The Ethics of Influence and Conversation with Michael Reddington

Adam  00:00

Welcome to This Anthro Life, the podcast that digs deep into the quirks and qualities that make us distinctly human. I'm your host, Adam Gamwell. Today we're delving into a realm where the truth, trust and deception dance, the delicate tango. We've got Michael Reddington. With us. He's a master of interrogation turned advocate for the art of conversation, that he's not your average Sherlock with a magnifying glass. Although he might have one of those. He's a certified forensic interviewer who wants crafted an unexpected career path from the classroom to the interrogation room? Now he's showing us that there's more to uncovering the truth than meets the eye. But don't think that we're going to simply pull back the curtain on the world of confessions and confrontations. You see, Michael is here to present a paradigm shift, where every gesture tells a story in every interaction holds the potential to build or break bonds. It's about harnessing the subtleties of communication to unlock the doors to more honest and effective exchanges, whether you're leading a team navigating negotiations, or simply seeking to better understand those around you. So get ready as we unpack the nuances of non confrontational discussion, the finesse of framing the right question and the power of letting others feeling control, all delicately woven into the fabric of our everyday interactions. Keep your ears perked and your eyes open for a dive into the anthropology of lying. The ethics of manipulation, which as we're gonna see can both be neutral and perhaps beneficial, if wielded with respect and in the right scenarios, and the transformative potential of truly listening. This episode isn't just a look into Michael's interrogation expertise. It's an exploration of the human experience through the lens of conversation. Let's get to it.

Michael  01:30

The nonconfrontational interviewing interrogation, forensic interviewing, like many things in my life, it happened almost entirely by accident. So I started out as a middle school, special education teacher and baseball coach and thought that would be all I ever did. And eventually, I had some friends making way more money than me talk me into trying the financial industry, which I just loved. No just wasn't the right fit for me, essentially. So I started working part time jobs, I went back to school to better get a business degree. And to follow a trend here, a friend of mine talked me into work in a security job with him. And I'm guessing they were woefully short on managerial candidates, because within a year or so he and I were both promoted. And then at that point in my career is when I really had the opportunity to start talking with people who had made regrettable decisions. And it was my job to ask me to ask them to share what had happened and as much detail as possible, write it down, hopefully shake my hand at the end of it and move on. And very quickly, I became fascinated not with obtaining the truth. I mean, don't get me wrong. Some days, I felt a lot better than others. But why? Why do people continue to tell me this? And I remember, I had obtained three pay for the context that was in at the time pretty sizable, written confessions. And I call them my father to brag about it. Because why wouldn't I? And when I called to tell him about it, I remember him pausing. And I'm expecting and my dad and I have a great relationship. So but I was expecting like, good job, Michael, proud of you way to go knew you could do it. Instead, he pauses and he says, don't these people realize that? If nobody talks, everybody walks. And my my dad's an East Boston kid growing up, because I Well, let's not tell them that. But really, you know, that kind of turbocharged my thought of why? Why do people consistently tell the truth when logically, they should, like only bad things can happen if they do. So that sent me down the path of interviewing, interrogation, training and research, it really the pinnacle of that, for me was obtaining my certified forensic interviewer designation that you mentioned. But then even beyond that, going further into conversations beyond interview and interrogation, leadership, communication, sales, negotiation, conflict, resolution, and persuasion, all these things, and realizing that there's very common elements to all of those. So it was it a string that I just started pulling and couldn't stop it, it couldn't stop and eventually plateaued with the discipline listening method, but I'm sure like, you know, with your work, it doesn't stop there. You know, we continue to learn and grow and pull new threads. So that's the, the hopefully listener friendly, short version of how I got

Adam  04:16

no, that's great. I appreciate you sharing that story. It's interesting, too, because even as you note that the as you begin to look across different domains, you know, whether it is kind of forensic, interviewing and or in the business world, right, that there's sometimes odd connections that we find, right, that there's similarities between how a leader may interact with their employees or how, again, an interrogator might interact with a potential suspect. You know, obviously, the work is proven innocent until guilty, right? But then, this interesting idea of like, how do we how do we approach a conversation right, especially when there's a power dynamic like that? So kind of the so I'm interested in this context, too. And this is not just because I guess maybe my cognitive biases, anthropologist, but you know, power is always one of these questions that like people don't talk about but of course shaped so much of our interactions, our behaviors, and how we kind of move about in the world. And so how does this idea come out? When you think about the idea of power right in conversations and that there can be a kind of in disequilibrium there? How do you how do you approach that when you're thinking about having a conversation with someone, especially if I guess if it's an in a in is there? What's the additive interior? interrogatory? Context? You know, this this idea, like, how do we how do we kind of approach that question when there is this power differential between, you know, questioner and question he?

Michael  05:27

That's one of my favorite questions I've been asked in a really long time, I appreciate you asking that into your let me go back one half a second, then I'll answer it directly. I also love the point you made about odd and unexpected connections. I've, for me, for whatever reason, I guess, just based on cognitive biases, training, experience, whatever, a lot of the investigations that my former teammates and I participated in, we would go into two investigations where they had multiple suspects, no evidence, everybody had already been interviewed, we got to kind of put this together. So we needed people to tell us how they needed to be interviewed. So you start gathering as much information as you can, because you never know what's going to be the dot that connects everything together. So I got to try to capture it all, and let the valuable than invaluable weed itself out. And I feel like a lot of times when people are educating themselves, and they're participating in community work, or their business work, or their kids or their church, or coaching or whatever it is, they feel like the lessons and experiences they learn belong in those silos. And they don't, they belong in one big place. And we can learn and connect so many dots. So I love that you said that. To get back to the actual question you asked thank you for letting me rant that I love is getting back to this power dynamic. And for me, this is one of the single most important lessons, top three for sure that I learned in interrogation was that if somebody has information in you need it, you're not in control of this conversation. I don't care what your title is. It's true for me and my young son. It's true for me and customers. If I'm building a business relationship, it was absolutely true for me and victims, witnesses suspects, this concept of power is associated with control and psychological thing. So if somebody feels like they're in control of the conversation, or at least parts of it, they feel more psychologically safe, they feel like they have more power. And when they feel like they have more power, their guard is typically lower, because they feel more secure. But as soon as somebody feels like power control, or psychological safety is trying to be taken from them. Now their defenses go full on as high as they can. Trust drops, stress increases, and now they're not looking for reasons to connect, they're looking for reasons to defend or protect themselves. So for me, and there's different ways that I love to do it. And I really, really like to allow people to feel like they are in the power position and conversations for as long as possible. Because it drops their guard hips makes it easier for them to save face, they also will end up often sharing what they how they need to be communicated with or what they need to experience. And because they feel like they're in control, they talk more. And if they're talking more, I'm learning more. And then of course, at the end, if they feel like it's their decision, they're more committed to it. But I truly feel like and I would love with your research and experience as well to hear your thoughts on this. But I truly feel like that when somebody else feels like they're in the power position, they're in control, they share more. And the more they share, the more helpful that is for me. So I say this rhetorically, but what's more important being in control or achieving the desired outcome, right? And if the desired outcome was more important than welcome to not being in control, because if that gets me where I need to go, then that's the card I'm going to play.

Adam  08:54

No, I think that's a that's a great point too. In. On the one hand, too, we think about like conversation and the idea of we tend to think of something like an interrogation as like, I'm here to extract information and that that's thought about as a goal. But this other way that you're you're I hear you saying here, and it seems like we're approaching this is that there's more of a dialogue happening and it happens beyond the words right? It is it is about this, I think I think you make that great point where if you need some information with somebody, then you're not in control, right? It's like basically how and when they want to deliver that information. And so I think it's a brilliant move to then think through both how you position your conversation and yourself as a way that says, Well, what do you need in this conversation in order for us to then ultimately, you know, hope to get some information that we're looking for, but it really is about Yeah, that you're not in control. And so part of it is like letting that steering wheel go a little bit in terms of like when I'm going to get what I need, but I you know, I want to kind of help set the stage so that that could take place. I think that that's really important. Again, it speaks to the other the other piece we're saying a little bit ago about context matters, right in terms of not just like what are people saying you know, and you know, is the room comfortable in depending on how you're talking about it and how are you setting all that space up but like I'm not trying to dictate how everything takes place, right? And give me give me your answer. Give me a question. You know, people are going to be guarded right away. I think I mean, one thing, I'd love you to elaborate on that on that I really liked in your book, too. Is this this point you made that it's good if people lie to you, right? This notion that like, actually, that's very helpful, even when you're trying to get the, quote truth from somebody, because it shows it raises like the important question of like, what do they feel that this is in their best interest for x&y reasons, so can if I can understand that, then that's actually gonna give me something else to work with. So rather than being kind of mad, the Hey, you're not telling me the truth, right? That itself kind of betrays a perception user from the speaker of what the power should be, you should be giving me the truth, right? You owe me the truth, or whatever it is. And that's an interesting question that lying is not necessarily a bad thing in this context, because it's showing you a different way, different pathways. So I'd love to kind of get your thoughts thoughts on that, because I, I found this really fascinating. And that, to me is one of the neat ways that like we can undermine power by rethinking, you know, the role of untruths in a conversation as a new kind of pathway to kind of bring our dialogue together.

Michael  11:04

Man, you're batting 1000. In my selfish opinion, that was the one thing I was hoping you were going to ask about with the anthropology and connection. So, Dale, I'm digging this conversation, thank you. If I can't take one step back again, going forward. When you mentioned the giving up the control piece, I truly believe that if anybody is very clear on where they need the conversation to end, it doesn't matter where it starts. Because you can use anything that anybody gives you to start nudging and guiding the conversation where you eventually need it to go. So if you and I have an hour to talk, congratulations, if I get what I need in the first five minutes. Yay, it was fast. But did I get the quality that I needed in the relationship and the bond and the commitment and all those things? If I get into 45 minutes, now I've likely established more of these things. So we talked about letting the conversation come to you. And the more you listen, the more you learn. And I'll let you decide where you want this conversation to go and, or start, excuse me, and I'll nudge you where we want it to go. So I love that. To get back to your fantastic question about it being okay to be lied to, I believe that's another one of the top three lessons I learned in interrogation for sure. And I do want to just kind of quickly state that I'm not here to tell anybody what their moral code should be, what their value system should be, or any of these other things. And I'm certainly not advocating dishonesty. But I will say that every single person listening to this conversation right now has lied. I'm not saying that you didn't say where the body was buried, but you were probably nice to somebody in a social situation to save their feelings when it wasn't what you thought, thought or belief. And that right, there is why people lie if you take away like the medical diagnosis is and cognitive disabilities. And so people lie to avoid a consequence that's either real or perceived. And that consequence could be going to jail, or that consequence could be upsetting you on a night that I want to go out and have fun. But those are all consequences. So when we stopped to realize that people lie to avoid consequences, really what they're doing is executing what they believe to be their last available good decision at that moment in time. It doesn't mean it is, but it's what they feel like it is they've gone through their checklist, and I'm at the bottom. So if this doesn't work, I'm screwed. And if we look at it that way, then it's not personal. You're not lying to hurt me. You're lying to protect yourself. And now although I'd much rather you tell me the truth, lying to me is a better option than not talking to me. Because if you're lying to me, you're at least engaging in the conversation. And to get back to the point you made, which I'm grateful for about context being king. Now I can listen to that lie, I can observe the totality of the communication. And I can start to think, okay, what are the consequences that you're trying to avoid? And now if I can begin to reduce your resistance to the consequences, I can work my way I can use the lie to get me closer to the truth. What we don't ever want to do. I mean, think for the people listening, think about how many times in your life, you've said to somebody, you're lying to me. Yeah. And now try to recall how many times that person went, you're right. Yeah, yeah, I'm a liar. It is substantially easier to get somebody to say I did it than it is to get them to say it's my fault, especially in the beginning. And it is substantially easier to get somebody to say it's my I did it in as my fault than it is to say, and I lied to you about it. And if we think about it, if we think about getting the truth in stages, if we allow somebody to say and this could be not just an interrogation, this could be an employee who made a mistake and employee who is behind on a project a customer that didn't give you all the information upfront and negotiation partner that wasn't transparent A waitress that forgot to tell you that the wine you want it is a different price point or it's out of stock. But it can be anything. If we allow somebody to tell us the truth by saving face, we've got the truth. And now that that problem is on the table, we can solve it. Depending on the situation, maybe we go for the it's my fault, maybe we don't. But in almost all situations, we don't go for the and I lied about it. Because that makes me feel better. You just told me you lied. But get back to the outcome focus. How does that help. And here's where I would love your input on this too. And I don't recall the source off the top of my head. So I apologize for that upfront. But there is research from the field of anthropology that shows that lying is a necessary component for the human species to remain alive on this planet. If we lie to if all we did was tell each other the truth, we would have clubbed each other to death in caves long, 1000s of years. And there's a super interesting research study while I'm a jerk, nerd, excuse me, I guess I could be a jerk. But that remains to be seen out of, I think the University of Plymouth, but you might need to correct me on this, but comes from the UK, where altruistic liars were viewed as more trustworthy than truth tellers. Because if I'm an altruistic liar, I'm lying at my own sacrifice to help somebody else. So therefore, I must be more trustworthy. So I feel like this whole perception that lying is wrong and needs to be eradicated is off base, it needs to be managed that shouldn't necessarily be encouraged, but it needs to be understood. Because we can actually use untruths, to bond build stronger relationships and get to the truth faster.

Adam  16:46

Yeah, no, I think that's right. That's a brilliant point. And it is funny too, because it's that, you know, we have the moral story that lying is not good. We shouldn't we shouldn't lie. But then you're also right, that there's the human truth, you know, a former kind of ethic, actually, right, that it's like, we actually do better when we are willing to have you know, these kind of small lies or altruistic lies like people. Yeah, there is this this notion, right? That it is, you know, it's you're nicer if on one hand, right? You're not saying, Well, you look terrible today, you know, you look great, you know, or whatever it is, or it's just like, you know, yeah, I was gonna go, sorry, you know, I don't feel well tonight. So we can't go out with you. But like, you know, really, whatever it is, it's like, a lot of these kinds of these smaller lies they'd like not hurt somebody's feelings. And it is this funny point that you know, I guess it comes with the baggage of consciousness and that we are fundamentally social beings. Right? Intriguing, I guess reminds me of like Rutger Bregman wrote a book that was called human kindness like a hopeful history of humanity. And like, you know, there's like the one or the other like the the Richard Dawkins, like selfish gene that we're all here. Everything's in for in for itself. But Bregman and others kind of point, this idea. It's like, No, we, you know, we fundamentally evolved to cooperate, right? And that's actually why we are, on the one hand, the dominant species on the planet, for better for worse, is because we're able to work in groups, especially with strangers. And part of the reason that works is because we are able to lie, you know, because we can kind of just put aside small things or just kind of downplay something, in order to then kind of make social bonds, the kind of primary aim and it's funny, we think about this, like in a conversational or like, you know, conversational context. We often kind of say, oh, you know, you shouldn't lie. But I think your the point you make there is really important that it's actually showing us if we understand why somebody is lying, it gives us an important insight into what it is that they're trying to avoid. That's interesting, I guess I'm kind of curious how you like, disambiguate that or disentangle that when we know, as you said, up top to that, like, in certain kinds of conversation, especially if you're trying to, you know, if somebody there's, you know, either an office theft problem, or just like somebody, you know, was kind of not forthcoming about something, you know, telling the truth will kind of get them in trouble, right. And so it's like, how can we be smart about the fact that like, lying can be helpful, but then also, you know, knowing that it's also in their best interest on one hand to live because they know bad things will happen if they say something truthful?

Michael  19:02

Yeah, another great question. And I'm gonna again, I'm not here to tell anybody what their moral code should be, you know, whoever's listening to this has been successful to survive this long. So you know, not telling them how to live their life. I'll talk about being a parent first. So my wife and I have one child, he's still young, and we stress that he will never be in trouble for telling us the truth. And when he does lie, we don't call him a liar. We don't say that he lives, we focus on getting to the truth, because we understand even as a young boy, he doesn't want to not be able to play with his friends. He doesn't want to not be able to have video games he doesn't. So his motivations to lie aren't maybe as complex as adults would be. But there's there's still that if you think about leading a team, and we're trying to understand if we're on track with a project, well, if I asked somebody, are you going to finish the project on time, or are you on track? The implied expected answer is yes. So just How I asked the question alone is going to force somebody to answer yes, in many, not all, but many situations. So if I can understand that people are looking to protect themselves, it's not about me, if I can be aware of the greater context, now when I approach people, and make sure I'm answering your question on track, if I'm not cut me off, and as I approach people, if I can give them the opportunity to save face, and ask the question in a way where there's not an implied expected answer, or there's not a trap, now I can encourage them to share more information. So with my son, it could be you know, please walk me through what happened at school today. And walk me through is one of my favorite questions to ask period. But please walk me through what happened at school today. Well, Daddy, I don't want to tell you. Well, I understand that, buddy, I just want to make sure I know, was this something that just happened? Because you didn't think about it? And you just sort of said it? Or were you really super angry? Well, Daddy, I wasn't angry at them. Now we're closer to getting the truth. If I'm talking to somebody that will like an employee who is behind on a project, instead of saying, Are you going to finish the project on time, I can say, as I look at our customers, most of them do a great job at changing the rules without changing the delivery date. So look at all the updates that we had, how many more days well, we love to have to be able to finish this project. And as soon as they do this, you know, you're so just giving people the chance to save face and asking questions in a way that give them an out to tell you the truth without absolving accountability. But give them an out to put the truth on the table now makes it easier in order to get past this while remembering upstairs that lying is a face saving process for most people in most situations. So I don't want to take it personally. I don't want to force them to lie, I want to give them a reason to tell me the truth.

Adam  22:02

Now, that's great, that that answers my question exactly, too, because I think that that's something that we often forget, you know, when we're trying to extract or get information from somebody to is that how we approach it and how we ask the question will shape oftentimes what the answer is, right? And it's, you know, it's a lame but like familiar adage, maybe if you're if you're a tech nerd, right? Like the garbage in garbage out in terms of like your, your GPT prompts, right? They're gonna give you a crappy answer if you don't actually ask a good kind of question. And so let's walk me through is a really great example there of having someone tell me about a process of something right versus saying, Give me the the answer. And I love this idea that you said to have like giving, giving folks and out to be able to put the truth on the table in the way that saves, saves face. And that idea is, I think, really important, especially I remember, the thing is, towards the end of the book, you had an example where it just like if someone's giving a talk, even the idea of like asking you any questions at the end, right? Whether it's whether it's a leader that a business meeting, or whatever it is. It's longevity questions. And like, even that is something that you don't think of as an interrogation type question, right? But then you realize the expected answer is no, you know, I don't have any questions. I'm smart, I got it all. I'm good, you know, normal. It's an interesting kind of challenge to realize, Oh, if you're actually trying to engage somebody in conversation, like how you frame that question, even if you as the speaker thinks is innocent, or you're saying I'm inviting people to come chat with me, realizing there, that doesn't always necessarily work, right. And having this idea of like, what is the the implied expected answer, I think, really, really can shape that. And so that's a that's a really important. For me, that's been helpful for me to kind of think through as as kind of processing the material to in this this idea of like, when we're putting questions out there, how do we make them clear and concise enough, but then also not having an expected answer as part of that? And so I guess I'm curious, the relationship between that to like, asking, sounds weird asking a clear question, right, when that's concise, easy to understand, but then also doesn't have that like implied really short. One thing? So I think walk me through seems like a good good example of that. Is that is that the way to think about that? Or do you have other kind of tips of like, how we could ask these kind of easy to understand questions, but then that also don't have this implied? Give me yes or no or something short.

Michael  24:07

I love it. I'll start vague and get specific. So our goal, our kind of mantras or guardrails are focused on the issue, not the person focus on the resolution, not the consequences. So when I asked the question, I want the question to be about the issue or the problem I'm trying to solve. I don't want the question to be about you. If I make it about you now is when I get defensive now's where I start walking people into those implied expected answers. So for me and my bias, of course, people have other ideas. I'd love to hear them and love to hear the experiences and what's worked. There's a big difference between tell me about and walk me through. So if I say to somebody tell me about you have poetic license, where do you want to start? Where do you want to end? What order? Do you want to go in all of these things? And you can start pulling information or ideas from different places, and it could make it harder for me to understand where all that's coming from. But if I say to somebody, please walk me through that suggests I'm looking for chronological order in detail. And it makes it a lot easier for me to pick up when the order is off. And when the detail is missing, just based on how I asked the question, so that that's my favorite. When you get back to the Do you have any questions, which was a great example. Thank you. So many times, when somebody is in a for people are watching or listening to this, but in air quotes, when they're in a leadership role in the conversation, it's often a logical moment for us, I know where I'm trying to go, I know what I'm trying to solve. But it is nearly always in a motional moment for the person we're talking to. Because if we're in a, quote, leadership role, that means we have some ability to levy consequences on the other person. So there are wrong answers to this. And there are things I could say that make my situation worse. So to your point, if I say do you have any questions? Yeah, you want to be smart, you don't want to be viewed as embarrassed, stupid, not paying attention, not qualified, whatever. So to keep it clear and concise, instead of saying, Do you have any questions? I say, How many questions did I create? It's still a concise question. But now if there's questions, it's on me. It's not on you. And now with the phrase, how many, the implied expectation is there should be more than one. So we can still have concise questions. We don't need to ramble. But now we make it about the issue. So instead of saying, are we going to finish the project on time? Now it's how many extra days do we wish we had? Or how many extra resources or how many extra people do we wish that we had? It's still a short question. And the upside to this is if somebody is going to get the project done on time, their answer is not good. And that's a spontaneous, confident answer, which now we can feel better about. Because we gave them away out in they didn't take it. So we can still be, we can still ask those shorter questions. But if we focus in on the problem, or the outcome instead of the person, we typically can do a better job, and one that's come up more and more recently. And I know lots of people teach this this isn't a mike Reddington thing is, avoid using the phrase or the question why? Why did you do this? Why didn't you do this? Why? Why? Why comes off as accusatory every time whether we like it or not. So instead of asking why use the word we were using earlier, interrogate the decision making process. What was the goal? What was the outcome? What was the consideration process? What were the decision making markers? What were the checkpoints we were considering? Now I can make the question about the decision making process, because maybe they had the right thought process, they just came to the wrong conclusion. Or maybe there's some value in the decision making process we can build on instead of just making people feel beneath me by saying, Well, why, why? Why no adult wants to have a conversation like that with another adult.

Adam  28:03

No, it's funny, too, because I mean, you're even talking about the example with your son too. I was like, having one of those those like Freudian moments. I'm like, I remember being a kid being like, my mom would be like, oh, you know, why'd you do this? Why'd you do that? Like, you know, or, like, you gotta get these these questions that don't give you the like, let me do the pathway of walking through decision making, or being like, what did you just think about it? And it's like, yeah, that's, that's true. I didn't think about it, you know, but this this funny point of like, well, let me walk me, instead of saying that walk me through your decision making process, right? Like, how do you how do you come to the conclusion that you should do X, Y, or Z to your friend up in the playground or something, you know, but this interesting, interesting idea there of like, asking that process question, I think is really interesting. And making it like, forget about the issue, not about the person. That's, I mean, that's really fascinating, too, because it is this, it, like takes the heat off of, you know, me, are you doing the wrong thing and more like, what is the thing that was wrong? It's kind of like, you know, changing our grammar, you know, in like, think of that way, you know, but I guess Yeah, I mean, does that dative grammar sparks something there of like, we have the pieces, let's just change how we how we kind of communicate them?

Michael  29:05

Yes, that's a great point. You know,

Adam  29:09

I think there's there's Yeah, it's like that I just think it's a broad question with this too. But it's like thinking about, you know, as the discipline listening method can like, transform the way we communicate and the scene like this is this is a key piece here. I think we're it's like, understanding that like, an untruth is not on useful. It's not bad, right? It's giving us someone's process, or answering what they're trying to avoid, you know, asking questions that get us towards process. I mean, one thing that I think that like, also one of the cruxes here that I kind of took away from, from the method to that I think is also key for us to talk about is like, What two things but one for now is that the the idea that we have to have a goal of what we're trying to do in the first place, right? If you just kind of walk in to have a conversation, you don't you don't necessarily get anywhere, or it's one of those you know, if you don't know where you're going, you're at it, you'll get there no matter what kind of idea and so, you know, think about this, like, you know how I got some tactics or ways to think about this, like how do I set a The goal or an outcome you're looking for when it comes to a certain kind of competition. I know like, obviously, if we're looking for, you know, workplace conflict, or you know, my, my kid was messing with somebody else at school or something, different goals, they're like, how do we think about that, like, you know, kind of getting clear about how do we set that goal for what we're trying to achieve? So we can then kind of have our guardrails in place when we go forward.

Michael  30:21

Another great question. And it's super important. Because if we don't have a goal, how do we give our observations? Meaning? They How do I know how to react based on what you're giving me if I'm not clear on where I'm trying to go? And also, how do I keep my emotions in check. If I don't have clear outcomes that are important to me, it's going to be much easier for me to get emotionally off track because of how our brains work and emotions take over. And you know, limbic system fires, and rational decision making goes away, everybody knows all this. So having that goal really matter. So to use, children choose my wife, as an example, the most important thing for me and my relationship, especially with my wife and son, is to have a long term healthy relationship where the people I love the most, stay together, support each other and grow together. And in this specific instance of my son, he grows to be a functioning productive, healthy, healthy member of society, right? So when something happens at school, especially as he's younger, now, I've got two choices, probably more, but three choices, I can ignore it, that's never helpful, I can pounce on him, well, that's not going to be helpful either. Because the issues he's having now pale in comparison to the issues he's inevitably going to have as a teenager. So if I teach him to be afraid of me now, by the time he gets to those real issues, it's not gonna matter. Or I could think, okay, how do I use every opportunity possible? To teach him the necessary decision making problem solving considerations? So as he gets older, he can be more successful functioning in society and being happy for my wife, we have disagreements? Of course we do. But the outcome is, how do I stay married to this amazing woman? And how do we continue to grow our bond and grow our relationship together? If I am leading a team of people? Yeah, I might be upset at somebody for very valid reasons. They didn't give me the information I need, well, maybe I didn't ask for it at the right time, or in the right way, if I'm being honest, or they're behind on a project, and they dropped the ball on something or whatever. Okay. Is the goal of making them feel like they screwed up? Is that helpful? I would argue probably not in most circumstances. But is the goal developing an employee who's who I'm going to use to develop word twice in the same sentence? Speaking of grammar, I'm terrible at it, can I develop an employee who develops the decision making and problem solving skills over time, that they can give more to this organization more to their team and more to their customer. So if we start looking at every and I know every sounds like it's an exaggeration, but pretty close, if we can start looking at every interaction as an opportunity to develop relationships, develop people and reach greater strategic outcomes. Now it's easier to keep our emotions in check. And it's easier to approach people in the way that's necessary to get these truths and get these outcomes. If we don't have these outcomes in mind. Now, it's like we jumped on the sailboat we shipped off. And if we're one degree off course or another, we could end up millions of miles away, but not realize it because we didn't have that destination to begin with. I'll close my ramble with this. The discipline listening method is really founded on two core concepts. One is how do we uncover hidden value in every conversation in two, how do we create the communication experiences our counterparts require, in order to achieve our goals? And if I start focusing on what other people need to experience, it's a much quicker way to get to our goals. Now, you know, there's unethical goals and ethical goals. And that's a whole nother conversation. But assuming we're staying on the ethical side, because how do we create the communication experiences that

Adam  34:18

other people? Yeah, I love that point. I think that that's such an important perspective to then see, it's not just about what am I trying to get, right? But it's like, this has to be a dialogic experience itself, right? So it's, there might be information I still need or like an outcome, you know, looking for it, but it's not so much. It's not just me trying to get a thing, right. It's that, for that even happened, right, there has to be a kind of mutual experience, right? And that involves me empathizing, understanding where you're coming from what it is that you're looking to save, or solve or do, right or uncover, and then, you know, setting the circumstances so that that can take place in the most successful way possible. And and I think that's really important in because it's like I'm reflecting on doing anthropological fieldwork, you know, if we're doing literal interviews with people and like sitting us down to have a conversation about, you know, I was living in southern Peru working with chemo farmers. So it's talking about your pinlock production practices, right? You're talking about the way you think about climate change. And a lot of the two was this idea of like, on the one hand, what are we trying to get out of the conversation? What is the interesting piece to think, because oftentimes anthropologists will go into the field or a scenario, they'll have some ideas of what they're looking for. But a lot of it is about, like, what actually unfolds in the conversation. And so what's cool too, I think, is I see a nice kind of pairing also with with the discipline listing method to where it's like, you have a goal of trying to get somebody story will say, or, you know, understand how they perceive a situation or talking about the family, whatever it is. But then at the same time, you have to set those circumstances for this conversation to even be able to take place, right and have it to kind of properly happen. And then oftentimes, like the nuggets of wisdom, or that the really good kind of juicy pieces of information, or that, you know, might surprise you still have a capacity to come in, you know, in ways that you don't expect, you know, and that can be recognizing, like, you know, how you're asking your questions, or understanding, you know, what's, what's their body language and face? Like? How are they responding to the different topics that we're discussing? Are they seem more shut down to the sea more awake and animated? And what does that kind of tell us? And so this is really interesting idea that, you know, we're talking about observational research like that, too. You're kind of watching people's body language, and like, where are they positioning themselves? And like, do they stand much closer, you know, certain cultures, people stand really close, and they talk with others, they stand further away, they want to be side by side versus facing each other, and all these like interesting perspectives to put that together. And then in kind of a, again, a method that we can pull them in and bring it over to different contexts. I think it's really valuable, you know, because oftentimes, it's like, I'm saying this to kind of help the anthropologist or other people that are social scientists recognize that we can take methods that we all kind of use like across, you know, across forensic interviewing, across anthropology, across sociology, across business communication, right, that there's threads we can pull together to have a successful conversation. And I agree with you like, it kind of hinges on this idea of like, what is the goal that I'm looking for? And then also, how do I sit communication experience that helps us, you know, that that my interlocutors need to have in order for us to have a successful experience that brings our goals about and so it's like, even if one is thinking about an open ended conversation, this is still valuable, right? It's still an important part of understanding, how are we having a successful conversation? Because is it just me talking and saying, I want to let you know what I want to say. And so I guess I'll flip that and say that this is something that also not really helpful in your book, too, is that this is not about talking about what I want to say, right? This is about what experience do you need? Or do we need to have in order to have a sensible conversation? And so even like, on the one hand, making it not about you, in this case of I want to make it about an issue, but then the flip side is not making it about me about what is that? I want to say? Right? And so I think there's a humility that that's important as part of this as well. Right? So I'm curious, does that resonate, like in terms of as we think about this, like, especially I'm thinking about leaders, right? If they either may tend to have an ego, or just this idea of like, I'm in charge, you should give me information. There's a required humility there. It's not it's not about me, but it's also not about you, leader, you know, it's like we have to kind of meet somewhere in the middle.

Michael  38:02

It definitely resonates. And leaders might have egos, you could potentially test on stuff. But integrate and fairness, we all have egos, which is a whole nother conversation that I'm not qualified to have. But when you talk about and you mentioned this earlier, we affectionately refer to it as the entitlement trap. You owe me information. nobody owes you anything. Yeah, they owe it to themselves to protect themselves and interact in a way that they believe protects their self interest at all times, like for people listening here in the United States, or for people that have watched Hollywood here in the United States, films, TV, whatever. They're familiar with the Miranda warning, right? You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say candor will be held against you in a court of law. Well, we need to remember that most of the people we talked to, at some point in their life, became mirandize. They understand that they have the right to remain silent, because anything they say will be used against them and our first opportunity. And that could be somebody in a criminal situation, that could be a child that doesn't want to get in more trouble, that could be a spouse that they don't really want to go down and uncomfortable road at this point in time, in your line of work, which I'm clearly unfamiliar with. So forgive me, we're asking somebody to tell their story. There are shut off valves that they have to go through multiple times as they tell their story. I'm willing to give you this much. Okay, now this much, okay, now this much. And if we just feel like well, I'm the one in charge, I'm gathering this information for a very important cause. Well, congratulations to you and your cause if they don't feel comfortable, they're not going to share the information. So you're 1,000% Right. And I love the even the the example you gave culturally are we standing facing each other next to each other? Oftentimes, people focus on these cultural differences, which are super important. Don't get me wrong when we're interacting across cultural lines. But there's also the universality of the human experience, the core things that we all need to think and feel no matter who we are, no matter where we're from, no matter who we're talking to. And if we focus on that universality of the human experience, people need to save face. And yes, that manifests itself different ways in different cultures. But we all need to save face, we all need to feel respected, we all need to feel valued, have input. And so if we just start there, and start working our way out, people will be astonished at what others are willing to say and do for them. When they deprioritize themselves. And they start prioritizing their counterparts experiences in route to achieve their goals. And think, believe it or not, this can come back to my interrogation experience. I'm so fortunate that I had mentors that taught me right out of the gate is not about the confession, it's about the truth. And those can be different things. And as we're prioritizing the truth, we are a tool in the process. So it's not my job to punish somebody, it is my job to obtain the truth. And then whether that's what the litigating organization thought it was, or not present that truth over and then let them make the best decision. So if I'm talking to somebody who did something, and there weren't many of them, who did something that was entirely morally reprehensible, it's not my job to judge them, it's not my job to punish them. It's my job to cut you obtain the truth in such a detailed manner that allows the necessary consequences to be adjudicated down the road. So that created the necessity to disengage myself with that moral judgment during the conversation and create that outcome focused. I probably ranted. Let me bring it back. I apologize. But I agree 1,000%. And if people can stay out of the entitlement trap, prioritize the outcome and leverage the universality of the human experience there will be so far ahead of many other people.

Adam  41:54

No, I think that that's a great point. And even even the idea that sometimes, you know, it seems that like the sometimes we can we can fall into the the additional trap, I guess of like enfolding a lot of things like if I'm judged jury and executioner, then I'm gonna I want to go from truth to like judgment right away, and then like, then I might just skip the truth side and just aim for judgment. And that also does not help in terms of, you know, what's our goal of a conversation or what we're trying to, like, work together towards, you know, it's like, if I'm here, just to judge you thought, a conversation, right? Let's say I came here to pass judgment, you know, and like, and rarely is, you know, to that, like, does, is that actually a useful form, when you're having a, you know, a conversation with somebody or trying to, like, communicate with them? I think what was interesting about this, too, is that, like, you know, it's been said that we live in a post truth era, right, right now. And so but also just like, there's the things can be true can see more elusive or subjective, right? And so it's like, I think that's an important just, I'd love to kind of press on a little bit of like, how do we, you know, kind of draw on the the method to like, discern truth in different kind of interactions? You know, when that seems like that can be a trickier thing, sometimes to get a handle on?

Michael  43:04

I can, I mean, clearly I didn't live in past generations, or. But I can imagine that it is far more difficult now than ever before. And, you know, just online, what's real, what's not what's scripted, what's not. And in conversations, people having different experiences now in different beliefs, and different expectations, and all of these things that start clouding their judgment and their vision, and we can get into, I'm gonna forget, it was a social judgment theory and how closely our beliefs are tied to our self image, and therefore, what are we willing to accept and not accept? But I think when it comes to discerning the truth, it comes back to outcomes and what really matters. So you and I, in different scenarios might never agree on what the truth is. And the truth could be objectable Objection, like, there's no doubting that this thing is on the table in front of us right now, you know, whatever it is. But in today's world, we can start debating it from any number. So we don't know I was working with the client this morning, allows us to have a very difficult conversation with the customer who's not happy about some things. And one of the goals he stated in the beginning was to help her understand that some of these risks were there all along, and they only have certain options, because things are out of out of their control. And one of my thoughts was to get away from because that's an argument that you just can't win. And your mind you're right, and you have the logic and the experience, and to some degree, the science behind you that says That's right. But in her mind, she had her expectations, and those were right all along. So you both have your own independent truth. And it's quite likely that we'll never get to an agreement. So instead of trying to force that agreement, what's the outcome we want? Now we've identified three satisfactory outcomes. Let's create a path that's most likely to get us to those outcomes. So in some scenarios, the closer we can get to the truth, the better our physical safety or health, those kinds of things, of course. But even there, we're going to get conflicting reports based on who's funding the research or who wants to believe what and all these other things. So if we're clear on the outcome, we understand what our real priorities are. And to the degree that's possible, we try to overcome our confirmation bias and evaluate potentially contradictory information from a wide variety of sources. Now we can do a better job at believing what we think the truth most likely is, in some scenarios, that matters very much, and other scenarios, it doesn't matter at all. So if to use an interrogation example, did you steal $250,000? Because your family had extensive medical bills that you couldn't pay otherwise? I'm not saying that makes it right. But a bit of an altruistic reason, right? Or did you steal a quarter million dollars? Because you have a gambling problem? By the way, I apologize for saying you? Don't, you know, because you got a gambling problem, and you got bookies taking pictures of your kids coming out of school, right? Okay. Now, as a society, we would typically judge the gambling problem worse than we would judge the medical bill. And if you look at how, and I'm not making any socio political statements here, if you look at how some people view the medical industry at this point, there might be a large percentage of people that say, Well, you know, stealing a quarter million dollars is wrong. But you are a victim of a system. And if you have to take care of your family. So if I'm having a conversation with somebody, and they tell me they did it for medical bills, but they really did it for gambling, hmm. As long as they're being honest about what they did, like they really did steal $250,000. If they're not completely honest about the reason, who cares? Yeah, they're saving face to tell me the truth. I document the truth in enough detail to prove that this really happened. And now we move on. So if I spend that to a business example, a family example, whatever, there are plenty of scenarios where the truth doesn't matter as much as our ego or our pride, or our self image tells us that it does. So this might be a 20 minute answer to a two minute question answer. But I think, understanding what are we really trying to achieve here? What's the outcome? What's important, considering diverse sources to make the best decision, or just realizing that solving the problem and achieving the outcome can still be done successfully without the truth? 

Adam  47:43

So it doesn't matter? Yeah, no, I love that. I mean, that's actually such an important point, I think, for us to think about is that like, because we get stuck on like, oh, the will the fact is x, it's this thing, and it's like, Yeah, but that doesn't actually help us solve the problem, which is how do we work together to do whatever, you know, do something else? And so, or, like, that's a really interesting example to have, like, Yes, I stole this, you know, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna say it's for a different reason. Because it makes me feel better, that it's for my family versus because I have a gambling problem or something. But I mean, it's an interesting, good, concrete idea to think about, it's like, we get so caught up on like, oh, you lied. It's like, well, yeah, but about a reason. But I told you, I did the thing. You know, it's like that I said, I confess the crime is actually the problem or the point, right, not, not the why, necessarily. And so I think that that's a really interesting thing. And so that makes me think the other piece I thought was really interesting, too, is that oftentimes, you know, especially when we're trying to get some information, when talking with someone or kind of get to a particular outcome, we, you know, we said this up top to us, I want to get there as quickly as possible, right. And that can that that's kind of a mistake or trap that we can fall into. And so something else that you kind of talked about in the method that was interesting is like this idea of like responsibility or accountability often comes at the end of a conversation or getting somebody to that is actually oftentimes a more important goal, right? Because they're trying to get to like, you can't, I can't start by accusing you, then you're going to defend and say now, or you're shut down, but like, tell me a little bit about this process to it's like, this is interesting. It's like we actually want to get somebody to accountability, right in the conversation versus like, admitting they did x, y, or z or something, but like understanding, you know, the chain of responsibility, I guess, so. So how does this this kind of work in terms of what we're aiming towards?

Michael  49:15

That's a great question. Do I need my son to confess that he didn't do his reading or didn't clean his room? Or didn't do whatever? Or do I need my son to grow up and understand the importance of responsibility for his actions and commands? Do I need someone to tell me everything they stole and why they did it or why they embezzled the money or whatever? Or do I need them to hopefully, not only tell me the truth, but with any luck use this as an opportunity to make better decisions down the down the road? If this is business, whether it's an employee, a manager or a customer or whatever? Do I need them to tell me all the mistakes they made? Or do I really need them to improve their decision making process moving forward because this is water under the bridge and I can't go back and fix it all. Anyway. So time Time is the enemy of empathy. Anytime we prioritize speed over quality, we know quality suffers. And it's just as true in relationships as it is in production or design or anything else. So if at the start of the conversation, I'm trying to get somebody to say, I'm sorry, I made this mistake, it will never happen again, this is how I'm going to fix it. Like, psychologically, the pile, the weight that I just put on them is insurmountable. Instead, if I can focus on the process, honestly, if I can allow them to give me an excuse, yes, Mike, I'm sorry, I'm behind on this, or I didn't think to tell you that. But here are all the reasons why. To your point earlier about the confession example, they just told me they're behind or they didn't do it. That's the problem I need to solve. Now it's on the table, I can solve it. The excuses the face saving mechanism to get there. Now I can, I'm not going to accept the excuse, oh, great point. But now what I can ask them to tell me more unpack that for me walk me through in more detail. Now, I give myself a learning opportunity. Maybe there's some validity there that I wasn't aware of. And even if there's not, that excuse will unwind itself. And they will likely start to realize that there's other opportunities and other decisions that could have been made. And then this is where I'm gonna really have the impact. Because was this a time management problem? Was this an education problem? Was this an experience problem? Was this a prioritization problem? Was this a fear problem, where they were too scared to call somebody or make a decision or ask for somebody. And now if I can help them solve that problem, more often than not, I can reduce the likelihood that we're gonna have to deal with this again. And I can make them feel more confident bringing this information to me earlier, when I can impact the outcome sooner with less stress. So I'm a card carrying flagwaving heel defending believer and accountability. I'm not trying to take that away. But how we get there is important. If I'm trying to go forward at the beginning of the conversation, I'm making myself feel better, which means I'm almost certainly making you feel worse. If I can allow you to talk through your thought process, your decision making process, even if there's a little bit of BS in the beginning, then I can work towards accountability at the end, now you participate in the conversation, you got to save face, you own at least part of the idea, the outcome, least a far more commitment and far less compliance. Now,

Adam  52:21

I love that that's that's an important important thing to recognize, too, because it is not about like, let me get you to confess an issue right away, because it's like, you know, not going to do that, right? But then it kind of comes back to this other idea of like, what is the experience that that our interlocutor needs to have in order to kind of get us to that outcome place. And I like this too, where it's like, the outcome, that oftentimes the goal, the outcome is not a confession of something, right? But it's more like, what's actually understand what the real problem is. Right? And I love the the point there that you said that it's like, it provides the conversation is a learning environment, right, where we get to, like, learn what the actual problem is, that may be at play, right. And this is, you know, I just forgot to say this before, but like, the idea of like, thinking about anthropological fieldwork to is this idea of like, they're these conversations or learning moments, cuz you don't know how it's necessarily going to go. But you have an idea of where you want to end up in. So this is, this is a great way to kind of see where the the nice alignment there is this idea of that, if we're approaching this from a learner's mindset, and that we have an idea of where we want to go. And ultimately, that is like, How can I empower my interlocutor to then be able to, you know, achieve more responsibility or like, you know, take accountability for something, and then kind of move through it and then not do it again, or like, be able to be empowered to make a better business decision in the future, or whatever it is, you know, I like to do that we have to learn our way through that together in a conversation, right? And so it's like it is intriguing idea, like you're going to competition is not this one way street, then especially again, to bring our power question back from before of just like, it's not about me trying to then either pass judgment or say, hey, you need to do XY and Z, or hey, you need to fess up for doing something. But it's more about how do we structure this environment that we can learn together, about what it is let us say face is part of that process, like understand the issue, and then find our way to a resolution that we can actually help you with and that's I hopefully why we're talking right. So, you know, we can help facilitate that together. I believe that that's like a super important point to recognize, too, that again, isn't this like, goal, run to the end? And like, let's get there or not, right? Because we, you know, we don't live like that. Anyway, if you think of it, you know, people don't like that, you know, as you said, up top too. So, like, that's an important point to recognize that we, you know, the learners mindset is such an important way to do and the other thing with that, too of this, that time is the enemy of empathy, right? It's like, if I'm just trying to rush through something, that I'm not actually going to care how you feel about it, or, you know, get a sense of what's actually happening, and then oftentimes think, then you miss the actual point, right? You miss the way the ability to actually solve that problem, right? Because then I'm not gonna want to talk to you in the future, or I'm not going to feel comfortable approaching with a problem earlier on also, right, it's gonna do the same thing again. So is this interesting idea of like, providing that time is a reflection of wanting to have a learner's mindset, I think, but then also, it's a reflection of empathy, right? So I'm here for you. I'm here to spend this time with us together to figure out x, y and z, right? It's not about Get this done in 15 minutes, you know, I'm not in an HR, like you're in, you're out in five minutes. Let's go. Yeah. You know, I think like my, you know, kind of a celebrity wrap up question because this is a giant question. But but just this idea, of course, like we mentioned ethics once and I'm just curious about this idea of like, if if folks are either concerned, like, Wait, are we are in manipulating conversations, you're like, I don't I don't think we are at all, but just like, how do we make sure that we keep ethics as part of the as part of the process in terms of like, are we ethically you know, nudging a conversation in a way that's going to be, you know, ethically, we're just keeping it in an ethical manner? Right? How do we make sure that we're not taking advantage of people?

Michael  55:35

That's a really important question. Yeah, it is. But I would contend, and I would, especially from your background and your research, I'd love your thoughts on this, that manipulation or manipulate is a neutral term. We manipulate people all day long. And I mean, this would love we've been manipulating each other, as you are trying to ask me questions that you know, your listeners might be interested in. And I'm trying to end my questions in a way that sets you up for the next one. So we, I would like to think that this has been an entirely ethical conversation, like we manipulate people all day long. Now, whether manipulation is ethical or unethical, my belief is based on the intentions that we have, the outcomes we're looking to achieve, and the techniques that we use. So am I using techniques that are beneficial to me that are detrimental to you that are creating a worse outcome for you? Am I Am I lying to you in a way that is unethical, that I'm setting up very clear expectations that I know are never going to be true, that I know are never going to happen in order to get information to create a different outcome. So if we look at our, whatever your moral code is, whatever your ethical code is, whatever legal code, depending on where you are in the world, that you listen to this conversation, those begin to start setting the frameworks. But really, am I working towards an outcome that to some degree, is mutually beneficial, that to some degree puts us both in a better situation than we were at the start of this conversation? Which in family context and in business context, honestly, in anthropol anthropological contexts, is probably more logical, they're easier to see than interrogation content context, because, well, wait a minute, someone's getting fired or someone's going to jail. But there are still ethical and unethical ways to get there. Am I getting truthful confessions? Am I getting false confessions? Am I using threats and promises? Am I using these minutes? So there's, there's still unethical ways to get there. But even to look at like going to Peru and talking to somebody about their keen wives. They're keen, well, fun. Sure, you have goals to learn all this information. But I can imagine when you get there, based on your experience, you can start making some assumptions about who might have the best information or the best access, but you never know. And so and I imagine that there's trust being built over a series of conversations. And the longer you're there, and the more people you talk to, the more introductions you get, and the more people open up over time and all of these things. So at the expense of using the word again, manipulation is taking place there. But the manipulation has done specifically, by showing people respect and trust in interest, and creating points where you're doing what you say you're going to do, and you're given them the experience that they need. So those additional doors will open up for you. And that's, that's the ethics can change based on perception, the ethics can change based on the situation and we all have our own moral or ethical code, okay. Just that concept of lying alone might have caused people to kind of tighten their stomach and look away, and I'm not sure about that. But if we're, if we are working towards achieving the right goals with the right techniques, with the right people, than manipulation can be very positive. Yeah, no,

Adam  59:04

I think I think that's right on. And I agree, too. I mean, it is like, if we have the right kind of intentions behind it, right, and how we're using our techniques and our goals, doesn't make it so that it's interesting point to where it's like, you know, we have to understand when we talk about, like, what are we trying to do in the manipulation? Can be it is a neutral term, right? And that, that's exactly right, where it's if we have a conversation of set that's about building rapport, building trust, you know, built on respect, and helping us all walk away kind of better off than when we started. And that sounds like a good manipulation to me. Right. So we've a more towards that. I think. So I think that that's super important. And also, I guess, yeah, helpful for us to realize, too, that especially, you know, whether doing fieldwork, whether working in a business context, whether we're, you know, talking to our kids, like it is all about this, like how do I then help set a path that is built on respect, and helping people kind of, on one level, say face that they need to but then also like, you know, build a pathway that they feel safe and and they're able to kind of build trust, through the conversation to kind of end up in a place that we are better off. Is, is I think, you know, it's it's a noble goal to where I think that's like I think what the power of the social technology right is like can we can steer the things in a certain direction. So like, I want to say thank you for joining me on the podcast, it's been a blast of a conversation. And I've learned a ton. And so I'm really excited to get the book in the hands of listeners and watchers as well. If folks are looking to get started in this method, try to figure out like what's, you know, how do I figure out even thinking about what this method could even be like? Joe, kind of like a one one way that people can get started as they try to get themselves into this, this new kind of discipline listing method?

Michael  1:00:38

Yeah, the books I've been filling in for the techniques, the books a great way I know you have links to my website, where they can see articles and videos and other experiences and shorter, shorter bursts. But I think it really comes down to clarifying your outcomes and embracing saving face. If you if you just want to become a better listener, you've got to give yourself a reason to care. Because if you don't care, you're not going to listen. So I'm not telling you to necessarily care about the person because maybe you got to talk to somebody that you just don't like, well, welcome to being alive in our world today, right. But if I can prioritize an outcome to this conversation, now I can care enough about the outcome to listen. And if I care enough about the outcome, I can have this person to save face during the interaction. So by listening for those opportunities to uncover hidden value, save face, give people what they need to experience selfishly, I can still achieve what I need to achieve.

Adam  1:01:33

Awesome, cool. Well, Mike, thanks so much. And thanks for doing the good work, and I can't wait to see where it goes next. 

Michael  1:01:39

I appreciate you having a wonderful conversation. 

Adam  1:01:43

Thank you very much as our time here winds down on This Anthro Life with the fascinating insights of Michael Reddington. On a wrap up with some gratitude and reflection. Today, we've journeyed through the intricacies of communication, the subtle art of interrogation and the ethics of conversation. Michael has unraveled for us why people lie and the importance of creating a space where truth can emerge without the need for confrontation. This is something I definitely did not know. Before we get into this episode. I want to give a round of thanks to Michael for his sharing his expertise and generosity in today's episode. Now, as listeners and audience members and watchers, I encourage you to think about the concepts that we've discovered and how they can be woven into the fabric of your daily interactions. You know, think about a recent conversation Did you feel like you truly understood the other person's perspective? Did you both emerge from the exchange, feeling heard and respected? You know, in these turbulent times filled with misinformation and guarded dialogues, it is crucial to ask ourselves, are we fostering trust in truth in our conversations, or are we merely engaging in the entitlement trap of an assumed understanding? So a huge thank you to all my dear audience and friends for your unwavering support. You know, if you're eager to deep dive into Michael's work, you can check out his book on the disciplined listing method, which is linked over in the tail bookstore, and it's an invaluable resource. And again, if you purchase anything off of the to bookstore it will support independent bookstores, the author and the podcast so it's a win win win helps all independent producers and of course don't forget to share your stories and questions with us. You know, you engage on the Enter curious substack blog as we put up blog posts you can even write on there if you want shoot me a message if that's interesting to you in the conversation will always continue to be on the airwaves on substack and social. So lastly, spread the word about TDL by sharing this episode, if you know someone that would love it, go ahead and share it. You know, if you haven't already hit that subscribe button to embark on future anthological adventures. And until next time, stay curious and keep listening with intent. I'm your host Adam gamewell and this is this Anthro life