Speaker 1: Giving in and cook Craig Anthony Halp of The You Project.
Speaker 1: Possibly I've been rolled with the punches. Who fucking knows?
Speaker 1: It could be a share a co share, Hi tiv.
Speaker 2: Hi Harps, I dare say it will it's been a
Speaker 2: while since your dulcet tones of grace, the role with
Speaker 2: the punches platform. Where you've been, bro, I've.
Speaker 1: Been, I've been. I've been doing grown up things like
Speaker 1: a big boy. I've been like a big boy doing
Speaker 1: the PhD, big boy PhD, trying to interpret all the results.
Speaker 1: And do you want me to give you a quick
Speaker 1: snapshot on where I'm at? Yeah, sure, my brain it's
Speaker 1: already so I've done it. No, nothing, it's not. I've
Speaker 1: done all my research, which I should have because I'm
Speaker 1: five years in, so hurry the fuck up, you old prick.
Speaker 1: All my studies have then done, All the data's in,
Speaker 1: all the interpretation is nearly done, or what they call
Speaker 1: academic milestones have been ticked off for of those. I'm
Speaker 1: writing papers. I'm writing multiple papers. I'm writing a systematic
Speaker 1: literature review. I'm writing two maybe three empirical papers. What
Speaker 1: that means is when you do your own research, that
Speaker 1: is your own new research. You're adding new kind of
Speaker 1: stuff to the world of science, so you're doing empirical
Speaker 1: studies and then reporting on that. I'm doing that, and
Speaker 1: I just spent the last two hours going through the
Speaker 1: first draft of one of my papers, which is both
Speaker 1: exciting but also makes you want to punch yourself in
Speaker 1: the face. So that is where I'm at. And I
Speaker 1: think I may even like I've never thought I have
Speaker 1: ADHD and I probably don't.
Speaker 2: I think you might.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but you know how, like some things
Speaker 1: I am I can get engrossed in, right, then there
Speaker 1: are other things and it's like the actual focus of
Speaker 1: my researchers, you know, which is metaacricy metaperception, understanding how
Speaker 1: others see you and essentially how to measure that and
Speaker 1: how to like what are the things that determine how
Speaker 1: good somebody is at understanding how they are seen, perceived,
Speaker 1: experienced by other people, What are the variables, what are
Speaker 1: the cognitive traits, like the kind of the brain things,
Speaker 1: and what are the emotional kind of attributes that influence
Speaker 1: the like in day to day real world conversations out
Speaker 1: out and about doing life. It's fucking fascinating, right, But
Speaker 1: when it comes down to looking at is the data
Speaker 1: analysis from you know study too, and here's here's a
Speaker 1: fucking Excel spreadsheet with fifteen million numbers. And then me
Speaker 1: and the sixty one year old brain.
Speaker 3: Are like, oh ah, trying to figure out what all
Speaker 3: that means and then to put it into real you know,
Speaker 3: to figure out really what it means and what the
Speaker 3: data tells you, and then how to write about that,
Speaker 3: and then to figure out what the other research tells you, Like,
Speaker 3: what is all the other research in this this kind
Speaker 3: of cognitive metacognitive metaperceptive, metaaccurate space.
Speaker 1: What is that tell you? And is aligned? Does it disagree?
Speaker 1: What hole are you feeling in the science?
Speaker 2: And was anything wildly more different to prove than you thought? Like,
Speaker 2: was anything harder or easier to prove or the way
Speaker 2: you had to go about it?
Speaker 1: Like the hardest part for me is not like the
Speaker 1: funny thing is And I've said this before because I
Speaker 1: really I was fucking clueless, you know, I got asked
Speaker 1: if I was. I didn't get monach, didn't stand out
Speaker 1: and go hey, we would love you to do a PhD.
Speaker 1: But I did some work for them for the brain
Speaker 1: Brain Park kind of group, which is the Neuroscience Neuropsychology
Speaker 1: Psychology Lab, and I went in to do a talk
Speaker 1: to them about just which was hilarious because I was
Speaker 1: the least qualified in terms of academic you know, I
Speaker 1: had an undergrad degree, and I'm talking to everyone who
Speaker 1: at the very least is a PhD student and you know,
Speaker 1: professors and department leaders. But they were fascinated with the
Speaker 1: way that I do my work, and because I essentially
Speaker 1: help people change, you know, physically, mentally, emotionally, practically, behaviorally,
Speaker 1: and they're like, how do you do that? What's kind
Speaker 1: of watch your protocol? And and I'm like, what's a protocol?
Speaker 1: You know a little bit, because yes, of course I
Speaker 1: have a I had, you know, a mild academic background.
Speaker 1: I had a degree in exercise science and a bit
Speaker 1: of other experience and other stuff. But you know, really
Speaker 1: it's like you're learning, You're not when you do a
Speaker 1: PhD in psychle or neuropsych you're not really learning as
Speaker 1: much about the mind as you are about how to
Speaker 1: do research at that level. And so of course I've
Speaker 1: learned more about you know, the specifics of metaaccuracy and
Speaker 1: meta perception, and I can tell you more than I
Speaker 1: could have told you five years ago. But you know,
Speaker 1: five years ago, I still understood the nuts and bolts
Speaker 1: of what I now understand to a a level. And
Speaker 1: I did that intuitively and instinctively over time, talking to
Speaker 1: thousands of people, realizing that how I see me isn't
Speaker 1: how they see me. And so it's important that I
Speaker 1: do have an insight into what the Craig experience is
Speaker 1: like for the rest of the world, not for my
Speaker 1: ego or my security, but so that I can build connection,
Speaker 1: rapport and trust, and solve problems together, and work as
Speaker 1: part of a team together, and resolve conflict, and to
Speaker 1: be an effective podcast, to teach, a coach, mentor corporate speaker.
Speaker 1: All that because if you stand in front of a group,
Speaker 1: whether it's even a group of two or three or
Speaker 1: a group of a thousand, and you've got no idea
Speaker 1: what the Craig or the Tiff or the U experience
Speaker 1: is like for the rest of the room or the
Speaker 1: podcast audience in this case, then you're guessing, and you're
Speaker 1: just as likely to create disconnection as connection. But everyone's
Speaker 1: goal is connection. Everyone's goal is understanding, you know, But
Speaker 1: you might be creating more confusion than anything. But you
Speaker 1: don't fucking know. So, But I mean it's been great
Speaker 1: for me because I'm not a natural academic, I'm a
Speaker 1: pro academic, and so to make me learn this new
Speaker 1: language and this new protocol and this new universe, like
Speaker 1: it's a fucking universe where it's my analogy was the
Speaker 1: first year, it's like going to Russia and you know
Speaker 1: that you're not dumb, but you feel dumb because everyone
Speaker 1: speaks Russian and you don't, and people are talking to you,
Speaker 1: and even three six months in you're getting you know,
Speaker 1: two in ten words, so you're piecing together what they're saying.
Speaker 1: But they literally use a language. I mean literally a
Speaker 1: language like you know, words and phrases and constructs and
Speaker 1: concepts that not only don't you use, you've never heard of, right,
Speaker 1: And so now you're learning this new language as well
Speaker 1: as learning how to do the highest level of research.
Speaker 1: And then you've got to write papers which are going
Speaker 1: to be published in academic journals and you know all
Speaker 1: of that. So it's really yeah, I've I've learned a
Speaker 1: fair bit about obviously the focus of my research, but
Speaker 1: also more I've learned about how to do a PhD
Speaker 1: and how to do that kind level of research?
Speaker 2: Were there any concepts that to you felt really obvious
Speaker 2: and easy to explain and clear, but then had you
Speaker 2: completely stumped on how do I put together any how
Speaker 2: do I have a way to research improve this point
Speaker 2: or theory?
Speaker 1: Yeah? So, I mean what you know or what you
Speaker 1: think you know does not fucking matter at all. Like
Speaker 1: I could go, oh, yeah, but I've done sixty thousand
Speaker 1: personal training sessions. That's sixty thousand conversations with thousands of
Speaker 1: people in a range of different scenarios and situations. So
Speaker 1: I've got forty years of fucking experience at the cold
Speaker 1: face of interpersonal and they're like, yeah, big deal, what's
Speaker 1: the research say, It's like, yeah, that's nice. Next it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, Like it doesn't matter in the sense that
Speaker 1: your experience, by the way, outside of this particular world
Speaker 1: that we're talking about, it is very important. Like your experience,
Speaker 1: your ideas, your insights, your understanding, your conversations, your real
Speaker 1: world learning on a practical life kind of reality or
Speaker 1: in a practical life reality or level, it really matters
Speaker 1: because it's appliable, it's usable, it's practical, right, But in
Speaker 1: an academic environment. When you are bringing science or new
Speaker 1: research into the world, it doesn't matter what you think.
Speaker 1: It matters what you can prove and what the data says,
Speaker 1: and what the research tells us and what your experiments,
Speaker 1: for one of the better term show us. That's what matters. Now,
Speaker 1: what you think and what you've experienced and what you
Speaker 1: believe can inform your research. That is the way that
Speaker 1: you create design your studies, or the kinds of questions
Speaker 1: that you ask or the hypotheses that you form. But
Speaker 1: you know, what you think you know is irrelevant in
Speaker 1: terms of the final product. It's all about what the
Speaker 1: data says. And yeah, and really you are studying such
Speaker 1: a specific thing, you know, in it's like I've said
Speaker 1: this probably fifty times, so I apologize, But I'm studying
Speaker 1: a drop of water in an ocean of human behavior.
Speaker 1: Like there are so many variables and so many factors
Speaker 1: and so many components and jigsaw piece puzzles to the
Speaker 1: human experience from a psychological, emotional, and sociological point of
Speaker 1: view that you think, oh well, ah, I understand. Saying
Speaker 1: I understand how the mind works is like saying I
Speaker 1: understand how the universe works.
Speaker 2: Like it.
Speaker 1: I truly don't think anyone fully understands the mind. And
Speaker 1: I think I naturally, like I'm not good. I never
Speaker 1: say I'm good at anything, but I think I naturally
Speaker 1: have a reasonable grasp of human behavior and you know,
Speaker 1: metaperception and cognition, all that shit in the mind. But
Speaker 1: I still think, of all there is to know, I
Speaker 1: know nearly fucking nothing. So understanding the mind is pretty
Speaker 1: much an impossibility if we're talking about totally understanding the mind,
Speaker 1: and also even you know, interestingly proving that there is
Speaker 1: a mind, you know. And the thing with psychology is
Speaker 1: that it is. And this is going to now sound
Speaker 1: like I'm throwing my own field under the bus, but
Speaker 1: it's probably the hardest, if not the messiest, if not
Speaker 1: the most unreliable science, because you know, when we think about,
Speaker 1: like all of the stuff that I or most of
Speaker 1: the stuff that I did, was using a range of
Speaker 1: different psychometric tools for testing, you know, scales and questionnaires
Speaker 1: and all kinds of things, but it's all subjective self evaluation.
Speaker 1: And as I've said to you many times, and I'll
Speaker 1: shut up after this, but the problem with psychology is
Speaker 1: that I could listeners, I could get Tiff to complete
Speaker 1: a questionnaire which assesses her her overall let's say mental health,
Speaker 1: or it's an insight or a tool to assess mental health,
Speaker 1: or emotional health, or extraversion or introversion or conscientiousness or
Speaker 1: you know whatever, all of these different factors or traits now,
Speaker 1: and then I get all the data because Tif did
Speaker 1: this protocol and filled out all of these answers, and
Speaker 1: then I get it and I go, here's my data.
Speaker 1: And then I do the same protocol with Tiff. A
Speaker 1: week later. She's in a different headspace. She hasn't slept well,
Speaker 1: she's a bit grumpy because the dog ate the cat,
Speaker 1: and a whole lot of shit's going on. And I
Speaker 1: get completely different data from the same human using the
Speaker 1: same protocol. Now you don't get that typically in other sciences.
Speaker 1: It's like if I measure your body composition today using
Speaker 1: a reliable tool, and now I measure it tomorrow, I'm
Speaker 1: going to get the same outcome. If if you know,
Speaker 1: I if I drop some if I drop a bowling
Speaker 1: ball in a vacuum, it's going to fall at the
Speaker 1: same speed every time as is a feather. Right, there's consistency.
Speaker 1: If I go all right, anatomy. Well, that bone in
Speaker 1: the top of the it's today we call it the fema.
Speaker 1: Guess what we call it the fucking fema tomorrow as well.
Speaker 1: It's not going to be a humorous or a bloody
Speaker 1: patella tomorrow. Like, there's consistency and reliability. But in in
Speaker 1: the research of psychology, and this is not the right term,
Speaker 1: but listeners will understand it. The measurement of the mind,
Speaker 1: or the components of the mind, or the attributes of
Speaker 1: the mind, it's at best messy.
Speaker 2: If you had to allocate a percentage to the level
Speaker 2: of inconsistency around around this research because of that reason,
Speaker 2: what percentage would.
Speaker 1: You Yeah, look, I really couldn't. But I'll answer that
Speaker 1: with I'll talk around that. You know. So for example
Speaker 1: that generally speaking, my research falls into the space of
Speaker 1: self awareness, social awareness, situation. You know, it's an awareness
Speaker 1: kind of piece. Now, even in academic literature, you will
Speaker 1: not get a consensus on something as simple as self awareness.
Speaker 1: It's not like, oh, here's the definition. Everyone uses this definition.
Speaker 1: This is the go to. So depending on which field
Speaker 1: of psychology, because there's different fields of course, you know,
Speaker 1: social psychology and sports psychology and clinical psychology, and you
Speaker 1: know that all the psych work they do in the
Speaker 1: corporate space, Like, there's different areas of psychology, same field,
Speaker 1: different areas, but that'll be defined differently in different contexts.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of convergence. So coming together in agreement,
Speaker 1: there's probably just as much, if not more, divergence of
Speaker 1: disagreement disparity, Like I don't know about that, but I
Speaker 1: will say, you know, I was talking to Chris, who's
Speaker 1: my senior supervisor, and you know that I was talking
Speaker 1: about the oldest kind of reference to self awareness that
Speaker 1: I could find anyway, is like two and a half
Speaker 1: thousand years and it's Socrates who said the beginning of
Speaker 1: wisdom is to know thyself. Right, that's self awareness. It's
Speaker 1: like and he was talking two and a half thousand
Speaker 1: years ago about basically to know yourself and understand yourself.
Speaker 1: It is an indicator of wisdom, you know, if not intelligence.
Speaker 1: And so it's been something that people have been thinking
Speaker 1: about for a long time. But you know, I truly
Speaker 1: believe and I'm not saying it because it's my research.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, it's one of many interpersonal superpowers.
Speaker 1: But if you can really understand how other people experience you,
Speaker 1: or think of you, or perceive you, and then you
Speaker 1: use that information in the right way, you use that understanding,
Speaker 1: you use that knowledge in the right way, then you
Speaker 1: can become much better at all things communication, problem solving,
Speaker 1: leadership management, friendship, parenting, because you understand stand what they're
Speaker 1: getting because we always look at the situation, conversation, negotiation
Speaker 1: through our lens, but they're not looking through that lens.
Speaker 1: So it's in our interest to, as you've heard me
Speaker 1: say many times, to walk away from our window and
Speaker 1: metaphorically try and have a peek through theirs, because it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if we agree or disagree, but to see
Speaker 1: through their window is to have a level of awareness
Speaker 1: and understanding that you don't when you are, you know,
Speaker 1: thinking that everybody else thinks like you. We've spoken about
Speaker 1: the false consensus effect. The false consensus effect which most
Speaker 1: people are trapped in is they think that other people
Speaker 1: think like them, which is broadly not true.
Speaker 2: You have to make decisions on like when you get
Speaker 2: into researching any topic or learning about something, into podcasts
Speaker 2: and listening to experts, and now you're one of them,
Speaker 2: and so I'm interested in because you get to these
Speaker 2: crossroads where you have to make a decision on which
Speaker 2: side of the belief you're going to lean towards. Were
Speaker 2: there any of those crossroads that came up for you
Speaker 2: that you felt biased pulling you in a way, that
Speaker 2: logic was probably pulling you the other way, and we
Speaker 2: were there areas that you had to kind of I
Speaker 2: don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Look, I mean there are things that I naturally,
Speaker 1: you know, I think a lot of things about this,
Speaker 1: but to be able to unequivocally prove that again using
Speaker 1: subjective assessment tools and psychometric tools that we have available,
Speaker 1: it's really not that you are standing on top of
Speaker 1: the academic you know, pullpit and screaming out to the
Speaker 1: world this, Hey everyone, I've figured it out. So all
Speaker 1: the other scientists and researchers before me, fuck them. This
Speaker 1: is how the works. You're not doing that, you kind
Speaker 1: of you're kind of telling them your best understanding of
Speaker 1: what your research tells you, and your research is informed
Speaker 1: by or guided by what you originally thought before you
Speaker 1: started the research, right, what your questions or hypotheses were,
Speaker 1: but also what other people in the field have found
Speaker 1: or not found. So when you're doing a PhD for example,
Speaker 1: especially in the psychology space, but most spaces. I've never
Speaker 1: done mine outside of psych But I assume you know
Speaker 1: your job is to build on existing science, Like what
Speaker 1: do we already know? Yeah, well, don't do that, Greg,
Speaker 1: We already know that. Or I might have a theory
Speaker 1: that contradicts a current theory and I might disprove something,
Speaker 1: or I might recognize a gap in you know, well
Speaker 1: we haven't looked at this particular thing through this lens
Speaker 1: or factoring in this variable. So we're going to do that, right, So, like,
Speaker 1: do you want me to bore you for one minute?
Speaker 1: I just bought up one of my papers. This is
Speaker 1: the working tile, right, and this is very This is
Speaker 1: quite understandable because this is just an abstract and this
Speaker 1: is very much a work in progress. So the name
Speaker 1: of this paper, don't get too excited. It's called gender
Speaker 1: and Mental health as Determinants of meta Accuracy. So what
Speaker 1: I'm doing in this particular paper is looking at the
Speaker 1: way that mental health, positive or negative, can impact a
Speaker 1: person's level of meta accuracy, in other words, how good
Speaker 1: they are at predicting how other people see them, and
Speaker 1: also the role of gender, so meta accuracy. So this
Speaker 1: is this is the world's never heard. Yes, this is
Speaker 1: the abstract. This is a work in progress. This will
Speaker 1: probably change a bit, but this is what I was
Speaker 1: working on before. And this is a five thousand word
Speaker 1: paper about twenty pages at this point. Metaaccuracy, the ability
Speaker 1: to infer how others perceive us, is a critical component
Speaker 1: of effective social functioning and interpersonal relationships. This study explores
Speaker 1: my study the intersection of mental health, gender, and metaaccuracy
Speaker 1: within close relationships, focusing on how positive and negative mental
Speaker 1: health states influence metaperception accuracy across personality traits using a
Speaker 1: partner based correlational design. Ninety diads. That means ninety pairs
Speaker 1: n equals one to eighty. That's the total number of
Speaker 1: participants that many people completed self reports, partner ratings, and
Speaker 1: metaperception assessments online. Now this is what nobody in the
Speaker 1: world has heard, and so I could be fucking myself
Speaker 1: up here. But anyway, results reveal, so this is very preliminary.
Speaker 1: Results reveal that positive mental health enhances metaaccuracy for emotional
Speaker 1: stability and openness. So, in other words, what that means
Speaker 1: is your ability to predict. So if I say to
Speaker 1: you tif one to five. How emotionally stable are you?
Speaker 1: You go, I'm a four, and I predict you're a four,
Speaker 1: then you're quite meta accurate regarding that particular trait. So
Speaker 1: to openness, right, So I'll explain it briefly at the end.
Speaker 1: With gender specific patterns, males showed greater accuracy for emotional ability,
Speaker 1: while females exhibited greater accuracy for openness and conscientiousness. So
Speaker 1: your ability to predict how other people see you tif
Speaker 1: in terms of openness and conscientiousness. Females are typically, in
Speaker 1: my research, better than that. Negative mental health, particularly stress,
Speaker 1: consistently impaired meta accuracy affecting consciousness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.
Speaker 1: That is the prediction of those two traits in terms
Speaker 1: of accuracy, with greater susceptibility observed among females. Depressions selectively
Speaker 1: reduced emotional stability meta accuracy in male I know this
Speaker 1: is complicated. These findings unscore the nuanced interplay between mental
Speaker 1: health and gender in shaping social cognition, providing insights into
Speaker 1: potential tailored interventions to improve relational and psychological well being.
Speaker 1: Implications for theory, therapeutic practice, and future research on social
Speaker 1: perception dynamics are discussed within the paper. So that's my
Speaker 1: that's a snapshot of what the papers about.
Speaker 2: Right, it's full of fascinating. It's pretty fascinating though.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's fucking amazing, right, And so the snap shot.
Speaker 1: And I'm still like, I'm still sifting through the analysis
Speaker 1: and the data, and so this could this could change,
Speaker 1: So don't take this as gospel. But generally speaking that like,
Speaker 1: sometimes you get data that doesn't really show anything one
Speaker 1: way or the other. It doesn't show a positive or
Speaker 1: a negative relationship, or it doesn't show a correlation between
Speaker 1: this particular thing and that particular thing, right, But what
Speaker 1: does seem to be showing up with this particular Remember
Speaker 1: this is one study in a million billion studies, So
Speaker 1: this is Craig study with one hundred and eighty people,
Speaker 1: ninety diads, ninety pairs. It seems that women are better
Speaker 1: at it. This is not a shocker. And also that
Speaker 1: also that people with more positive mental health, So people
Speaker 1: who are generally happier, more optimistic, more positive generally have
Speaker 1: greater levels of better accuracy than people who have depression, anxiety,
Speaker 1: and stress. So there's a scale called the DAS twenty
Speaker 1: one which is DAS is depression anxiety stress and the
Speaker 1: second S is scale Depression anxiety Stress Scale. So that's
Speaker 1: one of the psychometric tools that I use. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's really interesting and you because what it does is
Speaker 1: it takes out my opinion and my emotions, and all
Speaker 1: it is is me kind of getting all of the
Speaker 1: data data that we've collected and interpreting that as best
Speaker 1: as we can. Having said that this is my and
Speaker 1: this is not about my research or anyone in particularly.
Speaker 1: But one of the problems with science, and I've said
Speaker 1: this and you and I have alluded to this many times,
Speaker 1: is that all scientists are human. All humans make mistakes,
Speaker 1: all humans have bias, all humans have emotion. Humans want
Speaker 1: to to an extent, be right right, And so this
Speaker 1: is one of the things is to produce great science,
Speaker 1: you really don't want to have an emotional investment in
Speaker 1: the outcome because if I want a certain outcome, then
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be completely objective.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So even when you go, well here's the objective data,
Speaker 1: this is what the computer, this is what the analytics
Speaker 1: spewed out using these different analysis programs, But then it's
Speaker 1: down to the individuals to interpret that and share that
Speaker 1: with the world. So I will say that, you know,
Speaker 1: we need science, absolutely, and science is great, but science
Speaker 1: is not perfect one because the protocols are not perfect,
Speaker 1: the execution of the research is not perfect, the research
Speaker 1: design is not perfect, and the people doing all the
Speaker 1: science are not perfect. So I always think when we
Speaker 1: say something, our science tells us. Firstly, when someone with
Speaker 1: a broad fucking brush says science tells us already, I'm like,
Speaker 1: that's bullshit, unless you can tell me the research, the researchers,
Speaker 1: the studies, how many people were in it, what was
Speaker 1: the risk of bias with that particular research? Was that
Speaker 1: research funded by any organization? With some research, it's nearly
Speaker 1: as high as ninety percent funded, depending on what field.
Speaker 1: So if you know that your ability to keep doing
Speaker 1: research is dependent on that company financing essentially your livelihood
Speaker 1: and your study and your research, you don't want to
Speaker 1: give them data that doesn't work for them commercially. And so,
Speaker 1: of course, obviously nobody funds my research because gives a fuck,
Speaker 1: and I don't want it. I don't want it to
Speaker 1: be like I'm just genuinely interested in the outcome, you know,
Speaker 1: And that's not saying my my research won't be flawed,
Speaker 1: but I think it's important, you know, especially today there's
Speaker 1: so much shit online with fucking influencers going oh, well
Speaker 1: we know that if you eat that and you don't
Speaker 1: do that and this is the result, and you're like, no,
Speaker 1: that's that's just just because that's coming out of your face.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean it's true. That's just used saying words,
Speaker 1: and you know, like most firstly, I'm literally getting towards
Speaker 1: the end of my PhD, and I think even I'm
Speaker 1: not a good source half the time.
Speaker 2: So five years of research and you get to land
Speaker 2: on proving this theory, then what because it takes five
Speaker 2: years to prove the theory, and then how do you
Speaker 2: move the needle to make it practical for us?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's great. So that's a great question. So for me,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't have any grand plans around this.
Speaker 1: For me, even if all I got out of this
Speaker 1: was learning how to study properly with I have, which
Speaker 1: I have, and learning how to design a research project,
Speaker 1: which I have, and then learning how to run studies
Speaker 1: with humans and get ethical approval and assess risk of
Speaker 1: bias and read fucking copious amounts of academic journal papers
Speaker 1: and understand even if that's all I get, it's been worthwhile, right,
Speaker 1: So selfishly that are But on a more practical level,
Speaker 1: it's okay. If I'm being completely honest. Does it hurt
Speaker 1: for me to rock up to a company and be
Speaker 1: doctor Craig Harper with a PhD in psychology? Of course
Speaker 1: that doesn't hurt. That's not my reason, right, But that
Speaker 1: doesn't hurt. Of course. We're just talking about perception and
Speaker 1: brand and you know, commercial viability. So Craig, the bloke
Speaker 1: who used to left heavy shit and be a fat
Speaker 1: guy versus you know, this guy with a PhD in psychology.
Speaker 1: Probably that gives me some kind of slight advantage. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe not, But I truly believe this idea. You know,
Speaker 1: like at least one hundred times in a corporate environment,
Speaker 1: I've said to the manager of the leader, the boss,
Speaker 1: him or her, what do you think it's like being
Speaker 1: around you? And ninety nine times out of one hundred
Speaker 1: they say something like fuck, I don't know, or I've
Speaker 1: never thought of that, or oh wow, that's that's And
Speaker 1: I say, look, probably what you think is probably not
Speaker 1: how it is, you know, and that when you think
Speaker 1: that how people experience you, like, for example, on your podcast,
Speaker 1: and your podcast goes great and you go great. But
Speaker 1: let's say, for example, you thought you were doing a
Speaker 1: podcast and oh, this is fucking fascinating, right, but you're
Speaker 1: audience disagree. Guess what all that matters is what they think,
Speaker 1: because they're the fucking listeners. Doesn't matter what you think.
Speaker 1: It matters that you understand what is going to resonate
Speaker 1: with for this, It doesn't matter what you think this example.
Speaker 1: What matters is one how they think, because they decide
Speaker 1: if they're going to come back, same with the you
Speaker 1: project listeners, right, And two your ability. And I'm always
Speaker 1: thinking about this, what do my audience want to hear,
Speaker 1: like to hear, need to hear? And what am I
Speaker 1: like for them? Am I fucking Noel? Do I say
Speaker 1: fuck too much? Tom? I?
Speaker 2: Two?
Speaker 1: Do I need to be tell more stories? Less stories?
Speaker 1: Like I'm trying to understand others and I'm trying to
Speaker 1: understand how they experience me and this show so that
Speaker 1: I can create better connection, better rapport, better trust, better respect,
Speaker 1: better understanding, better congruence so that you know, people want
Speaker 1: to keep learning and evolving. But I'm doing it in
Speaker 1: a way which actually hopefully creates more connection than disconnection.
Speaker 1: So my mission in regards to this is to once
Speaker 1: I'm done, then hopefully go and talk on a bigger
Speaker 1: level and around this idea of understanding how others see us,
Speaker 1: just purely so that we can do all the things
Speaker 1: I said before, better solve problems, work together, understand you know,
Speaker 1: there's so much hatred, right. I'm not saying let's get
Speaker 1: rid of the hatred. I wish we could, but that's
Speaker 1: not practical. What what I'm saying is understand why he
Speaker 1: hates you. That's a good start. Understand why you hate them.
Speaker 1: That's meta cognition, that's you trying to understand you. You know,
Speaker 1: just like I think, better connection, better business, better leadership,
Speaker 1: better management, better efficiency, better productivity is built on greater
Speaker 1: understanding between the various mind in the room, and this
Speaker 1: is part of that.
Speaker 2: And what are the tools for shifting that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think not so much to a tool, but
Speaker 1: like what are the mechanisms, Like what's the thing that
Speaker 1: fucking opens the door? Well, this, this conversation, like this
Speaker 1: is a tool that people Hey, you know, Sally, have
Speaker 1: you ever thought about how other people see you? Or
Speaker 1: perceive you or understand you and why that might matter.
Speaker 1: Listen to Tiff and Craig talk about this. You know,
Speaker 1: if some people might want to share this because what
Speaker 1: I think I could be wrong. Others will disagree, but
Speaker 1: I think this shit's fascinating. And I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: you know, every now and then, some usually Olpha Male goes,
Speaker 1: I don't give a fuck what people think of me.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to fucking be me, and if they
Speaker 1: don't like a day can get I'm like, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I'm John. How's that going for you at work? Do
Speaker 1: you ever wonder why you've got fucking zero friends and
Speaker 1: why people think you're a douche? Because you know, that's
Speaker 1: not tough, that's not intelligence, that's insecure, and we're not
Speaker 1: you know, if somebody doesn't like me one, that's totally okay.
Speaker 1: Not everybody needs to like me, of course, but I'm
Speaker 1: interested in what that's about. I'm interested in. And if
Speaker 1: somebody just wants to be a hater, I'm not interested.
Speaker 1: But if somebody, you know, it's like early days, maybe
Speaker 1: one hundred episodes into the You Project, a lady sent
Speaker 1: me a message. She went, You're great, love you that
Speaker 1: that are all good. By the way, sometimes you talk
Speaker 1: over the top of your guests. And I went, that's
Speaker 1: a good point, thank you. That's valid. What you're saying
Speaker 1: is critical, but in a good way. It's informed. And
Speaker 1: I went and listened to a bit of stuff. I went,
Speaker 1: she is exactly right. I wrote her an email. I said,
Speaker 1: I listened to a couple of episodes. You're right, thank
Speaker 1: you for the feedback. It's actually valuable, right, because I
Speaker 1: can't be objective about me and you can't be objective
Speaker 1: about you. And while we humans say, oh no, I
Speaker 1: love feedback, no we don't. We fucking hate feedback unless
Speaker 1: it's positive. We don't want critical feedback. We want support,
Speaker 1: we want endorsement. The moment that you give somebody feedback
Speaker 1: they don't want is the moment they start to resent
Speaker 1: you and shut down to you. Now, I'm not suggesting
Speaker 1: we should just walk up to everyone and give them feedback, right,
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm saying. But when you say to me, Harps,
Speaker 1: how can I be better at corporate speaking? And I go, well,
Speaker 1: here's five things you do. Well, here's one or two
Speaker 1: things I reckon you do? Okay, but you could get
Speaker 1: better at. And here's one thing I think that you're
Speaker 1: not doing well at all. Now you can go, oh,
Speaker 1: let's lean into that one, right, or you can go, yeah,
Speaker 1: tell me about the five though, right, tell me how
Speaker 1: good I am at the five Well, you don't need that,
Speaker 1: because you're good the one or two things that are
Speaker 1: okay but could improve. Yep, I would be interested, But
Speaker 1: I personally, tell me about the thing that I'm shit at.
Speaker 1: Why do you think I'm shit at it? What do
Speaker 1: I do? And in your opinion, how might I shift that?
Speaker 1: Because that's like, if you are truly interested in growth
Speaker 1: and personal development and self help, and if these podcasts
Speaker 1: and conversations are really about that and you that is
Speaker 1: genuinely your mission, then you need to be able to
Speaker 1: somehow put your ego and your poor self esteem and
Speaker 1: your insecurity and your fear to one side. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: it'll vanish and hear what you need to hear versus
Speaker 1: what you're comfortable to hear, you know, because it's I mean,
Speaker 1: why do you think so few people? And I'm not
Speaker 1: throwing my listeners under the bus because I constantly get
Speaker 1: emails and feedback from people who are applying things. But
Speaker 1: broadly speaking, in the world of self help, personal development,
Speaker 1: behavioral psychology, how many people hear things that are relevant
Speaker 1: and potentially helpful and operationalizable or you know, could be
Speaker 1: put into practice but don't do it. I would say
Speaker 1: the vast majority how many people hear something that if
Speaker 1: they put that something into practice would create some kind
Speaker 1: of shift pretty quickly. But just go nah, because I'm
Speaker 1: busy and my ankle saw and you don't understand my situation,
Speaker 1: and you know whatever. And I'm not saying those things
Speaker 1: are not real. But if we want to find a
Speaker 1: reason to be a victim or finder, and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying there are not real victims, of course there are.
Speaker 1: But if we want to find a reason to put
Speaker 1: off the thing we shouldn't put off, we'll find it.
Speaker 2: That's yeah, And that's what was my question came from
Speaker 2: about what then, what people do with it? Once I've
Speaker 2: heard this conversation, where's the practice? Because it's just like
Speaker 2: you said, people can get knowledge about something, so it's
Speaker 2: one thing to go, oh, yeah, I've never thought about that,
Speaker 2: and then you wake up tomorrow and you never think
Speaker 2: about it again. You know, what are the it interests me?
Speaker 2: What the what the tools are, and then when you
Speaker 2: start to open that door, what are all the other
Speaker 2: you know, like how it's very self focused? Oh how
Speaker 2: do people understand me? So I start reading that and
Speaker 2: thinking about it and applying stuff. But what if I
Speaker 2: get to insulin? Forget that? Now I'm not giving a
Speaker 2: fuck about any interest in developing curiosity around who's that person,
Speaker 2: which drives a lot of that behavior and connection and
Speaker 2: interaction as well. So I reckon. That's like I reckon,
Speaker 2: there's so many things that start interweaving peace well.
Speaker 1: And I think also we don't want to be preoccupied
Speaker 1: with what people are thinking of us, right, because then
Speaker 1: you're not going to be yourself right, but just aware
Speaker 1: and you know, like I personally, over the last few
Speaker 1: years have been I don't often say this but much.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I've been braver, but I feel
Speaker 1: like not that I don't care what people think of me.
Speaker 1: If I said that, that would be a lie. Of
Speaker 1: course I care what people think of me. I'm human, right,
Speaker 1: but I don't care as much. I care that I'm
Speaker 1: being authentic, and I care that that I'm I'm as
Speaker 1: close to you know, public me, personal me, private me, secret, me,
Speaker 1: you know, those four layers of the me. You know,
Speaker 1: and what most people give on a podcast is public me.
Speaker 1: It's that public gnatif how you being Oh yeah, what
Speaker 1: do you do over? But that's the kind of public
Speaker 1: that's the persona, that's the I'm on a microphone, we're
Speaker 1: having a chat, and there's it's not that it's bullshit,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot that you're not really getting. And
Speaker 1: for me, it's more I want to be almost that
Speaker 1: private me, the one that generally only a few people
Speaker 1: get access to. Like personal you, that's who your friends
Speaker 1: and family see. Private you is the person that maybe
Speaker 1: a few very close people to you or one know.
Speaker 1: And then secret you is the you that only you know.
Speaker 1: For me, and I don't always do it, but I
Speaker 1: want to. There's and of course there's stuff for personal
Speaker 1: reasons that I wouldn't share with the world, but nothing
Speaker 1: nothing controversial law, but it's just wouldn't help people, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not relevant. But all the stuff about me that
Speaker 1: like my insecurity, my bullshit, my you know. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I don't pretend I'm a great academic. I
Speaker 1: tell people I'm not because I want to encourage people, Look,
Speaker 1: if I can do this, not necessarily you can, but
Speaker 1: there's a fair chance you can. And if I can
Speaker 1: get a PhD when I'm sixty one, what can you do?
Speaker 1: And if I can have average genetics and figure out
Speaker 1: a way to optimize my genetics, so can you. And
Speaker 1: if I went to school in the country where we
Speaker 1: didn't even talk about careers or like there was that
Speaker 1: wasn't even a conversation, guidance, counseling going, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: even a thought. You just go get a job, and
Speaker 1: you probably just got the job that you had access to, right.
Speaker 1: And if I can be in you know, relationships that
Speaker 1: are good and bad, and I can start a business
Speaker 1: from scratch not knowing what I'm doing in an industry
Speaker 1: that doesn't exist, a profession that doesn't exist without any
Speaker 1: regulation or insurance, personal training, and then figure out how
Speaker 1: to build a business out of something that didn't exist
Speaker 1: with minimal fucking business skills, commercial understanding, leadership skills. Then
Speaker 1: and I did that, then you go, oh, sure, I'm
Speaker 1: not a genius, but I can. If I can work
Speaker 1: hard enough and long enough and be brave enough, I
Speaker 1: can do some cool shit but also soak and everyone,
Speaker 1: you know. So for me, it's that I don't know
Speaker 1: how we got there, but that I just think that
Speaker 1: this whole kind of you know, this this nuanced layer
Speaker 1: of awareness and communication and people stuff, it's just another
Speaker 1: kind of piece in the jigsaw puzzle that is human
Speaker 1: behavior and human connection.
Speaker 2: What are you going to do when you get the
Speaker 2: little little hat, little PhD hat on your head. You're
Speaker 2: going to have a celebration and you and have some
Speaker 2: time off. You're going to roll around on the floor
Speaker 2: with your dog.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to get a dog. I'm going to
Speaker 1: get a dog. I'm going to get my PhD in
Speaker 1: a frock with no jocks on and not tell anyone.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to know. I'm just I'm just going
Speaker 1: to be up there free balling. The world won't know.
Speaker 1: Outside it's going to be all business and academia underneath,
Speaker 1: just you know, party. I'll probably get a dog. I
Speaker 1: want to get a dog when i'm because I can't
Speaker 1: look after right now, because I'd have to ignore the
Speaker 1: dog half the day. And so I want to get
Speaker 1: a dog and train the dog and walk the dog
Speaker 1: and invest the appropriate amount of time and energy, especially
Speaker 1: in the first six months to bond with the dog
Speaker 1: and train the dog the way that you know. Of course,
Speaker 1: I want a high performance weapon of a dog, not
Speaker 1: that fucking thing that you've got that just licks and eats.
Speaker 2: I'll parden. She's a weapon, and she's got great shoes.
Speaker 1: I see. This is the problem with you fucking dog parents.
Speaker 1: That ANTHROPOMORPHI is your animals. No dog dog dogs are dogs,
Speaker 1: They're not people.
Speaker 2: She has to wear shoes otherwise she gets She had
Speaker 2: surgery last year to get the grit removed. It's a
Speaker 2: necessity now and it's very cute. I'm going to bring
Speaker 2: her to Hampton one day for a walk so that
Speaker 2: you can hear a cop clopping on the pavement and
Speaker 2: you will just melt. You'll have a whippet in noeime.
Speaker 2: I sent you a whippet that you could adopt today.
Speaker 2: I thought it might be on your way to pick
Speaker 2: it up already. To be honest, he was a.
Speaker 1: Four year old boy.
Speaker 2: I don't know that we were seven months.
Speaker 1: I thought he was four years old. Maybe there was
Speaker 1: four photos. Yes, anyway, let's.
Speaker 2: Not it was relevant somehow.
Speaker 1: I'm going to give a quick plug because that's just
Speaker 1: how I roll Feb. Three, I'm starting my mentoring program, which,
Speaker 1: as we record, is next Monday. It's next Monday. If
Speaker 1: you want to think about that or learn more about that,
Speaker 1: go to my website, Craig Carpa dot in the just
Speaker 1: go the education section, click on that and you find
Speaker 1: out all about it. Cookie, it's been great.
Speaker 2: Thanks Harps.
Speaker 1: Pleasure always I feel like talking about over talking. I
Speaker 1: definitely over talked.
Speaker 2: I was in the classroom this time.
Speaker 1: Or maybe with thank you to know what topic? Yeah,
Speaker 1: well say goodbye affair as always, but for now, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks everyone,