A Bit of Optimism - The One With Brené Brown

Episode Date: April 13, 2021

People tell me that Brené Brown’s work, more than anyone else, is the perfect companion to my work. So what a treat for me to talk to Brené to further explore… and debate, well, a whole lot of things. This is… A Bit of OptimismYouTube: http://youtube.com/simonsinekFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/simonsinekLinkedin: https://linkedin.com/in/simonsinekInstagram: https://instagram.com/simonsinekTwitter: https://twitter.com/simonsinekPinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/officialsimonsinek 

Over the years, people who like my work bring up Brene Brown's name more than anyone else. And Brene told me that the people who like her work bring up my name more than anyone else. It turns out that we may be two sides of the same coin. That our work together is something bigger than by itself. So what a treat for me to sit down and talk to Brene. And what might surprise people is we actually don't agree on everything. In fact, we even disagree on my own work. But one thing is true.

We respect each other and we learn from each other. This is a bit of optimism. First and foremost, how are you? We're good. Texas in general is really still suffering deaths and just hard stuff. I mean, it's insane to me. The pandemic, Texas, you know, one of the whole things that this thing's revealed to me is just, especially in the United States, we think we're like so far ahead and we got everything sorted out. Like this whole thing is so Faustian to me. Like we made a deal to be rich and we're crap. No, it is a complete Faustian bargain.

I mean, there's a couple of bad things. First of all, I don't understand why 500,000 people dead. We are the center of oil and gas business in the United States. And we've got people dead from a snow and ice storm and just the failures in leadership. But no one remembers that when it's time to vote. We have a leadership vacuum in the United States. I mean, we have a leadership vacuum in the world, but it's really significant in the United States. It's not a recent thing. This is a slow-boiling frog. And you can trace it very easily back to the fall of the Berlin Wall, where we had this

existential threat outside of our own borders. It was a philosophical and ideological contest. And it doesn't matter what somebody's politics are. You can go back and listen to JFK or Ronald Reagan's inaugural address. They both talked about peace on earth, world peace, as driving ambitions. To say those words right now, world peace, it actually sounds cheesy. Oh, yeah. And this idea of like big purpose and idealism to drive decisions was a real thing and made easier by the fact that there was this existential threat, this contest.

And when the Soviet Union ran out of money to play in the game, we falsely believed we had won because you don't win in an infinite game. The player just jumped out. It's like Circuit City went bankrupt. Best Buy didn't win anything. And then you start to see the fact that we no longer have great purpose. We no longer have an external existential threat. What starts to happen is we become more and more finite, more and more short-term focused, more and more insular. And the great philosophical contexts are no longer external. They become internal. So we no longer perceive external threats as existential. We now perceive each other as existential threats. We have opposing political parties that are just different philosophies of how to advance what was laid down for us in the Declaration of Independence. That's all it is. Like,

we think we should go this way. Well, we think we should go this way. That's what political parties are. But now we actually accuse each other of being anti-American, unpatriotic traitors and view each other as the threat to America. What? I know. speeches given over time. And I was listening to Kennedy during Bay of Pigs, Martin Luther King, Churchill during the Blitzkrieg. And there's a couple of things that struck me. One, the big audacious goal that's slightly out of reach, the just cause, as you would say, and the honesty and no bullshit way they talk. I mean, let me tell you, I was listening to this series of speeches during the Bay of Pigs where Kennedy was odd, like, well, it seems dire and we're not sure what we're going to do, but it does seem really dangerous. I'll get back with y'all tomorrow after we do some more thinking.

Our Churchill saying we cannot concede. Your sons, your brothers, your fathers will die, but we cannot give up. Can you imagine that kind of candid response from a politician today? The game is so finite, it actually starts two years after they're elected because they have to start campaigning again? Yeah. I don't think people realize how powerful being honest really is. It's the whole debate about taking pilots out of a cockpit. Can you imagine getting on a plane with no pilots, where just computers control the aircraft? And the strong argument could be made that the computers are way more reliable.

Yeah, less fallible. Less fallible than pilots. But we would rather have a human being in charge knowing that they make mistakes because most airplane crashes are pilot error. And it's the same here. I don't think politicians and leaders recognize that simply being honest,

even if I'm going to make a mistake, is actually way more confident building than pretending you've got everything under control. When do you think that shifted? Well, like I said, I think it's been a steady drumbeat since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And you can see it. It's got nothing to do with the political parties, you know, Bush 41 and then Clinton. And you start to see, especially in the Clinton years, we did a lot of dismantling of regulation that made us way more finite minded. And by the time you get to the Trump administration, Trump is not a cause, he's a symptom. For sure.

And he's the most exaggerated finite player because that's the path we've been on. It's really interesting. A couple of thoughts. One, when Trump was elected, I was writing the foreword for a book and they said, can you write about your thoughts? And I said, you know, I think this is white male power over making the last stand. I think it could have been Trump or anyone else. I think this is someone with a very specific point of view about power being finite and using power over, not power with, power to, and power is infinitely shared. And this is going to be a last stand and it's probably going to get violent and crazy. And I think that happened.

I think that this idea of power over versus power with and to really coincides with what you're talking about around the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm very uncomfortable, and I've thought about this a lot over the years, and it really bugs me. I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that you have to have a not that. Like, it's wonderful and beautiful and ideological to know what we stand for. But I recognize that that's ethereal, right? Vision is an ethereal thing inherently. It's intangible. Whereas when there is an existential threat or something or someone who stands for something different or opposed to what you stand for, it's tangible and easier to see. And the challenge I have is, do you have to have a not that? Like, you know, we can all agree in not that. Like,

we don't want to be the Soviet Union. Do you have to have, and I even don't like the term, an enemy to be clear on what you stand for? And I uncomfortably keep coming to the answer, yes. Well, I'll tell you how this relates very much to my research. When I ask people about love, they told me about heartbreak. When I ask them about trust, they told me about betrayal. When I ask them about connection, they told me about disconnection. So part of the problem is that we lack actually the language and vocabulary to talk about what is. People have a really hard time defining love, but they can tell you with excruciating detail about heartbreak. And if you look into the literature and psychology and social science across the board,

you'll see that we have 100x the research on negative emotion than we do on positive emotion. X the research on negative emotion than we do on positive emotion. So I think it's the inability to articulate in a meaningful galvanizing, keyword being galvanizing, way what is possible. What is it about positive emotion that feels intangible where negative emotion feels very real? Well, I think it goes down to neurobiology. I think it goes down to our wiring, that we are wired for survival above all else. There's not even a close second in terms of what the brain is wired to do. And so the brain's interest in positive affect

is not as great as the brain's acute feelers out for negative affect. Everything from fear and physical threat to emotional threat, to stress, overwhelm, anxiety, despair, anguish. It's how we're wired. This explains a lot, but it's also a little bit depressing. Because if it's a biological thing, that means positive is always intangible and hard to grasp and negative is always tangible and easy to grasp. So does that mean you have to have evil to know what good feels like? No, no. I mean, I'm hardwired. Most of us are that if someone says something really shitty to me or

not one of my children, I'm hardwired to punch him in the face, but I don't do that. And so I think we can address the hard wiring with mindfulness and critical thinking. But I will tell you, positive emotion requires more complex thinking. It requires reality checking some of the emotional feelings that we're having. I can scare you into joining me. I have to engage with you cognitively in a thinking way to inspire you to join me. I don't know. I agree that it requires more thought for the affirmative, but I mean, let's look at your career and my career, right? The things that we have come up with, we're not the first people to come up with. For sure, people have been talking about purpose for thousands of years. You and I learned how to

communicate the things we believe in, the positive, by telling good stories, storytelling. And storytelling makes those intangible things feel tangible and people join the story. And we don't have to be rational or convince someone to join. We can inspire someone to join because we can paint a picture of a future that is so clear to them in their own imaginations that they're inspired to say, I'd like to be a part of that, please. I disagree. Go on. Go on. I wish I could see his face right now. Oh, I love this.

Yeah, no, I disagree. I love this. Go on. What I would say is, I mean, I disagree and agree. I do think there's a fundamental difference in the way I think about it. Because rational thought doesn't inspire.

Facts don't inspire. No, but I'll tell you what does. Yeah. Is conceptually complex ideas made accessible with language that people didn't have access to before they heard you talk. You mean a story? No, no. I mean, sometimes a story. I do think in three acts, you can inspire someone. And whether that three-act story is a Pixar movie

or that three-act story is a 20-minute TED Talk or that three-act story is a five-minute story, you can inspire someone with a story. I don't think you can engage people in meaningful change without giving them some tools and skill building, which requires new cognitive ways of thinking about things. I don't think that all cognition is rational, dry thought. I mean, I think storytelling is a cognitive craft that has emotional valence. Like I'm thinking about going in and doing some work with Pixar when they got stuck on a film. And it's like ballet, the more effortless it looks, the more really deep analytical cognitive work goes into it with storytelling.

Like, I'm a good storyteller because I understand the craft of story. But who gives a shit if I'm not saying something that's important? So I don't think we disagree. I don't think we do either. I think this is actually not one or, it's one end, right don't think we disagree. I don't think we do either. I think this is actually not one or, it's one and, right? Yes, I agree. And I think that the story invites,

because we've started this talking about what does it take somebody to join? And then the question is, what does it take for them to stay and do hard work? You know, it's like everybody joins the gym with the vision in January and then it's done by March when they realize this is hard work. And they see gym memberships go up 12% every year, every January. So I think the story does the invitation. And then we want to see that there's goods. Otherwise, it's just marketing. We want to see that there's honesty and we want to see that the leader believes in this. It's not just their get-rich-quick scheme. And I think time, you know,

it's kind of like relationships, I guess. When we go on a first date, everything's amazing because we're fitting someone into the vision we have with the partner we want and they check all the boxes. And then all of the things that are wrong start to show up.

And they're like, all right, I still like him. But then the beauty and the love comes later when we realize all the vulnerability and the hard work. I think that's true. I don't think it's either or. I think it's both. But you still need the vision and the story for the invitation to go on the second date, the third date, the fourth date. You don't start with hard work. You don't start on date one.

It's like, let me tell you all my baggage. You'll never get a second date, even though I really want to know your baggage and it's actually going to make me fall in love with you. Just not yet. I'm thinking, I'm really thinking this is my thinking face. So yeah, but stories are not neutral. Stories can be fashioned into weaponry really easily. Sure. I'm trying to think about, hold on, hold on. I, I have to, so does this mean we can't be vulnerable on date one? No, I disagree. Yeah. That's why I'm thinking this is why there is such thing as over, oversharing. I've done it. I've done it. Let me tell you, not effective.

No, no, I don't know. I think there is an oversharing, but that's not vulnerability. They're not synonymous. I would say oversharing, not good. Vulnerability in terms of just being able to manage your vulnerability on a first date. Just going on a first date is vulnerable in itself. It's not like you could choose. I do think that when I was writing Braving the Wilderness, I studied this a lot. I do think common enemy intimacy is a very powerful thing. This kind of counterfeit connection that we feel when we hate the same people or the same things. And that is the ultimate Faustian bargain, right? Because the minute you start thinking about something and you disagree, you lose what is perceived as belonging, which was actually never belonging. But I do think that I do see

thought or cognition, affect or emotion and behavior as a three-legged stool. And I don't see them temporally connected. I don't see that you have to lead with one and come in with the other. For me, I'd see the way we act, the way we feel and the way we think as inextricably connected in time and in everything we do. So I'm thinking about your stories. I'm thinking about you specifically. When you tell a story, I do feel emotionally awakened. I do feel hooked. And I do feel, I feel, period, hard stop. But I don't think I've ever read, I'm trying to think so it's not hyperbolic, but I cannot

remember an instance of reading a story that you were telling or hearing one in person and not being as cognitively engaged as I was emotionally engaged and also behaviorally questioning. So I think there is, for me, when we talk about, do you have to have an enemy? I think those narratives actually require feeling to suffocate cognition. The people that do that the best are people that really don't want you to think. They just want you to feel. Which is highly manipulative. Which is highly manipulative. Right. So I would argue that we're right in the middle of the book I'm writing right now. And so I'm just picturing all the data in my mind. I would argue that the

fork in the road goes back to a different question, not even the use of story, not even cognition, affect, behavior. It goes back to, is your intention self-focused or other-focused? Yeah, yeah. Selfish or selfless. Does that make sense? I think intention is a big part of it. I agree with you. What I'm trying to sort of suss out here, the three-legged stool thing challenges the basis of my original work, which is Start With Why,

which is a three-legged stool, but the argument that I make is, has a starting point. You need all three, but you gotta start with one. And so I agree with a three-legged stool, but when someone starts with rational, we disengage. When someone comes up. Oh, okay. We do. No, this is so crazy because I don't want to argue with you about your own work i mean argue away i mean i just just a theory it could be completely wrong no we are the most simon cynic

organization that you've ever seen we all have personal why statements we have an organization why i'm a freaking chief vision officer. Like we are. Yeah, we've got you all over us. And so I disagree with your take on your own work. And I'll tell you why. Yeah. I think. Simon is laughing.

I wish I could see him right now. This is great. I love this stuff. right now. This is great. I love this stuff. I think the why the genius of the why. Yeah. Is it's the only first question I've seen in 20 years of doing organizational work that captures all three legs of the stool. But why is an emotional question it engages the emotional brain no i think your why work sits on the throne of the three-legged stool i do and and what i think it's on the stool or it's a leg of the stool no it's it is on the stool it is not a leg of the school i think the why says, I want you to give deep thought to how you feel. I think it's the yes and. So this is-

Okay, wait, stop. No, no, no, stop, stop. You gotta stop there. So I just said think and feel and the same thing. So are you conceding in our game here? So the thing that I'm railing against these days is how binary we've made our world. Totally agree. Right, wrong, good, bad, left, right, all of these things. And it's none of those things.

The world is actually quite gray. And it's usually and not or. And in this particular case, I think it's the same thing, which is, are we actually debating if it's rational or emotional? The answer is it's both. Yes. And the only question is, which is more effective to get people to join and stay and do hard work? And the answer is, well, you still need both. And even when people are in it and doing the hard work and they're bought in, you still have to offer inspiration now and then. Totally. And like you need it all. And I think where great movements survive their leaders is when there is both, when there's meat, there's meat on the bone. And when it's only, whether it's inspiration or fear, you get cult of personality, which can go in both directions. Yes, agreed. But when that person goes,

so does the movement. And I think this is the challenge that, quite frankly, let's be honest, personalities like you and me and our colleagues have, which is some of us have made careers out of cult of personality, even though we like to think that we have movements. And when we die, it stops. All of our employees will quit and go get other jobs. And everything just goes, you're right. Because we didn't take it away from ourselves. We didn't become rational enough. It wasn't something where a torch could be passed. And great organizations and great movements, light torches that can be passed. And great organizations and great movements light torches that can be passed. And to your point, has both. It has the inspiration and vision, and it has all

the rational stuff. And what very often happens, we see this in corporate America most of all, which is there's a visionary leader that has all of the goods. They got the inspiration and the rational stuff, and they light the torch and they hand it to the next person and they die and they make it all rational. And this is why COOs and CFOs who take over from visionary CEOs usually muck it up because it becomes only about numbers and only about returns

and only about efficiencies. And the vision, the inspiration stuff, the story stuff goes by the wayside. And eventually it becomes ugly. So whether you have too much of one or too much of the other, it leads to ultimate destruction at the end of the day. And the hard work is both. The hard work is having the personalities who can understand both. And I'm not even sure the number of people who can actually do both, which is why we have partnerships. Because somebody tends to lean a little more vision. Somebody tends to lean a little more

rational. And you see great partnerships make great movements and great organizations. I think that's true. I agree with everything you said, 100%. With the exception. So close. So close. So close. But I think we have to include... You're so funny. He's laughing at me, y'all. With, laughing with. I think we have to include behavior.

I think it's got to be thought, emotion, and behavior. I think that's true. And so we're back to you completely concurring with the three-legged stool, which is where we started. where we started. Well done. Well done, Brene Brown, convincing me on my own work. Well done. No, you don't have to admit, but I invite you to consider. This is really worth repeating because I think it's a great thought, which is the three-legged stool is emotion, it's rational thought, and it's behavior, right? I don't know. I don't usually say rational thought.

I usually just say it's emotion, behavior, and thinking. Okay. But yeah. Feeling, thinking, and behavior. Yeah. And I think the challenge for every human being is how to manage all three of those all the time, because it's really hard work. God, it's really impossible.

And there's this great quote, humans don't function at a rational thinking level. We function from emotion. Right. And I've heard that. It's like, we want to believe that we're thinking beings, but we're actually feeling beings who on occasion think, right? And so I do think it's really hard to do all three because emotion can tie up thinking and behavior and put it in the trunk and ride roughshod over everything in five seconds. Yeah. Especially when it comes to our self-worth. Yeah. You know, do we belong? Are we loved?

Yeah. Do people get us? Which is a perfect segue to my next question. Oh, God. Dating. No, I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole. Why is the word vulnerability or vulnerable so scary to so many people? Like, I've found myself, like, I've written it.

And I said, like, in leadership, you have to be vulnerable. And then I have to write a sentence saying, I know a lot of you are scared by that word. So let me unpack this a little bit. Like, why is the word scary? There's just a lot of words that we have visceral reactions to. We have the same kind of visceral reaction to the word shame, just the mythology surrounding vulnerability, that it's weakness, that it's oversharing, that you're either the sucker or you're the asshole. Don't be the sucker. That whole line of thinking is so instilled in us globally. We did a training in London, and we had 50 countries of origin represented. And it was interesting because in the beginning, when we were kind of building the safe container everyone talked about their concern about the emotional part of the training

specifically vulnerability and shame feeling not culturally relevant for them and then at the end of the training the feedback was the work on vulnerability and shame was the most unifying the what we shared in common the most because we had 30 languages in the room and every single person stood up and gave us a saying in their own language that they heard growing up that completely vilified vulnerability, whether it was don't get an ocean beyond your station, don't get taller than the poppies, you know, whatever it was, it was don't put yourself out there. You're going to get hurt. And that makes you look stupid. So I think our cultural training has been

deep and effective. So that's why we have that response to the word. Vulnerability has a lot of shared definition, most of it pejorative. Right. And inaccurate. And I think we've done a pretty good job. I mean, I think you're hearing more and more and more. I mean, I was talking to my publisher the other day and they said, Oh my God, we've got 25 vulnerability business books coming out. What's scary about that is it can go the way of authentic where it gets co-opted by corporate and then redefined into something that's not. It's really interesting. Can I tell you a story that's really funny? Only if it's funny. It is funny. You'll love it. It's horrible. So I'm giving this talk and these are newly funded CEOs in Silicon Valley.

And some of the investors brought me in to talk to them. And so some of them are right in the beginning of Series A funding. Some of them have been funded and they're getting Series B funding. So they're just in different stages, but mostly pretty new CEOs. So I'm talking about vulnerability and I'm talking about what it is and what it isn't. And afterwards, a guy runs up to me and says, oh my God, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, which is my first flag. Because A, horrible analogy. Terrible.

Right. And B, if you ever leave a talk of mine and decide not to critically think about something, then I've not done my job, right? And so I said, well, say, well, say more. And he goes, no, I'm going to, I'm vulnerable. I'm going to be vulnerable. I'm not a vulnerable person, but I'm going to do it. I'm just going to look at my investors and my employees and say, look, I'm in over my head. We're bleeding money and I don't know what to do. And he said, how do you think it's going to work? And I said, I think it's going to be a shit show. I think it's not going to work. And this is what's interesting.

And he's like, but that's what you said to do. And I said, did you go on a bio break when I said that vulnerability minus boundaries is not vulnerability and you have to understand who you're talking to, why you're sharing it? Why would you share that with people that have followed you from other great jobs here? And he said, because I'm being vulnerable. And I said, it feels like you're being manipulative, actually. And he goes, oh. And so I said, I do think you need to say those things out loud to someone.

And we should be very thoughtful about who you say them to. So I'm not going to tell you what I said, but I will tell you this. I tell this story a lot with leaders. And I always ask people, if you had two years salary invested in this guy's company, raise your hand if you're hoping he's saying that somewhere to someone. And no one puts up their hand but me. And I'm like, what do you think the alternative is if he doesn't say anything? If he doesn't go to a mentor, an advisor and say, look, I'm in over my head. I don't know what I'm doing and we're bleeding money. That's what I call in my work, controlled flight into terrain. You just keep grinding and doing the exact same thing you've been doing over and over and over again until you crash into the side of a mountain that you didn't

even know was there. So we hope he says that to someone. Yeah. But vulnerability minus boundaries and an understanding of why you're sharing is dangerous. That is such a great insight. And if you don't share it with someone, what you'll end up doing, it'll lead to lying, hiding, and faking every day. Yes. And that is a terrible strategy for success.

hiding and faking every day. And that is a terrible strategy for success. But if he says it to someone, that person will say, go on, tell me more. How does that feel? What are you going to do? And that process to your point about starting with emotion and going into thinking from feeling to thinking. Now you get to go through a process where you get to be like, hold on, I could do this. Then I could do this. Okay, I got it. And then you go to your team and say, okay, guys, this is what's going to happen. And it's all built in. And again, it has to come out.

But where we make the mistake, and this is like kids going on YouTube and telling everybody how they feel. It's a broadcast. I know. I know this is a pet peeve of yours. It's not vulnerable. It's broadcast. Vulnerability minus boundaries is not vulnerability. It can be oversharing. It can be shock and awe. It can be attention seeking, but it's not true vulnerability because what you're looking for,

usually when you broadcast, is validation of pain. Yeah. Not connection. Yeah. And that is the great tragedy, which is if the impulse is to share it with everybody, put it on YouTube, go to my team, tell my investors everything. The question is, is then where's the friendship? Where's the deep, meaningful connection that you can actually share that in a vulnerable state where you're not looking for validation. That's right. You're just looking for safe space, safe harbor. That's right. What has happened in our society over the past 20, 30 years that we seem to have forgotten or be struggling to form deep, meaningful connections? Like I have a friend, he's active duty military. He's a warrior. He's a remarkable human being. He has courage that I do not have. And I got off the phone with

him yesterday and we ended our call and he said, love you. That's how we ended the call. And there's this intense sense of vulnerability and emotion that comes with that friendship that I know that I can tell him anything because we express love to each other. And my question is, what is it that's happened in our society, Brené Brown, that we seem to be struggling to form deep, meaningful relationships? Or am I wrong? No, it's a collection of skill sets that we are not developing and we're actually losing. What skill sets? Degree of grounded confidence that we are connected enough to ourselves that we are available to be in connection with others.

Oof. Oof. And grounded confidence, I'm really defining that right now. In Dare to Lead, I defined it as a combination of three skill sets, the ability to rumble with vulnerability, the ability to actually deal with uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure. Curiosity is a huge driver. I would bet a million dollars that you and your buddy that you talked to yesterday are

authentically curious about each other's lives. And then the last one is practice, the confidence to practice skills when they have not yet been mastered. And I will tell you, I've been thinking a lot about your research about the infinite game because the finite mindset is so corrosive to understanding ourselves. It changes the metrics by which we evaluate ourselves. And I didn't understand the level of corrosiveness of the finite mindset and its relationship to the inability to forge deep, meaningful connection until I talk to you in the middle of analyzing this data. Does that make sense? Yeah. The discovery of those definitions and sort of the deep dive I went into that work profoundly changed my view of myself in the world and how I operate within it. Yeah.

So for those who don't know what we're talking about, in the mid-1980s, Dr. James Carr defined these two types of games, finite games and infinite games. A finite game is defined as known players, fixed rules, and a degree upon objective. Football, baseball. There's always a beginning, middle, and end. And if there's a winner, there's going to be a loser.

Then you have infinite games. Infinite games are defined as known and unknown players, which means new players can join at any time. The rules are changeable, which means we can play however we want. And the objective is to stay in the game as long as possible and to perpetuate the game for the good of the whole. We play for the good of the whole.

And there's no such thing as winning an infinite game. You can be ahead or behind, but you can't win. And the problem is, is when we apply a finite mindset, but you can't win. And the problem is, is when we apply a finite mindset, when you play to win in a game that has no finish line, you play with a finite mindset, an infinite game, you destroy trust, you destroy cooperation, you destroy innovative thought. And we've seen this run rampant in modern business, modern politics, even modern relationships. You can win an election, but you don't win governance. You know, you can win funding, but you don't win business. You can come in first for the finite

time you're in school, but you don't win education. There are finite games within the infinite game. And to be ignorant of the infinite game, of the context within which all these finite games exist, you're literally playing for the short term. This cannot last. And what happened when I started to embrace the concept of the infinite game as a life strategy, not just a business strategy, is all the things that started to happen to me, good or bad, I started to view as part of a story, just moments rather than culminating events. So something bad that happened, I went, okay, well, what am I going to learn from this? How will this help me? And if something good happened, I'd be like, okay, well, this too will pass.

Yeah. Everything became temporary. So I didn't take success too seriously and I didn't take pain for granted and allow it to define me. Even the term good or bad stopped in my vernacular. I stopped being good at something or bad at something. I stopped thinking something was a good event or a bad event. I stopped having good days and bad days because those things were too definitive. I had ahead days and behind days. I had ahead events or behind events because they were just moments in time. But friends have recognized it in me.

I approach almost all my relationships differently to the point of being more vulnerable, more honest, less trying to think in terms of win or lose, is this going to go the way I want it to go or not? I would say the greatest infinite game that we're engaged in, besides life, if you want to get a little bit more micro, and the one that dictates the quality and the depth of the connections we have is probably self-awareness and self-love. who we are, to understand ourselves, to understand where we belong, to understand our worth, to understand our lovability and our capacity to love. And when we turn that into a finite game, the only metrics that we can really use are soulless and empty and about things we acquire and external metrics,

likes and followers. So I think the answer to your question is very tied up in your own work, which is we are not deeply enough connected with the infinite love and energy that we all are to be able to connect with other people. I think that's right. And you said something before that we're losing skills. Yes. And it reminded me of a story that a wonderful female entrepreneur that I know told me. And she said her theory is that men make better entrepreneurs than women. This is her theory. I have to underscore that.

I'm listening. And this is what she said. She said, whether you like it or not, traditional roles still exist. So if a boy wants to go to the prom, he has to ask out the girl, you know, traditional roles. And if the girl wants to go to the prom, traditionally, she waits to be asked to go to the prom. And if the guy doesn't ask, he doesn't go. And because of that, men being the social initiators, traditionally, at a very young age, boys learn to muster up courage, ask, be humiliated and rejected. Muster up courage, ask, be humiliated and rejected. Muster up courage, ask, be humiliated and rejected. Muster up courage,

ask, be humiliated and rejected. And as adults, this translates into muster up courage, try, didn't work, try again. Where women, her theory, never learn that skill. And so as entrepreneurs, And so as entrepreneurs fear the rejection, the humiliation of failure more than men. And I've seen this happen in meetings where a guy, you know, he's got a business and he's got some 40 the table going, well, we need this. And he goes, oh, we can do that for you. We've got that. We've got that. And sell it right there in the room. When I've sat there with women who got like 98% of it figured out, I'm like, say something. And they're like, it's not perfect yet.

I'm like, just say something. They're like, it's not perfect yet. And you know the statistics about, you know, when men look at a job posting and there's 10 requirements, if they have six of them, they think they're qualified. Right. Where women think they need nine or 10 to think that they're qualified.

And the question that raises to your point about losing skill set is if we're all moving to a swipe dating scenario, that there's – forget about men versus women, like everybody's losing the skill set of mustering up courage to ask somebody out. Be rejected, try again, because we don't have humiliation anymore in an online dating scenario. I don't even know where to start unpacking this thing. I'm just the messenger. What you choose to share. Here's what I think is interesting about it. That there are skills that we build as kids that become invaluable as adults. There's no question.

Because of technology, there's an entire generation of kids that are missing out on essential skill sets that are required as adults, amongst which include the skill of how to build deep, meaningful connection. I agree 100%. What I would say, and I think it bears digging into the story a little bit, because I do think that if we look at shame triggers by masculine and feminine, which I try to use that language more, if we look at masculine shame triggers, the number one shame trigger for masculinity is don't be perceived as weak. So rejection, to your point, is really tough when that is your shame trigger. For feminine, and these are culturally bound expectations, right? And so for those seeking feminine norms, the number one shame trigger is perfection. Do it all, do it perfectly and make it look effortless. And so I do think shame, the fear of feeling weak, the fear of being imperfect. Let me just tell you, kids do not pick up the phone. I don't know that my kids have ever

picked up the phone and called a friend. They text. I do think the point that we're not experiencing emotional conflict, emotional hard things, emotional great things in person has really shifted our skillset. I see it because I've taught graduate school for 20 something years. The number of people that can look you in the eye and give you a firm handshake and deliver information that you don't want to hear is just decreasing by the minute. In terms of women and men, I don't know what the data say about who's more successful in entrepreneurship. But what I do know is that there's also a lot of expectations at the table when the woman speaks up and doesn't

have it perfectly, or the person of color shares an idea that's not fleshed out completely. There's a lot of generosity toward the white guy who shares that idea. The number of white guys at the table who are receiving that idea probably outnumber the number of women at the table. And then if you start talking about people of color, indigenous people, black people, then you've got a real different narrative on your hands. I remember one day sitting down with Steve and I told Steve that I was really afraid that what made us successful in our careers were struggles that we went through that our kids will never have to go through. And we started talking about it. My husband's a pediatrician and he said, we had a lot of trauma growing up. We had a really bad fighting parents,

vicious divorces, like things. He said, I think the key for parenting, and I'll never forget this, is make sure they experience the adversity, but they don't need the trauma that most of us went through. And I think from a parenting and educator situation, we haven't made the clear distinction between adversity, really teaching some skills that we need and trauma really setting us back. Does that make sense? So I think the adversity piece is real that you're mentioning, whether it's asking people out for a date, whether it's not being asked out on're mentioning, whether it's asking people out for a date, whether it's not being asked out on a date, whether it's not getting invited by a group of friends to go do something, making up stories about what's happening because we're using social media as our narrator. And it's happening in the adult world too. And I'll tell you why.

Let's say I lose my job and I get home and I'm distraught and I post on Facebook, lost my job today. And I get 30 comments from people saying, God, so sorry. I'll keep my eyes out. That does not require anywhere the amount of vulnerability of me getting home and picking up the phone and saying, hey, Simon, do you have a second? Yeah, what's going on? I got laid off today. That is a much more vulnerable act of connection. We call it a bid for connection. That is a bid for connection. It is not a pinata hit with a bat to see what candy falls. It is calling you and asking you for your time and making an intimate bid for

connection. And we don't know how to do that. Would your conversation with your military buddy had been the same instead of a call, he would have texted and saying, everything good, dude? Yeah, everything's good here. Take care. Would have been the same. No. What common practices are young people engaging in now that have become acculturated have to change for them to learn the skills that they need to be successful adults and better deal with stress that it doesn't lead to trauma people always ask me what the best parenting advice is that i came across in the you know 20 years of research and everyone gets pissed off when i say it, the best parenting advice I can

tell you is hard as shit. We need to be the adults we want our children to grow up to be. Just like we need to be the leaders that we wish we had. So if we want our kids to grow up and be able to have a look you in the eye hard conversation, they need to see us doing that. They need to see us put our phones down if my daughter walks in the room or my son walks in the room and says hey do you have a minute if I'm in the middle of something on my computer I don't go yeah what's going on and don't look up I say give me just a second let me finish what I'm doing one minute I finish what I'm doing I close the laptop I turn toward them and say what's going on we have to be the adults. And let me

tell you, the adults are tapping out of hard conversations with the same frequency that the kids are. Yeah. Because they're hard. Because they're hard. Like we just have to practice. You have to have them. You have to fuck them up. You have to redo them. You have to, I have to say, Hey Simon, I tried to have a card conversation with you yesterday and I don't think I did it very well. I don't like the way I showed up. Can I, can I have another shot? I really care about you.

Our relationship is important to me. And I didn't say it the way I wanted to say it. It goes back to the very first thing you said is people underestimate the power of the truth. I hope I'm not romanticizing the past, but it seems these days more and more we choose easy. You know, shared hardship, shared struggle brings us together. Texas suffers this catastrophe because of cold weather and politics don't matter. Nobody cares if you're red or blue.

Nobody cares. It's like we're all united and we have to try and help keep each other alive. Yeah. And it's a bonding experience. COVID is a bonding experience. It could have been, yeah. World War II is a bonding experience. Yeah, but that requires leadership. That requires, let's go back to your early point. In order for COVID, Texas tragedy to become an opportunity of deep shared humanity. You have to have leadership that frames it as that narrative. And uses it to pull us together, not separate us.

That's exactly right. That's leadership. And that goes back to what you were talking about with Churchill or Martin Luther King or any of these who we consider great leaders in our history, which is they use their words, they use their bully pulpits to take hardship and make it a shared experience and use that hardship to bring us together and not use it as a wedge to drive in between us. One was about advancing greater good and the other one was to use it as a wedge just for personal gain. That's why I go back to this fork in the road. Other-focused, self-focused. Other-focused leaders, servant leaders, infinite mind leaders, daring leaders are other-focused. And I know what Kars said. Kars said that the purpose of the infinite gain is to perpetuate the game.

And I hedge it a little bit when I talk about it so that people will continue to listen. I say stay in the game as long as possible. And then I say perpetuate the game. But the reality is to truly be an infinite player, you're actually playing not for the good of yourself. You're playing for the good of the game. And we can see this in the best businesses because the best businesses will come up with practices and then advertise and share what they're doing so that other businesses may benefit from what they figured out.

That's right. So they do these things for the good of business. They literally share proprietary things. Costco will tell you, here's what we're doing. You should do this too because it works. It's not selfish because they recognize that two companies selling the exact same product can both be really successful at the exact same time. So we lose nothing by telling you how to make your business stronger. That's a true infinite mindset to leave this world in better

shape than we found it. Does it make sense to you why this framework of infinite versus finite mindset came out of a theological treaty, like a theological book. It makes sense. Yeah. I think our lives are finite, but life is infinite. And for many, the idea of other worlds or next lives or past lives help us make tangible the infinite nature of the life we're supposed to be living. And I think that's a good thing. Yeah, that's beautiful. I think so too. I don't care what your mechanism is. Right. If you want to be philosophical and James Carsey about it, or if you want to be religious about it, whatever, whatever framework you want to go to, whether it's spiritual or rational. But I think having a framework to understand the infinite nature of life and our contribution to

it, I think is really a good thing. That this is not the end. This is just part of the middle. It's interesting because in my work, I had to define spirituality because I didn't like any of the definitions of it. So I used the data to craft a definition that just said that spirituality is really at its core, a belief that we are inextricably connected to each other by something greater than us. Some people call that God, some people call it fishing. I do believe that part of the infinite mindset, the more I read and understood it, deeply buried in the foundation of it is a belief about the inextricable connection of human beings. Yeah. You and I think I've even talked about this, my definition of faith, which I guess we could say is spirituality, which is knowing that you're on a team, even if you don't know who the other

players are. Oh, God. I mean, people just are still emailing me about that quote. That to me is what faith is, what spirituality is. It's beautiful. And it's the same definition. Yeah. And I think this is a beautiful way to sort of sum it all up, which is the tangible things that we see, the tangible world in front of us, is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the world that we actually live in. The unknown, the uncertain, the intangible, the players that we can't see are all a part of our lives and all a part of the game. And to operate and go through the world knowing that the stuff that I see, the stuff that I experience is only one or two data points.

But the reality is that I am affected by and I affect the world and I am affected by people and I affect people in ways that I do not know. The way I say hello to the barista. Am I dismissive or am I polite? Yeah. Do I ask the server their name and then address them by name for the rest of dinner? These tiny, tiny little things have profound impact and ripple through the lives of others. And we are players in those games. It's a thousand rocks being thrown into the still water at once. I think that's true. I absolutely do not think that we can disconnect from each other's stories. I always think to myself, too, even if it's a stranger, what kind of steward am I being for this one moment when I'm in this person's narrative?

And it goes right back to truth and honesty again, which is we're quick to blame and simultaneously must also understand where we are to blame. They happen at the same time. It's totally fine to say, you did this to me. I'm okay with that. But you also have to be able to say, and I did this. To you.

To you. Like you can't have one without the other. And simultaneously, people who put too much on themselves. I did this and I'm such a bad person. Okay, go through the self-flagellation if you need to. And take a look what the outside world is contributing as well. It's so funny because the way blame is defined in the research is the discharging of psychological pain and discomfort. That's very clinical.

Yeah, and it's very much in the anger. And I do think blame, blame is a part of the finite mind arsenal. Yeah. Yeah. I use a little B by the way. A little B. Yeah. A little B. A little B. With a curly Q. Yeah. A little B blame. Brene Brown, I adore you. I adore you. Oh, I feel the same. You and I could do like a 15 hour podcast. Oh, I feel the same. You and I could do like a 15 hour podcast.

Like I'm forcing myself to end it right now. But the reality is, I don't really want to end it right now. We could do the infinite game. We could just start talking now. I really, really love you. And I can't wait to talk to you again. I can't wait. Love you too, brother. you. And I can't wait to talk to you again. I can't wait. Love you too, brother.

Bye. Bye. If you enjoyed this podcast and you'd like to hear more, please subscribe wherever you like to listen to podcasts. Until then, take care of yourself. Take care of each other.