CB LIVE! Courage to Leap & Lead with Derek & Laura Cadrera - part 2, Episode 116

You've got courage to leap, courage to lead.

Be brave and be bold.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

Let it roar.

Welcome to the Courage to Leap and Lead podcast, where each of our guests share the stories of courage that helped them become powerful leaders. Before we start today's show, please remember to visit courageconsulting.com where you can find all of the episodes and lots of other excellent resources. That's courageconsulting.com. Now, here's your host, Leadership Courage Coach CB Bowman.

You can even take it in terms of your childhood, how that makes you into your adulthood as a massive Yeah. And, um, you know, people say, well, what's the difference? Here's one for you. With people who have had the same background and one turns out bad and one turns out good, same background. But listening to you guys, there was something in the system that triggered a difference.

Yeah, from the— from us, again, from a scientific sort of system standpoint, people are made up of kind of 2 things: their gene type, their genes, and their— and then their life experience or phenotype. And, um, and so when you say 2 people had the exact same experience, that's just not what happened, right? Either— either you could take 2 twins And so they have the same genotype, and maybe they had the exact same experiences. And usually in those cases, they, they turn out very similar. Um, but when we separate twins at birth, for example, we can get very different outcomes because they are exposed to very different, uh, phenotypical things, meaning environment, experience.

Mm-hmm.

And, um, And so, you know, it's just not a— it's not very accurate to say, oh, just because they grew up in the same neighborhood or they grew up on the same street that they had the same experience.

Or even in the same house.

Or even in the same house. I mean, you know, you could have had a single discussion with a single person, your PE coach or a teacher or somebody outside the house, and that discussion at the right moment when you were ready to hear it could change your whole life in terms of the direction that it takes you, whereas the— your twin might not have had that discussion, for example. And, um, you know, so I would be very careful about saying that, you know, 2 people are exactly the same because—

Yeah, yeah, but we hear it all the time, right? And it stuns people about, well, why did they change? What, why was there such a difference? You know, and, and you don't see it. Yeah, exactly. So now going back to the, your process, are there steps? So we want to improve our ability to use systems thinking in our lives.

Yeah.

Can you identify the steps steps that we would need to take for each set of— help me out here— each set of happenings?

Well, to get better at it. Yeah.

I mean, this is sort of the crux of Derek's originating research and then the stuff that we've been working on subsequently as colleagues and academics. But really, there are 4 things that you can do. in every moment when you're thinking about anything that will automatically make you more systemic in the way you're thinking about things. So one of the things is to challenge the, the way that we're distinguishing things, the boundary between what we think something is and maybe what it isn't, right? So, you know, and that could be for anything, you know, like how do we define courage? Well, that's a distinction. Like, what do we think of as courage? How does it differ from microcourage? Like, that's a distinction we're making. So you want to make sure that you're paying attention to the boundaries you're drawing and where your concepts begin and end. And then we also always want to think about, you know, understand concepts better by looking at their, their parts, right? So we distinguish things, we break them down into their parts. Like, there are parts to microcourage that are different from macrocourage, right? We want to think about And always ask ourselves how things we're thinking about could be related. If they are related, we want to really dive into those relationships as deeply as we do the things that we're relating, right? So, for example, if I'm looking at microcourage and systems thinking, and I'm supposing that there's a relationship between them, then I want to name that relationship. I want to think about what are the parts of how they're related. Well, We've identified some, right? Self-awareness is what happens through systems thinking, which actually requires some amount of microcourage to challenge yourself. So we want to sort of think about it that way. And then the last thing we talk a lot about is—

Wait, I have 2. Challenge the way we think. Identify how they're related, how parts are related. Number 3?

So the first one is just how are we distinguishing things? How are we naming them, thinking about them? How do we—

we call that distinction making.

Yeah.

Or distinctions.

The second thing is thinking about how things are organized and connected and in, you know, exist in part-whole systems.

So that's— we call that systems, parts, whole.

The third thing is relationships. Are there relationships that we're not seeing, or, you know, relationships that are very important for us to make to understand whatever it is we're thinking about? So, it's sanction-system relationship. And the final thing is perspectives, right? Challenging our own perspectives on things, looking for other perspectives on things, not just our own, to understand things more deeply, taking multiple perspectives on the things we're thinking about.

Yeah.

Just like, you know, when you're trying to have a different experience with a colonoscopy or a dentist, well, you get more other people's perspectives on that. You look at dentistry from a different perspective, not just, for example, functionality, but like, how does it make you feel? Well, that's a perspective. If I'm fearful, then I have to go and I have to deal with that. I have to reconcile that. So it's really thinking about the distinctions we're making, looking at part-whole systems, how things are organized, relating things when we can, understanding relationships as deeply as we do the things themselves.

And just as a way to remember that, we call that DSRP.

Yeah.

So it's distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives.

And here's the thing. If you are constantly doing those 4 things I just listed, sort of at the micro, as you're thinking about things, over time, you are becoming a systems thinker. You are thinking systemically.

So, um, Laura, Explain to me the relationships, because if, if we're looking at relationships that we're not seeing, how do we get to see them?

That's a good question.

Great question.

So what we can, what we can do is we, we know that anytime I'm sort of thinking about something, I'm sort of building a mental model about it, just like you built a mental model about your medical procedure, right? And so I can think about all the parts of that procedure. Right? I can list out all the parts of that procedure, but then I need to know, and I need to challenge myself to say, well, how are these things related as a process? Right? So those parts happen in an order. So those are relationships between them based on sequence. And then I need to think about how is my understanding of this process related to my fear, right? So it's just opposing. It's, it's, it's understanding that There's always the potential for things to have relationships that I'm not seeing, knowing that there are webs of causality, that I'm not always looking for just these A to B leads to C kind of relationships, but that there's a web of stuff coming together that's causing me to think something and, and sort of breaking it down in that way and thinking about it a little more deeply, right? Like the relationship between you and me.

Yeah. Oh, do tell.

You put a little box in between us, it's made of lots of stuff, right? And so understand that, then you understand the system that is Derek and Laura better, because you know Derek, you know Laura, and you see how they relate, you know.

Gotcha, gotcha. And it's clear to me throughout emails that you're very protective of Derek.

Me? I'm just a mama bear of everybody.

I'm protective. Yeah, okay, we'll go with that. That's probably why you've been married for so long.

Expanding my mental model. That's good. Yes.

Okay. So is it hard for us in everyday life and everything we do to think about DSRP, or should we just use that for the big things that we're faced with?

That's a great question, actually.

No, I'm always afraid when people say that's a great question, they're really saying that's a stupid question.

No, that's really good. That's actually, I, I don't say that when it's not a great question.

It doesn't.

It is actually a really important question because these DSRP patterns— distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives— are actually the way that our brain works naturally. So you've been making distinctions since you were a baby. You've been organizing things into part-wholes since you were a baby. You've been relating things since you were a baby. And you've been taking perspectives Since you were a baby, all of us. But the key to systems thinking is realizing, being aware that that's what we're doing.

Yeah.

So the way that I think of it is you don't really get to choose whether you do DSRP all the time. What you choose is whether you're aware of what you're doing, because you're going to be doing it no matter what.

You are doing it.

You are doing it all the time.

Right.

And you— and because of that, it applies— like, our book is— the subtitle is Everyday and Wicked Problems. So I can, you know, I'm systems thinking about how I feed 3 hungry dogs all at the same time in my kitchen. I'm systems thinking about, you know, the next big research project I'm doing with graduate students that has full funding. You know, all of those things are systems. And, you know, I'm thinking about—

Mm-hmm.

and challenging how, how I organize the system of feeding my dog in steps. I'm thinking about how I organize my research, you know, in certain ways. It's all there.

Or even how to increase in micro moments.

Yeah.

Micro courage.

Exactly.

Right?

Like you can— Wait, wait, Laura, did you say 300 dogs?

3 hungry dogs.

3 hungry dogs.

Oh, I see. Whoa, okay, wait, okay, I got it.

That's a different mental model. 300.

Exactly. My mind went to what? I can't handle 2.

I can't imagine 300 dogs and I don't want 300 dogs.

Okay, so go. Yeah. So this awareness. Okay, I'm buying this. Now, Let me throw in an element, the fear. Yeah, fear closes. It's my theory that fear closes awareness down.

Yes. So what you need to do with any emotion, including fear, is, is understand that there's a mental model that precedes the emotion. So in other words, if you're afraid, There's some subconscious mental model that, that you believe is true that causes the fear. And what you need to do is say to yourself, what is that mental model I'm having? And is it in alignment with reality? Because it might be a very justified fear. Fear is very important. You don't want to ignore fear.

Right.

If it's a justified fear, And if it's in alignment with the real situation that you're in, then fear is a warning for yourself, right? But if, but if it's out of alignment with reality, then it's an unjustified fear that's prohibitive, that's prohibiting you from doing something that you really need to do, like a microcourage or something like that.

And then you can use the DSRP.

Yeah. So you want to say, well, what is the What are the distinctions I'm making that's leading to the fear? Uh, I'm in danger, or it's gonna hurt. Those are distinctions. Well, is it going to hurt? Just question the distinction. Will it hurt? Does it have to hurt? Does dentistry have to hurt? Does it hurt everybody, or does it just hurt me? Does it hurt all my teeth or just these teeth? You know, those are distinctions that I'm making. So that's an example. Because that's what's producing the fear. The fear is I'm going to go and it's going to hurt and I don't want it to hurt.

Yeah. And we often entangle what we think with what we feel, right? Yes. So they're separate. You know, there's a thought. That thought is what causes that emotion. So you can't actually just turn off your emotions, but you can change your thoughts, the thoughts that are leading to that emotion. So that's where you want to— like I call the unit of analysis, the place you need to focus is What is the mental model that is making me terrified to go and have my colonoscopy? What are the things I'm thinking that are causing me to feel this? And then challenge those thoughts.

And they might not always be thoughts that are like right in the front of your mind. They might be kind of subconscious. So when you have fear, you just assume that there's a mental model behind it. What it— what is causing the fear? What's leading to the fear?

Okay, let's take this broader and make it contemporary, sadly contemporary.

Yeah.

Shootings in schools.

Yes.

We can look at this as to what's causing the uprise, and then there is the fear. I would have incredible fear of sending my child to school these days.

Yes.

So I would want to homeschool them. But then I would have the realization that homeschooling may not provide them with the social interactions that they need. Yes, sure. How do we break all that down using systems thinking? Yeah.

Yeah, so the, the fear is, the fear is based on a mental model. The mental model is that this is happening You know, when we see it on the TV, it's happening more and more, and there's no doubt that it's happening more and more. Um, but specifically to the fear that you're talking about, about sending your child or not sending your child, I think you would have to take different perspectives. So yes, there is the one perspective, which is happening more and more, but there's another perspective, which is the, the statistical probability. that it's going to happen to your child is still extremely low, right? So you don't— you want to balance those 2 things together. Um, and, and then you would have to do a risk kind of cost-benefit analysis like you were kind of starting to do of, well, if the risk is very low and maybe there's things I can do to, you know, make it even lower. And, uh, at the same time, they're not going to lose the social aspect of school and the promoting aspect of school and things like that. So, um, you know, that's a, that's a difficult problem. And, you know, the same systems thinking— we're spending the whole year looking at the research on how to solve that actual problem so that we can bring down school shootings. And one of the things that we see in the research is that it's not a single cause. It's a web of causality.

Yeah.

And the problem is we don't really have the political will to think in a systemic way. We just want to— one side wants to say it's one thing and one thing only. The other side wants to say it's one thing and one thing only. And really, it's a bunch of things that are coalescing what we call in systems— in the systems field, A web of causality. Yeah, there's a bunch of things that are coalescing to create this, this epidemic of shootings that we have. And if we don't deal with all those different webs of causality, then we probably aren't going to solve that problem.

Right.

So when you look at a web, there is a center point. There is a bullet hole.

In a spider's web, but not in a, like, a network web.

Okay, not all webs—

not all, not all webs are like spider webs. A bunch of webs can be decentralized, and most natural systems are decentralized. They're not centralized, um, just like the internet is not centralized. It's a decentralized web. But you're right that the one we're most familiar with is the spider web, and it seems like everything's going to the center.

So if it's decentralized, how can you solve it as one problem, or can you?

You can solve it as one problem, but you have to solve multiple causes. You have to, you have to create policy or change at the micro level. Believe it or not, this is where micro and macro— these school shootings are macro-scale phenomena. They're what's in science called emergent properties. They're emerging out of the system. And they're emerging as a result of many, many, many micro choices on the ground that have to do with not just the micro choices of the shooter, but the micro choices of the community, the micro choices of people with or without guns, the micro choices of—

Yes.

The geology, the geography, and then, you know, all the different things that are going on. And if you don't solve There's a great project called the Violence Project that's actually done kind of systemic research on this, and they have— I forget how many— about 21—

21 recommendations.

21 recommendations for how to solve this, and they really cut across the spectrum in terms of how to systemically think about and solve the issue of school shootings.

But the thing about it is, There's 20. So I don't want it to— I don't want people to be listening to this and think, oh, it's too many things, it's not solvable because you have to do 21 different things. That's not, that's not the case. The case is you have to, first of all, you have to challenge this predisposition to binary thinking that it's only one thing, like get rid of the guns, or like people are saying guns or mental health. Well, it's got— it's guns and mental health to a degree.

Yeah.

Of both. It's not an extreme on either.

It's not either or, it's and both, right?

And so when we say webs of causality, it's, it's more like figuring out a set of things combined that will have the biggest effect, right? A multi-pronged approach, but not, not untenably like 21 things have to all happen. You know, it's just being a little bit less—

Um, sort of like maybe take the top 3 and Yeah, and work together, get them to work together.

The relationship—

Well, not everybody has to do the same thing. So these 21 things are spread across society. Not everybody has to do all 21. Certain places at the federal level have to do 3 or 4 of them, and then local level has to do 3 or 4 of them, and then state level has to do 3 or 4 of them. So it's not like every single person has to do 21 things.

No. Um, so let me ask you, I guess this might be a political question. So many moms— let's just take the United States— so many moms, and I don't want to leave out the dads, are concerned about the well-being of their children. How come there is not a stronger push for the, like, the violence projects? Why are we not just getting this done?

Because we don't— we've lost touch with the power of science, and we, and, uh, and, and we don't follow the science.

I, I think it's that.

And it's gotten manipulated politically, the whole thing on science. COVID kind of changed things with the way we don't trust science. We, you know, the way we don't trust science. And I mean, the science that got us to the moon, the science that made us, you know, what we are in the Industrial Revolution and all those kinds of things. That science exists, but we just— we've gotten into this very opinionated, political, bipartisan, binary way of thinking.

But I think it's also— I think it's a mismatch. I think it's a mismatch between like, yeah, sure, we're speaking and we have these big systemic problems that are webs of causality, but you're trying to solve them in a system that doesn't see them that way, right? Right? The system that sees them as binary, the system that in many ways benefits by causing us to think or trying to cause us to think that way. And it's more about changing that sort of the way that we think about them to really have an effect rather than, you know, I also think a lot of people, I mean, my opinion, this is just my opinion, is I think a lot of people, have felt, um, I don't want to say powerless, but the power of one has been sort of mitigated, I think.

Yes, I totally agree.

Right. And, and the truth is there's enough of us, right? There's enough of us on this, on this planet, in this country that probably share our views. But the system is set up to highlight the two ends and highlight the extremes rather than find the commonalities with which we would have the majority and be able to move forward. So I think it's, it's ironically, it's a paradigm or a mental model shift that we need to start with, right, to really get some, some footing into it. I mean, and we've got a great group of really sharp graduate students this year who are working on violence, mass killings, as you know, because we always choose what is perceived to be an intractable and really urgent issue to work on, and we take all of our tools of systems thinking and just Really get into it, and we're gonna try to interview the guys and the— actually, the researchers from the Violence Project.

But the problem isn't that we don't know what to do. That's the most important part. The problem— we do. We collectively know what to do. The problem is that we collectively don't have a mental model that we know what to do. Like, the data is very clear.

Yeah.

If you, if you, if you follow the data and you follow the science, it tells you what to do. And the Violence Project has done a great job of figuring that out.

Yeah.

What to do. But we don't think that anyone knows what to do. And so one group says that we need to do this one thing, and another group says we need to do this one thing. And then those 2 groups make a lot of hay out of bashing heads with each other, and then nothing else gets accomplished in terms of And everybody— us changing our mental model to say, you know what, we actually do know what to do. The question is not, do we know what to do? The question is, do we have the will to do it?

Is there a system out there that could make all of the thinking cohesive, collaborative, and correct? But what— I don't know what correct is, but so that it supports solve— I know what correct is, solving the problem.

Yeah, solving the problem.

Aligning with the reality.

That's a, that's a very complex question, but, but I'll give it a shot. I think that we are moving— there's a thing in, in systems that it's called a phase transition. A phase transition is literally when, like, you, you know about phase transitions, so don't, don't be afraid of it. When, when water turns into steam, the in-between is the phase transition as it transitions into being steam or when it transitions into being ice. So we're all very familiar with phase transitions, but during phase transitions, things are very chaotic.

Yes.

Because the molecules are doing lots of different stuff. They're usually dancing faster or dancing slower or something like that. And I think we are in an informational phase transition. We are moving from a culture that got all of its information from 3 sources once a night to a culture that gets its information from a billion sources 24/7. And we're in a phase transition where it's not entirely clear where valid, good, reliable information is going to come from. And, and I think we will figure it out.

Yeah.

But it's going to be chaotic while we transition. And we will figure it out because humans need valid information. They, they can't— we can't survive in this world where nothing makes any sense and nothing is valid and facts, you know, facts are crazy and they don't exist. And like, that's not— none of us want to live in that world where there are no facts.

Fake news, right? Fake news.

So we would figure it out, and I think we're in the process of figuring it out, but it's a very difficult problem and it's very systemic.

How, how long do you think it's going to take us to get through this phase transition?

I would, I would say another 8 years.

I think it's going to be faster.

You think it's going to be faster?

I think so, but that's not based on any data other than that. And it's not even wishful thinking. I think that at some point, like, I think 4 years ago we thought we were— that was the worst of it. And then 2 years we thought it was the worst of it and blah, blah, blah, blah. And I think, you know, actually in a weird way, we have gotten through some of the worst of it if you look at where we are now.

And, you know, well, yeah, I'm talking about like for this—

Wait, wait, I, I wanna—

Yeah, go ahead.

I wanna talk to Laura. Um, um, if we take the theory that we've gotten through the worst of it, I'm going to challenge that a bit because every time I open the paper, there is a new source of data and people challenging data, challenging data. I mean, just as simple as the phenomenon that happened with Clubhouse, right? Um, and now it's like bird news.

Yeah.

Right. The minute they opened it up to everybody, it became bird news. When it was exclusive to Apple users, it was hot. So how do we get through this transition phase when we're constantly being bombarded with new stuff to give us news and information?

Well, so I would, I would say a couple of things. First of all, I think that people were exhausted and were very frustrated with what you were talking about with the absence of facts and needing some grounding in reality and in facts. So that I think my sense is that people are now taking the onus upon themselves to challenge what their beliefs are as they're being fed to them, right? To not just accept things at face value that I think was done previously. I also think that I'm encouraged by— I mean, you know, I'm teaching the public policy school at Cornell, so I'm encouraged by the changes in voter registration. I'm encouraged by the pushback to the proposed amendments to voter rights and things that people— and I'm encouraged by seeing now in different, different ways the, the election results seem to be actually people expressing their own opinion because there's so much more diverse. There's more diversity in how people are voting. Things are not being entirely predicted by polls anymore, or past patterns. I think people felt that their own autonomy and their own choices were being threatened in the last however many years you want to say. It's probably much more than 4 years. It's probably longer than 4 years. And I think that we've had sort of a resurgence of, in a weird way, agency and self and responsibility for outcomes. I mean, I think that power of one thing is— Starting to come back.

I think COVID did a lot for that because it gave people time to pause and think, you know, face mortality and, and all those things that go along with dealing with reality.

Well, and I also think COVID reminded us that we need each other. Yes, that we need to be connected in meaningful ways to other people. We have to figure out a way to coexist. We can't— we don't want to be isolated. People suffered horribly when they were isolated. And I think those things— that's why I'm sorry, it could be 8 years, but I'm hoping that these things that we've suffered through will get some of the lessons faster.

Yeah.

Well, but, but if you're talking about phase transition, when you come out of that period, does that mean that we're going to be a bunch of Robots that all think alike?

No, it just means that you'll have a more stable period. Yeah, you'll have a period where everything isn't unstable, right? A phase transition is just that there's a lack of stability, there's, there's chaos, and then, and then that lack of stability will crystallize into something a little bit more stable. And I think part of the problem is that we've shifted our media to social media.

Yeah.

And the structure, structurally speaking, I don't mean informationally, but structurally speaking, we haven't actually innovated or discovered a social media structure that will help us validate.

Yeah, that's a good point.

And I think we're gonna get better at it because I think there's a huge profit incentive to get better at it because I think everybody needs it so they don't feel crazy all the time.

Yes.

Right. So somebody's going to solve that, that structural problem in social media. That's what I'm talking about for 8 years.

Yeah.

This may seem a little off-centered of our conversation, but I want to go back to something you said about confusion. Because it's in, it's in, as they used to say, the devil's in the detail or something like that. When I was in Cuba, I literally had culture shock walking into the stores, walking into stores and seeing nothing on shelves.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I thought that never happened in the United States. So I'm so glad to live in the United States. Well, fast forward to COVID.

It happened.

I walked into stores and saw nothing on the shelves. I got very confused. It was like terra firma, there's no such thing as that anymore. I just, I stood there saying, wait, am I still in the United States? That's how violent it hit me. It just threw me back to Cuba.

Yeah.

Now fast forward again, Costco. My store, empty shelves of things recently. I'm like, got really scared, and I thought, are we gonna have this Cuba-like experience again? And everybody kept saying, because I have buddies there, it's the warehouse, it's labor, it's— and I understood all that. So I was settling into that. Getting used to maybe not seeing my favorite products. Fast forward Christmas, I walked into Costco. It was so filled with products you couldn't even get in the door practically. So now my reality is shaken again.

Yeah.

So I am so confused. How did this happen? Like this in a New York minute, all of a sudden the problems disappeared. Then it becomes suspicious.

Was this—

was this a whole vendor trick or something to say, well, now, okay, you saved your money, you have all your money now to spend for the holidays, bye-bye-bye-bye? What's— where do we go? You can't develop a system around that. That equals the confusion.

Right. That's right.

Well, but you could—

you could—

couldn't you say that you could, uh, you could predict that the system is going to be changing based on a bunch of other factors and understand it in a— in not just your local experience, but in the wider context, right? Wouldn't you?

Yeah, I mean, I think— I think there's a— there's an old story about, um, there's a guy named Lyell who, uh, who was very famous in geology prior to Darwin. And during that period, people actually believed— before this guy named Lyell, who was a geologist— they believed when they saw something like the Grand Canyon, that in order to form the Grand Canyon, there must have been a huge tidal wave of some kind, right? In other words, big effect, Big cause, right?

Mm-hmm.

Something deep like the Grand Canyon requires a lot of water all at once because it has to be as big— the cause has to be as big. And Lyell came along and said, wait a minute, but what if this just happened incrementally, gradually, just a little bit of water for a long time? Not one huge tidal wave, but a little bit of water for a long time, which is actually how the Grand Canyon formed.

No way. Wait, no, no, now you're shaking me again because I believed— maybe I'm watching too much of the History Channel or something— I believed it was filled with water. And then— no? Okay.

Well, no, I did— I didn't hear. Go ahead and finish.

No, and so at some point there was this big shift, seismic shift in the earth, and then the water went away and we were left with this big big deep canyon that has ridges in it. We could see ages and all that stuff.

No, no. At one time it would have been a flat plateau, and then a river cut into the plateau over time. Yes, just kept cutting and cutting and cutting for thousands of years, and that's how the Grand Canyon formed. So again, when you see these emergent properties, these— the, the system When you see stuff is on the shelves, stuff is not on the shelves, stuff is on the shelves, stuff is not on the shelves. Those are the big effects, and they don't always have big causes.

Yeah.

But we— our mental model is that there are big causes to those big effects.

But they're—

but it's probably more likely that those big effects are the result of hundreds of millions of individual people having mental models and making tiny little decisions about their life. Some of those people run factories, some of those people run trucking outfits, some of those people are buying things or selling things, and they're making little tiny decisions based on what their mental model of the world is. And those decisions are kind of adding up in a statistical Yeah. And the shelves are full, the shelves are not full, the shelves are full, the shelves are not full, based on all these little decisions. It's not one massive cause.

Okay, so I don't want to talk to you anymore because then my theories about the pyramids and Stonehenge and they're all going to be Easter Island are going to be wiped out. I'll be out of my little dream world.

But then you'd be in reality.

I'm not sure I want that reality. Oh my gosh, this has been such an amazing conversation. I really appreciate it. I just want to come to your house, sit in the middle of the living room, and listen to you guys talk. Be a sponge.

You'd be welcome anytime. We would love to have you.

Oh, thank you. Do you, do Do you envision having a podcast at some time?

Yes, maybe.

People keep encouraging us to do it, and we've resisted, but we're told that it would be a good thing to do.

I'll help you.

Really?

I will learn so much. What a great opportunity.

Yeah.

She'll help us. We would love to get some tips on how to do it, because that's—

Anytime.

Not our skill set.

I'll tell you this, if we do it, you'll have to be our first guest.

Hey, my pleasure, my pleasure. It would be awesome. Yeah, I would, I would love that because there's just so much that we don't understand, and we're in a period now of instead of systems thinking it's that, um, you know, it's their fault, it's that way, it's this way. And it's really getting to the point of exhaustion.

Yeah.

For people, I'm watching energy being zapped from people and trying just to figure out basics.

Yes. Well, let me give you some basics. so that people don't feel exhausted about microcourage. From neuroscience and cognitive science, what we know is the mind and the body will— are incredibly adaptive. They will adapt to whatever challenge you throw at them.

Mm-hmm.

And so if you wake up and you say, I don't think I can do this. If you can find the courage, kind of based on what we talked about overcoming your fears, right? I don't even think of it as overcoming your fears, but just deconstructing the mental model that leads to your fears.

Yeah.

And then just do a little thing, just a little thing. Your mind and your body will adapt to you doing that little challenge. And then you do a little another one and your mind will adapt again. And over time, you will just become bigger and bigger at microcourage. Like, you'll get better at microcourage and you'll be able to do more things, bigger things. And so I think it really is about the micro.

Yes.

It doesn't have to be a big thing. Yeah, it can be the smallest thing in the whole world. And if you just challenge yourself to do that one thing, um, it's true, you know, if you're getting up to go to the gym and you're like, I don't want to go to the gym, just go, okay, I don't have to go work out. I'm just gonna go. I'm just literally going to go to the gym, but I'm not going to work out. And then you get to the gym, and that's one little microcurrent. And then you go, I'm just gonna go walk. And then you walk. Oh, I'm gonna— now I'm gonna lift. And then pretty soon you're lifting weights and you're doing all kinds of HIITs and SITs and all this kind of stuff. And, and, um, you know, it works.

Yeah, you just gave me the courage to get to the gym.

Yeah, because what we do is we build up this mental model. I've got to go to the gym, then I got to do an hour, an hour, and it's going to be painful. And don't do that. Just say, I'm just literally going to go, literally go to the gym, but I'm not going to do anything. I'm just going to get there. And then once you're there, you're like, oh, I'm literally just going to get on the treadmill or the walker or something easy. And then pretty soon you're into it. Because your body takes over.

And well, that's also how you think about it. Like, so for example, I always tell myself, well, that's one step bigger than zero. Yeah, right. Yes, one step more than zero. I've done something that's not nothing. And then that encourages you, and then it builds up, you know. It's like a lot of it is, you know, our own— how we talk to ourselves and how we think about things, you know. We have to sort of Mental models. Be our best advocates.

Yeah.

Because we're all amazing.

That's, that's just a perfect segue to end because I am now going to take one step more than zero to get to the gym.

Of course. Yeah.

It's all it is to get to working out and I need to do that. So I appreciate that so much. Well, audience, um, you know, I don't know what to say. I always have the most amazing guests on, and they always leave me so much wiser. Some of them destroy my image of the Grand Canyon, but we won't—

Hmm.

I was thinking about Jonah and the whales, and I had this whole image going on. But, um, in all seriousness, I am so, so excited that you came on. And you know what? It's proven too that scientists and researchers are quite fascinating.

That's good. That's a good step.

If we did something for science, that would be good.

We need to communicate more with you guys. The average person meets the scientist. And I think that's the name of your podcast. Meet the Cider.

Meet the Cider.

Well, everyone enjoy the rest of your day. Whatever you're doing, uh, just keep a smile on your face and remember there are systems that solve everything. This is CB and I will see you next week. Bye now.