285. Think Inside the Box: How Constraints Spark Creativity and Communication

WEBVTT

00:00:03.120 --> 00:00:06.360
Matt Abrahams: Constraints
catalyze communication.

00:00:06.630 --> 00:00:09.870
My name's Matt Abrahams and I
teach Strategic Communication at

00:00:09.870 --> 00:00:11.640
Stanford Graduate School of Business.

00:00:11.910 --> 00:00:14.695
Welcome to Think Fast
Talk Smart, the podcast.

00:00:15.530 --> 00:00:17.570
Today I look forward to
chatting with David Epstein.

00:00:17.780 --> 00:00:20.960
David is a science writer and
investigative journalist, best known

00:00:20.960 --> 00:00:25.310
for his number one New York Times
bestseller range and the Sports

00:00:25.310 --> 00:00:29.630
Gene in his latest book Inside The
Box, how Constraints Make Us Better.

00:00:29.870 --> 00:00:34.610
He explores the counterintuitive cognitive
science showing that the limits we have.

00:00:34.720 --> 00:00:36.850
Free us up to be more creative.

00:00:37.600 --> 00:00:39.010
Well, welcome David.

00:00:39.010 --> 00:00:40.030
Thanks for being here.

00:00:40.030 --> 00:00:42.100
I really look forward to
learning from you today.

00:00:42.339 --> 00:00:43.360
David Epstein: It's a pleasure to be here.

00:00:43.360 --> 00:00:44.140
Thanks for having me.

00:00:44.350 --> 00:00:44.739
Matt Abrahams: Okay.

00:00:44.739 --> 00:00:45.610
Shall we get started?

00:00:45.850 --> 00:00:46.300
David Epstein: Let's do it.

00:00:46.720 --> 00:00:49.960
Matt Abrahams: In reading Inside
the box, I really resonated with,

00:00:49.960 --> 00:00:52.219
when you talk about the Christmas
tree effect or featuritis.

00:00:53.565 --> 00:00:58.215
Can you share what these ideas mean and
how can we prevent when we communicate in

00:00:58.215 --> 00:01:03.765
our core ideas from being drowned in just
the unnecessary complexity of so many of

00:01:03.765 --> 00:01:05.535
the things we end up communicating about?

00:01:05.955 --> 00:01:08.595
David Epstein: That's a great question
because those are phrases that come from

00:01:08.595 --> 00:01:12.164
designers primarily, featuritis and the
Christmas tree effect, that essentially

00:01:12.164 --> 00:01:14.565
mean the same thing, adding more.

00:01:14.565 --> 00:01:17.955
So featuritis is like you get carried
away by always adding features to things.

00:01:17.955 --> 00:01:22.095
The Christmas tree effect is similar,
meaning you just keep putting ornaments

00:01:22.155 --> 00:01:23.895
on the tree over and over and over.

00:01:24.285 --> 00:01:29.384
And humans have a hardwired what's
called additive bias to always solve

00:01:29.384 --> 00:01:31.455
problems by putting more and more on.

00:01:31.455 --> 00:01:34.785
In a related bias, the flip side
called subtractive neglect bias,

00:01:35.115 --> 00:01:38.384
we tend to overlook solutions
that involve taking things away.

00:01:38.789 --> 00:01:44.220
I think when it comes to communication,
and I've been guilty of this for sure,

00:01:44.639 --> 00:01:48.899
I'm curious about a lot of things and
I have a desire to impart everything

00:01:48.899 --> 00:01:51.030
that I think is interesting to someone.

00:01:51.179 --> 00:01:55.380
And I think that shows in my first book,
which did well, but in retrospect, going

00:01:55.380 --> 00:01:58.169
back, there are things in here that
I would take out looking at it now.

00:01:58.320 --> 00:02:02.190
So I feel like an antidote to featuritis
when it comes to communication

00:02:02.190 --> 00:02:06.660
would be something like, assuming
the other person's gonna forget

00:02:06.660 --> 00:02:08.400
everything except one thing you said.

00:02:08.699 --> 00:02:11.820
Now decide what that one thing is
before you're opening your mouth.

00:02:11.970 --> 00:02:13.890
That doesn't mean you
can't add other things.

00:02:14.429 --> 00:02:17.595
But that one thing you wanna
make sure that you get across.

00:02:17.925 --> 00:02:22.275
And I think that's an approach, like
many good constraints do, can help

00:02:22.275 --> 00:02:25.185
you clarify priorities when you're
trying to communicate clearly.

00:02:25.635 --> 00:02:25.845
Matt Abrahams: Yeah.

00:02:25.845 --> 00:02:29.355
One of the things that I coach the
people I coach and the students

00:02:29.355 --> 00:02:32.955
I teach is to really think of the
bottom line first before you speak.

00:02:33.285 --> 00:02:35.385
And I like how you said, what's
the most important thing?

00:02:35.685 --> 00:02:39.195
And then build the message from
there rather than thinking of

00:02:39.195 --> 00:02:42.585
everything you have to say and
hoping that some of it sticks.

00:02:43.320 --> 00:02:47.130
Growing up, one of my favorite books
as a kid was Green Eggs and Ham.

00:02:47.130 --> 00:02:48.420
I love Dr. Seuss.

00:02:48.810 --> 00:02:52.560
Can you tell the story of Dr. Seuss,
Theodor Geisel, and The Cat in the

00:02:52.560 --> 00:02:57.510
Hat, and how that was written with
vocabulary restriction in mind?

00:02:57.510 --> 00:03:04.109
And how can that type of restriction
lead to new and novel input and output?

00:03:04.285 --> 00:03:08.220
And have you thought about that in the
way you do your communication, and perhaps

00:03:08.220 --> 00:03:09.840
all of us could do our communication?

00:03:10.260 --> 00:03:15.225
David Epstein: So Dr. Seuss, we take
for granted now that there's a lot of

00:03:15.225 --> 00:03:19.665
interesting children's literature, but at
the time he was working, it was boring.

00:03:19.725 --> 00:03:22.484
Like I went back and read some of
the stuff and it was just super

00:03:22.484 --> 00:03:25.005
literal stuff, very pedantic.

00:03:25.305 --> 00:03:32.834
And Dr. Seuss was asked to create a
children's book using only 200 words from

00:03:32.834 --> 00:03:35.115
a kid's vocabulary list that he was given.

00:03:35.295 --> 00:03:36.075
And so what does he do?

00:03:36.075 --> 00:03:37.695
First he starts complaining to his wife.

00:03:37.725 --> 00:03:40.215
'Cause he looks through and he says,
there's basically no adjectives.

00:03:40.475 --> 00:03:44.995
And in fine Seussian form, he compares
it to trying to make a strudel without

00:03:44.995 --> 00:03:48.174
any strudels, which I love because
it's like he was the same person

00:03:48.174 --> 00:03:50.144
in private as he was in public.

00:03:50.554 --> 00:03:53.250
But then he gets exasperated and
decides he's just gonna take the

00:03:53.250 --> 00:03:56.609
first two rhyming words on the
list and write a book around them.

00:03:56.609 --> 00:03:59.940
And the first two rhyming words are
cat and hat, and the rest is history.

00:03:59.940 --> 00:04:04.110
But that restriction forced him
to experiment with rhythm because

00:04:04.110 --> 00:04:05.579
he couldn't experiment vocabulary.

00:04:05.579 --> 00:04:09.360
And after he did that, his famous
publisher bet him that he couldn't

00:04:09.360 --> 00:04:11.935
do it again using only 50 words.

00:04:12.355 --> 00:04:14.815
And he did that for Green Eggs
and Ham where he had to experiment

00:04:14.815 --> 00:04:18.774
with rhythm even more because
what can you do with 50 words?

00:04:19.075 --> 00:04:22.795
And it became this rollicking tale,
of course, that spawned imitators

00:04:22.795 --> 00:04:23.784
and changed children's literature.

00:04:24.385 --> 00:04:28.405
And gave rise to psychological
effect known as the Green Eggs and

00:04:28.405 --> 00:04:32.875
Ham effect, which is the idea that
the quickest path to creativity

00:04:32.905 --> 00:04:35.485
is by blocking familiar solutions.

00:04:35.515 --> 00:04:37.345
So our brains are actually lazy.

00:04:37.465 --> 00:04:39.745
You know, you may think your brain is
made for thinking, but it's actually

00:04:39.745 --> 00:04:42.745
made for preventing you from having
to think whenever possible because

00:04:42.745 --> 00:04:43.920
thinking is energetically costly.

00:04:44.630 --> 00:04:48.109
So if you're given complete
freedom, you'll just go down

00:04:48.200 --> 00:04:50.690
what cognitive scientists call
the path of least resistance.

00:04:50.690 --> 00:04:53.299
You'll just do the thing that feels
convenient or that you've done before.

00:04:53.359 --> 00:04:56.780
And so the best way to become creative
or have new ideas is to take that away.

00:04:56.780 --> 00:05:01.400
So in a communication perspective, one
thing I would think of is, let's say

00:05:01.640 --> 00:05:06.680
you're going into a client meeting or
something and you say, if we were not

00:05:06.680 --> 00:05:12.000
allowed to pitch or recommend or say the
usual thing, what would we do instead?

00:05:12.330 --> 00:05:15.645
And I think that can be a fruitful thought
exercise for thinking of what are other

00:05:15.645 --> 00:05:19.485
ways we could frame this, or what are
other ways we could propose this, or maybe

00:05:19.485 --> 00:05:23.865
even directly in the communication medium,
if we were not allowed to communicate this

00:05:24.075 --> 00:05:27.675
using PowerPoint slides or whatever it is
that we're used to, how would we do it?

00:05:27.975 --> 00:05:30.735
I'm not saying you necessarily have
to do that, but it tends to be a

00:05:30.735 --> 00:05:34.665
very generative exercise in figuring
out what is the core of this thing

00:05:34.875 --> 00:05:35.870
and what are ways to communicate it.

00:05:36.525 --> 00:05:42.915
Matt Abrahams: I love the backstory on Dr.
Seuss's initial successes and this idea

00:05:42.915 --> 00:05:47.895
of putting constraints into communication
to get you to think differently about it.

00:05:48.195 --> 00:05:52.185
I have a colleague who when they
do an activity in class and they're

00:05:52.185 --> 00:05:56.355
teaching conflict resolution, they
ask the students to have a conflict,

00:05:56.355 --> 00:06:00.045
they create a simulated conflict, and
the students can only ask questions.

00:06:00.075 --> 00:06:02.025
They can't make declarations.

00:06:02.395 --> 00:06:05.385
And you can see how it would
change the dynamic, right?

00:06:05.565 --> 00:06:09.525
And again, she's not advocating that
every conflict should be resolved

00:06:09.525 --> 00:06:13.035
through questioning exclusively,
but it changes your mindset

00:06:13.245 --> 00:06:14.595
and it changes how you listen.

00:06:15.285 --> 00:06:18.915
David Epstein: When I'm in my mode as a
journalist, I think I'm legitimately a

00:06:18.915 --> 00:06:23.535
better person because it's not that I'm
only asking questions, but it's that I go

00:06:23.535 --> 00:06:30.045
into every conversation with the mindset
of trying to understand, not to be right.

00:06:30.075 --> 00:06:35.325
And that frame just makes so much
difference in how the conversation goes.

00:06:35.804 --> 00:06:36.705
Matt Abrahams: Yeah, absolutely.

00:06:36.705 --> 00:06:41.145
And I think the challenge for all of us,
you first have to recognize the habits

00:06:41.145 --> 00:06:44.864
and patterns, heuristics, that you have
to then begin to challenge them and

00:06:44.864 --> 00:06:46.575
say, okay, now we're not gonna do this.

00:06:46.905 --> 00:06:49.844
But I think there are a lot of
possibilities and another reframe you

00:06:49.844 --> 00:06:53.534
could use, go into any situation as
a journalist, what would a journalist

00:06:53.534 --> 00:06:54.705
do here could be really helpful.

00:06:55.094 --> 00:06:58.815
What is chunking and how can it
help us in our communication?

00:06:59.385 --> 00:07:02.715
David Epstein: Chunking is in
the sense that psychologists

00:07:02.715 --> 00:07:07.155
use, it means essentially the
grouping together of information.

00:07:07.155 --> 00:07:11.115
So maybe I can give you an example, would
be an easy way to explain the phenomenon.

00:07:11.265 --> 00:07:15.735
If I said 20 random words to you
right now and asked you to repeat them

00:07:15.735 --> 00:07:16.965
back, you'd have trouble doing that.

00:07:17.655 --> 00:07:21.225
If I gave you 20 words in a sentence,
you may well be able to repeat that

00:07:21.225 --> 00:07:24.735
back to me, or at least most of it,
and they could be the same 20 words

00:07:25.095 --> 00:07:26.415
just in the first case mixed up.

00:07:26.655 --> 00:07:30.255
But it will make your memory seem so
much better because you've learned a

00:07:30.255 --> 00:07:34.335
system of grammar and groups and phrases
of words that are chunked or collected

00:07:34.335 --> 00:07:38.055
into groups in your brain, so you're not
actually remembering 20 different things.

00:07:38.415 --> 00:07:41.655
You're remembering just a few different
chunks that fit together in some

00:07:41.655 --> 00:07:46.905
coherent scheme, and that's how humans
are able to remember and access as much

00:07:46.905 --> 00:07:52.185
information as we can because we chunk
information into related, meaningful

00:07:52.185 --> 00:07:55.875
groups and then into these broader
networks or templates of knowledge.

00:07:56.445 --> 00:07:58.065
Matt Abrahams: So how
does this lead to novelty?

00:07:58.065 --> 00:08:01.785
How does it lead to creativity and
new ideas when you're attaching to

00:08:01.845 --> 00:08:03.885
previous existing old information?

00:08:04.515 --> 00:08:08.355
David Epstein: Our older ideas or
familiar ideas are actually the jumping

00:08:08.355 --> 00:08:09.705
off point for new ideas typically.

00:08:09.705 --> 00:08:12.705
In fact, as I was doing the research for
the book, one of the things I learned

00:08:12.705 --> 00:08:17.565
was that the idea that creativity and
originality are synonymous was not even

00:08:17.565 --> 00:08:21.795
a thing until the late 18th century
and this group of people that wanted

00:08:21.795 --> 00:08:25.930
to say not everything is logical,
like creative inspiration comes in

00:08:25.930 --> 00:08:29.080
these lightning strikes out of the
blue and there's no rhyme or reason

00:08:29.080 --> 00:08:31.240
to it, and that's not really true.

00:08:31.270 --> 00:08:36.760
It actually typically comes from modifying
ideas that are already very familiar.

00:08:37.210 --> 00:08:40.689
And I think if we're thinking about
this in a communication frame, one of

00:08:40.689 --> 00:08:43.419
the important things is that if you
want to get people to come along with

00:08:43.780 --> 00:08:48.310
creative or radical ideas, a really
important thing you have to do is ground

00:08:48.310 --> 00:08:53.115
it in things that are very familiar to
them, and then layer the more radical

00:08:53.115 --> 00:08:56.444
thing on top of it so that this vision
of change also comes along with it

00:08:56.444 --> 00:08:57.975
an embedded vision of continuity.

00:08:58.574 --> 00:09:02.564
Matt Abrahams: Demonstrating consistency
and showing how what you're talking about

00:09:02.564 --> 00:09:08.295
is familiar, it makes it easier for people
to one, buy into it and to follow through.

00:09:08.805 --> 00:09:12.555
Anybody listening to this show knows
that I am a huge advocate for frameworks

00:09:12.555 --> 00:09:16.064
and structure and communication for the
very reasons you've just talked about.

00:09:16.455 --> 00:09:20.535
They allow us to understand and predict
what's coming so we can dedicate

00:09:20.535 --> 00:09:22.095
and focus more information on it.

00:09:22.095 --> 00:09:25.935
We're not good at remembering just
list after list, item after item.

00:09:26.115 --> 00:09:31.215
When you package it in a structure like
problem, solution, benefit, past, present,

00:09:31.215 --> 00:09:36.795
future, all of a sudden that chunking
allows us to have a framework that we can

00:09:36.825 --> 00:09:39.045
attach to and it makes it more memorable.

00:09:39.045 --> 00:09:43.275
So I definitely appreciate you defining
that term that helps us see something

00:09:43.275 --> 00:09:45.225
that we often talk about on the show.

00:09:45.675 --> 00:09:48.225
In your book, you talk about
the podcast, This American

00:09:48.225 --> 00:09:49.965
Life, one of my favorite shows.

00:09:50.205 --> 00:09:53.895
Can you share with us what you learned
from your interviewing of them?

00:09:54.315 --> 00:09:57.165
David Epstein: I did a piece for
This American Life and I had never

00:09:57.165 --> 00:10:00.675
written anything for radio or
narrative podcasts essentially.

00:10:00.675 --> 00:10:03.165
And this was like a 35 minute
piece that I'm writing.

00:10:03.165 --> 00:10:06.375
I know nothing about what I'm doing, and
I'm a science writer, so I was used to

00:10:06.375 --> 00:10:10.035
putting a lot of technical information
in articles, or reasonably technical,

00:10:10.275 --> 00:10:14.955
and that's okay when people can stop
and reread it or slow down, not so

00:10:14.955 --> 00:10:16.905
okay when it's flying by them in audio.

00:10:17.490 --> 00:10:20.250
And so This American Life had
this system where you do these

00:10:20.250 --> 00:10:23.280
read-throughs where it's like Ira Glass
sitting there holding a stopwatch.

00:10:23.430 --> 00:10:25.620
You're reading the narration,
your producer hits play when you

00:10:25.620 --> 00:10:26.940
wanna play some interview audio.

00:10:27.150 --> 00:10:28.800
And then people say what confused them.

00:10:28.980 --> 00:10:30.210
They don't tell you how to solve it.

00:10:30.300 --> 00:10:33.030
You have to do something, you can't
ignore, but they don't tell you how.

00:10:33.150 --> 00:10:34.650
And then you keep redoing that.

00:10:34.650 --> 00:10:38.040
And every time you do it, there'd
be at least one new person who had

00:10:38.040 --> 00:10:39.630
never heard it before, every time.

00:10:39.900 --> 00:10:41.700
And that person gets to
say what confused them.

00:10:41.755 --> 00:10:44.695
Then you just do that over and
over until the new person comes

00:10:44.695 --> 00:10:46.255
in and says, nothing confused me.

00:10:46.314 --> 00:10:47.064
I got everything.

00:10:47.395 --> 00:10:53.785
And so the process titrated out confusion,
and it's a brutal process, but the

00:10:53.785 --> 00:10:58.735
greatest editing process I've ever been
through because it just relentlessly

00:10:58.735 --> 00:11:03.065
exposes all the assumptions you are making
about things that you know really well,

00:11:03.465 --> 00:11:07.020
and that you've even lost track of the
fact that not everybody knows this stuff.

00:11:07.170 --> 00:11:11.130
And even though I'm sensitive to that
as a professional science communicator,

00:11:11.340 --> 00:11:12.390
I'm thinking about that all the time.

00:11:12.390 --> 00:11:17.430
And yet there's still stuff that just
becomes so routine or, or so obvious

00:11:17.430 --> 00:11:20.490
to you once you know about it, but
it's not obvious to people who don't.

00:11:20.610 --> 00:11:23.730
So it's a great system in that way
that people can really lose track of

00:11:23.730 --> 00:11:27.150
what the other party doesn't understand
if they start taking for granted the

00:11:27.150 --> 00:11:28.650
meaning of things in their world.

00:11:29.310 --> 00:11:32.790
Matt Abrahams: The American Life
story highlights the importance of

00:11:32.849 --> 00:11:34.530
making sure your audience understands.

00:11:34.530 --> 00:11:36.930
But what I really like about
it is the question they asked,

00:11:36.930 --> 00:11:38.550
they said, what is confusing?

00:11:38.819 --> 00:11:41.910
Many of us will say, did
you understand everything?

00:11:41.939 --> 00:11:43.469
Were things clear, et cetera.

00:11:43.469 --> 00:11:46.320
But when you put it in,
hey, what was confusing?

00:11:46.560 --> 00:11:50.040
That helps people be more specific,
and I really like that they

00:11:50.040 --> 00:11:53.850
don't then give suggestions for
how to make it less confusing.

00:11:54.090 --> 00:11:55.350
They leave that to you.

00:11:55.350 --> 00:11:57.960
So that, I think, is where
that creativity comes in.

00:11:58.200 --> 00:12:01.710
And I think you learn more when you're
not given direction on how to fix it.

00:12:01.710 --> 00:12:05.850
And I'm really gonna take this lesson
to heart as a parent, as a teacher, as

00:12:05.850 --> 00:12:10.830
a coach, because often it's my reaction
to then immediately give, here's

00:12:10.830 --> 00:12:12.090
what I think you could do to fix it.

00:12:12.510 --> 00:12:16.110
David Epstein: I thought it was fantastic
because just wrote a book obviously about

00:12:16.110 --> 00:12:19.620
useful constraints, but there is clearly
such thing as too much constraint, right?

00:12:19.620 --> 00:12:22.260
If you're telling someone what they
have to do and how they have to

00:12:22.260 --> 00:12:25.590
do it, if the person says, there's
no room for me to surprise myself,

00:12:25.590 --> 00:12:27.000
then it's too much constraint.

00:12:27.209 --> 00:12:32.459
But in this case, it really impressed
upon me the power of having someone define

00:12:32.459 --> 00:12:36.720
the problem for you really well, and
instantly you're fired up about solutions.

00:12:36.720 --> 00:12:39.800
They'd say, I just did not understand
this beat in the story, whatever it was.

00:12:40.190 --> 00:12:43.500
And if they could define it really
well, it feels very empowering for

00:12:43.500 --> 00:12:44.760
then doing the problem solving.

00:12:44.824 --> 00:12:46.470
I, I see the problem clearly.

00:12:46.680 --> 00:12:49.709
In many cases, I think a clear
definition of the problem is the

00:12:49.709 --> 00:12:51.569
best tool for getting it solved.

00:12:51.930 --> 00:12:53.310
Matt Abrahams: Right, it
helps to distill that down.

00:12:53.610 --> 00:12:54.209
Very good.

00:12:54.810 --> 00:12:57.840
Another term I need you to
define for our listeners, what is

00:12:57.840 --> 00:13:00.030
precluding and how does it work?

00:13:00.390 --> 00:13:00.569
David Epstein: Yeah.

00:13:00.600 --> 00:13:06.300
Precluding is, in this context,
blocking the most familiar solutions.

00:13:06.390 --> 00:13:13.845
So, in the history of innovation,
preclude constraints are basically ever

00:13:13.845 --> 00:13:17.235
present, where either by someone's choice.

00:13:17.535 --> 00:13:21.165
In artistic innovation, it was often
the case that people did this by choice,

00:13:21.435 --> 00:13:24.345
in order to innovate, in technological
innovation, in many cases, it was more

00:13:24.345 --> 00:13:29.445
necessity, but that a preclude constraint
means it precludes the previous solution.

00:13:29.745 --> 00:13:36.045
It blocks the path that has been
taken most regularly, and once that's

00:13:36.045 --> 00:13:41.939
gone it's maybe the most generative
creative prompt you can possibly have.

00:13:42.240 --> 00:13:44.430
The thing you're used to, the
thing everyone's always done,

00:13:44.430 --> 00:13:45.420
you're not allowed to do it.

00:13:45.720 --> 00:13:46.410
So what now?

00:13:46.740 --> 00:13:47.670
How can you get this done?

00:13:48.329 --> 00:13:50.790
It kind of reminded me, actually, one
of the early readers of the book was

00:13:50.790 --> 00:13:53.819
a guy named Ed Hoffman, who was the
first chief knowledge officer at NASA,

00:13:53.970 --> 00:13:56.699
basically like the head psychologist,
he stopped partway through and said, I

00:13:56.699 --> 00:14:00.089
gotta tell you about this mission called
LCROSS, where the team ended up with

00:14:00.089 --> 00:14:01.800
half the time in budget they expected.

00:14:02.219 --> 00:14:04.020
And so what did they do?

00:14:04.020 --> 00:14:06.780
First they complained and then they
said, well, if we were gonna get

00:14:06.780 --> 00:14:08.370
this done anyway, how would we do it?

00:14:08.939 --> 00:14:10.380
And it led them to repurpose things.

00:14:10.380 --> 00:14:13.800
So they took imaging equipment from
army tanks and engine temperature

00:14:13.800 --> 00:14:19.319
sensors from NASCAR and created a
probe that confirmed water on the moon.

00:14:19.949 --> 00:14:23.310
It was incredibly innovative and
it led to other missions where they

00:14:23.310 --> 00:14:26.610
realized they could repurpose lots of
technology, but they just never would've

00:14:26.610 --> 00:14:30.780
done this if they hadn't been forced
off of the convenient path basically.

00:14:31.620 --> 00:14:34.350
Matt Abrahams: And we can
challenge ourselves to do that.

00:14:34.380 --> 00:14:38.130
We don't have to have some external
thing or people tell us that we can

00:14:38.130 --> 00:14:42.660
say, what if this weren't possible or
this were taken away so we can actually

00:14:42.660 --> 00:14:44.580
leverage this as a tool ourselves.

00:14:45.900 --> 00:14:49.410
Before we end, I like to ask everybody
three questions, one I make up just

00:14:49.410 --> 00:14:52.470
for you and two I've been asking
everybody I've interviewed in the past.

00:14:52.470 --> 00:14:53.160
Are you up for that?

00:14:53.340 --> 00:14:53.940
David Epstein: Absolutely.

00:14:54.180 --> 00:14:54.570
Matt Abrahams: Alright.

00:14:54.570 --> 00:14:55.830
I'm gonna give you a constraint.

00:14:56.070 --> 00:15:02.190
If you were to give our listeners one
boundary that could help them in their

00:15:02.190 --> 00:15:05.550
communication, what would that advice be?

00:15:06.270 --> 00:15:08.670
David Epstein: Make the other
person's argument first.

00:15:09.180 --> 00:15:13.830
I realize there's no rule that applies
to every situation, but I found this

00:15:13.920 --> 00:15:17.820
when I critiqued Malcolm Gladwell pretty
stridently in my first book, and we ended

00:15:17.820 --> 00:15:20.970
up, we first met for a public debate,
and then we became really good friends.

00:15:21.390 --> 00:15:24.480
So this was a very generative
relationship based on disagreement.

00:15:24.945 --> 00:15:28.695
One of the things that really helped
was at that initial debate, we decided

00:15:28.695 --> 00:15:33.045
to start, he and I together, by stating
what we thought the other person's

00:15:33.045 --> 00:15:38.385
argument was, and I think one, that gave
you some first empathy for the other

00:15:38.385 --> 00:15:42.105
person's argument, but it also gave
the other person a chance to decide if

00:15:42.105 --> 00:15:43.455
they were actually being misunderstood.

00:15:44.280 --> 00:15:48.990
So you both had an understanding of if
the other person heard you and then you

00:15:48.990 --> 00:15:51.900
could know what you were talking about
when you were having this discussion.

00:15:52.230 --> 00:15:55.589
And so because of that, he and I then
became running buddies and all this stuff,

00:15:55.829 --> 00:15:59.910
I started taking that forward to other
situations where I thought I might have

00:15:59.910 --> 00:16:03.420
a different perspective than someone to
start off, even if it's just to myself.

00:16:03.689 --> 00:16:05.250
Like that was a formal debate with him.

00:16:05.955 --> 00:16:08.835
But even to myself, what do I think
the other person's point of view is?

00:16:08.835 --> 00:16:11.205
And, and I will, if I think
it's appropriate, try to work

00:16:11.205 --> 00:16:12.525
that in early in a conversation.

00:16:12.525 --> 00:16:15.585
So what I'm hearing you say is, and
then you're basically fact checking

00:16:15.615 --> 00:16:19.335
in real time and they'll correct it
if you're wrong, and that's useful.

00:16:19.665 --> 00:16:22.695
So I think that idea of going in with
making the other person's argument

00:16:22.695 --> 00:16:26.355
first, even if it's just to yourself,
is a really useful constraint to enter

00:16:26.355 --> 00:16:27.615
certain types of conversations with.

00:16:28.095 --> 00:16:29.445
Matt Abrahams: I really, really like that.

00:16:29.535 --> 00:16:32.025
If nothing else, it puts you
in service of the audience.

00:16:32.025 --> 00:16:34.605
It makes you focus on
what's going on for them.

00:16:35.235 --> 00:16:39.074
Question number two, who is a
communicator that you admire and why?

00:16:39.824 --> 00:16:42.555
David Epstein: Not to be redundant
here, but I do wanna say it's Malcolm

00:16:42.555 --> 00:16:46.905
Gladwell because in those series of
disagreements that led to us becoming

00:16:46.905 --> 00:16:48.915
good friends, he was very open-minded.

00:16:48.915 --> 00:16:53.805
So we had a debate at the same forum, 5
years apart, and the second time around,

00:16:53.805 --> 00:16:57.495
he started saying the things that I
had convinced him of, and I didn't have

00:16:57.495 --> 00:16:59.865
nearly as much professional capital
the first time we met for a debate.

00:16:59.865 --> 00:17:01.365
You could have just crushed
me just because of who you

00:17:01.365 --> 00:17:02.754
are, and you're very clever.

00:17:03.344 --> 00:17:06.660
And he said, yeah, but I have the
luxury of learning from my critics.

00:17:07.260 --> 00:17:08.940
And that stuck with me so much.

00:17:08.940 --> 00:17:12.060
The idea that an earnest critic,
you have the luxury of learning from

00:17:12.060 --> 00:17:13.710
them instead of becoming defensive.

00:17:14.130 --> 00:17:19.140
And now I've seen that in his writing
where he has decided some things that

00:17:19.140 --> 00:17:23.820
he wrote that became very famous, are
not right, and has changed direction.

00:17:24.120 --> 00:17:28.785
And I think that's an amazing thing to
do when you've been so successful with

00:17:28.785 --> 00:17:31.995
a certain idea, because I've definitely
seen the opposite of other writers

00:17:31.995 --> 00:17:35.415
who, once they've become successful
with an idea, they are not changing

00:17:35.415 --> 00:17:36.945
their mind, no matter the evidence.

00:17:37.425 --> 00:17:43.455
So his ability to acknowledge that and
address it even directly, I think is

00:17:43.785 --> 00:17:47.175
rare and amazing and quite frankly,
became really a role model for me.

00:17:47.535 --> 00:17:50.565
Matt Abrahams: That notion of there's
something to be learned from the criticism

00:17:50.565 --> 00:17:54.375
and just the openness there, I think
we could all learn something from.

00:17:54.750 --> 00:17:56.070
Final question for you, David.

00:17:56.400 --> 00:18:01.380
What are the first three ingredients that
go into a successful communication recipe?

00:18:01.860 --> 00:18:05.010
David Epstein: I think identifying the
type of conversation you're having.

00:18:05.100 --> 00:18:09.000
We've all probably had this issue
at some point where you are saying

00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:12.330
something or someone else is saying
something you're upset about and one

00:18:12.330 --> 00:18:16.410
party offers solutions and really it's
a I need to be heard conversation.

00:18:16.650 --> 00:18:20.280
And I think that can be a very
upsetting disconnect for both sides.

00:18:20.280 --> 00:18:21.810
So identifying the conversation type.

00:18:22.350 --> 00:18:27.225
I think keeping in mind what psychologists
call the peak end rule, which is that the

00:18:27.225 --> 00:18:31.785
way your brain remembers an experience
is more or less an average of the moment

00:18:31.785 --> 00:18:33.945
of peak intensity and the last moment.

00:18:34.275 --> 00:18:36.405
You may not be able to do much
about the moment of peak intensity,

00:18:36.405 --> 00:18:37.605
but you can end on a good note.

00:18:38.175 --> 00:18:41.445
That end moment has more weight
than just an average moment.

00:18:41.685 --> 00:18:46.335
And the third I would say, and this is
more group focused, would be relatively

00:18:46.335 --> 00:18:48.045
equal conversational turn taking.

00:18:48.195 --> 00:18:52.905
So, not that everyone has to have a turn
in every case, but there is a body of

00:18:52.905 --> 00:18:56.055
research that I write about in the new
book that shows that one of the hallmarks

00:18:56.175 --> 00:19:00.585
of teams that are good at solving problems
together is that over the course of a

00:19:00.585 --> 00:19:03.675
day, for example, if they're working
together, there will be relatively

00:19:03.675 --> 00:19:05.355
equal conversational turn taking.

00:19:05.805 --> 00:19:09.285
When I was writing about Pixar, where
Ed Catmull, the co-founder, told

00:19:09.285 --> 00:19:13.275
me that they banned Steve Jobs from
certain feedback meetings specifically

00:19:13.275 --> 00:19:18.765
because as he became this larger than
life personality they felt his voice

00:19:18.945 --> 00:19:22.905
would take up too much space and crowd
out other people who might have a lot

00:19:22.905 --> 00:19:25.125
to add but not be quite as eloquent.

00:19:25.755 --> 00:19:28.845
Or there's this colloquial term,
HIPPO, highest paid person's opinion,

00:19:29.175 --> 00:19:32.145
where if that person speaks, everyone
will start to gravitate around them.

00:19:32.475 --> 00:19:36.405
So I think putting boundaries
in place that facilitate more

00:19:36.405 --> 00:19:38.115
equal conversational turn taking.

00:19:38.805 --> 00:19:41.360
Matt Abrahams: I really
appreciate the three ingredients.

00:19:41.445 --> 00:19:43.965
They're very specific and
they're all science-based.

00:19:44.774 --> 00:19:48.615
Be aware of what type of conversation
you're having, what's needed in this

00:19:48.615 --> 00:19:50.325
conversation, what's your role in it?

00:19:50.715 --> 00:19:54.375
Think about how they end and can you
end it in a way that increases the

00:19:54.375 --> 00:19:57.405
likelihood that people will remember it
and have the experience you want them

00:19:57.405 --> 00:20:01.935
to, and then to really consider the
turn taking that takes place because

00:20:01.935 --> 00:20:05.205
that does impact how people feel about
it and the quality of the interactions.

00:20:05.745 --> 00:20:07.605
David, this has been fantastic.

00:20:07.605 --> 00:20:12.015
In many ways you've unconstrained
my thinking and hopefully that

00:20:12.015 --> 00:20:15.075
of our listeners, even though the
book was all about constraints.

00:20:15.435 --> 00:20:16.365
Thank you so much.

00:20:16.455 --> 00:20:19.965
Good success on Inside the Box,
and I appreciate learning from

00:20:19.965 --> 00:20:21.705
you and having our conversation.

00:20:22.155 --> 00:20:23.145
David Epstein: I enjoyed this very much.

00:20:23.145 --> 00:20:23.565
Thank you.

00:20:25.095 --> 00:20:26.985
Matt Abrahams: Thank you for
joining us for another episode of

00:20:26.985 --> 00:20:29.265
Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast.

00:20:29.550 --> 00:20:34.110
To learn more about constraints, please
listen to episode 108 with Dan Klein,

00:20:34.200 --> 00:20:36.050
Adam Tobin, and Patricia Ryan Madsen.

00:20:36.840 --> 00:20:41.879
This episode was produced by Katherine
Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams.

00:20:42.060 --> 00:20:43.710
Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

00:20:43.860 --> 00:20:46.379
With special thanks to
Podium Podcast Company.

00:20:46.980 --> 00:20:50.250
Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

00:20:50.340 --> 00:20:52.500
Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

00:20:52.649 --> 00:20:55.695
Also follow us on LinkedIn,
TikTok, and Instagram.

00:20:55.995 --> 00:21:00.015
And check out fastersmarter.io for
deep dive videos, English language

00:21:00.015 --> 00:21:02.145
learning content, and our newsletter.

00:21:02.685 --> 00:21:06.315
Please also consider joining the Think
Fast Talk Smart Learning Community

00:21:06.555 --> 00:21:07.675
at fastersmarter.io/learning.

00:21:09.435 --> 00:21:13.245
You'll find video lessons, learning
quests, discussion boards, my

00:21:13.245 --> 00:21:15.555
AI coach, and our book club.

00:21:15.705 --> 00:21:20.565
Again, that's fastersmarter.io/learning
to become part of the Think Fast

00:21:20.745 --> 00:21:22.395
Talk Smart Learning Community.