How to Improve Your Validation Skills with Andy Prisco

Hello, my friends, and welcome to another exciting episode of Negotiate Anything. This show is produced by the American Negotiation Institute, and with over 5 million downloads and listeners in over 180 countries, listeners just like you have made this the number one negotiation podcast in the world. Hi, my name is Kwame Christian, and I am the founder and CEO of the American Negotiation Institute here at A&I. We believe that the best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations, and we are passionate about providing you with the best content that will help you to make your difficult conversations easier, both at work and at home. Lastly, I want to remind you that we offer consulting and conduct trainings both virtually and in person all around the world. Our focus is in three main areas. First, negotiation and conflict resolution. Second, leadership. And lastly, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Check the link in the description below to learn more about how we could work with you and your team. And now, without further ado, let's jump into the interview.

Andy, Good to have you back.

Kwame. It's. It's a pleasure. I. I enjoy watching you and the growth and the positive influence that you're having in so many communities with the skills that we cherish and the things that are important to us. So it's a real honor to be able to come back and talk with you.

Oh, I appreciate it, man. That means a lot. And it means a lot coming from you especially, too, because you're doing incredible work. You've been on the show a couple times, but let's reintroduce you to some of the new listeners.

Certainly. My name is Andy Prisco. I've done some things a CEO told me a long time ago, Andy, if you're lucky, you get a couple of peaks in your career. And I feel very blessed to have had a couple. I started what has become known as the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team program in a very large care and services system system in the Pacific Northwest. With that program came the development of training that helps people use their words in managing the presentation of anger, aggression, and violence in human beings. The domain that I come from particularly is psychiatric care and services. So it's people who are living with serious mental illness and disabilities. But the skills that we use to manage those events in that domain have utility in just about every domain. Public safety, behavioral health, workplace violence prevention. And since that started in 2013, I've been on an arc with a group of people carrying our message to as many domains as we can. So we've been working very hard at bringing standards and accreditation to the things that you and I cherish so much, Kwame. And we're trying to do it in places where there are very serious problems, particularly people who are justice impacted, people who find themselves in voluntary detention. This includes correction systems, jail systems, involuntary psychiatric systems, and juvenile justice particularly. A lot of transformation going on in our juvenile justice domain today. And I happen to be coming to you from a hotel where I'm on a job with a large juvenile justice system right now, trying to bring change. So to be able to talk about this, particularly at this time is really fun for me. So thank you.

Absolutely. The work you do is incredible. And when you think about the difficult conversations that just everyday people have day to day, we experience anger, emotions, things like that. We have to work through the anger and emotions and challenges of others, other folks. But the world that you're coming with, it's a different level.

Yeah, it's a necessary skill. You gotta have it in order to get through the workday without having a lunch tray thrown at you or potentially being assaulted or some other kind of unfortunate thing. The skills particularly, you know, the ones you want to talk about today are, are almost like the, the bread and butter that have to be utilized. And it's so accepted within these domains that you got to do this because the stakes are so high. The people that don't do this wind up either leaving the job or voluntarily or involuntarily because of some event. The people who seem to do well long term in the care and services domain are particularly good at these things. Naturally, they recognize pretty quickly if I don't get good at this real quick, if I don't give someone the sense that I'm paying attention and I really hear them and we're going to explore options together. If I don't do that first, I could might wind up with that object getting thrown at me or I might wind up having to manage some kind of complaint against me. So when the stakes are high, validation becomes clear as a necessary tool.

Absolutely. And let's, let's dig deeply into validation because I believe it's something that is absolutely critical in all of our difficult conversations. And when I think about the trainings that I've done in different parts of the country, it is rare that I've found people that are even aware of what validation means in the context of a difficult conversation. So let's just start with validation 101. What does that mean?

I love the way that you articulated the primer for this. I think you're right. The term has different definitions for different people, as you and I know, as devotees of this work. What we encounter as educators and students is a very vast lexicon. Lots of words to describe the same principle. Lots of principles. A beneficiary of one word. So there's varying definition. And people like you and me and Julia and Jack and Gary and all of us are trying to make sense of it. My personal opinion is that Dr. Marsha Linehan of Dialectic Behavior Therapy has provided the most comprehensive understanding of the validation word. And she puts it in six levels. I'll quickly rattle them off. Listening and observing. That's the use of paralanguage and a nonverbal affect that confers the idea that you're really being heard. Like, I'm looking right at you and I'm saying, level two, accurate reflection of what has been stated. What do we call that in other areas? Reflection statements mirroring. Level three, articulating the unverbalized, the emotional labeling. So somebody presents a description of their frustration, a description of their anger without using a feeling word. And then we respond with what's not verbalized. So it sounds like you're really angry that he or she did this to you. And what we also know now, and a lot of people are out there talking about it, is that for whatever reason, emotional labeling articulating the unverbalized instigates the cognitive process known as reappraisal. And we don't know necessarily why, but we know it exists. Reappraisal seems to have neurological linkage to the parasympathetic nervous system. So what happens when we emotionally label is we neurobiologically influence someone to calm down. It reduces negative emotion. Level four is validating in terms of history. Well, based on what you've gone through, recognizing all these things that happened to you, it makes perfect sense that you want to bludgeon this other person with a chair. Level 5, validating in terms of current circumstances. Well, if what was happening to you right now was happening to me, I think that I would find what your approach is perfectly reasonable or not. And then level six, of course, is radical genuineness, where someone like the great Krishnamurti would refer to that level as deep shared experience where two human beings are communing. We're really understanding the fear, loss, shame, other things that the person is presenting. And, you know, a guy like you, Kwame, whenever I watch you or learn from you, you will get right to level six. Bang. You'll start there, and you're in it, and you're doing that in the Boardroom, you're doing that in your interpersonal interactions with your kids. It has enormous power. The radical genuineness level of validation, where one must be cautious with that is if someone is presenting psychiatric symptoms and they think that nanobots are coming from the shower water. And we don't want to necessarily radically, genuinely connect about that because what we want to do is bring in an interpersonal interaction, that moment into reality. So you're always safe with levels one and two. It's really hard to screw up listening and observing and accurately reflecting what has been stated, but you can render even more influence and deeper connection on your way to radical genuineness. With that just comes some risk, and it depends on who you're doing it with.

Wow.

Okay, Andy.

This is exceptional listeners. This is an example of, you know, how people say there are levels to this game, There are levels to this game. Because at the beginning I was saying, hey, Andy, let, let us together teach the world about validation. You see my notes? I'm like, oh my gosh, teach me about validation. Okay, so let me, let me, let's run this back really quickly. Let me make sure I have these, these levels here. So level one, we have listening and observing. Level two, we have accurate reflection. Level three, we have articulating the non verbalized. Level four, we have validating in terms of history. Level five, we have validating in terms of current circumstances. And level six, we have radical genuineness. Does your company invest in professional development training? If you believe that your team would benefit from a negotiation workshop, all you need to do is go to our website, fill out the workshop request form, and then we'll set up a time to chat. These workshops are completely customizable, and we've done them all around the country. Negotiation and conflict resolution skills are beneficial across all professions, but they're especially useful in procurement, purchasing, sales, sourcing, and contract management. Our calendar is filling up quickly and we even have some workshops scheduled for next year if you think you might want one. I'd suggest reaching out soon so you don't miss out. Check out the link in the description to learn more.

And we will be right back after this.

Yep. And those aren't mine. Those. I'm just repeating Dr. Linehan's work.

Yeah, no, this is great. And, and here's. Here's what I'm realizing. This is a shift that I've made in the way that I taught and, but also the way that I've approached difficult conversations or just communication in general. I don't teach it in terms of active listening. Anymore I on validation. Because what you see here is that validation, in order to validate, you have to listen unobserved and accurately reflect. And that's usually where a lot of the teachings on listening end. But when you have people who are like Mike Reddington, Oscar Tromboli, great experts on listening, they go deeper. But I've recognized that when you think about just the common advice about listening, it falls short. And that's why I prefer validation. And when you think about people who are just starting this when they are listening to this and they're saying, whoa, okay, there's a lot to be learned. How would you suggest somebody starts on this journey of improving their skill of validation?

I love the question. It's a fundamental component to our training. We will start upon providing these level of definitions with an exercise. And here's the exercise. Without any pressure, we're not going to role play, we're not going to do a scenario, we're not going to add stress. We ask everyone in the class to conceptualize a situation where they have to get a loved one or a person they know to do something they don't want to do, get them to stop doing something they want to keep doing, or you have to say no. And there's a reason I've selected those three conditions. And we can talk about that a different time. But that's the exercise. In other words, think for a moment, folks, about a loved one, a friend, a family member, where you got to get them to do something that they don't want to do, get them to stop doing something that they want to keep doing, or you have to say no to them. Now, as you consider that situation, consider what your validation statement would be. Anything within these six ranges. Consider what your sentence in your mind would be to this person. That reflects listening and observing, accurately reflecting what has been stated, articulating the unverbalized, etc. What would that sentence or two be? And write that down. Stop. So then everybody does exactly what you're doing and then they start to write. Then the exercise is, I'm giving away a keys to the kingdom here, but I don't care. Then I'll say, okay, everybody's going to share their validation statement. Don't give me a lead in. Don't tell me. Well, this is when my dad wouldn't take his medication. Because by the time we get to the end of this, I'm going to know why you're validating and what it's for. So all of a sudden you'll hear things like, okay, Jimmy, you go. Jimmy looks at his paper. It really sounds like you're angry. I understand that. It's very nice outside and you want to stay there and play. I already know where Jimmy is going. Here. Thanks, Jimmy. Sally, what's yours? I appreciate that you want to go outside and smoke. I'm a smoker too, and I know what that feels like. Excellent, Sally. And then we'll get. You'll hear a whole range of conditions where someone had to deliberately think about conceptualizing a validation statement. And then after we go through that, there's a formula that we follow. I've mentioned it previously to you. It's something we do for languaging sequential thinking and speaking under pressure. But that's the exercise that begins to develop a practice and a skill upon being met with something. I have to start here, I'm going to start at validation, and I want to develop chops at conceptualizing whatever it is I'm seeing. The first thing out of my mouth is going to be this.

That's a game changer. Because what's happening. And listeners, I hope you tried to do this, because I did it too. Because I think as natural as people who want to persuade and change minds, we start thinking about it egocentrically. So we start thinking about it in terms of what we want. And then we think about what would be persuasive to us. And then we say that to the other person and they respond predictably with defensiveness. And then we just keep.

Over the fence. You just cracked it over the fence. That's exactly what goes on. Just as an observation between two cohorts. It's been my observation and experience that people from behavioral health can really pour on the validation. But then they get stuck. Now what? I got to move this situation. People from public safety, anybody who has regulatory or enforcement responsibility, they skip over validation and get right to the rules first. And then realize, oh, I was supposed to start with validation. And they back up. And the validation statement may be, I see you holding an 8 inch chef's knife. I understand you want to bludgeon the bartender. You've made clear that you want to run this red light. In other words, the validation statement doesn't mean that we agree with what they're doing. It's confirming to this other human being that what they're doing is being seen, heard and understood for what it is. And I think in the green room we were talking about validation. Validation does not always have to be warm and fuzzy. It can be a listening and observing statement or it can be an accurate reflection of what has been stated and you still get the same result because it's occurring in relationship, in the interpersonal neurobiology. It's non offensive. There's no criticism in it. It's connecting with another human being in a part of the brain that enables the possibility of options. If I start with judgment, criticism, appraisal, I'm immediately going to start stimulating the limbic system and for all the reasons that we know. So conditioning and training oneself to start an interpersonal interaction with validation. It takes practice, but it's definitely, I think, what's coming out of this conversation together. Imagine if the requirement every day when you interacted with another human being was to start with a validation statement before you said anything else. So like, even when the person at Burger King says, what would you like to order? Thanks for asking me what I'd like to order. I'd like, welcome to Starbucks. Can I take your order? I really appreciate you asking me as nicely as you did. Yes, I would like. Imagine just forcing yourself into that every day, what that would do. You might run the risk of sounding a little perfunctory, but to train yourself to do that takes time. But when you need it. I've always felt the chess game of negotiations is at your level, Kwame. I mean, I deal with human suffering. It's very important work. But there are times where it doesn't require a great degree of sophistication because we're dealing with very primitive things emotionally in the moment. You're dealing with all of the satellites in orbit and avoiding that scientific effect where all of them can collide and create space problems. So to learn the art of validation statements at your level, I think is a noble calling. But I think the idea of having awareness about what one is doing and when they're doing it and why really speaks to a commitment to craft that I think you and I share a great deal of camaraderie about. We're on this journey together to get better at this. As formulaic as it may sound, I think it's meaningful to know enough about the craft to know I'm going to start this interaction with validation and I'm going to start with a validation statement with each piece of feedback I get from this person across the table.

Absolutely, yeah. And Andy, I want to go back to one of the things that you said because you, you, you said it quickly. I want to make sure that people heard. If you start off with judgment, criticism, appraisal, and let me inject one myself, opinions Direction or advice. Something like that you said was if you start in that place, it triggers the limbic system, so it triggers that emotional response.

Right.

The thing that's really tough for people is that this validation, this process of validation almost feels like a concession, or it might almost feel like we're endorsing what it is that they're doing. And so for the people who might say, I don't want to do that, because if I validate what they're doing and they're doing something that I don't want to do, if I'm trying to persuade them to go in a different direction, don't I further push them into their own position? Can you speak to that?

Yeah. God bless you. If I could reach through the screen and hug you and kiss you, I. I love what you're hearing. I'm going to tell you why. That myth pervades environments where people find themselves involuntarily, and you hear things like that all the time. We're just reinforcing negative behavior. So let's look at the choices. Is it possible to articulate to another human being that you observe what they're doing without condoning it? I hear you stating that I'm here to take you to the Lake of fire from all of eternity. That does not mean I'm reinforcing the delusional belief that I am there to take them to the Lake of Fire for all of eternity. It means I hear them saying it. What am I trying to leverage by doing that? Number one, that this person feels understood, seen, heard, and in the moment. I am leveraging their capacity in the neocortex for relationship. That's why I'm doing it. Not because I want to be warm and fuzzy, not because the need to address the situation isn't important, but because I have to get around the threat system. I have to get around their filter of interpersonal interactions so I have some ability to influence. That's why I'm doing it. Look, there are times when starting with the rules can be important. And I would say at a safety problem, if two people are about to go nose to nose, I think it's completely reasonable to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop, stop, stop. And separate people. And then start validating. That's fine. But unless you're there, if there's discretionary time, it looks like you're holding up a chair and about to throw it. It looks like you're about to run away from us. In other words, there's nothing wrong with starting there. And the Reason we're doing that is not because we want to reinforce what they're doing. We're doing that because we want to leverage the interpersonal neurobiology of more critical thinking, higher cortical structures, as Dr. Porges would say, greater diversity of thought and expression. I reduce the capacity for thought and expression if I start with things that drive them down into their limbic system function. That's why I start with validation. It's not because I want to coddle or reinforce the wrong thing. I'm leveraging the interpersonal neurobiology of influence. That's why I'm doing it.

Well said. When I talk about compassionate curiosity and that framework, Step one, I love that.

That term that you came up with was beautiful.

Thank you. Yeah, so we start off with acknowledging and validating emotions, then getting curious with compassion, and then joint problem solving. That's the last step because play this game where we run into these psychological barriers, but the goal is to overcome and decrease the psychological barriers so we can have higher level conversations. And I want the listeners to pay attention to this because I think sometimes people could brush this off and say, oh, this is just this soft stuff, all of this woo, woo. Everybody's talking about empathy. Hey, we did in this conversation. We never said this is what a good person should do in a conversation. We're not moralizing this. We're approaching this from a scientific and strategic perspective because we know that if we want to be successful in these interactions, we have to start with validation. Because scientifically that is what works.

If you had a lab coat on right now, what you just said would fit in any healthcare training for this. All we'd have to do is just change that beautiful double breasted coat you got on and put on a lab coat, walk you next door. You could, you could have said what you just said without changing a word and you would have seen a room full of master's level clinicians and physicians and attendant level staff doing this. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. That's what you would hear. And in the areas, in the services, the human services, where real crisis can occur, we find confusion about the utility of validation. Far less frequently. Where we find it more frequently are the environments where either people have been traumatized by violence and they want to control it quickly so they don't want to invest the time. And generally those are people who have been in, let's say a force use discipline for a long time, corrections, law enforcement in tough neighborhoods, that kind of thing. Or we see it in just environments where the presentation of the recurring violence can shape a human being and how they engage the world. And very often when we get those folks in training and they recognize exactly the phenomena that you wanted to talk about, which is. So you mean that validation isn't about being warm and fuzzy, it's about being strategic while it can serve an interest of communing with another human being. If I don't agree with what someone is doing, I can still validate them in a way where I'm okay with me. But I use the statement to leverage influencing this behavior to something more constructive. Yes, yes, that's exactly right.

Yes. And another gem you dropped here, invest the time. That was the phrase you said some people are hesitant when it comes to investing the time. When you think about the term investing, investing is different from wasting time. Right. We understand that we're investing in order to get something in return and it's going to take some time. And I think sometimes we have to go slow to go fast because we have to take the time up front and it makes us more efficient in the overall process. But it takes a lot of patience and a lot of trust in the process and your skills in order to be able and willing to do this.

That's so spot on. And so often we learn from events gone bad. Right? How often have people in our domain shared openly the experiences of a misstep? Let's say starting the conversation with an egocentric approach, a self centered approach off, putting the other human being and then spend the next 45 minutes fixing that. Whereas if I started with validation, if I started with curiosity, if I started with transparency, I would have saved myself a half an hour of recovery time that I had to invest in this interaction. You know, in my world, the way that can look is someone will start the interaction. Someone will be doing something that requires intervention. Someone will start the interaction with a rule Instead of, hey, I'd like to better understand what's happening here. Can you tell me why you're peeling the acrovant away from the wall? Because it looks like you may want to create a shank. I'm just wondering if you could tell me about that a little bit. If you start that interaction with, that's a safety violation. Stop what you're doing right now. Security, come over here. Now. All of a sudden we have a completely different situation. And what if the guy just said, I was just curious about this. I don't know what it was. I mean, it looked like it was broken. I was just, you know, I apologize. Now we have to now we have to unravel that. And now we're here for 45 minutes and it would, maybe it would have taken five, you know, so. And that's an extreme example I don't expect everyone to completely understand. But the principle that I think we're trying to talk about here is you save yourself a tremendous amount of trouble by starting this way. If you start in a way that gets around the threat system, you're ahead, you're going to save time, you're going to be more efficient in the end, if you lead. And I love the compassionate curiosity, you know, man, tell me more. I want to know more about that. Why? Because it can serve both of us. I want to know more, give me more. And the more we lean into that, let's say antithetical, we're asking what. And if you're in, if you're with Julia, who's like the master of open ended questions, I think in open ended questions, right. So if you were with her, she'll go down that road deep. And if you do that upfront, I want. It'd be interesting if we collected data on that, if we looked at the efficiency of, let's say a million interpersonal interactions measured and coded, how many were more abbreviated as a result of starting with validation compared to starting with limits, rules, restriction, policy, etc. If we could have a trial about that, I think what we would find is that the vast majority of conversations that started with validation were shorter.

Absolutely, absolutely. And shout out to Julia, you are a friend from Perth. She's incredible. The root of a lot of my best relationships too.

I agree.

And I'd like to get your thought on this as we wrap up because the more I think about this, the more real it becomes to me. If we think about our everyday negotiations, our everyday difficult conversations with loved ones, with friends, with colleagues at work, and even some of the conflicts that we have when they're part of a negotiation. If we just give people the tool of validation and we say you're only able to do one thing, spend this entire conversation validating, I feel like a substantial number of those interactions and problems will be solved simply through validation.

I completely agree. I don't know if you ever met him. He's definitely worth talking to. Christian Conti in Pennsylvania. He's a psychologist. He's been on TV with Ray Lewis, he had the anger management show. And he's a good friend of mine. He's written a number of papers and a book called Yield Theory Works in their correction system. Just a incredible person. He's a big, listen, validate, explore options algorithm of problem solving with all people. That's his deal. Christian shows up, he's going to listen, he's going to validate and explore options. He. He's got the most simple algorithm for difficult conversations that I've seen, and it can be applied to the everyday stuff. He's worth talking to. I believe you're right in that aversive interactions, generally tense, stressful conversations, generally, if brought to a number, would be statistically significantly reduced if the requirement were genuine validation statements in the interpersonal engagement. Remember, these can be abused. They have to be genuine. You can use tone or affect. And I hear you, Kwame, you know, that's not validation. Let's be clear about that. You know. You know, we don't want to weaponize the thing and say, well, I validated him. Well, you know, well, tell me how. What was your validation statement? I told him that, you know, I know that you love doing this thing that you do hundreds of times a day. Okay, let's break that down. You know, so if I were coaching somebody, you know, and that. But he still hit me, Andy, you know, I validated him, and he still hit me really well because I didn't get audio on the camera. So what was the validation statement? And then the person will tell me. And all it really was was antagonism. So then we'll break that down. So I don't mean to gloss that over real quick, but I think that the spirit that you and I are coming from with the use of validation is that compassionate curiosity requires the curiosity. It requires the genuine interest in what's going on with this person beyond the presentation or the veil. And the reason we have to get around the threat system is because that's the only way to get to the truth in the resolution. If we activate or flare the threat system. Because we're not starting with validation and we're appraising, judging, setting limits before we even get to connection. You've heard that statement, connection before. Correction. That's been around for a while. It makes a lot of sense. If we don't get around the threat system, we're going to protract this engagement. And the way around the threat system to influence is the validation provided it's genuine. And for those who are apprehensive about the warm and fuzzy approach to validation, stick to levels one or two. You'll never have to worry about it. Listening and observing, accurately reflecting what has been stated, and try to do it with no affect. I Mean, it's good if you're going to avoid antagonistic affect, better if it's compassionate affect. But if you don't like either of those, just do it with no affect. Sounds like this is what you're saying. Do I have that right? Okay, great. You look like this is important. That's the sense I'm getting. Do I have that correct? Okay, very good. And I can do that without. Hey, it looks like you're really struggling. Like, I'm not doing that either. You know, I can be in between. What's interesting is that regulated affect, particularly when someone else is very emotionally aroused, leverages the neurobiology of mirror neurons to help someone re. Regulate. When we embody the principle of self regulation and we're using validation in the presence of someone's disc control, that's what I call the lighthouse effect. They're navigating to you in their storm. You're anchored on the Earth. People navigate, boats navigate to you. And you can only be that if you're on the earth, unidimensionally projecting your navigation light. That's why we rely on those things in the water. Yeah.

Oh, I love that. And one last thing. This is what happens, Andy. I know, I know. I love the fact that you talked about the affect that you bring. And so, listeners, when we're talking about affect, we're talking about. And Andy, tell me if I'm conceptualizing this. Well, we're talking about the. Essentially the emotionality that you bring to the conversation. Like, how do you appear to the other side?

Exactly. Expressed emotion. How you're expressing it, what you're expressing. Exactly.

Exactly. Yeah. So we can be antagonistic with it. We can be sarcastic, and people can hear that sarcasm. And then we have people who are really good at being empathetic and compassionate. You can hear the warmth in their. In their tone. And sometimes people say, well, Kwame, I'm not. I'm not a warm and fuzzy person. I'm not mean. But it's just. That's not natural for me. So can I use compassionate curiosity if I don't sound warm and fuzzy? You don't need to. So I'm glad that you said that neutral tone in itself is good enough.

Yep, it absolutely is good enough. There are a lot of people, Kwame, that. That are not gregarious like you and me. And in fact, in some cases, being heavily interpersonally interactive is. Is a lift for them. But their duties require them to, for example, or their responsibilities require them to be. If the objective of this conversation was to really begin to. To deconstruct what validation is. This is certainly one of its expressions. It does not have to be what the television might confer. Validation is what a hostage negotiator show should confer that it is. It can be pretty non offensive without being highly expressive. Thanks very much for having me on your show today. I appreciate it a great deal. Instead of. And you know me, I'd be hugging you and saying, right, but like, because that's not me, you know, But I've had to learn to develop a capacity to do that, particularly when I have to regulate my own nervous system activity. Because what someone may be saying may be something I deeply disagree with or maybe even find offensive. And I have to weigh the risk of how I'm going to articulate any feedback about those things, if at all. I certainly don't want to. Hey, so it sounds like you think I'm a complete idiot. You know, I'm not going to say that, you know, and I hear you saying that I'm an idiot. I appreciate that perspective. And then I'm going to go in a different direction, you know, so having some control over the thing is, is a meaningful attribute to the validation. And that's something that I think our crisis negotiation partners like Scott and Gary and Jack probably have great stories to talk about with. That was a skill in and of itself. The inflection, the tone, the when of some of those things. Beautiful discipline we're in. It's a beautiful craft.

100%. 100%. And Andy, before you go, remind the listeners not only how they can get in touch with you, but tell them about Jumpstart. We didn't hear that in the beginning.

Oh, my goodness. Thank you. So Jumpstart mastery is what I refer to as an epistemic environment. It's a knowledge environment that brings together people from public safety, so police officers, behavioral health co responders, mobile crisis teams, counselors, social workers, people from workplace violence prevention who all come together. And Kwame has been in our environment presenting experts from all over the world come into our environment and present, and we bring together these domains to share in the learning and the language so that we can develop common appreciation of methods and ideas in this work. And it's been going really, really well. We have weekly live sessions where we're grappling with a variety of topics from dealing with obstacles in our personal and professional domains and lives and overcoming them or accepting that they are part of growth and transformation. We have people coming in from the mediation space talking about Restorative justice. There's a whole a la carte menu there of digital materials that you have access to, opportunities to participate in these weekly live sessions. And it's. It's been great. It's been the platform from which my team and I have been invited to go to a number of places to bring the work of psychiatric emergency response team training, advanced crisis intervention training, one day sessions in crisis de escalation. And it's been a wonderful journey. And I want to thank you, Kwame, for your openness and enthusiasm about my work when we first met and being so willing to include that within the things that you do, which are so diverse and uplifting. You're going after all of the areas where people need awareness of this stuff. And I'm doing it in a sliver where it's very intense and you're bringing it to everybody. And I absolutely. You know, when you do that, you make the world a better place. And in our own ways, we're trying to do that together, bro. At least that's how I experience it.

Oh, that's the way I see it too, man. I appreciate you and the work that you do is vitally important and I'm excited to see where it goes because you've been doing this for a while, but I see you as just getting started because the direction that you're going, the people that you're helping, and the work that you're doing on the policy level too, it's very, very needed. So I appreciate that.

Thank you, man. I appreciate you.

Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Anything team. So welcome aboard. What most teams members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest episodes of the show. The best things in life lie on the other side of difficult conversations. Keep learning, keep practicing and keep getting better. Your relationships will improve, your career will soar, and you'll have the confidence you need to get the most out of these crucial conversations. Again, thank you for joining the team. We're excited to have you and I will. We'll see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.