meant to to
[126:45] shock and wow and awe you. It gets to me
[126:47] and I was like, "My name is Vanessa and
[126:51] I'm a recovering awkward person and I
[126:53] help smart awkward people with my books
[126:55] and my YouTube channel." And everyone
[126:57] laughed and took a deep breath. Now, I
[126:59] have other accolades that I could have
[127:01] shared, but I was like, "It's nothing in
[127:03] comparison." And also, I just wanted to
[127:06] be a little vulnerable. So, I said, "And
[127:08] I don't know why I was invited to this
[127:09] party." And everyone laughed, right?
[127:12] There's like a little bit of
[127:12] vulnerability. Every single person after
[127:15] me said, "I'm a recovering awkward
[127:17] person." So like they also were able to
[127:19] feel awkward. So it changed the nature
[127:21] of the rest of the invites, the rest of
[127:22] the introductions. And then afterwards,
[127:24] the circle like breaks up for
[127:26] networking. And most people came over to
[127:28] me, not the billionaire, not the cure of
[127:31] cancer, not the saving the earth climate
[127:33] change guru, but wanted to talk to me
[127:36] about awkwardness and about my YouTube
[127:38] channel and about they're smart, but
[127:40] they feel uncomfortable.
[127:42] And I realized like I was just the
[127:44] easiest person to talk to in that
[127:46] circle.
[127:47] >> You have aura, Vanessa.
[127:49] >> You have I was the easiest person to
[127:51] talk to in that circle. And so I think
[127:53] that if we
[127:54] >> Do you have aura, Vanessa? You parlay
[127:56] that out.
[127:57] >> Maybe when my makeup is done.
[127:58] >> Do you have aura?
[128:00] >> When my makeup is done. Maybe.
[128:03] >> Maybe when my makeup is done.
[128:04] >> Yeah. I mean, I don't I maybe
[128:08] >> I don't know. Do I? you do have a
[128:09] workout.
[128:10] >> Um, so I I think that I just share that
[128:13] because we don't have to put so much
[128:15] pressure on ourselves to be impressive.
[128:17] In fact, the really impressive people I
[128:19] I don't know, I haven't met that many
[128:20] billionaires, but the ones I've met,
[128:21] like most of them are quite humble and
[128:24] they're quite like they they downplay
[128:26] how successful they are because they've
[128:28] already made it. And so I think if we
[128:29] all just put less pressure on ourselves
[128:30] to just connect, that would be easier.
[128:33] >> It does really track. I was thinking
[128:34] about the people in my life that have
[128:36] aura and they're not the people that
[128:37] have are the most successful, the most
[128:38] accomplished. They are they are the ones
[128:40] that you would most like to spend time
[128:42] with. Yeah.
[128:43] >> For whatever reason. Yeah.
[128:44] >> Yeah. They're easy. And and by the way,
[128:46] it's back and forth. Like you can be
[128:47] introverted and and or extroverted. You
[128:49] don't have like people I think think
[128:50] that master conversationalists are
[128:52] extroverted. Actually, that's not
[128:54] usually the case. Sometimes extroverts
[128:55] fall into their own traps with
[128:56] conversational narcissism. Uh amberverts
[128:58] introverts do really well. But one of
[129:00] the other sort of definitions of aura is
[129:02] the person who I don't know they just
[129:04] seem to take up more space. They they
[129:06] seem to speak slower and be you kind of
[129:10] like see them walk across a room.
[129:12] >> What is that? And like how are they
[129:14] cultivating that like that kind of aura?
[129:16] >> I think there's I this has been my
[129:18] guess. I have also thought about this
[129:20] when someone walks into a room and
[129:21] you're just like
[129:22] >> Michelle Obama was like that.
[129:23] >> Oh I've never met her.
[129:25] But I can only imagine
[129:28] >> Tony Robbins as well.
[129:29] >> He had serious
[129:33] >> winner.
[129:35] I think when certain people walk into a
[129:37] room and they have claimed their space,
[129:39] I think it's internal and external. I
[129:41] think physically and this has been
[129:42] studied. They are t physically taking up
[129:44] more space whether they're short or tall
[129:47] in that winners they have more space
[129:49] between their ears and their shoulders.
[129:50] They take up more space between their
[129:52] torso and their arms. they literally
[129:54] claim more space physically, right? So,
[129:55] if I were to like do the entire
[129:57] interview, and I've seen people do
[129:58] interviews in your chair where they're
[129:59] taking up as little space as possible,
[130:02] you you you aren't as drawn to this,
[130:04] right? And so, I think that physical
[130:06] there's a physical taking up space and
[130:08] they're micro movements. Like I it's not
[130:10] walking in like with my arms up. It's
[130:11] it's micro, right? It's like a a slight
[130:14] down of the shoulder. It's a slight up
[130:15] of the head. And when I do that, it
[130:17] affects everything about me. Like, it
[130:18] affects my vocal tone. One thing that I
[130:21] think about a lot is maximum resonance
[130:23] point. Maximum resonance point is a a
[130:26] part of your voice that is the lowest
[130:29] end of your natural range that signifies
[130:32] pride that signifies calm. So for
[130:35] example, when I'm afraid or or a little
[130:38] bit nervous, like I'll tend to go a
[130:39] little bit higher in my vocal range. And
[130:41] if I were to do the entire presentation
[130:43] in this tone of voice or I was talking
[130:44] to this, it would be horrible, right?
[130:45] You would not want to listen to it. And
[130:46] that's because I'm tightening my vocal
[130:48] cords. And when someone's very anxious,
[130:50] they tighten their shoulders, they
[130:51] tighten their neck, they tighten their
[130:53] chin. It's more of a loser feeling,
[130:54] right?
[130:55] >> And you're also speaking a little bit
[130:56] faster then.
[130:57] >> Oh, I Oh, interesting. I I didn't even
[130:58] notice it, but yes, I think I was Yeah.
[131:00] rushing. Rushing. Yeah. And I had less
[131:02] breath. Like
[131:03] >> I'm actually out of breath after doing
[131:05] that. So, when we don't have breath,
[131:07] we're speaking too quickly. My vocal
[131:09] cords are tense. You can hear it and
[131:10] they're taking up less even vocal space,
[131:13] right?
[131:13] >> Winners use this maximum resonance
[131:15] point. So, we can actually try it if you
[131:17] want to. So, I want you at the very top
[131:18] of your going to take in a deep breath
[131:20] and say hello at the top of your breath.
[131:21] So, it sounds like this. Hello.
[131:24] >> Okay. I'm a little bit sick, hence why
[131:25] my voice might sound a bit different
[131:26] today. So, I'm a little bit deeper than
[131:27] normal, but um
[131:30] >> hello.
[131:31] >> Horrible.
[131:31] >> Yeah, that was embarrassing.
[131:33] >> Horrible.
[131:34] >> Yeah.
[131:34] >> Right. But I hear I listen in on Zoom
[131:37] calls and I hear people that's their
[131:39] very first word. Like they literally
[131:42] hold their breath and they say, "Good
[131:43] morning."
[131:44] >> Hello.
[131:44] >> Hello everyone. Hi. Who? You are
[131:48] actually giving away your vocal
[131:49] competence because I'm so far away from
[131:50] my maximum resonance point. My maximum
[131:52] resonance point is when I
[131:54] >> speak on the outreath. So my vocal cords
[131:56] are relaxed. So now listen to the
[131:57] difference. So here's the high. Hello
[132:00] versus hello. Both me, but you're going
[132:03] to treat me totally differently. So now
[132:04] take a deep breath and say hello on the
[132:06] outreath.
[132:08] >> Hello.
[132:09] >> Right now that sounds more like you cuz
[132:11] you usually use your maximum resonance,
[132:13] right? You're very good at that. And
[132:15] I've noticed that in work culture,
[132:18] people who use their maximum resonance
[132:19] point, they are listened to more. They
[132:21] are easy to talk to because we want to
[132:24] listen to them. They take up more aura,
[132:26] more riz because we're like, ah, cuz we
[132:28] can hear their confidence. We can hear
[132:30] their relaxation. And so vocal cues are
[132:33] such an important aspect of charisma.
[132:35] You know, all these questions are
[132:37] beautiful, but how you say your words is
[132:39] just as important as what you say. If I
[132:42] were to ask, so uh like what's your
[132:45] pursue passion project? I guess
[132:49] I can do it.
[132:52] This stuff is so terrible. You know,
[132:54] like my lack of vocal care, you
[132:57] immediately hear and it tunes you out,
[132:59] right? So I can if I don't have good
[133:01] intention here, it does leak out. That's
[133:04] why earlier when you asked me like,
[133:05] "Does intention matter?" I said, "If you
[133:07] have intention to care and try, it's
[133:09] going to matter. But if you don't, if
[133:10] you're not trying, people will hear it.
[133:13] And a lot of that is voice. And I think
[133:14] that very charismatic people, they're
[133:16] imbuing their voice with that winning
[133:19] calm confidence. And we want to catch
[133:21] it.
[133:21] >> What about the rest of me? So, we've
[133:23] talked about some of the specific
[133:24] conversational questions at the three
[133:26] stages. We've talked about vocal tone.
[133:28] Is there any other part of being a great
[133:30] conversationalist? And I'm thinking now
[133:32] about I guess we talked about hands and
[133:34] taking up space, but even eye contact. I
[133:36] think about this a lot. It takes a lot
[133:38] of dare I say confidence to for me to
[133:41] like look you in the eyes like this
[133:43] Vanessa and ask you a question.
[133:45] >> That is because when we are making eye
[133:47] contact chemically we're producing
[133:49] oxytocin which is great for connection
[133:51] but also you are not able to process as
[133:53] much. The reason why eye contact is
[133:56] quite complicated and I think sometimes
[133:58] the clips on social media have I don't
[134:00] like clips very much because it takes
[134:02] out the nuance. eye contact. Yes,
[134:04] universally it's good when we have
[134:06] oxytocin, but also I cannot do complex
[134:09] thinking when I'm doing this with you,
[134:11] right? Like when I'm trying to remember
[134:12] something, I immediately look away. If
[134:14] you were to ask me a complex mouth
[134:15] problem, I look away. And so in
[134:17] conversation, we actually do not want
[134:19] 100% eye contact. We don't even want 70%
[134:21] eye contact. 60 70% eye contact is is
[134:23] more ideal in Western cultures. But if
[134:26] someone is deep thinking or they are
[134:28] social processing, you actually do want
[134:30] less eye contact because they're they're
[134:32] trying to access their memories. If I'm
[134:34] doing this, I'm purely focused on the
[134:35] connection. But we're in an interview. I
[134:37] want to what does my work say? What was
[134:39] the research? What was the number? And
[134:40] so that is why it can be sometimes
[134:42] uncomfortable is because it's not
[134:43] allowing your brain to think. It's just
[134:45] about connection.
[134:46] >> But when you're delivering like I
[134:47] understand the deliberation, you look
[134:48] away when you deliver. I do that like
[134:50] I'm doing right now. But then when I
[134:51] deliver the point,
[134:52] >> oh yeah,
[134:53] >> I come back. Is that
[134:54] >> you know why? Because one, yes, you're
[134:56] trying to connect. But two, when you are
[134:58] delivering, you want to watch my face to
[135:00] see, do I believe you?
[135:02] >> Am I raising my eyebrows? Am I showing
[135:04] you disgust? Am I like, I don't believe
[135:07] it. I harden my lower lid. So, the
[135:09] reason why we'll often like we're
[135:11] processing, we're processing, and then
[135:12] we're delivering is because two things
[135:14] are happening at once. We're trying to
[135:15] connect. I want you to hear my point and
[135:17] feel it with oxytocin, but also I want
[135:19] to see, do you believe me or are you
[135:21] raising your eyebrows?
[135:22] >> Right? I'm making more eye contact with
[135:25] you because I'm trying to see where your
[135:27] interest lies, right? Whereas you're
[135:30] looking at your iPad because you're
[135:31] trying to get to the next question. You
[135:32] want to make sure that we're covering
[135:32] everything. That's why this is not
[135:34] natural. This doesn't usually happen
[135:36] natural conversation. But it's also when
[135:39] you're in conversation,
[135:41] you're better off making eye contact in
[135:42] the first few seconds of an interaction.
[135:44] So, right when you're on that greeting,
[135:46] oh, it's so good to see you hopping on
[135:48] video or in person cuz you're giving
[135:49] that burst of oxytocin. But then you're
[135:52] okay to look away. You're okay to
[135:54] process. You might want to make your eye
[135:56] contact most when you're trying to sus
[135:57] out how is this person receiving this.
[136:00] >> Mhm.
[136:00] >> That also makes you easy to talk to
[136:02] because if I notice that you're lighting
[136:04] up about something, I can pivot more
[136:06] into that. If I notice you're like,
[136:07] "That's horrible." I want to be easy to
[136:09] talk to by pivoting away from it.
[136:11] >> And when you're talking to me, what is
[136:14] the best way to be a good listener? M.
[136:18] So,
[136:18] >> cuz some people go like they interrupt.
[136:19] They go, "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
[136:20] yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah." And then you've
[136:22] got other people who will like nod and
[136:23] like really sort of encourage and
[136:25] cheerlead when you're talking and then
[136:27] you'll have the like some people that
[136:28] they they kind of they don't know
[136:29] they're doing it, but they start to like
[136:31] scowl at you.
[136:32] >> I know. I know. Yes. Yes. That really
[136:34] bothers me.
[136:36] >> But it it I I struggle with that a
[136:38] little bit just personally cuz I'm a
[136:39] people pleaser. So, when someone's like
[136:41] I actually have a friend who defaults to
[136:42] the discuss microp expression. He
[136:44] doesn't even realize he's doing it. It's
[136:45] a punctuator. A facial punctuator is a a
[136:48] non-verbal habit. It doesn't actually
[136:49] mean anything emotionally. It's just how
[136:51] they are at rest. I've had to tell
[136:52] myself he doesn't actually feel
[136:54] disgusted. So, you're talking about
[136:56] warmth. All the listening cues are about
[136:59] warmth. So, listening cues are nodding,
[137:02] triple nod. Uh the in India, Bulgaria,
[137:04] and Pakistan, nodding is a little bit
[137:05] different. So, I always try to make that
[137:06] note. A head tilt is a universal warmth
[137:09] signal because we're exposing our ear up
[137:11] to the sky. Um a lean
[137:13] >> is uh warm and competent. both actually
[137:15] cuz I'm trying to literally get closer
[137:17] to you to understand more deeply. A
[137:19] competent cue where you're listening is
[137:20] a lower lid flex. So if I flex my lower
[137:23] lids at you, this is a universal
[137:24] response. When we flex our lower lids,
[137:26] we're trying to see something better.
[137:27] Right? If I say, "Do you see that over
[137:29] there?" We harden our lower lids. What
[137:31] we're doing biologically is we're
[137:33] hooding our eyes to to block the light
[137:35] so I can see more detail. So when you're
[137:38] speaking and someone goes,
[137:40] they are trying to deeply understand
[137:42] you. It is not positive or negative. It
[137:45] is a cue of intense focus. Take note.
[137:48] >> Mhm.
[137:49] >> Because whatever you just said has
[137:51] triggered something in their brain that
[137:52] they're going what?
[137:54] >> Mhm.
[137:55] >> Right. So when I'm giving, you know, a
[137:57] presentation to a seauite and I have a
[137:59] couple or or you know, investors or
[138:01] important people and I see someone do a
[138:03] lower lid flex, I have a choice. I can
[138:06] take note of what I just said and
[138:08] bookmark it or I can stop and do dynamic
[138:11] presenting. We haven't even talked about
[138:12] presenting but I can sw this make sense
[138:16] >> are we good any questions here you know
[138:17] let me give you another example of this
[138:19] so you can also look for these cues
[138:21] which also makes you a pleasure to
[138:22] listen to because I am so deeply
[138:24] listening that I'm trying to respond to
[138:26] your emotional reaction to what I'm
[138:27] saying
[138:28] >> I think that is a really we sort of
[138:30] touched on that earlier but I think it's
[138:31] a really unappreciated part of being a
[138:32] good conversationalist is
[138:35] being dynamic
[138:36] >> based on the cues you're getting back.
[138:38] >> Yes. Yes. Actually, please let's double
[138:40] click on this for a second because I
[138:42] think
[138:43] my planners my planners who are watching
[138:46] are like, "Okay, I got a plan, Vanessa.
[138:48] I got it. I got my my questions."
[138:51] What I don't want you to do is have the
[138:53] plan, ask the question, and then check
[138:55] off to the next one.
[138:56] >> Mhm.
[138:57] >> Right. The whole point of these is
[138:59] actually to be quite dynamic. It might
[139:01] be that you ask, "What's your personal
[139:03] passion project?" And you spend hours
[139:05] talking about that. What a pleasure.
[139:07] What a delight.
[139:09] That means you're being dynamic in that
[139:11] wa like you both lit up on it. You can
[139:13] go there. You can dive deep. So I want
[139:15] you to have a plan, but I also want you
[139:16] to be dynamic with it. Like both can be
[139:18] true.
[139:19] >> Vanessa, of all the things that we have
[139:21] discussed, is there anything we haven't
[139:23] talked about that we should have talked
[139:24] about that appears within your new book,
[139:26] Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone
[139:28] and Make Every Interaction Count.
[139:32] >> There is one thing that we didn't get to
[139:34] touch on that I think can help you
[139:35] prepare for good conversation. just very
[139:38] practically which is you are going to be
[139:40] asked boring questions. We talked about
[139:42] this earlier. I want you to if you are
[139:45] willing write down the questions you are
[139:47] asked the most often. Everyone kind of
[139:50] gets similar questions depending on
[139:52] their job, their industry, where they
[139:54] are in the world. What are the questions
[139:56] you're asked most often? And how can you
[139:58] do better? And then think of what are
[140:01] gifts to the other person. Not just
[140:03] interesting for you, right? Like not
[140:05] just like, oh well, you know, an
[140:06] interesting fact about me, but like what
[140:08] is a story or an anecdote or an answer
[140:11] that's going to let the other person be
[140:12] like, oh, me too, or really? Or what got
[140:17] you into that? Or why did you do that?
[140:19] Because then you're actually your answer
[140:20] is doing two things. It's interesting,
[140:23] but it's also conversationally generous.
[140:25] >> You're not creating a dead end for
[140:26] yourself.
[140:26] >> And this is so true because there is a
[140:28] most interesting thing about everybody.
[140:30] And that most interesting thing will be
[140:32] get the same set of questions. Yes,
[140:34] >> there's someone that I know and um she
[140:36] has a very interesting career, but in
[140:38] one part of her career, she went to
[140:39] Bible school for a couple of years and
[140:41] I've never met anybody that went to
[140:42] Bible school for three years. So, I
[140:43] imagine this person always gets asked
[140:44] about Bible school for 3 years like like
[140:46] because everybody wants to know
[140:47] >> three years of her life. Yeah. Yeah.
[140:48] Yeah. So, so I remember I was just
[140:50] thinking then like that's the question
[140:51] that everybody when you introduce it,
[140:53] they were like Bible school.
[140:55] >> Yeah. Or and I I give this example in
[140:57] the book is my friend Jason, he can't
[141:00] smell or taste.
[141:01] >> Mhm. and he's always at dinners with
[141:03] people. That's all he does all the time.
[141:04] He's the editor of Entrepreneur
[141:05] magazine. And so he is always at
[141:06] dinners. And he brings up on purpose.
[141:09] People say, "What are you ordering?"
[141:10] People ask about food all the time. And
[141:11] he goes, "Well, actually, I have no I
[141:13] have no sense of taste or smell. So
[141:14] what's your favorite thing? What should
[141:15] I taste? If I could taste something,
[141:16] what would you have me taste?" And it
[141:18] produces incredible conversations. So
[141:20] much so that I was talking to my friend
[141:22] Nicole Lapen. She goes, "I know Jason."
[141:24] And she began to tell me about his
[141:26] interesting stories.
[141:27] >> She remembered his interestingness from
[141:29] that answer. So even like where are your
[141:31] settings? Are you doing coffee? Is there
[141:33] interesting coffee anecdotes? Are you
[141:35] always at meals? Are you right? So you
[141:36] can also set yourself up and them up for
[141:38] success with those interesting answers.
[141:40] >> So have a script for the questions that
[141:42] you get asked the most that offer gifts
[141:43] to those that are on the receiving end
[141:45] of that answer.
[141:46] >> Yeah. And the last thing I would say is
[141:48] this is a plan. And the entire goal of
[141:51] this is for you to feel more in control,
[141:54] for you to feel more confident. You
[141:56] know, I think as someone who wasn't
[141:58] confident for a long time and who had
[142:00] very awkward conversations for a long
[142:02] time, just knowing that I had a good
[142:05] intent helped me a lot. So, this is the
[142:08] plan. But also, feel free to totally
[142:10] deviate from the plan. That when you're
[142:12] in the moment, if you're feeling excited
[142:15] and and interested and engaged, go with
[142:17] it. If you're feeling I don't like this
[142:19] person, I don't feel this person, we are
[142:21] off, you can leave the conversation.
[142:23] >> Who did you write this book for,
[142:25] Vanessa? So if they're, you know, if
[142:26] they've gotten to this stage in the
[142:27] conversation and they're thinking,
[142:29] should I get that book or not? Who is it
[142:31] for?
[142:32] >> This is for people who want to stop
[142:35] dreading small talk. Dread is was a real
[142:38] motivation for me because so many of my
[142:40] students would say, "Oh, I have to go to
[142:42] the networking event. I I'm dreading
[142:44] talking to my boss. I hate those first
[142:46] five minutes of my team call. Oh, I
[142:48] don't know what to talk about on a
[142:49] date." And first dates are horrible.
[142:51] First dates can be fun if you have a
[142:53] conversational plan. Even if it's not
[142:54] your person, they can still be fun.
[142:56] Conversation can be not awkward. It can
[142:58] be great at the start of a meeting if
[142:59] you know how to do it. And so I would
[143:01] like to get rid of the dread in your
[143:02] life. I would like to get rid of the
[143:03] awkwardness in your life because and the
[143:05] deeper meaning is we are in a loneliness
[143:07] epidemic. And I think if we don't
[143:10] remember how good the joy of
[143:12] conversation is, we won't do it. And so
[143:14] if I can take away the dread of
[143:16] conversation and give you beautiful
[143:17] conversation with your person or not,
[143:19] you're going to feel less lonely.
[143:21] >> Kind of sounds like it's for all of us.
[143:23] I think it's for all of us.
[143:24] >> What a wonderful book and what a
[143:26] perfectly timed book at a time when AI
[143:29] and computers are, you know, robbing us
[143:32] of the joy of human conversation. And I
[143:34] think increasingly kids are going to
[143:35] struggle with conversations. I mean,
[143:36] people are saying this already. Teachers
[143:37] say to me that, you know, they see their
[143:39] kids in class and they don't know the
[143:40] basic skills of how to relate to each
[143:41] other through conversation. So, a great
[143:43] book I think for
[143:44] >> It was meant to be now. It was meant to
[143:46] be now.
[143:46] >> It was meant to be. It took you a long
[143:48] time, right?
[143:48] >> Yeah.
[143:49] >> Many years. 20 years. Wow. Well, I'm
[143:52] glad it's here. Conversation: How to
[143:54] connect with anyone and make every
[143:56] interaction count. And I'm going to link
[143:58] it below if anyone wants to go and buy
[144:00] it right now.
[144:00] >> Thank you.
[144:01] >> What a wonderful book, Vanessa.
[144:02] Congratulations.
[144:03] >> Oh my goodness. Thank you. Thank you.
[144:04] Thank you. It's finally here. Thank you
[144:06] for helping me bring it into the world.
[144:08] >> It's okay. You You deserve everything.
[144:10] You're such a phenom.
[144:12] >> My gosh, I hardly I'm obsessed with
[144:15] people. That's it.
[144:16] >> We have a closing tradition where the
[144:17] last guest leaves a question for the
[144:18] next guest, not knowing who they're
[144:19] leaving it for. And the question left
[144:21] for you is, do you feel like there are
[144:26] things you sacrificed in your personal
[144:28] life to build your success that you
[144:31] regret and wish you could now get back?
[144:36] >> Yes. Um, you know, I briefly mentioned
[144:39] that I moved and I moved to be closer to
[144:42] family. Um, and that was because I think
[144:45] I sacrificed friendship and family
[144:48] relationship in the hustle. You know, we
[144:52] moved to Austin for for work. I moved to
[144:54] Austin for work and I left my family and
[144:58] I I don't regret Austin cuz I had some
[145:00] great growth there, but I regret being
[145:03] away from my family when my children
[145:04] were very very little. It was really
[145:06] hard to have babies without my mom,
[145:08] without my sister. And so I wish I could
[145:12] have figured that out a little bit
[145:13] differently, but I'm here now.
[145:16] >> And what is it you wish you could get
[145:18] back?
[145:19] >> I felt very alone as a new mom, and I
[145:24] don't think that helped me or my
[145:26] children. I wish I could get back at
[145:28] time to feel more communal. You know,
[145:29] having a baby is such a beautiful thing
[145:31] for family and friends. And it was it
[145:33] was very lonely cuz I just didn't have a
[145:35] lot of people around me.
[145:37] >> And now you're here.
[145:38] >> I know. by the beach in LA.
[145:40] >> I'm back. My sister is at my house right
[145:42] now.
[145:43] >> Oh, really?
[145:43] >> With my kids. Yes.
[145:45] >> It's good to have you in town.
[145:46] >> I'm so excited. And I will come maybe.
[145:51] >> I don't believe you. You don't have to
[145:52] say it. You don't have to say it. I'm
[145:54] not going to invite you to anything.
[145:56] >> Conversation, how to connect with anyone
[145:58] and make every interaction count. Please
[145:59] do go buy this book. Very important to
[146:01] Vanessa and also very important to me by
[146:02] way of that. And it's a brilliant,
[146:03] brilliant book. One I think that we all
[146:05] need. Vanessa, thank you. We're done.
[146:06] >> Thank you.
[146:07] >> Thanks. YouTube have this new crazy
[146:09] algorithm where they know exactly what
[146:11] video you would like to watch next based
[146:13] on AI and all of your viewing behavior.
[146:15] And the algorithm says that this video
[146:18] is the perfect video for you. It's
[146:20] different for everybody looking right
[146:21] now. Check this video out and I bet you
[146:24] you might love
