Filtered with TJ Walker FAST 24/7

and baseline health, meaning this isn't just happy rich people live longer because duh, this is how you think about your future appears to influence your outcomes. And that's where this stops being interesting and starts being uncomfortable because if optimism plays a role in longevity, then this is not just a personality issue, this is a behavior. Now, here's the key point the researchers emphasized. Optimism is not fixed. It's not something you're simply born with. It's a pattern of thinking, which means it can be changed, but not necessarily with a prescription from a psychiatrist. And that's where most people quietly panic because it's much easier to say, 'Well, that's just how I am,' than it is to say, 'I might need to change how I think.' Now, let me translate what this study is really saying in plain English. Your brain by default is not optimistic, it's protective. It scans constantly looking for problems, threats, saber-toothed tigers, what could go wrong, which made sense when survival meant avoiding danger, physical danger from predators all the time. But today, that danger is usually an email, and yet your brain reacts like it's life or death. That constant negative scanning creates stress, and chronic stress is exactly what researchers linked to worse long-term outcomes. So if optimism improves longevity, it's not magic, it's the absence of constant mental stress, which brings us to the practical question: is optimism trainable? If it is trainable, how do you actually train it? Because this is where most people fall apart. They hear the research, they agree with it, oh yeah, that makes sense, And then they do absolutely nothing differently. That's not a strategy, that's an entertainment. So here's what I do every single day, not occasionally, not when I feel like it, every day. I have a reminder. It's actually a calendar notification. It's in my morning journal notes because I don't rely on motivation, I rely on systems. And when that reminder goes off, when it's staring at me on the screen, I do 2 things. Number 1, I write down 1 thing I'm optimistic about. I do it every day and I've done it for years. It puts me in a better and more optimistic mood. I also write down 1 thing I'm grateful for. That's it. 2 sentences. Takes maybe 20 seconds. And I just dictate it right into my phone. Now that may sound almost too simple. It might sound cheesy, which is exactly why it works, because what Harvard is measuring in this study is not a one-time feeling. They're measuring patterns, long-term patterns of thinking. And this creates that pattern, because when you force your brain every day to identify something positive about the future, you're training it to look for possibility instead of problems. And when you identify something you're grateful for, You're training it to notice what's already working instead of what's missing, what the negative is. And over time, that changes how you operate. You get better, better outcomes. You take more action. You recover faster when things don't go your way. And those behavioral differences are exactly what show up in long-term studies like this. Now, I hear all the time, I'm just not an optimistic person. No, you're an untrained person because you already use optimism in parts of your life. You get on a plane, you assume it will land. You order food, you assume it's safe to eat. You start your car, you assume it will work. That's optimism. You just haven't applied it consistently to your future. And that's the opportunity because if the Harvard research is right, and I think it is, then optimism is not just about feeling better, about living longer, functioning better, handling stress in a healthier way, which makes this one of the highest leverage habits you can build. So that is what I teach. And yes, I do have online courses focused on building positive attitudes and positive growth and mindsets. You can check it out at ultimise.com or go to my main corporate website, mediatrainingworldwide.com. But at the core of this, it comes down to something incredibly simple. Two sentences, one reminder every day, because if you don't train your brain, it will train you. And based on the research, that's not a great long-term plan. This does point to a big flaw in our entire medical industrial complex because you can take one of my courses for a relatively small amount of money, certainly less than $1,000. Some platforms, it's less than $10 of my courses on this subject. It's not a great revenue model if you are trying to create a medical practice that bills $20 million a year. It's not a great business model if you are a giant HMO and you want to generate billions of dollars a year. It's not a good business model if you are a psychiatrist or a psychologist and you want 40 patients who come to you every single week for an hour willing to pay you $500. This is a terrible business model. So the business of your mental health doesn't like this fact. They'd much rather say you got to come and talk about how awful your childhood is for an hour for every week for the rest of your life. You got to come take this pill, this happy pill where we can send money to pharmaceutical companies. That's a better business model. Doesn't necessarily mean it's better for you. Okay, so who am I? Who is this TJ Walker character? Why are you listening to me or watching me? I spent 40 years coaching executives, people just like you, but also presidents of countries, prime ministers, Nobel Peace Prize winners on how to have better communication skills, and personal development habits. And now you can get the same training, but here's the catch. There is no catch. You can get a free course today. All you have to do is go to ultimize.com. That's ultimize.com. And you can download your free online communication skills course or your free good habits building course. Go ahead and do that right now, or at least right after the show. A growing number of influential conservative voices are now publicly breaking with Donald Trump over his handling of the Iran war, raising new questions about the durability of his political base. Now, I talked about that earlier in the week, but the problem is growing for him. According to reporting from Axios, what was once a unified pro-Trump media ecosystem is beginning to fracture. Prominent figures include Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Candace Owens, the comedian Tim Dillon have all sharply criticized Trump's rhetoric and actions toward Iran, with some going as far as calling his approach evil. That was the Tucker Carlson flourish. I did enjoy that. And demanding intervention to stop him. At the same time, podcast host Joe Rogan, who endorsed Trump in 2024, suggested this week that the Iran conflict may be serving as a distraction from renewed attention on the Epstein files. I don't necessarily buy that. More on that in a moment. Rogan said, quote, the Epstein files comes out, we got a war with Iran. It's a good way to get people to stop talking about certain things. Now, to be clear, there's no evidence presented that the war was launched for that purpose. Those of you listening on the podcast, I'm winking to the camera. But what matters politically is that people with massive audiences are now saying it out loud. And that's new because for years, Trump's real power has not just been voters. It's been this right-wing media ecosystem, the podcasters, influencers, media personalities, the people who translate his message into culture. That ecosystem has always done one thing incredibly well: attack liberals, mock Democrats, own the libs. And for a huge segment of the country, that was enough. That's why they like these conservative commentators. That's why they like Trump. Wasn't about policy, wasn't about outcomes. It was just the vibes. Now, if Trump was making the right people angry, He's got to be one of ours. He's got to be considered part of our team. We don't criticize him. That was considered success. It was enough for the conservative commentariat when Trump was just attacking, vilifying, mocking Democrats, liberals, progressives. The strategy worked. It worked for Trump. It locked in a base of roughly 35-40% of the country. These people were intensely loyal to Trump, and therefore these conservative commentators trying to capture that audience were loyal to Trump. But here's what's changing. For the first time, the same voices that built that ecosystem are turning on Trump, and not quietly. They're not saying, well, we disagree on policy. They're saying, this is insane. This is betrayal. This is not what we signed up for. That's a different level of criticism. Because these are not Democrats, these are not liberals, these are not progressive policy analysts. These are people whose entire brand has been defending him, which is like saying your biggest fans suddenly saying, "Yeah, we made a mistake." That's not a great sign. Now, to be fair, and this is important, polling still shows that most Republican MAGA voters, people who identify as MAGA continue to support Trump, and they're even willing to give him a pass on Iran. So this is not a collapse in support yet, but politically, this is how collapses start. You don't start with voters, you start with the influencers, because most people don't wake up every morning and read policy briefings. They listen to people they trust—podcasters, commentators, personalities—and when those people change their tone, The audience eventually follows, slowly at first, then suddenly. Here's the underlying issue that's driving all of this. For years, Trump's core appeal was simple. He hates the same people you hate if you happen to be a conservative MAGA Republican. He hates the liberals, he hates the Democrats, he hates the media. Again, that worked, but there's a limit to that strategy. Because at some point voters ask a different question. Is this actually helping me? And when you start talking about war, when you start talking about gas prices potentially spiking to $4, $5, $6, $7 a gallon, when you start talking about economic instability and maybe losing your job, now it's not entertainment anymore. Now, it's personal. And that's where the calculation changes. Because people may enjoy watching someone insult their political opponents, but they don't enjoy paying $10 a gallon for gas while doing it. There's a limit to how much owning the libs is worth to people. At some point, people say, I think I'd rather be able to afford groceries. And that's the tension you're starting to see emerge, because what many of these commentators are now realizing, belatedly, is this: just because Trump attacks liberals doesn't mean he cares about the interests of his own voters. No. Those are two very different things. For a long time, those two things were treated as the same. Well, you're against them, you must be for us. No. Now, they're starting to separate. If that separation continues, here's how this plays out. First, the influencer class continues to attack him. More podcasts, more negative commentary, more criticism. Then you start to see cracks at the grassroots level, more voters speaking out on social media. More hesitation, more, "I'm not so sure about this guy anymore." And once that reaches a critical threshold, that's when Republican politicians, you know, the ones without spines, start to move. Because politicians are not leaders, they are followers with better suits. They wait until it's safe. And once it's safe, they pivot. And that's when you see the numbers drop from the high 30s into the 20s. And once a political figure drops into the 20s in terms of overall support, It's very hard to recover because at that point, support doesn't erode gradually, it just melts fast. And that's when conversations that seem impossible today suddenly become possible. Things like impeachment, the 25th Amendment, internal party revolt. Now, does this happen tomorrow? No. Does it happen automatically? No, but for the first time, you can see the outline of how it could happen. Because the one thing Trump has always had, a loyal amplified media-driven base. It's no longer as unified as it once was. When the people who built your brand start tearing it down, that's not just a bad news cycle, that's a structural problem, and those are much harder to fix. If Trump's not really worried right now, he should be. Okay, so who am I? Who is this TJ character? Why are you listening to me or watching me? I spent 40 years coaching executives, people just like you, but also presidents of countries, prime ministers, Nobel Peace Prize winners on how to have better communication skills and personal development habits. And now you can get the same training, but here's the catch. There is no catch. You can get a free course today. All you have to do is go to ultimize.com, that's ultimize.com, and you can download your free online communication skills course or your free good habits building course. Go ahead and do that right now, or at least right after the show. A widely reported revival of Christianity among young people in Britain has now been debunked after the underlying data was found to be flawed. According to reporting from The Times, a 2025 report from the Bible Society claimed that church attendance in England and Wales had surged more than 50% between 2018 and 2024, with as many as 21% of young men attending church monthly. Wow, that sounds nice, at least to some. The findings made global headlines. Media outlets declared a "Christian revival." Commentators said young people were "returning to faith." Religious leaders celebrated what they believed was a major cultural shift. There was just one little problem: it wasn't true. The polling firm YouGov later retracted the data, admitting that the survey included fraudulent responses, and that key anti-fraud measures had not been properly implemented. In other words, this wasn't a revival, this was bad data, and yet the story spread everywhere, which brings us to something far more interesting than church attendance: bias. Because this is one of the cleanest, most beautiful examples of confirmation bias you'll ever see. People didn't just believe this story, they wanted to believe it. If you are a religious person, specifically a religious conservative, this story is like catnip. Finally, young people are coming back. You don't question it. You don't analyze it. You don't say, wait a minute, does this make sense? You hit share immediately. Because it confirms your worldview or how you think the world should be. And let's be honest, this wasn't just a few people. This went global, millions of shares, headlines everywhere, and nobody stopped to ask the most basic question, does this sound remotely plausible? Because let's think about this for one second. We're supposed to believe that Gen Z, the generation raised on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and 7-second dopamine hits, has suddenly decided You know what's missing in my life? Hard wooden benches and a 45-minute sermon. That's the new entertainment model? TikTok versus internal damnation lectures? That's a tough battle. Hey guys, I know you've got unlimited content, music, memes, and AI-generated everything, but have you considered incense and a guy named Father Gregory explaining sin? That's not a trend. That's a fantasy. And yet people bought it. Why? Because of confirmation bias. We don't see the world as it is. We see the world as we want it to be, and anything that confirms our view of how things should be. Now, here's where it gets even more interesting. It wasn't just religious audiences. The media jumped on this too. And that's a different kind of bias because the media has its own incentives. They want compelling stories. They want surprising narratives. And let's be honest, they also want to avoid being seen as the anti-religious people. So when a story comes along that says, "Hey, religion is back," that's a safe story. It's a popular story. That's a story that doesn't get you yelled at on social media. So they run with it without asking enough questions, without digging into the methodology, without saying, wait, this is an opt-in survey? Because here's the key flaw in the study. It wasn't based on a random sample. It was an opt-in survey, which means people choose to take it. And that introduces all kinds of problems. People rush through it. People click random answers. And yes, bots can take it. So you're not measuring reality. You're measuring whoever felt like clicking a link. That's not data. That's chaos, and yet it was treated like some significant cultural shift. Now, to be clear, the underlying reality hasn't changed. Multiple national surveys still show that Christianity in Britain is in long-term decline. Church attendance has gone down. The percentage of people identifying as Christian has dropped significantly. And thousands of churches have closed over the past decade. So that's the real story, like it or not, is the exact opposite of the viral story. That's the issue. The reality is the opposite of the real story. But the story, the real story, is less exciting. Headlines like gradual decline continues doesn't go viral. Revival does, and that's the problem. Because if you only consume information that makes you feel good, you're not informed, you're entertained. And there's nothing wrong with entertainment unless you mistake it for reality, which is exactly what happened here. So what's the takeaway? It's not about religion necessarily, it's about thinking. Every single one of us is biased. Every single one of us is vulnerable to stories that confirm what we already believe and what we'd like to believe is true. And if you want to be even remotely informed, you have to fight that instinct. You have to ask, do I believe this because it's true or because I want it to be true? You have to look at the numbers. You have to look at the methodology. Ask basic questions because otherwise you're just reacting. In a world full of bad data, viral headlines and emotional narratives. That's all we're doing is reacting. Critical thinking is not optional. It's a